Introduction to the Philosophy and Writings of Plato by Thomas Taylor - HTML preview

which they benevolently disclosed has hitherto unnoticed illumined

philosophy in her desolate retreats, like a lamp shining on some

venerable statue amidst dark and solitary ruins. The prediction of the

master has been unhappily fulfilled in these his most excellent

disciples. "For an attempt of this kind," says he,[18]

"will only be

beneficial to a few, who from small vestiges, previously demonstrated,

are themselves able to discover these abstruse particulars. But with

respect to the rest of mankind, some it will fill with a contempt by no

means elegant, and others with a lofty and arrogant hope, that they shall

now learn certain excellent things." Thus with respect to these admirable

men, the last and the most legitimate of the followers of Plato, some

from being entirely ignorant of the abstruse dogmas of Plato, and finding

these interpreters full of conceptions which are by no means obvious to

every one in the writings of that philosopher, have immediately concluded

that such conceptions are mere jargon and revery, that they are not truly

Platonic, and that they are nothing more than streams, which, though,

originally derived from a pure fountain, have become polluted by distance

from their source. Others, who pay attention to nothing but the most

exquisite purity of language, look down with contempt upon every writer

who lived after the fall of the Macedonian empire; as if dignity and

weight of sentiment were inseparable from splendid and accurate diction;

or as if it were impossible for elegant writers to exist in a degenerate

age. So far is this from being the case, that though the style of

Plotinus[19] and Jamblichus[20] is by no means to be compared with that

of Plato, yet this inferiority is lost in the depth and sublimity of

their conceptions, and is as little regarded by the intelligent reader,

as motes in a sunbeam by the eye that gladly turns itself to the

solar light.

--------------

[17] See my Dissertation on the Mysteries.

[18]See the 7th Epistle of Plato.

[19] It would seem that those intemperate critics who have thought proper

to revile Plotinus, the leader of the latter Platonists, have paid no

attention to the testimony of Longinus concerning this most wonderful

man, as preserved by Porphyry in his life of him. For Longinus there

says, "that though he does not entirely accede to many of his hypotheses,

yet he exceedingly admires and loves the form of his writing, the density

of his conceptions, and the philosophic manner in which his questions are

disposed." And in another place he says, "Plotinus, as it seems, has

explained the Pythagoric and Platonic principles more clearly than those

that were prior to him; for neither are the writings of Numenius,

Cronius, Moderatus, and Thrasyllus, to be compared with those of Plotinus

on this subject." After such a testimony as this from such a consummate

critic as Longinus, the writings of Plotinus have nothing to fear from

the imbecile censure of modern critics. I shall only further observe,

that Longinus, in the above testimony, does not give the least hint of

his having found any polluted streams, or corruption of the doctrines of

Plato, in the works of Plotinus. There is not indeed the least vestige of

his entertaining any such opinion in any part of what he has said about

this most extraordinary man. This discovery was reserved for the more

acute critic of modern times, who, by a happiness of conjecture unknown

to the ancients, and the assistance of a good index, can in a few days

penetrate the meaning of the profoundest writer of antiquity, and bid

defiance even to the decision of Longinus.

[20] Of this most divine man, who is justly said by the emperor Julian to

have been posterior indeed in time, but not in genius even to Plato himself,

see the life which I have given in the History of the Restoration of the

Platonic Theology, in the second vol. of my Proclus on Euclid.

----------------------

As to the style of Porphyry, when we consider that he was the disciple of

Longinus, whom Eunapius elegantly calls "a certain living library, and

walking museum," it is but reasonable to suppose that he imbibed some

portion of his master's excellence in writing. That he did so is

abundantly evident from the testimony of Eunapius, who particularly

commends his style for its clearness, purity, and grace.

"Hence," he

says, "Porphyry being let down to men like a mercurial chain, through his

various erudition, unfolded every thing into perspicuity, and purity."

And in another place he speaks of him as abounding with all the graces of

diction, and as the only one that exhibited and proclaimed the praise of

his master. With respect to the style of Proclus, it is pure, clear and

elegant, like that of Dionysius Halicarnassus; but is much more copious

and magnificent; that of Hierocles is venerable and majestic, and nearly

equals the style of the greatest ancients; that of Sallust possesses an

accuracy and a pregnant brevity, which cannot easily be distinguished

from the composition of the Stagirite; and lastly, that of Damascius is

clear and accurate, and highly worthy a most investigating mind.

Others again have filled themselves with a vain confidence, from reading

of commentaries of these admirable interpreters, and have in a short time

considered themselves superior to their masters. This was the case with

Ficinus, Picus, Dr. Henry Moore, and other pseudo Platonists, their

contemporaries, who, in order to combine Christianity with the doctrines

of Plato, rejected some of his most important tenets, and perverted

others, and thus corrupted one of these systems, and afforded no real

benefit to the other.

