Chapter XXIX: Sophistes--Politikus (1)

[Side-note: Persons and circumstances of the two dialogues.]

These two dialogues are both of them announced by Plato as forming sequel to the Theætêtus. The beginning of the Sophistês fits on to the end of the Theætêtus: and the Politikus is even presented as a second part or continuation of the Sophistês.[1] In all the three, the same interlocutors are partially maintained. Thus Sokrates, Theodôrus, and Theætêtus are present in all three: and Theætêtus makes the responses, not only in the dialogue which bears his name, but also in the Sophistês. Both in the Sophistês and Politikus, however, Sokrates himself descends from the part of principal speaker to that of listener: it is he, indeed, who by his question elicits the exposition, but he makes no comment either during the progress of it or at the close. In both the dialogues, the leading and expository function is confided to a new personage introduced by Theodôrus:--a stranger not named, but announced as coming from Elea--the friend and companion of Parmenides and Zeno. Perhaps (remarks Sokrates) your friend may, without your knowledge, be a God under human shape; as Homer tells us that the Gods often go about, in the company of virtuous men, to inspect the good and bad behaviour of mankind. Perhaps your friend may be a sort of cross-examining God, coming to test and expose our feebleness in argument. No (replies Theodôrus) that is not his character. He is less given to dispute than his companions. He is far from being a God, but he is a divine man: for I call all true philosophers divine.[2]

[Footnote 1: At the beginning of the Politikus, Plato makes Sokrates refer both to the Theætêtus and to the Sophistês (p. 258 A). In more than one passage of the Politikus (pp. 266 D, 284 B, 286 B), he even refers to the Sophistês directly and by name, noticing certain points touched in it--a thing very unusual with him. In the Sophistês also (p. 233 B), express reference is made to a passage in the Theætêtus.

See also the allusion in Sophistês (to the appearance of the younger Sokrates as respondent), p. 218 B.

Socher (in his work, Ueber Platon's Schriften, pp. 258-294) maintains that neither the Sophistês, nor the Politikus, nor the Parmenidês, are genuine works of Plato. He conceives the two dialogues to be contemporary with the Theætêtus (which he holds to have been written by Plato), but to have been composed by some acute philosopher of the Megaric school, conversant with the teachings of Sokrates and with the views of Plato, after the visit of the latter to Megara in the period succeeding the death of Sokrates (p. 268).

Even if we grant the exclusion of Plato's authorship, the hypothesis of an author belonging to the Megaric school is highly improbable: the rather, since many critics suppose (I think erroneously) that the Megarici are among those attacked in the dialogue. The suspicion that Plato is not the author of Sophistês and Politikus has undoubtedly more appearance of reason than the same suspicion as applied to other dialogues--though I think the reasons altogether insufficient. Socher observes, justly: 1. That the two dialogues are peculiar, distinguished from other Platonic dialogues by the profusion of logical classification, in practice as well as in theory. 2. That both, and especially the Sophistês, advance propositions and conclusions discrepant from what we read in other Platonic dialogues.--But these two reasons are not sufficient to make me disallow them. I do not agree with those who require so much uniformity, either of matter or of manner, in the numerous distinct dialogues of Plato. I recognise a much wider area of admissible divergence.

The plain announcement contained in the Theætêtus, Sophistês, and Politikus themselves, that the two last are intended as sequel to the first, is in my mind a proof of sameness of authorship, not counterbalanced by Socher's objections. Why should a Megaric author embody in his two dialogues a false pretence and assurance, that they are sequel of the Platonic Theætêtus? Why should so acute a writer (as Socher admits him to be) go out of his way to suppress his own personality, and merge his fame in that of Plato?

I make the same remark on the views of Suckow (Form der Platonischen Schriften, p. 87, seq., Breslau, 1855), who admits the Sophistes to be a genuine work of Plato, but declares the Politikus to be spurious; composed by some fraudulent author, who wished to give to his dialogue the false appearance of being a continuation of the Sophistes: he admits (p. 93) that it must be a deliberate deceit, if the Politikus be really the work of a different author from the Sophistês; for identity of authorship is distinctly affirmed in it.

Suckow gives two reasons for believing that the Politikus is not by Plato:--1. That the doctrines respecting government are different from those of the Republic, and the cosmology of the long mythe which it includes different from the cosmology of the Timæus. These are reasons similar to those advanced by Socher, and (in my judgment) insufficient reasons. 2. That Aristotle, in a passage of the Politica (iv. 2, p. 1289, b. 5), alludes to an opinion, which is found in the Politikus in the following terms: [Greek: ê)/dê me\n ou)=n tis a)pephê/nato kai\ tô=n pro/teron ou(/tôs], &c. Suckow maintains that Aristotle could never have alluded to Plato in these terms, and that he must have believed the Politikus to be composed by some one else. But I think this inference is not justified by the premisses. It is noway impossible that Aristotle might allude to Plato sometimes in this vague and general way: and I think that he has done so in other passages of the same treatise (vii. 2, 1324, a. 29--vii. 7, p. 1327, b. 37).

Ueberweg (Aechtheit der Platon. Schrift. p. 162, seq.) combats with much force the views of Suckow. It would be rash to build so much negative inference upon a loose phrase of Aristotle. That he should have spoken of Plato in this vague manner is much more probable, or much less improbable, than the counter-supposition, that the author of a striking and comprehensive dialogue, such as the Politikus, should have committed a fraud for the purpose of fastening his composition on Plato, and thus abnegating all fame for himself.

The explicit affirmation of the Politikus itself ought to be believed, in my judgment, unless it can be refuted by greater negative probabilities than any which Socher and Suckow produce. I do not here repeat, what I have endeavoured to justify in an earlier chapter of this work, the confidence which I feel in the canon of Thrasyllus; a confidence which it requires stronger arguments than those of these two critics to overthrow.]

[Footnote 2: Plato, Sophist. p. 216 B-C.]

This Eleate performs the whole task of exposition, by putting questions to Theætêtus, in the Sophistês--to the younger Sokrates in the Politikus. Since the true Sokrates is merely listener in both dialogues, Plato provides for him an additional thread of connection with both; by remarking that the youthful Sokrates is his namesake, and that Theætêtus resembles him in flat nose and physiognomy.[3]

[Footnote 3: Plato, Politik. p. 257 E.]

[Side-note: Relation of the two dialogues to the Theætêtus.]

