Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Classical Review
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Classical Review
APRIL 1896.
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
130 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
portion ofindependent
recourse to the wholly the Parmenides to one in five,
test
style and diction (not
the same ofascribed
with that course to t
by me in 1867
neglect of any more substantial eviden
to the Euthydemus.3
which a further examination of the two dia- In what remains of this paper I shall
logues might disclose). In bringing theassume the general correctness of that
subject of diction to a point I drew uparrangement
a of the dialogues according to
list of genuine dialogues, showing the pro-which the Sophistes, Politicus and Philebus
portion of words which a page of each ofwith the Timaeus Critias and Laws form
them (in the edition of Stephanus) con- the latest group, while the Phaedrus and
Theaetetus belong to the middle period of
tained that were 'common and peculiar' to
it with three dialogues that were con- which the Republic was the central work:
the rest, with some doubtful and unim-
fessedly later than the Republic, viz. the
Timaeus, Critias and Laws. In this list the portant exceptions, such as the Menexenus,
being relegated to the earlier time. The
Parmenides held a low place, having only
about one such word in seven pages (or, toproofs of this position have been long
accumulating and, though often ignored,
speak more exactly, six words in the forty-
and even laughed to scorn, are easily
one pages (St.) of which the dialogue con-
sists). I said at the time, however, thataccessible to scholars. I do not wish like
this proportion, in the case of the Parme-
Thrasymachus to thrust my argument do
nides, was due to 'exceptional circum- unwilling throats. I will only call atten
stances'; and Mr. W. W. Waddell in his tion to one topic which has not yet b
sufficiently noticed in this connexion, v
elaborate edition of the dialogue, inquires,
' What circumstances I' This question hasthe character of the vocabulary which
been to some extent answered in my Essayshared with the Laws by the other lat
dialogues. The un-Attic words,4 taken
on the Structure of the Republic etc., but
connexion with the introduction of the
I am surprised that so careful a student of
the Parmenides should ask it. For a Eleatic stranger, of Timaeus from Locri
writing which deals almost exclusively Epizephyrii,
withHermocrates the Syracusan,
high abstractions in the severest Megillus
way; the
from Spartan, Cleinias the Cretan,
which accordingly all rhetorical, poetical,
and with the scene of the last dialogue in the
neighbourhood of Cnossus in Crete, appear
ethical, political, physical,1 cosmological,
psychological2 terms, as well to
as justify
words a threefold
of inference; (1) Plato
had travelled;
common life are banished, is really incom- (2) he had become increas-
mensurable in this respect alike
inglywith the
familiar with pan-Hellenic literature;
Republic and the Laws, and much SFor more so
the convenience of the reader, I copy here
with the Phaedrus. To compare it the
without with
numbers the order in which the dia-
them is like comparing two works
logues come un-
out, when tried by this single test, viz.
doubtedly attributable to the the
same proportion of words common and peculiar to
period
of that versatile author, Lewis Carroll,--
them
Legg. with the group consisting of -Tim. Critia,
the Hunting of the Snark and the1.Evaluation
Polit. 2. Soph. Polit. (in one). 3. Phaedr.
of Ir. 4. Soph. 5. Rep. 6. Menex. 7. Phaedo. 8.
The six words which are 'common and Symp. 9. Philebus. 10. Ion. 11. Theaetetus.
Cratylus.
peculiar' to the Parmenides with the group
Protag.
consisting of Tim. Critia, Legg. are:--12. Laches. 13.Apologu.
Euthyphro. fEuthydemu
14. Parmenide
* 8UaZjLeXTO, Parm. Critia, Legg. Lysis. Gorgias.
* or7lov, Parm. Legg. 15. Crito (misprinted 'Critias' in the editio
Soph. Polit.). 16. Hippias Minor. 17. Meno.
t? Trac/yLLEyOs, Parm. Legg. I. Alcibiades. 19. Charmides.
The one thing proved so far is the close affinity of
t /cpLporT, Parm. Tim. Soph. Polit. to the latest group. These dialogues
f phvWS, Parm. Tim.
are shown by these and other signs to divide the
t cravsvo, Parm. Tim. Legg. Republic from the Laws. The Phaedrus from its
If we separate pp. 126-138 from 138--
exuberance takes a higher place than of right
166 we get the following result:-- belongs to it. The same is true in a less degree of
1. 3in 12 = j. the Symposium. On the other hand the Philebus
2. 4in28 =}. and Parmenides, and to a less extent the Theaetetus
And if to these six words are added the and Sophistes stand lower in this list than they
would if tried by other considerations. Both
adverbial use of 'erov in o'ov arrXELv" (Parm.
friendly and unfriendly critics have unfairly treated
this quarter of a page as if it represented the whole
Tim. Critia) and the adverb ravro8arr7,
of we
my argument, which extends over twenty-seven
get a sum of eight words, raising the pro-
1 Except y4VEols and ickEvrss.
pages.
aI may call special attention to the use of ?r4cvov
3 ixcepting ineu7py, vdcpa, &dqa, 4'dvrao/ha.
for arsltov and of ,yvva7rais for 7raLorpE$?s.
