earlier writings (perhaps between 399-390 B.C.)[52] giving
an imaginary picture of the way in which "Sokrates handled every
respondent just as he chose" (to use the literal phrase of
Xenophon[53]): taming even that most overbearing youth, whom
Aristophanes characterises as the lion's whelp.[54] In selecting
Alkibiades as the sufferer under such a chastising process, Plato
rebuts in his own ideal style that charge which Xenophon answers with
prosaic directness--the charge made against Sokrates by his enemies,
that he taught political craft without teaching ethical sobriety; and
that he had encouraged by his training the lawless propensities of
Alkibiades.[55] When Schleiermacher, and others who disallow the
dialogue, argue that the inordinate insolence ascribed to Alkibiades,
and the submissive deference towards Sokrates also ascribed to him,
are incongruous and incompatible attributes,--I reply that such a
conjunction is very improbable in any real character. But this does
not hinder Plato from combining them in one and the same ideal
character, as we shall farther see when we come to the manifestation
of Alkibiades in the Symposion: in which dialogue we find a
combination of the same elements, still more extravagant and
high-coloured. Both here and there we are made to see that Sokrates,
far from encouraging Alkibiades, is the only person who ever succeeded
in humbling him. Plato attributes to the personality and conversation
of Sokrates an influence magical and almost superhuman: which Cicero
and Plutarch, proceeding probably upon the evidence of the Platonic
dialogues, describe as if it were historical fact. They represent
Alkibiades as shedding tears of sorrow and shame, and entreating
Sokrates to rescue him from a sense of degradation insupportably
painful.[56] Now Xenophon mentions Euthydemus and other young men as
having really experienced these profound and distressing
emotions.[56] But he does not at all certify the same about
Alkibiades, whose historical career is altogether adverse to the
hypothesis. The Platonic picture is an _idéal_, drawn from what
may have been actually true about other interlocutors of Sokrates,
and calculated to reply to Melêtus and his allies.

[Footnote 52: The date which I here suppose for the composition of
Alkib. i. (_i.e._ after the death of Sokrates, but early in the
literary career of Plato), is farther sustained (against those
critics who place it in 406 B.C. or 402 B.C. before
the death of Sokrates) by the long discourse (p. 121-124) of Sokrates
about the Persian and Spartan kings. In reference to the Persian
monarchy Sokrates says (p. 123 B), [Greek: e)pei/ pot' e)gô\ ê(/kousa
a)ndro\s a)xiopi/stou tô=n a)nabebêko/tôn para\ basile/a, o(\s e)/phê
parelthei=n chô/ran pa/nu pollê\n kai\ a)gathê/n--ê(\n kalei=n tou\s
e)pichôri/ous zô/nên tê=s basile/ôs gunaiko/s], &c. Olympiodorus
and the Scholiast both suppose that Plato here refers to Xenophon and
the Anabasis, in which a statement very like this is found (i. 4, 9).
It is plain, therefore, that _they_ did not consider the
dialogue to have been composed before the death of Sokrates. I think
it very probable that Plato had in his mind Xenophon (either his
Anabasis, or personal communications with him); but at any rate
visits of Greeks to the Persian court became very numerous between
399-390 B.C., whereas Plato can hardly have seen any such
visitors at Athens in 406 B.C. (before the close of the
war), nor probably in 402 B.C., when Athens, though relieved
from the oligarchy, was still in a state of great public prostration.
Between 399 B.C. and the peace of Antalkidas (387
B.C.), visitors from Greece to the interior of Persia became
more and more frequent, the Persian kings interfering very actively
in Grecian politics. Plato may easily have seen during these years
intelligent Greeks who had been up to the Persian court on military
or political business. Both the Persian kings and the Spartan kings
were then in the maximum of power and ascendancy--it is no wonder
therefore that Sokrates should here be made to dwell upon their
prodigious dignity in his discourse with Alkibiades. Steinhart (Einl.
p. 150) feels the difficulty of reconciling this part of the dialogue
with his hypothesis that it was composed in 406 B.C.: yet he
and Stallbaum both insist that it must have been composed before the
death of Sokrates, for which they really produce no grounds at all.]

[Footnote 53: Xen. Mem. i. 2, 14. [Greek: toi=s de\ dialegome/nois
au)tô=| pa=si chrô/menon e)n toi=s lo/gois o(/pôs bou/loito.]]

[Footnote 54: Aristoph. Ran. 1431. [Greek: ou) chrê\ le/ontos
sku/mnon e)n po/lei tre/phein.] Thucyd. vi. 15. [Greek: phobêthe/ntes
ga\r au)tou=] (Alkib.) [Greek: oi( polloi\ to\ me/gethos tê=s te
kata\ to\ e(autou= sô=ma paranomi/as e)s tê\n di/aitan, kai\ tê=s
dianoi/as ô(=n kath' e(\n e(/kaston, e)n o(/tô| gi/gnoito,
e)/prassen, ô(s turanni/dos e)pithumou=nti pole/mioi kathe/stasan],
&c.]

[Footnote 55: Xenoph. Memorab. i. 2, 17.]

[Footnote 56: Cicero, Tusc. Disp. iii. 32, 77; Plutarch, Alkib. c.
4-6. Compare Plato, Alkib. i. p. 127 D, 135 C; Symposion, p. 215-216.]

[Footnote 57: Xenoph. Memor. iv. 2, 39-40.]

[Side-note: The purpose proclaimed by Sokrates in the Apology
is followed out in Alkib. I. Warfare against the false persuasion of
knowledge.]

Looking at Alkibiadês I. and II. in this point of view, we shall find
them perfectly Sokratic both in topics proclaimed and in
manner--whatever may be said about unnecessary prolixity and common-place
here and there. The leading ideas of Alkibiadês I. may be found,
nearly all, in the Platonic Apology. That warfare, which Sokrates
proclaims in the Apology as having been the mission of his life,
against the false persuasion of knowledge, or against beliefs ethical
and æsthetical, firmly entertained without having been preceded by
conscious study or subjected to serious examination--is exemplified
in Alkibiadês I. and II. as emphatically as in any Platonic
composition. In both these dialogues, indeed (especially in the
first), we find an excessive repetition of specialising
illustrations, often needless and sometimes tiresome: a defect easily
intelligible if we assume them to have been written when Plato was
still a novice in the art of dialogic composition. But both dialogues
are fully impregnated with the spirit of the Sokratic process,
exposing, though with exuberant prolixity, the firm and universal
belief, held and affirmed by every one even at the age of boyhood,
without any assignable grounds or modes of acquisition, and amidst
angry discordance between the affirmation of one man and another. The
emphasis too with which Sokrates insists upon his own single function
of merely questioning, and upon the fact that Alkibiades gives all
the answers and pronounces all the self-condemnation with his own
mouth[58]--is remarkable in this dialogue: as well as the confidence
with which he proclaims the dialogue as affording the only, but
effective, cure.[59] The ignorance of which Alkibiades stands
unexpectedly convicted, is expressly declared to be common to him
with the other Athenian politicians: an exception being half allowed
to pass in favour of the semi-philosophical Perikles, whom Plato
judges here with less severity than elsewhere[60]--and a decided
superiority being claimed for the Spartan and Persian kings, who are
extolled as systematically trained from childhood.

[Footnote 58: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 112-113.]

[Footnote 59: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 127 E.]

[Footnote 60: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 118-120.]

[Side-note: Difficulties multiplied for the purpose of
bringing Alkibiades to a conviction of his own ignorance.]

The main purpose of Sokrates is to drive Alkibiades into
self-contradictions, and to force upon him a painful consciousness of
ignorance and mental defect, upon grave and important subjects, while
he is yet young enough to amend it. Towards this purpose he is made
to lay claim to a divine mission similar to that which the real
Sokrates announces in the Apology[61] A number of perplexing
questions and difficulties are accumulated: it is not meant that
these difficulties are insoluble, but that they cannot be solved by
one who has never seriously reflected on them--by one who (as the
Xenophontic Sokrates says to Euthydemus),[62] is so confident of
knowing the subject that he has never meditated upon it at all. The
disheartened Alkibiades feels the necessity of improving himself and
supplicates the assistance of Sokrates:[63] who reminds him that he
must first determine what "Himself" is. Here again we find ourselves
upon the track of Sokrates in the Platonic Apology, and under the
influence of the memorable inscription at Delphi--_Nosce
teipsum_. Your mind is yourself; your body is a mere instrument of
your mind: your wealth and power are simple appurtenances or
adjuncts. To know yourself, which is genuine Sophrosynê or
temperance, is to know your mind: but this can only be done by
looking into another mind, and into its most intelligent compartment:
just as the eye can only see itself by looking into the centre of
vision of another eye.[64]

[Footnote 61: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 124 C-127 E.]

[Footnote 62: Xenoph. Mem. iv. 2, 36. [Greek: A)lla\ tau=ta me/n,
e)/phê o( Sôkra/tês, i)/sôs, dia\ to\ spho/dra posteu/ein ei)de/nai,
ou)d' e)/skepsai.]]

[Footnote 63: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 128-132 A.]

[Footnote 64: Plato, Alkib. i. p. 133.

A Platonic metaphor, illustrating the necessity for two separate
minds co-operating in dialectic colloquy.]

[Side-note: Sokrates furnishes no means of solving these
difficulties. He exhorts to Justice and Virtue--but these are
acknowledged Incognita.]

At the same time, when, after having convicted Alkibiades of
deplorable ignorance, Sokrates is called upon to prescribe
remedies--all distinctness of indication disappears. It is exacted only
when the purpose is to bring difficulties and contradictions to view:
it is dispensed with, when the purpose is to solve them. The conclusion
is, that assuming happiness as the acknowledged ultimate end,[65]
Alkibiades cannot secure this either for himself or for his city, by
striving for wealth and power, private or public: he can only secure
it by acquiring for himself, and implanting in his country-men,
justice, temperance, and virtue. This is perfectly Sokratic, and
conformable to what is said by the real Sokrates in the Platonic
Apology. But coming at the close of Alkibiadês I., it presents no
meaning and imparts no instruction: because Sokrates had shown in the
earlier part of the dialogue, that neither he himself, nor
Alkibiades, nor the general public, knew what justice and virtue
were. The positive solution which Sokrates professes to give, is
therefore illusory. He throws us back upon those old, familiar,
emotional, associations, unconscious products and unexamined
transmissions from mind to mind--which he had already shown to
represent the fancy of knowledge without the reality--deep-seated
belief without any assignable intellectual basis, or outward standard
of rectitude.

[Footnote 65: Plat. Alkibiad. i. p. 134.]

[Side-note: Prolixity of Alkibiadês I.--Extreme multiplication
of illustrative examples--How explained.]