Though Plato himself plainly designates the Sophistês as an intended sequel to the Theætêtus, yet the method of the two is altogether different, and in a certain sense even opposite. In the Theætêtus, Sokrates extracts answers from the full and pregnant mind of that youthful respondent: he himself professes to teach nothing, but only to canvass every successive hypothesis elicited from his companion. But the Eleate is presented to us in the most imposing terms, as a thoroughly accomplished philosopher: coming with doctrines established in his mind,[4] and already practised in the task of exposition which Sokrates entreats him to undertake. He is, from beginning to end, affirmative and dogmatical: and if he declines to proceed by continuous lecture, this is only because he is somewhat ashamed to appropriate all the talk to himself.[5] He therefore prefers to accept Theætêtus as respondent. But Theætêtus is no longer pregnant, as in the preceding dialogue. He can do no more than give answers signifying assent and dissent, which merely serve to break and diversify the exposition. In fact, the dialogue in the Sophistês and Politikus is assimilated by Plato himself,[6] not to that in the Theætêtus, but to that in the last half of the Parmenides; wherein Aristotelês the respondent answers little more than Ay or No, to leading questions from the interrogator.

[Footnote 4: Plato, Sophist. p. 217 B. [Greek: e)pei\ diakêkoe/nai ge/ phêsin i(kanô=s kai\ ou)k a)mnêmonei=n.]]

[Footnote 5: Plato, Sophist. pp. 216-217.]

[Footnote 6: Plato, Sophist. p. 217 C. The words of Sokrates show that he alludes to the last half of the Parmenidês, in which he is only present as a listener--not to the first half, in which he takes an active part. Compare the Parmenidês, p. 137 C. In this last-mentioned dialogue, Sokrates (then a youth) and Aristotelês are the parallel of Theætêtus and the younger Sokrates in the Sophistês and Politikus. (See p. 135 D.)]

[Side-note: Plato declares that his first purpose is to administer a lesson in logical method: the special question chosen, being subordinate to that purpose.]

In noticing the circumlocutory character, and multiplied negative criticism, of the Theætêtus, without any ultimate profit realised in the form of positive result--I remarked, that Plato appreciated dialogues, not merely as the road to a conclusion, but for the mental discipline and suggestive influence of the tentative and verifying process. It was his purpose to create in his hearers a disposition to prosecute philosophical research of their own, and at the same time to strengthen their ability of doing so with effect. This remark is confirmed by the two dialogues now before us, wherein Plato defends himself against reproaches seemingly made to him at the time.[7] "To what does all this tend? Why do you stray so widely from your professed topic? Could you not have reached this point by a shorter road?" He replies by distinctly proclaiming--That the process, with its improving influence on the mind, stands first in his thoughts--the direct conclusion of the enquiry, only second: That the special topic which he discusses, though in itself important, is nevertheless chosen principally with a view to its effect in communicating general method and dialectic aptitude: just as a schoolmaster, when he gives out to his pupils a word to be spelt, looks mainly, not to their exactness in spelling that particular word, but to their command of good spelling generally.[8] To form inquisitive, testing minds, fond of philosophical debate as a pursuit, and looking at opinions on the negative as well as on the positive side, is the first object in most of Plato's dialogues: to teach positive truth, is only a secondary object.

[Footnote 7: Plato, Politikus, pp. 283 B, 286-287.]

[Footnote 8: Plato, Politikus, p. 285 D.

[Greek: _Xen_.--Ti/ d' au)=? nu=n ê(mi=n ê( peri\ tou= politikou= zê/têsis e(/neka au)tou= tou/tou probe/blêtai ma=llon ê)\ tou= peri\ pa/nta dialektikôte/rois gi/gnesthai?

_Ne/os Sôkr_.--Kai\ tou=to dê=lon o(/ti tou= peri\ pa/nta.]

Again, p. 288 D. [Greek: to/ te au)= pro\s tê\n tou= problêthe/ntos zê/têsin, ô(s a)\n r(a=|sta kai\ ta/chista eu)/roimen, deu/teron a)ll' ou) prô=ton o( lo/gos a)gapa=|n paragge/lei, polu\ de\ ma/lista kai\ prô=ton tê\n me/thodon au)tê\n tima=|n, tou= kat' ei)/dê dunato\n ei)=nai diairei=n], &c.]

[Side-note: Method of logical Definition and Division.]

Both the Sophistes and the Politikus are lessons and specimens of that process which the logical manuals recognise under the names--Definition and Division. What is a Sophist? What is a politician or statesman? What is a philosopher? In the first place--Are the three really distinct characters? for this may seem doubtful: since the true philosopher, in his visits of inspection from city to city, is constantly misconceived by an ignorant public, and confounded with the other two.[9] The Eleate replies that the three are distinct. Then what is the characteristic function of each? How is he distinguished from other persons or other things? To what class or classes does each belong: and what is the specific character belonging to the class, so as to mark its place in the scheme descending by successive logical subdivision from the highest genus down to particulars? What other professions or occupations are there analogous to those of Sophist and Statesman, so as to afford an illustrative comparison? What is there in like manner capable of serving as illustrative contrast?

[Footnote 9: Plato, Sophist. p. 216 E.]

[Side-note: Sokrates tries the application of this method, first, upon a vulgar subject. To find the logical place and deduction of the Angler. Superior classes above him. Bisecting division.]

