the theaetetus of plato - s.w. dyde

7/30/2019 The Theaetetus of Plato - S.W. Dyde

1/218

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

o make the worlds books discoverable online.t has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

o copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

re our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge thats often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this books long journey from the

ublisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the

ublic and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to

revent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for

personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Googles system: If you are conducting research on machine

translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the

use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google watermark you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find

additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just

because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other

countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we cant offer guidance on whether any specific use ofany specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a books appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner

anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Googles mission is to organize the worlds information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers

iscover the worlds books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

t http://books.google.com/
http://google.com/books?id=wt29k-Jz8pIChttp://google.com/books?id=wt29k-Jz8pIC


2/218

TheTheaetetus ofPlato


3/218

TheTheaetetus ofPlato


4/218

\?>\",\@934

i---ii_

.1- . r - .A" " F - F 7

g. 4 ! 'I'F

1,, _IK1.,I.r..- . . ;. 3 4 - < ; / I 4 "V)\~7_1- 3,1,,1 4 4" ' _ : ' % ~ \ .1".-. _ - 1 45

1 : L _ q ' q ~ - > = . : ~ 1 _ *

" . ' ; ' , ; '_ .

.\

, !\ ' ;{%\

if * ~ * \ - * 5 ..

/\

_ _ ._, -I5.x"

A / ~v-'_-\_ _ _ -\\ _ I.-'-"-_~Min-x:-.~ ""~:~1- " \ ~ \\\ \ : .\ -_ ___--K Q I Q 5 1 * -14%

# 3 - m ? 0 .'5\., \ ,3~1:~ .1: .-W ,,\- .$ -

If

v0

I

_v1F.

it


5/218

_

.

OO

W V

'

QI

I

I

'

.

,

'

_

.

_H _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ "_ H ' _ h_ : .m _ _ _ :v"*5_1A_ ? A E E _ VJgph $ _ _w _ i _ L _ fi _ r _ E Vg fi_'" W _ _ : " _ l fl i j i__: _u _ M .m ?ru n; P~' _ _ ~ _ _ r " _ x v m m ' ~k w m fi a wh W m M w _ w 6 : c m W _ h 8 % E ; fi m m w F n M % " W W w mM c N " m " W $ m r _ 1 " M ' M _ _ " m M u h i wn 4 V " fl " m3"' _ L _ _if(1_ _ _ _ J _ fi :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m r _ fi ' _ h I _ n } : m __ " _ % % F w ? $ w _ t m H m _ fl _ _ _ fl h _ F m w fl _ _ E t ' _ A w ' _ T "1 u % - m fl m l % A V fl'_1 1 (_j_ v_uma_ _ _ 'J_ 0 _ _1F _ _ W _ fi _ _3 __ H L _ _ ' l v ~ _ M _ i h M _ W \fl fl H k H u M O w M F m _ _ q fi fl ' fl _W) _ _ H U _ _ d AH k H _ h ! A 1 _ "_ ' 2_ _1 _ _ . g m _ _ w __mi_~ " fi _ w $ m _ g " : w _ W % " _ n " , m E Lf u d y mK I F f i_u U _ _ J _ _ F A _ m _ N ; _ _ 'H _ _ h m _ _ _ _ M fl _ i __ u

_ _ ~ _ _ "_ : t _ _ Y_ ' l _I _ _"

_ 'xFt _ __ h _ : : " q3:& 5," _ _ _ _ _ L _ [ ' T H_H U _ !& _ _ t R _ w m m _ w _

{:1 En k_ t_> _ _ _ ? \_ _ __x ? _ _ _ , _ _ N H_ ' n _ _ ! U H _ ;V _ r W ' _ _ , M % $ _ _ H w _ m M _ q , U H _ 1 : _ _ _ _ _ d 1 _ _ d n >_ 7 w

_ "_:_ __ H J _ m m fl " b _ w k _ _A ' N M _ _ ' _ '_ _ _ H _ h :1 , ? !:;__ L fi _ _ _ _ ; _ i _ t _ n_ _ J a P " 1 rW h : ; _ J _ L _m M fi H f " _ _ " _ _ _ J r _ % _

' "1 ' _ . k _ f _ "_ l _ _ J _ _ _ hfl . " V _ _ | _ _ _ ' V ' _",M_ JxF ;_ HQ_ _ '> _ \ _ _ 3 _ ____ _ ::3 % : " g r _ _ " _ ' _ fl_d A w . 1 ~ I . }

flfi_ _ _ ' $Q :#_ N ' " _M : H _ fl H \ ; u lkum' M n M _ l A _ " h U _ _ _ _ _ " w,_ _ _1 _ > H u F 1 X U n p ' u .' _ __> _ "VM;_J _ Lv _ _ _ '3:_ _ _ _ _aw n _ _ h n _ _ _ _ _ m __ _ " _ :_,_ _ _; m __ ' _ _ _ m_ _ ;i._ _ _ __a ,2_ _ _ " _J3P__ _?f l_ _ ; nut_N J E_1 \t _ _ ] A_ _ W : H . t : du _ I v ):_ \ _ __ __: _A'.1V _n __ _ _ _2_ _ _ "__ __,

I_ ; " _ 1 _ h _; u \ fi _ fl _h J " _ : l _ n r m _ _ _Mkfl ( _ H H w _ 4 _ Ffi x _ _ L _ _ fi M J u _ m _ _ L : _ _ fi nfix "MM I_ H _ ~ _ _ _ P u M) J n " H $nu>_._ x _ _r_ W _ ' :, _ _ ' U n : I u _K W _ _ _5" . I __I:Jn :_ _ ' H1 w J H 3 _ H _ 3 4 ' q fi J _ _ fl ' ) H _ _ H H _i,_I > . A _ )__ _ ~ _ _ H _ _ n t __IJ_) H _ < J h :4 ;A- H< ' d _ _ ' $ }4: 2 :L g_ _ _ " 1 __ _ _ ? ;_ : _ j _ _ t N Y 1 5 1 __vA _ u_p A A 7VL $ $ _ :_ % 4 M M $ m . w _ J J fi d % 4 ~ _ _ M m x i w M w _ M M _ W m m g fi m H y m W N m _ J n K " E fi _ f_ _ " M _ g _ H $ m _ u % % fi H _ h W _ _ A w3 m _ _ V [ ~ _ _ r k m W m ? W W _ w m m W w% M M _ ' U _ W l m _ H J L Q _ gW _ _ _ W _ _ _ _ h _fi w u f gl fl _ _ A L_ _ g h _ __ _ % > _ _ m _ _ _ Q F _ : HH _ _ _ _ _ T hZ 1 I _ t _ _ _ U JLw p_ _ :_ _ 7 _d z _ _ 5 _ 1 _ " 4 _: _ _ __ _ _ LA _ _'_y I f _ _

l L W $ h > " W x _ . * >_ _ H_ H A "W _ w _ H V _ _ % _ _ _ M My", m % _ F h~_g ,m__ :7m f__ __ m _ ' _ _ H L _ _ _P H _ H _ _ , _:3 _ _ X n _ _ d __ ' _ _ _ ! w _ > _ m p _ _ n i Jm H _ _ y " q $ m w _ ; "_ _ L ;: _ ~ _ _ _A :" _ V : " _ _ A > _ _ '__ _ _L _ > " ' _A__ _ ~ '_: 1__ _ _ _ _ A : \ _ _ I L Y :_1 H ; A , J A _ _ U ._AJ__ Y J _ _ _ _ _ _ x/__ _ _ A ' _ _ '}.>'_I_t_ _ _ 'k __ __ ] _ _ _

I_A f_M__ A A: A

_ _

i_ 2;

[I 2 ' 1 1 ::

V r ; _ _ _ : _ _ : ._fl.___;

_ _

k


6/218


7/218

THE THEAETETUS O F PLATO


8/218

PUBLISHKD BYJAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS , GLASGOW

flublishzrs to th: Quinn-sitp.MACM ILLAN AND c0., LTD. , LONDON.

New York, - - Tbe Macmillan C 0.London, - - - Simpkm, Hanulzon and Co .Cambrzdge, - - Illacmillan and Bowes.Edinburgh, - - Douglas and Foulis.

MDCCCXCIX.

D


9/218

THE THEAETETUSOF FLATOE

A TRANSLATION WITH AN INTREDUCTION

BYS . W. DYDE, D.Sc.

m g o m - z s s o a or M E N T A L P H I L O S O P H Y , Q U E E N ' S UNIVERSITY K I N G S T O N CALADAT R A N S L A T O R or 1 - 1 E r m 1 . s PHILOSOPHY or RIGHT

GLASGOWJAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS

fiuhlishzrs to th: finihcrsitg1899

F 0E


10/218

/.- - .\\ _ _ _, \ |\ _ \ __ ~_ \/. K _) J~\ -;\ -\\\\*A > < Xq.:2r \

/E * 1 w1 I-II'_.(,"1 \,_r J I u 0\ J~\ C?\* F_,'yL 4" *-H) ,- l~4\ \V1*-1- _ _-


11/218

O 0Oo4

< " * g _ _- 1 xC";

PREFACE.MORE fully than any other of Platos dia lo gues th eT heaetetus sh ows how Plato seeks to bring th eordinary mnd to a knowledge of its own limtations.It has, therefore, in th e hands of a sympathetictea cher, spe cia l value for th e one who is abou t toembark on the study of phi losophy. With th e abletranslations of Jowett, Kennedy, and Paley in exis-tence, it is impossible to rega rd th e present translationas meeting a need; but it at least makes more usefulth e accompanying Introduction. Wherever , in th ecourse of th e dia log ue, occu r phi losophical terms orphrases, th e translator has supplied in brackets theoriginal G reek , and in translating these terms hasparticularly sought to avoid any allusion to modernmetaphysics. IThe Introduction has a twofold object. It seeks togive Platos portrait, account, and criticism of Prota-goras and h is fol lowers, and at th e same time it servesas an outline of one large and important sect ion ofPlatos own phi losophy. Indeed, owing to Platospeculiar method, if it succeeds in th e first it does th esecond also. In th e c lo sing pages of the Introductionreference is made to th e final form of Platos thought,with th e view of indicating how far it was mouldedby h is long and a rduous encounte r with Sophistry.

