ZELLER'S PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.* Dn. ZELLER'S name is
familiar to all students of Greek philo- sophy. To such the volume before us will be particularly welcome. It deals with the prince of Greek philosophers. Dr. Zeller does his work thoroughly and exhaustively, and he is completely master of his subject. He is not needlessly prolix. Within a compass of six hundred pages he has adequately dis- cussed the character and purpose of Plato's writings. There is hardly a point of any real importance, unless we are much mis- taken, which he has left untouched. It must be understood that his book is eminently a student's book. Quite half of it is made up of notes, in which the positions taken up in the text are sup- ported and illustrated. These notes reveal Dr. Zeller's mastery • Plato, and the Older Academy. Translated from the German of Dr. Ze liar by Sarah Frances Alleyne and Alfred Goodwin. London: Longman. 1876.
of the whole subject of Greek philosophy. He seems to have at his fingers' ends everything that has been written about it. We ought to add that he generally contrives to make himself understood, though here and there his discussions are too abstruse for any but advanced students. It is hardly possible, we suppose, to present in an intelligible shape some of those remarkable speculations in which arithmetic and geometry play a conspicuous part, and the notion of which Plato appears to have derived from Pythagoras and his school. Dr. Zeller never flinches from these difficulties, and can give us all the theories about them which German scholars and professors have ever propounded. His notes to the chapter on the " World- soul" take us, so to say, into the heart of these numerical mysteries. The ordinary student, we believe, is content to pass them by as hopeless, and it must be admitted that they do seem to belong to a region of thought with which the modern intellect has nothing in common. But of course, a man of Dr. Zeller's learning and research could not afford to ignore them.
The volume begins with an account of Plato's life. The sub- ject is an interesting one, and it is well treated. People ought to know that the great philosopher was not a mere dreamer, but that he occasionally took part in politics, and gave offence by his plain speaking at the Court of Syracuse. He had, we think it may be fairly assumed, a good share of practical ability, though he selected a sphere of work in which it had not any special oppor- tunity of displaying itself. He did not wish to be a statesman himself, but he did wish to form statesmen. Of his own Athens politically he did not, it would seem, take a hopeful view, re- sembling in this respect his distinguished contemporary, Isocrates, who thought the continued struggle with Philip of Macedon an entire mistake. From the first, Plato's aim was to build up a comprehensive system of philosophy, which should solve political as well as moral and metaphysical problems. Dr. Zeller lays par- ticular stress on "the clearness of his understanding." "His nature," he says, "is Apollo-like ; the light of science disperses the mists in his soul," and so it came to pass that the Greeks spoke of him in certain myths as "closely united to the God who to them was the type of moral beauty, proportion, and harmony." In fact, Dr. Zeller always treats Plato's specu- lations with respect and sympathy, even when he thinks them erroneous and misleading. He is not quite so conservative as Mr. Grote in discussing the very difficult question of the genuineness of the Platonic writings. The " Menexenus," the " Ion," the " Greater Hippies," and " First Alcibiades " he is in- clined to give up; and as to the" Second Alcibiades," the" Theages," " Minos," " Clitiphon," and" Epinomis," he observes ',-hat Mr. Grote stands absolutely alone in clinging to them. The "Letters," too (letters have often been foisted without warrant-on eminent men), he regards as undoubtedly spurious. As to the order of the writings, there has been, as students know, great difference of opinion. It must be borne in mind that Plato lived to the age of eighty-one, and that his period of literary