Such are the problems which it is the direct purpose of the two dialogues before us to solve. But a large proportion of both is occupied by matters bearing only indirectly upon the solution. The process of logical subdivision, or the formation of classes in subordination to each other, can be exhibited just as plainly in application to an ordinary craft or profession, as to one of grave importance. The Eleate Stranger even affirms that the former case will be simpler, and will serve as explanatory introduction to the latter.[10] He therefore selects the craft of an angler, for which to find a place in logical classification. Does not an angler belong to the general class--men of art or craft? He is not a mere artless, non-professional, private man. This being so, we must distribute the class Arts--Artists, into two subordinate classes: Artists who construct or put together some new substance or compound--Artists who construct nothing new, but are employed in getting, or keeping, or employing, substances already made. Thus the class Artists is bisected into Constructive--Acquisitive. The angler constructs nothing: he belongs to the acquisitive branch. We now bisect this latter branch. Acquirers either obtain by consent, or appropriate without consent. Now the angler is one of the last-mentioned class: which is again bisected into two sub-classes, according as the appropriation is by force or stratagem--Fighters and Hunters. The angler is a hunter: but many other persons are hunters also, from whom he must be distinguished. Hunters are therefore divided into, Those who hunt inanimate things (such as divers for sponges, &c.), and Those who hunt living things or animals, including of course the angler among them. The hunters of animals are distinguished into hunters of walking animals, and hunters of swimming animals. Of the swimming animals some are in air, others in water:[11] hence we get two classes, Bird-Hunters and Fish-Hunters; to the last of whom the angler belongs. The fish-hunters (or fishermen) again are bisected into two classes, according as they employ nets, or striking instruments of one kind or another, such as tridents, &c. Of the striking fishermen there are two sorts: those who do their work at night by torch-light, and those who work by day. All these day-fishermen, including among them the angler, use instruments with hooks at the end. But we must still make one bisection more. Some of them employ tridents, with which they strike from above downwards at the fishes, upon any part of the body which may present itself: others use hooks, rods, and lines, which they contrive to attach to the jaws of the fish, and thereby draw him from below upward.[12] This is the special characteristic of the angler. We have now a class comprehending the anglers alone, so that no farther sub-division is required. We have obtained not merely the name of the angler, but also the rational explanation of the function to which the name is attached.[13]

[Footnote 10: Plato, Sophist. p. 218 E.]

[Footnote 11: Plato, Sophist. p. 220 B. [Greek: Neustikou= mê\n to\ me\n ptêno\n phu=lon o(rô=men, to\ de\ e)/nudron.]

It deserves notice that Plato here considers the air as a fluid in which birds swim.]

[Footnote 12: Plato, Sophist. pp. 219-221.]

[Footnote 13: Plato, Sophist. p. 221 A-B. [Greek: Nu=n a)/ra tê=s a)spalieutikê=s--ou) mo/non tou)/noma, a)lla\ kai\ to\n lo/gon peri\ au)to\ tou)/rgon, ei)lê/phamen i(kanô=s.]]

[Side-note: Such a lesson in logical classification was at that time both novel and instructive. No logical manuals then existed.]

This is the first specimen which Plato gives of a systematic classification descending, by successive steps of bifurcation, through many subordinations of genera and species, each founded on a real and proclaimed distinction--and ending at last in an _infima species_. He repeats the like process in regard to the Sophist, the Statesman, and other professions to which he compares the one or the other: but it will suffice to have given one specimen of his method. If we transport ourselves back to his time, I think that such a view of the principles of classification implies a new and valuable turn of thought. There existed then no treatises on logic; no idea of logic as a scheme of mental procedure; no sciences out of which it was possible to abstract the conception of a regular method more or less diversified. On no subject was there any mass of facts or details collected, large enough to demand some regular system for the purpose of arranging and rendering them intelligible. Classification to a certain extent is of necessity involved, consciously or unconsciously, in the use of general terms. But the process itself had never been made a subject of distinct consciousness or reflection to any one (as far as our knowledge reaches), in the time of Plato. No one had yet looked at it as a process natural indeed to the human intellect, up to a certain point and in a loose manner,--but capable both of great extension and great improvement, and requiring especial study, with an end deliberately set before the mind, in order that it might be employed with advantage to regularise and render intelligible even common and well-known facts. To determine a series of descending classes, with class-names, each connoting some assignable characteristic--to distribute the whole of each class between two correlative sub-classes, to compare the different ways in which this could be done, and to select such _membra condividentia_ as were most suitable for the purpose--this was in the time of Plato an important novelty. We know from Xenophon[14] that Sokrates considered Dialectic to be founded, both etymologically and really, upon the distribution of particular things into genera or classes. But we find little or no intentional illustration of this process in any of the conversations of the Xenophontic Sokrates: and we are farther struck by the fact that Plato, in the two dialogues which we are here considering, assigns all the remarks on the process of classification, not to Sokrates himself, but to the nameless Eleatic Stranger.

[Footnote 14: Xenoph. Memor. iv. 5, 12.]

[Side-note: Plato describes the Sophist as analogous to an angler. He traces the Sophist by descending subdivision from the acquisitive genus of art.]

After giving the generic deduction of the angler from the comprehensive idea of Art, distributed into two sections, constructive and acquisitive, Plato proceeds to notice the analogy between the Sophist and an angler: after which he deduces the Sophist also from the acquisitive section of Art. The Sophist is an angler for rich young men.[15] To find his place in the preceding descending series, we must take our departure from the bisection--hunters of walking animals, hunters of swimming animals. The Sophist is a hunter of walking animals: which may be divided into two classes, wild and tame. The Sophist hunts a species of tame animals--men. Hunters of tame animals are bisected into such as hunt by violent means (robbers, enslavers, despots, &c.),[16] and such as hunt by persuasive means. Of the hunters by means of persuasion there are two kinds: those who hunt the public, and those who hunt individuals. The latter again may be divided into two classes: those who hunt to their own loss, by means of presents, such as lovers, &c., and those who hunt with a view to their own profit. To this latter class belongs the Sophist: pretending to associate with others for the sake of virtue, but really looking to his own profit.[17]

[Footnote 15: Plato, Sophist. p. 222 A.]

[Footnote 16: Plato, Sophist. p. 222 C.

It illustrates the sentiment of Plato's age respecting classification, when we see the great diversity of particulars which he himself, here as well as elsewhere, ranks under the general name [Greek: thê/ra], _hunting_--[Greek: thê/ra ga\r pampolu/ ti pra=gma/ e)sti, perieilêmme/non o)no/mati nu=n schedo\n e(ni/] (Plato, Legg. viii. 822-823-824, and Euthyd. p. 290 B). He includes both [Greek: stratêgikê\] and [Greek: phtheiristikê\] as varieties of [Greek: thêreutikê/], Sophist. p. 227 B.

Compare also the interesting conversation about [Greek: thê/ra a)nthrô/pôn] between Sokrates and Theodotê, Xenophon, Memorab. iii. 11, 7; and between Sokrates and Kritobulus, ii. 6, 29.]

[Footnote 17: Plato, Sophist. p. 223 A.]

[Side-note: The Sophist traced down from the same, by a second and different descending subdivision.]