V

Q>"5\A'_l


12/218

vi PREFACE.In preparing this little work th e translator hasalways had before him Jowetts monumenta l transla-

tion of th e d ia logues, and has frequently made use ofitwithout specia l acknowledgement . Professor Camp-be lls s ound and scholarly books, The Theaetetus 0]Plato and The Sophistes and Pol/iticus of Plato havebeen of great service.Aristotles treatment of th e topics discussed in th e

Introduction has been found uniformly to repay th eclosest study.S. W. DYDE.

S e p t . 1 5 , 1 8 9 9 .

N


13/218

CONTENTS .C H A P T E R 1 .

PLA'ros STYLE AND Mmrnon, . . . . . .Platos Style. The Dialogue, 1 ; social life at Athens, 1 ;Aristotles definition of friendship,_ 1; debates of th eschools, 2; th e Dialogue differs from .conversation, 3;meaning of Dialectic, 5 ; peculiarities of- Platos style,5 ; (a) Plato preserves the dramatic situation, 5 ; (b ) inci-dental information contained in t he d ia logue , 7 ; (c ) con-nect ion of thought and thinker, 8 ; (d) diiferent phases ofthought and belief, 9; (e ) Plato reveals his thoughtgradually, 10. Platos method, ll ; based on th e methodof Socrates, ll; th e work of Socrates, ll; differencebetween Socrates and th e Sophists, 12 ; growth o f P la to smethod, 13; lst stage, analysis of common opinion, 13;Znd stage, analysis and criticism of Rh-e to r ic , 15; 3rdstage, positive statement of Plato s thought, 16.

CHAPTER II.PLA ro AND P R O T A G O R A S , . . . . . . .Contemporaries of Protagoras, 17; character of Pro-tagoras, 18 ; th e Gods in the philosophy of Prolagoras, 19 ;

lIatos Criticism, 2| ; Protagoras philosophyofknowledge,22; Protagoras and th e Protagoreans, 22; M an is th emeasure of all things, 23; opposi t ion of Protagoras tocommon thought, 25; resemblance to Euripides andSocrates, 2 6 ; th e phi losophy of Protagoras a compromise,27; Platos Criticism, 28; composite nature of publicopinion, 2 8 ; summary, 30; Protagoras and th e state, 31 ;vu

P A G E1

1 7


14/218

viii CONTENTS.origin of th e state, 31; justice th e foundation of thestate, 32 ; probable change in h is views, 33 ; th e principleof expediency, 33; Nature contrasted with Society, 34;development of this view by later Sophists, 35; PlatosCriticism, 37; Aristotles concept ion of Nature, 39;rel igious basis of the state in Plato, 39 ; conclusion, 41.

CHAPTER III.PLATO AND THE Paomoonaans, . . . . . .

Two classes of Sophists, 43; phi losophic antecedents ofthe Protagoreans, 44; (a ) th e Herac l i teans and theirview, 45 ; (b) a second main view of th e Protagoreans, 46 ;Platos Criticism, 48; Platos criticism of (a ) sense isknowledge, 48; Aristotles treatment of thistheme, 50;agreement of Plato and Aristotle, 50 ; Platos criticism of(b) False Opinion does not exist, 54; argument of theEulhydemus, 55; fuller treatment in the Theaetetus, 55;anticipations of th e later dialogues in th e l 'heaetetus, 57 .

CHAPTER IV.Pnxro AND Sormsrnv, . . . . . . . .Personali t ies of th e Sophists no longer considered, 59;

Sophistry summed up in th e theory that Not-being doesnot exist, 60; Platos aim in the Sophist, 61; Platoss ta temen t o f th e Sophist ic view, 6 '2 ; Platos R efutation, 63 ;(1) criticismof Parmenides, 63; (2 ) criticismof Materialistsand Idealists, 64; (3) criticism of th e Separat ists, 68;outline of h is doctr ine of th e c ommunio n o f ideas, 69;Reality is a system, 70; illustration of h is concept ion,71; Existence a graded whole, 72; Existence th eexplanation of th e whole universe, 72; supplement , 74;Platos proof of th e existence of th e Gods, 74 ; transitionfromthe idea of motion to that of self-motion, 75; con-ception of God as end or final cause, 76.

PAGE

4 3

59

THE TRANSLATION, . 79


15/218

I N T RODUCT I ON .CHAPTER I.

PLATO S STYLE AND METHOD.I. Platos Style. The Dialogue. As n o philo-sopher befo re Plato, and no phi losopher since h is day,has consistent ly chosen th e dialogue as a vehic le of ex-pression, it is natural to lo ok for an explanat ion of this

peculiarity in the general habits of th e age. The remarkof M onta igne, Nous ne sommesjamais c h e z nous, Weare never a t home (Essais , chap . iii.), applied by theessayist to humanity a t large, may with a change ofmeaning be taken to describe th e ordinary social lifeof Athens. The street, the fo rum, the gymnasiumwere f requented by men; the women were indoors.When Aristotle says that the character ist ic of per fectlove or f r iendship ( < / > 7 \ ' a ) is equali ty ( la - < i - m s ) , meaningby equality an intimacy between men of equal andlofty intellectual and social attainments, and that thefriendship of bro the rs , when of a noble kind, comes toresemble th e fr iendship of comrades (Ethics, VII I . 7 , 9,and VII I . 14) , he is interpreting the prevailing Greek

1 For the man, when at home they fret h is soul,Goes forth, and stays h is loathing heart s disgust,- Unto a friend or ago-mate turning him.Euripides, Medea (Ways translation, Vol. 1., p. 71, ll. 244 -246) .

A


16/218

2 THE TIJEAETETUS.sentiment. A glance a t th e scene of any of Platosdialogues is enough to show how smal l a part wasplayed by th e home in the daily life of Athens.The wits of the city drew togeth er in some publicresort for the discussion of a ffa irs o r fo r an intellectualcombat, just as regularly and frequently as the youthstook their exercise and bath.Unde r such circumstances it would be a matter ofsurprise if conversation had not developed unusualkeenness of edge; it would be equally surpr is ing if th esubstance of the conversation were not of a high order.Trivialities, commonplaces, scandal there were, no doubt,but th e staple subject, amongst the nobler spirits atleast, would be some public event or broad question ofth e hour . It was natural that Plato, growing up inthis atmosphere, should have found the dialogue to beth e most adequate instrument for th e p re senta tion ofh is theories, and have become a master of prose style.Not th e home only, but also the study plays an

unimportant part in Greek life? Even after Platost ime, when phi losophy had become a separate training,and had assumed the form of continuous expos it ion , itwas th e debate of the school, which to some extentsuperseded th e conversation of th e gymnasium . T hou ghthe general, the statesman, th e poet, in their distinctivecapac it ies , d isappear in- the school, and all sta nd u ponth e level of lovers of th e s ight of truth, ideas werestill moulded largely th rough the oral interchange ofopinions. Just as th e ordinary phi losophical treatiseof to -day reflects the process by which th e writer, inth e solitude of h is stu dy, organizes h is conceptions, so

2 It is thought to be worthy of special mention, for example, thatEuripides col lected a library. (Cf. .Ways translation of Euripides,Vol. II. xii.)


17/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 3Plato in his earlier dialogues reflects th e sparklingvariety of the gymnasium or market-place, and in thelater dialogues the more uniform discussions of th eincipient school?Tha t the talks of Socrates no t only ins pire d P la towith a zeal for philosophy, but suggested to him thefitting vehic le for its expression, is not open to doubt;but we still have to turn to the spirit and manners ofth e time in order to find ou t why the conversat ions ofSoc ra tes a re h is ph ilo sophy.Conversat ional th e dialogues of Plato certainly are,but it would be a mistake to infer from this fac t thatthey were mere reproduct ions of th e conversations ofth e street. In two ways th ey diffe r from ordinaryintercourse: (a ) in their substance, and (b) in theirform. (a ) Doubtless th e conversation of the streetwas of an excep tiona lly h ig h quality in Athens a tPlatos t ime. If we are to judge from Aristophanes,however, the brilliancy and acuteness of mind visiblein th e usual st reet talk were limted to th e objects andevents of the hour , to th e great war, fo r example, andthe subsequent kaleidoscopic changes of government ;but a consistent examination o f a mora l principle, suchas just ice or temperance, or the consistent exploitationof such a theme as knowledge, was as complete adeparture from th e daily matter of Athenian gossip asth e life of Soc ra tes was an except ion to th e usua l civiclife. The dialogue of Plato is , therefore, in its sub-stance not a mere reproduct ion of the casual ebb andflow of public opinion, but an idealization of it, pre-serving and even refining its vivid nipping quality,

3 We are not in the market -p lace, orithe house of Callias, but inthe groves of Academe (Campbell , Sophistes and Politicus ofPlato, Introduction to the Sophist, p. xxi).


