THE

G RE E K PH I L O SO PH E R S

VO L I .
GR E E K PH I LO SO PH E RS ‘

A L FR E D W I LL I A M BE NN

'

3V l y ax a pfw u 6 cpw v
' ‘
E zz pn x e v a t p hi 7 53V dpxa u w v
‘
< t 7wo
p
‘

0 n v cz s it a

M 1703 mme 7 a
i

f 8? f 7 v x 6 wr e s K ai &V
’
7b 86 ? v ow ew fi 633
' -
( ve: o 1

m a n enpa a ea t
’ ’
) fu l l}! wh p) yéro w po a fi x e t
’
R a. en : re 7 0 1vr wv o e r

PLO T I NU S

Q u amqu am ab h is p h i lo s o phiam e t o mn es in ge n u as di sc i p li n as
h ab e mu s se d ta me me s t ali qu i d qu o d n o b i s n o n li c e at , l ic e at i ll i s
C I CERO

I N T WO VO LU ME S

VO L I .

LO ND O N
K EGA N PAU L ,
TRE NC H , CO .
,
I PAT E R NO ST E R SQ U A R E

1 882
A FFE CTI O NAT E LY DEDICAT E D

TO
q

N K
J
'

1 B B
‘

. .
 P R E FA C E .

A CO NSI DE RAB L E portion of the present work , c ompr i s i n g

the whole of the first volu me and the first two chapters of the
second is repr i nted with corrections and add iti ons
,
f ro m the
Wes t mi n s ter R ev ie w . The l ast chapter o f th e secon d v olu m e
has already appeared und er a sli ghtly d i ff erent title in M i n d
fo r J anuary and Ap ri l 1 882 . The chapters entitled ,
‘
The
’ ’
Sceptics and E clectics, ‘
The R eli g ious R evival , and ‘
The
Spir i tualis m of Plotinus ,
’
are now published fo r the first
ti me .

The subj ect of Greek phi losophy i s so v ast that , in

E n g land at least it has beco me customary to d eal with it i n
,

d etached port i ons rather than as a connected whole . This

i ts advanta g es but i t has also i ts d rawba c ks
“

method has ,
.

The c ritic who sin g les out some on e thinker fo r special study
is apt to exa ggerate the i mpo rtanc e of his hero and to c redit
h im with the ori g in ation of principles which w ere
‘
really
borrowed f ro m hi s predec essors . M oreo v er the appearance
,

of a c an on ly be mad e intelli g ible by tracin g the

n ew i d ea
previous tend en c ies whi ch it either continu es c ombines or , ,

c ontradicts . In a word the history

, of philosophy has itsel f a
philosophy which requi res that we should g o beyon d par
tic u l a r phenomena and View them as variously related parts
of a si n gle system .
 PRE FA CE .

The history of Greek philosophy whether conce iv ed i n ,

th i s comprehensive sense or as an erudite i nvesti g ati on into

matters of detail is a province which the Germans have mad e
,

peculiarly their own and ,

amon g Germ an scholars , Dr .

Ze ller is the one who has treated i t with most suc cess . My
obli gations to his g reat work are su f fici ently shown by the
copious re f erences to it which o c cur throu ghout the f ollowi n g
pa es I t is i n those instances — an d they are u n f ortunately
g . , ,

ve ry numerous —where our knowled g e of particular philo

sophers and of thei r opinions rests on f ra g mentary or secon d
hand in f ormation that I hav e f ound his assi stance mo s t valu
,

able . This has especially been the c ase with re f eren ce to the
p re Socratic schools the minor su ccessors
-
,
of S o crat e s the,

earlier Stoics the S cepti c s and the later Pytha gorean s

, ,
. I

must however , , g uard a g ainst the supposition that my work is,

in any respect a popularisat i on or abrid g ment

,
of Zeller s ’
.

To popularise Zeller would indeed be an i mpertinen c e , , ,

fo r

nothin g can be more lu minou s and interestin g than his styl e

and g eneral mode of exposition . Nor am I playin g the part
of a find er to a larg e telescop e f o r my point o f v iew by n o
means coincid es with that of the learned Germ an historian .

Thus while my l i mits have obli ged m e to be content with a

,

v ery summary treatment o f many topics which he has di s

c ussed at len gth there are others and t hose i n my opinion
, , , ,

not the least important to which he has , g iven less space than
will be f ound allotted to the m here . On several qu estions ,

also I have ventured to controvert his O pinions notably with

, ,

re f e re n c e ~
to the Sophists Socrates Aristotle and Plotin us
, , , .

My general w ay o f lookin g at the Greeks an d thei r philosophy

also d i ff ers f rom his . And the reasons which have led me to
f ollow an independent course i n th i s respect i n volve c onsider
 PRE FA CE . ix

at i o n s o f such interest and i mportance that I shall take the ,

liberty of speci f y i n g them i n so me d etail .

Stated briefly Zeller s theory ,

’
of an c i ent thou ght i s that
the Greeks ori ginally lived in harm ony with Nature ; that
t he bond was broken by philosophy and parti c ularly by the
philosophy o f S ocrates that the discord i mp erf ectly overc om e
by Plato and Aristotle revealed itsel f on c e more i n the u n

recon c iled sel f c oncentrated subj ectivity

,
-
of the later schools
that th i s hopeless estran g ement a f ter reach i n g its climax ,
in

the myst i c i sm of the Neo Platonists

-
c omplete , led to the
collapse of independent speculation and that the creat i on o f
a new consciousness by the advent of C hristianity and of the
German ic races was n ecessary i n ord er to the su cc ess f ul re

s umption of scientific enqui ry . Zeller was f ormerly a H e g e

l i an and it seems to me that he still retain s
, f ar too much of

the H eg eli an f ormalism in his historical constructions . The

well worked antith esis between obj ect and subj ect even a f ter
-

bein g revised i n a positivist sense is totally i nadequate to , the

burden laid on it by thi s theo ry ; an d if we want really to

u nderstan d the causes whi c h first hampered then arrested and , ,

finally paralysed G reek philosophy we must seek ,

f o r them in
a more con crete order of consid erations . Zeller with per f ect
,

j u stic e attributes the f ailure

, of Plato and Aristotle to thei r
de f ective observation of Nature and their habit of reg ardin g
the logical combinations of i deas d eri v ed f rom the commo n
use o f word s as an adequate rep resentative of the relation s
o btainin g amon g thin gs i n themselves . But i t seem s an
extremely strained an d artificial e x planation to say that thei r
shortcomin g s i n this respect w e re d ue t o a c on f us i on of the
obj ective and the su bj ective consequent o n the imp er f ec t
,

separation o f the Greek mind f rom N ature — a c on f us i on it i s ,

 PRE FA CE .

added whi ch only the advent of a new reli g io n and a new

,

rac e could overcome l . It is u n f ai r to m ake H ellenism as a

whole responsible f o r f alla c ies which mi ght easily be paralleled
i n the works of mod ern metaphysicians ; and the u n f ai rness
will become still more evid ent when we remember that a f ter ,

enj oyin g the benefit of C hristianity and Germanis m fo r a

thousand years the modern world had sti ll to take its first
,

lessons in patien c e of observation i n accuracy ,

of reasoni n g ,

and in sobriety of exp ression f rom su c h men as Thu c ydides

and H ippocrates ,
Polybius Archim edes ,
and H ipparchu s .

E ven had the Greeks as a nation been less keen to d i stin g uish
bet w een illusion and reali ty tha n thei r su ccessors up to th e
si x teenth centu ry— a supposition notoriously the reverse o f
true —i t would still have to be e x plain ed why Plato an d
Aristotle with their p rodi g ious intellects we n t much f urthe r
, ,

astray than their predec essors in the study of N ature . An d

’
this Zeller s method does not e x plain at all .

A g ain I think that Z eller qu ite m is c on ceives the relation

,

between Greek philosophy an d Greek li f e when he attributes

the intellectual de c line of the post Ari stotelian period in part
-

at least to the simultaneous ruin

, of publi c spirit and political
ind ependence . The de g eneracy of poet ry and art ,
of elo
qu en c e and histo ry may perhaps be ac c ounted
, fo r i n thi s
way but not the relax ation
, of philosophical activity . On the
contrary the d isappearance
, of political interests was of all
conditions the most f avourable to specu latio n as witness the ,

I onians ,D emocritus and Aristotle H ad the independence

, .

and power o f the g reat city republi c s been prolon g ed much -

f urther it i s probable — as the e x ample o f th e Sophi sts and

,

S oc rates seems to show—that phi losophy wou ld have be c om e

Dz e [V
i i /05 0 5111?
1
’
aer G ri er/1 m , I II .
, 3 , pp .
5 f .
 PR E FA CE .
xi

still more absorb i n gly m oral an d p ra c t ic al than i t a c tually

became in the Stoi c E picurean and Scepti c al schools And
, ,
.

t heoreti c al stud i es d i d i n f act re c ei v e a g reat i mpulse f rom

, ,

the Ma c edon i an c on quest a larg e f und o f i ntelle c tu al energy

,

bein g d i verted f rom public a ff airs to the pursu i t o f know

led g e only i t took the di rection o f positive sc i en c e rather
,

than o f g eneral spe c ulat i on .

‘

The c ause wh i ch first arrested and finally destroyed the

f re e mo v ement o f Greek thou ght was not any i ntr i nsi c l i mita
tion or c orrupt i on o f the Greek g en i us but the e v er i n c reas i n g ,
-

preponderance o f two i nterests both tend i n g althou gh i n , ,

d i ff erent ways and d i ff erent d eg rees to stren gthen the pr i n ,

c ip l e o f authority and to en f eeble the p rin c iple o f reason .

O n e was the theolo gi c al inte rest the other was the s c hol asti c ,

i nterest The f ormer was the more c onspicuous and the

.

more m i s c hie v ous o f the two From the p ersecut i on o f .

An axagoras to the prohibition of philosophi cal teachin g by

J ust i nian we may trace the rise and spread
,
of a reaction to
ward s superstit i on someti mes ad v an c in g an d someti mes
,
re

c edin g but on the whole gain i n g

, , , g round f ro m age to ag e ,

u ntil f ro m the n oontid e splendou r of Peri cles we pass to

that lon g n ight whi c h stretches i n almost i mpenetrabl e dark
n ess down to the red and stormy d aybreak of the C ru sades .

And i t was a rea c tion whi c h e x tend ed throu g h all c lasses ,

i nclud i n g the philosophers themsel v es I t seems to m e that .

w here the Athenian school f ro m So c rates on f all short o f thei r

, ,

prede c essors as i n so me poi nts they u nquestionably do thei r

, ,

i n f er i or i ty i s larg ely d ue to th i s cause I t s i nflu ence i s very .

perceptible i n weaken i n g the speculat iv e energ ies o f those

If I re me mb e r righ tly, Po lyb iu s mak es th e sa me o b se rv ati o n , bu t I c an n o t

re c al l th e e x ac t re f e re n c e .
x ii PR E FA CE .

who stand at the reatest distance f ro m the popular belie fs

g
.

It was because dislike f o r theolo gy o cc upied so larg e a pla c e

i n the thou ghts of E picuru s and his d isciples that they valued ,

science only as a re f utation of i ts tea chin g i nstead ,

of reg ard
it simply as an obstacle to be removed f ro m the path of
in g
enqu i ry .
M ore than this ; they bec am e in f ected w ith the
sp i rit of that against which they f ou ght and thei r absolute ,

i ndi ff eren c e to truth was the shadow which it cast on thei r

mind s .

The theolog ical interest and the s c holasti c i nterest thou gh ,

not ne c essari ly associated have as already observ ed a poi nt

, , ,

of c ontact i n their com mon e altation x of authori t y . Thus ,

for our present purpose they may be cl assified u nder th e

more g eneral notion of tradition ali sm . By this term I u nder
stand a disposi t ion to ac cept as true O pinions rec eived e i ther
by the mass of mankind o r by the best accred i ted tea c hers ,

and to throw these opinion s i nto a f orm adapted for easy

transmission to others . In this sense traditionalism i s J anus
,

f aced looki n g on one side to the past and o n the other to

'

the f uture . Now phil osophy could o nly g ai n general a cc ept

ance by becomin g a tradition . For a lon g ti me the Greek
thinkers busied themselves almost ex c lusively with t he dis
c o v e ry of truth remai nin g comparat iv ely i ndi ff erent to i ts
,

d i ff usion . As Plato says they went thei r, o wn way without

carin g whether they took us alon g with them o r not .
1
And
it was at this period that the most v alu able specul ati v e ideas
were first ori g inated . At last a stron g d esirearose amon g the
hi gher classes to profit by the results of the n ew learnin g ,

and a c lass of men c ame i nto e x istence w hose pro f ess i on was
to grati f y this desi re . But the S ophists as they were c alled
, ,

Sop /155 1, 2 4 3 , A .
 PR E FA CE . x ii i

soon f ound that lessons i n the art of li f e w er e more h i ghly

appreciated and more liberally reward ed than lesson s i n the
c onstitution o f Natu re . A c cordin gly w i th the f ac i le in g enu ity
,

of Greeks they set to work provi n g first that N ature could not
, ,

be known and finally that there was no such thin g as Natu re

,

at all . The real philosophers were d riven to se c u re thei r

position by a chan g e of f ront . They be cam e teachers them
selves dis g u i sin g thei r lessons h owe v er u nd er the f orm
, , ,
of a
search af ter truth u nd ertaken conj ointly with the i r f riend s ,

who , of course were not expected to pay

,
fo r the pri vi le g e o f
g iv i n g the i r assistance a nd g i vin g i t f o r so ad m i rable a p u r
,

pose I n this c o operat i ve system the p erson who led the con
.
-

vers at i on was parti c ularly c are f ul to s h ow that his conclus i on s

f ollowed directly f ro m the ad missions o f his i nterlocutors ,

bein g so to sp eak laten t in thei r m inds and only n eedin g a

, , ,

little obstetri c assistanc e on h i s p art to brin g them into the !

l i ght of And the be tter to rivet their attention ,he c hose

day .

f o r the subj ect o f d isc ussion questions o f hu m an i nterest or ,

else when the c on v ersation t urned to physical pheno mena he

, ,

led the way toward s a teleolog ical o r aesthet i cal interpretation

of the i r meanin g .

Thus where Zeller says that the Greek phi losophers con
,

f ounded the obj ecti v e with the subj ective be c ause they were
still i mperf ectly separated f ro m Nature we seem to have c om e ,

on a less ambitious but more intelli g ible e x planation of th e

f acts , and one capable of bein g stated with as much g eneral i ty
as his . Not only amon g the Greek s but everywhere cultu re ,

i s more or less anta gonisti c to or ig inali ty and the di ff usion to ,

the enlarg ement of knowled ge . Thou ght is like water w hen

spread o v er a wider surf ac e i t i s apt to be c o m e stag nant and

shallow . When id eas c ould only li v e on the c ondit i on of
x iv PRE FA CE .

be i n g communicated to a large cir c l e of listeners they were

,

n ecessarily adapted to the taste and lowered to the c omp re

h en sio n of relatively v ul g ar minds . And not only so but the ,

habit of takin g their opinions and prej udices as the startin g

point of eve ry enquiry f requently led to the i n v estment of

those opinions and prej udices with the f ormal san c t i on of a

philosophical demonstration . It was hel d that educat i on
c ons i sted less i n the acquisition o f new t ruth than in the ele
v ation to clearer consciousness o f truthswhich had all al on g
been dimly perceived .

To the c riticism and systematisat ion of co mmon lan g uag e

and c ommon O pinion su cc eed ed the more l abor i ous critic i sm
and systematisation Of philosophi c al theories . Su ch an
enormous amoun t of labour was d emanded fo r the task of

workin g up the materials amassed by Greek thou ght d uri n g

the period c reative ori gin ality and ac c o mmod at i ng
of its ,

them to the popular belie f that n ot mu c h could be don e i n ,

the way of addin g to thei r e x tent . Nor was this all . Amon g
the most valuable ideas of the earlier thinkers were those
which stood in mos t stri kin g opposition to the evidence of the
senses . As such they w ere ex cluded f rom the system whi c h
had for its obj ect the reorganisation of philosophy o n the
basis of g eneral consent . Thus not only d i d thou ght tend to
become stationary but it even abandoned some
, Of the g round
whi c h had been f ormerly w o n .

Not that the vitality of Helleni c reason g ave way si mul

t an e o u s ly at every po i nt . The same i ndependent spi rit the ,

same imaginative vi g our whi ch had c arried physi c al specula

tion to such splend id conquests durin g the first two c entur i es
of its ex istence were mani f ested with equal e ff e c t wh en the
energies prev iously dev oted to Nature as a whole c on c entrated
 PRE FA CE . xv

them selves on the study of conduct and belief It was thus

c lai m
.

that So c rates c ould the whole fi eld of hu man li f e fo r

s c ientifi c treatment and create the method by whi c h i t has eve r

,

sinc e been most su cc ess f ully studied . It was thus that Plato
could analyse and i deally reconstruct all practices institutions , ,

and beli e f s . It was thus that Aristotle while d efinitely arrest ,

in g the pro g ress of resear c h ,

c ou ld sti ll co mplete the method
and create th e lan g uag e throu g h which the results of new
research ha v e been established reco g nised and co mmuni cated , ,

e v er si nce . It was thu s that the S toics ad v an c ed f rom para

dox to paradox u ntil they su c ceeded i n c o -
ordi nat i n g morality
f o r all t i me by re f eren c e to the three f und amental id eas of

personal c onscien c e i ndi vi du al obli g at i on

, , and universal
h uman ity . And not only were d ialecti cs and ethi c s at first
animated by the same enterp risin g spi rit as speculative
physi cs but thei r very existen c e as reco g nised studies must be
,

ascribed to its d ecay to the revolution throu g h which philo

,

sophy ,
f ro m bein g purely theoret i cal , be c ame so c i al and
dida c ti c . Whi le i n so me d irect i ons thou ght was mad e
stationary and even retro g ressi v e by the v ery process o f its
di ff usion i n other dire c tions this di ff usion was the c ause o f its
,

more compl ete d e v elop m ent Finally ethi c s and lo gic were .
,

red u c ed to a schol asti c rout i ne and p ro g ress contin ued to be ,

made only i n the pos i tive scien c es until here also i t was , , ,

brou ght to an end by the tr i u mph o f superstition and bar

b ari s m comb i ned .

I f the cessation o f spe c ulative a c ti v i ty amon g the Greeks

n eed s to be a cc ounted f o r by somethin g more d efin i te than
phrases about the obj ective and the subj ective so also does ,

its resu mpti on amon g the n at i ons of mod ern E u rope . Thi s
may be expla i ned by two d i ff eren t c i r c umstan c es — the d i s ap
xv i PR E FA CE .

p e a ran c e o f the obsta c les which had lon g opposed the msel v es
to the f ree e x ercise of reason , and the sti mulu s g i ven to
enquiry by the Copern i c an astrono my . A f ter spreadin g over
the whole basin of the M ed iterranean H elleni c cu ltur e had
,

ne x t to repair the ra v ag es o f the barbarians and , , c hie fly u nd er

the f orm of Christian ity to make itsel f a c cepted by
, th e n ew

nationalities wh i ch had risen on the rui ns of the R oman

e mpire . S o arduous a task was su ffi ci ent to en g ross d ur i n g ,

m any c enturies the entire i ntellectual energi s o f Western

,
e

E urope At last the e trem e li m i ts o f d i ff us i on w ere pro

. x

v isionally reached and thou ght once more be c am e a v a i lable

,

f o r the dis c overy o f new truth Si m ultaneously with th i s .

c onsum mation the great supernaturalist rea c tion hav in g also

, ,

reached its e x treme li mits had so , f ar subsid ed that Nature ,

c ould once more be studied on s c ientifi c principles with less ,

f reedom , indeed than i n old,

I onia, but still w i th tolerabl e
secu rity against the ven g eance of interested or f anat i cal
opponents . An d at the very same conj u ncture i t was shown
by the accu mulated observ ations of many ag es that the con
c e p t io n of the un i verse on whi c h the ac c epted philosophy
rested mu st be repla c ed by on e of a d ire c tly opposite de
scription . I must con f ess that i n this vast revolution the rela
tion between the obj ective and the subj ect iv e as re c onst i tuted ,

by Chri stianity and the Germanic g eni us , does not seem to

me to have played a v ery p romi nent part .

Zeller s sem i He g elian theory

’
If -
of histo ry does scant
j ustice to the var i ety and c omplexity of causes d eterminin g
the evol ution of philosophy i t also dra w s away attention
,

f rom the ultimate elements ,

the matter i n an Aristoteli an
,

sense ,
of which that evol ution consists . By this I mean the
d evelopment of parti c ular id eas as d i st i n g u i shed f rom th e
xv i i i PR E FA CE .

moralists of the two precedin g c entu ries Yet the d ependen c e .

of those thinkers on the s c hools of antiquity i s hardly less

inti mate than ou r d ependen ce on Spi noza an d H u me .

Nevertheless i n no work that I am ac quai nted with has this

,

c ircums t an c e been used to elu c id ate the course pursued by

modern thought indeed I may say that the persistence of
; ,

H ellenic ideas d own to the most re c ent ti mes has n ot been

f ully reco g nised by any s c holar except Pro f . T e ic h mti lle r,

who has particularly d e v oted his attention to the histo ry of

conceptions as d istin g uished f rom the history of systems .

The i ntroduction of T e ic h mu lle r s n ame a ff ord s me an

’

opportunity f o r me n t i o n i n g t h at my attention was not d irected

to hi s brilliant researches into various questions c onnected
with Greek philosophy ,
an d more partic ularly w ith th e

systems of Plato and Aristotle until it was too late , fo r me

to profit by them in the present work . I allud e more par
'

to his Stu G es c fi z c /z te d er B eg rifi e

'

t ic u l arly d z en z u r (Berlin ,

L z tera rz sc k e Fe/z a en m
’ ' '
’
and to his recently published z

mertm jafi rk u fl d ert (Breslau The C/z r

chie f
'

v ar .
,

points of the f ormer work are that Plato was really a pan ,

theist or monist not as is com mon ly believed and as I have

, ,

mysel f taken f o r g ranted , a d ualist ; that as a consequenc e ,

of the suppression of individuality which characterises hi s

system he d id not really accept or teach the d octrine
, of

personal i mmortality althou g h he wished that the mass O f

,

the people should belie v e it ; that Plato no more attri buted

a transcendent e x istence to his ideas than did Aristotle to his
substantial f orms ; and that i n puttin g an O pposite i nter
’

p re t a t i o n on his old master s theory Aristotle is , g uilty of

g ross misrepresentation The most important i of the

'

.
p o n t

L i tera rz s c /z e Fe/z a en
’

’
is that Aristotle published hi s
’

E tfi z c s
 PR E FA CE . xix

wh i le Plato was st i ll alive and en g ag ed i n the compositi on o f

his La w s, and t hat c ertain p assages in the latter work ,

of

which one relates to f ree -

will and the other to the u nity of

v i rtue (8 6 1 A ff and 9 6 2 ff ) were intended as a reply to

,
. .

Ari stotle s well know n c riticisms o n the Platoni c theory o f

’
-

ethi cs .

I ha v e been ne c essarily b rie f i n my statement o f Tei c h

of the m apart f rom the f act s
’
m uller s theses ; and to j ud g e -

and a r
g u ments by which they are supported in the tw o ve ry
interestin g v olu mes above named wo ul d be in the hi ghest
‘

d eg ree u n f a i r I f eel bound however to menti on the c hie f

.
, ,

reasons which make me hesitate to accept h i s conclusions .

It see ms to me then that althou g h Plato was movin g i n th e

, ,

d irection o f panthe i s m —as I have mysel f pointed o u t in

m ore than on e passag e of —
this work h e n ever a c tu ally
reached it Fo r (i ) he does not like P lotinus attempt to
. .
, ,

d educe hi s material f ro m hi s id eal pri nciple bu t only blend s

~

without reconci lin g them i n the world of sensible experien c e .

(ii ).I n opposin g the per i shable nature Of the ind i vid ual (or
rather the particular) t o the eternal nature o f the u niversal ,

he i s g o i n g on the f a c ts of e x perien c e rather than o n any

necessary O p position bet w een the two and on experienc e o f ,

material or sensibl e O bj ects rather than O f i m mater i al souls ;

while e v en as reg ard s m aterial obj ects the heavenly bod ies
, , ,

to which he attributes everlastin g d u ration constitute su ch a ,

sweepin g exceptio n to his rul e as entirely to d estroy i ts

)
’
applicability (iii Plato s multiplied
. and elaborate
. ar g u
ments f o r the i m mortality o f the sou l would be superfluou s
were his only obj ect to prove that the soul like everythin g ,

else contain s an eternal element

, (iv ) The Pythag orean . .

theo ry that the soul i s a harm ony wh ic h Plato rej e c ts would , ,

3 2
xx PR E FA CE .

have been per f ectly compatible with the i deal and i mpersonal
i mmortality which T e i c h mu ll e r supposes hi m to have tau ght
f o r while the pa rticular harmony perishes the of
, g en eral laws
harmony remain ( ) . v . T e i c h mti ll e r does not d ispose sat is s

f ac t o ri ly of Plato s c rownin g arg u ment that the idea

’
of li f e i s
as inseparable f rom the soul as heat f rom fire or c old f ro m

snow H e says (op c i t p 1 3 4 ) that on this prin ciple the

. .
, .
, ,

i ndividual soul may still perish j ust as parti cular portion s o f ,

fire are exting uished and parti c ul ar portions of snow a re

melted . Yes but portion s

,
of fire do not g row cold no r
,

po rt ions of snow hot which and which alone wou ld o ff er an

,

analogy to the e x tin c tion of a soul .

I ag ree howe ver with T e i c h mti lle r that the do c trines

, , of

reminiscen c e and metempsychosis have a purely mythical

si g nificance and I should hav e e x pressed my views on the
,
’

subj ect with mo re d e fi n ite n e s s and d ecision had I known that

his authority mi ght be quoted i n thei r support . I think that
Plato in the O r i ental to what
transition state f rom
'

w as a

a f terward s became t he Christian theory o f retribution I n .

the on e he f ound an alle gorical illustration of his met aphys ics ,

in the other a v ery seriou s sanction fo r hi s ethics . H e f elt

their inco mpatibility but was not prepared to undertake such ,

a complete reconstru ction of his system as would h ave been

necessitated by alto g ether d enyin g the pre existence -
of the
’
soul . Of
~
such vacillation Plato s later D ialo g u es o ff e r, I think ,

su ffi cient eviden c e . For example the M atter , of the Ti ma eu r

seems to be a revised version the O ther or prin c iple o f of

d ivision and chan g e which has alread y fi g ured as a pure idea

, ,

in wh ich capacity it must necessarily be opposed to matter .

At the same t i me , I must O bserve that f rom my poi nt , of v iew ,

it is enou gh if Plato incul cated the doctrin e of a f utu re l i f e as

’
 PRE FA CE . xxi

an i m p ort an t element O f_ his reli g ious system . A nd that he

d id so i nculcat e it T e i c h mu lle r f u lly ad mits .
‘

W i th regard to th e Ni co ma c kemz E tfi i c s I think Teich ,

m uller has p roved this much that i t was written be f ore ,

Aristotle had read the L aw s or knew of its e x istence . B ut

this does not pro v e that he wrote it durin g P l ato s li f eti me ’

’
since the La w s was not published u nti l a f ter Plato s death ,

possibly not unt i l sev eral years a f ter . And publi shed or not
, ,

Aristotle may very w ell hav e remained i g norant of its e x ist

ence until his return to Athens which ac c ordin g to the , ,

trad i ti on took pla c e about 3 3 6 R C T e i c h mii lle r does i ndeed

, .
, ,

suppose that Aristotle spent some t i me in Athens between

his fli g ht f ro m M ityl en e and his en g ag ement as tutor to
Al ex ander (L i tera ri sc /i e Fe/i a m p But this theory ’
, .
,

besid es its purely c onj ectural c hara c ter would sti ll allow the ,

’
possibili ty of Ari stotle s havin g remained unacquainted with
the L aw s up to the ag e o f f orty . And it i s obviou s that the
passa g es wh i ch T e i c h mu lle r
’
interprets as replies to Aristotle s
criticisms ad mit of more than one alternative e x planation .

They may hav e ori g inated i n doubts and d ifl

i c u lt i e s whi ch
spontaneously su ggested themselves to Plato i n the c ou rse of

h i s i nd epend ent reflections ; or , g rantin g that there i s a

polem ic re f erenc e it m ay have been p rovoked by so me other
,

critic or by the spoken

,
c riti c isms O f Ar i stotle hi msel f For .

the supposition that Ar i stotle wrote his E z k zc s at the early

'

ag e o f thirty two o r thirty three seems to me so i mprobabl e

- -

that we should not accept it e x cept under pressu re of the

stron g est e v idence . That a work of such matured thou ght
and observation should ha v e been produced by so youn g a
man is so ,
f ar as I know a phenomenon unparalleled i n the
,

Se e e s p e c i all y th e i n te re s ti n g n o te on th e su b j ec t i n his re c e n t w o rk , Di e
w i rlz l i c /z e z md d ie sc /z ei n b a re Welt ,
Vo rre d e , p p x . fl
xx i i PRE FA CE .

h i story of l i terature .
And to this we must add the f u rthe r
ci rcumstance that the Greek mind was not parti c ularly
remarkable f o r precocity i n any field e x cept war and states
manship .
We do indeed find i nstances
, ,
of c o mparat iv ely
j uvenile authorship but none I belie v e , , ,
of a Greek writer ,

whether poet historian or philosopher who reached the f ull

, , ,

maturity of his powers be f ore a c onsid erably advan c ed period

of middle age .v ery i mperf ect I f ully
That the E t/i i es is
ad mit and hav e e pressly m a i ntain ed ag a i nst its n umerou s
,
x

admirers i n the c ourse o f this work B ut althou gh i mperf ect .

, ,

it is not crude I t c ontains as g ood a dis c uss i on o f the subj ec t

.

und ertaken as Ar i stotle was ev er c apable o f g ivin g and it s ,

limitations are not those of an u nripe i ntellect but ,

of an
i ntellect at all times c omparatively u n suited f o r the treat ment
of practical problems and n arrowed still ,
f u rthe r by the
requi rements of an elaborate speculative system . Nwo to
work out this system mu st have demanded c onsiderably more
labou r and independ ent thou ght than one c an suppose even
an Aristotle to have f ou nd tim e f o r be f ore thirty three -
while
the e x perien c e of li f e shown i n the E Z/z i es i s such as study ,

so f a r f rom supplyin g would on the contrary have d elayed

, , , .

Moreover the , R he to ri c , which was c on f essedly written be f ore

the E th er, e x hibits th e same qu alities i n about an equal
deg ree and there f ore T e i c h mu l le r s
’
, , on theo ry testifies to a
,

still more extraord i nary precocity . And there i s the f u rt he

ci rcu mstan c e that while Arist otle is kn own to have beg u n hi s
public c areer as a teacher of rhetoric his earliest prod uctions
,

seem to hav e been of a rather di ff use and declamatory

character quite opposed to the severe concision
, w hi ch marks
the style both of the R ke z o ri e and of the E i /z i es additio n
‘
. In
to these g eneral c onsi derations one m ay ment i on that i n
, a
 PRE FA CE . x x ii i

well known passag e

-
of the E thic s , ref errin g to a q u estion of

logic al method (I Plato is spoken o f i n th e i mperf e c t

.
,

tense whi ch would seem to i mply that he was no lon g er

,

li v in g when it was w ritten . Speakin g f ro m memory I sho u ld ,

even be in c lined to doubt whether the mention of a livin g

writer by name at all is c ons i stent w i th Ari stotle s stan dard’

of literary etiquette .

These are di ffi culties which T e i c h mii l le r has no doubt , ,

f ully wei ghed and put asid e as not su fli c i e n t ly stron g to

invalidate his c on c lusio n s . I ha v e stated them i n order to
show that enou g h c an be said f o r the O ld v iew to j usti f y the
republication of what was written on the assu mptio n O f its
u nquestionabl e truth . M oreo v er researc hes conducted with
,

so mu c h skill and learn i n g as those of T e i c h mti lle r d emand

some p ubli c a c knowled g ment in a work l i ke the present ev en ,

when th e results are s uch that the writer cannot see hi s way
to a c ceptin g them as satis f a c torily made out . There are many
E n g lish s c holars more c omp etent than I am to d iscuss the
whol e question at i ssu e . Perhaps these lines may i nd u c e
some of them to g ive i t the attention wh ic h it merits but ,

wh i ch i n ,
E n g land at least i t does not seem to have as yet
,

recei v ed .

My obli g at i ons to other wr i ters ha v e been acknowledg ed

throu ghout this work so f ar as I was , c onsc i ous of them and ,

so f ar as they c ould be d efined by re f erence to spe ci fic points .

I take the present opportunity f o r mentionin g i n a more

g eneral way the v alu able assi stan c e which I have d erived
’
G esc /i ic /i te G ri ee/z i s c /i e i z Pk il os op /i i e,
’
f ro m Sc h w e gle r s a er

L an g e
’
s G are/t i c k l e d es M a teri al i s mu s and D uhri n g s ,
’
Ge

s c /z i efi te d er P/i i /os opk i e . The parallel between S o c rates ,

Giordano Bruno and Spi noza was probably sugg ested to me

,
 PR E FA CE .

by D uhri n g as also were some points in my

,
c h arac t e ris a

t i on of Aristotle . As my view of the positi o n o cc upied by

Lu c retius with respect to reli g ion and phi losophy di ff ers in

many i mportant points f rom that of Pro f S ellar it i s t h e

.
,

more i n c u mbent on me to state that but f o r a perusal , of

Prof Sellar s eloquent and sympathetic c hapters o n the

.
’

g reat
E picurean poet my own esti mat e
,
of hi s g enius would c ertainly
not hav e been written i n its present f orm and would probably
not hav e been written at all .

On the whole I am a f raid that my ac quaintance with the

,

mod ern literature of the subj e c t wi ll be f ound rather l i m ited

f o r an und ertakin g like the present . But I do not th i nk that
wider readin g in that d irection wou ld have much f urthered the
obj ect I had i n v iew . That obj ect has been to exhibit the
pri ncipal ideas of c losest possible
Greek philosophy i n the
connexion with the characters o f their authors with ea c h ,

o ther with their d evelop ments i n modern spe c ulation with

, ,

the parallel t endencies o f literature an d art w i th the history ,

o f reli g ion o f physical sc i en c e and O f ci vil i sation as a whol e

, , .

To interpret all t hin gs b y a system o f universal ref eren c es is

the method of philosophy w hen applied to a series of events
this method is the philosophy of h i story ; when the e v ents
are ideas it is the ph i losophy
, of ph i losophy i tsel f .
 xx vi CO NTE NTS OF TH E FIRS T VO L UME .

h is p hilo s o p hy ,
27—H is i n f e ri o ri t y to p re v i o u s t h i n k e rs , 2 8 —E c le c tic te n d e n c y of
his sys te m, 29 —I n mark s an ad van c e o n th at o f Parme n id es,
w h at re sp e c ts it
— H is alle g d t i c i at i o n o f t h e D a rw i n i an t h e o ry, 3 o — T he fi x i ty o f sp ec i e s a
29 e a n p
d oc t n e
i h ld b e v e ry an c i e n t p hil o s o p h e r e x c e p t A n ax i m an d e r 3 1 — T h e t h e o ry
r e y ,

o f k n o w l e d ge p u t f o rw ard b y E mp e d o c l e s i ts o b j e c ti v e an d mat e ri al i s ti c c h arac t e r,

2 — H o w i t s ggu e s t e
'

d t h e A t o m i c t h e o ry , 33
— T h e p o s sib i li ty o f a v ac u u m d e n ie d
3
a

b y Parm en id e s a n d a s s e rt e d b y L e u c i pp u s —
3 4 T h e A to mi c th e o ry d e v e l o p e d an d
,

app l i e d yD
b e m o c r i t u s e n c y c l o p a e d i c r a n g e o f hi s s tu d i e s , 35
— H i s c o mp l e t e re

j ec ti o n of th e s u p e rn atu ral , 3 6 .

V . A n ax ago ras at A th en s , 3 6 — H e is ac c u s e d of i mp i e ty an d co mp e lle d to

fly, 3 7— A n alys is of hi s syst e m, 3 8 — I ts me c h an i c al an d mat e ri al i sti c ten d e n c y, 39
— Sep arat i o n o f N o u s f ro m t h e res t o f a t u re , 4 o N —
I n d e n yi n g th e d iv i n i ty o f t h e
h e av en ly b o d i e s, A n ax ago ras o p p o se d h i msel f to th e u n i ve rs al f ai th of an ti q u i ty,
4 O — T he e x c e p t i o n al i n to l e ran c e of th e A th en i an s an d i ts e x p lan a ti o n , 42
—T ran
s i tio u f ro m p h ysi c al t o d i alec ti c al an d e thi c al p h i l o so p h y, 4 3 .

y
V I E arl G re e k th o u gh t as man if e s te d i n l i te ratu re an d art, —
4 5 Th e
.
ge n e a
l o gi c al me th o d of H e sio d an d H e ro d o tu s, —
4 7 T he se arc h f o r fi rst c au se s in Pi n d ar
an d A esc h yl u s, 4 8 — A n al o go u s ten d e n c i e s of sc u l p tu re an d arc h i t e c tu re , 49
Co mb i n ati o n o f ge o grap h i c al w i th ge n e al o gi c al s t u d i e s 50 —T h e e v o lu tio n o f o rd e r ,

f ro m c h ao s s u gge s te d b y th e n e gati v e o r an t i th e ti c al mo me n t o f G re e k th o u gh t , 50
'

Ve rifi ab le an d f ru i tf u l c h arac te r o f e arly G reek th o u gh t, 5 2 .

C H A PT E R II .

THE G REE K H U MA NI ST S NAT U RE A ND LAW

p age s 5 3 4 0 7
I . The reac t i o n o f _sp e c u l i f e , 5 3 — Mo ral s u p e ri o ri ty o f t he G re e k s t o
l at i o n on

—
the H e b re w s an d R o man s , 54 I ll u g i z ti On s o f h u man i ty f ro m t he G re e k p o e ts ,
55
— T e mp o rary c o rru p ti o n o f mo ral se n time n t an d i ts e x p la n ati o n , 56 — Su b se u e n t q
re f o rmat i o n e ff e c t e d b y p h i l o so p h y, 5 7 Th e G re e k w o rs hi p o f b e au ty n o t i n c o m
—

a t ib l e w i th a h igh mo ral s t an d ard , 5 8 — Pre f e re n c e o f th e so l i d t o th e s h o w

p y
v i rtu e s sh o w n b y p u b l ic o p in i o n i n G reec e , 5 9
— O i n i o n o f Pl ato , 6 0
p .

I I V irtu es i n c u lc ate d in th e ap h o ri sms o f t h e Se v en Sage s, 6 2 — SO h ro s n é

.
p y
as a c o mb in atio n of mo d e rati o n an d s e lf -
k n o w l e d ge , 6 2 -
I ll u s t rat i o n s f ro m H o me r,
6 2 — T ran s i tio n f ro m se l f regard i n g
-
to o th e r re -

gard i n g v i rtu e , 6 3 — H o w mo ral i ty

ac q u i red a re l i gio u s san c ti o n (i )
. b y th e u se of o ath s, 64 b y th e a s c ri
p tio n
of a d i vi n e b y th e p rac ti c e o f c o n su l t i n g o rac l es o n u
o rigi n to la w , 65 q e s ti o n s

o f ri gh t an d w ro n g , 6 5 —Di ff e re n c e b e tw e en th e O l ymp i an an d Ch th o n i an re li i o n s ,
g
6 6 — Th e l atte r w as c l o se l y c o n n e c te d w i th th e i d eas o f la w an d o f re trib u tio n
a f te r d e a th , 6 7—B en e fi c en t re s u l ts d u e to t h e i n te rac ti o n of th e t w o re l i gi o n s, 68 .

III . T he re l igi o u s s tan d po in t of A e sc h yl u s, 6 9— I n c ip i en t d i s so c i at i o n of

re lig io n f ro m mo ral i ty i n So ph o c l e s , 7o —T h e i r c o mp le te se p ara ti o n

i n E u ri p i d e s,
7 I— C o n t ras t b e tw e e n th e E te o c l e s of A esc h ylu s an d th e E te o c l e s o f E u ri i d e s ,
72
p
A n al o go u s d i ff e re n c e b e tw e e n H ero d o t u s an d Th u yd i dces , 7
—
3 E v i d e n c e o f mo ral
—
d e te ri o rat i o n p pli e d b y A ris to p h an es an d Pl at o ,
su 7
4 Pro b ab i li ty o f an as so c i a ti o n
b e t w e en i n te lle c tu al gro w th an d mo ral d e c l i n e , 75 .

a
IV .

mo ral gu i d e 79 — I ll u
T he
,
6 —
7 Pro d i c u
s tra ti o n
s an

f ro m
d H ip p i as , 77 The i r th e o ry o f atu re as
-

E u ri p i d e s , So —Pf Ob E bI e EOfi i féxio n o f the

-
N ’ —
C yn ic sc h o o l w i th Pro d i c u s, 81 A n ti th e s is b e tw e e n Nt a u re an d Law 8 1 —
O p po
 CO NTE NTS O F TH E FIR S T VO L UME . xx vi i
s i tio u to slave ry 8 2 —Th e ,
ve rs ati l i ty o f H i pp i as c o n n ec t e d w i th his ad v o c ac y o f

Nt a u re ,83 — T h e ri gh t o f t h e s t ro n ge r as a l aw o f Nt a u re , 84
m
.

V R is e o f id e ali s m an d ac c o mp an yi n g
.
w
N atu re 8 5—Agn o s t i c i s m o f Pro t ago ras , 8 7 — Ia w h at s e n se h e mad e man th e
,
meas u re o f all th in gs , 88 —H i s d e f en c e o f c i v i li sat i o n , 8 9 —Si mi l arv i e w s e x p resse d

b y Thu c yd i d e s , 90 —C o n t ras t b e tw ee n th e n atu ra lis m of A e s c h ylu s an d th e

h u man i s m o f So p h o c l es, 9 1 — T h e e x ib le fl c h arac te r of No mo s f av o u rab l e to

e d u c at i o n , 9 2 — G re e k yo u th s an d mo d e rn w o men , 9 3 — T h e te ac h in g of rh e t o ri c ,

—
9 3 I t is su b se qu e n tl
y d ev el o p e d in to eri s ti c i sm, 94 .

VI T he n ih il ism of Go rg as, 95
-
H is ar u
g me n ts re al l y d irec t e d agai n s t th e
—T h e
.

w o rshi p o f N tu ra e, 96 po w er of rh e to ri c in an c i e n t A th e n s an d mo d e rn
— T h e d o c tri n e s o f Pro ta o ras
E n gl an d , 9 7 as d e ve l o p ed b y th e C yre n ai c s c h o o l , 99
g
an d b y t he Me ari c s c h o o l, 1 00 —
-

g Su b se q u e n t h i s to ry o f th e an ti th e s i s b e tw e en

Nt a u re an d L aw , 100 .

VI I . Vari e ty o f ten d ep gi eg rep rese n te d b y_the So p his ts, 1 0 2 —Th e i r p o si ti o n in

G re e k s o c ie t
y, 1 03 —Th e d ifle re n t
'

vi e w s t ak e n o f th e i r p ro f es s i o n i n an c i e n t
an d mo d e rn ti mes , 1 04 — T he i r p l ac e i n th e d e v el o p men t o f G re ek p hil o so .

p h y. 1 0 7 .

C H A PT E R I I I .

TH E PLA C E O F SO C R A T E S I N G RE E K

PH I LO SO PH Y p ag e s 1 08 -
1 7
0

I U n i v e rsal c e l e b ri ty of So c rat e s , 1 0 8— Ou 1 i n ti mate k n o w l e d ge of h is

—C
.

app earan c e an d c harac t e r, l og on fli c t in g vie w s of hi s p h i lo so p h y, 1 10 —U n

I I I — Pl ato
.

tru s t w o rth i n e s s o f Plato n i c Ap ol og i a ,

th e s ac c o u n t c o n t ra d i c te d b y
’

X en o p h o n ,
1 13 — C o n si s t e n c y o f th e A po log ia w i th th e gen e ral s tan d p o i n t o f Pl ato s
’

Di al o gu e s, 1 1 4 — Th e Pl ato n i c i d ea o f sc i en c e , 1 1 5 — H o w Pl at o c an h e l p u s to

u n d e rs tan d Soc rat e s , 1 16 .

II . Z e ll e r s
’
th e o ry of th e So c rati c p hi l o so p hy, 11 —
7 So c rate s di d y n o t o fle r an
'

g No r d id b e
d e fi n i ti o n of k n o w le d ge , 1I — c o rrec t t h e d e fi c i en c i es o f G ree k p h ysi c al

s pe c u la t i o n , 1 20 —
d e to w ard s p h ysi c s res e mb l e d th at o f Pro tag o ras , 1 2 1
H i s atti tu
-
y
Po si ti v e th e o ri e s o f mo rali t an d re ligi o n w hi c h b e e n te rtai n e d , 1 2 3 .

I II T ru e me an in g an d o ri gi n ali ty o f th e So c rati c t e ac h i n g, 1 2 5 — C irc u ms tan c es

.

b y w hi c h th e A th en i an c h arac te r w as f o rme d , 126—

I ts p ro sai c , rat io n ali s t i c , an d
u tili t ari an t e n d e n c i e s, 127 —E fle c t p ro d u c e d b y th e p o sse ssi o n o f e mp ire , 1 2 8
'

Th e s tu d y o f mi n d i n art an d hi l o s o h y, 1 2 8 — H o w th e A th e n i an c h arac te r w as
p p
re p res e n ted b y So c rate s , 1 2 9—H i s symp ath y w i th i ts p rac t ic al an d re l igi o u s si d e ,
1 30 —H is re l ati o n t o th e H u man i sts , 1 3 1 —H i s id e n t i fi c ati o n o f v i rtu e w i th k n o w
l e d ge , 1 3 2— Th e searc h fo r a if yi n g p ri n c i p l e i n e thi c s, 1 3 3 — mp o rt an c e
u n I of

k n o w l e d ge , as a f ac t o r i n c o n d u c t an d c i v ili sa ti o n , 1 —
3 5 Fu n d amen tal id en ti t y of

al l me n t al p ro c e ss e s ,
th e 13 6 .

I V H armo n y o f th eo ry an d p rac ti c e i n th e lif e o f So c rates , 1 3 7

.
— Min d as a
p rin c i p l e (i ) o f s e l f c o n tro l , (ii ) o f c o o p e rati o n , an d (iii ) o f sp o n t an e o u s en e rgy,
m
- -
. . .

137 —De ri v ati o n an d f u n c tio n o f th e c ro ss e x a in i n g e le n c h u s 1 3 8 H o w i t -

,
~

ill u s trates th e n e gat iv e mo me n t o f G re ek th o u gh t 1 3 9 — C o n v e rs ati o n s w i th G l au c o ,

an d E u th yd é mu s , 1 3 9 — Th e e ro t e ti c me th o d as an ai d to se l f d i sc i l in e , 1 1
p 4
-

Su rv v a i l o f c o n t rad i c to ry d eb ate i n th e p ee c h e s o f T h u c yd i d es , 1 4 2
S

—S
.

V . W hy So c rate s i n s is te d o n th e n e c e s si ty o f d e fi n in g ab s t rac t te rms , 14 2 u b

se q u en t in fl u en c e o f hi s me tho d on th e d e v e lo p me n t of R o man law , 1 44 —Su b s ti
t u ti o n o f arran ge men t by re se mb l an c e d d i ff e re n c e f o r arran ge me n t b y c o n tigu i t ,
an y
14 5 —T he O n e i n t h e Man , an d th e y Man i n t h e O n e : c o n v e rsat i o n w i th C h ar
y
— I i f i d b t h i t r d i c t o r y o pp o s i t e s I 4 7 — T h e
mid e s , 1 4 6 l l u s t ra t o n o e as y e r c o n a ,

i i t t i n o f th e u n k n o w n b th e k n o w n , 1 4 8
, ( )
So c ratic i n d u c t i o n a n n t e r
.
p r e a o y
Mis app l ic atio n o f t h i s me th o d i n th e th e o ry o f fi n al c au s e s , 1 4 9 A p ro c e s s o f

c o mp a r i s o n a n d a b s t ra c t i o n , 1 5 0 — A pp p r o ri a t e n ess o f t h i s m e t h o d t o t h e s tu d y o f

me n tal p h e n o men a, 1 5 1 —Why i t i s i n app li c ab l e to th e p h ys ic al s c i e n c es , 1 5 1

W id e ran ge o f s tu d i e s i n c l u d e d i n a c o m p l e t e p h i l o s o p h o f m i n yd , 1 5 1 — T h e

d i al e c t ic al e li mi n ati o n o f i n c on s i s te n c y, 1 5 2 .

V I C o n s i s t e n c th e g re ya t p ri n c i p l e re p r es e n t e d b y S o c ra te s , 1 5 2 — Pa rall e li s m
'

—
.

of e th i c s d l o gic , 1 54 T h e e th i c al d i al ec ti c o f So c rat e s an d H o me r, 1 54
an

Pe rso n al an d h i s to ri c al v e ri fi c ati o n s o f t h e So c rati c me th o d , 1 5 5 I ts i n u e n c e o n

— fl
th e d ev el o p me n t o f a rt d li t t 6 — an d o n th e re lati o n s b e t w e en me n an d
a n e ra u re ,
1 5
w o men , 1 5 8 — Me an i n g o f th e Dae mo n i u m, 1 6 0 .

V I I A c c u s a ti o
. n an d t ri a l o f So c ra t e s , 1 6 1 — Fu til i t o f th e c h arges b ro u gh t y
a ai n s t h i m, 1 6 2
— M i c e t i o n s o f m o d e rn c r i t i c s 1 6 4
— H i s d e f e n c e an d c o n
g s c o n
p ,

—
d e mn a ti o n , 1 6 5 Wo rth le ss n ess o f G ro te s ap o l o gy f o r th e Di c a s te ry, 1 6 6
’

R e f u s al o f So c rat es t o s av e hi m s e lf b y i h
g , t 1 6 8 — fl
C o mp ari s o n w i t h G i o rd an o
B ru n o an d Sp in o z a, 1 6 9 — T he mo n u men ts rai s e d to So c rate s b y Pl ato an d
X e n o ph o n , 1 6 9 .

C H A PT E R IV .

PLA T O : H I S T A C H E ER S A ND H I S T IM S E p a
ge s 1 7 1—2 13 .

I Ne w. mean i n g gi v e n p h il o so ph y b y th e me th o d o f e v o lu ti o n ,
to s ys te ms of

17 1 —E x t rav agan c e s o f w h i c h Pl at o s p h i l o s o p h y s e e ms to b e mad e u p , 1 7

’
2 — T he

h i gh re pu tati o n w h i c h i t, n ev e rth e le ss , c o n ti n u e s to e n j o y, 1 7 4
— Di s ti n c ti o n
b e tw e e n p e c u l at i v e te n d en c i es
s an d th e yste m
s ati c f o rm u n d er w hi c h t h e y are

t ran smi tte d , 1 7 —

4 G e n u i n e n e ss of th e Pl at o n ic Di alo gu e s , 1 75— T h e i r c hro n o
l o gi c al o rd e r, 1 —
77 T h e y e mb o d y th e su b stan c e o f Pl ato s p h i l o so p h i c al te ac h i n g,
’

1 77 .

I I W id er
. a
pp l i c at io n gi v en t o th e di al e c ti c me th o d b y Pl ato , 1 79 H e go e s
-

b ac k to th e i n i ti al d o u b t o f So c rate s , 1 8 0 —T o w h at e x t e n t h e sh are d i n th e

re l igi o u s re ac ti o n of h i s t i me , 18 1 —
p lac es d e mo n st rati v e re a so n i n g ab o v e
He
d iv i n e i n sp i rati o n , 1 8 2 —H i s c ri t i c i s m o f th e So c rati c e th i c s , 1 8 3 E x c e p t i o n al —
c h arac te r o f t he Cri to ac c o u n te d f o r, 1 8 4 —T rac es o f So p hi s ti c i n u e n c e, 1 8 5 fl
G e n e ral re l a ti o n of Plato to th e So p h i st s, 1 86 _ E go i s ti c h e d o n i s m o f t h e Protag o ras ,
1 88 .

III . Pl ato as an in di v id u al : his h igh d e sc e n t , p e rs o n al b e a u ty, an d arti st ic

en d o w me n t, 1 89— H is s tyl e q
i s n e i th e r p o e try n o r e l o u e n c e n o r c o n v e rsa t io n , b u t
th e e x p re s si o n of sp o n t an e o u s th o u gh t, 1 9 0 — T h e Pl ato n i c So c rat e s , 1 9 1— Pl ato
c arri e s th e s
p i ri t of t h e A th e n i an i
a r s to c rac y i n t o
p h il o so h
p y, 9
1 2 — Se v e ri ty w i th
w h ic h gre a t re f o rme rs h ab i tu ally v i e w th e i r o w n age , 1 9 2 — Pl ato s sc o rn f u l
’

o p in io n o f th e man , 1 4
y 9 H i s l o ss o f f ai th i n hi s -
o w n o rd e r, 195 —H o rro r of

d e s p o t is m i n s p i re d b y h i s i n te rc o u rs e w i th Di o n ysi u s, 1 9 5 — H i s d i ssati sf ac t i o n
w i th th e c o n s ti t u ti o n o f S arta, 1 9 6 — H is t h e o r o f
p y p o l i t ic al d e ge n e rati o n v e rifi e d
b y th e h i s to ry o f th e R o man re p u b l i c , 1 9 6 — H i s e x c l u s iv e l y H e ll e n i c a n d ari s
t o c ratic sy mpathi e s , 19 —
7 I n v e c tiv es agai n st th e c o rru fl
p ti n g i n u e n c e of th e
m u l ti t u d e an d of th e ir flatte re rs , 1 9 8 — De n u n c i ati o n O f th e
p o p u l ar law
-
c o u rts ,
 CO NTE NTS OF TH E FI R S T VO L UM E .

199 —Ch arac te r o f th e su c c e s s f u l p le ad e r, 2 00 I mp o rt an c e t o — w hi c h he had ri sen

i n Plato t i me , z oo — Th e p ro f e ss i o n al t e ac h e r o f rh e to ri c , 2 0 1
’
s .

mp re h e n si v en e ss Pl at o 2 0 2— C o mb i n ati o n
’
IV . Val u e an d co of s p hil o so p h y,
o f Si c ili an an d It ali o t e mo d e s o f
w i t h A t ti c th o u gh t, 2 0 3 — T ran s i ti o n f ro m_ t h e
Pro tagoras t o th e Tlz eae tet m 2 0 5 Man i s
, th e me asu re of all thi n gs o pin i o n

an d se n s ati o n ,
2 06 — E x t e n sio n of - t h e d i al e c ti c me th o d t o all e x is t e n c e , 2 0 7— Th e
H e rac l e i t e an sys t e m tru e o f p h e n o me n a, 2 08 —H erac l e i tu s an d Pa rme n i d e s in th e
Cra ty l u s, 209 — T en d en c y t o fi x on Id en ti ty Di ffe ren c e as th e
an d u l timate
e le me n ts of k n o w l e d ge , 2 10 C o mb i n ati o n o f th e mat h e mati c al me th o d w i th th e
d i al ec t i c of . So c rat e s , 2 10 —D oc t rin e ofd p rio ri c o gn i ti o n , 2 1 1 — Th e i d ea of

Same n ess d e ri v e d f ro m in tro s p e c ti o n , 2 1 2 —T e n d e n c y t o w ard s mo n is m, 2 1 3 .

C H A PT E R V .

PLA T O AS A RE FO RM ER p ag es 2 14—2 7
4

2 1 4 —Pl at o id e n ti fi c a t i o n of man
’
I . R ec api tu la ti o n , s th e h u wi th th e d i v i n e ,

2 1 5 — T he A th an as i an c ree d of p hil o s o p h y, 2 16 —A tt e mp t s to med i at e b e t w e e n

ap
pe a ran c e an d Plato n i c lo v e , 2 1 7—
re ali ty, 2 1 6— Me an i n g
I ts su b se u e n t of q
d e v e l o p me n t in t h e p hil o s o p h y o f A ris to t l e , 2 1 8 —A n d i n th e p o etry o f Dan te ,
‘

2 1 9 — C o n n e xi o n b e t w e e n re li gi o u s mys t i c i s m an d th e p as si o n o f l o v e , 2 1 9— Su c

c e ss i v e s tages o f G re e k th o u gh t re p res en t e d i n t h e Sy mp osi u m, 2 2 0 —An alysi s o f

Pl a to s d i al e c ti c a l me th o d , 2 2 1 E x agge ra t e d i mp o rt an c e at trib u t e d t o c l assi fi c a

’
-

t io n , 2 2 2 —
Pl ato
’
s in fl u en c e o n mo d e rn ph il o s o p h y , 22 3 .

II Me d i ato ral Pl ato 2 2 3 — E mp i ri c al

’
. c h arac t e r of s p syc h o l o gy, kn o w le d ge
as a l i n k b e tw e e n d e mo n s tra ti o n an d s e n se p e rc e p ti o n , 2 2 4— Pri d e as a li n k
b e t w een reas o n an d a
ppe ti t e , 2 24— T ran si t i o n f ro m me t ap hysi c s to e thi c s

k n o w l e d ge d p l e as u re , 2 2 5— A n ti h e d o n i s ti c argu me n t s o f t h e Plz i l éb u r, 2 2 6
an -

A tt e mp t t o b as e e th ic s o n th e d isti n c ti o n b e t w e e n s o u l an d b o d y, 2 2 7 — Wh at i s
mean t b y th e d e a o f G o od ? i — I t i s p ro b ab ly t h e ab s trac t n o t i o n o f d e n ti t , 2 2 9
I I y
a .

I II H o w th e p rac t i c a l t e ac hi n g O f Pl at o d i ff e re d f ro m tha t O f So c rate s, 2 2 9

.

I d e n ti fi c a ti o n o f j u s t i c e w i th s e lf i n te re s t, 2 3 0 C o n f u si o n o f so c i al w i th i n d iv i d u al
- -

h ap p in ess, 2 3 1 — R e s o l u ti o n o f th e s o u l in t o a mu l ti tu d e o f c o n fli c ti n g imp u ls e s,
23 2— I mp o ssib i li ty o f ar u
g i n g me n in to go o d n e ss, 2 3 3 .

IV . U n io n o f re l igi o n w i t h mo ralit y, 2 3 4 — C au ti o u s han d lin g Of th e po p u l ar

th e o l o gy, 2 3 4 —Th e immo rtali ty o f th e mati o nso u l, 235 —T he Pyth ag o re an re f o r

arres ted b y th e p ro gre ss o f p h ys i c al p h il o so hy, 2 3 7 — I mmo rtali t d e n i ed b so me

p y y
o f th e Pyth ago re an s th e ms e lv e s , 2 3 7 — Sc e ti c i sm as a t ran si t i o n f ro m mate ri alis m
p
t o s p i ri t u al i sm, 2 3 8 — Th e argu me n t s o f Pl ato , 2 3 9 —Pan th e i sm th e n a tu ra l o u t
c o me o f h i s sys te m, 2 4 0 .

V Pl ato s c o n d e mn at i o n O f art ,
.
’
—E x c e p t i o n i n f av o u r o f re ligi o u s hymn s
an d e d if y i n g fi c ti o n , 2 4 1 — Math e mati c s t o b e ma d e t h e b as i s o f e d u c at i o n , 2 4 2
A pp li c at io n o f s c i e n c e t o th e i mp ro v e me n t o f th e ra c e , 2 4 2 — I n c o n s is t en c y o f
Plat o s b e li e f i n h e re d i ty w i th th e d o c t ri n e o f me te mp syc h o s i s , 2 4 3 Sc h e me f o r
’
-

t h e re o rgan i s a t i o n o f s o c i e ty, 2 44 — Pra c t ic al d i al e c t i c o f t h e R ep u b li c , 2 4 5 .

V I H e ge l s th e o ry o f th e R ep z i él z e, 2 4 6 —Se v e ral d is ti n c t t e n d e n c i es c o n f o u n d e d
'
’
.

u n d e r th e n a me o f s u b j e c t i v i ty, 2 4 7— G re e k hil o so h n o t an e l e me n t o f o li t i c al
p p y p
—
d i s i n tegrati o n , 2 50 Pl at o b o rro w e d mo re f ro m E gyp t th an fro m Sp art a, 2 5 3 .

VI I . T he c o n se q u en c es of a rad ic al re v o l u tio n , 2 54 —Pl ato c o n s tru c te d hi s

n e w re p u b l ic ou t o f th e e le me n tary an d su b o rdi n ate f o rms of so c i al u n i o n , 2 5 4
x xx C O NTE NTS O F TH E FI RS T VO L UM E .

In c o n si ste n c i e s i n t o w hi c h h e l e d b y t h i s m e t
w ash o d , 2 54 Th e p o s i t i o n w h ic h —
h e ass ign s to w o me n , 2 5 6
— T h e P l a t o n i c S t a t e h a l f sc h o o l b o ard an d h al f -

marri age b o ard , 2 5 8 Part -

— i al re a l i sa t i o n o f P l a to
’
s
p o li t y i n th e M id d l e A ge s , 2 59

—
—C o n tras t b e t w e e n Plato an d t h e m o d e r n C o mm u n i s t s , 2 59 H i s r e al affi n i ti e s

a re w i th d H e rb e rt Sp e n c e r, 2 6 1
C o mte an .

III i l d i h i m t h i 2 6 2 — T h e id e as
P
’
i f l t t s o n s e a
p y s c s
V Re ca t o n o a o s s o c a s u e ,

— 7
.

5 D
'

re so l v e d i n to d i ff e re n t as p e c ts o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s o u l a n d b o d y 6 3 i al e c ti c

f d m l t b t w l i t a n d app e aran c e , 2 6 3
d is so l u t i o n o f th e f o u r u n a e n t a c o n t r as s e e e n r e a y
—Min d as an i n t e rme d iary b e t w e e n th e d e as an d th e e x te rn al w o rl d , 116 5 I
C o s mo g f h Ty i m 6 — P h i l s o p h y a n d th e o l o gy, 2 6 7
o n o t e a eu s 2 5 o
—
.

—
,

IX Pl ato s h o p e s f ro m a b e n e fi c e n t d p
’
e s o t i s m ,
2 6 8 Th e L a w s , 2 6 9 Co n
—
.

m f h h — R li i i l 7 R e c ap i tu
g , 7 t
i d t t 0 o u s n o e r an c e 2 1
c e ss o n s t o c u r re n t o e s o o u 2 e g ,

l atio n of Pl ato
’
s ac h ie v eme n ts, 2 7 2 — Fe rtili ty o f h is me th o d , 2 73 .

C H A PT E R VI .

C H A R AC T E R I ST I CS O F A R I ST O T IE page s 2 75 3 29
-

I . R e c e n t A ri s t o t e li an l i t e ratu re , 27 —
5 R e ac ti o n in f avo u r of A ri s to tl e
’
s

—
77 an d mp an yi n g mi si n te rp re tatio n of i ts me an i n g, 78
p h il o so p h y, 2 ac c o 2

Z e ll e r s
’

p art i al i ty f o r A ri s to tl e , 2 80 .

II . Li f e o f A ri s t o tl e , 2 8o —H i s re l at io n to Plato , 2 8 1 — A ri s to t le an d H e rme i as
2 8 4 — A ri s to t l e an d A l e x an d e r, 2 8 5 —A ri s to tl e s
’
re s i d e n c e i n A th en s, fl igh t ,
an d
d e ath , 2 88 —
H is c hoic e of a s u c c e s so r, 2 88 — Pro v i si o n s of h is w i ll , 2 89 —Pe rso n al
app e aran c e , 2 8 9 — A n ec d o tes i llu s t rat i n g h i s c h arac te r, 290 — Wan t o f s e l f reli an c e
-

an d o ri gi n al i ty, 2 9 1 .

III . Pre v al en t mi s c o n c e p ti o n of t h e d i ffe re n c e b e t w ee n A ris to tl e an d Pl ato ,

ag r —Plat o a p rac ti c al , A ri s to tl e a th e o re ti c al ge n i u s , 2 9 3
— C o n tras t o ff e re d by
t h e i r v i e w s o f t h e o l o gy e th i c s an d p o l i t i c s 294 —A ri s t o tle s i d e al o f a State 3 9 6
’
,

—H i s w an t O f p o li t i c al i n sigh t an d p re v i sio n 297— Wo rthle ssn e s s o f his the o ries

, , ,

at th e p re s e n t d ay, 3 98 .

IV . Stre n gth an d w e ak n e ss of A ris to tl e

’
s R lz ez ori e ,
‘
2 99 —
E rro n e o u s th e o ry o f
a e sth e ti c jme n t p u t f o rw ard i n hi s Faeri es , 3 00 —T he tru e n atu re o f tragic
e n oy

e mo ti o n 0
3 3
—I m p o rt a n c e o f f e mal e c h arac t e rs i n t ra e d
g y 3 3
0 —Ne c e ssi ty f o
—T h
, ,

j u s tic e e o ry o f C ath ars i s , 3 0 6 —A ri s to tl e

’
o e tic in th e l es f o r re aso n
305
—
s ru
p ,

in g c o mp i le d f ro m Plato , 30 7 Th e Orga n on i n C e yl o n , 3 0 7 .

V . A ri s to tl e
’
s u ne q u al l e d i n te lle c t u al e n th u s ias m, 3 0 8 —I ll u s t rat io n s f ro m h i s
—
w ri t i n gs , 3 9 H is
0 to tal f ail u re in e v e ry p hys i c al s c ie n c e exc e t
p z o o lo
gy an d
a n a to my, yet — H is re p e ate d j
re e c ti o n o f th e u st j v ie w s
p u t f o rw ard b y o th e r

p h ilo so p h e rs , yet
—Co mp l e te an t i th es i s b e t w ee n his t h eo ry o f N
a tu re an d o u rs ,

Su p re me maste ry sh o w n b y A ri s to tl e i n d e al i n g w i t h th e su rfac e o f th i n gs ,
VI .

— —
3 1 8 H i s i n a b i y g
li t t o o b e l p w t h e s u rf ac e , 3 1 9 I n w h at p o i n ts h e w as i n f e ri o r
t o h i s p re d e c e sso rs , 3 20 — H is s t an d poin t d e t e rmi n e d b y t he d e v e l o p
n e c ess ari l
y
m en t of G ree k t h o u gh t , 3 2 1 — A n al o go u s d e v e l o p me n t o f th e A t ti c d ra ma, 3 2 3 .

VI I . Pe ri o d i c al re t u rn to th e A ri s to t e lian me th o d , 3 2 5 —Th e sys te mati s in g

p o w e r o f A ri s to tl e e x e mp l i fi e d i n ,
all hi s w rit i n s
g 3 2 6 — b u t c h i e y i n th o s e re l at fl
—H is b io lo gi c al gen e ral isatio n s, 3 28
i n g t o th e d e sc ri p ti v e s c i e n c es, 3 2 7 —H o w
th ey are exp l ai n e d an d c o rrec te d b y th e th e o ry o f e vo l u ti o n , 3 2 9 .
 CO NTE NTS OF TH E FI RS T VOL UM E .

C HA PT E R V I I .

TH E SY ST E MA T I C PH I LO SO PH Y

O F A RI ST O T LE p ages 3 3 0 —4 02

I . H o mo ge n e i ty o f A ri st o tl e
’
s w ri t in gs , 3 30 —T h e Met ap hy s i c s , 33 1
—Wh at are
the c d p ri n c i p l e s o f t hi n gs
au se s an 33 1 — O b j e c t i o n s t o th e o n i an mate ri ali s m, I
— a s tu d o f f u n c t io n s , 3 3 2 — ll e gi t i mat e ge n e ral i sat i o n to
y I
’

33 2 A ri s t o tl e s t e l eo l o
gy
th e i n o rgan i c w o rl d , 3 3 3 — A ri s t o tl e s Fo u r C au se s , 3 3 4 —
’
De ri v ati o n o f h i s s u b
s tanti al Fo rms f ro m th e Pl at o n i c d eas, 3 3 5— H i s c ri t i c i sm o f t h e
I d e al t h e o ry, I
6 — I t li b il i t t o e v e r k i n d o f tra n s c e n d e n tal re al i s m, 3 3 8 — Su rvi v al o f th e
33 s app c a y y
Plato n i c th eo ry i n A ri sto tle s sys te m, 3 3 8
’
.

II Sp e c ifi c f o rms assu me d b y th e f u n d amen tal d u an s m o f G re e k t h o u gh t , 3 3 9

—Stre ss l —I ts
.

aid b y A ri sto tle on th e an ti th e s i s b e tw e e n B e in g an d n o t B e in g , 339

f o rmu l ati o n i n th e h i gh e st l aw s o f l o gi c , 3 4 0 — n te rme d i ate c h arac t er asc ri b e d t o I
a c c i d e n ts, 3 4 0 —
Dis tin c ti o n b e tw e e n tru th an d real e xi sten c e , 3 4 1 —Th e C at ego ri e s
th e i r i mp o rt d d e ri v at i o n , 3 4 1 —A n alysi s o f th e id e a o f Su b s tan c e , 3 4 3 —
an A n alys is
o f i n d i v i d u ali ty, 3 4 5— Su b s ti tu t i o n o f Po s s ib ili ty a n d A c tu al i t f o r Mat t e r an d y
Fo rm, 34 6 Pu rel y v e rb al s ign i fi c an c e
-

of th is d o c tri n e , —
3 4 7 Mo ti o n as th e tran s
f o rmat i o n o f Po w e r i n t o A c t , 3 4 7 .

II I . A ri st o tl e
’
s t h eo l o g y fou n d ed on a d yn ami c al mi s c o n c e p ti o n , 3 4 8
Nc e e ss i ty o f a Pri me Mo v e r —
3 4 9 A ri s t o tl e
p an th e i s t b u t a t h e i s t , 3 50
,
n ot a

Mi stak e n i n t e rp re t atio n o f Si r A G ran t , 3 5 1 — n c o n s i s te n c of

’
A ri s to tl e s
. I y
me tap hys ic s w i th C ath o li c th eo l o gy, 3 5 2 — an d w i th th e mo d e rn argu me n ts f o r

t h e e x is te n c e o f a G o d , 3 5 3 — as w e l l as w i th th e c o n c l u s i o n s o f mo d e rn sc i e n c e .

3 53
-
Se lf -
c on t radi c t o ry c h ara c te r o f his sys te m 3 54 — Mo t i v e s b y w h i c h i t may
,

b e e x p l ain e d , —
3 54 T h e G re ek s tar w o rshi p
-
an d t h e C h ri s ti an h e av e n , 3 56
H igh e r p o si ti o n gi v e n t o th e e arth b y C o p e rn i c u s , 3 56 —
:
A
’
ri st o tl e s gl o ri fi c a ti o n of

th e h e av e n s, 3 5 7— H o w hi s as tro n o m i ll u s trates th e G re ek i d e as y of c i rc u msc ri p ti o n

and me d i at i o n , 3 5 8 .

I V A ri st o tl e s ge n e ral p ri n c i p l e o f sys te mati sat i o n , 3 5 9—Ded u c t io n o f th e

’
.

Fo u r E l eme n ts , 3 6 0 C o n n e x i o n o f t h e Pe ri p at e t i c p hys ic s w i th as tro l o gy an d

al c h e my, 3 6 1 —R e v o l u ti o n e ff e c t e d b y mo d e rn sc i e n c e , 3 6 1 — Sys t e mati sat i o n o f
b i o lo g , 3 6 2 — A ri s to tl e o n th e G en e rat i o n o f A n i mal s , 3 6 3 —H i s su c c ess i n c o m
y
p arati ve an ato my, 3 6 4 .

V A n ti th e ti c al f rame w o rk
. of A ri sto tl e ’
s p syc h o l o gy, 3 6 5 H is th e o ry -

of

s e n sa ti o n c o n tras te d w i t h
_
th at of th e A to mi sts , 6 —
3 5 H is s u c c e ss f u l tre atme n t of

i mag i n ati on d me mo ry, 3 6 6 4 H o w gen e ral id e as are f o rme d , 3 6 6 — T h e a c ti v e

an

N o u s i s a se lf c o n sc i o u s i d e a, 3 6 7
- — Th e t rai n o f th o u h t w h ic h l e d to thi s th e o r
g y,
3 6 8 — Me an in
g o f th e p a ss ag e i n : th e Gen e ra t i on (f A n i mals , 3 6 9 Su p p o se d —
re fu t a ti o n o f mate ri al is m 3 70 ,
—
A ri s t o t l e n o t an ad h e re n t of Fe rri e r, 3 71 — Fo rm
an d matte r n ot d i s t i n gu i s h e d as su b j ec t an d Ob j e c t , 37
—
3 A ri s to tl e j
re e c t s th e
d o c t ri n e of p e rso n al i mmo rtali ty, 3 7 4 .

VI A ri s t o tl e s l o gi c , 3 75—Su b o rd i n a t i o n j u d gme n ts
’
of 6
. t o c o n c e p ts , 37
Sc i en c e as a
p ro c e ssl ifi of —
d e fi n i tio n
d c ass c a ti o n , 3 77 A ri s to t le s t h e o ry o f
’
an

ro o s i t i o n s , 3 7
p p 8 — H i s c o n c e tu al an al s i s o f t h e s ll o i s m
p y y g , 37
—
9 I n flu e n c e o f
A ri s to tl e s me tap h ys i c s o n h i s l o gi c , 3 8 0 — Di s u n c ti o n th e p ri mo rd ial f o rm o f all j
’

re as o n i n g, 3 8 1 —H o w i t gi v e s ri se t o h yp o t h e ti c al an d c at e o ri c al re as o n i n
g g, 3 8 2 .

VI I . T h e o ry p p l i e d re as o n i n g : d i s ti n c t i o n b e t w e e n d e mo n strati o n an d
of a

d i al ec tic , 8 —
3 3 A ri s to t l e p l ac e s ab s trac tio n s ab o v e re as on ed t ru th, 3 84 e gle c t -
N
 xx x i i CO NTE NTS O F TH E FI R S T VO L UM E .

of ax i o ms i n co mpari s o n w i th d e fi n i t i o n s , 8
3 4
— ‘
Law s o f n at u re n ot re c o gn i s e d

b y A ri s to t le , 3 8 5 — H e f ail e d to p e rc e i v e th e v al u e of d ed u c ti v e reaso n in g , 3 87
De riv atio n o f ge n e ral s f ro m p artic u lars A risto tl e an d Mi l l ,
8 —
3 7 In w h at s en s e

A s
ri t o t l e w a s an e mp i ri c i s t , 39
0 —E x ami n at io n o f Z e ll e r s v i e w ,
’
391
~
I n du c ti o n as

th e an alys is o f the mid d le t e rm i n t o t h e e x tre me s, 3 9 3 -

T he o r y of e x p e ri me n tal
re aso n i n g c o n t ai n e d i n th e Top i c s , 3 94 .

V II I
Syste mat ic . t re atmen t o f th e an ti t h es i s b e t w e e n R e aso n an d Pas si o n ,
—
3 9 5 R el ati o n b e tw e en t h e R li et ori c d th e E t/z i c s , 3 9 5 — A rti fi c i al t re atme n t o f an

t h e v i rtu es, 3 9 6 —Fal l ac i o u s o pp o s i ti o n o f Wi s d o m to T e mp e ran c e , 3 9 7 —C e n t ral

i d e a o f th e Pol i t i c s th e d i s ti n c tio n b e t w e e n th e i n te ll e c tu al s tate an d th e mat e ri al
s ta te , 3 98
—
C o n s i s te n c y o f th e Poet i c s w i th A ri s to tle
’
s m as a w h o l e 3 9 9
sys te , .

IX . A ri s to tl e
’
s p h ilo s o p h y a v al u ab l e c o rre c ti v e to th e mo d e rn gl o ri fi c ati o n of

mate rial i n d u s t ry, —

3 9 9 Le i su re a n e c e s s ary c o n d i ti o n o f i n te l le c tu al
p ro gre ss, 4 00
—H ow Ari s to tle w o u ld v ie w th e resu l ts of mo d e rn c i v i l i sati o n , 40 1 .

A DD I T I O NA L R E FE R E NC E S .

Page 9 , li n e 18 . Pl u tarc h (u t f ertu ), Pl ac

r . R/z il .
, I .
, i ii .
, 4 .

Page I 5, li n e 2 6 . X e n o p h an e s , Frag m 1 9 . an d 2 1, ed . Mu ll ac h .

Page 4 1 , l in e 25 . Di o ge n e s Lae rt I X 3 4 T he .
, . w o rd s
‘
in th e E as te rn

c o u n tri e s w h e re h e h ad trav e ll ed ,
’
are a c o n j e c tu r l ad d iti o a n ,
b u t th e y s e e m j u sti fi e d
b y th e c o n te x t .

Page 4 3 , li n e 1 1. Pl u t arc h , Peri c l es , iv .

Page 6 5 . Fo r th e sto ry o f G l au c u s, se e H e ro d o tu s VI .
, lx xx v i .

Page 77, l in e 21 . Pl ato , Prot ag .

, 3 1 5, D .

Page 78 , li n e 1 . I b id .
, 34 1, A .

Page 1 03 . Fo r th e o p i n i o n of So c rate s re sp e c ting th e So ph i s ts , se e X e n o pho n ,

Mem .
,
I .
, v i. , 11 ff .

Page 1 1 4, lin e 4 . X e n o ph o n , Mom I .

, iv .
, 1 .

Page 1 94 , li n e 28 . R ep u b .
, 4 93 , A ; l in e 3 3 . G o rgias, 5 2 1 , E .

Page 1 9 5, 1i n c 23 . l
'
eaetet . , 1 75, A an d 1 74 ,
E .
Jo w e tt s
’
T ran s l .
,
IV .
,

P 325
Page 2 3 3, l as t li n e . Sop lz i s t .
, 2 46 , D .

Page 2 94 , lin e 7 . Fo r Pl ato ’

s p re fe ren c e of p rac ti c e to c o n te mp l atio n , se e

R ep u b .
, 49 6 , E .
2 .
TH E GRE E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

the next t w enty three centur i es o f th i s w orld s existen c e at

’
-
,

no period durin g that lon g lapse o f ag es not even amon g the ,

kindred I talian race could he hav e f oun d a competitor to

,

contest with H ellas the olive crown o f a nobler O lympia the ,

uerdon due to a unique combination o f supreme excellence

g
i n every variety O f intellectual e x erc ise i n strateg y diplomacy , , ,

statesmanship i n mathematical science architecture plasti c , ,

art and poetry

,
i n the severe fidelity o f the historian whose
paramount obj ect i s to relate f acts as they have occurred and ,

the d e x terous windin g s o f the advo c ate W hose i nterest leads

him to e v ade or to disg uise them ; in the f ar reachin g -

meditations o f the lonely thinker g rapplin g with the e n ig

mas o f his own soul and the f erv id eloquence by which a
,

m ultitude on whose d ec i sion han g g reat issues is inspired ,

directed or controlled
, H e wou ld n ot i t is tru e have
.
, ,

f oun d any s i n g le Greek to p i t ag ainst the athletes o f the

R enaissance ; there were none w h o d isplayed that u n 1v e rs al

g enius so characteristi c o f the g reatest Tu scan artists such as

Lionardo and M ichael An g elo nor to take a mu ch narrower ,

ran g e did a sin gle Greek writer whose composition s have

,

c ome down to us e x c el or even attempt to e xcel in poet ry , ,

and prose alike B ut ou r i mag inary prophet mi g ht have

.

O bserved that su c h v ersatility better b e fi t t e d a sophist like

H ippias or an ad v enturer lik e Cri t i as than an earnest master

o f the Ph e i d i an typ e H e mi ght have quoted Pi ndar s ’
.

sarcasm about hi ghly educated persons w h o have an i nfinity

o f tastes and brin g none o f them to perf ection 1
holdin g as
; ,

Plato did in the n ext g eneration that one m an c an only d o ,

on e thin g well he mi ght have add ed that the heroes o f

,

modern art would have done much nobler work had they
con c entrated the i r powers on a sin g le task instead o f
attemptin g hal f a doz en and leavi n g m ost o f them i n c o m
p l e te .

This c are f ul restr ict i on of individu al e ff ort to a sin gle

Nm e . I I I 4 04
. 2 .
(Do n ald so n ) .
 EAR L Y G RE E K T H O UG H T .
“ '

pg q g in c e i no d is pers i o n o n i n c o h e re n c e i n the re s u lts

n y o lv e d

a c hieved The highest workers were al l an i mat e d by a c o m mon

'

E ac h represent ed some on e aspect o f the g lory and

'

s p i ri t f

g f e a t n e ss participated i n by all Nor was the c olle c t i ve c on .

s c io u s n e ss the un itin g sympathy li mited to a sin g le sphere

, , .

I t rose by a g radu ated seri es f rom the c ity c o mmunity

, , ,

throu g h the D o ri an o r I on i an st o ck with whi c h they c l ai med

more i mmediate ki nship to the Panhelleni c ra c e the whol e , ,

of hu manity and the d iv i ne f atherhood o f Zeus u ntil i t

, ,

rested i n that all embraci ng nature which Pind ar kne w as the

-

o n e mo t h e r o f g od s and m en
1
.
.

We may perhaps find some su gg esti on o f th i s c o mb i ned

, ,

d istinctness and co mprehensi v eness i n the aspe c t an d c o n

fi g uration o f Gree c e itsel f ; i n its mani f old varieties o f soil ,

a n d cli mate and scenery ,

and prod u c tion s ; in the e x quis i te
,

clearness with which the f eatures o f its lands c ape are de

fined and the ad mirable de v elop ment o f coast line by -

whi ch all parts o f its territo ry wh i le preservin g their politi c al ,

i ndependen c e were brou ght i nto saf e and speedy c o mmu n ic a

,

tion with one another The i nd ustr ia l and com me rc ial habits .

o f the people necessitat i n g a well marked d i v i sion o f labou r

,
-

and a reg ulated distributio n o f c ommodities g ave a f urthe r ,

impulse i n th e sam e d i rect i on .

Y
B ut what a ff orde d the most val uabl e ed u c ation i n thi s
w
s e n s e was the i r syste m o f f ree g o v ern ment _
i nvolv i n g as i t , ,
m m

e mac y o f an i mpers onal law the subd iv ision o f

“

d igi t hg su pr
9
‘
- 4 - z .

public authority amon g a nu mber o f m ag istrate s and the ,

assi gnmen t to e ach o f c e r tain care f ully d efined f unc tion s

whi c h he was f orbi dden to e x ceed ; to g ether with the livin g
intere st f elt b y ea c h citizen i n the wel f are Of the whole state
”
,

and th a t c o n c e p t i o n o f i t as a w hole c ompo sed o f various

'
.

impossible where all the public power s are

c olle c ted i n a s mgl e hand .

A pe ople s o endowed were t h e natu ral c reators o f ph i lo

' "

Nem V I r b i . . u n .

B 2
4 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

sophy There came a t i me when the harmonious un iv ersality

.

o f the Hellenic g enius sou g ht f o r i ts counterpart and comple

tio n in a theory o f the e x tern al world And there ca in e a .

tim e also when the d e c ay O f politi c al interests le f t a larg e

, , r

f und o f intellec tual energ y accustomed to work u nd er cert ain

,

conditions with the desire to realise thos e condition s i n an

,

ideal s phere Such i s the most g eneral si gnificance we can

.

attach to that memorable series o f speculations on the nature

o f thin g s which be g innin g i n I onia was c arried by the Greek
, ,

t isf s to I taly and S icily whence a f ter receivin g 1mp o rt

i

c O , ,

ant additions and modifications the stream o f t hou gh t ,

flowed back into the old count ry where i t was di re cted i nto
,

an enti rely new chann el by the practical g eni us o f Athens .

Thales and his successors d own to Democri tu s were not

ex actl ywhat we should call philosophers i n any sense o f the ,

w or d that woul d i nclud e a L ocke Or a H u me an d exclud e a ,

Boyle or a Black ; f o r thei r spe c ulatio n s never w en t beyon d

the confines o f the m aterial u niverse ; they did not even su s
p e c t the e x istence o f those ethical and d ialectical p robl ems
.

which lon g constituted the sole O bj ect o f philosophi cal dis

c u ss i o n and have continu ed since the ti me when they were
,

fi rst mooted to be re g ard ed as its m ost p eculiar provin ce

m
.

Nor yet can w e look on the altog eth er or chi efly as men o f
science f o r thei r paramount pu rpose was to g ather up the
,

whol e o f knowled g e under a sin g le prin cipl e and they

sou ght to realise this pu rpose not by observ ation and e x p e ri
,

ment but by the power o f thou ght alon e I t would p erhaps

, .
, ,
'

b e t ru e s t to say that f rom thei r point o f View philosophy an d

science w e r e still u nd i ff erentiated and tha t knowled g e as a

,

universal synthesis was not yet divorced f rom sp eci al i nv esti

g at i on s i nt o particular ord ers o f phenomena
"

H ere as el se .
,

where ad v an c mg reason tends to reun ite stud ies which have

,

been provisionally separated and we must look to ou r own,

'

—
contem p orari es to ou r Tyndalls and Thomson s ou r H el m
h o lt z e s and Zollners —as f urnishin
,

g the fittest parallel to

 EAR LY GRE E K TH O UG H T .
5

Ana x i mand er an d E m p edo c les Leucippus an d D i o genes o f ,

Apollon ia .

It has been the f ashion i n certain quarters to look down

on these early thinkers — to d ep reciate the val u e o f thei r
speculations bec ause they were thi nkers be c au se as we hav e , ,

already noticed they reached thei r most i mporta nt c on

,

c l u s i o n s b ythi nkin g the means o f truly s c ientific observatio n

,

not bein g withi n t hei r rea c h Nevertheless they perf ormed

"

.
,

s e rv 1c e s to hu manity comparable f o r valu e with the le islation

g
o f S olon and C leisthenes or the vi c tories o f Marathon and ,

Salami s while thei r creative i mag ination was not in f erior to

that o f the g reat lyric and d ram ati c poets th e g reat architect s ,

and sculptors whose contemporaries they were They fi rst

, .

tau ght m en to disti n g u ish betwee n the realities o f natu re an d

th e illusion s o f s ense ; they discovered o r div ined the i nd e

st r u c t ib ili ty o f matter and its atomic c onstitution ; they

“ "

t au ght _t h at space is infinite a conception so f ar f rom bein g ,

sel f evident that it transcended the cap acity o f Aristotle to

-

g rasp— held that the seemin g ly eternal u niverse w as

bTO ‘
ught into its p resent f orm by the operation o f m echan ical
f orces w h i qh will also e ff e c t its dissolution c on f r onted by the
seem i n g p ermanence and solid ity o f o ur planet with the ,

innum erable varieties o f li f e to be f ound _O n its surf ac e they ,

declared that all thi n g s had ar1se n by d i ff erentiation f ro m a

1

homo geneous attenuated vapour while on e o f them went so

f ar as to surmise that man is d escend ed f rom an aquati c
_

a ni mal : Bu t h igh e r still than these f rag mentary g li mpses

h

a n d anticipations o f a theory which still awaits confirmation

f ro m e x perien c e we must place t h e i r c e n t ral d o c tri n e that

, , fl ,

the universe is a cosmos an ordered w hol e g overned by ,

nu mber an d law not a blind co nfli c t o f s em i c o n scious ag ents

,
.
-

or a theatre f o r th e arbitra ry i nterf erence o f partial j ealou s , ,

(ér epo rw ms ) ms b y Di o
’
T h e w o rd d i ff e re n t i ati o n s ee t o h av e b e en fi rst u se d

ge n es A p o ll o n i at e s . Si mp l Pays f o l 3 2 6 ff
. . . .
, q u o te d b y R i t te r an d Pre ll e r, H i s t .

Ph i l , p . 126 (6 th e d ) .
6 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSO PH E RS .

and vi nd ic ti ve g ods ; that its chan g es are determ i ned if at ,

all by an i mman e nt u n chan g i n g reason ; an d that those

, '

c elestial luminari es whic h had drawn to themsel v es i n e v ery

f
. 4

h e unquestioni n g worship o f all mankind were i n truth

ag e
t , ,

n p t hi n g m as ses o f inani mate m atter Thus .

,

even i f the early Greek thinkers were not scientific t lgay ji rs t , o

made b y substitutin g f o r a theo ry o f the

u n ive r i
se _w h c h i s
—its di re c t neg ati on , o n e t h at methodised
.
- ~

observation has in c reasin gly t ended to confirm The g ar land .

o f poeti c prai se w ove n b y Lu c re t iu s f o r hi s ador e d m aste r

I ‘

should hav e been dedi c ated to them an d to them alone H is ,

.

n obl e enthusiasm was really inspi red by thei r lessons not by ,

the wearisome trifling o f a moralist who knew l i ttle and cared

‘

less about th ose studies i n w h i ch th e whol e s o ul o f h i s

R oman d isc i ple was absorbed .

When the power and v alue o f these primitive speculation s

c an no lo n ger be denied their o ri gi nality i s so meti mes que s
,

t i o n e d by the systemati c d e t rac t o rs 0f everyt hin g H elleni c . . .

Thales and the rest we are t old simply b orrowed thei r , ,

theories without a cknowled g men t f ro m a storehou se o f

O rie ntal wi sd om on which the Gre eks are supposed to have
d rawn as f reely as C olerid g e d rew on German philosophy .

Sometimes each system i s a ffiliated t o on e o f the g reat

Asiatic relig io n s someti mes they are all tra c e d back to the
schools o f H indostan I t i s n atu ral that no two c riti cs.

should ag ree when the rival e x planat i ons are based on no

,

thin g stron g er than superficial analo g ies and accid ental coi n
c id en c e s D r Zeller i n his wonderf ully learned clear an d
. .
, ,

sag acious work on Greek phil osophy has care f ully si f ted some ,

o f the hypotheses re f erred to and shown how destitute they

,

are o f internal o r e x ternal evid ence and how utterly they f ai l .

to accou nt f o r the f acts The O ldest and best authoriti e s .

,

Plato and Aristotle knew nothin g about su ch a derivation

,

of Greek thou g ht f rom E astern sources I so c rates d oes .

,

I ndeed , mention that Pythag oras borrowed his philosophy

 RL Y G REE K TH O UG HT .
7

f rom E gypt, but I socrates di d not e v en p reten d to be a

truth f ul narrator N o Greek o f the early period ex c ept
.

those re g ularly do mi c i led i n S u sa seems to hav e been

acquainted with any lan g uag e but his own Few travelled .

very f ar into Asia and o f those f e w only on e or two were

, ,

philosophers D emo c ritus who visited mo re f orei g n cou ntries

.
,

than any m an o f his time speaks only o f havin g discussed

,

mathematical problems with the wise men who m b e e m

c ou ntered ; and e v en i n mathematics he was at least their
equ al l I t was p re cisely at the g reatest distan c e f ro m Asia
.
,

in I taly and S i c ily that the systems arose w hich seem to

,

hav e most analogy with Asi atic mod es o f thou ght Can we .

suppose that the traders o f those t i mes were i n any w ay

qu alified t o transport the spe c ulations o f C on f ucius and the
V ed as to such a d istance f ro m thei r n ative homes ? With f ar
better reason mi ght one e xpect a German m erchant to c arry
a knowled g e o f K ant s philosophy f rom K oni gsberg t o
’

C ant on But a mor e c onvinc i n g arg u me n t than any i s to

.

show that Greek philosophy i n its histori c al evol utio n ex

h ib i t s a p er f ectly natu ral an d spontan eous prog ress f ro m
m
si ple rto m ore c o mp l ex f orms an d that syste m grew out o f
m
,

syste b y a strictly lo g ical pro c ess o f e xtension an alysis and

, , ,

combination Thi s is what chiefly und er the g uidan c e o f

.
,

Zeller we shall now attempt to do

, .

Thales o f M iletus an I oni an geometric i an and astronomer

, , ,

about w hose age c onsiderabl e u n c ertainty prevails but w ho ,

seems to have fl ouri shed toward s the close o f the seventh

c entu ry be f ore ou r era is by g eneral c onsent re gard e d as the
' '
'

f ather o f Gr eek physical phi losophy O thers be f ore hi m .

h ad attempted to accou nt f or the world s ori g in but none ’

,

like hi m had traced it back to a purely n atural beg innin g .

A c cord in g to Thales all thin g s hav e c ome f rom water. That

R itt er an d Prell e r, p . 1 12 .
8 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

the earth l S entirely enclosed by water above and below as wel l

as all round was perhaps a com mon notion amon g t h eWestern _

Asiatics I t was cert ainly believed by the H ebrews as w e

. ,

l earn f rom the accounts o f th e creati on and the fl o o d co n

t ai n e d in Genesis The M il esian thinker showed hi s ori g in
.

did Water surrou nd all thin gs but that all thin g s were der i ved
m m
,

su b stance th at water was s o , ,

to speak the material absolute Never have m ore preg nant

,
.

words been spoken they a c ted li ke a f erment on the Greek

mind they were the g rain whence g rew a tree that has o v er
shadowed the whole earth At one stroke they substituted a
.

c omparatively scientific because a verifiable p rincipl e f o r the

,

con f used f ancies po ets Not that Thales .

was an atheist or an ag nostic or anythin g o f that sort O n

, , .

the contrary he is reported to have sai d that all _t hm

, g s were

f ull o f g ods and the repo rt sou nds c redible enou gh M ost .

probably the sayin g was a protest a g ai nst the popular lim ita
tion o f divine ag enc i es to c ertai n spe c ial occasions an d f avoured
lo c alit i es A true thinker seeks above all f o r co n sisten c y an d
.

"

continuity H e wi ll more read ily accept a perpetual stream

.

o f c reative energy than a series o f arbitrary and i solated i nter

f e re n c e s with the course o f Nature For the rest Thales .

,

made no attem p t to explain how water c a me to be trans

f ormed into other substances nor i s it li kely that the necessity
,

o f such an e x planation had ever occurred to hi m We may .

suspect that he and others a f ter hi m were not c apable o f dis

t i n gu is hi n g ve ry clearly between such notion s as s p a c e time ‘
, ,

cause substance an d li mit I t is al most as d i f fic ult f o r us to

, , .

enter into the thou g hts o f these pri mitive philosophers as it

would have be en f o r them to comprehend pro c esses o f reason
i n g already f amiliar to Plato and Aristotle Possibly the .

f orms under which we arran g e ou r con c eptions may become

equally obsolete at a more advan c ed stag e o f intelle c tual
,

evolution and our sharp distinctions m ay prove to be not

,
10 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

mysticism R ather d oes its ve ry sadness illustrate the healthy

.

vitality o f Greek f eelin g to which absorption seemed like the ,

punishment o f a cri me a g ainst the absolute and not as to so , ,

many Asiatics the c rown and consum matio n o f spiritual per

,

f e c tio n Be thi s as it may a doctri ne which id entified the

. ,

death o f the whole world with its reabsorption i nto a hi g he r

reality would soon su gg est the id ea that i t s component parts
vanish only to reappear i n n ew c ombi nations .

A n ax i man d e r s system was su cceeded by a number o f

’

others which cannot be arran g ed accordin g to any ord er o f

linear prog ression Such arran gements are indeed f alse i n
.
, ,

p rinciple I ntelle c tu al li f e like every other li f e is a prod uc t

.
, ,

o f mani f old conditions and thei r va ri ed combin ations are cer

,

tain to issue i n a c o rrespondin g m ultipli c ity o f e ff ects ”An ax i .

e n es a f ellow townsman o f An a x i mander f ollowed most

g
-

, ,

c losely i n the f ootsteps o f the master A ttemptin g , as i t .

would appear to m ediate be t ween his two pred e c essors h e

, ,

chose air f o r a p ri mal elem ent Air i s more o mnipresent than

h
.
“

water which as well as earth is enclosed within its plastic

, , ,

sphere O n the o ther hand it is more tan g ible and con c rete
.
,

than t he I nfinite,6 1 may even b e s u b stituted f o r that c o n c e p

—
pp m i te
'

osi n s a
'

t io n b
'

g t to e x nd a f r as thou ght can reach .

As be f ore cosmogony g rows out o f cosmo g raphy ; the enclos

,

i n g element is the p arent o f those embra c ed withi n it .

Speculation now leaves its Asiati c cradle and t rav e l s with

the Greek colonists t om h o me sjn _l ta ly an d Sicily where .
.

new modes o f thou ght were f ostered by a new envi ron ment .

A name , round which mythical accretions have g athered so

thickly that the ori g i nal nu cleu s o f f act almost defies d e fi n i
tion first claims our attention Aristotle as i s well known
, .
, ,

avoids mentio nin g Pythag oras and always speaks o f the ,

Pythag oreans when he i s d i scussin g the opin ions held by a

certain I talian school Their d octri n e whoever ori g inated i t
.
, ,

was that all thin g s are mad e out o f number Brand i s reg ards .

Pytha goreanism as an entirely o rigi n al e ff o rt o f speculation ,

 E A RL Y G RE E K TH O UG H T . 11

stand in g apart f rom t he main c u rrent o f H elleni c thou ght and ,

t o be stud ied without re f erence to I onian philosophy Z eller .

,

with more plausibility treats i t as an out g rowth o f A n ax i

,

’
mander s system I n that system the finite an d the infinit e
.

remain ed opposed to one another as un reconciled moments o f

thou g ht Nu mber accordin g to the Greek arithmeticians w as
.
, ,

a synthesis o f the two and there f ore s u perior to either To a

, .

Pytha g orean the finite and the i nfinite were only one amon g I

several antithetic al c ouples su c h as od d an d even li g ht and , ,

darkness mal e and f em ale and abo v e all the one and the
, , , ,

many whence e v ery nu mber a f ter unity i s f ormed The .

tendency t o search f o r antitheses eve rywhere and to man u f ac ,

t ure the m where they do not e x ist becam e ere lon g an actual ,

disease o f the Greek mind A Thucydid es could no more .

have dispensed with thi s cu mbrous m echanis m than a rope

d ancer could g e t on without his balan cin g pol e and many a
schoolboy has been sorely puzzled by the f antastic c o n to r
tions which I taliote reflection i mposed f o r a ti m e on Athenian
orato ry .

R etu rn i n g to ou r more i mmediate subj ect we mu st o b ,

serv e that the Pytha g o rean s did not m aintain i n anticipation ,

o f mod ern quantitative scien c e that all thin g s are determined ,

by nu mber but that all thin g s are n umbers o r are made out
, ,

of nu mbers two propositions not easily distin g uished by

,

N umbers in a word were to the m i

f
unpractised thinkers .
, ,

p recisely what water h ad been to Thales what ai r was to ,

Ana x i menes the absolute principle o f e x istence ; only with

,

them the id ea o f a li mi t the leadin g inspi ration o f G reek E

,
'

t h o u gh t h ad reached a hi g her de g ree o f abstraction

,
Num ber .

was as it were the e x terior li mit o f the finite and th e i n

, , ,

t e ri o r li m i t o f the i nfinite Add to this that mathemati c al

.

studies cult i vated i n E gypt and Phoenicia f o r their pra c tical

,

utility alon e were be i n g pu rsu ed i n H ellas with ever i n c re as

,
-

i n g ardou r f o r the sake o f thei r own deli g ht f ulness f o r the ,

i ntellectual dis c ipl i ne that they supplied —a d i s c ipli n e e v e n

 2 TH E ~
GRE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

more valuab l e then than now and f o r the i nsi g ht which they
,

bestowed or were believed to bestow into the secret c o n s t i t u

, ,

tion o f Nature and that the more compli cated arithmetical

operations were habitually cond ucted with the aid o f g e o
metrical diag rams t hus sugg estin g the possibility o f applyin g
,

a similar treatment to every ord er o f relations C onsider the .

l ively emotions e x cited amon g an intelli g ent peopl e at a ti m e

when mul t iplication and d ivision squarin g an d cubi n g the , ,

rule o f three the constru c tion and equ ivalence o f fi g u res with
, ,

all thei r man i f old applications to indust ry com merce fine art , , ,

and tactics were j ust as stran g e and wonderf u l as electrical

,

phenomena are t o us ; consider also the m ag ical i nfluence

still commonly attributed to p articular nu mbers and th e
’

intense eag ern ess to obtain e x act n u merical statements eve n ,

when they are o f no practical value e x hibited by all w h o ,

are thrown back on pri mitive ways o f livin g as f o r e x ample , , ,

i n Alpine travellin g or on board an Atlantic steamer and we

, ,

shall cease to wonder t h at a mere f orm o f thou ght a li f eless ,

abstraction should once have been re g arded as the solution

,

o f every problem the cause o f al l e x istenc e ; or that these

,

speculations were more than once revived i n a f ter ag es and ,

perished only with Greek philosophy itsel f .