Again, we may find the Sophist by descending through a different string of subordinate classes from the genus--_Acquisitive Art_. The professors of this latter may be bisected into two sorts--hunters and exchangers. Exchangers are of two sorts--givers and sellers. Sellers again sell either their own productions, or the productions of others. Those who sell the productions of others are either fixed residents in one city, or hawkers travelling about from city to city. Hawkers again carry about for sale either merchandise for the body, or merchandise for the mind, such as music, poetry, painting, exhibitions of jugglery, learning, and intellectual accomplishments, and so forth. These latter (hawkers for the mind) may be divided into two sorts: those who go about teaching; for money, arts and literary accomplishments--and those who go about teaching virtue for money. They who go about teaching virtue for money are the Sophists.[18] Or indeed if they sell virtue and knowledge for money, they are not the less Sophists--whether they buy what they sell from others, or prepare it for themselves--whether they remain in one city or become itinerant.

[Footnote 18: Plato, Sophist. p. 224 B.]

[Side-note: Also, by a third.]

A third series of subordinate classes will also bring us down from the genus--_Acquisitive Art_--down to the _infima species_--_Sophist_. In determining the class-place of the angler, we recognised a bisection of acquisitive art into acquirers by exchange, or mutual consent--and acquirers by appropriation, or without consent.[19] These latter we divided according as they employed either force or stratagem: contenders and hunters. We then proceeded to bisect the class hunters, leaving the contenders without farther notice. Now let us take up the class contenders. It may be divided into two: competitors for a set prize (pecuniary or honorary), and fighters. The fighters go to work either body against body, violently--or tongue against tongue, as arguers. These arguers again fall into two classes: the pleaders, who make long speeches, about just or unjust, before the public assembly and dikastery: and the dialogists, who meet each other in short question and answer. The dialogists again are divided into two: the private, untrained antagonists, quarrelling with each other about the particular affairs of life (who form a species by themselves, since characteristic attributes may be assigned to them; though these attributes are too petty and too indefinite to have ever received a name in common language, or to deserve a name from us[20])--and the trained practitioners or wranglers, who dispute not about particular incidents, but about just and unjust in general, and other general matters.[21] Of wranglers again there are two sorts: the prosers, who follow the pursuit from spontaneous taste and attachment, not only without hope of gain, but to the detriment of their private affairs, incurring loss themselves, and wearying or bothering their hearers: and those who make money by such private dialogues. This last sort of wrangler is the Sophist.[22]

[Footnote 19: Plato, Sophist. p. 219 E.]

[Footnote 20: Plato, Sophist. p. 225 C.

[Greek: _Xe/nos_.--Tou= de\ a)ntilogikou=, to\ me\n o(/son peri\ ta\ xumbolai=a a)mphisbêtei=tai me/n, ei)kê= de\ kai\ a)technô=s peri\ au)to\ pra/ttetai, tau=ta _thete/on me\n ei)=dos_, e)pei/per au)to\ die/gnôken ô(s e(/teron o)\n o( lo/gos; a)ta\r e)pônumi/as ou)/th' u(po\ tô=n e)/mprosthen e)/tuchen, ou)/te nu=n u(ph' ê(mô=n tuchei=n a)/xion.

_Theaitêt_.--A)lêthê=; kata\ _smikra\_ ga\r li/an kai\ _pantodapa\_ diê/|rêtai.]

These words illustrate Plato's view of an [Greek: ei)=dos] or species. Any distinguishable attributes, however petty, and however multifarious, might be taken to form a species upon; but if they were petty and multifarious, there was no advantage in bestowing a specific name.]

[Footnote 21: Plato, Sophist. p. 225 C. [Greek: to\ de/ ge e)/ntechnon, kai\ peri\ _dikai/ôn au)tô=n_ kai\ a)di/kôn kai\ peri\ tô=n _a)/llôn o(/lôs_ a)mphisbêtou=n, a)=r' ou)k e)ristiko\n au)= le/gein ei)thi/smetha?]]

[Footnote 22: Plato, Sophist. p. 225 E.]

[Side-note: The Sophist is traced down, from the genus of separating or discriminating art.]

There is yet another road of class-distribution which will bring us down to the Sophist. A great number of common arts (carding wool, straining through a sieve, &c.) have, in common, the general attribute of separating matters confounded in a heap. Of separation there are two sorts: you may separate like from like (this has no established name)--or better from worse, which is called _purification_. Purification is of two sorts: either of body or of mind. In regard to body, the purifying agents are very multifarious, comprising not only men and animals, but also inanimate things: and thus including many varieties which in common estimation are mean, trivial, repulsive, or ludicrous. But all these various sentiments (observes Plato) we must disregard. We must follow out a real analogy wherever it leads us, and recognise a logical affinity wherever we find one; whether the circumstances brought together be vile or venerable, or some of them vile and some venerable, in the eyes of mankind. Our sole purpose is to improve our intelligence. With that view, all particulars are of equal value in our eyes, provided only they exhibit that real likeness which legitimates them as members of the same class--purifiers of body: the correlate of that other class which we now proceed to study--purifiers of mind.[23]

[Footnote 23: Plato, Sophist. pp. 226-227. 227 A: [Greek: tê=| tô=n lo/gôn metho/dô| spoggistikê=s ê)\ pharmakoposi/as ou)de\n ê(=tton ou)de/ ti ma=llon tugcha/nei me/lon, ei) to\ me\n smikra/, to\ de\ mega/la ê(ma=s ô)phelei= kathai=ron. _Tou= ktê/sasthai ga\r e(/neken nou=n pasô=n technô=n to\ xuggene\s kai\ to\ mê\ xuggene\s katanoei=n peirôme/nê, tima=| pro\s tou=to, e)x i)/sou pa/sas_, kai\ tha/tera tô=n e(te/rôn kata\ tê\n o(moio/têta ou)de\n ê(gei=tai geloio/tera, _semno/teron de/ ti to\n dia\ stratêmikê=s ê)\ phtheiristikê=s dêlou=nta thêreutikê\n ou)de\n neno/miken_, a)ll' _ô(s to\ polu\ chauno/teron_. Kai\ dê\ kai\ nu=n, o(/per ê)/rou, ti/ proserou=men o)/noma xumpa/sas duna/meis, o(/sai sô=ma ei)/te e)/mpsuchon ei)/te a)/psuchon ei)lê/chasi kathai/rein, ou)de\n au)tê=| dioi/sei, poi=on ti lechthe\n eu)prepe/staton ei)=nai do/xei; _mo/non e)che/tô chôri\s_ tô=n tê=s psuchê=s katha/rseôn pa/nta xundê=san o(/sa a)/llo ti kathai/rei.] To maintain the equal scientific position of [Greek: phtheiristikê/], as two different species under the genus [Greek: thêreutikê/], is a strong illustration.