18/218

4 THE THEAETETUS.but always concerning itself with th e real problems ofexistence.

(b) In form th e dialogue of Plato is more intimatelyconnected with th e conversat ion to be found in th eGreek drama, than with that to be overheard in th emarket-place. Actual gatherings are more or less hap-hazard in t ime, place and personages; but in th e dramathe conversa tion is carr ied on by characters, as they arecalled, persons who const i tute a network and, by the in-fluence of one upon ano th er, bring to c omple tion th ethought embodied in th e ac tion. In Plato, too, th echaracters have each a necessary part , and a re selectedbecause, by playing this part , they assist in chisel l inginto shape th e definit ion. In fact, Plato, with a mndsteeped in the drama, and capt ivated by th e wonderfulpossibilities revealed in the method of Socrates, wasdriven towards the dialogue irresistibly, and it is in h iscase no more an external vehicle of expression than th eform of Aristotle or H egel is external to the matterwith which he deals. Plato himself clear ly understoodthat th e dialogue, unlike casual conversation, was a workof art. H e compared th e true discourse to a livingcreature having its own body, head and feet, with abeginning, middle and end, wh ic h must be agreeableto one another and to the whole (Phaedrus, 264 ) . Thisremark Aristotle applies to tra gedy (Poetics, 6. 1450b ,27).The conne ctio n of th e dialogue with dramatic pre-sentation gives us an interesting view of th e digressions,freely interspersed th roughout the dialogues. Theseinter ludes afford the author an opportunity to discuss atheme in easy ampli tude, a habit which , as we maysuppose, was more character ist ic of Plato than it wasof Socrates. The actual Socrates disl iked long speeches,


19/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 5and kept strictly to the argument. Challenge Soc-rates to an argument, says Theodorus ; Invite ahorseman to th e open plain (Theaetetus, 183 D). ButPlato, with a more assured command of the subject,permitted himself to digress. To many, such asTheodorus (Theaetetus, 17 70), the digressions, whichhave no direct counterpar t in ordinary conversation,were a relief from th e strain of the argument, and inthat respect, as well, also, as in their indirect connec-tion with the main subject, resemble the chorus ofGreek t ragedy.Dramatic is the term, therefore, which describes ingeneral th e style of Plato, or, to use h is own word, h ismethod is that of dialectic. The term. dialectic in itspassage from current to ph ilosoph ic use itself illustratesthe diflerence between random converse and phi losophicinvestigation. A z d 7 \ e I c ' r o s , meaning a t first merely agraver conversat ion and then a debate, discussion, argu-ment or interchange of thought upon a definite topic,came to signify also th e at tainment of truth th roughth e conflict o f opinions and dispersion of inadequateconceptions. Further, it was used by Plato as th ename of th e science built up from th e lower sciencesgradual ly, its object being th e sys tema tic account ofthe supreme reality or the absolute good. Althoughth e term thus obtained a strictly phi losophic sense, itscurrent meanings were not dropped, and a happy unionof them all is required fo r an understanding of Platosstyle.The following part iculars will illustrate Platosdramatic and dialect ic style.(a ) His delicate preservation of the general atmo-sphere of th e dialogue is a dramatic quality of greatvalue. Th is quality is re cognized a t once not only in


20/218

6 THE THEAETETUS.the richly comic scenes of the Euthydemus} whereEuthydemus and h is brother are not counted worthyof serious t reatment, and in the t ragic surroundings ofthe Pluzedo, which are in keeping with the discussioncontained in it upon the immortality of the soul, butalso in more subtle and unobtrusive references, ofwhich th e Theaetetus furnishes a striking example.T he c losing sentences of the dialogue prove that th econversation, which it details, occurred during th etrial of Socrates fo r heresy. Th is c i rcumstance is inthe course of th e argument noticed so artlessly bythree simple words, d1-up ml 1 / U v , that Jowett thoughtit unnecessary to trans la te them. It is only in worksof genius that so keen a perception is expressed withsuch simplicity and reserve. Again in the Symposium,a t a (banquet where Aga thon and Aristophanes haveseats, the grave and the gay are skilfully combined.Indeed, Socrates, seated between th e two poets, is madeby Plato to drop th e golden concept ion that the geniusof comedy was the same as that of tragedy (Sym-posium, 223), words which justified Browning in put-ting into the mouth of Balaust ion th e hope thatAristophanes re-ordinating outwom rule would have

Made Comedy and Tragedy combine,Prove some new Both-yet-neither, all one bard,Euripides with AristophanesCo-operant. .

As regards tone and form, th e Euthydemus mght be describedas th e satirical farce, which accompanies the stately drama of theProtago/ras (Phi losophica l Lectures and Remains ofRichard LewisNett leship, Vol. 1., p. 268). Often indeed, at other t imes as well as now, have I noticed howlikely it is that those who spend much time in philosophic studywill provoke laughter when they appear at court and make aspeech (Theaetetus, 1720). Ar istophanes Apology, 3440-3.


21/218

/

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 7Browning thinks that this union was brought about by th e appo inted fellow born thereto, (namely, Shake-speare; but that which Shakespeare carr ied out in thedrama, Plato carr ied ou t in th e Symposium, not onlypreserving with unsurpassed fineness of fee ling th egenera l tone of th e picture, but inventing, and a t th esame t ime perfecting, a literary fo rm of a highly com-p le x k ind.Again, where in th e region of satire is anything tobe found supe rio r in del icacy and precision of thrust tothe speech put by P la to into the mouth of Aristo-phanes, when the poet is depicted as praising the goodo ld times (Symposium, 193, 194)? With astonishingreserve, Plato, by means of the speech of Socrates,hints a moment a fte rwards that Aristophanes in laud-ing th e tempus aotum, has placed emphasis upon th ewrong idea, and adds that nothing but wha t is goodshould be th e objec t of love (Symposium, 205). Thedialogue, nei ther in its t ragic, comic nor satiric form,is adscit i t ious to Platos thought .(b) A second feature of d rama tic o r artistic value inPlato is h is fumshing incidentally a large mass ofinformation concerning the private and public mannersof th e Greeks. ' From h is works writers on antiquit ieshave gathered facts concerning the domestic life ofwomen, and their place in public esteem, the amuse-ments and educat ion of chi ldren, the condit ion ofslaves, the various occupations of workmen, publicamusements and festivals, private and public teachers,the distinction between art izans and soldiers , generalsocial usages, the current popular estimate of pro-mnent cit izens, and th e place occupied in the fee lingof th e people by the heroes and writers of the past.All these and many more facts of domes tic and public


22/218

8 THE THEAETETUS.life show how wide and direct was Platos contact withth e va rious activities of h is age. These casual obser-vations are qu ite d iffe rent from h is systematic philo-soph ic theories of soc ia l and domestic life and educa tion,to which , of course, no reference is here made. Thecommon charge that he refused to consider facts,and built speculat ive castles in the a ir, fa lls to th eground of itself before the an'ay of fac ts and evenfigures concerning not only Athenian life but Greeklife as a whole, which can be gathered merely by wayof pastime from h is profound attempt to justify th eways of God to man and th e world. Observers ofsoc ie ty nestle inside of Plato as easily as historiansand antiquar ians nestle inside of S ir Walter Scott.(c ) P la to s perception of an individuals thoughtis so direct and penetrat ing that it inc ludes evenminute details of charac ter and manners. The readeris interested a t once in the beauty of Charmides aswell as in h is naive ideas of temperance, in the per-sonal appearance of Theaetetus, in the bearing ofAlcibiades, in th e Doric accent of Cebes, and so on.Plato, with the faculty of an artist, sees the thinkerwhen he s e e s the thought , and presents thinker andthought a s an indivisible whole. The most strikingfigure of th e dialogue is , of course, Socrates, over whosecharac ter P la to linge rs with a disciples fondness, por-traying h is personal appearance, manner of dress, wayof talking, quickness of hearing, physica l endurance,habit of standing in si lent debate oblivious to h issurroundings, matchless power over wine, courage,penetration, and amaz ing love of discourse. A note-worthy instance of h is fineness of feeling occurs inth e Theaetetus, when Socrates discovers that Theaetetusand himself have been unwarrantably us ing th e very


23/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 9terms, wh ic h they are seeking to define. A ski l leddisputant, Socrates then remarks, would havewarned us away from these express ions , and chiddenme in particular fo r my manner of arguing (197A) ,a passage not easy to equal as an illustration ofscrupulous regard for anothers feelings. This artisticattention to th e personali ty and atmosphere of th eindividual, is another element in Platos greatness,the lack of which has often embittered phi losophiccontroversy.

(d ) The dialogues of Plato are dramatic o r dialecticin that they reproduce by means of characters thevarious elements or strata of t hough t composing th econsciousness of Athens at this t ime. The charactersare not deprived of their value a s individuals, butbecome representative individuals or types, in th esense that their thought is heightened thought a tlarge. This is another note of th e great writer, whosecharacters belong to the whole age, or, ra ther , to man-kind, while th e creations of minor writers, depending fortheir force upon oddities of expression, or exaggerationsof some single emotion, have, like Hepz ibah Pyncheonsch ickens, an air of antiquity or unreality, as soon asthey come into being.From th e va rie d pageant of Greek life displayed inPlatos pages come three, if not four, different files oftypical characters. First of all appear men likeC-ephalus, whose life has almost arrived a t th e lastscene of all, whose thought it would, therefore, be animpiety to unsett le, and Laches, who, though holdingfast to the traditional ideas, was yet a fair mark forSocrates critical shafts. Younger men also are of thiscompany, Lysis, Charmides, and Polemarchus, who mayfairly be expected to respond to the new speculat ive


24/218

10 THE THEAETETUS.impulse. Behind all these, and formng one body withthem, are A ris tophanes, th e antagonis t of innovationand champion of the good old t imes, Anytus, who fearsto speak evil of dignities, and Call icles, who, present-ing th e claims of the man of substance and honourwho is well to do, thinks that phi losophy is therecreat ion of children and fools. In the next maindivision are to be found Sophists like Protagoras andGorgias, worthy representat ives of th e new spirit ofresearch ; also their well-meaning disciples, like Theo-dorus, eager for knowledge, and, too, th e younger broodof Sophists, Polus, Thrasymachus, and th e rest, show-ing some of th e principles of th e greater Sophistshardened into dogmas. In the third division areSocrates himself , and h is young dis c ip le s, S immias,Cebes, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who have been swungfrom their moorings by Sophist ic criticism and arestill g rappling fo r some regu la t ive pr inc ip les of thoughtand c onduc t. In a fourth category must be placedParmenides, Timaeus, Crit ias, the Athenian Strangerof the Laws, and the Eleatic Stranger of th e Sophistand Statesman, all of whom are a t a stage, a t whichPlato has no t only abandoned th e earlier descriptivedialogue, but has entered a field of discussion whollybeyond th e scope of Socrat ic thought .(e) While different theories and opinions find ex-pression in P la to th rou gh representative personalit ies,he reaches h is own theory not by direct criticism ofany inadequate views, but by gradual ly passing throughevery-day opinion and th e doctr ines of the Sophists.Thus in the Republic there is wha t corresponds to thescenes or stages in a Greek drama, th e phi losophicidea being ushered forth with such preparat ion asenables us to s e e how truly phi losophic it is. Th is


