friends at Tarentum. From this time he appears to have passed his old age in tranquillity, engaged with the instruction of his numerous disciples and the prosecution of his literary labours. He died, while yet actively employed in teaching, Olymp. 108, circ. anno 348 B. C.

He was succeeded as Lecturer in the Academy, by his nephew Speusippus; and among his principal followers may be mentioned, Hippothales and Callippus of Athens, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Aristotle of Stageira, Dion of Syracuse, Demosthenes the orator, and the philosopher Theophrastus.

The works of Plato, it scarcely need be mentioned, consist of a long series of Dialogues, in all of which, except' the Laws, the principal interlocutor is Socrates. The form of dialogue he was certainly not the first to introduce into philosophy; and it seems probable, that his adoption of this form of composition flowed rather out of the subject than from any desire of direct imitation. The Eleatic dialectics, with which Platonism is strongly imbued, could only be explained in the form of question and answer; and besides, that Plato should write in the form of dialogue seems to be the natural consequence of his wish to investigate and analyse dialectically, and after the manner of Socrates, the various questions of philosophy then in vogue. And so Schleiermacher remarks:—“In every way, not accidentally only or from practice and tradition, but necessarily and naturally, Plato's was a Socratic method, and, indeed, as regards the uninterrupted and progressive reciprocation, and the deeper impression made upon the mind of the hearer, to be certainly as much preferred to that of his master, as the scholar excelled him, as well in constructive dialectics as in richness and compass of subjective intuition." And further,—"if we look only to the immediate purpose, writing, as regarded by himself and his followers, was only to be a remembrance of thoughts already current among them (äypapa ypáμμara)—Plato considers all thought so much like spontaneous activity, that, with him, a remembrance of this kind of what has been already acquired, must necessarily be so of the first and original mode of acquisition. Hence, on that account alone, the dialogistic form, necessary as an imitation of that original and

that

reciprocal communication, would be as indispensable and natura to his writings as to his oral instruction." But, however essen

tially different the form of the dialogues adopted by Plato from that pursued by other writers, they were composed, as respects · their matter, with constant reference to the labours of his predecessors. In fact, his whole system is rather critical and eclectic than dogmatical; and several of his dialogues assume the form of criticisms on the notions of former philosophers, rather than the formal developments of any doctrines of his own. He was thoroughly conversant not only with the leading principles and peculiar system of Socrates, but had no mean acquaintance, besides, with the notions of Pythagoras, Heracleitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno, Anaxagoras, and Protagoras,-extracts from whose writings, with animadvertions on their opinions, are abundantly scattered throughout his works. Yet, however much Plato may have learnt from the philosophic works of his predecessors, while he borrowed some of his leading ideas from his great master Socrates, we should nevertheless be treating him most unjustly, were we to regard him merely as a compiler and systematiser of what had been before promulgated, and so deny him all claim to the merit of being a great original thinker. His entire system is based, in fact, on some grand and novel ideas, perhaps faintly shadowed forth by others, but never clearly unfolded till the time of Plato. The opposition between the general law and the particular facts, between the objects of reflection and the objects of the senses, between the world of intelligence and the visible world, was never clearly proclaimed till Plato announced it. Socrates, indeed, awakened the germ of science, and laid the foundation of dialectics; but it was Plato who gave system and consistency to the whole. Socrates had not the mental capacity or education to arrange his thoughts on any definite plan;-whereas the kindred genius of Plato was happily fostered by every encouraging influence, and he stepped in to elaborate completely the plan of which his master had merely sketched the first rude outline.

We proceed next to consider the chronological arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues, and the natural division according to

which they should be classified.* The most obvious arrangemen is according to their chronological order;-and viewing them in this light, we may divide them into three classes. In the first are those written by Plato before he set out on his travels,namely, the Lysis, Phædrus, Laches, Hippias major, Protagoras, Charmides, Ion, Menon, Alcibiades i., Euthydemus, Euthyphron, Crito, and the Apology of Socrates;-in the second are those which he drew up on his return from his travels, and before his second journey to Sicily,-namely, the Gorgias, Theætetus, Sophistes, Politicus, Cratylus, Parmenides, the Symposium, Menexenus, Philebus, and Phædo; and in the third we place those written in more advanced life, when his views had become matured, and his doctrines thoroughly digested into one harmonious system,-namely, that noble trilogy comprising the Timæus, Critias, and Republic,—to which may be added the long dialogue of the Laws, which, though perfectly genuine, is but loosely connected with the general system of Plato's philosophy, and seems to be quite an extraneous section of this part of his writings. Schleiermacher, however, has presented us with a classification of a different kind, based on their subject-matter, and on an acute and careful examination of the connexion of thought running through the Dialogues. He arranges them under three heads:-1. Elementary Dialogues, containing the germs of all that follows,-of Logic as the instrument of philosophy, and of Ideas as its proper object,-viz., the Phædrus, Protagoras, and Parmenides, the Lysis, Laches, Charmides, and Euthyphron, to which he appends also, the Apology, Crito, Io, and Hippias minor;-2. Progressive Dialogues, which treat of the distinction between scientific and common knowledge in their united application to Moral and Physical science,-viz., the Gorgias, Theætetus, Menon, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Sophistes, Politicus, the Symposium, Phædo, and Philebus, with an Appendix containing the Erast, first Alcibiades, Menexenus, and