Compare also Plato, Politikus, p. 266 D.

A similar admonition is addressed (in the Parmenidês, p. 130 E**) by the old Parmenides to the youthful Sokrates, when the latter cannot bring himself to admit that there exist [Greek: ei)=dê] or Forms of vulgar and repulsive objects, such as [Greek: thri\x] and [Greek: pê=los]. [Greek: Neos ga\r ei)= e)/ti, kai\ ou)/pô sou= a)ntei/lêptai philosophi/a ô(s e)/ti a)ntilê/psetai kat' e)mê\n do/xan, o(/te ou)de\n au)tô=n a)tima/seis; nu=n d' e)/ti pro\s a)nthrô/pôn a)poble/peis do/xas dia\ tê\n ê(liki/an.]

See above, ch. xxvii. p. 60, in my review of the Parmenidês.]

[Side-note: In a logical classification, low and vulgar items deserve as much attention as grand ones. Conflict between emotional and scientific classification.]

This precept (repeated by Plato also in the Politikus) respecting the principles of classification, deserves notice. It protests against, and seeks to modify, one of the ordinary turns in the associating principles of the human mind. With unreflecting men, classification is often emotional rather than intellectual. The groups of objects thrown together in such minds, and conceived in immediate association, are such as suggest the same or kindred emotions: pleasure or pain, love or hatred, hope or fear, admiration, contempt, disgust, jealousy, ridicule. Community of emotion is a stronger bond of association between different objects, than community in any attribute not immediately interesting to the emotions, and appreciable only intellectually. Thus objects which have nothing else in common, except appeal to the same earnest emotion, will often be called by the same general name, and will be constituted members of the same class. To attend to attributes in any other point of view than in reference to the amount and kind of emotion which they excite, is a process uncongenial to ordinary taste: moreover, if any one brings together, in the same wording, objects really similar, but exciting opposite and contradictory emotions, he usually provokes either disgust or ridicule. All generalizations, and all general terms connoting them, are results brought together by association and comparison of particulars somehow resembling. But if we look at the process of association in an unreflecting person, the resemblances which it fastens upon will be often emotional, not intellectual: and the generalizations founded upon such resemblances will be emotional also.

It is against this natural propensity that Plato here enters his protest, in the name of intellect and science. For the purpose of obtaining a classification founded on real, intrinsic affinities, we must exclude all reference to the emotions: we must take no account whether a thing be pleasing or hateful, sublime or mean:[24] we must bring ourselves to rank objects useful or grand in the same logical compartment with objects hurtful or ludicrous. We must examine only whether the resemblance is true and real, justifying itself to the comparing intellect: and whether the class-term chosen be such as to comprise all these resemblances, holding them apart ([Greek: mo/non e)che/tô chôri\s]) from the correlative and opposing class.[25]

[Footnote 24: Compare Politikus, p. 266 D; Parmenidês, p. 130 E.

We see that Plato has thus both anticipated and replied to the objection of Socher (Ueber Platon's Schriften, pp. 260-262), who is displeased with the minuteness of this classification, and with the vulgar objects to which it is applied. Socher contends that this is unworthy of Plato, and that it was peculiar to the subtle Megaric philosophers.

I think, on the contrary, that the purpose of illustrating the process of classification was not unworthy of Plato; that it was not unnatural to do this by allusion to vulgar trades or handicraft, at a time when no scientific survey of physical facts had been attempted; that the allusion to such vulgar trades is quite in the manner of Plato, and of Sokrates before him.

Stallbaum, in his elaborate Prolegomena both to the Sophistês and to the Politikus, rejects the conclusion of Socher, and maintains that both dialogues are the work of Plato. Yet he agrees to a certain extent in Socher's premisses. He thinks that minuteness and over-refinement in classification were peculiarities of the Megaric philosophers, and that Plato intentionally pushes the classification into an extreme subtlety and minuteness, in order to parody their proceedings and turn them into ridicule. (Proleg. ad Sophist. pp. 32-36, ad Politic. pp. 54-55.)

But how do Socher and Stallbaum know that this extreme minuteness of subdivision into classes _was_ a characteristic of the Megaric philosophers? Neither of them produce any proof of it. Indeed Stallbaum himself says, most truly (Proleg. ad Politic. p. 55) "Quæ de Megaricorum arte dialecticâ accepimus, sane quam sunt paucissima". He might have added, that the little which we do hear about their dialectic, is rather adverse to this supposed minuteness of positive classification, than consonant with it. What we hear is, that they were extremely acute and subtle in contentious disputations--able assailants of the position of a logical opponent. But this talent has nothing to do with minuteness of positive classification: and is even indicative of a different turn of mind. Moreover, we hear about Eukleides, the chief of the Megaric school, that he enlarged the signification of the Summum Genus of Parmenides--the [Greek: E(\n kai\ Pa=n]. Eukleides called it Unum, Bonum, Simile et Idem Semper, Deus, &c. But we do not hear that Eukleides acknowledged a series of subordinate Genera or Species, expanding by logical procession below this primary Unum. As far as we can judge, this seems to have been wanting in his philosophy. Yet it is exactly these subordinate Genera or Species, which the Platonic Sophistês and Politikus supply in abundance, and even excess, conformably to the precept laid down by Plato in the Philêbus (p. 14). The words of the Sophistês (p. 216 D) rather indicate that the Eleatic Stranger is declared _not_ to possess the character and attributes of Megaric disputation.]

[Footnote 25: Though the advice here given by Plato about the principles of classification is very judicious, yet he has himself in this same dialogue set an example of repugnance to act upon it (Sophist. p. 231 A-B.) In following out his own descending series of partitions, he finds that the Sophist corresponds with the great mental purifier--the person who applies the Elenchus or cross-examining test, to youthful minds, so as to clear out that false persuasion of knowledge which is the great bar to all improvement. But though brought by his own process to this point, Plato shrinks from admitting it. His dislike towards the Sophist will not allow him. "The Sophist is indeed" (he says) "very like to this grand educator: but so also a wolf is very like to a dog--the most savage of animals to the most gentle. We must always be extremely careful about these likenesses: the whole body of them are most slippery. Still we cannot help admitting the Sophist to represent this improving process--that is, the high and true bred Sophist."