activity was an unusually long one. It has always been a question whether his writings were the result of a distinctly preconceived plan, or whether they corresponded with various stages of his mental growth. The first of these positions can hardly be maintained, though it is quite possible, and perhaps on the whole probable, that he had from the be- ginning the chief and fundamental points of his philosophy clearly in his mind. It is a mistake, Dr. Zeller thinks, to exclude the consideration of external influences on Plato's intellectual de- velopment, and equally a mistake to assume a gradual mental growth independent of any sort of conscious plan or design, which, it may be fairly presumed, was very early present to his mind. The safest way, in our author's opinion, of dealing with the question (a question which Mr. Grote pronounces hopeless), is to look attentively at every allusion to the events of the time, and thus, he thinks, we may arrive at an approximately correct opinion as to the date of several of the Dialogues. In some cases, we may note what looks like the introduction of some new philosophical doctrine or theory. The doctrine, for instance, of the independent existence of ideas does not appear in the " Lysis," " Charmides," " Lesser Hippias," " Protagoras," "Euthyphro," "Apology," " Crito." Yet this doctrine, which Dr. Zeller says, "marks the fundamental distinction between the Pla- tonic and Socratic conceptional philosophy," was Plato's specially characteristic doctrine. Its entire absence from any particular dialogue may be taken to imply that that dialogue belonged to a period when he had not matured his philosophical system. Again, in the "Apology " there is little said as to a belief in immortality. This can hardly be accounted for but on the hypothesis that this belief had not always been an integral part of the philosopher's : creed. There seems to have been a crisis in his life when Pytha- goreanism made a powerful impression on his mind. It is to that source that we must probably trace his notions about the trans- migration migration of souls, of future retribution, and indeed of immor- i tality itself. Such notions and beliefs, it would seem, did not at first enter his mind, any more than they had entered the mind of his master, Socrates. There was, no doubt, a decided intellectual affinity between Plato and Pythagoras, and we may be pretty sure that the more hazy and mystical passages of the Platonic writings are connected with the speculations of the latter. Dr. Zeller thinks it probable that Plato, up to the time of the death of Socrates, adhered closely to his master's general method of philosophy, anddid not attempt to advance beyond him. But such dialogues as the " Gorgias," " Meno," " Themtetus " must belong to a later period. By this time, Plato had got his theory of ideas in full working order. Yet these dialogues are not so technical and abstruse as the " Sophist," "Statesman," and " Parmenides." These last take his doctrine of ideas for granted, and must have been written when his system was well-nigh perfected. One of his most pleasing dialogues, "The Ph mdrus," much of which is singularly beautiful and poetical, and bears the mark of a youthful hand, has, as to its date, occasioned a good deal of perplexity. The " ideas " are prominent enough in it, and this seems to contradict the inference we might have drawn from its style. Possibly, as Dr. Zeller suggests, the dialogue may be comparatively an early one, and in it the philosopher may be "mythically foretelling convictions already in his mind." Thus, as has been supposed, it may have been meant as an introduction to a longer series of writings. The well-known " Phtedo," in which immortality is dis- cussed and maintained, belongs undoubtedly to a somewhat late period of Plato's life. So, too, does that charming dialogue, the "Banquet." His great work, the " Republic," was composed quite in his mature years. The "Laws" were his last work, and here we see signs of declining power. In this work, which has, however, considerable merits, he is the dogmatist rather than the a ubtle reasoner and speculative inquirer.