We ha v e not here to e x amine the sci enti fic achievements

o f Pytha g oras and his school ; they belo n g t o the histo ry
o f sci ence n ot to that o f pu re thou ht and there f ore li e out
, g ,

sid e the present di scussion S omethin g however m ust be

.
, ,

s ai d o f Pythag oreanis m as a scheme o f moral reli g ious a nd , ,

social re f orm Alone amon g the pre Socratic systems i t

.
-

u ndertook to f urnish a rule o f conduct as well as a theory o f

bein g Yet as Zeller has pointed out 1 it was only an ap
.
, ,

parent anomaly,f o r the ethical teachin g o f the Pytha g oreans

w as not based on thei r physical theories e x cept i n so f a r ,

as a deep reveren c e f o r law and order was co mmon to both .

D i e P/z z losop fi z e der G ri er/z en , I

' '

.
p 40 1
.
(3 rd e d ) .
 E AR LY GRE E K TH O UG H T . 13

Perhaps also the s e w i i p ofl s o u l a n d b o d y w i th the

, ,
p /
fl
’
z c
,

ascription o f a hi gher di g nity to the f ormer whi c h was a ,

W
d i St i
flf L t h e school may be paralleled with
, the
po si tion g iven to nu mb er as a kind o f spiritu al power c reat
;

i n g and controllin g the world o f sense So also political powe r .

was to be entrusted to an ari sto c racy t rained i n every noble

accomplishment and fitted f o r e x ercisin g authority o v er
,

others by sel f disciplin e by mutual fid elity and by habitual

-

, ,

obed ien c e to a rul e o f ri ght N evertheless we must l ook

.
, ,

with Zeller f o r the true sour c e o f Pythag oreanism as a moral

,

movement i n that g reat wave o f reli g iou s enthus i asm whi c h

swept over H ellas d urin g the si x th c entu ry be f ore Christ ,

inti mately associated with the i mportati on o f Apollo worship -

f rom L yc ia with the concentration o f spiritu al authority i n

,

the oracular shrine o f D elphi and the politi c al p re d o mman c e

,

of the D orian race those Norman s o f the ancient world

, .

L eg end has thrown this c onne x i on into a poetic al f orm by

makin g Pythag oras the son o f Apollo and the S amian sag e ,

althou g h himsel f an I onian chose the D orian cities o f

,

S outhern I taly as a f avou rable fi eld f o r hi s n ew teachin g ,

j u st as C alvi nism f oun d a readi er a cc eptan c e i n the ad

v an c e d posts o f the Teutonic race than amon g the people

whenc e its f ound er spran g P erhaps the nearest parallel

.
,

althou gh on a f ar more extensive sc al e f o r the reli g i ou s ,

mov ement o f which w e are speakin g i s the spectacle o ff ered ,

by med iaeval E u rop e d u rin g the twel f th an d thirteenth

centuri es o f our era when a seri es o f g reat Popes had con
,

c e n t rat e d all spiritual power i n thei r own hands an d were ,

send in g f orth army a f ter army o f C rusaders to the E ast ;

when all Western E u rope had awakened to the consciousness
o f i ts com mon C hristiani ty and eac h i ndividu al was thrilled
,

by a sense o f the tremendou s alternatives com mitted to hi s

choice ; when the D ominican and Fran c iscan orders were
f o u nd ed ; when Gothi c architectu re and Florentine paintin g
arose ; when the Troubadou rs and Mi n n e s an g e rs were pou r
 14 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

i n g out their notes o f scorn f ul o r tender p ass i o n and th e

‘

,
‘

love o f the se x es had become a sentiment as lo f ty and

‘

endu ri n g as the devotion o f f ri end to f ri end had been i n

Greece o f old The bloom o f Greek reli g iou s enthusiasm
.

was more e x quisite and evanescent than that o f f eu d al

Catholicism ; in f erior i n p ure sp irituality and o f more re
s t ri c t e d si g nificance as a f actor i n the evol uti on o f hu manity ,

i t at least remained f ree f ro m the ecclesi astical tyranny the ,

murderous f anaticism an d the u nlovely superstitions o f

,

mediaeva l f aith B ut polyt heism u nder any f orm w as f atally

.

i ncapable o f copin g with the new spiri t o f enqu i ry awakened

by philosophy and the old myths with thei r naturalistic
, ,

c rudities c ould not lon g satis f y the reason and conscienc e

,

of thinkers who had learned i n another school to seek

everywhere f o r a central u nity o f c ontrol an d to bow thei r ,

i mag inations be f ore the passionless perf e c tion o f eternal

law .

III .

S uch a thinker w as Xenophanes o f C olophon D r i ven ,

.
,

like Pythag oras f rom his native city by civil dis c ords h e
, ,

spent the g reater part o f an u nusually p rotracted li f e wand er

i n g throu g h the Greek colonies o f S icily and S outhern I taly,
and recitin g his own verses n ot always as it would appear to
, , ,

a very attentive audi en c e E lea an I taliote city seems to

.
, ,

have been his f avourite resort and the school o f philosophy

,

which h e f ou nded there has i mmortalised the nam e o f this

otherwise obsc ure Phocaean settlement E nou g h remains o f .

his verses to show with what t erribl e stren gth o f sarcasm he

assailed the popular reli g io n o f H ellas Ho mer and Hesiod .
,
’

he e x clai ms have attributed to the g ods eve rythin g that is a

,

shame and reproach amon g men —the f t adultery and mutual , ,

d eception 1
.
’
Nor is X enophanes content with attackin g
R it t e r a n d Pre lle r, p .
54 .
 E AR LY GRE E K TH O UG H T . 15

thes e u nedi f yi n g s tor i es he str i kes at the an thropomo rphic

,

con c ept i ons which lay at thei r root M o rtals think that the
-
.

g ods have senses and a voi c e and a body like thei r own
, .

The neg roes f an c y that their d eiti es are black skinned and -

snub nosed the Thra c ians g i v e theirs f ai r hai r and blue eyes
-
,

i f horses or lions had hands and c ould pai nt they too would ,

1 ’
make g ods i n thei r own ima g e I t was he d eclared as .
, ,

i mpious to believe i n th e bi rth o f a g o d as to believe i n the

p ossibility o f his death The c urrent polythei sm was equally
.

f alse . There is o ne S up reme God amon g g od s and men

‘
,

unlike mo r tals both in mind an d body 2

There can be only .
’

o ne God f o r Go d is O mnipotent so that there mu st be none

, ,

to dispute his will H e m ust also be perf ectly homog eneous

.
,

shaped like a sphere seein g he arin g an d th i nkin g with every

, , ,

part alike never movi n g f rom place to pla c e but g overnin g

, ,

all th i n g s by an e ff o rtless exercise o f thou g ht H ad such .

darin g heres i es been promul g ated i n democrati c Athens the i r ,

author would probably have soon f ou nd hi msel f and h i s

works handed o v er to the tender merc i es o f the E leven .

H appily at E lea and i n most other Greek states the g ods

, ,

were le f t to take care o f themsel v es .

Xenophanes does not seem to hav e been e v er molested

on a cc ount o f his reli g iou s opi nions H e c ompla i ns bitterl y .

enou gh that people pref erred fict i on to philosophy that ,

u nedu c ated athletes e n g rosse d f ar too m uc h popular admi

ration that he Xenophanes was not su ffi ci ently app re c iated
, , ,

but o f theolo g i c al i ntoleran c e so f ar as our i n f ormation g oes

, ,

he says not one sin g l e word I t will easily be concei ved that
.

the rapid p ro g ress o f Greek spe c ulation was s i n g ularly

f a v oured by such unbounded f reedom o f thou g ht and speech .

The views j ust set f o rth have o f ten been reg arded as a step
towards spir i tualistic monotheism and so c onsid ered i n the , ,

li ght o f subsequent de v elopm ents they unquestionably w ere , .

Still lookin g at the matter f ro m another aspect we may say

, ,

R itte r an d Pre lle r, p 54. .

2
lb .
 16 TH E G R E E K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

that Xenophanes when he shat tered the i dols o f p o pular

,

religion was returnin g to the past rather than anti cipatin g

,

the f uture f eelin g his way ba c k to th e deeper more primor ,

dial f aith o f the old Aryan ra c e or even o f that still old er ,

stock whence Aryan and Turanian al i ke diverg ed H e tu rns .

f rom the brilliant passionate fickle D yaus to Z en or Ten

, , , , ,

the ever present all seeing all embracin g i mmovable v ault o f

-

,
-

,
-
,

heaven Aristotle with a sympatheti c insi ght un f ortunately

.
,

too rare i n his criticisms on earlier systems observ es that ,

Xenophanes did not make it c lear whether the absolute u n i ty

he tau ght was material or ideal but simply looked up at the ,

whole heaven and de c lared that the O n e was God 1

Aristotle .

was himsel f the real c reator o f philosophi c monotheism j ust ,

be c ause the idea o f li v in g sel f cons c ious personality had a

,
-

g reater valu e a pro f ounder meanin g f o r him than f o r an y

,

other thinker o f antiqu i ty one may almost say than f o r any

,

other thinker whatever I t i s there f ore a noteworthy c i rcu m

.
, ,

stance that while warmly acknowled g in g the anticipations o f

,

Ana x agoras he nowhere speaks o f X enophanes as a pre

,

d ecessor i n the same line o f enqui ry The latter mig ht be .

called a pantheist were it not that pantheism belon g s to a

much later stag e o f speculation one i n f a c t not reached by , , ,

t h e Greek mind at any period o f its d e v elop ment His .

leadin g conception was obscured by a con f usion o f myth o

log ical with purely physical ideas and c ould o nly bear f ull ,

f ruit whe n the reli g ious element had been entirely eliminated
f rom its composition This elimination was ac c omplished by
.

a f ar g reater thinker one who combined poetic i nspiration

,

with philosophic depth ; who was penetratin g enou gh to

d is c ern the lo gical consequen c es involved i n a f undam ental
principle o f th ou g ht and bold enou g h to push them to the i r
,

l eg itimate conclusion s withou t carin g f o r the shock to sense

and com mon o pinion that his m erc iless d ialecti c mi g ht
i nflict .

flk mp /z . I . v .
 18 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

had n ot yet g rasped v irtually a ffi rmed f o r the first t i me i n

,

history We find also that our philosopher i s c arried away

.

by the enthusiasm o f a n e w discovery and co v ers more ,

round than he can de f end i n maintai nin g the pe rm anence of

g
all e x istence whatever The reason i s that to him as to
.
,

every other thinker o f the pre S ocrati c p eriod all e x isten ce -

was material or rather all reality was con f ounded u nde r

, , ,

one va gue con c eption o f which visible resistin g e x tensi on

,

supplied the most f amiliar type To proceed : Bein g cannot .

be divid ed f ro m bein g nor is it capable o f condensatio n o r

,

e x pansion (as the I onians had tau ght ) ; there is nothin g by

which i t can be separated or held apart nor is i t ever mo re
or l ess exi stent but all is f ull o f bein g Parmenid es g oes on
, .

in his g rand style

T h e re f o re t h e w h o l e e x te n ds c o n t in u o u sl y ,

B e in g by B e in g set i mmo vab l e ,

Su b je c t t o t h e c o n s trai n t of migh t y l aw s
B o th i n c re at e an d i n d e s tr u c t ib l e ,

Si n c e birth an d d e at h h ave wan d e re d f ar away

B y t ru e c o n v i c tio n in to ex ile dri ve n
me me p l ac e , an d b y i t s e l f
'

The sa n s el f s a -

A b i d i n g, dt b ab i d e mo s t fi rmly fi x e d ,
An d b ou n d e d ro u n d b y s t ro ng N e c e s s i ty .

W h e re f o re a h o ly l a w f o rb i d s th at B e in g

Sh o u l d b e wi th o u t an e n d e l s e w an t we re ,
th e re ,
An d wan t o f th a t wo u l d b e a wan t o f al l .
’1

Thus does the e v erl astin g Greek love o f ord er defin ition , ,

limitation reassert its suprema c y over the intelli g ence o f thi s

,

noble thinker j ust as his al most mystical enthusiasm has

,

reached its hi ghest pitch o f e x altation g ivin g hi m back a ,

world w hich tho u g ht can measure ci rcumscribe and cont ro l , , .

Bein g then is fi nite i n e x tent and as a con sequ en ce o f

, , , ,

its absolute homo g eneity spherical i n f orm There is g ood , .

'

reason f o r b e lievin g that the earth s true fi g u re was first

discovered in the fi f th century B C but whether it was . .
,
'

su ggested by the d p rz o rz theories o f Parmenides or was

’

R i tt er an d Pre ll e r, p 6 3 . .
 EAR LY G RE E K TH O UG H T . 19

g eneralised by hi m i nto a law o f the whole un iv erse o r ,

whether there was more than an accidental c onnexion

between the two hypotheses we c annot te l l Aristotle at
, .
,

any rate was p robably as much indebted to the E leat ic system

,

as to contemporary astrono my f o r his theory o f a finite s p h e

ri c al u ni v erse I t will easily be observed that the distinctio n
.

between space and m atter so obvious to u s and even to , ,

Greek thinkers o f a later d ate had not yet d awned upo n ,

Parmenid es As applied to the f ormer c onception most o f

.
,

his a ffi rmations are perf ec tly correct but his belie f i n the ,

finiten ess o f Bein g can only be j ustified on th e supp os i tion

that Bein g i s identified with matter For i t must be c learly .

understood (an d Zeller has the g reat merit o f hav in g pro v ed

this f a c t by incontrovertible arg u ments) t h at the E leati c
‘

Bein g was not a transcendental conception nor an abstract ,

unity as Aristotl e e rroneou sly supposed no r a K antian

, ,

nou menon nor a spiritual essence o f any kind but a

, , ,

pheno menal reality o f the most concrete d es c ription We .

can only not call Parmenid es a materiali st because

.
,

materiali sm i mplies a neg ation o f spiritu alism which i n h i s

“

time had not yet co me i nto e x istenc e H e tells us plainly .

that a man s thou ghts result f ro m the con f ormation o f hi s

’

body and are d etermined by the p repond erati n g el ement i n

,

its composition Not m uch however can be made o f this

.
, ,

ru dimentary essay in psycholog y con nected as it seems to be ,

with an append i x to the teachin g o f ou r philosopher i n ,

which he ac cepts the popular d ualism althou gh still convinced ,

o f its f alsity and uses i t u n d e r pro est as an e x pla nation of

, t ,_ ,

that very g enesis which he had rej ected as i mpossible .

As mi ght be e x pected the Parmenidean parado x es pro

,

v o k e d a considerable amount o f contrad iction and ridi c ule .

The R eid s and Beatti es o f that ti me drew sundry absurd

consequences f rom the new d octri ne and o ff ered them as a ,

s u fi i c ie n t re f utation o f i ts truth Zeno a youn g f riend and

‘

.
,

015 . ( i t p 4 75
. . .

C 2
 20 TH E GRE E K PH I L O S OPH E R S .

f avourite o f Parmenides took up arm s i n his master

,
s de f ence
’
,

and sou ght to prove with brilliant diale c tical ability that con
sequences still more absurd mi g ht be ded uced f rom the
op p osite belie f H e ori g i nated a series o f f amou s pu zzles
.

respectin g the i nfinite divisibility o f matter and the possibility

of motion subsequently employed as a d i sproo f o f all

,

certainty by th e Sophi sts and S ceptics and oc c asionally ,

made to serve as arg uments o n behal f o f ag nosticism b y

writers o f our own ti me S tated g enerally they may be .
,

reduced to two A whole composed o f parts and d ivisi ble ad

.

n z f z z m mu st be ei t her infinitely g reat or i nfin itely little ;

'

fi
'

zn

i nfinitely g reat if its pa rts have mag nitud e i nfinitely little if ,

they have not A movin g body can n ever come to the end o f
.

a g iven line f o r it must first traverse hal f the line then hal f the
, ,

remai nder and so on f o r ever Aristotle thou g ht that the

, .

d i fficulty about motion c ould be solved by taki n g the i nfinite '

d ivisibility o f ti me into account and C olerid g e accordin g to ,

hi s custom repeated the e x planation without acknowled g ment

, .

But Zeno would have re f used to admit that any infinite series
could come to an end whether it was co mposed o f suc cessive
,

or o f c o e x istent parts S o lo n g as the abstractions o f our

-
.

understandin g are treated as separate entities these and ,

si milar pu zzles will continu e to e x ercise the in g enuity o f

metaphysicians O u r present business however i s n ot t o
.
, ,

‘
solve Zeno s di fficulties but to show how they illustrate a
’

l e adin g characteristi c o f Greek thou g ht its tenden cy to per

'

p e t u a l analysis a tendency not li mited to the philosophy o f

,

the Greeks but perv adin g the whole o f thei r literature and
,

even o f their art H omer c are f ully d i stin g uishes the su c ces
.

sive steps o f eve ry actio n and lead s u p to every catastrophe

,

by a series o f finely g rad uated transitions Like Zeno ag ain .

, ,

he p ursues a system o f d ichoto my passin g rapidl y over the ,

first hal f o f his subj ect and rela x es the speed o f hi s narrative
,

by g o mg i nto ever closer detail until the consu mmation i s

-

reached S uch a poem as the A c h i ll e is o f mod ern c ritic s

.
‘ ’
 E A RL Y GRE E K T H O UG H T . 21

wou ld have been per f ectly intolerable to a Greek f rom the ,

t oo rapid and un i f orm march o f its action H erodot u s pro .

c e e d s a f ter a pre c isely si milar f ash i on advancin f rom a broad

g ,

and f ree treatment o f history to e l aborate minutenes s o f

'

d etail S o too a Greek temple d ivides itsel f into pa rt s so

.
, ,

disti nct yet so closely connected that the eye a f ter separatin g
, , , ,

as easily recombi n es them into a whole The evolution o f .

Greek musi c tells the same tale o f p ro g ressive subd ivi sion ,

which is also illustrated by the passa g e f ro m lon g speeches to

sin g le lines and f ro m these ag ain to hal f lines in the di alogu e
,

of a Greek d rama No other people could ha v e created .

mathemati cal de monstration f o r no other would have had ,

skill and pati ence eno u g h to d is c over the successi v e id entities

i nterposed between and connectin g the sid es o f an equ ation .

The dialectic o f S oc rates and Plato the som ewhat weariso me ,

-

d istinctions o f Aristotl e and last o f all the fi n e spun series o f, , ,

-

triad s inserted by Proc lus between the superessenti al O n e and

the fl eetin g world o f sen se —were all prod ucts o f the same ,

f und amental tendency altern ately most f ruit f ul and most ,

barren i n its results I t may be obj ected that Zeno so f ar .

,

f rom obeyin g this ten de ncy f ollowed a diametrically opposite ,

principle that o f absolu tely unbroken co n tinuity True but

,
.

the E leati c Palamedes f ou ght hi s adversaries with a weapon

wrested out o f thei r own hand s rej ectin g analysis as a law o f
real e x istence he continu ed to employ it as a log ical artifice
,

w ith g rea ter subtlety than had ever yet been displayed i n
‘
pure speculation .

The t en d e n c y w hi c h i t h as b een at te mp te d to c h ara c te ri s e as a fu n d ame n tal

mo me n t of y
G re e k th o u gh t c an o n ly b e c all e d an al t i c al i n d e f au l t o f a b e tte r w o rd .

I t is a p ro c e ss b y w h ic h t w o re l ate d t e rms are at o n c e p arte d an d j o i n e d t o ge th e r

b y th e i n s e rti o n of mo re i n t e rme d i ary li n k s ; as f o r i n stan c e w h e n a
on e or , ,

c ap i tal i s i n se rte d b e tw ee n c o l u mn an d arc h i trav e o r w h e n a p ro p o s i t i o n i s d e

,

mo n s trate d b y t he i n te rp o si ti o n o f a mi d d l e t rrm b e tw e e n i ts s u b j e c t an d p re d i
c at e. T h e G e rman w o rd s Ve rmi tt e l n an d V e rmi t te lu n g e x p re s s w h at i s mean t
w i th su ffi c i e n t T h e y p l ay a gre at p art i n H e ge l s p h i lo so p h , an d i t
e x ac t i tu de .
’
y
w il l b e re me mb e re d th at H ege l w as t h e mo s t H e ll e n i c o f mo d e rn t hi n k e rs So .

u n d e rs to o d , th e re w ill c e ase t o b e an y c o n t rad i c ti o n b e tw e e n th e Ele at es an d

22 TH E G RE E K PM L O SOPH E RS .

Besid es Zeno Parmenides seems to have had only on e

,

d isciple o f note Me lis su s the S amian statesman and g eneral

, ,

but under variou s modifications and co mbined w i th other

elem ents th e E leatic absolute entered as a perman ent f actor
,

into Greek spe c ulation Fro m it were lineally d escended the .

Sp h airo s o f E mpedocles the eternal atoms o f L eucippus the , ,

Nous o f Ana x agoras the Meg aric Good the supreme s ola r
, ,

idea o f Plato the sel f thinki n g thou g ht o f Aristotle the i m

,
-

perturbable tranquillity attributed to their mod el sag e by

Stoi cs an d E picu reans alike the soverei g n i nd i ff erenc e o f the ,

S ceptics and finally the Neo platonic O n e M odern philo

, ,
-
.

sophers have sou ght f o r their sup reme ideal i n power move ,

ment activity li f e rather tha n in any stationary substance ;

, , ,

yet even amon g them we find Herbart partially revivin g the

E leatic theo ry and con f rontin g H eg el s fl uent cate g ories with
’

his own inflexible monads .

We have n o w to study an an alo gous thou g h f a r less com ,

plicated antag onism i n ancient Greece and to show ho w he r

, ,

most brilli ant period o f physical philosophy a rose f rom the

combination o f two seemin g ly irre c oncilable systems Par .

menides in an address supposed to be delivered by Wisdom

,

to her disciple warn s u s a g ainst the method pu rsued by

,

‘
i g norant mortals the blind dea f stupid c on f used tribes w h o
, , , , ,

hold that to be and not to be are the same and tha t all thi n g s ,

mov e round by an inverted p ath " What Parmenides d e .

n o u n c e d as arrant nonsense w a s deliberately proclai med to be

the hi ghest truth by his illustriou s contemporary H e rac l e i t u s , ,

o f E phesus This wonder f ul thinker is popularly known as

.

the weepin g philosoph er because accordin g to a very , ,

si lly tradition he never went abroad without sheddin g tears

,

over the f ollies o f mankind No such mawkish senti mentality .

,

but bitter scorn a nd i ndi g nation marked the attit ude o f ,

G re ek th o u gh t ge n e rally, at l e as t fro m o n e p o in t o f v i e w , as t h e ir o b j e c t w as to
fi l l u p th e v ac an t sp ac es su p p o se d t o s e p arate o n e mo d e o f e x i s te n c e fro m an o the r .

R i tte r an d Pre ll e r, p 6 2 . .
 EAR LY G R E E K T H O UGH T . 23

H e rac l e i t u
towards h is f e llo w s A flf z i é’di gh t sag e he h ad
s
j _ .
,

no respect f o r the accredited instructors o f Hel la s Mu c h .

‘

learn in g he says does n ot teach reason else it would hav e

,
’
, ,

tau g ht H esiod and Pythag oras Xenophanes and H e c at ae u s , .

’

H omer he d eclares ou g ht to be flogg ed out o f the publ ic

, ,

assembla g es and Archi lochus likewise When th e hi g hest

, .

repu t ations met with so little mercy it will readily be ima gi ned ,

what c ontempt he poured on the vul g ar herd The f eelin g s .

o f a hi h born aristocrat c ombin e with those o f a lo f ty en iu s

g g
-

to p oint and W1 2 2 h is word s

"

The m any are bad and f e w .

‘

are the g ood The best choose on e thin g i nstead o f all a

.
,

perpetual well sprin g o f f ame while the m any g lut their

-
,

appetites like beasts O n e man is equal to ten thousand i f .

he is the best This c ontempt was still f u rther intensified by

.
’

the very e x cusable incapacity o f the public to u nderstand

p ro f ou nd thou g ht conveyed i n a styl e proverbial f o r its
obscu rity M en cannot comprehend the etern al law when I
.

hav e e x plained the order o f Natu re they are no wi ser than

be f ore . What then was this eternal law a knowled g e o f
’
, , ,

whi ch H e rac le it u s f ound so d i ffi cult to popul arise ? L e t u s

look back f o r a mo ment at the earlier I onian systems They .

had tau g ht that the u n iverse arose either by di ff eren ti ation

or by condensation an d e x pan sion f rom a sin g le pri mordial
substance into which as Anax i mand er at least held every
, , , , ,

thin g at last returned Now H e ra c l e i t u s tau g ht that thi s

- .
,

trans f ormation i s a universal nev e r endi n g never restin g ,

-

,
-

p ro c ess ; that all thin gs are mov in g ; that Nature i s l ik e a

'

stream i n which no man c an bathe twi ce ; that rest an d

stability are the law not o f li f e bu t o f de ath A g ain the , , .
,

Pytha g orean school as we have seen divided all thin g s int o , ,

a series o f sharply disti n g uished antithet ical pai rs H era -

c leitu s either d irectly id entified the terms o f eve ry o pp o s it 1o n ‘

o r reg ard ed them as nec essarily co mbined o r as continu all y ,

Fo r th e o ri gi n al s of this an d th e s u c c e e d in
g q u o t at io n s f ro m H erac l e itu s,

Ri tte r an d Prell e r, pp
' '

s ee . 14 -
23 .
 24 TH E GRE E K PH I L 0 5 OPH E R S .

passin g i nto one another Perhaps we shal l e x press his .

meanin g most thorou g hly by sayin g that he would have

looked on all three propositi ons as equivalent statem ents o f a
s in g le f act I n accordance with this principle he c alls f w ar
.

’
the f ather and k i n g and lord o f all and denou nces H omer s ,

prayer f o r the abolition o f stri f e as an unconscious blasphemy

ag ainst the universe itsel f Yet even his powerf ul i ntellect
.
,

could not g rasp the conception o f a shi f tin g relativity as the

law and li f e o f thin g s without e mbodyin g it i n a pa rticular
material subst ratu m Followin g the I onia n tradition he
.
,

sought f o r a world element and f oun d it i n that cosmic fire

-

which enveloped the terrestrial atmosphere and o f which the ,

heavenly lu minaries were supposed to be f ormed Fire .

,
’

says the E phesian phi l osopher no doubt adaptin g his lan g uag e ,

to the comprehension o f a g reat c ommer c i al com munity i s ,

‘

the g eneral medium o f e x chan g e as gold i s g i v en f o r eve ry ; ,

thin g and ev erythin g f o r g old

, The world was not created ’

by any g o d or any m an but always was and is a nd shall be

, , , ,

an ever l i v i n g f fi re periodically kindled and quenched

-

,
By .
’

coolin g and c ondensation water is f ormed f ro m fire and

, ,

earth f rom water ; then by a converse process called the way

,

up as the other was the way down earth a g ai n passes into ,

water and water i nto fire At the end o f c ertai n stated .

periods the whole world i s to be reconverted into fire but only ,

to enter on a new c ycle i n the serie s o f its endless revolutions

-
a conception so f ar remarkably c onfirmed by modern
, ,

science The whole theo ry includin g a f uture world con

.
,
-

flag rat i o n w as a f terwards adopted by the St oi c s a n d probably

, , ,

e x ercised a considerable i nfl uence on t h e e s c h at o l o gy o f the ’

early C hristi an Chu rch I mag ination I S obli g ed to work

.

under f orms which thoug ht has already s upersed ed and

H e rac le it u s as a philosopher had f orestalled the dazzli n con
‘

g
summation to which as a prophet he mi g ht lo o k f orward i n
wonder and hope For his element al fire was only a p i c t u r
.
,

esque presentation indispensable to hi m but not to us o f the , ,

26 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

l uminous beam o f reflection had been polarised into two

diverg ent rays each li ght where the other was d ark and d ark
,

where the other was li ght each denyin g what the other ,

asserted and assertin g what the other d eni ed For a c entu ry .

physical speculation had tau ght that the universe was f orm ed
by the modification o f a sin g le etern al substance whate v er ,

that substance mi ght be By the end o f that period al l.

,

becomin g was absorbed into bein g at E lea and all bein g into ,

becomin g at E phesus E ach vi e w c ontain ed a portion o f the

.

truth and one which perhaps would n ever have been clearly
,

perceived i f it had not been brou g ht i nto e x clusive prom i

n en c e . But f urther prog ress was i mpossible u nti l the two
hal f —truths had been re c ombined We may c ompare Par .

menid es and H e ra c le i tu s to two lo f ty and precipitous peaks

on either side o f a n Alpi n e pass E ach com mands a wide
-
.

p ro s p e c t ; i n t e rru p t e d only on the side o f i ts opposite nei ghbou r

, .

And the f ertilisin g strea m o f E uropean thou ght ori g inates

with neither o f the m sin g ly but has its sourc e midway ,

between .

IV .

We now enter on the last period o f pu rely obj ective

philo sophy an age o f mediatin g and reconcilin g but stil l
, ,

t
pro f oundly o rig‘n al speculation I t s principal rep resentatives .
,

with whom alone w e have to d eal are E mpedocles the , ,

Atomists Leucippus and D emocritus and Ana x a g oras

, , .

There i s considerable doubt and d i ffi c ulty respectin g th e

order i n which they shou ld be p l aced A n a x ag oras was .

unquestionably the oldest and Democritu s the youn g est o f the

f ou r the di ff erence between their a es bein f orty years It
,
g g .

is also nearly certain that the Atomists came a f ter E mp e d o

cles But i f we take a c elebrated e x pression o f Aristotle s l
.
'

literally (as there is no reason why i t should not be taken ) ,

xi v
Ti} [ fi Ami qz w pér e po s aw, 7 5 {pyo i s iz d r ep o s Metap /z I
’ '
7 0 31 . . . ii i .
 E AR LY G R E E K TH O UG H T . 27

Ana x ag oras alth ou g h born be f ore E mpedocles published his

, ,

v ie w s at a later peri od Was h e also anticipated by Le u

.

c ippus ? We cannot tell with c ertai nty but it seems likely ,

f rom a c omparison o f their doctri nes that he was and i n all

cases the man who naturalised philosophy i n Athens and ,

who by his theo ry o f a c reative reason f urnishes a transition to

the ag e o f s u bj e c tive speculation will be most conveniently,

placed at the close o f the pre S ocratic period -

.

A splendid tribute has been paid to the f ame o f E mp e d o

cles by Lu c retius the g reatest d idactic poet o f all ti me and
, ,

by a g reat d idactic poet o f ou r o w n ti me M r M atthew ,

.

Arnold B ut the still more rapturous panegyric pronounced

.

by the R o man enthusiast on E picurus makes his testi mony a

little suspiciou s and the lo f ty chant o f our o w n contempora ry
,

must be taken rather as an ex pression o f his own youth f ul

opinions respectin g m an s place in N ature, than as a f aith f ul
’

e x position o f the S ici lian thinker s creed M any another ’

.

name f ro m the history o f philosophy mi ght with better reason

have been prefi x ed to that con f ession o f resi g ned and scorn f u l
scepticism entitled E mp ed oc l es o n E tn a The real doctrines .

o f an essentially reli iou s teacher would hardly have been so

g
cordially endorsed by M r Swinburne Bu t p e rhaps no other
. .

character could have e x cited the d eep sympathy f elt by on e

poetic g eniu s f o r another when with both o f them thou ght is
,

habitu a lly steeped i n emotion E mpedocles was the last .

Greek o f any note who threw his philosophy into a metrical

f orm. N either Xenophanes nor Parmen ides had don e this
with so much su ccess No less a critic than Aristotle e x tols
.

the H omeric spl endour o f his verses and L ucretiu s i n thi s , ,

respect an authority speaks o f them as almost d ivine B ut

, .
,

j ud g in g f ro m the f rag ments still e x tant their speculat ive ,

content e x hibits a distinct d ecline f rom the hei g ht reached

by his i mmediate p redec essors E mpedocles betrays a d is
.

trust i n man s power o f d iscoveri n g truth almost althou g h

’

, ,

not qu i te unkn own to them Too mu c h certainty would be

, .
 28 TH E GRE E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

impious .
H e calls on the ‘
m uch wooed white armed vi rg in
- -

muse to
G u i d e f ro m t h e s e at of Re ve re n c e t hy b righ t c a r,

A n d b ri n g t o u s t h e c re at u re s of a d a y,
W h at w it h o u t s in w e may a sp i re to k n ow .

We also miss in hi m the i r s 1n gle mind ed d evotion to phi -

l o s o p hy and their ri g orous u nity o f d octrine The A c raga n .

tine sag e was a party leader (in which capaci ty to his g reat ,

credit he victoriously upheld the popular cause ) a rhetori cian

, , ,

an en g ineer a physician and a thau maturg ist The well

, , .

known legend relatin g to his d eath may be taken as a not u n

d eserved satire o n th e colossal sel f c onceit o f the man who -

clai med divine honours d urin g his li f eti me H al f mystic and .

-

hal f — rationalist he mad e no attempt to reconcil e the two i n

,

consistent sides o f his intellectual character I t may be .

compared to one o f those g rotesqu e combinations i n which ,

accordin g to hi s morphology the head s and bodies o f widely ,

di ff erent animals were united durin g the beg innin g s o f li f e

bef ore they had learned to f all into thei r p roper places H e .

believed in metempsychosis and pro f essed to remember the ,

somewhat mis c ella neous series o f f orms throu g h which hi s ‘

own personality had already run H e had been a boy a g irl .

, ,

a bush a bird and a fish Neverth eless as we shall present ly

, , .
,

see his theory o f Natu re alto ether e x cluded such a notion

,

’
as the soul s separate e x istence We have now to consider .

what that theo ry actu ally was I t will be remembered that .

Parmenides had a ffirmed the perpetuity and eternal sel f

identity o f bein g but that he had d eprived this pro f ound
,

divination o f all practical v alue by interpreti n g it in a sense

which e x cluded d iversity and c han g e E mpedocles a l so .

de c lares creation and d estruction to be i mpossible but ,

e x plai n s that the appearances so d enomin ated arise f rom the

union and sep aration o f f ou r everlastin g substances— earth ,

air fire and w ater This i s the f amous d oct rine o f the f ou r
, , .

R i tte r an d Pre l l e r, p .
90 .
 E A R L Y GRE E K TH O UG H T . 29

elements which adop t ed by Plato and Aristotle was lon g

, , ,

re g ard ed as the last word o f chemi stry and stil l su rvives i n ,

p opular phraseolo gy I t s author may have been g uid ed by

.

an un c ons c ious re flection o n the character o f hi s own philo

sophi c al m ethod f o r was not he too constru c t i n g a new
, , ,

system out o f the elements su pplied by his pred ecessors ?

They had successively fi x ed on water ai r an d fire as the , ,

pri mordi al f orm o f existen c e he added a f ou rth earth and , ,

eff ected a sort o f rec onciliation by placin g them all on an

equal f ootin g C uriously enou gh the earli er monistic sys

m
.
,

t a relative j ustification which hi s c ru d e eclecticis m

lacked All matter may e x ist either i n a solid ,a liquid or a
.
,

g aseous f orm ; and all solid matter has reached its present
condition af ter p assin g throu g h the two other d eg rees o f
consistency That the three mod ifications should be f ound c o
.

e x istin g i n our own e x p e ri e n c e i s a mere accid ent o f the p resent

reg i me and to enu merate them is to substitute a description
,

f o r an e x planation the usual f ault o f ecle c tic systems E mp e

, .

d o c l e s however besid es hi s happy i mprovement on Parme

, ,

nides made a real contribution to thou gh t w hen as Aristotle

, ,

puts it he sou g ht f or a movin g as well as f o r a material cause

,

i n other word s when he asked not on ly o f what elements

,

the world i s c omposed but also by what f or c es were they

,

brou ght to g ether H e tells us o f two such causes L ove and

“

.
,

Stri f e the on e a combinin g the other a d isso c iatin g power

, , .

I f f o r these hal f mytholo g ical nam es we read att ractive and

-

repulsive f orces the result will not be v e ry d i ff erent f ro m ou r

,

own cu rrent cosmolog i es S uch terms when so used as to .

,

assume the e x istence o f occ ult qualities i n matter drivin g its ,

part s asunder or d rawin g them c lose to g ether are i n t ruth , , ,

as compl etely mytholo g ical as any fi g me n t s o f H el l enic f ancy .

U nlike thei r m odern antitypes the E mped oc lean g oddesses ,

did not rei g n to g ether but su cceed ed one another in alternate

,

d ominion d u rin g prot ra c ted period s o f time The vi ctory o f .

L ove was complete when all thin g s had been d rawn i nto a
 30 TH E G R E E K PH I L OSOPH E R S .

perf ect sphere evidently the absolute E leatic B ein g subj ected
,

to a Heracleitean law o f vi cissitude and c ontradi c tion For .

Stri f e lays hold on the consolid ated orb and by her d is i n te ,

g
ratin g
action g radually redu c es it to a f ormless chaos till at , ,

the close o f another world — period the w ork o f c reation beg ins
,

a gain Yet g rowth and dec ay are so i ne x tri c ably intertwined

.

that E mpedocles f ailed to keep up this id eal separation and ,

was compelled to admit the si mu ltaneou s activity o f bo t h

powers in ou r everyday e x perience so that Nature turns out ,

to be composed o f six elements i nstead o f f our the mind ,

which perceives i t bein g constituted i n a precisely similar

manner But Love althou gh on the whole v i c to rio us c an
.
, ,

only g rad ually ge t the better o f he r retreatin g enemy and ,

Nature as we know it is the result o f thei r continued conflict

, , .

E mpedocles des c ribed the p roc ess o f evolution as he c on ,

c e i v e d it i n so mewhat m in u te detail
,
Two points only are o f
.

much interest to us his alle ged anticipation o f the Da r

,

w i n i an theory and his psycholo gy The f ormer su c h as it

.
,

was has occasionally been attributed to L ucreti us but the

, ,

R oman poet most probably copied E picu rus althou g h the ,

very brie f summary o f that phil osopher s physical system ’

preserved by Dio g enes L ae rt iu s c ontains no allusion to such

’
a topic We kn ow however that i n Aristotle s ti me a theory
.
, ,

identical with that o f L u cretius was held by those who

rej ected teleolo g ical e x planation s o f the world i n g eneral

and o f livin g o rg anisms i n parti cul ar All sorts o f ani mals .

were produced by spo n taneou s g eneration ; only those sur

v iv e d which were accidentally f u rnished with appliances f o r

pro c urin g nourishment an d f o r propag atin g their kind The .

notion itsel f ori g inated with E mped ocles whose f anci f u l ,

suppositions have already been mentioned in a di ff erent

conne x ion M ost assured ly he d id not o ff er it as a solution
.

o f problems w hich in his time had not yet been mooted but ,

as an illustration o f the con f usion which prevailed when Love

had on l y advanced a little w ay in her orderin g harmonisin g , ,
 ‘

E AR LY G R E E K TH O UG H T .
31

u ni f y i n g task Pran t l Writing a f e w years be f or e the ap

.
,

p e a ra n c e o f M r Dar w in s book on the O ri gi n o f Spec i es an d

.
’

there f ore without any prej udice on the subj ect observes with ,

truth that this theory o f E mpedocles was deeply rooted i n

the mytholog ical conception s o f the ti me 1
Perhaps he was .

seekin g f o r a rationalistic e x planation o f the c enta u rs mino ,

t au rs hundred handed g iants and so f orth i n whose e x istenc e

,
-

, ,

he had not like L ucretius learned completely to disbeliev e

, ,
'

H is stran g e supposition was a f terwards f reed f ro m its worst

e x travag ances but even as stated i n the D e R eru m Na ta n i ,

it has no clai m whatever to rank as a serious hypothesis .

Anythin g more unlike the Darwinian doctrine accord in g to ,

which all e x istin g spe c ies have been evol v ed f rom less hi g hly
org anised ancestors by the g rad ual ac c u mulation o f minute
d i ff erences i t would be di f ficult to c once iv e E very thinker
,
.

o f antiquity with one e x ception beli eved i n the i mmutability

, ,

o f n atural species They had ex isted unchan g ed f ro m all

.

eternity or had sprun g up by spontaneous g eneration f rom

,

’
the earth s boso m i n thei r present f orm The solitary d is .

sentient was Anaxi mander who conj ectu red that man was ,

d escended f rom an aquat i c ani mal 2

Stran g e to say this .
,

lucky guess has not yet been quoted a s an arg u ment ag ainst
the As c id ian pedi g ree I t i s chiefly the enemies o f Darwi n
.

ism who are eag er to find it a nti c ipated i n E mpedo c les o r

L u c reti us .By a c uriou s inversion o f traditi onalism i t is ,

f ancied that a modern d iscovery can be upset by showin g

that somebody said somethin g o f the kin d more than two
thousand years ag o U n f ortunately authority has not t h e
.

neg ative val u e o f disprovin g the principles which i t supports .

We must be content to accept the t ruths broug ht to lig ht by

observation and reasonin g even at the risk o f findin g ou r ,

selves i n h u miliati n g a g reement with a phi losopher o f an

t i q u it y 3
.

Pran tl , A rz sl otel es’ Pi g/ri b , p 4 84 2

R itte r an d Pre ll e r, p 1 1
'

. . . .

Si n c e th e ab o v e re mark s w e re fi rs t p u b l ish e d , Mr Wallac e , i n h i s w o rk

. on
 TH E G R E E K PH I L O SOPH E R S .

Passin g f rom li f e to mind we find E mpedocles te ach i n g ,

an even more pronounced materialis m than Parmenides i n as , g

much as it is stated i n lan gu ag e o f superior p recision O u r .

souls are accordin g to him made up o f elements like those

, ,

whi ch constitute the exte rn al world each o f t hese bein g pe r ,

c e iv e d by a c orrespon din g p ort ion o f the sam e substances

withi n ourselves —fi re by fire water by water and so on with , ,

the rest I t is a mistake to suppose that spe c ulation beg i ns

.

f rom a subj ective stand point that men start with a clear -
,

c onsciousness o f their own personality an d pro c eed to con ,

struct an obj ecti v e u niverse a f ter th e same pattern D oubt .

less they are too prone to personi f y the bli nd f o rces o f

Nature and E mpedo c les h i msel f has j u st suppli ed u s wi th an
,

e x ample o f this tendency but they err still more by readin g ,

outward e x perien c e into thei r own souls b ymaterialisin g the ,

processes o f consciousness and resolvin g hu man personality ,

i nto a loose con f ederacy o f i norg anic units E ven Plato who .
,

d id more than anyone else toward s distin g uishin g between -

mind and body ended by layin g d own his psycholog y on the ,

lines o f an astronomical system M eanwhile to have sepa .

,

rated the perception o f an obj ect f ro m the obj ect itsel f i n ,

ever so sli g ht a deg ree was an i mportant gain to thou ght , .

E p ic u rean i s m h as
,
s tat e d th at , y an imals w hi c h are
ac c o rd i n
g to E p i c u ru s , th e v er

f o u n d u p o n t h e earth hav e b e e n mad e w h at th e y are b y s l o w p ro c e ss e s o f s e l e c ti o n

an d a d a p t ati o n th ro u gh th e e x p e ri e n c e o f l if e an d h e p ro c e e d s t o c al l th e t h e o r
y
in q u es t i o n ,
‘
u l tra Darw in ian
-
’
p . Lu c re t i u s —th e au th o ri ty
qu o ted —says n o thi n g ab o u t slo w p ro c e s s es o f ad a
’
p tati o n , n o r ye t d o e s h e say
t h at th e an imal s mad e w e re
‘
w h at t h ey are b y s e l e c ti o n ,
’
b u t b y th e p ro c rea t i v e
p o w e r o f th e e arth h e rs e lf P i c k i n g o u t a re ad y mad e p ai r o f b o o t s f ro m amo n g a
-
.

n u mb e r w h i c h d o n o t fi t is a v e ry d iff e re n t p ro c e s s f ro m man u f ac tu ri n
g th e same
p ai r b y measu re o r w e arin g i t in to s h ap e
,
T o c all th e E mp e d oc l ean th e o ry
.

u l t ra Darw i n i an
-
i s li k e c al li n g th e De mo c ri t ean o r E p i c u re an t h eo ry o f gravi ta
,

t i o n u l tra N e w t o n ia n
-
A n d Mr W al la c e se e ms t o ad mi t as mu c h w h e n h e p ro
. .
,

c e ed s t o s ay o n th e v e ry sa me p ag e O f c o u rse i n t h i s t h e re i s n o i mp li c a t io n o f
,

t h e p ec u l iarly Darw i n i an d o c t rin e o f d e sc e n t o r d e v e l o p me n t o f k i n d f ro m k in d

w i th s t ru c t u re mo d ifi e d an d c o mp li c at ed t o me e t c h an g i n g c irc u ms tan c es
’
(B y .

th e w ay t hi s i s n o t a p e c u li arly Da rw i n i an d o c t rin e f o r i t o ri gi n ate d w i t h

, ,

Lamarc k s p o n tan e o u s v ari at i o n an d s e l e c t i o n b e i n g t h e a d d i t i o n s mad e b y t h e

,

E n gl ish n a tu rali s t s) B u t w h at b e c o me s t h en o f th e s l o w p ro c e s s e s o f ad ap t a
.
‘

t io n an d t h e u l t ra Darw i n i an t h e o ry s po k e n o f j
-
u s t b e f o re
 TH E G R E EK PH ILO S OPH E R S
34 .

ments o f chem i stry hav e tended still f urth e r t o es tablish

their reality as well as to elu ci date the i r remarkable proper
,

ties I n the absence o f s u fli c ie n t i n f orm ation it i s di ffi cult

.
‘
,

to d etermine by what steps this ad m i rable hypothesis was

evolved Yet even w i thout e x ternal ev iden c e we may f airly
.
, ,

conj ecture that sooner or later som e philosopher possessed

, , ,

o f a hi g h gen eralisin g f a c ul ty would in f er that if bod ies are ,

c ontinually throwin g o ff a flux o f infinitesimal particles f rom

thei r su rf aces they must be similarly subdivided all throu g h
,

and that if the organs o f sense are honeycombed with imper

c e p t ib l e pores such may also be the universal constitution o f
,

matter Now a c cordin g to Aristotl e L eucippus the f ound er

1
.
, , ,

o f atomism d i d actually u se the second o f these arg u ments

, ,

and employed it in part i cu lar to p ro v e the e x isten ce o f i nd i

v isible solids O ther consid eration s equally obvious s u g
2
.

g ested themselves f rom another quarter I f all chan g e was .

e x pressible in terms o f m atter and motion then g radual ,

chan ge implied i nterstiti al motion which ag ain involved the ,

ne c essity o f fine pores to serve as channels f o r the i ncoming

and out g oin g molecular streams Nor as was supposed .
, ,

could motion o f any kind be con c eived without a vacuu m the ,

second g reat postulate o f the atomi c theory Here i ts .

advocates d irectly j oined issu e with Parmenid es The chie f .

o f the E leatic school had as we have seen presented bei n

g , ,

under the f orm o f a homog eneous sphere absolutely c onti n ,

u o u s but limited in e x tent Spa c e dissociated f rom matter .

was to him as a f terward s to Aristotle non e x istent and i m

, ,
-

possible I t was he e x claimed in c onceivable nonsensi c al

.
, , , .

U nhappily inconceivability is abou t the worst n egative

c riterion o f truth ever yet i nvented H is challen g e was now .

By a c u ri ou s c o in c id e n c e , th e ato mic c o n s t i tu ti o n of matte r s t il l fi n d s i ts

stro n ge s t p t i c al ph e n o me n a
p ro o f i n o Ligh t i s p ro p agat e d b y t ran sv e rs e w a v e s ,
.

an d su c h w av e s are o n l y p o ss i b l e i n a d i sc o n t i n u o u s me d i u m B u t if th e l u mi n i .

f e ro u s e th e r i s c o mp o se d o f d i s c re te p arti c le s, s o al so mu s t b e th e matt e r w h i c h i t

p en e trat e s i n al l d i rec ti o n s .

2
A r De Gen et Corn , I
. . .
, v iii . , 3 2 5, b , 5 .
 E AR LY G RE E K TH O UG H T J
“
35 .

t ak e n
’

p by
u the Atomists who boldly a f firmed that i,
f non
bein g meant empty spa c e it was j ust as concei v able and j u st
,

as necessary as bein g A f urther sti mulus m ay ha v e bee n

.

received f ro m the Pytha g orean school whose doctrines had , ,

j ust at this time been systematised and c ommitted to writin g

,

by Philolaus its most eminent disciple The hard sayin g that

,
.

all thin g s were made out o f nu mber mi ght be e x plained and

c onfirmed if the integ ers were interpreted as materi al atoms .

I t wil l have been observed that so f ar the merit o f , ,

or ig i n atin g atomism has been attributed to L eu c ippus instead ,

o f to the more celebrated Demo c ritus with whose name i t is ,

usually assoc iated The two were f ast f riends and seem always
.
,

to have worked tog ether in perf e c t harmony But Leu cippu s .

,

3 known o f his li f e was apparently ,

the old er man and f rom him so f ar as we can make out

, , ,

e manated the g reat idea whi ch his brilliant coadj utor c arried
.

i nto every d epartment o f en qui ry and set f orth in works ,

whi c h are a loss to literature as well as to scienc e f o r the ,

poetic splendour o f their style was not less remarkable than

the encyclopaed i c rang e o f thei r contents D emo c ritus was .

born at Abd era a Thracian city 4 70 B C a year be f ore

, , . .
,

So c rates and lived to a very ad v an c ed ag e — more than a

,

hundred a c cordin g to some accounts H owever th i s may be

, .
,

he was probably like most o f his g reat c o untrymen p ossessed

, ,

of i mmense v itality His early manhood was spent i n

.

E astern travel and he was not a little proud o f the

,

nu merous c ou ntries which he had visited an d the learned .

men with who m he had conversed H is ti m e was m ostly .

occupied i n observin g Nature and i n studyin g mathematics ,

the sag es o f Asia and E gypt may have acquainted hi m with

many use f ul scientific f a c ts bu t w e have seen that his philo
,

sophy was d e 1 iv e d f rom purely H ellenic sources A f e w .

f ra g ments o f his nu merous writin g s still survive — the relics

o f an intellectual O zymandias I n them are bri efly shadowed .

f orth the c onceptions whi c h L ucretius or at least his modern ,

D 2
36 THE G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

E n g lish i nterpreters have made f ami liar to all ed u c at e d men

,

[and women E verythin g is the result o f mechanical cau sa

.

tion I nfinite worlds are f ormed by the c ollision o f i nfinite

.

atoms f allin g f o r ever downward throu g h i nfinite space No .

place is le f t f o r supernatural ag en c y ; nor are the unaided

operations o f Nature d is g uised u nder O lympian appellation s .

Democritus g oes even f urther than E picurus i n his rej ection

o f the popular mytholo gy H is system provides no i nter
.

stellar re f u g e f o r abdica ted god s H e attributed a kind o f .

obj ective e x istence to the apparitions seen i n sleep and even ,

a considerable influen c e f o r g ood or f o r evil but denied that ,

they were im mortal The old belie f in a Divine Power had

.

arisen f rom thei r activity and f rom meteorolog i c al phenomen a

o f an alarmin g kind but w as d estitute o f any stron g er f oun
,

dation Fo r his o w n part he looked on the fiery spherical

.
,

atoms as a universal reason o r soul o f the world without , ,

however assi g nin g to the m the distinct and commandin g

,

position o c cupied by a somewhat an a lo g ous principl e i n

the syst em which we now pro c eed to e x amine and with ,

which our survey o f early Gre e k thou ght will most fi t ly

term i n ate .

V .

R easons have already been su ggested f o r placin g A n ax a

goras last in order amon g the physical phil osophers n o t w i t h ,

standin g his priority in point o f ag e to m ore than one o f them .

H e was born accord in g to the most c redible accounts

, ,

at Claz o me n ae an I onian city and settled i n Athens when

, ,

t w t L years o f ag e There he spent. part

of a lon g li f e illustratin g the type o f c haracter which
,

E uripides e x pressly re f errin g as is supposed to the I o n 1a n , ,

sag e —has d escribed i n the f ollowin g choric li nes

H appy i s h e w ho h as l e arn e d
To se a rc h ou t t h e s e c re t of t h i n gs ,
No t to t h e t o w n s me n s b
’
an e ,
 EAR LY GRE E K TH O UG H T .

Ne ith e r f or au gh t that bri n gs

An u n ri g h t e o u s
g ai n .

B u t th e a ge l e s s o rd e r h e s ee s

Of n at u re th at c an n o t d i e ,
An d t h e c au s e s w h e n c e it s p ri n gs ,

An d th e h o w an d th e w hy .

Neve r h ve th o a u gh t s lik e t h e s e
To a d ee d of d i sh o n o u r b ee n t u rn e d .

The di shonour was f o r the townsm en who in an outbreak o f ,

i nsane f anaticism d rove the blam eless t ru t h s e e k e r f ro m hi s

,

adopted hom e Ana x ag oras was the intimate compani on

.

o f Peric les and Peri cles had mad e m any en emi es by hi s

,

do mestic as well as by his f orei g n policy A coalition o f .

harassed inte re s t s an d o ff ended prej u dices was f ormed ag ainst

him A c ry ar os e that reli gion and the constit u tion were i n
.

d ang er The Athenian s had too mu ch g ood sense to d ismiss

.

their g reat dem ocrati c M inister but they permitted the illu s ,

’
t ri o n s stat e sman s political o p p onents to strike at him throu g h
his f riends Aspasia w as saved only by the tears o f her lover
?
.

Ph e i d i as the g rand est most spiritual minded artist o f all time

, ,
-

was arrested on a ch arg e o f im p iety and d ied i n a prison o f ,

the city whose temple s w e re adorned with the i mperi shable

monu ments o f his reli g ious inspiration A decree a g ainst .

‘
astrono mers and athe i s ts was s o evidently ai med at A n ax a
g oras th at the philoso p her reti red to L ampsacu s where h e ,

d ied at the ag e o f sevent ytwo u niversally ad mired and -

revered Altars d edicated to R eason and Truth were erected

.

i n hi s honour and f o r c enturies his memory c ontinu ed to

,

be celebrated by an annual f east 3

H i s whole e x istence had .

been devoted to science When asked what m ad e li f e worth .

livin g he answered The contemplat i on of the h e av e n s an d

, ,
'

o f the universal cosm ic order The reply w as like a title ’

.

pag e to his works We c an see that speci alisation w as .

1
E u ri p Frag 1 n c e rt Fa b , c x x x v r Di d o t ,
. . .
p 8 5 0 [ a m i
. n d e b t e d f o r th i s . . . I
v e rs i o n t o Mi s s A M F R o b i n so n , th e tran sl ato r o f th e Craz e/f w d 11 2115100 0
. . . 1
w
3
C u rti u s , G ri erb i sc /z e Gesc /z i c /z te, 4 2—
3 5 (3 rd
3
Z e ll e r, o
p .
'

czt .
, p .
79 1 .
 38 TH E GRE E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

beg innin g that the positi v e sciences were separatin g them

,

selves f rom g e n eral theori es abou t Nature and could be ,

cu ltivated ind ependently o f them A sin g le i ndivid ual .

mi ght indeed combi ne philosophy o f the most c o mp re he n

, ,

si v e kind with a detailed enqui ry into some p artic ular order

o f phenomena but he could d o this without brin g in g the two
,

s tudies into any i mmediate c onn e x ion with each other .

Such seems to have been the case with Anax ag oras H e .

w as a pro f essional astronomer and also the author o f a

modified atomic hypothes i s T h i s f ro m its g reater com

'

.
,

p l e x it
y seems
,
more likely t o have been su gg ested by th e
purely quantitative c on c eption o f L eu cippu s than to have
'

preceded it in the order o f evolution Democritus and .

,

probably his teacher also d re w a very sh arp di stinction

,

between what were a f terwar d s c alled the primary an d

seconda ry qualiti es o f matter E x tension and resi s tance
.

alon e had a real e x istence in Natu re whil e the attributes ,

correspondin g to our special sensations such as temperature , ,

taste and colou r were only subj ectively or as he e x pressed

, , , ,

it conventionally tru e Ana x ag oras a ffi rmed no less stron g ly

, .
-

than his youn g er contemporaries that the su m o f bein g can

neither be i ncreased nor diminish ed that all th i n g s arise and ,

peri s h by combination and division and that bodies are ,

f ormed out o f i nd estruct i ble elements ; like the Atomists ,

a g ain he reg arded these elementary substances as infinit e

,

i n number and i nconceivably minute ; only he c onsidered

them as qualitatively dist i nct and as resemblin g on an i n fi n i
,

t e s i ma l scale the hi g hest compounds that they bu ild u p .

Not only were g old i ron and the other metals f ormed o f
, ,

homog eneous particles but such substances as fl esh bone and

, , ,

b lood were accordin g to hi m equally si mple equally d e c o m

, , ,
~

posable into molec ules o f like nature with themselves

, .

T hus as A ristotle well observes he reversed the method o f

, ,

E m p edocles and tau g ht that earth air fire and water were
, , , ,

real ly the mo st com p l ex o f all bodies si nce they supplied ,

 E AR LY G RE E K TH O UG H T .
39

m
no u rish ent to the li v i ng tissues an d there f ore must c ontain,

within themselves the multitudinous v arie ty o f units by whose

agg reg ation i ndivid ualised o rg ani c substance is mad e u p 1
.

Furt hermore our phi losopher held that ori g inally this inter
,

mi x t u re had been still more thorou g h g oin g all possible ,

qualities b ein g si multaneously present i n the smal lest par

t i c l e s o f matter The resultin g state o f chaoti c con f u sion
.

lasted u ntil Nous o r R eason cam e and s eg reg ated the

, ,

hetero geneous elements by a pfpé e s s o f conti nuous d i ff erentia

g

tion lead in g up to the present arra n g ement o f thin g s Both .

Plato and Aristotle have com mended Anaxag oras f o r i n

t ro d u c i n g i nto speculation the conception o f R eason as a

cosmi c world ord erin g power ; both have c ensured hi m f o r

-

makin g so little use o f his own g reat thou g ht f o r attributin g ,

almost everythin g to seconda ry material mechanical causes

, ,

f o r not everyw h ere applyin g the teleolog ical method in f act ,

f o r not an ticipatin g the Brid g ewater T reatises and pro v in g

that the world i s c onstructed on a plan o f perf e c t wisdo m
and g oodness . L ess f o rt un ate than the Athenians we ,

cannot purchase the work o f Ana x agoras on Nature at an

o r c hestral book stall f o r the moderate p ric e o f a d rachm a ;
-

but we know enou g h about its contents to c orrect th e some

what p e t u l an t an d superficial criti c ism o f a school perhaps
’
les s in sympathy than w e are with its author s method o f
research E vidently the C l az o me n i an philosopher d id not
.

mean by R eason an ethi c al f orce a power which makes f o r ,

h u man happiness or virtu e nor yet a refl ectin g i ntelli g ence

, ,

a desi g n er adaptin g means to ends To all appearances the .

Nous was not a s p irit in the sense which we attach or which ,

Ari stotle attached to the term I t was accordin g to A n ax a

.
,

g oras
, the subt l est and pu rest o f all thin g s totally u n mi x ed ,

with other substan c es and there f ore able to control and

,

brin g them i nto order This is not how men speak o f an

.

i mmaterial ine x tend ed c onsciousness The t ru th is that n o .

Ar De Cod a I II i ii 30 2 a 2 8
.
, .
, , , .
 40 TH E G RE E K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

amount o f physical scienc e c ould cr e ate althou g h it mi g h t ,

lead towards a spiritualistic philosophy Spiritualism firs t .

arose f rom the sophistic neg ati on o f an e x ternal world f ro m ,

the e x clu sive s t udy o f man f ro m the Socrati c search a f t e r

,

g eneral definitions Yet

. i f Nous
, o ri g ina l ly meant i n t e l li

g ence, h o w c ould i t lose this primary si g nifi c ation and b e

c ome identified with a mere mode o f matter ? The answer

i s that Anaxagoras w ho se whol e li f e w as spent i n tracin g
, ,

out the ord er o f Nature would in s ti nctively thi n k o f hi s o w n

,

intelli gence as a d i scri min atin g ide n ti f yin g f aculty ; w ould

, ,

consequently con ceive its obj ec tive cou nterpart und er the
,

f orm o f a di ff erentiat i n g and integ ratin g power All pre .

c edin g thinkers had rep re se n ted thei r supreme bein g und e r

material conditions ei the r as o n e elem en t si n g ly or as a su m
,

total where eleme n tal d i ff e ren c es were merg ed Anax ag oras ,

d i ff ered f rom them chiefly b y the very sh a rp di stinction

drawn b et w een his in f ormin g pri nciple and the rest o f Nature .

The absolute intermi x tu r e o f qualiti es which he presupposes

bears a very stron g resembla n ce both to the Sp h a iro s o f
E mpedocles and to t h e fiery c on sum mation o f H e rac l e i t u s it ,

may ev en have been su gg ested by the m O nly what with .

,

them was the hi ghest f or m o f ex is ten c e becomes with hi m

the lowest ; thou ght is ass e rti n g its e l f more and m ore and ,

interpretin g the law o f evo lut i o n i n a cc ord an c e w i th its own

i mpe r iou s de mands ,

A world where orde ri n g rea son w as n o t o nly raised to

supreme po w er b u t also j ealously s e clud ed f ro m all co m
,

mu nion with lower f o rms o f e x iste n ce mea n t t o popular im a

'

g i n at i o n a world f ro m which di v i n it y had been w ithd rawn .

The astrono mical teachin g o f A n a x ag o ra s w as w el l c al c u

lated to i n c rease a not un f ou nded alarm Un d erl yin g the
.

local tribal mytholo gy o f Athens and o f Greece g e n erall y ,

was an older d eeper Na tu re worship chiefly directed towards

,
-
,

those heavenly l u minaries which shon e so g raciou sly on all

me n . an d t o whi c h all me n yie lded o r we re su ppose d to y ield
, ,
42 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E RS .

attempted to show by a series o f distinctions that sun heat -

and fi re heat were essenti ally di ff erent f rom each other A

-
.

d uller people than the Athenians woul d probably hav e

shown f ar less suspicion o f scienti fic i nnovations M en w h o .

were accustomed to anticipate the arg uments o f an orator

be f ore they were hal f out o f hi s month with whom the e x trac ,

t ion o f reluct ant ad m issi ons by cross e x amination was habitu -

ally used as a weapon o f attack an d d e f ence i n the public law

courts and practised as a g ame i n privat e circles w h o were
perpetually on their g uard ag a i nst i nsidiou s attacks f ro m
f orei g n and domestic f oes — had mind s ready trai ned to the
work o f an inquisitori al priesthood An Athenian moreover .
, ,

had mythology at his fin g ers ends he w as ac c ustomed to see

’

i ts leadin g incident s placed be f ore hi m on the stag e not only

with i ntense realism but w ith a system ati c adaptation to the
,

d emands o f common e x perienc e and a care f ul concatenatio n

o f cause and e ff ect which , g ave hi s belie f i n them all the f orce
o f a rati onal conviction while retainin g all the charm o f a

supernatural c reed Then ag ain the constitution o f Athens

.
, , ,

less than that o f any other Greek State c ou ld be worked ,

without the devoted sel f d e n yi n g c o operation o f her citizens

,
- -

and i n their minds sense o f duty was inseparably associated

.

with reli g ious belie f based i n its turn on mytholog ical tradi
,

tions A g reat poet has said and said truly that Athens was
.
, ,

on the wi ll o f man as on a mount o f di amond set but the ,

’

crystallisin g f orce which g ave that collective hu man will such

clearness and keenness and tenacity was f aith in the protec tin g
presence o f a diviner Will at whose withdrawal it would have
crumbled i nto d ust L astly the Athenians had no g eniu s f o r
.
,

natural science none o f them were ever distin g uished a s

s av an s . They looked on the new knowled g e mu ch as Swi f t
looked on it two thousand years a f terwards I t was they .
,

thou ght a miserable triflin g waste o f ti me not prod uctive o f

, ,

any pra c tical g ood breedin g conceit i n youn g men and quite
, ,

unworthy o f receivin g any attent i on f rom orators soldiers and , ,

 E A RL y G R E E K TH o UG H T .
43

statesmen Peric les i ndeed tho ug ht d i ff erently but Per i cles

.
, , ,

was as mu c h beyond hi s ag e when he talked about Nature

with Ana x ag oras as when he c harg ed Aspasi a with th e
g overnment o f his h ousehold and the entertainment o f h i s
g uests .

These refl ec tions are o ff ered not i n excuse but i n e x p la

,

nation o f Athenian intoleran c e a phenomenon f o r the rest

,

unparalleled in ancient Greece We cannot say that m e n

.

were then o r e v er have been lo g ically obli g ed to choose

, ,

between atheism and superstition I f i nstead o f usin g N ous

.

as a hal f contemptuou s nickna me f o r the C laz o me n ian stran g er

-

his contemporaries had taken the trouble to u nderstand what

Nous really meant they mi g ht have f ound in it the possibility
,

o f a deep reli g ious si g nifican c e ; they m i g ht have identified i t

with all that was be s t an d purest in thei r own g uardian

g oddess Ath en e have reco g nised it as the very f ound ation o f
thei r own most characteristic e x cellen ces But vast spiritual .

revolutions are not so easily accomplished and when be f ore ,

th e lapse o f many years Nou s was a gain presented to the

,

Atheni an people this time a c tually personified as an Athenian

,

citi zen it was a g ain m isunderstood ag ain rej ected and

, , ,

became the oc c asion f o r a display o f the sam e perse c utin g

spirit unhappily pu shed to a more f atal e x treme
,
.

U nder su ch u n f avou rable auspi c es d id philosophy fi nd a

hom e i n Athens The g reat m ariti me capital had d rawn to
.

itsel f every other species o f intellectual emi nence and this ,

could not f ail to f ollow with the rest B ut philosophy .

,

althou g h hitherto identified with mathemati cal and physical

!

science held une x hausted po ssibi l i ti es o f development i n

,

reserve Accord in g to a well known le g end Thales once f ell

.
-

into a tank while absorbed i n g azin g at the stars An old .

woman advised him to look at the tank in f utu re f o r there h e ,

would see the water and the stars as well O thers a f ter hi m .

had g o t i nto si milar d i ffi culties and mi ght seek t o evad e

,

them by a similar artifice While busied with the study o f

.
44 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S OPH E RS .

cosmi c evolution they had stumbl ed u nawares o n some p er

,

l e x i n g mental problems Why do the senses su gg est belie fs

p .

so m uch at variance with those arrived at by abstract reason

i n g ? Why should reason h e more trus t w orthy than sense ?
Why are the f oremost H ellenic thinkers so hopelessly d is
ag reed ? What i s the c riterio n o f truth ? O f what u se are
c onclusions whi c h cannot c o m mand uni v ersal assent ? O r ,

g rantin g that tru th i s discoverable how can ,it be com muni

c at e d t o others ? S uch were so m e o f the questions now be g in
’
nin g urg ently to press f o r a solution _
I sou g ht
. f o r
‘
mysel f ,

said H e rac l e it u s i n his ora c ular style H is successors had to

.

do even more —to seek not only f o r themselves but f o r others

to study th e belie f s habits and aptitudes o f their hearers
, ,

with pro f ound sag acity in order to win admission f o r the

,

lessons they were strivin g to i mpart And when a s ys t e ma t 1c

.

i nvesti g ation o f hu man nature had onc e be gun i t could not ,

stop short with a mere analysis o f the inte l le c tual f aculties

wh at a man did was a f ter all so very much more i mportant
tha n what he kn ew was i n t ru th that which alone g ave hi s
, , ,

knowled g e an y practical value whatever Moral d isti nctions .

,

too were beg innin g to g row uncert ai n Wh en e v ery other

, .

traditional belie f had been shaken to its f oundations when ,

men were tau ght to doubt t he evid en c e o f thei r own senses ,

it was n ot to be e x pe c ted that the conventional l a w s o f

condu c t at no time ve ry exact o r co n sistent would con ti nu e
, ,

to be accepted on the authority o f ancient u sa g e Thus eve ry .

,

kind o f determinin g influ ences in t ernal and e x ternal con

, ,

spired to divert philosophy f rom the path w hi ch it had hithert o

pu rsued and to chan g e it f rom an o bj ective theoretical s tud y
, ,

i nto an introspective d i ale c ti c p ra c ti c a l d i scipline

, , ,

VI .

And now l oo kin g back at the whole course o f early Greek

,

thou ght p resentin g as it does a g radua l d e v elopm ent and a n

,
 E AR LY G RE E K TH O UG H T .
4;

organic u nity wh ic h pro ve i t to be t ruly a nat iv e g row th a ,

spontaneou s product o f the Greek mind l et us take one step ,

f u rther and enquire whether be f ore the birth o f pure spe c ula
tion or parallel wit h but apart f rom its rudi mentary e ff orts
, ,

there were not certain tendencies displayed i n the other g reat

d epartments o f intellectual activity fi x ed f orms as it were i n
,

which the H elleni c g enius was compelled to work which re ,

p rod uce themselves in philosophy an d d etermine its d isti n

g u i s hi n g characteristics . Althou g h the materials f o r a com

p l e t e Greek etholo g y are n o lon g er e x tant i t can be shown ,

that such tenden cies d id actually e x ist .

I t is a f amiliar f act first brou g ht to li ght by L essin g and

, ,

eneralised by hi m i n t o a law o f all g ood literary composition

g ,

that H omer always throws his d escriptions into a narrative

f orm . We are not told what a hero wore but how he put on ,

his armou r ; when attention is drawn to a partic ular obj e c t

we are mad e a c quainted with its ori g in and past histo ry ;
even the relie f s on a shield are i nvest ed with li f e and move
ment H omer was not i mpelled to adopt this method ei ther
.

by c onscious reflectio n or by a pro f ound poeti c instinct At .

a c ertain stag e o f intellectu al d ev elop ment e v ery Greek would ,

find it f ar easier to arra n g e the data o f experien ce in successive

than i n c ontemporaneous order ; the on e is fi x ed the other ,

ad mits o f indefinite variation Pictorial and plastic art also

.

begi n with serial presentat i ons and only arrive at the con
,

stru ction o f larg e centralised g roups much later on We .

have ne x t to obse rve that while Greek reflection at first

,

f ol l owed the order o f time i t tu rned by p re f erence not to

,

p resent or f utu re but to p as t tim e Nothin g i n H elleni c

,
.

literatu re reminds us o f H ebrew prophecy To a Greek al l .

d istinct previ sion was merg ed i n the g loom o f comin g d eath

’

o r the glo ry o f an t i c ip at e d f ame O f cou rse at eve ry g reat

.
,

cri sis o f the national f ortunes much cu riosity prevailed amo n g

the vul g ar as to what course events would take but it was
sedulously d iscoura ged by the noblest minds H erodotus and .
46 TH E G R E E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

Sopho c les look on e v en d i vi ne predictions as pu rposely

ambi g uous and misleadin g Pindar o f ten dwells on the .

hop eless uncertainty o f li f e 1

Thucydid es treats all v ati c i na
.

tion as u tterly d elusive So when a belie f i n the soul s

.
,
’

separate e x i stence first obtained a c ceptan c e amon g the Greeks ,

it interested them f ar less as a pled g e o f never endin g li f e and -

prog ress herea f ter than as i nvolvin g a possible revelati on o f

,

past history o f th e wondrous advent ures which each i ndivid ual

,

had passed throu gh be f ore assu min g his present f orm H ence .

’
the peculiar f orce o f Pindar s con g ratulation to the partaker
i n the E leusinian mysteries ; a f ter death he knows not only
the end o f li f e but also its g o d g iven beg innin g
,
’ 2‘
E ven -
.
’

the present was not intelli g ible until it had been proj ected
back into the past or interpreted by the li g ht o f som e ancient
,

tale Sappho i n her f amous ode to Aphrodit e recall s the

.
, ,

i ncid ents o f a f ormer p assion precisely si milar to the u n re

quited love which now a g itates her heart an d d esc ribes at ,

len g th how the g oddess then c ame to her relie f as she i s now
i mplored to come ag ain Modern critics have spoken o f this
.

cu ri ous literary artific e as a si g n o f delicacy and reserve We .

m ay be sure that S appho was an utter stran ger to such

f eelin g s ; she ran her thou g hts into a predetermined mould
j ust as a bee builds its w ax in t o he x ag onal cell s Curtius the .
,

German historian has surmised with mu ch plausibility that

,

the entire l eg end o f Troy owes its ori g i n to this habit o f

throwin g back contemporary events into a di stant p ast .

Ac c ordin g to his view the characters an d scenes recorded by

,

Homer althou gh unhistorical as they now stand had really a

, ,

place i n the Achaean colonisation o f Asia M inor 3 But .

,

apart f ro m any dis g uised allusions old stories had an i n e x ,

h au s t i b l e charm f o r the Greek i ma g ination E ven d urin g .

the stirri n g events o f the Peloponnesian war eld erly Athenian ,

5 8 v 1! 8 o il 1ré ém x flo mw v
1 ’ '
0 1 11 7 13

m mr b v é u ol E
p dgi o s é o o o u
'
eu a s e fip ev Oe deev .
—O l .
,
X I I 8—9 .
, .

11 . 1 12 -

3 (3 rd
 E AR LY G RE E K TH O UG H T .
47

c it i zens in their hours relaxat i on talked o f nothin g but

of

myt hology ‘
When a knowled g e o f read in g be c ame univer
.

sally di ff used and b ooks could be had at a moderate pri c e

, ,

ancient leg end s seem to have been the f avou rite literatu re o f
the lower c lasses j ust a s amon g ourselves i n C ax t o n s ti me
,
’
.

Still more must the same taste have prevailed a centu ry

‘

’
earlier A student who opens Pi ndar s epinician odes f o r the
.

fi rst ti me is surpri sed to find so little about the vi ctoriou s

co mbatants and the stru gg les i n which they took p art so ,

much about mythical ad v entu res seemin g ly unconnected with

the ostensibl e subj ect o f the poem Fu rthermore we find .
,

that g enealo g ies were the f ramework by which these d istant

recolle c tions were held tog ether Most noble f amili es traced .

their d escent back to a g o d or to a g o d like hero The entire -

.

i nterv al separatin g the h i storical period f rom the heroi c ag e

was filled up with more or less fictitious pedi g rees A man s .
’

ancest ry was m uch the most i mportant part o f his bio g raphy .

I t is likely that H erodotus had j ust as enthusiastic an

ad miration as we can have f o r Leonidas Yet on e f an c ies .

that a historian o f later d ate would have shown his ap p re c i a

tion o f the S partan kin g i n a rather di ff eren t f ashion We .

’
should have been told so methin g about the hero s personal
appearance and perhaps som e c haracteri stic i n c idents f rom
,

his earlier career would ha v e been related Not so with .

H erodotus H e p auses i n the story o f Thermopylae to g ive

.

u s the g enealogy o f L eonidas up to H eracl es no m ore and

no less That was the hi g hest compliment he could pay and
.
,

it i s repeated f o r Pausan i as the victor o f P lataea ,

?
The
g enealo g ical method was capable o f wid e extension and ,

could be applied to other than hum an or animal relationships .

H esiod s Theo gony i s a g enealogy o f heaven and earth and

’

all that i n them is Accordi n g to Aes c hylus g ain is bred

.
,

f ro m g ain slau ghter f ro m slau g hter woe f rom woe I nsolence

, , .

bears a chi ld like u nto hersel f and this i n tu rn g ives birth to

,

Ari t p h n es Verp
s o 1 176 a ,
H e o d VI I 2 0 4 ; I X 6 4
.
, .
2 r . . .
, .
45 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

a still more f atal pro g eny The same poet termin ates h i s .
1

enumeration o f the fl amin g si g nals th at sped the messag e o f

victory f ro m Troy to Arg os by d esc ribin g the last beacon as ,

2 ’
not u n g ran d s i re d by the I daean fire Now when the Greek .
,

enius had be u n to move i n any d ire c tion it rushed f o rward

g g ,

without pausi n g u nti l arrested by an impassable li mit an d ,

then turned back to retraverse at leisure the whole interval

separatin g that limit f ro m its point o f departu re Thus the .
,

ascendin g lines o f ancestry were f ollowed up unti l they led to

a common f ather o f all every series o f outrag es was traced
throu g h successive reprisals back to an i nitial cri me and
more g enerally every event was a ffiliated to a pre c edin g e vent ,

until the whole chain had been attached to an ulti mate sel f
e x istin g cause Hence the rec ord s o f ori g in ation i nvention
. , ,

spontaneity were long sou ght a f ter with an eagerness which

threw al most eve ry other interest i nto the shad e Glo ry be .

to the i nventor sin g s Pi ndar i n his add ress to victoriou s

’

, ,

C orinth whence c ame the g races o f the d ithyrambic hymn

‘
,

who first set the double eag le o n the temples o f the g od s ? 3 ’

The Pro metlz eu s o f Aeschylus tells how civilisation beg an ,

and the trilogy to w hich it belon g s was p robably intend ed to

show how the supremacy o f Zeus was first established and
secured A g r eat part o f the A g a memn on deals with events
.

lon g anterio r to the openin g o f the d rama but connected as ,

ultimate causes with the terrible c atastrophe which it re p re

sents I n the E u mema er we see how the f amily as i t now
’
’
.
,

e x ists was first constituted by the substitution o f paternal f o r

,

maternal headship and also how the worship o f the Aven g in g

,

Goddesses was first introdu c ed into Athens as well at o w ,

the Areopag ite tribunal was f oun ded I t is very probabl e .

that Sophocles s earliest work the Trzpto/emu r represented

’ '

, ,

the ori gin o f a g riculture under a d ramatic f orm ; and i f th e

’
same poet s later pieces as we l l as all those o f E uripides , ,

Ag a m .
,
—
7 71 50 .
2
[b .
, 311 .

3
OZ
.
, XIII 1 7(Do n al d so n ) .
 so TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

Nor was this all Be f ore philosophisin g th e Greek s d id

. ,

not think only i n the order o f time ; they learn ed at a v ery

early period to think also i n the o rd er o f space thei r f a v ourit e ,

i dea o f a li mit bei n g mad e especially pro min ent here .

H omer s g eo g raphical notions however e rroneous are f o r hi s

’
, , ,

ag e,
singu larly w ell d efined Aeschylus has a wid e know
.

led g e o f the eart h s su rf ace an d e x hibits it with perhap s

’
,

unnecessary readiness Pi nd ar deli ghts to f ollo w his myt h o

.

log ical heroes about o n their travels The sam e tend en c y .

f ound still f reer s c ope when prose l i terat ure beg an H eca .

t ae u s one o f the earliest prose writers was g reat b oth as a

,
-

g enealo g ist and as a g eo g rapher ; an d in this respect also

H erodotus c arried out on a g reat scale the enquiries m ost
habit u ally pu rsued by his c ou ntrymen Now i t will b e .
,

remembered that we have had oc casion to c haracteri se early

I oni an speculation as be i n g to a g reat extent cosmo g raphy
, , .

The element f rom which it deduced all thin g s was i n f a ct , ,

th at which was supp osed to lie outside and emb ra c e the rest .

The g eog raphi c al li mit was c onceived as a g enealog ica l

an cestor Thus the studies whi c h men like H e c at ae u s carri ed
.
,

o n separately were combin ed , or rather con f used i n a sin gl e

, ,

bold g eneralisation by Anaxi menes and H e ra c l e i t u s .

Yet howev er much may be a cc ounted f o r by these c on

,

siderations they still leave somethin g e n e x p l ai n e d Wh y

, .

should one thinker a f ter an other so unhesitatin gly assum e

that the order o f Nature as we know it has issued not merely
f rom a di ff ere n t but f rom an e x a ctly opposite c ondition f ro m ,

universal c on f usion and chaos ? Their e x perience was f ar

too li mited to tell them anything abou t those vast cosmi c
chan g es which we know by i ncontrovert i ble ev i den c e to ha v e
already occ urred and to be ag ai n i n c ou rse o f p reparation
, .

We c an only answer this question by bri n g i n g i nto view

what may be called the neg at i ve moment o f Greek thou g ht .

The s c ien c e o f c ontrar i es i s one says Ari stotle and it c er , ,

t ai n ly was so to his c ountrymen Not only did they d el i gh t

.
 E AR Ly G RE E K TH O U G H T .
51

to bri n g tog ether the ext remes o f weal and woe o f pr i de and ,

abasement o f sec urity and disaster but whatever they most

, ,

loved and clun g to i n reality seemed to i nte est thei r i mag ina r

tion most powe rf ully by its removal its reversal or its over , ,

t hro w
. The Athenians were pec uliarly intolerant o f reg al
g overnment an d o f f em ini ne inte rf erenc e i n politi c s In .

Ath enian trage dy the p ri n c ipal actors are kin g s an d royal

ladies The Athenian m atrons o c c upied a position o f ex
.

c e p t i o n al di g nity and se c lus i on They are brou ght upon

.

the c omi c stag e to be covered with the c oarsest rid i cule and ,

also to i nterf ere d ecis iv ely i n the c ondu c t o f p ubl i c a ff airs .

Ar i stophanes was pro f oundly rel ig ious himsel f and wrot e f o r ,

a people whose reli g ion as we ha v e seen was pushed t o

, ,

the e x treme o f bi gotry Yet he shows as l i ttl e resp e c t f o r

.

the g ods as f o r the wives and sisters o f hi s audi enc e To .

tak e a more g eneral e x ampl e still the whole Greek trag ic ,

d rama i s based o n the id ea o f f amily ki nsh i p and that insti ,

t u t i o n was mad e most interest i n g to Greek spectators by t h e

violat i on o f its eternal sanctities by u nnatu ral hatred and, ,

still more unnatural love or by a f atal mis c onc eption whi c h

causes the han ds o f i nno c ent persons more especially o f ,

tend er w o men to be armed ag ainst thei r n earest and dearest

,

relat i ves i n utter uncons ci ousness o f the aw f ul g uilt abou t to

be incu rred By an extensio n o f the same psy c holog i c al l aw
.

to abstract spe c ulation we are enabled to u nderstand h o w an

early Greek philosopher who had co m e to look on Nature as
a c osmos an orderly whole c onsistin g o f diverse bu t con
, ,

n e c te d an d i nt erdepend ent parts c oul d not properly g rasp

,

su c h a c on c eption u nti l he had substituted f o r i t one o f

a precisely O pposite c haracter ou t o f which he recon,

stru c ted it by a pro c ess o f g rad u al e v olution And if .

it is asked how i n the first place d id he c ome by the

idea o f a c osmos our answer must be that he f ound it i n
,

Greek li f e i n societi es d istin g uished by a many si ded but

,
-

harmonious de v elop ment o f c oncurrent f un ctions and by ,

E 2
52 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S OPH E RS .

volunta ry obe dien c e to an i mpersonal law Thus then the .

, ,

c irc le i s co mplete we have returned to ou r poi nt o f depa rture ,

and ag ain reco g nise i n Greek philosophy a systematised

e x pression o f the Greek nation al g eniu s .

We mu st now brin g this l on g and c ompli c ated but it i s ,

hoped not uninterestin g study to a close We have aecom

,
.

p a ni e d phil osophy to a point w here it enters on a new field ,

and embraces themes su ffici ently i mportant to f orm the

s u bj ect o f a separat e chapter The c ontributions mad e by
.

its first cultivators to our positive knowled g e have al ready

been su mmarised I t remai ns to mention that there was
.

nothin g o f a truly transcendental character abou t thei r s p e c u

l at io n s
. Whatever e x tension we m ay g ive to that terribl e
bu g bear the U nknowable they d id not trespass on its
, ,

domain . H e rac l e i t u s and his compeers whil e pe netrat i n g

,

f ar beyond the horizon o f thei r age and c ount ry kept ve ry ,

nearly withi n the li mits o f a possible e x perienc e They .

c on f used some con ceptions which we have learned to di sti n

g uish and separated others which we have learned to c ombine ;
,

but they were the lineal prog enitors o f our hi g hest scientific
thou ght ; and they first broke g round on a path where we ”

m ust continue to advance if the cosmos which they won f o r

,

us i s not to be let lapse into chaos and d arkness a g ain .

 C HAPT E R 11
.

T H E G R E EK H U MA NI ST S : NAT U R E A ND LAW.

I N the pre c edi n g chapte r we traced the r i se and pro gress o f

physi c al philosophy amon g the an c ient Greeks We showed .

how a f e w g reat thin kers borne on by an unparalleled d evelop

,

m ent o f i ntelle c t ual activity worked out ideas respectin g the

,

o rder o f nature and the constitution o f matter whi ch a f ter

.
,

more than two thou sand years sti ll remain as f resh and f ru itf ul
,

as ever and we f ound that in achievi n g these results Gree k

, ,

thou g ht was itsel f d etermined by ascertain able laws Whether .

controllin g a rtisti c i mag ination or penetratin g to the obj ective

truth o f thin g s it rem ai ned always essenti ally homog en eous
, ,

an d worked u nd er the same f orms o f circ umscription analysis , ,

and opposition I t beg an with e x tern al natu re and with a f ar

.
,

d istant past nor co u ld it be gin otherwise f o r only so c ould

-

the subj ects o f its later meditations be reached O nly a f ter .

less sacred belie f s have been shaken c an ethical do g mas be

questioned . O nly when di sc repancies o f opinion obtrude
the mselves on m an s notic e i s the n eed o f an org anisin g log ic
’

experi enced A n d the mind s eye ori g inally f ocussed f o r d is

.
’

tant obj e c ts alone has to be g radually restricted i n its ran g e

,

by the pressu re o f accu mulated e x perien c e be f ore it can turn

f ro m past to p resent f ro m suc c essive to contemporaneou s
,

phenomena We have now to undertake the not less i n terest

.

i n g task o f showi n g how the new c ulture the new c on ceptions , ,

the new power to think obtained throu gh those earlies t

54 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

speculations reacted on the li f e f rom which they spran g

, ,

trans f ormin g the moral reli gious and politi c al c reed s o f

, ,

H ellas and preparin g as n othin g else c 0 uld p repare the

, , ,

vaster revolution wh ich has g iven a n ew di g nity t o e x i ste n ce ,

and substituted in however i mperf ect a f o rm f o r the adora

, ,

tion o f ani malisms which lie below man the adoration o f an ,

ideal whi c h rises above him but only p e rs o n i fi e s the best

,

elements o f his own nature and there f ore is possible f o r a

,

perf e c t e d humanity to realise .

While most ed ucated persons will ad mit that the Greeks

are ou r m asters i n sci ence and li teratu re i n politi cs and art , ,

some even among those who are f ree f rom theolo g ical p reju
dices wi ll not be prepared to g rant that the p rinciples which
clai m to g uid e our c onduct are only a w ider extension or a
more spe c ifi c application o f Greek ethical teachin g H ebrais m .

has been opposed to H ellenism as the edu c atin g power whence

our love o f ri ghteousness is derived and whi c h alone prevent s ,

the f oul org ies o f a primiti v e n ature worship f rom bein g still -

celebrated in the m idst o f ou r mod ern civilisation And .

many look on old R oman relig ion as embodyin g a sense o f

d uty hi g her than any bequeathed to u s by Gree c e T h e .

Greeks have i ndeed su ff ered seriously f ro m thei r own sin c erity

, , .

Their literature i s a perf ect i mag e o f their li f e reflectin g

'

e v e ry blot and every fl aw u n v eiled u ncoloured u nd isgui sed

, , , .

I t was most f ortunately never subj ected to the revision o f a

, ,

j ealous pri esthood be n t o n remo v in g every sympto m i n c o n

,

sistent with the hypothesis o f a dominat i on e x erci sed by

the mselves throu gh al l the past Nor yet has th eir histo ry .

been systematically f alsified to pro v e that they n ever wro n g

f ully atta c ked a n ei ghbou r and were i nvariably obli g ed t o
,

c onquer i n sel f d e f ence Still even takin g the re c ords as

-
.
,

they stand i t is to Greek rather than to H ebrew or R oman

,

annals that we must look f o r e x amples o f true v i rtue an d i n

Greek literatu re earlier t h an i n any other o ccur precepts lik e
, ,

those which are now held to be most distincti vely chara c ter
 G RE E K H UMA NI S TS NA T UR E A ND LA W
.
55

i s tic C hristian ethi c s Le t us ne v er f org et that on l y b y

of .

S toic al teac hin g was the narrow and c ru el f ormal i sm o f

’
ancient R oman law elevated into the written reason o f the ‘

i mperial j urists ; only a f ter receivin g successive i n fi lt rat i o n s

o f Greek thou g ht was t he ethni c monotheis m o f J ud aea e x

p an d e d into a c osmopolitan reli g ion O u r popular theolo g ians

.

are ready enou g h to ad mit that H ellenism was pro v identially

the means o f g ivin g Christianity a w o rld w i d e di ff usion they -

i g nore the f act that it g ave the n ew f aith not only win g s to
fly bu t also eyes to see and a sou l to lo v e Fro m v e ry early
,
.

ti mes there was an i ntuition o f humani ty i n H ellas whi c h only

needed d iale c tical dev elop ment to be c ome an all su ffi c ie n t -

l aw o f li f e H o m er sympathises ardently with his own

.

c ountrym en but he never v ilifi e s t heir enemies H e d id not

, .
,

nor di d any Greek invent i mpu re leg ends to a c count f o r the

,

o ri g in o f hostile tribes whos e kinship c ould not be d isown ed

unlike Samuel h e re g ard s the sac rific e o f prisoners w ith u n
,

mixed abhorren c e What wou ld he whose O dysseus wil l

.
,

not allow a shout o f tri umph to be raised over the f allen ,

’
have said to Debo rah s e x ultation at t he mu rder o f a
s uppli ant f ug iti v e ? C oura g e w as i ndeed with hi m the
, ,

hi g hest Vi rtue an d Greek literatu re abounds i n mart i al spi ri t

,

stirrin g tones but it is nearly al w ay s by the n ec ess i ties o f

,

s el f de f en c e that this enthusiasm i s in v oked ; with Pindar and

-

S i monides with Aeschylus and Sophocles i t is resistanc e to

, ,

an in v ader that w e find so p roudly c om memorated and the

victories which make Gree k hi sto ry so g lorious were won i n
fi g htin g to repel an u nj ust agg ression perpetrated either by
the barbarians or by a tyrant state amon g the Greeks them
selves There was as will be shown hereaf ter an unhappy
.
, ,

period when rig ht was either denied , or what comes to the ,

same thin g id entified w i th might but this o ff ensive paradox

,

only served to waken true morality i nto a more v i vi d sel f

c onsciousness and i nto the f elt need o f dis c overi n g f o r i tsel f
,

a stron g er f oundat i on than usag e and trad i t i on a lo f t i er ,

56 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

sanction than mere w orldly success c ould a ff ord The most .

universal principle o f j u stice to treat others as we should ,

wish to be treated ourselves seems be f ore the R abbi H illel s ’

ti me to have become almost a common place o f Greek ethi c s ; 1 -

di ffi culties le f t unsolved by t h e Book o f J ob were raised to a ,

hi gher level by Greek philosophy and lon g be f ore St Paul .

,

a Plato reasoned o f ri ghteousness temperan c e and j ud g men t , ,

to come .

No one will deny that the li f e o f the Greeks was stained

w ith f oul vices and that their theory someti mes f ell to the
,

l evel o f thei r practice No one w h o bel i eves that moral .

truth like all t ruth has been g radually discovered will

, , ,

wonder at this phenomenon I f moral c onduct i s a f uncti on .

o f social li f e then like other f unctions it will be subj ect not

, , , ,

only to g rowth but also to d isease and decay An intense

, .

and rapid i ntellectu al d evelopment may have f o r its conditi o n

a totally abno rmal state o f soci ety where cert ai n v ices , ,

unknown to ruder ag es sp rin g up and flourish with rank ,

lu x u riance When men have to take women alon g with the m

.

on every new path o f enquiry prog ress will be consi derably ,

retarded althou g h its benefits wi ll ultimately be shared

‘

amon g a g reater number and will be better i nsured a g ainst ,

the dan g er o f a violent reacti on B ut the work that Hellas .

was c ommissioned to pe rf orm could not wait ; it had to be

accomplished i n a f e w g enerations o r not at all Th e , .

barbarians were f orcin g their way i n o n every sid e not ,

merely with the wei ght o f invadin g armi es but with the ,

d eadlier pressu re o f a benumbin g superstition with the brute ,

worship o f E gypt and the d evil worship o f Phoenicia with -

Thou sh al t n o t tak e th at w h i c h i s mi n e , an d may I d o to o th e rs as I w ou ld

th at t h e y sh o u l d d o t o me ’
(Plat o l egg
, 9 13 , A J , o w e tt s T ran s l , v o l V ,
.
p
’
. . . .

I so c rate s mak e s a k i n g ad d re ss in g h i s go v e rn o rs s ay : ‘ Y o u sh o u ld b e to
o th e rs w h at
yo u t h i n k I sh o u ld b e t o yo u ( ic oc les , N A n d agai n Do n o t
to o th e rs w h at it mak e s yo u an gry t o su ff e r yo u rse l v es ’
(I b id .
, A si milar
o b s e rv at i o n is at tri b u te d to T hal es , d o u b tl ess b y an an ac h ro n i sm (Di o ge n es
Lae rti u s, I i .
,
 8 THE GREEK PHIL OS OPHERS .

vi rtue was with them a quest i on not d uty but o f taste ,

of , .

S ome very stron g te x ts mi g ht be quoted i n suppo rt o f thi s

j ud g ment For example we find I so c rates sayin g in his
. , ,

encomiu m on H elen that Beauty i s the first o f all thin g s i n

,

maj es ty a nd honou r an d d ivineness I t is easy to see its

, ,
.

power there are many thin g s which ha v e no share o f

courag e or wisdom or j ustice which yet will be f ou nd honoured
, , ,

above thin g s whi c h have each o f these but nothin g whi c h i s ,

d e v oid o f beauty is prized all thin g s are scorned which have

not been g iven thei r part of that attribute ; the ad miration
f o r v irtue itsel f c omes to this that o f all m ani f estation s o f li f e ,

v i rtue is the most é eau tif u l And A ri stotle distin g ui shes .

’

the hi ghest c ou ra g e as willin gness to d ie f o r the a c y S o

'
.

also Plat ) d es c ri bes philosophy as a lo v e that leads one

.
‘

f ro m f ai r f orms to f ai r pra c tices and f ro m f air practi c es to ,

f air notions u ntil f rom f air notions he arrives at the notion o f

,

absolute beauty an d at last knows what the essence o f beauty

,

is And this i s that li f e beyond all others which man shoul d

.

live i n the contemplation o f beauty absolute 2

Now first o f .
’
,

all we must obse rv e that while loveliness has been worshipp ed

, ,

by many others none have c oncei v ed it under a f orm so

,

worthy o f worship as the Greeks Beauty with them was .

neither littl e nor f rag ile nor v oluptuou s the soul s en erg ies
, ,
’

were not rela x ed but exalted by its c o mt e mp lat io n ; there

was i n it an element o f austere a nd c om mandin g di g n ity .

The Arg iv e H ere thou g h re v ealed to us only throu g h a s o f

‘

tened I talian cop y has more divinity i n her cou ntenanc e than
,

any Madonna o f them all and the M elian Aphrodit e is dis

t i n g u is h e d by maj esty o f f orm not less than by pu rity and

sweetness o f e x pression This beauty was the unreserv ed i n

.

f ormation o f matter by m i nd the visible renderin g o f absolute ,

powe r wisdom and g ood ness There f ore what a Greek wor
, , .
,

We gl ad ly av ai l o u rse l v e s o f th e mas te rly t ran slati o n gi v en b y Pro f eb b . J .

T he w h o l e o f th is s p l e n d i d p as sage w i ll b e f o u n d i n h i s A l l i e O rat ors , v o l I I , . .

PP
Sy mposi u m, C; Jo w ett s
’
T ran sl .
, vo l . II .
 GREEK H UMANIS TS NA T URE : A ND LA W
.
59

sh i pped was the perpetual a n d ever pres ent energ is i n g o f mind

-

but he f org ot that beauty can only e x ist as a c ombin ation o f

spiri t with sense and a f ter d etachin g the hi g her element he
, ,

continued to c all it by n ames and c lothe it i n attributes proper

m
to its earthly ani f estations alon e Yet su c h an e x tension o f
.

the aesthetic senti ment in v olved no weakenin g o f the moral

fibre A serv ice c omprehendin g all idealisms i n one demanded
.

the sel f e ff acement o f a laboriou s preparat i on and the sel f

-

restrai n t o f a g rad ual achievement They who pitched the .

g oal o f thei r aspi ration so hi g h kne w that the p aths lead in g

,

up to i t w ere rou g h and steep and lon g they f elt that per
, ,

f e e t workmanship and per f ect taste bein g supremely pre c ious , ,

‘
must be supremely di fficult as well ; xa l eqrcz 721 x a k d they , .

said the beauti f ul i s hard —

, hard to j ud g e hard to wi n and , ,

hard to keep H e who has passed throu g h that stern disci

.

p l ine need tremble at no other task ; nor h as duty anythin g to

f ear f rom a companionship whose ulti mate requ irem ents are
c oincid ent with her own and the abandon ment o f which f o r a
,

j oyless as c eti cism can only lead to the reappearance as an

i nvadin g a rmy o f f orc es that should ha v e been cher i shed as
indispensable allies .

I t m ay be u rg ed that beauty however di ffi c ult o f attain

,

ment or severe i n f orm i s a f ter all essenti ally superficial ;

, , ,

and that a morali ty elaborat ed on the sam e pri nciples will b e

equally s u p e rfi c i al —will i n f act be little more than the art o f
, ,

keepin g up appearan c es o f displayin g fi n e sentiments o f

, ,

avoidin g those actions the c onsequences o f which are i m me

d iat e ly f elt to be d isag reeable and above all o f not needlessly
, , ,

woundin g anyone s sensibilities S u c h an i mitation o f morality

’
.

—which i t would be a mistake to c all hypo c risy— has n o ‘

d oubt been c o m mon enou g h amon g all civi lised n ations but
there i s no reason to believe that i t was i n any way f avou red
by the circu mstances o f Greek li f e There is ev en evid en ce o f .

a c ontra ry tendency as indeed mi g ht be e x pected amon g a

, , ,

p e ople whose m o s t i mp o rt an t states were sa v ed f rom the c orrupt

60 THE GREEK PHIL O SOPHERS .

ing influences o f a cou rt Where the sympathetic ad m i rat i on

.

o f shallow and e x citable spe c tators is the e ff ect chiefly sou ght

a f ter the sho w y vi rtues will be pre f erred to the solid and the
,
,

appearanc e to the reality o f all vi rtue ; while brilliant an d

popular qualities will be allowed to atone f o r the most atro
c i o u s cri mes. B ut amon g the Greeks o f the best period ,
,

cou rag e and generosity rank distinctly lower than temperan ce

and j ustice thei r poets and moralists alike incul c ate the pre
f erence o f substance to sho w ; and i n no sin g le i nstance so ,

f ar as we can j ud g e di d they as modern n ations o f ten do f o r

, , ,

the sake o f g reat achievements c ond one g reat wron gs I t was .

said o f a Greek and by a G reek that he did not wish to seem

but to be j ust 1
We f ollow the j ud g ment o f the Greeks
.

themselves in pre f errin g L eonidas to Pausanias A ri s t e id e s t o ,

Themi stocles and S ocrates to Alcibiades And w e need

, .

o nly compare E p a me in o n d as with David or Pericles with

S olomon as national heroes to perceive at o n c e how much ,

n earer the two Greeks come to ou r own standard o f perf ection ,

a n d how f uti le are the ch arg es s o me t i me s b ro u gh t ag ai nst

'

those f rom whose traditions we have inherited thei r au gu st

and stainless f ame .

Moreover we have not here to consider what was the

,

averag e level o f senti ment and practice amon g the Greeks ;

we have to study what alone was o f import ance f o r th e races
which cam e u nd er thei r tuition and that is the hi g h est moral ,

j u d gment to which they rose Now the d eliberat e verdict o f .

,

their philosophy on the relation between beauty and vi rtu e i s

c ontai ned i n th e f ollowin g passag e f rom Plato s La w s ’

Wh en anyone p re fers beauty to Vi rtue what is th is but the real ,

an d utter di sh o n o ur o f t h e soul ? Fo r such a p refe ren ce i mpl ie s th at

the body i s more honourable than th e soul ; an d this is f alse f o r ,

there i s nothin g o f ear thly birth which is more honou rable than the
h e aven ly an d h e w h o t h in k s otherwi s e o f t h e sou l h as no i d ea h o w
,

gr e at ly h e un d erval ue s thi s wonderf u l p osse s sion 2

.
’

Ae s c h .
, Sap . c an . T/zeb .
, 592 .