Throughout the various Platonic dialogues, we find alternately two
distinct and opposite methods of handling--the generalising of the
special, and the specialising of the general. In Alkibiadês I, the
specialising of the general preponderates--as it does in most of the
conversations of the Xenophontic Memorabilia: the number of
exemplifying particulars is unusually great. Sokrates does not accept
as an answer a general term, without illustrating it by several of
the specific terms comprehended under it: and this several times on
occasions when an instructed reader thinks it superfluous and
tiresome: hence, partly, the inclination of some modern critics to
disallow the dialogue. But we must recollect that though a modern
reader practised in the use of general terms may seize the meaning at
once, an Athenian youth of the Platonic age would not be sure of
doing the same. No conscious analysis had yet been applied to general
terms: no grammar or logic then entered into education. Confident
affirmation, without fully knowing the meaning of what is affirmed,
is the besetting sin against which Plato here makes war: and his
precautions for exposing it are pushed to extreme minuteness. So,
too, in the Sophistês and Politikus, when he wishes to illustrate the
process of logical division and subdivision, he applies it to cases
so trifling and so multiplied, that Socher is revolted and rejects
the dialogues altogether. But Plato himself foresees and replies to
the objection; declaring expressly that his main purpose is, not to
expound the particular subject chosen, but to make manifest and
familiar the steps and conditions of the general classifying
process--and that prolixity cannot be avoided.[66] We must reckon upon
a similar purpose in Alkibiadês I. The dialogue is a specimen of that
which Aristotle calls Inductive Dialectic, as distinguished from
Syllogistic: the Inductive he considers to be plainer and easier,
suitable when you have an ordinary collocutor--the Syllogistic is the
more cogent, when you are dealing with a practised disputant.[67]

[Footnote 66: Plato, Politikus, 285-286.]

[Footnote 67: Aristotel. Topic. i. 104, a. 16. [Greek: Po/sa tô=n
lo/gôn ei)/dê tô=n dialektikô=n--e)/sti de\ to\ me\n e)pagôgê/, to\
de\ sullogismo/s . . . . e)/sti d' ê( me\n e)pagôgê\ pithanô/teron
kai\ saphe/steron kai\ kata\ tê\n ai)/sthêsin gnôrimô/teron kai\
toi=s polloi=s koino/n; o( de\ sullogismo\s biastikô/teron kai\ pro\s
tou\s a)ntilogikou\s e)nerge/steron.]]

[Side-note: Alkibiadês II. leaves its problem avowedly
undetermined.]

It has been seen that Alkibiadês I, though professing to give
something like a solution, gives what is really no solution at all.
Alkibiadês II., similar in many respects, is here different, inasmuch
as it does not even profess to solve the difficulty which had been
raised. The general mental defect--false persuasion of knowledge
without the reality--is presented in its application to a particular
case. Alkibiades is obliged to admit that he does not know what he
ought to pray to the Gods for: neither what is _good_, to be
granted, nor what is _evil_, to be averted. He relies upon
Sokrates for dispelling this mist from his mind: which Sokrates
promises to do, but adjourns for another occasion.

[Side-note: Sokrates commends the practice of praying to the
Gods for favours undefined--his views about the semi-regular,
semi-irregular agency of the Gods--he prays to them for premonitory
warnings.]

Sokrates here ascribes to the Spartans, and to various philosophers,
the practice of putting up prayers in undefined language, for good
and honourable things generally. He commends that practice. Xenophon
tells us that the historical Sokrates observed it:[68] but he tells
us also that the historical Sokrates, though not praying for any
special presents from the Gods, yet prayed for and believed himself
to receive special irregular revelations and advice as to what was
good to be done or avoided in particular cases. He held that these
special revelations were essential to any tolerable life: that the
dispensations of the Gods, though administered upon regular
principles on certain subjects and up to a certain point, were kept
by them designedly inscrutable beyond that point: but that the Gods
would, if properly solicited, afford premonitory warnings to any
favoured person, such as would enable him to keep out of the way of
evil, and put himself in the way of good. He declared that to consult
and obey oracles and prophets was not less a maxim of prudence than a
duty of piety: for himself, he was farther privileged through his
divine sign or monitor, which he implicitly followed.[69] Such
premonitory warnings were the only special favour which he thought it
suitable to pray for--besides good things generally. For special
presents he did not pray, because he professed not to know whether
any of the ordinary objects of desire were good or bad. He proves in
his conversation with Euthydêmus, that all those acquisitions which
are usually accounted means of happiness--beauty, strength, wealth,
reputation, nay, even good health and wisdom--are sometimes good
or causes of happiness, sometimes evil or causes of misery; and
therefore cannot be considered either as absolutely the one or
absolutely the other.[70]

[Footnote 68: Xenoph. Mem. i. 3, 2; Plat. Alk. ii. p. 143-148.]

[Footnote 69: These opinions of Sokrates are announced in various
passages of the Xenophontic Memorabilia, i. 1, 1-10--[Greek: e)/phê
de\ dei=n, a(\ me\n matho/ntas poiei=n e)/dôkan oi( theoi/,
mantha/nein; a(\ de\ mê\ dê=la toi=s a)nthrô/pois e)sti/, peira=sthai
dia\ mantikê=s para\ tô=n theô=n puntha/nesthai; tou\s theou\s ga/r,
oi(=s a)\n ô)=sin i(/leô|, sêmai/nein]--i. 3, 4; i. 4, 2-15; iv. 3,
12; iv. 7, 10; iv. 8, 5-11.]

[Footnote 70: Xenoph. Memor. iv. 2, 31-32-36.[Greek: Tau=ta ou)=n
pote\ me\n ô)phelou=nta pote\ de\ bla/ptonta, ti/ ma=llon a)gatha\
ê)\ kaka/ e)stin?]]

[Side-note: Comparison of Alkibiadês II. with the Xenophontic
Memorabilia, especially the conversation of Sokrates with Euthydemus.
Sokrates not always consistent with himself.]

This impossibility of determining what is good and what is evil, in
consequence of the uncertainty in the dispensations of the Gods and
in human affairs--is a doctrine forcibly insisted on by the
Xenophontic Sokrates in his discourse with Euthydêmus, and much akin
to the Platonic Alkibiadês II., being applied to the special case of
prayer. But we must not suppose that Sokrates adheres to this
doctrine throughout all the colloquies of the Xenophontic
Memorabilia: on the contrary, we find him, in other places, reasoning
upon such matters, as health, strength, and wisdom, as if they were
decidedly good.[71] The fact is, that the arguments of Sokrates, in
the Xenophontic Memorabilia, vary materially according to the
occasion and the person with whom he is discoursing: and the case is
similar with the Platonic dialogues: illustrating farther the
questionable evidence on which Schleiermacher and other critics
proceed, when they declare one dialogue to be spurious, because it
contains reasoning inconsistent with another.

[Footnote 71: For example, Xen. Mem. iv. 5, 6--[Greek: sophi/an to\
me/giston a)gatho/n], &c.]

We find in Alkibiadês II. another doctrine which is also proclaimed
by Sokrates in the Xenophontic Memorabilia: that the Gods are not
moved by costly sacrifice more than by humble sacrifice, according to
the circumstances of the offerer:[72] they attend only to the mind of
the offerer, whether he be just and wise: that is, "whether he knows
what ought to be done both towards Gods and towards men".[73]

[Footnote 72: Plato, Alkib. ii. p. 149-150; Xen. Mem. i. 3. Compare
Plato, Legg. x. p. 885; Isokrat. ad Nikok.]

[Footnote 73: Plato, Alkib. ii. p. 149 E, 150 B.]

[Side-note: Remarkable doctrine of Alkibiadês II.--that
knowledge is not always Good. The knowledge of Good itself is
indispensable: without that, the knowledge of other things is more
hurtful than beneficial.]

But we find also in Alkibiadês II. another doctrine, more remarkable.
Sokrates will not proclaim absolutely that knowledge is good, and
that ignorance is evil. In some cases, he contends, ignorance is
good; and he discriminates which the cases are. That which we
are principally interested in knowing, is _Good_, or The
_Best_--The _Profitable_:[74] phrases used as equivalent.
The knowledge of this is good, and the ignorance of it mischievous,
under all supposable circumstances. And if a man knows good, the more
he knows of everything else, the better; since he will sure to make a
good use of his knowledge. But if he does not know good, the
knowledge of other things will be hurtful rather than beneficial to
him. To be skilful in particular arts and accomplishments, under the
capital mental deficiency supposed, will render him an instrument of
evil and not of good. The more he knows--and the more he believes
himself to know--the more forward will he be in acting, and therefore
the greater amount of harm will he do. It is better that he should
act as little as possible. Such a man is not fit to direct his own
conduct, like a freeman: he must be directed and controlled by
others, like a slave. The greater number of mankind are fools of this
description--ignorant of good: the wise men who know good, and are
fit to direct, are very few. The wise man alone, knowing good,
follows reason: the rest trust to opinion, without reason.[75] He
alone is competent to direct both his own conduct and that of the
society.

[Footnote 74: Plato, Alkib. ii. p. 145 C. [Greek: O(/stis a)/ra ti
tô=n toiou/tôn oi)=den, e)a\n me\n pare/pêtai au)tô=| ê( tou=
belti/stou e)pistê/mê--au)tê\ d' ê)=n ê( au)tê\ dê/pou ê(per kai\ ê(
tou= ô)pheli/mou]--also 146 B.]

[Footnote 75: Plato, Alkib. ii. p. 146 A-D. [Greek: a)/neu nou=
do/xê| pepisteuko/tas.]]

The stress which is laid here upon the knowledge of good, as
distinguished from all other varieties of knowledge--the
identification of the good with the profitable, and of the knowledge
of good with reason ([Greek: nou=s]), while other varieties of
knowledge are ranked with opinion ([Greek: do/xa])--these are points
which, under one phraseology or another, pervade many of the Platonic
dialogues. The old phrase of Herakleitus--[Greek: Polumathi/ê no/on
ou) dida/skei]--"much learning does not teach reason"--seems to have
been present to the mind of Plato in composing this dialogue. The man
of much learning and art, without the knowledge of good, and
surrendering himself to the guidance of one or other among his
accomplishments, is like a vessel tossed about at sea without a
pilot.[76]

[Footnote 76: Plato, Alkib. ii. p. 147 A. [Greek: o( de\ dê\ tê\n
kaloume/nên poluma/theia/n te kai\ polutechni/an kektême/nos,
o)rphano\s de\ ô)\n tau/tês tê=s e)pistê/mês, a)go/menos de\ u(po\
mia=s e(ka/stês tô=n a)/llôn], &c.]

[Side-note: Knowledge of Good--appears postulated and divined,
in many of the Platonic dialogues, under different titles.]

What Plato here calls the knowledge of Good, or Reason--the just
discrimination and comparative appreciation of Ends and
Means--appears in the Politikus and Euthydêmus, under the title of the
Regal or Political Art, of employing or directing[77] the results of all
other arts, which are considered as subordinate: in the Protagoras,
under the title of art of calculation or mensuration: in the
Philêbus, as measure and proportion: in the Phædrus (in regard to
rhetoric) as the art of turning to account, for the main purpose of
persuasion, all the special processes, stratagems, decorations,
&c., imparted by professional masters. In the Republic, it is
personified in the few venerable Elders who constitute the Reason of
the society, and whose directions all the rest (Guardians and
Producers) are bound implicitly to follow: the virtue of the
subordinates consisting in this implicit obedience. In the Leges, it
is defined as the complete subjection in the mind, of pleasures and
pains to right Reason,[78] without which, no special aptitudes are
worth having. In the Xenophontic Memorabilia, it stands as a Sokratic
authority under the title of Sophrosynê or Temperance:[79] and the
Profitable is declared identical with the Good, as the directing and
limiting principle for all human pursuits and proceedings.[80]

[Footnote 77: Plato, Politikus, 292 B, 304 B, 305 A; Euthydêmus, 291
B, 292 B. Compare Xenophon, Oekonomicus, i. 8, 13.]