But who are the men by whom these latter interpreters of Plato are

reviled? When and whence did this defamation originate?

Was it when the

fierce champions for the trinity fled from Galilee to the groves of

Academus, and invoked, but in vain, the assistance of Philosophy? When

The trembling grove confessed its fright, The wood-nymphs started at the sight; Ilissus backward urg'd his course, And rush'd indignant to his source.

Was it because that mitred sophist, Warburton, thought fit to talk of the

polluted streams of the Alexandrian school, without knowing any thing of

the source whence those streams are derived? Or was it because some heavy

German critic, who knew nothing beyond a verb in mi, presumed to grunt at

these venerable heroes? Whatever was its source, and whenever it

originated, for I have not been able to discover either, this however is

certain, that it owes its being to the most profound Ignorance, or the

most artful Sophistry, and that its origin is no less contemptible than

obscure. For let us but for a moment consider the advantages which these

latter Platonists possessed beyond any of their modern revilers. In the

first place, they had the felicity of having the Greek for their native

language, and must therefore, as they were confessedly, learned men, have

understood that language incomparably better than any man since the time

in which the ancient Greek was a living tongue. In the next place, they

had books to consult, written by the immediate disciples of Plato, which

have been lost for upwards of a thousand years, besides many Pythagoric

writings from which Plato himself derived most of his more sublime

dogmas. Hence we find the works of Parmenides, Empedocles, the Electic

Zeno, Speusippus, Xenocrates, and many other illustrious philosophers of

the highest antiquity, who were either genuine Platonists or the sources

of Platonism, are continually cited by these most excellent interpreters,

and in the third place they united the greatest purity of life to the

most piercing vigor of intellect. Now when it is considered that the

philosophy to the study of which these great men devoted their lives, was

professedly delivered by its author in obscurity; that Aristotle himself

studied it for twenty years; and that it was no uncommon thing, as Plato

informs us in one of his Epistles, to find students unable to comprehend

its sublimest tenets even in a longer period than this,-

-when all these

circumstances are considered, what must we think of the arrogance, not to

say impudence, of men in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth

centuries, who have dared to calumniate these great masters of wisdom? Of

men, with whom the Greek is no native language; who have no such books to

consult as those had whom they revile; who have never thought, even in a

dream, of making the acquisition of wisdom the great object of their

life; and who in short have committed that most baneful error of

mistaking philology for philosophy, and words for things? When such as

these dare to defame men who may be justly ranked among the greatest and

wisest of the ancients, what else can be said than that they are the

legitimate descendants of the suitors of Penelope, whom, in the animated

language of Ulysses,

Laws or divine or human fail'd to move, Or shame of men, or dread of gods above: Heedless alike of infamy or praise, Or Fame's eternal voice in future days,[21]

-----------------

[21] Pope's Odyssey, book xxii, v. 47, &c.

-----------------

But it is now time to present the reader with a general view of the works

of Plato, and, also to speak of the preambles, digressions, and style of

their author, and of the following translation. In accomplishing the

first of these, I shall avail myself of the synopsis of Mr. Sydenham,

taking the liberty at the same time of correcting it where it appears to

be erroneous, and of making additions to it where it appears to be

deficient.

The dialogues of Plato are of various kinds; not only with regard to

those different matters, which are the subjects of them; but in respect

of the manner also in which they are composed or framed, and of the form

under which they make their appearance to the reader. It will therefore,

as I imagine, be not improper, in pursuance of the admonition given us by

Plato himself in his dialogue named Phaedrus[22] and in imitation of the

example set us by the ancient Platonists to distinguish the several

kinds; by dividing them, first, into the most general; and then,

subdividing into the subordinate; till we come to those lower species,

that particularly and precisely denote the nature of the several

dialogues, and from which they ought to take their respective

denominations.

----------------

[22] Whoever is unable to divide and distinguish things into their

several sorts or species; and, on the other hand, referring every

particular to its proper species, to comprehend them all in one general

idea; will never understand any writings of which those things are the

subject, like a true critic, upon those high principles of art to which

the human understanding reaches. We have thought proper, here, to

paraphrase this passage, for the sake of giving to every part of so

important a sentence its full force, agreeably to the tenor of Plato's

doctrine; and in order to initiate our readers into a way of thinking,

that probably many of them are as yet unacquainted with.