2 ’
Leg .
, 72 7 E
, ; Jo w e tt s T ran sl V, 2 99 .
 GREEK H UM A NI ST S : NA T URE A ND LA W 61

II .

Thus much f o r the c urrent prej udices which seem ed likely

to interf ere with a f avourable consideration o f our subj ect .

We have nex t to study th e conditions by which the f or m o f

Greek ethical p hilosophy was o ri g inally determin ed Fore .

m ost amon g these m ust be placed the moral conceptions

already current lon g be f ore systemati c reflection cou ld beg in .

What they were may be partly g athered f rom some wise saws
attributed by the Greeks themselves to their S even Sag es bu t ,

probably c u rrent at a much earli er period The pith o f thes e .

ma x ims taken collectively is to reco m mend the qualities at t ri

, ,

buted by our own philosophi c poet to his perf ect woman

Th e re as o n fi rm, t h e t emp e rat e w il l,
E n d u ran c e , f o re s i gh t, s tre n gt h, an d sk il l .
’

We m ay say al most as briefly that they i ncul c ate c omplete

“

independen c e both o f ou r own passions and o f e x ternal ci r

c u ms t a n c e s with a corresp on din g respect f o r the independence
,

o f other s to b e shown by usin g p ersuasion instead o f f orce

, .

Their ton e will perhaps be best u nderstood by contrast with

that colle c tion o f H ebrew proverbs which has come down to
us under the name o f Solo mon but which Biblical c ritics now ,

attribute to a later period and a divided authorship While ;

these re g ularly put f orward materi al p rosperity as the chi e f

motive to g ood c ond uct H ellenic wisdo m t eaches indi ff erenc e
,

to the v ariations o f f o rtu ne To a Greek the power that .

,
‘

makes f o r ri g hteousness so f ar f ro m bein g not ourselves

,
’ ‘
,
’

w as ou r own truest sel f the f a r seein g reason which should

,
-

g uard u s f ro m elation an d f ro m d ep ression f rom passion and ,

f rom surprise . I nstead o f bein g o ff ered old age as a reward ,

we are told to b e equ ally prepared f o r a lon g and f o r a sho rt

li f e
.

Two p recepts stand out be f ore al l others whi c h trivial as , ,

they may seem are uttered f rom the v ery soul o f Greek
,
62 THE GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

experience Be moderate and K no w t hysel f

,
The i r j oi nt
,
’
, .
’

observ ance constitutes the characteristi c vi rtu e o f S ophrosyn e ,

which means all that we understand by te mperance and a g reat ,

deal more besides so mu c h i n f act that v ery cleve r Greeks , ,

were hard set to d efine i t and ve ry w i se Greeks c oul d pray ,

f o r it as the f airest g i f t o f the g ods

1
L e t us suppose that ea c h .

individual has a sphere o f a c tivity marked out f o r hi m by hi s

own natu re and his spe ci al environm ent ; then to dis c ern c learly
the limits o f that sphere and to keep withi n them would
be S ophrosyn e while the d is c ern ment taken alon e would be
, , ,

w i sdom The same sel f restraint op eratin g as a check on

.
-

i nterf eren c e with other spheres would be j usti c e ; while the

e x pan sive f orce by which a man fills up his entire sphere and
g uards i t a g ainst a g g ress i ons may be called coura g e Thu s .

we are enabled to comprehend the m any sid ed si g nificance o f -

S ophrosyn e to see h o w it could stand both f o r a parti c ular

,

virtue and f o r all v irtuousness whate v er We n eed only g lanc e .

at H omer s poems and i n part i cu lar at the I l i ad — a mu c h

’

d eeper as well as a more brilliant work than the Ody ss ey

to perceive how very early this d emand f o r moderation co m
b in e d with sel f knowled g e h ad embod ied itsel f i n Greek
-

thou g ht A g amemnon v iolates the ri g hts o f Achilles u nder

.

the i nfluence o f i mmoderate passion and throu g h i g noran c e o f ,

how little we can a c complish without the he ro s assistance ’

.

Achi lles again carri es his v i ndictiveness too f a r and su ff ers i n

, , ,

consequence But his sel f knowled ge is absolutely perf ect ;

.
-

c ons c i ous that he i s first in the field while others are better i n
council he ne v er u nd ertakes a task to whi c h hi s powe rs are
,

not f ully adequate ; nor d oes he enter on his final work o f

v en gean c e without a c lear c onsc i ousness o f the speedy death
which its c ompletion will entail on hi msel f H ector too n ot .
, ,

withstandin g o minous f orebodin g s knows his d uty and does ,

it but with much less j ust an esti mate o f his own powers
, ,

leadin g hi m to pursue his su cc ess too far and then when the , ,

See Plato
’
Clz a rmz a es ;
’
an d Eu ri p id es
’
Med ea 6 3 5 (Di n d o rf )
'

s , .
 GREEK H UM A NI STS : NA TURE A ND LA W '
. 63

tide has turned not permittin g hi m to make a t i mely retreat

,

within the walls o f Troy S o with the second ary c haracters . .

Patroclus also oversteps the limits o f mod eration and pays ,

the penalty with hi s li f e Dio me d silently bears the u n merited .

rebuke o f A g amemnon but a f terward s recalls it at a most ,

e ff ecti v e moment when risin g to oppose t he craven c ounsels

,

o f the g reat kin g Thi s the Greeks called observ in g o p p o r

.

t u n i ty and oppo rtu nism was with them as with French poli
, ,

t ic i an s a f orm o f moderation
,
‘
Down at the very bottom o f .

the sc ale Thersites and D olon are si g nal examples o f men

who do not know thei r sphere and su ff er f o r thei r f olly I n .

the Ody s sey O dysseus i s a n early per f e c t type o f w i sdo m

,

j oined with sel f control errin g i f we remember ri ghtly only

-

, , ,

once when he insults Polyphemus be f ore the ship i s out o f

,

d an g er ; while his c omrad es per i sh f ro m want o f these same

g i f ts
.

S o f ar vi rtu e w as with the Greeks what i t must i ne vi tably

,

be with all m en at first chiefly sel f reg ardin g a refined f orm ,

-

o f prudence M oreover other reg ardin g vi rtues g ave less scope

.
,
-

f o r reflection bein g ori g inally comprehended und er obedienc e

,

to the law But there were t w o ci r c u mstances whi ch cou ld

.

not lon g escape their notice ; first that f raud and v iolen c e ,

are o f ten at least apparently profitable to those w h o p e rp e

, ,

trate them a f a c t bitterly remarked by H esiod ; an d secondly

,
2
,

that so c iety cannot hold to g ether without j ustice I t was .

lon g be f ore Governm ents g rew up wi llin g and able to protect

thei r subj ects f rom mutual a g gressions nor does positi v e l aw ,

c reate morality but i mplies it and cou ld not be worked with

, ,

out i t Nor could international obli g ations be en f orced by a

.

superior tribunal ; hen c e they have remained d own to the

present d ay a f ertile theme f o r ethical dis c ussion I t is at .

this point that m orality f orms a j un ction with reli g ion the ,

history o f whi c h i s hi g hly interesti n g but which can here b e ,

p erpou as syn o n ymo u te rms

’

Pi n d ar u se s n a i pé s an d s .

2
Opp . at D .
, 271 .
 THE G R EEK PHIL OSOPHER S .

only briefly traced The O lympian d ivi nities as pl aced be f ore

. ,

us by H omer are anythin g but moral Thei r c ond uct towards

,
.

each other is that o f a dissolu te nobility ; towards men i t is

that o f unscrupulous parti sans and patrons A loyal adhe .

rence to f riends and g ratitud e f o r sacrifi c i al o ff erin g s are thei r

most respectable characteristics raisi n g them already a little ,

above the nature powers whence they were derived No w

-
.
,

mark how they first be c o me mo ralised I t is by bein g m ade .

w itnesses to an o ath Any one who is c alled i n to t esti f y t o

.

a promise f eels a gg rieved i f it i s broken looki n g on the brea c h ,

as an insult to his own di g ni ty As the Third Commandment .

well puts it his n ame has been taken i n vain Thu s i t hap
,
.

pen e d that the same g ods who le f t every other c ri me u n p u n

i s h e d visited perj u ry with severe a nd speedy retribution con
, ,

tin n ed even a f ter the o ff ender s d eath l R espect f o r a c on ’

.

tract is the primary f orm o f mo ral obli g ation and still seems ,

to possess a pe c u liar hold over u nedu c ated minds We see .

every d ay how many persons will abstain f rom action s whi c h

they know to be i m moral bec ause they have g iven their word
to that e ff ect not because the actions themselves are wron g
, .

And f o r that reason l aw c ou rt s w ould be more willin g t o

en f orce contracts than to red ress inj u ries I f then one person .
, ,

inflicted damag e o n another he mi g ht a f terwards in ord er to , ,

escape retaliation f rom the i nj ured party or f rom his f amily , ,

en gag e to g ive satis f action and the c ou rt would compel hi m ,

to redeem his promi se 2

Thu s c ontract by procuri n g redress
.
,

f o r every species o f wron g wou ld g radually e x tend its own ,

obli gatory c haracter to abstin ence f ro m inj u ry in g eneral and ,

the d ivine sanctions pri marily i nvoked on behal f o f oaths

would be extended with them o v er the whole d omain o f
, ,

moral c ondu ct .

Nor was thi s all L aws an d j u stice once established would

.

1
H o rn 1 1”I V
. .
, 1 6 0, 2 3 5 ; VI I .
, 76 4 1 1 ; XVI
3 86 , H es , Opp at D , .
, . . . . 26 5 .

T h e se re f ere n c e s are c o p i e d f ro m W e l c k e r, Grz ec /z zlsc /z e Gb tterlefi re, I , p 1 7

'

8,
’

. . q . v .

See Main e s A n c ien t La w , c h ap X , Tfi e E a rly H i story of Del i c t

2 ’
. .
an d

Cri me .
 66 THE GR EEK PHILO S OPHERS .

Yet another ste p remained to take Pun i sh men t m u s t b e

“ “

trans f erred f rom a man s i nnocent child ren to the man hi msel f ’

i n a f utu re li f e But the O lympian theology was ori g i n ally at

.
,

least powerless to e ff ect this revol ution I ts g ods be i n g per

,
.
,

s o n ifi c at i o n s o f c elest i al phenomena had nothin g to do wit h ,

the d ark under w o rld whi ther me n descended a f ter death .

There existed however side by s i d e w i th the br i ll i ant re

, ,

l ig i o n o f courts and c amps which Greek poe try has made so

f amiliar to us another reli g ion more popular w i th simpl e
,

c ount ry f o lk to who m war meant ruin courts o f j ustice a

l -

, ,

means i nvented by kin g s f o r exa c tin g bribes sea v oya g es a ,

-

senseless impruden c e c har i ot rac in g a sin f ul waste o f money ,

-

and beauti f ul women d ron es i n the hu man h iv e demons o f ,

e x trava gance i nvented by Zeus f o r the pu rpose o f v entin g his

spite a gai nst mankind Wh at i nte rest c ould these poor .

eople take i n the resplendent g uard i an s o f the i r hereditary

p
O ppressors i n H ere and Ath en e Apollo an d Poseid on
, , ,

Art emis and Aphrodit e ? B ut they had other g od s pe c uliar

to themselves whose worship was wrapped in mystery pa rtly
, ,

that its obj ects n ee d not be lured away b y the attraction o f

ri c her o ff erin g s elsewhere p art ly b e c a u s e the activity o f these
‘

C hthonian deities as they were called was natu rally associated, ,

w i th d a rk n e ss a n d s e c re s y Presid in g over birth and d eath .

,

over s eed ti me and harv est and vi ntag e they personified the
-

f rost bound sleep o f v eg etation i n winter and i ts retu rn f ro m

-

a d ark underworld i n sprin g O u t o f thei r worsh i p g rew .

stories which told how Persephon e the f ai r dau g hter o f

.

D em et er or M other E arth was c arried away by Pluto to

, ,

rei g n with him o v er the shad es below but a f ter lon g searchin g ,

was restored to her mother f o r ei g ht m onths i n e v e ry year ;

and how Dionysus the wine g o d was tw i c e born fi rst f rom ,
-

, ,

Pre ll e r, 5 2 3 (3 rd w i th w h i c h c f We l c k e r
I .
, p .
.
,

an d Mr Wal te r Pa t e r s Demeter a n d Pers e fi o fl e an d A St u d

’

p f i t" I , 23 4 p y of
o . . .
,

s , i n t h e Fo rt n zlgb tly R ev i ew f o r
Dio n ysu Jan , Fe b , an d Dec 1 8 76 Fro m th e ir . . . .

p o pu l ar c h arac t e r, th e c o u n try go d s w e re f av o u re d b y th e d es p o ts (C u rti u s , Gr

,

Gesr/z , I , p
. . .
 G RE E K .
"

H UAI A NI S TS : NA TURE A ND LA W . 67 .

the earth burned up an d f aint i n g u nder the i ntolerable fire o f

a s um mer sky respecti v ely personified a s Se me lé and her
,

lo v er Zeus then f rom the protectin g mist wrapped rou nd hi m

,

by his d ivin e f ather o f who m it f orm ed a pa rt Dionysu s

, .
,

too was subj ect to alternations o f d epression and t ri umph

, ,

f ro m the recital o f which Attic d rama was d eveloped and ,

g ained a f ootin g in the i n f ernal re g ions whithe r we ac c o m ,

pany hi m i n the Frog s o f Ar i stophan es Another cou nt ry .

g o d was Herm es who seem s to have been asso c i ated with

,

plant i n g and possession as well as with the demarcation and

e x c han ge o f property and w h o was also a c ondu c to r o f souls
,

to Hades Finally there were the E rinyes child ren o f ni ght

.
, ,

and dwellers i n subterranean d arkn ess ; they c ould breed

pest i lence and dis c ord but could also a v ert them they could
,

bl ast the produ c e o f the soi l o r increase its luxuri ance an d

f ertility ; when blood was spilt on the g round they mad e it ,

blossom up agai n i n a harvest o f retri but iv e hatred they pu r

sued the g u i lty d u ri n g li f e and di d not relax thei r g rasp a f ter
,

d eath ; all law whethe r physi c al or mo ral was u n d er the i r

,
“

protectio n ; the same E rinyes who i n the Ody s s ey aven g e , ,

o n O edipus the suicid e o f hi s mother i n the I l i a d will not

,

allow the m i ra c ulous speakin g o f a horse to c ontinu e ; an d

we have seen i n the last chapter how ac c ord i n g to H e rac le i t u s
, ,

it is they who also prevent the su n f ro m trans g ressi n g hi s

1
appointed li mits D em et er an d Persephon e too see m t o
.
, ,

have been law g i v i n g g odd esses as thei r g reat f estival c el e

-

, ,
e

b rat e d by wo men alone was c alled the Thesmophoria whi le

, ,

eternal h appiness was p ro mised to those who had been i miti

ated into their mysteri es at E leusis ; and we also fi nd that
moral ma x i ms were g raven on the marble busts o f H erm es
placed alon g eve ry tho rou g h f are i n Athens We c an thus .

u nderstand why the mut i lation o f these Hermae c aused su c h

C f VVo rds w o rt h
.

T ho u d o st p re se rv e th e s tars f ro m w ro n g,
A n d the mo s t an c i e n t h eav e n s th ro u gh th e e f resh
’
are an d s t ro n g.

Od e to Du ty .
68 THE GREEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

rag e an d terror ac companied as i t was rum oured to b e by a

, , ,
?

p ro f anation o f the E leusini an myste ri e s f o r any attack on the “

'

d eities in question woul d se em t o p re fi gu re an attack on the

settled order o f thin g s the popular ri g hts whi c h they b oth
,

symbolised and protected .

H ere then we fi n d chiefly amon g the ru st i c population

, , , ,
.

a reli g ion i nti mately asso c i ated wit h morality and i nclud i ng ,

the do c trine o f retribution a f terd eath B ut this si mpl e f aith .

,

thou g h well adapted to the f e w wants o f its ori g in al votaries ,

could not be raised to the ut most e x p an sio n and pu rity o f

wh i ch it was susceptible without bei n g brou ght i nt o vivi f yin g
contact with that other O lympian reli g ion which as w e h av e ,

se en belon g ed more peculiarly to the r u li ng a ri sto c racy The

~

.
,

poor may be more mo ral than the r i ch a n d the country than ,

'

the town nevertheless it i s f ro m dwellers in c iti es a n d f ro m ,

t he hi g her c la sses i nclud in g as they d o a la r

, g e percenta g e o f
educ ated open mind ed i nd ividu als that t he i mpulses t o
,
-

,
.

moral pro g ress a lways pro c eed ; I f the narrowness an d h ard

'

ness o f pri mitive social a rran g ements w ere o v erc om e if

j ustice was d isen g ag ed f rom the ties o f blood relat i onship -

,
"

and tempered with consideration f o r i nevitab le error i f

deadly f euds were termin at ed b y a habitual appeal to arbit ra
'

tion i f the worship o f one supreme id eal was s u bstituted f o r

a blind sympathy with the ebb and flow o f li f e on earth i f
the numerical stren g th o f states was increased by gi vi n g
shelter to f u g itives ; if a Hellen i c natio n was c reated and
held tog ether by a c o mmon literatu re an d a c o mmo n c iVili
‘

sation by ora c les acc essible to all and by p eri odical g a m

, es ,

i n which every f re e born Gre e k c ould take part ; and la stly

-

, ,

i f a bri g hter abod e than the slumberou s g arden o f Persephon e

was assi g ned a f ter d eath t o the g odlike heroes who had come
f orth f rom a thri c e repeated ordeal with souls unstained by
sin —all this was d u e to the mi l itary rather than to th e
industrial c lasses to the spirit that breathes throu gh H omer
,

Pi d r Oly mp I I 5 7if
n a , a d Fr gm
. , 1— 4 (Do n al d s o n )
.
, . n a .
, .
70 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPI I E R S .

order The Aes chylean d rama shows u s Greek re lig io n at the

‘

hi ghest level it could reach unaid ed by philosophical re fle c

,

tion With Sophocles a p erc eptible d ecline has already

.

beg un We are loth to say anythin g that m ay sound like

.

'

disparag ement o f so nobl e a poet We yield to none i n .

ad miration f o r on e who has c omb i ned the two hi ghest

qualities o f art —sw eetness an d stren g th— more c ompletely
than any other sin ger Ho mer alone excepted and w h o has
, ,

g i v en the pri mo rdial a ff ections thei r d efinitive expression f or

all time But we c annot help p erceivin g an element o f

.

superst i tion i n his d ramas which so f ar d istin gui shes, , ,

t hem un f a v ourably f rom those o f hi s Titani c prede c essor .

With Sophocl es wh en the g od s i nterf ere it i s to pun i sh d is

, ,

respect towards themselves n o t to en f orce j ustice between

,

man and m an Aj ax perishes by h i s own hand because he

.

has n eg lected to ask f o r d ivin e assistan c e i n battle L aius .

and jocast e come to a t rag ic end throu g h disobedience to a

p erf ec tly arbitra ry oracl e ; an d as a part o f the sam e d iv ine
pu rpose O edipu s encounters the most f ri ght f ul calamities by
no f ault o f hi s o w n The g ods are moreover e x clusively
.
, ,

! obj ects o f f ear ; their sole busine s s is to en f orce the f ulfil men t

o f eni g matic prophecies they g ive n o assi stan c e to the piou s

and virtuous cha racters Anti g on e is allowed to peri s h f o r
.

hav in g perf ormed the last duties to her brother s corpse ’

.

Neoptolemu s receives n o ai d in that st ru gg l e b etween ambi

tion on the one hand with tru th f ulness and pity on the other
which m akes his chara c ter one o f the most i nterestin g
i n all i mag inative literatu re When Ath en e bi d s O dyss eus
.

exult over the d eg radation o f Aj ax the g enerou s I thacan ,

re f uses to her f a c e and f alls ba c k o n the cons c iousness o f a

,

common human i ty un i tin g hi m i n sympathy w ith his prostrate

foe .

The ri f t with i n the lute went on w i den i ng til l all i ts

mu si c w as turned t o j arrin g discord W i th the th i rd g reat .

Attic d ra mat i st we arr iv e at a period o f complete d issol ut i on .

 GREEK H UMANISTS NA T URE ‘
. A ND LA W .
71

M orality i s not only separated f rom mythologi c al trad it i on ,

but i s openly at war With it R eli g iou s b elie f a f ter becomin g

.
,

almost monothe i stic has relapsed into polythei sm With

, .

E uripid es t h e go d s d o not as with his predecessors f orm a

, ,

c o m mon c oun c il They l ead an i n d ependent existence not

.
,

i nte rf eri n g w i th ea c h other and pursuin g private ends o f thei r

,

o w n —o f ten v ery disre putabl e on es Aphrodite i nspires .

Phaedra with an inc estuou s p assi on f o r her stepson Artemi s .

i s propitiated by human sa c rifices H er e cau ses H eracl es t o .

kill his child re n i n a fit o f d eliri um Z eus and Posei d on are .

c harg ed with break i n g thei r own l aws and setti n g a b a d ex ,

ample to m ortals . Apollo onc e so v enerated f ares the

, ,

worst o f any H e outrag es a n obl e ma i den and succeed s i n

.
,

p al min g o ff her chi ld on the man who m she s u bsequ entl y

marries H e i nsti g ates the murder o f a repentant enemy
.

w h o has come to seek f org iveness at his shrin e H e f ails to .

p rotect O restes f ro m the consequ en c es o f matri c id e c om ,

m i t t e d at h i s own unw i se su gg esti on Politic al ani mosity .

may ha v e had somethin g to d o with these attacks on a go d

w h o was beli eved to side with the Dorian con f ederacy a g ainst

Athens D oubtle s s also E u ri pid es di sbelieved many o f the

.
, ,

s candalous stories whi c h h e sel e c ted as appropriate materials

f o r d ramatic representation But a satire on i m moral belie f s

.

would have been u n ne c essary had they not been g enerally

a ccepted . N or was the poet hi m sel f altog ether a f reethinker .

O n e o f h i s latest and m ost splendid works th e B a re/ me i s , ,

a f orm al sub missi on to the orthodo x creed U nd er the .

stimulu s o f an in sane delusion Pentheu s is torn to pieces by ,

his mother A g av e and her attend ant Maenads f o r havin g ,

p resu med to oppose the introd u c tion o f Dionysus worshi p -

i nto Thebes The ante c edents o f th e new d ivinity are ques

.

t i o n ab l e
,
and the nature o f hi s influen c e on the f emale
population e x tremely s u Sp i c i o u s Yet mu c h stress i s laid on
.

the impiety o f P entheus and we are clearly i ntended to c on

,

s i der h i s f ate as w ell dese rv ed

-
.
72 TH E GREEK PH I L OS O PH E R S .

E uripides i s not a t rue thinker and f o r that v ery reaso n ,

fi t ly typifies a period when reli g i on h ad been shaken t o its

very f ound ation but still retained a stron g hold on m e n s
,
’

minds and mig ht at any ti me reassert its ancient authority

,

With u ne x pected vi gou r We g ather also f rom his writi n g s .

, , ,

t hat ethical sent i ment had u nderg one a parallel t ransf orma
tion He introdu ces characters and ac tions which the elder
.

d ramatists would h ave rej ected as unworthy o f trag edy and

- .

not only introduc es them but composes elabo rate Speeches i n ,

their de f ence Sid e by side with e x amples o f d evoted heroism

.

we find such obse rvations as that e v e ryon e loves h i msel f

best and that those are m ost p rosperou s w h o atten d most
,

e x clusively to thei r own i nterests I t so happens that i n on e .

i n stance where E uripides has chosen a subj ect already handled

by Aeschylu s the d i ff erence o f treatment shows how g reat a
,

moral revolutio n had occu rred in the i nteri m The conflict .

wa g ed be tween E teocl es and Polyn eic es f o r thei r f ather s

.
’

thron e is the theme both o f the Sev en ag a i n s t T/z eb es and o f

the Phoen ic i a n Wo men I n both Polyn eic es bases his clai m
.
,

o n g rou nds o f ri g ht I t had been a g reed that he and hi s

.

brother should alternate l y hold sway over Thebes H i s .

tu r n has arrived an d E teocl es re f uses to g ive way Poly

, .

n e ic é s endeavours to en f orce hi s pretensions by brin g in g a

f orei gn army a g ainst Thebes Aeschyl us makes hi m a ppear .

be f ore the walls w ith an alleg orical fi g u re o f J ustic e o n hi s

s hield promisi n g to restore hi m to hi s f ather s seat O n
,
’
.

hearin g thi s E teo c l es e x claims

,

Aye i f Jo ve s vi rg i n d au gh t e r ju s t i c e s h are d
’
,

I n d ee d or t h o u gh t of migh t b e
h i s , th e n i t .

Bu t n e it h e r wh e n h e l e ft th e d a rkli n g wo mb ,
No r i n h is c h il d h o o d, n or in yo u th ,
n o r w he n

The ri n g h ai r fi rs t gath e re d ro u n d h i s c hi n
c l u st e
,

H ath Ju s ti c e t u rn e d ap p ro vi n g eye s o n h i m
No r d e e m I th at sh e c o me s a s h is ally ,

No w th at h e was te s h is n at ive lan d with w ar ,

u s t i c e mo s t u
OrJ ju s tly w e re s h e c al le d
n

I f ru th le s s h e ar ts c o u l d c l a i m h er f e ll ows h ip .
’ 1

1
Sop . eo n . T/z eb .
, 662 -

71 .
74 TH E G REEK PHIL OS OPH E R S .

of sup e rnatural interf ere n ce i n human a ff a i rs A f ter relat i ng .

the trag i c al end o f Nic i as he observes not w i thout a s c epti c al

, ,

tendency that o f al l the Greeks then li v in g th i s un f o rtu nate

, ,

g eneral l east deser v ed such a f ate so f ar as piety and

,

respectability o f c hara c ter went I f there are gods they hold

.

t he i r pos i t i on by superio r stren gth That the stron g should

.

e nsla v e the weak i s a uni v ersal and ne c essa ry l aw o f N at u re .

The Spartans who amon g themsel v es are most s c rupulou s

,

i n obse rvi n g traditional o bli gations i n t h e i r d ealin g s with

'

others m ost openly i denti f y g a i n w ith honour and ex .

,

p e d i e n c y with ri g ht . E ven if the h i storian himsel f d i d not

sh are these op i nions i t i s evi dent that they were w id ely
,

entertained by his c ontempo rar i es and he expressly in f orms

,

us that Greek polit i cal morality had deteriorated to a f ri ght

f u l extent in consequen c e o f the civi l discords f omented by
t h e c onfli c t between Athens and Sparta while i n Athens at ,

l east a similar corruption o f private morality had be g u n with

,

the great plagu e o f 4 3 0 its chie f symptom bein g a mad d esi re

,

to e x tra c t the utmost possi ble enj oyment f rom li f e f o r which ,

purpose every mean s was cons i d e red leg iti mate O n this .

p o i nt Thucydid es is confirmed and supplemented by the

e vi den ce o f another contemporary authority Accord in g to .

Aristophanes the an c ient discipli ne had in his ti m e becom e

,

v ery mu c h relaxed The ri c h were idle and extravag ant ;

.

the poor m utinous youn g m en were g rowi n g m ore and more

i nsolent to thei r elders ; re li gion was derided ; all c lasses
-

w ere an i mated by a c om mon d esire to make money and

to spend i t on sensu al enj oyment O nly instead o f tracin g

.
,

ba c k this pro f ou nd d emoralisation to a cha n g e i n the so c ial

envi ronment Ar i stophan es attributes i t to d emag og ues
, ,

harassin g in f ormers and popular poets but above al l t o the

, ,

new c ulture then c omin g i nto v og ue Physi c al scie n c e had .

brou g ht i n athe i sm ; d ialectic t rainin g had destroyed the

sanct i ty o f ethi c al restraints When however t h e reli g iou s
.
, ,

an d vi rtuous Soc rates i s put f or w ard as a type o f both tend

i
 GREEK H UAI A NI S TS NA TURE ~
A ND LA IV .
75

our c onfid ence in the c o m ic poet s a cc u ra c y i f n ot i n

ie s ,
’
“

en c ,

his g ood f aith bec omes seriously shaken and hi s whol e tone
,

so v ivi dly recalls the analogous inve c tives now hu rled f rom
p ress and p ulpit ag a i nst every ph ilosophic theo ry every ,

scientific d is c ove ry every soc ial re f orm at v ari ance with

,

trad itional belie f s or threatenin g the sinister i nterests which

hav e g athered round i ni quitou s i nstitution s that at first we ,

f ee l tempted to f ollow Grote i n rej e c tin g his testi mony alto

S o f ar howe v er as t he actual phenomena themselves
'

g ether .
, ,

are c oncerned and apart f rom thei r g eneratin g ante c edents

, ,

Aristophanes d oes but br i n g i nto m ore pi ctu resqu e p romi

n e n c e what g ra v er observ ers are c ontent to i ndi c ate and what ,

Plato writ i n g a g eneration later treats as an unqu estion able

, ,

reality Nor is the f act o f a lowered moral ton e g o i n g alon g

.

with a c celerated mental act iv ity e i ther i n c redible or u n

paralleled M od ern histo ry knows o f at least two pe riod s
.

rem arkable f o r su ch a c onj un ction the R enaissan ce and the ,

ei g hteenth centu ry the f ormer stain ed with e v e ry i mag inable

,

c rime the latter i mpure throu g hout and lapsin g into blood
, ,

t hi rsty v iolenc e at its c lose M oral pro g ress like eve ry other
.
,

mo d e o f motion has its app rop ri ate rhyth m —i ts epochs o f

,

severe restraint f ollowed by epochs o f rebelli ous li c ense And .

when as an ag g ravation o f the reacti on f rom which they

,

periodica lly su ff er ethic al principle s have b e c ome assoc iated

,

wit h a mytholo gy w hose de c ay at first r etard ed i s finally , ,

h as tened by their activity i t i s still ea si er to u nd erstand how

,

they may share in its d iscredit and o nly re g ain th ei r ascend ,

ency by allyin g themselves wi th a pu rified f orm o f the old

reli g ion unti l they can be d isentan gled f rom the c ompro misin g
,

support o f all u n v erified theories w hateve r We have every .

reason to believe that Greek li f e and th ou g ht did pass throu g h

suc h a c risis d uri n g the se c ond hal f o f th e fi f th centu ry B C . .
,

and we have now to deal with the spe c ulative aspects o f that
crisis s o f ar as they are rep resented by the Soph i sts
,
.
.
6 TH E GREEK PH IL 05 0PH E RS .
‘

IV
.

The word S ophist i n m odern l an g u age s me an s on e w ho

‘

pu rposely uses f alla c ious arg uments O u r definition w as .

probably derive d f rom that g iven by Aristotle in hi s Topi c s ,

but d oes not entirely reproduce i t What we call sophist ry .

w as with hi m eristi c o r the art o f u n f air d isput ation

,
and by
S ophist he means one who practises the eristi c a rt f o r g ain .

H e also defines sophistry as the appearance witho ut th e

reality o f wisdom A ve ry similar a c count o f the Sophist s
.

and their art i s g iven by Plato i n what seems to be on e o f his

later dialog ues ; and another dialog u e probably composed ,

some time previ ou sly shows us how eristi c was a c tually

,

practised by two So p h i s t s E u th yd é mu s and Di o n ys o d oru s

, _ ,

who had learned the art which i s represented as a v ery easy

, .

accomplishment when already old m en Thei r pe rf ormance

, .

i s not edi f yin g and one only wonders h ow any Greek could
have been induced to p ay f o r the privi leg e o f witnessin g such
an e x hibition But the word So phist in its o ri g inal s ign i fi c a
.
,

tion was an entirely hon ou rable n am e I t meant a sag e a

, .
,

wise and learn ed man like S olon or f o r that m atter like

, , , ,

Plato and Aristotle themselves The i nterv al between these .

w idely d i ff erent connotations i s filled up an d e x plai ned by a

-

nu mber o f i ndivid uals as to whom our i n f ormat i on i s princ i

p ally thou g h by no m eans entirely derived f ro m Plato All
‘
“

, , .

of the m w ere pro f essional teachers rece i v i n g payment f o r

‘

the i r se rv i ces all made a partic ular study o f lan g ua ge so me ,

ai min g more pa rti c ularly at accu racy othe rs at beauty o f ,

expression Whi l e no c ommon do c trin e c an b e attributed to

.

them as a class as ind i vi d u als they are c onnected by a series

,

o f g raduated transitions the fi nal outcome o f which will

,

enable u s to und erstan d how f rom a title o f respect thei r

i
, ,

name c ould be t u rn e d i n t o a byword o f reproac h T he .

Sophists concernin g whom some deta i ls hav e been trans

,
 78 TH E GREEK PHIL OS O PHERS .

i n d i s c r i m i nate employme nt o f awf ul wh ic h was e v e n ’

more ri f e at Athens than amon g ou rsel v es Finally we are .

,

told that like many mode m s he c onsid ered the popular

, ,

d ivinities to b e p e rs o n i fi c at i o n s o f natu ral phenomena “

a native o f E lis see ms to have tau ght on ,

ame system I t wou ld appear that he .

lectured principally on astronomy and p hys ic s b u t d id not , .

negle c t lan g uag e and is said to ha v e i nvented an art o f

,

m emo ry H is restless inquisitiveness was also exerc ised on

.

ancient histo ry and his erud ition i n that subj e c t w as taxed

,

to the utmost durin g a visit to Sparta where the unlette red ,

people still deli ghted in old stories whi c h amon g the more ,

enli g htened Greeks had been supersed ed by topics o f livelier

and f resher i nterest At Sparta too he recited with g reat
.
, , ,

applause an ethical d iscourse und er the f orm o f advice g iven

,

by Nesto r to Neoptolem us a f ter the capture o f Troy We .

kno w on gogclm h o t ity t h at H ippias hab i tua lly d is

, h s

t i n gu is h e d betwee n natural and c ustomary l a

"

w t h e f ormer ,

bein g accord ing t o hi m ev e ryw

, 11er e the same w hil e the latter
, ,
-
"

varied f ro m state to state and i n the same state at d if ,

”

f e re n t tim es N atu ral law he held to be alon e bindin g and

.

a lfir iie éalu t ary O n this subj ect the f oll ow i n g expressions
fi
.
,

evidently i ntended to be chara c teristic are p ut i nto hi s mouth ,

by Plato Al l o f you w h o are here present I reckon to be

kinsmen and f riends and f ellow c itizens by nat u re and not by -

law ; f o r by nature like is akin to like whereas law i s the ,

tyrant o f mankind an d o f ten compels u s to do m any thin g s

,

which are ag ainst Natu re " H ere two di stinct ideas are
.

i mpl ied the id ea that Natu re i s a mo ral g ui d e an d , f u rther

“

, , ,

t h e i de ; fha t she i s opposed to co nvent i o n? Th e hab i t o f

'
“
’

lo o k ifi g f o r examples an d l essons to some si mpler li f e than

their own prevailed amon g the Gre eks f ro m a very early
pe riod and is indeed ve ry c o mmon i n p ri mi tive societies
, , , .

’
H omer s similes are a case in point ; while all that we are told
Plat o , Prota goras , 3 3 7, D
’
l
Jo w e tt s T ran sl .
, vo l. I .
, p . 1 52 .
 GRE E K HUMA NI S TS NA T URE A ND LA IV .
79
ab d u t jth e i nno c en c e an d f el ici ty o f t he Ae th i op i an s an d
'

'

Hyperborean s seems to i ndi c ate a d eep rooted bel i ef i n th e -

mora l s uperiori ty o f sav ag e to c ivil i sed nat i ons and H es i od s ’

fictio n o f the Fou r A g es beg innin g with a gold en ag e ar i ses

, ,

f rom a kindred not i on that intellectual pro g re s s is ac c o mp a

ni ed b y moral c o rruption S i monides o f A mo rgu s illustrates
.

the v arious types o f womankind by e x amples f ro m the

’
animal world and Aesop s f ables datin g f ro m the fi rst hal f ,

o f the sixth century

g ive eth i c al i nstruction und er the sam e
,

d isg u ise . We ha v e al ready pointed out how Greek ru ral

reli g ion establ i shed a thorou g h g oin g c onnexio n between -

physical and moral phenomena and how H e rac le i tu s f o l ,

lowed i n the same tra c k Now one g reat result o f early .

,

Greek thou g ht as d escribed i n our fi rst c hapter was to

, ,

combine all these scattered f u g itive i ncoherent ideas u nder

a sin g le conception thus enablin g them to elucid ate and
,

support one another Thi s was the c onception o f Natu re as a

.

u niversal all creative eternal power fi rst superior to the g ods

-

, ,

then alto gether supersedin g them When H omer c alled Zeus .

the f ather o f g od s an d me n when P i nd ar said that both ra c es

'

the di vin e and the human are sprun g f rom o ne mother ,

) f
1
( E arth ; when , a g ai n he spoke ,o law as an absolute kin g .

or when Aeschylus set d estiny abo v e Zeu s himsel f ; they 2

were but f oreshadowin g a more d espotic authority whose ,

dominion i s ev en now not extinct is perhaps b e i n g re n e w e d ,

under the title o f E volut i on The word Natu re was u sed by .

most phi losophers and the thin g was i mplied by all They
, .

did not indeed Co mmi t th e mistake o f perso n i f yin g a con

, ,

v e n i e n t abstraction but a c onception w hich they substituted

f o r the g ods would soon inherit e v e ry attribute o f divin e
a g ency . Moreo v er the Nature o f philosophy had thre e
,

f undamental attr i butes ad mittin g o f ready appli c atio n as

She was e veryw here the sam e ; fi re
,

ethical standard s .

bu rned i n Greece and Persi a alike She tended to w ards an .

Nm VI s b i
e .
,
P om 5 1 8
u . n .
2
r . , .
 TH E GREEK . PH I L OSOPH E R S .
’

erly sys te m w here e v e ry age n t o r element is l i m i ted to

'
'

or
d
‘

i t s app ropriate Sphere And sh e p i o c é e d e d o n a pr i nciple o f

‘

uni versal co mpensation all g a i ns i n one di rect i on bein g paid

,

f o r by l o s s e s i n a nother and eve ry d istu rbance b ein g

'

eventually rectified by a restoration o f equ ilibriu m I t w as

"

.
,

indeed by n o means surprisin g th at truths which were

,

eneralised f rom the e x perien c e o f Greek social li f e should

g
n ow return to co nfirm the ord erliness o f that li f e w i th the
sanction o f an all pe rv ad in g l aw-
.

E u ripides g ives us an i nterestin g e x ampl e o f the styl e in

which this ethical application o f phys i cal s ci ence could be
p ra c tised W e have seen how E teo c l es e x pres ses his deter
.

mination to do and dare all f o r the sake o f soverei g n power . .

H i s mother J ocast e gently r eb u kes him as f ollows

, ,

H o n o u r E qu ality w h o bi n d s t o ge th e r
Bo t h f ri e n d s a n d c i t i e s an d c o n f e d e rate s ,

q
Fo r e u i ty i s l aw , la w e qu i ty
T h e l e s s e r i s th e gre ate r s e n emy,
’

A n d d i s a d van t age d aye b e gi n s t h e st ri f e .

Fro m h e r o u r me as u re s , w e igh ts , an d n u mb e r s c o me ,
De fi n e d an d o rd e re d b y E qu ality
i gh t b li n d d
’ ’
So d o th e n s e ye an su n s b righ t o rb

W al k eq u al c o u rse s i n th e i r ye arly ro u n d ,
An d r i s e mb itte re d b y d e f e at
n e ith e
“

A n d wh il e bo th ligh t an d d ark n e ss s e rve man k in d

Wilt th o u n ot b e ar an e qu al i n th y h o u s e ? ’ 1

On exam i n i n g the apolog ue o f Pro d i c u s we find i t ,

.

chara ct erised by a somewhat si milar style o f rea sonin g .

The re i s it is tru e no re f erence to physical phenomena but

, , ,

V i rt u e dwel ls strong ly on the t ruth that nothin g can be had

f o r nothi n g and that pleasu re m ust either be pu rchased by
,

toil o r aton ed f o r by lan g uor satiety and premature d ecay , , .

P/z oen iss ae, 5 3 6 4 7 Th e re i s a d e l i c i o u s p aro d y o f th i s me th o d in t h e Cl o u d s

-
. .

A c re d i to r asks St re p s ia d es, w h o has b e en t ak i n g l e s so n s i n p hi lo so p h y, t o p ay

hi m th e i n t e re st o n a l o an St re p s ia d e s b e gs to k n o w w h e th e r th e s e a i s an y
‘

f u ll e r n o w th an i t u sed to b e . N o,
’
re p lie s th e o th e r, fo r it w ou ld not be j u s t,
’

( ?
01
yap Shra w v w i d o w i / at
s x
) . T he n , yo u w re tc h ,
‘ ‘
’
j
re o i n s hi s d e b to r, d o yo u
su p p o se th at t h e s e a i s n o t t o g
e t an
y
f u ll e r a l th o u gh a ll t h e riv e rs are fl o w i n g i n to

i t , an d th at yo u r mo n e y i s t o go on i n c re as in g (1 2 9 0
 82 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHERS .

Stoic philosophers Furthermore to dis c o v er the natural rule o f

.
,

ri g ht he compared t h e l aw s o f d i ff erent nations and selected

, ,

those whi ch w ere h e ld by all m c ommon as the bas 1s o f an

l
/

Now this is pre c i s ely what was done by

. I

1
ethical syst e m .
,

the Rgni an j urists lon g a f terwards under the i nspi rat i on o f

'

Stoical teachin g We ha v e it o n the hi g h authority o f Si r

.

H enry Maine that they identified the 3 a s G en t i u m that

‘
,

is the laws supposed to be obse rved by all nations alike

, ,

with the yn s Na tu ra l z that i s the cod e by which men were /

, ,

over n ed in thei r pri mitive c ondition o f i nno c en c e I t was

g .

by a g radual applicati on o f this id eal standard that the

nu merous i nequal ities between di ff erent c lasses o f persons ,

en f orc ed by ancient R oman law were removed and that , ,

i c o n t rac t was substituted f o r status Above all the abolition .

,

o f slave ry was i f not d irectly cau sed at any rate powerf ully
, ,

aided by the belie f that it was a g ainst N ature At the

, .

beginnin g o f the f ou rt een th centu ry we find L ou is H utin ,

K in g o f Franc e assi gnin g as a reason f o r the en f ranchi se

,

m ent o f his ser f s that accordin g to natural law everybody

, ,
‘
,

’
ou ght to be born f ree and althou g h S i r H M aine holds thi s , .

to have been a mistaken interpretation o f the j uridical a x iom

’
‘
om nes homines natur a ae qu al e s su nt whi ch m ean s n ot an ,

id eal to be attain ed but a primitive cond ition f rom which we

,

have departed n evertheless it very f aith f ully reproduces the

theory o f those Greek philosophers f rom whom the id ea o f a
’
natu ral law was d erived That in Aristotle s ti me at l east .
, ,

a part y e x isted w h o were opposed to slavery o n theoretical -

g round s o f ri g ht is per f ectly evident f rom the lan g uag e o f the “

Po l i ti c s
’
. Some person s says Aristotle think that slave
‘
, ,
‘

holdin g i s a g ainst natu re f o r that on e m an is a slave and ,

another f ree by law while by n atu re there i s n o di ff erence

,

between them f o r which reason it i s unj ust as bein g the

,

result o f f orce 2
An d he proceed s to prove the contrary at
’

len gth T h e same do c trine o f natural equ al i ty led to i m

.

portant political consequences ha v in g agai n a cc ordin g to S i r , ,

X e n o ph o n ,
fll emo r .
, IV .
,
iv .
,
19 .
2
Pol . , I .
,
ii .
 GREEK . H UM A NI S TS :
'

NA T URE A ND LA W . 83

H QMaine, c ontributed both to the American Declaratio n o f

I ndependen c e and to the Fren c h R evol ution .

There 15 one more asp ect dese rvin g ou r attention under ‘ M o - fi ,

which the theo ry o_ f Nature has been p res en te d b ot h i n

N
-

W
W M M

an c 1e n t and modern ti mes A di alog ue whi ch whether .

,

r1ght ly or w ia
‘

fi giya tt r
'

ibuted to Plato may be taken as g ood ,

e vi d en c e on the subj ect i t re l ates to e x hibits Hippias 1n the ,

character o f a u niversal g enius who can not only teach every ,

science and p ractise every kind o f literary co mposition b ut ,

has also manu f actured all the cl othes and other articles about
hi s person H ere we have precisely the sort o f versatility whi ch
‘

characterises u ncivilised soc i ety ar i d wihch believers in a

m

stat e o f nature— love to e n c ou rageat all ti m es Th e divi sion

'
v . -v \

o f lab ou r w
w,
e f _

hile i t carries us ever f arther f rom barbarism ,

m ak es” u s __more d epen d— en t o n eac h o ther

M Na ‘;
W
An O dysseus is ‘
. r A F '
.

master o f many arts a Themistocles o f two a De mosthenes , ,

o f only on e A Nor w eg ian peasant can d o more f o r hi msel f

.

than an E n glish cou ntryman and there f ore makes a bette r ,

colonist I f we must return to Nature ou r first step shou l d

.
,

be to learn a n umber o f trad es and so be better able to shi f t ,

f o r o urselves S uch was the i deal o f H ipp 1as and it was also
.
,

the ideal o f the eighteenth centu ry I t s literature beg ins ,

w i tfi db ins on Er as oe the sto ry o f a m an who i s acciden t ,

ally c ompelled to provid e hi msel f d uri n g m any years with , ,

all the n ecessaries o f li f e I t s education al manuals are i n .

,

France R o usseau s Emi l e ; i n E n g land D ay s Sa n df o rd

,
’

,
’

a n d M e rto n both teachin g that the youn g should be thrown

,

as much as possible on their own resou rces O n e o f its types .

is Diderot who learns handicra f ts that he may describe the m

,

i n the E n cyc l op ed i a I t s two g reat spokesmen are V oltaire _ ’

"

and Goethe w h o af t e r Eu l ti vat in g e very d_e p art me n t o f lite ra

‘ '

, ,

t u re take i n statesmanship as well And its last word i s

,
.

Sa h i l l e r s L et ters on A es t/z e t i e Cu l t u re holdin g up totality

’

,
,

o f existence as the supreme ideal to be sou g ht a f ter .

Th e H ipp i as l l/l i n or .

G 2
 84 TH E GR EEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

There is no reason to believe that al ip p i asms e d h i s d is ;

i "
tinction between Nature and c o n v e n t i o n a s an arg ument f o r
“

d espotism I t would ra—

.

th p p rth
er a ea at i f anythin g he and
m
m fl u
, ,

his school d esired t a establish a more equ ali ty

among m en O thers however both rhetori c ians an d p rac
—
.
, ,

tical statesmen w ere h ot Slow to d raw an opposite conclusion

, .

They saw that w here no law was reco g nised as between ,

di ff erent nations nothin g but violenc e and the ri g ht o f the

,

stron ger prevailed I t was on ce believed that aggression s

.

which hu man law could not reach f ound no f avo ur with the
g ods and d read o f the divine d isple asu re m ay have don e
,

so methin g toward s restrainin g them But reli g ion had partly .

been d estroyed by the n e w c ulture partly perverted into a ,

sanction f o r wron g d oin g By what ri g ht i t was asked did

-
.
, ,

Zeus himsel f rei g n ? H ad he not unlaw f ully dethron ed his

f ather C ronos an d d id he not now hold power si mply by
, ,

v irtue o f superior stren gt h ? S i milar reasoni n g s were soon

applied to the inte rnal governmen t o f each st ate I t w as .

a lleg ed that the ablest citizens coul d lay clai m to u n con

trolle d supremacy by a title old er than any s oci al fiction .

R ules o f ri g ht meant nothin g b u t a permanent conspiracy o f

the _weak to withd raw themselves f ro m the leg itimate d ominion
o f their born master and to bamboozle him into a voluntary
,

s u rre n d e n o f his natural privileg es Senti ments bearin g a .

supe r fi c ial resemblanc e to these have occasionally f o und

utterance amon g ou rselves N evertheless it w ould be m ost.
,

unj ust to compare C arlyl e an d M r Froud e with Cri t i as an d .

C al li c l é s
. We believe that their pre f eren c e o f d espotis m to
representative g overnment is an enti re mistake But w e .

know that with them as with u s the g ood o f the g o v ern ed

is the sole end d esi red The g entlemen o f Athens sou g ht
.

a f ter supreme power only as a m ean s f o r g rati f yin g their

worst passions without let o r hin drance and f o r that pu rpose
they were ready to ally themsel v es with every f oreig n enemy
in turn or to flatter the capri c es o f the D emos i f that policy
, ,
86 TH E GREE K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

i mpossible and those who tau g ht that e v erythin g is

,

in c essantly chan g in g those w h o asserted the indestructi b ility

o f matter and those who denied its continuity ; those who
,

took away obj ective reality f ro m eve ry quality e x cept

e x tension and resistance and those who a ffi rmed that the
,

smallest mole c ules partook more or less o f every attribute

that is re v ealed t o sense — all these howev er much they ,

might disa g ree amon g themsel v es ag reed i n d eclarin g that ,

the rece i ved O pin ions o f mankind were an utter d elusion .

Thus a sharp d istinction came to be d rawn between the

,

misleadin g sens e i mp ress i ons an d the obj ectiv e reality to

-
_ "

which thou g ht alon e could penetrate I t was by c o mbinin g ..

the se two elements sensation and tho u g ht t h at th e _i d ea o f

, ,

min d w as o ri g inally constituted

‘
And mind when so u nder
.

stood could not well b e accou nted f o r by any o f the

ma ter ialisti c hypotheses at first proposed The senses must .

di ff er prof oundly f rom that o f which they g ive such an

un f aith f ul report ; while reason which Anaxag oras had so
,

care f ully di ff erentiated f rom every other f orm o f e x istenc e ,

c arried back its d istinction to the subj ective sphere and ,

became clothed with a n ew spirituality when reinteg rated in

the c onsciousness o f man .

The first result o f this separation between man and the

worl d was a c o mplete breach with the old physical phi lo
sophy shown on the one hand by an abandon ment o f
, , ,

spe c ulative stud ies on the other by a substitution o f con

, ,

v e n t io n f o r Nature as the recog nised sta n d ard o f ri g ht .

Both consequences were d rawn by Prota g oras the m ost ,

e minent o f the Sophists We have now to consider more

.

particularly what was his part i n the g reat d rama o f which

we are atte mptin g to g ive an i n t ell gib le account
j .

Prota goras was born about H e was a f ellow

townsman o f D em ocritus and has been represented thou g h
, ,

not on good authori ty as a d isciple o f that illustri ou s

,
,

thinker I t was rather by a stu d y o f H e rac le i t u s _that his

.
 GREEK H UMANISTS : NA T URE A ND LA W’

. 87

philosophi c al opinions so f ar as they were borrowed f ro m ,

others seem to hav e been most de c isively d etermined I n

, .

any case p racti c e not theory w as the principal oc c upation o f

, , ,

his li f e H e g e 3255 9 91219 3 f o r p ayment i n the hi g her

.

y x ‘ “

bran c h es o f a liberal edu c ation and adopted the name o f ,

S ophist which be f ore had si mply m eant a wise man as an

, ,

h ohafi r ab le t i t le f or his n e w callin g Prot agoras w as a v ery

' '

i é éc fi ér The ne w s o f hi s arrival i n a stran g e c ity

’ '

p wf
o .

ex c ited i m mense en thusiasm and he was f ollowed f ro m ,

plac e to plac e by a ban d o f ea g er disciples At A t hen s h e .

was honoured by the f riend ship o f such men as Pericles and

E uripid es I t was at the hou se o f the g reat t ra g i c poet that
.

he read out a work beg innin g with t he ominous d eclaration ,

I cannot tell whether the g ods__e x ist or not ; li f e 15 too sho rt

T

for S
r “

u c h d iffi c u lt in vesti g ations ” Atheni a n b i gotry took .

alarm directly The book containin g this f rank con f ession

.

o f a g nosticism was publicly burned all purcha sers bein g ,

c ompelled to g ive up the copies in thei r possession The .

author hi msel f was either banished or took fli ght and ,

re c k o c i
p e ri s h e
d y
b fl s h i p w n the way t o S i c i l
y be f ore omplet n g
hi s seventieth year .

T he s c ept icis m o f Protag oras went beyond theolo g y and

e x tended to all scienc e whate v er S u c h at least seems to .
, ,

have b een the f orce o f his celebrated declaration that man ‘

{51 16 measure o f all thi ng s b oth as reg a r ds the 1r exi stenc e ,

—
and thei r n on e x istence 2
Accordi n g to Plato this d octrin e ,

f ollowed f r om the identifi c ation o f knowled g e with sen sibl e

perce p tion which i n its turn was based on a modified f orm o f
,

the Heracleitean t heo ry o f a perpetual flu x Th e series o f -

_ -
. _

e x ternal chan ges which constitutes Natu re actin g o n the ,

seri es o f i nte r n al Eli an g e s w hich constitut es each man s ’

p ersonal ity produ c es particular sensa ti o ns and these alon e

, ,

are the true reality They vary wi th every variatio n i n the .

Di o g L . .
, IX .
, v iii .
, 54 .
2
Dio g L . .
,
IX .
, v iii . .
51 .
 PHIL G S ORH E R S
'

88 TH E G REEK .

f a c tors , and there f o re are not the same f o r separate i ndivid uals .

E ach man s p e rceptions are tru e f o r hi msel f but f o r hi msel f

’
,

alone Plato easily shows that such a theory o f trut h is at

.

varianc e with ord inary opi nion and that i f all opinions are ,

true it must nec essarily stand sel f condem ned We may also
,
-
.

observe that i f nothin g can be known b u t sensation n othin g ,

c an be known o f its condi tions I t would however be u n f ai r .

, ,

t o convict Prota g oras o f talkin g nonsense on the u nsuppo rted

authority o f the T/z eaete tu s Plato hi msel f su ggests that a

‘

better case mi ght have been mad e out f o r the i ncriminat ed

d octrin e could its au thor have been heard i n sel f d e f ence -
.

We may conj ecture that Protag oras d i d not d istin g uish very
accu rately between e x istence knowled g e and appli c ability to, ,

p ractice I f we assume what there seems g ood reason to

.
,

b eli eve that i n t h e great _c on tro versy o f Natu re v ers u s Law

, ,

Prota g o ras sided w ith the latt er h i s p osition will at o n c e ,

become c lear When the c hampions o f Natu re c redited her

. ,

wit h a st a bility and an authority g reater than c ould be clai med

f o r merely hu man arran gements it was a j udicious step to ,

c arry the war into th ei r territo ry and ask on what f ound ation , ,

then does Nature hersel f stand ? 1 5 not she too perpetually , ,

chan g in g and do we not become a c quai nted with her enti rely
,

throu g h o ur own f eelin g s ? O u g ht not those f eelin g s to be

taken as the ulti mate stand ard i n all questions o f rig ht and
wron g ? I nd ivid ual opi nion is a f act which must be reckoned
with but which can be chan g ed by persuasion not by appeals
, ,

to somethin g that we none o f us know anythi n g about M a n .

is the m easure o f all thin g s not the will o f g od s whose very

,

e x isten ce is u nc ertain nor yet a purely hypoth etical state o f

,

Nature H u man interests must take preced en c e o f every

.

other consideration H ector meant nothin g else when he

.

pre f erred the obvious dictates o f patriotis m to in f eren c es

d rawn f rom the fl i g ht o f bird s .

We now und erstand why Prota g oras in the Platoni c ,

d ialo g ue bearin g his n ame should g lan ce scorn f ully at the

,
90 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

We find the sam e theo ry reproduced and en f or c ed w i th

wei ghty i llustrations by the g reat histo rian o f t hat age I t is .

n ot kno w n whether Thucydides owed any part o f his c ulture

to Protag oras bu t th e i ntrod u c tio n to his history breathes the
,

same spi rit as t he observ ations w hi c h we have j ust tran s c ribed .

H e too c haracterises antiquity as a s c ene o f barbarism

, , ,

i solati on and l awless violence particularly remarkin g that

, ,

p i ra c y was not then c ounted a d ishonourab l e pro f ession H e .

points to th e t ribes outsid e Gree c e tog ether wi t h the most ,

ba c k ward amon g the Greeks themselves as representi n g the ,

low condi ti on f rom which Athens and her sister states had
only emerg ed within a comp aratively re c ent pe ri od A n d i n .

the f uneral oration which h e puts into the mouth o f Pericles ,

the leg enda ry g lori es o f Athens are passed over without the
l
s l ig h e s t allusion while e x clusive p rominence is g iven to her
,

proud posi tion as the intellectual centre o f Gree c e E vidently .

a radi c al c han g e had taken place i n men s con c eption s sin c e ’

H erodotus wrote They w ere l earnin g to d espise the

.

myt hica l g lories o f thei r ancestors to exalt the present at the ,

e x p ense o f the past to fi x thei r attention e x clusively on

,
“

i mmedi ate hu man i nterests and possibly t o anticipate the , , ,

comin g o f a lo f tier ci v ilisation t han had as yet been seen .

The evolution o f Greek trag i c poetry bears witness to the '

sam e tran s f ormation o f taste O n comparin g S ophocles with .

Aeschylus we are st ruck by a c han g e o f tone analog ous to

,

th a t which distin g uishes Thu cydides f ro m H erodotus I t has .

been show n i n our fi rst chapter how the eld er d ramatist

delig hts i n tracin g events an d institutions back to thei r first
o ri g in and i n f ollowin g d erivations thro u g h the steps o f a
,

g enealo g ical sequence S ophocles on the other

. hand limits , ,

hi msel f to a close analysis o f the action i mmedi ately

represented the motives by which his characters are i n
,

mo rali ty w hi c h ac c o mp an i es ad v an c i n g c i v ilis ati o n as e vi n c e d b y th e gre at in

—
,

c re as e o f mu tu al tru s t, se e Mai n e ’
s A n c i en t La w , p p .
3 06 7
.

Thi s p o in t i s n o ti c e d by Ze ll e r, Fll .d Gr ,. . II .
, 22 .
 G REEK H UM A JVI S TS : NA T URE A ND L A I/V .
91

flu en c ed, and the arg u men ts by which thei r cond u c t i s

j u stified or c ondemned We have already touched on the .

v ery di ff erent attitude assumed toward s reli gion by t hese two

g reat poets H ere we h av e only to add that while Aeschylu s
.

fill s his d ramas with supern atural bein g s and f requently ,

restricts his mortal a c tors to the i nterpretation or e x e c utio n

of a divi ne mandate Sophocles representin g th e spi rit o f
, ,

Greek H u manism only on c e brin g s a g o d o n the stag e and

, ,

d w ells exclusively on the emotions o f p ride ambition reven g e , , ,

terror pity and a ff e c tion by whi c h men and women o f a lo f ty

.

, , ,

type are actuated A g ain (and this i s one o f his poeti c

.

superioriti es) Aes c hylus has an op en sense f o r the external

,

world ; his i magination ra n g es f ar and wid e f ro m land to

land ; hi s p ag es are filled wi t h the fire and li ght the musi c ,

an d movemen t o f Natu re i n a S outhern count ry H e leads .

be f ore us i n splendi d proc ession the starry —ki rtled ni ght the
bri g ht rulers that brin g round winter and summer ; the
d azzlin g sunshine ; the f orked flashes of li g ht nin g ; the
roarin g thunder ; the white win g ed snow flak e s the rain - -

descendin g o n thirsty flowers ; the sea now ripplin g with

infinite lau ghter n ow moanin g on the shin g le g rowin g hoary
, ,

under rou gh blasts with its eas t ern waves dashin g a gainst the
,

new risen sun or a g ain lulled to wav eless w i n d l e s s f n o o n d ay

-

, , , ,

sleep ; the volcan o with its v oll eys o f fi re breathin g spray -

and fierce j aws o f d evou rin g lava ; th e eddyin g whorls o f

du st ; the resistless mountain torrent ; the meadow dews ; - -

the flowers o f spri n g and f ruits o f su m mer ; the everg reen

olive an d trees that g ive lea f y shelter f ro m do g star heat
‘

, .

Fo r all thi s world o f won der and beauty S opho c les o ff ers only
a f e w m eag re allusions to the phenomen a presented by
sunshi ne and storm No poet has e v er so entirely con e en
.

t rat e d hi s attention o n hu man deeds and hum an p assions .

O nl y th e g rove o f C ol onus interwoven with his own earli est ,

recol l ections had power to d raw f rom hi m i n e x treme old ag e

, , ,

a son g such as the ni g htin g ale mi ght hav e warbled am i d those

92 TH E GREEK PHIL O SOPH E RS .

i nviolable re c esses where the ivy and lau rel the v i ne and ,

olive g ave a never f ailin g shelter against sun and wind alike
-
.

Yet even this lea f y c overt is but an i mag e o f the poet s own ’

i mag ination undisturbed by ou t w ard influen ces sel f i nvolved

, ,
-

sel f protected and sel f sustai ned O f course we are only re

-

,
-
.
,

s t at i n g i n d i ff erent lan g ua g e what has lon g b een known that ,

the epi c element o f poet ry be f ore so p ro mi nent was wi t h , ,

Sophocles enti rely d isplaced by the d ramati c but i f So p h o

cles be c ame the g reatest d ramatist o f anti quity it was ,

precisely because no other writer could like him work o ut a , ,

catastrophe solely throu g h the action o f m ind on mind ,

without any interv ention o f physical f orce ; and i f he

possessed thi s f aculty it was because Greek thou ght as a
,

whole had been t urned i nward because he shared i n the d e

v o t io n to psycholog i c al stud ies equally e x emplified by his
.

youn g er contemporaries Protag oras Thu cydid es and So , , ,

c rates all o f whom mi ght have taken f o r thei r motto the

,

noble lin es
O n e arth t h e re i s n o th i n g gre at b u t man ,

In man th e re i s n o th in
g gre at b u t min d .
’

We have said that Protag oras w as a part i s an Nomos of ,

or c onvention ag ainst N ature That was the conserv ati v e

, .

sid e o f his charac ter Still Nomos was not w ith h 1m what it
.
,

ha d be en with the older Greeks an i m mutabl e tradition

_
,

i ndist ing uishable f rom physi ca l law I t was a human

-
.

creation an d re p re s e n t e d t h e outcome o f inherite d e x perie n ce

, ,

ad mittin g always o f chan g e f o r the better H ence t h e v as t .

v

importanc e which b e attributed to edu cation This nodoubt .

, ,

w as mag ni f yin g his own o f fice f o rthe train in g o f youth w as

,

his pro f ession But u nquestion ably the f eelin g s o f his more
.
, ,

liberal c ontemporaries went with him A g eneration be f ore .

,

Pindar had spoken scorn f ully o f i ntel lectual culture as a vain

’

attempt to make up f o r the absence o f g enius which the g od s

alone could g ive Yet Pindar himsel f was always c are f ul to
.

dwell on the serv i ces rendered b y pro f essional trainers to the

94 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPH E R S .

c u l at e d their assent h ad ori g i nated qu ite in depend entl y

to w in

o f aEf p h o p hi c a l theo ry O the re establishment o f

T '

d s n .
-

TThat i s to s ayo f popular govern ment in S icily m any

' ' '

o rd e r , ,

lawsuits arose out o f events whi ch had happened years be f ore ;

“

and owin g to the lapse o f ti me demonstrative evidence was

, ,

not available A ccor d in g ly recourse w as had on b oth sid es

.
,

to argu ments possessin g a g reater or less d e g ree o f p roba

b ili ty The art o f puttin g such probable i n f erenc es so as to
.

’
produce persuasion d e manded g reat techni cal skill ; and two
S icilians C o rax and T i s ias by n ame c omposed treatises on
, ,

the subj ect I t would appear that the new bo rn art was
.
-

taken up by Protag oras and d eveloped i n the d i rection o f

i nc reased d ialectical subtle ty We are in f ormed that h e .

u nd ertook to make the wo rse app ear the b e tt e r reas o n and ‘

this very soon c ame to be pop ularly consid ered as an aeco m

p s h me n t t au gh t by al l philosophers Socrates a mon g the
’

l i ,

rest . i f Prota goras merely meant that he would teach

the art o f reasonin g on e hard ly s e c s how he c ould have ex
,

pressed himsel f othe rwise c ons isten tly with the antitheti cal ,

style o f his age We should say more si mply that a case is

.

s tren g thened by the ability to argu e i t properly I t has not .

been shown that the Prota g orean dialectic o ff ered e x ceptional

f acilities f o r maintainin g u nj ust pretensions Taken however .
, ,

in c onne x ion with the hu manistic teachin g it had an unsettlin g ,

and s c ept i cal tend e n cy All belie f and all pra c tice rested on
.

law and law was the result o f a conventi on mad e amon g

,

me n and ulti mately prod uced by i ndivid ual c onviction .

What on e man had d one another could u ndo R eli giou s .

t radi tion and natural ri ght the sole e x ternal stand ards had , ,

already disappeared There remained the test o f sel f — . c on sist

e ncy and ag ainst thi s all the subtlety o f the new d i alectic
, .

was t u rfi e d The t riu mph o f E risti c was to sho w that a

.

speaker had contrad icte d h i n i s e lf no matter how his state ,

ments mi ght be word ed M o reover now that re f erence to an .

'

obj ective reality was d isallowed wor ds were put i n the place ,
 GREEK H UM A NIS TS NA T URE ND W
‘

A LA .

of thin g s and treated like c oncrete r e ali ties The next step .

was to tear them out o f the g rammatical construction where ,

alone they possessed any truth o r meanin g each bei n g s i mul ,

t a n e o u s ly cred ited with all the uses which at any ti me it

mi g ht be mad e to f ulfil For e x ampl e i f a man kn ew o n e

.
,

thin g he knew all f o r he had knowled g e and knowl ed g e is o f

, ,

eve rythin g kn owable Much that seem s to u s tediou s or

.

’
superfluou s i n Aristotle s e x position s was i ntend ed a s a sa f e
g uard ag ain st this end less cavi llin g Fi nally ne g ation itsel f .
,

was eliminated alon g with the possibility o f f alsehood an d

’
contrad iction For i t was arg ued that nothin g had no
.
‘
‘

existen c e and could not be an obj e c t o f thou g ht ‘

.

VI .

From utter c on f us i on to extreme nihilism the re was but

a sin gle step This step was ta ken b n o rg ias ; the Sic ilian
.

rhetorician who held the same relat ion to u f a rd s western

‘

H ellas an d the E leatic school as that which Protag oras held

towards eastern H ellas an d the philosophy o f H e ra c l e i t u s .

H e like hi s emi nent c ontemporary was oppo sed to the

, ,

t hinkers who m borrowin g a use f ul term from the n omea la

,
x
t u re o f the last c entu ry we may call the G re e kl p h ys i o c r ts
a
.
,

To con f ute them he wrote a book with the s i g n ifi ca n t t i tle

,
-

O n Na tu re o r No t/t i ng : m ai ntainin g fi rst that nothin g , ,

e x i st s secondly th at if an yt hin g e x ists we cannot know it

, ,

thirdly that if we kno w it there is no possibili ty o f co mm uni

, ,

catin g ou r knowled g e to others The first thesis w as estab .

l i s h e d by pu shin g the E l eati c argu ments ag ainst movement

and chan g e a little f urther ; the se c ond by showin g that
thou g ht and e x istence are d i ff erent or else everythin g that i s ,

thou g ht o f would e x ist ; the third by establishi n g a si milar

i nco mmen surability between word s and s ensations Grote .

E ri s ti c is m h ad p o in t s o f c o n tac t w i th th e p h i l o so ph i es
al so of Parme n id e s
an d So c rate s w h i c h w ill b e i n d i c ate d i n a f u tu re c h apt e r .
 96

has attempted to sho w that Gorg i as was only arg uin g a g a i n st

the e x istence o f a noumenon u nderlyi n g pheno men a such as ,

all idealists deny Zel ler has however convincin g ly p roved

.
“

, ,

that Gorg ias in co mmon with eve ry other thinker be f ore

,

Plato was i g norant o f this distinction ; 1 and we may add

,

that it would l eave the second and thi rd theses absolutely

u ni mpaired We must take the whole tog ether as c onsti
.

! tu tin g a d e c laration o f war a g ainst scien c e an assertion in , ,

st ill stron g er lan guage o f the ag nosticis m t au ght by Prota

,

gor as The truth is that a Greek controversi alist g enerally

.
,

overproved his case and in ord er to over w helm an adversary

,

pulled down the whole house even at the risk o f bein g ,

buried amon g the ruins hi msel f A modern reasoner takin g .

,

his cue f ro m Gorg ias without pu shin g the m atter to such an

,

e x treme mi ght car ry on hi s attack on lines runnin g parallel

,

with those laid down by the S ic ilian Sophist H e would .

beg in by denyin g the e x istence o f a state o f Nature ; f o r ‘ ’

such a state m ust be either var i able o r constant I f i t i s .

constant how c ould civilisation ever ha v e arisen ? I f i t i s

,

variable what becomes o f the fi x ed stand ard appealed to ?

,

Then ag ain supposin g such a state eve r to have e x isted

, , ,

how could authenti c in f ormation about i t have c om e down

to us throug h the ag es o f corruption which are supposed to
have intervened And lastly g rantin g that a state o f Natu re
, ,

a ccessible to enquiry has eve r e x isted how can we reorg anise ,

so c iety on the basis o f such discordant d ata as are presented

to u s by the physiocrats no two o f who m ag ree with reg ard
,

to the first principles o f natural order ; one sayin g that i t i s

equ ality another aristocracy and a third despotism ? We do
, ,

not say that these arg uments are conclusive we only mean ,

that i n relation to modern thou ght they very f airly represent

the dialect ic artillery brou ght to bear by Greek humanis m
a g ainst its n atu ralistic O pponents .

We have seen h o w Pro d ic u s and H ip p ias pro f es sed to ,

P/z . a
’
. Gr .
,
I .
, 90 3 (3 rd
98 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E R S .

allowed and i t was easy to p rosec ute an ene my on the most

—
,

f ri VO l O u s pret exts. I f th e d ef e nda nt happen ed t o be wealthy ,

and i f co nd e mn ation involved a loss o f property there was a ,

prej ud ice ag ainst hi m in the mind s o f the j u ry c onfiscation ,

bein g reg ard ed as a convenient resourc e f o r repl enis hin g th e

national exchequer Thus the possess i on o f rhetorical ability
.

becam e a f ormid able weapon i n the hands o f unscrupulou s

ci tizen s w h o were en abled to e x to rt larg e su ms by th e mere
,

threat o f p uttin g ri c h me n on their tria l f o r som e real or

p retend ed o ff enc e Thi s systemati c employmen t o f rhetori c
.

f o r p urpos es o f sel f a gg ra n disement bore much the same rela

-

tion to the teachin g o f P rota g oras and Gorg ias as the open
and violen t sei zure o f supreme power on the plea o f natural
superiority bore to th e theories o f thei r rivals bein g the way
,

i n which practical m en applied the principle that truth is d e

t e rmin e d by persuasion I t w a s al so attend ed by c onsiderably
.

l ess d an g er than a f ran k appeal to the ri ght o f the stron g e r ,

so f ar at least as the aristo c ratic party were concerned Fo r .

they had been tau ght a lesson not easily f org otten by the
d own f all o f the oli g ar c hies established i n 4 1 1 and 4 0 4 and
the second catastrophe especi ally proved that nothin g but a
popular g overnment was possible i n Athen s Accord in gl y .
,

the nobles set themselves to study new methods f o r obtai nin g

thei r ulti mate end which was always the possession o f u n c o n
,

trolled power over the lives and f ortu nes o f their f ellow
c itizens With wealth to purchase i nstru c tion f rom the
.

S ophists w ith leisure t o practise oratory and with the

, ,

ability o f ten accompanyin g hi gh bi rth there was no reaso n

,

w h y the successors o f Ch a rmi d e s and C ri t i as should not

enj oy all the pleasu res o f tyran ny un ac c o mpan i ed by any o f

its d rawbacks . H ere ag ain a parallel sugg ests itsel f
, ,

between ancient Greece and modern E urop e O n th e .

C ontinent where theories o f natural law are f ar more

,

prevalent than w i th u s it is by brute f orc e that j usti c e i s

,

trampled d o w n ; the on e g reat obj ect o f e v ery ambitious

 GREEK H UAI A NI S TS : NA T URE A ND LA W .
99

i ntri guer i s to possess himsel f o f the military machin e h i s ,

o ne g reat terror that a ,stron g er man may su c ceed in

wrestin g i t f ro m him ; in E n g land the politi cal adventu re r
looks to rhetori c as his only resou rce and at the pinnacle o f ,

power has to d read the hailsto rm o f epi g ram mati c i nvective

d irected against hi m by abler or youn g er rivals l .

Bes i des i ts in fluence on the f or mat ion and d irection o f

.
-

politic al eloqu en c e th e d octrin e pro f e ss ed by Pr ota goras h ad

-
,
.

a fi r e a c hin g e ff e c t o n the subse quent d evelop ment o f

thou ght J ust as Cynicis m was evolved f 1 o m the theo ry o f
.
.

"

H ip pias so also d id the teachin g which d enied Natu re and

,

concentrated all study on subj ective p henomen a with a ,

tenden c y t gwa rds ind ivid ual isti c isolati on lead o n to t h e

g
g
,

system he f ounder o f the Cyren ai c schoo l i s

called i s t o t le nor c an the j u sti c e o f the
,

appellatio n be d ou bted H e was it i s true a f riend and .

, ,

c ompanion o f S ocrates but i ntellectually he i s m ore n early

,

related to Protag oras Aristippus rej ected physical stud ies

.
,

reduced all knowled g e to the con sciousness Of ou i own

s e n sa t ip n s and m a ,
de i mmediate g rati fi cation the end o f li f e .

Pro tagoras would have obj ected to the last principle but i t ,

was only an e x tensi on o f his own views f o r all histo ry proves ,

that H e d o ms m 1s co nstantly associated with sensationa lism .

The theory that knowled g e i s built up out o f f eeli n g s has an

ele c tive a ffinity f o r the theory that action is or ou g ht t o be , ,

d etermined in the last resort by the most pro min ent f eelin g s ,

which are plea s ure and pain Both theori es have Sinc e been .

stren gthened by the i ntrod uction o f a new and more i deal

element into each We have come to see that knowledg e is
.

c onstituted not by sensation s alone but by sensati ons g rouped ,

accordin g to certain laws w hich seem to be inseparable f ro m

the e x istenc e o f any c onsci ousn ess whate v er And si milarly .
, ,

Lo rd B e ac o n s fi e l d re c e n tl y [w ritte n i n Fe b ru y 1 8 8 0 ] s p o k e o f th e
ar B alk an s
f o rmin g Co n t in e n t al t e l e grams
’
as ani n t e l l igib l e f ro n ti e r f o r T u rk e y
‘
. su b s ti
’
t u te d n at u ral f ro n t i e r . T h e c h an ge w as c h arac t e ri s t i c an d si
gn ifi c a n t .

H 2
1 00 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E R S .

we ha v e learned t o take i nto ac c ount n ot merely the ,

momentary enj oyments o f an ind ivid ual but his whole li f e s ,

’

happiness as well and not his happiness only but also that
, ,

o f the whole c o mmunity to which he belon g s Neverthe l ess .

,

i n both c ases it i s ri g htly held that the element o f f eelin g

preponderates and the doc trines o f such thinkers as J S M ill
,
. .

are le giti mately tra c eable throu gh E picu rus and Aristippu s to
Protag oras as their fi rst ori g inator .

Notwithstandin g the i mpo rtance o f this i mpulse it does ,

not represent the whole e ff ect prod u c ed by Prota goras on

philosophy H is eristic method was taken up by the
.

M eg aric school and at fi rst combi ned with other elements

,

borrowed f ro m Parmen ides and S ocrates but ultimately ,

e x tricated f rom them and used as a c riti cal solvent o f all

d o g matism by the later Sc eptics Fro m their writin gs af ter
.
,

a lon g interval o f en f or c ed silenc e it passed over to ,

M ontai g ne Bayl e H u me and K ant with what redoubtable

, , , ,

consequences to received opi nions need not here be specified .

O u r obj ect is simply to illustrate the continu ity o f thou g ht ,

and the powerf ul i nfluence e x ercised by an cient Greec e on its

subsequent development .

E ve ry variety o f O pinion current amon g the Sophists

_ .

red uces itsel f in the last an alys 1s to thei r f u n damental

, ,

antithesis between Natu re and Law the latter bein g so me ,

w hat ambi g uously c on ceived by its supporters as either

h u man reason or hu man will o r more g enerally as b oth
,

tog ether c ombi nin g to assert their sel f d epend ence and
,
-

emancipation f rom e x ternal authority This antithesis was .

refi gu red 1n t he d isti nction between Chthonian and O l mpian

p y
d ivinities C ontin u i ng a f ter w ard s to inspire the rivalry o f
.

opposin g schools C ynic a gainst Cyrenaic S toic ag ainst

, ,

Epicu rean S ceptic agams t Dog matist it was but partially

, ,

overcome by th e med iatorial schemes o f Soc rates and

his successors Then came Catholi c ism equally adverse
.
,

to the pretensions o f either party and hel d them down ,

10 2 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

Thackeray and Georg e E liot represent the triumph o f

natural f orc es over rebellious i nd ivid ualities ; the one writer
d epicti n g an o f ten c rud e reality at odds with c onvention an d
c onceit whi le the other possessin g if not an intrinsically , ,

g reater g e n i us at least a hi g her

,
philosophi c al cu ltu re d is ,

closes to u s the pri mord ial necessities o f existen c e the ,

pitiless con f ormations o f ci rcu mstance be f ore which e g oism , ,

i g norance illusion and inde c i sion m ust bow or be c rushed

, , ,

to pieces i f they resist .

VI I .

Ou readers have n ow be f ore the m everythin g o f i mport

r

ance that i s known about the S ophists and so methin g more ,

that is not kn own f o r certain but may w e think be reason , , ,

ably conj ectured T ak ln g the whole class tog eth er they re p re

.
,

sent a co mbi nation o f three disti nct tend en c ies the end eavour ,

to supply an e n c yC IOp ae d i c trai nin g f o r youth the cultivation

'

o f politi c al rhetori c as a special art an d the search a f ter a ,

- _

scientific f oundation f o r ethi c s d erived f ro m the results o f

previous philosophy With reg ard to the last point they
.
,
“

a g ree i n drawin g a f u ndamental distinction bet w een Natu re

and L aw but some take o n e and so me the other f o r thei r
,

g uid e . T he partisans o f Na ture lean to the side o f a more

com p rehensive education while their oppo n ents tend more ,

and more to lay a n e x clusive stress o n oratori c al p roficiency .

Both School s are at last i n f ected by the moral c orruptio n o f

the day n atural ri g ht becomin g identified with the i n t e re s t o f
,
'

the s tr ong er a n d hu manis m leadin g to t he d enial o f obj ecti v e

-

reali ty the substitution o f i l l u s 1o n f o r knowled g e and the

, ,

con f usion o f mom entary g ratification with moral g ood The .

d ialectical habit o f consideri n g every question u nd er contra

d i c t o ry aspect s d eg enerates i nto eristi c prize fi ght i n g and d e -

li b erate d isreg ard o f the c onditions which alon e make arg u

ment possible Finally the c o mponent elements o f So p h is t i
.
,
 GREEK H UMA NI S TS : NA T URE A ND LA W
. 10 3

c is m are diss ociated f rom one another and are either sepa ,

rat e ly developed or pass over i nto n e w combinations R hetori c .

,

apart f rom spe c ulation absorbs the whole ti me and talent o f

,

an I socrates ; g eneral cultu re is i mparted by a pro f essor i al

c lass withou t ori g inality but without reproach ; naturalis m
,

a n d sensuous idealism are wo rked up i nto syste mati c com

p le t io n f o r the sake o f thei r philosophical interest alone an d

the name o f sophistry is u n happily f astened by Aristotle o n
paid e x hibitions o f verbal wran g lin g which the g reat S ophists
would have reg arded with i nd i g nation and d isg ust .

I t remains f o r us to glanc e at the controversy which has

lon g been carri ed on respectin g the true position o f the
Sophists in Greek li f e an d thou g ht We have already alluded .

to the by no means f avou rable j ud g ment passed on them by

some amon g thei r c ontemporaries Socrates cond emned.

the m severely but only because they received paym ent f o r

,

their lessons ; and th e senti ment was probably echoed by

many who had neither hi s d isinterestedness nor his f ru g ality .

To make profit by intellectual work was n ot unusual i n

Greece . Ph e id i as sold his statues ; Pi ndar spent his li f e
writin g f o r money ; Si mo nides and S opho c les were charg ed
1
with showin g too g reat eag erness i n the pursu i t o f g ain .

But a man s conversation with his f ri ends had always been

’

g ratuitous and
,
the no v el idea o f char g in g a hi g h f ee fo r i t

e x cited considerable o ff en c e Socrates called it prostitution

.

— the sale o f that which should be the f ree g i f t o f love

w ithout perhaps su fficiently considerin g that the same privi

leg e had f ormerly been purchased with a more d ishonourable

p ric e H e also consid ered that a f reeman was deg rad ed by
.

placin g hi msel f at the beck an d call o f another althou g h i t ,

would appear that the S ophists chose thei r o w n time f o r

lecturin g and were certainly not more slav es than a s c u lpto r
,

or poet who had received an order to e x e c ute I t was also .

a rg ued that any on e w h o really succeeded in i mproving the

A ri s to p h .
,
Fax , 6 9 7 .
1 04 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

c om munity benefited so much by the result that i t w as u n f ai r ,

o n his part to d emand any ad d itional rem u neration Suppose .

a popular p reacher were to come over f ro m New York to

E n g land star about amon g the pri ncipal cities char g in g a
, ,

hi gh pri ce f o r ad mi ssion to his sermons and fi n ally return ,

home in possession o f a handsom e f ortu ne we c an well ,

i mag i n e that sarcasms at the e x pense o f such profitable pi ety

would not be wantin g Thi s hyp othetical c ase will help u s
.

t o understand how many an honest Athenian must have f elt

towards the showy colonial stran g ers who were makin g such
a l ucrative business o f teachin g m oderation an d j u sti c e .

Plato speakin g f o r hi s master but not f rom his master s

,
’

standpoint raised an entirely di ff erent obj ection H e saw n o

, .

reason why the Sophists should not sell their wisdom i f they
had any wisdo m to sell B ut this was precisely what he .
-

denied H e submitted thei r pretensions to a searchin g cross

.

e x amin ation and as he consid ered convicted them o f bein g

, , ,

worthless pretenders There was a certai n u nf ai rn ess about

.

this method f o r neither hi s own positive teachi n g nor that o f

,

Socrates could have stood be f ore a similar test as Aristotle ,

speedily de monst rated i n the ne xt g eneration H e was i n .

,

f act only doin g f o r Prota g oras and Gorg i as what they had
,

done f o r early Greek speculation and what e v ery schoo l ,

habitually does f o r its predecessors I t had yet to be learned .

that this d issolvin g d ialecti c c onstitutes the very law o f

philosophical prog ress The discovery was m ad e by H eg el .
,

and it i s to hi m that the Sophist s owe thei r rehabilitation i n

modern times H is lectures on the H istory o f Philosophy
’

contai n m uch that was a f terward s urg ed by Grote o n the

same sid e Five years be f ore the appearan c e o f G ro t e s
.
’

f amous si x ty seventh chapter L ewes had also published a '

-

vindication o f the S ophists possibly su gg ested by H e g el s ,

’

work w h i ch he had certainly consulted when p reparin g hi s

,

own Hi story There is howe v er this g reat di ff erenc e that

.
, , ,

while the two E n g lish cr i tics endeavour to mini mise the

1 06 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

round when he ac cuses Plato o f misrepresent i n g h i s oppo

g
n en t s
. I t is true that the S ophists c annot be heard i n sel f
d e f en ce but there is no inte rnal i mprobability about the
,

charg es brou ght a g ainst them The Greek rhetoricians are .

not accused o f sayin g anythin g that has not been said a g ai n

and a gain by their mod ern representatives Whether the .

odi u m o f such senti ments should attach itsel f t o the w hol e

'

o_f S
c l as s__ ophists i s quite another qu es tion G rote d enies that .

t hey held any doctrin e i n common The German c ritics on .

,

the other hand i nsist on t reatin g them as a school with

,

com mon pri nciples and tendencies B randi s calls the m a .

‘

n u mber o f men g i f ted ind eed but not seekers a f ter knowled g e
, ,

f o r its own sake w h o mad e a trad e o f g ivin g i nstruction as a

,

means f o r the attain ment o f e x ternal and sel fish end s an d o f ,

If
1 ’
substitutin g mere techni cal proficien cy f o r real scienc e .

our account be the true on e this would apply t o Gorg ias and ,

the youn g er rhetorician s alone O n e does not preci sely see .

what e x tern al or selfish ends were subserved by the physi c al

philosophy which Pro d i c u s and Hippias tau g ht nor why the ,

comprehensive en quiries o f Prota g oras into the conditions o f

c ivilisation and the limits o f hu m an knowl ed g e should be
contemptuously f lun g asid e because he mad e the m the basi s
o f an honourable pro f ession Zeller i n m uch the same st rain .
, ,

defines a S ophist as on e who p ro f esses t o be a teacher o f

wisdo m while his obj e c t i s individ ual culture (die f ormelle u nd
,

prak tische Bi ldun g d es Subj ekts ) and not the s cientific i n v e s

t ga t i o n o f truth
i 2
We d o not know whether Grote was
.

co n tent with an e x planation w hich would o n ly have requir e d

an unimportant m odification o f hi s own statements to ag ree
precisely with them I t ou ght amply to have satisfied L ewes
. .

For ourselves we mu st con f ess to carin g very little whether

,

the Sophists investi g ated truth f o r its own sake or as a m eans

to sel f c ulture We believ e and i n the nex t chapter we hope
-

.
,

G rzl c /z zirc /z e n Pfi i lowp b z e, I

’

Gert /z ic /z l e d er E n t
'
’
c l el u
'
ng a er ’
.
, p . 204 .

Pz z z l osop k z e (1 G 71
'
’ '
2
.
, I .
, p 94 3
.
(3 rd
 GREEK H UM A N/S TS : I VA T URE A ND LA W .

to sho w that S ocrates at any rate d i d not treat knowled g e

, , ,

apart f rom practice as an end i n itsel f But the history o f .

philosophy is n ot concerned with such subtleties as these .

O u r contention i s that the S toi c E picurean and S ceptical ; , ,

schools may b g traced b ack throu gh Antisthenes an d Aris l -

im fi ippi as m
fi d

t ipm Protag oras mu c h rn o re di r

ectly than l

to Socrates I f Zel ler will g ran t this then he can no lon g er

.
,

treat Sophistici sm as a mere solvent o f the old physi cal philo

Sophy _. I f he d enies it we c an only appeal to his own history
, ,

whi ch here as well as in ou r discussion s o f early Greek

,

thou ght we have f ound more u se f ul than any other work on

,

the subj ect O u r obli g ations to Grote are o f a more g eneral

.

character We have learned f ro m hi m to look at the Sophists

.

w ithout prej udice But we think that he too underrates

.
, ,

their f ar reachin g i ntellectual si g n ifican ce w hile his d e f enc e

-

o f thei r moral orthod o x y seems so f ar as ce rt ai n members o f ,

the class are concerned in consistent with any belie f in Plato s ,

’

historical fidelity That the most eminent S ophists di d

.

n othin g to c orrupt Greek morality i s now al most universally

admitted I f we have succeeded i n showin g that they d id
.

not corrupt but f ruit f ully develop Greek philosophy the ,

purpose o f this study wil l have been su ffici ently f ulfilled .

The title o f thi s chapter m ay have seemed to promi se more

than a casual mention o f the thinker in who m Greek H u man
ism attained its lo f ti est and pu rest e x pression B ut i n .

histo ry no less than i n li f e S ocrates m ust ever stan d apart

, ,

f rom the Sophists B eyond and above all specialiti es o f

.

h
tea c in g the tran scend ent di g nity o f a character whi ch
,

personi fied philosophy itsel f d emands a separate treatment .

R eaders w h o h av e f ollowed u s thus f ar may f eel interested i n

an attempt to throw some new li ght on on e who was a ridd l e
to his c ontempo raries and has remained a ridd le to a f ter a g es
,
-
.
1 08 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E RS .

C H APT E R III .

T H E PLAC E O F SO C R A T E S I N G REE K PH I LO SO PH Y .

I .

A PA R T f rom legenda ry reputations there i s no name in the

,

world s histo ry more f amou s than that o f Socrates an d i n the

’
,

histo ry o f philosophy there is none so f amou s The only .

thinker that app roaches hi m i n celebrity i s his own disciple

Plato E very one w h o has heard o f Greece o r Athens has
.

heard o f him E very one who has heard o f hi m knows that

.

he was supremely g ood and g reat E ach su cc essive g enera

.

tion has confirmed the reputed D elphic o racle that n o man

was wiser than Socrates He with one or two others alon e
.
, ,

came near to realisin g the id eal o f a Stoic sa g e C hristians .

d eem it no irreverence to compare hi m with the Founder o f

their reli g ion I f a f e w d issentient voices have broken the
.

g eneral unani mity they have whether consciously or not been

, , ,

i nspired by the Socratic principl e that we should let no

opinion pass u nqu estioned and unproved Fu rthermore it so .
,

happens that this wonderf ul fi g u re is known even to the mul

t i t u d e by si g ht as well as by n ame B usts cameos an d.
, ,

en g ravin g s h ave m ad e all f ami liar with the S ilenus like phy -

s i o g n o my the thick lips upturned nose and prominen t eyes

, , ,

which i mpressed themselves so stran g ely on the imag ination

o f a race who a re accused o f havi n
g cared f o r nothin g but
physical beauty because they ri g htly reg arded it as the natural
,

accompani ment o f moral lovelin ess Those who wish to d i s.

cover what manner o f mi nd lay hid beneath this unin v itin g

1 10 TH E GRE EK PHIL OSOPHERS .

of reason and as a n individ ual mad e reason hi s sole g uide i n

,

li f e H e at once discovered new principles popularised them

. ,

f o r the benefit o f others an d e x emplified them in his own ,

conduct but he d id not accomplish these results separately

they were only d i ff erent aspects o f the same systematisin g
process which is id enti cal with phi losophy itsel f Yet th e .

ve ry success o f Soc rates in harmonisin g li f e and thou g ht

makes it the more di ffi cult f o r u s to c onstruct a complete pi c
ture o f his personality D i ff erent observers have selected
.

f ro m the comple x combination that which best suited thei r own

mental pred ispos i tion pushin g o ut o f si g ht the other elements
,

which with him serv ed to correct and complete it The very

, , .

popularity that has attached itsel f to hi s name i s a p roo f o f

thi s f o r the multitud e can seld o m appreciate more than one
e x cellenc e at a time nor i s that usually o f the hig hest ord er
, .

H e g el complains that S o c rates has been mad e the patron

sai nt o f moral t w ad d le l
We are fi f ty years f u rther removed
.

than H e gel f ro m the g olden ag e o f platitud e ; the twaddle o f

our own ti me is hal f cynic al hal f aesthetic and wholly u n , ,

moral ; yet there are no si gns o f di minution i n the popular

f avou r with which S ocrates h a s always been re g arded The .

man o f the world the wit the v i z/ou r the enthusi astic ad mi rer
, , ,

o f youth f ul beauty the scorn f ul critic o f d emocracy is welcome

,

to many who have no taste f o r ethi cal dis c ourses and fi n e

spun arg uments .

Nor is it only the perso n ality o f Socrates that has been so

variously con c eived his philosophy so f ar as it can be sepa ,

rated f ro m hi s li f e h as equ a lly g iven occasion to c o nfli cti n g

'

interpretations and i t has even been d enied that he had pro

, ,

perly speakin g any philosophy at all These diverg ent pre

, .

s e n t at i o n s o f h i s teachin g i f teachin g it can be called be i n

, g ,

with the t w o d isciples to whom ou r knowled g e o f it is almost

entirely d u e There is curiously enou g h much the same
.
, ,

i nner d iscrepancy between Xenophon s Memo ra b i l i a and those ’

Ga rb . d . P/z i l .
, II .
, 47 .
TIIE PL A CE OF SOCRA TES I N GREEK PHIL OSOPHY . 111

Platonic dialo g u es where S ocrates is the pri ncipal spokesman ,

as that whi c h di stin g uishes the Synoptic f ro m the J ohannine

Gospels T he one g iv e s u s a report certainly authentic but
.
,

p robably i ncomplete the other ac cou nt is beyond all d oubt , ,

a hi ghly id ealised portraitu re but seems to contai n some

,

traits d irectly copied f ro m the ori g inal which m ay well have

,

escaped a less philosophi c al observer than Plato Aristotle .

also f urnishes us with so me scanty notices which are o f use

i n decidin g between the two rival versions althou gh we ,

cannot be su re that he had access to any better sources o f

in f ormation than are open to ourselves By va riously c o m .

binin g and reasonin g f ro m these d ata modern criti c s have

produced a thi rd S ocrates who is o f ten little more than
,

the embodi ment o f their own f avourite opinions .

I n E n g land the most g enerally accepted method seem s

,

to be that f ollowed by Grote This consists i n takin g the

.

Platonic A p ol og i a as a su ffici ently f aith f ul report o f the

de f ence actually mad e by Socrates o n hi s trial and pi ecin g ,

i t o n to the details supplied by Xenophon or at l east to as ,

m any o f them as can b e m ad e to fit without too obvious an

,

ac commod ation o f thei r meanin g I f however we as k on

.
, ,

what g rounds a g reater historical credibility is attributed to

the Ap ol og i a than to the R ep u bl i c or the P/i d od o none c an be ’
,

o ff ered e x cept the seem in g ly t ransparent truth f ul ness o f the

narrative itsel f an arg u ment which will not wei gh mu c h with
,

those who remember how bri lli ant was Pl ato s talent f o r ’

fiction and how u ns c rupulously it could be employed f o r

,

pu rposes o f e d ifi c at i o n The P/i d od o puts an au t o b io g rap h i

.
’

cal statement into the mouth o f Soc rates which we only

know to be i ma ginary because it involves the acceptance o f
a theo ry u nknown to the real S oc rates Why th en m ay .
, ,

not Plato have thou ght proper to introduce equ ally fi ctitiou s
details into the speech d el ivered by hi s master be f ore the
d icastery if i ndeed the speech as we ha v e it be not a f ancy
, , , , ,

composition f ro m beg i nnin g to end ?

1 12 TH E GRE EK PHIL OSOPHERS .

Be f ore we can com e to a decision o n thi s poi nt it w i ll be

necessary briefly to recapitulate the statements in question .

Socrates is de f endi n g hi msel f ag ainst a capital charg e H e .

f ears that a prej udice respectin g hi m m ay e x ist in the minds

o f the j u ry and tries to e x plain h o w it arose without any
,

f ault o f his as f ollows — A certain f riend o f his had asked

,

the ora c le at D elphi whether there was any m an wis er than

S oc rates ? The answer was that no man was w iser Not .

bein g cons c ious o f possessin g any W isdo m g reat or s mall he , ,

f elt considerably surprised o n hearin g o f this d eclaration and ,

thou ght to convince the g o d o f f alsehood by findin g out som e

o ne wiser than himsel f H e first went to an eminent politi .

cia m who however proved on e x ami nation to b e utterly

, , . , ,

i g norant with the f u rther d isadvanta ge that it was i mpossible

,

to convin c e hi m o f his i g noran ce O n applyi n g th e same test .

to others a precisely si milar result was obtained I t was .

only the hand icra f tsmen who could g ive a satis f actory a c count
o f themselves and thei r knowled g e o f on e trade mad e them
,

f an cy that they understood everythin g else equally well .

Thus the meanin g o f the oracle was shown to be that God

alone is truly w ise and that o f all men he i s wisest who
,
‘

like S ocrates percei v es that hu man wisdom is worth little or

,

nothin g E ver si nce then Socrates has mad e it his business

.
,

to vindicate the divin e v eracity b y s e e k i n g ou t and e x pos

i n g eve ry p retender to knowled g e that he can find a li ne ,

of conduct whi ch has mad e hi m e x tremely u n popular

i n Athens while it has also won hi m a g reat reputation
,

f o r wisdom as people suppose d that the matters o n which

,

he convi cted others o f i g norance were pe rf ectly clear to

hi msel f .

The first di ffi c ulty that strikes o ne i n conne x ion wi th this

e x traord inary story arises out o f the oracle on whi c h it all
hin g es H ad su c h a d eclaration been really made by the
.

Pyt hia would not X enophon have eag erly quoted it as a

,

proo f o f the hi gh f avou r i n which his hero stood with the

1 14 TH E GREEK PH IL OS OPHERS .

li m i t h i msel f to c on f ut i n g people who f ancied t he y kne w

e veryt hin g ; here we must either hav e a d irect re f erence to
the Ap ol og i a o r to a theory id entical with that which i t
,

embodies S ome stress has been laid on a phrase quoted by

.

Xenophon hi msel f as havin g been used by H ippias which at ,

first si ght seems to support Plato s v iew The E lian S ophist ’

.

charg es Socrates w ith p ractisin g a c ontinual i rony re f utin g ,

others an d not submittin g to be questioned hi msel f an

ac c usation which we may observe i n passin g is not born e
, ,

out by the discussion that subsequ ently takes place between

them H ere however we must remember that So c rates used
.
, ,

to c o n v e v instruction under the f orm o f a series o f leadin g

questions the answers to whi ch showed that his interlocutor
,

u nderstood and assented to the d octri ne propounded S uch .

a method mi ght easi ly g ive rise to the miscon c ept ion that he
re f used to disclose his own particular opinion s and c ontent ed ,

hi msel f with elicitin g those held by others Finally it is to be .

,

n oted that the id ea o f f ulfillin g a reli g ious mi ssion or e x posin g ,

hu man i g norance a d majo re m Doi g l o ri a m on whi ch Grote ,

l ays such stress has no place i n X enophon s conception o f hi s

,
’

master althou gh had such an id ea been really present on e

, , ,

can hardly i mag ine how it could have been p assed over b y a
writer with whom piety amou nted to superstition I t i s o n .
,

the other hand an idea which would naturally o c cu r to a

,

g reat reli g ious re f ormer who proposed to base his re c o n s t ru c

tion o f society on f aith in a supernatural ord er and the des i re ,

to reali se it here below .

S o f ar we have contrasted the Ap olog i a with th e Memo ra

b ilia . We ha v e now to consider in what relation it stand s to
’
Plato s other writin g s The constructive d og matic Socra tes.
,

who is a pri ncipal spokesman i n some o f them d i ff ers widely ,

f ro m the sceptical Socrates o f the f amous Def en c e and the ,

di ff erence has been urg ed as an arg ument f o r the historical

authenti c ity o f the latter 2
Plato it is i mplied woul d n ot .
, ,

M om , IV .
, iv .
,
10 .
2
Z e ll e r, Plz .
’
a. GA ,
IL, a, 1 0 3 , n o te 3 su b /i n .
TH E PLA CE OF SOCRA TES I N GRE E K PH I L O SOPH Y . 115

have d ep arted so f ar f ro rfi h is u sual con c eption o f the sa ge

‘

had he n o t b e e n d esi rous o f reprodu c i ng the a c tual words

'

spoken on so solemn an occasion There are ho w ever .

,
,

several dialog ues which seem to have been c o mposed f o r the

e x press pu rpose o f illu stratin g the negative method supposed
to have been described by S oc rates to his j ud g es investi ,

at i o n s the sole result o f which is to upset the theories o f

g
other thinkers or to show that ord i nary men ac t without
,

bein g ab le to assi g n a reaso n f o r thei r cond uct E ven the .

R ep iz b l io i s pro f ess ed ly tentative in its proced u re an d only ,

f ollows out a train o f thou g ht which has presented itsel f

almost by ac c ident to the company U nlike Charl es Lamb s
.
’

Scotchman the leadin g spokesman does not brin g but find

, , ,

and you are in v ited to c ry halves to whatever tu rns up i n his

co mpany .

Plato had i n truth a conc eption o f s c ience which no

, ,

knowled g e then attained — perhaps one m ay add no knowled g e ,

ever attainable—c ould c ompletely satis f y E ven the ri g ou r

.

of mathe matical demonstration did not content hi m f o r ,

mathematical truth itsel f rested on unproved assu mptions as ,

we also by the way hav e lately d iscovered Perhaps the

, , .

H egel i an system would hav e f u lfilled his requirements ;

perhaps not even that Moreo v er that t h e new order which
.
,

he c ont emplated mi g ht be established it was necessary to

,

beg in by m ak i n g a clean sweep o f all e x istin g opinions .