It will be seen that Plato's remark here about [Greek: o(moio/têtes] contradicts what he had himself said before (p. 227 B). The reluctance to rank _dog_ and _wolf_ together, in the same class, is an exact specimen of that very mistake which he had been just pointing out for correction. The scientific resemblance between the two animals is very close; but the antithesis of sentiment, felt by men towards the one and the other, is extreme.]

[Side-note: The purifier--a species under the genus discriminator--separates good from evil. Evil is of two sorts; the worst sort is, Ignorance, mistaking itself for knowledge.]

After these just remarks on classification generally, the Eleate pursues the subdivision of his own theme. To purify the mind is to get rid of the evil, and retain or improve the good. Now evil is of two sorts--disease (injustice, intemperance, cowardice, &c.) and ignorance. Disease, which in the body is dealt with by the physician, is in the mind dealt with by the judicial tribunal: ignorance (corresponding to ugliness, awkwardness, disability, in the body, which it is the business of the gymnastic trainer to correct) falls under the treatment of the teacher or instructor.[26] Ignorance again may be distributed into two heads: one, though special, being so grave as to counterbalance all the rest, and requiring to be set apart by itself--that is--ignorance accompanied with the false persuasion of knowledge.[27]

[Footnote 26: Plato, Sophist. pp. 228-229.]

[Footnote 27: Plat. Soph. p. 229 C. [Greek: A)gnoi/as d' ou)=n me/ga ti/ moi dokô= kai\ chalepo\n a)phôrisme/non o(ra=|n ei)=dos, pa=si toi=s a)/llois au)tê=s a)nti/stathmon me/resi . . . To\ mê\ kateido/ta ti, dokei=n ei)de/nai.]]

[Side-note: Exhortation is useless against this worst mode of evil. Cross-examination, the shock of the Elenchus, must be brought to bear upon it. This is the sovereign purifier.]

To meet this special and gravest case of ignorance, we must recognise a special division of the art of instruction or education. Exhortation, which is the common mode of instruction, and which was employed by our forefathers universally, is of no avail against this false persuasion of knowledge: which can only be approached and cured by the Elenchus, or philosophical cross-examination. So long as a man believes himself to be wise, you may lecture for ever without making impression upon him: you do no good by supplying food when the stomach is sick. But the examiner, questioning him upon those subjects which he professes to know, soon entangles him in contradictions with himself, making him feel with shame and humiliation his own real ignorance. After having been thus disabused--a painful but indispensable process, not to be accomplished except by the Elenchus--his mind becomes open and teachable, so that positive instruction may be communicated to him with profit. The Elenchus is the grand and sovereign purification: whoever has not been subjected to it, were he even the Great King, is impure, unschooled, and incompetent for genuine happiness.[28]

[Footnote 28: Plato, Sophist. p. 230 D-E.]

[Side-note: The application of this Elenchus is the work of the Sophist, looked at on its best side. But looked at as he really is, he is a juggler who teaches pupils to dispute about every thing--who palms off falsehood for truth.]

This cross-examining and disabusing process, brought to bear upon the false persuasion of knowledge and forming the only antidote to it, is the business of the Sophist looked at on its best side.[29] But Plato will not allow the Elenchus, the great Sokratic accomplishment and mission, to be shared by the Sophists: and he finds or makes a subtle distinction to keep them off. The Sophist (so the Eleate proceeds) is a disputant, and teaches all his youthful pupils to dispute about everything as if they knew it--about religion, astronomy, philosophy, arts, laws, politics, and everything else. He teaches them to argue in each department against the men of special science: he creates a belief in the minds of others that he really knows all those different subjects, respecting which he is able to argue and cross-examine successfully: he thus both possesses, and imparts to his pupils, a seeming knowledge, an imitation and pretence of reality.[30] He is a sort of juggler: an imitator who palms off upon persons what appears like reality when seen from a distance, but what is seen to be not like reality when contemplated closely.[31]

[Footnote 29: Plato, Sophist. p. 231 B. [Greek: tê=s de\ paideutikê=s a( peri\ tê\n ma/taion doxosophi/an gigno/menos e)/legchos e)n tô=| nu=n lo/gô| paraphane/nti mêde\n a)/ll' ê(mi=n ei)=nai lege/sthô plê\n ê( ge/nei gennai/a sophistikê/.]]

[Footnote 30: Plato, Sophist. pp. 232-233 C, 235 A. Sokrates tells us in the Platonic Apology (p. 23 A) that this was the exact effect which his own cross-examination produced upon the hearers: they supposed him to be wise on those topics on which he exposed ignorance in others. The Memorabilia of Xenophon exhibit the same impression as made by the conversation of Sokrates, even when he talked with artisans on their own arts. Sokrates indeed professed not to teach anyone--and he certainly took no fee for teaching. But we see plainly that this disclaimer imposed upon no one; that he did teach, though gratuitously; and that what he taught was, the art of cross-examination and dispute. We learn this not merely from his enemy, Aristophanes, and from the proceedings of his opponents, Kritias and Charikles (Xenoph. Memor. i. 2), but also from his own statement in the Platonic Apology (pp. 23 C. 37 E. 39 B), and from the language of Plato and Xenophon throughout. Plato is here puzzled to make out a clear line of distinction between the Elenchus of Sokrates, and the disputatious arguments of those Sophists whom he calls Eristic--name deserved quite as much by Sokrates as by any of them. Plato here accuses the Sophists of talking upon a great many subjects which they did not know, and teaching their pupils to do the same. This is exactly what Sokrates passed his life in doing, and what he did better than any one--on the negative side.]

[Footnote 31: Plato, Sophist. pp. 235-236.]

[Side-note: Doubt started by the Eleate. How can it be possible either to think or to speak falsely?]