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 131
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
132 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 133
Lysias in B.c. 378, since Theaet.the has come in the interval would
dialogue which
seem to have been written in his lifetime.
separates the Republic from the later
But, as the Republic gives us no suchdialogues.
evidence (unless we count the allusion to I conclude therefore that the Phaedrus is
Ismenias in B. 1), this point is practically
the earliest of the four dialogues, and that
useless. For two reasons, however, it the sceptical pair, Parm. Theaet., are a
appears to me that the Phaedrus must have little later than the Republic. The ques-
been composed before the publication of the tion which remains is one of extreme
Republic. I say the publication, because adifficulty, viz. whether the Parmenides
work may long have existed in petto or the Theaetetus is the earlier. I speak with
even partially in MS., before it was pro-much less confidence on this than on the
dluced even for a limited circle. Cf. what preceding questions.
Zeno is made to say in the Parmenides Before entering upon it I will put for-
about his ypa'pqa, which he regards as a ward some considerations which appear to
pech6 de jeunesse but is unable to keep back me to corroborate the linguistic argument,
because it has been pirated. in favour of placing the Parmenides and
1. It seems improbable that shortly after Theaetetus, as here proposed, together after
bringing out a book of such extent and ofthe Republic and before the Sophist, etc.
such world-wide interest, as the Republic, Mr. W. W. Waddell, in his edition of the
Plato should belittle written composition in Parmenides,--an edition characterized not
comparison with oral discourse, as he doesonly by great labour, but by exceptional
in the Phaedrus; and- candour and love of truth,-contends that
2. The philosophical portion of the the Phaedo is later in the order of com-
Republic in Bks. vi., vii. exhibits a position. His chief reason for this appears
maturity of judgment, a sobriety ofto ex-
be that the singular argument, in which
pression, a 'temperance giving smooth- the inseparable association of Life with
ness,' which is hardly to be found in that
Soul is illustrated by the constant con-
'Psalm in praise of logic,' which Socrates
junction of Heat with Fire, presupposes
pours forth to Phaedrus. that communion of kinds, KoLvovla 1-wv
The next point to be settled is which of
yevJ/v, which is elaborately proved in the
Sophistes. But (1) Is Plato never to
the two pairs of dialogues has the priority
in the order of composition. anticipate himself ? And (2) Is fire in the
Some would compare the tentative Phaedoor a yivos in the sense here spoken of I
'peirastic' arguments and negative con- Mr. Waddell cannot have forgotten that
clusions of Parm. Theaet. with those of the Socrates in the Parmenides is doubtful
Euthyphro, Charmides, Protagoras andwhether or not to assume an 8G0os of 7rip.
Meno, and would construe them as evidence Another cause of this opinion is the
of an early date. But although there isimpression which Mr. Waddell shares with
some resemblance in the dialectical form,Mr. H. Jackson, that the notion of the
the writings thus compared are not in pari idea being a pattern (rapd&scyLa) is expressed
materia. In those earlier dialogues the in a manner which shows it to have been
subject of inquiry was either the definitionhitherto unfamiliar. And he is well aware
of a simple ethical notion or the Unity ofthat in the Phaedo this conception as well
Virtue. But that which is here subjected
as that of 7rapovw'a is clearly implied. But
to the Elenchus, is Unity itself in its arguments of this kind (turning on Plato's
highest abstraction, the nature of defini-manner of stating a view) have really not
tion, and the whole metaphysical problemmuch force. It is more pertinent to
of Knowing and Being. And the essential observe that while in the Phaedo the
point in reference to our present inquiry is
to observe that both the ontological andare different modes and
treated loosely of iLe~EL
vaguely(or IErdcO-?XEo-
as in-
the epistemological doctrines thus nega-different or interchangeable, in the Par-
tively discussed have a strong affinity tomenides they are distinctly stated in a well-
those which are so confidently affirmed in considered order, and separately examined.