Plato, as Dr. Zeller often reminds us, was an artist as well as a philosopher. Hence his frequent employment of myths, which is, indeed, one of the most attractive features of his writings. Many a reader who has not penetrated very deeply into his philosophy has found infinite delight in some of his splendid symbolical descriptions of the nature of the soul or of the future lot of mankind. In them he shows the highest poetic power and fancy. But why should he have introduced such apparently foreign elements into his philosophical inquiries ? The truth is, Dr. Zeller says, Plato, " like a creative artist, thinks in pictures:' His myths point to "a gap in scientific knowledge ;" they are meant to set forth something which he believed to be true, but which he did not see his way to establish and to present scien- tifically. If he has to speak of the origin of the universe, or to describe a state of things which has no analogy with our actual experience, he falls back on myths. He means them to convey certain truths to the mind, but not to be literally accepted. As Dr. Zeller says, they mark the boundaries of his thought, and from a scientific point of view they are a sign of weakness rather than strength. Plato, in fact, was tbo great a genius to imagine that he could circumscribe everything within the limits of his philosophy. There were, he was convinced, truths which lay beyond it, and of these his myths were intended to be the expression. We may be inclined to suppose that it was his poetic vein which led him into what seems to us his extravagant theory of ideas. This, the corner- stone of his philosophy, has been very variously understood. It was on this special point that Aristotle diverged so widely from his master. Plato almost concedes in his " Parmenides " that the theory cannot be logically demonstrated. It has been maintained that the Platonic ideas were merely conceptions of human reason, but it is certain that this was not the view of Aristotle. Nor, again, can they be explained as the thoughts or ideas of a supreme divine mind. Plato (about this Dr. Zeller thinks there can be no doubt) held that they were the products neither of the divine nor of the human reason, but that they had an absolute existence, and were eternal. The supreme divine intelligence was dominated by them, and fashioned the universe according to them. Any other view of this theory is, in Dr. Zeller's opinion, quite untenable. But this very imperfectly describes the Platonic doctrine. We find the ideas sometimes spoken of as "numbers," with reference to the Pythagorean philosophy; sometimes as " powers" or " energies." " We cannot doubt," Dr. Zeller says (p. 267), " that Plato meant to set forth in ideas not merely the archetypes and essence of all true existence, but energetic powers ; thathe regarded them
as living and active, intelligent and reasonable." Here we have a speculation utterly alien to almost every phase of modern thought. Some of us will be inclined at once to put down the greatest of ancient philosophers as the dreamiest of thinkers. It is still more surprising to find that Plato's belief in the soul's immortality was closely linked to this singular doctrine. No doubt, he uses arguments in the " Phwdo " which are independent of it, but, on the whole, the belief was, in his mind, a deduction from that great theory which pervaded every part of his philosophy. He had worked out a definite and compact system, and his " ideas" lay at the very root of it.
But Plato was not a man to rest in a mere system. He had thoughts and imaginings which no system could confine. Philo- sophy, in his view, included both the love of beauty and scientific culture. There is nothing he would have loathed and despised so much as " cram." lie would have thought very meanly of a man who knew merely results, and nothing of processes. We suspect that he would not have valued very highly a superficial acquaint- ance with the discoveries of modern physical science. Such an acquaintance he would have regarded as quite consistent with the absence of real culture and education. It may be that he would have made too light of popular knowledge and information. He was hardly in a position to understand the possible advantages to be derived at some future day from even a slight acquaintance with some of the more important results of science. All his views were the very reverse of materialistic. In this he differed from Aristotle, who was undoubtedly his superior in physical inquiries. For these, indeed, Plato had no special aptitude or liking. His mind was not, as we say, " practical," and here it is that we see the force of the saying that every man is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. If a person is always thinking of results and of their practical application, he is sure to prefer Aristotle to Plato. It was to the ideal that Plato was always turning the eye of his mind ; this was what he meant by true philosophy. But at the same time he strove to be a close reasoner, and so he regarded mathematics as a necessary preliminary to the higher study of dialectic or logic, which investigates pure truth. Our English tendency is to look for positive results, and to be disappointed if we do not get them. Hence we all recognise the immense value of physical science. Still we must remember that the mere exercise of the reason and intellect is in itself beneficial, and were it to be neglected, scientific inquiry would be in danger of languishing. We must not estimate the worth of Plato's philosophy simply by the amount of truth it attained, but rather by the prodigious stimulus it gave and even now gives to thought. The greatest modern thinkers know that they owe him much ; how much, they would confess themselves unable to define. His writings abound in hints and suggestions which the best modern enlightenment will never put on one side. Continually are the readers of Plato reminded, in many of the discussions of the day, of lines of thought with which his writings first familiarised them. Under no possible circumstances, we believe, will those writings become obsolete.
It is in the "Republic " and the "Laws" that we have Plato's appli- cation of his philosophy to social problems, and so these are, on the whole, his most interesting and important works. Dr. Zeller thinks that Plato's Republic was not meant to be a mere ideal State, or a fancy picture which could not be reduced to prac- tice. His State in its leading features is of the Hellenic type, and it is implied that such a State is the only one de- serving of the name. If we ask how he could persuade himself into such a notion, Dr. Zeller's reply is that we must bear in mind his essentially aristocratic modes of thought and his decided par- tiality for Doric forms and customs. His State, in fact, is built on a Spartan basis, and is a development of Spartan institutions. At Sparta there was something like a community of goods, if not of wives. The special feature of the Platonic Republic, that in which it is thoroughly alien to the modern spirit, is the entire subordination of the individual to the State. With Plato, the State is to embody the highest reason, being under philosophical direction. Here we are reminded of some views which Mr. Matthew. Arnold has broached. Plato was probably led to his conclusion from having witnessed the disastrous anarchy of the period of the Peloponnesian War, and he may have well be- lieved that individual self-assertion had been the peculiar curse and bane of Greece. In the old traditions of the State of prcurgus he thought he saw an antidote to these mis- chiefs. But Sparta aimed only at military greatness, and had little or no sympathy with philosophy and culture ; and so, while there were points of resemblance between it and the Platonic Republic, there were also points of radical difference. It would be a complete error, Dr. Zeller says, to regard his Republic as simply an improved edition of Sparta. He may have been guided by Spartan precedent in his formation of a distinct mili- tary class. Standing armies he appears to have considered a necessity for a State, and perhaps the victories of Philip and Alexander with their highly trained veterans over citizen militias may have brought him to this conviction. His leading political concepticn was that, just as a universal architect is required to subdue matter by force to the idea, so in a State absolute sove- reignty is necessary, in order to control individual egoism. As to women, it is true, indeed, that in his anxiety to rear up a satis- factory class of citizens he loses sight of the moral character of marriage, but at the same time he tries to exalt the sex, both mentally and morally. He does not wish women to be limited to a sphere of their own, but would have them share the pursuits of men, and he carries this view to what we must pronounce an extravagant length. On slavery his opinion was, for a Greek, singularly enlightened. A Hellene was not to enslave a Helene, and slaves were to be uniformly treated with thoughtful humanity. That slavery itself might ever cease, was a thought beyond him. Lawyers and doctors would.not find much occupation in his State, for the virtue of the citizens would allow of but few law-suits, and their healthy way of living would lessen sickness and disease. We are reminded of Dr. Richardson's city of Hygeia, with its 10,000 houses and 100,000 inhabitants. There was to be a Minister of Education, who would have to supervise all music and poetry, and there would certainly have been a strict censorship of the Press. Infant-schools, as in Sparta, would receive children from the age of four and upwards, and the whole method of study and education would be prescribed by the State and not left to the tastes of the parents. In fact Plato anticipated a good deal of modern thought and legislation. He rose superior to many of the popular no- tions of his day. It is much to his credit that he regarded astrology as an ignorant superstition, and discerned in the motions of the heavenly bodies a grand revelation of eternal divine laws. He was, indeed,both a moral and intellectual giant. He has something to say to mankind in every age, and his writings have a freshness for us even now, in the midst of scientific discoveries of which he could not so much as dream. " As a philosopher," to quote Dr. Zeller (page 42), " he unites the boldest idealism with rare acuteness of thought, and a disposition for critical inquiry with artistic creativeness ; as a man, he combines severity of moral principles with lively susceptibility for beauty, nobility and loftiness of mind with tenderness of feeling, passion with self-control, en- thusiasm for his purpose with philosophic calm." Dr. Zeller's work, for which every student of philosophy will thank him, has been well translated, and is accessible to English readers in a form of which the most fastidious will have little to complain.
Previous page
