Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

He thus, for a mere pretence, made new proposals in order to retain Plato. Dion was to remain in the Peloponnesus, not as an exile, but as a friend who might be permitted to return so soon as it was found to be best for the common good; still with the condition that he would undertake nothing hostile to the king. Dion was to promise this, and Plato with his friends were to stand sureties. Dion's income would be sent to the Peloponnesus or to Athens and be deposited with some man whom the parties themselves might propose, so that Dion should not have the free use of it, because it was impossible to trust him, since he had so large an amount of property in his hands, (about one hundred talents). Plato could, if he was pleased with the proposition, remain another year and then depart with the money. Although this entire arrangement was displeasing to Plato in the highest degree, still he felt it necessary for the sake of prudence to request a little time for reflection. After mature examination he judged it best to assent to the proposal, rather than attempt to depart contrary to the will of the king, since the latter project might be rendered wholly impracticable, and thereby Dion's case might be rendered still worse. When therefore he made known his determination to Dionysius, Plato subjoined that he could not believe that Dionysius would treat Dion as a master does his slaves; that they must have Dion's own free explanation of the case, and consequently a letter must be written to him. Dionysius was satisfied with this. In the mean time, the ships set sail. Immediately thereupon Dionysius stated that he could deliver up to Dion only one half of his property, as the other half belonged to his son. Plato heard this with the utmost astonishment, but said nothing in relation to it, further than that they must await the answer of Dion. As Dionysius caused the effects of Dion to be sold at once, Plato saw that it was but too evident that all representations and negotiations would be fruitless, and he concluded to observe thereafter a profound silence. During this whole time Dionysius retained the philosopher, as it were, in imprisonment, for he dwelt in the castle garden, where no one could go in or out without permission. Plato, however, longed for freedom. Still, the Sicilians conceived that Dionysius and Plato were good friends, for neither disclosed to others their reciprocal relations, although Dionysius, by means of complaisant treatment and caresses, subjected himself to all possible pains to win over the philosopher and draw him away from the friendship of Dion.

Meanwhile a mutiny occurred among the mercenary soldiers, whose pay Dionysius wished to diminish. This could not be quieted, except as Dionysius would grant whatever they desired, and even allow still more. Common rumor made Heraclides, a friend of Dion, the author of the trouble; he was consequently compelled to conceal himself or to flee. Another friend of Dion, Theodotes, going to Dionysius, requested him to give up all persecution of Heraclides; he believed that Heraclides would appear and defend himself, if he could have a safe passport. Dionysius engaged to do so in the presence of Plato, but he did not keep his word. Plato made representations, but they were contemptuously rejected. Dionysius now be lieved that it was entirely manifest that Plato was fully committed to the party of Dion. He then felt compelled to remove him from the castle-garden to the Archedemus, since the court ladies performed their private sacred rites in the garden. Plato now excited the wrath of the king anew on account of his conversation with Theodotes. He was therefore directed to reside among the mercenary soldiers, a situation which proved to be unsafe for him, it having been commonly reported that Plato endeavored to persuade Dionysius to dismiss his body-guard-a circumstance which might probably have happened previously. At length, when Plato heard that some soldiers had conspired to murder him, he informed Archytas of his critical situation. Archytas, under the pretext of public business, despatched a certain Lamiscus to the king, who obtained permission for Plato to depart. Dionysius was still so friendly that he paid the expenses of the journey. Plutarch says that Archytas himself wrote to Dionysius, and Diogenes has actually introduced a letter of this tenor into his biography of Archytas. But Plato makes no mention of it. On his homeward voyage, Plato landed in Elis, at the time of the celebration of the Olympic games. As he here met with his friend Dion, he related to him his fortunes and the results of his journey. Dion immediately declared that he would punish the tyrant for the iniquitous and faithless conduct of which he had been guilty towards himself and towards Plato. In such an undertaking, however, Plato would take no part, and for various reaHe had now, as he said, become too old. Dion had drawn

sons.

1 These statements may be found in Epist. 3. 80-82. 7. 137–148. Plut. Dion. 965, 966.

2 Dion. 966.

him, as it were, contrary to his will, into friendship with Dionysius, which even now he would respect, especially since Dionysius had still so much regard for him that he had not exposed him to the murderous designs of his enemies; he would therefore remain wholly neutral, so that he might yet be able to effect a reconciliation between them. After his return, Plato wrote once more to Dionysius-this is the third of the extant letters-and defended himself against various aspersions.

CHAPTER VII.

VINDICATION of Plato's CHARACTER.