25/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 11method has an educat ional value, to which Plato wasnot blind. Imbued with th e genius of Socrates hewas as far as possible from desiring to substi tute forcurrent opinion a phi losophic dogma, seeking ratherby a wise strategy to create a certain spirit or habit ofthinking, and thus by h is dramatic handl ing of h issubje c t le ad ing th e undaunted wayfarer step by stepou t into the sun of th e supreme idea from the darkcave of thought less custom.II. Platos Method. T he c ompleted method ofPlato may be said to be the method of h is master,amplified and deepened by the growth of phi losophy inth e interval. Socrates impresses us as one who ismachine- l ike in h is almost incredible energy and en-durance. No Indian ever followed . th e trail of h isfoe with more unerring and unrelaxed purpose thanSocrates follows the argument. What serves to takethe edge off and even exh aust th e analytic capaci ty ofProtagoras merely whets h is appetite. Th ree t imes inone day he will repeat a long discussion and go awayhoping that the next day will bring a simlardiversion.Socrates sought to expose by means of questioningthe contradict ions and inconsistencies involved incommon opinion, and to prepare the way for trueknowledge. H e was wiser, he said, than other men,as the oracle had declared, only because he knewthat he k new noth ing , while all others, though equal lyignorant, believed that they had knowledge. Hismission was to instil into every one he met th eblessed consciousness of ignorance, that they mghthereafter have a desire fo r knowledge, and, even if theycould not be said to know, a t least be free fromdelusions. The deference, which he paid, or with


26/218

12 THE THEAETETUS.veiled irony seemed to pay, to the opinion of th eunwary respondent, had th e efl'ect of drawing him intoa conversation, but he, like the silly fly of th e nurseryrhyme, is quickly entangled in the web of dialectic.This unexpected exposure of incapaci ty had difierenteffects upon different temperaments. The timidinquirer, deprived of h is usual habits of th ough t andcoming suddenly to th e brink of a void inane, fellback upon some less exacting discipline; th e bolderadvocate of th e established ideas conceived a bitteraversion to the new-fangled teach ing, and called to h isassistance all the forces of religious and politicalconversat ism; only the resolute inquirer al lowed him-self to feel the full torture of the gad-fly of wonderor doubt, and, like the wandering Io, plunged forwardsustained by the hope of reaching a t the last somesolid concept ion.It is not to be wondered a t that so large a portionof th e Athenian public, following th e lead of Aristo-phanes, should have classed Socrates with the Sophists.Insisting all h is life long that on knowledge and noton authority must be built law and morali ty, he, morethan all the Sophists combined, woke men ou t of thesleep of custom. Nevertheless he differs from themprofoundly in the very quality of h is genius. Whilethey, doubtfu l of th e powers of reason, halted andgave way before th e phalanxes of customary beliefs,he never accepted a truce. Probing h is own soul andconvinced that truth was attainable, he, avoiding th eeasy compromise of th e Sophists, determined to solvethe r iddle, if not of all existence, at least of moralityand the state. It is t rue that h is ac tua l work waslargely a clearing of th e way, and that he left behindno system of t hough t or morality; but he held on to


27/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 13.knowledge to th e end. Accordingly not he but th eindifferent public was th e real enemy of truth. Like th eunskilled bird-catchers, who captured th e r ing-dovewhen they wanted the p igeon, the Athenian judges, incondemning Socrates to drink th e cup of hemlock, had,th rough lack of insight into their true needs, failedto punish th e rea l culprit.The best excuse fo r Aristophanes and the Athenianpeople is that to Plato himself the d iffe rence be tweenSocrates and the Sophists, al though he had long felt it,became c lear only gradually. Even in the Protagorasth e teachings of the famous Sophist are overshadowedby h is personality. Only when P la tos thought hasgreatly matured, does he enrich h is method by ananalysis and refutation of Soph is tic doc t rine. Whilethe method of Socrates is ch iefly a subtle at tack uponcher ished opinions, th e full-grown method of Platocomprises, in addit ion, a dialect ical removal of th etheories of th e Sophists fol lowed by a positive interpre-tation of reality.Thus Platos method involves three stages, only th e

first of which is adequa te ly illustrated in th e methodof Socrates. These stages, which are firstly a criticismof ordinary opinion, secondly a criticism of Sophist icdoctr ine, and thirdly a positive account of reality, areexhibited in th e Theaetetus, a lth ou gh th e construct iveteaching of this dialogue is not pronounced. (a ) Thequestion discussed in the Theaetetus is as to the natureof knowledge, and a t first Theaetetus thinks thatknowledge is th e different sciences and artswhatever,in fact , one may lea rn from Theodorus. Soon, how-ever; Socrates convinces him that he has not explainedth e point a t issue, since in th e reply it is taken forgranted that we understand wha t is meant by any


28/218

14 THE THEAETETUS.special kind of knowledge, al though we are still in th edark about th e nature of knowledge in general. Whenasked for th e meaning of a term, those, who aregoverned by common opinion, are apt to give a num-ber of instances or part iculars, to which Plato else-where humorously refers as a swarm. When I askyou, Meno , for one virtue, you present me with aswarm of them, just as t hough, when I ask you thenature of a bee, to car ry on the figure, you tell methere are many kinds of bees, al though bees as beesdo not differ from one another a t all (Meno, 7 2 A).As he says later in th e same dialogue, he is look ing fo rth e meaning of th e whole, and is expected to under-stand it when it is frittered away into little pieces.Knowledge in th e universal, whole and sound, is whathe seeks, the simile in multvls. Plato aims in thiscover t way to create th e suspicion that casual observa -tion or direct contact with separate objects, as it doesnot call for any conscious effort of inquiry, is not byitself the final office of thought . Suspic ion becomes adeep self -mistrust, in th e case of those a t least whohave any faculty of reflect ion, and a t th e same t imethe very foundations of the universe seem to beshaken. Thus wonder or doubt is th e parent ofthought , or, a s Plato has also put it, Iris is th edaughter of T haumas, and wonder is th e beginningof phi losophy (Theaetetus, 155 D). Rough ly this stagein th e method of Plato coincides with th e work ofSoc rates, and is abundant ly exemplified in th e earlier-dialogues, al though even in the Charm/ides there arehints beyond the reach of Socrates. With less pene-tration than was possessed by Plato the criticism ofcommon opinion would leave behind it a smart ingsense of loss rather than a longing to know, and this


29/218

PLATOS STYLE AND METHOD. 15difference, we may surmise, marked him out fromSocrates a t the very beginning.(b) Platos way of dealing with the Sophists, as well,also, as h is t reatment of their genera l tene ts , are thesubject of th e th ree following chapters. Their method,in so far as it is to be distinguished from the resultsof their thinking, was c ritic iz ed by Plato under th ewide name of Rhetoric. The teachers of rhetor ic ,of whom Gorgias, the Sophist, was th e Nestor, pro-fessed to impart to young men the ability to make atelling speech upon any topic merely by th e study oforatory. Th is method Plato contrasts with dialecticin point of both style and substance. As to style hecontends that the oration is confused, and like th eepitaph of Midas , th e Phrygian, mght be recitedeither backwards or fo rw ards without any detrimentto its meaning; while th e dialect ican, setting out fromc lear defin ition, e xh ib its th e t rue agreements anddifferences of th ings in an order ly and systematic way.But h is main charge is that rhetor ic is in substancea flattery or enchantment, by means of whichth e multitude is persuaded of th e finality of its presentopinions, like the false art of cookery or tiring, whichministers to the mere pleasures of the body, andignores its heal th . In th e end, therefore, it is inimcalto phi losophy, being satisfied with probability andseeking to persuade merely, but looking upon theacquisi t ion of truth as without any pract i ca l value.But Socrates, bent upon hea ling , by purge and knife,this almost incurable cancer of the soul, and carelesshow many may be of a m ind diffe re nt from h is own,spends h is days in th e pursuit of knowledge, as th eonly safe foundation of a right life. Hence rhetor ic ,

7 This is the chief topic of the Gorgias.


30/218

16 THE THEAETETUS.\on th e side of its substance, is the false appearance(Schein, as Hege l would say), of which justice is the

truth, since justice is , in Platos thought , th e eth ica lbasis of th e state.(c ) The third and final form of the dia lect ica l method,reached only when Plato has p ropounded h is theory ofideas and has taken up physical inquiries, which notonly the cultured Athenian but even Socrates hadlooked a t askance, still bears traces of its conversa-tional and controversial origin. It becomes at last acol loquy not between persons or opposing systems butideas. By a process, hinted a t in th e Theaetetus andillustrated at length in th e Parmemdes and Sophist,ideas, which seemed to be in their inner nature an-ta gonis tic to one another, such as being and notbeing, th e same and th e other, were set face toface, and madeto come to terms. By means of thissplendid and fertile principle, to be referred to below(chap. iv.), P lato is enabled for th e first time in thehistory of t hough t to reach a concept ion of th e uni-verse which is a t once scientific and religious.


31/218

CHAPTER II.PLATO AND PRO T AGORAS .

OF Protagoras (born 480 B . C . , died 411 or 408 B . G . )it is known that he ins truc ted Eur ip ides , a s did alsothe Sophis t Prodicus.2 Othe r famous Sophists areHippias and Gorgias. As P ro ta go ra s had a t th e t imeof h is death been pract ising h is profession for upwardsof forty years (Plato, Meno, 91), h is public life musth ave begun about th e year 450, five years after thefirst representat ion of a play by Euripides? At thatt ime Soc rates was a young man of twenty, ten yearsth e junior of both Protagoras and Euripides, a longerinterval a t this epoch of rapid intellectual growth thanin most periods of th e worlds history.