* We have particularised here only those Dialogues which are usually regarded as genuine. The Hipparchus, Minos, Alcibiades ii, Clitophon, Theages, Eryxias, Demodocus, Epinomis, and the Letters, are of disputable origin, and to be assigned, probably, to some of Plato's followers.

was man.

Hippias major;-3. Constructive Dialogues, containing an objective scientific exposition, in which the practical and speculative are completely united,-viz., the Timæus, the Critias, and the Republic, with an Appendix comprising the Laws, Epistles, &c. It is clear also that the Dialogues will allow of yet another mode of arrangement, according to their contents,—as being either Dialectical, Ethical, or Physical:-this division, indeed, is clearly discernible in his works, though several may not be assignable to any one part in particular:-thus, the Theatetus and its two connected dialogues, the Gorgias and Protagoras, with the Cratylus and the Sophistes, are clearly dialectical; the Phædrus, Philebus, Republic, and Laws are ethical, and the Timæus is exclusively physical. If, however, we would view the Dialogues as a whole, with all its parts fully harmonising, we should inquire what was the philosopher's great object visible throughout those writings. Mr. Sewell answers this very satisfactorily ;—we shall give his own expressive, glowing words:-" Plato's great object He lived with man, felt as a man, held intercourse with kings, interested himself deeply in the political revolutions of Sicily, was the pupil of one, whose boast it was to have brought down philosophy from heaven to earth, that it might raise man up from earth to heaven; and, above all, he was a witness and an actor in the midst of that ferment of humanity exhibited in the democracy of Athens. The object constantly before the eyes of Plato was the incorporated spirit, the μέya Opéμμa of human lawlessness; he saw it, indeed, in an exhausted state, its power passed away, its splendour torn off, and all the sores and ulcers which former demagogues had pampered and concealed, now laid bare and beyond cure." Indeed, as the same writer well observes ;"the state of the Athenian democracy is the real clue to the philosophy of Plato. It would be proved, if by nothing else, by one little touch in the Republic. The Republic is the summary of his whole system, and the key-stones of all the other Dialogues are uniformly let into it. But the object of the Republic is to exhibit the misery of man let loose from law, and to throw out a general plan for making him subject to law, and thus to perfect his nature. This is exhibited on a large scale in the person of a State; and in the

masterly historical sketch which, in the eighth and ninth Books, he draws of the changes of society, having painted in the minutest detail the form of a licentious democracy, he fixes it by the slightest allusion (it was perhaps all that he could hazard) on the existing state of Athens; and then passes on to a frightful prophecy of that tyranny which would inevitably follow. All the other dialogues bring us to the Republic, and the Republic brings us to this as its end and aim."

We may now proceed to take a general review of the Platonic philosophy, and his theory of Ideas in particular, an intelligent acquaintance with which is wholly indispensable to the student of Plato.

The Platonic philosophy, be it understood, begins and ends, as do the lessons of Socrates, with an acknowledgment of human ignorance, the only true starting-place of sound scientific investigation. Imitating his master's example, Plato did not so much endeavour to teach, in the strict sense of the word, as to explore men's minds, and ascertain how far they really comprehended the doctrines and opinions which they professed. Taking for granted that all current opinions are true, because they are current, was the great fault of the Sophists, who taught entirely πρoç dóžav, relative to opinion ;--whereas, with Socrates and Plato, the preliminary investigation respecting their truth or falsehood was ALL IN ALL,-any prior assumption of their truth being positively inadmissible; because, without investigation, it was impossible to know and be sure of the truth of opinions. The method of Plato, accordingly, is the reverse of the didactic method employed by the Sophists, who assumed principles as true, and on these grounds proceeded to argue and persuade. The Socratic method, on the other hand, consisted in putting questions with the view of eliciting replies bearing on the point in debate,in simply inquiring and pronouncing so far only as the answer is approved or rejected,—in a word, educing the truth by simply bringing the answerer to teach himself:-and hence it was, that the popular opponents of this method decried it, as one producing doubt, and therefore of dangerous tendency. With Plato, however, as with Socrates, the awakening of doubt was not