Crito, and J 'hail,, - - which Still lead the procession of
the Corpus Platonicum in nearly all editions of Plato's work-, lint the tetralogies of 1 brasyllus had no more chronological truth, and rarely more logical coherence, than the trilogies ofthe Alexandrian school. They do not seem to have satisfied himself, for he proposed an- other and totally diverse classification of the Platonic memorials, founded upon their form and aim rather than on their subject or suppo-ed succession. In this plan Thrasyllus distinguished the Platonic treatisi - [. Inquisitory; II. Expository. The Inquisitory produc- tions were divided into. A. Gymnastic; B. Agonistic. The Gymnastic w< re subdivided into, l. < Obstetrical ; ■_'. Peirastic, or Tentative; and the Agonistic into, l. Con- firmatory, or Monstratory; and 2. lo natatory. 'I he Ex- pository treatises were separated into, ( . Theoretical, and I). Practical. Each of these contained two classes: the Theoretical 1. Physical; 2. Logical ; and the Prac- tical— 1. Ethical, and 2. Political. The two schi mi - are exhibited by Grote in tabular form (Plato, vol. i, ch. iv, p. 161, 162).
The ancients thus renounced the effort to reduce into a connei led series the writings of l'lato. cither by the evidence ofthe order of their production, or by hypo- thetical indications of their logical and philosophical in- terdependence. Such disappointment did not cool the ardor or repress the audacity of the German philologians. Schleiermacher bluntly assumed that the various pro- ductions of Plato constituted preconceived and well-or- dered parts of a systematic doctrine, contemplated iii its integrity from the beginning of his career. Starting
fr this point, he undertook to detect by internal si^ns
the periods of product ion. the relation of the parts to
each other, the purpose of each treatise,#and the consti- tution of the whole philosophy. Whatever did cord with this scheme wa- set aside as a disconnected or incidental labor, or was rejected as a fraudulent pre- tence. Schleiermacher's views raised up a host of op- ponents, but a host of imitator- of his procedure also. Ii is not appropriate to examine here the theory of Schleiermacher, or the theories of his antagonists; or to point out what has been admitted and what rejected by each ofthe acute disputants. The the-es of Schleier- macher, Asi. Socher, ('. K. Hermann, Stallbaum. Stein- hart, Stlsemibl, M unk. and LTeberweg are carefully stated, weighed, and judged in (irote's laborious and tedious work. The discussion is noticed here because it in- volves the decision of two very important points iii the appreciation of the doctrine of Plato: Wa- there any unity of design in the literary productions of this phi- losopher'.-' I- there any unity of execution, any me- thodical scheme of philosophy in them? In Other words, did l'lato contemplate from the commencement of his career the elaboration of that scheme which may be deduced from his work-'. Does each separate work bear, from the intention of iis author, a definite relation, and render a definite service to any complete doctrine ? \re the works of Plato to be considered pan- oJ a sys- tem? or a-, in the main, occasional and fragmentary presentations of disconnected pans of philosophical in- quiry? These questions probe the whole significance
PLATO
211
PLATO
of Plato's career and of the Platonic doctrine, and wo assent substantially to the conclusions of Grote. The idea of a preconceived plan had been rejected by Ast, Socher, Hermann, Stallbaum, and others, before it was impugned by Grote. A system of philosophy is always a production of slow and gradual growth, requiring not, merely long meditation ami frequent re-examination, but favorable circumstances, so that it is rarely com- pleted by its originator, except in method and broken outline. The philosophy of Comte is one of the few in- stances of complete organization by the author himself; the philosophy of Leibnitz an instance of the much commoner result of only fragmentary indication. The assumption of Schleiermacher is at variance with nearly all experience. Certain fundamental views in regard to principle or method, usually to both, for they are al- most indissolubly connected, present themselves to the quick apprehension and creative imagination of the young philosopher. These long struggle to shape them- selves into definite form. They are at first vague, though luminous; active, though indeterminate; indistinct in outline, though of penetrating radiance. As separate questions arise, they are discussed under the impulse and by the guidance of the new light : and each succes- sive discussion renders this new force more distinct, more prominent, and more controlling. With the proc- ess of such expansion, new modifications and new ap- plications are introduced, and it is only when an oppor- tunity is afforded, after the performance of this course, for revising the chain of progression, that a philosopher is enabled to present his doctrine in harmonious integ- rity. Was this opportunity afforded to Plato, outside of the sphere of his acroamatic expositions? It may well be doubted, if not roundly denied. In his pub- lished works we find fragmentary revelations only, ac- companied by incongruities and positive inconsistencies, which would surely have been absent from speculations complete in the mind of the philosopher, and not merely in various stages of development.
If there was no unity of purpose in the several pro- ductions, if they were never contemplated in their con- ception as parts of a general and concordant system, there could scarcely be any definite unity in their exe- cution. The whole is composed of all its parts. The meditated whole may, indeed, be discerned "by the mind's eye" where several of the parts have been lost or never supplied, as any circle may be completed from a single arc, or from the broken segments of the same circumference. But that this may be done it is essen- tial that all the members finished or preserved shall have the same curvature, shall have been described by the same radius revolving round the same centre. This cannot be said, and cannot be supposed without violent presumptions, of the Platonic treatises. All that we know, and all that we can positively discern, is ad- verse to such an hypothesis. The style of Plato is sin- gularly various : its variety is one of the most salient indications of the wealth, freedom, and activity of his genius. The structure of the several dialogues is so in- geniously diversified as to render them incapable of classification, and to make them, like the plays of Shakespeare, each a distinct species in itself. Plato's mode of procedure is as elastic as his style. The So- cratic method of disputation may be usually retained, but its spirit is curiously changed in different applica- tions, and its prominence is varied. The points of view, the central stations, are constantly shifted in passing from one dialogue to another, and, as a necessary result, the aspects presented are changed — the tendencies are dissimilar and the doctrines are uncoalescing. But more than this: very few of the treatises of Plato are constructive or dogmatical. Nearly all of them are simply negative or inquisitorial. The latter do not seek to maintain any dependence on the former. They are separated by the whole diameter of the intellectual sphere. It is only in a few of his works — presumably the late and still crude products of his old age, the sec-