按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
that all the Epistles of Plato are genuine； and very few critics think that
more than one of them is so。 And they are clearly all written from the
same motive； whether serious or only literary。 Nor is there an example in
Greek antiquity of a series of Epistles； continuous and yet coinciding with
a succession of events extending over a great number of years。
The external probability therefore against them is enormous； and the
internal probability is not less： for they are trivial and unmeaning；
devoid of delicacy and subtlety； wanting in a single fine expression。 And
even if this be matter of dispute； there can be no dispute that there are
found in them many plagiarisms； inappropriately borrowed； which is a common
note of forgery。 They imitate Plato； who never imitates either himself or
any one else； reminiscences of the Republic and the Laws are continually
recurring in them； they are too like him and also too unlike him； to be
genuine （see especially Karsten； Commentio Critica de Platonis quae
feruntur Epistolis）。 They are full of egotism； self…assertion；
affectation； faults which of all writers Plato was most careful to avoid；
and into which he was least likely to fall。 They abound in obscurities；
irrelevancies； solecisms； pleonasms； inconsistencies； awkwardnesses of
construction； wrong uses of words。 They also contain historical blunders；
such as the statement respecting Hipparinus and Nysaeus； the nephews of
Dion； who are said to 'have been well inclined to philosophy； and well able
to dispose the mind of their brother Dionysius in the same course；' at a
time when they could not have been more than six or seven years of age
also foolish allusions； such as the comparison of the Athenian empire to
the empire of Darius； which show a spirit very different from that of
Plato； and mistakes of fact； as e。g。 about the Thirty Tyrants； whom the
writer of the letters seems to have confused with certain inferior
magistrates； making them in all fifty…one。 These palpable errors and
absurdities are absolutely irreconcileable with their genuineness。 And as
they appear to have a common parentage； the more they are studied； the more
they will be found to furnish evidence against themselves。 The Seventh；
which is thought to be the most important of these Epistles； has affinities
with the Third and the Eighth； and is quite as impossible and inconsistent
as the rest。 It is therefore involved in the same condemnation。The final
conclusion is that neither the Seventh nor any other of them； when
carefully analyzed； can be imagined to have proceeded from the hand or mind
of Plato。 The other testimonies to the voyages of Plato to Sicily and the
court of Dionysius are all of them later by several centuries than the
events to which they refer。 No extant writer mentions them older than
Cicero and Cornelius Nepos。 It does not seem impossible that so attractive
a theme as the meeting of a philosopher and a tyrant； once imagined by the
genius of a Sophist； may have passed into a romance which became famous in
Hellas and the world。 It may have created one of the mists of history；
like the Trojan war or the legend of Arthur； which we are unable to
penetrate。 In the age of Cicero； and still more in that of Diogenes
Laertius and Appuleius； many other legends had gathered around the
personality of Plato；more voyages； more journeys to visit tyrants and
Pythagorean philosophers。 But if； as we agree with Karsten in supposing；
they are the forgery of some rhetorician or sophist； we cannot agree with
him in also supposing that they are of any historical value； the rather as
there is no early independent testimony by which they are supported or with
which they can be compared。
IV。 There is another subject to which I must briefly call attention； lest
I should seem to have overlooked it。 Dr。 Henry Jackson； of Trinity
College； Cambridge； in a series of articles which he has contributed to the
Journal of Philology； has put forward an entirely new explanation of the
Platonic 'Ideas。' He supposes that in the mind of Plato they took； at
different times in his life； two essentially different forms：an earlier
one which is found chiefly in the Republic and the Phaedo； and a later；
which appears in the Theaetetus； Philebus； Sophist； Politicus； Parmenides；
Timaeus。 In the first stage of his philosophy Plato attributed Ideas to
all things； at any rate to all things which have classes or common notions：
these he supposed to exist only by participation in them。 In the later
Dialogues he no longer included in them manufactured articles and ideas of
relation； but restricted them to 'types of nature；' and having become
convinced that the many cannot be parts of the one； for the idea of
participation in them he substituted imitation of them。 To quote Dr。
Jackson's own expressions；'whereas in the period of the Republic and the
Phaedo； it was proposed to pass through ontology to the sciences； in the
period of the Parmenides and the Philebus； it is proposed to pass through
the sciences to ontology'： or； as he repeats in nearly the same words；
'whereas in the Republic and in the Phaedo he had dreamt of passing through
ontology to the sciences； he is now content to pass through the sciences to
ontology。'
This theory is supposed to be based on Aristotle's Metaphysics； a passage
containing an account of the ideas； which hitherto scholars have found
impossible to reconcile with the statements of Plato himself。 The
preparations for the new departure are discovered in the Parmenides and in
the Theaetetus； and it is said to be expressed under a different form by
the （Greek） and the （Greek） of the Philebus。 The （Greek） of the Philebus
is the principle which gives form and measure to the （Greek）； and in the
'Later Theory' is held to be the （Greek） or （Greek） which converts the
Infinite or Indefinite into ideas。 They are neither （Greek） nor （Greek）；
but belong to the （Greek） which partakes of both。
With great respect for the learning and ability of Dr。 Jackson； I find
myself unable to agree in this newly fashioned doctrine of the Ideas； which
he ascribes to Plato。 I have not the space to go into the question fully；
but I will briefly state some objections which are； I think； fatal to it。
（1） First； the foundation of his argument is laid in the Metaphysics of
Aristotle。 But we cannot argue； either from the Metaphysics； or from any
other of the philosophical treatises of Aristotle； to the dialogues of
Plato until we have ascertained the relation in which his so…called works
stand to the philosophe