OJ1Aris tophanes Apology (Browning), 1 . 364, and Bemhardy,Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, II. 2 . 399, 413, 414 .2Bernhardy , Id. II. 2 . 382, 409 ; J evons , History ofGreek Literature,p. 2 2 0 . '3 Way, The Tragedies ofEuripides in English Verse, Vol. 1. , Pref.p. 18 .4 Although several passages in Plato (Charmides, 163 ; Meno , 96 ;Gratglus, 384; Protagoras, 341) indicate that Socrates had at tendedsome of the le c tu re s of Prodicus, he may not have been the Sophist sjunior in years. Indeed, according to accepted da tes Prodicus wasthe younger, having been born about 465 B.C., and is even said tohave been a d is c ip le o f Protagoras. However wide may have beenh is earlier reputation for making delicate shades of distinction be-

B


32/218

18 THE THEAETETUS.Of Protagoras Plato has in effect said that he was asincere inquirer into th e nature of virtue and truth,

sought to improve h is fo llowers morally and intellectu-ally, was l istened to eagerly by large numbers, washighly respected by a ll, and was instrumental inopening up a new channel of inquiry. There werefermenting in Athens, however, views subversive ofsound government, such as that the basis of societywas expediency and not divine just ice, and Protagoras,by voicing and in some measure originating these views,unintentionally strengthened the disintegrat ing forces.His opinions re ga rding th e gods have a simlar tend-ency, and h is famous utterance, M an is th e measureof all th ings, must be construed, in spite of wha twould have been h is indignant protest to th e contrary,tween synonyms , he is consistently regarded by Plato as one whohad devo ted h is time to a superfic ia l culture (Laches, 197 ; Ch ar-mides, 163; Protagoras, 314 , 337 , 341, 358; Eulhydemus, 277 ;Meno , 75, 96; Phdedrus , 267; Cratylus, 384; Apology, 19).While the dates of the birth and death of Hippias are uncertain,he is general ly counted as a contemporary of Prod icus . Althoughh is range of knowledge covered physics, ast ronomy, calculation,geometry and music, he is , as far as Plato is concerned, even amore shadowy form than Prodicus, and is gently satirized forfeebleness o f r eflec tion gilded by a full rhetorical style (Protagoras,314, 318, 337; Pluwdrus , 267; Apology, 19).Gorgias arrived at Athens at the head of an embass y in the year

4 2 7 B.C ., when Soc ra tes was thirty-three years old. H e is univer-sally bel ieved to have lived to an extreme age, perhaps more thana century, and to have died some years after the death of Socrates.H e was, therefore, in all likelihood, the senior of Socrates, and mayhave been the senior even of Protagoras. With Protagoras heshares th e h on ou r of furnishing Plato with the name of a dialogue,the Gorgias, in which Plato treats the person of the aged rhetoricianwith a deference, to which h is speculat ive powers, as Plato knew,were not entitled (c f. M e no, 76; Apology, 19; Symposium, 198;Gorg ia s ; Phaedrus , 261, 267; Philebus, 58, 59).


33/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 19as denying th e existence of truth, or at least of ourability to attain to it. But, once again, Protagorasmust be remembered as a man of unblemished moralcharac te r and of high reputation as a thinker andteacher. Though pay was accepted by h im for h isinstruction, an offensive novelty in Athens, it was will-ingly given, since h is pupi ls were practically allowedto fix th e rate. This general judgment requ ires to besubstant iated in detail.The phi losophy of Protagoras may be consideredunder three heads: (a ) His idea of the gods, (b) h is viewof knowledge and reality, and (c ) h is theory of thestate and morality.(a) I. The G o d s in the philosophy of Protagoras.The view of Protagoras concerning the gods may beinferred from the two or three passages in Plato, inwhich h is words have been preserved. The myth in theProtagoras (320, . Once upon a. t ime there were godsonly and no mortal creatures, . . . afterwards man wasth e only one of th e animals who had any gods, becausehe alone was of their kindred) is a story elaboratedwith care and earnestness. It cannot have been writtensimply by way of accommodation to popu lar ideas,but probably represents either an imma tu re fo rm ofProtagoras theology, or an imper fect grasp of it byPlato, or, wha t is more likely than e ithe r a lterna t ive ,a combinat ion of th e two. A more mature expressionof the religious views of Progagoras is to be found in th eTheaetetus, where the Sophist, insisting that no weightwhatsoever can be attac hed to popular belie fs , ho ldsthat th e existence of th e gods, though not impossible,is incapab le of proof. It is, he says (162 D , E), anappeal to vulgar prejudice to make the gods the centreof an a rgument, when their very exis tence is open to


34/218

2 0 THE THEAETETUS.doubt, and any mention of them in speech or writingshould be avoided. The passage in th e Laws (10.889 E),in which the views of various wise men aregiven, to th e effect that the gods exist no t by nature(6a-er) but by art (-rxvy) and by th e laws of states(vdpocc), which are different in different places, accord-ing to the agreement of those who make them, doesnot refer to the Sophists alone, as Zeller seems tothink, but to philosophers at large, some of the Sophistsprobably being of the number. Plato may be thinkingof later t heorizers, ca l led Sophists (o'oza"r&3v 1 r u c a 7 \ o v -iivwv-Laws, 10 . 908 D), who, as is likely, rushed inwith a defin ite a the is tica l doctr ine, where Protagorashad merely refused to accept th e traditional religious T he aoo2, as Zeller cal ls them (P r e -Soc ra tic Ph ilo sophy,

Vol. 1 1 . , note on p. 482 , Alleynes translation), are, in h is view, theSophists. But in the first pla ce, sinc e Plato speaks of them asmaintaining that fire and water and earth and air exist by natureand chance (6aei xa l nix-g, Laws, 10 . 889A, B), he is clearly referringto a wide range of speculators, including Democ ritu s , who ascribethe origin of all things to some kind of matter or some physicalforce. And in th e second place, he cal ls them not a o o 2 butaool d v d p e s (888 E, 890 A , rightly translated by Jowett philo-sophers and wise men ), as though to guard against the notionthat he referred exclusively to the Soph ists , w ho h ad already beenshown by Plato to be a distinct historical school . H e had used thename Sophist, o'ow'r1j$, in h is dia logue of that name, whenana lyz in g th e influence of the Sophist ic teaching as a whole uponphi losophy (Sophist, 2161), 217 A, 2180 , 2330, 241 A, 254 A, B , 26 0 0 ,2 64 D, E, 2680 , D, and many other places, c f. Laws, 10 . 908 D). Inone passage, indeed (Sophist, 2 68 B), Plato expressly asks if theSophist is to be cal led wise or Sophist ic ( a ' o < > w '5 d " 0 l . 0 1 ' t K 6 V ) .Accordingly the use of such a general appellat ion as wise men todescribe a company of thinkers st rengthens the conclus ion drawnfrom the context, that in this passage the Sophists are not ex-clusively or even conspicuously in Platos mnd, and that Protagorasis not in h is mind at all,


35/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 21faith. In a ddition to th e foregoing direct referencesh is well-known dictum, M an is the measure of allthings, may fairly be taken to exclude th e gods asan available standard of truth and right. All that weknow positively from Plato of th e Sophists theologyis that, though he had broken away from the acceptedbelie fs , and regarded proof of the existence of th e godsas impossible, he, in the absence of positive views ofh is own, upon occas ion res ts , if not on popular religiousideas, at least on popular religious feeling.II. Platos Griticism. At the time when Plato(Republ ic , 2 . 373 foll.) found fault with th e poets forre pre senting the gods as doing evil and as change-able, he was still to o much in sympathy with popu larreligious conceptions to propose anything more than

their reform. But as h is speculat ive idea of th egods as Gods of Gods 6 (Timaeus, 4 1 A), and as thesoul of the universe (Laws, 10 . 896B, 1 - 5 > v woiwrwv1 r , o e a - , 3 u 1 - o i- n ; the eldest of all things ) grew moreclear, h is judgment of the established religion wasmodified in a " two-fold way. H e ceased to think thata reform of current opinions was possible or desirable,saying with pretended seriousness that , since of th eother (i.e. the recognized) divinities nothing could beknown, th e statements of th e men of old time mustsimply be taken on faith ( - r r e z a - r e ' o v , Timaeus, 40D) .He did not hesitate openly to contrast the gods ofpopular opinion (oi Karel vdpov 5 1 / ' r e Qeol) with thet rue gods. In th e second place, maintaining that inits consciousness of God th e mind of man attained itshighest expression, he dwelt on the idea that manwas th e most religious of animals ( O e o a - e , B e ' a - - r a - r o v a d v - 6o"n irolrrwv gaiwv c z ' i / Q p w v r o c , Laws, IO. 902B; Timdeus

See Mr. Archer Hinds Timaeus, p. 137, note.


36/218

2 2 THE THEAETETUS.4 1 A), and counted h is phi losophy a s th e ally of theancient tradition (Tip vrahaup 1 / o , u q v ir lxovpov, Laws,10 . 890D and B).It is not diflicult to s e e the connect ion of Platosreligious phi losophy with that of Protagoras. Platorecognizes th e difference between popular myth andthe religious consciousness, ou t of which th e mythsprings, and is able to turn away from the onewhile vindicating the other. Protagoras, seeing nodifference between th e two, is led to regard th econsciousness of God as unreal, or, a t least, as of nopract i ca l significance. Whether Plato himself under-stood h is relation to Protagoras in this way, he hasleft behind no direct criticism of h is predecessor,unless it be by implication in the striking remark(Laws, 4 . 7160), God ought to be to us th e measureof all th ings, and not man, as men commonly say.Th is substitution of God for man in the widely-known sentence of Protagoras contains in brief com-Dpass the whole d iffe rence between Pro tagoras and Plato.(b) I. Knowledge and Reality in the Phi losophyof Protagoras. A careful reader of th e Theaetetuswill d is tin gu is h two ways in wh ic h P la to treats theph ilo sophy o f Protagoras: (1) by quota tion fromrecognized sayings and writings; and (2) by referenceto doctr ines of a school looking to Protagoras as itsfounder. These two ways o f tre atment are broadlyconnected with two distinct cr i t ic isms of the saying, M an is the measure of all th ings. When P la totakes this s ta tement to mean that each mans opinionsare t rue for him, employing th e words seeming(doxeiv) and opinion (dcifa), he makes use of eitherth e exact words of Protagoras or of a direct paraphrase.When he attac ks the doctr ine that percept ion


