Plato the teacher; being selections from the Apology, Euthydemus, Protagoras, Symposium, Phædrus, Republic, and Phædo of Plato

Preface

Plato's fame as a philosopher prevents many from reading him far enough to discover that he is also a teacher of the folk. He is one of very few who can speak at times for the masters alone, and at other times so that the " common people hear him gladly." The historic Socrates drew about him all sorts and conditions of men, from the philosopher to the rake, each by the proper magic ; and all sorts and conditions of men may yet feel something of his magic through the dialogues of Plato. To help publish the open secret that Plato speaks with simplicity and charm and power to all of us, is the purpose of this book.

The Apology is placed first as the best possible introduction to the life and spirit of Socrates. The Euthydemus shows Socrates in contrast with the baser Sophists, the Protagoras in contrast with the superior Sophists. The Symposium and PhasdrulT show philosophically and dramatically Plato's conception of love as the basis of science and of teaching. This is Plato's most important contribution to Education. The Republic gives Plato's entire scheme of education, as determined by the individual and

X PREFACE

by his social relations. This is an inexhaustible mine of wisdom for the teacher. The Phaedo is introduced partly for its own sake and partly because all Plato's thought about the education of man was determined by his conception of the absolute nature and destiny of man.

The introductions to the several dialogues are intended only to give a few suggestive clews which may prove useful to elementary readers. The introduction to the Phsedo is an outline for the study of that dialogue.

The notes constitute a dictionary of the biographical, geographical, and mythological terms or references in the text. Scholars will observe that the notes have been written with great reserve. While we have sought the highest accuracy in every line, we have sought no less to exclude all antiquarian lore that would not directly assist the elementary reader to understand the text.

In the preparation of this book the endeavor throughout has been to let Plato speak for himself. The notes and introductions are intended only to elucidate and not to criticise. To prevent possible misunderstanding, however, it may be well to state a few of the more important points in which we do not accept Plato's teaching, (i.) It is scarcely necessary to say that the modern Christian world has outgrown many of Plato's ideas of morality. In criticising these, however, it should be remembered that no one is wholly free from the influence of his age, and that in many things Plato was better than his age. (2.) We prefer actual democracy even to Plato's ideal aristocracy. (3.) We believe that con-

PREFACE XI

tact with the earth through the senses and hands is not, as Plato seems to have believed, a degradation to the soul, but is a spiritual necessity. (4.) We believe that Plato's conception of God and of man's relation to God, far as it is beyond that which is often found among Christians, falls far short of that shown to us by our Lord.

The translation used is that of Jowett (the Charles Scribner's Sons' Edition). In a few cases where Jowett uses a foreign phrase or an expression presenting special difficulty to those unread in the classics, slight alterations have been made.

In the preparation of the notes we have used the Greek text of Plato; Liddell and Scott's Greek Dictionary ; * Harper's Classical Dictionary ; Johnson's Cyclopaedia; Smith's Classical Dictionary; Bulfinch's, Guerber's, and Gayley's Manuals of Mythology ; Jowett's Introductions and Analyses ; The Index to Jowett's Plato, third edition ; Zeller's Plato and the Older Academy ; Zeller's Socrates ; Grote's History of Greece ; Grote's Plato ; Bosanquet's Companion to Plato's Republic ; Socrates, Talks with Socrates about Life, Talks with Athenian Youth, A Day in Athens with Socrates, published by Charles Scribner's Sons ; and Webster's Dictionary, on the pronunciation of proper names.

* Referred to in notes as L. & S.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

THE ATHENS OF PLATO.

Plato was born at Athens about 427 B.C. His native city was then at the height of its prosperity. At the beginning of that century the Greek states, often at war with each other, and always jealous of each other, had been forced to unite in a fight for life against the innumerable hordes of the Persian Empire. Athens was foremost in this fight, and when the Persians were finally driven away, she succeeded in placing herself at the head of a powerful league of Greek cities. Accordingly, although the city had been captured and burned by the Persians, she presently became, under the direction of the statesman Pericles, far stronger politically and commercially than ever before. A variety of causes made this period also a golden age for many of the arts. The city had to be rebuilt. This was done under direction of the sculptor Phidias, with a splendor and artistic perfection perhaps never elsewhere equalled. The democratic Athenian government, according to which questions of State were decided in a general assembly of all the people, gave occasion for the development of oratory of

XIV GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the highest order. Finally, in this century, the drama which had gradually developed in connection with the worship of Dionysus, came to classic perfection in the comedies of Aristophanes and the tragedies of iEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

Athens had yet another glory of which some of her citizens were not proud. She had become the principal seat of philosophy. In order to appreciate the state of philosophy at this time, and the feeling of the people toward it, we must give a brief account of the preceding history of philosophy.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY BEFORE PLATO.

The deliberate search after scientific or philosophic truth arose first, so far as we know, about two hundred years before the time of Plato, among the Greeks who lived on the western coast of Asia Minor. There were a dozen Greek cities on that coast and the adjacent islands of the ^Egean archipelago, as far back as authentic history runs. These cities were fortunately placed. They had at their back a prosperous country and before them the sea. They developed a great trade all around the ^Egean and Mediterranean Seas, — with Tyre and Sidon, with Egypt, and with the widely scattered Greek colonies. They became very rich. But that was not all. By contact with new peoples, they acquired new ideas and the habit of looking out for new ideas. They were without doubt especially indebted to Egypt. Indirectly through Phoenicia, they got from Egypt the alphabet which is substantially the one we use to-day. Besides this invalu-

[ GENERAL INTRODUCTION XV

able gift, they got from the Egyptians a first lesson in science. The study of the heavenly bodies had been from ancient times part of the religious duty of the Egyptian priests, who therefore had considerable knowledge of astronomy. On account of the yearly overflow of the Nile, it had been necessary to have some method of measuring land in order to re-establish boundary lines. The Egyptians had accordingly some knowledge of geometry. In the course of time Greek travelers acquired this learning. We find, for example, that Thales, a Greek of Miletus, predicted an eclipse of the sun which occurred in 585 B.C.

But, as I have said, these Greeks acquired by their travel, not only new ideas, but also an eager curiosity for more new ideas. They were not at all satisfied to accept the learning of Egypt and of Tyre and Sidon, as they found it. That learning helped to free them somewhat from faith in the myths by which their ancestors had explained all things in heaven and earth, but gave them no sufficient substitute for the old faith. It is, at any rate, certain that about 650 B.C., a few sages in the Ionic cities were beginning to grope toward a natural explanation of things. In the movements of the heavenly bodies, for example, where the superstitious saw only the caprice of the gods, they had learned to see an order such that future events could be predicted. This led some of the wiser men to believe that there is an order ruling in nature everywhere. They began to raise questions accordingly, not only about the true length of the year, and the means of measuring time, but also

XVI GENERAL INTRODUCTION

very general questions, such as: What is the world made of? What force has caused it to be generated? What law has ruled in this generation ? We have authentic accounts of more than a dozen distinguished men, living between 650 B.C. and the time of Plato's birth (427 B.C.), whose lives were spent in trying to answer questions of this sort.

If you read the answers they were able to make to these questions, ignorantly or carelessly enough, you may think them little better than childish. One said that the world is made of water, which thickens and hardens to make solid bodies, and thins to make air and fire. Another said that the world is made of air ; another that it is made of fire ; another that it is made of four elements — earth, air, fire, and water. Another said that all things are in eternal motion and that when we think that anything is at rest, our senses deceive us. Another said that all things are eternally at rest and that when we think we see motion, our senses deceive us. One sa-id that all things in nature move by numerical harmony, like the notes of the musical scale. /Another said that love and hate are the two forces that bring all things together or keep them apart. More than one of them expressed in some form the belief that the evolution of the world is directed by one supreme intelligence. Many of them expressed views on particular scientific questions which are very similar to those now accepted. So, for example, Anaximander, who lived about 600 B.C., held some views about the structure of the solar system which were more nearly correct than the theories generally accepted down to the time of Copernicus (a.d. 1543). I shall

GENERAL INTRODUCTION xvil

not, however, discuss the value of this early philosophizing- further than to say that the more deeply one studies it, the more surely one sees that these men were not fools, and that, in spite of their crudi. ties, some of them were giants of all time. What I wish now to do is to discuss their influence upon the public mind of Greece.

As might be expected, they produced one kind of effect upon the few who paid special attention to them and an altogether different effect upon the general public. Even with the former, the effect was by no means always flattering to the philosophers. Just in the period between the Persian wars and the birth of Plato, a great many of the Greeks who devoted themselves to learning were coming to the conclusion that philosophy was a failure. " The philosophers," the)' said in substance, " tell us that we cannot trust our senses for the truth of anything, and that we must learn the truth of them. We go to them and find that they contradict one another at every point. The truth is," some went on to say, " there is no truth which is truth always and everywhere. The world is different at every point and is always changing. Men are all different from each other and every one is constantly changing. How can a changing man find anything in a changing world which every other man will always find just so? It is impossible. That is true for each man which he finds true. Let us cease the vain search for a universal and absolute truth. Let us be content to learn how to be practically effective. Let us learn how to fight, how to write, how to speak, how to plead in the courts and before the

XV111 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

assembly of the people. Let us acquire skill to get on in the world. There is no other wisdom than this."

The class of men who took substantially this position called themselves Sophists, that is, w T ise men. Some of them were very talented, very thoroughly schooled in the learning of that time, and very skillful in the practical arts which they professed to teach. They gave special attention to language — that is, to grammar, rhetoric, and oratory. They are given credit for the development of Greek prose style, as it appears, for example, in the orations of Demosthenes, a century later, and indirectly for the development of the same art among the Romans. Some of the Sophists were, of course, inferior. I need only refer to the dialogue Euthydemus, in this volume, to show that some of them were despicably so. Such men cared for nothing but their own advantage, and were, without doubt, gross corrupters of the youth.

Now, the general public did not draw any fine distinctions between the superior Sophists, such as Protagoras, and the baser sort, such as Euthydemus and Dionysodorus. Moreover, the public did not distinguish between the Sophists and the philosophers. Although the philosophers had sought earnestly for the truth, and believed that they had found some truth, while the Sophists believed all such search vain, the Athenian public, intelligent as they were in many things, lumped all men of learning together, and called them Sophists. As a result of this failure to distinguish between men whose views were directly opposed, the public attributed

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XIX

to all of them substantially all the faults they found or suspected in any of them. Some of the philosophers had outgrown the popular religion ; the people were accordingly quick to believe that any learned man was an atheist. Some of the Sophists rejected the conventional notions of morals ; every scholar was, therefore, readily suspected of being a corrupter of the youth, and if any youth who consorted with scholars turned out badly, his ruin was charged up to the new learning.

The public opinion, with its muddle-headed opposition to the whole movement of science and philosophy, was expressed perfectly in a comedy by the great Athenian, Aristophanes. The story of the play, called " The Clouds," runs as follows: A certain man finds himself in debt, without ability to pay. He is told that there is a school of the Sophists where he can be taught how to argue himself out of all his debts. The school is described, with Socrates as chief teacher. Socrates is represented as engaged in profound investigations on various nonsensical questions about things in heaven and beneath the earth. He is calculating, for example, the distance from one place to another in terms of the foot of a flea. The man is taught how to argue away his debt ; but his son gets from the same teachers a lesson which enables him to prove his right to thrash his father. It is easy to see how the average Athenian, who looked and laughed at this play, would lump all the philosophers together, and attribute to each of them, but especially to Socrates, a nonsense and a knavery which would bring the country to ruin.

XX GENERAL INTRODUCTION

So far nothing- has been said about the real belief and purposes of Socrates or of Plato. What it is necessary to see is the actual situation which they faced.

i. There were the old philosophers, reaching back nearly two hundred years to Thales of Meletus, who had been floundering and struggling toward the truth about nature, without coming to an agreement.

2. There were the Sophists, some of them scholars and gentlemen, some of them ignorant tricksters, who rejected all the foregoing philosophy, and, more or less, also the popular ideas of religion, law, and morals.

3. There were the Athenian people, proud of their military glory, their growing wealth, and their beautiful city, but ignorant of the new learning and hostile to it.

PLATO'S MASTER.

The foregoing pages touch the principal features — political, economic, artistic, philosophical, and social, of the situation in Athens at the time of Plato's birth. One element in the situation has been barely mentioned, Plato's master, Socrates.

Socrates had more influence upon Plato and upon subsequent philosophy than had any of the men or conditions heretofore mentioned. I shall not, however, in this place give an account of his life and teachings. I refrain from doing this solely because those who read this book may become acquainted with Socrates far better, as well as far more delightfully, through the dialogues of Plato that are given

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XXI

here, than from any biography that could be written about him. Indeed, one main object of this book is just to make those who read it personally acquainted with Socrates. There is, however, one matter of fact, in this connection, which should be thoroughly understood.

Socrates wrote nothing. We know of his life and teachings chiefly through the writings of two of his disciples, Xenophon and Plato. Xenophon probably told the truth about his master as well as he could. But Xenophon was like some of those who heard the teachings of our Saviour — he heard the words, but not their deeper spiritual sense. Plato understood Socrates better than any one else did, and he could have given us, without doubt, a trustworthy picture of his master. The difficulty in getting at the real Socrates through the writings of Plato is this. All Plato's writings are in dialogue. In almost all the dialogues, Plato's own opinions are put into the mouth of Socrates. Plato's own views, however, became in the course of time considerably different from those of his master. It is, consequently, impossible to be sure just how far the speeches of Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, represent the actual opinions of Socrates, and how far they represent opinions acquired by Plato after his master's death. It is, indeed, true that Plato's philosophy was developed out of that of Socrates, and we may be sure that, as a rule, in ascribing his own opinions to Socrates, Plato did not greatly violate the spirit of the master's teaching. It should, however, be understood that the Socrates who speaks in Plato's writings is more or less a dramatic creation.

XX11 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

PLATO'S LIFE.

Of Plato's life and work only the bare outlines will be given here. He was born about 427 B.C., of a wealthy and aristocratic family. He had the best education which the world then afforded, becoming in time master of all branches of learning then known. He was particularly proficient in mathematics. When he was twenty years old, he became the disciple of Socrates, and lived with the master until the death of the latter in 399. Later, he traveled in Egypt, Cyrene, Italy, and Sicily, pursuing philosophic studies. In Sicily he was sold as a slave. After being ransomed, he opened a school of mathematics and philosophy in Athens, where, among others, he had Aristotle for a pupil. Twice, by invitation of Dion, ruler of Sicily, he attempted to apply his political theories to an actual government, but both attempts were failures. His death occurred at Athens, 347 B.C.

No philosophy can be adequately represented by an outline, even if the outline were made by the philosopher himself, because the definite doctrines which can be stated in an outline are always to be understood in connection with the thousand subtle meanings that lie between his lines. There is, however, special reason why Plato cannot be represented by an outline of his philosophy. He was, in fact, far more than a mere philosopher. He was a dramatic artist. He was more than that. He was a lover of men. And in the measure that he was these three — philosopher, dramatist, and lover — he was a teacher.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XX111

PLATO THE PHILOSOPHER.

In this place will be given first an account of Plato's central doctrine, and then a view of his attitude toward the life of his day.

The Doctrine of Ideas: Plato's doctrine of ideas varied at different periods of his life. Its established features may be stated as follows:

Every one knows what a common noun is, as tree, horse, stone, etc. A moment's thought will show that common nouns may be arranged in a system. Children recognize some such system in their game of twenty questions, when they ask if the thing you have thought of is material or immaterial ; if material, whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral ; if an animal, whether aland animal or a water animal; and so on until they have run down the particular thing or class of things thought of. In any such system the special classes run together into general classes, until at last all run together into one class, say the class being, which includes all beings, divine and human, living and dead.

Now Plato believed (i) that corresponding to every common noun there is a real, eternal, and perfect being, in the likeness of which and by the power of which every particular being coming under that class is made ; (2) that, corresponding to the system of common nouns, there is a system of such real, eternal, and perfect beings ; and (3) that, corresponding to the highest common noun, there is a Highest Being, which is the prime source of all lower beings and so of all things whatever. The real, eternal, and perfect beings corresponding to our common nouns

XXIV GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Plato called ideas. He did not, therefore, use the word idea in the sense that we are most accustomed to. The highest idea is God.

Now while he believed that these ideas are pure, holy, and beautiful, he believed that the particular objects which the world that we see is made of — the actual trees, horses, etc. — are only imperfect copies of their ideas, and are, therefore, not at all pure, holy, and beautiful, but just the contrary. The goodness of the ideas and the badness of particular things is the central thought of Plato's philosophy. Man has or may have knowledge of both. With his eyes and ears and other senses he comes into contact with the world of things. With his soul he may know directly the world of ideal being, which culminates in God. Contact with the world through the senses, gives us not true or valuable knowledge, but only the appearance of true wisdom. Contact with the eternal ideal beings, by means of the eye of the soul, gives us the only true and divine wisdom.

To account for the fact that the soul may know the ideal beings, Plato held that the soul has existed always ; that before being born into this earthly life the soul lived in the world of ideal beings ; that the soul retains a memory of its former life ; that we may recall the knowledge we had in a former life, if we will withdraw our senses from the things of the world and give ourselves to diligent reflection. That is, by diligent reflection, we are able to recall more and more accurately the system of real beings, corresponding to our system of common nouns, and at last we are able to rise in this way to a contem-

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XXV

plation of the Highest Idea, that is, God. On this point read the parable given in Book VII. of the Republic.

As we are misled by the senses, when we seek knowledge through them, so we are misled by them in regard to the conduct of individual and social life. The senses are the source of all our sinning. We should die to the body and the things of the body and turn our souls altogether toward the ideal being. By contemplation of and obedience to the ideal being Ave shall be made more and more good and beautiful in this life, and after death we shall reenter the ideal world where we shall be in the company of perfect souls. As our individual life, so our political life should be wholly directed by the divine truth. This is possible only through the guidance of men who have purified themselves from the world, and by long consecration have come to see the divine truth. That is, the State should be governed by the wisest and best, and all others will find their true interest in obeying them.

Plato s attitude toward the life of his time : Probably very few of those who read this book will accept Plato's doctrine of ideas in the form in which he presented it. However that may be, no one should fail to see that what Plato stood for most centrally, along with the prophets and apostles of every age, was the reality and power of the truth. He believed in the truth ; that the truth is one and eternal ; that the truth rules all things both great and small in the world and in the lives of men ; that men need the truth and no other thing to compass them about in infancy with influences that make for

XXVI GENERAL INTRODUCTION

righteousness, and to rise in their souls as clear knowledge and as holy purpose, with their growth into manhood. This central faith in the reality and power of truth determined Plato's attitude toward every important question that met him, — toward the old philosophy, toward the theories and practices of the Sophists, toward the business, art, religion, and politics of his nation, and toward the conduct of his own life. Let us look at each of these points.

The Old Philosophers : Plato did not join the Sophists and the general public in scorn of the old philosophers. He believed that their long search for the truth had not been altogether in vain. He believed that some of them were worth the deepest study he could give them. He made extensive and expensive journeys to meet living disciples of the various schools of philosophy. There is a tradition that he paid a sum equal to about $1,600 for one small book on the teachings of Pythagoras. It is at any rate certain that he was a profound student of Pythagoras, of Parmenides, of Heracleitus, and doubtless of other old masters. He was not afraid that such study of his predecessors would affect his own originality. No passage can be recalled which shows that he was jealous of any of his predecessors or anxious to prove his own superiority. In the Theastetus there is a reference to one of the old masters which seems to be not ironical, but characteristic of Plato's genuine reverence for the greater philosophers. "I have a kind of reverence," he says, "for the great leader himself, Parmenides, venerable and awful as in Homeric language he may be called :

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XXV11

him I should be ashamed to approach in a spirit unworthy of him."

The Sophists : Plato was unceasingly hostile to the doctrines and practices of the Sophists. He clearly saw that the Sophists were not all upon the same level. The best and the worst of them one may become acquainted with in two of the dialogues given in this volume — Euthydemus and Protagoras. Euthydemus and his brother, Dionysodorus, are exhibited as substantially a pair of confidence men. They are ignorant, shallow, unscrupulous tricksters. Their game is the half-grown youth who has much money and little judgment. When they have dazzled and corrupted and robbed the boy, their work is done. In the dialogue, Plato scorches these men with his irony, and holds them up to public shame as mercilessly as Aristophanes did in the comedy their kind to which I have referred.

In the Protagoras we are introduced to Sophists of a very different kind. Protagoras, Hippias, and Prodicus were men who had earned distinction by attainments which are honored in almost all civilized countries. They were masters of the learning and of the arts of the time. Judged by any ordinary standard, the Sophists of this class would receive an honorable if not an eminent place in the history of culture. It is held by some scholars that Plato was not just to them. It is possible that he was not, although, indeed, he shows very clearly that he was by no means ignorant of their many gifts and accomplishments. The reason for his unfailing antagonism to every kind of Sophist is not ignorance of their attainments, as judged by ordinary standards.

XXV111 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

He utterly refuses to judge them by ordinary standards. Everything is eternally judged by one standard, the absolute truth. Judged by this standard, the most accomplished Sophist stands selfcondemned. He does not believe in the absolute truth. He does not seek to know it. He does not seek to obey it. He has no faith in anything except the power of artifice. His learning, since it never leads toward the absolute truth, is " the art of giving, by quibbling criticism, an appearance of knowledge." His rhetoric is not a true but a spurious art, which does not seek to supply true food for the soul, but only to concoct highly spiced dishes which shall pamper and corrupt the people.

Athens: What did Plato think of his own city, — its art, its religion, its politics ? If you glance again at the brief account which has been given of the many glories of Athens at that time, or, better, if you become thoroughly acquainted with the history of Athens, you may well think that any Athenian had a right to be proud of his birthplace, — its commercial and political prosperity, its temples, its classic drama, its impressive religious ceremonials. Indeed, if you get to know and love the " glory that was Greece," you may be inclined to anger against any one who would dare to criticise it. Be angry if you will, but Plato, who grew up in the midst of that glory was its remorseless critic. He made his criticisms in the exquisitely graceful Athenian fashion, but in substance they are as stern as if he had been Jeremiah or John Knox. The reason for this severe judgment, as in the case of the Sophists, is that he knows only one standard of