Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

of Aristotle, particular parts of which, any one with a little practice may learn easily to distinguish. When, therefore, we find this employed upon passages out of our Platonic writings, or even only on ideas distinctly contained in them, we may then conclude with certainty that Aristotle had these writings in view as Platonic, even though, as is sometimes the case, he should not give us the name of the dialogue, but only mention it, in general, as one of Plato or of Socrates. To explain this

as

more accurately would carry us far beyond the limits of the present introduction, and is the less necessary among those who are ignorant of both sets of works the doubts are not sufficiently strong to require such a proceeding, while those who know them will hardly make objections to the result, that by this method we can scarcely fail of sure proofs of the genuineness of the greatest of Plato's works, and of guides to the meaning of his philosophy in the most important of them. In these, then, lies that critical ground upon which every further investigation must build, and in fact no better is needed. For the Dialogues thus authenticated form a stock from which all the rest seem to be only offsets, so that a connection with them affords the best test whereby to judge of their origin. And for the next task likewise, that of arrangement, it follows from the nature of the case, that when we have that stock we are at once in possession of all the essential grounds of general connection. For it must have been natural for the first reviewer of the Platonic system to have especially taken a survey of all the most important developments of it without any exception, and thus we do actually find these in the instances of the works most accredited by Aristotle. As such, of a character which in both respects, as well

[ocr errors]

as regards their genuineness as their importance, entitles them to constitute the first rank among the Platonic works, we count the Phædrus, the Protagoras, the Parmenides, the Theatetus, the Sophist and Politicus, Phædo, Philebus, and Republic, together with the Timæus and Critias connected with it. In these, therefore, we have a firm footing-point from which to advance further, both in the task of deciding the genuineness of the rest, and investigating the place which belongs to each of them; and the second may be accomplished simultaneously with the first, and without the two by their mutual relation contradicting one another, but either very naturally supporting each other mutually in a variety of ways, as, it is hoped, the following investigation will shew.

Now the first task, that of testing the remaining dialogues in our collection, and thus investigating whether or not they belong to Plato, is not without difficulty, for the reason that the character to be drawn from those that are proved genuine is made up of several traits and distinguishing features, and it seems unfair to expect that all should be united in an equal degree in all productions of Plato, and difficult to decide to which of these distinguishing marks we ought especially to look and what rank to assign to each. Now there are three things which come particularly under consideration : the peculiarity of the language, a certain common range of subject, and the particular form into which Plato usually moulds it. Now as regards the language, the matter in question would be fortunately dealt by, if any proof whatever could be drawn from that, regarding the origin of these pieces. But if we look to the philosophical part of them, there are among the dialogues whose claims to be considered as Plato's it will never

theless be necessary to investigate, some which treat in general of no scientific subjects, nor of any in the spirit of speculation; while the rest take their subject-matter so immediately from the range of the undoubtedly genuine dialogues, and are so manifestly inspired by the same mode of thinking, that it is impossible to recognise in them a later or a strange hand, and yet they might, as far as depends upon this point, come only from a scholar or an imitator who faithfully followed the footsteps of his master. But as regards the properly dialogistic part of the dialogues, scarcely any one could presume to select first from the common property of the period that which was the work of the Socratic school in particular, and from this again to distinguish with certainty the peculiarities of Plato. Or, considering the great compass which the language of an author who has wielded the pen so long must acquire, and moreover the great loss of contemporaneous and similar works, and, finally, if the small and already long since rejected dialogues are to be accounted as forming part of the whole to be judged, considering the great difference in value and subject; all these circumstances considered, is there any one now-a-days who would venture to profess himself sufficiently skilled in Greek to pass sentence upon any expression whatever even in these small dialogues, and to decide that it is unplatonic with such certainty that he would undertake for that reason alone to reject the piece? Rather might we say that it is not so much the indication of the presence of what is strange or the absence of what is native, the want of choice and embellishing dialogistic formulæ, that may draw down the sentence of rejection upon those dialogues already accredited as far as the language is

E

concerned. Among those therefore which cannot be accused of that deficiency there is much that need not belong to Plato without its betraying itself in the language, so that this exclusively can scarcely decide anything. For when suspicions arise in our minds which depend more upon a general impression than upon any distinct grounds which we can bring forward in support of it, it may be assumed that these depend more upon the composition in general than upon the language alone. And such again might be the case when we would judge of the genuineness of the remaining works according to the subject-matter of those of the first class. For this might be done in two ways. Either it might be maintained that nothing can be Platonic which stands in contradiction with the subject-matter of these recognised dialogues. But Plato would thus be deprived of a right enjoyed by every one else, that of correcting or changing his opinions even after he has publicly explained them; and it would be at once supposed in his case, wonderful as such a supposition on consideration of our modern philosophy must appear, and so much so that it cannot be believed without the strongest proof, that from the period of his entrance upon his philosophical career, or still earlier, he always thought the same as he did afterwards. Or, if less regard be paid to the accurate coincidence of all the particular thoughts than to the quality and importance of the subject-matter generally, and a rule be laid down that every work of Plato's must have the same importance and the same relation to the main idea of the philosophy, it would in that case be forgotten that external circumstances frequently occasion the production of heterogeneous works of a somewhat limited size by

an author, who without the influence of such circumstances would never have produced them spontaneously. In occasional pieces, properly speaking, like these, it cannot be fairly demanded that those ideas of the author which belong to a higher sphere should develope themselves, and when traces of them are seen, their appearance is accidental and supererogatory, and may not even always be taken as an infallible proof of their origin from him. Equally manifest is it that every great artist of every kind will work up studies out of his own particular line, and though the adept will discover in them more or less of his style and spirit, yet they neither belong to the class of works which peculiarly characterize their author, nor advance his great views of art, or, what is more, he may in them, purposely perhaps, and for sake of some preparatory exercise, remove himself out of his accustomed circle of subjects, and even the method natural to him. There are clearly in our Platonic collection several pieces which can be ascribed to Plato only by regarding them in this point of view, and to endeavour to decide with respect to such from the trifling nature of the subject-matter, or from particular deviations in the treatment of it, might, according to this analogy, be a process very liable to mistake. These difficulties, then, clearly tend to show, that we should judge neither from the subject alone, nor from the language alone, but that we must look to a third and more certain something in which those two unite the Form and Composition in general. For even in the language, what affords most proof consists not in particulars but in the whole tenor and peculiar colouring of it, which at once stands in the closest relation to the composition. In like marner

« EdellinenJatka »