37/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 2 3( a i ' a ' 9 r 1 o ' t s ) is knowledge, and connects it with th e be-comng ('y1"yveo'9az, Theaetetus, 157A) of Heraclitus,he has before h im the development of th e c entra l ideaof Protagoras made by later Sophists. O n th e oneside the remarks of Plato are of this charac ter : H e(i.e. Protagoras) says that man is th e measure of allth ings, . . . Have you never read that? (152A); As Protagoras says (160 C); Let us seek to ext rac tthe admission from the theory itself (170A), thisla st remark introducing a carefu l considerat ion of th esayings of Protagoras regarding th e value of eachmans opinion. O n th e other side the references ofPlato are as follows: You have given in other wordsth e theory of Protagoras (152A); P rota gora s andh is school (154B); Protagoras or somebody else (1540); Views which we are asc ribing to P ro tago ra s(155E); according to th e wise, that is , as the con-text shows, the philosophers from Home r downwards(1 57 B); those who say (158E); the disciples ofProtagoras [ they in the original] (172B); thetheory set up on behal f of Protagoras (179 D); th edisciples of Heraclitus (17 9 D). T hese ph rases areconsistent ly used when Plato is exam in ing the doc trinethat each mans sensation is for him the sole reality.At once th e important point is made c lear that wha tpasses for the sensational phi losophy of the Sophistsis propounded not by Protagoras but by men callingthemselves and called by Plato disciples of Protagoras.At this stage in our discussion we are not concernedwith the later Soph is tic ph ilo sophy, but have to seesimply wha t is the view of Protagoras, and what isPlatos criticism.The kerne l of the phi losophy of P rotagoras isth e re fo re to be found in the sentence already al luded


38/218

2 4 THE THEAETETUS.to (152 A), Man is the measure of all th ings, ofthings that are ( judging) that they are, and of thingsthat are not ( judging) that they are not. (irdvrwvXpnpdrwv ps"'rpov c z ' : / Q p w v r o v , "rdiv pbv 6'1/rwv d a g : e ' a " r z , Tdivd ie , u . i 7 6'1/'rwv t b s mix 'o"ru/.) The word judging, insertedin this extract , is used by Protagoras himself in asecond careful ly worded statement, Of what is I amthe judge (xprrric) that it is, and of wh at is not that itis not (160 c ). From these two passages, almostidentical in wording, it can be understood thatProtagoras in h is spec ula tions reta ined th e popu la rdistinction between reality and unreality, al though atth e same t ime holding that th e existence of realthings or the non-existence of unrea l th ings wasbound up with th e individuals judgment. The blend-in g of these two elements : (a) the fixed distinctionbetween existence and non-existence, and (b) th edeterminat ion of existence or non-existence by th ejudgment or opinion o f the individual, gives us theunique quality of the metaphysic of Protagoras.

' In th e two passages just quoted all possible objectsof t hough t or opinion are divided into those which areand those which are not, and of those which are theindividual judges that they are, and of those which arenot that they are not. Nowhere is it said that theindividual concerning things that are judges that theyare not, o r conce rning things that are not judges thatthey are. In these cases, whe th er th e thing did or didnot exist, or whether the individual was or was not ameasure, Protagoras would not have dec ided, sincene ithe r a lte rna tive would have completely expressedh is mind. When, elsewhere (167 A), he grants thatsome sensations are better th an others, as heal th isbetter ( d , u . e z ' v w v ) than sickness, and that some people


39/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 25are worse than others (vrowypd E f z s ) , he admits that atleast in pract i ca l matters th e s ubje ctive sta te is notabsolu te , and that th e su bjec t must adjust himself toth e object. And the speculat ive side of the problem,though not dwelt upon by h im , must have been metby the same compromise. H e thus leaves room for adifference between object of opinion and opinion,between object of percept ion and perception. Hencesuch a phrase as perception of reality ( a i ' a ' 9 r ; a ' z ' Toiib ' | / 1 ' 0 5 , 152 0), instead of the strict equation per-cept ion =reality, is characterist ic , putting, as it does,the new wine into th e old bottles, carrying forwardth e accepted distinction be tween exis tence and non-existence into th e new theory that wha t seems to betrue fo r the individual is true for him. It belongsto th e width, if not th e depth, of th e thought ofProtagoras that he c ou ld ignore neither of theseelements.But these elements, in the manner of their blending,occupy places as different as are the foreground andbackground of a picture. The hostility of Protagorasto current habits of t hough t is dwelt on by Plato, and

fully acknowledged by Protagoras h imself. P la to, afterhaving expounded th e sta tement that knowledge isperception, goes on to complete it (157 E) by showingthat th e recognized dist inct ions between dreams andwaking, madness and sanity, the sensations of animalsand those of man, are ignored by Protagoras. TheSoph ist replies that these dist inct ions are withoutvalue, because they are based on th e manner in whichwords and names a re used by th e multitude (oi 1 _ r o > \ 7 \ o l ) .In customary usage (avwifleia, 168 B), says Protagoras,words have no fixed meaning , and are twisted to suitthe occasion. This scorn of current prejudice and lack


40/218

2 6 THE THEAETETUS.of thought , acknowledged by Plato to be in a measurelegit imate, is with Protagoras a sett led convict ion.In this matter Protagoras was in partial accord withh is illustrious contemporaries Euripides and Socrates.

Of the indifference of Euripides to public opinion,critics mght easily have said-

Cold hater of his kindA sea-cave suits him, not the vulgar hearth ! 7

and of Socrates h is accusers maintained that he cor-rupted th e Athenian youth by h is innovations (Apology,2 3 D). In th e case of both poet and thinker, criticand accuser tell only half the story. Neither Euri-pides nor Socrates, it is t rue, accepted at any time thepopu lar opinion that truth and justice were a matterof authority. But wha t moved Euripides, not only a tth e last but all through h is strenuous career, was aconstruct ive idea of the gods and human life, and th eunparal leled search of Socrates was the search fortruth. Underneath their very condemnation of th eideas in vogue lay the belief that the thing condemnedhad its roots in a reality of which the people a t large,th ough they had no c lear knowledge, had a sense.Not after all to prove that the popu lar notions wereutter folly, but to justify this hidden sense, was theirfinal achievement. H ence the Nemesis, which bringsth e extreme critic of prevailing notions and faithsback, like neighbour Pliable, to the commonplaces"Browning, Aris tophanes Apology, ll. 283 -4 ; compare the wordsof th e hero Hippolytus :

I have no skill to speak before a throng;My tongue is loosed with equals, and tho se few.And reason : they that a re among the wiseO f none account , to mobs are eloquent.

Euripides, Hippolytus, Ways translation, Vol. 1., p. 171,11. 986-989.


41/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 2 7from which he set out, never overtook them. ButProtagoras was hardly so fortunate. In h is hostilityto so-cal led popu lar prejudices, he was lack ing ininsight, and, as an inevitable retribution, he was foundto retain, without essential modifica tion, the posit ionof those whom he contemned. Th is is th e secondelement of h is phi losophy, what we have called thebackground of th e pic ture.Th is feature he unwittingly retains alongside of theobtrusive theory that each man was th e measure ofh is own reality. Unlike that of Euripides andSocrates, h is theory is, therefore, not a reconstruct ionbut a compromise. Of this compromise he may havebeen dimly conscious, if he ever connected h is refusalto inquire into th e existence of th e gods with h istheory of knowledge and reality. H e, assailed, a s wereSocrates and P la to, by political and eth ica l questionsof serious magnitude, and feeling keenly the inade-quacy of the old standards, may have thought thatspeculat ion on th e na tu re of existence in general wasuntimely and unprofitable. H e may have thought thatulterior questions could wait till more immediatehuman concerns had been readjusted or recast. Per-haps there was in h is mind a chamber, which hefound himself unable to unloc k . Of the gods andreality he did not say, They are not, no they arenot! but rather with Sir Bors, Ask me not, for Imay not speak of it! H e may, in point of fact , haveaccepted the word used by Democ ritus , the wordhidden, uncertain, to describe the nature of thisoutlying reality. We must say, asserts Democr i tus,either that nothing is t rue, or that it [the truth] isbeyond our ken (ddqkov, Aristotle, Metaphysics, III. 5.1009b). But apar t from these high themes, admt-


42/218

2 8 THE THEAETETUS.ting, as Protagoras thought , of no solution, and in theregion of every-day pract i ca l thinking and act ing, th eonly fixed standard of reality, which seemed to him torise out of th e general decay of enthus iasms and fai ths,was the opinion of the individual. Against the in-heri ted and outworn creeds, to which the people stillclung, he set up the free, d irec t , un trammelled contactof the individual with reality. In such free contact ,call it opinion (-rd doxoiivra), call it perception (rd(/)au/d,u.ei/a), there is truth (Arist. Metaph. III. 5. 1009 a).So Protagoras, changing the sentence of Democr i tus tosuit himself, may have said that if th e immedia te per -cept ion is not truth, th e truth remains concealed.II. Platos Criticism. Of this doctrine Platosest imate is a t once sympathet ic and critical. O n theone hand he neither confuses Protagoras with Pro -tagoreans, nor enters th e lists against him in behal fof common-sense. O n the other hand, he sees in thistheory th e source of later Sophist ic doctrines, and alsofinds it necessary to ana lyz e common opinion, and toappeal to a feature of it which was overlooked byProtagoras. By referring to dreams, madness and thesensations of animals (157E, 1610) , Plato first of allmakes conspic uous th e c ollis io n between th e theoryof P rotagoras and common opinion, since, accordingto common opinion, dreaming and madness are mani-festly false, while according to Protagoras they aretrue. P la to, of course, believes with Protagoras thattruth is not a matter of agreement, and that th epeople have no better proofs for their convict ions thanprobability and conjecture ( 1 - o eixdc 162 E). IndeedAristotle assigns to Protagoras th e merit of havingdismissed th e resort to th e majority as the means ofdiscovering the truth (Metaph. III. 5. 1009b) . At th e


43/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 2 9same t ime, as Plato means to suggest, even though abelief be merely conjectural , it does not cease to be afactor in public opinion. Arguments, based on th enature of the individuals opinion, must, if they are tobe complete and consistent, reckon with belief or pro-bability. In the speech of Protagoras, which comes atthis juncture (162 D, 165 E fi . ) , Plato makes th epoint that Protagoras unconsciously falls back on theaccepted standards. Some are wiser than others,a dm its th e Soph is t ; health is better than sickness,and sickly ( v r o w y p o i z ) sensat ions (167 B) should beremoved as well from men as from plants. Again, in apassage which is meant as a partial justification ofProtagoras, h is pecul iar phrase, conjunct view ( 1 - oicon/ii dcifav, 17 2 B), coupling, as it does, opinion andconvention, and thus binding together each mansopinion and th e common belief, itself proves that theseparat ion of these two factors of consciousnessdeprives both of their meaning. Further, as th edistinction between the expedient and the just isprobably an express part of h is t hough t (172 A), it a tonce follows that , even according to h is own state-ments, th e opinion of the individual, though successfulagainst the traditional concept ion of th e just andsacred, is not equal ly successful against the conjointpract i ca l wisdom.