With the urbanity o f a n Atheni an the piety o f a disciple and

, ,

the insti nct o f a g reat d ramati c arti st he pre f erred to assu me

,

that thi s i ndispensable task had already be en done by another .

And o f all precedin g thinkers who was so well qualified f o r

,

the u ndertakin g as Socrates ? Who else had wielded the

weapons o f ne gati v e d ialectic w i th such consum mate dex
t e ri t y ? Who had assu med such a critical attitud e toward s
the belie f s o f his contemporaries Who had be en so anxious
to find a point o f attachment f o r every new truth i n the mind s
of his interlocuto rs ? Who there f o re could with su ch ,
 1 16 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHE R S .

plausibility be put f orw ard i n the g uise o f o ne who laid clai m

,

to no wisdom on his own acco unt The son o f Ph ae n ar t é e

seemed mad e to be the B aptist o f a Greek M ess i ah but Plato ,

in treatin g hi m as such has drawn a disc reet veil over the ,

.

whole positi v e side o f his predecessor s teachin g and to ’

disco v er what this was we must pla c e ourselves u nder the

f f
’

g uidan ce o f Xenophon s more aith u l report .

Not that Xenophon is to be taken as a per f e c tly a c c urate

e x ponent o f the Socratic philosophy H i s w ork it must be .
,

remembered was pri marily intended to v i ndicate Socrates

,

f rom a charg e o f i mpiety and i mmoral tea c hin g not to ,

e x pound a system wh ic h h e was perhaps incompetent to

appreci ate or understand We are bound to ac cept every .

thin g that he relates we are bound to in c lud e nothin g that

he does not relate but we may f airly readj ust the proportion s
o f his sketch I t i s here that a j udi c ious use o f Plato w i ll
.

f urnish u s w ith the most v aluable assistance H e g rasped .

Socratism i n all its parts an d developed it in all d i re c tions so ,

that by f ollowin g back the lines o f his system to their orig i n

we shall be p ut o n the proper track and shall know where to
look f o r the su ggestions whi c h were destined to be so mag
n i fi c e n t ly worked o u t
l
.

I t may p o ssi b l y b e ask e d , Wh y , if Pl ato g av e o n ly an id e al p ic t u re o f

So c rat es, are w e to a c c e p t h is v e rs i o n s o f th e So p h i s ti c t e a c hi n g as l i te rally e x ac t ?
T he an s w e r i s th at h e w as co mp e l l e d , b y th e n atu re o f th e c ase , t o c re at e an

i mag in ary So c rat e s, w h i l e h e c ou ld h av e n o c o n c e i v ab le j

ob ec t in as c rib i n
g vi e w s

w hi c h h e d id h i mse lf h o l d t o w e ll k n o w n h i s t o ri c al p e rso n age s

n ot -
A s su mi n g .

an u n li mi t e d ri h t o f mak i n
g g fi c ti ti o u s s tate me n ts f o r th e p u b li c go o d , hi s p rin
c i l e s w o u ld su re l
p y n o t h av e p e rmi t te d hi m w an t o n l t o c alu mn iate hi s i n n oc en t y
c o n t e mp o rari e s b y f o i st i n g o n th e m o d i o u s th e o ri e s f o r w hi c h th e w e re n o t y
re s p o n sib l e . H ad n ob o dy h e ld su c h o p in io n s as th o s e attrib u t e d to T h ras y
mac h u i n th e R ep u bl i c th e re w o u ld h av e b e en
s n o ob j e c t in a ttac k i n
g the m an d
y
if an yb o d h e l d t h e m, w h y n o t T hrasymac h u s as w e l l as an o th e r Wi th re gard
to t h e v e rac it y o f th e Ap ol og i a , G ro te , i n hi s w o rk on Pl ato (I . q u o te s a

p ass ag e f ro m A ri st e i d es th e rh e to r, s tati n g th at all th e c o mp an i o n s o f So c rate s

a re e d ab o u t t h e De l h i c o rac l e , an d th e So c rati c d i s c l aime r o f k n o w l e d e T h is
g p g .

“
h o w e v e r, p ro v es t o o mu c h , f o r i t sh o w s that A ri s te i d e s u i t e o v e rl o o k e d t h e q
ab s e n c e o f an
y re f e re n c e to e i th e r p o i n t i n X
e n o p h o n , an d th e re fo re c an n o t b e
‘

tru s te d to gi v e an ac c u rat e re o rt o f th e o th e r au th o ri t i es
p .
1 18 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E RS .

i lusion he g rants that c urrent belie f s should be thoroughly

si f ted and i f necessary discard ed but only that more solid
, , ,

convictions may be substituted f o r them H ere a place is .

f oun d f o r h i s method o f sel f e x ami nation and f o r the sel f

-

conscious i g noran c e attributed t o hi m by Plato C omparin g .

his notions on particular subj e c ts with his id ea o f what know

led g e i n g eneral ou ght to be he finds that they d o not satis f y
,

it ; he knows that he knows n othin g H e then has recourse . _

to other me n who declare that they possess the knowled g e o f

which he is i n search but thei r pretended certainty vanishes
,

u nder the application o f hi s di al ecti c test This i s the .

f amous Socratic i rony Fina l ly he attempts to come at real

.
,

knowled g e th at is to say the constructi o n o f definit i ons by

, , ,

employin g that inducti v e method with the invention o f which

h e is cred ited by Aristotle This method c onsists i n brin g in g
.

to g ether a nu mber o f simple and f amiliar e x am p les f rom

com mon e x perien ce g eneralisin g f rom the m and correctin g
, ,

the g eneralisation s by compari son w ith neg ative i nstances .

The reasons that led Socrates to restrict his enquiri es t o

human i nterests are rather li ghtly passed over by Zeller he
seems at a loss how to reconcil e the alleg ed re f o rm o f s c i e n
t i fi c m ethod with the co mplete abandon ment o f those

physical investi g ations which we are told had su ff ered s o

, ,

severely f rom b ein g cultivated on a di ff erent system .

There seem to be three principal poi n ts aimed at i n the

very in g eni ous theory which w e have endeavoured to sum
marise as ad equ ately as space would p ermit Zeller appa .

re n t ly wis h es to brin g S ocrates into lin e with the g reat

tr ad ition o f early Greek thou g ht to d ist i n g uish him markedly
,

f ro m the Sophists and to trace back to his i nitiative the

,

i ntellectual m ethod o f Plato and Aristotle We cannot .

ad mit that the three f old attempt has succeeded I t seems t o .

us that a picture into which so much Platonic c olourin g has

been thrown w ould f o r that reason alone and without any ,

f urther obj ection be open to v ery g rave suspicion

, But e v en .

acceptin g the historical ac c uracy o f e v e rythi n g that Plato has

 PL A CE UP N G RE EK PH I L O S O PH Y
“

JH E
'

J U CR A I E S I . 1 19

said or o f as mu c h as m ay be requi red ou r criti c s i n f eren c es

, _
,
’

are not j ustified by his au thorities Neither the Xenophonti c .

nor the Platonic Socrates seeks knowled g e f o r its own sake ,

nor does either o f them o ff er a satis f acto ry defin ition o f

knowled g e or indeed any definition at all Aristotle was
, , , .

the first to e x plai n what science meant and he d id so not by , ,

d evelopin g the Socrati c notion but by incorporatin g i t with

,

the other method s i ndepen dently struck ou t by physical

philosophy Wh at would science be without the study o f
.

causation ? and was not t h l S ostentatiously neg lected by the

f ounder o f conceptualism ? A g ain P lato i n the Tb eaoz é i u s , ,
‘

makes his Socrates criticise v arious theories o f knowled g e ,

but does not even hint that the c riti c had himsel f a better
theo ry than any o f them in reserve The autho r o f the .

P/z a ea o and the R ep u bli c w as less interested i n re f ormi n g the

’

methods o f scientific i nvesti g ation than i n directin g research

towards that which he believed to be alone worth kno w i n g ,

the eternal ideas which u nderlie phenomena The historical .

S ocrates had no suspicion o f transcendental realities but he

thou ght that a knowled g e o f physic s was unattain able and ,

would be worthl ess if attain ed By knowled g e he meant art

.

rather than scien c e and hi s me t h o d o f d efinin g w as inten d ed

, '

not f o r the l atter but f o r the f orm er Thos e he said who c an .

, ,

clearly e x press what they wan t to do are best secu red a gainst
-

f ailure and best able to communicate their skill t o others

, .

H e made out that the various virtues were d i ff erent ki nds o f

knowled g e not f rom any e x traordinary opinio n o f its p re
,

c io u s n e s s
, but because he thou ght that knowled g e was the
variable el ement i n volition and that everythin g else was con
stant Zeller dwells stron g ly on the S ocratic i dentification o f
.

co g nition w ith conduct but how could anyone w h o f ell at the

'

first step into such a con f usion o f ideas b e fitted either to e x

plain what s cienc e meant o r to come f o rward as the re f ormer
of its methods ? Nor is it correct to say that So crates
approached an obj e c t f rom every point o f v i ew an d took note ,

o f all its character i st ic q u alities O n the contrary one would

.
,
1 20 TH E GREEK PH I L O SO PH E R S .

be incli ned to charg e hi m with the O pposite t en dency with ,

fixin g hi s g aze too e x clusively on some one quality that to ,

him as a teacher was the m ost i nterestin g H is i d e n t i fi c a

, , .

tion o f v i rtue with knowl ed g e is an excellent instance o f this

habit SO also i s his identification o f beauty with service
.

ableness and his g eneral di sposition to j ud g e o f everythin g

,

by a rather narrow standard o f utility O n the other hand .

,

Greek physical speculation would have g ained nothin g by a

m inute attention to definitions and most probably would have
,

been mischi evously hampered by it Aristotl e at any rate .

, ,

pre f ers the method O f Democritu s to the method o f Plato ;

and Aristotle himsel f is much nearer the t ruth when he
f ollows on the I onian or Si c ilian track than when h e attempts
to define what in the then e x istin g state o f knowled g e could
not be satis f actorily d efined To talk about the variou s
.

elements —earth ai r fire and water— as thin g s with which

, , ,

e v erybody was already f amiliar may have been a crud e u n ,

scientific procedure ; to analyse them into di ff erent combina

tions o f the hot and the cold the li g ht and the h eavy the d ry
, ,

and the moist w as not only erroneous but f atally misleadin g

,

it was arrestin g enquiry and doin g precisely what the Sophists

,
-

had been accused o f doin g that is substitutin g the conceit f o r

, ,

the reality o f wisdom I t w as no doubt necessary that mathe

.
, ,

ma t i c al terms should be d efined but where are we told that

eometricians had to learn this t ruth f rom Socrates ? The
g
sciences O f qu antity which could hardly have advan c ed a
,

step without th e help O f e x act conceptions were success f ully ,

cultivated be f ore he was born and his influ ence was used to
,

d iscourag e rather than to promote their accurate study With .

reg ard to the comprehensive all sided e xamination o f O bj ects

-

on which Zeller lays so mu c h stress and which he seems to ,

reg ard as somethin g peculiar to the conceptu al method i t ,

had unqu estionably been neg lected by Parmenides and

H e rac le i t u s but had not the deficiency been already mad e
good by their i m mediate suc c essors ? What else i s the
122 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

standard o f true knowled g e is in c onsistent with X enophon s ’

account where he is represented as qu ite ready to answer

,

every question put to him and to O ff er a d efinition O f ,

eve rythin g that he c onsidered wo rth d efinin g H is s c e p .

t i c is m i f i t ever e x isted was as a rt i ficial and short li v ed as

, ,
-

the scepticism o f D es c art es .

The truth is that no man who philosoph i sed at all was

ever more f ree f rom tormentin g d oubts an d sel f questionin g s -

n o man was e v er more thorou ghly sat i sfied with hi msel f than
Socrates L e t u s ad d that f rom a H elleni c point o f view no
.
, ,

m an had ever more reason f o r sel f satis f action None he -

.
,

O bserv ed i n his last d ays had ever l i ved a better or a happi er

,

li f e Naturally possessed o f a po werf ul c onstitution he had

.
,

so stren gthened i t by habitual moderation and constant t rain

i n g that up to the hou r O f his death at the ag e o f seventy he , ,

enj oyed perf ect bodily and mental health Neither hardship .

n or exposure neither abstinen c e nor ind ul g ence i n what to

,

other men would have been e x cess could make any impressio n ,

on that adamantine f rame We know n ot how much t ru th

.

there m ay b e in t h e story that at one time he was remark , ,

able f o r the violence o f his p assi ons at any rate when ou r ,

principal in f ormants knew hi m he was conspi cuous f o r the ease

with which he resisted temptation and f o r the i mperturbable ,

sweetness o f his temper H is wants bein g systematically

.
,

reduced to a mini mu m were easily satisfied and his cheerf ul

, ,

n ess n ever f ailed H e enj oyed Athenian society so much that

.

noth i n g but military d uty could draw hi m away f ro m it For .

S ocrates was a veteran who had served throu g h three arduou s

campai g ns and could g i v e lectures on t he d utie s O f a g eneral
, ,

which so hi g h an authority as Xenophon thou ght wo rth re

portin g H e seems to hav e been on ex c ellent terms with his
.

f ellow citizens n ever hav in g been en g ag ed in a lawsui t either

-

, ,

as plainti ff or de f endant u nti l the f atal prosecution which

,

bro u ght his c areer t o a c lose H e c ould on that o c casion .

, ,

re f use to prepare a de f en c e proudly observi n g that h i s w hole

,
 TH E PLA CE OF S O CRA TE S I N G REEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 123

li f e had been a preparation that no man had e v er seen hi m ,

commit an u nj u st or i mpious d eed The an g uished cri es O f .

doubt uttered by I tali an and S ic ilian thinkers could have n o

meanin g f o r on e w h o o n pri nciple abstai ned f ro m on tolo g i c al
, ,

speculations the u nc ertainty O f human d estiny which hun g

.

li ke a thunder c loud o v er Pi ndar and the tra gi c poets had

-

m elted away u nd er the su nshi ne o f arg u ments demonstratin g , ,

to his satis f action the reality and b e n e fi c e n c e o f a super

,

natural Providence For he believed that the g ods would

.

a ff o rd g u idanc e i n doubt f u l c onj un c tu res to all who approac h ed

thei r oracles i n a reverent spi rit ; w hile over and above the ,

Divin e cou nsels ac c essibl e to all men he was person ally ,

.

attended by an oracu lar v o ic e a mysteriou s mon itor which , ,

told hi m what to avoid thou g h n o t what to d o a circ u mstance

, ,

well worthy O f note f o r it shows that he d id not like Plato

, , ,

attribute eve ry kind o f ri ght a c tion to d ivin e inspiration .

I t may be said that all thi s only proves S ocrates to hav e

been i n his own esti mation a g ood and happy but not n e c e s
. , ,

s a ri ly a wise man With hi m however the last o f these con

.
, ,

d i t i o n s was inseparabl e f rom the other two H e was prepared .

to d emonstrate step by step that his con duct was reg ulated
, ,

by fi x ed and ascertainable principles and was O f the ki nd ,

best adapted to secure happiness both f o r himsel f and f o r

oth e rs That there were defici encies i n hi s ethi cal theory
.

m ay read ily be ad mitted The idea O f universal b e n e fi c e n c e

.

seems never to have d awned on his hori zon and chastity was
t o hi m what sobriety is to us mainly a sel f reg ardin g vi rtu e ,
-
.

We d o not fin d that he ever reco mmended c onj u g al fid elity

to husbands he re g ard ed prostitution ve ry mu ch as i t i s still ,

u nhappily reg ard ed by men o f the world amon g ou rselves ;

,

and i n opposin g the d a rker vi ces o f his countrymen it was ,

the e x cess rather than the perversion o f appetite whi ch he

cond emn ed These however are poi nts which d o not inter
.
, ,

f ere with ou r g eneral contention that Socra t es ado p ted the

ethical stand ard o f his ti m e that he ad opted it on rational ,
1 24 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

c
'

g
round s that
,
havin g adopted he a ted up to it and that i n so ,

reasonin g and a c tin g he satisfied his own ideal o f absolute

wisdom .

E ven as re g ards physical pheno mena S o c rates so f ar f rom , ,

pro f essin g c omplete i g noranc e held a v ery positive theory,

which he was qui te ready to share with hi s f ri ends H e .

tau g ht what i s c alled the doctrine o f fi n al cau ses ; and so f a r ,

as our knowled g e g oes he was either the first to teach it or

, , ,

at any rate the first to pro v e the e x istence O f d ivine ag encies

,

by its means The O l d poets had occasionally attri buted the

.

ori g in o f man and other animal s to supernatural intelli g ence ,

b ut apparently without bein g led to their conviction by any

, ,

evi dence o f d esi g n d isplayed in the structure o f org anised

c reatures S o c rates on the other hand went throu g h the
.
, ,

various e x ternal org ans o f the hu man body wi th g reat minute

ness and showed to his own satis f action that they evinced
, , ,

the work in g s o f a wise and b e n e fi c e n t Artist We shall have .

more to say f urther on about this whole arg ument here we

only w i sh to O bserv e that i ntrinsically it does n ot di ff er very
, ,

m uch f rom the specu l ations which its author d erided as the
f ruit O f an impertinent curiosity ; and that no one who now
employed it would f o r a si n gle moment be called an ag nosti c
, ,

or a sceptic .

M ust w e then conclude that Socrates was a f ter all nothin g

, , , ,

but a so rt o f g l orified Greek Paley whose pri ncipal a c hieve

'

ment w as to p resent the popular id eas O f hi s ti me on morals

an d politics u n d er the f orm o f a rather g ro v ellin g utilitarianism
a nd whose evidences O f natural and revealed reli g ion bore ’

m u ch the sa me relation to Gr e ek mythology as the corre

s p o n d in g lu c ubrations o f the wort hy archdeacon bore to
Chri stian theolo gy ? E ven were this the whole truth i t ,

shou ld b e remembered that there was an interval o f twenty

three centuri es between the two teachers which ou ght to be ,

taken due ac c ount o f i n estimatin g thei r relative i mpo rtance .

S ocrates w ith hi s closely reasoned v iv idly i llustrated ethical

,
-
,
-
1 26 TH E G REEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

stand hi m we must first u nd erstand what the Athen ian

character was i n itsel f and i nd ependently o f d istu rbin g Ci r
c u ms t a n c e s
. O u r est i m ate o f th at i c h arac t e r i s too apt to be
biassed by the totally exceptional position whi ch Athens
o c c upi ed d u rin g the fi f th centu ry B C g T h e possession o f ;
. .

e mpire developed qualities in her children whi c h they had

not e x hibited at an earlier period an d w h ic h gt h e y ceased to ,

exhibit when empire had been lost Amon g these mu st be .

reckone d military g eniu s an adventurous and rom antic spi rit

, ,

and a hi g h capacity f o r poetical and artisti c prod uc tion

qualities displayed i t i s true by ev ery Greek race but b y
, , ,

so me f o r a lon g er and by others f o r a shorter period Now .

,

the tradition o f g reatness does not seem to have g on e very

f ar back with Athens H er le g end ary history what w e have
.
,

O f it is sin g ularly unex citin g

,
The same rather monotonous
.

thou g h edi f yin g story o f shelter acco rded to persecuted

f u g itives o f success f ul resi stance to f o rei g n i nvasions and o f
, ,

d evoted sel f s ac ri fi c e t o the State m eet s us a g ain and ag ain

-
, .

The Attic d ram a itsel f shows how mu c h m ore stirrin g was

t he leg endary lore o f other tribes O n e need only look at the
.

f e w rem ainin g pieces which treat o f patriotic subj ects to

appreciate the d i ff erence and an E n g lish reader may easi ly
’
convince himsel f o f it by co mparin g M r Sw i n b u rn e s E rec /z ‘

m
.

’
tb oa s with the sa e author s A l a l a a i a There is a want o f .

v ivid individuality perceptible all throu g h E ven Theseu s .

,

the g reat n ational hero strikes one as a rather tame so rt o f

,

personage compared with Perseus H eracl es an d J ason No , , .

Athenian fi g u res promi nently i n the I l ia d ; and on the only

two O ccasions when Pi ndar was employed to c om memorate
’

an Athenian victory at the Panhelleni c g am es he seems ,

unable to associate it wi t h any le g endary g lori es i n the past .

The circumstances which f o r a lon g ti me m ad e Atti c hist ory

so barren O f i n c id ent are the s ame to which its subsequ ent
i mportance i s d ue The relation i n which Atti c a stood to
.

the rest O f Greece was somewhat similar to the relation in

TH E PLA CE O F S O GR A TE S [JV GREEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 1 27

which Tus c any lon g af terw ard s stood to the re st Of I taly

“

, ,
.

It
‘

was the reg ion least d isturbed by f orei g n i m mi gration and ,

there f ore becam e the seat o f a slower but steadier mental

d ev elopment I t w as amo n g thos e to who m war revol ution
.
, ,

colonisation and co mmerce brou g ht the most many sided

,
-

e x perienc e t hat i ntelle c tual a c tivity was most speedily

ripen ed L iteratu re art and scien c e were c ultivated with
.
, ,

e x traordinary su c cess by th e Greek cities o f Asia M i nor and ,

e v en i n some p arts O f the O ld c ountry, be f ore Athens had a

sin gl e man o f g eni us ex c ept Solon to boast o f But alon g , , .

with the enj oyment o f u ndisturbed tranquillity habits O f sel f ,

g ove rnment ord erliness an d reason able reflection were estab

, ,

l i s h i n g themselves which finally enabled her to i nherit all

,

that her predecessors i n the race had accomplished an d to ,

add wh at alon e they still want ed the crownin g consecration

, ,

of sel f conscious mind There had si multaneously been

-
.
, ,

g rowin g up an i ntensely p atrioti c sentiment du e in part to , , ,

the lon g conti nued independen c e o f Attica ; in p art also we

-
, ,

may suppose to the union at a v ery early period o f her

, , ,

di ff erent townships i nto a sin g le c ity The same c auses had .

,

however also f avoured a c ertain love o f com f ort a j ovial

, ,

pleas ure seekin g disposition O f ten d eg ene ratin g i nto coars e

-
“

sensual i ty a thri f tin ess and an i nclinatio n to g rasp at any

, ,

sou rce o f profit coupled with extreme credulity where hopes

,

o f profit were e x cited to g ether f ormin g a n element o f prose ,

co medy which min gles stran g ely with the trag ic g randeu r O f
Athen s i n her i mperi al age and emerg es i nto g reater promi ,

ne mce a f ter her f all until i t b e c o me s the predominant charac

'

t e ri s t i c o f her later days I t is we m ay O bserv e the contrast .

, ,

between these two aspects o f Athenian li f e which g ives the

plays o f Ari stophanes thei r u n paralleled comic e ff e c t and i t ,

i s thei r v ery awkward conj unction which makes E uripides so

u nequal and disappoi ntin g a poet We find then that the .
, ,

ori g inal Athenian character is marked by reasonable re fle c

tion by patriot i sm and by a tenden cy toward s sel f seekin g
, ,
-
 128 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E R S .

mater i alis m Le t us take note o f these three qu alit i es f o r

.
,

we shall meet with the m a g ai n i n the philosophy o f So c rates .

E mpire when it c am e to Athens came almost unsou g ht

, , .

The Persian invasions had made her a g reat naval power ;

the f ree ch oi c e o f her allies placed her at the head o f a g reat
mariti m e c on f ederac y The s udden co mmand o f vast re
.

sourc es and the tension ac c u mulated d ur i n g a g es O f repose ,

stimulated all her f aculties i nto preternatural activity He r .

spirit was steeled al most to the D orian temper and entered ,

into victorious rivalry with the Dorian M use Not onl yd id .

her fleet sweep the sea but her army f o r on ce d e f eated

, , ,

Theban hoplites i n the field The g rand choral harmonies o f

.

S icilian son g the S icyonian rec itals o f epi c adventu re were

.
, ,

rolled back i nto a f ramework f o r the spectacle o f i ndividu al

souls meetin g one another i n arg ument e x postulation en , ,

t reaty and defian c e a nobler D oric edifice ros e t o con f ron t

,

the Ae g inetan temple O f Ath en e ; the strained energ y O f

Aeg i netan co mbatants was relaxe d i nto attitudes O f reposin g
p ower and the eternal smile on thei r f a c es was deepened i nto
,

the sadness O f un f athomable thou ght B ut to the violet .

c rowned c ity Ath en e was a g i v er o f wealth and wisdom

,

rather than o f prowess her empire rested on the contribution s

o f u nwillin
g alli es and o n a te,c hnical proficien c y which others
were su re to equ al i n ti me ; so that the C ori nthian orators
could say with j usti c e that Athenian skill was more easily
acquired than Dorian valou r At onc e receptive and c o m
.

mu n i c at iv e Athens absorbed all that G reece could t each her

, ,

and then returned it i n a more elaborate f orm but wi th out ,

the f reshness o f its earliest i nspi ration Yet there was on e .

field that still a ff ord ed scope f o r creative ori gin ality H abits .

o f analysis ,
thou g h f atal to spontaneo us p roduction were ,

f avourable o r rather were n e c essary to the g rowth o f a n ew

, ,

p hilosophy . A f ter the e x haustion o f e v e ry li mited i d eali s m ,

there remain ed that hi ghest idealisation which is the re d uction

o f all past e x perien c e to a method available f o r the
g uidanc e
1 30 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

benefit o f it g ratuitously H ere we have a g reat chan g e

.

f rom the scorn f ul d og m atism o f H e rac l e i t u s and the ,

vi rtually oli g archic e x clusiveness o f the teachers who d e

man d e d hi g h f ees f o r their instruction .

To be f ree and to rule over f reemen were with Soc rates , ,

as with every Athenian the g oals o f ambition only his

, ,

f reedom meant absolute i mmunity f ro m the control o f

passion o r habit ; g overnment m eant sup erior knowled g e ,

and g overn ment o f f reemen meant the power o f producin g

i ntellectua l conviction I n his eyes the possessor o f any
.
,

a rt was so f ar a ruler and the only tru e ruler bein g obeyed

, , , ,

u nder severe penalties by all w h o stood i n need o f his skill .

But the royal art which he hi msel f e x ercised without ,

e x pressly layin g c lai m to it was that which assi g ns its proper

,

sphere to every other art and provides ea c h i ndi v id ual with

,

the employment which his peculiar f a c ulti es demand This .

i s Athen ian liberty and Athenian i m perialism c arried i nto

ed ucatio n b u t so id ealised and pu rified that they c an hardly
,

b e reco g n ised at first si g ht .

The philosophy o f So c rates is more obviously related t o

the practical and reli g ious tendencies O f hi s c ountrymen
"

N either he nor they had any sympathy with the c osmolo g i cal
speculation s which seemed to be unconnected with hu man
i nterests and to trench on m atters beyond the reach o f
,

human knowled g e The old Attic sentiment was averse

.

f rom adventures o f any kind w hether political or intellectual

, .

Yet the new spi rit O f enqui ry awakened by I onian thou ght
c oul d not f ail to react powerf ully on the most i ntelli gent
man amon g the most intelli g ent p e opl e o f H ellas Above .

all one paramount id ea which went beyon d the c onfines o f

,

the old phi losophy had been e volved by the di ff erentiation

o f knowled g e f ro m its obj ect and had been p resented , ,

althou g h u nder a materiali sin g f orm by Ana x ag oras to the ,

Athenian public S o c rates took up thi s id ea whi c h e x pressed

.
,

w hat w a s hi g hest and most distinctive in the n ational

TH E PLA CE O F s o CRA TE S I N GREEK PH I L O SOPH Y . 131

character a n d applied it to the develop ment O f ethical

,
-

speculation We have seen i n the last ch apter how an

.
, ,

attempt was made to base moral t ruth on the results o f

natural philosophy an d how that attempt was c o mbated by
,

the Humanisti c school I t c ould not be d oubt f u l which side.

Socrates would take i n this controversy That he paid any .

attention to the teachi n g o f Protag oras and Gorg ias i s ,

'

i ndeed hi ghly p roblem ati c f o r their n ames a re never

, ,

mentioned by Xenophon and the Platoni c dialo g u es i n whic h ,

they fi g ure are evidently fictitious N evertheless he h ad to .

,

a certain e x tent arrived at the same con clusion with them ,

althou gh by a d i ff erent path H e was O pposed on reli gious .

,

g rou nds to the theories whi ch an ac ute psycholo g i c al analysis

,

had led them to rej e ct Accordin g ly the i dea o f Nature i s .

,

almost entirely absent f rom his conversation and like Prota , ,

g oras he i s g uided solely by reg ard f o r human i n terests

, TO .

the obj ection that positive laws were always chan g in g he ,

vi c toriously replied that it was because they were u nd erg oi n g

an i ncessant adaptation to varyin g n eeds ‘
L ike P rotag oras .
,

ag ain he was a habitual student o f old Greek literatu re and

, ,

sedulously sou ght out the practical lessons i n which it

abound ed To him as to the early poets and sag es
.
, ,

SOp h ro s yn é or sel f knowled g e and sel f com man d taken

,
- -

to g ether was th e first and m ost necessa ry o f all virtues

, .

U nlike them however he does not si mply ac cept it f ro m

, ,

tradition b u t g ives it a philosophical f o u n d at i o n —the ne w ly

,
m

established distinction between min d and body a distinction

not to be con f ou nd ed with the old Psychism althou gh Plato , ,

f o r his re f ormin g purposes shortly a f terward s linked the two ,

to g ether The disembodied Spi rit o f mytholo gy was a mere

.

shadow or memory equally destitute o f solid ity and o f,

understand in g ; with S ocrates mi nd m eant the perso nal ,

consciousness which retains its continuou s i dentity throu gh

every chan g e and as a gainst every passin g i mpulse L i ke
,
.

I n th e c o n v e rsa t i o n w i th H ipp ias f

a l re ad y re e rre d to .

x 2
13 2 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E RS .

the H u manists he mad e i t the seat o f knowled g e — more

,

than the H um anists he g ave i t the c ontrol o f appetite I n

, .

other words he adds the i dea o f will to that o f i ntellect b u t

,

i nstead O f treatin g t he m as disti nct f aculties or f u nctions he ,

absolutely id entifies th em M ind havin g come to be first

.

reco gn ised as a kno w in g power ca rri ed over i t S association ,

'

with knowled g e i nto the volitional sphere and the two were ,

first disentan gl e d by A ri stotle t hou gh v ery i mperf ectly even

,

by hi m . Yet no thinker help ed so mu ch to make th e

con f usion apparent as the one to whom it w as du e So c rates .

d eliberately insisted that those who knew the g oo d must

necessarily b e good themselves H e tau ght that eve ry vi rtu e
.

w as a science ; coura g e f o r exampl e was a knowled g e o f

, ,

th e th i n g s which should or should not be f eared t emperan c e ,

a knowled g e o f wh at should or should not be desired an d so ,

f orth . S uch an ac cou n t o f vi rtue would perhaps be su ffi c ient , ,

i f all men d i d what i n their O pi nion they ou g ht t o do

,
and , ,

however stran g e i t may seem S ocrates assu med that su c h ,

w as actu ally the case

1
The parado x even i f accepted at the
.
,

moment by his youth f ul f riends was sure to be rej ected o n , ,

e x aminati on by cooler heads and its rej ection would p rove

, ,

that the whole d octri ne w as essenti ally unsound V ariou s .

causes prevented S ocrates f ro m perceivin g what seemed so

cl ear to duller i ntelli g en ces than his Fi rst O f all he di d not .
,

separate d uty f rom person al interest A t ru e At heni an he .

,

recommend ed tempe rance an d ri g hteousness very larg ely on

accoun t O f the materi al advantag es they secu red That the .

ag reeable an d the hono u rable the e x pedient and the j u st , ,

f requently came i nto colli sion was at that ti me a rhetori cal

,

co mmonplac e ; and it mi g ht be supposed that i f they were ,

shown to coincide no motive to mis c ondu ct but i g no ran t e

,

could e x ist Then ag ain bei n g accusto med to co mpare

.
, ,

cond uct o f eve ry kin d w ith the practice o f such arts as flu t e

playin g he had com e to take knowled g e in a rather extend ed
,
134 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

them and it certainly would be a m istake to represent them

as constantly opposed Yet a truly sci entifi c principle must
.

either prove their id entity or m ake its c hoice amon g them

, ,

o r discover somet h in g better Plato seems to h a .ve taken up

the three methods one af ter the other without c omin g to
, ,

any v ery satis f actory conclusion Aristotl e id entified the .

first tw o but f ailed or rather d id not attempt to harmonise

, ,
.

them with the third S ucceedin g schools t ried various

.

co mb inations layin g more or less stress on di ff eren t

,

pri ncip les at d i ff erent period s till the will o f an omnipoten t

,

C reator was substituted f o r every human standard With .

the d ecline o f do g matic theolo g y w e have seen them all c om e

”
to li f e a gain a nd the O ld battle is sti ll bein g f ou ght out und er
,

our eyes Speakin g broad ly it may be said that the method

.
,

which we have placed fi rst on the list i s more particularly

represented in E n gland the seco n d i n France an d the last
, ,

i n Germany Yet they ref use to be separated by any ri g i d

.

line o f demarcation and each tends either to c ombine with

,

o r to pass i nto one or both o f the rival theories M odern .

utilitarianism as constituted by J ohn S tuart M ill althou g h

, ,

avowedly based on the paramount valu e o f pleasu re i n ,

ad mittin g qualitative di ff erences amon g enj oyments and i n ,

subordinatin g i ndividual to soci al g ood introduces principles ,

of action which are not properly sp eakin g hedonistic, , .

Neither is the idea o f the whole by any m eans f ree f rom

ambi g uity We have party chu rch nation order p rog ress
.
, , , , ,

rac e hu manity and the su m total O f sensitive bein g s all

, , ,

puttin g in thei r clai ms to fi g ure as that entity Where the .

pursuit O f any sin gle en d g ives rise to c onflictin g p retensions ,

a wise man w i ll che c k the m by re f erence to the other

accredited standards and will cherish a not unreasonable
,

e x pectation that the evolution o f li f e is tendin g to bring the m

all into ultimat e ag reem ent .

R eturnin g to Soc rates w e must f u rther not e that his

,

i de n tification o f v i rtue with sci ence thou gh it does not ex ,

 TH E PLA CE OF S O CRA TE S I N GREEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 135

p ress the whole truth e x presses a considerable part O f it espe

, ,

c i al ly as to hi m c ondu c t was a much more complex problem

than it is to some modern t eachers O nly those who b e lie v e

.

i n the e xistence o f intuitive and in f allible moral perception s

can consistently maintai n that nothin g is easier than to know
ou r duty and nothin g harder than to do it E ven then the
, .
,

i ntuit i ons must extend beyond g eneral principles and also ,

in f orm us how and where to apply them That n o such i n .

ward illumination e x ists is s u flflc i e n t ly shown by e x peri ence

so much so that the mischie f done by f oolish people with
g ood intentions has become p roverbial Modern casuists .

have indeed d rawn a d isti nction between the i ntention and

, ,

the a c t makin g us responsible f o r the purity o f the f ormer

, ,

not f o r the c onsequences o f the latter Thou gh based on the .

Socratic division between mind and body this d istinction ,

would not have co mmended itsel f to Socrates H is O bj e c t .

was not to save souls f ro m sin but to save individuals , ,

f amilies and states f rom the ruin which i g norance o f f a c t

,

entails .

I f we enlarg e ou r point o f view so as to cover the moral

i nfluence o f knowled g e on society taken c ollecti v ely its rela ,

tive i mportan c e will be vastly increased When Au g uste .

C omte assi g ns the suprem e d ire c tion o f pro g ress to advancin g

s c ience and when Buckle f ollo w in g Fichte makes the totality
, , ,

o f human action d epend on the totality o f hu man knowled g e ,

they are virtually attributin g to intellectual educ ation an even

more d ecisive part than it played i n the Socrati c ethics .

E ven those w h o rej ect the theory when pushed to such an ,

e x treme will admit that the same quantity o f sel f devotio n

,
-

must prod uce a f ar g reater e ff e c t when it i s g uid ed by d eeper

i nsi g ht i nto the conditions o f e x istence .

The same principle may be extended i n a di ff erent d i re c

t ion if we substitute f o r knowled g e in its narrower si gn ifi c ance
, ,

the more g en eral conception o f associated f eelin g We shall .

then see that beli e f habit emotion an d i n s t i n c t are only

, , ,
.
136 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

di ff erent stag es o f the same pro c ess — the pro c ess by which
e x perien c e is org anised and m ade subse rvient to v ital ac
t iv i ty
. The si mplest refle x and the hi g hest i ntelle c tual
conviction are alike based on sensori motor mechanism and -

, ,

so f ar di ff er only throu g h the relative comple x ity and insta

,

b i li ty o f the nerv ous c onne x ions i nvolved K nowledg e is

.

li f e i n the makin g and when i t f ails to control practice f ails

,

only by co min g into confli c t with passion — that i s to say ,

with the consolid ated results o f an earli er e x perience .

Physiology O ff ers another analo gy to the S ocratic method

which must not be overlooked S ocrates re c ommended the
.

f ormation o f d efinite conceptions because amon g other ,

advantag es they f acilitated the di ff usion O f u se f ul know

,

l ed g e SO also the o rg anised associations of f eelin g s are not

.
, ,

only serv iceable to i ndivi duals but m ay be transm itted to

,

o ff sprin g with a reg ularity proportioned to thei r d e fi n it e n ess .

How naturally these d eductions f ollow f rom the do c trin e

under consid eration is evident f rom thei r hav i n g been to a
, ,

certai n e x tent already d rawn by Plato H is plan f o r the

, .

systematic education o f f eelin g u nd er scientific supervision

answers to the first his plan f o r b reedin g an i mproved race
o f citizens by placin g marria e u nd er State control answers
g
’
to the second Yet it is doubt f u l whether Plato s pred ecessor
.

would have sanctioned any scheme tendin g to substitute an

external compulsio n whether f elt o r not f o r f reed om and
, ,

i ndividual initiative and a bli nd i nstinct f o r the sel f conscious

,
-

ness which can g ive an ac c ount o f its p roced u re at every step .

H e would brin g us back f rom soci al physics and physiology

to psychol ogy and f rom psycholo g y to diale c t ic philosophy
, .

IV .

To S ocrates hi msel f the stron g est reason fo r beli evin g i n

the id entity o f convi c tion and practic e was perhaps that he , ,

had made i t a l iv i n g reality With hi m to know the ri g ht

.
13 8 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

des i red that all other m en should so f ar as possible pass , ,

throu g h the same bracin g d isciplin e H ere we have the secret .

o f his f amous erotetic method He d id not like the Sophists

.
, ,

g ive continuous lectu res nor pro f ess like

,
so m e o f them to , ,

answer every question that mi g ht be p u t to him O n the .

contrary he put a series o f questions to all w h o came i n hi s

,

way g enerally i n the f orm O f an alternative one sid e o f

, ,

which seemed sel f evidently true and the other sel f evi d ently
- -

f alse arran g ed so as to lead the respondent step by step to

, , ,

the conclusion whi c h it was desired that he should acc ept .

S ocrates did not inven t this method I t had lon g been .

pra c tised i n the Athenian law courts as a m ean s f o r e x tract

-

i n g f rom the opposite party admissions which coul d not

be otherwise O btained when c e it had passed into the trag i c
,

d rama an d into the d iscussion o f phi losophical problems

,
.

Nowhere else was the analytical power O f Greek thou ght

so bri lliantly d isplayed ; f o r be f ore a contested p roposition
could be subj ected to this mode o f treatment it had to be ,

c are f ully discri minated f ro m con f usin g adj uncts considered ,

under all the various m eanin g s which it m i g ht possibly be

m ad e to bear subdivi ded i f it w as comple x into two or m ore
, , ,

d istinct assert ions and li nked by a m inute chain o f demon

,

s t ra t i o n to the admission by whi c h its validity was established

or o v e rth o w n .

S ocrat es then d id not create the cross —

, , exa minin g
elenchus but he g ave i t two n ew and very i mportant
,

appl ications S o f a r as we can make o ut it had hithert o

.
,

been only used (a gain a f ter the e x ample o f the law c ou rt s)

,
-

f o r the purpose o f dete c tin g erro r or intentional d eceit He .

mad e it an instrum ent f o r introducin g his own convi ctions

i nto the mi nds o f others bu t so that his i nterlo c utors seem ed
,

t o be d iscoverin g them fo r themselves and were c ertainly ,

learnin g how i n thei r turn to practise the same d ida c tic

, ,

i nterrog ation on a f utu re occasion And he also used i t f o r the .

p urp ose O f lo g ical sel f d i scipline in a manner which will be

-
 TH E PLA CE OF SOCRA TES I N GREEK PH I L O SOPH Y . 13 9

p rese n tly e x plain e d O f course Socrates also employed the

‘

.
,

erotetic method as a me an s o f con f u tation and in his hands

‘

, , ,

i t power f ully illustrated what we have called the negative

moment O f Greek thou g ht T o prepare the g round f o r n e w.

truth it was necessary to clear away the misconceptions

which were likely to i nterf ere with its ad mis sion or i t ,

Socrates himsel f had nothin g to i mpart he could at any rate ,

pu rg e away the f alse conceit O f knowledg e f rom u n f ormed

minds and hold the m back f ro m att emptin g d i ffi c ult t asks
,

until they were properly qualified f o r the undertakin g Fo r .

e x ample a certain Glau c o a brother o f Plato had attempted

, , ,

to add ress the public assembly when he was not yet twenty ,

years o f ag e and w as naturally quite u n fi tt e d f o r the task

, .

At Athens where every c itizen had a voice i n his count ry s

,
’

a ff airs obstruction whether intentional o r not was very su m

, , ,

marily dealt with Speakers who had nothin g to say that

.

was worth hearin g were f orcibly removed f rom the b em a by

the poli ce a nd this f ate had already more than onc e be f allen
the youth ful orato r much to the annoyanc e o f his f riends who
, ,

could not prevail on hi m to re f rai n f rom repeatin g the e x p e ri

ment when Soc rates took the matter i n hand O n e or two
,
.

adroit compli ments on his ambition drew Glauco into a con v er

satio n with the veteran dialectician on the ai ms and d uti es o f
a statesman I t w as ag reed that his first obj ect should be to
.

b enefit the country and that a g ood way O f a c hievin g this

,

end would be to increase its wealth which ag ain could be , , ,

d one either by au g m entin g the receipts or by d iminishin g

the e x pend itu re C ould Glau co tell what was the p resent
.

revenue o f Athens and whence i t was d erived — No ; he

,

had not studied that question —Well then perhaps he had .

, ,

some u sef ul retrenchm ents to propos e — No ; he had not

studied that either But the State mi g ht he thou g ht be e n
.
, ,

riched at the e x pense o f its enemie s — A good idea i f we can ,

be sure O f beatin g them first ! O nly to avoid the risk o f ,

attackin g somebody who i s stron ger than ourselves we must ,

1 40 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E RS .

know what are the en emy s military resour c es as compared ’

with ou r own To beg i n with the latter : C an Glauco tell

.

how many ships and soldiers Athens has at her d isposal — 4

NO ,
he does not at this moment remember — Then perhaps .
, ,

he has it all written down somewhere — H e must con f ess

not So the c onversation g oes on until So c rates has con
.

v i c t e d his ambitious youn g f riend o f possessin g no a c curate

in f ormation whatever about polit i cal questions ‘

.

Xenophon has recorded another dialog ue i n which a youn g

man named E u th yd é mu s who w as also i n trainin g f o r a
,

statesman and who as he supposed had learned a g reat

, , ,

d eal more out O f books than Soc rates could teach hi m i s ,

brou ght to see how little he knows about ethical science H e .

is asked Can a man b e a g ood citizen without bein g j ust ?

,

NO h e canno t — C an E u thyd é mu s tel l what act s are j ust ?

,

Yes certainly an d also what are unj ust — U nd er w hich head

, ,

does he pu t such actions as lyin g d eceivin g harmin g , , ,

ensl avin g —U nd er the head O f i nj ustic e —But suppose a

hostil e people are treated i n the various manners specified is ,

that u nj ust —NO but it was und ers tood that only one s
,
’

f riends were meant Well i f a general encou rag es his own

.
-

army by f alse statements or a f ather deceives his child into

,

taki n g medi ci ne o r your f riend seems likely to commi t

,

suic id e and you purloi n a d eadly weapon f ro m hi m is that

, ,

unj ust —NO we must ad d f o r the purpose o f harmin g to

,
’

o u r d e fi n it i o n
.
Socrates however does not stop here but
.
, , ,

g oes on cross e x amini n g u ntil the unhappy student is reduced

-

to a state o f hopeless bewilderment and shame H e i s th e n .

brou ght to perceive the n ecessity o f sel f knowled ge which i s -

’
e x plained to mean knowled g e O f on e s own powers As a .

f urther e x ercise E u t h yd é mu s is put throu g h his f acin g s on the

subj ect o f g ood and evil H ealth wealth stren g th wisdom
.
, , ,

an d beauty are m ntioned as unquestionable g oods Socrates

e .

shows in the style lon g a f te rwards im i tated by J u v enal that

, ,

Marn i ,
III .
, vi .
142 TH E G REEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

rather a hindrance than a help to the c ultivation o f arg u me n

t at iv e ability . The reverse was true when S o c rates lived .

L on g f amiliarity with debate was u n f avourable to the art O f

writin g ; and the speeches i n Thucydid es show how di f ficult
i t w as still f ound to present close reason in g und er the f orm o f
an uninterrupted e x position The traditions o f conversational
.

thrust and parry su rv ived i n rhetorical p rose and the c rossed

swords O f ton g ue f ence were represented by the bristlin g
-

f li e r
/a u x a e f ri s e o f a labou red antithetical arran g ement where
’

every clause received new stren gth and point f rom contrast
with its opposin g nei ghbou r .

By combinin g the various considerations here su g g ested

we shall arrive at a clearer understand in g o f the sceptical
attitude commonly attributed to S ocrates There is first o f .
,

all the ne g ative and critical f unction e x ercised by hi m i n

,

co mmon with many other constructive thinkers and i nti ,

mately associated with a f undamental law o f Greek thou g ht .

Then there is the Attic courtesy and d emocratic spirit

leadin g him to avoid any assu mption O f superiority over those
whose opinions he is e x amini n g An d lastly there is the .
, ,

pro f ound f eelin g that truth is a com mon possession which n o ,

i ndividual can appropriate as hi s pec uliar privile g e because it ,

c an only be discovered tested and preserved by the united

, ,

e ff orts o f all .

V .

Thus then the Soc ratic d ialog u e has a d ouble aspect I t is

, , .
,

like all philo sophy a perpetu al carryin g o f li f e i nto ideas and

,

O f id eas into l i f e L i f e i s raised to a hi gh er level by thou g ht

.

thou ght when brou g ht i nto contact with li f e g ains movemen t

, ,

and g rowth assimilative an d rep roductive power I f action i s

, .

t o be harmon ised we must reg ulate it by universal pri nciples

,

i f our pri nciples are to be e ffi cacious they mu st be adopted ,

i f they are to be adopted we must d emonstrate them to the

,

satis f action o f ou r contemporaries L an guag e consistin g as .

,
TH E PLACE O E S O CRA TE S I N GREEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 143

it does almost entirely o f abstra c t terms f urnishes the mate ,

rials out o f which alon e such an i deal u nion c an be f ramed .

But men do not alw ays u s e the same words least o f all if they
'

are abstract words i n the sam e sense and there f ore a p re li mi

, ,

nary ag reement must be arrived at i n this respect ; a f a c t

which Socrates was the first to reco g nise Aristotle t ell s u s .

that he i ntrodu c ed the custo m o f constru ctin g g eneral d e fi n i

tions into philosophy The need o f accurate verbal e x plan a
.

tion s is mo re f e l t i n the discussion o f ethical problems than

anywhere else i f we tak e ethic s in the only sense that
,

So c rates woul d hav e accepted as c overin g the whole field o f

,

mental activity I t i s true that d efinitions are al so employed

.

i n the mathematical and physical sciences but there they are ,

acco mpanied by illustration s borrowed f rom sensible e x p e ri

ence and would be un intelli g ibl e without them H en ce i t has
,
.

been possible f o r those branches o f knowled g e to make enor

mou s pro g ress while the elementary notions on which they
,

rest have not yet been sati s f actorily analysed The case i s .

entirely altered when mental di sp osition s have t o be taken i nto

account H ere abstrac t terms play m uch the same part as
.
,

sensible intuition s elsewhere in steadyin g our conceptions but ,

without possessin g the same i n v ariable valu e the e x peri ences

f ro m which those conceptions are d erived bein g exceed in g ly
comple x and what is more e x ceedin g ly l i able to di sturbance
, , ,

f rom un f oreseen circumstances Thu s by neg lectin g a series

.
,

O f minute chan g es the same name may com e to d enote g roups

o f phenomen a not a g reein g i n the qualities which alone it ori i

g
nally connoted More than one e x ample o f such a g radual
.

metamo rphosis has already presented itsel f i n the course O f ou r

investi g ation and others wi ll occu r i n the sequel Where d is
, .

t i n c t i o n s o f ri ght and wron g are involved it i s o f enormous p rac

,

tical i mportance that a d efinite meanin g should be attached to

words and that they should not be allowed at least without
, ,

e x press a g reement to d epart f rom the re c ognised acceptation

,

f o r such words connoti n g as they d o the approval or d i s ap

,
 1 44 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E R S .

proval o f mankind exercise a power f ul influen c e on c ond uct

, ,

so that thei r misapplic ation may lead to d isastro u s c o n s e

q u en c e s
. Where g overn ment b v written l aw p revails th e
i mpo rtance O f defini n g ethical terms i m med iately beco mes
obvious f o r otherwise personal rule w ould be restored u nd er
, , ,

the d is g uise o f j udicial i nterpretation R o man j urisp ru denc e .

was the first attempt o n a g reat scale to i ntrod uce a ri g orous

system o f d efinitions into leg isl ation We have seen in the .
,

p re c edin g c h apter how it tended to pu t the c onclusions o f

,

Greek naturalistic philosophy i nto pr actic al shape We now .

see how o n the f ormal side its determinations are conne c ted
, ,

with the p rinc i ples o f S o c rates And we shall not under .

val u e this O blig ation if we bear i n min d that the ac curate

word in g o f le g al enactments i s not less i mportant than the
essential j usti ce o f their contents S imilarly the d evelop .
,

ment O f C atholic theolog y required that its f u nd am ental con

c e p t i o n s should be pro g ressively defined This alon e p reserved .

the intellectual chara c ter O f C atholi c ism in ag es o f i g no rance

and superstition and helped to keep alive the reason by which
,

superstition was eventually overthro w n M om msen h as c alled .

theology the bastard child o f Relig ion an d S c ience I t i s .

somethin g that in the absence o f the robuster p arent i ts

, ,

f eatures should be re c alled and its tradi tion maintai ned even
by an i lleg iti mate o ff sprin g .

S o f ar we have spoke n as i f the S ocrati c definitions were

,

merely v erbal ; they were however a g reat d eal more a n d

, , ,

their au thor d id not accu rately disc rim i nate between w hat at
that sta g e o f thou ght could not well be kept apart —e x plan a
tion s O f words pra c tical re f orm s and s c 1e n t i fi c g eneralisation s
, , .

For example i n d efinin g a ruler to be one who knew more

,

than other men he was d epa rti n g f ro m the com mon usag es o f
,

lan g uag e and showin g not what was but what ou g ht to be

, ,

true 1
. And i n definin g virtue as wisdom he was puttin g ,

f orw ard a n ew theory o f his own instead o f f ormul atin g the ,

Mam ,
II I .
,
ix .
, 10 .
 146 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E R S .

aspect includin g those which he syste mati c ally neg lected ;

,

but we may say that he introdu ced the method whi ch is most
particularly applicable to m ental phenomena the method o f ,

ideal analysis classification and reasoni n g

, Fo r b e i t , .
,

observed that S ocrates did not li mit hi msel f to searchin g f o r

the O n e i n the M any he also a nd perhaps more habitually , , ,

sou g ht f o r the M any i n the O n e H e would take hold o f a .

conception and analyse it i nto its var i ous n otes layi n g t hem , ,

as i t were piecemeal be f ore his i nterlocutor f o r separate

,

a cceptance or rej ection I f f o r e x ample they could not .

, ,

a g ree about the relative merits o f two citizens S ocrates would ,

decompose the character o f a g ood citi zen i nto its c omponent

parts and brin g the compari son d own to them A g ood .

c itizen he wou l d say i ncreases the nation al resou rces by his

, ,

admin istration o f the financ es d e f eats the e nemy abroad , ,

wins allies by his diplomacy appeases d issension by his ,

eloqu enc e at home 1

When the shy and g i f ted C h armid e s
.

shrank f ro m add ressin g a public audi ence on public questi ons ,

Socrates strove to overcome his nervousness by mercilessly

subdividin g the au g ust E ccl esia into i ts constituent classes .

I s it the f ullers that you a re a f raid o f ? he asked

’
‘
or th e ,

l eather c utters or the masons o r the smiths or the husband

-

, , ,

m en or the traders or the l west class

o o f hu cksters P 2
H ere ’
, ,

the analytical power o f Greek thou ght is mani f ested with still
more sear c hin g e ff e c t than when it w as applied to space and
m otion by Zeno .

Nor d id S oc rates only consider the whole con c eption i n

relation to its parts he also g rouped conceptions to g ether ,

accordin g to their g enera and f ounded log ical classification .

To appreciate the bearin g o f this idea on hu man i nterests i t

will be enou gh to study the d isposition o f a c ode We shall .

1
M on a , IV vi .
, 14 .

2
X e n o ph o n ,
Mom ,
III .
, v n. W e may i n c id e n tally n o ti c e th at th i s p ass ag e i s
w e ll w o rt h th e a tte n t i o n o f th o s e w h o lo o k on th e A th e n i an Dé mo s as an id l e

an d ari s t o c rac ti c b o d y, su p p o rt e d b y sl av e l ab o u r
.
TH E P LA CE OF S O CRA TE S I N GREEK PH I L O S OPH Y . 14 7

then s e e ho w m u ch more e asy it be c omes to brin g i ndiv i dual

cases under a ge n e ral r ule and to retain the whol e body O f
,

rules i n our memory when we can pass step by step f rom the
,

most un iv ersal to the most parti c ular categ ori es No w i t }

,

w as by j urists v ersed i n the Stoi c philosophy that R oman l a w

was c odified and it was by Stoicism that the trad i tions o f

,

So c rati c philosophy were most f a i th f ully preserv ed .

L og ic al d iv i sion is however a pro c ess not f ully re p re

, ,

sented b y an y fi x ed an d f ormal distri bution o f topi c s nor yet ,

is i t equ i valent to the arran g e ment o f g enera and spe c ies

'

a cc ording to thei r n atural a ffi nities as i n the ad mi rable ,

systems O f Ju s s i e u and C uvier I t is som eth i n g much more

.

fl e x ible an d subtle a c arryin g d own into the minutest detail

, ,

O f that psycholo g ical law which requires as a condition o f ,

perf e c t con s c iousness that f eelin gs c on ceptions j ud g ments

, , , ,

and generally speak i n g all mental modes should be app re

, ,

hend ed t o g ether with thei r c ontrad i c tory opposites H era .

cleitus had a d i m per c eption O f this truth when he tau ght the
identity O f antithetical couples and it is more or l ess vividly
,

illustrated by all Greek cl assi c literatu re a f ter hi m} b u t

S ocrates seems to have been the first who trans f orme d it f rom
a law o f e x istenc e i nto a law O f co g nition ; with h im k n ow
led g e and i g noranc e reason and pass i on f re ed oman d s lave ry
, , ,

vi rtu e an d vi c e ri ght and wron g (m u ng 611 0 44 6 e p o p cln ;

, , , ,
.
’

p )
la were app rehended i n inseparable c o n n exion and were ,

employe d f o r mutual elucidat i o n no t o nly i n broad masses

, ,

but also throu g h their las t sub divisi o n s l i ke the delicate ,

adj u stments o f lig ht and sh ad e on a V enetian canvas Thi s .

m ethod o f c lassification by g raduated d e scent and s ymme t ri

cal contrast like the whol e d ialectic system o f which i t f orm s
,

a branch i s only s u ited t o the mental phe n omena f o r whi c h

,

it w as ori g i nal ly d e vi sed and H eg el co mmitted a f atal erro r

w hen he ap li ed i t to e x plain the ord er o f e x ternal coe x ist
p
s

en c e an d su cc ess i on We hav e already touched o n t h e

.
.

ess e n t i all y s u b j e c t iv e c hara c ter o f the So c rati c d efin i ti on , an d

La
 14 8 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

we shall presently h ave to make a s i m i lar restrict i on i n

d ealin g with S ocratic indu c t i on With reg ard to the question .

last considered our li mits will not permit us nor i ndeed does
, , , ,

it f all within the scope o f our present study to pu rsue a vei n ,

O f reflection which was n ever f ully worked out either by the

Athenian ph i losophers o r by their modern su c cesso rs at least ,

not i n i ts only leg iti mate d i r ect i on .

A f ter definition and d ivision co mes reasonin g We arran g e .

obj ects i n classes that by knowin g one or some we may know

,

all
. Aristotle attributes to Socrates the first syste mati c
employment O f ind u c tion as well as o f g eneral definitions ‘
.

Nevertheless his m etho d was not solely inductive nor did it

, ,

bear more than a d istant resemblance to the i nduction O f

mod ern science H is pri nciples were not g athered f ro m the
.

particular classes o f phenomena which the y d eterm i ned o r ,

were intended to determine but f ro m others o f an analog ous

,

character which had already been red u c ed to orde r O b s e rv .

i n g that all hand icra f ts were practised acco rdin g to well d e fi n e d -

i ntelli g ible rules lead in g so f ar as th e y went to satis f acto ry

, , ,

results he required that li f e in its entirety shou ld be si milarly

,

systematised This was n ot so much reasonin g as a d emand

.

f o r the more e x tended application o f reasonin g I t was a .

truly philosophi c postulate f o r philosophy i s not sci ence bu t

, ,

precedes and u nderlies it Belie f and action tend to divid e

.

themselves into two provin ces o f whi c h the one i s more o r ,

less org anised the other more or less chaotic We p hi lo s o

,
.

p h is e when we try to brin g the on e i nto orde r and also when ,

we test the f ound ations on which the orde r o f the other f e

poses fi ghtin g both ag ainst i ncoherent myst ic i sm and ag ainst
,

traditional routine Such is the pu rp ose that the most di s

.

t i n gu i s h e d thinkers O f mod ern ti mes —Francis Bacon Spinoza , ,

H um e K ant Au g uste Co mte and H erbert Spencer— however

, , ,

wid ely they may otherwise di ff er have accordin g to thei r re , ,

s p e c t i v e li hts all set themselves to achieve No doubt there is

g , .
,

1
da mp /i ., x 111 .
,
iv .
1 50 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E R S .

Sp ec i es appeared the sli ghtest scrutiny mi ght have shown

,

that it was a prec arious f oundation f o r reli g ious belie f I f .

many thou ght f ul men are n o w tu rnin g away f rom theism ,

‘

’
‘
natural theolo gy may be thanked f o r the d esertion I .
‘

believe i n God says the Germ an baron in Tb am a a l e unti l

,
’ ’
,

’ ’
your philosophers de monstrate H is existence And then ? .

asks a f riend And then — I d o not belie v e the d emonstra

.
‘

’
tion .

Whatever may hav e been the errors i nto which Soc rates
f ell he did not c ommit the f atal mistake o f compro misin g his
,

ethical d octrine by associatin g it indissolubly with his meta

physical opinions R eli g ion with hi m instead o f bein g the
.
, ,

source and sanction o f al l duty si mply brou g ht i n an add itional ,

d uty—that O f g ratitude to the g ods f o r their g oodness We .

shal l presently see where he sou g ht f o r the ultimate f oundation

of morality a f ter c ompletin g ou r su rv ey o f the dialectic
,

method with which it was so closely c onne c ted The i ndu c tio n .

o f S ocrates when i t went beyond t ha t kind o f analogical

,

reasonin g which we have j ust been consid erin g w as m ainly ,

abstraction the process by wh ich he obtained those g eneral

,

c on ceptions o r d efinit ions which played so g reat a part in hi s

p hilosophy Thu s on c omparin g the d i ff erent virtu es as
.
, ,

co mm only d istin g uished he f ound that they all a g reed i n

,

requiri n g knowled g e which he a c cordi n gly concluded to be

,

the esse n ce o f v i rtue SO other moralists have been led to

.

c onclud e that ri gh t a ct ions resemble one another i n thei r

f e l ic ifi c quality an d i n that alone
,
Si milarly political e c o n o .
,

mists find o r f ormerly f oun d (f o r we do not w ish to be positi v e

,

o n th e matter) that a co mmon characteristi c o f all ind ustri al

,

e mploym en ts i s the d esire to sec ure the maxi mum o f profi t

with the m i n i mu m O f trouble Another compari son shows .

t h at value d epe n ds on the relation between supply a n d

d emand Ae stheti c enj oyments o f every kind resemble o n e

.

another by i n cluding a n elemen t o f ideal emotion It i s .

a common c hara c teri stic o f all c og nition s that they are

TH E PLA CE OF S O CR A TE S I N GREEK PH I L O SOPH Y . 1 51

constructed by asso c iation ou t o f element ary f eelin gs All .

societies are marked by a more or less developed division o f

labou r These are g iven as typical g eneralisations which have
.

been rea c hed by the S ocratic method They are all taken .

f rom the philosophic sciences — that is the s c ienc es dealin g

,

with phenomena which are partly d etermined by mind and ,

the systematic treatment o f whi c h i s so si milar that t h ey are

f requently stud ied in c omb ination b y_a sin gle thinker an d ,

i n v ariably so by the g reatest thinkers o f any B ut were we .

to e x amine the history O f the physical sciences we should ,

find that this method O f wide comparison and rapid ab s t rac

tion cannot as Francis Bacon i mag in ed b e success f ully
, ,

applied t o them The f acts with which they d eal are not
.

transparent not d irectly penetrable by thou ght ; hence they

,

must be treated d ed uctively I nstead o f a f ront a ttack we

.
,

m ust so to speak take them i n the rear Ba c on ne v er mad e

, ,
.

a more un f o rtunate O bserv ation than when he said that the

syllog ism f alls f ar short o f the subtlety o f Nature N atu re is .

even simpler than the syllog ism f o r she ac co mplishes her

,

results by advancin g f rom equation to equ ation That which .

really does f all f ar short o f her subtlety is precisely the

Baconian ind uction with its superficial co mpar i son o f i nstances .

No amou nt o f O bserv atio n could dete c t any resemblan c e

between the bu rstin g o f a t h i md e rs t o rm and the attraction o f a
loadston e or between the burnin g o f charcoal and the rustin g
,

a n ail.

B ut while philosophers cannot prescribe a method t o

physical sc ience they may to a certain extent bri n g i t u nder
, , ,

their co g nisan c e by disen gag in g its f undamental c o ncep tion s

,

and assu mptions and showi n g that they are f unctions o f

,

m ind by arran g in g the speci al sc iences i n system at i c o rd e r

f o r purposes O f study ; and b y in vesti g atin g t he law O f the i r
histori cal evolution Fu rthe rm ore si n c e psycholog y is the
.
,

central s c ience o f philosophy an d sin c e it is clos ely co n ne c ted

,

with phy s iolo gy, whic h i n tu rn re po ses on the i norg ani c

1 52 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

sciences a certain knowled g e o f th e O bj ective worl d i s i ndis

,

p ensable to any knowled g e o f ours elves Lastly si n ce the .

,

subj ective sphere not only rests o nce f o r all o n the obj ective , , ,

but is also i n a continual state O f action an d reaction with i t ,

no philosophy can be c omplete whic h does not take into

account the constitution o f thin g s as they e x ist i nd ependently
o f ourselves , in order to as c ertai n how f a r they are unalterable ,

and h o w f ar they m ay be m odified to ou r advantag e We .

see then that Soc rates i n restrictin g philosophy to hu man

, , ,

i nterests was g uided by a j ust tact ; that i n c reatin g the

,

method o f dialectic abstraction he c reated an i nstru ment ,

ad equate to this i nvesti g ation but to this alon e ; and finally , , ,

that hu man i n terests understood in the larg est sense embrace

, ,

a nu mber o f subsidiary studies which either d id n ot e x ist

w hen he tau g ht or which the inevitabl e supe rstitions O f his
,

ag e would n ot allow hi m to pursu e .

I t remai ns to g lan ce at another aspect o f the dialectic

method first de v eloped on a g reat scale by Plato and first ,

f ully defined by Aristotle but already playin g a c ertain part

,

i n the Socratic teachin g This is the testin g o f com mon

.

assumptions by pushin g them to thei r log ical conclusion and ,

rej ectin g those which lead to consequences inconsistent with

themselves SO understood d ialectic m ean s the complete
.
,

eli minatio n O f incons i sten cy and has ever since remained the
,

most power f ul weapon o f ph i losophical c ri ticism To take an .

i nstan ce near at hand it i s constantly employed by thinkers

,

so radi c ally d i ff erent as M r Herbert Spenc er and Pro f essor.

T H Green wh i le i t has been g eneralised into an obj ecti v e

. .

law o f Nature and history with dazzlin g thou g h only moment

,

ary su cc ess by H egel and h i s s c hool

, .

VI .

Consisten c y is i ndeed the one word whi c h better than

, , ,

any other expresses the whole c hara c ter o f S ocrates and the
, ,

whole o f philosophy as well H ere the supreme con c ept i on .

1 54 TH E GREEK PH I L OSO PH E RS .
.

b een here su ggested deep and stron g enou g h to reunite the

two halves i nto which histori ans have hitherto d ivided the
S ocratic system or rather the beg innin g o f that universal
, , ,

syste matisation called p h ilosoph y which is not yet and , ,

perhaps never will be co mpleted ; a pri nciple which is out

,

w a rd ly rev ealed i n the c hara c ter O f the phi loso p her hi ms el f .

With such an one eth i cs and d ialectics become al most indis

,

t in g u i s h ab l e throu g h the intermi x ture o f thei r processes and

the parallelism o f thei r aims I nteg rity O f c on v ictio n enters

.
,

both as a means and as an element i nto perf ect integ ri t y O f ,

condu c t no r can it be m aintained where any other elemen t o f

,

rectitude is wantin g C learness c onse c uti v eness and c o

.
, ,

h e re n c e are the morality o f belie f ; while temperanc e j ustic e , ,

an d b e n e fi c e n c e taken i n thei r widest sense and taken

,

tog ether constitute the supreme lo g ic O f li f e

, .

I t h as already been O bserved that the thou g hts o f S o c rate s

were thrown into shape f o r and by communication that they ,

on ly became d efinite when brou ght into vi vi f yin g contact with

another i ntelli g ence S u ch was especially the case with his
.

metho d o f ethical d ialectic I nstead o f tend erin g his advice

.

i n the f orm o f a lecture as other morali sts have at all times

,

been so f ond o f d oin g he sou ght out some pre exi stin g senti
,

m ent or opinion i nconsistent with the conduct o f which he

d isapproved and then g rad u ally worked round f ro m poi nt to
,

poi nt until theory and practic e were e x hibited i n i mmed i at e

,

contrast H ere his reasonin g which i s someti mes spo k en o f

.
, ,

as e x c lusively ind uctive was strictly syllog istic bein g the

, ,

application o f a g en eral law to a particular instance With .

the g rowin g emancipation o f reason we may Observe a return ,

to the S oc ratic method O f moralisation I nstead o f reward s .

and punishments which encourag e selfish cal culation or

, ,

e x amples which sti mulate a mischievous j ealousy when they

,

d o not create a spirit o f servile i mitation the j udicious trainer , .

will find his motive powe r i n the pupil s incipient ten d ency
’

t o f orm moral j ud g ments which when refle c ted on the , ,

 TH E PLA CE
'

OF 5 0 CR A TE S I N GREEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 4 55

i ndivid ual s own a c tions ; becom e what we call a conscience

’
.

I t has been m enti on ed i n the pre c edin g chapter that the

celebrated g olden rule o f j usti c e was al ready e nunciated by
Greek moralists i n the f ou rth c entu ry B C Possibly it m ay . .

ha v e b een first f ormulated by Socrates I n all cases it occ urs .

i n the writin g s O f his _d isciples and happily e x presses th e ,

d ri f t o f hi s entire philosophy This g eneralisin g tenden c y .

w as indeed so natural to a noble Greek that instan c es o f i t

, , ,

o cc ur lon g be f ore philosophy beg an We find it i n th e

'

f amous quest ion o f Ach i lles Did not this whole war be g in
on a cc ou nt O f a woman ? Are the A t re id ae the only men
" and i n the n o w not less f amou s
'

who love t heir wives ?

apostrophe to Lycaon remind in g hi m that an early d eath i s ,

2—
the lot o f f ar worthier m en than he utterances which com e
on us with the aw f u l e ff ect O f li ghtnin g flashes that illu minate ,

the whol e horizon o f e x isten c e while they paralyse o r d estroy -

an indi v idual v i c ti m .

The power which Socrates possessed o f ro usin g other

minds t o independ ent activity and ap ostoli c transmission o f
spiritual g i f ts was as we have said the second v erification o f
, ,

his doctrine E ven those who like Antisthenes and Aris

.
,

t ipp u s deri v ed thei r positive theori es f rom the Sophists rather

,

than f ro m him pre f erred to be reg arded as his f ollowers and

,

P lato f ro m who m his id eas received thei r most splendid

,

d e v elopment has acknowled ged the debt by makin g that

,

venerated fi g u re the centre o f his own i mmortal Di alo g ues .

A third verification i s g iven by the subj ective practical , ,

d iale c tic tenden c y o f all su bsequent philosophy properly so

c alled O n thi s point we will content ou rselves with men
.

t i o n i n g one instance out O f many the rec e nt declaration O f ,

M r H erbert Spencer that his whole system was constru cted

.

f o r the sake o f its ethical conclusion ?

Apart howe v er f rom abstract spe c ulation the i deal

, , ,

1L, IX .
, 337 .
2
[b .
,
XX L , 10 6 .
3
I n th e p re fac e to th e Data f
o E t/z i c s .
 7H E G REEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

method seems to have e x ercised an i mmed iate and powerf ul

i nfluence on A rt an influ enc e wh i ch was anticipated by
,

Soc rates hi msel f I n two conversations reported by Xeno

.

phon he i mpresses O n Pa rrh as i u s the painter and C l e it o the

,
‘
, , ,

sc ulptor the i mportance o f so ani matin g the f aces and fi g ures

,

which they represented as to make the m e x press hu man

f eelin g s energ ies and d isposition s particularly those o f the
, , ,

m ost interestin g and elevated type An d such in f act was .

, ,

the dire c tion f ollo w ed by i mitative art a f ter Ph e id ias thou g h ,

not without deg eneratin g i nto a sens ationalis m whi c h S ocrates

would ha ve severely c ondemned Another and still more .

remarkable proo f o f the influen c e e x ercised on plastic re p re

s e n t at i o n by id eal philos o phy was perhaps not f oreseen , ,

by its f ounder We allude to the substitution o f abstract and

.

g eneric f o r historical subj ects by Greek sculpture i n its later

stag es and not by sculpture only but by d ramati c poet ry as
, ,

well Fo r early art whether it add ressed itsel f to the eye or

.
,

to the i mag ination and whether its subj e c ts were taken f rom
,

history or f ro m fiction had always been historical i n this

,

sense that it e x hibited the perf ormance o f particular actions

,

by particular persons i n a g iven place and at a g iven ti me

the mode o f present ment most natural to those whose ideas
are mainly determined by conti g uous association The schools .

which cam e a f ter Socrates let f all the limitations o f concrete

reality and f ound the u ni f yin g pr i n c iple O f their works i n
,

association by resemblance makin g their fi g ures the p e rs o n ifi

,

c ation O f a sin g le attribute o r g roup o f attributes and brin g i n g ,

to gether f orms d istin g uished by the com munity O f their c h arac i

t e ris t i c s o r the conve rg enc e o f thei r f u nctions Thus Aphrod it e .

no long er fi g ured as the lover o f A r es or Anchis es but as ,

the personification o f f emale beauty ; while her statues were

g rouped to g ether with i m ag es o f t h e still more transparent
abstractions L ove Lon gin g and Desire Si milarly Apollo
, , , .

became a person i fi c ation o f musical enthus i asm and D i onysus ,

III .
,
x .
 15 8 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

v y i n g as i t d oes w i th the f orces

, ,
Of nature i n subtlety and
universal d i ff usion .

Besid es trans f orm i n g art and l iterature the d ialectic ,

m ethod helped to re v olut i onise social li f e and the i mpulse ,

commun icated i n this d irect i on i s still very f ar f rom bein g

e x hau sted We allud e to its i n fluen c e on f em ale education
. .

The intelle c tual blossom i n g O f Athens was aided in i ts first ,

development by a complete separation o f the sexes There

, .

were very f e w o f his f riends to w ho m an Athenian g entleman

‘
talked so little as to his wi f e C olonel M ure aptly compares
.

her position to that o f an E n g lish housekeeper with consid er ,

ably less liberty than is enj oyed by the latter Yet the u nio n .

o f tender admi rat i on with the need f o r intelli g ent sympathy

and the d esire to awaken interest in noble pursuits existed at

Athen s i n f ull f or c e and created a field f o r its exerci se
, .

Wilhel m v o n H u mboldt has observ ed that at this time c hival

rous lo ve was kept alive by cu stoms which to us are i ntensely , ,

repellent That so valuable a senti ment should be prese rved

.

a nd diverted into a more leg itimate c hannel was an O bj e ct o f

the hi g hest importan c e The naturalisti c method o f ethi c s
.

di d much but it could not d o al l f o r more was requi red than

, ,

a return to p rimiti v e si mplic ity H ere t h e method o f mind .

stepped i n and suppl i ed the d efi ci ency R ecipro c ity was the .

soul o f d ialecti c as pra c tised by S ocrates and the d iale c tic o f ,

l ove demands a reciprocity o f passion which can only exist

‘

between the sexes B ut in a society where the f ree i ntercou rse

.

O f modern E u rope was not permitted the mod ern senti ment ,

could not be reached at a sin g le bound an d those w h o sou ght

f o r the con v ersat i on o f i ntelli g ent women had to seek f o r it
amon g a class o f which Aspasi a was the hi g hest representati v e .

S u ch women played a g reat part i n later Athenian so ci ety ;

‘

they attended philo sophical le c ture s f u rnished heroines to

'

the N ew C omedy an d o n the whole g ave a healthi er tone

,

to literatu re Their successors the D elias and Cynth i as o f

.
,

X e n o ph .
, Oec o n o m , ii i
. .
, 12 .
TH E PL ACE OF S O CRA TES I N GREEK PH I L OS OPH Y . 1 59

R oman eleg i ac poet ry cal led f orth strai ns o f exalted a ff ectio n

,

w hich n eed n ot hin g but a worthier obj ect to pla c e them on a

le v el with the n ob lest expressions O f ten dern ess that hav e

.

sin ce been heard H ere at least t o u nd erstand is t o f org ive

.
,

and we shall be le s c and alised than certai n criti c s we shall

s s ‘
,

e v en re f use to ad m i t that Soc rates f ell below th e di g nity O f a

moralist w hen we hear that h e onc e visite d a c elebrat ed
,

beauty O f this c l ass T h e o d o t e by name ; that he e n g ag ed

,
2

h er i n a play f ul conversat i on an d that he tau g ht her to pu t

more mind i nto her pro f ession ; to attra c t by somethin g
deeper than personal c harms to show at least an appearan c e
o f i nterest i n the wel f are o f h er lo v ers and t o sti mulat e the i r
ardour by a studied reserv e g rantin g n o f a v ou r that had not
,

been repeatedly and passionately sou g ht a f ter .

Xenophon g ives the s am e i nt e res t a more edi f yin g d i re c

tion when he enlivens t h e dry d e tail s O f h i s Cy rop a ea i a with ’

touchin g episodes o f conj u g al a ff ection or presents le sson s i n ,

d omestic economy u n der the f orm o f c onversations betw een a

newly married coupl e
-
3
Plato in som e respec ts transcends i n
.
,

others f alls short O f his less g i f ted conte mporary For his .

d octrin e o f love as an edu c atin g pro c e s s — a true d o c trine all ,

sneers and perv ersions notwith sta n din g—thou gh readily

appli c able to the relation o f the sexes is not applied to it by ,

hi m ; and hi s proj ect O f a com mon tra inin g f o r men and

women thou g h su ggest iv e o f a g reat advance o n the existin g
,

syste m i f ri g htly c arried out was f rom hi s poi n t o f view , , ,

a retrog rade step toward s sav ag e or even anim al li f e an ,

attempt to throw hal f the burdens in c id ent to a military

org anisation o f so c iety on those w h o had be c om e absolute ly
i n c apable O f bearin g them .

Fo rtunately the diale c tic method pro v ed stron g er than i ts

,

own c reators and once set g oi ng i ntrodu c ed f eelin g s and ex

, , ,

Mu re , H i sto ry of Grec i an Lil era l a re, I V , 4 5 1

. .

2
Mem II I
.
, .
,
xi .
3
Oec on o m , v 11
. .
, 4 if .
 1 60 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E R S .

p e ri e n c e s which they had never d reamed with i n t he

of ,

horizon o f philosophi c c onsciousness I t was f ound that i f

.

women had much to learn much also m i g ht be learned f ro m

,

the m Their wishes could not be taken i nto account without

.

g ivin g a g reatly i ncreased prominence in the g uidanc e o f

cond uct to such sentime n ts as fidelity purity and pity ; and
, ,

to that extent the reli g ion which they helped to establish has ,

at least in prin c iple le f t no roo m f o r any f urther prog ress

, .

O n the other hand it i s only by reason that the more

,

e x clusively f eminine i mpulses c an be f reed f rom their

pr i mitive narrown ess and elevated i nto truly human emotions .

L ove when le f t to itsel f causes more pain than pleasure f o r

, , ,

the words o f the O ld idyl still rema i n true which associate i t

with j ealousy as cruel as the g rave ; pity without prevision , ,

c reates more su ff erin g than it relieves and blind fidel i ty i s

instinctively opposed even to the most b e n e fi c e n t chan g es .

We are still su ff erin g f rom the e x cessive preponderance whic h

Catholi c ism g ave to the ideas o f women ; but we n eed not
l isten to those who tell u s that the v ari ed e x peri en c es o f
hu manity cannot be org anised into a rational c onsistent sel f , ,

supportin g whole .

A survey o f th e Socrati c philosophy would be in c omplete

without some co mment on an element i n the li f e o f Socrates ,

which at first si ght seems to lie altogether outsid e philosophy .

There i s no f act i n his h istory more certain than that he

believed hi msel f to be constantly ac c ompan i ed by a Dae mo
niu m a d ivin e voic e O f ten restrainin g him e v en i n triflin g
, ,

matters but n ever promptin g to positive a c tion That i t w as

, .
'

neither consc i en c e i n ou r sense o f the Word nor a supposed ,

f amiliar spirit is now g enerally ad mitted

, E ven those who
.

believe in the super n atural o ri g in an d authority o f ou r moral

f eelin g s d o not c red it them with a power O f divinin g the
ac c id entally g ood o r evi l consequ en c es which may attend on
our most t rivial and i nd i ff erent actions ; while on t he other ,

hand those f eelin gs hav e a positi ve n o less than a ne g ative

,
162 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

and by a much more power f u l backer A n yt u s, a leadi n g ,

citizen i n the restored democ racy The charg e w as t ried .

be f ore a larg e popular t ribunal number i n g so me fi v e hund red ,

members S ocrates reg arded the whole a ff air with pro f ou nd

.

i ndi ff erence When urged to prepare a d e f en ce he replied

.
, ,

with j ustice that he had been preparin g it his whole li f e lon g

,
.

H e cou ld not ind eed have easily f oreseen w hat line the
, ,

prose c utors would take O u r own in f ormati on o n thi s point

.

i s mea g re enou gh bein g principally derived f rom allusions

,

m ade by X enophon who was not himsel f present at the trial

,
.

There seems however no un f airness i n conclu din g that the

, ,

charg e o f i rreli g ion neither was no r c oul d be substa ntiated .

The evid ence o f X enophon is quite su f ficient to establish the

uni mpeachable o rthodo x y o f his f riend I f it really was .

an O ff ence at Athens to believe i n g ods u nreco gn ised by the

S tate Socrates was not g uilty o f that o ff ence f o r his Dae mo
, ,

n ium was not a n e w divinity b ut a revelation f rom the ,

establi shed d ivinities such as i nd ivid ual believers have at

,

11 t im es been permitted to receive even by the most j ealous

reli g iou s communities The i mputatio n o f i nfidelity co m
.
,

mo n ly and indiscri minately brou g ht a g ainst all philosophers ,

w as a particularly unhappy on e to fli n g at the g reat opponent

‘

o f physical scien ce w h o besides was noted f o r the punctual

, , ,

discharg e o f his r eli g ious d uties That the first two counts
. .

of the indictme nt should be so f rivolous raises a stron g

p rej udi ce a g ainst the third The charg es O f corruption seem
.

to have co me u nder two heads — alle g ed encourag ement o f

d isresp ect to parents and o f disa ff ection toward s d emo c ratic
,

i nstitutions I n support o f the f ormer some innocent e x pres

.

sions let f all by Socrates see m to have been taken u p and

cru elly perverted By way o f sti mulatin g his youn g f riend s
.

to i mprove thei r minds he had O bserved that relations were

,

on l y O f valu e when they could help one another a nd that to ,

d o so they must be properly ed ucated This was twisted into .

an as s ertion that i g norant parents mi ght properly be placed

TH E PL A CE OF SOCRA TE S I IV GREEK PH I L O SO PH Y . 16 3

u nder restraint by their better in f ormed children That suc h -

.

an in f erence c o u l d n o t have been sanctioned by S ocrates

h i mse lf i s O bvio u s f rom his i nsistin g on the respect d ue even
t o so intolerabl e a mo t h e r as Xanthipp e ‘
The political .

opinion s o f the d e f end ant presented a more vu l nerab le point

f o r attack H e thou ght the c us t o m o f choosin g mag i strates
.

by lot absurd and di d not co n ceal his contempt f o r it There

,
.

i s however no reason f o r believi n g that such purely t h e o re t i

, ,

cal c riticisms were f orbidd en by law or usag e at Athens At .

a n y rate much more revolutionary senti m en ts were tolerated

,

on the sta ge That Socrates would be no party to a violent

.

sub version o f the Constitution and would reg ard it with hi g h ,

disapproval w as abu ndantly c lear both f ro m his li f e and

,

f ro m the whole tenor o f his tea c hi n g I n O ppositio n t o .

H ippias he defined j ustice as O bedien c e to the law o f the

,
.

land The chances O f the lot had on one m emorabl e occa

.
,

s ion called hi m to preside over the deliberations o f the

,

S overei g n Assembly A pro position w as mad e c ontrary to

.
,

law that the g e n e rals w h o Were accu sed o f havin g aband oned
,

t h e c rews o f thei r sunken ships at Arg i nusae should be t ried

-

i n a s ing le batch I n spite o f tremendou s p opular clamo ur

.
,

So crates re f used to p u t the question to t he v ote o n the sin g le

d ay f o r w hich his O ffi ce laste d The j us t an d resolute man .
.

who would not yield to the u nri g hteou s d emand s o f a crowd ,

had short ly a f ter w ards to f ace the threats O f a f rownin g

tyra n t When the Th i rty w ere installed i n power h e publi cly
.
, ,

and at the risk o f his li f e e x pressed disapproval o f thei r

,

san g uina ry proceedin g s The oli g archy wishin g to i nvolve

.
,

as m any respec t able citizens as possible i n complic ity with

their c ri mes sent f o r fi v e p erson s O f who m S oc rates was one
, , ,

an d ordered them to brin g a certai n L e o f ro m Salam i s that ,

he mi ght be put to d eath ; the others obey e d but Soc rates ,

re f used to accompany them on thei r d is g race f ul errand .

Nevertheless it told heavily a gainst the philosopher that

,

1
[Va n Il .
, i .

M 2
 164 TH E GR E EK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

Alcibiad es the most mischi evous o f d emag o g ues a n d C rit ias

, , ,

the most savag e o f aristocrats passed f o r havin g been ed u ,

c a t e d by hi m I t was rem embered also that he was i n the

.
, ,

habit o f quotin g a passag e f rom H omer where O dysseus is ,

descri bed as appealin g to the reason o f the chie f s while he ,

brin g s i n f erior men to thei r senses with rou g h words and

rou g her chastisement I n reality S ocrates d id not mean that .
,

the poor should be treated with brutality by the rich f o r he ,

would have been the fi rst to s u ff er had such license been

permi tted but he meant that where reason f ailed harsher
,

methods o f coercion must be applied Precisely because .

e x pressi o ns o f O p inion let f all i n private conversation are so

liable to be m isun derstood o r pu rposely perverted to add uce ,

them i n support o f a capital charg e where no overt act can be

alle g ed is the most mischievou s f orm o f encroachm ent on
,

individ ual liberty .

M odern critics beg inni n g with H e g el l have d iscovered

, ,

reasons f o r considerin g S oc rates a d an gerous character which ,

apparently d id not occu r t o Me lé t u s and his associates We .

are t old that the whole system o f applyin g d ialecti cs to

morality had an u nsettlin g tendency f o r i f men were on ce ,

tau ght that the sacred ness o f d uty rested on their i ndividual
conviction they mi ght re f u se to be c onvinced and act acc ord ,

i n gl y . And it is f urther alle g ed that So crates first i ntroduced

this pri nciple o f subj ectivity into morals The persecutin g .

spiri t is so insati able that i n d e f ault o f acts it attacks

O pinions and in de f ault o f Specific opinions i t f ast en s on
,

g eneral tendencies We kn ow that J oseph d e M ai stre

. wa s

suspected by his i g norant nei ghbou rs o f bein g a R e v olutionist

because m ost o f his ti me was spent i n stu dy ; and but th e
other d ay a Fren c h preacher was sen t into e x i le by his eccle
s i as t i c al superiors f o r darin g to support C atholi c morality
on rational g round s 2
Fortu nately Greek society w a s n ot .

G der ad P/
. I I 1 00 ff
. l .
, .
,
.

2
W rit te n in th e s
p ri n g o f i 8 80 . T he all u s io n i s to Fath e r Did o n w h o w as a t

t h at t i me ru s t ic ate d i n C o rs ic a .
16 6 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

the j ustest return f o r his entire devotion to the public g ood

woul d be maintenance at the publi c e x pense d urin g the
remainder of his li f e an honour usually g ranted to victors at
,

the O lympic g ames I n d e f ault o f this he proposed a fine o f

.

thi rty minae to be raised by contributions amon g his

,

f riends. A c cordin g to another account he ref used on the

1
, ,

g roun d o f hi s i nno c enc e to n ame any altern

, ative penalty O n .

a s e c ond divisio n S ocrates was condemn ed to death by a

mu ch l arg er maj or i ty than that whi ch h ad f ound hi m g uilty ,

ei g hty o f those who had voted f o r his a c qu ittal now v otin g f o r

hi s e x ecution .

S uch w as the tran sa c tion which s o m e moderns Grote ,

amon g the n um b e r h old in g S ocrates to be one o f the best

,

and wisest o f men have end eavoured to excuse Their argu

, .

m ent i s that the illu strious vi cti m was j ointly resp onsibl e f o r
his own f ate and that he was re ally condemned not f o r h is
, ,

teachin g but f o r contempt o f cou rt T o u s it see ms that thi s

, .

i s a d istinction without a di ff erenc e What h as b ee n so finely .

said o f space an d time may be said als o o f the Socratic li f e

and the Socrati c d oct ri n e ; each was con t ai n e d e nti r e i n
every poi nt o f the oth er S uc h as he app eared to the
.

Di castery such also he app ear e d everywhere always and

, , ,

to all men o ff erin g them the truth th e whole tru th an d

, , ,

nothin g but the truth I f conduct like his w as n ot p ermi s

.

sibl e i n a court o f law then i t was n ot p ermi ss ible at all ;

,

i f j ustice could n ot b e ad ministered without reti c e nces ,

evasions and d isg uises where w as si n c erity ever to b e p rac

, ,

t is e d ? I f reaso n was not to b e the p aramou nt arb itress i n

questi on s o f publi c interest what i ssues could ever be ,

entrusted t o her decision ? Ad mit eve ry e x tenuatin g cir

c u ms t an c e t hat the utmost in g enuity can d evise and f rom ,

every point o f view one f act will com e out clearly that ,

S ocrates was i mp eached as a phi losopher that he de f ended ,

hi msel f li k e a philosopher and that he was condemned to ,

I n th e Aj mng f rz ’
att ri b u t e d t o X e n o ph o n .
TH E PLA CE OF S O CRA TE S 1 1V GREEK PH I L O S OPH Y . 16 7

d eath be c ause he was a philosopher Those w h o attempt to .

remove this stain f ro m the character o f the Athenian peopl e

will find that like the blood stain o n B lu ebeard s key when
,
-
’

it i s rubbed ou t on on e sid e i t reappears on the other To .

pu nish S ocrates f o r h i s teachin g o r f o r the w ay in whi ch he,

de f ended his teachi ng was equally persecution and p e rs e c u

, ,

tion o f the worst description that which attacks not th e ,

results o f f ree thou gh t but f ree thou ght itsel f We can not .

then a g ree with Grote when he says that the co ndemnation

o f Socrates ou g ht to c ou nt as on e o f the least g loo my items
O n the c ontrary it i s
’
i n an essentially g loomy c atalog u e .
,

the g loomiest o f any because it reveals a d epth o f hatred f o r

,

pure reaso n in vul g ar minds which m i g ht otherwise have re

mained unsuspected There i s so me e x cuse f o r oth er p erse
.

c u t o rs f o r C ai aphas and S t Domi nic and C alvin : f o r the I n

, ,
.
,

q u i s i t i o n and f o r the authors o f the dra g onnad es f o r the

,

j ud ge s o f Giordano Bru no and the j ud g es o f V anini : they

,

were strivin g to e x termi nate pa rticular op i n i ons w hich they ,

believed to be both f alse and pernicious ; there i s no such

e x cuse f o r the Athen ian d icasts least o f all f o r those ei ghty,

who havin g p ronou nced S ocrates inno c ent sentenced hi m to

, ,

d eath be c ause he reasserted hi s i nnocence ; if i nd eed inno , ,

c ence be not too weak a word to describe his li f e lon g battle -

a g ainst that v ery irreli g ion and corruption which were laid t o
his charg e H ere i n thi s one cause the g reat c entral issu e
.
, ,

between two abstract prin ciples the principle o f authority ,

and the principle o f reason was cleared f ro m all adventitious

,

circu mstan ces and d isputed on its own intrinsic merits w it h

,

the usual weapons o f arg u ment on the on e sid e and brute

f orce on the other O n that issue S ocrates was fi nally
.

condemned and on it his j ud ges mu st be cond emned by

,

us.

N either can we ad mit G ro t e s f urther c ontention that i n ’

no Greek c ity but Athens would Socrates have been per

mit t e d to carry on his cross examinin g a c tivity f o r so lon g a
-
 16 8 THE G REEK PH I L O S O PH E RS .

period O n the contrary we ag ree with C olonel Mu re that i n

.
, ,
‘

n o other state would he have been mol ested Xenophanes an d .

Parmenides H e ra c le it u s and Democritu s had g iven utterance

, ,

to f a r bolder opi n ions tha n his opinions radically destructive

,

o f Greek reli g ion apparently without runn in g the sli ghtest

,

personal risk while Athens had more than onc e be f ore

sho w n the same spirit o f f anatical intolerance thou g h without ,

p roceedin g to such a f atal e x treme thanks probably to the , , ,

time ly escape o f her i ntend ed victi ms M E rnest R enan h as . .

quite recently contrasted the f reed om o f thou g ht accorded by

R oman d espotism with the narrowness o f old Greek R epub
lic an i s m quotin g what he calls the Athenian I nquisiti on as a
,

sample o f the latter The word in qu isition is not too stron g

.
,

only the lecturer should not have led his aud ience to believe
that Greek R epubli canis m was in thi s respect f airly re p re
sented by i ts most brilliant type f o r had su ch been the case ,

very lit tle f ree thou g ht would have been le f t f o r R o me to

tolerate .

Du rin g the month s respite a c cid entally allowed hi m

’

S ocrates had c u e more O pportu n ity o f d isplayin g that sted f as t

obed ience to the law which had bee n on e o f his g reat g uidin g
pri nciples throu g h li f e The means o f escapin g f rom p rison
.

were o ff ered to him but he re f used to avail hi msel f o f them

, ,

a ccordin g to Plato that the i mplicit contract o f loyalty to which

,

his c iti zenship had bound hi m mi ght be preser ve d unbrok e n .

Nor was d eath unwelcome to hi m altho ug h it is not true that

he courted it any d esire to fi g ure as a m artyr bein g quite
,

alien f ro m the noble simpl icity o f his character But he had .

reached an ag e when the d aily g rowth i n wisdom which f o r

hi m alon e m ade li f e worth livin g seemed likely to be e x ,

chan g ed f o r a g rad ual and m elancholy d ecline That this .

past pro g ress was a g ood i n i tsel f he never d oubted w hether ,

it was to be continued in other worl d s or su cceeded by t h e ,

happiness o f an eternal sleep And we may be s ure that h e .

1
ll m f o G r L IL , 1 v
. .
, App . A .
170 THE GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

better sou rce o f inspiration combined with d iscipline coul d

, ,

be f ound bu t we shall u nderstand an d appreciate Plato still

better by first e x t ricatin g the n ucleus round which his s p e c u
l at i o n s have g athered in successive d eposits and this we can ,

only d o wi th the help o f Xenophon whose littl e work also ,

well d ese rv es attention f o r the sake o f its own chaste and

c andi d beauty The relation i n which it stands to the
.

Platonic writin g s may be symbolised by an e x ample f amiliar

to the e x perien ce o f every traveller As sometimes i n visit .
,

i n g a G othic cathed ral we are led throu gh the wond ers o f the
,

more modern e d i fi c e — u nd er soarin g arches over t esselated ,

pavements and between lon g rows o f clu stered colu mns past
, ,

f rescoed walls storied wind ows carven pul p its and sepulchral
, , ,

monuments with thei r endless wealth o f mytholo g i c i ma g ery

,

—
down into the oldest portion o f any t h e bare stern crypt , ,

severe with the si mplicity o f early art restin g on pillars taken ,

f rom an ancient temple an d enclosin g the to mb o f som e

,

martyred saint to whose g lorified spirit an o f fice o f perpetual

,

i ntercession be f ore the mercy seat is assi g ned and i n whose

-

honour all that e x ternal mag nificence has been piled up so

also we pass throu g h the mani f old and marvellou s constru e
tions o f Plato s i ma g i nation to that austere memorial wh ere
’

X enophon has enshrined wit h pious care under the g reat ,

pri mary d ivisions o f old H ellen i c vi rtue an authentic reliq u ary ,

o f on e standi n g f oremost amo n g those w h o havin g worked ,

ou t thei r own d el iverance f rom the powers o f error and evil ,

would n ot be saved alon e bu t p ublished the sec ret o f re d e mp

,

tio n thou g h death were the penalty o f its d isclosu re ; and

w h o by thei r t ransmitted influ ence even more than by thei r
, ,

eternal e x ampl e are still contributin g to the pro g ressive

,

d evelopment o f all that is most rational most c onsistent most , ,

social an d there f ore most t ru ly human in ou rselves

, .
 C H APT E R IV .

PLA T O : H I S T E A C H E R S A ND H I S T I ME S .

I .

IN studyin g the g rowth o f philosophy as an historical e v o l u

tion repetition s and anticipation s must necessarily be o f
,

f requen t occurrence . I d eas meet u s at e v ery step w hich can

only be app reci ated when we trace out their later develop
ments or only understood when we re f er them back to
,

earlier and hal f f org otten modes o f thou ght The speculative
-
.

tissue i s w oven out o f filaments so d elicate and so compli cated

that it is al most i mpossible to say where one be g ins and the
other ends E ven conceptions w hich seem to have been
.

t rans mitted witho ut alteration are constantly acquirin g a

n ew value accordin g to the conne x ions into which they ente r
o r the circu mstances to which they are applied . Bu t i f th e
m ethod o f evol ution with its two g reat principles o f con
,

t i n u i t y and relativity substitutes a m aze o f i ntricate lines

, ,

o f ten returnin g on themselves f o r the strai ght path alo n g

,

which prog ress w as once supposed to move we are more ,

than compensated by th e new sen se o f coherence an d

rati onality w here illu sion and e x travag ance onc e seemed t o
rei g n sup reme I t teaches u s that the d rea ms o f a g reat
.

intell ect may be better worth our attention than th e wakin g

perceptio n s o f o rd inary me n C ombinin g f ra g ments o f the
.

old ord er w ith rudi mentary outlines o f the new they lay open ,

th e secret laboratory o f spiritual che mistry and help to brid g e ,

over the inte rval separatin g the most wid ely contrasted
phases o f li f e and thou ght M oreover when we have onc e
.
,

accustomed ourselves to break up past systems o f philosophy

1 72 THE GREEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

into thei r com p onen t elements when we see how hetero ,

g e n e o u s and ill cemented were the parts o f thi s an d that

-

p roud ed ifice once o ff ered as the on ly possible shelter a ainst g

d an g ers threatenin g the very e x istence o f civi lisation — w e

shall b e prepared f o r the application o f a si milar m ethod t o
contemporary systems o f equally ambitious pretensions ;
d istin g u ishin g that which i s vital f ruit f ul o rig inal and pro , , ,

g re s s i v e in thei r id eal synthesis f rom that whi ch i s o f merely

provisional and tempora ry valu e when it is not the litera ry ,

resu sci tatio n o f a d ead past vision ary retrog rad e and mis, , ,

c h i e v o u s ly wron g And we shall also be remi nded that the

.

most precious id eas have o n ly been shaped preserved and , ,

trans mitted th rou gh association with earthy and perishabl e

i n g redients The f un ction o f true criticism is like R obert
.
,

’
B rownin g s R oman j eweller to t u rn on them the proper ,
‘

’
fi ery acid o f puri fyin g analysis which d issolves away the
i n f erior m etal and leaves behind the g old rin g whereby
thou ght and action are inseparably an d f ruit f ull y u nited .

S uch as it see ms to us is the proper spirit i n which we

, ,

should approach the g reat thinker whose works are to occupy

u s in this an d the su cceedin g chapter N o philosopher has .

ever o ff ered so e x tended and vulnerable a f ront to hostil e

c riticism None has so habitually p rovoked reprisals by h is
.

own incessant and searchin g attacks o n all e x istin g p ro f e s

sions cu sto ms and belie f s I t mi g ht even be maintained that
, , .

n on e has used the weapons o f controversy with more u n

scrupulous zeal A nd i t mi ght be add ed that he w h o dw e lls
.

so much on the i mportanc e o f consisten c y has o ccasion al ly

d enounced and rid iculed the very p rinciples which h e else
where uphold s as d emon strated truths I t w as an easy .

m atter f o r others to com p lete the work o f d estruction wh ich

h e had be g u n H is system seems at fi rst si ght to be m ad e
.

up o f assertions o n e more outra g eous than another The

, .

asc ription o f an obj e c tive c oncrete separate reality to verbal

abstra c ti ons is assuredly the most astou ndin g parado x ever
 THE G REEK P H I L O S O PH E RS .

A plain man m i g ht find it d i fficult to u n derstand h o w

“

s uch e x travag ances could be deliberat ely propou nded by the

g reatest inte l lect that Athens ever produced e x cept o n the ,

p rin ciple dear to

,
mediocrity that g enius is bu t little removed ,

f ro m mad ness and that philosophical g eni us resembles i t

,

more nearly than any other And his su rprise wou l d beco me .

m uch g reater on learnin g that the best and wisest men o f all
a ges have looked up with reverence to Plato ; that thinkers
o f the most opposite schools have resorted t o hi m f o r i n s t ru c

tion and sti m u lation that his writin g s have never been mor e
att entively studied than i n our own ag e —an ag e which has
witnessed the destructio n o f so many i l lusive reputations and
that the f ore most o f E n g lish educators has u sed all hi s
i nfluence to promote the better understan d in g and ap p re c i a
tion o f Plato as a prime element in academi c cultu re — an i n
flu e n c e n o w e x tended f a r beyond the li mits o f his own
university throu gh that translat ion o f the Platonic D ialog ues
which is too well known to need any commend ation on ou r
part but which we may mention as o ne o f the pri nc ipal
,

authorities used f o r the present study to g ether with the work ,

o f a German schol ar his obli g ations to who m Pro f J owett , .

has acknowled g ed with characteristic g race l .