----------------

The most general division of the writings of Plato, is into those of the

Sceptical kind, and those of they Dogmatical. In the former sort, nothing

is expressly either proved or asserted, some philosophical question only is

considered and examined; and the reader is left to himself to draw such

conclusions, and discover such truths as the philosopher means to

insinuate. This is done, either in the way of inquiry, or in the way of

controversy and dispute. In the way of controversy are carried on all such

dialogues, as tend to eradicate false opinions; and that, either indirectly,

by involving them in difficulties, and embarrassing the maintainers of them;

or directly, by confuting them. In the way of inquiry proceed those whose

tendency is to raise in the mind right opinions; and that either by exciting

to the pursuit of some part of wisdom, and showing in what manner to

investigate it; or by leading the way, and helping the mind forward in the

search. And this is effected by a process through opposing arguments.[23]

------------------

[23] It is necessary to observe that Plato in the Parmenides calls all

that part of his Dialectic, which proceeds through opposite arguments, an

exercise and wandering.

------------------

The dialogues of the other kind, the Dogmatical or Didactic, teach

explicitly some point of doctrine; and this they do either by laying it

down in the authoritative way, or by proving it in the ways of reason and

argument. In the authoritative way the doctrine is delivered, sometimes by

the speaker himself magisterially, at other times as derived to him by

tradition from wise men. The argumentative or demonstrative method of

teaching, used by Plato, proceeds in all the dialectic ways, dividing,

defining, demonstrating, and analysing; and the object of it consists in

exploring truth alone. According to this division is framed the following

scheme, or table:

DIALOGUES[24]

Sceptical Disputative Embarrassing Confuting Inquisitive Exciting Assisting

Dogmatical Demonstrative Analytical Inductional Authoritative Magisterial

Traditional

-----------------

[24]We have, given us by Diogenes Laertius, another division of the

characters, as he calls them, of Plato's writings, different from that

exhibited in the scheme above. This we have thought proper to subjoin, on

account of its antiquity and general reception.

Dialogues

Diadectic Speculative Physical Logical Practical Ethical Political

Inquisitive Gymnastic Maieutic Peirastic Agonistic Endeietic Anatreptic

The learned reader will observe the latter half of the dialogues, according

to this scheme, to be described by metaphors taken from the gymnastic art:

the dialogues, here termed gymnastic, being imagined to bear a similitude

to that exercise; the agonistic, to the combat. In the lowest subdivision,

indeed, the word maieutic is a metaphor of another kind, fully explained in

Plato's Theaetetus: the maieutic dialogues, however, were supposed to

resemble giving the rudiments of the art; as the peirastic were, to

represent a skirmish, or trial of proficiency; the endeietic were, it

seems, likened to the exhibiting a specimen of skill; and the anatreptic,

to presenting the spectacle of a thorough defeat, or sound drubbing. The

principal reason why we contented not ourselves with this account of the

difference between the dialogues of Plato, was the capital error there

committed in the first subdivision, of course extending itself through the

latter. This error consists in dividing the Didactic dialogues with regard

to their subject-matter; while those of the Inquisitive sort are divided

with respect to the manner of their composition. So that the subdivisions

fall not, with any propriety, under one and the same general head. Besides,

a novice in the works of Plato might hence be led naturally to suppose,

that the dogmatical or didactic dialogues are, all of them, written in the

same manner; and that the others, those of the inquisitive kind, by us

termed sceptical, have no particular subjects at all; or, if they have,

that their subjects are different from those of the didactic dialogues,

and are consequently unphilosophical. Now every one of the suppositions

here mentioned is far from being true.

----------------

The philosopher, in thus varying his manner, and diversifying his

writings into these several kinds, means not merely to entertain with

their variety; not to teach, on different occasions, with more or less

plainness and perspicuity; not yet to insinuate different degrees of

certainty in the doctrines themselves: but he takes this method, as a

consummate master of the art of composition in the dialogue-way of

writing, from the different characters of the speakers, as from different

elements in the frame of these dramatic dialogues, or different

ingredients in their mixture, producing some peculiar genius and turn of

temper, as it were, in each.

Socrates indeed is in almost all of them the principal speaker: but when

he falls into the company of some arrogant sophist; when the modest

wisdom, and clear science of the one, are contrasted with the confident

ignorance and blind opinionativeness of the other; dispute and

controversy must of course arise: where the false pretender cannot fail

of being either puzzled or confuted. To puzzle him only is sufficient,

if there be no other persons present; because such a man can never be

confuted in his own opinion: but when there is an audience round them,

in danger of being misled by sophistry into error, then is the true

philosopher to exert his utmost, and the vain sophist to be convicted

and exposed.

In some dialogues Plato represents his great master mixing in

conversation with young men of the best families in the commonwealth.