Here however (continues Plato) we are involved in a difficulty. How can a thing appear to be what it is not? How can a man who opines or affirms, opine or affirm falsely--that is, opine or affirm the thing that is not? To admit this, we must assume the thing that is not (or Non-Ens, Nothing) to have a real existence. Such an assumption involves great and often debated difficulties. It has been pronounced by Parmenides altogether inadmissible.[32]

[Footnote 32: Plato, Sophist. pp. 236 E--237 A. [Greek: pa/nta tau=ta e)sti mesta\ a)pori/as a)ei\ e)n tô=| pro/sthen chro/nô| kai\ nu=n. O(/pôs ga\r ei)po/nta chrê\ pseudê= le/gein ê)\ doxa/zein o)/ntôs ei)=nai, kai\ tou=to phthegxa/menon e)nantiologi/a| mê\ xune/chesthai, panta/pasi chalepo/n . . . Teto/lmêken o( lo/gos ou(=tos u(pothe/sthai to\ mê\ o)\n ei)=nai; pseu=dos ga\r ou)k a)\n a)/llôs e)gi/gneto o)/n.]]

We have already seen that Plato discussed this same question in the Theætêtus, and that after trying and rejecting many successive hypotheses to show how false supposition, or false affirmation, might be explained as possible, by a theory involving no contradiction, he left the question unsolved. He now resumes it at great length. It occupies more than half[33] the dialogue. Near the close, but only then, he reverts to the definition of the Sophist.

[Footnote 33: From p. 236 D to p. 264 D.]

[Side-note: He pursues the investigation of this problem by a series of questions.]

First, the Eleate states the opinion which perplexes him, and which he is anxious either to refute or to explain away. (Unfortunately, we have no statement of the opinion, nor of the grounds on which it was held, from those who actually held it.) Non-Ens, or Nothing, is not the name of any existing thing, or of any Something. But every one who speaks must speak something: therefore if you try to speak of Non-Ens, you are trying to speak nothing--which is equivalent to not speaking at all.[34] Moreover, to every Something, you can add something farther: but to Non-Ens, or Nothing, you cannot add any thing. (Non-Entis nulla sunt prædicata.) Now Number is something, or included among the Entia: you cannot therefore apply number, either singular or plural, to Non-Ens: and inasmuch as every thing conceived or described must be either one or many, it is impossible either to conceive or describe Non-Ens. You cannot speak of it without falling into a contradiction.[35]

[Footnote 34: Plato, Sophist. p. 237 E. The Eleate here recites this opinion, not as his own but as entertained by others, and as one which he did not clearly see through: in Republic (v. p. 478 B-C) we find Sokrates advancing a similar doctrine as his own. So in the Kratylus, where this same topic is brought under discussion (pp. 429 D, 430 A), Kratylus is represented as contending that false propositions were impossible: that propositions, improperly called false, were in reality combinations of sounds without any meaning, like the strokes on a bell.]

[Footnote 35: Plato, Sophist. p. 238-239.]

[Side-note: The Sophist will reject our definition and escape, by affirming that to speak falsely is impossible. He will require us to make out a rational theory, explaining Non-Ens.]

When therefore we characterise the Sophist as one who builds up phantasms for realities--who presents to us what is not, as being like to what _is_, and as a false substitute for what _is_--he will ask us what we mean? If, to illustrate our meaning, we point to images of things in mirrors or clear water, he will pretend to be blind, and will refuse the evidence of sense: he will require us to make out a rational theory explaining Non-Ens or Nothing.[36] But when we try to do this, we contradict ourselves. A phantasm is that which, not being a true counterpart of reality, is yet so like it as to be mistaken for reality. _Quatenus_ phantasm, it is Ens: _quatenus_ reality, it is Non-Ens: thus the same thing is both Ens, and Non-Ens: which we declared before to be impossible.[37] When therefore we accuse the Sophist of passing off phantasms for realities, we suppose falsely: we suppose matters not existing, or contrary to those which exist: we suppose the existent not to exist, or the non-existent to exist But this assumes as done what cannot be done: since we have admitted more than once that Non-Ens can neither be described in language by itself, nor joined on in any manner to Ens.[38]

[Footnote 36: Plato, Sophist. pp. 239-240. [Greek: katagela/setai/ sou tô=n lo/gôn, o(/tan ô(s ble/ponti le/gê|s au)tô=|, prospoiou/menos ou)/te ka/toptra ou)/te u(/data gignô/skein, ou)/te to\ para/pan o)/psin; to\ d' e)k tô=n lo/gôn e)rôtê/sei se mo/non.]]

[Footnote 37: Plato, Sophist. p. 240 B.]

[Footnote 38: Plato, Sophist. p. 241 B. [Greek: tô=| ga\r mê\ o)/nti to\ o)\n prosa/ptein ê(ma=s polla/kis a)nagka/zesthai, diomologêsame/nous nu=n dê/ pou tou=to ei)=nai pa/ntôn a)dunatô/taton.]]

Stating the case in this manner, we find that to suppose falsely, or affirm falsely, is a contradiction. But there is yet another possible way out of the difficulty (the Eleate continues).

[Side-note: The Eleate turns from Non-Ens to Ens. Theories of various philosophers about Ens.]

Let us turn for a moment (he says) from Non-Ens to Ens. The various physical philosophers tell us a good deal about Ens. They differ greatly among themselves. Some philosophers represent Ens as triple, comprising three distinct elements, sometimes in harmony, sometimes at variance with each other. Others tell us that it is double--wet and dry--or hot and cold. A third sect, especially Xenophanes and Parmenides, pronounce it to be essentially One. Herakleitus blends together the different theories, affirming that Ens is both many and one, always in process of disjunction and conjunction: Empedokles adopts a similar view, only dropping the _always_, and declaring the process of disjunction to alternate with that of conjunction, so that Ens is sometimes Many, sometimes One.[39]

[Footnote 39: Plato, Sophist. p. 242 D-E.]

[Side-note: Difficulties about Ens are as great as those about Non-Ens.]

Now when I look at these various theories (continues the Eleate), I find that I do not follow or understand them; and that I know nothing more or better about Ens than about Non-Ens. I thought, as a young man, that I understood both: but I now find that I understand neither.[39] The difficulties about Ens are just as great as those about Non-Ens. What do these philosophers mean by saying that Ens is double or triple? that there are two distinct existing elements--Hot and Cold--or three? What do you mean by saying that Hot and Cold _exist_? Is existence any thing distinct from Hot and Cold? If so, then there are three elements in all, not two. Do you mean that existence is something belonging to both and affirmed of both? Then you pronounce both to be One: and Ens, instead of being double, will be at the bottom only One.

[Footnote 40: Plato, Sophist. p. 243 B.]

[Side-note: Whether Ens is Many or One? If Many, how Many? Difficulties about One and the Whole. Theorists about Ens cannot solve them.]