As a set o ff ag ainst the list o f parado x es cited f ro m Plato

-

it would be easy to qu ote a still lon g er li st o f bri lliant con

t ri b u t i o n s to the cause o f truth and ri ght to strike a balance ,

bet w een the t w o and to show that there was a prepond eran ce
,

on the positive sid e su ffi ciently g reat to j usti f y the f avou rabl e

verdict o f posterity We believe however that such a method
.
, ,

would be as misleadin g as it is superfic ial Neither Plato .

nor any other t hinker o f the same cali bre if any other there -

b e — should be esti mated by a si mple analysis o f his opinions .

We mu st g o back to the u nderlyin g f orces o f which i nd ivid ual

1
T lz e D i al og u es o f Pla f o tra n s l a t ed i n to E n g /i n t . By B . J o w e t t, M A z u d
Z Z
. .

ed .
,
18 75 . Die
e l l e r, a er
’
G ri er/z e n. w e i te r T h e i l , e rs te A b t he i l u n
g .

Pl a to a n d d i e (l l/e A m aemz e grd e d 18 7

’
’
5 ,
.
, .
 PLA T O : H I S TEA CHERS A ND H I S 77111 5 5 . 175

O pinions are the resultant and the re v elation E very syste .

mati c synthesis represents c ertai n pro f ound intellectu al ten d

e n c i e s derived pa rtly f ro m p revious philosophies partly f ro m
, ,

the soci al environ ment p artly f ro m the thinker s own g eni us

,
’

and charact e r E ach o f such ten dencies may be s alutary and

.

n ecessa ry accord in g to the cond ition s under which it comes

,

into play and yet two or more o f them may f orm a hi ghly
,

u nstable and e x plosive co mpound Nevertheless i t is in .

,

specu lative c ombination s that they are preserved an d developed

with the g reatest distinctness and it is there that w e must seek
,

f o r them if we would und erstand the psycholo g ical histo ry o f

ou r race An d this is why we be gan by i ntimatin g that the
.

l ines o f our investi g ation may take us ba c k over g rou nd which

has been already traversed and f o rward into reg i ons which
,

cannot at present be completely surv eyed .

We have this g reat advanta g e in d ealin g with Plato—that

his philosophi cal writin g s have co me d own to u s entire whil e ,

the thinkers who preceded hi m are known only throu gh

f ra g ments and second hand repo rts
-
Nor is the d i ff erenc e
.

merely accid ental Plato was the creator o f speculative

.

literature properly so c alled : he w a s the fi rst and also the

,

g reatest artist that ever clothed abstract thou g ht in lan g ua g e o f

appropriate maj esty an d splend our ; and it i s probably t o
thei r beauty o f f orm that we owe the preservatio n o f his
writin g s . R ather u n f ortu nately however alon g w ith the
, ,

g enu ine works o f the master a certain nu mber o f pi eces have

,

been hand ed down t o u s under his n ame o f which som e are ,

al most universally admitted to be spu rious while the a n the m ,

t i c it y o f others is a question o n w hich the best scholars are

still divided I n the absence o f any very co g ent e x ternal
.

evid ence an i mmense amount o f i ndu stry and l earnin g has

,

been e x pended on this subj ect and the arg uments employed
,

o n both sides sometimes make us doubt whether the reason

i n g powers o f philolo g ists are better d eveloped than a ccord ,

i n g to Plato were those o f mathematicians i n his ti me

,
The .
 176 THE GREEK PH IL OS OPH E RS .

two e x treme positions are occup ied by G rote w h o a c cepts the ,

whole Ale x and rian canon and K rohn who ad mits nothin g bu t , ,

‘
the R ep z z b l z c ; while much more serious critics such as ,

Schaarschmidt rej ect alon g with a mass o f w orthless compo

,

s i t i o n s seve ral D ialo g u es al most equal i n interest an d import

ance to those whose authenticity has n ever been doubted .

The g reat histori a n o f Greece seems to have been rather

u ndiscriminatin g both i n his scepti cism and in his belie f ; and
the e x clusive i mportance which he attributed to contemporary
testimony or to what passed f o r such with him may have
, ,

und uly bi assed his j ud g ment in both d irectio ns As it .

happens the authority o f the c anon is m uch weaker than

,

Grote i mag ined ; but even g rantin g his e x tre me contentio n ,

’
ou r view o f Plato s philosophy would n o t be seriously a ff ected
by it f o r the pieces which are rej ected by all other critics ha v e
,

n o speculative i mportan ce w h atever The case w ould be f ar .

d i ff erent were we to ag ree with those who impu g n the

g enuin eness o f the Pa rmen i d es the Sop/z z s t the Sta tes ma n
'

, , ,

the P/z z lé b u s and the L a w s f o r these com position s mark a

'

n ew d epart ure in Platonism a mou ntin g to a c omplete trans

f ormation o f its f undamental principles which ind eed i s one ,

of the reaso n s why thei r authenticity has been d enied .

Apart however f ro m the n umerous evid ences o f Platonic

, ,

authorship f u rnished by the Di alog ues themselves as w ell as ,

by the i ndirect re f erences to them i n A ristotle s writi n g s it ’

seems utterl y incred i b le that a thinker scarcely if at all , ,

in f erior to the master hi msel f — as the supposed imitato r m ust

assu red ly have been — should have consented to let his
reasonin g s pass current under a f alse n ame and that too , , ,

the name o f on e whose teachin g he i n som e respects con

t ro v e rt e d while there i s a f u rther d i fficulty i n a ssumin g that
his e x istence c ould pass un noticed at a period marked by
i ntense literary and philosophical activity R eaders who .

D er P/a f omrc /z e Sl an t H alle 18 76 [I k n o w th i s w o rk o n ly t h ro u gh

'

K ro h n , ,
.

C h i ap e ili , Del/a I n l a y m[ ma t /[m a i P/a/o n e, Fl o re n c e ,

'
’
/i re/a s z o in e
 TH E GREEK PH I L OS O PH E R S .

memoran da use f u l f o r private re f eren ce but the only i n

'

struction wo rth speakin g o f was c onveyed by oral c o m muni

cation which made it possible f o r obj ection s u n f oreseen by
,

the tea c her to be f reely u rged and S uc h had

'
‘

been the met hod o f Socrates and suc h was doubtless the ,

practice o f Plato hi msel f whenever i t w as possible f o r hi m to

set f orth his philosophy by word o f mouth I t has been .

supposed f o r this reason that the g reat writer d id not take

, ,

his own books i n earnest and wished the m to be reg arded as

,

no more than the eleg ant rec reations o f a leisure hour while ,

his d eeper and more serious thou g hts were rese rv ed f o r

lectu res and c onversations o f whi c h beyond a f e w al lusions
, ,

i n Aristotle e v ery record has perished That such however

,
.
, ,

was not the case may be easily shown I n the fi rst plac e i t
,
.

is evident f rom the e x treme pa i ns taken by Plato to throw

,

his philosophical exposition s i nto c onversational f orm that ,

he d id not d espa i r o f providin g a literary substitute f o r

spoken dialog ue S e c ondly it i s a stron g c onfirmatio n o f
. .

this theory that Aristotle a personal f rien d and pupil o f

,

Plato d urin g many years should so f requently re f er to the

,

Dialo g ues as authoritative evid en ces o f his m aster s opinio ns ’

on the most importan t topics And lastly i f i t can be .

, ,
.

shown that the documents in question do actually e mbody a

c omprehensi v e and connected V i ew o f li f e and o f the world ,

we shall f eel satisfied that the oral teachin g o f Plato had i t ,

been preserved would not modi f y i n any materi al d eg ree the

,

i mpress i on c onveyed by h i s w ritten compos i t i ons .

II .

There is a story that Plato u sed to thank the g ods in ,

what some mi g ht c onsid er a rather Pharisaic spirit f o r hav in g ,

mad ehi m a human bein g instead o f a brute a man i nstead o f

"

a woman and a Greek instead o f a barbarian but more than

,

Pb aed r .
, p . 274 B ff .
 L
P A TO : H I S TE A CH E RS A ND H I S TI z l/I E S . 179

anythin g else f o r havin g permitted him to be born i n the

‘

ti me o f Socrates I t wi ll be observed that all these blessi n g s

.

tended i n one di re c tion the complete supremacy i n his

,

cha ra c ter o f reason over i mpulse and sense To assert .

,

ex tend and org anise that supremacy was the obj ect o f his
,

whole li f e S u c h , i nd eed had been the obj ect o f all his

.
,

pred e c essors and such stated g enerally has been al w ays an d

, , ,

e v e rywhere the obj ect o f philosophy but non e had pu rs u ed

i t so c o n s c i Ou s ly be f ore and non e has proclai med i t so
.
,

enthus i astically sin c e then No w alth ou g h Plato c ould no t

.
,

have don e this without a f ar wid er ran g e o f k nowled g e an d

experienc e than Socrates had possessed i t was only by ,

virtue o f the Socratic method that his other g i f ts and

acquisition s c ould be turned to complete a c count ; while ,

conversely it was only when brou ght to bear upon these new
,

mate rials that the f ull power o f the method itsel f c ould b e
revealed To be continually askin g and answeri n g questions
.

to elicit in f ormation f ro m everybody o n every subj ect worth

knowin g and to elaborate the resultin g mass o f intellect u al
material into the most c onveni ent f orm f o r p ra c tic al app l ica
tion or f o r f u rther transmission was the secret o f true wi sdo m ,

with the sag e o f the mark et place and the workshop B ut -

the pro c ess o f d ialecti c i nvesti g ation as an end i n itsel f th e ,

i ntense personal i nterest o f co nversation with livi ng men and

women o f all c lasses the i mpatience f o r i m medi ate and vi sible
,

results had g radu ally ind uced S ocrates to restri ct wi thin f a r

,

too narrow limits the sour c es whence his id eas w ere d erived
an d the pu rposes to which they were appli ed An d the .

d ialectic m ethod itsel f could not but be checked in its internal

d evelopment by this want o f b read th and variety i n the
top i cs submitted to its g rasp There f ore the d eath o f .

S o c rates however lamentable in its occasion was an u n

, ,

mi x ed benefit to the cause f o r which he labou red by arrest ,

i n g (as w e must suppose it to have a rrested ) the popular a n l

'

i nd isc riminate employment o f his c ross e x aminin g meth o d -

,
 1 80 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

liberatin g his ablest d isciple f ro m the asc enden c y o f a r evered

mast er and inducin g hi m to re c onsider the whole qu estion Of
,

hu ma n knowled g e and a c tion f rom a remoter point o f v iew

'

For be it observ ed that Plato d id not be g i n where Socrates

,

had le f t o ff ; he went back to the g erminal point o f the

whole system and proceed ed to rec on st ru c t i t o n new lines
,

o f his own Th e loss o f those whom we lov e habitually leads

.

ou r thou ght s back to the ti me o f ou r fi rs t a c qu ain t an c e with

'

them or if these are ascertai nable to the ci rc u mstan c e s o f

, , ,

the i r early li f e I n this man ner Plato seems to hav e been at

.

first oc c upied ex c lusively with the startin g point o f hi s -

f riend s philosophy and we know f ro m the narrative g i v en i n

’

, ,

the Ap ol og z a under what f orm h e came to c o n ceive it We

'

, .

have attempted to show that the ac c ount al luded t o c an n ot

be entirely histori cal N evertheless i t seems su ffi c ie ntly
'

clear that S oc rates beg an wi th a con vic tio n o f his own ‘

i g norance and that his e ff orts to improve o thers were

,

pre f aced by the extraction o f a si milar c on f e ssi on o f i g norance

o n thei r part I t is als o c ertai n that throu g h li f e he reg arded
.

the causes o f p hysical —phenomen a as placed b eyo nd the

reach o f hu man reason an d res erved by the g od s f o r thei r
own e x clusive c og nisan c e pointin g by way o f proo f to the , , ,

notorious di ff eren c es o f op i n i on prevalent amon g those who

had meddl ed with su c h matters Thus his sc eptici sm .
,

worked in two directions but on the one sid e it was only ,

pro v isional and on the other it was only part ial Pla to beg an .

by combinin g the two H e maintai ned that h u man nesci enc e.

i s u ni v ersal and ne c essary ; that the g od s had reserv e d all

knowled g e f o r themselves ; an d that the On ly wi sdom l e f t
f o r men is a c ons c iousness o f thei r absolute i g noran c e The .

S o c rati c start in g point g av e the c entre o f his ag nostic circle

-

the Socratic theolog y g av e the d istance at whic h i t was

d es c ribed H ere we have to note two thin g s— fi rs t the
. ,

breadth o f g eneralisation which d istin g uishes the d iscip le

f ro m the master ; and sec ond ly the symptom s o f a stron g
“

, ,
18 2 TH E GR E EK PH I L O SO PH E R S .

satisfied by the earli er or the later f aiths o f mankind we ,

cannot say that i t really e x c luded them The u n f ad in g .

stren g th o f the old g ods was comprehended i n the sel f

e x ist en c e o f absolute id eas and moral g ood ness w as only a
,

particular appli c ation o f reason to the c onduct o f li f e An

'

emotional or i ma g i native elem ent was also contributed by

the theo ry that e v ery f aculty exercised without a reasoned
c onsciou sness o f its pro c esses and ai ms was d u e to so me
savin g g ra c e and inspiration f rom a superhu man power I t .

was thus ac c ord in g to Plato that poets an d art ists were abl e
, ,

to produce works o f which they were not able to rend er an

i ntelli gent account and i t was thus that society continued to
hold to g ether w i t h su ch an e x c eedin g ly small amount o f
wisdo m and vi rtue H ere however we have to observ e a
.
, ,

m arked d i ff erence between the reli g ious t eachers pure and

simpl e and the Greek philosopher w h o was a d ialectician
,

e ven m ore than he was a d i v ine For Plato held that .

p rovid enti al g overn ment w as merely provisional ; that the

i nspi red prophet stood on a d i stinctly lower lev el than the
critical sel f con sciou s thinker ; that ratiocination and not
,
-

poetry was the hi ghest f unction Of mind ; and that action

should be reorg anised i n accord ance with demonstrably
‘
c ertai n principles .

This search a f ter a scientific bas i s f o r c ondu ct was quite

i n the s pirit o f S o c rates but Plato seems to have set very
,

'
littl e val ue on his master s positive contributions to the sys
t e ma t i s a t i o n o f li f e \Ve have seen that the Ap o l og z a is purely
'

scepti cal i n its tend ency ; and w e fi nd a whole g roup o f Dia

lo g n es probably the earliest o f Plato s compositions marked
,
’

by the same neg ative in conclusi v e tone These are com monly
, .

spoken o f as Soc ratic and so no doubt they are i n re f erence

,

to the subj ects d iscussed but they would be more accurately

d escribed as an attempt to tu rn the Socrat i c method a g ainst
i ts first ori g inator We know f ro m another sou rce that tem
.

Se e Z e lle r s n o te o n t h e
’ ’ h

Ge i a h o pa, o f . ( it p
. .
4 97.
 L
P A TO : H I S TE A CH E R S A ND H I S TI ME S .
3

p
e ran c e , f orti tud e
an d piety were
, the c hie f v irt ues inculcated
and pra c ti sed by S ocrates ; whil e f riend ship i f not strictly ,

speak i n g a virtue was equally with them one o f his p rim e

,

interests i n l i f e I t is cl ear that he c onsid ered th em the most

. -

appropriate and remunerative subj e c ts o f philosop h i cal di s c us

sion that he could d efine thei r nature to his own satis faction
and that he h a d in f act d efined them as so many v arieties o f
, ,

wisdom N ow P lato has de v oted a separate D ialogu e to each

.
,
-

Of the c onc eptions in question and in each i nstan c e he re p re

‘
,

sents So c rates who i s t h e pri ncipal spokesman as p ro f essed ly

, ,

i g norant o f th e whol e subj ect u nd er d is c ussion o ff erin g n o

d efinition o f his own (or at least non e that he W l l l stand by) ,

but askin g hi s interloc utors f o r thei rs an d pullin g it to ,

pie c es w hen it i s g iven We d o i nd eed fin d a tenden cy

.
, ,

to resolve the vi rt ues i nto knowled ge and so f ar either to , , ,

id enti f y them with one another or to c arry them up into the ,

un ity o f a hi gher id ea To this extent Plato f ollows i n the

.

f ootsteps o f hi s master but a result which had c ompletely

,

satisfied Socrates became the startin g point o f a new investi -

g a t i o n with his successor If v i rtue is knowl ed g e i t must be

.
,

knowled g e o f what w e most d esi re — o f the g ood Thus the .

ori g i nal di ffi c ulty retu rn s under another f orm or rather we ,

have merely restated i t in di ff erent terms Fo r to ask what .

,

i s temperan c e or f ortitud e is equivalent to askin g what i s its

,

use And thi s was so obviou s to S ocrates that apparently he

. , , ,

never thou g ht o f distin g ui shin g between the two question s .

But no sooner were they d istin gu ished than his reduction o f all
mo rality to a sin gle principle was shown to be illusive For .

each specific virtu e had been substituted the k n o w l e d g e o f a

sp ecifi c utility and that w as all U nless the hi ghest g ood
,
.
-

were one the means by w hich it w as so u ght could not c on

,

verg e to a sin g le point ; n o r a c cordin g to the n ew id eas , ,

could thei r mastery c o me u n d e r the j urisdiction o f a sin gle

art.

L ac /105 , E rr/layf lz ro , an d
'

1
T he 5 1s
 TH E G RE EK PH I L O S O PH E R S
’

1 84 .

We may also s u spe c t that Plato was di ssat i sfied not only
with the positive results obta i ned by Socrates but also w i th ,

the So c ratic method o f constru c tin g g eneral d efi nitions To .

rise f rom the part to the whole f ro m parti c ular i nstan c es to

,

g eneral not i ons w as a popular rather tha n a s c i e ntific proc ess

,

and someti mes i t only amou nted to takin g the cu rrent e x p la

nations and modi f y i n g them to suit the exi g enc i es o f ordin a y r

exper i en c e The resu lt i n g d efinitions c oul d never be more

.

than tentat iv e and a skil f ul d ialec tician c ould always upset

,

the m by prod ucin g a n u nlooked — f o r e x c eption or by d iscover ,

in g an a mbi g u i ty i n the terms by whic h they w ere c onveyed ;

Be f ore as c erta i nin g i n what direction Plato sou g ht f o r a n
o u tlet f ro m these a cc u mulated di ffi culties we have t o g lance ,

at a Dialo g ue belon gin g apparently to his earl i est composition s ,

b u t i n one respe c t oc c upyin g a position apart f ro m the rest .

The Crz i o tells us f o r what reasons So c rates re f u sed to escape

'

f ro m the f ate which a w aited hi m in prison as with the assist . ,

an ce o f g enerous f riend s he mi g ht easily hav e d one The

, .

aged ph i losopher c onsidered that by adoptin g s u ch a cou rse

he wo uld be settin g the Athenian l aws at defiance and d oin g ,

what i n hi m lay to d estroy their validity N ow we know

‘

.
,

that the historical S o c rates h e ld j u sti c e to consist in obed ience

to the law o f the land and here f o r on c e we find Plato ag ree
i n g with hi m on a d efinite and po s i t i ve issu e S uch a sudd en .

and sin g ular abandonment o f the sceptical att i tude merits our
’
attention I t mig ht i ndeed be said that Plato s i n c o n s is t
.
, ,
~

e n c i e s de f y all attem pts at r e conci li ation an d that i n thi s

,

i nstanc e the d esire to set hi s m ali g ned f riend i n a f avou rable

li ght triu mph ed over the claim s o f u n i mpracticable lo g i c .

We think however that a d eeper an d tru e r solution can be

, ,

f ound . I f the 0 77 0 i nculcates obed ien ce to the laws as a

bi ndin g obli g ation it i s n ot f o r the reason s which accord in g

, ,

to Xenophon were ad duced by the real Socrates i n his

,

d ispute with th e S ophist H ippias ; g eneral utility and private

i nterest were the sol e g roun d s appealed to then Plato on .
,
1 86 TH E GREEK PH I L O SO PH E R S .

I ndeed , me o f the v erbal f alla c ies e mployed are so trans

so

p arent that we can hardly suppose them t o be unintentional ,

and w e are f orced to con c lud e that the youn g despiser o f

human w i sdom was resolved to maintain his thesi s with any
weapons g ood o r bad which c ame to ha nd And it seem s
, , .

mu c h more likely that he learned the eristic art f rom

Protag oras or f rom his d isc iples than f rom Socrates Plato .

spent a larg e part o f his l i f e i n opposin g the Sophists — that

is to s ay the paid pro f essors o f wi sdom and virtue ; but i n
“

spite o f or rather perhaps because o f this very opposition he

, , ,

was pro f ound ly a ff e c ted by their teachin g and example I t i s .

quite c on c eivable althou g h we d o not find it stated as a f act

, ,

that he resorted to them f o r instruction when a youn g man ,

and be f ore comin g under the i nfluence o f Socrates an event ,

whic h d id not take pla c e until he was twenty years old or he

m ay have been d i rected to them by Soc rates himsel f With .

all its ori ginality his style bears traces o f a rhetorical

,

t rainin g in the more elaborat e passa g es and the S ophists ,

were the only teachers o f rhetoric then to be f ound H is .

habit o f c lothin g philosophical less o ns i n the f orm o f a myth

seems also to have been borro w ed f rom them I t would .
,

there f ore not be su rpri sin g that he should c ultivate thei r

,

arg u mentative leg erd emain side by sid e with the more strict
and severe d iscipline o f Socratic d ialectics .

Plato does n o d oubt make it a charg e a gai nst the

, ,

Sophists that thei r doctrines are not only f alse and i mmoral ,

b u t that they are put to g ether without any reg ard f o r lo g ical
coherenc e I t would seem however that thi s style o f attack
.
, ,

b elon g s rather t o the later and constructive than to the

‘

earli e r a n d re c eptive period o f hi s i ntellectual d evelopment .

The ori g in al c ause o f his antag onism to the pro f essional

teachers seem s t o have been their g eneral pretensions to
knowled g e which f ro m the standpoint o f universal scepticism
, , ,

were o f course u tterly illusive ; tog ether with a f eelin g o f

, ,

aristocratic contempt f o r a callin g in which considerations o f

 PL A TO H I S TE A CH E R S A ND H I S TI ME S . 1 87

pecuni ary interest w e re i n v ol v e d hei ghtened in thi s instanc e

‘

by a convi ction that the buye rreceived nothin g better than a

sham article in e x chan g e f o r his money H ere ag ain a .
, ,

parallel su ggests itsel f with the first prea chin g o f the Gospel .

The attitude o f Christ toward s the s c ribes and Pharisees as ,

also that o f St Pa u l toward s S i m

. o n Ma g us w il l help us t o ,

u nderstand how Plato i n another orde r o f spi ritu al teachin g

, ,

m u st have reg ard ed t he hypocrisy o f wisdom the i ntrusion ,

o f f raud ulent traders into the temple o f Delphic inspiration ,

and the sale o f a p riceless blessin g whose u n lim ited d i ff us i o n

should have been its own and only reward .

Yet throu ghout the p hilosophy o f Plato we meet with a

tenden c y t o ambi gu ous shi f tin g s and reversions o f wh ich here ,

also d ue a c count mu st be taken That c u riou s blendin g o f

, .

love and hate which f orms th e subj ect o f a mystical ly ri c i n

M r Brownin g s Pipp a Pa s s es is not w ithout its counterpart
.
’

i n pu rely rationalistic d iscu s sion If Plato u sed the Socrati c

.

m ethod to d issolve away much that was untrue be c au s e ,

i ncomplete in Soc ratism he u sed i t also to absorb muc h that

, ,

was d ese rv in g o f d evelopment i n S ophisticism I f in on e .

,

sense the l atter was a d irect reversal o f his master s t eachin g

,
’
,

i n another i t serv ed as a sort o f intermediary between that

t eachi n g and the unenli ghtened c onsciousn ess o f m ankind .

The shadow should not be c on f ounded w i th the substan ce ,

bu t i t mi g ht show by c onti g u ity by resemblanc e an d by, ,

c ontrast w here the solid reality lay what were its o u tlines , ,

and how its charact eristi c li ghts mi g ht best be viewed .

S u ch i s the mild and conciliatory mo d e o f treatment at

fi rst a d opted by Plat o in d eali n g with the principal re p re s e n -

t a t i v e o f the Sophists — Prota g oras I n the Dialo g u e which

.

bears his name the f amous hu manist is presented to u s as a

p ro f es so r o f popular unsystematised morality provi n g by a ,

variety o f practical arg u ments and i n g eniou s illustrations that

vi rt ue can be ta u ght and that the preservation o f social o rde r
,

d epends u pon the possibil i ty o f tea c hin g it ; but unwillin g to

188 TH E G REEK PH I L O S OPH E RS .

go alon g with the reasoni n g s by which So c rates shows the

applicabili ty o f ri g orously scientific principles to conduct .

Plato has here taken up one side o f the S oc ratic ethics and
.

d eveloped it i nto a complete and sel f consistent theory The

-
.

d oc trine incul c ated is that f orm o f utilitarianism to which M r .

S id g wi c k has g iven the n ame o f eg oistic hed onism We are .

brou g ht to ad mit that virtue is one because the v ariou s

virtu es red uce themselves i n the last an alysi s to prud enc e .

I t i s assu med that happiness in the sense o f pleasu re and the

,

absence o f pai n i s the sole end o f li f e D uty is identified

,
.

with i nterest Morality i s a cal c ulus f o r co mputin g quantities

.

o f pleasure and pain an d all vi rtuou s action is a means f o r

,

securin g a max imum o f the on e to g ether with a mini mum o f

the other E thical Sc ience i s constituted ; it can be tau ght
. .

like mathematics ; and so f ar the S ophists are ri g ht but they ,

have arrived at the t ruth by a purely empirical process while

S oc rates w h o pro f esses to know nothin g by si mply f ollowin g
, ,

the d i alectic i mpulse strikes ou t a g eneralisat i on w hich at once

confirms and e x plains thei r position yet f rom sel f s u ff i ciency -

or prej udice they re f use to ag ree with hi m i n takin g their

stand o n its only log i cal f ound ation .

That Plato put f orward the ethical theory o f the Prota goras
i n per f ect g ood f aith cannot we think be doubted althou g h
, ,

i n other writin gs he has repu d iated hed onism with c o n t e mp t u

ous aversion ; and it seems equally evident that this w as his
earl iest contribution to positi v e thou g ht O f al l his theories
.

i t i s the simplest and m ost S ocratic f o r S o c rates in en ,

d e av o u ri n g to reclai m the f oolish o r vicious o f ten spoke as i f

'

sel f interest was the p aramount principle o f hu man n ature ;

-

al t hou gh had his assu mption been f ormulated as an abstract

,

p ropositio n he too mi g ht have shrunk f rom i t with somethin g

,

o f the u neasi ness attributed to Prota g oras And f rom i nternal .

evidenc e o f another description we have reason to think that -

the Dialo g ue i n qu estion is a comparativelyj uvenile prod uction ,

rememberin g always that the peri od o f youth was much more

1 90 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E RS .

wealth arose f rom havin g e x perienced those advantag es him

sel f I f the busts whic h bear his name are to be trusted he
.
,

was remarkably beauti f ul and like some other philosophers

, , ,

ve ry c are f ul o f his personal appearanc e Perhaps some .

reminis c en c es o f the ad m iration bestowed on hi msel f may be

min g led with those pictu res o f youth f ul loveliness and o f its
e x citin g e ff ect o n the im ag inations o f olde r m en which g ive
su c h g ra c e and animation to his earl iest dialog ues We kno w .

not whether as lover o r beloved he passed unscathed throu gh

the storms o f passion whi c h he has so powerf ully d escri bed ,

nor whether his apparently i ntimate acquaintan c e with them

is d ue to d ivination or to reg ret f ul e x perien ce We may pass .

by i n silen c e whateve r i s related o n this subj ect with the c er ,

tai nty that whether true o r not scandalous stori es c ould not
, ,

f ai l to be ci rculated abou t hi m .

I t was natu ral that one w h o united a g reat i ntellect to a

g lowin g temperament should turn his thou g hts to poetry .

Plato wrote a quantity o f verses — verse makin g had becom e -

f ashionable j ust then —but wisely c ommitted them to the

fl ames on makin g the acquaintanc e o f So c rates I t may well .

be do u bted whether the author Of the P/z a oa ru s and the ’

Sy mp os i u m would ever have attained eminen ce i n met rical

c o m p osition even had he lived in an ag e f a r m ore f avourable
,

to poeti c inspi ratio n than that which c am e a f ter the flowerin g

ti me o f Atti c art I t seems as i f Plato with all his f ervour
.
, ,

f ancy and d ra mati c ski ll lacked the most essenti al quality o f

, ,

a si n ger ; his finest passag es are on a level with the hig hest
poetry and yet they a re separated f ro m it by a c hasm mo re
,

easily f elt than d escribed Aristotle who m we thi nk o f as .

,

hard an d d ry and c old sometimes comes m uch nearer to the

,

t rue lyric cry And as i f to mark out Plato s style still more
.
,
’

d istinctly f ro m every other it is al so d eficient i n oratorical

,

power The philosopher evidently thou g ht that he could beat

.

the rhetorici an s on thei r o w n g rou nd ; i f the M ez z o reru n be /

g enuine he tried to d o so and f ailed ; and e v en without its

,
 PL A TO H I S TE A CH E R S A ND H I S TI M ES .

test i mony w e are entitl ed to say as much On th e stren g th o f

shorter attempts We must even take lea v e to d oubt whether
.

dialog ue properly so called was Plato s f ort e Where o n e

, ,
’
.

speaker is placed at su ch a hei g ht above the others as So c rates ,

or the E leati c St ran g er or the Athenian i n the L a w s there

, ,
,

cannot be any real convers ation The othe r interlocutors are .

g ood listeners and serv e to break the monotony o f a c on

,

t in u o u s e x position by the i r e x pressions o f assent or even by

t hei r oc cas i onal in ability to f ollow the arg u ment but g ive n o ,

real help o r stimulus And when allowed to o ff e r an O pin i on

.

o f their own they too lapse i nto a mo n olo g ue add ressed as

, , , , ,

our silent t rains o f thou g ht habitually are to an i maginary ,

auditor whose sympathy and suppo rt are ne c essary but are

also secu re Yet i f Plato s s tyle i s neither exactly poetical
.
’

nor oratorical nor c on v ersational it has a ffiniti es w i th each o f

, ,

these thre e v arieties ; it represents the co m mon root f ro m

which they sprin g and brin g s us better than any othe rs pe c i es
, ,

o f composition into i mmediate conta c t with the mi nd o f th e

,

writer The Platon ic S o c rates has eyes like those o f a por

.

trait whi ch f ollow u s wherever we turn and throu g h which ,

we can read his i n most soul wh i c h is no other than th e un i ,

versal reason o f humanity i n the d eli g hted surprise o f its first

awakenin g to sel f c onscious activity The poet th i nks and
-
.

f eels f o r us ; the o rator makes o u r thou g hts and f eelin g s his

ow n ,
and then restores the m t o us i n a c oncentrated f orm ,

‘
receivin g i n v apou r what he g i v es back i n a flood Plato .
’

removes every obstacle to the f ree de v elop ment o f o u r f aculties ;

he teaches us by his own example how to th i nk and to f eel
f o r ou rselves I f So c rates personified philosophy Plato has
.
,

reprod uced the p ersonific ati on i n artisti c f orm with such

masterly e ff e c t that its influen c e has been e x tended throu gh '

al l ag es and o v er the whole c i t i l is e d world Thi s portrait .

stand s as an i ntermediary between its o ri g i nal and the f a r

reachi n g e ff ects i nd ire c tly d ue to his d ialec ti c in spi ration like ,

that universal soul wh i ch Plato himsel f has placed between

1 92 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

the suprem e art i fi c e r and the material world that it mi ght ,

brin g the fleetin g c ontents o f space and t ime i nto harmony

with u ncreated and everl astin g i deas .

To paint So c rates at his hi ghest and his best i t was n e c e s ,

sa ry to break throu g h the narrow li m i ts o f hi s historic i n d iv i

du ality and to show how had th ey been p resented to him he
, , ,

wou ld have dealt with problems outside the exp e ri enc e o f

a ho me stayin g Athenian citizen The f ound er o f id ealism
‘

that is to say the realisation o f reason the systemati c applica

, ,

tion o f thou g ht to li f e —had succeeded in his task be c au se h e

had embodied the noblest elements o f the Atheni an D emos ,

o rd e rliness patriotism sel f control and public ity o f d ebate

, ,
-

, ,

to g ether with a receptiveintelli g ence f o r i mp rovements e ff ected

i n other s tates But j ust as the i mpulse which enabled those
.
,

qu alities to tell decisively o n Greek histo ry at a moment o f ‘

i nest i mabl e i mportanc e came f ro m the Athen ian ari stocra c y ,

with its D orian sympathies its adv entu rou s ambition and its
, ,

keen attention to f orei g n a ff ai rs so also d id Plato carryin g

, ,

the same spirit i nto philosophy brin g the d ialectic method

,

i nto contact with older and broa d er cu rrents o f speculation ,

an d employ it t o recog nise the whole spiritual activity o f hi s

rac e .

A stron g desi re f o r re f orm must al w ays be prec eded by a

d eep dissatis f actio n with thin g s as they are and i f the re f orm
is to be ve ry sweepin g the disconten t must be equally com
prehensive H ence the g re at renovators o f hu man li f e have
.

been rem arkable f o r the severity with which they have

d enounc ed the f ailin g s o f the world where they were placed ,

whether as reg ard s persons habits i nstit u tion s o rb e l ie f s Yet

, , , .

to speak o f thei r atti t u de as pessi misti c woul d eithe r be un f ai r ,

o r w ould betray an u npardon able inability to d iscri minate

b etween two utterly d i ff erent theories o f e x istence Nothin g .

c an well be more unlike the systematised pusillani mity o f

those lost souls w i thout courag e and without hop e who find
, ,

a consolation f o r thei r own f ailu re i n the belie f th at everyth in g

 1 94 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

The illustrious I talian poet an d essayist Leopard i has , ,

observ ed that the id ea o f the world as a vast c on f ed eracy

banded to g ether f o r the repression o f e v erythin g g ood an d
g reat and tru e ori g inated with jesus Christ
1
, I t is surprisin g .

that so ac c omplished a H ellenist should not have att ributed

the pr i ority to Plato I t i s t ru e that he does not speak o f
.

the world itsel f i n Le o p ard i s sense be c ause to hi m i t meant

’

somethin g d i ff erent—a d ivinely created order which it would

hav e been blasphemy to revil e but the thin g i s eve ry where
‘

present to his thou ghts u nd er othe r names and he pursues i t ,

with relentless hostility H e looks on the g reat maj ority o f

.

the hu man ra c e individ ually and soci ally i n their belie f s and
, ,

i n thei r practices as utterly c orrupt and blind ed to such an

, ,

e x tent that they are ready to turn and rend any one who
attempts to l ead them i nto a better path The many know .

not wisdo m and v i rtue and are always busy with g luttony
,

and sensu ality L ike c attle w i th their eyes always lookin g

.
,

d own and the i r head s stoop i n g not i ndeed to the earth but , , , ,

t o the d inin g table they f atten an d f eed and breed and i n

-

, ,

their e x cessive love o f these d eli ght s they ki ck and butt at

o ne another with horns and hoo f s which are m ad e o f i ron ;
f
an d they kill one another by reason o their i nsatiable lust 2 ’
.

Thei r id eal i s the man who nurses up his d esires to the utmost
i ntensi ty and procures the means f o r g rati fyin g them by
,

f raud or violence The assembled multitud e resembles a

.

stron g and fierc e brute expressin g its wishes by ina rticu late
g runts,
which the popular leaders make i t thei r business to
u n d erstan d and to c omply with A statesm an o f the h obler .

kind w h o should a ttempt to benefit the people by thwartin g

thei r f oolish appetites will b e denounc ed as a publi c enemy
by the d emag o gues and will stand no more chance o f acquittal
,

than a physic i an i f he were brou ght be f ore a j ury o f chi ld ren

by the pastry c ook
-
.

Rem i eri, l x x x i v an d lx xx v .

2
Ra ma , 586 , A . J o w e tt , III p 48 1
. .
 PL A TO : H I S TE A CH E R S A ND H I S TL WE S .
95

That an Athenian Or i ndeed any Greek g entleman

, , , ,

should reg ard the c om mon people with contempt and aversio n
was nothin g stran g e A g eneration earlier such f eelin g s
.

would have led Plato to l o ok on the ove rthro w o f d emocracy

and the establishment o f an aristocrati c g overnment as the
remedy f o r eve ry evil The u pper classes accustomed to
.
,

d ecorate themselves with compli mentary titles had actua l ly ,

c ome to believe that all who belon ged to them were parag on s
o f wis d o m and g oodness With the rul e o f the Thirty came
.

a terrible awakenin g I n a f e w months more atroci ties w ere

.

perpetrated by the oli g archs than the D emos had b een g uilty
o f i n as many g enerations I t was shown that a c complished
‘

entlemen li ke C ri t i as were o nly d i stin g ui s hed f ro m the

g
common herd by thei r g reater i mpatience o f opposition and
by the more d estru c tive f u ry o f their appetites With Plato .
,

at least al l allusions o n this h ead came to an end H e now

,
.

smiled at the claims o f lo n g d esc ent consi derin g that every ,

’

man has had thousand s and thousands o f prog enitors an d ,

amon g them have been rich an d poor k in g s and slave s , ,

’
H ellenes and barb arians m any ti mes over ; an d even the
,

possession o f a larg e l anded property ceased to i nspire hi m

with any respe ct when he compared it with the su rf ace o f the
whole earth .

There still rema i ned one f orm o f g o v ern m ent to be t r i ed ,

the despotic rule o f a sin gle i ndivi d ual I n the c ou rse o f hi s .

travels Plato came i nto contact with an able an d power f u l

specimen o f the tyrant c lass the elder Diony s iu s A nu mber
, .

o f sto ri es relatin g to their i ntercou rse have been p rese rv ed

but the di ff erent v ersi on s d isag ree v ery wid ely and no n e o f ,

them can be entirely trusted I t seems certain however .

, ,

that Pl ato g ave g reat o ff ence to the tyrant by his f reedo m o f

speech that he narrowly escaped d eath an d that he w as sold
, ,

into slav ery f rom which c ondition he was redeemed by the

,

g enerosity of A n n i c e ri s a C yr
,e n ae an phi losopher I t i s .

supposed that th e scath in g d esc ri ption i n which Plato ha s

0 2
1 96 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E R S .

held up to everlastin g in f amy the u nworthy possessor o f

absolute power —a d escription lon g a f terward s applied by
Tacitus to the vi lest o f the R om an emperors—was su ggested
by the type which had come u nd er his own observatio n i n
S icily .

O f all e x istin g c onstitutions that o f Sparta approached

'

nearest to the ideal o f Plato or rather h e reg ard ed it as the , , ,

least d egrad ed H e liked th e conservati sm o f the S partans

.
,

t h ei r ri g id d iscipline thei r hau g hty c ourag e the participati on

, ,

o f thei r dau g hters in gymnastic e x er c ises th e au sterity o f ,

thei r man ners and thei r respect f o r old age ; but h e f ou nd

,

mu ch to censure b o t h i n their ancient custom s an d i n the

'

characteristics which the possessio n o f empi re had recently

developed amon g the m H e speaks with d isapp roval o f .

their e x clu sively m il itary org anis ation o f thei r contempt f o r ,

philosophy and o f the open s anction which they g ave t o

,

p ractic es barely tolerated at Athens And he also c om ments .

on their covetousness t hei r harshn ess to i n f eriors and thei r

, ,

haste to throw o ff the restraints o f the l aw whenever d etection

1
cou ld be evad ed .

So f ar we have spoken as if Plato regarded the variou s

f alse polities existin g around hi m as so many fi x ed a n d d is
con n e c ted types This howe v er was not the case The
.
, , .

present state o f thin g s w as bad enou gh but i t threatened to ,

be c ome worse wherever worse was possible The c o n s t it u .

tions e x hibitin g a mi x tu re o f g ood and evi l contain ed within

themselves the seeds o f a f urther corruption and tended to ,

pass into the f o rm standin g n e x t i n ord e r on the d ownward

slope Spartan ti m ocra c y mu st i n time be c om e an oli garchy
’

.
,

t o oli gar c hy would succeed d emo c racy and this wo uld end i n ,

2
tyranny beyond which n o f u rther f all was possible
'

,
The .

deg raded con dition o f Syracuse seemed l i kely to be the last

outcom e o f H ellenic c ivilisation We know not how f ar the .

g loomy f orebodin g s o f Plato may have been j u stified by his

Z ll r R / VI I I n d IX
2
1
e 777
e 8
,
o
y -
,
a n h , . a .
 TH E G REEK PH I L O S O PH E R S .

seclusion f ro m evi l i nfluences o f a f e w intelli g ent youths .

H ere we may detect a remarkable d iverg en ce between hi m

and his m aster S ocrates hi m sel f a man o f the p eople did
.
, ,

not like to hear the Athen ians abused I f they went wron g; .

i t was he said the f ault o f thei r leaders

, ,
‘
But accordin g to .

Plato it was f ro m the people themselves that corruption

'

o ri g inally proceeded i t was they who instilled f alse lessons

,

i nto the most i ntellig ent minds teachin g them f rom thei r very
,

i n f ancy to pre f e r show to substan c e success to merit and , ,

pleasure to v i rtue makin g the study o f popular capric e the

sure road to power and poisonin g the very sources o f morality
,

by c i rculatin g blasphemous stories about the g od s— stori es

w hich represented them as weak sensual capricious bein g s , , ,

settin g an e x ample o f i niquity t hem sel v es and quite willin g ,

to pardon it i n m en on con di tion o f g oin g shares i n the spoil .

The poets had a g reat de al to d o with the m anu f acture o f

these d iscred itable myths an d toward s poets as a class Plato
entertained f eelin g s o f min g led ad mi ration and contempt .

As an artist he was power f ully attracted by the beauty o f

,

thei r works ; as a theolo g i an he believed them to be the ,

channels o f divine inspiration and someti mes also the ,

g uardians o f a s a c re d trad ition but as a critic he was shocked ,

at thei r i n c apacity to e x plain the m eanin g o f thei r own works ,

especially when i t was coupled with ridic ulo us p retensions to

o mniscience and he reg arded the i mitative character o f thei r
p rod uctions as illustratin g i n a particularly fla g rant manner
, ,

that substitution o f appearance f o r reality w hich accordin g t o ,

h i s p hilosophy was the d eepest sou rce o f error and evil

, .

I f private society e x erc ised a d emoralisin g i nfl ue n ce on i t s

most g i f te d me mbers and i n tu rn su ff ered a still f u rther
,

d ebasement by listen in g to thei r opinions the same f atal ,

i n te rchan g e o f corru pti on w e n t o n still more actively i n publi c

li f e so f ar at least as Athenian democracy was concerned
, , , .

The p eople would tolerate no statesman w ho d id not pampe r

X en o p h o n , Al ma , III .
, v .
, 18 .
 PL A T O H I S TE A CHERS A ND H I S TI M E S . 1 99

the i r appetites ; an d the statesmen f o r thei r own ambitious ,

purposes attend ed sol ely to the material wa nts o f the people

, .
,

entirely n eg lectin g thei r spi ritual i nterests I n this respe c t .

,

P ericles the most ad mi red o f all had been the chie f o f

, ,

sinners ; f o r he was the fi rst who g ave the p eople pay and
‘

made them i dle and co w ardly and encou rag ed them in the ,

love o f talk and o f money ’

Accordi n g ly a ri ghteous re t rib u
.
,

tion overtook him f o r at the very end o f his li f e they con

,

’
v i c t e d hi m o f the f t and almost put hi m to death
, S o i t h ad .

been with the other bo asted leaders M ilt i ades Themistocles , , ,

and C i mon all su ff ered f rom what is f alsely c alled the

in g ratitud e o f the people L ike i nj udi c i ous keepers they had
.
,

mad e the ani mal co mmitted to their c harg e fi e rc e r instead o f

g entler u ntil its savag e propensiti es were turned a ainst
g
,

themselves O r chan g in g the c omparison they were like

.
, ,

pu rveyors o f lu x u ry who f e d the State on a diet to which its

,

’
p resent ulcerated and swollen condition was d ue They
‘
.

had filled the city f ull o f harbours and docks and walls and , , ,

revenues and all that and had le f t no room f o r j ustice a n d

,

t emperance O n e only amon g the eld er statesmen A ris t e i d e s

.
’

, ,

i s e x cepted f ro m this sweepin g conde mnation and si milarly , , ,

S ocrates i s d e c lared to hav e been t h e only true stat e s man o f

1
hi s time .

O n turnin g f rom the cond u c t o f S tate a ff a i rs to the

ad mi nistration o f j ustic e i n the popular law c ou rts w e find ,

the same tal e o f iniqu ity repeated but this ti me with more ,

tellin g satire as Plato i s speakin g f ro m his own i m mediate

,

e x perience H e considers that u nde r the mani p ul at i on o f

.
,

d e x tero us pleaders j udicial d ecisions had come to be f ramed

,

with a total d isre g ard o f ri ghteousness That d isputed claim s .

should be submitted to a popul ar tri bunal and settled by

c ou ntin g h ead s w as indeed acco rd in g to his v i ew a
, , ,

virtual ad mission that no absolute stand ard o f j ustice existed ;

that moral truth varied wi th indivi dual O pin i on And this .

G o z g z as , 5 1 5 , C
'

.
,
if . J o w e t t, I L, 3 9 6 4 00 -
.
z oo TH E GREEK PH I L O S 0P11E R S .

is how the character of the lawyer had been mo ulded in

co n sequence
H e h as beco me k een an d shrewd he has l earned h o w t o fl atter
h i s mas t er in word a n d indulge h i m in deed b u t his soul is s mall
an d u n ri ghte ous H is slavish condition h as d ep rived h im o f gro w th
.

a n d up ri ght n e ss an d inde ende n ce ; d an ers an d f ears which were

p g
t o o much f o r his truth an d honesty ca me u p on h im in early ye ars ,

w hen the t endern es s o f youth w as u n equ al to the m an d he h as been ,

d riven i n to c rook ed ways f ro m th e fi rst he h as p rac tised deception

an d r e t al i atio n an d h a s beco me s t unted an d warp ed
,
A n d so he .

h as p ass ed out o f yo u t h in to manhoo d h avi n g no so u n d ness in h i m , ,

an d is n o w a s h e t h in k s a master in wisdom l
, ,
.

To m ake matters worse the ori g inal o f this unflatterin g ,

portrait was rapid ly beco min g the mo st power f ul man i n the

State I n c re as in g s p e c i al i s at io n had completely separated
.
‘

the military and politic al f un ctions which had f ormerly been

discharged by a sin gl e emin ent i ndivid ual and the business ,

o f le g islation w as also beco min g a d istinct pro f ession No .

orator c ould obta i n a hearin g i n the assembly who had not a

technical acquaintance with the subj ect o f deliberation i f i t ,

ad mitted o f techni cal treat ment which was much more f re ,

q uently the case now than i n the p recedin g g eneration As .

a consequence o f this revolution the u lti mate power o f ,

superv i s i on and control w as passin g into the hands o f the

law courts where g eneral questions c ould be discussed i n a
,

m ore popular style and o f ten f rom a wider or a more senti

,

mental point o f view They were i n f act be g inni n g to wield

.
, ,

a n authority like that e x ercised until quite lately by the

“

r e ss in modern E urope only th a t its action was much mo r e

p ,

d irect and f orm idable A vote o f the E ccl esia could only
.

d eprive a statesman o f o f fice : a vote o f the Dicastery mi g ht

d eprive hi m o f c ivil ri ghts hom e f reedom prope rty or even , , , ,

l i f e itsel f
. M oreover with the loss o f empire and the d e
,

cline o f public Spirit private interests had come to attract a

,

oportionately lar er share o f attention and u n b t ru s i v e ci t i

p r g g
1 5 m/5l m ,
77 73 A jo w e t t IV
3
1 52 2
’
.
,
. .
, ,
20 2 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E R S .

s entences passed on less puritani c al statesmen For the .

purpose o f the arg ument i t would have been su f fici ent to

s ho w that i n e x i stin g ci rcu mstances the o f fice o f public
adviser was both thankless and d an g erou s We must always .

remember that wh en Plato i s speakin g o f p ast times he is

p ro f ou ndly influenced by aristocrati c trad itions and also that ,

und er a retrospective disg uise he i s really atta c king contem

p o rary abuses . An d if even then his d enunciations seem
, ,

e x cessive thei r j ustification may be f ound i n that continued

,

d ecay o f public v i rt ue which n o t lon g a f terward s brou g ht

, ,

a bout the final catastrophe o f Athenian i ndependence .

IV .

To illustrate the relatio n in which Plato stood toward s his

own times w e have already had occasio n to d raw largely on
,

the p rod uctions o f his maturer manhood We have n o w to .

take up t h e broken thread o f ou r systemati c exposition and ,

to trace the develop ment o f his phi losophy throu g h that

wonderf ul series o f co mpositions which entitle hi m to rank
amon g the g reatest writers the mo st comprehensive thinkers
, ,

and the pu rest reli g ious teachers o f all ag es I n the presence .

of such g lo ry a mere diverg en c e o f opinion m ust not be

permitted to i nfluence ou r j ud gment H i g h above al l parti
.

c u la r truths stands the principle that truth itsel f e x ists and it ,

was f o r thi s that Plato f ou g ht I f there were others more

.

completely emancipated f ro m superstition none so persist ,

e n t ly _a e al e d to the lo i c be f ore whi ch superstition must

pp g
u lti mately vanish I f his schemes f o r the reconstruction o f
.

society i g nore m any obvious f acts they assert with unrivalled

,

f orce the necess ary supremacy o f publi c wel f are o v er private

pleasu re ; and their avowed utilitarianism o ff ers a common
g round to the rival re f ormers who wi ll have n othin g to d o
with the mysticism o f thei r metaphysical f o und ation Those .
,

ag ai n w h o hold like the youth f ul Pl ato hi msel f that the

, , ,
 L
P A TO : H I S TE A CH E RS A ND H I S TI M E S . 20 3

u ltimate interpretation o f ex istence belon g s to a scienc e

~

transcendin g hu man reason will here find the d o c trines o f ,

their reli g ion anticipated as i n a d ream And even those .

w h o standin g aloo f both f rom theolo g y and philosophy live

, , ,

as they i mag ine f o r beauty alo ne will observe with interest

, ,

how the spirit o f Greek art su rv ived i n t he d enunciation o f its

’
i dolatry and the l ig ht that never w as o n sea or land a f ter
,
‘
,

f ad in g a w ay f ro m the lower levels o f Athenia n f ancy c ame ,

O n c e more to s u flu s e the f rozen steeps o f diale c tic with its

latest and d ivi nest rays .

The g lowin g enthusiasm o f Plato i s howe v er not entirely , ,

der i ved f rom the poeti c t raditions o f his n ati v e city ; or

perhaps we should rather say that he an d the g reat writers
w h o pre c eded hi m drew f rom a co mmon f ount o f i nspiration .

M r E merson i n on e o f the most penetratin g c ritic i sms ever

.
,

‘
written on our philosopher has poi nted out the e x istence o f
t w o di stinct elements i n the Platoni c D ialo g ues —on e d i s p e r
,

sive practical prosai c the other mysti c al absorbin g centri

, , , ,
~

petal The Ameri c an scholar is however as we think quite

.
, , ,

mistaken when he attributes the second o f these te n dencies to

Asiatic i nfluenc e I t is e x tremely doubt f u l whether Plato
.

ever travelled f arther east than E gypt ; i t i s probable that

his stay i n that c o untry was not o f lon g d u rati o n and i t i s
ce rtain that he d id not acqui re a sin gle metaphysical idea
f ro m its inhabitants H e liked thei r ri g id c onservatism ; he
.

l i ked thei r institution o f a dominant pri esthood ; he liked

their system o f popular ed ucation and the place which it ,

g ave to mathematics made him look with sham e on the

swinish i g noranc e o f hi s own countrymen i n that respect 2

bu t on the whole he classes them amon g the races e x c lusively

d evoted to mon ey makin g and i n aptitud e f o r philosophy h e
-

places them f ar below the Greeks V ery d i ff erent were the .

i mpressions brou g ht home f rom hi s visits to Sicily and

T h e l e c tu re o n Plato i n R ep resen l a l i v e 1l1m .

c g 8 1 9, D Jo w c t t V
2
. .
, .
, 3 90 .
2 04 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E R S .

S outhern I taly There he became a c quainted with modes o f

.

thoug ht i n whi c h the search a f ter hidden resemblan ces and

ana l og ies was a p redomi n ant passion there the e x istence o f
a central u nity u nderlyin g all phenomena was maintained ,

as ag ainst sense and common O pinion with the i ntensity o f a,

reli g ious creed there alon e speculation was c lothed in poeti c

l an g uag e ; there first had an attempt been made to carry
thou g ht into li f e by associatin g it with a re f orm o f manners
and belie f s There t o o the arts o f danc e and son g had
.
, ,

assu med a more orderly and solemn aspect ; the c ho ru s

received i ts final c onstitution f ro m a S i c ilian master ; and the
lo f tiest strains o f Greek lyri c poetry were composed f o r reci
t a t i o n i n the streets o f S icilian cities o r at the cou rts o f

S icilian kin g s Then wi th the rise o f rhetoric Greek p rose

.
, ,
.

was elaborated by S ici lian teachers into a sort o f rhythmical

c omposition c ombinin g rich i ma gery with studied harmonies
,

and c ontrasts o f sense and sound And as t h e hold o f .

Asiati c civi lisation on eastern H ellas g rew weaker the atten ,

tion o f her f oremost spirits was more and more attracted to

this new reg ion o f wonder and ro mance Th e stream o f .

colonisation set thither i n a steady flow ; the scenes o f

mythical adventure were rediscovered i n Western waters and
i t was i ma g ined that by g raspin g the reso urces o f S icily an
, ,

e mpire e x tend in g over the whole M editerranean mi ght be

w on . Perhaps without bein g too f anci f ul we m ay trace a
, ,

l ikeness between the d arin g schemes o f Alcib i ades and the

more remote but not more visionary kin g dom su gg ested by
an an alo g ou s inspiration to the id eali sin g soul o f Plat o .

E ach had learned t o practise althou g h f o r f ar d i ff erent

,

purposes the ro yal art o f Socrates — the mastery over men s

,
’

mi nd s acquired by a close study o f thei r interests passions , ,

and belie f s But the ambition o f the one de f eated his own
.

aim to the d estruction o f hi s country an d o f hi msel f ; while

,

the other d rew into Atheni an thou g ht whatever o f Western

f orce and f ervour w as need ed f o r the accomplishment o f its
20 6 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E RS .

with it I n an earlier chapter we g ave some reasons f o r

.

believin g that Protag oras d id not erect eve ry i nd ividual i nto

a n arbiter o f truth in the sweepin g sense a f te rward s put upon
hi s words H e was probably opposin g a hu man to a t h e o lo
.

g ic al or a naturalisti c standard N e v ertheless it does not

.
,

f ollow that Plato was fi g htin g with a shadow wh en h e

pressed the Protag orean d ictu m to its most literal interpreta
tion There are pl enty o f people still who would maintain i t
.

t o that e x tent Wherever and when ever the authority o f

.

ancient tradition s is broken down the doctrine that one ,

’
man s opinion is as good as another s i m mediately takes its
’

pla c e ; or rather the d octrine i n question i s a su rv ival o f

t raditionali sm i n a n e x tremely pu lverised f orm And when .

we are tol d that the maj ority m ust b e ri ght —whi ch is a very
d i ff erent pri n c ipl e f ro m holdin g that the maj ority should be
o beyed — w e may take i t as a si g n that the loose parti c les
are be g innin g to coales c e ag ain The substitution o f an .

i nd ivid ual f o r a universal standard o f truth is accordin g to ,

Plato a di rect consequenc e o f the theory which identi fies

,

knowled g e with sense perception I t i s at any rate c ert ai n

-
.
, ,

that the most vehement assertors o f the f ormer d octri ne are

also those who are f ondest o f appealin g to what they and
their f riend s have seen heard or f elt ; and the more ed u
, ,

c at e d a mon g them pl ace enormous c onfid ence i n statistics .

They are also f ond o f repe at in g the ad ag e that an ounce

o f f act i s worth a ton o f theo ry without consid erin g that
,

theory alon e can f urnish the balance i n which f acts are

wei ghed Plato does not g o very deep into the m tz os e o f
'

observation nor in the i n f ancy o f e x a c t scien c e was it to b e

,

e x pected that he should H e f ully reco g nised the p resence

.

o f two f actors an obj ective and a subj ective i n every sensa

, ,

tion but lost hi s hold on the t rue method i n attemptin g to

,

t race a like d ualism th rou g h the whole o f consciousness

'

W here we should d istin g uish between the mental en erg ies

and the physical processes u nd erlyin g them or between the ,
 P A T O : H I S TE A CH E RS A ND H I S TI M E S
L
-

elements respec tively c On t rib u t e d to every cog nit i on by

'

i mmediate e x perience and reflection he c oncei v ed the inne r ,

and outer worlds as two an alo g ous series related to on e

another as an i mag e to its ori g in al .

At this last po i nt we touch o n the final g enerali sation by

which Plato extended the d ialectic m e thod to all e x isten c e ,

and readmitted i nto philosophy the earlier spe c ulations

p rov i s i ona lly excluded f rom it by Soc rates The cross .

e x amini n g elen c hus at first applied only to i ndivid uals had

.

, ,

bee n turned with destructive e ff ect o n every class e v ery insti ,

t u t i o n and eve ry polity u ntil the whole o f human li f e was

, ,

made to appear one m ass o f sel f contradict i on i nstabi lity -

, ,

and illusion I t had been held by some that the order o f

.

nature o ff ered a contrast and a correction to th i s bewilderin g

chaos P lato on the other hand soug ht to show that the
.
, ,

i g norance and ev i l prevalent among m en were only a part o f

the i mperf e c tion necessarily belon g in g to derivative e x istence
o f every kind For this purpose the philosophy o f H e rac l e i
.

tus proved a welcome au x iliary The pupil o f Socrates had .

been tau ght in early youth by C ratyl u s an adherent o f the ,

E phesian school that movement relativity and the co n

, , ,

j un c tion o f opposites are the very conditi ons u nder which

Nature works We m ay c onj ecture that Plato d id not at
.

first det ect any resemblanc e between the H era c leitean flu x

-

and the mental bewild erment prod u c ed o r brou g ht to li g ht

by the master o f c ross e x ami nation But his v isit to I taly
-
.

would probably enable hi m to take a n e w V i ew o f the I onian

speculations by brin g in g hi m into contact with schools main
,

tainin g a directly opposite doctrine T he E leatics held that .

e x istence remained eternally undivid ed u nmoved and u m , ,

chan ged T he Pytha go rean s arran g ed all thing s accord in g

.

to a strained and ri g i d antitheti c al c onstruction Then ca me .

the id enti fyi n g fl ash l U nchan g eable reality d ivin e order

.
, ,

T his e x p re ss io n i s b o rro w e d f ro m Pro f . B ai n . See th e c h ap te r o n A s so c i a

t io n b y R e se mb l an c e i n Th e Sen ses a n d {Ic e
 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .

m athematical truth — these were the obj ective counterpart o f

t he Socratic definitions o f the consistency which Soc rates
,

i ntroduced into conduct The H eracleitean system applied

.

to pheno men a only and it f aith f ully reflected the incoherent

belie f s and d isord erly actio ns o f u n edu c ated men We are
“

brou ght i nto relation with the flu c t u at i n g sea o f g enerated

‘

and perishin g natu res by sense and opinion an d these repro ,

d uce i n their irre c onc ilable d iversity the shi f tin g character
, ,

o f t h e obj ects with which they are conversant Whatever we .

see and f eel is a mi x tu re o f bein g and unreality ; it is and is ,

not at the same time S en sible mag nitud es are equal or

,
.

g reater o r less a c cordin g as th e stand ard o f comparison i s

chosen Yet the very act o f comparison shows that there i s
.

somethin g i n ou rselves deep e r than mere sense ; somethin g

to which all ind ividu al sensations are re f erred as to a com mon
centre and i n which their i ma ges are stored up K nowled g e
, .
,

then can n o lon ger be id entified with sensation since t h e

, ,

mental reproductions o f e x ternal O bj ects are apprehended

i n the absenc e o f their ori g inals and since thou ght possesses
,

the f urther f aculty o f f ramin g abstract notions n ot rep resent

i n g any sensibl e obj ects at al l .

We need not f ollo w Plato s investi g ations into th e meanin g

’

o f knowled g e and the causes o f illusion any f urther ; espe

c i ally as they d o not lead i n this i nstance to any positive

, ,

conclusion The g eneral tendency is to seek f o r truth withi n

.

rather than withou t and to connect error partly with the dis
t u rb i n g influence o f sense impressions on the hi gher m ental
-

f aculties partly with the inherent con f usion an d i n s t ab i l i ty o f

'

the phenomena whence those i mpressions are d erived O u r .

pri ncipal con cern here i s to note the e x pansive power o f

g eneralisa t ion which was c arryin g philosophy back a g ai n
f rom man to Nature — the d eep s eated contempt o f Plato f o r
publ i c op i n i on — and the incipi ent d i ff erentiation o f d emon
s t rat e d f ro m empiric al truth

A somewhat similar vein o f reflection is worked out in t h e

 TH E G RE E K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

Throu gh all his criticisms on the popular sou rces o f i n f o r

mation — sense lan g uag e and publi c opinion — Plato re f ers to
,

an id eal o f per f ect knowled g e which he assu m es without

bein g able to d efine it I t m ust satis f y the n egat i ve con
.

d ition o f bein g f ree f ro m sel f contradi c tion but f urther than-

this we c annot go Yet i n the hand s o f a metaphysi ci an no

.
, ,

more than this was requ ired to reconst ruct the world The .

d emand f o r c onsistency explain s the practical philosophy o f

S ocrates I t also explain s under another f orm the philo
.
, ,

sophy both pra c tical an d speculative o f his disciple

, , .

I dentity and the correlative o f id entity d i ff eren c e g radually , ,

c am e to c o v er with thei r mani f old c ombinations all know

l ed g e all li f e and all e x istenc e
, ,
.

I t was f ro m mathematical sci en c e that the li ght o f

certain ty fi rst broke S ocrates had not en c ourag ed the study
.

o f mathemat i cs either pu re or applied,

nor i f w e may j ud g e ,

f ro m some disparag in g allusions to H ippias and his lectures

i n the Pro tag o ras d id Plato at first re gard it with an y “

particular f avou r H e may have acquired some notions o f

.

arithmetic and g eo metry at school but the i ntimate a c quaint

ance with and d eep i nterest in them mani f ested th r
, o u g hou t ,

his later works probably d ates f rom his v isits to I taly Sicily
, , ,

Cyren e and E gypt I n each o f these places the e x a c t

,
.

sciences w ere cultivated with more assid uity than at Athens

i n southern I taly they had been brou ght into close c onne x ion
with philosophy by a system o f mystical interpret ation The .

g lo ry o f di s c overin g their tru e speculative si g nificance was

reserv ed f o r Plato ju st as he had d etected a pro f ound
.

analog y between the S ocrati c scepticism an d the H eracleitean

'

flu x so also by another vivid intuition he saw i n the

, , ,

d efinitions and demonstrations o f geometry a type o f tru e

reasonin g a parti c ular applic ation o f the Socratic log ic
, .

Thus the two studies we re brou ght into f ruit f ul reaction the ,

one g ainin g a wider applicability an d the other an exa c ter ,

method o f proo f The mathematical spirit u ltim ately p ro v ed

.
 PL A T O : H I S TE A CH E RS A ND H I S TI M E S . 2 11

too stron g f o r Plato and petr i fied his philosophy i nto a li f e

,

less f ormalism but n o extraneous i nfluen c e hel ped so much

to brin g about the complete matu rity o f his constructiv e
powers i n no d irection h as he more pro f oundly influenced the
,

t hou ght o f later ag es .

Both the Tfi eaezé tzz s and the Cra zy/[u s contai n allusi ons to
mathematical reasonin g but its f ull si g nificance i s first ,

e x hibited i n the M 6 710 H ere the old question whether .

,

vi rtue c an be tau g ht is ag ain raised to be discussed f rom an

, ,

enti rely n ew point o f Vi ew and resolved into the more g eneral ,

question C an anythin g be tau ght ? The answer is Yes an d No

, ,
.

You may stimulate the n ative activity o f the i ntellect but you ,

cannot create it Take a totally uneducated man and und er

.
, ,

p roper g ui d ance he shal l discover the truths o f g eometry f o r

,

hi msel f by vi rtu e o f thei r sel f evi dent c learness Bein g

,
-
.

i nd ep endent o f any traceable e x perien c e the elementary ,

pri nciples o f this s c ience o f all sci ence must have been ac , ,

qui red in so me antenatal period o r rather they were never ,

acquired at all they belon g to the very nature o f the soul

,

hersel f The doctrine here un f olded had a g reat f uture

.

be f ore it ; and it has never perhaps been d is c ussed with so , ,

much ea g ern ess as d u rin g the last hal f centu ry amon g o ur -

selve s The masters o f E n g lish thou ght have placed the issue
.

first raised by Plato i n the v ery f ront o f philosophical

controversy and the g en e ral public have been brou ght to f eel
that thei r d earest interests han g o n its d ecision The subj ect .

has however lost much o f its ad v entitious interest to those

, ,

who know that the (i p rz o rz position was turned a hundred

’ ’

years ago by K ant The philosopher o f K oni g sberg showed

,
.

that g rantin g knowled g e to be composed o f two elements

, ,

m ind add s nothin g to outward experience but its own

f orms the system o f c onnex i ons a cc ordin g to whi c h i t
,

g roups phenomena Depri v e these f orm

. s of the co n tent

g iven to them by f eelin g and the soul will be le f t ,beatin g her

win gs in a vacuu m The doctri ne that knowled g e is not a
.

P 2
2 12 TH E GRE E K PH I L O S OPH E R S .

dead deposit i n conscio u sness o r memory but a livin g energ y ,

whereby phenom ena are to use K ant s word s g athered up

,
’

i n to the synthetic u nity o f apperception has sin c e f ound a ,

physiolog i cal basis i n the theory o f central innervat i on And .

the experient i al school o f psychology hav e si multaneously

c ome to re cog n i se the e x istence o f fi x ed conditions under
whi c h cons c iousn ess works and g rows and which i n the last , ,

analysis resolve themselves into the apprehension o f resem

,

blan c e d i ff eren c e coexistence and succession The most

, , , .

c omplex co gn ition i nvolves no more than these f ou r

categories and it i s probable that they all c o op erate in the -

most elementa ry perception .

The truths here touched o n seem to have been di mly

present to the mi nd o f Plato H e never doubts that al l .

knowled g e must i n some way or other be d erived f rom

, ,

experi ence ; and acco rdi n g ly he assu mes that w hat cannot
, ,

have been learned in this wo rld was learned i n another But .

he does not (in the M efl o at least ) suppose that the process

ever had a beg inn in g I t would seem that he i s tryin g to
.

e x press i n fi g urative l a n g u ag e the disti nction lost almost as ,

soo n as f ou nd between i ntelli g ence and the f acts on which

,

i ntelli g ence is exercised An e x amination o f the steps by

.

w hich M eno s slave is brou gh t to perceive without bein

’

g ,

dire c tly told the truth o f the Pytha g orean theorem will show
, ,

that his share i n the demonstration is li mited to the i ntuition

o f ce rtai n numerical equalities an d inequalities Now to Plato .
, ,

the perception o f sam eness and d i ff erence meant everythin g .

He would have denied that the sensible world presented ex

amples o f these rel ations i n their i d eal absoluteness and pu rity .

I n tracin g back their appreh ension to the sel f re fle c t i o n o f the -

soul the c onsc i ousness o f personal id entity he would not

, ,

have transg ressed the li mits o f a leg iti mate enquiry But sel f .

consciousness involved a possible abst racti on f rom d isturbing

i n flu ences w hich he inte rpreted as a real separation between
,

mind and matter ; an d to make it more c omplete an i nd e

, ,
2 14 TH E G RE E K PI II L O S O PH E R S .

C HAPT E R V .

PL A T O A S A R E FO R ME R .

I .

I N the last chapter we cons i d ered the philosophy o f Plato

c hiefly u nd er its critical and n eg at i ve aspects We saw how .

i t was exclusively f rom that side that he at fi rst apprehended

and enlarg ed the d ialecti c o f Socrates how d eeply h i s s c e p t i
,

c is m was colou red by the reli g ious react i on o f the ag e an d ,

how he attempted out o f his master s mouth to overtu rn the

,
’

p ositi v e teachi ng o f the master hi msel f We s aw how i n the .

,

Pro tag oras he sketched a theo ry o f ethics which was n o

, ,

sooner completed than it became the startin g point o f a still -

more e x tended and ard uous enqui ry We f ollowed the .

wid enin g horizon o f his speculati ons u ntil they embrac ed the
whole contemporary li f e o f H ellas and i nvolved it in a ,

c om mon condemnation as either hopelessly corrupt o r c on ,

tainin g within itsel f the seed s o f corruption We then saw .

how by a f arther g eneralisation he was led to look f o r the

, ,

sou rces o f error in the laws o f man s sensuou s nature and o f

’

the phenomenal world with which it hold s co mmu nio n how ,

moreover under the g uidan c e o f su gg estion s comin g bot h

,

fro m within and f ro m without he rever ted to the earlier

,

schools o f G reek thou ght and brou ght thei r results into
,

parallelism with the m ai n lines o f S oc rati c d i alecti c A n d .

finally w e watched hi m pl antin g a firm f oothold on the basis

,

o f mathematical d emonstration seekin g i n the very c o n s t itu

tion o f the soul itsel f f o r a d erivation o f the tru ths which
sensuous e x perienc e could not i mpart and w inn i n g back f rom
,
 PL A T O A s A RE FOR M E R . 2 15

—
a more pro f oundly reasoned relig io n the hope the sel f con ,

fi d en c e, the assurance o f perf ect knowled g e which had been ,

f ormerly surren d ered in de f erenc e to the demand s o f a merely

e x t e m alg n d traditional f aith .That God a lone i s wise and ,

by c onsequ ence alone g ood mi ght still remai n a fi x ed pri n

,

c ip le with Plato ; but it ceased to operate as a restraint on

hu man aspiration when he had com e to rec og ni se an essential

unity amon g all f orms o f c ons c ious li f e which thoug h i t , ,

mi g ht _b e c loud ed and f org otten c ould never be entirely e ff aced

, .

And when Plato tells us at the close o f his c areer that G od

, , ,

f ar more than any indiv i dual m an is the measure o f all t hin g s

,
‘
,

who can doubt that he had already learned to identi f y the

hu man and divi n e essences i n the c om mon notion o f a uni
v ersal soul ?
The g erm o f this new d og matism was present i n Plato s ’

m i nd f rom the very be g inn i n g and was partly an inheritance

,

f t o m older f orms o f thou ght

’

. The Ap ol og z a had reprodu ced

on e i mportant f eature i n the positive teachin g o f So c rates
the d istinctio n between sou l and body an d the necessity o f ,

attendin g to the f orm er rather than to the latter : and thi s

had now acqui red such si g nifi c an c e as to leave no stand in g
room f o r the a g nosti c ism with which it had been incompatibl e
f rom the fi rst . The same i rresistible f orce o f e x pansion which
had brou ght the hu man soul in to co m munion with absolute
truth was t o b e eq u ally verified i n a d i ff erent direction
, .

Plato was too much interested i n practi c al questions to be

d iverted f rom them lon g by any theoretical philosophy ; o r ,

perh aps we should rather say that this interest had a e co m

,

p a n i e d and inspired hi m throu g hout I t i s.f rom the essential

relativ i ty o f mind the pro f ou nd cravin g f o r i ntellectual sym
,

pathy with other minds that all myst i cal i ma g ination s and
.

super— subtle abstractions take r i se so that when the stra i n o f,

transcend ent absorption and e c stasy i s relaxed u nder the chill

i n g but b e n e fi c e n t c onta c t o f earthly e x peri en c e they be c ome ,

Legg .
71 6 , C .
2 16 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

cond ensed into id eas f o r the reconstitution o f li f e a nd society

on a basis o f reciprocity o f sel f restraint and o f sel f d evotion
,
-

,
-

t o a commonwealth g reater an d more end urin g than any

i ndivid ual while at the same ti me p resentin g to each i n
, , ,

obj ective f orm the prin c iple by v irtue o f which only instead
m
,

of bein g d ivid ed he can be c om e reconciled with hi sel f

, .

H ere we have the c reed o f all philosophy whether theolo g ical , ,

metaphysi c al or positive that there is or that there should

, , ,

be thi s three f old unity o f f eel i n g o f a c tion and o f thou ght o f

, , , ,

the soul o f society an d o f u niversal e x istence to wi n which i s

, , ,

everl astin g li f e while to be withou t i t is everlastin g d eath

, .

This c reed m ust be re stated and re i nterpreted at every revo

- -

l u t i o n o f thou g ht We have to see how it w as f o r the first

.
,

ti me stated and interpreted by Plato

, .

The pri ncipal obj ect o f Pl ato s n eg at i ve c riticism had been ’

to emphasise the disti nction between reality and appe arance

i n the world without between sense o r imag ination and
, , ,

reason in the hum an soul T rue to the mediatorial spirit o f .

G reek thou g ht his obj ect now was to brid g e over the seem
,

i n g ly i mpassable g ul f We must n ot be understood to say

.

that these two d istinct and to some e x tent contraste d tend

, ,

e n c i e s c orrespond to two d efinitely d ivided period s o f his

l i f e I t i s evid ent that the tasks o f dissection and reconstru e
.

t ion were o f ten carri ed on c onj ointly and represented two ,

aspects o f an indivisible process But on the whole there i s .

g ood reason to believe that Plato l ike othe r m en was more , ,

i nclined to pull to piec es in his you th and to build up i n his

l ate r days We are there f ore d isposed to ag ree with those
.
, ,

c ritics w h o assi g n both the P/z aea m s an d the Sy mp os i u m to a ’

comparatively advanced sta g e o f Platon ic speculati on I t is .

l es s easy to decid e which o f the two was c omposed first f o r ,

there seems to be a g reater m aturity o f tho u g ht i n the on e

an d o f style i n the other For ou r purposes it wi ll be m ost
.

c onven ient to consid er the m to gether .

\Ve h av e seen how Plato came to look on mathematics as

2 18 TH E G R E E K PH I L O S OPH E R S .

satisfied and vanishin g at the instant that its obj ect i s

,

attained The philosopher i s a lover o f wisdom and there

.
,

f ore not wise ; and yet not wholly i g norant f o r he knows that ,

he knows nothin g Thus we seem to be thrown back on the .

standpoint o f Plato s earli est ag nosti c ism ’

Nevertheless i f .
,

the Symp os i u m a g rees nominally with the Ap ol og z a in

'

reality it marks a mu c h more advan ced poi nt o f spe c ulation .

The idea o f what knowl ed g e i s h as be g un to assu me a much

clearer express i on We g ather f rom v ar i ou s hints and s u g
.

g estions that it i s the perception o f likeness the v e ry pro c ess

o f ascendin g g en eralisation typified by intellect u al love .

I t i s worthy o f remark that in the Platon ic E r os w e have

the g erm — o r somethin g more than the g erm —o f Aristotle s ’

whole m etaphysical system ‘

Accord in g to the usual law o f .

speculative evolution what was subj ective i n the one be c o mes ,

obj ect i ve i n the other With Plato the p assion f o r knowled g e .

had been merely the g uidin g principle o f a f e w c hosen spirits .

W i th Aristotle it i s th e livi n g sou l o f Nature the se c ret sprin g ,

o f movem ent f ro m the revolutio n o f ,

the o utermost starry
sphere to the de c omposition and recomposition o f ou r mut
able terrestrial elements ; an d f ro m these ag ain throu g h the
whole s c ale o f org anic li f e up to the moral culture o f man ,

and the sear c h f o r an ideally constituted state What enables -

.

all these myriad movements to conti nue throu g h eternity ,

returni n g ever i n an unbroken c i rcl e on themselves is the ,

yearnin g o f u n f ormed m atter— that i s to say o f unrealised ,

power— toward s the absolute u nchan g in g a c tuality the sel f ,

thinkin g thou ght u n moved but mo v in g every other f orm o f

, ,

existence by the desire to p arti c ipate i n its ine ff able perf ection .

Born o f the H elleni c enthusiasm f o r beauty this wonderf ul ,

c onception subsequ ently be c ame incorporated with the o ffi cial

t eachin g o f Cathol ic theology What had on c e been a theme .

C f f o r th e w h o l e f o ll o w in g p a ss ag e H av e t , Le
'

. et ses Orzgz n es ,
I .
, 2 86 -
8 . I t w as , h o w e v e r, w ri tte n b e fo re th e au th o r h ad b ec o me ac q u ai n te d

w i th M . H ave t s w o rk
’
.
 PLA TO A S A R E FOR M E R . 2 19

fo r ribald m erri ment or f o r rhetorical ostentat i on amon g the

g olden youth o f Athens f urnished the motive f o r his most
,

transcendent meditation s to the An g el o f the Schools but the

fi re which lurked un der the d usty abstractions o f Aqui nas
needed t h e touch o f a poet and a lover be f ore i t could b e
reki ndled into flame The eyes o f B eatrice completed what
.

the diale c tic o f Plato had beg un ; and the hu nd red c antos o f
her adorer f ound the i r fittin g c lose i n th e love that moves the
sun and the other stars .

We must however obse rv e that underly i n g all thes e

, , ,

poetical i ma gi nations there is a deeper and wid er law o f

,

hu man nature to which they u ncons c iously bear witness — the

i ntimate conne x ion o f reli g ious mysticism with the p assion o f
love By this we d o not mean the constant inter f eren ce o f
.

the one with the other whether f o r the purpose o f stimulatio n

, ,

as with the natu ralistic reli g ions or f o r the pu rpose o f restraint

, ,

as with the ethical reli g ions but we m ean that they seem to
d ivide be t w een them a c om mon f und o f nervous energy so ,

that sometimes thei r mani f estations are ine x tri cably con
f ounded as i n certain d ebased f orms o f modern C hristianity
,

someti m es t hey utterly e x clud e on e another and so metimes ,

which i s the most f requent case o f any th e one is trans f ormed

,

into the other thei r substantial id entity and con tinui ty bein g
,

ind icated very f rankly by thei r use o f the sam e lan gu ag e the ,

same ritual and the same aestheti c decoration And thi s

, .

will show how the d ecay o f reli g ious belie f may be aecom
p an ie d by an outbreak o f moral licence without our bein g ,

obli ged to d raw the in f erence that passion can only be held
i n check by irrational belie f s o r by o rg anisations whose supre
,

m acy i s f atal to industrial political and i ntelle c tual p ro g ress

, , .

For if ou r view o f the case be correct the passion was not

, ,

really restrained but only tu rn ed i n a d i ff erent di rection and

, ,

f requently nourished into hysterical excess so that with the ,

inevitable d e c ay o f theolog y; it retu rns to its old haunts ,

br i n g in g with it se v en d ev i ls w o rse than the first A f ter the .

2 20 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSO PH E R S .

C rusades came the C ourts o f L ove ; a f te r the Do minican and

Franciscan movements the R enaissance ; _a f ter Puritanism
, ,

the R estoration ; a f ter jesu itism the R eg ency Nor is this , .

all The passion o f which we are speakin g wh en abnormally

.
,

d evelop e d and u nbalanced b y severe intellectual e x ercise is ,

habitu ally accompanied by d elirious j ealousy by cruelty and , ,

by deceit O n taki n g the f orm o f reli g ion the influ ence o f

. ,

its evil associates i mmediately be c omes mani f es t in the sup

pression o f alien c reeds i n the tortures inflicted on thei r
,

adherents and i n the ma x i m that no f aith need be kept with

,

a hereti c Persecution has been e x cused on the g ound that

.
r

any means were j ustifiable f o r the purpose o f savin g souls

f rom eternal torment But how came it to be believed that
.

such a consequence was involved in a mere error o f j ud g ment ?

The f aith d id not create the intolerance but the i ntolerance ,

created th e f aith and so g av e a n idealised e x pression to the

,

j ealous f u ry accompanyin g a passi on w hich no spi ritual

alchemy can pu ri f y f rom its orig inal a ffinities I t is not by .

turnin g this most terrible i n stinct toward s a supernatural

obj ec t that we shou ld co mbat it but by d evelopin g the active ,

and m asculine in p re f erence to the emotion al and f emini ne

si de o f ou r nervous org anis ation ‘
.

I n ad dition to its other g reat lessons the Sy mp os z z mz

’

has a ff orded Plato an opportunity f o r cont rastin g his own

method o f philosophisin g with pre Socratic mod es o f thou g ht -
.

For it consists o f a series o f d iscou rses i n praise o f love so ,

arran ged as to typi f y the manner in whic h Greek spe c ulat i on ,

a f ter beg innin g with mytholo g y subsequ ently ad v anced to ,

physical th eories o f phenomena then passed f rom the histori cal

‘

to the c ontemporary method askin g not when ce d id thin gs , ,

c om e bu t what are they i n themselves ; and finally arrived

,

at the lo g ic al standpoint o f analysis classification and i n , ,

d uction .

In o rd e r to av o id mi sc o n c e p tio n i t may b e as w e l l to men t io n th a t th e ab o v e

re mark s ap p l y o n l y to mys ti c al p ass io n ass u mi n g th e fo rm o f re lig i o n th e y h av e
n o th i n g to d o w i th i n t e ll e c t u al an d mo ral c o n v i c ti o n s .
 2 22 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS O PH E RS .

its existence The arran g ement is also equivalent to a theory

.

o f final causes f o r everythin g has a f unction to per f orm ,

marked out by its position and brin gi n g it into relation with ,

the u niversal order S uch a system would inevitably lead to

.

the denial o f e v i l were not evil itsel f i nterpreted as the meces

,

sary c orrel ative o f g ood or as a necessary li nk i n the d escend ,

i n g mani f estations o f reality M oreover by v irtue o f his .

,

identi f yin g pri nciple Plato saw i n the lowest f orms a shadow
,

o r reflection o f the hi ghest H en c e the many surprises con .

,

cessions and returns to abandoned positions which w e find in

,

his later writin g s The three moments o f Greek thou ght

.
,

circumscription antithesis and m ed iation work i n such close

, , ,

u nion or with such bewild eri n g rapidity o f altern ation throu gh

, ,

al l his di alectic that we are n e v er su re whither he is leadin g

,

u s and not always su re that he knows i t himsel f

,
.

I n the openin g chapter o f this work we end eavoured t o

explain how the Pythag orean philosophy arose out o f the i n
t o x i c at e d d eli g ht inspired by a first acqu aintan c e with the

mani f old properties o f nu mber an d fi g u re I f we would enter .

i nto the spirit o f Platonism we m ust similarly throw ou rselves ,

back i nto the ti me when the id ea o f a universal classification

’
first d awned on men s minds We must remember how i t .

g ratified the Greek love o f ord er combi ned wi th individu ality

w hat u nbounded opportunities f o r askin g and answerin g
questions it supplied and what promises o f practical reg enera
t ion it held out Not without a shade o f sadness f o r so m any
.

b a fll e d e ff orts and so many bli g hted hopes yet also with a ,

rate f ul recol lection o f all that reason has acco mplished ,and
g
with som ethin g o f his own hi g h i ntellectual enthusiasm shall ,

we listen to Pl ato s proph etic wo rds — word s o f deeper i mport

’

than thei r own author kn ew I f I find any man who is able

to see a O n e and M any i n Nature hi m I f ollow and walk in ,

his steps as i f he were a g o d .

’

P/z ae d r .
, 2 66, B .
jo w e t t , II .
, 144 . A c c o rd i n g to T e ic h mu ll e r
Fe/men i l l 1 merten
’
’

7 a/z r/z z md ert —

) the of
v ar
p . 13 5 go d h e re s p o k en is no
 PLA T O A S A RE FOR M E R . 223

It i s interestin g to see how the most comprehensive

-

systems o f the present centu ry even when most opposed to ,

the metaphysic al spirit are still constru cted on the plan lon g
,

ag o sketched by Plato Alike i n his classific ation o f the

.

sciences i n his hi storical d eduction s and i n his plans f o r the

, ,

reorg anisation o f society Au g uste C omte adopts a schem e o f

,

ascendin g o r d escendin g g enerality Th e conception o f d i f .

f e re n t i at i o n and inte g ration employed both by H e g el and by

Mr H erbert Spe n cer is also o f Platoni c ori g i n ; only what
.
,

with the an ci ent thin ker was a statical law o f ord er has
beco me with his modern su ccessors a dynami c law o f p ro g ress
while a g ain there i s this distin c tion between the German
, ,

and the E n glish phi losopher that the f o rmer constru es as su c,

c e s s iv e moments o f the I dea what the latter re g ard s as si mul

t an e o u s and interdependent processes o f evolution .

II .

The study o f psycholog y with Plato stand s in a f ourf old

relation to his g eneral theory o f the world The dialectic .

method withou t whi ch N atu re would remai n uni ntelli gi bl e i s

, ,

a f unction o f the soul an d constitutes its most essenti al

,

a ctivity ; then soul as distin gu ished f rom body represents

, ,

the hi gher supersensual element o f e x isten ce ; thi rd ly the

, ,

obj ective d ualism o f reality an d appearance i s reproduced i n

the subj ec tive dualism o f reason and sense and lastly soul , ,

as the ori g inal spri n g o f movement mediates between the ,

eternal entities which are un moved and the mat er ial pheno
men a which are subj ect to a continual flu x I t i s very .

characteristic o f Plato that he fi rst st rains an ant i thesis to t he

utmost an d then end ea v ours to reconcile its extremes by the
interposition o f on e or more i nterm ediate links S o while .
,

assi g nin g this o fli c e to soul as a part o f the universe h e ,

o th e r th an Pl at o hi ms e l f . E v e n gran t in g th e p an th e i s t i c i n te rp re tati o n of Plato n

i s m t o b e t ru e, th i s s e e ms a s o me w h at s t rai n e d ap pl i c at io n o f i t .
2 24 TH E GRE E K PH I L O SO PH E R S .

cl assifies the psychic f unctions themselves accord in g to a

si milar principle O n the intellectual side he places t ru e
.

opinion or what we should now call empi ri cal knowled ge

, ,

midway between demonstration and sense perception S uch -

.

at l east seems to be the result reached in the Tk ea el é l u s an d

the M ez z o I n the R ep u b l i c a f urther analysis leads to a
.

somewhat d i ff erent arran g ement O pinion i s p laced between .

knowled g e and i g norance while the possible obj ects to which

it corresponds f orm a transition f rom bein g to not bein g -
.

S ubsequently mathematical reasonin g is distin g uished f ro m

the hi g her science whi ch takes co g nisance o f first princip les ,

and thus serves to conn ect it with simple O pinion while thi s
a g ain d ealin g as it does with material obj ects i s related to
, ,

the knowled g e o f thei r shadows as the most perf ect s c ience i s

‘
related to mathematics .

Tu rn in g f rom dialectic to ethics Plato i n like manner f eels ,

the need o f i nterposin g a mediator between reason and

appetite The quality chosen f o r this pu rpose he calls flv ju o s '
.
,

a term which does not as has been erroneously supposed, ,

co rrespond to our word Wi ll but rather to pride or the , ,

f eelin g o f personal honour I t is both the seat o f military

.

coura g e and the n atu ral au x ilia ry o f reason with which it ,

c o operates in restrainin g the an imal desires

-
I t is a charac .

t e ris t ic di ff erence between Socrates and Plato that the f ormer

should have habitually rei n f orced his arg uments f o r virtu e by

appeals to sel f interest while the latter with his aristocrati c
-

w ay o f lookin g at thin g s pre f ers to enlist the aid o f a

,
'

hau ghti er f eel in g on their behal f Aristotle f ollowed i n the .

s ame track when he tau ght that to be overcom e by an g er i s

less dis c reditabl e than to be overco me by desi re I n reality .

none o f the i nstincts t endin g to sel f preservation is more -

praiseworthy than another or more am enable to the c ontrol

,

o f reason Plato s tripartite division o f mind c annot be mad e

.
’

A d ap ti n g Plat o
’
s f o rmu l a to mo d e rn id e as we migh t say A li te rary e d u ca

t io n k n o w l e d ge of th e w o rl d math e mati c s ph ys ic al sc i e n c e .
2 26 TH E GR E E K PH I L O S O PH E RS .

althou g h the principle o f sel f s a c ri fi c e w as mai ntained by-

some o f them and especially by Plato to its f u llest e x tent

, , .

Pleasure seekin g bein g inseparably associated with selfishness

-
,

the latter was best attacked throu gh the f ormer and i f Plato s ,
’

lo g ic does not com mend itsel f to our und erstandin g we must ,

ad mit that it was employed i n de f ence o f a noble cause .

The style o f polemics adopted on this occasion whatever ,

else may be its valu e will serve e x cellently to illustrate the

,

g eneral d ialecti c method o f atta c k When Plato parti cularly .

d isliked a class o f persons or an instit u tion or an art or a, , ,

theory or a state o f consciou sness h e tried to prove that it

, ,

was co n f used unstable and sel f contrad ictory besid es takin g

, ,
-

f ull advanta g e o f any discred it popularly attached to it All .

these obj ections are brou g ht to bear with f ull f orc e ag ainst
pleasure S ome pleasu res are delusive since the reality o f
.
,

them f alls f ar short o f the anticipation all pleasure is essen

t ia lly transi tory a perpetual becomin g n ever a fi x ed stat e
, , ,

and there f ore not an end o f action pleasures whi ch ensu e o n

the satis f action o f d esires are necessarily accompanied by
pai ns and disappear si multaneously with them ; the most
i ntense and f o r that reason the most ty p i cal pleasu res are
, , ,

associ ated with f eelin g s o f shame and their enj oyment is care ,

f ully hidden out o f sig ht .

S u ch arg u ments have almost the ai r o f an a f tert hou ght ,

and Plato was perhaps m ore powerf ully swayed by other con
si derations which we shall n o w proceed to analyse W hen
, .

pleasure was assu med to be the hi ghest g ood knowled g e ,

was a g reed to b e the indispensable means f o r its attai nment

and as so o f ten happens the mean s g rad ually su bstituted
, ,

i tsel f f o r the end N or was this all ; f o r knowled g e (o r

.

reason ) bein g not only the means but the sup rem e arbiter ,

when c alled o n to adj u dicate between conflictin g claims ,

w ould natu rally pronounce i n its own f avou r Naturally also .

, ,

a moralist who made science the chie f interest o f his own l i f e

w ould c om e t o b elieve tha t it was the proper obj ect o f all
 PL A T O A S A RE FOR ME R . 227

li f e whether attended o r not by any pleasu rable emotion

, .

And so in d irect opposition to the u tilitarian theory Plato

, ,

d eclares at last that to brave a lesser pai n i n order to escap e

f ro m a g reater or to renoun ce a lesser pleasure in order to
,

secu re a g reater i s coward ice and intemperance in d is g uis e

,

and that wisdom which he had f ormerly re g arded as a means

,

to other end s is the one end f o r which everythin g else shoul d

,

‘
be e x chan g ed P erhaps i t may have stre n gthened hi m i n
.

this atti tu d e to observe that the m any whose opin ion he so ,

thoroug hly d espised m ade pleasure thei r ai m i n li f e whi le

, ,

the f astid ious f e w pre f erred knowled g e Yet a f ter a ti me .

, ,

even the latter alternative f ailed to satis f y his restless spi rit .

For the con c eption o f knowled g e resolved itsel f into the

d eeper conceptions o f a knowin g subj ect and a known obj ect ,

the soul and the u niverse each o f whi ch becam e in tu rn the

,

supreme ideal What interpretation should be g ive n to

.

vi rtue d epended o n the choic e between them Accord in g to .

the o ne vie w it was a purifi cation o f the hi g her principle within

us f rom m aterial wants and passions S ensual g rat ifi c at io n s .

should be avoid ed because they tend t o d e g rade and pollute

,

the soul Death should be f earl ess l y encou ntered because it

.
,

will release her f rom the restrictions o f bodily e x isten ce But .

Pl ato had too stron g a g rasp o n the realities o f li f e to remai n

satisfied with a pu rely ascetic morality K nowled g e on the .
,

obj ective side brou g ht him into relation with an org anised
,

universe where each i ndividual ex i sted not f o r his own sake ,

but f o r the sake o f the whole to f ulfil a definite f unction in ,

the system o f which he f ormed a part And if f ro m one .

poi nt o f View the soul hersel f was an absolutely si mple indi

visible su bstance f ro m another point o f view she reflected the
,

e x ternal order and only f ulfilled the law o f her bein g when
,

each separate f a c ulty was e x erc ised within its approp riate
sphere .

There still remained one last p roblem t o solve one point ,

I lz a ed o , 6 9 , A
’
.
jo w e t t ,
I .
, 4 42 .

Q 2
 228 TH E G RE E K PH I L O SO PH E RS .

where the c onverg in g streams o f ethi c al and metaphysical

spe c ulation met and mi x ed Granted that knowled g e is the
.

soul s hi g hest en ergy what i s the obj ect o f thi s b e at i fi c

’

vision ? Granted that all particular energ ie s c o operate f o r a -

com mon purpose what is the end to which they are subor
,

d i n at e d Granted that d ialectic l eads us up throu g h ascendin g

g radation s t O on e all comp rehensive id ea how is that idea to
-

be defined Plato only attempts to answer this last question

by re stat i n g i t u nder the f orm o f an illustration As the sun
-
.

at onc e g ives li f e to all N ature,an d li ght to the eye by which

Nature is perceived so also the idea o f Good i s the cause o f
,

existence and o f knowled g e alike but trans c ends them both ,

as an absolute u nity o f which we cannot even say that it

,

is f o r the distin c tion o f subj e c t and predi c ate would bri n g

,

back relativity and plu rality ag ain H ere we seem to have the .

S oc rati c paradox reversed So c rates i dentified virtu e with

.

knowled ge but at the same time entirely emptied the latter

, , ,

of i ts speculati v e content Plato i nheritin g the i dea o f

.
,

knowled g e i n its artificially restricted si gnificance was irre ,

s i s t i b ly d rawn back to the older philosophy w henc e i t had

been ori g inally borrowed ; then j ust as hi s master had g iven ,

an ethi c al application to s c ience so did he travellin g over the , ,

same ground i n an opposite di rection e x ten d the theo ry o f ,

ethics f ar beyond its leg iti mate ran g e until a prin c iple which ,

seemed to have no m eanin g e x cept in re f erence to hu man ,

c ond u c t became the abstract bond o f u n i on between all

,

reality and all thou g ht .

Whether Plato ever succeeded i n maki n g the id ea o f Good

quite clear to others or even to hi msel f is more than we can
, ,

tell I n the R ep u b l i c he de c lines g ivin g f urther explanations

.

on the g round that his pupils have n ot passed throu gh the

necessary mathematical i nitiation Whether quantitative .
‘

reason in g w as to f urnish the f orm or the matter o f transcend

ent d iale c tic is le f t und etermined We are told that on on e .

occasion a larg e aud ienc e as s e mb l e d t o hear Plato le c ture on

'
230 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS OPH E RS .

ag ainst sloth f ulness and sel f ind ul g ence ag ainst the i g norant
-

te merity which hu rri ed som e youn g men i nto politics be f ore

their ed ucation was finished and the timidity or f astid ious
,

ness which prevented others f rom discharg in g the hi ghest

duties o f citizenship Nor in acceptin g the popular reli g ion
.
,

o f his ti me had he any suspicion that its sanctions mi g ht be

,

i n v oked on behal f o f su cc ess f ul violen c e and f rau d We have .

already shown how d i ff erently Pl ato f elt towards hi s ag e and ,

h o w m uch deeper as well as more sham eless was the d e

moralisati on with whi ch he set himsel f to contend I t must .

also be remem b ered how j ud icial proc eed i n g s had c ome to

o v ershadow every othe r publi c interest and how the hi ghest
c ultu re o f the tim e had at l east i n hi s eyes bec om e identi fied
, ,

with the systematic per v ersion o f truth an d righ t These .

c onsid e rations wi ll e x plai n why Greek p hilosophy while ,

movin g on a hi g her pla n e passed throug h the same orbit

,

which had been previously described by Greek poetry Pre .

c i s e ly as the lessons o f moderation i n H omer had been

f ollowed by the lessons o f j ustice i n Aeschylus precisely as ,

the reli g ion whi ch was a selfish tra ffic between g ods and m en ,

and had l ittle to tell o f a li f e beyond the g rave was replaced ,

by the nobler f aith in a d ivin e g uard ianship o f m orality and

a retributive j ud g men t a f ter d eath — s o also di d the Socratic
et hic s and the Socrati c theolo gy lead to a system which
mad e j ustic e the essen c e o f morality and reli g ion its ever
lastin g consecration .

Temperance and j u stice are very c learly distin g uished in

our mi nds The one i s mainly a sel f reg ard in g the other-

m
.
,

m ainly a so c ial virtue But it would be a istake to suppose

.

that the distinction was equ ally clear to Plato H e had .

l earn ed f ro m S ocrates that all virtue is one H e f ound hi m .

sel f con f ronted by men who poi ntedly opposed interest to

honour and expediency to f air dealin g without makin g any
-

secret o f their pre f erence f o r the f ormer H ere as elsewhere

.
, ,

he laboured to d issolve away the vul g ar antithesis an d to

 PLA T O A S A R E FO RM E R . 2

substitute f o r i t a deeper on e— the antithesis between rea l

and apparent g oods H e was quite ready to i mag in e the
.

cas e o f a man who mi g ht have to incu r all sorts o f su ff erin g

i n the p ractice o f j ustice even to the e x tent o f i n f amy torture , ,

and death but without denyin g that these were evi ls he held ,

that to p ractise inj u sti ce with the ac c ompani ment o f world ly

prosperi t y was a g reater evi l still An d this conviction i s .

quite u ncon ne c t ed w i th his belie f i n a f utu re li f e H e would

i
.

not have ag reed wi th S t Paul that virtu e i s a bad calculation

.

without the hope o f a reward f o r i t herea f ter H is morality .

is absolutely i ndependent o f any e x trinsi c considerations .

N evertheless he hold s that in ou r own interest we should do

,

what is ri ght ; and i t n ever seem s to have entered his

thou ghts that there could be any other motive f o r d oin g it
We have to e x plai n how such a parado x was possible .

Plato seems to have f elt v e ry stron g ly that all vi rt uous

action tends towards a g ood e x ceedin g in valu e any tem
p o ra ry sacrifice whic h i t may involve ; and the accepted
connotation o f ethical terms we n t enti rely alon g w ith thi s
belie f But he could not see that a particular action mi g ht
.

be g ood f o r the com munity at l arg e and bad f o r the individ ua l

w h o perf ormed it not i n a di ff erent sense but i n the very
,

sam e sense as i nvolvin g a d iminution o f his happiness For

,
.

f rom Plato s abst ra c t and g en eralisin g po int o f V i ew all g ood

’

was homo g eneous and the wel f are o f the i ndivi dual was
,

absolutely identified with the wel f are o f the whole to which

he belon g ed As ag ainst those who made ri g ht dependent
.

on mi ght and erected sel f indul g enc e i nt o the law o f li f e

-

Plato oc cupied an i mpreg n able p osition H e showed tha t: .

su ch p rinciples made society i mpossible and that withou t ,

‘
honou r even a g an g o f thi eves cannot hold tog ether He .

also saw that it is reason which brin g s each i ndividu al int o

rel ation with the whole and enables hi m to u nderstand hi s
obli gations towards i t ; but at the same time he g ave this
R ep n o , I
. .
, 34 8, B If . Z e lle r, op . ei l .
, 5
0 7—8 .
23 2 TH E G R E E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

reason a person al character whi c h does not properly belo n g

to it o r what comes to the sam e thin g he treated human
, ,

bein g s as pure eu l i u m i i ou is thus u nwittin gly removin g the

,

ne c essityf o r havin g any morality at all O n his assu mption .

i t would be absurd to break the law but neither would there

b e any temptation to break i t nor would any unpleasant ,

c onsequen c es f ollo w on its v i olat i on Plato speaks o f inj ustice

.

as an inj ury to the soul s health and there f ore as the g reatest
’

e v i l that c an be f all a hu man bein g without obse rv in g that ,

the in f eren c e invol v es a c on f usi on o f te rms For hi s arg u .

m ent requi res that sou l should mean both the whole o f
conscious li f e and the system o f abstract notions throu gh
w hich we communicate and c o operate with our -
f ellow
creatu res All c rime is a serious disturban c e to the latter f o r
.
,

it cannot wi thout absurdity be m ad e the f ound ation o f a

general ru le but apart f rom penal c onsequen c es i t does not
, ,

i mpair and may benefit the f ormer

, .