When these happen to have docile dispositions and fair minds, then is

occasion given to the philosopher to call forth[25] the latent seeds of

wisdom, and to cultivate the noble plants with true doctrine, in the

affable and familiar way of joint inquiry. To this is owing the

inquisitive genius of such dialogues: where, by a seeming equality in the

conversation, the curiosity or zeal of the mere stranger is excited; that

of the disciple is encouraged; and, by proper questions, the mind is

aided and forwarded in the search of truth.

-----------------

[25] We require exhortation, that we may be led to true good; dissuasion,

that we may be turned from things truly evil; obstetrication, that we may

draw forth our unperverted conceptions; and confutation, that we may be

purified from two-fold ignorance.

-----------------

At other times, the philosophic hero of these dialogues is introduced

in a higher character, engaged in discourse with men of more improved

understandings and enlightened minds. At such seasons he has an

opportunity of teaching in a more explicit manner, and of discovering

the reasons of things: for to such an audience truth is due, and all

demonstrations[26] possible in the teaching it. Hence, in the dialogues

composed of these persons, naturally arises the justly argumentative or

demonstrative genius; and this, as we have before observed, according to

all the dialectic methods.

-----------------

[26] The Platonists rightly observe, that Socrates, in these cases, makes

use of demonstrative and just reasoning, ([Greek: apodeiktikou]); whereas

to the novice he is contented with arguments only probable, ([Greek:

pithanois]); and against the litigious sophist often employs such as are

[Greek: eristikoi]; puzzling and contentious.

-----------------

But when the doctrine to be taught admits not of demonstration; of which

kind is the doctrine of antiquities, being only traditional, and a matter

of belief; and the doctrine of laws, being injunctional, and the matter of

obedience; the air of authority is then assumed: in the former cases, the

doctrine is traditionally handed down to others from the authority of

ancient sages; in the latter, is magisterially pronounced with the

authority of a legislator.[27]

-----------------

[27] It is necessary to observe, that in those dialogues in which Socrates

is indeed introduced, but sustains an inferior part, he is presented to

our view as a learner, and not as a teacher; and this is the case in the

Parmenides and Timaeus. For by the former of these philosophers he is

instructed in the most abtruse theological dogmas, and by the latter in

the whole of physiology.

-----------------

Thus much for the manner in which the dialogues of Plato are severally

composed, and the cast of genius given them in their composition. The

form under which they appear, or the external character that marks them,

is of three sorts: either purely dramatic, like the dialogue of tragedy

or comedy; or purely narrative, where a former conversation is supposed

to be committed to writing, and communicated to some absent friend; or of

the mixed kind, like a narration in dramatic poems, where is recited, to

some person present, the story of things past.

Having thus divided the dialogues of Plato, in respect of that inward

form or composition, which creates their genius; and again, with

reference to that outward form, which marks them, like flowers and other

vegetables, with a certain character; we are further to make a division

of them, with regard to their subject and their design; beginning with

their design, or end, because for the sake of this are all the subjects

chosen. The end of all the writings of Plato is that, which is the end of

all true philosophy or wisdom, the perfection and the happiness of man.

Man therefore is the general subject; and the first business of philosophy

must be to inquire what is that being called man, who is to be made happy;

and what is his nature, in the perfection of which is placed his happiness.

As however, in the preceding part of this Introduction, we have endeavored

to give the outlines of Plato's doctrine concerning man, it is unnecessary

in this place to say any thing further on that subject.

The dialogues of Plato, therefore, with respect to their subjects, may be

divided into the speculative, the practical, and such as are of a mixed

nature. The subjects of these last are either general, comprehending both

the others; or differential, distinguishing them. The general subject are

either fundamental, or final: those of the fundamental kind are philosophy,

human nature, the soul of man; of the final kind are love, beauty, good.

The differential regard knowledge, as it stands related to practice; in

which are considered two questions: one of which is, whether virtue is to

he taught; the other is, whether error in the will depends on error in

the judgment. The subjects of the speculative dialogues relate either to

words, or to things. Of the former sort are etymology, sophistry, rhetoric,

poetry; of the latter sort are science, true being, the principles of

mind, outward nature. The practical subjects relate either to private

conduct, and the government of the mind over the whole man; or to his

duty towards others in his several relations; or to the government of a

civil state, and the public conduct of a whole people.

Under these three

heads rank in order the particular subjects practical; virtue in general,

sanctity, temperance, fortitude, justice, friendship, patriotism, piety;

the ruling mind in a civil government, the frame and order of a state,

law in general, and lastly, those rules of government and of public

conduct, the civil laws.

Thus, for the sake of giving the reader a scientific, that is a

comprehensive, and at the same time a distinct view of Plato's writings,

we have attempted to exhibit to him, their just and natural distinctions;

whether he chooses to consider them with regard to their inward form or

essence, their outward form or appearance, their matter; or