[Footnote 78: Leges, iii. 689 A-D, 691 A.]

[Footnote 79: Xenoph. Memor. i. 2. 17; iv. 3. 1.]

[Footnote 80: Xenoph. Memor. iv. 6, 8; iv. 7, 7.]

[Side-note: The Good--the Profitable--what is it?--How are we
to know it? Plato leaves this undetermined.]

But what are we to understand by the _Good_, about which there
are so many disputes, according to the acknowledgment of Plato as
well as of Sokrates? And what are we to understand by the Profitable?
In what relation does it stand to the Pleasurable and the Painful?

These are points which Plato here leaves undetermined. We shall find
him again touching them, and trying different ways of determining
them, in the Protagoras, the Gorgias, the Republic, and
elsewhere. We have here the title and the postulate, but nothing
more, of a comprehensive Teleology, or right comparative estimate of
ends and means one against another, so as to decide when, how far,
under what circumstances, &c., each ought to be pursued. We shall
see what Plato does in other dialogues to connect this title and
postulate with a more definite meaning.

CHAPTER XIII.

HIPPIAS MAJOR--HIPPIAS MINOR.

[Side-note: Hippias Major--situation supposed--character of the
dialogue. Sarcasm and mockery against Hippias.]

Both these two dialogues are carried on between Sokrates and the
Eleian Sophist Hippias. The general conception of Hippias--described
as accomplished, eloquent, and successful, yet made to say vain and
silly things--is the same in both dialogues: in both also the
polemics of Sokrates against him are conducted in a like spirit, of
affected deference mingled with insulting sarcasm. Indeed the figure
assigned to Hippias is so contemptible, that even an admiring critic
like Stallbaum cannot avoid noticing the "petulans pene et proterva
in Hippiam oratio," and intimating that Plato has handled Hippias
more coarsely than any one else. Such petulance Stallbaum attempts to
excuse by saying that the dialogue is a youthful composition of
Plato:[1] while Schleiermacher numbers it among the reasons for
suspecting the dialogue, and Ast, among the reasons for declaring
positively that Plato is not the author.[2] This last conclusion I do
not at all accept: nor even the hypothesis of Stallbaum, if it be
tendered as an excuse for improprieties of tone: for I believe that
the earliest of Plato's dialogues was composed after he was
twenty-eight years of age--that is, after the death of Sokrates. It is
however noway improbable, that both the Greater and Lesser Hippias
may have been among Plato's earlier compositions. We see by the
Memorabilia of Xenophon that there was repeated and acrimonious
controversy between Sokrates and Hippias: so that we may probably
suppose feelings of special dislike, determining Plato to compose two
distinct dialogues, in which an imaginary Hippias is mocked and
scourged by an imaginary Sokrates.

[Footnote 1: Stallbaum, Prolegg. in Hipp. Maj. p. 149-150; also
Steinhart (Einleitung, p. 42-43), who says, after an outpouring of
his usual invective against the Sophist: "Nevertheless the coarse
jesting of the dialogue seems almost to exceed the admissible limit
of comic effect," &c. Again, p. 50, Steinhart talks of the banter
which Sokrates carries on with Hippias, in a way not less cruel
(grausam) than purposeless, tormenting him with a string of
successive new propositions about the definition of the Beautiful,
which propositions, as fast as Hippias catches at them, he again
withdraws of his own accord, and thus at last dismisses him (as he
had dismissed Ion) uninstructed and unimproved, without even leaving
behind in him the sting of anger, &c.

It requires a powerful hatred against the persons called Sophists, to
make a critic take pleasure in a comedy wherein silly and ridiculous
speeches are fastened upon the name of one of them, in his own day
not merely honoured but acknowledged as deserving honour by
remarkable and varied accomplishments--and to make the critic
describe the historical Hippias (whom we only know from Plato and
Xenophon--see Steinhart, note 7, p. 89; Socher, p. 221) as if he had
really delivered these speeches, or something equally absurd.

How this comedy may be appreciated is doubtless a matter of
individual taste. For my part, I agree with Ast in thinking it
misplaced and unbecoming: and I am not surprised that he wishes to
remove the dialogue from the Platonic canon, though I do not concur
either in this inference, or in the general principle on which it
proceeds, viz., that all objections against the composition of a
dialogue are to be held as being also objections against its
genuineness as a work of Plato. The Nubes of Aristophanes, greatly
superior as a comedy to the Hippias of Plato, is turned to an abusive
purpose when critics put it into court as evidence about the
character of the real Sokrates.

K. F. Hermann, in my judgment, takes a more rational view of the
Hippias Major (Gesch. und Syst. der Plat. Phil. p. 487-647). Instead
of expatiating on the glory of Plato in deriding an accomplished
contemporary, he dwells upon the logical mistakes and confusion which
the dialogue brings to view; and he reminds us justly of the
intellectual condition of the age, when even elementary distinctions
in logic and grammar had been scarcely attended to.

Both K. F. Hermann and Socher consider the Hippias to be not a
juvenile production of Plato, but to belong to his middle age.]

[Footnote 2: Schleierm. Einleitung. p. 401; Ast, Platon's Leben und
Schriften, p. 457-459.]

[Side-note: Real debate between the historical Sokrates and
Hippias in the Xenophontic Memorabilia--subject of that debate.]

One considerable point in the Hippias Major appears to have a bearing
on the debate between Sokrates and Hippias in the Xenophontic
Memorabilia: in which debate, Hippias taunts Sokrates with always
combating and deriding the opinions of others, while evading to give
opinions of his own. It appears that some antecedent debates between
the two had turned upon the definition of the Just, and that on these
occasions Hippias had been the respondent, Sokrates the objector.
Hippias professes to have reflected upon these debates, and to be now
prepared with a definition which neither Sokrates nor any one else
can successfully assail, but he will not say what the definition is,
until Sokrates has laid down one of his own. In reply to this
challenge, Sokrates declares the Just to be equivalent to the Lawful
or Customary: he defends this against various objections of
Hippias, who concludes by admitting it.[3] Probably this debate, as
reported by Xenophon, or something very like it, really took place.
If so, we remark with surprise the feebleness of the objections of
Hippias, in a case where Sokrates, if he had been the objector, would
have found such strong ones--and the feeble replies given by
Sokrates, whose talent lay in starting and enforcing difficulties,
not in solving them.[4] Among the remarks which Sokrates makes in
illustration to Hippias, one is--that Lykurgus had ensured
superiority to Sparta by creating in the Spartans a habit of implicit
obedience to the laws.[5] Such is the character of the Xenophontic
debate.

[Footnote 3: Xenoph. Mem. iv. 4, 12-25.]

[Footnote 4: Compare the puzzling questions which Alkibiades when a
youth is reported to have addressed to Perikles, and which he must
unquestionably have heard from Sokrates himself, respecting the
meaning of the word [Greek: No/mos] (Xen. Mem. i. 2, 42). All the
difficulties in determining the definition of [Greek: No/mos], occur
also in determining that of [Greek: No/mimon], which includes both
Jus Scriptum and Jus Moribus Receptum.]

[Footnote 5: Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 15.]

[Side-note: Opening of the Hippias Major--Hippias describes the
successful circuit which he had made through Greece, and the renown
as well as the gain acquired by his lectures.]

Here, in the beginning of the Hippias Major, the Platonic Sokrates
remarks that Hippias has been long absent from Athens: which absence,
the latter explains, by saying that he has visited many cities in
Greece, giving lectures with great success, and receiving high pay:
and that especially he has often visited Sparta, partly to give
lectures, but partly also to transact diplomatic business for his
countrymen the Eleians, who trusted him more than any one else for
such duties. His lectures (he says) were eminently instructive and
valuable for the training of youth: moreover they were so generally
approved, that even from a small Sicilian town called Inykus, he
obtained a considerable sum in fees.

[Side-note: Hippias had met with no success at Sparta. Why the
Spartans did not admit his instructions--their law forbids.]

Upon this Sokrates asks--In which of the cities were your gains the
largest: probably at Sparta? _Hip._--No; I received nothing at
all at Sparta. _Sokr._--How? You amaze me! Were not your
lectures calculated to improve the Spartan youth? or did not the
Spartans desire to have their youth improved? or had they no money?
_Hip._--Neither one nor the other. The Spartans, like others,
desire the improvement of their youth: they also have plenty of
money: moreover my lectures were very beneficial to them as well
as to the rest.[6] _Sokr._--How could it happen then, that at
Sparta, a city great and eminent for its good laws, your valuable
instructions were left unrewarded; while you received so much at the
inconsiderable town of Inykus? _Hip._--It is not the custom of
the country, Sokrates, for the Spartans to change their laws, or to
educate their sons in a way different from their ordinary routine.
_Sokr._--How say you? It is not the custom of the country for
the Spartans to do right, but to do wrong? _Hip._--I shall not
say that, Sokrates. _Sokr._--But surely they would do right, in
educating their children better and not worse? _Hip._--Yes, they
would do right: but it is not lawful for them to admit a foreign mode
of education. If any one could have obtained payment there for
education, I should have obtained a great deal; for they listen to me
with delight and applaud me: but, as I told you, their law forbids.

[Footnote 6: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 283-284.]

[Side-note: Question, What is law? The law-makers always aim at
the Profitable, but sometimes fail to attain it. When they fail, they
fail to attain law. The lawful is the Profitable: the Unprofitable is
also unlawful.]

_Sokr._--Do you call law a hurt or benefit to the city?
_Hip._--Law is enacted with a view to benefit: but it sometimes
hurts if it be badly enacted.[7] _Sokr._--But what? Do not the
enactors enact it as the maximum of good, without which the citizens
cannot live a regulated life? _Hip._--Certainly: they do so.
_Sokr._--Therefore, when those who try to enact laws miss the
attainment of good, they also miss the lawful and law itself. How say
you? _Hip._--They do so, if you speak with strict propriety: but
such is not the language which men commonly use. _Sokr._--What
men? the knowing? or the ignorant? _Hip._--The Many.
_Sokr._--The Many; is it _they_ who know what truth is?
_Hip._--Assuredly not. _Sokr._--But surely those who do
know, account the profitable to be in truth more lawful than the
unprofitable, to all men. Don't you admit this? _Hip._--Yes, I
admit they account it so in truth. _Sokr._--Well, and it is so,
too: the truth is as the knowing men account it. _Hip._--Most
certainly. _Sokr._--Now you affirm, that it is more profitable
to the Spartans to be educated according to your scheme, foreign as
it is, than according to their own native scheme. _Hip._--I
affirm it, and with truth too. _Sokr._--You affirm besides,
that things more profitable are at the same time more lawful?
_Hip._--I said so. _Sokr._--According to your reasoning,
then, it is more lawful for the Spartan children to be educated by
Hippias, and more unlawful for them to be educated by their fathers--
if in reality they will be more benefited by you? _Hip._--But
they will be more benefited by me. _Sokr._--The Spartans
therefore act unlawfully, when they refuse to give you money and to
confide to you their sons? _Hip._--I admit that they do: indeed
your reasoning seems to make in my favour, so that I am noway called
upon to resist it. _Sokr._--We find then, after all, that the
Spartans are enemies of law, and that too in the most important
matters--though they are esteemed the most exemplary followers of
law.[8]

[Footnote 7: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 284 C-B.]