While Pl at o i dentified the i ndividual with the c om mun i ty

by slurrin g o v er the possible diverg ence o f thei r interests he ,

still f urther c ontributed to their lo gical con f usion by resolvin g

the e go i nto a multitud e o f c onfli c tin g f aculties a nd i mpulses
supposed to represent the di ff erent c lasses o f whi c h a State is
made up H i s O pponents held that j usti ce and law emanate
.

f rom the rulin g power in the body politic ; and they were
brou ght to ad mit that supreme power is properly vested i n the
wi sest and best citi zens Trans f e rrin g these pri nciples to the
.

i nn er f orum he maintained that a psychologi c al aristocracy

,

c ould only be established by g iv i n g reason a si m i lar c o n t rOl

‘
over the animal passions At first si ght this seem ed to
.
,

i mply no more than a retu rn to the stand poi nt o f Socrates or ,

o f Plato himsel f i n the Pro i u

g o m s The man who i ndul g.es
his desires within the lim its prescribed by a re gard f o r their
s af e satis f a c tion throu g h his w hole li f e may be c alled temper ,

ate and reasonable but he i s not necessarily j ust I f h o w

, .
,

See e sp e c i al ly t h e argu me n t w i th C alli c l e s in th e Gorg i as .

2 34 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

f eltthat i f the comp lete assi milation o f the individ ual and t h e
community was to bec ome more than a mere lo g ical f ormula ,

it must be e ff ected by a radical re f orm in the trainin g o f the

one and i n t h ei nstitutions o f the other Accordin g ly he set .
,

hi msel f to elaborate a scheme f o r the pu rpose ou r knowled ge ,

o f which i s chiefly derived f rom his g reatest work the R ep u bli c , .

We have already made larg e u se o f the neg ative c riticism

scattered throu g h that Dialog u e we have now to examine the
positive teachin g by which it was supplemented .

IV .

Plato like Soc rates makes reli g ious i nst ru ction the b asis
,

o f ed ucation . But where the m ast er had been c ontent to set

old beli e f s on a n e w basis o f demonstration the d is c iple aimed ,

at nothi n g less than their co mplete purification f ro m irrational

and i m moral in g redients H e lays down two g reat principles
.
,

‘
th at God is g ood an d that H e is true
, E very sto ry which is .

inconsisten t with such a character must be rej ected ; so also

mu st everythin g i n the poets which redounds to the discredi t
o f the national heroes to g ether with everythin g ten din g i n the
,

remotest d e g ree to make vice attractive or virtue repellent .

I t is evi dent that Pl ato like Xenophanes repud i ated not only
, ,

the scand alou s d etails o f popular mytholo gy but als o the

‘

anthropomorphic c onceptions which lay at its f ound atio n ;

althou g h he d id not think i t advisable to state his unbelie f
with equal f rankness H is own theolo gy was a sort o f star
.

worship and he proved the d ivi nity o f the heavenly bodies by

,

an appeal to the u ni f ormity o f thei r m ovements 2

H e f u rther .

t au ght that the world was c reated by an absolutely g ood

Bein g ; bu t we cannot be sure that thi s was more than a
popular version o f the theory which placed the abstract idea
o f Good at the su mmit o f the dialecti c seri es The tru th i s .

that there are two d istinct types o f reli g ion the one chiefly ,

R ep u b .
, II .
, 3 79 , A ; 3 80 , D .
2
Z e ll e r, 6 78—8 .
 PL A T O A S A R E F O R M E R . 235

i nterested i n the ex isten c e and attributes o f God the other -

chiefly i nt erested in the d estiny o f the hu man soul The f o rm er

-
.

i s best represented by ju daism the latter by Buddhism Plato

,
.

belon g s to t h e p sychic rather than to the theistic type The .

d octrin e o f i mm ort ality appears a g ai n and a g ain i n his Dia

lo g n es and on e o f the most beauti f ul amon g them is entirely
,
.

devoted to provin g i t H e seems throu g hout to be consc iou s

.

that he i s arg uin g i n f avour o f a par ado x Here at least .

, ,

there are no appeals to popular prej ud ice such as fi g ure so

larg el y i n si milar discuss i ons amon g ourselves The belie f i n .

i mmo rtality had lon g been sti rrin g but it had not taken deep
root amon g the I onian Greeks W e cannot even be su re that
'

it was embraced as a c onsolin g hope by any but the hi ghest

minds an ywhere i n H ellas or by them f o r more than a bri e f
,

period I t would be easy to maintain that this arose f ro m

.

som e natural incon g eni ality t o the Greek imag ination i n

thou ghts which drew it away f rom the world o f sense and the
d eli g hts o f earthly li f e B ut the e x planation breaks down i m
.

mediately when we attempt to veri f y it by a wi der e x perienc e .

NO m odern n ati on enj oys li f e so keenly as t h e French Yet

-

.
,

quite ap art f ro m trad iti onal dog mas there i s no nati o n that
,

cou nts so m any earnest supporters o f the belie f i n a spiritual

e x istence beyon d the g rave And to take an i ndividual
.
,

e x ample it i s j ust the k een relish which M r Brownin g s C leon

, .
’

has f o r every sort o f enj oyment which makes him shri nk back
with horror f rom the thou ght o f an n ih i lat i o m and g rasp at any
,

promise o f a happi ness to be p rolon g ed throu gh eternity A .

closer e x aminatio n i s n eeded to sho w us by what cau ses the

current o f Greek th ou g ht was swayed .

The g reat reli g ious movement o f the si x th and fi fth

centuries — c h ie fly represent ed f o r u s by the names o f Pyt h a
oras Aeschylu s and Pindar — would in all probability have
g , ,

entirely won over the educated classes and g iven d e fi n it e n e s s

,

to the hal f articulate utterances o f popular tradition had i t

-
,

not be e n arrested prematurely by the d evelopment o f physical

236 TH E G R E E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

speculation We showed in the first chapter that G reek

.

phi losophy i n its earli est sta g es was enti rely materi alistic I t .

d i ff ered i ndeed f ro m modern materi alism i n holdin g that the

, ,

soul or seat o f conscious li f e is an entity d istin c t f rom t h e

, ,

body ; but the distinction was on e between a g rosser and a

finer matter or else between a si mpl er and a m ore complex
,

arran gement o f the same matter n ot between an e x tende d ,

and an indiv i s i ble substan c e Whate v er theories then were

.
, ,

entertai ned with respect to the one woul d i nev i tably come to
be entert ained also with respect to the other Now w ith the .
,

e x ception o f the E l e at e s who d enied the reality o f chan g e

,

and separation alto g ether every school ag reed i n teachin g

,

that all particular bod i es are f ormed either by d i ff erenti ation

o r by d eco mposition and recomposition o ut o f the same
pri mordial elem ents From this it f ollowed as a natural
.
,

c onsequen c e that althou g h the whol e m ass o f matt er was

, ,

eternal ea c h p arti c u lar agg reg ate o f matter mu st perish i n

,

o rder to release the elements required f o r the f ormatio n o f

new agg reg ates I t i s ob vi ous that assu min g the soul t o be
.
,

material its i m mort ality was i rrecon c ilable with such a

,

doctrine as this A combination o f f ou r elements and t w o

.

conflictin g f orces such as E mpedo c les supposed the hu man

,

mind to be could not possibly outlast the o rg anism i n which

,

i t was enclosed ; and i f E mpedo c les hi msel f by an i n c o n ,

sistency not un com mon with men o f g enius re f used to d raw ,

the only leg iti mate c onc lusion f ro m his own principles the ,

d iscrepan c y c ould not f ail to f orce itsel f o n his successors .

Still more f atal to the belie f i n a c onti nuance o f pers onal

identity a f ter death Was th e theory p ut f orward by D iog enes
o f Apolloni a that there i s really no personal ident i ty even i n
,

li f e —that consciou sness i s only maintained by a perpetu al i n

halation o f the v ital ai r i n which all reason res i des The sou l .

very literally le f t the body wi th the last breath and had a poor ,

chance o f hold i n g to g ether a f terward s especially as the wits , ,

observ ed i f a hi g h wind happened to be blow i n g at the tim e

,
.
 238 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S OPH E RS .

not more f avourable to the new f aith which that philosophy

had suddenly ecli p sed Fo r the one rej ected every kind o f
.

supernaturalism an d the other did not attempt to g o behind

what had been d irectly revealed by the g ods o r was dis ,

coverable f ro m an e x amination o f thei r hand iwork Never .

t h e l e s s the n ew enquiries with th ei r e x clusively subj ective

, ,

d i ec tion paved the way f o r a retu rn to the reli g ious develop

r
,

ment previously i n pro g ress By lead in g men to think o f .

mind as above all a p rinciple o f knowled g e and d eliberate

, ,

action they altog ether f reed it f ro m those material associa

,

tions whi ch brou g ht it und er the laws o f ex ternal Nature ,

where every finite e x istence was d estined s ooner or later to , ,

be reabsorbed and to d isappear The position was c om .

p l e t e l y reversed when N atu re was as it were brou g ht up , ,

be f ore the bar o f M ind t o have her c onstitution d etermined

o r her ve ry e x istence d enied by that sup reme tribu nal I f .

the subj ective idealism o f Prota goras and Gorg ias mad e f o r
Spiritualism so also did the teleol o g ical reli g ion o f S o c rates
, .

I t was impossible to assert the p riority and superi ority o f

mind to matter m ore stron g ly than by teachin g that a
d esi g nin g intelli gence had crea t ed th e whole visibl e un iverse
f o r the e x clusive enj oym ent o f ma n The i nfinite without .

was i n its turn absorbed by the i nfinite within Finally the .

,

lo g ical method o f Socrates contained i n itsel f the germs o f a

still subtler sp i ritualism whi ch P lato now proceeded to work
out .

The dialectic theo ry c onsi dered in its relation to physics

, ,

tend ed to substitut e the study o f u ni f ormity f o r the study o f

mechan ical c ausatio n B ut the g eneral conceptions estab
.

lis h e d by s c ience were a kind o f soul in Nature ; they were

i mmaterial they could not be p erceived by sense and yet
, , ,

remai nin g as they di d u nch an g ed i n a world o f cha n g e they ,

were f a r t ruer f a r more real than the pheno me n a to which

, ,

they g ave u nity and d efinition No w these sel f e x istent

.
-

ideas bein g subj ective i n thei r ori g in readily reacted on

, ,
 PL A TO A S A R E FO R ME R . 239

mind ,and commun icated to it those attributes o f fi x e d n e s s

and eternal du ration which had i n truth been borrowed by
them f ro m Natu re not by N ature f ro m them Plato arg ued
, .

that the soul was in possession o f id eas too p ure to h ave

been d erived f rom the su gg esti ons o f sense an d there f ore ,

traceabl e to th e reminiscences o f an ante natal e x perience -

.

But we c an see that the remi nisc ence was all o n the sid e o f
the i deas ; it was they that betrayed thei r hu man ori g i n by
the birthmark o f abst ra c t i on and fi n al it y— betokenin g the
’
li mitation o f man s f aculti es an d the i nterest o f his desi res
which still clun g to them whe n f ro m a temporary l aw o f
thou ght they were erected i nto an eve rlastin g l aw o f thin g s .

As Co mte would say Plato was takin g out o f his conc eptions
,

what he had first p ut into them hi msel f And i f this .

,

consideration applies to all hi s reasonin g s on the subj ect o f

i m mo rtality it applies esp ecially to what h e reg ards as the
,

most convinci n g d emonstration o f any There i s on e id ea .

,

h e tells us with which the soul is i nseparably and essenti ally

,

associated — namely the idea o f li f e W ithout this sou l can

'

.
, ,

no more be conceived than snow without cold or fi re withou t

heat ; nor can d eath approach it without involvi n g a lo g ical
contradiction To assu m e that the sou l i s separable f rom
.

the body and that li f e is i nseparabl e f ro m the soul was

, ,

certainly an expeditiou s method o f proo f To a mod ern i t .

,

woul d have the f urther disadvanta g e o f provin g too mu ch .

For by parity o f reasonin g every livin g thin g m ust h ave an

, ,

i m mortal soul and every soul must have e x isted f ro m all

,

eternity Plato f rankly accepted both conclu si ons and even

.
,

i ncorporated them with his ethi cal system H e looked on .

the lower animals as so many sta ges in a pro g ressive

d eg radation to which hu man bein g s h ad descend ed throu g h
thei r own violence o r sensuality but f ro m which it w as
,

possible f o r them to return a f ter a certai n period o f penite n ce

and p robation At other ti mes he describes a hell a
.
,

p u rg atory and a heaven not unl ike what w e read o f i n

, ,
240 T HE GR E E K PH I L O S OPH E R S .

Dante w i thout apparently bein g consciou s o f any i n c o n

,

sisten cy between the tw o representations I t was in deed an .

, ,

i ncon sistency such as we find i n the hig hest ord er o f intellects ,

the i n consisten c y o f one who m ediated between two worlds ,

between naturalistic mete mpsy c hosis on th e on e s i d e and ,

ethical indi v id ualis m on the other .

I t was n ot merely the i m mortality it was the etern i ty o f ,

the soul that Plato t au ght For hi m the expectation o f a li f e .

beyond the g rave was id entified with the memo ry o f an ante

natal e x isten c e and the two mu st stand or f all to gether
, .

When Shelley s ship w recked mother ex c lai ms to her c hild

’

‘
A l as w h at i s li f e , w h at i s d e ath , wh at are w e ,

T h at wh e n th e s h ip s i n ks we no l o n ge r may b e

Wh at t o s e e t h ee n o m o re , an d to f ee l th e e no mo re,
T0 b e af t e r l if e wh at w e h ave been b e f o re

H er d espa i r i s but the i nverted i mag e o f Plato s hope the ’

return to a pu rer state o f bein g where knowled g e W l ll no

lon ger be obscured by passin g throu gh the perturbin g medium
o f si g ht and touch Ag ai n mod ern apolog ists f o r the inj ustice
.
,

‘
and m isery o f the present system arg ue that its i nequalities
will be red ressed in a f utu re state Plato conversely reg arded .

the su ff erin g s o f g ood men as a retribution f o r f ormer sin or ,

as the result o f a f orgotten choi c e The authority o f Pin dar .

and o f ancient trad i tion g enerally may have influen c ed his

belie f but i t had a d eeper g round in the lo gi c o f a spiritual
,

i stle philosophy The du alism o f soul and body i s only one

.

f orm o f his f u ndamental antithesis b etween the c han g eless

essen ce and the transito ry mani f estations o f ex i sten c e A .

pantheism like Spinoza s was the natu ral o utcome o f su ch a ’

system ; but his pract i cal g en i us or his ardent i mag ination

kept Plato f rom c arryin g it so f ar Nor i n the interests o f .

prog ress was the result to be reg retted ; f o r theology had to

pass throu gh one more phase bef ore the term o f its b e n e fi c e n t
activity co u ld b e reached E thi c al c onceptions g ained a new .

U n mo n d e qu i est l in ju s tic e m6 me
’
.
—E mes t
’
R e n an , L Eglise
’
C/z re t i emz e
'

1 39
p . .
 2 42 TH E GRE E K PH I L OS OPH E RS .

extend ed the same ind ul g ence to fictions o f the E d ge w o r th ia n

type where the vi rtuous chara c ters always c ome o ff best in

,

the end .

The re f orm ed system o f edu cation was to be n o t only

moral and reli g iou s but also se v erely scientific The place .

g iven to mathemati c s as the oundation o f a ri g ht intel l e ct u al

f /

trainin g is most remarkabl e and shows h o w truly Plato ,

apprehended the c onditions u nder which knowled g e i s a c

quired and enlarg ed H ere as i n other respe c ts he is more
.
, , ,

even than Aristotle the precursor o f Au g uste C omte H e

, .

arran g es the mathe matical s c ienc es so f ar as they then e x isted

, ,

i n their lo g ic al o rder ; and hi s remarks on the most g eneral

i deas su gg ested by astronomy read like a d ivination o f ration al
mechanics That a recom mendation o f such st u dies should
.

be put into the mouth o f S ocrates i s a strikin g i ncon g ruity .

The older Plato g rew the f arther he seems to ha v e advanced

f ro m the hu man i st to the n aturalistic poi nt o f view ; and had ,

he been willin g to con f ess it Hippias and Pro d i c u s were the

,

teachers with who m he finally f ound hi msel f most i n sympathy .

M acaulay has spoken as i f the Platoni c ph ilosophy was

.

totally unrelated to the material wants o f m en This how .

,

ever is a mistake I t is true that in the R ep u b l i c scienc e is

,
.
, ,

not reg arded as an instru ment f o r heapin g up f resh lu x u ries ,

or f o r curin g the d iseases which lu x u ry breeds ; but only

becau s e its purpose is held to be the d i scovery o f those
conditions under which a healthy happy an d v i rtuou s race , ,

c an best be reared The art o f the true statesman i s to weave

.

the web o f li f e with per f ect skill to brin g tog ethe rthose ,

c ouples f rom whose union the noblest pro geny shall i ssu e and
it is only by masterin g the laws o f the physical u niverse that
thi s art c an be a cqui red Plato kne w no natu ral laws but
.

those o f mathematics an d astronomy ; consequ ently he set ,

f a r too mu c h store on the ti mes and seasons at which bride

an d bride g room were to meet and on the numerical ratios by
,

which they were supposed to be determined H e even tells .

 PL A TO A S A R E FO R M E R . 2 43

u s about a mysterious f ormula f o r d iscoveri n g the nuptial

nu mber by which the in g enuity o f c ommentators has been
,

considerably e x ercised The true laws by which marriag e

.

should be reg ulated amon g a c ivilised people hav e remained

wrapped i n still more impenetrable d arkness Whatever may .

be the best solution it can hard ly f ail to di ff er i n many

,

respects f ro m our present cu sto ms I t cannot be right that .

the mos t i mporta nt act in the li f e o f a hu man bein g shoul d

be d etermined by socia l a mbition by avari ce by vanity by , , ,

pique or by accident— i n a w ord by the most contempt i ble

, ,

i mpulses o f which hu ma n nature i s susceptible nor is it to be

e x pected that se x ual selection will al w ays n ecessitate the
employment o f insincerity ad ulation and bribery by on e o f
, ,

the parties concerned while f osteri n g i n the other c red ulity

, ,

e g oism j ealousy capriciousness and petty tyranny— the very

, , ,

qualities which a wise traini n g would have f o r its obj ect to

‘
root out .

I t seems d i ffic u lt to reconcile views about m arriag e i n v o lv

i n g a reco g nition o f the f act that mental and moral quali ties
are hereditarily t ransmitted with the belie f i n me te mp s y
,

c h o s i s elsewhere p ro f essed by Plato But perhaps his ad .

h e s io n to the latter doctrine is not to be taken very seri ously .

I n i m i tation o f the obj ective world whose essential truth i s ,

hal f h i d den and hal f d isclosed by its pheno menal m ani f esta
tions he loves to p resent his speculative teachin g u nder a
,

myt hical d i s guise ; and so he may have chosen the old

doctrine o f transmig ration as an apt e x pression f o r the u nity
and continuity o f li f e And at worst he wo u ld not be g uilty
. , ,

of any g reater incon sistency than is charg eable to those

modern philosophers who while they ad mit that mental ,

qualiti es are inherited hold each i ndivid ual soul to be a

,

separate and i ndependent creation .

The rules f o r breedin g and edu cation set f orth i n th e

R ep u b l i c are not i ntend ed f o r the whole com munity but o n ly ,

1
C f [4 75 73 3
. 2 10 , If .
jo w e t t ,
I .
, 54 .

R 2
 44 T H E G RE E K PH I L O S OPH E R S .

fo r the rulin g minority I t was by the corrupt i on o f the

.

hi gher classes that Plato was most d istressed and the salva ,

tion o f the State depended a c cordin g to h i m on their re f o r

, ,

mation Thi s leads u s on to his scheme f o r the reconstitution

.

o f society I t i s int i mately c on ne c ted with his method o f

.

log ical d efinition and classific ation H e shows with g reat .

f orce that the c olle c tive action o f human bein g s is conditioned

by the d ivision o f l abou r ; and arg ues f rom this that every
i ndiv i dual ou ght i n the i nterest o f the whole to be restricted
, ,

to a sin g le oc cupation There f ore the industrial classes who

.
, ,

f orm the bulk o f the population are to be e x clud ed both ,

f ro m mi li t arv service and f ro m political power The Pelo .

p o n n e s ia n War had led to a g eneral substitution o f p ro f e s

s i o n al soldiers f o r the old levies o f untrained c itizens i n G reek

warf are Plato was d eeply i mpressed by the d an g ers as well

.
,

as by the advantages o f this revolution That each p ro f e s

, .

sion should be exerc i sed only by persons trained f o r it su ited ,

hi s notions al ike as a log i c ian a teacher and a practi c al

, ,

re f ormer But he saw that mer c enary fi g ht ers mig ht use

.

their power to oppress and pl under the d e f en c eless citizens ,

or to establish a military des p otism And holdin g that .

,

g overnm ent should like strat e g y be exerci sed only by f unc

, ,

t i o n ari e s natu rally fitted and e x pressly trai ned f o r the work ,

he saw equally that a privileg ed class would be tempted to

abuse thei r position in order to fill thei r pockets and to g rati f y
their passions H e proposed to provide ag ainst these dan g ers
.
,

first by the n ew system o f ed ucation already described and ,

se c ondly by pushin g the d ivision o f labour to i ts lo g i c al

conclusion Tha t they mi ght the better attend to their
.

specifi c d uties the d e f enders and the rulers o f the State were
,

not to pra c tise the art o f m oney makin g ; in other word s -

they were not to possess any property o f the i r own but were ,

to be supported by the labou r o f the i nd ustrial c lasses .

Furthermore that they need not quarrel amon g themsel v es

, ,

he proposed that every private i nterest sho u ld be elimin ated

246 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E RS .

d eeper sense than Plato himsel f was a w are o f Fo r hi s .

aristo cracy rep resents the m an whose virtue i n the word s o f , ,

’
Gorg ias was to ad minister the S tate ; an d his i nd ustrial
,
‘

cla s s takes the place o f the woman whose du ty w as to ,

‘

ord er her house and keep what is i ndoors and obey her
, ,

husband " .

S uch was the celebrated scheme by which Plato proposed

to re g enerate mankind We have already taken oc casion to .

sho w how i t was c onne c ted with hi s ethical and d ialectical

philosophy We have now to consider i n what relation i t
.

st and s to the political experience o f hi s own an d other tim es ,

as well as to the revolutionary p ro po sals o f other speculative

re formers .

VI .

Accordin g to H eg el the Platonic polity so f ar f rom ,

2
,

bein g an i mprac ticable d ream had already f ound its re alis a ,

tion i n Greek li f e and di d but g ive a pu rer e x pression to the

,

constitutive principle o f every ancient com monwealth There .

are he tells us three stag es i n the moral d evelopment o f

, ,

mankind The fi rst is p u re ly o b je c t iv e I t represents a

‘

. .

reg i me where rules o f c ond uct are enti rely i mposed f rom
w ithout they are as it were embod ied i n the f ra ework o f
, ,
m
society ; they rest not on reason and conscience b ut o n , ,

a uthority and tradition they will not su ff er themselves to be

questioned f o r bei n g u nproved a doubt would be f atal to
, , ,

t hei r very e x istence H ere the individual i s completely .

sacrificed to the State but in the se c ond or subj ective s t ag e

he breaks loose assertin g the ri g ht o f h is private j ud g ment
,

and w ill as a g ai n st the established order o f thin gs This .

revolution was still a c cord i n g to H e ge l be gu n by the

, ,

S ophists and So c rates I t proved altog ether incompatibl e .

with the spiri t o f Greek civili sation which i t end ed by ,

shatte rin g t o pieces The subj ective principle f ound an .

Ill eu o, 71 , E . J o w e tt, I .
, 2 70 .
‘
2
Geseli . a
’
. [V
I , . II 2 7
2 .
 L
P A T O A S A R E FOR M E R . 24 7

appropriate expressio n i n C hri stianity which attributes an ,

i nfinite importance to the individual soul and it appears also

i n the political philosophy o f R ousseau We may observ e .

that it c orresponds very n early to what Au g uste Comte

meant by the m etaphysical period The mod ern State re .

c onciles both principles allo w mg the individ ual his f ull d e

,

v e l o p me n t and at the sam e ti m e i ncorporatin g hi m with a

,

larg er whole w here f o r the first ti me he finds his own reason

, , ,

f ul ly realised No w H eg el looks o n the Platoni c republi c

.
,

as a reaction ag ainst the subj e c tive i ndivid ualism the ri ght o f ,

private j ud g ment the sel f seeki n g i mpulse or whatever else

,
-
,

it is to be called which was f ast eatin g into the heart o f Greek

,

civilisation To counteract this f atal tend ency Plato g oes

.
,

back to the constitutive principl e o f Greek society — that is to

say the omnipotence o r i n Ben thamite parlance o mn i c o m
, , , ,

p e t e n c,
e o f the State e x hibitin g it in ideal per f ection as the
, ,

suppressi on o f i nd i vidu al l iberty und er every f orm more ,

especially the f und amental f orms o f prop erty m arriag e and , ,

d omestic li f e .

I t seems to us that He g el i n his an x iety to c rush eve ry

,

histori cal process into the n arrow sym metry o f a f avourite

m etaphy sical f ormula has con f ounded several entirely d istinct
,

conceptions under the co mmon name o f subj ectivity Fi rst .

,

there is the ri g ht o f privat e j ud g ment the clai m o f each ,

i nd ividu al to have a voic e i n the a ff ai rs o f the State and to have ,

the f ree management o f hi s own personal concerns But this .

,

so f ar f rom bein g mode m is on e o f the old est custom s o f the

,

Aryan race ; and p erhaps could we look back to the old est ,

histo ry o f other races now despotically g overn ed we should ,

find it prevailin g amon g them also I t was n o new nor u n .

hear d o f privile g e that R ousseau vindicated f o r the peoples

-

o f hi s own time bu t thei r ancient birthri g ht taken f rom them

, ,

by the g rowth o f a central i sed military system j ust as it had ,

been f ormerly taken f ro m the city communities o f the Gra c co

R o man world I n thi s respe c t Plat o g oes ag ainst the whole
.
,
248 TH E G R E E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

spi ri t o f his c o untry and no p eri od o f its d evelopment not

, ,

even the ag e o f Homer would have satisfied hi m

, .

We have ne x t the disposition o f i ndivi duals no lon ger to ,

inte rf ere i n makin g the law but to overrid e it or to bend it

, ,

i nto an instrument f o r thei r own pu rposes D oubtless there .

e x isted su c h a tend en c y i n Plato s ti me and his polity was ’

v ery larg ely d esi gn ed to hold it i n c heck But su ch u n .

pri n c ipl e d am b ition w as n othin g n ew i n Greece however the ,

m ode o f its m ani f estations mi g ht va ry What had formerly .

been sei zed by armed violen c e was now sou g ht a f ter with the
more su b tle weapons o f rhetorical skill j u st as at the p resent
moment amon g these sam e Greeks i t is the priz e o f parl ia
, ,

me n tary intri g ue .The C retan a n d Spartan institutions may

very possibly have been d esi g n ed with a vie w to c heckin g
this spirit o f selfish lawlessness by red ucin g private interests
,

t o a mi ni mu m ; and Pl ato most certainly had them in his

mind when he pushed the same method still f urther b u t those
insti tutions we re not types o f H e lle n i sm as a whole they only ,

re re s e n t e d o n e and that a very abnormal sid e o f i t Plato

p , , .

borrowed some elements f rom this quarter but as we shal l , ,

p resently show he i nco rporated the m with others o f a widely

,

d i ff erent character Sparta was i n d eed on any hi g h theory

.
, ,

o f g overn ment n o t a S tate at all but a robber clan established

, ,
-

amon g a plundered population whom they never tried o r

c ared to conciliate H ow little wei ght her rulers attributed
.

to the i nterests o f the S tate as such was well exhibited d urin g ,

the Peloponnesian War when political ad vantag es o f the

,

utmost i mportance were su rrend ered in de f erenc e to the

n oble f amili es whose kinsmen had been c ap t ured at Sp h a c
t eria and whose sole obj ect was to rescu e them f rom the f ate
,

w ith which they were threatened by the Athenians as a means

f e tortin concessions — cond u c t with which the re f usal o f

o x g
R o me to ransom the soldiers w h o had surrendered at C annae
may be i n s t f u c t i v e ly c ontrasted .

We have thi rdly to consider a f orm o f ind iv i d ual i sm

, ,
2
50

The three f orms o f i n di vidualism already enu merated do

not e x haust the g eneral conception o f subj ectivity Accord .

i n g to H e g el i f we u nderstand hi m ari g ht the most important

, ,

aspect o f the pri nciple i n question would be the philosophical

side the return o f thou ght o n itsel f already latent i n physical
, ,

speculation proclai med by the S ophists as an all dissol v in g

,
-

scepti cism and worked up into a theory o f li f e by S ocrates

,
.

That there was su c h a movement is o f cou rse certain but , ,

that it contributed per c eptibly to the decay o f old Greek

morality o r that it was essentially opposed to the old Greek
,

spirit cannot we thi nk b e truly asserted What has been

, , ,
.

already observed o f political liberty and o f political u n

scru pulousness may be repeated o f intellectu al inquisitiveness ,

ration alism scepticism or by whatever name the tend ency i n

, ,

question is to be called —i t always was and still is essentially , ,

chara c teri st ic o f the Greek race I t may very possibly have .

been a source o f political disinteg ration at all ti mes but that ,

it became so to a g reater e x tent a f ter assumin g the f orm o f

systematic speculation has n ever been p roved I f the study .

o f science or the passion f o r intellectual g ymnastics d rew

, ,

men away f rom the duties o f publi c l i f e it was simply as on e ,

more private interest amon g ma n y j u st like f eastin g or , ,

lovemaki n g or tra v ellin g o r poet ry or any other o f the

, , ,

occupations in whi c h a wealthy Greek deli ghted ; not f rom

any i ntrinsic i ncompatibility with the d uti es o f a s tatesman
or a soldier S o f ar ind eed was this f ro m bein g true that
.
, , ,

l i beral studies even o f the abstrusest order were pursued

, ,

with every advantag e to their patriotic energy by such citizens

as Zeno Me l is s u s E mpedocles and above al l by Pe ricles and
, , , , ,

E p ame i n o n d as I f Socrates stood aloo f f ro m public business

.

i t was that he mi g ht have more leisure to train others f o r its

proper perf ormance ; and he him sel f when called upon to ,

serve the S tate p roved f ully equ al to the emerg ency As f o r

, .

the Sophists it is well known that their pro f ession was to

,

g ive youn g men the sort o f education which woul d e nable

 L
P A T O A S A RE FO R M E R . 251

them to fill the hi g hest political o ffic es with honou r a n d

advanta g e I t is true that such a special preparation would
“

end by throwin g i ncreased di fficulties i n the w ay o f a career

whi ch it was ori g inally i ntend ed to f acilitate by rai si n g the ,

standard o f techni cal profic i ency i n statesmanship an d that

many possible aspirants would in consequence be driven , ,

bac k on less ard uou s pu rsuits But Plat o was so f ar f ro m .

opposin g thi s speci alisation that he wished t o carry it much

f arther and to make g overnment the e x clusive business o f a
,

s mall cl ass who were to be physiolog ically selected an d to

receive an education f ar more elaborate than any that the
Sophists coul d g ive I f however we consider Plato not as
.
, ,

the constru c tor o f a new constitution but in relation to the

politics o f hi s own ti me we m ust ad mit that his whole i n
,

flu e n c e was used to set public a ff ai rs i n a hate f ul and con

t e mp t ib le li g ht So f a r there f ore as philosophy was re p re
.
, ,
.

sented by hi m it must c ount f o r a disi nteg ratin g f o rc e But

, .

i n j ust the same d eg ree we are preclud ed f ro m assimilatin g

hi s idea o f a State to the old H ellenic mod el We must .

rather say what he himsel f would have s aid that i t never was
, ,

realised anywhere ; althou g h as we s h all presently see a , ,

certain approach to it w as m ade i n the M idd le A g es .

O nce more lookin g at the whole cu rrent o f Greek philo

,

sophy and especially the philo sophy o f m ind are we e ntitled

, ,

to say that i t encou ra g ed if it di d not create those other f or ms

, ,

o f i nd ividualism already defined as mutinou s criticis m on the

-

part o f the people and selfish ambition on the part o f it s chie f s

,

Some historians have mai ntained that there was such a con
n e x i o n O peratin g i f not d irectly at least throu g h a chai n o f
, , ,

i ntermed iate causes Free thou ght destroyed reli g ion with
.
,

reli g ion f ell morality and with morality whatever restraints

,

had hitherto kept anarchic tenden cies o f eve ry descriptio n

w i thin b ounds These are interestin g reflections but they d o
.

n o t concern u s here f o r the issue raised by H e g el i s entirely

,

d i ff erent I t matters nothin g to hi m that Socrates w as a s ta u n c h

.
2 52 TH E G R E E K PH I L OS OPH E R S .

d e f ender o f supernatu ralism and o f the received morality .

The essential antithesis i s between th e Soc rati c introspection

and the So c ratic dialectics on the one side and the u nqu estioned ,

authority o f ancient institutions on the other I f this be what .

H e g el m eans we m ust once more re cord o ur dissent We

, .

c annot ad mit that the philosophy o f subj ectivity so interpreted , ,

was a de c omposin g f erment ; no r that the spirit o f Plato s ’

republic was i n any case a p rotest a g ai nst i t The Delphic

, ,
.

precept K now thysel f meant in the mouth o f Socrates

,
‘
,
’

L e t every man find out what w ork he i s best fitted f o r and ,

sti ck to that without m edd lin g i n matters f o r which he is not

,

quali fi ed The S o c ratic dialectic m eant : Le t the whole field

.

of knowled g e be si milarly studied let ou r id eas on all

subj ects be so syste matised that we shall be able to discover
at a mom ent s notice t h e beari n g o f any one o f them on any
’

o f the others or on any new questio n brou g ht up f o r d ec i sion

,
.

Surely nothin g c ould well be less i nd i vid ualisti c i n a bad ,

sense less ant i social less anarchic than this Nor does
,
-

, .

’
Pl ato O ppose he g eneralises his master s principles he works
,

out the psycholo gy and d ialecti c o f the whole state ; and i f

the members o f hi s g overnin g class are not permitted to have
any separate i nterests in their i ndivid ual capacity each ,

i ndividual sou l i s exalted to the hi g hes t d i g nity by havin g the

community reorg anised on the model o f its own internal
econo my There are n o violent peripeteias i n thi s g reat
.

d rama o f thou g ht b u t everywhere harmony continuity and

, , ,

g rad ual d evelop ment .

We have entered at some l en gth into H eg el s t h e o 1y o f t he ’

R ep u b l i c becau se it seems to embody a misleadi n g conception

,

not only o f Greek politi cs but also o f the most i mportant

attempt at a social re f ormation e v er mad e by on e man in the
history o f philosophy Thou ght wou ld be m uch less worth
.

studyin g i f i t only reprod u c ed the abstract f orm o f a very

li mited exper i en c e i nstead o f analysin g and recombinin g the
,

elements o f which that e x perien c e is composed And our .

254 TH E G R E E K PH I L O SO PH E RS .

tu t io n s what ever . Nw
every g reat revolutionary mo v ement
o , ,

if i n some respects an advance and an evolution is i n oth e r ,

respects a retro g ression and a d issolution When the most .

comple x f orms o f political association are broken up the ,

O lder o r subo r d inate f orms sudd enly acquire new l i f e and

meanin g What is tru e o f practice i s tru e also o f speculation
. .

H avin g broken away f rom the m ost advan c ed civilisation ,

Plato was thrown back on the spo n taneous org anisatio n o f

i nd ustry on the army the school the f amily the sava g e
, , , ,

tribe and even the herd o f catt le f o r types o f social union

, , .

I t was by takin g some hints f rom each o f these minor agg re

g ates that he succeeded i n buildi n

g up his ideal polity which , ,

notwithstandin g its supposed s implicity and consistency is one ,

o f the most hetero g en eous ever f ramed The pri nciples on .

which it rests are not really carried out to their lo g ical c o n s e

e n c e s ; they inter f ere with and supplement one another
q u .

The restriction o f politi cal power to a sin g le c l ass i s avowedly

based on th e necessity f o r a d ivision o f labou r O n e man we .
,

are told can only do one thin g well But Plato should have
, .

seen that the produ cer is not f o r that reason to be made a

monopolist ; an d that to borrow his own f avourite e x am p le
, ,

shoes are properly manu f actured because the shoemaker is

kept i n o rder by the competitio n o f his rivals and by the
f reedo m o f the consu mer to purchase wherever he pleases .

Athenian democracy so f ar f rom contrad ictin g the lessons o f

,

politi cal economy was i n truth thei r lo g ic al application to

, , ,

g overn ment The people did not really g overn themselves

.
,

nor do they in any modern d emoc racy but they l isten ed to ,

d i ff erent proposal s j u st as they m i ght choose amon g di ff erent

,

articles in a shop or d i ff erent tend ers f o r build in g a house ,

a ccepted the m ost suitable and then le f t it to be carried out

,

by their trusted a ents g .

Ag ain Plato is f alse to his own r u le when he selects his

,

philosophic g overnors out o f the m ilitary caste I f the same .

individ ual can be a warrior in his y outh and an ad mini st rator

 PL A T O A S A RE FOR ME R . 255

i n hi s riper years one man c an d o two thin g s well thou g h

, ,

not at the same ti me I f the same person c an b e born with

.

the qualifications both o f a soldier and o f a politi ci an an d ,

can be fitted by edu cation f o r each calli n g i n su ccess i on ,

surely a much g reater nu mber can combine the f un ction s o f a

manual labou rer with those o f an elector What prevented .

Plato f ro m perceivin g this obvious parallel was the tradition

o f the pater f amilias who had always been a warrio r i n hi s

youth and a commendable an x iety to keep the army closely

c onnected with the civil power The analog ies o f do mesti c
.

li f e have also a g reat deal to d o with his proposed c om munity

o f women and child ren I nstead o f und ervalu i n g the f amily
.

aff ections he im mensely overvalued them as is shown by hi s

,

supposition that the bonds o f consan g uinity woul d preve n t

dissensions f rom arisin g amon g his warriors H e shoul d .

h av e known that many a home is the scen e o f constant

wran glin g and that quarrels be tween ki ns f olk are the
,

bitterest o f any Then look i n g on th e S tate as a g reat

.
,

school Plato i mag ined that the obed ience d ocility an d

, , ,

credulity o f youn g scholars could be kept up throu g h a li f e

ti me that f ull g rown citizens would swallow the absu rdest i n
-

v e n t i o n s ; an d that midd le a g ed o fli c e rs could be sent i nto

-

reti rem ent f o r several years to study d ialectic To suppos e .

that statesmen must n ecessarily be f ormed by the discipline

i n question is another scholastic tra i t The pro f essional
.

teacher attributes f ar more practical i mpo rtance to his

abstru ser lessons than they really possess H e is not content .

to wait f o r the i ndi rect i nfluen c e which they may e x ert at

some remote period and in combi nation with f orces o f
perhaps a wid ely d i ff erent character H e looks f o r i mme
.

d iate and tellin g results H e i mag ines that the hi g hest t ruth
.

mu st have a mysterious power o f trans f ormin g all thin g s into

its o w n likeness o r at least o f makin g its lea rners more
,

’
capable than other men o f d oin g the world s work H ere .

also Plato in stead o f bein g too lo g ical was not log ical
, ,
 TH E G RE E K PH I
'

L OSOPH E R S .

en ou gh By f ollowin g o u t the l aws o f e c onomy as applied

.
,

to m ental labou r he mi ght have arrived at the separation o f

,

the Spiritual and temporal powers and thus antici pated the ,

best established soci al d o c trine o f ou r ti me .

’
With reg ard to the propa g ation o f the race Plato s ,

method s are a v owedly borrowed f rom tho se practised by

bi rd f an c iers horse trainers and cattle breed ers I t had lon g
-

,
-

,
-
.

been a Greek custom to c ompare the people to a flock o f

sheep and thei r ruler to a shepherd phrases which still ,

su rv ive i n e c clesiasti cal parlance Socrates habitually em .

ployed the sam e simi le i n his political discussion s ; and the

rhetoricians used it as a j ustification o f the g overnors who
e n riched themselves at the expense o f those com mitted to
thei r charg e Plato twisted the arg ument out o f thei r hand s
.

and showed that the shepherd as su c h studies nothin g b u t

, ,

the g ood o f his sheep H e f ailed to perc eive that t he parallel

.

co uld not be carried out in eve ry d etail and that quite apart , ,

f ro m more elevated consid erations the system which secures ,

a healthy prog eny i n the one case cannot be trans f erred to

creatures possessin g a vastly more compl e x and delicate
organisation The d estruction o f sickly and d e f ormed
.

child ren could only be j u stified on the hypothesis that

none bu t physi c al qualities were o f any value to the co m
munity O u r philosopher f org ets his own d istinction
.

bet w een soul and body j ust when he most need ed to re

m ember it .

The position assi g ned to women by Plato may perhaps

—
have seemed to his contemporaries the most parado x ical o f
all hi s proj e c ts and it has been observed that here he is i n
,

advance even o f our own ag e But a tru e conclusion may be

.

d edu c ed f ro m f alse premises ; and Plato s concl usion i s n ot ’

even identi c al with that reached on other g rou nd s by the

m odern advocates o f wo men s ri g hts or rather o f thei r equ i tabl e
’

clai ms The autho r o f the R ep u bli c d etested d emoc racy ; an d

.

the en f ranchisement o f women is now demand ed as a part o f

2 58 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS OPH E RS .

expended i n another d i re c tion H ere ag ain Plato i mproperly .

, ,

reasons f rom low to hi g h f orm s o f asso c iation H e appeals

"

to the doubt f ul e x ampl e o f n omadic tribes whose women to o k ,

part i n the d e f ence o f the cam p s and to the fi ghtin g power ,

possessed by the f emales o f pred ato ry animals I n t ru t h the .

,

eli min ati on o f ho me li f e lef t his women withou t any empl o y

m ent pec uliar to themsel v es an d so not to lea v e them c om ,

p l e t e ly id le they were d
,
ra f ted i nto the army more with the ,

hope o f i mposin g on the enemy by an i ncrease o f i ts apparent

stren g th than f o r the sake o f any real serv ice whi c h they were
e x pe ct ed to perf orm ‘
Wh en Plato p roposes that women o f
.

p roved abili ty should be ad mitted t o the hi g hest political

O ffi ces h e i s f ar more i n s ympathy with m odern re f orm ers ;
,

and his f reedom f ro m prej udice i s all the more remarkable

when we consid er that n o Greek lady (except perhaps , ,

Artemisia) i s known to have e v er displayed a talent f o r

g overnm ent althou g h f emi nin e i nterf eren ce in politi c s was
,

com mon enou g h at Sparta ; and that p ersonally his f eelin g

towards women was unsympathetic if not c ontemptuous 2
.

Still we mu st not e x agg e rate the i mportan c e o f his concession .

The Platoni c poli t y was a f t er all a f amily rath e f than a true , ,

S tate ; an d that wo men should be allowed a share in th e

reg ulation o f marri ag e and i n the nu rture o f child ren was only ,

g ivin g them back with one hand what had b een taken away
with the other Already a mon g ou rs elves women have a
.
, ,

voice i n educational matters and were marriage brou ght

u nder S tate control f e w would d oubt the propriety o f makin g
,

them eli g ible to the n ew Boards which would be c ha rg ed with

its supe rv ision .

The f oreg oin g an alysis will enabl e us to app re c i ate the

t ru e si g nifican c e o f the resemblan c e p ointed out by Zeller 3

R ep u b .
,
V .
, 4 71 , D .

2
H e me n t i o n s as o n e o f th e w o rs t e ff ec ts of a d e mo c rac y th at i t mad e th e m
as su me ai rs of e q u ali ty w i th me n . R ep u b .
, 56 3 B , . f 5 6 9, E
c . . Ti maeu s, 90 , E .

I t is t o b e f e ared th at Pl at o regard ed w o man as th e mi s s i n g l i n k .

I n h i s Vortrrige u n d A b/z au d l u u ge n , fi rs t se ri es , 68
'
3 .
 PLA I U A S A 2 59

bet ween the Platoni c re publ i c and the org an i sation o f med iaev al
society The i mportanc e g iven to reli g ious and moral train
.

in g the predominance o f the priesthood the sharp d is t i n c

tion d rawn be t ween the military caste and the industrial
population ; the ex c lusion o f the latter f rom political p ower ;
'

the pa rtial abolition o f m arri ag e an d property ; and i t mi ght ,

be added the hi gh position enj oyed by women as reg ents

, ,

Ch atelaines abbesses an d someti mes even as warriors or p ro

, ,

f e s s o rs — are al l inno v ations more i n the spirit o f Pl ato than

,

i n the spi r it o f Pericles Three converg in g i nflu ences u nited

.

t o brin g about this extraordina ry v erifi c ation o f a philosophical

id eal The pro f ound spiritual revolution e ff ected by Greek

.

thought was taken up an d c ontinu ed by C atholi c ism and u n ,

c onsciously guided to the same practi c al c onclusion s the

tea c hin g which it had i n g reat part orig inally inspired Social .

di ff erentiation went on at the same tim e and led to the ,

politi c al c onsequ ences lo g ically d educed f rom i t by Plato .

An d the barbarian c onquest o f R ome brou ght i n its trai n

some o f those more pri mitive habits on which his b reach with
civilisation had equally thro w n h i m back Thus the c o i n c i .

d ence between Plato s R ep u b l i c and med i ae v al polity is d ue

’

i n one d i rect i on to causal ag ency i n another to spec ulative ,

insi g ht and i n a third to p aral lelism o f e ff ects i ndepend ent o f

, ,

ea c h other but arisin g out o f analo g ous condit i ons .

I f now w e p ro c eed to co mpare the R ep u b l i c with more

, ,

recent schemes havin g also f o r thei r obj ect the identific ation
o f publi c with private interests n othin g at firs t si g ht seems, , ,

t o resemble i t so closely as the theories o f modern C om

mu n is m ; especi ally those which advoc at e t h e a b olition not
only o f private property but also o f marri ag e The si milarity .
,

however i s m erely superficial and covers a rad i ca l divergen ce

, , .

For to beg i n with the Plat o ni c p olity i s n o t a system o f

, ,

Co mmunism at all i n our se n se o f t h e word I t i s n o t that

, .

the members o f the rul i n g c as te a re to throw thei r p rop erty

into a c ommon f und ne i ther as i nd i vi duals nor as a c la s s d o
S 2
260 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSO PH E RS .

they possess any property whatever The i r want s are p ro .

v i d e d f o r by the industrial classes w h o apparently continu e ,

to live under the old system o f parti c ul ari sm What Plato .

had i n vi ew was n ot to increase the s u m o f individual enj oy

m ents by en f or c in g an equal d ivis i on o f thei r material means ,

but t o eliminate individ ualism alto g ether and thus g ive ,

hu man f eelin g the absolute g enerality whi c h he so much

ad m i red i n abstract id eas O n the other hand unless we are .
,

mistaken modern C o mmu ni sm has no obj e c tion to private

,

p roperty as such could it remai n divid ed either with absolute

,

equ ality or in strict proportion to the wants o f its holders

but only as the in e vitable cause o f i nequalities which advan c in g
civilisatio n seems to a gg ravate rather than to red ress S o .

also with marriag e th e modern assailants o f that institution

obj ect to it as a restraint on the f reed om o f i ndividu al passion ,
which a c cordin g to them would secu re the m a x i mu m o f
, ,

pl easu re by perpetually varyin g its obj ects Plato would .

have looked on su ch reason in g s as a parody and perv ersion o f

'

h is o w n d o c t ri n e as i n very truth what some o f them have ,

pro f essed to be pleas f o r the rehabilitation o f the fl esh in its

,

o rig inal supremacy over the s p i rit and there f ore the d i rect ,

O pposite o f a system which sou g ht to spirituali se by ene

g
ra l i s i n g the i nterests o f li f e And so when i n the L a w s he .
,

g ives his Com mun istic prin c iples their complete l o

g ical
d evelopment by e x tendin g the m to th e whole population he ,

i s care f ul to preserv e th eir philosophical chara c ter as the

‘
absorption o f i ndividual i n soci al e x istenc e .

The parentag e o f the two id eas will f urth er elu cidate their
essentially hetero g eneou s character For m od ern Communism .

i s an out g rowth o f the d emocratic tend encies which Plato

d etested and as such had its c ounterpart i n ancient Athens ,

if we m ay trust the E c c lés i u z u s u e o f Aristophanes where also ,

i t i s associ ated with unbridled li c entiousn ess 2

Plato on the .
,

Legg .
, 73 9 B ,
.
jo w e t t ,
V .
, 31 1 .

2
[Si n c e th e -
ab o v e w as fi rst p u b lis h e d , T e ic h mi il le r h as b ro u gh t f o rw ard n ew
 TH E GR E E K PH I L O SOPH E R S .

VI I I .

The social studies throu g h which we have ac c ompanied

Plato seem to have reacted on his more abstract speculation s ,

an d to have larg ely modified the e x treme opposition i n which

these had f ormerly stood to c urrent notions whether o f a ,

popular o r a phi losophic al cha racter The chan g e first

.

becomes p er c eptible in his theory o f I deas This is a subj ect .

on which f o r the sake o f g reater clearness we have hitherto

, ,

re f rained f ro m enterin g an d that we should have succeeded

i n avoidin g i t so lon g wou ld see m t o prove that the d octrin e
i n question f orms a much less i mportant part o f his philo
sophy than is c ommonly i mag ined Perhaps as so me think .
, ,

i t was not an ori g in al i nvention o f his own but was borrowed ,

f ro m the Me g arian s c hool ; an d t he mythical c on n e x ion in

w hich it f requently fi g u res makes us doubt f u l how f a r he ever

thorou ghly a c c epted it The th eo ry i s that to every abstract

.
,

n ame or conception o f the mi nd there corresponds an o b je c

t ive entity possessin g a separate existence qu ite d isti n c t f rom
that o f the scattered particulars by whi ch it is exemplified to
o u r senses or to our i ma g i natio n j ust
. as the H eracleitean
flu x represented t h e con f usion o f w hich S o c rates convicted
his interloc utors so also d id th ese I d eas represent the d e fi n i
,

t ions by whi ch he sou g ht to brin g m ethod an d certainty into

t hei r O pinions. I t may be that as Grote su gg ests Plato
, ,

a d opted this hypothesi s i n o rd er to escape f rom the d i ffi culty

o f defin in g com mon notions in a satis f a c to ry m anner It is .

c ertai n that his earliest D i alo g ues see m to plac e true def i ni
ti o ns beyo nd the reach o f hu m an knowled g e And at the .

be g in n i n g o f Plato s c o nstructi v e p eriod we find the re c o g n i

’

tion o f abstract con c eptions w hether mathematical or moral

, ,

tra c ed to the remembrance o f an ante natal state where the -

soul hel d di rect c onverse w i th the trans c end e n t realities to

which those conc epti ons correspond justice temperance .
, ,

beauty and goodness are especially men tioned as ex amples

, ,
 L
P A T O A S A RE FORM E R . 26 3

of I d eas re v ealed in this manner S ubsequent i n v e sti g ation s

.

must however have led Plato to believ e that the hi g hest

, ,

t ruths are to b e f ound by analysin g not the loose c onte nts but
the fi x ed f orms o f consciousness ; and that if ea c h virtu e ,

exp ressed a pa rti c ular relation between the v ar i ous parts o f

the soul no e x ternal experience was n eeded to make he r
,

acquainted with its meanin g ; still less could c on c eptions

arisin g out o f her conne x ion with the material world be
e xplained by re f eren c e to a sphere o f purely spiritual e x ist
ence At the same tim e i nnate i deas wou l d no lon g er be
.
,

requ i red to pro v e her i ncorporeality when the authority o f ,

r eason over sense f urnished so m uch more satis f actory a

g round f o r believing th e two to be o f d i ff erent ori g in To .

all who hav e stud ie d the e v olutio n o f m od ern thou ght th e ,

substitution o f K ant i an f orms f o r C arte sia n ideas will at

once elu cidate and c onfirm ou r hypothesis o f a s i milar
’
re f orm atio n i n Plato s metaphysics .

Ag ain the new posit ion occupied by Mind a s an i nter

,

med iary between the world o f reality and the world o f appear
anc e tend ed more a nd more to obliterate o r con f use the
,

d em ar c at i ons by wh i ch they had hitherto been separated .

The most g eneral headin g s under which it was usual to

contrast them were the O n e an d the M any B e i n g and
, ,

Nothin g t h e Same and the Di ff erent R est and M otion

,
/
, .

Parmenides employed the one set o f terms to d escribe his

Absolute and the other to d es c ribe th e obj e c ts o f vul g ar
,

belie f They also serv ed respe c tively to d esi g nate the wise
.

and the i g norant the dialectician and the sophist the know
, ,

led ge o f g ods and the opi nions o f m en ; bes i des o ff erin g

points o f c ontact with the anti theti c al c ouples o f Pyth a
re an i s m But Plato g rad ually f ou nd that the nature of
g o .

M in d c ould no t be u nd erstood w i thout takin g both points o f

view i nto a c cou n t U nity and plu rality sameness and
.
,

d i ff eren c e eq u ally entered i nto i ts c omposition ; althou g h

,

undo ub ted ly b e lon gin g to the sphere o f reality it was sel f ,

 264 TH E G R E E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

moved an d the cause o f all motion in other thin g s The .

d ialecti c o r c l as s ifi c at o ry method with its pro g ressive series

’
,

o f d iff e re n t i a t i o n s and assi milations also involved a c o n t i n u a l ,

u se o f c ateg ori e s which were held to be mutually e x clusive .

An d o n proceedi n g to an ex amination o f the su mma g enera ,

the hi ghest and most abstract ideas which it had been sou g ht
to disti n g u ish by their absolute pu rity and simplicity f rom
the shi f tin g chaos o f sensible phenomen a Plato discovered ,

that even these were redu c ed to a maze o f c on f usion and co n

t ra d i c t i o n by a sincere application o f the cross e x ami ni n g -

elen chus For e x amp l e to p redicate bein g o f the O n e wa s

.
,

to mix it up with a hetero g eneou s id ea and let i n the very

plu rality which it denied To di stin g uish them was to .

p redicate di ff eren c e o f both and thus open the door to f resh ,

embarrassments .

Finally while the attempt to attain e x treme accuracy o f

,

d e finition was leadin g to the d estru c tion o f a l l thou g ht an d

a ll reality withi n the S ocratic school the dial ecti c method ,

had b een taken up an d parodied i n a very coarse style by a

c lass o f persons called E ristics These men had to some .
,

e x tent usurped the plac e o f the elder Sophists as paid i n

,

s t ru c t o rs o f youth
; but thei r only a c compli shment was to
u pset every possible assertion by a series o f v erbal j u gg les .

O n e o f their f avourite parado x e s was to d eny the reality

o f f alsehood o n the Parmenid ean pri n ciple that nothi n g ‘ '

cannot e x ist Plato sati rises thei r m ethod i n the E u z by

.
’ ‘

el emu s and m akes a much more serious atte mpt to meet i t i n

,

the Sop /z i s t ; t w o Di alog ues w hich see m to have been c o m

posed not f ar f ro m on e another ‘
The Sop /z i s t e ff ects a con
.

s id e rab l e simplific ation i n the id eal theory by resolvin g

ne g at i on into di ff eren c e and altog ether o mittin g the notions
,

o f u nity and plurality — p erhap s as a result o f the i nvesti a

, g

[H e re , a ls o , th e re c e n t argu men t s of T e i c h mi i ll e r (Li t . Feb d eu , p 5 1)

.

d e s e rv e atte n t io n , b u t th e y h av e f ail e d to c o n v in c e me th at an e arli e r d ate sho u ld

be as s i
gn e d t o th e
26 6 TH E G RE E K PH I L OSOPH E R S .

of a soul and a body the f ormer c onstructed i n i mitation o f

,

the eternal archetypal ideas which now seem to be reduced to

—
three E xisten ce Sameness an d D i ff eren ce
,
‘
Th e sou l o f , .

the world is f ormed by mi x in g these three elements tog ether ,

and the body is an i mag e o f the soul S ameness i s re p re .

sented by the s tarry sphere rotatin g on its own axis ; Dif

f eren c e by the incli natio n o f the ecliptic to the equ ator ;
E xisten c e perhaps by the everlastin g d uration o f the
, ,

heavens The same analo gy e x ten ds to t he human fi gure o f

.
,

which the head i s the most essential part all the rest o f the ,

body bein g merely desi g ned f o r its support P l ato see ms to .

re g ard the material world as a sort o f m achinery d esi g ned to

meet the n ecessities o f si g ht and touch by which the human ,

so ul arrives at a knowled g e o f the eternal order w i thout — a

d irect reversal o f his earlier theo ries accordin g to wh i ch ,

m atter an d sense were mere en c u mbranc es i mpedi n g th e soul

i n her e ff orts a f ter truth .

What remains o f the v isible world a f ter d ed uct i n g its id eal

elements is p ure spa c e This which to some seems the .
,

clearest o f all concepti ons was to Plato one o f the obscu rest ,
.

H e c an only d escribe it as the f ormless substance out o f which

the f our elements fire air water an d earth are d i ff erentiated
, , , , , .

I t closes the scal e o f e x isten c e and even lies hal f outside it ,

j ust as the I d ea o f Good i n the R ep u b li c t ranscend s the

same scale at the other end We may conj ecture that the .

two p rincipl es are opposed as absolu te s el f identity and -

absolute sel f separation the whole intermediate series o f f orms

-

servin g to brid g e over the i nterv al betw e en them I t wi ll .

the n be easy to u nderstan d how as Arist otle tells us Plato , ,

fi nally came to adopt the Pytha g orean nomenclature and

d esi g nated his two g eneratin g principles as the m onad and the
i ndefinite dyad N u mber was f ormed by thei r c ombination
.
,

and all other thin g s were made ou t o f nu mber Ari stotle .

We may e v e n s ay th at th ey are re d u c e d to tw o f o r E xi s ten c e is a p ro d u c t o f

Same n e ss an d Di ff e re n c e .
 PLA T O A S A R E FOR ME R . 26 7

com p lains that the Plato nists had tu rned philosophy i nto
mathematics ; and perhaps i n the interests o f science i t was
f ortunate that the trans f ormation occurred To suppose that.

matter could be built up out o f g eometrical trian g les as Plato ,

teaches i n the Tz mez eu s was n o doubt a hi g hly rep rehensibl e

'

, , ,

con f usion but that the systematic study o f science should be

based on mathematics was an equally n ew and i mportant
apergu The i mpulse g iven to knowled g e followed u n f o re
.

’
seen directions and at a later period Plato s true spirit w a s
better represented by Archim ed es and H ipparchus than by
Arcesilaus and C arneades .

I t i s remarkable that the spontaneou s development o f

Greek thou ght should have led to a f orm o f Theism not
u nlike that which som e persons still i mag in e was s u p e rn at u
ra l ly revealed to the Hebrew race f o r the absen c e o f any con
n e x i o n between the two is now al most u niversally ad mitted .

Modern scienc e has taken up th e attitude o f L aplace toward s

the hypothesis in question and those c ritics who like L a n g e , ,

are most i mbued with the sci entific spirit f eel inclined to ,

reg ard its ad option by Plato as a retro g rade movem en t We .

m ay to a certain extent ag ree with them without ad mittin g ,

that philosophy as a whole was i nj ured by d epartin g f ro m

, ,

the pri nciples o f De mocritus An i ntellectual like an ani mal

.

org anis m may someti mes ha v e to c hoose between retrog rade

me tamorphosis an d total e x tinction The course o f events
.

d rove speculation to Athens where it could only e x ist on the

,

condit i on o f ass u mi n g a theolo g ical f orm M oreover action .

,

and reaction w ere equ al and contrary Mytholo gy g ained as

“

n i u c h as philo s op hy lost I t was purified f rom i m moral l n

.

g re d ie n t s and rai s ed to the hi ghest level which supernaturalism

,

i s capable o f attai nin g I f the R ep u b l ic was the f orerunner

.

o f the C atholic C hu r c h the Ti maeu s w as the f orerunner o f

,

the C atholic f a i th .
268 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E R S .

IX .

The old age o f Plato seems to ha v e been marked by rest

l ess activity i n more d i rections than on e H e beg an vari ou s .

works which were n ever finished and proj ected others whi c h ,

were n ever beg un H e be c ame possessed by a devou r i n g

.

zeal f o r so c ial re f orm I t seemed to hi m that nothin g was

.

wantin g but an enli ghtened d espot to m ake his ideal State a

reality Ac c ordin g to one sto ry he f ancied that such an
.
,

i n stru m ent mi ght be f ound in the youn g er D i onysi us I f so .

,

hi s ex pectations were sp eedily dis appointed As H eg el .

acutely observes only a man o f hal f measures will allow him

,

sel f to b e g uided by another and such a man would lack the

en ergy n eed ed to carry out P lato s schem e l However this ’
.

may be the philosopher d oes not seem to ha v e g i v en up his

,

i d ea that absolute mon archy was a f ter all the g overn m ent , ,

f ro m which most g ood mi g ht be expected A pro c ess o f .

substitution which runs throu gh his whole intellectual e v o l u

t ion was here e x emplified f o r the last time J ust as i n his .

ethi cal system knowled g e a f ter havin g been re gard ed solely

,

as the means f o r procurin g an ulterior end pleasure s u b s e , ,

quently became an end i n itsel f ; j ust as the interest i n know

l ed g e w as superseded by a more absorbin g interest i n the
dialectical m achin ery w hich w as to f acilitate its acquisition ,

and thi s a gai n by the social re org anisation which was to -

make edu cation a d epart ment o f the State ; so also t h e

b e n e fi c e n t despotis m ori g inally invoked f o r the purpose o f
establishin g an a risto c racy on the new model came at last t o ,

be re g ard ed by Plato as itsel f the best f orm o f g overnment .

S uch at least seems to be the dri f t o f a remarkable Dialo g ue

, ,

called the Sta tes ma n which we ag ree with Pro f J owett in

,
.

placin g im mediatly be f ore the La w s S om e have d enied its .

authenti c ity and others have placed it ve ry early i n the entire

,

series o f Platoni c compositions But it c onta i ns passages o f

.

l
G a r/z .
’
a. m , II .
, 1 75 .
270 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

standin g o f t h e parad ox Plato was averse f rom rej ectin g

.

any tenden cy o f his age that could possibly be turned to

account in his philosophy H ence as we hav e see n the use
.
, ,

which he makes o f love even u nder i ts m ost unl aw f ul f orms

, ,

i n the Sy mp os i u m and the Pk aea ru s Now it would appear ’

.
, ,

f rom ou r scanty sources o f in f ormation that so c i al f estivities , ,

always v ery popular at Athens had becom e th e c hie f i nterest ,

i n li f e ab out the ti me when Plato was c omposin g hi s L a w s .

A c co rdin g to one grace f ul leg end the philosophe r hi msel f ,

breathed his last at a marriag e f east I t may the re f ore have -

.
, ,

occurred to him that the prevalent tend ency c ould like the ,

amorous passions o f a f ormer g eneration be utilised f o r moral ,

trainin g and mad e subserv ient to the v e ry c ause wi th which ,

at first si g ht it seemed to con flict

, .

The concessions to common sense and to contempora ry

schools o f thou g ht already point e d out i n those Dial o g u es
,

which we suppose to have been written af ter the R ep u b l i c are ,

still more c onspicu ous i n the L a w s We d o not mean m erely .

the proj ect o f a politi cal constitution avowed ly o ff ered as the

best possible i n e x istin g ci rc u mstances thou gh n o t the best ,

absolutely ; but we mean that there is throu g hout a d esire to

present philosophy f ro m its most intelli g ible practical an d , ,

popular sid e The e x tremely ri gorous standard o f sexual

.

moral ity (p 8 3 8 ) seems i nd eed more akin to mod ern than to

.
, ,

a ncient notions but it was i n all probabi lity b o rrow e d f rom

,

the naturalistic school o f ethi cs the f ore runn e r o f Stoicism ,

f o r not only is there a di re c t appeal to Natu re s teachin g i n

’

that conne x i on ; but th rou ghout the enti re w ork the terms
’
nature an d natu rally occ u r with g reater f requ ency we
’ ‘
,

’
believe than in all the rest o f Plato s writin g s put t o g ether
,
.

W hen on the other hand i t is as se rt ed that men can be

, ,

g overned by no other mot iv e than pleasu re (p 6 6 3 B ) we seem .

, ,

to s e e i n this dec laration a concession to the Cyrenai c school ,

as well as a retu rn to the f orsaken standpoint o f the Pro tag o

The i n c reas i n g i n fi u e n c e o f Pythagorean i sm is shown by
‘

ra s .
 L
P A T O A S A R E FOR ME R . I

the exa ggerated i mpo rtance attributed to exa c t nu mer i cal

d eterminations The theory o f i deas i s as Pro f Jo wett
.
,
.

observ es entirely absent its pla c e b ein g taken by the d i s

, ,

1
tinction between mind and matte r .

The political c o nstitution and cod e o f laws recom mended

by Plato to his n ew c ity are adapted to a g reat e x tent f ro m
the old er le gislation o f A t hens As su ch they have supplied .

the historians o f anci ent j urisp ru den ce with so me v aluable

indications But f rom a philosophic p oint o f view the g en eral
.

i mpression produ c ed i s w earisome and even o ff ensive A .

uni v ersal system o f espionag e i s established and the odious ,

t rade o f in f ormer receives ampl e encou ra gement Worst o f .

all it i s proposed in the t ru e spirit o f Athenian intolerance

, , ,

to uphold reli g ious orthodo x y by persecuti ng laws Plato .

had actually com e to think that d isag reement with the vu l g ar

theology was a f olly an d a cri me O n e pass ag e m ay be .

quoted as a warnin g to those who woul d set early associa

t ions to d o the work o f reason and wh o would overbear n ew
t ruths by a m ethod which at on e tim e mi ght have been u sed
with f atal e ff ect ag ainst thei r own opinions
Wh o can be c al m when he is called up on to p rove the ex istence
o f th e gods Wh o c an avoid hat ing and abhorrin g th e men Who are
an d have been t h e c ause o f this arg u men t ? I sp eak o f those w h o
wi ll not believe the words which they have heard as b abes and suck
l in gs f ro m their mo thers an d nurses rep eated by them bo th in j est
,

an d e arne st l i k e ch arms w h o h ave al so heard an d seen their ar e nts

p
o ff eri n g u p sacrifi c e s an d p rayers —sights an d sounds delightf u l to
children —sac rifi c in g I say in the most e arnest manner on behal f
, ,

o f them an d o f themselve s an d with eager interest t alk i n t o the ods

, g g
an d beseechin g th e m as thou gh they were fi r mly convinc e d o f their

ex i stence ; w h o l ik ewise see an d h ear the ge n u fi e xi o n s and p rostra

t ion s w hich are made by H ell e n es an d b arbari ans to the risin g an d
'

settin g sun and moon in all th e various turns o f good an d evi l f o r

,

I n th e w o rk al re ad y re f e rre d t o , T e ic h mii ll e r ad v an c e s th e s tartli n g th eo ry

th at
’
N
Ari s to tl e s i c o mac fi c a n E t/z ic s w as p u b li sh e d b e f o re t h e c o mp l e ti o n o f th e
L aw s , a n d t h at Pl ato t o o k t h e o p p o rtu n i ty th u s o ff e re d hi m f o r re p lyi n g to t h e
c ri t i c i s ms o f h i s f o rme r p u p i l
.
(Li t Felz d m , pp 1 9 4
. .
272 TH E G REEK PH I L OSO PH E R S .

tune n o t as if th ey tho u gh t th at there we re n o gods but as i f th ere

, ,

coul d be no doubt o f their e x istence an d n o su sp ici o n o f their non

,

ex i ste n ce when me n k nowi n g all thes e things des p ise them o n no

, ,

real grou n ds as woul d be ad mi tte d by all w h o have any p articl e o f

,

intelligence an d whe n they f orce u s to say what w e are n o w sayi n g

, ,

h o w c an an y one in gentl e terms remonstrate with th e l i k e o f the m ,

wh en h e has to begin by p roving to them the very ex istence o f the

gods
1

Le t i t be remembered that the g od s whom Plato i s of

speakin g are the sun moo n and stars that the atheists whom
, ,

he d enounces only tau g ht what we have lon g known to be true ,

which is that those lu minaries are no more divine no more ,

animated no more capable o f acceptin g ou r sacrifices or re

,

s p o n d i n g to ou r cries than i s the earth on which we tread an d

that he attempts to p rove the c ontra ry by arg u ments which ,

even i f they were not incons i stent with all that we know abou t
mechanics would still be utterly inadequ ate to the purpose f o r
,

which they are employed .

Tu rnin g back once more f rom the melancholy decline o f a

g reat g enius to the splend ou r o f its meridi an p ri me we will ,

endeavou r briefly to rec apitulate the achievements which

entitle Plato to rank amon g t he five or s ix g reatest G reeks ,

and amon g the f our or five g reatest thinkers o f al l ti me H e .

e x tended the philosophy o f mi nd until it embraced not only

ethics and dialectics but also the study o f politics o f relig ion , ,

o f social sci ence o f fi ne art o f economy o f lan g ua g e a nd o f

, , , ,

ed ucation I n other words he showed how ideas could be

.
,

applied to li f e on the most c omprehensive scale Further he .

,

saw that th e study o f M ind to b e complete n ecessitates a

, ,

knowled g e o f physic al phenom ena and o f the realities which

und erlie them accordin g ly he m ad e a return on the obj ect
,

ive speculations whi c h had been temporarily abandoned thu s ,

m ed iatin g between S ocrates and early Greek thou ght while

o n the other hand by hi s theo ry o f classification he med iated
bet w een Socrates and Aristotle H e based physical science .

88 7—8 V
L egg ,
.
jo w e t t , .
, 4 56 .
 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E RS
.

so me o f his d reams have already come tru e ; others still await

their f ulfilment and even those which are irre c oncilable with
the d emands o f e x perience will continu e to be studied with
the interest attachin g to every g enerous and darin g a d v e n
ture in the spi ritual no l e ss than i n the secular order o f
,

ex i st e n c e
.
 C HAPT E R V I .

I
C H AR A C T E R ST C S O F A R I ST O T LE I .

I .

WI T H I N the last twelve years several books both larg e an d ,

s mall have appeared dealin g either with the phi losophy o f

, ,

Aristotle as a whole or with the ge n eral principles on which ,

i t i s constructed The Berlin edition o f Aristotle s colle c ted

.
’

works was supplemented i n 1 8 70 by the publi cation o f a mag

n i fi c e n t inde x fi llin g nearly nine hu ndred quarto pa ges f o r
, ,

which we have to thank the learni n g and ind ustry o f B o n i t z l .

Then came the u nfinished t reatise o f Georg e Grote planned on ,

so vast a scale that it would if co mpletely carried out have , ,

rivalled the author s H i s to ry of G reec e in bulk and perhaps ’

e x ceeded the authentic remains o f the Stag i rite hi msel f As .

it is we have a f ull account e x pository an d 6rit i c al o f the

, , ,

O rg a u o u a c hapter on the De A u i mé g an d so m e f ra g ments

,

on other Ari stotelian writin g s all marked by G ro t e s won ,

’

d e rf u l sa g acity and g ood sense I n 1 8 79 a new and g reatly .

enlarged edition brou ght that portion o f Zeller s work o n ’

Greek Philosophy which deals with Ari stotle and the Peri
f ully up to the level o f its companion volum es and
2
a t e t ic s
p
we are g lad to see that like them it i s shortly to appear i n , ,

an E n g lish d ress The older work o f B rand is g oes over the

.
3

same g round and thou g h much behind the p resent state o f

, ,

kn o wled g e m ay still be consulted with advanta g e on account

, ,

o f its c opious and clear analyses o f the Aristotelian te x ts .

1
An s to tel i s
‘

Op era
'

. E d i d it A c ad e mia Re gi a B o ru ss i c a . B e rl n i . 1 83 1 -

7
0

Z Z
.

D ie P/z i /os op /z i e
'
2
o e r G riec /z en w e i t e r T h e i l, w e i te A b t h e i lu n A ri }
.
g .

tal c l er u a a l tm Pen p a t e/zlé e r

’
. .
'

. B y Dr E d u . ard Z e ll e r
. Le i p z i g . 18 7
9 .

3
A ri stoteler . B y C h ris ti an A u g . Br an d is . B e rli n . 1 8 53 -

57 .

T 2
2 76 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

To g ether with these pond erous t om es we have to mention ,

the little work o f S ir Ale x ander Grant l which althou g h , ,

i ntended pri marily f o r the unlearned is a real contribution ,

to Aristotelian scholarship and probably as such received , , ,

the honours o f a German translation alm ost i mmediately a f ter

its first p ublication M r E dwin Wallace s O u tl i n es of Me
. .
’

P/z il os op ky of A ri s to tle is o f a d i ff erent and much less popular

2

character O ri g inally desi g ned f o r the use o f the author s own

.
’

’
pupils it d oes f o r Aristotle s entire syste m what T re n d e le n
,

b u rg has d on e f o r his lo g i c a n d R itter and Preller f o r al l ,

Greek philosophy that i s to say it brin g s to g ether the most ,

i mportant texts and acco mpanies them with a remarkably

,

l ucid and i nterestin g i nterp retation Finally we have M . .

’
B arth elemy S aint H ilai re s I ntrod uction to his translation o f
-

Aristotle s M etap /zys i c s republished i n a pocket volu me

’
3
We , .

can sa f ely re c ommend it to those who wi sh to acqui re a

knowled g e o f the s u bj ect with the least possi bl e e x penditure
o f troub le The style i s deli g ht f ully simple an d that the
.
,

author shoul d write f ro m the standpoint o f the French spiritual

i s t ic school is not alto g ether a d isadvanta g e f o r that school is ,

p art l y o f Aristotelian ori g in and its adherents are there f ore , , ,

most likely to r eprodu ce the master s theori es with s ymp at h e ’

ti c appreciation .

I n vie w o f such e x tensive labou rs we mi g ht al most ,

i mag i ne ou rselves transported back to the ti mes when Chaucer

coul d describe a student as bein g mad e per f ectly happy by
ha v in g
A t hi s b e d d e s h e d
T we n ty b o o k e s c l o t h e d i n b l ak e o r re d

O f A ri s t o tl e an d h i s p h il o so p h i e
’
.

It seems as if we were witnessin g a revival of M ed iaevalism

A ris to tl e . B y Si r A l e x an d e r G ran t, B art .

, LL D . . E d in b u rgh an d Lo n d o n .

18 77 .

A ms totl e C o mp i le d b y E d w in Wal lac e M A

’

2
Ou tl i n es f
o {h e Ph i los op hy f
o .
, . .

O x f o rd an d Lo n d o n 1 8 80
”
. .

3
De la Métap hys i qu e I n trod u c ti on 3 [a fli é/ap /zy s i gu
( c a A ri stote .

t h éle my Sai n t H i l ai re Paris 18 7

9
‘

- . .
.
278 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E RS .

i n Fran c e ; a nd any d epartu re f rom the stri c t Peripatetic

stand ard has to be apolo g ised f o r as i f it w ere a dan g erou s
heresy O n t urn in g to ou r own country we fi nd i nd eed a
.
, , ,

m arked chan g e since the tim e when ac c o rd i n g t o M r M atthe w , .

Arnold O x f ord tutors reg arded the E t/z i c s as absol ute l y

,

i n f allible The g reat place g iven t o Plato i n public i n s tru c

.

t i on and the rap idly increasin g asc endency o f evolutionary

,

i deas are at present enou g h to hold any rival authority i n

,

c heck ; still not only are the once n eg lected porti ons o f
,

Aristotle s system beg in nin g t o attract f resh atte n tion

’

which is an altog ether commendabl e m ovement — but w e also

fin d the e minent O x f ord teacher who s e w o rk on the subj e c t ,

has been already re f erred to e x p ressi n g hi m s el f as f ollows ,

l Ve s ti ll an x io u s t o k n ow wh e ther our p e rc ep ti o n o f a r eal

are

worl d co me s to u s by an ex erci se o f thou gh t or by a si mp le i mp re s ,

sion o f sense— wh e ther i t is th e u n ive rs al th at gives th e in d ivi d u al

reali ty or th e in d ivid u al that sh ap es i t self by so me p ro ces s n o t
, ,

ex p lained in to a univers al—wh e ther bo d i ly move men ts are th e

,

causal ante ce d en ts o f mental f unctions or mi n d rather th e re al i ty ,

which give s tru th to body— whe th e r th e h i gh e s t l i fe is a l if e o f

thou gh t or a l i f e o f ac t i o n—w h e the r i n tellec tual als o involves moral
r

p gro r e s s —w h e th er t h e s tate is a mer e co mbi n at ion f o r th e p reserva

r

tion o f goo d s an d pro p erty o r a mo ral o rgani sm d evel o p i n g th e ,

idea o f ri gh t A n d abou t th ese an d s uch l i k e ques tions Ari sto tl e

.

h as s til l much t o tell u s H i s th e o ry o f a c reative reason

.
,

f ragmen tary as that th eory i s l e f t is t h e an swer to al l materi ali stic ,

th eorie s o f the unive rse T o A ri st o tle as t o a subtl e Scotti sh .

,

p re a c h er [P rinci p al C air d
] the re al p re s u p p o siti o n o f all k n o w
‘
-

l edge o r the th ou gh t which i s t h e p ri u s o f al l th in gs i s n o t the in di

, ,

v i d u al s consciou s n e ss o f hi msel f a s in d ivi d u al but a thought or

’

sel f con s c i ousnes s which is b eyo nd all indivi d u al s elve s which i s th e

-

uni ty o f all indivi du al selves an d th eir obj ec ts o f al l th i nk ers an d all ,

obj ects o f all thought 1

.
’

. criti c s are not content with brin g in g up Aristotle as

Ou r

an authority o n the m etaphysical controversi es o f the p resent

day and readin g i nto hi m theories o f which he never d reamed
,

\Val l ac e
’
1
s Ou tl i n es , p re f ac e , pp . v i ii .
 CH A RA C TE RI S T I CS O F A R I S T O TL E . 2 79

they pro c eed to c redit hi m with modern opinions whi c h he

would have emphati c ally repudiated and mod ern method s ,

whi c h d irectly reverse hi s sc ientific teachin g Thus S i r A . .

Grant takes advantag e o f an ambi g uity in the word M atter ,

as used respectively by Aristotle and by contemporary

writers to clai m his support f o r the peculiar theories o f P ro f
,
.

Ferrier ; althou g h the Sta g irite has recorded hi s belie f i n the

rea lity and ind e pendence o f material obj ects (if n ot o f what he
c alled matter) w i th a posit iveness which one would have
.

‘
thou g ht le f t no possibility o f misund erstandin g hi m An d .

M r Wallace says that Aristotl e reco gn ises the g enesis o f

.
‘

thin g s by evolution and d evelopment a statement which ,

standin g where it does and with no m ore quali fication s tha n

,

are ad ded to it wou ld make any read er not versed i n the

,

subj ect think o f the S ta g iri te rather as a f orerun ner o f M r .

Dar w in and M r H erbert Spencer than as the i n te lle c tu a

.
,

ancestor o f their oppon ents while o n a subsequ ent o ccasion , ,

he quotes a p assa g e about the vari ation s o f plants under d o

me s t i c a t i o n f ro m a work considered to be u n Aristotelian by
,
-

the best critics apparently with no other obj ect than that o f
,

2
fi ndin g a piece o f D arwini sm in his author .

I n Germany Neo Ari stotelianism has already lived out

,
-

the appointed term o f all suc h movements ; havin g we believe , ,

been brou g ht into f ashio n by Trend elenburg about f orty

years ag o S i nc e then the A ristotelian system in all its
.
,

branches has bee n studi ed with such pro f ound scholarship

that any i llusi on s respectin g its valu e f o r ou r present n eed s
m ust by this ti me have been completely d issipated ; whil e
, ,

the H e g elian dialectic which it w as ori g in ally i ntended to

,

combat no lon g er requires a counterbalanc e havi n g bee n

, ,

entirely dri ven f ro m German university teachin g Moreover .

,

L an g e s f am ous H i s to ry of M a teri a l i s m has d e al t a sta gg erin g

’

blow to the reputation o f Aristotle n o t me rely i n i tsel f but , ,

relatively to the servi ces o f early G re ek thou ght ; althou g h

As w ill be s ho w n i n t h e n ex t c h a te r
p .
2
”P
Old / w , B 29 an d 38
2 80 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

L an g e g oes too f ar i nto the opposite extreme when e x altin g

D emoc ritus at his e pen se
x
‘
We have to complain however .
, ,

that Zeller and other historians o f Greek philosophy start

with an invariable prej udice i n f avo ur o f the l ater speculators
as ag ainst the earlier and especially i n f avour o f Aristotle as
,

ag ainst all his pred ecessors even Plato i nclud ed which lead s , ,

them to sl u r over his weak points a nd t o b rin g out his ,

exc el lencies i nto d isproportionate relie f 2

.

I t i s evident then that Aristotl e cannot be approached

, ,

with the same perf ect dispassi onaten ess as the other g reat
thinkers o f antiquity H e is i f not a livin g f orc e still a f orce
.
, ,

which must be re c kon ed with i n contempora ry contro v ersy .

H i s ad mi rers persist i n m akin g an authority o f hi m or at least ,

o f quotin g hi m i n behal f o f thei r own f avourite convictions .

We a re there f o re bou nd to si f t hi s clai ms with a severity

, ,

which would not be alto g ether g ra c ious i n a purely historical

review At the same ti me it is hoped that histor i cal j u stice
.

will not lose but g ain by such a proced ure We shall be the
, , .

better able to u nderstan d what Aristotl e w as a f ter first ,

showin g what he n either was nor could be And the u tility ‘

.

o f our investi g ations will be stil l f urther enhanc ed i f we can

show that he represents a fi x ed type reg ularly recu rrin g i n th e

revolutions o f thou g h t .

II .

Pe rsonal ly,
we know more about Aristotle than abo ut any
other Gre ek philosopher o f the c la ssic period ; bu t wh at we
kn ow doe s not amou nt to much I t is little more than th e .

skelet on o f a li f e a bald e nu merati on o f n am

,
es and d ates and
places with a f e w more or less d o ubt f ul anecdotes interspersed
,
.

T hese w e shall now relate to ge ther with whatev er in f erences ,

the f acts see m to warrant Ari stotle was born 3 8 4 B C at . . .

,

St ag e i ra a Greek colony i n Thr ace

, I t i s remarkable that .

every sin g le G reek thinker o f note So c rates and Plato alone ,

Z e l l e r, op . c it , p .
5 13 .
'

I l nd .
, p 407 . .
 82 TH E GRE E K PH I L O S O PH E R S .

’
however have consid ered that the Stag irite s method o f
,

acquirin g knowled g e was un f avo urable to its f resh and vivid

apprehensio n An e x pression has been preserved which can
.

hard ly be o ther than g enuine so distin guished i s it by that ,

d elicate m i x tu re o f c ompliment and sati re i n which Plato

particularly e x celled H e is said to have called Ari stotle s
.
’

house the house o f the reader The author o f the P/z a ea ru s .

’ ’
,

himsel f a tolerably volu minou s writer was l ike C arlyle not , , ,

an ad m irer o f literature Probably it occu rred to him that a

.

philosophical student who had the privileg e o f listenin g to his

,

own lectures mi g ht d o better than shu t hi msel f u p with a

,

heap o f manuscripts away f ro m the human inspiration o f

,

so cial intercou rse and the d ivine inspiration o f s olitary

,

thou ght We mod e m s have no reason to reg ret a habit

.

which has made Aristotle s writin g s a storehouse o f ancient ’

speculations ; but f ro m a scientific no less than f rom an ar ,

t i s t i c point o f view those works are overload ed with criticisms

,

o f earlier opinions some o f them qu ite u n d e s e rv mg o f seriou s

,

d iscussion .

Philosophy was no sooner d omiciled at Athens than its

p ro f essors c ame i n f o r their f ull share o f the scu rri l ous person
a li t i e s which seem to have f orm ed the staple o f conversation

i n that enli ghtened capital Aristotle himsel f a trenchant .

,

and someti mes a bi t terly scorn f ul controversialist did n o t ,

escape an d some o f the censures passed on hi m were ri ghtly ,

o r wron g ly attributed to Plato The Stag irite w h o had been

, .
,

brou g ht up at or near the M acedonian C ourt and had i n ,

h e ri t e d consid erable m eans was if report speaks truly som e , , ,

what f oppish in his d ress and lu x u riou s i f no t d issip ated i n

, ,

his habits I t would not be surpri sin g i f on e w h o was le f t his

.

o w n master at so early an ag e had at first e x ceeded the li mits

of that moderation which he a f terward s i nculcated as the

g olden rule o f morals ; but the charg e o f e x trava g ance w as
such a s t ock accusation at Athens where the continued i n fl u ,

ence o f country li f e seems to have bred a prej udice i n f avour

 CH A RA C TE R I S TI CS O F A RI S T O TL E ‘
. 2 83

of parsimony that it may be taken almost as an e x oneration

,

f rom g raver imputations ; and perhaps an ad monition f rom , ,

’
Plato i f any was need ed su ffi ced to check hi s disciple s ambi
, ,

tion f o r fi g u ri n g as a man o f f ashion .

We cannot tell to what e x tent the d iverg e n ces wh i ch

a f terward s mad e Plato and Aristotle pass f o r types o f the
most e x trem e intellectual opposition were already m an i f ested
d urin g their p ersonal i ntercourse ‘
The tradition i s that th e .

teacher compared h i s pupil to a f oal that kicks hi s mother

a f ter d raini n g her d ry There is a c ertai n rou gh truth as well .

as rou g h wit about the remark ; but the author o f the Pa r

me n id es could h ard ly have been much a ff ected by criti c isms on
the ideal theo ry which he h a d hi msel f reasoned out with equal
candour and acuteness and i f as we someti mes f eel tempted ,

to conj ecture those c riticisms were fi rst su gg ested to him by

,

Aristotle in conversation it will b e still more evident that they ,

?
were received without o ff ence
I n some respects Aristotl e beg an not only as a d i scipl e ,

but as a c h ampion o f Pl atonism O n the popular side that .

,

doctrine was distin g uished by its essenti ally relig ious cha
ra c t e r and by its opposition to the rhetorical trainin g then i n
,
’
vo g ue Now Aristotle s d ialo g u es o f which o nly a f e w f ra g
.
, ,

ments have been prese rved contained eleg ant arg u ments i n ,

f avou r o f a c reative First C au se and o f human i mmortality ; ,

altho u g h i n the writin g s which embody his matu rer views th e ,

first o f these theori es is considerably modified an d th e second ,

is absolutely rej ected Further we are in f ormed that Aristotl e .

,

e x pressed hi msel f in terms o f rather violent contempt f o r

I soc rates the g reatest livin g pro f essor o f d eclamation ; and
,

1
W ri t t en p p e aran c e o f T e ic h mu l le r s Li t Felz el en (al re ad y re
b e f o re th e a
’
.

f e rre d to i n t h e p re c e d i n g c h ap t e r) .

2 Z
e ll e r s o p i n i o n th at al l t h e Pl ato n i c Dia l o gu es e x c e p t t h e L a w s w e re c o m
’

o s e d b e f o re A ri s t o tl e s arri v a l i n A th e n s , d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e su p p o rted b y an y
’

p
s ati s f ac t o ry e v id e n c e .
[Sin c e th e ab o ve w as I
fi rs t p u b l i sh e d h av e f o u n d th a t a s i mila r
v ie w of th e Pa rmen id es h ad al re ad y b e e n mai n t ai n e d b y T o c c o (R i c erc lz e Pla to
n i rli e, p . an d a f t e rw a rd s , b u t i n d e p e n d e n t ly, b y T e ic h mu ll e r ( ew St a r N
/zen,
III . Se e C hi ap e ll i , Della I n te rp retaz i o n e p a n tei sl z c a (i i Pl a ton e, p .
2 84 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PH E R S .

O pened an opposition school o f his own This step has .

,

curi ously enou gh been adduced as a f urther p ro o f o f d is ag re e

,

m ent wi th Plato who i t is said obj ected to all rheto rical

, , ,

t eachi n g whatever I t seem s to u s that what he condemned

.

was rather the method and ai m o f the then f ashionable rhe

’ ’
toric and a considerable portion o f his I lu z eo ru s is devoted to
provin g how mu ch m ore e ff ectu ally persuasi on mi g ht be p ro
d u c e d by the c ombined application o f dialectics and psycho
lo g y to oratory No w this is precis e ly what Aristotle a f ter
.
,

ward s attempted to work out i n the treatise on R hetoric stil l

preserved amon g his writin g s and we may sa f ely assume
that his earlier lectures at Athens were comp osed on the sam e
principle .

I n 3 4 7 Plato d ied leavi n g hi s nephew Sp e u s i p p u s to

,

succ eed hi m in the headship o f the Academy Ari st otle then .

le f t Athen s accompanied by another Platonist X enocrates a

, , ,

ci rcu mstance tendin g to prove th at his relations with the school

c ontinued to be o f a cordial character The two settled i n .

A t a rn e u s at the in v itation o f its tyrant H e rme i as an old

, ,

f ellow stud ent f rom the A cad emy

-
H e rme i as was a eu nuch .

who had r i sen f ro m the position of a slave to that o f vizi er ,

and then a f ter his master s d ea t h to the possession o f suprem e

,
’

power Three years subsequently a still more abrupt tu rn o f

.

f ortune brou g ht his adven tu rous career to a close L ike Poly .

c rates he was treacherously seized and cruci fied by ord er o f

,

the Persian Govern ment Aristotle who had married Pythias .

, ,

his deceased patron s niece ti e d with her to M ityl en e Always

’

, .

g rate f ul and sin g ularly enthusi astic in his attachments h e

, ,

c elebrated the m emory o f H e rme i as i n a m anner which g ave

g reat o ff ence to the reli g iou s senti men t o f H ellas by d ed i ,

c atin g a statue to hi m at Delphi and c omposin g an eleg y still , ,

e x tant i n which he compares the eunuch despot to H eracles

,
-

the Dioscu ri Achilles and Aj ax and promises him i mmo r

, ,

tality f rom the Muses in honour o f Xenian Zeus .

When we ne x t hear o f Aristotle he is at the Macedonian

2 86 TH E G REEK PH I L O S O PH E RS .

had i n cu rred deep displeasure by pro

n ephew, C all i s t h e n es ,

tes tin g a g ainst the servile ad u lation or rather id olatry which , ,

Ale x a nder e x acted f ro m his attend ants A charg e o f con .

s p i rac y was tru mped u p a g ainst him and even the e x c ulpato ry ,

evidence taken under torture o f his alleg ed a c complices did

, ,

’
not save hi m I will punish the Sophist wrote Ale x and er
.
, ,

’
‘
~
and those who sent hi m out I t was u nderstood that his .

old tutor was includ ed in the threat Fortun ately as Grote .

,

observes Aristotl e was not at E cbatana but at Athen s ; he

,

there fore escaped th e f ate o f C all is t h e n e s who su ff ered death ,

i n circumstances ac cordin g to so me accounts o f g reat atrocity

, , .

Zeller finds several g ood qu alities in Ale x and er— p re

c o c i o u s statesmanship zeal f o r the e x tension o f H elleni c
,

civilisation lon g continued sel f restraint u nd er al most irre

,
- -

s is t i b le temptation and throu g h all his s u bsequent aberrati on s

,

a nobility a moral purity a hu manity and a cultu re which

, , , ,

raise him above every other g reat co nq u ero r ; a n d these he

attributes i n n o s mall d e g ree to the f osterin g care o f Aris
, ,

t o t le ;
1
yet with the e x ception o f moral purity which was
, ,

probably an a ff air o f temperament and has been remarked to ,

.

an eq u al e x tent i n other men o f the same g eneral character he ,

w as su rpassed i n all these respects by J uli us C aesar ; while

, ,

the ruthless vindictiveness which w as his worst passion , ,

e x hibited itsel f at the very beg innin g o f his rei g n by the

d estruction o f Thebes A va rn ish o f l iterary cultu re he u n
.

d oubte dly h ad and f o r this Aristotle may b e than k ed

, but
any ordina ry sophist wo u ld p robab l y have e ff ected as mu ch .

As to the Hellenisin g o f Western Asia this accord in g to Grote , , ,

was the work not o f Ale x and er b u t o f the Diadochi a f ter

‘

, ,

hi m .

The profit reaped by Aristotle f ro m the conne x ion seems

e qually doubt f ul Tradition tells us that enormous su ms o f
.

money were spent i n aid o f his scientific researches and a ,

whole army o f crown se rvants deputed to collect i n f ormation

1
Z
e ll e r, o p . c it .
p . 25 .
 CH A RA C TE RI S TI CS O F A R I S T O T LE . 28 7

bearin g on hi s zoolo g ical studies M odern ex plorations how .

,

ever have proved that the con qu ests o f Ale x ander at least
, , ,

did not as has been pretended supply hi m wi t h any n ew

, ,

speci mens ; no r does the knowled g e contained i n his e x tant

t reatises e x c eed what could b e obtained either by his own
observations or by p rivate enquiries At the same ti me we .

may suppose that hi s services were hand somely reward ed ,

and that his o ffi cial positio n at the M aced onian C ourt g ave
him n um erous opportunities f o r conversin g with the g rooms ,

huntsmen shepherd s fishermen and others f rom who m most

, , , ,

o f what he tells us about the habits o f ani mals was learned .

I n conne x ion with the f avour enj oyed by Aristotl e it m ust be ,

mentioned as a f resh proo f o f hi s amiable character that he ,

obtained the restoration o f St age i ra which had been ruthlessly ,

d estroyed by Philip to g ether with the other G reek cities o f

,

the C halcid i c peninsu la .

Two passag es i n Aristotle s writin g s ha v e been supposed

’

to g ive evid ence o f his ad mi ration f o r Al e x and er O n e is the .

description o f the mag nani mou s man in the E t/z i c s Th e .

other is a re f erence i n the Pol i t i c s to an ideal hero whose ,

vi rtu e raises him so hi g h above the co mmon run o f m ortals

that their d uty i s t o obey hi m as i f he were a g o d But the .

m ag nani mous man e mbodies a g rave and stately typ e o f

character quite unlike the chivalrous impulsive theatri cal ,

1
n ature o f Alexander whil e probably not un f requent amon g
,

real H el l enes ; and the g o d like statesm an o f the Po l i t i c s i s

-

spoken o f rather as an u nattainable id eal than as a conte m

p o ra ry f act O n the w hole then w e m ust conc lud e that the
. , ,

i ntercourse between these two e x traord inary spi rits h as le f t

n o distinct trace on the action s o f the on e or on the t hou g hts
o f the other .

O n Ale x ander s d epartu re f o r the E a st Aristotle retu rn ed

’

to Athen s where he n o w pla c ed himsel f at the head o f a new

,

philosophi c al school The ensuin g period o f thi rteen years

.

Cf . T e ic hmu ll e r, L it Fe/m’en.
, 1 92 .
2 88 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

w as f ully o c cup i ed by th e d el i v ery o f publ i c le c tu res and by ,

the co mposition o f those encyclopaedic writin g s whi c h will

p reserve hi s memory f o r ever alon g p erhap s with many , , ,

others which have not su rvived L ike An axa goras he was .

,

not allowed to end his days i n the city o f his ad opti on H i s .

youth f ul attacks on I socrates had probably made hi m many

’
enemies amon g that rhetor s pupi ls I t is supposed by Grote .
,

but warmly d i sputed by Zeller that his trenchant c riticisms ,

o n Plato had e x cited a si milar ani mosity amo n g the sectaries

‘
o f the Ac ademy Anyhow circu mstances had u navoid ably
.
,

associated hi m with the d etested M acedonian party althou g h ,

his position as a metic o r resident alien d ebarred hi m f ro m

, , ,

taki n g any act ive part i n politics With Ale x and er s d eath .
’

the storm broke loose A charg e was trumped up ag ai nst

.

Aristotle o n the stre n g th o f hi s u nlucky poem i n honou r o f

,

H e rme i as which was described as an insult to reli g ion

,
That .

such an accusation should be chosen i s characteristic o f A th e

n ian bi g otry even shou ld there be no truth in the sto ry that
,

c ertain philosophical opinions o f hi s were like w ise sin g led out

f o r prosecution Be f ore the case came on f o r trial Aristotle
.
,

availed hi msel f o f the usual privileg e all owed on such occasions ,

and withd re w to C halcis i n order as he said that t h e A t h e

, , ,
-

n i an s need not si n a second ti me a g ainst philosophy But his .

constitu tion natu rally a f eeble one was nearly worn out A
, , .

year a f terwards he succu mbed to a stomach complaint agg ra ,

v at e d
,
i f not produced by i ncessant mental application
, H is .

contempo rary D em o s then es perished about the same time

, , ,

and at the sam e age si x ty two Within little more than a

,
-
.

t w elvemonth the wo rl d had lost its three g reatest men ; and

a f ter three c entu ri e s o f uninterrupted g lory H e llas was le f t ,

u nrepresented by a sin g le individ ual o f com mandin g g en iu s .

We are told that when hi s end beg an to approach the ,

dyin g philosopher was pressed to choose a successor i n the

head s hip o f the S c hool The manner i n wh ic h he d id this i s
.

Z e l l e r, p .
38 .
 2 90 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPH E RS .

he e v er took H e spoke wi th a sort o f lisp and the ex

.
,

p ression o f his mouth is said to have been sarcasti c but the

traits preserved to us i n m arble tel l only o f meditation an d ,

perhaps o f pain A f ree spoken and f earless critic he was

.
-

not over sensiti v e on his own account When told that so me

-
.

body had been abusin g hi m i n his absence the philosophe r ,

replied H e may beat m e too i f he likes — in my absence

, , , .
’

H e mi g ht be abused even i n his o w n presence withou t

, ,

d epartin g f ro m the sam e attitud e o f cal m d isdain much to th e ,

d isappointment o f his petulant assai lan ts H is equani m ity .

was but sli ghtly disturbed by more public and substantia l

a ff ronts When certain honorary distinctions con f erred on
.
,

him by a popular vote at D elphi were withd rawn p robably , ,

on the oc c asion o f his fli ght f rom Athens he remarked with ,

his u sual studied m oderation that while not e n t i re ly i n d i ff e re n t

, ,
'

he d id not f eel ve ry deeply con cerned ; a t rai t which illust rates

the character o f the ma g n ani mous man f ar better than any
t hin g related o f Alexander Two other sayin gs have an a lm ost
.

C hri stian tone when asked how we should treat our f ri ends ,

h e replied As we should wish them to treat u s

, an d o n
bein g reproache d wit h wastin g his bounty on an unworthy
obj e c t he observ ed i t was not the person but the hu ma n
, ,
‘
,

be i n g th at I pitied " .

Still takin g it altog ether the li f e o f Aristotle g ives on e

, ,

t he i mpression o f so methin g rather desultory and d ep end ent ,

n o t proud ly sel f dete rm i ne d like t h e lives o f the thinkers w h o

-

went b e f ore him We are remi nded o f the f resh starts and
.

the appeals to au tho rity so f requent in his writin g s He is .

first detained at Athens twen ty years by the attraction o f

Plato and no soone r is Plato g one than he f alls u nder the ,

in fluen ce o f an enti rely d i ff erent character — H e rme i as E ven .

when his servic es are n o lon g er needed he lin g ers near the
’
M acedon ian C ou rt u ntil Ale x and er s d eparture leaves hi m
,

on c e more without a pat ron The most d i g nified period o f .

Di o g L . .
,
V .
,
 CH A R A C TE RI S TI CS OF A R I S T O TLE . 29 1

c areer is that d uri n g which he pres i d ed o v er the

h iS w h o l e
'

Peripateti c S chool but he owes thi s posit i on to f orei g n

i nfluence and loses it with the temporary revival o f Gre ek
,

l iberty A lon g er li f e would probably have seen hi m return

.

to Athens i n the train o f his last patron Antipater whom as , ,

i t was he appointed e x ecutor to his will This was j ust the

,
.

sort o f character to lay g reat stress o n the evidentiary value

o f sensation and popular O pinion I t was also the character
.

o f a conservative who was likely to believe that thi n g s had

always been v ery much what they were i n his ti m e an d ,

‘

would continue t o remai n so ever a f terwards Aristotle was .

not the man to i mag in e that the present ord er o f n ature had
spru n g out o f a widely d i ff erent order in the remote past nor ,

to encou rag e such speculations when they were o ff ered to hi m

by others H e would not readily believe that phenom ena as
.
.

he knew them rested on a reality which could neither be seen

,

nor f elt Nor fin ally could he d ivine the movements whi ch

.
‘

, ,

were slowly underminin g the society in which he lived sti ll less ,

construct an i deal polity f o r its reorg anisation on a hi g her

and broader basis And here we at on c e beco me c onscious
.

o f the c hie f di ff erence separatin g hi m f ro m hi s master Plato , .