Plato, in the next place, deepens h is criticism byshowing how in the very terms of the proposit ion thatwhat seems to each man to be true is for him true isconcealed the resort to a cou r t outside of th e opinionof the individual (170 A). The opinion of th e sickman may be that the phys ic ian s opinion of the diseaseis of more value than h is own. The opinion of anycasua l person may be that the theory of Protagoras is


44/218

30 THE THEAETETUS.not true. In legislation only those, so it is widelysaid, who are t rained to weigh slight indications, canventure to map ou t the wisest course. Not everyindividual, himself being th e judge, but th e phys ic ian,the thinker, or th e statesman is a measure. Withinth e opinion of th e individual is embedded th e beliefin some regulative truth. Hence th e theory of Pro-tagoras lies between Scyl la and Oharybdis. Eitherth e individuals opinion is right or it is wrong, and inneither case is it th e standard of reality. If it isright, th e individual, by h is own confession, is not themeasure of all things; if it is wrong, then plainly th eques tion fa lls .Gaining the explicit approval of Aristotle (Metaph.III. 5. 1010b ), P la to p uts th e same argument in anotherway, when he in troduces the examinat ion of wha t isfuture (178 A). In all the pract i ca l sciences, arts andexper iencesmedic ine, cookery, music, legislation andgardeningit can be said that th e special case is tosuch a degree an exemplificat ion of a general habit ,that the skilled workman can safely make predictionswhere the ordinary man is at a loss. H ere thepract i ca l scientific judgment is appealed to, and italone is by every-day opinion not only admitted butasserted to be the sole measure. Again, therefore, thecrux appears. Is every-day opinion right or wrong insubmtting itself to th e opinion of the experienced?Whatever be the answer to the question, th e theory ofProtagoras is by it dismissed.The net re su lt o f Platos t reatment of Protagoras isclear. H e says in effect: You appeal, Portagoras, tocommon opinion; unto common opinion we shal l go,and in it he finds th e very prejudices, conjectures,surmises and faiths, which P rotagora s h ad sought to


45/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 31abolish. The experiences, which Protagoras hadthought to be simple, turn ou t to be complex.Towards this complex mater ia l e i ther of two d iffe ren tatt i tudes may be taken. O n th e one hand, th e u nder-lying convict ions may be ignored, and the abstrac tremainder may be cal led th e measure of reality, acourse followed naturally enough by th e Protagoreans)who set up the momentary sense-impression as th esole truth. O n the other hand, the attempt maybe made to interpret th e faith of common-sense, andin that way to show that the existence of a universalreality is compatible with the claims of reason. Thiswas th e work of Plato.( c ) Protagoras and th e State. T h e view ofProtagoras concerning th e state is two-fold: (1) a s toits origin, and (2) as to its nature.(1) In the elaborate myth (Protagoras, 32 0 0 , foll.),which bears evidence of being a faithful transcript of

h is words, Pro tago ras g ives a sketch of the historicalorigin of the state. Human beings, we are told, hada t the outset no political sense, and lived in isola-tion; but, h aving th e arts pec ulia r to Athene andHephaistos, they framed a language, built houses, madeclothes, shoes and beds, tilled th e soil, and finally, inorder to save themselves from the a ttac ks of wild

8 Platos criticism of the Protagoreans is g iven below in chap te r iii.9 A common language implies at least the care and instruction ofoffspr ing, and, t he re fore , accord ing toAristotle (Politics, 1 . 2 . 1252b ;1 . 11. 1259b; Ethics, VIII. 12), and even Protagoras himself (Pro-tagoras, 3250) , some form of government. But, further, th e forma-tion of a common language mus t have requi red an intimate andextensive in te rcou rse between the famlies said to be scattered(Aristotle, Politics, 1 . 1253a). Protagoras does not for a momentsuggest that, when famlies came together for protection, thespeech of one was unintelligible to another.


46/218

32 THE THEAETETUS.animals, gathered into c ities. There, however, theyacted with injustice towards one another (rjdllcovv d 7 \ 7 \ 1 -X o u s , 322 B), and, thinking that the danger of beingkilled by wild beasts was less than the danger of unjusttrea tm ent a t th e hands of their fe l low-men, proceededto disperse once more, their l ives thus running th eimmnent hazard of being, as Hobbes with a simlarconcept ion said, Soli tary, poor and short . At thisjuncture, Zeus, fearing that th e human race wouldutterly perish , sent to them Hermes with the gifts ofregard for others and just ice ( a i d c b c re Kai dim), 322 0),by means of wh ich an orderly political existence wasfirmly secured.Th is tale, if we set aside its religious character,which has already been a lluded to (page 19), andignore its inconsistencies, may be made to read thatpolitical unity is necessary, not merely to mans h igher

1 With all their spec ia lized mechan ica l skill they were unab le toforge a weapon to defend themselves against the at tacks of wildbeasts , s ince , according to Protagoras, self-defence belongs to theart of war ( 1 r o > \ e p . u c ~ h rxvn), which was a part of the missing art ofgovernment ( 1 r o > \ | . 1 ' u c i 7 rxvn).1 1 The phrase, acted with injustice towards one another, admtsof several interpretations. (a ) Itmay mean simply that justice wasabsent, so that the acts of the aborigines, who on this supposi t ionhad no sense of justice, and, consequent ly , no sense of injustice,would by a civilized onlooker be cal led unjust. (b) These primitivepeople may have been regarded by Protagoras as accusing oneanother of unjust behaviour; in which case he would unwittinglybe assuming the presence in them of the very virtue which Zeus hadnot as yet bestowed. O r (c ) P rotago ra s may have meant that therewas in their minds a consciousness of justice or general fairnessbefore th e gift by Zeus of the art of government. He would then beseeking for th e distinction clearly drawn by Aristotle (Ethics, V . 5)between justice as general fairness and justice as illegality. But itis a lmost useless to look for any definite meaning in this vaguestory. -


47/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 33well-being, but even to h is very existence, and thatth e bond of union between men is just ice.(2) The theory that justice was th e foundation-stone of political life, was p ro ba bly no t c onsis te ntlymaintained by Protagoras th roughout the course of h isspeculations. In th e Theaetetus, in which h is riperviews as to th e basis of society find brief expression

(167 0 , 17 2 A), a distinction is drawn between just iceor law on one side and expediency on th e other. H ethere contends that th e state could not be based onany so-cal led universal just ice, since the only just icewhich could be conceived was variable and created bymen. A thing was just and fair to the state so longas th e state continued to think it to he just and fair.But justice varied not only as between one city andanother, but, also, for the city itself, with every changein its laws, and laws changed according" to the will ofth e law-makers. P ure capr ice and anarchy suggestthemselves to th e modern critic a s the upshot of thisdoctrine, but no such thought was present to the mindof Protagoras, who recognized that th e la w, h oweverunwise it may be, is binding on all th e c itiz ens of th estate whose la w it is , so long as it is a law, and, also,that th ere remains th e principle of expediency (-roa-u,ae'pov), which fo r him is essential ly social. As itis often difficult to determ ine th e most expedientcourse, -the art of Rhetor i c should be cultivated bypublic men, not to undermine socia l morality, but, onth e contra ry, more effec t ively to commend to th e bodyof th e c itiz ens th e wisest plan of public and privateact ion. Although Protagoras, in th us c hampioningexpediency, argues that th e honourable (xahci) andshameful (aicrxpci) , the just (dircaza) and unjust (dduca),that which is and is not sacred ( b ' c r z a ml , u . fi ) are con-

o


48/218

34 THE THEAETETUS.stituted by the special regulations of each city, and arebinding only on its cit izens, he is far from holdingthat there is no distinction between just ice and in-just ice, right and wrong. In fact, the main argumentof Protagoras in th e Theaetetus is that th e Sophistmust exer t himself all th e more actively to change th eworse into the better, because justice and injust ice arewha t th e city makes them. When laws are seen todepend on human insight, it is wise that men shoulddeliberate with care. Of course to magnify th e officeof th e rhetor ic ian is to cast su spic ion upon the in-tuitions of th e average cit izen. The critic of th eSophists, taking h is stand upon the sufficiency ofcur rent opinion, mght argue that they sought toover throw all morality, and make th e worse causeappear the better. But Platos implied criticism ofProtagoras was of a different nature.In th e de sc rip tion given by Protagoras of the

beginning of a state there may already be observedthe rudiments of a distinction, which was soon tobecome so prominent a phase of the political ideas ofthe Sophists, and not of them only, but of many Greekand modern th inkers, the contrast , namely, of thecondit ion of man in a state with h is condit ion beforeentering a state. As ye t the contrast is wholly infavour of th e life political, but increase of travel, thegrowth of maritime trade, th e venality of demagogues,who set themselves up as statesmen, and th e presencein Athens of an expanding foreign populat ion, whoeither had lost respect for every city, or, like th eLaconizers 1 2 mentioned by P la to (Protagoras, 34 2 B;

1 2 In Athens the Laconizers were c itiz e ns who openly s ympath iz e dwith the customs and form of government of her rival and enemy,Spar ta , ch ie f city of Laconia.