[Footnote 8: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 285.]

[Side-note: Comparison of the argument of the Platonic Sokrates
with that of the Xenophontic Sokrates.]

Perhaps Plato intended the above argument as a derisory taunt against
the Sophist Hippias, for being vain enough to think his own tuition
better than that of the Spartan community. If such was his intention,
the argument might have been retorted against Plato himself, for his
propositions in the Republic and Leges: and we know that the enemies
of Plato did taunt him with his inability to get these schemes
adopted in any actual community. But the argument becomes interesting
when we compare it with the debate before referred to in the
Xenophontic Memorabilia, where Sokrates maintains against Hippias
that the Just is equivalent to the Lawful. In that Xenophontic
dialogue, all the difficulties which embarrass this explanation are
kept out of sight, and Sokrates is represented as gaining an easy
victory over Hippias. In this Platonic dialogue, the equivocal use of
the word [Greek: no/mimon] is expressly adverted to, and Sokrates
reduces Hippias to a supposed absurdity, by making him pronounce the
Spartans to be enemies of law: [Greek: paranomou/s] bearing a double
sense, and the proposition being true in one sense, false in the
other. In the argument of the Platonic Sokrates, a law which does not
attain its intended purpose of benefiting the community, is no
law at all,--not lawful:[9] so that we are driven back again upon the
objections of Alkibiades against Perikles (in the Xenophontic
Memorabilia) in regard to what constitutes a law. In the argument of
the Xenophontic Sokrates, law means a law actually established, by
official authority or custom--and the Spartans are produced as
eminent examples of a lawfully minded community. As far as we can
assign positive opinion to the Platonic Sokrates in the Hippias
Major, he declares that the profitable or useful (being that which
men always aim at in making law) is The Lawful, whether actually
established or not: and that the unprofitable or hurtful (being that
which men always intend to escape) is The Unlawful, whether
prescribed by any living authority or not. This (he says) is the
opinion of the wise men who know: though the ignorant vulgar hold the
contrary opinion. The explanation of [Greek: to\ di/kaion] given by
the Xenophontic Sokrates ([Greek: to\ di/kaion = to\ no/mimon]),
would be equivalent, if we construe [Greek: to\ no/mimon] in the
sense of the Platonic Sokrates (in Hippias Major) as an affirmation
that The Just was the generally useful--[Greek: To\ di/kaion = to\
koinê=| su/mphoron].

[Footnote 9: Compare a similar argument of Sokrates against
Thrasymachus--Republic, i. 339.]

[Side-note: The Just or Good is the beneficial or profitable.
This is the only explanation which Plato ever gives and to this he
does not always adhere.]

There exists however in all this, a prevalent confusion between Law
(or the Lawful) as actually established, and Law (or the Lawful) as
it ought to be established, in the judgment of the critic, or of
those whom he follows: that is (to use the phrase of Mr. Austin in
his 'Province of Jurisprudence') Law as it would be, if it conformed
to its assumed measure or test. In the first of these senses, [Greek:
to\ no/mimon] is not one and the same, but variable according to
place and time--one thing at Sparta, another thing elsewhere:
accordingly it would not satisfy the demand of Plato's mind, when he
asks for an explanation of [Greek: to\ di/kaion]. It is an
explanation in the second of the two senses which Plato seeks--a
common measure or test applicable universally, at all times and
places. In so far as he ever finds one, it is that which I have
mentioned above as delivered by the Platonic Sokrates in this
dialogue: viz., the Just or Good, that which ought to be the measure
or test of Law and Positive Morality, is, the beneficial or
profitable. This (I repeat) is the only approach to a solution which
we ever find in Plato. But this is seldom clearly enunciated, never
systematically followed out, and sometimes, in appearance, even
denied.

[Side-note: Lectures of Hippias at Sparta not upon geometry, or
astronomy, &c., but upon the question--What pursuits are
beautiful, fine, and honourable for youth.]

I resume the thread of the Hippias Major. Sokrates asks Hippias what
sort of lectures they were that he delivered with so much success at
Sparta? The Spartans (Hippias replies) knew nothing and cared nothing
about letters, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy: but they took delight
in hearing tales about heroes, early ancestors, foundation-legends of
cities, &c., which his mnemonic artifice enabled him to
deliver.[10] The Spartans delight in you (observes Sokrates) as
children delight in old women's tales. Yes (replies Hippias), but
that is not all: I discoursed to them also, recently, about fine and
honourable pursuits, much to their admiration: I supposed a
conversation between Nestor and Neoptolemus, after the capture of
Troy, in which the veteran, answering a question put by his youthful
companion, enlarged upon those pursuits which it was fine,
honourable, beautiful for a young man to engage in. My discourse is
excellent, and obtained from the Spartans great applause. I am going
to deliver it again here at Athens, in the school-room of
Pheidostratus, and I invite you, Sokrates, to come and hear it, with
as many friends as you can bring.[11]

[Footnote 10: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 285 E.]

[Footnote 11: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 286 A-B.]

[Side-note: Question put by Sokrates, in the name of a friend in
the background, who has just been puzzling him with it--What is the
Beautiful?]

I shall come willingly (replied Sokrates). But first answer me one
small question, which will rescue me from a present embarrassment.
Just now, I was shamefully puzzled in conversation with a friend, to
whom I had been praising some things as honourable and
beautiful,--blaming other things as mean and ugly. He surprised me by
the interrogation--How do you know, Sokrates, what things are beautiful,
and what are ugly? Come now, can you tell me, What is the Beautiful?
I, in my stupidity, was altogether puzzled, and could not answer the
question. But after I had parted from him, I became mortified and
angry with myself; and I vowed that the next time I met any wise man,
like you, I would put the question to him, and learn how to answer
it; so that I might be able to renew the conversation with my friend.
Your coming here is most opportune. I entreat you to answer and
explain to me clearly what the Beautiful is; in order that I may not
again incur the like mortification. You can easily answer: it is a
small matter for you, with your numerous attainments.

[Side-note: Hippias thinks the question easy to answer.]

Oh--yes--a small matter (replies Hippias); the question is easy to
answer. I could teach you to answer many questions harder than that:
so that no man shall be able to convict you in dialogue.[12]

[Footnote 12: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 286 C-D.]

Sokrates then proceeds to interrogate Hippias, in the name of the
absentee, starting one difficulty after another as if suggested by
this unknown prompter, and pretending to be himself under awe of so
impracticable a disputant.

[Side-note: Justice, Wisdom, Beauty must each be something.
What is Beauty, or the Beautiful?]

All persons are just, through Justice--wise, through Wisdom--good,
through Goodness or the Good--beautiful, through Beauty or the
Beautiful. Now Justice, Wisdom, Goodness, Beauty or the Beautiful,
must each be _something_. Tell me what the Beautiful is?

[Side-note: Hippias does not understand the question. He
answers by indicating one particularly beautiful object.]

Hippias does not conceive the question. Does the man want to know
what is a beautiful thing? _Sokr._--No; he wants to know what is
_The Beautiful_. _Hip._--I do not see the difference. I
answer that a beautiful maiden is a beautiful thing. No one can deny
that.[13]

[Footnote 13: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 287 A.]

_Sokr._--My disputatious friend will not accept your answer. He
wants you to tell him, What is the Self-Beautiful?--that Something
through which all beautiful things become beautiful. Am I to tell
him, it is because a beautiful maiden is a beautiful thing? He will
say--Is not a beautiful mare a beautiful thing also? and a beautiful
lyre as well? _Hip._--Yes;--both of them are so. _Sokr._--Ay,
and a beautiful pot, my friend will add, well moulded and rounded
by a skilful potter, is a beautiful thing too. _Hip._--How,
Sokrates? Who can your disputatious friend be? Some ill-taught
man, surely; since he introduces such trivial names into a dignified
debate. _Sokr._--Yes; that is his character: not polite, but
vulgar, anxious for nothing else but the truth. _Hip._--A pot,
if it be beautifully made, must certainly be called beautiful; yet
still, all such objects are unworthy to be counted as beautiful, if
compared with a maiden, a mare, or a lyre.

[Side-note: Cross-questioning by Sokrates--Other things also
are beautiful; but each thing is beautiful only by comparison, or
under some particular circumstances--it is sometimes beautiful,
sometimes not beautiful.]

_Sokr._--I understand. You follow the analogy suggested by
Herakleitus in his dictum--That the most beautiful ape is ugly, if
compared with the human race. So you say, the most beautiful pot is
ugly, when compared with the race of maidens. _Hip_--Yes. That
is my meaning. _Sokr._--Then my friend will ask you in return,
whether the race of maidens is not as much inferior to the race of
Gods, as the pot to the maiden? whether the most beautiful maiden
will not appear ugly, when compared to a Goddess? whether the wisest
of men will not appear an ape, when compared to the Gods, either in
beauty or in wisdom.[14] _Hip._--No one can dispute it.
_Sokr._--My friend will smile and say--You forget what was the
question put. I asked you, What is the Beautiful?--the
Self-Beautiful: and your answer gives me, as the Self-Beautiful,
something which you yourself acknowledge to be no more beautiful than
ugly? If I had asked you, from the first, what it was that was both
beautiful and ugly, your answer would have been pertinent to the
question. Can you still think that the Self-Beautiful,--that
Something, by the presence of which all other things become
beautiful,--is a maiden, or a mare, or a lyre?

[Footnote 14: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 289.]

[Side-note: Second answer of Hippias--_Gold_, is that by
the presence of which all things become beautiful--scrutiny applied
to the answer. Complaint by Hippias about vulgar analogies.]

_Hip._--I have another answer to which your friend can take no
exception. That, by the presence of which all things become
beautiful, is Gold. What was before ugly, will (we all know), when
ornamented with gold, appear beautiful. _Sokr._--You little know
what sort of man my friend is. He will laugh at your answer, and ask
you--Do you think, then, that Pheidias did not know his profession as
a sculptor? How came he not to make the statue of Athênê all
gold, instead of making (as he has done) the face, hands, and feet of
ivory, and the pupils of the eyes of a particular stone? Is not ivory
also beautiful, and particular kinds of stone? _Hip._--Yes, each
is beautiful, where it is becoming. _Sokr._--And ugly, where it
is not becoming.[15] _Hip._--Doubtless. I admit that what is
becoming or suitable, makes that to which it is applied appear
beautiful: that which is not becoming or suitable, makes it appear
ugly. _Sokr._--My friend will next ask you, when you are boiling
the beautiful pot of which we spoke just now, full of beautiful soup,
what sort of ladle will be suitable and becoming--one made of gold,
or of fig-tree wood? Will not the golden ladle spoil the soup, and
the wooden ladle turn it out good? Is not the wooden ladle,
therefore, better than the golden? _Hip._--By Hêraklês,
Sokrates! what a coarse and stupid fellow your friend is! I cannot
continue to converse with a man who talks of such matters.
_Sokr._--I am not surprised that you, with your fine attire and
lofty reputation, are offended with these low allusions. But I have
nothing to spoil by intercourse with this man; and I entreat you to
persevere, as a favour to me. He will ask you whether a wooden
soup-ladle is not more beautiful than a ladle of gold,--since it is more
suitable and becoming? So that though you said--The Self-Beautiful is
Gold--you are now obliged to acknowledge that gold is not more
beautiful than fig-tree wood?

[Footnote 15: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 290.]

[Side-note: Third answer of Hippias--questions upon it--proof
given that it fails of universal application.]

_Hip._--I acknowledge that it is so. But I have another answer
ready which will silence your friend. I presume you wish me to
indicate as The Beautiful, something which will never appear ugly to
any one, at any time, or at any place.[16] _Sokr._--That is
exactly what I desire. _Hip._--Well, I affirm, then, that to
every man, always, and everywhere, the following is most beautiful. A
man being healthy, rich, honoured by the Greeks, having come to old
age and buried his own parents well, to be himself buried by his own
sons well and magnificently. _Sokr._--Your answer sounds
imposing; but my friend will laugh it to scorn, and will remind me
again, that his question pointed to the Beautiful
_itself_[17]--something which, being present as attribute in any
subject, will make that subject (whether stone, wood, man, God,
action, study, &c.) beautiful. Now that which you have asserted
to be beautiful to every one everywhere, was not beautiful to
Achilles, who accepted by preference the lot of dying before his
father--nor is it so to the heroes, or to the sons of Gods, who do
not survive or bury their fathers. To some, therefore, what you
specify is beautiful--to others it is not beautiful but ugly: that
is, it is both beautiful and ugly, like the maiden, the lyre, the
pot, on which we have already remarked. _Hip._--I did not speak
about the Gods or Heroes. Your friend is intolerable, for touching on
such profanities.[18] _Sokr._--However, you cannot deny that
what you have indicated is beautiful only for the sons of men, and
not for the sons of Gods. My friend will thus make good his reproach
against your answer. He will tell me, that all the answers, which we
have as yet given, are too absurd. And he may perhaps at the same
time himself suggest another, as he sometimes does in pity for my
embarrassment.

[Footnote 16: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 291 C-D.]

[Footnote 17: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 292 D.]

[Footnote 18: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 293 B.]

[Side-note: Farther answers, suggested by Sokrates himself--1.
The Suitable or Becoming--objections thereunto--it is rejected.]

Sokrates then mentions, as coming from hints of the absent friend,
three or four different explanations of the Self-Beautiful: each of
which, when first introduced, he approves, and Hippias approves also:
but each of which he proceeds successively to test and condemn. It is
to be remarked that all of them are general explanations: not
consisting in conspicuous particular instances, like those which had
come from Hippias. His explanations are the following:--

1. The suitable or becoming (which had before been glanced at). It is
the suitable or becoming which constitutes the Beautiful.[19]

[Footnote 19: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 293 E.]

To this Sokrates objects: The suitable, or becoming, is what causes
objects to _appear_ beautiful--not what causes them to _be
really_ beautiful. Now the latter is that which we are seeking.
The two conditions do not always go together. Those objects,
institutions, and pursuits which _are really_ beautiful (fine,
honourable) very often do not appear so, either to individuals or to
cities collectively; so that there is perpetual dispute and
fighting on the subject. The suitable or becoming, therefore, as it
is certainly what makes objects appear beautiful, so it cannot be
what makes them really beautiful.[20]

[Footnote 20: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 294 B-E.]

[Side-note: 2. The useful or profitable--objections--it will
not hold.]

2. The useful or profitable.--We call objects beautiful, looking to
the purpose which they are calculated or intended to serve: the human
body, with a view to running, wrestling, and other exercises--a
horse, an ox, a cock, looking to the service required from
them--implements, vehicles on land and ships at sea, instruments for
music and other arts all upon the same principle, looking to the end
which they accomplish or help to accomplish. Laws and pursuits are
characterised in the same way. In each of these, we give the name
Beautiful to the useful, in so far as it is useful, when it is
useful, and for the purpose to which it is useful. To that which is
useless or hurtful, in the same manner, we give the name Ugly.[21]

[Footnote 21: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 295 C-D.]

Now that which is capable of accomplishing each end, is useful for
such end: that which is incapable, is useless. It is therefore
capacity, or power, which is beautiful: incapacity, or impotence, is
ugly.[22]

[Footnote 22: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 295 E. [Greek: Ou)kou=n to\ dunato\n
e(/kaston a)perga/zesthai, ei)s o(/per dunato/n, ei)s tou=to kai\
chrê/simon; to\ de\ a)du/naton a)/chrêston? . . . . Du/namis me\n
a)/ra kalo/n--a)dunami/a de\ ai)schro/n?]]

Most certainly (replies Hippias): this is especially true in our
cities and communities, wherein political power is the finest thing
possible, political impotence, the meanest.

Yet, on closer inspection (continues Sokrates), such a theory will
not hold. Power is employed by all men, though unwillingly, for bad
purposes: and each man, through such employment of his power, does
much more harm than good, beginning with his childhood. Now power,
which is useful for the doing of evil, can never be called
beautiful.[23]

[Footnote 23: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 296 C-D.]

You cannot therefore say that Power, taken absolutely, is beautiful.
You must add the qualification--Power used for the production of some
good, is beautiful. This, then, would be the profitable--the cause or
generator of good.[24] But the cause is different from its effect:
the generator or father is different from the generated or son.
The beautiful would, upon this view, be the cause of the good. But
then the beautiful would be different from the good, and the good
different from the beautiful? Who can admit this? It is obviously
wrong: it is the most ridiculous theory which we have yet hit
upon.[25]

[Footnote 24: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 297 B.]

[Footnote 25: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 297 D-E. [Greek: ei) oi(=o/n t'
e)sti/n, e(kei/nôn ei)=nai (kinduneu/ei) geloio/teros tô=n
prô/tôn.]]

[Side-note: 3. The Beautiful is a variety of the Pleasurable--that
which is received through the eye and the ear.]

3. The Beautiful is a particular variety of the agreeable or
pleasurable: that which characterises those things which cause
pleasure to us through sight and hearing. Thus the men, the
ornaments, the works of painting or sculpture, upon which we look
with admiration,[26] are called beautiful: also songs, music, poetry,
fable, discourse, in like manner; nay even laws, customs, pursuits,
which we consider beautiful, might be brought under the same
head.[27]

[Footnote 26: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 298 A-B.]

[Footnote 27: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 298 D.

Professor Bain observes:--"The eye and the ear are the great avenues
to the mind for the æsthetic class of influences; the other senses
are more or less in the monopolist interest. The blue sky, the green
woods, and all the beauties of the landscape, can fill the vision of
a countless throng of admirers. So with the pleasing sounds, &c."
'The Emotions and the Will.' ch. xiv. (The Æsthetic Emotions), sect.
2, p. 226, 3rd ed.]

[Side-note: Objections to this last--What property is there
common to both sight and hearing, which confers upon the pleasures of
these two senses the exclusive privilege of being beautiful?]

The objector, however, must now be dealt with. He will ask us--Upon
what ground do you make so marked a distinction between the pleasures
of sight and hearing, and other pleasures? Do you deny that these
others (those of taste, smell, eating, drinking, sex) are really
pleasures? No, surely (we shall reply); we admit them to be
pleasures,--but no one will tolerate us in calling them beautiful:
especially the pleasures of sex, which as pleasures are the greatest
of all, but which are ugly and disgraceful to behold. He will
answer--I understand you: you are ashamed to call these pleasures
beautiful, because they do not seem so to the multitude: but I did not
ask you, what _seems_ beautiful to the multitude--I asked you, what
_is_ beautiful.[28] You mean to affirm, that all pleasures which
do not belong to sight and hearing, are not beautiful: Do you mean,
all which do not belong to both? or all which do not belong to
one or the other? We shall reply--To either one of the two--or to
both the two. Well! but, why (he will ask) do you single out these
pleasures of sight and hearing, as beautiful exclusively? What is
there peculiar in them, which gives them a title to such distinction?
All pleasures are alike, so far forth as pleasures, differing only in
the more or less. Next, the pleasures of sight cannot be considered
as beautiful by reason of their coming through sight--for that reason
would not apply to the pleasures of hearing: nor again can the
pleasures of hearing be considered as beautiful by reason of their
coming through hearing.[29] We must find something possessed as well
by sight as by hearing, common to both, and peculiar to them,--which
confers beauty upon the pleasures of both and of each. Any attribute
of one, which does not also belong to the other, will not be
sufficient for our purpose.[30] Beauty must depend upon some
essential characteristic which both have in common.[31] We must
therefore look out for some such characteristic, which belongs to
both as well as to each separately.

[Footnote 28: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 298 E, 299 A.

[Greek: Mantha/nô, a)\n i)/sôs phai/ê, kai\ e)gô/, o(/ti pa/lai
ai)schu/nesthe tau/tas ta\s ê(dona\s pha/nai kala\s ei)=nai, o(/ti
ou) dokei= toi=s a)nthrô/pois; a)ll' e)gô\ ou) tou=to ê)rô/tôn,
_o(\ dokei= toi=s polloi=s kalo\n ei)=nai_, a)ll' o(\, _ti
e)/stin_.]]

[Footnote 29: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 299 D-E.]

[Footnote 30: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 300 B. A separate argument between
Sokrates and Hippias is here as it were interpolated; Hippias affirms
that he does not see how any predicate can be true of both which is
not true of either separately. Sokrates points out that two men are
Both, even in number, while each is One, an odd number. You cannot
say of the two that they are one, nor can you say of either that he
is Both. There are two classes of predicates; some which are true of
either but not true of the two together, or _vice versâ_; some
again which are true of the two and true also of each one--such as
just, wise, handsome, &c. p. 301-303 B.]

[Footnote 31: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 302 C. [Greek: tê=| ou)si/a| tê=| e)p'
a)mpho/tera e(pome/nê| ô)=|mên, ei)/per a)mpho/tera/ e)sti kala/,
tau/tê| dei=n au)ta\ kala\ ei)=nai, tê=| de\ kata\ ta\ e(/tera
a)poleipome/nê| mê/. kai\ e(/ti nu=n oi)=omai.]]

[Side-note: Answer--There is, belonging to each and to both in
common, the property of being innocuous and profitable
pleasures--upon this ground they are called beautiful.]

Now there is one characteristic which may perhaps serve. The
pleasures of sight and hearing, both and each, are distinguished from
other pleasures by being the most innocuous and the best.[32] It is
for this reason that we call them beautiful. The Beautiful, then, is
profitable pleasure--or pleasure producing good--for the profitable
is, that which produces good.[33]

[Footnote 32: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 303 E. [Greek: o(/ti a)sine/statai
au(=tai tô=n ê(donô=n ei)si kai\ be/ltistai, kai\ a)mpho/terai kai\
e(kate/ra.]]

[Footnote 33: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 303 E. [Greek: le/gete dê\ to\ kalo\n
ei)=nai, _ê(donê\n ô)phe/limon_.]]

[Side-note: This will not hold--the Profitable is the cause of
Good, and is therefore different from Good--to say that the beautiful
is the Profitable, is to say that it is different from Good but this
has been already declared inadmissible.]

Nevertheless the objector will not be satisfied even with this. He
will tell us--You declare the Beautiful to be Pleasure producing
good. But we before agreed, that the producing agent or cause is
different from what is produced or the effect. Accordingly, the
Beautiful is different from the good: or, in other words, the
Beautiful is not good, nor is the Good beautiful--if each of them is
a different thing.[34] Now these propositions we have already
pronounced to be inadmissible, so that your present explanation will
not stand better than the preceding.

[Footnote 34: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 303 E--304 A. [Greek: Ou)/koun
ô)phe/limon, phê/sei, to\ poiou=n ta)gatho/n, to\ de\ poiou=n kai\
to\ poiou/menon, e(/teron nu=n dê\ e)pha/nê, kai\ ei)s to\n pro/teron
lo/gon ê(/kei u(mi=n o( lo/gos? _ou)/te ga\r to\ a)gatho\n a)\n
ei)/ê kalo\n ou)/te to\ kalo\n a)gatho/n, ei)/per a)/llo au)tô=n
e(ka/tero/n e)stin_.]

These last words deserve attention, because they coincide with the
doctrine ascribed to Antisthenes, which has caused so many hard words
to be applied to him (as well as to Stilpon) by critics, from Kolôtes
downwards. The general principle here laid down by Plato is--A is
something different from B, therefore A is not B and B is not A. In
other words, A cannot be predicated of B nor B of A. Antisthenes said
in like manner--[Greek: A)/nthrôpos] and [Greek: A)gatho\s] are
different from each other, therefore you cannot say [Greek:
A)/nthrôpos e)stin a)gatho/s]. You can only say [Greek: A)/nthrôpos
e)stin A)/nthrôpos]--A)gatho/s e)stin a)gatho/s].

I have touched farther upon this point in my chapter upon Antisthenes
and the other Viri Sokratici.]

[Side-note: Remarks upon the Dialogue--the explanations
ascribed to Hippias are special conspicuous examples: those ascribed
to Sokrates are attempts to assign some general concept.]

Thus finish the three distinct explanations of [Greek: To\ kalo\n],
which Plato in this dialogue causes to be first suggested by
Sokrates, successively accepted by Hippias, and successively refuted
by Sokrates. In comparing them with the three explanations which he
puts into the mouth of Hippias, we note this distinction: That the
explanations proposed by Hippias are conspicuous particular
exemplifications of the Beautiful, substituted in place of the
general concept: as we remarked, in the Dialogue Euthyphron, that the
explanations of the Holy given by Euthyphron in reply to Sokrates,
were of the same exemplifying character. On the contrary, those
suggested by Sokrates keep in the region of abstractions, and seek to
discover some more general concept, of which the Beautiful is only a
derivative or a modification, so as to render a definition of it
practicable. To illustrate this difference by the language of Dr.
Whewell respecting many of the classifications in Natural History, we
may say--That according to the views here represented by Hippias,
the group of objects called beautiful is given by Type, not by
Definition:[35] while Sokrates proceeds like one convinced that some
common characteristic attribute may be found, on which to rest a
Definition. To search for Definitions of general words, was (as
Aristotle remarks) a novelty, and a valuable novelty, introduced by
Sokrates. His contemporaries, the Sophists among them, were not
accustomed to it: and here the Sophist Hippias (according to Plato's
frequent manner) is derided as talking nonsense,[36] because, when
asked for an explanation of The Self-Beautiful, he answers by citing
special instances of beautiful objects. But we must remember, first,
that Sokrates, who is introduced as trying several general
explanations of the Self-Beautiful, does not find one which will
stand: next, that even if one such could be found, particular
instances can never be dispensed with, in the way of illustration;
lastly, that there are many general terms (the Beautiful being one of
them) of which no definitions can be provided, and which can only be
imperfectly explained, by enumerating a variety of objects to which
the term in question is applied.[37] Plato thought himself
entitled to objectivise every general term, or to assume a
substantive Ens, called a Form or Idea, corresponding to it. This was
a logical mistake quite as serious as any which we know to have been
committed by Hippias or any other Sophist. The assumption that
wherever there is a general term, there must also be a generic
attribute corresponding to it--is one which Aristotle takes much
pains to negative: he recognises terms of transitional analogy, as
well as terms equivocal: while he also especially numbers the
Beautiful among equivocal terms.[38]

[Footnote 35: See Dr. Whewell's 'History of the Inductive Sciences,'
ii. 120 seq.; and Mr. John Stuart Mill's 'System of Logic,' iv. 8, 3.

I shall illustrate this subject farther when I come to the dialogue
called Lysis.]

[Footnote 36: Stallbaum, in his notes, bursts into exclamations of
wonder at the incredible stupidity of Hippias--"En hominis stuporem
prorsus admirabilem," p. 289 E.]

[Footnote 37: Mr. John Stuart Mill observes in his System of Logic,
i. 1, 5: "One of the chief sources of lax habits of thought is the
custom of using connotative terms without a distinctly ascertained
connotation, and with no more precise notion of their meaning than
can be loosely collected from observing what objects they are used to
denote. It is in this manner that we all acquire, and inevitably so,
our first knowledge of our vernacular language. A child learns the
meaning of Man, White, &c., by hearing them applied to a number
of individual objects, and finding out, by a process of
generalisation of which he is but imperfectly conscious, what those
different objects have in common. In many cases objects bear a
general resemblance to each other, which leads to their being
familiarly classed together under a common name, while it is not
immediately apparent what are the particular attributes upon the
possession of which in common by them all their general resemblance
depends. In this manner names creep on from subject to subject until
all traces of a common meaning sometimes disappear, and the word
comes to denote a number of things not only independently of any
common attribute, but which have actually no attribute in common, or
none but what is shared by other things to which the name is
capriciously refused. It would be well if this degeneracy of language
took place only in the hands of the untaught vulgar; but some of the
most remarkable instances are to be found in terms of art, and among
technically educated persons, such as English lawyers. _Felony_,
_e.g._, is a law-term with the sound of which all are familiar:
_but there is no lawyer who would undertake to tell what a felony
is, otherwise than by enumerating the various offences so called._
Originally the word _felony_ had a meaning; it denoted all
offences, the penalty of which included forfeiture of lands or goods,
but subsequent Acts of Parliament have declared various offences to
be felonies without enjoining that penalty, and have taken away that
penalty from others which continue nevertheless to be called
felonies, insomuch that the acts so called have now no property
whatever in common save that of being unlawful and punishable."]

[Footnote 38: Aristot. Topic, i. 106, a. 21. [Greek: Ta\ pollachô=s
lego/mena--ta\ pleonachô=s lego/mena]--are perpetually noted and
distinguished by Aristotle.]

[Side-note: Analogy between the explanations here ascribed to
Sokrates, and those given by the Xenophontic Sokrates in the
Memorabilia.]

We read in the Xenophontic Memorabilia a dialogue between Sokrates
and Aristippus, on this same subject--What is the Beautiful, which
affords a sort of contrast between the Dialogues of Search and those
of Exposition. In the Hippias Major, we have the problem approached
on several different sides, various suggestions being proposed, and
each successively disallowed, on reasons shown, as failures: while in
the Xenophontic dialogue, Sokrates declares an affirmative doctrine,
and stands to it--but no pains are taken to bring out the objections
against it and rebut them. The doctrine is, that the Beautiful is
coincident with the Good, and that both of them are resolvable into
the Useful: thus all beautiful objects, unlike as they may be to the
eye or touch, bear that name because they have in common the
attribute of conducing to one and the same purpose--the security,
advantage, or gratification, of man, in some form or other. This is
one of the three explanations broached by the Platonic Sokrates, and
afterwards refuted by him, in the Hippias: while his declaration
(which Hippias puts aside as unseemly)--that a pot and a wooden
soup-ladle conveniently made are beautiful is perfectly in harmony
with that of the Xenophontic Sokrates, that a basket for carrying dung
is beautiful, if it performs its work well.[39] We must moreover
remark, that the objections whereby the Platonic Sokrates, after
proposing the doctrine and saying much in its favour, finds himself
compelled at last to disallow it--these objections are not produced
and refuted, but passed over without notice, in the Xenophontic
dialogue, wherein Sokrates affirms it decidedly.[40] The
affirming Sokrates, and the objecting Sokrates, are not on the
stage at once.

[Footnote 39: Xen. Mem. iii. 6, 2, 7; iv. 6, 8.

Plato, Hipp. Maj. 288 D, 290 D.

I am obliged to translate the words [Greek: to\ Kalo/n] by the
Beautiful or beauty, to avoid a tiresome periphrasis. But in reality
the Greek words include more besides: they mean also the _fine_,
the _honourable or that which is worthy of honour_, the
_exalted_, &c. If we have difficulty in finding any common
property connoted by the English word, the difficulty in the case of
the Greek word is still greater.]

[Footnote 40: In regard to the question, Wherein consists [Greek: To\
Kalo/n]? and objections against the theory of the Xenophontic
Sokrates, it is worth while to compare the views of modern
philosophers. Dugald Stewart says (on the Beautiful, 'Philosophical
Essays,' p. 214 seq.), "It has long been a favourite problem with
philosophers to ascertain the common quality or qualities which
entitle a thing to the denomination of Beautiful. But the success of
their speculations has been so inconsiderable, that little can be
inferred from them except the impossibility of the problem to which
they have been directed. The speculations which have given occasion
to these remarks have evidently originated in a prejudice which has
descended to modern times from the scholastic ages. That when a word
admits of a variety of significations, these different significations
must all be species of the same genus, and must consequently include
some essential idea common to every individual to which the generic
term can be applied. Of this principle, which has been an abundant
source of obscurity and mystery in the different sciences, it would
be easy to expose the unsoundness and futility. Socrates, whose plain
good sense appears, on this as on other occasions, to have fortified
his understanding to a wonderful degree against the metaphysical
subtleties which misled his successors, was evidently apprised fully
of the justice of the foregoing remarks, if any reliance can be
placed on the account given by Xenophon of his conversation with
Aristippus about the Good and the Beautiful," &c.

Stewart then proceeds to translate a portion of the Xenophontic
dialogue (Memorab. iii. 8). But unfortunately he does not translate
the whole of it. If he had he would have seen that he has
misconceived the opinion of Sokrates, who maintains the very doctrine
here disallowed by Stewart, viz., That there is an essential idea
common to all beautiful objects, the fact of being conducive to human
security, comfort, or enjoyment. This is unquestionably an important
common property, though the multifarious objects which possess it may
be unlike in all other respects.

As to the general theory I think that Stewart is right: it is his
compliment to Sokrates, on this occasion, which I consider misplaced.
He certainly would not have agreed with Sokrates (nor should I agree
with him) in calling by the epithet _beautiful_ a basket for
carrying dung when well made for its own purpose, or a convenient
boiling-pot, or a soup-ladle made of fig-tree wood, as the Platonic
Sokrates affirms in the Hippias (288 D, 290 D). The Beautiful and the
Useful sometimes coincide; more often or at least very often, they do
not. Hippias is made to protest, in this dialogue, against the mention
of such vulgar objects as the pot and the ladle; and this is
apparently intended by Plato as a defective point in his character,
denoting silly affectation and conceit, like his fine apparel. But
Dugald Stewart would have agreed in the sentiment ascribed to
Hippias--that vulgar and mean objects have no place in an inquiry
into the Beautiful; and that they belong, when well-formed for their
respective purposes, to the category of the Useful.

The Xenophontic Sokrates in the Memorabilia is mistaken in
confounding the Beautiful with the Good and the Useful. But his
remarks are valuable in another point of view, as they insist most
forcibly on the essential relativity both of the Beautiful and the
Good.

The doctrine of Dugald Stewart is supported by Mr. John Stuart Mill
('System of Logic,' iv. 4, 5, p. 220 seq.);** and Professor Bain
has expounded the whole subject still more fully in a chapter (xiv.
p. 225 seq., on the Æsthetic Emotions) of his work on the Emotions
and the Will.]

The concluding observations of this dialogue, interchanged between
Hippias and Sokrates, are interesting as bringing out the antithesis
between rhetoric and dialectic--between the concrete and
exemplifying, as contrasted with the abstract and analytical.
Immediately after Sokrates has brought his own third suggestion to an
inextricable embarrassment, Hippias remarks--

[Side-note: Concluding thrust exchanged between Hippias and
Sokrates.]

"Well, Sokrates, what do you think now of all these reasonings of
yours? They are what I declared them to be just now,--scrapings and
parings of discourse, divided into minute fragments. But the really
beautiful and precious acquirement is, to be able to set out well and
finely a regular discourse before the Dikastery or the public
assembly, to persuade your auditors, and to depart carrying with you
not the least but the greatest of all prizes--safety for yourself,
your property, and your friends. These are the real objects to strive
for. Leave off your petty cavils, that you may not look like an
extreme simpleton, handling silly trifles as you do at present."[41]

"My dear Hippias," (replies Sokrates) "you are a happy man, since you
know what pursuits a man ought to follow, and have yourself followed
them, as you say, with good success. But I, as it seems, am under the
grasp of an unaccountable fortune: for I am always fluctuating and
puzzling myself, and when I lay my puzzle before you wise men, I am
requited by you with hard words. I am told just what you have now
been telling me, that I busy myself about matters silly, petty, and
worthless. When on the contrary, overborne by your authority, I
declare as you do, that it is the finest thing possible to be able to
set out well and beautifully a regular discourse before the public
assembly, and bring it to successful conclusion--then there are other
men at hand who heap upon me bitter reproaches: especially that one
man, my nearest kinsman and inmate, who never omits to convict me.
When on my return home he hears me repeat what you have told me, he
asks, if I am not ashamed of my impudence in talking about beautiful
(honourable) pursuits, when I am so manifestly convicted upon
this subject, of not even knowing what the Beautiful (Honourable) is.
How can you (he says), being ignorant what the Beautiful is, know
_who_ has set out a discourse beautifully and _who_ has
not--_who_ has performed a beautiful exploit and _who_ has
not? Since you are in a condition so disgraceful, can you think life
better for you than death? Such then is my fate--to hear
disparagement and reproaches from you on the one side, and from him
on the other. Necessity however perhaps requires that I should endure
all these discomforts: for it will be nothing strange if I profit by
them. Indeed I think that I have already profited both by your
society, Hippias, and by his: for I now think that I know what the
proverb means--Beautiful (Honourable) things are difficult."[42]

[Footnote 41: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 304 A.]

[Footnote 42: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 304 D-E.]

[Side-note: Rhetoric against Dialectic.]

Here is a suitable termination for one of the Dialogues of Search:
"My mind has been embarrassed by contradictions as yet unreconciled,
but this is a stage indispensable to future improvement". We have
moreover an interesting passage of arms between Rhetoric and
Dialectic: two contemporaneous and contending agencies, among the
stirring minds of Athens, in the time of Plato and Isokrates. The
Rhetor accuses the Dialectician of departing from the conditions of
reality--of breaking up the integrity of those concretes, which occur
in nature each as continuous and indivisible wholes. Each of the
analogous particular cases forms a continuum or concrete by itself,
which may be compared with the others, but cannot be taken to pieces,
and studied in separate fragments.[43] The Dialectician on his side
treats the Abstract ([Greek: to\ kalo\n]) as the real Integer, and
the highest abstraction as the first of all integers, containing in
itself and capable of evolving all the subordinate integers: the
various accompaniments, which go along with each Abstract to make up
a concrete, he disregards as shadowy and transient disguises.

[Footnote 43: Plat. Hipp. Maj. 301 B. [Greek: A)lla\ ga\r dê\ su/,
ô)= Sô/krates, ta\ me\n o(/la tô=n pragma/tôn ou) skopei=s, ou)d'
e)kei=noi, oi(=s su\ ei)/ôthas diale/gesthai, krou/ete de\
a)polamba/nontes to\ kalo\n kai\ e(/kaston tô=n o)/ntôn e)n toi=s
lo/gois katate/mnontes; dia\ tau=ta ou(/tô mega/la u(ma=s lantha/nei
kai\ _dianekê= sô/mata tê=s ou)si/as pephuko/ta_.] Compare 301
E.

The words [Greek: dianekê= sô/mata tê=s ou)si/as pephuko/ta]
correspond as nearly as can be to the logical term _Concrete_,
opposed to _Abstract_. Nature furnishes only Concreta, not
Abstracta.]

[Side-note: Men who dealt with real life, contrasted with the
speculative and analytical philosophers.]

Hippias accuses Sokrates of never taking into his view Wholes,
and of confining his attention to separate parts and fragments,
obtained by logical analysis and subdivision. Aristophanes, when he
attacks the Dialectic of Sokrates, takes the same ground, employing
numerous comic metaphors to illustrate the small and impalpable
fragments handled, and the subtle transpositions which they underwent
in the reasoning. Isokrates again deprecates the over-subtlety of
dialectic debate, contrasting it with discussions (in his opinion)
more useful; wherein entire situations, each with its full clothing
and assemblage of circumstances, were reviewed and estimated.[44]
All these are protests, by persons accustomed to deal with real life,
and to talk to auditors both numerous and commonplace, against that
conscious analysis and close attention to general and abstract terms,
which Sokrates first insisted on and transmitted to his disciples. On
the other side, we have the emphatic declaration made by the Platonic
Sokrates (and made still earlier by the Xenophontic[45] or historical
Sokrates)--That a man was not fit to talk about beautiful things in
the concrete--that he had no right to affirm or deny that attribute,
with respect to any given subject--that he was not** even fit to live
unless he could explain what was meant by The Beautiful, or Beauty
in the abstract. Here are two distinct and conflicting intellectual
habits, the antithesis between which, indicated in this dialogue,
is described at large and forcibly in the Theætêtus.[46]

[Footnote 44: Aristophan. Nubes, 130. [Greek: lo/gôn a)kribô=n
schindala/mous--paipa/lê.] Nub. 261, Aves, 430. [Greek: leptota/tôn
lê/rôn i(ereu=], Nub. 359. [Greek: gnô/mais leptais], Nub. 1404.
[Greek: skariphismoi=si lê/rôn], Ran. 1497. [Greek: smileu/mata]--id.
819. Isokrates, [Greek: Pro\s Nikokle/a], s. 69, antithesis of the
[Greek: lo/goi politikoi\] and [Greek: lo/goi e)ristikoi/--ma/lista
me\n kai\ a)po\ tôn kairô=n theôrei=n sumbouleu/ontas, ei) de\ mê\,
_kath' o(/lôn tô=n pragma/tôn_ le/gontas]--which is almost
exactly the phrase ascribed to Hippias by Plato in this Hippias
Major. Also Isokrates, Contra Sophistas, s. 24-25, where he contrasts
the useless [Greek: logi/dia], debated by the contentious
dialecticians (Sokrates and Plato being probably included in this
designation), with his own [Greek: lo/goi politikoi/]. Compare also
Isokrates, Or. xv. De Permutatione, s. 211-213-285-287.]

[Footnote 45: Xen. Mem. i. 1, 16.]

[Footnote 46: Plato, Theætêt. pp. 173-174-175.]

[Side-note: Concrete Aggregates--abstract or logical
Aggregates. Distinct aptitudes required by Aristotle for the
Dialectician.]

When Hippias accuses Sokrates of neglecting to notice Wholes or
Aggregates, this is true in the sense of Concrete Wholes--the
phenomenal sequences and co-existences, perceived by sense or
imagined. But the Universal (as Aristotle says)[47] is one kind of
Whole: a Logical Whole, having logical parts. In the minds of
Sokrates and Plato, the Logical Whole separable into its logical
parts and into them only, were preponderant.

[Footnote 47: Aristot. Physic. i. 1. [Greek: to\ ga\r o(/lon kata\
tê\n ai)/sthêsin gnôrimô/teron, _to\ de\ katho/lou o(/lon ti e)sti;
polla\ ga\r perilamba/nei ô(s me/rê to\ katho/lou_.] Compare
Simplikius, Schol. Brandis ad loc. p. 324, a. 10-26.]

[Side-note: Antithesis of Absolute and Relative, here brought
into debate by Plato, in regard to the Idea of Beauty.]

One other point deserves peculiar notice, in the dialogue under our
review. The problem started is, What is the Beautiful--the
Self-Beautiful, or Beauty _per se_: and it is assumed that this must
be Something,[48] that from the accession of which, each particular
beautiful thing becomes beautiful. But Sokrates presently comes to
make a distinction between that which is really beautiful and that
which appears to be beautiful. Some things (he says) appear
beautiful, but are not so in reality: some are beautiful, but do not
appear so. The problem, as he states it, is, to find, not what that
is which makes objects appear beautiful, but what it is that makes
them really beautiful. This distinction, as we find it in the
language of Hippias, is one of degree only:[49] that _is_
beautiful which appears so to every one and at all times. But in the
language of Sokrates, the distinction is radical: to _be_
beautiful is one thing, to _appear_ beautiful is another;
whatever makes a thing appear beautiful without being so in reality,
is a mere engine of deceit, and not what Sokrates is enquiring
for.[50] The Self-Beautiful or real Beauty is so, whether any one
perceives it to be beautiful or not: it is an Absolute, which exists
_per se_, having no relation to any sentient or percipient
subject.[51] At any rate, such is the manner in which Plato
conceives it, when he starts here as a problem to enquire, What
it is.