III .

i s an o f ten quoted observati on o f Fried rich Schleg el s

It -
’

that eve ry man i s born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian .

I f we narrow the rem ark t o the only class which perhaps its , ,

a uthor reco g nised as hu man bein g s n amely all thinkin g m en , , ,

it wil l be f ou nd to contain a certai n amou nt o f truth thou g h ,

probably not what S chle g el i ntend ed at any rate somethin g

requ i rin g to be supplemented by other truths be f ore its f ull
m eanin g can be u nderstood The co mmon op i nion seems to
.

be that P lato was a transcendentalist while Aristotle was an ,

experientialist ; and that this constitutes the m ost typical

distinction between them I t would however be a mistake to
.
, ,

U 2
 2 92 TH E G REEK PH I L O S OPH E RS .

suppose that the d p ri o ri and i t p os teri o ri method s were marked

’
O ff with su ch d e fi n it e n e s s i n Plato s ti me as to render possible

a choice between them The O pposition was not between .

g eneral propositions and partic ular f acts but between the ,

most co mprehensive and the most li mited notions I t was as .

i f the question were now to be raised whether we should be g in

to teach physiolo g y by at once d ivid in g the o rg anic f rom the
i norg anic world o r by d irectin g the learn er s attention to some
,
’

one vital act Now we are e x pressly told that Plato hesitated
.
,

between these two methods and in his D ialo g u es at least , ,

we fi nd the easier and more popular on e employed by p re f er

ence I t i s true that he O f ten appeals to wid e prin ciples whi c h
.

d o not rest on an adequ ate basis O f e x peri mental evidence ;

but Aristotle d oes so also more f req u ently even and as the
, , ,

event proved with more f atal inj u ry to the advance o f know

,

led g e I n his R /z eto ri c he even g oes beyond Plat o c onstruct

.
,

i n g the e nti re art f ro m the g eneral principles o f d ialectics ,

psychology and ethics without any re f erence ex c ept f o r the

, , ,

sake o f illustration to e x istin g m odels o f eloquen c e

, .

Accordin g to S i r A G ran t i t is by th e mystical an d

.
,
,

poetical side o f his n ature that Plato di ff ers f rom Aristotle .

The o n e aspired to a truth above the truth o f scientific

‘

’
knowled g e ; the other to methodised e x perienc e and the ‘

d efinite " Now settin g aside the question whether there is

.
,

any truth above the truth o f s cientific kno w led g e we d oubt ,

very much whether Plato believed i n its e x istence H e held .

that the most valu able truth was that which cou ld be imparted
to others b y a process even more ri g oro us than m athematical
reasonin g ; an d there was no reality however transcendent , ,

that he did not hope to bri n g within the g rasp o f a dialect ic

without which even the m ean est c ould not be und erstood .

H e d id indeed believe that so f ar the best and wisest o f

, , , ,

m ankind had owed m uch more to a divinely i mplanted instinct

than to any co ns c iou s chai n O f reflection ; but he d istin c tly
A ri s totle, p
’
G ran t s .
7 .
 4 TH E GRE E A
’
PH I L OS OPH E R S .

most place amon g the m asters O f those w h o know he

embrac ed all the science o f his a e and to a g reat e x tent g
,

ma r ked out the cou rse whi ch the scien ce O f f uture a g es was to
pursue ; nevertheless f o r him knowled g e was not so much
, ,

an end i n itsel f as a means f o r the attain ment O f other ends ,

amon g w hich the preservation o f the S tate seems to have

been in his eyes the most i mportant Aristotl e on the other
, ,
( .
,

hand a f ter d eclarin g happiness to be the supreme end d efines

, ,

it as an energ i sin g o f man s hi gh est: natu re which ag ain he iden

’

,
~

t i fi e s with the reason i n g p rocess or c o g n i t i o n

w gfom g
The sa me f u ndamental d i ff erenc e c om es out stron g ly i n
thei r respecti v e theolo g ies Plato starts with the con c eption
.

that God i s g ood an d bein g g o od w ishes everythin g to re

‘

s em bl e him sel f ; (an assumption f ro m w hich the d ivi n e ori g i n

and p rov id ential g overn ment o f t h e worl d are d educed .

A ristotle thi n k s o f God as e x clusively occupied i n sel f con -

t e mp l at i o n an d only a c tin g on N
, atu re throu gh the love which
h is perf ection inspires I f f urther w e consider in what rela
.
, ,

tion the two philosoph i es stand to ethics w e shall find that to , ,

Plato i ts p roblems were the most pressin g O f any that they

, ,

haunted hi m t h rou g h h is whole li f e an d that he mad e contri ,

butions O f e x traordi n a ry v alu e toward s the i r so lution ; while

to Aristotle it was merely a b ranch o f natural history a study
, ,

O f the di ff erent types o f character to b e met with i n Greek

society without the f aintest perception that condu c t requi red

,

to be set on a wider and fir mer bas is than the conventional

st andards o f h i s ag e H enc e it is that i n rea d in g Plato we
, , ,

a re perpetually rem i nd ed O f the controversies still ra g in g

a mon g ou rselve s H e g i ves u s an e x positio n t o which
. ,

nothi n g has ev e r been add ed O f the theory now known as ,

E g ois ti c H e o s m he af te rwa rd s aband ons that theo ry and

d ni } ,

passes on to th e social side O f c ondu c t t h e n ecessity o f j ustice , ,

the relation O f pri v a t e to p ubli c i nt e rest the bearin g o f reli g i on , ,

ed uc ation an d soc ial i nsti tut io n s on morality alon g with

, ,

other kindre d topics which need not be f urther Specified as

, ,
 CH A RA C TE R I S TI CS OF A M ST O TL E . 2 95

they have been d iscussed with su ffi cient f ulness in the pre

c edi n g chapter Aristotle o n the contrary takes u s back into
.
, ,

o ld Greek li f e as i t was be f ore the d ays o f S ocrates noticin g ,

the theories o f that g reat re f ormer only that h e may rej e c t

them i n f avou r o f a narrow c ommon sense stand ard V i rtu ous
,
-
.

cond uct he tells us consists i n choosin g a mean between two

, ,

e x tremes I f we ask h o w the proper mean is to be discovered

.
,

he re f ers us to a f aculty c alled (pp m /7 m g

7 or practical reaso n ,

but on f urther en quiry it t urn s out that this f aculty is possessed

by none who are n ot already virtuous To the question H o w .
,

are men mad e moral ? h e answers By acqu iri n g moral ,

habits which amounts to little more than a restatement o f

the problem or at any rate su gg est s another more di fficult
, , ,

question — H ow are g ood habits acqui red

An answer migh t conceivably have been supplied hadv

Aristotl e been en able to complete that sketch o f an ideal

S tate which was ori g inally intended to f orm part o f hi s
P ol z f z c s But the philosopher evid ently f oun d that to d o so
' '

was beyond h i s powers I f the seventh and ei g hth books o f

.

that treatise which contai n the f ra g m entary attempt i n ques

,

ti on had ori g in ally occupied the place where they now stan d
,

’
i n our m anuscripts it mi g ht have been supposed that Aristotle s
,

labours were interrupted by d eath Mod ern criti c i sm has .

shown howe v er that they shou l d f ollow i mmedi ately a f ter

, ,

the first three books and that t he author broke o ff al most at

, ,

th e be g inni n g o f his id e al polity to take u p the much more ,

con g enial t a k o f analysi n g and critic i si n g the actually e x istin g

s
H ellenic c onstitutions : But the little that he has d one proves
him to have been pro f oundly u n fi t t e d f o r the task o f a p rac t i
cal re f ormer What f e w actual reco mmendations i t c onta i ns
.

’
are a compromise som ewhat i n th e spi rit o f Pl at o s Law s ?

between the R afi /b l ab an d real li f e The rest i s what h e never .

f ails to g ive u s — a mass o f d etails about matters o f f act and ,

a su mmary o f his speculative ethics alo n g wit h counsels o f ,

moderation in the spir i t o f his prac ti c al e t hi c s ; but not o n e .

 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S O PH E A S
'

’
2 96 .

practical p rinciple o f any val ue not one remark to show that ,

he und erstood what d i rection history was takin g o r that he ,

had mastered the elements o f social re f orm as set f orth in

’
Plato s works The p ro g ressive specialisatio n o f p ol itical
.

f unctions ; the nec essity o f a sp iritual power ; the f ormation

o f a trained standin g army the ad mission o f women to public
employments ; the elevation o f the whole race by artificial
selection the radical re f orm o f reli g i on the reconstitution o f
ed ucation both l iterary and sci enti fic the redistribution o f
, ,

property ; the enactment o f a n e w cod e ; the use o f public

opinion as an instru me nt o f mora isati o n — these are the ideas
l

which still a g itate the m ind s o f m en and they are also th e ,

id eas o f the R ep u b l i c the Sta l es mz m and the La w s Aristotle

, , .
,

on the other hand occupies hi msel f chiefly with discu ssin g

,

how f a r a city should be built f rom the sea whether it should ,

be f ortified ; how its citizen s should n o t be employed when

people should 720! marry ; what child ren should n o t b e per
m i t t e d to see ; and what m usic they should 71 01 be tau ght .

Apart f rom his enthu siasm f o r philosophy there IS nothin g ,

g en erous nothin g larg e mind ed nothin g inspirin g The terri

-
.
, ,

tory o f the c ity i s to be sel f s u ffi c i n g that it may be isolated

-

f rom other States ; the citi zens are to keep aloo f f rom all i h
d u s t ri al occupation s ; science is pu t out o f relation to th e
m ateri al w e l l bein g o f mankind I t was i n short to be a
-
.
, ,

city w here every g entle man should hold an idle f ellowship a

city where Ari stotle could live without molestation and i n the ,

e n j oyment o f con g enial f ri e n d s h ip s ; ju s t as the God o f his

system was a still hi g h e r Aristotle perpetually en gaged i n the ,

study o f f ormal lo g ic .

Ev e n i n his much ad mi red c riticisms on the actually exist

-

i n g types o f g overn ment ou r philosopher shows practical weak

ness and v acilla tion o f character There i s a g ood word f o r .

them all — f o r monarchy f o r aristocracy f o r midd le class rule

, .
-

‘
and even f o r pure democ racy The fi f th book treatin g o f
.
,

We th i n k , h o w e v e r, th at Mr Ed w i n Wallac e
. h as o v e rs t a te d t h e c ase , w h e n
2 98 TH E GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R S .

states and so by strikin g an averag e o f di ff erent i nequ alities

, ,

to mimmi se the risk o f those i ncessant revolutions which had

hitherto secured the temporary tri umph o f altern ate f actio n s
at the e x pense o f thei r commo n i nterest And in f act the
.
, ,

spontan eous process o f a gg re g ation which Aristotle did not

,

f oresee has alone su ffi c ed to remedy the evils which he saw

, ,

but c ould not d evise any e ff ectual m eans o f c u rin g and at the ,

same t i me has bred n ew evils o f which his d iag nosis naturally

took no account .

’
But i f this be so it f ollows that M r E dwin Wallace s
, , .

appeal to Aristotle as an authority worth consultin g on ou r

present social di ffi culties c annot be upheld Take the ques .

tion quoted by M r Wallace hi msel f : Whether the State is a

.

m ere c ombination f o r the preservation o f g ood s an d property ,

o r a moral org an i sm developin g the idea o f ri ght Arist otle

c ertainly held very stron g opi nions i n f avou r o f S tate i n t e rfe r
en c e with edu c ation and private morality if that i s what the
,

s econd alt e rnative implies ; but does i t f ollow that he would

ag ree w i th those who advocate a si milar supe rvision at the

present day ? By no means ; because e x perience has shown

t hat in enormous industrial societ i es like ours protection i s ,

atten ded with di fficulties and d an g ers which he could no more

f o resee than he could f oresee the d iscoveries on which our
physical science i s based O r returnin g f o r a moment to
.
,

’
ethics let us take another o f M r Wallace s p roblems
, .

’
‘
Whether intellectual also i nvolves moral pro g ress ? What
p ossible li g ht can be thrown o n it by Aristotle s e x posure o f ’

t h e p o w e rl e s s n e s s o f ri g ht knowled ge to make an individ ual

.

virtuous when wri ters like Buckle have tra nsf erred the whole
,

question f ro m a particula r to a g eneral g round ; f rom the

c onduct o f individ uals to the c ond uct o f men actin g i n larg e
masses and over vast period s o f ti m e ? O r finally take the
, , ,

’
question which f orm s a poin t o f j u nction between Aristotle s
ethics and hi s politics Whether the hi ghest li f e i s a li f e o f
thou ght or a li f e o f a c t i on ? ’
O f what i mportance is his
 CH A R A C TE RI S TI CS O F A RI ST O TLE . 2 99

d ec i sion to us w h o att en d f ar more to the social than t o the

,

individ ual consequences o f actions w h o have learned to take

into account the emotional element o f h ap p l n e s s which Ari s ,

t o t l e n eg lected ; w h o are u n i n flu e n c e d by his appeal to th e

bliss f ul theorisin g o f g ods i n who m we d o not beli eve ; f o r

whom fi nally e x perience has alto g ether broken d own t he
, ,

antithesis between knowled g e and practice by showi n g that ,

sp ec ulative id eas m ay revolutionise the whole o f li f e A ri s

t o tl e i s an i nterestin g histori cal study but w e are as f ar b e
yond hi m in social as i n physical s c i e n c
'

IV .

turnin g to Aristotle s R /z e l o rz c we find that f ro m a

'
’
On ,

p ractical point o f view his f ailure here is i f possible stil l , , ,

more co mplete This t reatise contains as we have alread y

. ,

observed an i mmense mass o f more or less valuable i n f o r

,

mation o n the subj ect o f psycholo gy ethi c s and d ialectic

'

, , ,

but g ives e x ceed in g ly little advi ce about the very essence of

rhetoric as an art w hi ch is to say what ever you have to s ay
,

in the most tellin g m anner by the arran g eme n t o f topics and ,

arg u ments by the u se o f illustrations an d by the choice o f

, ,

lan g uag e ; and that little i s to be f ound i n the thi rd book ,

t he genuineness o f which is open t o very g rave sus p icion I t .

m ay be doubted whether an y orator or criti c o f orato ry w as

ever benefit ed i n the sli g htest d eg ree by the stud y o f
Aristotle s rules H i s collection s o f scientific data add
’
‘

n othin g to our knowled g e bu t o nly throw common e x perienc e ,

i nto abstract f orm ulas ; and even as a body o f me mo ran d a

'

they would b e u seless f o r no memory could contain them or , ,

if any m an cou ld remember them he would have intel l ect

enou gh not to require them 1
The pro f essional teachers whom .

Man y o f th e to pi c s n o t ed are n o t on l y t rit e en o u gh , b u t h av e n o p o ss ib l e

b e a ri n g on th e su b j ec t u n de r w hi c h th e y s t a n d . Fo r i n s tan c e , i n d i sc u ss i n g
j u d ic i l
al e o q u en c e A ris to tl e go e s i n to th e mo ti v es f o r c o mmi t ti n g c ri me a mo n g
3 00 TH E G RE E K PH I L OS O PH E R S .

Aristotle so hea rtily despised seem to have f ollowed a m uch

mor e e ff ectual method than his they g ave thei r pupils ready
made speeches to analyse and learn by heart ri g htly trustin g ,

to the i mitative i nstin ct to do the rest H e compares them .

to a master who should teach his apprentices how to make

shoes by supplyin g them with a g reat variety o f ready made -

pairs B ut this would be a much better plan than to g ive

.

them an elaborate lecture on the an atomy o f the f oot with a ,

f ul l enu meration o f its bones muscles tendons nerves an d , , , ,

blood vessels which i s the most appropriat e parallel to 1123

-

,
"

system o f i nst ruction .

The Po et i c s o f Aristotle contai ns som e hints o nthe subj ect

o f co mposition which entitle it to be mentioned in the present

c onne x ion The deficiencies even f rom a purely theoretical

.
,

point o f View o f this work once pronounced in f allible have at

, , ,

last become so obviou s that elaborate hypotheses have been

constructed accordin g to which the recension handed d own to
,

u s is a mere mutilated e x tract f ro m the ori g i nal t reatise .

E nou g h however remai ns to convince u s that poetry was not

, ,
.
,

any more than eloquence a subj ect with which Aristotle was ,

fitted to cope H e beg in s by d efinin g it in co mmon with all

.
,

other art as an imitation H ere we at once reco g nise the

,
.
,

spirit o f a phi losophy the whole power and interest o f which,

l ay i n knowled g e ; and in f a c t he tells us that the love o f, ,

art is d erived f ro m the love o f knowled g e But the truth .

seems to be that aesthetic enj oyment i s due to an id eal

e x er c ise o f ou r f aculties amon g which the power o f perceivin g,

i d entities is someti mes tho u gh not always i ncluded Th at , , .

the materials o f which eve ry artisti c creation is composed are

t aken f rom the world o f o ur experience makes n o d i ff erence
f o r it is by the new f orms i n which they are arran g ed that we
are i nterested not because w e remember havin g met them in
,

th e se are p l e as u rab l e f ee l i n gs o f e v e ry k i n d , i n c l u d in g th e re me mb ran c e o f p as t

t ro u b l e . y
E v e n th e h e ro o f a sp as mo d i c t rage d w o u ld h ard ly h av e c o mmi tte d an
o ff e n c e f o r th e p u rp o se of p roc u ri n g h ims e l f thi s f o rm o f ex p e ri e n c e .
30 2 TH E GRE E K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

must be more i ndispensable as youn g writers a re abl e to ,

construct good stori es be f ore they are able to portray

character ; and mo re artisti c as it was d eveloped much later ,

i n the historical evolutio n o f tra gedy Fortunately f o r .

us the Ale x andrian critics were guided by other canons

,

o f taste or the structurally f aulty pieces o f Aeschylus mi g ht

,

have been ne g lected and the i n g eniously constru cte d piec es

,

o f A g athon preserved i n their place .

’
I t is probable however that Aristotle s partiality was
, ,

determ ined more by the systematisin g and analytic al character

o f his own g enius than by the public opinion o f his ag e or
r ather the same tend en cy was at work i n philosophy and i n
,

art at the sam e ti m e and the theories o f the one were u n c o n

,

s c i o u s ly p re —
adapted to the productions o f the other I n both .

there was a decay o f penetration and o f ori g i nality o f li f e and ,

o f inspiration i n both a g reat d evelopmen t o f w h at e v e r c o u ld

be obtained by technical proficien cy ; i n both an extension o f
su r f ace at the e x pense o f d epth a g ai n o f fl uency and a loss , ,

o f f orc e . But poetry lost f ar more than philosophy by the

chan g e and so the works o f the one have p erished while the
works o f the other have su rv ived .

M odern li terature o ff ers abundant materi als f o r testin g

Aristotle s theory and the i mmense maj ori ty o f c riti cs have
’
,

d ecided a g ai nst it E ven amon g f airly edu cated read ers f e w

.

would pre f er Mo h e re s L Etou m z to hi s M z s a u t/z rop e o r

'
’ ’ ’ '

Schiller s M a ri a Stu a rt to Goethe s Fa u s t or Lord Lyt t o n s

’ ’

,
’

’
L u c ret i a to Georg e E liot s R o u z o la or Di ckens s Tal e of Tw o
’

Ci ti es to the same writer s Nz c lz o lct s Ni c k l e by o r his G rea t

’ ’

E xp ec ta t i on s to his Da v i d Copp erfi el d

’

althou g h i n each ,

i nstance the work named first has the better plot o f the two .

Characters then are not introd u c ed that they m ay p er f orm

, ,

actions bu t actions a re represen t ed f o r the sake o f the cha

rac t e rs who do them or who su ff er by them I t i s not so
, .

much a ghostly apparition or a mu rd er which interests us as

the f act that the ghost appears to H amlet and that the murd er ,
 C H A R A CTE RI S TI CS O F A RI S T O TL E .
30 3

is c om mitted by Mac b eth And the same i s tru e o f the .

Greek d rama t h ou gh not perhaps to the same e x tent We

, .

may care f o r O edipus chie fly on account o f hi s adventures ;

but we care f a r more f o r what Prometheu s or Clytem nestra ,

Antig one or Aj a x say abo u t themselves than f o r w hat they

,

su ff er o r W hat they d o Thus and thus only are w e enab led

'

.
, ,

to und erstand the trag ic element i n poet ry the p roduction o f ,

pleasu re by the spectacle o f p ain I t i s not the satis f actio n .

caused by seein g a skil f ul i mitation o f reality f o r f e w have ,

witnessed such aw f ul events i n real li f e as on the stag e no r

is it pain as such which interests u s f o r the scenes o f torture
, , ,

e x hibited in some Span ish and Bolog nese pai ntin g s do not
g rati f y they revolt and d is g ust an ed ucated taste
, The tru e .

trag i c emotion is prod uced not by the su f f erin g itsel f but by , ,

the reaction o f th e characters ag ainst i t ; f o r this g ives more ,

than anythin g else t he id ea o f a f orc e with which we c an

'

syn erg ise becau se it is purely mental or by the helpless sub

,

mission o f the v icti ms whom we wish to assist because they are

lovable and whom we love stil l more f ro m our inabi lity t oassist
,

them throu g h the trans f ormation o f arrested action i n to f eel

,

i n g accompanied by the enjoymen t proper to tend er emotion

, .

H en c e the peculi ar importance o f the f emale part s i n d ramatic

poetry Aristotle tel l s us that i t is b ad art to rep resent
.

women as nobler and braver than m en because they are not ,

1
so in reality Nevertheless he should have noti ced that on
.
,

the trag ic stag e o f Athens wo men first competed with m en ,

then equalled and finally f a r su rpassed them in lo f tiness o f

,

2
character B ut with his philosophy he could not see that i f
.
'

heroines d i d not e x ist it would be necessary to create them , .

For i f women are conceived as reactin g ag ainst outward ci r

,

c u ms t a n c e s at all thei r very helplessn ess will lead to the

,

Poet .
,
xv .
, p . 1 4 5 4 , a, 2 0 .

Mdr n v 5 p i 7v v af x a s e g (3 1 8v 41 6703
’ ’
2 s s

Wd AA e t n e t/b u r oge r/y a K a i K a n cé s A éye t

'
-
.

" ’
u e f vo v s d a e x
’ ’
ai 8 87a: Aéyw
’
ei o /w v '
atj
p , .

E u ri p id e s , Frog 5 1 2
. .
(Di d o t )
.
304 TH E G R E E K PH I L O SO PH E RS .

storin g o f a g reater mental tensio n i n the shape o f e x ci ted

thou g ht and f eelin g d ebarred f rom any mani f estation e x cept
i n words ; and it is e x actly with this mental tension that the
spectator can most easily synerg is e The wrath o f O restes is .

not interestin g because it i s entirely a b sorbed i n to the p re

,

meditation and e x ec ution o f his ven g ean ce The passion o f .

E lectra is pro f oundly i nterestin g because i t has no outlet but ,

i mpotent denunciation s o f her oppressors and aborti v e ,

s chemes f o r her d eliveran c e f ro m thei r yoke H ence also .

, ,

Sh ak s p e are produces some o f his g reatest e ff ects by placin g

his male c haracters to some e x tent i n the position o f wo men
“

, , ,

either throu g h their natu ral weakness and indecisi on as with ,

H amlet and Brutus and Macbeth or throu g h the paralysis o f

, , ,

u nproved suspicion as with O thello while the g reatest o f all

,

his heroines L ady M acbeth is so becau se she has the i ntellect

, ,

an d will to f rame resolutions o f d auntless ambition and elo ,

q u e n c e to f o rce them on her husband witho ut either the phy ,

s ic al or the moral f orce to e x ecute the m hersel f I n all these .

cases i t i s the arrest o f an electric cu rrent whi c h prod uces the

mo st intense heat o r the most brilliant i llumination A g ain
, .
,

by their e x treme sensitiveness and by the natu ral d esire f elt ,

to help them women e x cite more pity which as w e have said

, , , ,

means more love than men ; and this i n the hi ghest d eg ree
,

when their su ff eri n gs are undeserved We see then how .

, ,

wide Aristotle went o f the mark when he mad e it a rul e that

the su ff erin g s o f tra g ic characters should be partly brou ght on
by their o w n f ault and that speakin g g enerally they should
, , ,

not b e d istin g uished f o r j u stic e or vi rtu e nor yet f o r e x tre m e ,

‘
T h e i mmod erate moderation o f the Sta g irite
’
wicked ness .
‘

was never more in f elicitously e x hi bited For i n order to pro .

,

d uce truly trag ic e ff e c ts e x cess o f every kind not only may

, ,

but m ust be employed I t is by the reaction o f heroic f orti

, .

t ud e either a g ain st unmerited outra g e or a g a i nst the whole

, ,

p ressure o f social law that o ur synerg etic interest is wound up

,

Ro c h ,
x ii i .
, p . 1 4 53 , a ,8 .
3 06
~
TH E G R E E K PH I L OSOPH E RS .
‘

t hat
'

ea c h o f these emotion s i s to c ounterbal ance an d '

m oderat e the other ; f o r this wo u ld i mply that they are

opposed to one another whereas i n the t e to rz c he speaks
'

of them as bein g aki n ; while a parallel passa ge i n th e

Po l i t i c s shows hi m to have believed that the passions are
1

suscep tible o f homoeopathic treatment V iolen t enthusias m .

-

he tells u s i s to be soothed an d c arried o ff by a strai n o f

,

e x citin g impassioned musi c B ut whence come the pity an d

, .

terror which are to be d ealt with b y trag ic poetry ? Not ,

apparently f rom the pie c e itsel f f o r to inoculate the patient

, ,

with a n e w disease merely f o r t he sake o f cu rin g i t c ould do

, ,

hi m n o i mag inabl e g ood To j ud g e f ro m the passag e i n the.

P ol i ti c s already re f erred to he belie v es that pity and terror ,

are always present i n th e mind s o f all to a certain e x tent ,

and the theory apparently is that trag edy brin g s them to the ,

sur f ace and enables the m to be thrown o ff with an ac c o m

,

p an i me n t o f pleasu rable f eelin g Now o f course we have a .

, ,

c onstant capacity f o r e x perienci n g every passion to which

hu man natu re i s liable ; but to say that i n the absen c e o f its
“

appropriate e x ternal stimulu s we are ever perceptibly and

pain f ully a ff ected by any pas sion is to assert what is not ,

tru e o f any sane mind And even were i t so were we con .

, ,

s t an t l
y haunted by va g u e presenti ments o f evil to ou rselves
o r others it is anythin g but c lear that fictitio u s representa
,

tions o f calamity would be the appropriate means f o r enablin g

us to ge t rid o f them Zeller explain s that it is the i nsi ght
.

i nto u niversal laws controllin g ou r d estiny the association o f ,

m i s f o rtune with a divine j u stice which accordin g to Ari s totle , , ,

prod u c es the puri f y i n g e fi e c t ; but this wo uld be the pu rga

’
2

tion o f pit y and terror not ;b y themselves but by the i n t e lle c

, ,

tu al f ramework i n which they are set the c oncaten ation o f ,

events the wo rkin g s o f cha r

,
a c ter 0 r the re f erence o f every ,
\
thin g to an eternal c au se The truth i s that Aristotle s
’
.

explanation o f t h e moral e ff e c t produ ced by tra g edy i s

Pol , VI I I .
, p . 1 3 4 2 , a,
2
Z ll
e e r, p .
780 .
 CH A RA CTE RI S TI CS O F A RI ST O T E L . 07

i rrational because his whole conception o f tra g edy i s mis

,

taken The emotions e x cit e d by its hi ghest f orm s are n ot

.

terror and pity but ad miration and lov e which i n thei r ideal
, , ,

e x ercise are too holy f o r pu ri fication too hi g h f o r restriction

, , ,

and too d eli g ht f ul f o r relie f .

Be f ore partin g with the Poe t i c s we must add that i t

contai ns one e x cellent piece o f advice to d ramatists which i s , ,

to i mag ine themselves present at the scenes which they are

supposin g to happen and al so at the representation o f thei r ,

own pl ay This however is an e x ception which proves the

.
, ,

’
rule f o r Aristotle s e x clusively theoretic standpoint here a s
, ,

will so meti mes happen c oincides with the truly pra c tical ,

standpoint .

A somewhat similar observation applies to the art o f rea

sonin g which it would be possible to compile by brin g in g
,

to g ether all the rules on the subj ect scattered throu g h the ,

O rg cmo z z Aristotl e has d iscovered and f ormulated every

.

canon o f theoretical con sistency and e v ery artifice o f d i al e c ,

tical d ebat e with an i nd ustry and acuteness which cannot be

,

too hi g hly e x tolled ; an d hi s labours i n this d irection have

perhaps contributed more than those o f any other sin g le
writer to the intellectual sti mulation o f a f ter ag es ; but the
kind o f g eni us requisite f o r such a task was speculative rather
than practical there was no e x perience o f hu man natu re i n
its concrete mani f estations no prev ision o f real consequences ,

i nvolved S uch a cod e mi ght be and probably was to a

.
,

g reat e x tent abstracted f rom

, th e Pl atonic d ialo g ues bu t to
work up the processes o f thou g ht into a series o f d ramatic
contests carried on between livin g individuals as Plato has
, ,

d on e requ i red a vivid perception and g rasp o f realities which

, ,

and not any poetical mysti cism is what positively d isti n ,

‘
g u i s h e s a Platoni st f ro m an Aristotelian .

f th e s ti mu l t i g e ff ec t p ro d c e d b y th s t dy o f A ri st o tl e s
’
A s a il l t r t i
n u s a on o a n u e u

l o gi c , we q u o te th e f o llo w i n g an e c d o t e f ro m the n o tes to W h ate ly s ’

e d i tio n o f
B ac o n s
’
E ssays T h e l at e Si r Al e x an d e r J o h n s to n e , w h en ac t i n g as te mpo rary

G o v e rn o ro f C e yl o n ( so o n af t e r i t s c e s s io n ) , s at o n c e as j u d ge i n a t ri al of a p ris o n e r
x 2
30 8 TH E G RE E K PH I L O SOPH E RS .

V .

B ut i f Ar i stotle had not hi s master s enthus i asm f o r ’

practi c al re f orms n o rhis master s c ommand o f all the f orces ’

by which hu manity is raised to a hi gher li f e he had more , ,

even than his master the Greek p assion f o r knowled g e as ,

su ch apart f rom its utilitarian applications and embra c i n g

, ,

i n its vast orb the lowliest thin gs with the lo f ti est the most ,

f rag mentary g limpses and the larg est re v elations o f t ruth .

H e d emand ed nothin g but the materials f o r g eneralisation ,

and there was nothin g f rom which he could not g eneralise .

There was a place f o r everyth i n g within t he li mits o f hi s

world wid e system -
Never i n any hu man soul did the .

fo r a ro b b e ry an d mu rd er an d th e e v id e n c e s ee me d to h im so c o n c l u siv e , th at h e
w as ab o u t to c h arge th e j u ry (w h o w e re n ati v e C in galese ) to fi n d a v e rd i c t of

gu i l ty Bu t o n e
. of th e j u ro rs ask ed an d o b tain e d p e rmi ssi o n to exa mi n e th e
w i tn e ss e s h i mse l f . H e h ad th em b ro u gh t i n o n e b y o n e , an d c ro ss -
e xami n e d

th e m so ab l y a s to e li c i t th e f a c t th at t h e y w e re t/z emsel v es th e p e rp e t rat o rs of th e

c ri me ,
w h i c h t h ey af t e rw ard s h ad c on s
p i re d t o i mp u t e t o th e p ri so n e r A n d th e y .

w e re ac c o rd in gl yp u t o n th e i r t ri al an d c o n v i c te d Si r A l e x an d e r o h n s to n e w as
. J
gre atl s t ru c k b y th e i n te l li gen c e d i sp layed b y th i s j u ro r, th e mo re so as h e
y 2(

on l y
a s mall f arme r, w h o w as n o t k n o w n to h av e h ad an y re mark ab l e ad v an es 4
o f ed u c at io n H e s e n t f o r h i m, an d af t e r c o mme n d in g th e w o n de rf u l s ag ac i ty h e
.

q
h ad sh o w n , i n u i re d e age rl y w h at h i s s tu d i e s h ad
w hi c h h ad l o n g b e e n
ho u rs . T h is b o o k h e

p u t i t i n to th e h an d s
h e a t ran slat io n i n t o
’
th at l an g u age of al arge p o rt i o n o f A ri st o tl e s Org a n on . It ap p e ars th at th e
Po rtu gu es e , w h en th ey fi rs t s e ttl e d i n Ce yl on an d o th e r p art s o f th e E as t , t ran s lated

i n to t he n ati v e l an gu age s s e v e ral o f th e w o rk s th en stu d i e d in th e E u ro e an

p
U n iv ersi tie s , amo n g w h i c h w e re th e Lati n
v e rs i o n s o f A ri s to t le The C i n gale s e .

q
i n u e st io n sai d th at i f hi s u n d e rs tan d i n g h ad b een i n an y d egree c u l ti v ated an d
i mp ro v e d , i t w as t o th at b o o k th at h e o w e d i t I t i s l ik el y, h o w e v e r (as w as o b se rv ed
.

to me [ \Vh at ely] b y th e l at e B i s h o p C o p l e s to n ) , th at an y o th e r b o o k , c o n tai n i n g

q
an e u al amo u n t o f c l o se re as o n i n g an d ac c u rat e d e fi n i t i o n , mi gh t h av e an sw e red

th e same p u rpo se i n sh arp e n i n g th e i n t e ll e c t o f th e C i n gal e se

’
Po s si b ly, b u t n o t .

t o th e sa me e f ec t . Wh at
C i n gal e se go t i n to h i s h an d s w as a t rip le d i st illed
th e -

e s se n c e o f A th e n i an l eg al p ro c e d u re Th e c ro ss e x ami n in g el en c hu s w as fi rs t
.
-

b o rro w e d b y So c rat es f ro m th e A th en ian c o u rts an d ap pli e d t o p hilo so p hic al

u r o ses i t w as s t il l f u rth e r e l ab o rat ed b y Pl a to , an d fi n al ly re d u c e d to ab s trac t
p p
ru le s b y A ri s to tl e ; s o th at i n u s in g i t as h e d id th e j u ro r w as o n ly re s t o ri n g i t to

i t s o ri gi n al p u rpo s e s .
3 10 TH E GR E E K PH I L OS OPH E RS .

p ea ce and statesman ship in great p art f o r the sak e o f honour an d

,

ow r but the o ri s in yie l d s n o ex traneou s p ro fi t great or smal l an d

p e g ,

is l oved f o r itself al one I f then the energi si n g o f p ure reason ri ses

.
, ,

above s u ch nobl e careers as w ar an d st at es man shi p by i t s i n d e p e n d

enc e by its i n h erent del ightf ul ness an d so far as human frai lty wi ll
, , ,

er m it by its unti ri n g vi gour th i s must constitute p e rf ect hu man

p , ,

h app in ess ; or rather such a l i f e i s more t han human an d man c an ,

on ly p artak e o f it through the divine p rinci p le wi th in h im wherefore

l e t us not l isten to th o s e w h o t ell u s th at w e shoul d have n o intere st s
ex cep t w hat are human an d mortal l i k e ourselve s but so f ar as may
be p u t on i mmort al ity an d bend all our e ff ort s towards l ivi n g u p to
,

t hat el e ment o f our n ature w h i c h t hou gh s mall in co mp ass is in , ,

n d p reciousne s s su p reme
‘
p ower a .

Let us n ow see how he c arries this passionat e enthusiasm

f o r knowled g e into the hu mblest researches o f zoolog y

Amon g tural obj ects some ex ist unchanged th rough al l etern i ty

na , ,

w hil e oth ers are generated an d dec ay T h e f ormer are d ivinely .

l orious but bei n g co mp arat ively in acces s ibl e to our mean s o f o h

g ,

servation f ar l e ss is k no w n o f them than w e could wish ; whil e

,

erish abl e p lants an d ani mal s o ff er ab u n d ant o p p o rtu n i t ies o f st u d y

p
t o us w h o l ive under the s ame condi t ions wi th the m E ach science .

h as a charm o f i t s o w n Fo r k nowl edge o f t h e h e aven ly bo d i e s

.

is so subl i me a thi n g th at eve n a l ittle o f it is mo re del ightf u l than

all e arthly science p u t t o gether ; j u st as th e smallest gl i mp se o f a

bel oved be au ty is more deli gh tful than th e f ull est an d n eare st r e vela
t ion o f o rdin ary obj ec t s ; w hil e on th e o ther h an d where there , ,

are greater f acil i ties f o r observation s cience c an be carrie d much ,

f urt her ; an d our cl os e r k in shi p wi th th e cre ature s o f eart h i s some

co mp en sat ion f o r the intere st f elt in th at phil o sop hy which deal s w ith
the d ivin e Wh erefore in o u r di scussions o n l ivi n g bein gs w e shall
.
, ,

s o f ar a s p ossib l e p ass over n oth in g w hether it ran k hi h or l o w in

, g ,

t h e scal e o f esti mation Fo r even such o f the m as d isplease th e

.

senses when viewed wi th the eye o f reason as wonderf ul work s o f

,

Nature afford an i n ex p ressible p le asu re to those w h o c an enter

p hi losop hically into the ca uses o f thi n gs Fo r su rely it wou l d be .
, ,

ab s urd and irration al to l ook w ith del i ht at th e

g i mages o f such
obj ects o n account o f our interest in the p ic tori al or p l astic ski ll
which they exh ibit an d not to tak e still greater p leasure in a sc i en
,

E tlz . N ’

zc., X .
, v11. (s o me w h at c o n d en se d ) .
 CH A RA C TE RJS TI CS OF A RI S T O TLE
'

tifi c ex p lan atio n o f the realitie s th ems elve s We Ought n o t then to

m
.

s hrin k with chi ld ish d i s u st fro

g a n e xa min ation o f the l ower an i mal s ,

f o r there is so mething wonderf u l in all the wo rk s o f Nature an d w e

may re p eat what H e rac l e itu s i s re p orted to h ave s aid to certain
stran gers w h o had come to visit h im, b u t hung bac k at the door
wh e n they saw hi m warmi n g h i mself bef ore a fi re biddin g them ,

come in bol d ly f o r that there al so there were gods not al lo w ing

,

ourselves t o cal l any creature co mmon or unclean because there i s ,

a k i n d o f n atural b e au ty about them all Fo r, if an ywhere, there i s a .

p ervading p urp ose in the work s Nature an d the real i sation o f of ,

t his p urp o se is th e beauty o f the th in g B u t i f anyone shoul d .

l o o k w ith cont e mp t on the scienti fi c examin atio n o f th e l ower

ani mals he must h ave the same op inion about hi mself ; f o r the
'

'

gre atest rep u gn ance is f el t in loo k i n g at th e p art s o f which th e

h u man body is co mp osed such as blood musc les bones veins an d , , , , ,

the l i k e ‘
Si mi larly in d i s cuss i n g any p art or organ w e shou l d c o n
.
,

s ider that it is not f o r the matter o f which it co n sists that w e c are ,

b u t f o r the whol e f orm ; j u st as in talk in g about a hou s e it is n o t

brick s an d mortar an d wood t hat w e mean ; an d so th e th e o ry o f
'

Nature deal s wi th th e essenti al stru c ture o f obj e cts n o t with th e ,

e l e me nts whic h ap art f ro m that structure wo u l d h ave no e x i stence

, ,

at all 2 .

is well f o r the re p u t at 1o n o f Aristotle that he c ou ld

It
apply himsel f with such d evoti on to the arduous and i n hi s ,

ti me in g lorious researches o f natu ral histo ry and comparative

,

anatomy sin ce it was only i n those d epartments that he

,

mad e any real contributions to physical science I n the .

studi es whi ch were to hi m the noblest and most en trancin g

o f any his specu lations are one lon g record o f wearisome
, ,

hopeless unqualified delusion

, I f i n the philosophy o f .
,

p racti ce and the philosophy o f art he a ff ord ed no real g uid ,

ance at all i n the philosophy o f N ature his g uidance has

,

I t i s p e rf e c tly p o s s i b l e th a t A ri s to t le w as n o t ac u ai n t e d at fi rs t ha n d w i th q
h u man an a to m y j
B u t Si r A G ra n t is h a rd ly u s tifi ed i n o b se rv i n g th at th e w o rd s
. .

q u o te d ab o v e
‘
do n o t sh o w th e h ard ih o o d of th e p rac t i se d d isse c t e r (A ri s totl e,

p A ri s tot l e si mp ly t ak e s th e p o p u la r p o i n t of v ie w in to p ro v e th at
o rd e r

t h e i n t e rn al s tru c tu re o f the lo w er an i mal s i s no mo re o ffe n s i v e to th e e e th an

y
t h at o f man . An d, as h e to o k so mu c h d e l igh t in th e f o rme r n o thi n g b u t w an t ,

o f o p p o rtu n i ty i s lik e ly t o h a v e p re v e n te d h i m fro m e x te n d i n g h i s r

e se a1 c h e s to

the la t t e r
.
2
De Pa rt A m , I v . . .
3 12 TH E G RE E K PH I L O S OPH E RS .

always led me n f atally astray S o f ar as h i s means o f .

observ ation extend ed there was nothin g that he d id not

,

attempt to explain and in eve ry sin gle i nstance he was

,

wron g . He h as written about the g en e ral l aws o f matter and

motion astronomy c hemist ry meteorolog y and p hysiology
, , , , ,

with the result that he h as probably mad e more blu n ders on

those subj e cts than any hu man bein g e v er made be f ore or
a f ter hi m And if there i s one thin g more astoundin g than
.
,

his unbroken i n f elic i ty o f s pecu lation it i s the impe rturbable ,

sel f c o n fi d e n c e with whi c h he puts f o rward his f alla c ies as

-

d emonstrated scientific ce rtai n ties H ad he b een ri ght it . ,

w as no sli g ht or parti al g li mpses o f the beloved that w ould

h ave bee n v o u c hsa f ed hi m but the f ullest and nearest
,

revelati on o f her beauties But t he more he looked the less

.

h e saw I nstead o f d raw i n g asid e he o n ly thickened and

.

darkened the veils o f sense whi c h obs c u red her by mistakin g ,

them f o r the g lorious f orms that lay c o n cealed ben e ath .

M odern ad mirers o f Aristotle labou r to pro v e that his

e rrors were inevitable and belon g ed more to his ag e than to
,

him s el f ; that wi thout the mechani cal appli an c e s o f modern

t i mes science could not b e c ultiva ted wi th any hope o f success .

But what are we to say when we find that on one point a f ter
another the true e x planation had already been surmised by
’
Aristotle s p redecessors or contemporaries only to be scorn ,

f ully rej ected b y Aris totl e himsel f ? Their hypotheses m ay

o f ten have been v ery i mperf ect and suppo rted by i nsu ffici ent
,

evidence but it must have been somethin g more than chance

which always led h im wron g w hen they were so o f t e n ri g h t .

To beg in with the infinity o f space i s n o t even now n or w ill

, ,

it ever be established by i mproved i nstruments o f observ ation

,

and measurement it i s ded uced by a ve ry si mple process o f

reasonin g o f which Democritus and others were capable
, ,

while Aristotle appa rently was not H e rej e c ts the id ea . -

because it is inconsi stent with c erta i n very arbitrary ass u mp

tions and definition s o f h i s own w hereas he shoul d have ,
 GRE E K PHIL OS OPH E RS
‘

3 14 TH E .

how such an arran g emen t can c o e x ist with absolute c ont a ct

'

between eac h sphere and that ne x t below it o r how the ,

-

e ff ects o f f riction could b e transmitted throug h such enormou s

f f
thi cknesses o solid crystal i s le t unexplained ‘
By ahappy , .

anticip ation o f R oemer E mp edocles conj ec tured that the ,

transmission o f li g ht oc c upied a certai n ti m e : Aristotle

2
'

d eclares it to be instantaneous .

O n passin g to terrestrial physics we find that Aristotl e is , ,

as u su al th e d upe o f superficial appearan c es ag ainst whic h

, ,

other th inkers were on their g uard S eein g that fire always .

moved up he assu med that it d id so by v irtue o f a natu ral

,
'

tend ency towards the ci rcu m f erence o f the u niverse as ,

opp o sed to earth which always moved towards t h e c entre

, .

The atomists erroneously held tha t all matter g ravitated

'

d ownwards t hrou g h i nfinite space but c orrectly e x plained the ,

asc ent o f heated particles b y the p ressure o f surroundin g

m atter i n accord ance most probably with the analogy o f
, , ,

floatin g bodies 3
C hemistry as a scien ce is o f cou rse an
"

.
, ,

entirely mo dern creation but the fi rst approach to it was ,

m ad e by Democ ritus while n o anci ent philosopher stood ,

f arther f rom its essential pri n ciples than Ari stotle He .

analyses bodies not into thei r materi al eleme nts but i nto th e
, ,

sensuous qualiti es h o t and cold wet and dry between which

, , ,

he supposes the und erlyin g substance to be perpetually o s c il

latin g a theo ry which if it were true would m ake any fi x ed , ,

laws o f nature i mpossible .

I t mi g ht h aVe b e e n e x p ec t e d that on reachin g physiolo gy , ,

the S tag irite would st and o n fi rmer g round than any o f his
contemporaries S uch however is not the case As already
.
, , .

observed his achievem en ts belon g entirely to the do minion

,

of anatomy and descriptive zoolog y The whole internal .

economy o f the ani mal body is accordin g to him d esi g ned , ,

f o r the purpose o f creatin g and moderatin g the vital heat ;

Z e ll e r, p 469
. . De Se l ma, vi .
, 4 46 , a, 26 .

De Coe d , I
0

3
.
,
V1i1 .
,
2 77 b, ,
2 .
 CH A RA C TE R I S TI CS O F A RI S TO T LE .
3 15

an d i n apportioni n g th ei rf u nctions t o the di ff erent o rg ans he

i s entirely d ominated by this f un d amental erro r I t was a .

com mon notion amon g the G reeks sugg ested by su ffi ciently ,

obvious c onsiderations that the brai n i s the seat o f the

,

psychic activities These however Aristotle t ran s p o rt s t o

.
, ,

the heart which i n his system not only propels the blood
, , ,

throug h the body but is also the sour c e o f h e at the co m mon

, ,

c entre where the d i ff erent special sen sations m eet to be

c ompared and the org an o f i mag inatio n and o f passion The
, .

sole f un c tion o f the brai n is to cool down the blood — a

p u rpose which the lun g s also subserv e S ome persons .

believe that air is a kind o f f ood and i s i nhaled m o rder to ,

f eed the internal fire ; but thei r theory would involve th e

absu rd consequence that all ani m al s breathe f o r all have ,
'

so me heat Anaxag oras and Diog enes d id indeed make

.
, ,

that assertion and the latter even went so f a r as to say that

,

fish breathe with thei r g ills absorbin g the air held i n solution,

by the water passed throu g h them — a misapprehension says ,

Aristotle which arose f ro m not havin g studied the final c ause

,

of respiration H i s physiolo g ical theo ry o f g eneration i s

‘
.

equally un f ortunate I n accordance with his metaphysi cal

.

system here af ter to be e x plained he distin g uishes two

, ,

elements i n the reproductive process o f which one that con , ,

tributed by the male is e x clusively f ormative and the other

, ,

t hat contributed by the f emale e x c lusively material The , .

prevalent O pinion was evidently what we know now to be ,

tru e that each parent has both a f ormative and a material

,

share i n the composition o f the em bryo Ag ain Aristotle

'

.
, ,

stran g ely enou g h re g ards the g enerative element i n both

,

se x es as an unappropriated portion o f the animal s nutri ment ’

t he last and most refined prod uct o f di g estion and there f ore ,

not a portio n o f the parental system at all ; while other

’
b i ol og ists anticipatin g M r D arwi n s theory o f pan g enesis i n
,
.

a very wonder f ul man ne r tau ght that the s emen i s a c on ,

De R esp i n , i . an d n .
3 16 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E R S .

fl u x o f m ol e c ules d e rived f ro m eve ry part o f the body an d ,

thus strove to a c co un t f o r the hereditary trans mission o f

i ndividu al peculiarities to o fls p ri n g ‘ ’
.

A l l these however are mere questions o f d etail

, ,
I t is on .

a subj e c t o f the p ro f oun dest philosophical i mportance t hat

Aristotle di ff ers most consc iously most rad ically and most , ,

f ata lly f ro m his prede c essors They were evolutionists and .

,

h e was a s t at i o n ari s t They were me c h an i c is ts and he was

.
,

a teleolo g ist They were uni f o rmitarians and he was a d ualist

. , .

I t is true that as we mention ed at th e be ginnin g o f this

,

chapter M r E dwi n Wallace makes hi m reco g nise the g enesis

, .

’
o f thin g s by evolution and develop ment bu t the meanin g o f ,

this phrase requ ires to be cleared up I n one sense i t is o f .

,

course almost a n id en tical proposition

,
The g enesis o f .

th in g s must be by g enesis o f some kin d o r other The .

g re at question i s what thin g s have been evolved and how

, ,

have they been e v olved ? Mode rn sci ence tells us that not ,

only hav e all particular aggr eg at es o f matter and m otion

now e x istin g c ome into bein g within a finite period o f time ,

but also that the specific types u nder whi ch we arran g e thos e
agg re g ates have equally been g enerated ; and that thei r
characteristics whether structural or f unctional can only be
, ,

u nderstood by tracin g o ut their ori g i n and history And it .

f urther teaches u s t h at the prope rties o f every a gg re g ate

result f ro m the properties o f its ulti mate elements whi ch within , ,

the li mits o f ou r e x perience remain absolutely unchan g ed , .

Now Aristotle tau ght very nearly the contrary o f all this
,
.

H e believed that the c osmos as we now know it had e x ist ed , , ,

an d would continu e to exi st unchan g ed th r ou g h all ete rnity

, .

The s u n moon planets an d stars to g ether with the orbs

, , , ,

contain in g t hem are composed o f an absolutely u n g enerable

, ,

i ncorruptible substance The earth a cold heavy solid

.
, , ,

sphere t houg h liabl e to superfici al chan g es has always

, ,

o c c upied its p re s ent position i n the c entre o f the uni verse .

De Gm A m, I
. .
, x vu .
3 18 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHERS .

VI .

The truth is that while ou r philosopher had one o f the

most power f ul i ntelle c ts ever possessed by any man it was ,

a n intellect strictly li mited to the su r f ac e o f thin g s H e was .

utterly i ncapable o f d ivinin g the hid d en f orces by w hi ch

inorganic nature and li f e and hu man society are moved H e .

had neither the g enius which c an reconstruct the past no r ,

the g enius which partly moulds partly f oretells the f uture , .

But wherever he has to observe o r to report to enu merate or ,

to analyse to d escribe or to define to c lassi f y or to compare

, ,

and whatever h e the subj ect a mollusc or a mam mal a m ouse

, .

or an elephant ; the stru ctu re and habits o f wild ani mals ;

i

t h e di ff erent sta g es m t h e d evelopm ent o f an embryo bi rd

the va riations o f a sin gle o rg an o r f unction throu g h th e

entire zoolo g ical series the hi erarc h y o f intellectual f acu l t ies
the laws o f mental association the specific types o f
virtuou s character the relation o f equity to l aw ; the relation
o f reason to i mpu lse ; the id eals o f f riendship ; the d i ff erent .

members o f a household the d i ff erent orders i n a State the

possible variations o f political constituti ons or within the ,

s a me c o n s t it u t i o n ; the elements o f d ramatic or epi c poetry ;

'

the modes o f predication the principles o f definition classi ,

fi c at io n j ud g ment and reasoni n g the di ff erent systems o f

(

, ,

hilosophy all varieti es o f passion all motives to action al l

p , ,

sources o f convi ction — there we find an enormou s accumula

tion o f kn owled g e an u nwearied patience o f res earch a sweep
, ,

o f c omprehension a subtlety o f discri mination an a c c u ra c y o f

i

, ,

s tatement an im partiality o f d ecision and an all absorbin g

, ,
-

enthusiasm f o r scienc e which i f they d o not raise hi m to the

, ,

s u p re me l e v e l o f c reative g en ius entitl e hi m to rank a v ery

‘

little way below it .

I t was n atu ral that one w h o ran g ed with such consu mmate
m astery over the w hole world o f apparen t reality should ,

belie v e in n o other reality ; that f o r hi m truth should only

 CHA RA CTERIS TICS OF A RISTO TLE .
3 r9

m ean the systematisatio n o f sense and lan guage o f opinion , ,

an d o f thou ght The visible o rd er o f nature was presen t to

.

his i mag ination i n su c h precise determi nation and f uln ess o f

d etail that it resisted any attempt h e mi g ht have m ade to
c onceive i t under a d i ff eren t f orm E ac h o f his conclusions .

was supported by analo g ies f rom every other depart ment o f

enqui ry becau se he carried the peculiar limitations o f hi s
,

thinkin g f aculty with hi m wherever he tu rn e d and u n c o n ,

s c i o u s ly accommod ated every subj ect to the f ramework which

they i mposed The clearness o f his ideas nec essitated the use
.

o f sharply d rawn d istinctions which p revented the f ree play

-

o f g eneralisation an d f ruit f ul interchan g e o f principles between

the d i ff erent sciences And we shall have occasion to show .

herea f ter that when he attempted to c o mbine rival theories

, , ,

it was done by placin g them i n j u x taposition rather than by

mutual interpen etration A gain with his vivi d perceptions .
, ,

i t was i mpossible f o r hi m to belie v e i n the j usti fi c ation o f any

method claimin g to supersede or even to supplement , thei r ,

a uthority H.enc e he was hardly less opposed to the atomis m

o f D emoc ritus than to the scepticism o f Prota oras or the
g
i d ealis m o f Plato H en c e also his dislike f o r al l e x pl anations
.
, ,

which assu med that there were hi d den processes at work

belo w the su rf ace o f thin gs even takin g sur f ac e i n i ts most ,

l iteral sense Thus i n d i s cu s s i n g the question w h y the sea

.
,
'

i s salt he will not ac cept the theo ry that rivers dissolve out
,

the salt f ro m the strata throu gh which they pass and carry it ,

d own to the sea because river water tastes f resh ; an d pro

,
-

pounds i n its st ead the u tte rly f als e hypothesis o f a d ry ,

sali ne e vaporation f ro m the earth s su rf ac e which he supposes ’

‘
to be swept seaward s by the wi nd E ven i n his own especial .

province o f natu ral history t h e same te n d en c y leads hi m

astray H e asserts that the spider throws o ff its web f rom
.

the su rf a c e o f its body l i ke a skin i nstead o f evolvin g it f ro m ,

within as Demo c ritus had tau ght

,
2
The same thinker ha d .

Meteo r .
, [I .
, i ii .
, 3 57, a, 15 if .
2
H i s t A m,
. IX .
, x x xi x .
, su bf n .
 3 20 TH E GREEK PH I L OSOPHE RS .

ende avou red to p rove by analog ic al re ason i n g t hat the

i nvertebrate ani mals m u st hav e visc e ra and that only thei r ,

extreme minuteness p revents us f rom per c eivin g them a

view which his suc c essor will not ad mi t ‘
I n f a c t w h erever .
,

the line between the v i sible an d the i nvisi ble is crossed ,

’
Aristotle s p o w ers are s uddenly paralysed as i f by enchant ,

ment .

Another ci r c u mstan c e whi c h le d Aristotle to disregard

the happy aper c us o f earlier philosophers was his vast
to them in positive knowled g e I t n ever o cc urred .

/ superiority
to hi m that thei r sag acity mi g ht be g reater than his preci se ly ,

b e cau s e its e x er c ise was less i mped ed by the labou r o f ac qu ir

‘

i n g and retainin g such im mense masses o f i rrelevant f a c ts .

And his confidence was still f u rther e n hanced by the c onvi e

tion that all previou s systems were absorbed into his Ow n thei r ,

scattered truths c o ordinated thei r aberration s corrected and

-

, ,

their d i s c ord s reconciled But i n strikin g a g eneral a v erag e

.

o f existin g philosophies he was i n reality bri ng in g the m ba c k

,

to that anonymou s philosophy which i s embod ied i n common

lan g uag e an d c om mon opinion And i f he a f terward s ruled
.

the m inds o f men with a more d espotic sway than any other
intellectual maste r it was because he g ave an org anised
,

e x pression to the pri nciple o f authority which i f it Could , , ,

would stereotype and perpetuate the existin g typ e o f civi li sa

tion f o r all time .

H ere then are three ma i n po i nts o f d istin c ti o n bet w ee n

, ,

ou r philosopher and his pre c ursors the advantag e bein g so , ,

f a r enti rely on thei r sid e

,
H e d id not like the I oni a n
.
,

physiolo g i sts anticipate i n outline ou r theories o f evolution

,
.

H e held that the cosmos had always b e e n by the strictest ,

n ecessity arran ged in the same manner ; the starry revol a

,

tions nev er chan g in g the f our elements preserv in g a constant

balance ; the earth al w ays solid ; land and water always
d istri buted acc ordin g to their present propo rt ion s ; livin g
De Pa rt A m ,
. III .
, iv .
, su b in .
3 22 THE GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

H ence he red u c ed s c ien c e to the f ramin g o f exact definit i ons .

Plato f ollowed on the same track and re f used to answer a ,

sin g le question about anythin g until the subj ect o f investi g a

tion had been c learly determined But the f orm o f causation .

had taken such a power f u l hold on Greek thou ght that it ,

c ould not be i m mediately shaken o ff ; and Plato as he d evoted ,

more and more attenti on to the m aterial univers e s a w hi m ,

sel f compelled like the older phi losophers to e x plain its con
, ,

struction by tracin g out the history o f its g rowth What i s .

even more si g nificant he applied th e same m ethod to ethi cs ,

and politics find in g i t easier to describe how the v arious

,

v i rtues and types o f social union c a me i nto e x is tence than to ,

analyse and classi f y them as fi x ed i dea s without re f erence to

tim e A g ain while takin g up the E leati c antithesis o f reality
.
,

and appearance an d re i nterpretin g it as a d i s tinc ti on between

,
-

nou men a and phenomena id eas and sensation s spirit and , ,

matter he was i mpelled by the necessity o f e x pl ainin g hi m

,

sel f and by the actual li mitations o f e x perience t o assimilate

,

the two opposin g series o r at least to vi ew the fleetin g , , , ,

superficial i mag es as a reflection and a d um b ration o f the bein g

which they c on c eal ed And o f all material obj ects it seemed
.
,

as if the heavenly bodies with thei r ord erly unchan g in g , ,

movements th eir clear brilli ant li ght and their remoteness

, ,

f rom earthly i mpuriti es best represented the philosopher s

’

id eal Thus P lato while on the one side he reaches back to

.
, ,

the pre So c ratic ag e o n the other reaches f orward to the

-

Aristotelian system .

N or was this all As the world o f sense was comin g b ack

.

i nto f avour the worl d o f re as on was f allin g i nto disrepute

, .

J ust as the old physical philosophy had been d e c omposed by

the S ophisti cism o f P rotag oras and Go rg ias so also the ,

dial ec tic o f Socrates was corrupted into th e sophist ry o f

E u b u lid e s and E u t h yd é mu s Plato himsel f dis c overed that .

by reasonin g ded u ctively f rom purely abstract prem i ses c on ,

t rad i c t o ry c on c lu sions c ould be establ i shed w i t h apparently

 CH AR A C TE RI STI CS OF A R15 T O TL E .
3 :3
.

equal f orce was di ffi cult to see how a decision could be

. It
arrived at e x c ept by appealin g to the test imony o f sense And .

a moral re f orm could h ardly be e ff ected e x c ept by si milarly

taki n g i nto account the e x istin g b el i e f s and custo ms o f m ankind .

I t is possible we think t o tr ace a si milar evolution i n the

, ,

histo ry o f the Attic d rama The tra g edi e s o f Aeschylus .

resemble the old I onian philosophy i n this that they are ,

fi lled with material i mag ery and that they deal with remote ,

interests remote ti mes and remote places S ophocles with

, ,
.

d raws his a c tion i nto the subj ective sphere and si multaneously ,

works out a pervadin g contrast between the i llusions by which

men are e i ther lulled to f alse secu rity or racked with n eedle ss
an g uish and the terrible or consolato ry reality to whi c h they
,

finally awaken We have also i n his well known i rony in

.
,
-

the un c ons c ious sel f betrayal o f his characters that subtl e

-
,

evanesce nt allusi v eness to a hidd en truth that g l eamin g o f ,

reality throu g h appeara n ce w hich constitutes first the ,

'

d ial ecti c then the mythical illustrati on and finally the physics
, ,

o f Plato I n Aeschylu s also we ha v e the s pec tacle o f sudd e n

.

and v iolen t v ic issitud es t he aba s eme n t o f i nsolent prosperity

, ,

and the punishm ent o f lon g success f ul c ri me only with hi m

the chara c ters which attrac t most interest a re n ot the blin d
vi c ti ms but the acco mplices or the c o n fi d an t s o f d estiny—the
,

g reat fi g ures o f a Promet heus a Dari us an E teocles a C ly , , ,

t e mn e s t ra and a C assa n dra who are raised above the com mon
, ,

level to an eminen c e where the secrets o f past an d f utu re are

un f olded to their gaze Far otherwise with S ophocles T h e . .

leadin g acto rs i n his most characteristi c works O edipus , ,

E lectra, Dej a n ira Aj a x and Philoct et es are surrounded by

, , ,

f orces whi c h they can neither c ont rol nor understand ; movin g
i n a wo rld o f illusion i f they help to work out thei r o w n
,

d estinies i t i s u ncon s ciously o r even i n d irect opposition to ,

the i r own d esi g ns ‘

H ence i n Aeschylus w e have so methin g
.

T his ha rac te ri sa ti o n l i n e i th e r g o n e n o r to t h e
t o th e A n t zl Oed ip u
'

c a
pp e s s zn

Colé n u s, th e fi rst an d t h e l as t e x tan t d ra mas of So ph o c l es . T he re as o n is

Y 2
 3 24 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

l ike t h at superb sel f c o n fi d e n c e which distin gui shes a Par

-

m enid es and a H e ra c l e i t u s in Sophocles that co n f ession o f

human i g norance which the Athenian philosoph ers mad e o n
the i r own behal f or stro v e to extract f rom others E u ripides
, .

i ntrodu c es us to another mod e o f thou ght mo re aki n to that ,

which chara c terises Aristotle For althou gh there is abun .

,

d ance o f mystery in his trag edies i t has n o t the pro f oun d ,

reli g i ous si g nificance o f the S ophoclean irony ; he uses i t

rather f o r romantic and senti mental pu rposes f o r the con ,

struction o f an i ntric at e plot or f o r the c reation o f pathetic ,

situ ations H is whol e power i s thrown i nto the i mmediate

.

and d etailed representation o f l ivin g pass i on and o f the sur ,

roundin g s i n which it i s disp l ayed without g oin g f ar back ,

i nto its historic al anteced ents like Aeschylus o r like , ,

S opho c les into the d ivin e purposes which und erlie it O n

, .

the other hand as a G reek writer could not be other than

,
"

philosophi cal he uses particular incidents as an occasion f o r

,

wide g eneralisations and d ialectical discussions ; these and ,

not the id ea o f j ustice o r o f d estiny bei n g the pedestal on ,

which his fig ures are set And i t may be noticed as another .

c uriou s coincidence that like Aristotle a g ain he i s disposed, ,

to criticise his prede c essors or at least one o f them Aeschylus , , ,

with some deg ree o f asper i ty .

The critical tendency j ust alluded to su ggests one more

‘
reason why philosophy f ro m havin g been a method o f dis ,

y shou ld at last beco me a mere method o f d escription

f c o ve r
,

and arran g ement The materi als a cc u mulated by n early

.

three centu ries o f observation and reasonin g were so enormous

that they be g an to stifle the i mag in ative f aculty I f there .

was any openin g f o r ori g inality it lay in the task o f carryin g

ord er into this chaos by redu cin g it to a f e w g eneral heads ,

by mappin g out the whole field o f knowl ed g e and subj ect i n g ,

each parti c ular bran ch to the new f ou nd p rocesses o f defin i t i on -

th at t h e on e is sti ll h al f A e sc hyl e an , an d th e o the r d is ti n c t l y an i mi tat io n of

E u rip id e s .
3 26 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

Aristotle on the sid e o f theorisin g systematisation while “

sharin g to a more li mited e x tent the metaphysical and

political reali sm which accompanied i t that L ewes was
carryin g the same t rans f ormation a step f urther i n his u n
finished Pro b l ems Of L if e a n d M z u a that the philosophy o f ’
’

M r Sh ad vvo rth Hod g son i s m ark ed by the sam e spirit o f

‘

actu ality thou g h not w ithout a v is ta o f multitudi nou s pos

,

s ib i l i t i e s i n the back g round ; t hat the Neo H e g elian school -

are t ryin g to d o over a g ai n f o r u s what thei r master did i n

Ger many and that the lamented Pro f essor C li ff o rd had
already g iven p romi se o f on e more g reat attempt to w i den the
area o f ou r possible e x perienc e i nto c o e x ten sion with the -

‘
whole d omai n o f Nature .

The systematisin g power o f Aristotle his f aculty f o r brin g ,

i n g th e i solated p a rts o f a sur f ace i nto c o ordination and c on -

t i n u i ty i s apparent even in those sciences with w hos e m

,
aterial
t ruth s he was utterly u nacquainte d Apart f rom the f alsenes s .

o f t h ei r f unda mental assu mptions his scientific treatises are , ,

i

f o r t he i r t i me masterpieces o f method
,
I n this r espe c t they .

f ar su rpass his moral and m etaphysi cal works and they are ,

al s o written i n a much more vi g orous style occa s i onally even ,

risin g i nto eloquence H e evid ently moves with much m ore .

assu rance on the solid g round o f external nature than i n the

cloudland o f Platonic d ialectics or amon g the possibilities o f ,

an ideal morality I f f o r e x a mple we open hi s P/zy s z es we

'

.
, , ,

s hall fi n d such notions as C ausation I nfinity Matter Space , , , ,

T ime M otion and F o rce f o r the fi rst ti me i n histo ry

, , ,

separately dis c u ssed d efined an d mad e the f ou ndation o f , ,

natu ral philosophy The treatise O n the H ea v en s v ery pro

.

perly reg ards the c ele s tial m ovements a s a pu rely mechanical

problem and strives t h rou g hout to brin g theory and pra c tice
,

C f t h e me mo rab l e d e c larat i o n
. of Mr F Po ll o c k
. . T o me i t a mo u n ts to a

c o n t ra d ic ti o n i n t e rms to s p e ak o f u n k n o w ab l e e x i s te n c e o r u n k n o w ab l e reali t yi n

an ab so l u te se n s e . I c an n o t t e ll w h at e x i st e n c e me an s i f not th e p o s s ib ili ty

of b e in g k n o w n or p . 16 3 .
 CHA RA C TERISTICS OF A RIS TO TLE .
3 27

i nto c omplete ag reement Wh i le d i re c tly c ontrad ic t i n g t h e .

t ru ths o f modern astronomy it stands on the same g round ,

with t h e m ; and anyone who had mastered it would be f ar

better prepared to re c eive those t ruths than i f he were only
acquai nted with su c h a w ork as Pl ato s Tz maeu s The re
'
’
.

’
mainin g portions o f Aristotle s scientifi c encyclopaed ia f ollo w
i n perf ect lo g ical orde r and correspond v ery n early to ,

’
A u g uste Co mte s classification if indeed they d id not , , ,

d irectly or i ndirectly su ggest it We c annot however vie w .

, ,

the labours o f Aristotl e with un mi x ed satis f action u ntil he

c omes on to deal with the pro v i nces o f natural h i story com
‘

p ar at i v e anatomy and co mparative psycholo , g y H ere as .

,

we have shown the subj ect e x actly suited the comp rehensive
,

o bservation and systematisi n g f ormalis m i n which he e x celled .

H ere accordin g ly not only the m ethod but the matter o f

, ,

his teach in g i s g ood I n theorisin g abo ut the causes o f .

phenomena he was behind the best s c ience o f his ag e ; i n

d issect i n g the phen omena themselves he was f a r be f ore it .

O f course very much o f what he tel ls was l earned at sec ond

hand and som e o f it i s not authentic But to collect suc h
,
.

m asses o f in f ormation f ro m t he reports o f u ned ucated hunters ,

fi shermen g rooms shepherd s beem asters and the like

, , , , ,

required an e x trao rd i n ary power o f p uttin g pertin ent qu es

t ions s uch as c oul d only be acqui red i n the s c hool o f So c rat i c
,

dialectic N or shou ld we o mit to notic e the vivi d i n t e lli

.

g ence which enabled even ordina ry Greeks to supply hi m

with the f acts requ i red f o r his g enerali sations But som e o f -
.

his most i mport ant researches must b eentirely ori g inal For .

i nstanc e he must have traced the develop ment o f the emb ryo
,

chicken with his own eye s ; and h e re we have i t on g ood , ,

authority that hi s observ ation s are remarkable f a r thei r

accura c y in a field where a c curacy a c cordin g to C aspar

, ,

Fr i ed r i c h Wol ff is al most impossible ‘

, .

d Z Eu t eb el z mg d Tlz ie re Vi mme r,
’
’

An s tO/el es won . eu gu n
g u . . . A u b e rt u . V
E i n l e i tu n g, p . 15 .
3 28 TH E GREEK PH I L O S O PI I E RS .

Still more i mp o rtan t than these observation s the mselve s

i s th e g reat truth he derives f rom them —sin ce rediscovered
and worked out i n d etail by V on Baer —that in the d evel op
ment o f each ind ivid ual the g eneric chara c ters m ake their
appearance be f ore the specific c haracters ‘
N or i s this a .

m ere acci dental or isolated remark but as we shall show i n , ,

t he ne x t chapter inti mately connected with one o f the ,

philosopher s metaphysic al theori es Althou g h not an e v o lu

’
.

t i o n i s t he has mad e other contributions to biolo gy the i m

, ,

portance o f which has been first realised i n the l i ght o f the

evoluti on theo ry Thus he notices the antag onism between .

2
i ndividu ation and reproduction ; the connex ion o f i ncreased
si ze with i n c reased v itality ; 3
th e c onn exi on o f g reater
mobility and o f g reater i ntelli g en c e with in c reas e d co m
4
,
5
,

p l e x i t y o f stru cture ; the physiolo g i c al divisio n o f labour i n

the hi gher an i mals ; the f ormation o f heterog eneous organ s
6

7
out o f homo g eneou s ti s su es ; the tendency towards g r e ater
8—
c entralisation i n the hi gher org anisms a remark c onnected

w ith his two g reat anatomic al dis c overies the c entral position ,

o f the hea rt i n the vascular system and the pos session o f a

‘

backbon e by all red blooded anim als ; the resemblan c e o f

9 -

ani mal intelli g en c e to a rudi mentary human intelli g enc e ,

especi ally as man i f ested i n c hild ren and finally h e , ,

attempts to trace a continu ous series o f g rad ations c onnectin g

the inorg anic with the org ani c world plants with ani mals , ,

and the lower ani mals w ith man “ .

The last mentioned pri nciple g ives one more illustration o f

th e d i st i nction between Aristotle s system and that o f the
’

evolut i on i st p roperly so c alled The continu ity re c o g n i sed

,
.

De Gen . A IL ,
II .
, i ii .
, 73 6 , b , I .
2
I b id .
, I .
, x v iii . , 72 5 b , , 25 .

3
De Respi ra , 4 77 a , ,
18 . De Pa rt Am , I . .
, vi i .
, su b in. .

5
1 b fd . . II .
, x. , 6 56 , a, 4 .
6
I b id .
, IV .
, vi . , 6 83 , a, 2 5 . I b zd , I I , i 7
'

. . .

9
[b id .
,
IV .
, v .
, 6 82, a, 8 ; De Lon g , v i. , 46 7
, a, 18 De I n g e A m, v i i , . .

7
07 , a, 2 4
9
De Pa rt A m I I , i x , 6 6 4 , b ,
.
, . . 11 Z e l l e r, p .
5 22 .

H i s t A m , V I I I , i s u b i t}
. . . Z
e ll e r,
p .
5 53 .
3 30 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPH E RS .

C H APT E R V I I .

T HE SY STE MAT C PH LO SO PH Y O F A RI ST O TLE

I I .

WE have consid ered the Aristotelian philosophy i n relation

to the g reat concret e i nterests o f li f e morals politics litera , , ,

tu re and scien c e We have now to ask what it has to tell u s

, .

abo ut the d eepest and g ravest problems o f any the first p rin ,

c i p l e s o f B ein g and K nowin g God and the soul spi rit and
, ,

matter metaphysics psycholo gy and log ic We saw that

, , , .

very hi g h clai ms were advanced o n behal f o f Ari stotle i n

respe c t to his treat ment o f these topics ; and had we beg un
with them we should on ly have been f ollowin g the usual
,

e x ample o f hi s e x positors We have however pre f erred

.
, ,

keepin g the m to the l ast that our readers mi ght acqui re som e
,

f a miliarity with the Aristotelian method by seein g i t applied ,

to subj ects w here the results were i mmediate ly intelli g ible ,

and could be tested by an appeal to the e x p eri en c e o f twenty

two centu ries We know that there are some w h o will d emu r
.

to this proceedin g w h o will say that Aristotle the me t ap hy

.

s ic i a n stands on quite d i ff erent g roun d f rom Aristotle th e

man o f sci en c e because i n the on e capaci ty he had and in

, ,

the other c apa c ity he had not su ffi cient f acts to warrant ,

an aut horitative c on c lusion They will say with Pro f St .

, . .

Georg e Miv art that i n accu mulatin g natural knowled g e men s

,
’

minds have become dead ened to spiritual truth or with M r .

E dwin Wallace that the qu estions opened by Aristotle have

,

not yet been c losed and that we m ay with advantag e beg in

,
 S YSTE MA TIC PHIL OSOPHY OF A RIS TO TLE .
33!

our study o f them under his g uidan c e We o n the other .

,

hand will endeavour to show that there i s a u nity o f compo

,

’
s it i o n run nin g throu g h the Sta g irite s entire labours that they ,

eve rywhere mani f est the same e x cellences and de f e c t s whic h ,

are those o f an anatomisin g cri tical d escriptive c las s i fi c at o ry

, , ,

g eni us ; that his most i mportant con c lusions however g reat ,

thei r histori cal i nterest are without any positive o r even

,

ed u c ational valu e f o r us bein g al most en t irely based on f alse

,

physical assu mption s ; that his ont o lo gy and psycholog y are

not what his ad m i rers suppose them to be ; and that hi s
logi c thou gh meritin g our g ratitude i s f ar too c on f used and
, ,

i n c omplete to throw any li g ht on the question s raised by

m odern thi nkers .

H ere as elsewhere we shall employ the g enet i c m ethod

, ,

Aristotle s w ritin g s do not in deed presen t

’
o f i nvesti g ation .
, ,

that g rad ual development o f id eas whi ch makes the Platonic

Dialo g ues so i nterestin g S till they e x h i bit traces o f such a
.

development an d the most i m portant amo n g them seems t o

,

have been compiled f rom notes taken by the philosophe r

be f ore his conclusions were d efinitely rea s o ned out o r worked ,

up into a consistent whole I t i s this f ra g mentary collection

.

whi c h f ro m havin g been pla c ed by some unknown edito r

,

a f ter the Pby s z es has received a name still associ ated with
’

every kind o f speculation that cannot be t ested by a direct o r

i ndi rect appeal to the evidenc e o f e x ternal sense .

Wh ether there e x ist any realities beyond what are revealed

to us by this evidence and what sensible evid ence itsel f may
,

be wo rth were problems already actively canvassed i n

,

Aristotle s time H is M etap /zys z c s at once takes u s into the

’
’
.

thick o f the debate The first qu estion o f that ag e w as What

.
, .
'

are the causes and pri nci ples o f thin g s ? O n one side sto o d
m —
e n ph ysicists and thei r livin
g
representatives They said that all thi n g s came f rom water
.

or air or fi re or f rom a m i xtu re o f the f ou r elem ents or f ro m

, ,

the interaction o f opposites su c h as wet and d ry hot and cold

, , .
33: TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPH E RS .

Aristotle f ollowin g i n the t rac k o f his master Plato blames

, , ,

them f o r i g norin g th e i n c orporeal substances b y which he ,

d oes not mean what would now be u nderstood — f eelin g s or

states o f consciousness o r even the spiritual substratu m o f
,

consciousness — but rather the g eneral qualities or assemblages

o f qual i ties which remain c onsta n t amid the flu c tuations o f

sensible phen omena ; c onsidered let u s observe not as sub , ,

je c t i v e thou g hts but as obj ective

,
realities Another d eficiency .

in the older physical theories i s that they either i g nore the

e ffi cient cau se o f motion (like Thales ) or assi g n ,

or
of

The teleolog y o f Aristotle requires a word o f e x plan atio n ,

whi c h may appropriately find its plac e in t he present conne x

i on I n speaki n g o f a purpose i n N atu re he d oes not mean
.
,

that n atu ral productions subserve an end lyin g outside them

’
selves ; as i f to use Goethe s i llustration the bark o f cork
, ,

trees w as in t ended to be m ad e i nto stoppers f o r g in g er beer -

bottles but that i n every perf ect thin g the parts are i n t e rd e
pendent an d exist f o r the sake o f the whole to which they
,

lon g Nor does he like so many theolo g ians both ancient

.
, ,

and modern arg ue f ro m the evid ence o f desi g n i n Nature to

,

the operation o f a d esi g nin g i ntellig ence outsid e her Not .

believin g i n any creation at all apart f rom works o f art he ,

c ou ld not believe in a creative i ntelli g ence other than that o f

man H e d oes ind eed constantly speak o f Natu re as i f she

.
, ,

were a personal providence contin ually e x ertin g hersel f f o r

,

the g ood o f her c reatures But on lookin g a little c loser.

, ,

we find that the ag ency i n question is co mpletely u nconscious ,

and may be identified with the constit ution o f each particular

'

thin g o r rather o f the type to whi ch i t belon g s We have

, .

said that Aristotle s i ntellect was essentially descriptive and ,

we have here another illustration o f its characteristi c quality .

 34 TH E GREEK PH ILO S OPHERS .

answe rs that the constant rep rod ucti on o f such org ans i s
enou g h to vindi c ate them f rom bein g the work o f chance
thus d isplayi n g his inability to distin g u ish between the two
ideas o f uni f orm c ausation and desi g n .

As a result o f the f oreg oin g criti c ism Aristotle distin ,

g u is h e s f ou r di ff erent c auses or p rin c iples by whi c h all thin g s

are determined to be what they are — M atter Form ,
A g ent , "
,

and Pu rpose 2
I f f o r e x ample we t ake a saw the matter i s

m
.
, , ,
-

s e T b rm a toothed blad e ; the a g ent or cause o f i ts,

assu min g that shap e a s mith ; the purpose to d ivid e wood , ,

or stone When we hav e e nu merated these f ou r principles

.
,

we have told e v erythin g that can be known about a s aw But .

Aristotle could not keep the l ast three separate he g rad ually
e x tend ed the definition o f f orm unti l it abso rbed o r became ,

3
identified with ag ent and p u rpose I t was what we should
, .

c all the idea o f f un c tion that f acilitated the transition I f the .

v ery essence o r n ature o f a saw i mplies use acti v ity move , ,

ment how can we define it without tellin g its pu rpose ? The

,

toothed blade is only i ntelli gible as a c uttin g d ividin g i n s t ru ,

ment A g ain how c ame the saw i nto bei n g ? What shaped
.
,

the steel i nto that particul ar f orm ? We have said that it

was the smith But surely that is too v a gu e The smith i s . .

a man and may b e abl e to e x erc ise other trad es as well

‘

, .

Suppose hi m to be a m usician d id he make the saw in that ,

capacity ? No and here comes i n a d istin ction wh i ch plays

’
an i m mense part i n Aristotle s metaphysi cs whence it has ,

passed i nto ou r every day spee c h H e does not m ake the -

.

saw Ou r? mu si c i an but gu t? smith H e c an howe v er i n the .

, ,

e x ercise o f hi s trad e as smith make many other tools— knives ,

a x es and so f orth Nevertheless had he only l eame d to

, .
,

make saws it would be enou g h There f ore he does not make .

,

Pizys .
, II .
, v i i i. , p . 1 99 , b , 14 .

[Hem m A n al Po m II xi b m B ek k e r
'
2
'

p /L , I .
, i ii .
, su b z .
, .
, .
, su I .
(c ap . x. ,

i n th e T au c h n i tz ed .
) P/zys I I . .
,
i ii . De Gem A m, I , i . . su b im
3
[Hemp /a , VI II .
, iv .
, p . 1 0 44 , b, 1 De Gem A m, I .
, i .
, p .
71 5 , a, 6 ; 2b .
“
II .
, i .
, 73 2 , a, 4 ; Plzys .
,
II .
, vii .
, p . 1 9 8 , a, 2 4 fl
.
 S YS TEMA TIC PHIL OS O PHY OF A RIS TOTLE .
335

”
the s aw qu a ax e make r he m akes it Ou r? saw m aker Nor
-

,
-
.
,

ag ain does he m ake i t with his whole mi nd and body but

, ,

only with j ust thos e thou ghts and movemen ts required to g ive
the steel that p articular shape Now what are these thou ghts .
,

but the idea o f a saw present in hi s mind and passin g throu g h

his eyes and ha nds till it fi x es itsel f on the steel ? The ,

i mmateri al f orm o f a saw creates the real saw which we u se .

L e t us apply the preced in g analo g ies to a natural obj ect f o r

e x ample a man What i s the Form the definition o f a man ?
, .
,

Not a bein g possessin g a certai n outward shape f o r then a ,

marble statue wo u ld be a man which i t i s not nor yet ,

a c ertai n assemblag e o f organs f o r then a c orpse would be a ,

m an which accordin g to Ari stotle c riticisin g Democritus i t

, , , ,

is not but a livin g f eelin g and reasonin g be i n g the end o f, , ,

whose e x istence is to f ulfil all the f unctions in v olved in this

d efinition So a lso the creative cause o f a man is another
.
, ,

man who d irectly impresses the hu man f orm o n the material

,

supplied by the f emale org anism I n the same way e v e ry .

,

d efinite individual a gg reg ate becomes what it is throu gh the

a g ency o f another i nd ivid ual representin g the same type i n
‘
i ts p erf ect mani f estation .

The substanti al f orms o f Ar i stotle c omb i nin g as th ey d o ,

the notion o f a d efiniti on with that o f a mov i n g c ause and a

f ulfilled purpose are evidently d erived f ro m the Platoni c
,

I deas ; a reflection which at onc e lead s u s to consider the

relation in which he stands to the spi ritualism o f Plato an d \

to t he mathemati cal idealism o f the Neo Pythag oreans H e -

.

a g rees with them i n thinkin g that general conception s are the

sole obj ect o f knowle dg e— the sole end u rin g reality in a world
o f chan g e H e di ff ers f rom them in maintainin g that such
.

c onceptions have no e x istence apart f rom the parti c ulars i n

which they resid e I t has been questioned whether Aristotle
m
,

’
ever really understood his aster s teachin g on the subj ect .

Amon g recent critics M Barth elemy S aint Hilaire asserts , .

-

Pkg/s q I I .
, iii .
, p . 1 9 5, a, 3 2 if . Merge/I .
, IX .
, v i ii . , p . 1 04 9, b 24 .
336 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

with c onsiderabl e vehemence that he d id not I t i s c ertain ,

.

that i n some respe c ts Aristotle i s not j ust to the Platon ic

theo ry that he exagg erates its absurd ities i g no res its develop
, ,

m ents and oc c asionally brin g s charg es ag ainst it whi c h mi ght

,

be retorted with at l east equal e ff ect a gain st his own philo

sophy But on the most important point o f all whether
.
,

Plato d id or did no t ascribe a separate e x istenc e to his I d eas ,

we could hardly beli e ve a disciple o f twenty years standin g ‘ ’

to be m istaken even i f the maste r had not le f t on reco rd a

,
‘

d ecisive testimony to the a ffirmative side i n his Pa rmen id es ,

and on e scarcely less d ecisive i n his T5772676 2152 And so f ar as

2

the controversy red uces itsel f to this part icu lar issue Aristotle ,

i s enti rely ri ght H is most power f u l arg um ents are not

.
,
’
’

indeed ori g in al haT/i ii g b e e n anticipated by Plato hi msel f ;

, ,

but as they were le f t u nanswered he had a perf ect rig ht to

repeat them and his di alecti c al skill was g reat enou g h to
,

m ake hi m i nd ependent o f their support The e x treme .

minuteness o f h is c r i ti c is m is wearisome to us who c an hardly ,

conceive how another opin ion could e v er have been held .

Yet such was the f ascin ation e x ercised by Plato s idealism ’

that not only was it upheld with consid erable acri mony by
h is i m m 3
ediate f ollowers bu t und er one f orm o r another it ,

has been revived over and over again i n the lon g period ,

which has elapsed since its first promul gation and on every ,

one o f these occ asion s the arg u ments o f Aristotle have been
raised u p ag ain to m eet it each ti me with triu m p hant suc cess , .

' ' '

’
O ckha m s razor E n t z a n o n s u n t s z n e n eees s z l a te
,

i s borrowed f ro m the M etaphys i c s Locke s principal obj e ction ’

to inn ate ideas closely resembl es the sarcasti c observ ation i n

T hat i s, g to th e t rad i t i o n al
ac c o rd i n v ie w ,
w h ic h , ho w e v e r, w i ll ha v e to b e
c o n s id e rab ly mo d i fi e d i f w e ac c e p t t he c o n c l u s io n s e mb o d i e d i n Te ic h mu l le r s ’

Li l em ri s eb e Fe/u l em
2
Pa rmem, 1 30, A ff . Tu m , 2 8, A .

3
As w e may i n f e r f ro m a p assage i n t h e R /z eto rz e ( ,
ii , p 1 3 7
'

9 , a, II . . .

w h e re p a rt i s an s o f t h e d e a I a re s aid t o b e e x as e rat e d b
p y an y s l i gh t t h ro w n on

t h e i r f a v o u ri t e d o c t ri n e .
 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

ori ginal f orm partly deri v ed f ro m the i mpossibility o f i d e n t i

,

f yi n g qu al itative with quantitative di ff erences ‘ .

S uch arg u ments mani f estly tell not on ly a g ai nst Platonism ,

but a gainst every kin d o f transcend ental realism f rom th e ,

natural theolo gy o f Paley to the do g mati c a g nosticism o f

M r H erbert Spencer A mod ern Ari stotle mi g ht say that
. .

the hypothesis o f a creati v e first cause personal or othe rwis e , ,

log ically i nvolves the assu mption o f as m a n y ori g inal specific

energ i es as there are qualities to be a ccounted f o r and thu s ,

g ives us the unne c essary trouble o f c ou ntin g eve rythin g twi ce

over that every di ffi culty and contradiction f rom which the
transcendental assu mption is inte n d ed to f ree us must on , ,

a nalysis reappear i n the assumption itsel f —f o r e x ample the

, ,

God who i s to d eliver u s f rom evil mu st be hi msel f conceived

as the creator o f evil ; that the in fi n i te and absolute c an
n either cause no r be apprehend ed by —the finite and relative
, ,

that to separate f rom Nature all t h e f o rces requ ired f o r its

perpetuation and rele g ate them to a sphere apart is a f alse
, ,

antithesis and a sterile abstra c tion l as t l _th at c ausation J

, ,

whet her e fficient or fin al once beg u n cannot stop ; that i f

, ,

this wo rld is not s el f e x i s t in g _n o thi n g i s ; that the mutual

_
-

adaptation o f thou g hts in a d esi g nin g in telli g ence requires to

be accounted f o r j u st like any oth er adaptation ; that i f the
relative i nvolves the absolute so also does the relation b e
,

tween the two i nvolve another absolute and so on to infinity , .

These are di fficulties which will continu e to perplex us

until every shred Of the old metaphysics has been thro wn o ff .

To that task Aristotl e was not equal H e was p ro f oundly .

i nfluen c ed by the very theo ry ag ainst which he contended ;

and at the ri sk o f bei n g parado x ical we may even say that i t
, ,

assu med a g reater i mportance i n his system than had e v er

been attributed to i t by P lato hi msel f To pro v e this we .
,

must resu me the thread o f ou r e x position and f ollow th e ,

Z ll r P/ d G I I b 2 9 7f
1
e e ,
z . . r .
, , .
 S YSTEMA TIC PHIL OSOPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
3 39

S tag irite still f urther i n h i s analysis o f the f und amental

reality with which the hi g hest philosophy is con c erned .

II .

E ver since the age o f Parm en ides and H e rac le it u s Greek ,

thou g ht had been h aunted by a pervadin g dualism which

each system had i n turn attempted to reconcile with no ,

better res u lt than its reprod u ction under altered names .

And specu lation had latterly beco me still f urther perple x ed

by the question whether the antithetical c oupl es supposed to
d ivid e all Nature between the m could o r could not be redu c e d
to so many aspect s o f a sin gle opposi tion I n the last .

c hapter but on e we showed that there w ere f our s u ch co m

petin g pai rs — Bei n g and Not Bein g the O n e and the Many
-

, ,

the S ame an d the O ther R est and M otio n

, Plato employed .

hi s very subtlest di alecti c i n tracin g o ut their connexions ,

readj ustin g their relationships and d i minishin g the total

,

nu mber o f terms which they involved I n what was p robably .

his last g reat spec ulative e ff ort the T i n z a eu s he seem s to

, ,

have selected S ameness and Di ff erence as the couple best

adapted to bear the heaviest strain o f thou ght There i s .

some reason f o r believin g that i n his spoken lectures he

f ollowed the Pythag orean system more cl osely g ivin g the ,

pre f erence to the O n e and the M any ; or he may hav e

‘

employed the two expressions ind i ff erently The f ormer .

would soon er co m mend itsel f to a d ialectici an the latter to a ,

mathematician Aristot le was both but he was be f ore all

.
,

thin g s a naturalist As such the antithesis o f Beint n d

.
,

Not Bein g to which Plato attached little or no v alue su ited

-

, ,

hi m best Accord in gly he procee d s t o work it out wi th a

.
,

clearness be f ore u nknown i n Greek philosophy The first .

and su rest o f all pri nciples he declares is that a thin g cannot

, , ,

both be an d not b e in the same sense o f the words and

,
,

f urthermore that it must either be or not be Subsequent .

Z 2
3 40 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHER S .

log icians prefixed to these a x io ms another; d ecl arin g that

whatever is i s The three to g ether a re known as the laws o f
.

I dentity, C ontradict i on a n d E x cluded M iddle By all e x cept

, .
,

H eg elians they are reco g nised as the hig hest laws o f thou ght
,

and even H e g el was indebted to them throu g h Fi c hte f o r the , ,

g round plan o f his enti re s ys t e fn

-
‘
.

The whole meanin g an d value o f such e x ces s ively abstract

p ropositions must lie i n their appl ication to the problems ‘

which they are employed to solve Aris totle made at once .

too mu ch and too little o f his Too m uch — f o r he e mployed .

the m to re f ute d octrines not really i nvolvin g any lo g ical i n

cons i sten c y — t h e theo ry o f H e rac le i t u s that everythin g i s i n ,

motion the theo ry o f Ana x ag oras that eve rythin g was ,

ori g inally c on f used to g ether ; the theory o f Protag oras that ,

m an is the measu re o f all thin g s Too little — f o r he ad mitted .

a sphere o f possibiliti es where lo g ical definiti on d id n ot

apply and where su bj ects si multaneously possessed the
,

capacity o f takin g o n one o r other o f two c ontrad ictory

attributes .

N or I s th i s all A f ter sh arply d i stin g uishin g what i s

.

f rom what i s n o t and re f usin g to ad mit any intermed iary

,

between them Aristotle proceeds to discover su ch an inter

,

mediary in the sha p e o f what he calls A c cidental Predication ?

An ac cident i s an attribute not necessarily or usually inheri n g

i n its subj ect — i n other words a c o exi stence not d epend ent ,
-

o n causation Ari stotle c ould n ever d istin g uish between the

.

two notions o f c ause and ki nd nor yet between i nterf eren c es ,

with the action o f some p articular cause and e x ceptions to ’

the law o f c ausation i n g eneral and so he could not f ram e

an i ntelli g ible theory o f chance S ome propositions he tel ls .
,

u s are n e cessarily tru e others are only g enerally true ; and

, ,

i t is the e x ceptions to the latter which constitute accid ent as ,

f o r i nstance when a cold d ay happens to com e i n th e middle

,

Metapiz IV iii v i ii I bz d VI
'
1
. . an d . _
2
. .
, ii .
, p . 1 02 6 , b, 21 .
 34 2 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHERS .

are some ha v e supposed the m to be s u mma g en era

n ot w hat ,

of
'

e x istence but s u i n i n a g en e ra o f predication I n other

, .

wo rds they are not a classific ation o f thin g s but o f the i n

, ,

f ormation which it i s possible to receive about a sin g le

thin g more especi ally about the richest and most concrete
,

th i n g known to u s —a hu man bei n g I f we want to find out

'
'
ef
.

M al l about a thin g we ask What i s it ? O f what sort ? H ow ,

u l ar e
g To what d oes it belon g Where and when can we
'
fi n d i t ? What d oes it d o ? What happens to i t ? And i f
‘

{the obj ect o f our i nvesti g ations be a livi n g thin g we m ay ,

add What are its habits an d d ispositions ? The question

,

has been raised h o w Aristotle c ame to think o f these ten ,

pa rtic ular c ate g ories an d a wonder f ul amou nt o f rubbi sh has ,

been written on the subj ect while apparently no scholar ,

c ould see what was stari n g hi m i n the f ace all the ti me ,

t hat Ar i stotle g o t the m by c ollectin g all the simple f orms

o f i nterro g ation suppl i ed by th e Greek lan g ua g e and writ i n g
‘
,

3 o ut the i r most g eneral expressions .

H avin g obta i ned his categ ori es Aristotle pro c eed s to ,

mark o ff the fi rst f rom the other nine The subj ect or .

substanc e named in an swer to the question What i s it ? can ,

e x i st without havin g any qu ality siz e and so f orth predi c ated , ,

.

of it ; but they cannot e x i st without it L o g ically they .

,

cann ot be defined withou t telli n g z ona l they are really they

c annot be c on ceived withou t som ethin g not themselves i n
T h es e are r f, d mii s T i is
'
'
WO t ,
w o o dy, 1ro i3, 1ro r e , an '
. as s oc ia te d w i th '
11
p
i n th e qu e s ti o n ri
'

p rf ,
'
w h ic h h as no simp l e E n gl ish e u i v al e n t; q A pp are n tly i t
w as gg su e s te d to A ri sto tl e by vraa
’
b y, h o w mu c h ? i n c o n n e x io n w i th w h i c h i t
me an s , i n re l ati o n to w h at s tan d ard ? I f w e w e re t o ld th at a t hin g w as d o u b l e ,
w e sh o u ld ask , d o u b le w h at ? A gai n , t h e G re e k s h ad mp ly c o mp o u n d u e s a si q
t io n , r
'
i n ew , me an i n g , w h at w as th e mat te r w i th h i m ? o r, w h at mad e h im d o
it ? Fro m thi s A ri s to tl e e x trac te d n do x e w , a w id e r n o ti o n t h an ou r p as si o n ,
me an i n g w h at e v e r is d on e or h app en s t o an yth i n g w h ic h ag ai n w ou ld su gge s t
r o t ei v,
‘

w h at it d o e s . Fin ally, w as , t ak en al o n e , i s to o v agu e a q u e s ti o n fo r an y

an s w e r, b u t mu s t b e tak e n i n i t s si mp l e st c o mp o u n d s w as St a m in a / av an d w as

exo v, rare l y o c c u rri n g c at e go rie s if e d

w hi c h giv e th e t w o an n e i a eat , fo r w hi c h
-
.

8, b , A re
’
it i s o n o n e o c c as i o n s u b s t i t u te d (Sop h E l x x ii ,
.
, p 17 . . n d o es n ot

fi gu re a mo n g th e c at ego ri es, b ec au se i t is re s e rv e d f o r th e s p e c i al an al
ysi s o f o b o fa .
 SYSTEMA TIC PHIL OSOPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
343

which they inhere They are like the tail o f a kite g i v in g

.
,

g reater conspic u ousness and buoyancy to the body but ,

enti rely dependent on it f o r support What ou r philosopher .

f ails to perceive is that the d epend en c e i s reciprocal that, ,

substance c an no more be conceived without a t trib u tes than

attributes without substanc e ; or rather that substance like ,

‘
all other categ ori es can be resolved into R elation , .

Meanwhile he had a lo g ical machine ready to hand

, ,

which could be used with t errible e ff ect a g ai nst the Platoni c

I d eas . Any o f these — and there were a g reat nu mber— that
c ould be brou ght u nder on e o f the last nine catego ri es were
at once deprived o f all c lai m to i nd epend ent e x istence
"

Take E quality f o r instance I t can not be discovered outside

, .

quantity an d quantity is al w ays pred icated o f a substance

, .

And the same i s t ru e o f nu mber to the utter destruction o f ,

the N eo Pythagorean theo ry which g ave i t a separate exis t

-

en c e M oreover the categ ories serv ed not only to g eneralise

.
,

an d co mbine but also to s p e c i fi c at e and divide The idea o f

, .

m otion occu rs in three o f them i n quantity where i t means ,

-

i ncrease or di mi n u tion in qu ality where it m eans alteration , ,

’
as f ro m hot to cold or v i c e v ers a ; and in place implyin g , ,

transport f rom on e poi nt to another The I d ea o f Good .

,

’
which stands at the very su mm it o f Plato s system may be ,

traced th ro u gh al l ten categ ories ?

Thus the supposed u nity
'

and simplicity o f such c onc eptions was shown to be an

illusion Platonism was i n truth so i nconsistent with the
.
, ,

notion s embodied i n co mmon lan g u ag e that i t could not but ,

be cond emned by a lo g i c based on those notions ’

Aristotle n e x t t akes the I d ea o f S ubstance and subj e c ts it

?
t o a f resh analysis O f all thin g s none seem to possess so
evident an e x i stence as the bodi es about u s —plants and
animals the f ou r e l ements and the stars B ut each o f these
, , .

A s G ro t e h as sh o w n i n h i s c h ap t e r o n th e C atego ri e s .

2
E 111 . N
ze
'

.
, I p 1 096 ,
.
,
iv .
, . a, 2 4 , w h e re s i x are e n u me rat e d .

3 i l e/(11911
r . V I I p a ss i m . .
3 44 TH E G RE EK PHIL OSOPHERS .

has already been shown to consi st o f Form and M atter A .

stat ue f o r in stanc e is a lump o f bronze shaped i nto the

, ,

fi g ure o f a man O f these two constituents M atter seems at

.
,

first si g ht to_possess the g reater reality The same line o f .

thou g ht which led Aristotle to place substan ce be f ore the

other categ ories now t hreatens to d rive hi m back i nto
materialism Thi s he dreaded not on senti m ental o r
.
,

reli gious g rounds but because he con c eived it to be the

,

n eg ation o f knowled g e H e first shows t atterman n o t

.

be the real substance to which indi vid uals owe their deter
mi nate e x istence since i t is merely the u nknown re s i duu m
.
,

l e f t behi nd when eve ry p red icate co mmon to them with ,

others has been stripped o ff S ubstan ce then must be

, .
, ,

either Form alon e or Form c ombi ned

i n i ts complet e st sense i s equ ivalent to the essential d efinition
,

o f a thin g — the c ollection o f attributes to g eth e r constitutin g

its ess e nce or conception To know the definition is to know .

the thin g defined The w ay to d efine is to be gi n with the

.

most g eneral notion and proceed by addin g on e sp ecific ,

di ff erenc e a f ter another unti l we reach the most particular ,

and c oncrete e x pression The u nion o f thi s last with a .

certai n portion o f M atter g ives us t he individual S ocrates or

C alli as There are no real entities (as the Platonists pretend )
.

c orrespondin g to the successiv e sta ges o f g eneralisation ,

biped ani mal and so f orth any more than there are sel f
, , ,

e x i stin g quantities qu aliti es and relations Thus the problem

, ,
.

has been dr i ven i nto narrower and n arrower li mits until at ,

last we are le f t with the i nfi ma sp ec i es and the individ u als

contained u nder them I t remain s to d iscover in what .

relation these stand to on e another The answer i s u n s at is .

f a c to ry We are told tha t there i s n o defini ti on o f i ndivid uals

.
,

‘
and also that the definition is identical with the i ndividual .