49/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 35Gorgias, 515 E), were adherents of an order of societyand form of government, difl'ering more or less deeplyfrom the order under which theyl ived,these influences,of whose d issolven t cha rac te r Plato was well aware,caused th e p endu lum to swing in th e other direction,and th e condit ion of nature was more and moreglowingly depicted as against wha t were called th econvent ions of th e ci ty-state. Another considerablefactor in this t ransformation was th e th eory, so gene-rally entertained amongst th e Greeks, that the artof gove rnment, now beg inning to fall into disrepute,was the only socia l bond. Thus Protagoras, naivelyignoring th e complex communi ty of interests prevai l ingin th e condit ion of so-cal led d is pe rs ion and hostility,relies upon explicit political cont rac t or agreement a salone able to hold society together. When, therefore,th e method of government was shown to be unworthyof support , th e whole social fabric was t hough t to beshaken to its foundat ion. Th is th eory, underlying, aswe may say, the myth of Protagoras, paved the wayfor the later advocacy of the condit ion of nature.The explicit rejection of law or convention ( r / o ' , u . o s ) in favour o f nature ( ( 1 ) 6 0 - r s ) is put into themouth not of Protagoras but of Glaucon (Republic, 2 .358 Eff.) and of Callicles (Gorgias, 4 81 E). Glaucon,a disciple of Socrates, takes up for th e nonce th e argu-ment of th e Soph ist T h ra symachus, and shows what it,in h is belie f, invo lves. The state, h e says, is inter-mediate between th e best life, in which a man is ableto commi t injustice without suffering injury in return,and the worst life, in which he suffers injust ice withoutth e power to retaliate. Seeing that they had smal l

1 3 See the arguments of G lau con and Adeimantus in the secondbook of the Republ ic .

\


50/218

36 THE THEAETETUS.chance of attaining the best, and were in danger ofexperiencing th e worst, men made covenants or agree-ments ( < ' r v r / Q i j lc a s ) with one another, by virtue of whicheach withheld h imself from all attempts to secure th ebest life, on condit ion that all others did the same.This theory, propounded by Glaucon, may readi ly bededuced from the sentence of Thrasymachus thatjustice is th e interest of the stronger ( 1 - o 1 - o i ?Icper"r'rovos o'v,u.(j)e'pov, Republic, I. 338 C). As somemen are by na tu re stronger or abler than others,whosoever is stronger insists that he shal l have wha the wants; others, to save themselves from harm, fallin with h is desire; and th e name of justice is given tothe working arrangement agreed to by all part ies.Not only Thrasymachus (Republic, 344 A) but Polus(Gorgias, 470 0 ff), .therefore, was prepared to considerthe tyrant the happiest of men, however far h is actsmay have been opposed to the ideas of justice embodiedin th e laws of existing states.The names of Thrasymachus and Call icles justifythe conclusion that th e theory of compact was formu-la ted by th e later Sophists. Thrasymachus, a s isgeneral ly believed, was younger than Socrates. Theplan of the Gorgias, a c co rd ing to which P lato c r itic izesGorgias, Polus, and Callicles with dimnishing leniency,forbids our ascribing to Gorgias the statements madeby Callicles.

1 As Call ic les (Gorgias, 483 D) uses th e words stronger ( 1 - b uKpelrrw), more powerful ( - r o w ovva-rdrrepov) and abler ( - r o w d/ulvw) todescribe the ruler, it may be concluded that fitness to rule waslargely, although not wholly, determined by physica l force.

1 Zeller himself (Pre-Soc ra tic Ph i losophy, 1 1 . , p. 476) speaks of th edistinction between nature and law as a favourite theorem oflater Sophist ic ethics. An interesting accoun t of Sophist ic politicsis to be found in Newmans The Poli t ics ofAristotle, 1., pp. 386-392.


51/218

PLATO AND PROTAGORAS. 37A third reference to the contrast between law andnature is to be found in th e Laws (10. 889 1 ) ) , whereth e concep tion of the priority of nature is said to benot only widely accepted (rrapd ' r r o 7 \ 7 \ _ o i s , 888 E), butalso of long s tand ing ( 1 r c i 7 \ a r , 890 B). The contextshows that the words of long standing refer no t tosupporters of. th e theory that the state is based onconvention, but to earlier cosmological philosophies, onwhich, according to Plato, th e th eory of a politicalcont rac t was founded. The philosophies which say thatsome element or some combinat ion of elements or theunion of atoms with force is the primary reality, and

that th e h uman consciousness in all its manifestationsis derivative, are indirectly responsible for the notionthat the sta te is a mere art ifice or convention. LaterSophists, advocat ing the inferiority of law, may haveappealed in this way to all th e ancients " 1 6 (Aristotle,Soph. El. 12 ) in suppor t of their doctr ine.Platos Criticism. (i.) Although Plato, in con-sidering th e soph is tic concept ion of th e origin of - thestate, is thinking not of Protagoras but of laterSophists, h is posit ion may be a t least indicated. H e

virtually accuses the Sophists of confounding twodifferent meanings of th e term r / d , u . 0 s , namely, lawand convention. H e would not have been anenthusiastic fo l lower of Socrates, had he not, quitea s completely a s th e Sophists, rejected th e guidance ofcustom. The Republic was written under the con-viction that the prevailing forms of government,

. 1 It is highly probable that Aristotle in this place has inmnd thepassage of the Laws a lluded to in the text, and that th e words allthe ancients (ol dpxaior 6 % 1 r d v ' r e ' s ) have, therefore, their naturalmeaning, and do not, as Zeller thinks (P re -Soc ra tic Ph i losophy , 11.,479 , note), refer chiefly to Sophist ic rhetor ic ians.


52/218

38 THE THEAETETUS.whe th er o liga rc h y, democracy or tyranny, were allless or more defe ctive, and that a clean sweep wouldhave to be made of political social usages, if a truestate was to be formed. At th e same t ime Plato, incondemning custom, did not condemn a common sociallife, and, in admtting th e worthlessness of convent ion,did not admt the worthlessness of law. M en cometogether in a state, he said, because no one is self-sufficing (arr:-dpxnr, Republ ic, 2 . 369 B , c f. Aristotle,Polit ics, 1 . 2 . 1253 A , 14) , and law he regarded as ofdivine sanct ion (Laws, 1. 624 A). The term nature,which th e Soph ists h ad opposed to every form ofv c i ) u o s , Plato opposes to c onvention only. So far is hefrom acceding to th e idea that nature is opposed tola w that he affirms one to have much th e samemeaning as the other. H e couples opinion (dfa), foresight ( e w - q u e ' 7 \ e r a ) , mind ( v o i / ' 9 ) , and art ( " r e ' x w 7 ) ,with law (v6,uor) as qualit ies of the soul, andconcludes that th e soul, when thus interpreted, may ina special sense ( c l r a c ] > e p o ' v ~ r w s ~ ) be said to exist bynature ( c p i i a - e r ) (Laws, 10 . 892 0). The Sophists,accept ing from earlier philosophies th e distinctionbetween man and nature, involved in th e doctr ine thatnature existed before man, had agreed that wha t wasprior in t ime was higher in reality. They then applythis argument to th e growth of th e state. Plato,unwilling to admt that man is separa te from nature,or that nature could a t any stage cease to be nature,reinterprets th e idea of nature by means of th eprinciple that wha t comes out of nature must insome sense have been in it always. By associatingwith nature such terms as foresight, mind, and art, all of which imply purpose or design, he means thatnature is that towards which th ings move, as well


53/218

PLATO A-ND PROTAGORAS. 39as th e starting-point of things. H e suggests thatth e point towards which the universe moves, th e pur -pose or design of th e universe, was present in th euniverse a t the outset, and originated its movements.The state or law would thus be more natural thannature itself, as th ey wou ld be fulfilments of nature.This conception of nature was put simply anddirectly by Aristotle in h is union of nature and th estate through th e idea of end ( 1 - e ' > \ o s * , Polit ics, I. 1.1252b , 8 ff.). In oppos ition to th e Sophists, who hadmaintained that nature was of h igher validity thanlaw, Aristotle says that na tu re must be understood a s end or complet ion ( 2 ) 3 % q i n i a - 1 9 1-hor a - 1 - i v ) . Whennature is so defined, the state, a s th e fulfilment of theindividual, is seen to be one of th e th ing s wh ic h existby nature ( 1 - 6 3 v tea 1 ) 1 | - o 7 \ r g ~ eari) and man is seen tobe by nature, that is by destiny, a political animal( < / > r 5 o - e r ' r r o 7 \ n - u c o v gqiov). As " complet ion is present inthe thing at the beginning, and is the final cause of theth ing, end and beginning are really one, and th eopposition between nature and the state or la w dis-appears." ' (ii.) In h is treatment of just ice Protagoras uses thearguments afterwards employed more e ffe c tive ly by

Aristotle to prove that virtue is a habit or mora l state(efrs, Ethics, 1 1 . , chaps. 1-4) . Aristotle thinks that themoral state is rightly visited with praise or blame forthe reason that it involves deliberate purpose andtraining, and is not imp lan ted in us by nature ( c p r i a - e r ) .Protagoras also said that the virtue o f ju s tic e was notgiven by natu re ( c p i i a - e r ) but acquired by study (drdaxrdv),

1 " Hel leu ica, 6 collection of Essays edited by EvelynAbbott, con-tains a valuable study by Mr. A. O. Bradley, of Aristotles concep-tion of the state (pp. 181-243).


54/218

4 0 THE THEAETETUS.and that th e fact of punishment was proof of th eculpable lack of just ice in vicious men. In th e secondplace, Aristotle recognizes that , al though virtue isacquired by pract ice, the capac i ty for virtue is im-planted by nature. Protagoras, who neither has at h iscommand Aristotles valuable conceptions of capac i tyand realization, nor feels any deep need to harmonizeh is statements, nevertheless affirms that justice is aquality of which all men are par takers ; otherwise thestate could not exist (Protagoras, 323 A). Plato, too,while maintaining that the existence of th e statedepends on th e possession of justice by all classesof persons in th e state, by every child and woman,every slave, freeman and art izan, by ruler and subject(Republic, 4 . 433 1 ) ) , ye t insists that a special trainingis required of that class, whose distinctive virtue isprudence in counsel or wisdom ( e r 3 , 8 o v 7 \ r ' a , o'o(/)ia, Id.4 . 428 B). Hence in this matter Plato and Aristotlemay be said to have completed and simplifiedthe suggestions of Protagoras. The Sophist, as hegradual ly lost faith in th e adequacy of the opinions ofthe multitude, emphasized more and more pointedlythe study of Rhetor i

the theaetetus of plato - s.w. dyde

Documents