the Phaedrus and Republic. When it is Such isolated coincidences, when unduly
further considered that in the Sophist, pressed, must lead, as they have often led,
Politicus and Philebus a more mature theoryto strange and contradictory inferences.
is carefully elaborated, with no blinking of The indications of close affinity, notwith-
difficulties and no singing of paeans, thestanding great differences, which 'spring
inference is obvious that the cold fit of to the eyes' when, in accordance with the
philosophic doubt represented by Parm. linguistic hints, the Parmenides and
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
134 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
(Parm. 136 D) &7rpei7r yap T" 7orav'a oiTre yp SLKa(TT ', K.T.X. (Theaet. 173 C).
irokov ravVlov X~4ycw, (137 B) avTroL iJcEv.
Distinction of yly&'voac and ycv&oaG.
EL yap ycv v T o, o )v L yv o L v o
(ParfMi. 155 A). o /Ltq7a~O
LLVEV 70T 'qY,
YOV LLAL
e L vcy'cpov
K"L 'EVTTVat
cy cL15 'aL
LLSvaTov (Theaet. 155 B).
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 135
To come now finally to the question,-- another purpose, which I pointed out in the
Art. ' Plato' in Encyc. Brit. ed. ix., and
Which was written first, the Theaetetus,
or the Parmenides 1 M. W. Lutoslawski which Mr. Waddell has suggested inde-
proposes to prove in his forthcoming work pendently: this imaginary circumstance
on Plato's Logic that the Parmenides was accentuates Plato's implied confession, that
composed some time after the Theaetetus, the doctrine of Ideas as previously held by
i.e. in the interval between the Theaetetus
him was a crude theory, Apr~t E v<^ Ov 7vm
and the Sophist. I am inclined to place
TLYvO iblgarrroLvov 80SiXo vcoycv~s Av.1
it slightly earlier: and for the following2. Teichmiiller imagined that he had
reasons :- found a dividing link between earlier and
1. I think that most Platonic scholars later dialogues in the Preface to the
will agree with me in assuming thatTheaetetus;
the all narrated dialogues being
meeting of Socrates with Parmenides isearlier,
an and all those later, in which 'said
invention of Plato's. That Parmenides I,' 'said he,' etc., are omitted. And so
should have visited Athens at all in the much at least is true, that the latter form
is adopted in all those of the Platonic
middle of the fifth century is unlikely.
Did any 'coryphaeus' of philosophy writings
come which are demonstrably late, viz.
Soph. Polit. Phileb. Tim. Critia, Legg.
thither before the ascendancy of Pericles
But even granting the reality of such Therefore,
a although Plato was free at any
time to vary his style, and it cannot be
visit, is the meeting of the .LEpdoKLov
Socrates, the stonecutter's son, with admitted
the that the Euthyphr. Apol. Laches,
great man at the house of Pythodorus Crat. Gorg. lo, Meno, and Phaedrus are
later than the Theaetetus, it does seem
likely to be more real than the intercourse
of the same Socrates with Gorgias of
from the fact mentioned above that after a
Leontini in the house of Callicles or with
certain date Plato consistently preferred
Timaeus of Locri Epizephyrii and Hermo- the more succinct and concentrated form,
crates of Syracuse at a later Panathenaeawhich,
1 although in some ways less suited to
(Compare the opening of the Laches, wherethe imaginative treatment of philosophy,
Socr. is personally unknown even in his was more convenient for the presentation
father's neighbourhood.) Or, once more, of dialectical drybones, Now the state-
ment of this preference is one motive
even if, for the sake of argument, we make
so sweeping an admission, would Plato in of the Preface to the Theaetetus, and
the Theaetetus have made Socrates at it seems improbable that he should have
seventy revert for the first time to thatdeparted from this method in his next
succeeding Essay, and then have main-
occasion of fifty years ago, unless he had
some special motive And what motive tained it during the rest of his time. M.
can be more natural than to connect the Lutoslawski thinks that the terms of this
Theaetetus with an already existing and
Preface are sufficiently accounted for by a
kindred dialogue The representation of
reaction from the tediousness of repeating
Socrates as 'very young' at the time of the
(v
the8' Republic.
interview was of course inevitable, if the 7y4, 4 8' osButandif i~y, at every
we are turn in
to speculate
alleged meeting was to have any plausi- at all, is it not still more likely that he had
bility. But I still think that the youthwearied
of himself and his readers in the
Socrates is made by Plato's skill to serve 1 Soph. 259 D.
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
136 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms