Chapter III: Plato. 428-347 B.c

The most renowned of all the prose writers of antiquity may be said to have been almost the lineal descendant, in philosophy, of the teacher of Samos. He belonged to the aristocratic families of Athens--“the eye of Greece”--then and for long afterwards the centre of art and science. His original name was Aristokles, which he might well have retained. Like another equally famous leader in literature, François Marie Arouet, he abandoned his birth-name, and he assumed or acquired the name by which he is immortalised, to characterise, as it is said, either the breadth of his brow or the extensiveness of his mental powers. In very early youth he seems to have displayed his literary aptitude and tastes in the various kinds of poetry--epic, tragic, and lyric--as well as to have distinguished himself as an athlete in the great national contests or “games,” as they were called, the grand object of ambition of every Greek. He was instructed in the chief and necessary parts of a liberal Greek education by the most able professors of the time. He devoted himself with ardour to the pursuit of knowledge, and sedulously studied the systems of philosophy which then divided the literary world.

In his twentieth year he attached himself to Sokrates, who was then at the height of his reputation as a moralist and dialectician. After the judicial murder of his master, 399, he withdrew from his native city, which, with a theological intolerance extremely rare in pagan antiquity, had already been disgraced by the previous persecution of another eminent teacher--Anaxagoras--the instructor of Euripides and of Perikles. Plato then resided for some time at Megara, at a very short distance from Athens, and afterwards set out, according to the custom of the eager searchers after knowledge of that age, on a course of travels.

He traversed the countries which had been visited by Pythagoras, but his alleged visit to the further East is as traditional as that of his predecessor. The most interesting fact or tradition in his first travels is his alleged intimacy with the Greek prince of Syracuse, the elder Dionysius, and his invitation to the western capital of the Hellenic world. The story that he was given up by his perfidious host to the Spartan envoy, and by him sold into slavery, though not disprovable, may be merely an exaggerated account of the ill-treatment which he actually received.

His grand purpose in going to Italy was, without doubt, the desire to become personally known to the eminent Pythagoreans whose headquarters were in the southern part of the Peninsula, and to secure the best opportunities of making himself thoroughly acquainted with their philosophic tenets. At that time the most eminent representative of the school was the celebrated Archytas, one of the most extraordinary mathematical geniuses and mechanicians of any age. Upon his return to Athens, at about the age of forty, he established his ever-memorable school in the suburban groves or “gardens” known as Ἀκαδημία--whence the well-known _Academy_ by which the Platonic philosophy is distinguished, and which, in modern days, has been so much vulgarised. All the most eminent Athenians, present and future, attended his lectures, and among them was Aristotle, who was destined to rival the fame of his master. From about 388 to 347, the date of his death, he continued to lecture in the Academy and to compose his Dialogues.

In the intervals of his literary and didactic labours he twice visited Sicily; the first time at the invitation of his friend Dion, the relative and minister of the two Dionysii, the younger of whom had succeeded to his father’s throne, and whom Dion hoped to win to justice and moderation by the eloquent wisdom of the Athenian sage. Such hopes were doomed to bitter disappointment. His second visit to Syracuse was undertaken at the urgent entreaties of his Pythagorean friends, of whose tenets and dietetic principles he always remained an ardent admirer. For whatever reason, it proved unsuccessful. Dion was driven into exile, and Plato himself escaped only by the interposition of Archytas. Thus the only chance of attempting the realisation of his ideal of a communistic commonwealth--if he ever actually entertained the hope of realising it--was frustrated. Almost the only source of the biographies of Plato are the _Letters_ ascribed to him, commonly held to be fictitious, but maintained to be genuine by Grote. The narrative of the first visit to Sicily is found in the seventh Letter.

We can refer but briefly to the nature of the philosophy and writings of Plato. In the notice of Pythagoras it has been stated that Plato valued very highly that teacher’s methods and principles. Pythagoreanism, in fact, enters very largely into the principal writings of the great disciple and exponent (and, it may safely be added, improver) of Sokrates, especially in the _Republic_ and the _Timæus_. The four cardinal virtues inculcated in the _Republic_--justice or righteousness (Δικαιοσύνη), temperance or self-control (Εγκρατεία or Σωφροσύνη), prudence or wisdom (Φρονήσις), fortitude (Ἀνδρεία)--are eminently pythagorean.

The characteristic of the purely speculative portion of Platonism is the theory of _ideas_ (used by the author in the new sense of _unities_, the original meaning being _forms_ and _figures_), of which it may be said that its merit depends upon its poetic fancy rather than upon its scientific value. Divesting it of the verbiage of the commentators, who have not succeeded in making it more intelligible, all that need be said of this abstruse and fantastic notion is, that by it he intended to convey that all sensible objects which, according to him, are but the shadows and phantoms of things unseen, are ultimately referable to certain abstract conceptions or ideas, which he termed _unities_, that can only be reached by pure thinking. Hence he asserted that “not being in a condition to grasp the idea of the Good with full distinctness, we are able to approximate to it only so far as we elevate the power of thinking to its proper purity.” Whatever may be thought of the premiss, the truth and utility of the deduction may be allowed to be as unquestionable as they are unheeded. This characteristic theory may be traced to the belief of Plato not only in the immortality, but also in the past eternity of the soul. In the _Phædrus_, under the form of allegory, he describes the soul in its former state of existence as traversing the circuit of the universe where, if reason duly control the appetite, it is initiated, as it were, into the essences of things which are there disclosed to its gaze. And it is this ante-natal experience, which supplies the fleshly mind or soul with its ideas of the beautiful and the true.

The subtlety of the Greek intellect and language was, apparently, an irresistible temptation to their greatest ornaments to indulge in the nicest and most mystic speculation, which, to the possessors of less subtle intellects and of a far less flexible language, seems often strangely unpractical and hyperbolic. Thus while it is impossible not to be lost in admiration of the marvellous powers of the Greek _dialectics_, one cannot but at the same time regret that faculties so extraordinary should have been expended (we will not say altogether wasted) in so many instances on unsubstantial phantoms. If, however, the transcendentalism of the Platonic and other schools of Greek thought is matter for regret, how must we not deplore the enormous waste of time and labour apparent in the theological controversies of the first three or four centuries of Christendom--at least of Greek Christendom--when the omission or insertion of a single letter could profoundly agitate the whole ecclesiastical world and originate volumes upon volumes of refined, indeed, but useless verbiage. Yet even the ecclesiastical Greek writers of the early centuries may lay claim to a certain originality and merit of style which cannot be conceded to the “schoolmen” of the mediæval ages, and of still later times, whose solemn trifling--under the proud titles of Platonists and Aristotelians, or Nominalists and Realists, and the numerous other appellations assumed by them--for centuries was received with patience and even applause. Nor, unfortunately, is this war of Phantoms by any means unknown or extinct in our day. It was the lament of Seneca, often echoed by the most earnest minds, that all, or at least the greater part of, our learning is expended upon words rather than upon the acquisition of wisdom.[13]

Plato deserves his high place among the Immortals not so much on account of any very definite results from his philosophy as on account of its general _tendency_ to elevate and direct human thought and aspirations to sublime speculations and aims. Of all his _Dialogues_, the most valuable and interesting, without doubt, is the _Republic_--the one of his writings upon which he seems to have bestowed the most pains, and in which he has recorded the outcome of his most mature reflections. Next may be ranked the _Phædo_ and the _Phædrus_--the former, it is well known, being a disquisition on the immortality of the soul. In spite of certain fantastic conceptions, it must always retain its interest, as well by reason of its speculations on a subject which is (or rather which ought to be) the most interesting that can engage the mind, as because it purports to be the last discourse of Sokrates, who was expecting in his prison the approaching sentence of death. The _Phædrus_ derives its unusual merit from the beauty of the language and style, and from the fact of its being one of the few writings of antiquity in which the charms of rural nature are described with enthusiasm.

The _Republic_, with which we are here chiefly concerned, since it is in that important work that the author reproduces the dietetic principles of Pythagoras, may have been first published amongst his earlier writings, about the year 395; but that it was published in a larger and revised edition at a later period is sufficiently evident. It consists of ten Books. The question of Dietetics is touched upon in the second and third, in which Plato takes care to point out the essential importance to the well-being of his ideal state, that both the mass of the community and, in a special degree, the _guardians_ or rulers, should be educated and trained in proper dietetic principles, which, if not so definitely insisted upon as we could wish them to have been, sufficiently reveal the bias of his mind towards Vegetarianism. In the second Book the discussion turns principally upon the nature of Justice; and there is one passage which, still more significant for the age in which it was written, is not without instruction for the present. While Sokrates is discussing the subject with his interlocutors, one of them is represented as objecting:

“With much respect be it spoken, you who profess to be admirers
of justice, beginning with the heroes of old, have every one
of you, without exception, made the praise of Justice and the
condemnation of Injustice turn solely upon the reputation and
honour and gifts resulting from them. But what each is in itself,
by its own peculiar force as it resides in the soul of its
possessor, unseen either by gods or men, has never, in poetry or
prose, been adequately discussed, so as to show that Injustice is
the greatest bane that a soul can receive into itself, and Justice
the greatest blessing. Had this been the language held by you all
from the first, and had you tried to persuade us of this from our
childhood, we should not be on the watch to check one another in
the commission of injustice, because everyone would be his own
watchman, fearful lest by committing injustice he might attach to
himself the greatest of evils.”

Very useful and necessary for those times, and not wholly inapplicable to less remote ages, is the incidental remark in the same book, that “there are quacks and soothsayers who flock to the rich man’s doors, and try to persuade him that they have a power at command which they procure from heaven, and which enables them, by sacrifices and incantations, performed amid feasting and indulgence, to make amends for any crime committed either by the individual himself or by his ancestors.... And in support of all these assertions they produce the evidence of poets--some, to exhibit the facilities of vice, quoting the words:--

“Whoso wickedness seeks, may even in masses obtain it
Easily. Smooth is the way, and short, for nigh is her dwelling.
Virtue, heaven has ordained, shall be reached by the sweat of
the forehead.”

--_Hesiod_, _Works and Days_, 287.[14]

It is the fifth Book, however, which has always excited the greatest interest and controversy, for therein he introduces his Communistic views. Our interest in it is increased by the fact that it is the original of the ideal Communisms of modern writers--the prototype of the _Utopia_ of More, of the _New Atlantis_ of Francis Bacon, the _Oceanica_ of Harrington, and the _Gaudentio_ of Berkeley, &c.

In maintaining the perfect natural equality of women to men,[15] and insisting upon an identity of education and training, he advances propositions which perhaps only the more advanced of the assertors of women’s rights might be prepared to entertain. Whatever may have been said by the various admirers of Plato, who have been anxious to present his political or social views in a light which might render them less in conflict with modern Conservatism, there can be no doubt for any candid reader of the _Republic_ that the author published to the world his _bonâ fide_ convictions. One of the _dramatis personæ_ of the dialogue, while expressing his concurrence in the Communistic legislation of Sokrates, at the same time objects to the difficulty of realising it in actual life, and desires Sokrates to point out whether, and how, it could be really practicable. Whereupon Sokrates (who it is scarcely necessary to remark, is the convenient mouthpiece of Plato) replies: “Do you think any the worse of an artist who has painted the _beau idéal_ of human beauty, and has left nothing wanting in the picture, because he cannot prove that such a one as he has painted might possibly exist? Were not we, likewise, proposing to construct, in theory, the pattern of a perfect State? Will our theory suffer at all in your good opinion if we cannot prove that it is _possible_ for a city to be organised in the manner proposed?”

As has been well paraphrased by the interpreters to whom we are indebted for the English version: “The possibilities of realising such a commonwealth in actual practice is quite a secondary consideration, which does not in the least affect the soundness of the method or the truth of the results. All that can fairly be demanded of him is to show how the imperfect politics at present existing may be brought most nearly into harmony with the perfect State which has just been described. To bring about this great result one fundamental change is necessary, and only one: the highest political power must, by some means or other, be vested in philosophers.” The next point to be determined is, What is, or ought to be, implied by the term _philosopher_, and what are the characteristics of the true philosophic disposition? “They are--(1) an eager desire for the knowledge of all real existence; (2) hatred of falsehood, and devoted love of truth; (3) contempt for the pleasures of the body; (4) indifference to money; (5) high-mindedness and liberality; (6) justice and gentleness; (7) a quick apprehension and a good memory; (8) a musical, regular, and harmonious disposition.” But how is this disposition to be secured? Under the present condition of things, and the corrupting influences of various kinds, where temptations abound to compromise truth and substitute expediency and self-interest, it would seem wellnigh impossible and Utopian to expect it.

“How is this evil to be remedied? The State itself must regulate the study of philosophy, and must take care that the students pursue it on right principles, and at a right age. And now, surely, we may expect to be believed when we assert that if a State is to prosper it must be governed by philosophers. If such a contingency should ever take place (and why should it not?), our ideal State will undoubtedly be realised. So that, upon the whole, we come to this conclusion: The constitution just described is the best, if it can be realised; and to realise it is difficult, but not impossible.” At this moment, when the question of compulsory education, under the immediate superintendence of the State, is being fought with so much fierceness--on one side, at least--to recur to Plato might not be without advantage.

In the most famous dialogue of Plato--the _Republic_, or, as it might be termed _On Justice_--the principal interlocutors, besides Sokrates, are Glaukon, Polymachus, and Adeimantus; and the whole piece originates in the chance question which rose between them, “What is Justice?” In the second Book, from which the following passage is taken, the discussion turns upon the origin of society, which gives opportunity to Sokrates to develop his opinions upon the diet best adapted for the community--at all events, for the great majority:--

“‘They [the artisans and work-people generally] will live, I
suppose, on barley and wheat, baking cakes of the meal, and
kneading loaves of the flour. And spreading these excellent cakes
and loaves upon mats of straw or on clean leaves, and themselves
reclining on rude beds of yew or myrtle-boughs, they will make
merry, themselves and their children, drinking their wine, weaving
garlands, and singing the praises of the gods, enjoying one
another’s society, and not begetting children beyond their means,
through a prudent fear of poverty or war.’

“Glaukon here interrupted me, remarking, ‘Apparently you describe
your men feasting, without anything to relish their bread.’[16]

“‘True,’ I said, ‘I had forgotten. Of course they will have
something to relish their food. Salt, no doubt, and olives, and
cheese, together with the country fare of boiled onions and
cabbage. We shall also set before them a dessert, I imagine,
of figs, pease, and beans: they may roast myrtle-berries and
beech-nuts at the fire, taking wine with their fruit in moderation.
And thus, passing their days in tranquillity and sound health,
they will, in all probability, live to an advanced age, and dying,
bequeath to their children a life in which their own will be
reproduced.’

“Upon this Glaukon exclaimed, ‘Why, Sokrates, if you were founding
a community of swine, this is just the style in which you would
feed them up!’

“‘How, then,’ said I, ‘would you have them live, Glaukon?’

“‘In a civilised manner,’ he replied. ‘They ought to recline on
couches, I should think, if they are not to have a hard life of it,
and dine off tables, and have the usual dishes and dessert of a
modern dinner.’

“‘Very good: I understand. Apparently we are considering the
growth, not of a city merely, but of a _luxurious_ city. I dare
say it is not a bad plan, for by this extension of our inquiry we
shall perhaps discover how it is that justice and injustice take
root in cities. Now, it appears to me that the city which we have
described is the _genuine_ and, so to speak, _healthy_ city. But
if you wish us also to contemplate a city that is suffering from
inflammation, there is nothing to hinder us. Some people will not
be satisfied, it seems, with the fare or the mode of life which we
have described, but must have, in addition, couches and tables and
every other article of furniture, as well as viands.... Swineherds
again are among the additions we shall require--a class of persons
not to be found, because not wanted, in our former city, but needed
among the rest in this. We shall also need great quantities of all
kinds of cattle for those who may wish to eat them, shall we not?’

“‘Of course we shall.’

“‘Then shall we not experience the need of medical men also to a
much greater extent under this than under the former _régime_?’

“‘Yes, indeed.’

“‘The country, too, I presume, which was formerly adequate to
the support of its then inhabitants, will be now too small, and
adequate no longer. Shall we say so?’

“‘Certainly.’

“‘Then must we not cut ourselves a slice of our neighbours’
territory, if we are to have land enough both for pasture and
tillage? While they will do the same to ours if they, like us,
permit themselves to overstep the limit of necessaries, and plunge
into the unbounded acquisition of wealth.’

“‘It must inevitably be so, Sokrates.’

“‘Will our next step be to go to war, Glaukon, or how will it be?’

“‘As you say.’

“At this stage of our inquiry let us avoid asserting either that
war does good or that it does harm, confining ourselves to this
statement--that we have further traced the origin of war to causes
which are the most fruitful sources of whatever evils befall a
State, either in its corporate capacity or in its individual
members.” (Book II.)[17]

Justly holding that the best laws will be of little avail unless the administrators of them shall be just and virtuous, Sokrates, in the Third Book, proceeds to lay down rules for the education and diet of the magistrates or executive, whom he calls--in conformity with the Communistic system--_guardians_:--

“‘We have already said,’ proceeds Sokrates, ‘that the persons in
question must refrain from drunkenness; for a guardian is the last
person in the world, I should think, to be allowed to get drunk,
and not know where he is.’

“‘Truly it would be ridiculous for a guardian to require a guard.’

“‘But about eating: our men are combatants in a most important
arena, are they not?’

“‘They are.’

“‘Then will the habit of body which is cultivated by the trained
fighters of the Palæstra be suitable to such persons?’

“‘Perhaps it will.’

“‘Well, but this is a sleepy kind of regimen, and produces a
precarious state of health; for do you not observe that men in the
regular training sleep their life away, and, if they depart only
slightly from the prescribed diet, are attacked by serious maladies
in their worst form?’

“‘I do.’

* * * * *

“‘In fact, it would not be amiss, I imagine, to compare this whole
system of feeding and living to that kind of music and singing
which is adapted to the panharmonicum, and composed in every
variety of rhythm.’

“‘Undoubtedly it would be a just comparison.’

“‘Is it not true, then, that as in music variety begat
dissoluteness in the soul, so here it begets disease in the body,
while simplicity in gymnastic [diet] is as productive of health as
in music it was productive of temperance?’

“‘Most true.’

“‘But when dissoluteness and diseases abound in a city, are not
law courts and surgeries opened in abundance, and do not Law
and Physic begin to hold their heads high, when numbers even
of well-born persons devote themselves with eagerness to these
professions?’

“‘What else can we expect?’

* * * * *

“‘And do you not hold it disgraceful to require medical aid, unless
it be for a wound, or an attack of illness incidental to the time
of the year--to require it, I mean, owing to our laziness and the
life we lead, and to get ourselves so stuffed with humours and
wind, like quagmires, as to compel the clever sons of Asklepios to
call diseases by such names as _flatulence_ and _catarrh_?’

“‘To be sure, these are very strange and new-fangled names for
disorders.’” (Book III.)

Elsewhere, in a well-known passage (in _The Laws_), Plato pronounces that the springs of human conduct and moral worth depend principally on diet. “I observe,” says he, “that men’s thoughts and actions are intimately connected with the threefold need and desire (accordingly as they are properly used or abused, virtue or its opposite is the result) of eating, drinking, and sexual love.” He himself was remarkable for the extreme frugality of his living. Like most of his countrymen, he was a great eater of figs; and so much did he affect that frugal repast that he was called, _par excellence_, the “lover of figs” (φιλόσυκος).

The Greeks, in general, were noted among the Europeans for their abstemiousness; and Antiphanes, the comic poet (in Athenæus), terms them “leaf-eaters” (φυλλοτρῶγες). Amongst the Greeks, the Athenians and Spartans were specially noted for frugal living. That of the latter is proverbial. The comic poets frequently refer, in terms of ridicule, to what seemed to them so unaccountable an indifferentism to the “good things” of life on the part of the witty and refined people of Attica. See the _Deipnosophists_ (dinner-philosophers) of Athenæus (the great repertory of the _bon-vivantism_ of the time), and Plutarch’s _Symposiacs_.

It has been pointed out by Professor Mahaffy, in his recent work on old Greek life, that slaughter-houses and butchers are seldom, or never, mentioned in Greek literature. “The eating of [flesh] meat,” he observes, “must have been almost confined to sacrificial feasts; for, in ordinary language, butchers’ meat was called _victim_ (ἱερεῖον). The most esteemed, or popular, dishes were _madsa_, a sort of porridge of wheat or barley; various kinds of bread (see _Deipn._ iii.); honey, beans, lupines, lettuce and salad, onions and leeks. Olives, dates, and figs formed the usual fruit portion of their meals. In regard to non-vegetable food, fish was the most sought after and preferred to anything else; and the well-known term _opson_, which so frequently recurs in Greek literature, was specially appropriated to it.

Contemporary with the great master of language was the great master of medicine, Hippokrates, (460-357) who is to his science what Homer is to poetry and Herodotus to history--the first historical founder of the art of healing. He was a native of Kōs, a small island of the S.W. coast of Lesser Asia, the traditional cradle and home of the disciples of Asklepios, or Æsculapius (as he was termed by the Latins), the semi-divine author and patron of medicine. And it may be remarked, in passing, that the College of Asklepiads of Kōs were careful to exercise a despotism as severe and exclusive as that which obtains, for the most part, with the modern orthodox schools.

