charmides- 第4部分

subtle　adjustment　of　question　and　answer；　the　lively　play　of　fancy；　the



power　of　drawing　characters；　are　wanting　in　them。　　But　the　Platonic



dialogue　is　a　drama　as　well　as　a　dialogue；　of　which　Socrates　is　the　central



figure；　and　there　are　lesser　performers　as　well：the　insolence　of



Thrasymachus；　the　anger　of　Callicles　and　Anytus；　the　patronizing　style　of



Protagoras；　the　self…consciousness　of　Prodicus　and　Hippias；　are　all　part　of



the　entertainment。　To　reproduce　this　living　image　the　same　sort　of　effort



is　required　as　in　translating　poetry。　　The　language；　too；　is　of　a　finer



quality；　the　mere　prose　English　is　slow　in　lending　itself　to　the　form　of



question　and　answer；　and　so　the　ease　of　conversation　is　lost；　and　at　the



same　time　the　dialectical　precision　with　which　the　steps　of　the　argument



are　drawn　out　is　apt　to　be　impaired。







II。　　In　the　Introductions　to　the　Dialogues　there　have　been　added　some



essays　on　modern　philosophy；　and　on　political　and　social　life。　　The　chief



subjects　discussed　in　these　are　Utility；　Communism；　the　Kantian　and



Hegelian　philosophies；　Psychology；　and　the　Origin　of　Language。　　（There　have



been　added　also　in　the　Third　Edition　remarks　on　other　subjects。　　A　list　of



the　most　important　of　these　additions　is　given　at　the　end　of　this　Preface。）







Ancient　and　modern　philosophy　throw　a　light　upon　one　another：　　but　they



should　be　compared；　not　confounded。　　Although　the　connexion　between　them　is



sometimes　accidental；　it　is　often　real。　　The　same　questions　are　discussed



by　them　under　different　conditions　of　language　and　civilization；　but　in



some　cases　a　mere　word　has　survived；　while　nothing　or　hardly　anything　of



the　pre…Socratic；　Platonic；　or　Aristotelian　meaning　is　retained。　　There　are



other　questions　familiar　to　the　moderns；　which　have　no　place　in　ancient



philosophy。　　The　world　has　grown　older　in　two　thousand　years；　and　has



enlarged　its　stock　of　ideas　and　methods　of　reasoning。　　Yet　the　germ　of



modern　thought　is　found　in　ancient；　and　we　may　claim　to　have　inherited；



notwithstanding　many　accidents　of　time　and　place；　the　spirit　of　Greek



philosophy。　　There　is；　however；　no　continuous　growth　of　the　one　into　the



other；　but　a　new　beginning；　partly　artificial；　partly　arising　out　of　the



questionings　of　the　mind　itself；　and　also　receiving　a　stimulus　from　the



study　of　ancient　writings。







Considering　the　great　and　fundamental　differences　which　exist　in　ancient



and　modern　philosophy；　it　seems　best　that　we　should　at　first　study　them



separately；　and　seek　for　the　interpretation　of　either；　especially　of　the



ancient；　from　itself　only；　comparing　the　same　author　with　himself　and　with



his　contemporaries；　and　with　the　general　state　of　thought　and　feeling



prevalent　in　his　age。　　Afterwards　comes　the　remoter　light　which　they　cast



on　one　another。　　We　begin　to　feel　that　the　ancients　had　the　same　thoughts



as　ourselves；　the　same　difficulties　which　characterize　all　periods　of



transition；　almost　the　same　opposition　between　science　and　religion。　



Although　we　cannot　maintain　that　ancient　and　modern　philosophy　are　one　and



continuous　（as　has　been　affirmed　with　more　truth　respecting　ancient　and



modern　history）；　for　they　are　separated　by　an　interval　of　a　thousand　years；



yet　they　seem　to　recur　in　a　sort　of　cycle；　and　we　are　surprised　to　find



that　the　new　is　ever　old；　and　that　the　teaching　of　the　past　has　still　a



meaning　for　us。







III。　　In　the　preface　to　the　first　edition　I　expressed　a　strong　opinion　at



variance　with　Mr。　Grote's；　that　the　so…called　Epistles　of　Plato　were



spurious。　　His　friend　and　editor；　Professor　Bain；　thinks　that　I　ought　to



give　the　reasons　why　I　differ　from　so　eminent　an　authority。　　Reserving　the



fuller　discussion　of　the　question　for　another　place；　I　will　shortly　defend



my　opinion　by　the　following　arguments：







（a）　Because　almost　all　epistles　purporting　to　be　of　the　classical　age　of



Greek　literature　are　forgeries。　　（Compare　Bentley's　Works　（Dyce's



Edition）。）　　Of　all　documents　this　class　are　the　least　likely　to　be



preserved　and　the　most　likely　to　be　invented。　　The　ancient　world　swarmed



with　them；　the　great　libraries　stimulated　the　demand　for　them；　and　at　a



time　when　there　was　no　regular　publication　of　books；　they　easily　crept　into



the　world。







（b）　When　one　epistle　out　of　a　number　is　spurious；　the　remainder　of　the



series　cannot　be　admitted　to　be　genuine；　unless　there　be　some　independent



ground　for　thinking　them　so：　　when　all　but　one　are　spurious；　overwhelming



evidence　is　required　of　the　genuineness　of　the　one：　　when　they　are　all



similar　in　style　or　motive；　like　witnesses　who　agree　in　the　same　tale；　they



stand　or　fall　together。　　But　no　one；　not　even　Mr。　Grote；　would　maintain



that　all　the　Epistles　of　Plato　are　genuine；　and　very　few　critics　think　that



more　than　one　of　them　is　so。　　And　they　are　clearly　all　written　from　the



same　motive；　whether　serious　or　only　literary。　　Nor　is　there　an　example　in



Greek　antiquity　of　a　series　of　Epistles；　continuous　and　yet　coinciding　with



a　succession　of　events　extending　over　a　great　number　of　years。







The　external　probability　therefore　against　them　is　enormous；　and　the



internal　probability　is　not　less：　　for　they　are　trivial　and　unmeaning；



devoid　of　delicacy　and　subtlety；　wanting　in　a　single　fine　expression。　　And



even　if　this　be　matter　of　dispute；　there　can　be　no　dispute　that　there　are



found　in　them　many　plagiarisms；　inappropriately　borrowed；　which　is　a　common



note　of　forgery。　　They　imitate　Plato；　who　never　imitates　either　himself　or



any　one　else；　reminiscences　of　the　Republic　and　the　Laws　are　continually



recurring　in　them；　they　are　too　like　him　and　also　too　unlike　him；　to　be



genuine　（see　especially　Karsten；　Commentio　Critica　de　Platonis　quae



feruntur　Epistolis）。　　They　are　full　of　egotism；　self…assertion；



affectation；　faults　which　of　all　writers　Plato　was　most　careful　to　avoid；



and　into　which　he　was　least　likely　to　fall。　　They　abound　in　obscurities；



irrelevancies；　solecisms；　pleonasms；　inconsistencies；　awkwardnesses　of



construction；　wrong　uses　of　words。　　They　also　contain　historical　blunders；



such　as　the　statement　respecting　Hipparinus　and　Nysaeus；　the　nephews　of



Dion；　who　are　said　to　'have　been　well　inclined　to　philosophy；　and　well　able



to　dispose　the　mind　of　their　brother　Dionysius　in　the　same　course；'　at　a



time　when　they　could　not　have　been　more　than　six　or　seven　years　of　age



also　foolish　allusions；　such　as　the　comparison　of　the　Athenian　empire　to



the　empire　of　Darius；　which　show　a　spirit　very　different　from　that　of



Plato；　and　mistakes　of　fact；　as　e。g。　about　the　Thirty　Tyrants；　whom　the



writer　of　the　letters　seems　to　have　confused　with　certain　inferior



magistrates；　making　them　in　all　fifty…one。　　These　palpable　errors　and



absurdities　are　absolutely　irreconcileable　with　their　genuineness。　　And　as



they　appear　to　have　a　common　parentage；　the　more　they　are　studied；　the　more



they　will　be　found　to　furnish　evidence　against　themselves。　　The　Seventh；



which　is　thought　to　be　the　most　important　of　these　Epistles；　has　affinities



with　the　Third　and　the　Eighth；　and　is　quite　as　impossible　and　inconsistent



as　the　rest。　　It　is　therefore　involved　in　the　same　condemnation。The　final



conclusion　is　that　neither　the　Seventh　nor　any　other　of　them；　when



carefully　analyzed；　can　be　imagined　to　have　proceeded　from　the　hand　or　mind



of　Plato。　　The　other　testimonies　to　the　voyages　of　Plato　to　Sicily　and　the



court　of　Dionysius　are　all　of　them　later　by　several　centuries　than　the



events　to　which　they　refer。　　No　extant　writer　mentions　them　older　than



Cicero　and　Cornelius　Nepos。　　It　does　not　seem　impossible　that　so　attractive



a　theme　as　the　meeting　of　a　philosopher　and　a　tyrant；　once　imagined　by　the



genius　of　a　Sophist；　may　have　passed　into　a　romance　which　became　famous　in



Hellas　and　the　world。　　It　may　have　created　one　of　the　mists　of　history；



like　the　Trojan　war　or　the　legend　of　Arthur；　which　we　are　unable　to



penetrate。　　In　the　age　of　Cicero；　and　still　more　in　that　of　Diogenes



Laertius　and　Appuleius；　many　other　legends　had　gathered　around　the



personality　of　Plato；more　voyages；　more　journeys　to　visit　tyrants　and



Pythagorean　philosophers。　　But　if；　as　we　agree　with　Karsten　in　supposing；



they　are　the　forgery　of　some　rhetorician　or　sophist；　we　cannot　agree　with



him　in　also　supposing　that　they　are　of　any　historical　value；　the　rather　as



there　is　no　early　independent　testimony　by　which　they　are　supported　or　with



which　they　can　be　compared。







IV。　　There　is　another　subject　to　which　I　must　briefly　call　attention；　lest



I　should　seem　to　have　overlooked　it。　　Dr。　Henry　Jackson；　of　Trinity



College；　Cambridge；　in　a　series　of　articles　which　he　has　contributed　to　the



Journal　of　Philology；　has　put　forward　an　entirely　new　explanation　of　the



Platonic　'Ideas。'　　He　supposes　that　in　the　mind　of　Plato　they　took；　at



different　times　in　his　life；　two　essentially　different　forms：an　earlier



one　which　is　found　chiefly　in　the　Republic　and　the　Phaedo；　and　a　later；



which　appears　in　the　Theaetetus；　Philebus；　Sophist；　Politicus；　Parmenides；



Timaeus。　　In　the　first　stage　of　his　philosophy　Plato　attributed　Ideas　to



all　things；　at　any　rate　to　all　things　which　have　classes　or　common　notions：　



these　he　supposed　to　exist　only　by　participation　in　them。　　In　the　later



Dialogues　he　no　longer　included　in　them　manufactured　articles　and　ideas　of



relation；　but　restricted　them　to　'types　of　nature；'　and　having　become



convinced　that　the　many　cannot　be　parts　of