S uch indeed i s the conclusion necessa rily resultin g f rom

, ,

Aristotle s repeated d eclaration s that al l kno w ledg e i s o f

’

M etap h , VI I .
,
vi. , p . 1 0 3 1, b, 18 ff .
3 46 TH E GREEK PH I L OS OPH E RS .

possibility into an a c tuality For the sake o f g reater clear .

ness let us take th e liberty o f substitutin g m odern scientific

,

terms f o r his cu mbrous and obsolete classific ations We .

shall then say that the g eneral notion livin g thin g c ontains , ,

under it the two l ess g eneral notion s —p lant and an i mal I f we .

only know o f any g iven obj ect that it has li f e there i s i mplied ,

the p ossibility o f its bein g either the one o r the other but not ,

both tog ether O n d eterminin g it to b e (say) an ani mal we

.
,

actualise one o f the possibilities But the actuali sation i s .

only relative and i mmediately becomes the possibility o f

,

bein g either a v ertebrat e o r an i nvertebrate ani mal The .

actuality vertebrate becomes the possibility o f v i v iparous

o r oviparous an d so on throu g h su ccessive di ff erentiations
,

u nti l we com e (say) to a man Now let us beg in at the .

material end Here are a mass o f mol e c ules which i n thei r

.
, ,

a c tual state are only c arbon nitrog en and so f o rth But , , .

they are potenti al star c h g luten water or any other articl e , , ,

o f f ood that mi g ht be named f o r und er f avou rable conditions

they will combine to f orm i t O nce actu alised as su ch they .
,

are possibl e blood cells ; these are possible tissues ; these

-
.

a gain possible org ans and lastly we com e to the consensus

, ,

o f vital f unctions which i s a man ,

What the raw m aterial i s .

to the finished product that are the parts to the enti re ,

o rg anism the elements to the compou nd the g enu s to the

, ,

species and su ch i n its very widest s ense i s potency to

,

’
realisation 8 :5v a /t w to é v r sk s xe c a th rou g hout the u n iverse o f
, ,

1
g rowth and d ecay .

I t will be observed that so f ar thi s f amous theory does , ,

not add one sin gle j ot to ou r knowled g e U nder the g uise o f .

a n e x planat i on it is a d es c riptio n o f the very f acts need in g

,

t o be expla i ned We d id not want an Ar i stotle to tell us

.

that be f o re a thin g e x ists it must be possible We want to .

know how i t i s possible what are the real conditions o f its ,

existence and why they combine at a p articular moment to

,

Fo r the gen e ral th e o ry o f A c tu ali ty an d Po ss ib ili ty, see Md ap /z .

,
VI II .
 S YS T E M/1 TI C PHIL OS OPHY OF A RI S T O TLE .
347

p rod uc e it The Atomists showed i n what direction the

.

solution shou ld be sou ght and all subsequent pro g ress has ,

been due to a development o f their method Future ag es .

wi ll perhaps consid er ou r own contin ued d istinction between

f orce and motion as a su rvival o f the Peripatetic philosophy .

J ust as sen sible a gg reg ates o f m atter arise not out o f

‘

potential matter but out o f m atter in an extremely fine state

,

o f d i ff usion so also se n sibl e motion will be u niversally traced

,

back n ot to potential mo tion which is al l that f orce means

, , ,

but to mole c ular or ethereal v ibrations like those known to ,

constitute heat and li g ht .

We have said i n comparin g hi m with hi s p red ecessors

, ,

that the Stag irite u nrolled Greek thou g ht f ro m a solid i nto a

conti nuous su rf ace We have now t o add that he g ave his
.

surf a c e the f alse appearance o f a solid by the use o f s ha dows ,

and o f a erial p erspective I n other words he mad e the .

,

i ndication o f hi s own i g norance and con f usion d o duty f o r

d epth and distance For to say that a thin g i s developed out
.

o f its possibility merely means that it is developed out o f

,

somethin g the natu re o f which we d o not know And t o

, .

speak about such possibilities as i mperf ect e x istences or ,

matter or whate v er else Aristotle m ay be pleased to c all them

, ,

i s simply constru ctin g the universe not out o f our i deas bu t , ,

ou t o f ou r absolute want o f id eas .

We have seen h o w f o r the antithesis between Form and

,

M atter was substituted the wider antithesis between Actuality

,

an d Possibility E ven i n this latter the opposition is m ore

.

apparent than real A p ermanent possibility is only i n t e lli

.

g i b le throu g h th e idea o f its realisation and sooner or later is ,

certain to be real i sed Aristotle still f urther brid g es over t he

.

i nterval between them by a new conception —that o f motion .

M otion he tells us i s the pro c ess o f realisation th e trans f orm

, , ,

ation o f power i nto act Nearly the whole o f his Ply/s i c : i s

.

occ upied with an enqu iry into its nature and ori g in As first .

conceived it i s equivalent to what we c all chan ge rather than

,
3 48 TH E GR E EK PH I L OSOPH E R S .

to mechanic al mo v ement The tabl e o f c ateg ories supplies

.

an e x hau stive enumeration o f its va rieties These are as we .

,

have already mentioned alteration o f quality or trans f orma

,

tion increase or d ecrease o f quantity equivalent to g rowt h

, ,

and decay and transport f rom place to place S ometi mes a

, .

f ourth variety is ad ded d erived f rom the first c ate g ory

, ,

substance H e c alls it g eneration and destruction the comi n g

.
,

i nto existence o r passin g o ut o f it agai n A c are f ul analysis .

shows that mot i on i n space is the primordial chang e on which

all others depend f o r their acco mplishment To accou nt f o r .

i t is the most vi tally i mportant problem i n philosophy .

III .

B e f ore enterin g on the chain o f reasonin g which led

Aristotle to postulate the e x istence o f a personal Fi rst C ause ,

we must e x plain the di ff erence between his scientifi c stand

point and that which is n o w ac c ep t ed by all ed u c ated mi nds
, .

To hi m the eternity not only o f M atter but also o f what ,

he c alled Fo rm that i s to say, the col lection o f attributes

,

g ivin g d e fi n it e n e s s to natu ral agg reg ates more especi ally

those known as organi c spe c ies —was an a x iomatic c e rtainty
,

E very type capable o f sel f propag ation that could e x ist at

.
-

all had existed and would continue to exist f o r ever For

, , .

this no explanation beyond the g enerati v e power o f Natu re

,

w as required But when he had to ac c ou nt f o r the ma c hin ery

.

by which the perpetual alternation o f birth and d eath below ,

and the c han g eless rev olutions o f the c elestial spheres above
the m oon were p reserv ed d i ffi culti es arose H e had red uced
, .

every other chan g e to transport throu g h spac e ; and with

re g ard to this his conce ptions were enti rely mistak e n H e .

beli eved that movin g matter tended to stop unless i t w as

sustained by so me e x ternal f o rc e ; and whatever their ad v a n
tages over hi m in other respects we can not say that the ,

Atomists were i n a position to c orrect hi m here : f o r their

3 50 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

So mu c h only is established i n the P/zys z c s Further par

'

t i c u lars are g iven i n the twel f th book o f the M etap hys i c s .

There we learn that all movement bei n g f ro m possibi lity to

,

actuality the sou rce o f movement must be a completely

,

realised actuality— pu re f orm without any ad mi xtu re o f matter .

B ut the hi ghest f orm k n own to u s i n the ascendin g s c ale o f

organi c li f e i s the hu ma n soul and the hi g hest f u nction o f ,

sou l is rea son R eason then must be that which moves with
.

out bein g moved itsel f d rawin g all thin g s upward s and ,

onwards by the love whi c h its per f ection i nspi res The eternal .
,

i nfinite absolut e actu ality e x isti n g beyond the o utermost

,

starry sphere is God Aristotle describes God as the thou ght

.

which thinks itsel f an d find s in the simple act o f sel f c on -

'

s c i o u s n e s s an everlastin
g happiness wonder f u l if i t always ,

equals the best mo ments o f ou r mortal li f e more w onderf ul ,

still i f i t surpasses the m There i s only one suprem e God f o r

.
,

plu rality is d ue to an ad mi x tu re o f m atter an d H e is pure ,

f orm . The rule o f many is not g ood as H om er says Le t , .

there be one L ord .

’
Such are the closin g words o f what was possibly Aristotle s
last work the clear con f ession Of his monotheistic creed A
,
.

mo n otheistic creed we have said but one so unlike all other

, ,

reli g ions that its natu re has been continually m isunderstoo d

,
.

While some have f ound in it a theolo g y like that o f the J ews

o r o f Plato or o f mod ern E u rope others have resolved it into ,

a vag ue pantheism Amon g the latter we are surprised to

.

fi nd Si r A Grant a writer to who m the Aristotelian te x ts

.
,

must be perf ectly f amiliar both i n spirit and i n letter Yet .

nothin g can possibly be more clear an d e mphati c than t h e

d eclarations they contain Pantheism identifies God with the .

world Aristotle separates them as pure f o rm f rom f orm more

or less alloyed with matter Pantheism d enies personality to .

God Aristotle g ives hi m u nity spirituality sel f consciousness , ,

-

an d happiness I f these qu alities do not collectively involve

.

personality we should like to know what d oes Need we

,
.
 S YSTEMA TI C PHIL O SOPH Y OF A RISTO TLE .
35I

remind the accompl i she d editor o f the Nz c o ma c /z ea n E tfi z c s

' ’

how g reat a place i s g iven in that work to hu man sel f

c onsciousn ess to wakin g active thou g ht as d istin guished f rom
,

m ere slu mberin g f aculties o r un realised possibilities o f action

And what Aristotle re g arded as ess ential to hu man perf ection ,

he would reg ard as sti l l more essenti al to divine perf ection .

Fi nally the God o f pantheism i s a g eneral id ea the God o f

,

Aristotle is an i ndividu al S ir A Grant says that he (or it )

“

. .

is the id ea o f Good 1
We d oubt very mu ch whether there i s
.

a sin g le p assag e in the M etap kys z c s to san c tion such an e x pres

’

sion . D i d it occu r however that woul d be no warrant f o r

, ,

appro x i matin g the Aristotelian to the Platoni c theolo gy i n ,

p resence o f such a distinct declaration as that the Fi rst Mover i s

both conceptually and nu meri cally one comin g a f ter repeated
2
,

repu di ations o f the Platonic attempt to isolate ideas f ro m the

particulars i n which they are i mm ersed Then S i r A Gran t , .

g oes o n to speak o f the d esire f elt by N ature f o r God as bein g

itsel f God and there f ore involvin g a belie f i n pantheism
3
,
.

S uch a notion i s not g enerally called pantheism but hylozoism , ,

the attribution o f li f e to matter We have no d esi re however .

, ,

to quarrel about words The philosopher w h o believes i n the .

existence o f a vag u e con sciousness a spiritual e ff ort toward s ,

somethin g hi gher di ff used throu gh nature m ay i f you will be , , ,

called a pantheist but not u nless thi s be the on ly divinity he

,

reco g nises The term is alto g ether misleadin g when applied

.

to o n e w h o also proclaims the existenc e o f somethin g i n hi s

O pin io n f a r hi g her better an d more real — a livin g God who
, ,

trans c end s N atu re and i s ind ependent o f her althou g h she is

, ,

not i ndependent o f him .

We m ust also observ e that the parallel d rawn by Si r A .

Grant between t h e theolo g y o f Aristotle and that o f J ohn

Stuart M ill is sin g ularly un f ortunate I t i s i n the first place .

incorrect to say that Mill represented God as benevolent bu t

G ran t
’
s
'

A rt s /Oz l e , p . 1 76 .

’
3
XII .
,
v ii i .
, p . 10 74 , a, 36 .

3
G ran t s
p . 176 .
3 52 TH E G REEK PHIL O S O PH E R S .

not o mnipotent H e only su gg ested the idea as less i n c o n

.

sistent wi th f acts tha n other f orms o f t h e i s m l

I n the next .

’
p lac e Aristotle s God was almost e x actly the reverse o f this
, .

H e possesses i nfinite pp m but no benevolen c e at all H e

— fl - fl
,
.

Has n Otlf iif g t o d o with the i nternal arran g ements o f the world ,

either as creator or as provid enc e H e i s in f a c t an eg oist .

, ,

o f the most trans c enden t kind who d oes n othing b ut think ,

about hi msel f and his own perf ections N othin g c ould be .

more character i sti c o f the unp ractical A ristotelian philosophy

nothi n g more repu gnant to the ea ger E n gl ish re f ormer the ,

pupil o f B entham and o f Plato And third ly S ir A Grant .

, , .

’
t akes what is not the God o f Aristotle s system at all but a ,

mere abs t ra c tion the i m manent reason o f Natu re the Form

, ,

which c an ne v er quite c onquer Matter and pla c es it o n the ,

same lin e with a God who however hypotheti c al i s nothin g , ,

i f not a person d istinct f rom the world while as i f to bewild er ,

the un f ortun ate E n g lish read er still f urther he adds i n the , ,

v ery ne x t senten c e that the g reat de f ect i n Aristotle s con ,

’

c e t io n o f God i s
p the den i al that God c an be a moral ’

2 ’
Bein g .

The words l ast quoted which in a C hristian sense are true ,

enou gh l ead us over to the c ontrastin g vi e w o f Aristotle s

,
’

theolog y to the f alse theory o f it held by c ritics like Pro f St

,
. .

Georg e Miv a rt The Stag irite ag rees with Catholi c theism in

.

acceptin g a personal God and he ag rees with the Fi rst Article ,

o f the E n g lish Church thou gh not with the Pentateuch in , ,

sayin g that God is without parts o r passion s but there his

ag reement c eases E x cludin g such a thi n g as divine i n t e rf e r
.

ence with n atu re his theology o f c ourse e x clud es the possibility

,

o f revelation inspi ration miracl es ,

and g race Nor i s this a , ,
.

mere omission it is a necessity o f the system I f there can .

T he rat i o n al at ti tu de of a t hi n k i n g mi n d to w ard s th e su p e rn atu ral , w h e th e r

in n at u ral o r re v e al e d re l igi o n is th a t o f sc e p t i c i s m, as d i s t i n gu i sh e d f ro m b e li e f
—
,

On th e o n e h an d an d a th e i s m on t h e o th e r .
’
Mill ’
s E ss ay s on R el ig i o n , p . 242 .

/ I ri s l o tl e , 72
’
2
G ra n t s p . 1 .
3 54 TH E G REEK PHIL O SOPH E RS .

g ravitat i on is not dependent on fixed points i n sp a c e f o r its

operation W e Philosophy o f tire Philosopher Aristotle is as
.

i nconsistent with the d emonstrations o f modern astronomy as

i t is with the f aith o f med iaeval C atholi cism .

I t remains to be seen whether the system whi ch we are

exam inin g i s con sistent with itsel f I t is not The Pri m e
'
. .

M over bein g u nextend ed can not be located outsid e the side

, ,

real sphere ; nor can he be brou g ht into i mmediate c ontact

with it more than with any other part o f the cosmos I f the .

aether has a motion proper to itsel f then no spiritu al a gency ,

is requi red to keep it in perpetual rotation I f the c rystallin e .

spheres fit a c curately to g ether as they must to avoid leavin g

, ,

a v a c uu m anyw here there c an be no f riction no production

, ,

o f heat a nd c onsequently no e ff ect p roduced on the sublunary

,

sphere Finally no rotatory o r other movement can taken

.
, ,

alone have any conceivabl e c onne x ion with the re al is a

,

tion o f a possibili ty i n the sense o f pro g ress f rom a lower to

,

a hi gher state o f bein g I t i s m erely the perpetual e x chan g e

. .

o f one i nd i ff erent position f o r another .

We have n ow to consid e r what were th e speculative

m otives that l ed Aristotle to overlook these contrad ictions ,

an d to fi nd rest in a theory even less satis f acto ry than the

earlier systems which he i s always attackin g with relentless
ani mosity The first motive we believe was the trai n o f
.
, ,

reasonin g already laid be f ore th e read er by which u niversal

, ,

essences the obj ects o f knowled g e g radually cam e to be

, ,

identifi ed with particul ar obj ects the sol e e x istin g realities

, .

For the arg uments a g ai nst such an id enti fication as put ”

,

f or ward by ou r philosopher himsel f still rem ained unan ,

s w e re d The ind ivid u als compri sin g a species were still too
.

t ransient f o r cert ainty and too n u merous f o r comprehension .

B ut when f o r the antithesis between Form and M atter was

substituted the antithesis between Actuality and Possibility ,

two modes o f evasion presented themselves The first was to .

distin guish between actu al knowled g e an d potential knowled g e .

 S YSTEMA TIC PHIL OSOPHY OF A RISTO TLE
”

.
3 55

The f ormer correspond ed to e x ist in g parti culars the latter to ,

g eneral ideas This however besides breakin g up the unity

‘
.
, ,

of knowled g e was i nconsistent with the whole tenor o f

,

Aristotle s previous teachin g Wh at c an be more a c tual than

'

d emonstrati on and h ow can there be any demonstration o f

,

transient parti culars The other mod e o f reconciliation was

perhaps su ggested by the need o f an external cause to raise
Possibi lity into Actuali ty Su ch a cause mig ht be conc eived
.

with all the advantag es and without the d rawbacks o f a

Platonic I dea I t would be at on ce the movi n g a g ent and
.

the mod el o f perf ection ; i t could re c onci le the g eneral and

the part i c ular by the si mple f act o f bein g eternal i n ti m e ’

c omprehensive i n space and uniqu e i n ki nd Aristotle f ou nd

,
.

such a c ause or rather a whole seri es o f such causes i n th e

, ,

celestial spheres I n his system these bear j ust the same

.
,

’
relation to terrestri al phenomen a that Plato s I deas bear to
the wo rld o f sense They are i n f a c t the I d eas mad e sen
.
, ,

sibl e an d superfic ial plac ed alon g sid e o f instead o f beneath o r

, ,

behi nd the transient parti c ulars which they irrad iate and
,

sustain .

The analo gy may be carried even f a rther I f Plato .

reg arded the thi n g s o f sense as not merely a veil but an ,

i mper f ect i m itati on o f the only true realiti es ; so also d id

Aristotle represent t he sublu n ary elem ents as c opyin g the
d isposition and activities o f the ethereal spheres They too .

have their co ncen tric a rran g em ents — fi rs t fi re then ai r then , ,

water and lastly earth i n the cent re ; whi le thei r perpetual

,
’

t ran s f ormation into o ne another p resents an i ma g e i n ti me o f

the spat ial rotation which those sublim e bein g s per f orm And .

alth ou g h we think that Si r A Grant i s quite mistaken i n .

’
identi f yin g Aristotle s S uprem e M in d with the I d ea o f Good ,

there can be no d oubt o f its havin g been su gg ested by that

I d ea I t i s i n f act the t ranslation o f Plato s abstraction into
’
.
, ,

conc rete reality and the co mplet i o n o f a process which Plato

,

x .

A A 2
3 56 TH E G REE K PHIL OSOPH E R S .

had hi msel f beg un Fro m another point o f vi ew we m ay say.

that both m aster and di sciple were workin g each i n his own ,

way at the solution o f a problem which entirely dominates

,

Greek philosophy f ro m E mpedocles o h — the reconcilia

.

tion o f Parmenid es and H e rac le i t u s B ein g and Becomin g , ,

the ete rnal a

—
n d the chan g e f ul the o n e a n d the many Aris , .

t o t l e ad opts the sup erfici al e x ternal method o f p lacin g the ,

two principles side by side i n spa c e and f o r a lon g time the

world accepted his solutio n f o r the same reason that had
commended i t to his own acceptance its apparent ag reement ,

with popular trad ition and with the f acts o f e x perience I t .

m ust b e con f essed how e ver that here also he was f ollowing
’

, ,

the lines lai d down by Plato The Tz ma e u s an d the La w s

' '

are marked by a si milar tenden c y to substitute astronomy

f o r d ialectics to study the celestial movem ents with reli g iou s
,

v eneration to rebuild on a scientific basis that ancient star

,

worship which even amon g t he G reeks enj oyed a much

, ,

hi gher authority and p resti g e than the hu m anised mytholo gy

o f the po e ts But f o r C hristianity this star worship wou ld
.
-

probably have becom e the o fficial f aith o f the R o man World .

As it is D ante s g reat poem presents u s with a sin g ular

,
’

c ompromise between the two c reed s The c rystallin e .

spheres are retained only they have bec ome the abod e o f ,

g lorified spirits i nstead o f bein g the embod iment o f eternal

g ods We
.
o f ten hear it sai d that the C operni can system was
rej ected as o ff ensive to human prid e because it removed the ,

earth f rom the centre o f the universe This is a pro f o und .

mistake I t s o ff en ce w as to deg rad e the heavenly bodies b y_

.

1
assi milatin g them to the earth Amon g several planets all .
,

revolvin g rou nd the sun there could not be any m arked ,

qualitative di ff erenc e I n the theolo g ical sense there w as no .

lon ger any heaven ; and with the d isappearance o f t he solid

Nn o p en sar o l t re l ei [la t e rra] e s s e re u n c o rp o se n z a al ma e v i ta e t an c h e

Br Gen a d e l e Cen erz , p

'

G i o rd an o
’
f e c c ia t ra l e su s tan z e c o rp o ral i .
u n o, . 1 30

(Opere , ed . W ag n e r) . N
on d o v e te mar
s ti . c he i l c o rp o t e rre n o s i a vi l e e pi it
d e gl i al t ri ign o b il e .
’
—
De 1 ’
I nfi n z to
’

Um z ers o
’

'
e Ma nd i , p .
54 (i d ) .
3 58 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPH E RS .

f o r no oul coul d l ead a happy an d blessed exi stence that w as e n gaged

s

in such a task n e c e ss i tating as it w oul d an unceas in g s truggle w i th

, , ,

their n ative t en d e n cy t o move in a di ff ere nt direct i o n witho u t even ,

the me n tal relax ati o n an d bodily res t wh ich mortal s gain by sleep ,

b u t doo med to t h e e t e rn a l torme nt o f an I xi on s w h ee l Ou r

’
.

e xp l an ation on the o th e r hand is as w e say n o t on ly more con sist

, , , ,

e n t w i th t h e eterni ty o f th e h ea v ens b u t al so c an al one be reco n ci led

,

w i th th e ack n o wl e d ge d vaticin at ion s o f r e l i gious f aith 1 .

It wi ll be seen f rom the f oreg oin g passag e how stron g

a hold the old Greek notion o f an encircli n g li mit had on
the min d o f Aristotle and how he trans f orm ed it back f rom
,

the hi g h i ntellectual si gn ifican ce g iven t o i t by Plat o into its

ori g in al sense o f a mere sp ace enclosi n g fi g u re And it will -
.

also be seen how he credits hi s spheres with a f ull m ea s ure o f

that m ovin g power which accordin g t o hi s rather un f ai r ,

c riticism t h e Platoni c I deas d id n o t possess H is astronomy

, .

also suppli ed h i m W i th that seri es O f g rad u ated transition s

between two extrem es i n w hich Greek thou gh t so m uch
d eli ghted T he heavenly bod ies m edi ate between G o d and
.

the eart h partly acti v e and partly passive they both receive ,

and com mu nicate the movin g c reative i mpulse The f our .

terrestrial elem ents are m oved i n the variou s categ o ri es o f

substan ce quantity qu ality and place ; the aether moves in
, , ,

place only God rem ain s without variableness or shad ow o f

.
‘

a chan g e Fi nally by its absolute simpli city and purity, the

.
,

aether m ediates betwe en the c oarse matter perceived by our

sen ses an d the absolutely i m material Nou s and i s itsel f ,

supposed to be pervaded by a si milar g rad ation o f fineness

f rom top to bottom Fu rthermore the upper fi re which
.
, ,

mu st not be con f ou nd ed with flame f urnishes a connectin g ,

link between the aether an d the other elem ents bein g related ,

to them as Form t o M atter or as a g e n t to patient ; and , ,

when the elements are d ecomposed in to thei r con stituent

qualities hot and col d occ upy a si milar position with reg ard
,

to wet a n d dry .

De Carl o I I , 1 .
 S YSTEMA TIC PHIL OSOPHY OF A RIS TO TLE .
3 59

’
In m asteri n g Aristotl e s cosmology we have g ained the ,

key to his enti re method o f systematisation H ence f orth the .

,

Sta g irite has no secrets f rom u s Where we were f ormerly

.

conten t to show that he erred we can now show w h y he

,

erred by g eneralisin g his p ri nciples o f arran g ement we can ,

e x hibit them still more c learly i n thei r con flict with modern
thou ght The method then pursued by Aristotle i s to divid e
.
, ,

his subj ect into two more or less unequal masses on e o f which ,

is supposed to be g overned by necessary principles admittin g ,

o f ce rtain demonstration ; while the other is i rre g ular an d ,

can only be stud ied accordin g to the rules o f probabl e

evidence The parts o f the one are ho mo g eneous an d con
.

c entri c ally d isp o sed the mo v e ments O f each bein g c ontrolled

,

by that i mmedi ately outside and above it The parts o f the .

other are hetero g eneous and distributed amon g a nu mber o f

antithetical pairs between whose m embers there is or ou g ht
, ,

to be a g eneral equilibriu m preserv ed the whole sys t e m

, ,

havin g a common centre whi ch either oscillates f rom on e

e x treme to another or hold s the balance between them
, .

The secon d system is enclosed within the first and i s ,

altog ether dependent on i t f o r the i mpulses d etermin i n g its

p ro c esses o f metamorphosis and equilibration Where the .

i nternal adj ustments o f a syste m to itsel f o r o f on e system to

the other are not c onsciously m ad e Aristotle c alls them ,

Nature .They are always adapted to se c u re its ev erlastin g

continuan c e either i n an ind ivid u al or a specific f orm .

Actu ality belon g s more particularly to the first sphere and ,

p o ssibility to the second but both are to a c ertain e x tent

, , ,

represented in ea c h .

We have already seen how this f u ndamental d ivi sion i s

applied to the universe as a whol e But our p h i losopher i s
.

n ot co n t e nt with classi fyi n g the phen omena as he find s

3 60 TH E GREEK PHIL OS OPHER S .

them he attempts to d emonstrate the nec essi ty o f their d ual

existen c e and i n so d oin g is g uilty o f so methin g v ery like a
v icious ci rc le For a f ter proving f ro m the terrestri al move
.
,

ments that there must be a n etern al movement to keep them

g oin g he now assu mes the re v ol v in g aether an d arg ues that
, ,

there must be a motionless solid centre f o r it t o re v ol ve rou nd ,

althou gh a g eom etrical axi s woul d have served the pu rpose

equally well By a still more palpabl e f allacy he proc eed s
.
,

to show that a body whose tend ency is toward s the centre ,

m ust i n the natu re o f thin g s be O pposed by another body

, ,

whose tendency i s towards the c i rcu m f erenc e I n o rder to .

fill u p the interv al created by t his opposit ion two i nter ,

mediate bodies are requi red and thu s we g e t the f our ele ,

m ents — eart h water ai r and fire These a g ain a re resolved

, , , .
, ,

i nto the antithetical couples d ry and wet hot and col d the , , ,

possible co mbinations o f which by twos g ive u s the f ou r , ,

elements once more E arth i s d ry and cold w ater c old an d

.
,

wet air wet and hot fi re hot and d ry ; each adj ac ent pair
, ,

havin g a quality in c om mon and each element bein g charac ,

t e ri s e d by the e x cess o f a p artic ular quality ; earth i s

especially d ry water cold ai r wet and fire hot The co mmon
, , , .

cen tre o f each antithesis i s what Aristotle calls the First

M atter the mere abstract u n f ormed possibility O f e x istence
, .

This matter always co mbines two qualities and has the power ,

o f oscillatin g f rom on e quality to another b u t i t cannot as a , ,

rule si m ultaneously exchan g e both f o r thei r opposi t es E arth

,
.

may pass into water e x chan gin g d ry f o r wet but not so , ,

readily i nto air w hich woul d necess itate a double e x chan ge at

,

the sa me m oment .

Those who will may see i n al l this an anticipation o f

.

chemical substitution and do ubl e d eco mposition We c an .

assu re the m that i t will be by no means the most absurd

parallel d isc overed between ancien t and m odern ideas I t is .

possibl e however to trace a more real conne x ion between the

, ,

Ari stotelian physic s and medi aeval thou g ht We d o not o f .

36 2 TH E GREEK PHIL O SOPH E RS .

They carri ed terrestri al physics i nto the heavens they

brou ght down the absoluteness and eternity o f celest i al law to
’
earth ; they showed that Aristotle s antithetic al qualities were
m erely quantitative d istinctions These they re solved into .

mod es o f motion and they also resolved all motions i nto on e ,

which w as both rectilinear and perpetual But they and the i r .

su cc essors put an end to all d reams o f transmu tation when ,

they showed by another synthesis that all matter at least ,

m
within the li mits o f ou r experi en c e has the chan g eless con ,

sistency onc e attributed e x clusively to the s t e ll a

When Aristotle passes f ro m the whole cosmos to the philo
sophy o f l i f e his m ethod o f syst ematic d ivision i s less d istinctly
,

i llustrated but still it may be tra c ed The f u n d ame gtg li ap

, .

ration is between The latter has a wid er

meani ng than wha t h it at present I t covers .

the psychi c f un c tions an d l e li f e o f the org anism which , ,

ag ain is no t what we mean by li f e For li f e with us is both

, .

individ ual and collect ive ; it resid es i n each speck o f proto

plasm and also in the consen sus o f the whole org anism
, .

With Aristotl e it i s more e x clusively a central pr i nciple the ,

final cause o f the org anism the power which holds it to gethe r
,
,

and by which it was ori g in ally shap e d B iology beg in s by .

d eterminin g the idea o f the whole and then c onsiders the ,

means by which it i s real i sed The psychi c f unctions are .

arran g ed a cc ordin g to a system o f teleolog ical subordination .

The lower pre c edes the hi g her i n ti me but is lo g ically n e c e s ,

s i t a t e d by it Thus nutrition or the ve getative li f e i n general

.
, ,

m ust be studied in close conne x ion with sensation and i mp u lse ,

or animal li f e and this ag ai n with thou ght or pure reason

, ,

in g . O n the other ha n d anatomy and physiolo gy are

,

considered f ro m a pu rely chemical and mechanical point O f

View A vital pu rpose i s i ndeed assign ed to ev ery org an
.
’

, , ,

bu t with no more re f erence to its specifically v i tal properties

than if it f orm ed part o f a steam en g ine Here as always with .
,

A ri s totle the ide a o f mod eration d etermines the poi nt o f view

,
 S Y S TE AI A TI C PH IL OSOPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
36 3

whenc e the in f eri or o r materi al system i s to be studied .

O rg ani c ti ssue i s made up o f the f ou r elemental pri nciples

hot cold wet and d ry— mi x ed tog ether in proper proportions
, , ,

and the O bj ect o f org anic f unction is to m a i ntain them i n due

equilibri um an end e ff ected by the reg ulatin g power o f the
,

soul which accord in g ly has its seat i n the heart or centre o f

'

, , ,

the body I t has been already shown how in endeavourin g

.
,

to work out this chim eric al theo ry Ari stotle went much ,

f urther astray f ro m the t ruth than sund ry other Greek physio

l o g i s t s less biassed by the require me n ts o f a sym metri c al
method .

A f te r the f ormal and material elemen ts o f li f e hav e been

separately discussed there co mes an acco unt o f the process
,

by which th ey are first b ro u gh ti nt q conne x ion f o r this i s how

m
,

Aristotle views g eneration Wi th h i it is the i n f ormation

.

o f matter by psychi c f o rce ; and his notions about the part

'

which each parent play s i n the p rodu c tion o f a new bein g

are vitiat ed throughout by this mistaken assumption N ever .

t h e l e s s hi s t reatise on the subj ect is f o r its ti m e one o f the , ,

m ost wonderf ul Works ever written and as w e are told on , ,

‘
g ood authority i s now less anti quated than the correspondin g
,

researches o f H arv ey The philosopher s p e c uliar g enius f o r

.
’

observation analysis and comparison will partly account f o r

, ,

his succ ess ; but if w e mistake not there is another and less
, ,

obviou s reason H ere the f atal separation o f f orm and m atter

.

was e x cept at first startin g p recl uded b y the very id ea o f

, ,

g eneration ; and the teleolo g ical principle o f spontaneous e ff orts

to realise a predeterm ined end was a s it hap p ened p er f ectly , ,

i n accordance with the f acts themselves .

And now lookin g back on his c o s mo lg y we can see that

, ,

Aristotle was never so near the truth as when he tried to

brid ge o v e r t h e g ul f between his two spheres the on e c orrup ,

tible an d th e other eternal by t he id ea O L motion consid ered ,

as a spec i fic property o f all matter and pers i st i n g throu gh all ,

Le w e s , q u o te d by Z e ll e r,
p .
524 .
364 TH E GREEK PH IL OSOPH E R S .

ti me as a link between the celestial revolutions and the

’
chan g es occurrin g on Or near the earth s surf ace ; and finally , ,

as the di rect cau se o f heat the g reat a gent actin g i n oppositio n

“

to g ravity — which last view may have su gg ested Bacon s ’

c ap i t al d iscovery that heat is itsel f a m od e o f motion

, .

A n other method by which Aristotle strove to over c ome

the antithesis between li f e as a mechanical arran g ement an d
l i f e as a metaphysical con c eption was the newly created study
,

Of compa ra t i
"
ve anatomy ; The variations i n structure and
f u nction which acco mpany variations i n the environment ,

thou gh stati cally and not dynamically c onceived brin g u s ,

very near to the truth that biolog ical phenomena are subj ect
to the same g eneral laws o f causation as all other phenomena
and it i s this truth whi ch in the science o f li f e c orrespond s to
, ,

the id entifi c ation o f terrestrial w ith celestial physics i n the

scien c e o f g eneral mechanics V itality is n ot an i ndivid ual
.

ised princip le stationed i n the heart and serv in g only to

balance opposite f orces ag ainst on e anoth e r ; but i t is d i ff used
throu gh all the tissues and bestows on them that e x t raordi n ary
,

pl asticity which responds to the actio ns o f the envi ronment

by spontaneous variations capable o f bein g su mmed up i n any
d irection and so creatin g entirely new org anic f orms without
,

the interv ent i on o f any supernatu ral ag ency .

V .

We have now to consider how Aristotle treats psycholog y ,

not in conne x ion with biolo g y but as a distin ct scienc e — a

,

separation not quite consistent with his own d efiniti on o f soul ,

but f orc ed on hi m by the traditions o f G reek philosophy and

b y the nature o f thin g s .H ere the f undamental antithesi s
assu mes a three f ol d f orm Fi rst the theo retical activity o f
-
.

mi nd i s d is t in g uished f rom its practical activity the one bein g

e x ercised on thin g s which cannot the other on thin g s which
,
366 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

Ari s totl e is more success f u l when he p roc eed s to d isc uss

the i mag ination H e e x plains it to be a continuance o f the
.

movement o ri g inally commu ni c ated by the f elt obj ect to the

o rgan o f sense kept up in the absence o f the O bj ect itsel f ;
,

as near an approach to the t ruth as could be made in his ti me .

And he is also ri g ht i n sayin g that the operations o f reason

are only mad e possible by the help o f what he calls phan
t asms — that is f ai nt reproductions o f sensations I n addition to
, .

this he points out the conne x ion between m emory and i ma

,

g i n at i o n and enu merates the laws o f assoc iation briefly but

, ,

with g reat accu racy H e is however alto gether u naware o f .

, ,

thei r scope S o f a r f ro m usin g the m to e x plain all the mental

.

processes he d oes not even see that they account f o r i n v o l u n

,

tary reminiscen c e and limits them to the voluntary operation

,

by whic h w e r ecall a m i ssin g name o r other i mag e to con

s c io u s n e s s .

S o f ar Aristotl e re gard s the sou l as a f unction or energ y

, , ,

o r per f ection o f the bod y f rom which it can no more be sepa ,

rated th an V i s i on f ro m the eye I t i s otherwise with the .

part o f mind whi c h he c alls Nous or R eason —the f aculty ,

which takes co g nisance o f ab stract ideas or the pu re f orms o f

thin g s This c orrespond s in the m ic rocosm to the eternal
.
, ,

N ous o f the macrocosm and like it is absolutely i mmaterial , , , ,

n ot dependi ng f o r its activity on the e x ercise o f any bod ily

o rgan There is howeve r a g eneral analog y between sensa
.
, ,

tion and thou ght consid ered as processes o f co g nition Pre .

v i o u s to experience the Nous i s no thou g ht in particular but

, ,

merely a possibil ity o f thinki n g like a smooth w a x tablet

m
,

waitin g to be written on I t is deter i ned to so me parti c u lar .

i dea by contact with the O bj ective f orms o f thin gs and i n this ,

d etermination i s raised f rom power to actuality The law o f .

mod eration however d o e s not apply to thou ght E x cessi v e

, , .

sti mulation is first inj urious and then destructive to the

o rg ans o f sense bu t w e cannot have too mu ch o f an idea ; the
,

more intense it is the bette r are we able to conceive all the

 S YS T E IP
I A TI C PHIL OSOPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
367

ideas that c ome under it j ust be c ause id eation i s an i n c o rp o

,

real process And there seems to be this f urther disti nction

.

between sensation and tho u g ht that the latter is mu ch more ,

c ompletely identified with its obj ect t han the f orm er it is i n

the very act o f i mprintin g themselves on the Nou s that the
f o rm s o f thi n g s beco me per f ectly d etac hed f ro m matter and ,

so attain thei r fin al realisation I t i s only in ou r conscio u s .

n ess that the eternal ideas o f transient phenomen a beco me

conscious o f themselves Such we take it i s the true i nter
.
, ,

re t at i o n o f Aristotle s f amous distin ction between an active

’

p
and a passive Nous The one he tells us mak es whateve r
.
, ,

the other i s ma d e The active Nous i s like li g ht raisin g

.

colours f rom possibility to actuality I t i s eternal but we have .

,

no re membrance o f its past e x istence be c ause the passive ,

No u s without which it c an think nothin g is perishable

, , .

I t will be seen that we d o not consid er the two kinds O f

Nous to d i ff er f rom each other as a hi gher an d a lower f a c ulty .

This in o u r opinion has been the g reat m istake o f the c om

, ,

me n t at o rs o f those at l east w h o d o not id enti f y the active

, , ,

Nou s with God o rwith so me a g ency emanatin g f rom God

,

’
a hypothesis utterly inconsistent with Aristotle s theology .

They d escribe it as a f acu lty and as concern ed with som e ,

hi gher kind o f knowled g e than what l ies within the reach o f

the passive Nou s ‘
But with Aristotle f aculty i s always a
.

potentiality and a passive recipient whereas the creative ,

reason is expressly declared to be an actuality whi ch in thi s , ,

conne x ion can mean nothin g but an i ndivid ual idea The
, .

d i fficulty is to u nderstand w h y the obj ective f orms o f thin g s

should suddenly be spoken o f as e x istin g withi n the mi nd ,

a n d denomi nated by a term carryin g with it such subj ective

associations as Nous ; a di ffi culty not di minished by the mys

t e ri o u s comparison with li g ht i n its relation to colou r an illus ,

So T re n d e l e n b u rg, B ran d is , K amp e , an d appare n t ly al s o e ll e r Z

G ro te .

sp eak s o f i t rath e r v agu l y as an t i n t e ll ige n c e p e rv ad i n g th e c e l e s t i al s ph e re .

Sc h w egl e r v ac ill ate s b e tw e e n th e th e o l o gic al an d t h e p syc h o l o g i c al e x p l an ati o n .

368 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHE RS .

t rat i On which i n this i nstan c e has only mad e the d arkness

, ,

v isible We believe that Aristotle was led to e x press hi msel f

.

as he did by the f ollowin g considerations H e be gan by .

simply con ceivin g that j ust as the senses were raised f rom
,

potency to ac tuality throu g h contact with the correspondin g

qualities i n external O bj ects so also was the reasonin g f aculty ,

moulded into particular thou g hts throu gh contact with the

particular thin gs e mbodyin g them thus f o r instance it was , ,

led to con ceive the g eneral idea o f strai g htness by actual e x

e ri e n c e o f strai g ht lines I t then perhaps occurred to hi m
p .
, ,

that one and the same O bj ect could not produce two such
pro f oundly di ff erent i mpressions as a sensation an d a thou gh t
that mind was opposed to external realities by the attribute
o f sel f conscio u sness
-
and that a f orm inherent in matter could
not d i rectly imp ress itsel f on an i m material substance The .

idea o f a c reative Nous was we think d evised i n o rd er t o , ,

escap e f ro m these perp le x ities The ideal f orms o f thi n g s are .

carried i nto the mind to g e ther with the sen sations an d i n

, ,

passin g throu gh the i mag ination beco me pu rified f ro m the ,

matter p reviously associ ated with them Thus they may be .

con c eived as part o f the m ind — i n thou g h n o t yet o f i t —and as ,

actin g on its hi ghest f aculty the passive Nous And by a , .

,

kind o f anticipation they are c alled by the name o f what they

,

become completely identified with i n c o g nition As f orm s o f .

thin g s they are eternal as thou ghts they are sel f consciou s -

while i n both c ap acities they are c reative and their c reative

, , ,

a c tivity i s an essentially i mmaterial pro c ess H ere we have .

the old con f usion between f orm and f unction the old
i nability to reconcile the clai ms o f the u niversal and the par
t ic u la r i n knowled g e and e x istence A f ter all Aristotle i s .
,

obli g ed to e x tract an actuality f rom the meeti n g o f two pos

s ib i l i t i e s i nstead o f f ro m the meetin g o f an actuality and a
,

possibility Probably the weakness o f his own theo ry did n ot

.

‘
escape him f o r he never subsequently rec urs to it
,
.

T h e l as t c h ap t e r o f th e Post eri o r A n a b /t i e s s e ts f o rth a mu c h mo re d e v e lo p e d

370 TH E GREEK PHIL O S OPHER S .

But if even so little as this re mains unproved what are we ,

’
to think o f t he astound in g assertion that Ari stotle s theo ry ,

o f a creative reason f rag mentary as that theo ry i s le f t is

, ,

the answer to all materialistic theories o f the u niverse To -

.

‘
Aristotle as to a subtle S cottish preacher
, the real p re s u p p o ,

s i t i o n o f all kn owled g e or the thou g ht which is the p ri u s o f

,

all thin g s i s not the in dividual s consciousness o f himsel f as

,
’

i nd ividual but a thou g ht or sel f consciousness which is beyon d

,
-

all individ ual sel v es which is the u nity o f all individ ual selves
, ,

and thei r obj ects o f all thinkers and al l obj ects o f thou ght ” 2
, .

H ow c an mater i al ism or anythin g else be possibly re f uted by

a theory whi ch is so O bscurely set f orth that no two interpreters
a re able to a g ree i n thei r e x planation o f i t ? An d even were
it stated with perf ect clearn ess an d f ul ness how can any ,

hypothesis be re f uted by a mere d o g matic declaration o f

Aristotle ? Are we ba ck in the M idd le A g es that his ip s e
a i x i t is to d ecide questi on s now raised with f a r ampler means
’

o f d iscussion than he c ould possess ?

’
As to Prin cipal C ai rd s
metaphysics we have no wish to d ispute thei r theoreti c
,

accu racy and c an only ad mire the liberality o f a C hurch i n

,

wh i ch p roposition s so utterly d estructive o f trad itional ortho

d o x y are allowed to be prea c hed But o ne thin g we are .

certain o f an d that is that whether or not they are consistent

, ,

w ith Christian theism they are utterly inconsistent with

,

Aristotelian principles Which i s the thou g ht o r sel f — . con ‘

s c io u s n e ss re f erred to a possibility o r an actuality

, I f th e
f ormer it i s not a p ri zl s nor i s it the c reative reason
, , If the .

latter i t cannot transcend all o r any i ndividual selves f o r

, , ,

with Aristotle i ndivid ual s are the sole reality and the
,
.

s upreme bei n g o f his system is pre emin ently individ u al -

neither c a n it uni f y them f o r ac c ordin g to Aristotle t w o , , ,

thin g s whi c h are two i n actuality ca not be one in actuality

n 3
.

We now turn to Si r A Grant who as was menti oned at .

, ,

Pri n c ip al C ai rd .
2
Ou t l i n es , Pre f ac e , p . v iii .
3
Metap /z .
, VI I xiii .
, p . 10 3 9 , a, 4 .
 S YSTEM/1TI C PHILOSOPHY OF ARIS TO TLE .
3 71

the beg innin g o f the last chapter makes Aristotle a supporter ,

’
o f the lat e Pro f Fe rrier We will state the learned Pri n cipal s
. .

View in his own words

H is utterances on this subj ect [ the ex i stence o f an exte rn al world ]
“
are p erh ap s c h ie fly to be f oun d i n t h e third bo o k o f hi s tre atise On
”
the So ul begi n n ing with th e f ourth chap ter O n t u rn ing to th e m .
,

w e see th at he never s ep arate s ex i stence f rom k no w l ed ge A thi n g .

”
i n ac tu al ex i stence he says “
i s i d entic al with th e k n owl edge o f that
, ,

thin g ”. A gain T h e p os s ibl e e x istence o f a thin g i s i d entic al with

,

the p o ssib ility in us o f p erceiving or k n ow ing it T hu s until a thi n g .

,

is p erceived or k no w n it c an only be said to have a p otenti al or ,

p ossible e x i stence A n d f ro m this a d o ctrine very si mi lar to that o f

.

Ferrier mi ght be deduced th at n othing ex ists e x cep t p l u s me — th at , ,

is to s ay in relation to some mi n d p erceiving it (A ri s lol l e p

, .
’
, .

A f ter much searchin g we have not been able to find the ,

ori g inals o f the t w o passag es quoted by Si r A Grant We . .

have ho w ever f ound others settin g f o rth the do c trine o f

, ,

Natural R ealism with a clearness whi ch lea v es nothin g to be

d esired Aristotle tells us that f ormer naturalists were wron g
.

when they said that there c ould be no black or wh i te wi t hout

vision and no taste wi thout tastin g that is they were ri g ht
, ,

about the actuality and wron g about the possibi lity ; f o r as , ,

he e x plains our sensation s are produ c ed by the acti o n o f

,

external bodi es on the appropriate org ans the activity bein g ,

the same while the e x istenc e is d i ff erent A sonorous body .

produces a sou nd in ou r hearin g ; the sound perc eived and

the action o f the body are identi cal but not thei r existence ,

f o r he adds the b e a re r need not be always listeni n g nor the

, , ,

sonorous body soundin g and so with all the oth er senses ‘

.

This is not makin g the p erc ipi o f obj ects thei r es s e A g ain .
,

i n the ei ghth chapter he tells u s that the soul i s in a certai n ‘

way (7 639 ) all thin g s si nc e al l thin g s are either sensible or

’
,

c ogitable and then he proceeds to e x plain what is meant by

De A m ,
III .
, ii .
, p .
4 26 , a, 20 ; 4 2 5, b , 25 ff . Wh at A ris to tle me an s b y
sayi n g t h at th e l
e ve n o f ob j ec t an d s e n sa t i o n is n ot th e s ame , a
p p e ars f ro m a
p as sage i n h i s t rac t on Me mo ry (p .
4 50 , b , w h e re he e mpl o ys th e i l l u s tratio n

o f a p o rt rai t an d i t s o rigi n al , w h i c h a re t h e s ame , al t h o u gh th e ir s i s a l i s d i ff e re n t .

B B 2
3 72 TH E GR EEK PHIL OS O PHER S .

‘
i n a certa i n way S en se and knowled g e are distributed o v e r
.

thin g s in such wise that thei r possibility is the possibility and ,

their actuality the ac tuality o f the th i n gs They must then

, .
, ,

be either the thi n gs the mselves o r thei r f orms B u t Ik e .

t/z i ng s t/z e ms el v es tfi ey a re s u rely n o t f o r the stone is not in the ,

I n the M em
’
soul but its f orm
, .
p fiys i c s Aristotle expresses ,

h imse lf to the same e ff ect bu t even more e x pli c itly C ri t ic i s l

, .

i n g the Prota g orean doctrine he reduces it to an absurdity by,

u rg in g that i f there were nothin g but sensibles then nothin g ,

at al l could e x ist i n the absenc e o f ani mated bein g s f o r ,

without them there would be n o sensation H e ad mits that i n .

the case supposed there would be neither f eelin g s n or f elt

O bj ects si n c e these presuppose a sentient subj ect ; b ut adds
, ,

that f o r the substances (7a é w o x s lp s v a ) which prod u c e the f eel

’

i n g not to e x ist is i mpossible ; f o r there is somethin g else ‘

b esid es the f eelin g which must n ecessarily exist be f ore it " .

And i mmed iately a f terward s he clinches the arg ument by o b

servin g that i f appearan c es were the only truth there would ,

b e no ind epend ent e x istences and everythi n g would be rela ,

t ive sinc e appearances e x ist only i n relation to some on e to

,

who m they appear No w we need hard ly say that this uni

.

v ersal rel ativity was pre c isely what Ferrier contended f o r .

S i r A Grant is on stron g er or rather on more ina c cessible

.
,

g rou nd when
, he u ses the d istinction between the two reasons
as i nvolvin g a sort o f i dealisti c theory because here Aristotle s ,
’

meanin g is much less cl e arly expressed Yet if ou r i n t e rp re .

,

t at i o n be the correct one if the creative Nous si mply m eans

,

the f orms o f thin g s a c tin g throu g h the i m ag ination on the

possibilities o f subj ect i ve con c eption Aristotle s view will be ,
’

exactly the reverse o f that c ontended f o r by S i r Ale x ander ;

thou g ht i nstead o f mou ldin g will itsel f be moulded by ex
, ,

ternal reality I n no case have we a ri g ht to set an obscure

.

’
and disputed passag e ag ainst Aristotle s distinct emphatic , ,

and reiterated d e c l arations that sensation and ideation are

,

Metaplz .
, IV .
, V .
, su b /i n .
374 TH E GRE EK PH IL OS OPH E R S .

sensat i on to the m ost c omplex reasonin g seem to p ass i nto ,

one another by i mperceptible g rad ations c ons c iousness i n ,

eneral i s s t il l separated f ro m obj ective existen c e by an i m

g
passable chasm and i f there is any hope o f reconcilin g them
i t lies i n the absolute id ealis m which he so sum marily rej ected .

What we have had o c casion repeatedly to poi nt out i n other

departmen ts o f his system is v erified once m ore in his p s y ,

c h o l o gy The p ro g ress o f thou ght has resulted f ro m a

.

reunion o f the principles between which he d rew a ri gid demar

cation We have f ound that perception can only be under
.

stood as a process essentially homog eneous with the hi ghest

thou ght and n either more nor less i mmaterial than it is O n
, .

the obj ective sid e both may be resolved into sensori motor ,
-

ac tions on the subj ective side i nto g roups o f rel ated f eelin g s , .

And here also we ha v e to note that when Aristotle antic i

, ,

p ates modern thou g ht it is throu g h his one g reat mediatin g , ,

s ynthetic con c e ption H e obse rves i ncidentally that ou r know .

l ed g e o f size a n d shape i s acqui red n ot throu g h the special ,

sen ses but by motion

,
— an aper c u much in ad v an ce o f L ocke ‘
.

I f there are any w h o valu e Aristotle as a c hampion o f

spiritualis m they mu st take h i m with hi s en c u mbrances I f
, .

his philosophy proves that on e part o f the sou l is i m material ,

it proves equally that the soul takin g it alto g ether is perish , ,

’
able Not only d oes he rej ect Plato s metempsychosi s as
.

i nconsistent with physiolo gy but he d eclares that a ff ection , ,

memory and reasoni n g are f unctions not o f the eternal Nous

, ,

but o f th e whole m an an d co me to an end with h i s dissolution , .

As to th e active Nous he tells us that it cannot think without

.
,

the assistance o f the passive N ous which i s mortal An d there , .

are va rious passag es in the Nicomachean E thics showin g that

h e had f ac ed this n eg ation o f a f utu re li f e and was perf ectly re ,

si g ned to i ts consequen c es 2
At on e period o f his li f e p robably .
,

when u nder the i mmediate i nfluence O f Plato he had indul g ed ,

De A i z .
,
III .
p 4 25
, i .
, . . a, 13 .

7
Se e Z e ll e r pp 6 0 2 6 0 6 ,
.
-
w h e re th e w h o l e su b j ec t is th o ro u ghly d i sc u s se d .
 SYS TEMA TI C PHIL OSOPHY OF A RIS TO TLE .
375

i n d ream s i m mort ality ; bu t a pro f ounder acqu aintanc e

of

with natu ral science su ffi ced to di ssi pate them Perhaps a .

lin g erin g veneration f o r his teacher made hi m pu rp osely u se

ambi g uous lan gu ag e i n re f erence t o the eternity o f that
c reative reason which he h ad so c losely associated with sel f
consciousness I t may remind u s o f Spi noza s c elebrated
.
’

proposition Sen t i mu s exp eri mu rgu e n os a e teru os es s e word s

, ,

a bsolutely di sconn ected with the hope o f a continued e x isten ce

o f the individ ual a f ter d eath but apparently intend ed to enlist

,

some o f the senti ment a ssoci ated with that belie f on the sid e
’
o f the writer s own philosophy .

O n the other hand the spi ri t o f Pl ato s reli g ion su rv ived i n

’

the teachin g o f his d isciple u nder a new f orm The idea o f a n .

etern al personality was as i t were unified and made obj ective

, ,

by bei n g tran s f erred f rom the human to the d ivin e ; a n d so each

phi losopher d evelopes an aspect o f reli g ious f aith whi c h i s
wantin g i n the other thereby illustratin g the tendenci es to
, ,

some e x tent mut u ally e x clusive; whi ch d ivide all theolo gy

between them I t re main s to obser v e that i f e v en A ristotle s
.
’

theism i s incons i stent with the C atholi c f aith mu ch more mu st ,

his psychology be its d irect neg ation Tb e Philosophy o f t/z e

.

’
Philosopher i s as f atal to the C hu rch s d octrine o f f utu re
rewards and pu nish ments as it i s to h er d octrin e o f divi ne
i nterf erenc e with the usual ord er o f n at ure .

VI .

We now pass t o the c onsideratio n o f Aristotle s most ’

i mportant achievement— hi s system o f lo gic And as here .

,

also we shall find m uch to c riticise it i s as well to beg i n by

, ,

sayin g that in our opinion his contributions to the s c ienc e

, ,

are the most valuable ever m ad e and p erhaps have d on e

,

more to advance it than all other writing s on the same subj e c t

put to g ether .

T he principal busin ess o f reason is as w e have seen to , ,

 3 76 TH E GREEK PHIL O SOPHERS .

f orm abst ra c t i d eas or c o n cepts o f th i n g s B ut bef ore the .

t i me o f Aristotle it had already been d is c overed that c on

c e p t s o r rather the terms e x pressin g them were c apable o f
| , ,

bein g un ited i n proposition s which mi g ht be either true or

f alse and whose truth mi g ht b e a m atter either o f c ert ai nty
,
.

o f si mp l e opi nion Now in mo d e rn p s yc h o l o gy down to

.
, z ,

the most recent ti mes i t has always been assu med that j ust , ,

as there i s an i ntelle c tu al f a c ulty or operation called abst ra e

t i on c orrespond in g to the terms o f which a proposition is
c omposed so also there i s a f acu lty or operation called j u dg
,

m ent correspond in g to the entire p roposition S o metimes .

,

ag ain the thi rd operation which c onsists in linkin g p roposi

, ,

t ions tog ether to f orm syllo gisms is assi g ned to a d isti nct
.
-

f aculty call e d re g n s o meT i me s all three are re g ard ed as

é o
a scen din g steps in a sin g le f undamental process N either .

Plato nor A rist o t l e h o w e v e r had thou ght out the subj ect so
, , ,

scientifically To both the f ramin g or rather the di scovery

.
, ,

o f concepts was by f a r the most i mportant business O f a “

philosopher j ud g ment an d reasonin g bein g merely subsid iary

,

to it H en ce while in one pa rt o f thei r lo gic they were real

.
,

i s t s and c onc eptualists in other part s they were nominalists

'

.
,

Abstract nam es and the d efi nitions u n f old in g thei r connota

tion c orrespond ed to actu al entities i n Nature— the etern al
I deas o f the one and the substanti al f orm s o f the other—as
well as to mental representation s about whose existenc e they
w ere ag reed w hile ascribin g to them a di ff erent ori g in
, But .

they d id not i n like m anner treat propositions as the expres

si on o f natu ral laws without o r o f j ud g ments w i thin the , ,

m ind while reasonin g they reg ard ed much more as an art o f

thi nkin g a m ethod f o r the d iscovery o f ideas than as the
,
.

sfi t e m of
’
at i s at io n a process spontaneously p er f ormed by
<

every hu man bein g withou t kn owin g it ; and even as su c h , ,

thei r tenden cy i s to conne c t it with the theory o f definition

rathe r than with the theory o f synthet i c proposition s S ome .

approach to a realisti c view is i ndeed mad e by both The , , .

3 78 T HE GREEK PHIL OS OPH E RS .

tions u nt i l they g rew i nto a system o f u n i versal c lassifi c at i on .

I t was when under the influence o f a new analysi s thi s

, ,

system threatened to f all to pie c es that a rud i mentar y d o c ,

t ri ne o f j ud g ment first m ad e its appearance The structure o f a .

g rammatical sentenc e was used to e x plain how O bj ective

id eas c ould i n a manner o verlap an d ad here to on e another
, , .

H en ce propositi ons which as th e e x p ression o f general truth s , , ,

were destined to bec o me the beg i nnin g and end o f thou ght ,

remained at fi rst strictly subord inated to the ind i v id u al con

c e p t s that they linked and re c o n c iled .

With Aristotle propositions assumed a new i mpo rta nc e .

H e looked o n them as mediatin g not only between concepts ,

,

but also between c onc eptio n and reasonin g S till n either as .

,

a psycholog ist n or as a lo g ician did he appre c iate them at thei r

real value A very bri e f consid eration i s g iven to j ud g ment
.

i n his work on the soul and we are le f t i n doubt whether it i s ,

a f unction o f Nous alo n e or o f Nous co mbined with some other

f aculty S ettin g asid e the treatise on I nterpretation which
.
,

is probably Spu rious and at any rate throws n o n ew li g ht o n , , ,

the subj ect we m ay g ather f ro m hi s lo g i cal wr i tin g s hal f a

,

d ozen di ff erent su gg estions toward s a classificatio n o f propo

s i t i o n s based partly on their f orm and partly on thei r i mport
, .

I n all we fi n d an e v ident tenden c y to apply here a lso his , ,

g rand f undamental d i stin c t ion between the sphere o f u ni f ormity

and the sphere o f chan g e and opposition All propositions .

are eith er uni v ersal or parti c ular either positive o r ne gati v e

either necessary or actual o r contin g ent either re c ipro c atin g
o r n o t reciprocatin g ; either essent i al or accidental either
answerin g to the first question i n the c ateg ories or to one o f ,

‘
the other nine Bu t n owhere i s any attempt m ad e to co m
.

bin e and systemati se these variou s poi nts o f View .

I n the theory o f reasonin g the si mple proposit i on is taken

as a startin g po i nt ; but instead o f d ed ucin g the syllogism
-

A n al . Pr .
, I .
, i .
, su b m u .
, su b in .
; Top .
, I .
,
v ii i .
,
B kk
e er (in th e
T au c h n i tz c d .
,
 S YSTEMA TIC PHIL OS OPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
3 79

f rom th e synthesi s o f two p remises Aristotle reache s th e ,

premises thro u g h the conclusion H e tells us ind eed th at .

, ,

reasonin g is a way o f discoverin g f rom what w e know some ,

thin g that we did n ot know be f ore W ith hi m ho w ever i t i s .

, ,

really a pro c ess not o f d iscovery but o f proo f H e start s .

with the co nclusion a n alyses it into predicate and subj ect or

,

m aj o r and mino r and then by a f u rther analysis i ntroduces

, , ,

a middle term connectin g the two Thus we beg in with the .

,

’
proposition Caiu s i s mo rtal and prove it by inte rpolatin g
, ,

the notion hu manity between it s two e x tremes From thi s .

point o f view the p remi ses are merely a tempo ra ry s c a ff oldin g

f o r brin g in g the maj or and mi no r into c onne x i on with the
m iddle term ; and this is also the reason W h y Aristotle reco g
n i s e s three syllo g istic fi g ures only i nstead o f the f our a d ,

mi tt e d by later log icians For the m iddle may either b e .

,

contained i n one e x treme and contain the oth e r whi ch g i v es ,

u s the first fi g ure or it m ay contain both which g ives the ,

se c ond fi g u re ; or be contained i n both which g ives the ,

third and this is an e x hau sti v e enu meration o f the possible

combinat i ons ‘
.

We have here also the se c ret o f that elaborate ma c hinery

, ,

devi sed f o r the very u nnecessary pu rpose o f c onvertin g s yllo

g isms o f the second and third fi g ure into syllo g isms o f the first ,

’
w hich is on e o f the Sta g irite s p rincipal contribution s t o lo g ic .

For it is only in the first fi g ure that the notion by which the
e x tremes are either u nited or held apart i s really a middle
term that i s to say really comes between the others Th e
, , .

d istinction between pe rf ect and i mperf ect syllo g isms also

’
serves to illustrate Aristotle s systematic division between
the necessary and the c ontin gent The method o f proo f by .

i ncl usion correspond s i n its unconditioned a n d ind epend ent

validity to the concentri c arran g ement o f th e supernal spheres ;
the econd and third fi g u res with thei r con v ersions and redu e
s
,

tion s to the sublunary sphere i n its helpless dependen c e o n

,

A n a l Pr xxi ii
. .
, I .
,
.
, 4 1, a, 1 1
(i n the T au c h n i tz c d .
, x xn .
,
3 80 TH E G REEK PHIL O S OPH ER S .

the c elest i al re v olut i ons and i ts tran s f ormat i ons o f the ele
,

m ents i nto one another .

The rules which Aristotle g i ves u s f o r the con v ersi on o f

propositions are n o doubt hi g hly instructive an d throw g reat ,

li ght on thei r m eanin g ; but one cannot help O bserv in g that

such a proc ess as con v ersion ou ght on his own pri nc i ples to
'

, ,

have been i nad missible Wi th Pl ato the copu lation o f sub

.
,

j c e t and pred icat e corresponded to an al most mechanical

j u x taposition o f two sel f ex istent id eas I t was there f ore a
-
.
, ,

m atter o f indi ff erence i n what o rd er they were placed Ari s .

t o t le on the other hand a f ter insistin g on the restoration o f

, ,

the c on c rete obj ect and red ucin g g eneral notions to an

,

analysis o f its particular aspe c ts c ou ld not b ut m ake the pre ,

d i c at e subord i nate to and dependent on the subj e c t — a rela

, ,

t i on w hich altog ether exclud es the log ical possibility o f

makin g them i nterchan g eable with one another ‘
.

The antithetical structu re o f the whole system i s repro

d u c e d even in the fi rst syllo g istic fi g ure w here there is a ,

si milar O pposition between the first mood by which alone ,

u niversal affi rmat iv e s can be obtained and the re mainin g three , ,

whose conclusions are e i ther n eg ative or particular or both , .

And the complic ated rules f o r testin g the validity o f those

syllo g isms in which the premises are d istin g uished as n e c e s
sary a c tual an d possibl e are still more obviously based on
, , ,

’
Aristotle s f alse metaphysical disti nctions ; so that with the
overthrow o f those d i stinction s larg e portions o f the A n alyl i c s
lose their enti re val ue f o r modern students .

O n the other hand a theo ry o f reasonin g based on the

,

relations o f concepts i nstead o f on the relations o f j ud g ments

, ,

necessarily leaves out o f a cc ount the whole d octrine o f hypo

thetic al and d isj un ctive propositions tog ether with that o f ,

the syllog isms based o n the m since the elements o f which

they are composed are themselves propositions And thi s .

i nevitable omission is the more remarkable because al terna

Th is p o i n t i s w e ll b ro u gh t ou t in F A Lan ge
. .
’
s Log isc /z e Un l ers u c /i u u g en .
3 82 TH E G REEK P I I I L O S OPH E R S .

closely we shall find that hypothetical reasonin g takes its rise

,

f ro m the e x am i na tion o f each separate alte rn ative presented

by a disj u nctive premis e A plurality o f courses bei n g open .

to u s we consider what wi ll e nsue on the acceptance o r reje c

'

tion o f each The d o g i n o ur illustratio n thi nks (a f ter a

.

c anine f ashion ) that i f he j u mps h e may f all i n ; i f he does not ,

he will be le f t behi nd H ector will not take re f u g e wit h i n the

.

walls b e c ause if he d oes Po lyd amas wi ll tri umph o v er hi m

, , ,

nor will he o ff er term s o f pea c e because i f he does Achilles , , ,

will re f use them O nce more cate g orical reason in g i s de

.
,

v e l o p e d out O f hypothetical reasonin g by the necessity o f

d educin g consequences f ro m a g eneral rul e H ector must .

have arg u ed f ro m the known characters o f Po lyd amas and

Achilles that i n c ertain c i rc u mstances they wou l d ac t a f ter a
,

certain manner We may add that this pro g ress o f consc ious
.
,

reasonin g is a reproduction o f the u n c onscious lo g ic accordin g

to wh i ch li f e itsel f is evolved All so rts o f combin ations are .

spon ta neously produced which in consequ ence o f th e stru gg le , ,

f o r e x isten c e can not all su rvive

, Those adapted t o the con .

d i t i o n s o f li f e are selected on tri al at t h e e x p e n s e o f the rest

'

, ,

and thei r adaptation or n on adaptation i s d etermined i n -

accord ance with cate gorical l a w s Fu rthermore the f ramin g .

,

of a disj u nctive p roposition necessitates the syste mati c

distribution o f possi biliti es u nder mutually e x c lusive heads ,

thus i nvolvin g the log ical processes o f definitio n d ivi sion a n d , ,

classification D ialectic as Plato u nderstood it consisted

.
, ,

almost entirely in the j oint perf ormance o f these operations

-
a process which Aristotle reg ard s as the i mmedi ate but

v ery i mperf ect prec ursor o f his own syl l og ist ic m ethod You ‘
.

c annot he says prove anythin g by d ividin g f o r i nstance al l

, , , ,

livin g thin g s i nto the two classes mortal and i mmo rtal u nless
-

, ,

i ndeed you as su me the very point und er discussion to

,
-

which class a particular species belon g s Yet this is how he .

co nstantly reasons hi msel f ; an d even d emonstrative reason

A n al . Pr .
, I .
, xxx
1 A n a l Pos t
. .
, II .
, v.
 S YSTEMA TIC PHIL OS OPHY OF A RISTO TLE .
3 83

i n g as he i nterprets it i mplies the possession o f a ready mad e

, ,
-

classification Fo r acc ord in g to him i t consists e x clusively

.
, ,

o f proposition s whi c h predicate some essential attribute o f

a thin g — i n other words some attribute already i ncl u ded i n

,

the definition o f the subj ect ; and a c onti nuous series o f

such d efin i t i ons c an only be g iven by a fi x ed classification o f
thin g s .

VI I .

’
We have end eavou red to show that Aristotle s account o f
the syllog ism is red und ant on the on e sid e and d e f ective on
the other both errors bein g d ue to a f alse analysis o f the
,

reasonin g pro cess itsel f combined with a f alse metaphysical

,

philosophy The same evi l i nfluences tell with much g reater

.

e ff e ct o n his t h e o ryo f applied rea sonin g H ere the f und amen tal .

d iv i sion correspond in g to that between heaven an d earth i n

,

the cosmos i s between demonstratio n and d ialectic or e x p e ri

,

m ental reas onin g The one starts with fi rst p rinciples o f

.

u nquestion able valid ity the other with prin ciples the valid ity
,

o f w hich is to be tested by thei r consequenc es Stated in its .

most abstract f orm the distinction i s sou nd and very nearly

, ,

p re fi g u re s the modern division between deduction and ind uc

tion the process by which g eneral laws are appl ied an d
, ,

the process by which they are established Aristotle .

,

however com mitted two g reat m istakes he thou g ht that

,

each method corresponded to an entirely di ff erent order o f

phenomena : an d he thou g ht that both were concerned f o r
the most part with d efinitions The Pos teri o r A u a lj/i i c s whic h
.
‘
,

contains his theory o f d emonstration answers to the astro ,

n o mi c al portion o f his physi cs ; it i s the doctri ne o f eternal

and n ecessary truth And j ust as his ontology d istin g uishes

.

between the Pr i me Mover himsel f u nmoved and the eternal

movement prod uced by his influen ce so also his log ic disti n ,

g u i s h e s between i n f a llible first prin ciples and the truths

d erived f rom them , the latter bein g in hi s opini on o f i n f erio r, ,
3 84 TH E GREEK PHIL O S OPHER S .

value Now a c cordin g to Ari stotle these first p ri n c iples are

.
, ,

d efiniti ons and it is to this f ac t that their sel f evident c ertainty

,

i s du e At the same ti me they are not verbal but real d e fi

.

n i t i o n s — that i s to say the u niversal f o rms o f thin g s i n them

,
~

selves as made m ani f est to the eye o f reason o r rather , ,

stamped upon i t like the i mpression o f a Si g net rin g on wax -

.

And by a f u rther refinement he seems to distin gu ish betwee n

, ,

the c oncept as a whole and the separate marks which make

it up these last bein g the ult i mate elements o f all e x istence
, ,

and as much beyond its c omplex f orms as Nous is beyond

reasoned truth .

S uch a v iew was essentially un f avou rable t o the prog ress

o f scienc e assi nin
g ,g as it did a hi g her di g nity to mea g re and
, ,

ve ry questionable abstra c tion s than to the f a r rea c hin g c o m -

b i n at i o n s by whic h alone we are enabled to u nravel the in most

te x ture o f v isible phenomena I nstead o f usin g reason to .

supplement sense Aristotle turned i t i nto a m ore subtle an d

,

u niversal kind o f sense ; and i f this d isastro u s assi milatio n

was to a certai n extent i mposed upon hi m by the tradition s
o f Athenian thou g ht it harmonised ad mi rably with the de
,

scriptive and superficial c h aracter o f his own intelli g ence .

M uch was also d u e to the method o f g eomet ry whi c h i n his ,

t i me had already assumed the f orm mad e f am i liar to us by

E u c lid s E l emen ts The employment o f a x ioms sid e by s i d e
’
.

with definitions mi ght i nd eed have d rawn his attention to

, , ,

the e x istenc e and i mportance o f j ud g ments whi c h i n K antian ,

terminolo gy are not analytic but synthet ic — that is which

, ,

add to the c ontent o f a notion i nst ead o f si mply analysin g it .

But althou g h he mentions axioms and states that mathemat i cal ,

theorems are dedu c ed f ro m them no suspicion o f their essen ,

tial d i ff erence f rom definitions or o f the typical si g n ifi c a n c e ,

which they were destined to assu me i n the theo ry o f reason

i n g seems ever to have crossed his mind
, otherwi se he could
hardly have f ailed to ask how we com e by o u r kno w led g e o f
them and to what they correspond in Nature O n the whole
, .
,
3 86 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

we have somethin g better than i ndirect evidence o n thi s

p oint ; we h ave the plai n state ment o f Aristotle hi msel f that ,

all science d epends on first p rinciples about which it is i m ,

possible to be m istaken precisely bec ause they are u niversal ,

abstraction s not presented to the min d by any co mbin a

tion — ,
‘
a Vi ew qu ite i nconsistent with the priority now
g iven
to g eneral laws .

Answerin g to the fi rst pri nciples o f demonstration in lo g ic .

i f not ab s ol utely identical with them are what Aristotl e calls ,

causes i n the n atu re o f thin g s We have seen what an i m .

portant part the m iddle t erm plays i n Aristotle s theory o f the ’

syllo g ism I t is the vital principle o f de monstration the c on

.
,

n e c t i n g link by whi ch the two e x treme term s are attached to

o ne another I n the theo ry o f appli ed lo g ic whose obj ec t is

.
,

t o brin g the ord er o f thou g ht i nto c ompl ete parall eli sm with
the o rder o f thin g s the middle term throu g h which a f act i s
,

d emonstrated answers to the cause throu g h whic h it e x ists .

Accord in g to ou r notions only two terms antecedent and , ,

consequent are involved i n the i dea o f cau sation and cau sa

,

ti on only beco mes a matte r f o r reasonin g when we perceive

that the sequence i s repe ated i n a u ni f orm manner B ut .

Aristotle was very f ar f rom h avin g reached o r even suspected , ,

this point o f View A cau se is with hi m n ot a determinin g

.

antecedent but a secret ne x u s by which the c o e x istence o f

,
-

two phenomen a is e x plained I nstead o f precedin g it i nter .

c ed es an d this is why he finds its subj ective cou nterpart i n

the midd le term o f the sy llo g ism S o m e o f hi s own e x amples .

Why is the mo o n e c li p s e d ?
'

will make the m atter clearer .

B ecause the earth i nterven es between her and the su n Why .

i s the bri ght sid e o f the m oon always turned towards the sun ?
B ecause she shines by his reflected li g ht (here li ght i s the
middle term ) Why i s that person talkin g to the rich m an ?
.

B ecause he wants to borrow money o f hi m Why are those .

two men f riends ? Because they have the same enemy 2

.

e B A n III i .
,
b i t k.t o g th
, w i th A
v . l P t
, I
su i ii .
, a en e er n a . os .
,
.
, v .

7 A
n a l P t I
. i os I I ii
, .
,
xxx v . .
, .
 S YSTEMA TIC PHI L OSOPHY OF A RISTO TL E .
3 87
_

Aristotle even g oes s o f ar as to eli mi nate the notion o f

sequence f ro m c ausation alto gether H e tells us that the .

c auses o f events are contemporary with the events themselves

those o f past events bein g past o f p resent events present ,

and o f f utu re events f uture ,

This thin g will not be because
.

that other thin g has happ en ed f o r the middle term must be ,

homog eneous with the e x tremes I t i s O bvious that such a .

’

li mi ta tion abolishes the power o f sci entific predi ction which , ,

i f not the only test o f knowled g e is at any rate its most valu ,

able verifi c ation The Sta g irite has been charg ed with trust
.

i n g too much to deductive reasoni n g it now appears that o n ,

the contrary he had n o c on ception o f its most important

,

f unction . H ere as everywhere he f ollows not the ynthetic

, ,
s

m ethod o f the m athematici an but the analytic method o f the ,

n aturalist .Fi n ally i nstead o f combinin g the notion s o f cause

,

and kind he systematically con f uses them I t will be

,
.

remembered how his e x cellent division o f causes into m aterial ,

f ormal e ffi cient an d final was rend ered nu g atory by the

, , ,

c ontin ued i nfl uence o f Plato s id eas The f ormal cause always

’
.

t ended to absorb the other thre e and it i s by thei r complete

assim ilation that h e attempts to harmonise the order o f
d em on stratio n with the ord er o f e x istence For the f ormal .

cau se o f a pheno menon si mply meant those properties which

it sh ared with others o f the same kind and it was by vi rtu e o f ,

those properties that i t became a subj ect f o r general re ason

i n g which was i nterpreted as a method ical arran g ement o f
,
-

concepts on e within another answerin g to the conc entric dis

,

position o f the cosmic spheres .

O wi n g to the sli ght i mportance which Aristotle attaches

to j ud g ments as compared with concepts he does not go ,

very deeply into the questi o n how d o we O btain ou r prem ises ,

H e says i n rem ark ably e mphati c lan g ua g e that all knowled g e

, ,

i s acqui red either by demonstration or by ind uction or rather ,

we may add in the last resort by the latter only since demo n
, ,

A n al . Po s l .
, II .
, xu .
, p .
9 5, a, 36 .

C C 2
3 88 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPHER S .

rests on generals w h i ch are d i s c o v ered i nd ucti v ely ;

s t ra t i o n

but his g enerals m ean definitions and abstract predi cates o r

subj e c ts rather than synthetic p ropositions I f howeve r his
, .
, ,

attention had been c alled to the distinction we can not suppose ,

that he would on his own principl es have adopted concl usion s

, ,

essentially d i ff eren t f ro m those o f the mod ern e x periential

school M r Wallace do e s indeed claim h i as a suppo rter
. .
, , m "

O f the theory that n o in f erence can be made f ro m particulars

to p arti culars without the aid o f a g eneral p roposition an d as ,

’
havin g re f uted by anticipation M ill s assertion to the contrary
, , .

We quote the analysis which is supposed to p rove this in M r .

’
Wallace s own wo rd s
We reas on that because the w ar betw een T hebes an d Ph o cis w as
a w ar be twe e n n ei ghbours and an evi l t here f ore t h e w ar betwe en ,

A the n s an d T hebes bein g al s o a w ar between n e i ghbours wi l l in

, ,

all p robabi l i ty be al so an evi l T hus out o f th e one p arall el c as e

.
,

th e w ar bet w een T hebes an d Ph o cis — we f orm th e gen era l p rop osi

t ion A ll wars betwee n n ei gh b o ur s are e vi l s ; to t his w e a d d t h e

,

minor t h e w ar be tween A thens an d T hebes is a w ar betw ee n n e i gh

,

bours — an d t h e n c e arriv e at t h e co n c l u s ion that the w ar be twe e n

'

A thens an d T hebes wi ll b e l i k ewi s e an evi l ‘

.

On the stren g th of thi s Mr Wallace else w here obse rves

.

Aristo tl e s]
H is [ th eory o f syllogis m is s i mp ly an e x p licit s tate
’

men t o f th e f act th at all k n owle d ge al l th o u ght rest s on u n i v e rsal , ,

t ru ths or gene ral p ro p o s i t ion s — th at all k nowl ed ge wh e ther d e d u c ,

t ive o r i n d u c t ive i s arrived a t by the ai d the indi s p en s abl e ai d

’ ‘ ’
, , ,

o f general p ro p o s i tions We in E ngl and h ave been al mo st charmed

.

into th e belief that re as oning i s p erp etually f ro m p articu lar to par

t ic u l ar an d a vi llage matro n
,
an d h e r Lucy h ave been u se d t o
ex p re s s th e tru th f o r u s in t h e concre te f orm ad ap ted to o u r we ak e r
co mprehen sion (Mi ll s L og ic b k ii ch ’
We sh al l nex t b e told
, . . .
,

f o rso o th t hat o xygen an d hyd ro ge n do not e n t e r into th e co mp o si

,

t ion o f wat e r bec ause o u r vi llage matro n p erp e tu ally d ri n k s i t

‘ ’
,

w i th o ut p as s
‘
in g throu gh ei t h er e l e men ’
t a n d t h e an a l si s o f t h e
y ,

che mi st wi ll be prove d as gre at a fi c ti o n as t h e an alysi s o f th e l o gici an .

A ri s t o tl e h as su p pl ie d th e l i n k s wh ich at o n ce u p s e t all s uch su p erfi ci al

\Val l ac e O u t li n es , p
’
s . 14 .
3 90 TH E GREEK PHIL OSOPH E R S .

the authority o f a philosopher w h o per f ectly a g reed with those

w h o disbelieve i n the possibility o f u nconsciou s knowled e ‘
g ,

and contemptuously rej ected Plato s opinion to the contrary ’

.

Nor is this al l The doctrin e that reasoni n g i s f rom p ar

.

t i c u l ars to particulars even when i t passes throu g h g eneral

,

propositi ons m ay be ri g orously d educed f rom Aristotle s own

,
’

ad mi ssions I f n othin g ex ists but particulars and i f know

.
,

led g e is o f what e x ists then all knowled g e i s o f parti culars:

,

There f ore if the propositions enterin g i nto a chain o f reason

,

i n g are knowled g e they must deal with particulars e x clusively

,
.

And quite apart f ro m the later d evelop ments o f Aristotle s

,
’

phi losophy w e have his e x press assertion that all generals

, ,

are d eriv e d f ro m p arti culars which i s absolutely i ncompatibl e

-
,

with the alle g ed f act that all knowled g e all thou ght rests on
, , ,

u niversal truths on g en eral proposition s ; that all knowled g e

, ,

“ ”
whether d ed uctive or ind uctive is arrived at by the aid , ,

’
the i nd ispensable aid o f g eneral propositions,
To Aristotle .

the basi s o f knowled g e was not truths o f bu t ‘ ’

_ ”

con cepts afi d i n t h e last chapter o f the Pos teri o r A n a lyt i c s

h eha s e x plained h o w these concepts are d erived f rom sense
’
pe rceptions without the aid o f any propositions whatever .

We are here con f ronted with an i mportant and m uch d is

p u t e d question ,
Was Aris t o tl e an e mp i igisg We hold most
r ? x

d ecided ly that he w as i f by empi ricist i s meant w hat alone

, ,

shou ld be m eant — one w h o believes that the mi nd n either

~

t i c ip at e s anythin g in th e c ontent nor contributes anythi n g ,

the f orm o f e x perience i n other words w h o believes ,

knowled g e to be the a g reement o f thou ght with thin g s ~

i mposed by thin g s on thou g ht We have already show n .

,

when d i s cussin g Si r A Grant s vie w to the contrary that .

’

Aristotle was i n no sense a tran scend ental id e ai i s t The other .

hal f o f ou r po s ition is proved by the c hapter i n the Pos te ri o r

A n a ly t i c s already re f erre d to the lan g u ag e O f which is p ri ma
,

i so much i n f avour o f ou r V iew that the burden o f p roo f

f a c e

T h at i s , k n o w l ed ge w h i c h h as n ev e r b e en ac tu ali s e d .
 S YS TE M A TI C PHI L OSOPHY O F A R I S TO YL E .

rests on those who g ive i t another interpretation Amon g .

these the latest with who m we are acquainted is Zeller The

,
.

eminent German historian a f ter assertin g i n f ormer ed itions

,

o f hi s work that Aristotle d erive d his first principles f ro m the

se l f contemplation o f the No u s has now probably i n de f erenc e

-

, ,

to the unanswerable arg u ments o f K ampe abandoned thi s ,

position H e sti l l however assu mes the e x istence o f a rather

.
, ,

i n d e fi n ab le a p rz o rz element in the Aristotelian noolo g y o n ,

th e stren g th o f the f ollowin g cons i d e rat i ons — I n t he fi rst .

place accord i n g to Aristotle even sense perception i s not a

, ,
-

pu rely p assive p ro cess and there f ore intellectu al co gn itio n

,

c an still less be so (p But the passa g es quoted only

.

amount to this that the passivity o f a thin g which is raised

,

f rom possibili t y to actuality d i ff ers f ro m the passivity i mplied

i n th e d estruction o f its proper nature ; and that the obj ects
o f abstrac t thou g ht com e f ro m within n ot f ro m without i n , ,

the sense that they are presented by the i mag ination to th e

reason The pure empiricist need not d eny eit h er position
. .

H e wou ld f reely ad mit that to lose one s reason throu g h ’

d runkenness or disease is a quite di ff erent sort o f operation

f ro m bein g i mpressed w ith a n ew truth ; and he would also
ad mit that w e g eneralise not d irectly f ro m outwa rd e x p e ri
ence but f ro m that hi ghly abrid g ed an d represent ative e x
,
-

p e ri e n c e which memory supplies Neither p rocess however.

, ,

c onstitutes a n anticipation o f outward e x perience or an add i

tion to it I t I S f ro m_the materialist not f ro m the empi ri cist
that Arist ot l e d i ff ers H e believes that the f or m
.
, ,

. s under
which m atter appears are separable f rom every particular
portio n o f matter thou gh not f ro m all matter i n the e x ternal
, ,

and he believes t hat a complete separation between

the m i s e f f e c ted i n the sin gle i nstance o f sel f conscious reason -

w hj i h a g ain in co g nisin g any particular thin g is identified w ith

,

that thin g mi n d: its matter Zeller s ne x t arg u ment is th at the

.
’

cog nition o f ideas by the Nou s is i m medi ate whereas the pro ,

cess o f g eneralisation f ro m e x perienc e d escribed by Aristotl e

392 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E R S .

i s e x tremely indirect Here Zeller seems to misund erstan d

.

the word Aristotle never applies it to knowl ed g e bu t ,

o nly to the obj ective relati on s o f id eas with o n e another .

Two terms constitut e an i mmediate premise when they are ‘ ’

not conn ected by another term quite i rrespective o f the steps ,

by which we com e to recog nise thei r conj unction S o with .

the terms themselves They are i m med i ate w hen they .

‘

cannot be d erived f rom any ulterior principl e when in short , ,

they are si mpl e and u ncaused Finally the obj ection that .
,

first principles bein g the m ost certai n and necessary o f any

, ,

c annot be d erived f rom sensibl e e x perien ce which dealin g , ,

only with materi al obj ects mu st inherit the u n certainty and ,

contin g ency o f matter — i s a n obj ecti on not i oj h e empi rici st

, ,

’
i nterpretation o f Aristotle s philosophy bu t to empiricism ,

it s e lf and it is n o t allowable to ex plain away the plain words

/

o f an ancient writer i n orde r to reconcile them with as s u mp

tions which he nowhere ad mits That u niversality and .

’ '
‘
necessity involve an a p rz o rz co g niti on or an i ntellectu al
i ntui ti on is a m odern theory unsupported by a s i n g l e sentenc e
,

i n Aristotle ‘
We quite ag ree with Zeller when he g oes on
.

’
to say t h at i n Aristotle s psychology certain tho u ghts and ‘

notions arise throu gh the action o f the obj ect thou g ht about
on the thinkin g mind j ust as perceptio n arises throu g h the
,

’
action o f the perceived obj ect on the perc ipient (p 1 9 5) but .

how this d i ff ers f rom the pu rest empiri c ism i s more than we
are able to und erstand .

I t is remarkable that Aristotle a f ter repeatedly speakin g ,

o f ind uction as an ascent f rom parti c ulars to g enerals when ,

he comes to t race the process by which w e arrive at the most

eneral notions o f any does not ad mi t the possibility o f su c h
g ,

a movement in on e direction only The u niversal and the .

i nd ivid ual are accord in g to him co mbined i n ou r most

, ,

ele mentary sense i mpressions and the busines s o f scientific

'

1
I t is mi s t ak e t o t ran sl a t e wi n e th e G e rman s d o , b y A n s c hau T he
-
i s , as u n
a g .

Nou s d o es n ot i n tu i t e i d e as , b u t is c o n v e rt e d i n to an d c o n s i s ts o f t h e m .
3 94 TH E GREEK PH I L O SOPH E RS .

the colours are so many di ff erent mi x tu res o f li g ht and

d arkness .

I t has until lately been cu stomary to speak as i f all that

, ,

Aristotle kn ew about indu ction was contained i n a f e w

scattered passag es where it i s mentioned under that n ame i n
the A ra b /Zi a This no do ubt i s true i f by i nduction w e
.
, , ,

m ean si mple g eneralisation B ut i f we und erstand by it the .

philosophy o f e x perimental evid ence— the analysis o f those

means by which i n the absenc e o f di rect observation we
, ,

decide between two con flictin g hypotheses — then the Top i c s

mu st be p ronounced as g ood a d isc ussion on the subj ect as
was compatible with his g eneral theory o f knowled g e Fo r .

he supposes that there are larg e classes o f phenomena includ ,

i n g amon g other thin g s the whole ran g e o f hu man li f e which

, , , ,

not bein g bound by any fi x ed ord er li e outsid e the scope o f ,

scientific d emo nstration althou g h capabl e o f bein g determined ,

with various d e g rees o f p robability ; and here also what h e

has in view is not the discovery o f laws but the construction ,

o f definitions These bein g a matter o f O pinion cou ld always

.
,

be attacked as well as maintai ned Thu s the constant co n .

flic t an d b al an c i n g o f opposite f orces whi ch we have learned

’

to associ ate with the s ublunary sphere has its lo g ical re p re ,

s e n t at i v e no less than the ki ndred ideas o f uncertainty and

vic issitud e And i n conne x ion with this side o f applied

.
,

lo g ic Aristotle has also to con sid er the requi re ments o f those

,

w h o took part in the publi c debates on d isputed questions ,

then very common amon g ed u cated Atheni an s and f requently ,

tu rnin g on verbal definitions H ence while we find many .

,

varieties o f reasonin g su gg ested such as R easonin g by ,

Analo g y D isj unctive R easonin g Hypothetical R easoni n g

, ,

thou h without a eneralised e x pressio n f o r all its varieties

( g g ) ,

and what is most remarkable three out o f M ill s f ou r E x

, ,
’

p e ri me n t al Methods we d o n ot find that any i nterestin g o r

1
,

Fo r A n al o gy, see T op .
, II .
,
x su b in . Di sj u nc t io n , II .
, v i .
,
su b i 7i ;
.

H yp o t h e t ic al R e a so n i n g , II .
, x .
, p . 1 1 5, a 15 ; Me th o d of Di ff e re n c es, II .
,
 S YS TE M / 1 TI C PHIL OSOPHY O F A R I S T O TL E .
39 5

u se f u l application is mad e o f them E ven c onsid ered as a .

han d book f o r debaters the Top i os i s not success f ul With , .

the p ractical incompetence o f a m ere naturalist Aristotle has ,

supplied heads f o r arg uments i n such pro f usion and such

utter carelessn ess o f their relative i mportan ce that no memory
”

could su stain the burden e x cept in the probably rare instances , ,

when a li f eti me was d evoted to thei r study .

VI I I .

We have now concluded ou r su rvey o f the fi rst g reat

mental antithesis that between reason on the on e hand and , ,

sense and opinion on the other The next antithesi s that .

,

between reason and passion will occupy us a much shorte r ,

.

tim e With i t we pass f rom theory to practice f ro m meta ,

physics and lo g ic to moral philosophy But as w e saw in .

,

the p recedi n g chapter Aristotl e is not a practi cal g en ius ; ,

f o r hi m the suprem e i nterest o f li f e is still the acquisition o f

knowled g e Theorisi n g activity corresponds t o the celestial
.

world in which there can be neither opposition no r e x cess ;

,

while passion c orresponds to the sublu nary sphere where ,

order is only preserved by the balancin g o f antithetical f orces ;

an d the moderatin g i nfluenc e o f reason to the control e x e r ,

c i s e d by the hi g her over the lower syste m .

The passions themselves and the means by whi ch they ,

’
c a n b e either e x cited or c ontrolled are described i n Aristotle s ,

R / c o ri c with wond erf ul knowled g e o f hu man nature i n the

abstract but with almost no re f erence to the art f o r w hose
,
“

purposes the in f ormation is ostensibly systematised while i n

the E Z/z i c s they are stu died so to speak statica lly i n thei r , , ,

condition o f permanent equilibration or d isequ ilibration the

virtues and vices bein g represented as so many d i ff erent
x i .
, sz z o in . Me th o d of R es id u e s, VI .
,
x i .
, su o in . C o n c o mi tan t V aria t io n s , II .
,

b , 3 7; V VI v ii b T he Me th o d of A g re e me n t
'
’
X 1 14 , v iii sz o ! z z z ; su
.
, p . .
,
.
, . .
, .
,

o c c u rs An . Pri on ,II .
,
x x v ii .
,
Sl t é fi ll . an d An . Pos t , II .
,
x iii .
, p .
97,
b, 7
.
3 96 TH E GREEK PH IL O S OPH E R S .

aspects those c ondition s I t is obvious that such an ex

of .

t re me ly artificial paralleli sm could not be c arried out without

a c onsiderable strain an d distortion o f the f acts involved The .

o nly Virtue that can with truth be d esc ribed as a f orm o f , ,

moderation i s temperance ; an d even i n temperance this i s

accid e ntal rather than essential E lsewhere Aristotle d ed uces .

the e x tremes f rom the m e a n rather than the mean f rom the
e x tremes ; and someti mes one o f the e x tremes i s invented
f o r the occasion To fit j u stice con f essedly the most i mport
.
,

an t virtue into such a scheme was obvi ously i mpracticable

, ,

without reinterpretin g the id ea o f moderation I nstead o f an .

equ ilibriu m between opposin g i mpulses i n the same person ,

we have equ ality i n the treat ment o f d i ff erent persons which

a g ain resolves itsel f into g ivin g them thei r o w n wi t hout any ,

definite d e termination o f what thei r own may be ‘

I t c annot .

even b e said that Aristotle rep resented either the best ethical
thou g ht o f hi s own ag e or an indispensable sta g e in the ,

evolution o f all thou ght The extreme insu ffi ciency o f his .

ethical theory is d ue to the f anc i e d necessity o f squarin g it

with the requirements o f his c osmolog ical system For no .

sooner does he place hi msel f at the popular poi nt o f view

than he d ed u ces the particular virtues f ro m re gard to the .

wel f are o f others and treats them all as so m any d i ff erent

,

f orms o f j ustice 2
.

Aristotle has so metimes been represented as an advocate

o f f ree will a g ainst necessity
-
But the question had not really .

been opened i n his ti me H e rej ected f atalism ; but i t had .

not occurred to him that internal motives mi g ht exercise a

constrainin g power over action Nor has his f reedom a nythin g .

to do with the sel f assertion o f mi n d its extrication f ro m th e

-

chai n o f physical antecedents I t is si mply the elem ent o f .

I t may p o ss ib ly b e u rge d th at t h e fi f th b o o k o f th e ic o ma c /z c an E tlz i c s i s o f N

dou b t f u l au th e n t i c i ty St i ll th e d il e mma re mai n s t hat A ri s t o tl e e i th e r o mi t te d th e
.

mo s t i mp o rtan t o f al l mo ral u e s ti o n s f ro m h i s q e th i c s , o r th at h e tre at e d it in a

mise rab ly i n ad e u ate man n e rq .

2
E l iz . A ic
'
.
, V .
,
ii i ; XML, I
. .
,
vi .
, p . 1 3 6 2, b, 28 ; ix .
, p . 136 6, b, 4 .
3 93 TH E G REEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

i ndi v i d ual and the state I n th i s sense ; Aristotle s Po l i tic s is

.
’

the comple t io n o f hi s E t/z i c s I t i s only i n a well ordered .

-

community that moral habits can be acqui red ; and it is only

i n such a co mmunity that the best or i ntellectual li f e c an be
attained althou g h properly speakin g it i s not a soci al l i f e
, , , .

N evertheless the Po l i ti c s like every other portion o f Aris

, ,

’
t o t le s system reprod uces w ithin itsel f the elements o f an i nde
,

p en dent whole To und erstan d its i nternal o rg anisation we

.
,

’
must beg in by disreg ardin g Aristotle s abortive classification
( chie f ly ad apted f ro m Plato ) o f constitutions into three l e
g i t i m a t e — M onarchy Aristoc racy, and R ep ubli c ; and three ,

i lle g itimate — Democracy O li g archy and Tyranny Aristotle

, , .

distin g ui shes the m by sayin g that the leg itimate f orms are
g overn ed with a View to the g eneral g ood ; the i lleg iti mate
with a View to the i nterests o f partic ul ar classes or persons .

‘
B ut i n point o f f act as Zeller shows he cannot keep up this
, , ,

d istinction and we shall better u nd erstand his true id ea by

—
substitutin g f o r it another that between the i ntellectual and
the materi al state The obj e ct o f the one i s to secure the
.

hi ghes t cultu re f o r a rulin g caste who are to abstai n f ro m i n ,

d u s t ri al occupations and to be supported by the labou r o f a

,

depend ent population S uch a g overn ment may be either

.

m onarchical or aristoc ratic but it m ust n ecessarily be in the

hands o f a f e w The obj ect o f the other is to maintain a
.

stable equilibriu m between the O pposin g interests o f rich and

poor— t w o classes p ractically distin g uished as the f e w and the
m any . Thi s end is best attai ned where supreme power
belon g s to the m iddle class The d eviations are repres ented .

by oli g archy and tyranny on the one sid e and by e x treme ,

d em ocracy o n the other Where such constitutions e x ist the

.
,

best mod e o f p reservin g them is to moderate thei r character

i s t i c e x cess by borrowin g certai n institutions f rom the opposite
f orm o f g o v ernment o r by mod i f yin g thei r own i nstitutions
,

i n a conci liatory sense .

P 75 3
. .
 S YSTE MA TI C PH I L OS OPI I Y OF A RI ST O TLE .
3 99

In the last chapter w e d ealt at len g th with the theories o f

’
art and especi ally o f tra g i c poetry p ropou n ded i n Ari stotle s
, ,

Poe t i c s Fo r the sake o f f ormal co mpleteness it m ay be

.
,

mentioned here that those theories are adapted to the g eneral

scheme o f his systematic philosophy The p lot or plan o f a .

work answers to the f ormal or rational element i n Nature an d ,

this is why Aristotle so i mmensely ove r esti mates its import -

an ce And j u st as i n his moral philosophy the ethic al ele

.
, ,

ment represented by character d rawin g is strictly subordi n

,
-

ated to it The centre o f equi librium is however not sup

.
, ,

plied by virtue bu t by e x act i mitation o f N ature so that the

, ,

characters must not devi ate very f a r f rom mediocrity in the

d irection either o f heroism or o f wicked ness .

N otwithstand in g the radi cal error o f A ristotle s ph i losophy ’

—the f alse abstraction and isolation o f the i ntellectual f ro m

the material sphere i n Nature and i n hu man li f e — i t may f u r
nish a use f ul corrective to the much f a l ser philosophy i n s i n u
ate d i f n ot inc ulcated by som e moralists o f ou r o w n age and
, ,

cou ntry Taken alto g ether the teachin g o f these writers

.
,

seems to be that the ind u stry whi ch ad d resses itsel f to the

satis f action o f our material wants i s m uch more meritorious
than the artistic work which g ives u s d irect ae stheti c enj oy
ment o r the literary work which sti mulates and g rat ifi e s our
,

intellectu al c ravin g s while within the artistic sphere fidelity

o f portraitu re is pre f erred to the c reation o f ideal beauty ;
and within the intellectual sphere mere observation o f f acts
,

is set above the theorisin g power by which f acts are unified

and e x plained So me o f the school to whom w e allud e are
.

g reat enemies o f materialism ; bu t teachin g like theirs i s

materialis m o f the worst d escription Consistently carried .
4 00 T HE GREEK PHIL OSOPHERS .

out it woul d first red uce E urop e to the level o f C hin a and then
, ,

reduce the whole h u man rac e to the level o f bees o r beavers .

They f org et that when we were all c om f ortably clothed ,

hou sed and f e d our true lives w o u ld h av e only j ust beg un

, , .

The choice would then remai n between some n e w refinement

o f ani mal appetite and t h e theorisin g activity which ac ,

cordin g to Aristotle is the absolute end every other activity

, ,

bein g only a means f o r i ts attainment There i s not ind eed

.
, ,

such a f undamental distin ction as he supposed f o r activities ,

o f eve ry o rder are con nected by a continual reciprocity o f

services ; but this only amounts to sayi n g that the hi ghest

knowled g e is a m eans to every other end no less than an end
in itsel f Aristotle is a l so f ul ly j ustified in u rg in g the meces
.

s i t y o f leisu re as a condition o f i ntellectu al pro g ress We .

may add that it is a leisure which is amply earned f o r withou t ,

it indu stri al pro d uctio n could not be m aintained at its present

hei g ht Nor shou ld the same standard o f per f ection b e
.

i mposed on spiritu al as on material labou r T he latter coul d .

not be carried on at all u nless suc cess an d not f ailu re were , ,

the rule I t is otherwise in the ideal sphere

. There the .

proportions are n ecessarily reversed We must be content i f

.

out o f a thousand g u esses and tri als one should contribute

somethin g to the i mmortal heritag e o f trut h Yet we may .

hope that this will not al w ays be so that the g reat discoveries
,

and creations wrou g ht out throu g h the waste o f i nnu merabl e

lives are n ot o nly the e x piation o f all error a nd su ff erin g in
the past , but are also the pled g e o f a f utu re when such sacri
fi c e s shall no lon g er be requi red .

The two elements o f error and achievement are so inti

mately blend ed and mutually conditioned i n the philosophy
which we have been reviewi n g that to d ecid e on thei r respect
,

i ve i mportance i s i mpossible without fi rst d ecidin g on a stil l

large r qu estion — the val ue o f systematic thou ght as su ch and ,

apart f ro m it s actual c ontent Fo r Aristotle was perhaps the

.

g reatest m a st e r o f sy stem at is a ti on that ever l i ve d The .

402 THE GREEK PH I L O S OPH E R SJ

h e still shrank ba c k f ro m the heat and smoke a nd turmoi l

amid which the g eni us o f our ag e stands like another H era ,

c leitus in f everish e x cite ment by the steam f urna c e when c e

, ,
-

i ts powers o f revolutio na ry tran smutation are d erived we ,

too mi ght reapply the words o f the old E phesi a n prophet ,

bid d i n g hi m enter boldly f o r here also there are g od s

,
.

E ND O F T H E FI RST VO LU ME .

LO NDO N : PR I NT ED BY

S PO TT I SW O O D E A ND CO .
,
NE W ST R EE T
-
SQ U A R E
A ND PA R LI A M E NT ST R EE T