Amongst a large number of writings of various kinds attributed to Hippokrates is the treatise _On Regimen in Acute Diseases_ (περὶ Διαίτης Ὀξέων), which is generally received as genuine; and _On the Healthful Regimen_ (περὶ Διαίτης Ὑγιεινῆς), which belongs to the same age, though not to the _canonical_ writings of the founder of the school himself. He was the author, real or reputed, of some of the most valuable apophthegms of Greek antiquity. _Ars longa--Vita brevis_ (education is slow; life is short) is the best known, and most often quoted. What is still more to our purpose is his maxim--“Over-drinking is _almost as bad_ as over-eating.” Of all the productions of this most voluminous of writers, his _Aphorisms_ (Ἀφορισμοί), in which these specimens of laconic wisdom are collected, and which consists of some four hundred short practical sentences, are the most popular.

About a century after the death of Plato appeared a popular exposition of the Pythagorean teaching, in hexameters, which is known by the title given to it by Iamblichus--the _Golden Verses_. “More than half of them,” says Professor Clifford, “consist of a sort of versified ‘Duty to God and my Neighbour,’ except that it is not designed by the rich to be obeyed by the poor; that it lays stress on the laws of health; and that it is just such sensible counsel for the good and right conduct of life as an Englishman might now-a-days give to his son.”

Hierokles, an eminent Neo-Platonist of the fifth century, A.D., gave a course of lectures upon them at Alexandria--which since the time of the Ptolemies had been one of the chief centres of Greek learning and science--and his commentary is sufficiently interesting. Suïdas, the lexicographer, speaks of his matter and style in the highest terms of praise. “He astonished his hearers everywhere,” he tells us, “by the calm, the magnificence, the width of his superlative intellect, and by the sweetness of his speech, full of the most beautiful words and things.” The Alexandrian lecturer quotes the old Pythagorean maxims:

“You shall honour God best by becoming godlike in your thoughts.
Whoso giveth God honour as to one that needeth it, that man in his
folly hath made himself greater than God. The wise man only is a
priest, is a lover of God, is skilful to pray; ... for that man
only knows how to worship, who begins by offering himself as the
victim, fashions his own soul into a divine image, and furnishes
his mind as a temple for the reception of the divine light.”

The following extracts will serve as a specimen of the religious or moral character of the _Golden Verses_:--

“Let not sleep come upon thine eyelids till thou hast pondered thy
deeds of the day.

“Wherein have I sinned? What work have I done, what left undone
that I ought to have done?

“Beginning at the first, go through even unto the last, and then
let thy heart smite thee for the evil deeds, but rejoice in the
good work.

“Work at these commandments and think upon them: these commandments
shalt thou love.

“They shall surely set thee in the way of divine righteousness:
yea, by Him who gave into our soul the _Tetrad_,[18] well-spring of
life everlasting.

* * * * *

“Know so far as is permitted thee, that Nature in all things is
like unto herself:

“That thou mayest not hope that of which there is no hope, nor be
ignorant of that which may be.

“Know thou also, that _the woes of men are the work of their own
hands_.

“Miserable are they, _because they see not and hear not the good
that is very nigh them_: and the way of escape from evil few there
be that understand it.

* * * * *

“Verily, Father Zeus, thou wouldst free all men from much evil, if
thou wouldst teach all men what manner of spirit they are of.

* * * * *

“Keep from the meats aforesaid, using judgment both in cleansing
and setting free the soul.

“Give heed to every matter, and set reason on high, who best
holdeth the reins of guidance.[19]

“Then when thou leavest the body, and comest into the free æther,
thou shalt be a god undying, everlasting, neither shall death have
any more dominion over thee.”

Referring to these verses, which inculcate that the human race is itself responsible for the evils which men, for the most part, prefer to regret than to remedy, Professor Clifford, to whom we are indebted for the above version of the _Golden Verses_, remarks on the merits of this teaching, that it reminds us that “men suffer from _preventible_ evils, that the people perish for lack of knowledge.”[20] Thus we find that the principal obstructions, in all ages, to human progress and perfectibility may be ever found in IGNORANCE and SELFISHNESS.