The exuberance of the Greek vocabulary can be esti- mated only by comparing Aristophanes with Plato — not that they exhaust its wealth, but that they have an ampler mastery of its treasures than any other writ- ers of the tongue. In this comparison Plato will not appear inferior to Aristophanes in the extent of his pos- sessions, in the happiness of their employment, or in the force of their combinations. Words, are, however, only the currency of thought and feeling. The pre- eminent merit of Plato is equally manifest in the plas-
ticity of his phraseology; the appropriate turns of ex- pression— the homeliness at times, at times the rare magnificence of his diction; the close adaptation of the utterance to the sentiment, so as to furnish a perfect cast of whatever is intended to be conveyed, no matter how convoluted and intricate. To these qualities must be added the balance and harmony of all the instrumen- talities of communication, and — that which most de- lighted an Attic ear — the rhythm and melody which are almost as imperceptible to moderns as " the music of the spheres" to those who know not " divine philos- ophy."
These remarkable excellences are only aids for the fuller exhibition of higher characteristics of art. The drama was the favorite recreation of the Athenian peo- ple; their whole life was dramatic; their time was spent in the open air, " hearing or telling some new thing ;" their political discussions were dramatic ; their forensic controversies were thoroughly theatrical ; their social gatherings and their street colloquies were all dramatic — and the dialogue was in consequence the natural representation of their daily existence, as well as of the customary procedure of Socrates. The Dia- logues of Plato, at once artful and artistic, seemed wholly devoid of art, from their correspondence with the familiar usages of the people; and thus they won regard and ready acceptance, which might have been sturdily refused to a more demonstrative form of com- munication. Then, too, the dialogue enabled the au- thor to turn and twist a question into every imaginable attitude and shape, and Plato revelled in the perform- ance of such legerdemain. It furnished an opportunity of examining a thesis or a doubt on every possible side; of bringing forward and answering, modifying, appreci- ating, or evading, every conceivable objection ; and of thus applying the Socratic elenchus in the most start- ling manner and with the best effect. It also enabled Plato to keep ever in the foreground his beloved teacher, who was elevated by his presentation, though dressed up so as to be incapable of recognition.
This prominence of Socrates points to another charm of the Platonic writings. We have little reason to be- lieve that the Socrates of Plato was the man whom Xenophon described, whom Aristophanes ridiculed, whom the Athenians laughed at, whom Anytus and Melitus indicted, and who drank the hemlock in the public dungeon. The character presented was thor- oughly unreal and wholly idealized; but it was a per- fectly natural and consistent creation — as much so as Hamlet, Prospero, or Falstaflf. It was a living portrait of one who had never appeared in that fashion in life. The same remarks may be extended to the other per- sonages introduced into the magic mirror of Plato. The dramatic imagination is continually displayed by him with a power and a sagacity which might have been envied by Sophocles, by Aristophanes, or by Moliere. These lifelike personages, moreover, are not employed by him as vain puppets, or as pageantry to excite sur- prise or to decorate the scene. They have a sufficient ratio esseiuli, and help forward all the graver purposes of the philosopher. How much more effective arc the illustration and the pungency of the reasoning when they are the spontaneous outpouring of the thoughts and feelings of personages like ourselves and our ac- quaintances! Mr. Grote has shown the aim and the service of the endless questionings and inconclusive ar- gumentation of Plato; and he has noted their partial correspondence with the unappreciated method of the schoolmen. Both procedures appear tedious, over-sub- tle, and absurd to modern apprehensions; yet they had their use, and might be revived with advantage. Put the Platonic art renders the further service of bringing "home to men's business and bosoms" the grave per- plexities which are discussed in so many forms and clothed in such chameleon hues; and also of making men take a lively interest in debates, which might oth- erwise be repelled as abstract refinements, devoid of
l'LATo
280
PLATO
practical interest and significance. The total neglect into which the great schoolmen have fallen, when con- trasted with the unfading fame of Plato, may prove how much ofhis influence in evi ry age has been due to his literary skill aud the marvellous subtlety and per- fection of bis dialogue.
If we frankly and admiringly confess the variety and splendor of the Platonic Btyle, we must not close our eyes i" its occasional defects. The copiousness of his
,n and the joy of indulging his genius certainly ,1 loquacity and a needless languor of move-
i he richness of Ids imagination, lavished upon reveries, also led t" turgidity and inappropriate gor-
- of rhetoric. These defects were noticed by the ancient critics, and can scarcely be overlooked by the sober modern student (Dionys. Halicarn. 1>< 17 Demoslk. p. 956; Longin. /'< Sublim. c. xxxii. xxix). There is the brilliancy, but there is also the extrava- gance ol the Miltonic outbursts of fancy, and. as the language far outstrips the thought, it becomes obscure,