Such are the questions which the Eleatic spokesman of Plato puts to those philosophers who affirm Ens to be plural: He turns next to those who affirm Ens to be singular, or Unum. Do you mean that Unum is identical with Ens--and are they only two names for the same One and only thing? There cannot be two distinct names belonging to one and the same thing: and yet, if this be not so, one of the names must be the name of nothing. At any rate, if there be only one name and one thing, still the name itself is different from the thing--so that duality must still be recognised. Or if you take the name as identical with the One thing, it will either be the name of nothing, or the name of a name.[41]

[Footnote 41: Plato, Sophist. p. 244 D.]

Again, as to the Whole:--is the Whole the same with the Ens Unum, or different from it. We shall be told that it is the same: but according to the description given by Parmenides, the whole is spherical, thus having a centre and circumference, and of course having parts. Now a whole divisible into parts may have unity predicable of it, as an affection or accident in respect to the sum of its parts: but it cannot be the genuine, essential, self-existent, One, which does not admit of parts or division. If Ens be One by accident, it is not identical with One, and we thus have two existent things: and if Ens be not really and essentially the Whole, while nevertheless the Whole exists--Ens must fall short of or be less than itself, and must to this extent be Non-Ens: besides that Ens, and Totum, being by nature distinct, we have more things than One existing. On the other hand, if we assume Totum not to be Ens, the same result will ensue. Ens will still be something less than itself;--Ens can never have any quantity, for each quantum is necessarily a whole in itself--and Ens can never be generated, since everything generated is also necessarily a whole.[42]

[Footnote 42: Plato, Sophist. p. 245 A-C.]

[Side-note: Theories of those who do not recognise a definite number of Entia or elements. Two classes thereof.]

Such is the examination which the Eleate bestows on the theories of theories of those philosophers who held one, two, or a definite number of self-existent Entia or elements. His purpose is to show, that even on their schemes, Ens is just as unintelligible, and involves as many contradictions, as Non-Ens. And to complete the same demonstration, he proceeds to dissect the theories of those who do not recognise any definite or specific number of elements or Entia.[43] Of these he distinguishes two classes; in direct and strenuous opposition to each other, respecting what constituted Essentia.[44]

[Footnote 43: Plato, Sophist. p. 245 E.]

[Footnote 44: Plato, Sophist. p. 246 A. [Greek: e)/oike/ ge e)n au)toi=s oi(=on gigantomachi/a tis ei)=nai dia\ tê\n a)mphisbê/têsin peri\ tê=s ou)si/as pro\s allê/lous.]]

[Side-note: 1. The Materialist Philosophers. 2. The Friends of Forms or Idealists, who recognise such Forms as the only real Entia.]

First, the Materialist Philosophers, who recognise nothing as existing except what is tangible; defining Essence as identical with Body, and denying all incorporeal essence. Plato mentions no names: but he means (according to some commentators) Leukippus and Demokritus--perhaps Aristippus also. Secondly, other philosophers who, diametrically opposed to the Materialists, affirmed that there were no real Entia except certain Forms, Ideas, genera or species, incorporeal and conceivable only by intellect: that true and real essence was not to be found in those bodies wherein the Materialists sought it: that bodies were in constant generation and disappearance, affording nothing more than a transitory semblance of reality, not tenable[45] when sifted by reason. By these last are understood (so Schleiermacher and others think, though in my judgment erroneously) Eukleides and the Megaric school of philosophers.

[Footnote 45: Plato, Sophist. p. 246 B-C. [Greek: noêta\ a)/tta kai\ a)sô/mata ei)/dê biazo/menoi tê\n a)lêthinê\n ou)si/an ei)=nai; ta\ de\ e)kei/nôn sô/mata kai\ tê\n legome/nên u(p' au)tô=n] (_i. e._ the Materialists) [Greek: a)lê/theian kata\ smikra\ diathrau/ontes e)n toi=s lo/gois, ge/nesin a)nt' ou)si/as pherome/nên tina\ prosagoreu/ousin.]]

[Side-note: Argument against the Materialists--Justice must be something, since it may be either present or absent, making sensible difference--But Justice is not a body.]

The Eleate proceeds to comment upon the doctrines held by these opposing schools of thinkers respecting Essence or Reality. It is easier (he says) to deal with the last-mentioned, for they are more gentle. With the Materialists it is difficult, and all but impossible, to deal at all. Indeed, before we can deal with them, we must assume them to be for this occasion better than they show themselves in reality, and ready to answer in a more becoming manner than they actually do.[46] These Materialists will admit (Plato continues) that man exists--an animated body, or a compound of mind and body: they will farther allow that the mind of one man differs from that of another:--one is just, prudent, &c., another is unjust and imprudent. One man is just, through the habit and presence of justice: another is unjust, through the habit and presence of injustice. But justice must surely be _something_--injustice also must be _something_--if each may be present to, or absent from, any thing; and if their presence or absence makes so sensible a difference.[47] And justice or injustice, prudence or imprudence, as well as the mind in which the one or the other inheres, are neither visible or tangible, nor have they any body: they are all invisible.

[Footnote 46: Plato, Sophist. p. 246 C. [Greek: para\ me\n tô=n e)n ei)/desin au)tê\n (tê\n ou)si/an) titheme/nôn r(a=|on; ê(merô/teroi ga/r; para\ de\ tô=n ei)s sô=ma pa/nta e(lko/ntôn bi/a|, chalepô/teron; _i)/sôs de\ kai\ schedo\n a)du/naton_. A)ll' ô(=de/ moi dokei= peri\ au)tô=n dra=|n . . . Ma/lista me/n, ei)/ pê| dunato\n ê)=n, _e)/rgô| belti/ous_ au)tou\s poiei=n; ei) de\ tou=to mê\ e)gchôrei=, _lo/gô| poiô=men_, u(potithe/menoi _nomimô/teron_ au)tou\s ê)\ _nu=n e)the/lontas a)\n a)pokri/nasthai_.]]

[Footnote 47: Plato, Sophist. p. 247 A. [Greek: A)lla\ mê\n to/ ge dunato/n tô| paragi/gnesthai kai\ a)pogi/gnesthai, pa/ntôs ei)=nai/ ti phê/sousin.]]

[Side-note: At least many of them will concede this point, though not all Ens is common to the corporeal and the incorporeal. Ens is equivalent to potentiality.]