I hope my readers will not censure me because I have been somewhat diffuse in the delineation of these two journies. They are the only fragments of his life which are in a degree connected, and they are the more precious, as without them we should know almost nothing of his character, deportment and maxims. His abode and his conduct at the court of Dionysius, caused him already in his lifetime many reproaches and unreasonable censures, which modern literati have repeated, and to which they have added others, so that his character has often been placed in an unfavorable light. Without these narratives, we should indeed have still had reason for rejecting the unfavorable opinions, since his whole life would have presented so many refutations of the false or of the merely half-correct stories,

1 Epist. 7. 149. Plut. Dion. 967. I must rere adduce some incorrect statements of certain writers, by which we can see, through a few examples, how negligent the later writers often are. For instance, Apuleius remarks that Plato had actually reconciled Dion and Dionysius and had obtained permission for Dion to return to Sicily, p 368. After the second journey, says Olympiodorus, Dion was plundered of his estate and thrown into prison. Dionysius promised him his liberty on condition that he would induce Plato to come to his court the second time. The same, according to Olympiodorus, was the object of his third visit. Diogenes Laertius, III. 21, 22, with his accustomed carelessness, places the hazard of life which Plato incurred, in his second journey.

and partial or fugitive opinions which are current; but we should have wanted almost entirely the sources and the reasons of them, and the surest means for testing them. I will add a few only of the reproaches which his censurers have alleged against him, and inquire whether they can be actually justified on sure grounds. In the first place Plato is blamed for having preferred the Syracusan luxuries to frugality and temperance.1 This accusation is contained in a letter whose author is uncertain, and which may, on that account, be regarded as unimportant. But it is directly contradicted by the character of Plato, and by the fact that he, at one time, introduced habits of economy into the court of Dionysius.2 Plato, it is further alleged, was not free from a dishonorable aspiration for the favor of great men, and that this was a principal motive for his Sicilian journies. Or perhaps he wished to enrich himself by courting princes.3 But the history of his travels, his conduct at the court and his constancy in the friendship of Dion so fully refute the first allegation, that I will not say a word further about it. The second charge is more plausible, especially if we regard the thirteenth letter as genuine. In order to judge properly in respect to this subject, we must first determine what property Plato then possessed, and in what relation he then stood to Dionysius. It is probable that the inheritance which he received from his father was not great, still it was considerable. After his travels had somewhat diminished it, the deficiency was made up in the garden given him by Dion or Anniceris. We must also here take into the account, that Plato possessed the means of living, with his habits of frugality and temperance, in an agreeable and independent manner. We do not learn that he taught for definite wages, a practice which he so severely censures in the sophists. But notwithstanding, we may conclude on good grounds that his scholars and friends gave him liberty to make use of their property when and as he wished, and that he thus did avail himself when it was necessary. We may further suppose that Dionysius, who sought out with a kind

Epist. I. Xenophontis.

2 Plut. Dione. 963.

3 Meiner's Geschichte der Wissenchaften II. 683.

4 Epist. 13. 173, 174. From the latter passage it is evident that Plato, with the help of his friends and pupils, took care to provide his female relatives with dowries, if their fathers or mothers were dead. This was a custom among the Athenians.

of ambition all necessary means by which he could draw Plato to his court, would not have omitted to make use of the great wealth which he possessed; and we may conclude with entire safety from the passages last quoted that Dionysius actually offered him the unrestricted use of his funds.

It is also settled, if the eighth letter is genuine, which still I do not maintain, that the whole sum which he had received from Dionysius after his second journey amounted to only fifty-six minae, an amount, which taken in connection with other sums given him by Dionysius, would not prove any low passion for gain on the part of Plato. The philosopher looked upon all this money as of no account in itself; but he expended it in part in the works of benevolence, and in part in expenditures necessary and becoming to one in his condition. Here agree very well some anecdotes which Plutarch and Diogenes mention, according to which Plato received no present in money from Dionysius, but only some books. If Dionysius sometimes lost sight of his friendship to Plato and made him feel the arm of despotism, he treated him, as some writers intimate, in no other way than as he deserved to be treated, inasmuch as Plato under the mask of friendship had projected a plan with Dion to dethrone Dionysius. But this charge seems to me to be in the highest degree unjust. The enemies of Dion and Plato and of their good cause, circulated these reports in order to infuse suspicion into the king, and to hinder the political reform which they hated on personal grounds. Plato in the beginning was always open and candid. He censured cautiously what was worthy of blame; he repeatedly counselled Dionysius to rule as a king over free subjects, and he became more reserved only as he found that the reproaches of his adversaries were listened to. He moreover, as soon as it was practicable, separated himself from the king. Had his heart been capable of such malice, he would certainly have adopted a wholly different course, and by flattery, complaisance and a forward manner would have been sure of Dionysius. When the enmity between Dion and Dionysius broke out into open war, he was so grieved that he took no part in it, but still endeavored to restore peace. He was ever firm and unshaken in his principles, and conducted towards Dion and Dionysius in accordance with the same maxims.3 He was 1 Plut. Dion. 965. Diog. II. 81. 2 Epist. 7. 112.

3 Plut. de Discrimine Amici et Adul. 52.

« EdellinenJatka »