« EdellinenJatka »
Euthydemus especially, and then say whether it would not necessarily have been a shapeless work for Plato to have composed, and if to its present difficulties such superabundance and complexity of matter had been further added, whether it would not then have been perfectly unintelligible. Only it is not here intended to be said, that in completing the plan of this dialogue, Plato projected in his mind those other dialogues purposely with a view to the future; but this is only to be understood in the sense in which one may reasonably speak of the natural course of the development of inward conceptions from one another. Hence, as to the assignation made at the end of the Theaetetus and the continuous connection at the beginning of the Sophist, it is scarcely worth while entering into a more accurate explanation, as any reader, not satisfied with that given in the Introduction to the Meno, can do this for himself.
VII. THE STATESMAN.
IT must be at once self-evident to every reader how the Statesman, as the second part of the trilogy announced in the Sophist, is connected with that dialogue. But although it takes place among the same persons, and annexes itself in a continued conversation as it were with the investigation concerning the Sophist, it would be too much to think of viewing the two as in reality and on that account one dialogue. There is, on the contrary, reason to believe that some time intervened between the publication of the two, especially if we are to give any weight to several particular sentiments in our dialogue, which have fully the appearance of being intended to defend the Sophist. Hence, we have not hesitated to follow with the greater confidence, the old method of separating the two dialogues from one another under the titles that have come down to us, notwithstanding their intimate connection. And indeed the similarity of the two is of such a nature as to direct us rather to place them in juxta-position as counterparts, than to admit of our conjoining them as parts of a whole. For they do in fact, correspond to one another in their whole construction more accurately than any other two dialogues of Plato; and whatever difference is to be met with appears only to be the result of the general distinction, that in the Sophist the immediate object of the speculation is an object of aversion; in the Statesman, on the contrary, it is something genuine and excellent. Although even in this respect our dialogue approximates again to the Sophist, for collaterally with the meritorious object, it at the same time, and with great pains, deduces and describes the reverse; just as in the Sophist also the meritorious object, namely, the philosopher, is at all events sketched out collaterally with the elaborate description of its opposite. Thus then our dialogue justly occupies the middle place in the designed trilogy, as it does in fact form a middle term between the Sophist and the promised description of the Philosopher, as near as we can conceive what the character of the latter is to be.
Even in the very first outlines it is impossible not to recognise a great coincidence between the two existing parts of this trilogy. For in the Statesman, as well as the preceding part, the object of the whole problem is a delineation, and it is to be discovered in like manner by subdivision of the whole province of art, though proceeding upon a different principle of separation. Only, as in the case of the Sophist, the whole process was not seriously meant, so also neither is it true. For scarcely, had this been an essential part of the whole, could we have attributed to Plato such errors as are here committed. For instance, under the department of Command, in so far as it is a part of the province of knowledge; the office of the mere publisher of commands is comprehended, in the exercise of which no knowledge, properly speaking, is necessary, and which we accordingly find afterwards numbered among the merely serving arts. Again, at the end of the whole subdividing process, swine are made to stand in closer and more direct relation to man than to horned cattle, whereupon Plato himself exhibits a little pleasantry, and afterwards tells us more seriously that man is related to other beasts as the nature of daemons to that of man. Similarly also in the repetition of the panegyric upon the subdividing method, where it is said that this method does not concern itself with great and small, there is in what is said seriously a touch also of jest; if that were not the case, Plato would have been justly censured by that well-known bad joke of Diogenes with the plucked hen, which bears accurately enough upon one of the subdividing processes here pursued. And after the delineation has been discovered, it turns out not to be suitable, but more adapted to the daemonic protectors of mankind in an earlier period, than to the real statesman of an historical time. For as regards the latter, much that belongs to the province of other arts must be separated from the character comprehended under that explanation, in order thus to obtain that of the art of the statesman properly so called. This separation now, because, as is clear enough from a digression upon the nature and the use of examples, and which can only be introduced in this place to defend the method employed in the Statesman and Sophist, because, I say, it is a new process, as that of subdivision itself was in the Sophist, is tried, as that method was in the preceding dialogue; first, in an insignificant instance, namely, that of the art of weaving, with which at last the statesman's art turns out to stand in the same relation as the practice of the sophist does with that of the angler and several others. The art of weaving, however, is itself explained by the former method of subdivision, and as the explanation discovers itself to be one that might have been far more easily found by immediate inspection, a digression is here subjoined upon the method of measuring great and small, and upon the measure which every thing has in itself. And upon this, every thing is separated, first from the art of weaving, and then conformably to this example, from that of statesmanship also, which is merely subservient to it, or is connected with its province, as remotely COoperating to the end and object of the art. And in this, the argument is visibly progressing as to its proper point, to the separation of the false statesman from the true, though there is nothing analogous to the former in the art of weaving, and he is, therefore, notwithstanding all artificial preparation, by means of a discussion upon the various forms in the constitutions of states, somewhat hardly, it might seem, attached to that class which is only subservient to the state. And the connection, which does not appear very clearly, is properly this ; that governors of such states as are governed according to existing laws, if they remain true to the supposition, that such laws are the work of a really skilful statesman, are only servants and instruments of such a master; but, as soon as they presume to throw off this character of servants, and imitate the freedom of the legislator, they then become that great and fundamentally corrupting evil, the false and counterfeit statesman, who again, as an imitator, and a bad imitator, corresponds accurately to the sophist, and is, therefore, described also as the greatest sophist and quack. We see manifestly, how the whole of that description of the different forms of states, with the exception perhaps, of the few passages relative to their unequal value, is only treated as a means of discovering the false statesman; for as soon as that character has exhibited himself with sufficient clearness, the work of separation is continued, in order to separate from the statesman those officers who, according to the exercise of their respective duties come next in the general description, so that at last, the statesman's art remains as that which is supreme over all others, and assigns to men all their duties, and then again by a harsh transition, and without any natural connection being apparent, returning to the example of the weaving art, as in the Sophist, the philosopher was incidentally described as a separating and analysing artist, so here