regarding the circumstance that justice most properly forms the conclusion, discretion must precede it in and for itself the absence of any explanation upon these points makes this the weakest part of the exposition, and that not only in so far as these virtues are exhibited in the state, but also in the mind. For the agreement of all divisions as to which is to command, and the conformable activity of each in reference to government and obedience, each of these positions is far more difficult to explain than it is to distinguish these two virtues, discretion and justice, from the other two, or even these from one another, and it therefore appears not inappropriate that after the three first virtues have been discovered, so many particular and laborious preparations are made, in order further to find justice as one separate from the others. For it may be said on the one hand, that that to which justice first gives its appropriate power, is not so much a compound of all three virtues, as discretion alone; inasmuch as the agreement assumed to exist in this passes into action by means of justice, and consequently becomes operative; and then, again, on the other side, that in these two together the whole perfection of the state is exhausted, for that wisdom is only that part of justice which belongs to the first, and courage, that which belongs to the second division; inasmuch as it would be clearly unjust, if the lovers of wisdom were not to develop ideas and appoint laws, and if the courageous would not stimulate others, and repulse dangers themselves. And further on, in like manner, where the explanations given are applied to the individual mind, and, in order to test that of justice, the familiar common topics are brought for

ward, it might be said that even the discreet man would avoid all these merely by a freedom from extravagant and unnatural passions. Meanwhile, let no one take this to be a critical censure upon the matter itself, which lies so near the centre point of the whole work. This censure falls at the most upon the description of these four connected virtues, which Plato, manifestly enough, only took up in a true practical sense from regard for an existing theory, as they had already passed in a similar manner from common usage into the philosophy of Socrates. But instead of these four virtues Plato was perfectly at liberty, on the one hand, to set up wisdom as the only virtue, if he only saw in the reasoning part the power of putting the whole mind in a state of activity by means of courage, or, on the other hand, justice, as the only one. He might either say, that the state and the mind are virtuous by means of the efficiency and power of that single part, or that they are so from a right and proper state of activity in all the parts. That Plato, as is sufficiently clear from the position which he assigns to justice in this work, preferred the last, is, with reference to the state, an agreeable extenuation of an otherwise almost intolerable aristocratism. For, if wisdom is regarded as the only virtue, then the partakers in the government, who also supply their vacancies from the collective mass of the people, have alone a share in the civil virtue, and even the next more distant circle, the champions, no less than the great hireling multitude, are excluded from all participation in it, and reduced to a state of obedience SO strict that they can display no activity otherwise than the govern

Book IV. c. 16.

ing party has ordained, and if one of the two rebels from ambition or self interest, the parties do not bear the guilt themselves, but only the weakness of the governors. But since Plato defines justice as that virtue which does in fact include all others within itself, all the essential elements of the state bear a proportionate part in the morality of it. In this point of view, therefore, the choice made must appear meritorious. But with reference to the individual mind, we should, according to our mode of thinking, unhesitatingly prefer the opposite course, and, defining wisdom to be the only virtue, however immoderate a height the sensuous desires might reach, we should rather look for the cause of guilt in the weakness of the reasoning principle, than attribute to that subordinate faculty any peculiar share in the morality of the whole. And upon the same ground we should at once take an exception to the premised explanation of discretion, inasmuch as the expression of a free agreement among all the parts of the mind with reference to the government of it, is more in accordance with an aesthetic than a strictly scientific treatment of the moral element. And yet this Pythagorising view, which conceives virtue as a harmony, which first appears in full perfection when discretion, considered as a free agreement of the inferior powers with the superior, is placed upon a higher ground than temperance, which consists only in a commanding position being usurped by reason above all presumptive claims of the inferior powers,-this view, which we cannot avoid designating as heathenish in an especial sense, is yet but too much the key of the whole work, and is most closely connected with every thing in it which most shocks us, nay, which appears

to us utterly objectionable and vicious. For this is the immediate ground of the theory, that the moralization of a society must be the result of a right system in the procreation of the members of it; as also, that the morality of the individual chiefly depends upon his being born under a lucky star. Now, if it would indeed have been too aristocratical in the state, especially as a Hellene could not easily conceive such a society to be a mixture of two perfectly heterogeneous masses, totally to deny the possession of the social virtue to the great bulk of the people, and yet, in the application of this theory to the mind, an equalization cannot fail to arise destructive of the most essential distinctions; we then see how the process of making the state, as the larger body, the basis in the consideration of virtue, however, ingeniously it is fenced round, and however artfully executed, is still not without danger, and we see how even the greatest genius, in a scientific construction, may not with impunity violate the law of simplicity. But now if so much is conceded to the inferior powers of the mind, as that they have of themselves a share in virtue, still, when these three subdivisions, the governing, the defending, and the preserving, are to be pointed out as existing in the mind, and as separate from one another, it appears somewhat capriciously assumed as a general experimental rule, that the courageous principle, though it is not always found in alliance with the reason, does never at all events connect itself with the passions. On the contrary, this corruption is found to exist in the sense of honour as well as that of shame, when they follow a false opinion which praises the excited passions and degrades the rules of reason to the denomination of prejudices; and

even the very principle which Plato attacks with such righteous zeal in the Gorgias, and in the introduction. to this work, in opposition to Thrasymachus, could not, without such a league, have spread so far and gained such ground. But criticism upon these subjects is almost disarmed by the very important declaration, which we must not overlook, that a really accurate and thorough knowledge of the mind is not to be gained by this process. Otherwise, however, the indication of these three functions existing in the mind, particularly by the application of the method of exhibiting them in the gross in the prominent and characteristic traits of different nations, is very fine, and shows enlarged views of the subject; although many a noble Hellene may have been very ill pleased to learn that the much extolled spirit is still only to be the Thracian or the Scythian in his mind, and generally indeed it is only by an over partiality that the often destructive barbarism of these nations can be preferred to a cultivation, narrow-minded indeed, and mechanical only, but still of use to the whole of mankind, such as that of the Phoenicians and Egyptians was. But since the problem, properly speaking, was, not only to define the idea of justice, but rather to decide between the just and the unjust mode of life, which of the two is the more desirable, after the investigation of justice, injustice also is described as pragmaticism, and rebellion of one part against the rest; and Socrates, although obliged to grant to his interlocutor that the matter is already dispatched, and that it is unnecessary further to follow out the rest, announces notwithstanding that he will, for completeness sake, likewise trace in the gross the various vicious modes of life throughout