[Footnote 48: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 286 K. [Greek: au)to\ to\ kalo\n o(/,
ti e)/stin.] Also 287 D, 289 D.]

[Footnote 49: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 291 D, 292 E.]

[Footnote 50: Plato, Hipp. Maj. 294 A-B, 299 A.]

[Footnote 51: Dr. Hutcheson, in his inquiry into the Original of our
Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, observes (sect. i. and ii. p. 14-16):--

"Beauty is either original or comparative, or, if any like the terms
better, absolute or relative; only let it be observed, that by
_absolute_ or _original_, is not understood any quality
supposed to be in the object, which should of itself be beautiful,
without relation to any mind which perceives it. For Beauty, like
other names of sensible ideas, properly denotes the perception of
some mind. . . . . Our inquiry is only about the qualities which are
beautiful to men, or about the foundation of their sense of beauty,
for (as above hinted) Beauty has always relation to the sense of some
mind; and when we afterwards show how generally the objects that
occur to us are beautiful, we mean that such objects are agreeable to
the sense of men, &c."

The same is repeated, sect. iv. p. 40; sect. vi. p. 72.]

Herein we note one of the material points of disagreement between
Plato and his master: for Sokrates (in the Xenophontic Memorabilia)
affirms distinctly that Beauty is altogether relative to human wants
and appreciations. The Real and Absolute, on the one hand, wherein
alone resides truth and beauty--as against the phenomenal and
relative, on the other hand, the world of illusion and meanness--this
is an antithesis which we shall find often reproduced in Plato. I
shall take it up more at large, when I come to discuss his argument
against Protagoras in the Theætêtus.

[Side-note: Hippias Minor--characters and situation supposed.]

I now come to the Lesser Hippias: in which (as we have already seen
in the Greater) that Sophist is described by epithets, affirming
varied and extensive accomplishments, as master of arithmetic,
geometry, astronomy, poetry (especially that of Homer), legendary
lore, music, metrical and rhythmical diversities, &c. His memory
was prodigious, and he had even invented for himself a technical
scheme for assisting memory. He had composed poems, epic, lyric, and
tragic, as well as many works in prose: he was, besides, a splendid
lecturer on ethical and political subjects, and professed to answer
any question which might be asked. Furthermore, he was skilful in
many kinds of manual dexterity: having woven his own garments,
plaited his own girdle, made his own shoes, engraved his own
seal-ring, and fabricated for himself a curry-comb and oil-flask.[52]
Lastly, he is described as wearing fine and showy apparel. What he is
made to say is rather in harmony with this last point of character,
than with the preceding. He talks with silliness and presumption, so
as to invite and excuse the derisory sting of Sokrates, There is a
third interlocutor, Eudikus: but he says very little, and other
auditors are alluded to generally, who say nothing.[53]

[Footnote 52: Plato, Hipp. Minor, 368.]

[Footnote 53: Plato, Hipp. Minor, 369 D, 373 B.

Ast rejects both the dialogues called by the name of Hippias, as not
composed by Plato. Schleiermacher doubts about both, and rejects the
Hippias Minor (which he considers as perhaps worked up by a Platonic
scholar from a genuine sketch by Plato himself) but will not pass the
same sentence upon the Hippias Major (Schleierm. Einleit. vol. ii.
pp. 293-296; vol. v. 399-403. Ast, Platon's Leben und Schriften, pp.
457-464).

Stallbaum defends both the dialogues as genuine works of Plato, and
in my judgment with good reason (Prolegg. ad Hipp. Maj. vol. iv. pp.
145-150; ad Hipp. Minor, pp. 227-235). Steinhart (Einleit. p. 99) and
Socher (Ueber Platon, p. 144 seq., 215 seq.) maintain the same
opinion on these dialogues as Stallbaum. It is to be remarked that
Schleiermacher states the reasons both for and against the
genuineness of the dialogues; and I think that even in his own
statement the reasons _for_ preponderate. The reasons which both
Schleiermacher and Ast produce as proving the spuriousness, are in my
view quite insufficient to sustain their conclusion. There is bad
taste, sophistry, an overdose of banter and derision (they say very
truly), in the part assigned to Sokrates: there are also differences
of view, as compared with Sokrates in other dialogues; various other
affirmations (they tell us) are _not_ Platonic. I admit much of
this, but I still do not accept their conclusion. These critics
cannot bear to admit any Platonic work as genuine unless it affords
to them ground for superlative admiration and glorification of the
author. This postulate I altogether contest; and I think that
differences of view, as between Sokrates in one dialogue and Sokrates
in another, are both naturally to be expected and actually manifested
(witness the Protagoras and Gorgias). Moreover Ast designates (p.
404) a doctrine as "durchaus unsokratisch" which Stallbaum justly
remarks (p. 233) to have been actually affirmed by Sokrates in the
Xenophontic Memorabilia. Stallbaum thinks that both the two dialogues
(Socher, that the Hippias Minor only) were composed by Plato among
his earlier works, and this may probably be true. The citation and
refutation of the Hippias Minor by Aristotle (Metaphys. [Greek: D].
1025, a. 6) counts with me as a strong corroborative proof that the
dialogue is Plato's work. Schleiermacher and Ast set this evidence
aside because Aristotle does not name Plato as the author. But if the
dialogue had been composed by any one less celebrated than Plato,
Aristotle would have named the author. Mention by Aristotle, though
without Plato's name, is of greater value to support the genuineness
than the purely internal grounds stated by Ast and Schleiermacher
against it.]

[Side-note: Hippias has just delivered a lecture, in which
he extols Achilles as better than Odysseus--the veracious and
straightforward hero better than the mendacious and crafty.]

In the Hippias Minor, that Sophist appears as having just concluded a
lecture upon Homer, in which he had extolled Achilles as better than
Odysseus: Achilles being depicted as veracious and straightforward,
Odysseus as mendacious and full of tricks. Sokrates, who had been
among the auditors, cross-examines Hippias upon the subject of this
affirmation.

Homer (says Hippias) considers veracious men, and mendacious men, to
be not merely different, but opposite: and I agree with him. Permit
me (Sokrates remarks) to ask some questions about the meaning of this
from you, since I cannot ask any from Homer himself. You will answer
both for yourself and him.[54]

[Footnote 54: Plat. Hipp. Minor, 365 C-D.

The remark here made by Sokrates--"The poet is not here to answer for
himself, so that you cannot put any questions to him" is a point of
view familiar to Plato: insisted upon forcibly in the Protagoras (347
E), and farther generalised in the Phædrus, so as to apply to all
written matter compared with personal converse (Phædrus, p. 275 D).

This ought to count, so far as it goes, as a fragment of proof that
the Hippias Minor is a genuine work of Plato, instead of which
Schleiermacher treats it (p. 295) as evincing a poor copy, made by
some imitator of Plato, from the Protagoras.]

Mendacious men (answers Hippias, to a string of questions,
somewhat prolix) are capable, intelligent, wise: they are not
incapable or ignorant. If a man be incapable of speaking falsely, or
ignorant, he is not mendacious. Now the capable man is one who can
make sure of doing what he wishes to do, at the time and occasion
when he does wish it, without let or hindrance.[55]

[Footnote 55: Plat. Hipp. Minor, 366 B-C.]

[Side-note: This is contested by Sokrates. The veracious man
and the mendacious man are one and the same--the only man who can
answer truly if he chooses, is he who can also answer falsely if he
chooses, _i.e._ the knowing man--the ignorant man cannot make
sure of doing either the one or the other.]

You, Hippias (says Sokrates), are expert on matters of arithmetic:
you can make sure of answering truly any question put to you on the
subject. You are _better_ on the subject than the ignorant man,
who cannot make sure of doing the same. But as you can make sure of
answering truly, so likewise you can make sure of answering falsely,
whenever you choose to do so. Now the ignorant man cannot make sure
of answering falsely. He may, by reason of his ignorance, when he
wishes to answer falsely, answer truly without intending it. You,
therefore, the intelligent man and the good in arithmetic, are better
than the ignorant and the bad for both purposes--for speaking
falsely, and for speaking truly.[56]

[Footnote 56: Plato, Hippias Minor, 366 E. [Greek: Po/teron su\ a)\n
ma/lista pseu/doio kai\ a)ei\ kata\ tau)ta\ pseudê= le/gois peri\
tou/tôn, boulo/menos pseu/desthai kai\ mêde/pote a)lêthê=
a)pokri/nesthai? ê)/ o( a)mathê\s ei)s logismou\s du/nait' a)\n sou=
ma=llon pseu/desthai boulome/nou? ê)\ o( me\n a)mathê\s polla/kis
a)\n boulo/menos pseudê= le/gein ta)lêthê= a)\n ei)/poi a)/kôn, ei)
tu/choi, dia\ to\ mê\ ei)de/nai--su\ de\ o( sopho/s, ei)/per bou/loio
pseu/desthai, a)ei\ a)\n kata\ ta\ au)ta\ pseu/doio?]]

[Side-note: Analogy of special arts--it is only the
arithmetician who can speak falsely on a question of arithmetic when
he chooses.]

What is true about arithmetic, is true in other departments also. The
only man who can speak falsely whenever he chooses is the man who can
speak truly whenever he chooses. Now, the mendacious man, as we
agreed, is the man who can speak falsely whenever he chooses.
Accordingly, the mendacious man, and the veracious man, are the same.
They are not different, still less opposite: nay, the two epithets
belong only to one and the same person. The veracious man is not
better than the mendacious--seeing that he is one and the same.[57]

[Footnote 57: Plato, Hipp. Minor, 367 C, 368 E, 369 A-B.]

You see, therefore, Hippias, that the distinction, which you drew
and which you said that Homer drew, between Achilles and Odysseus,
will not hold. You called Achilles veracious, and Odysseus,
mendacious: but if one of the two epithets belongs to either of them,
the other must belong to him also.[58]

[Footnote 58: Plat. Hipp. Minor, 360 B.]

[Side-note: View of Sokrates respecting Achilles in the Iliad.
He thinks that Achilles speaks falsehood cleverly. Hippias maintains
that if Achilles ever speaks falsehood, it is with an innocent
purpose, whereas Odysseus does the like with fraudulent purpose.]

Sokrates then tries to make out that Achilles speaks falsehood in the
Iliad, and speaks it very cleverly, because he does so in a way to
escape detection from Odysseus himself. To this Hippias replies, that
if Achilles ever speaks falsehood, he does it innocently, without any
purpose of cheating or injuring any one; whereas the falsehoods of
Odysseus are delivered with fraudulent and wicked intent.[59] It is
impossible (he contends) that men who deceive and do wrong wilfully
and intentionally, should be better than those who do so unwillingly
and without design. The laws deal much more severely with the former
than with the latter.[60]

[Footnote 59: Plat. Hipp. Minor, 370 E.]

[Footnote 60: Plat. Hipp. Minor, 372 A.]

[Side-note: Issue here taken--Sokrates contends that those who
hurt, or cheat, or lie wilfully, are better than those who do the
like unwillingly--he entreats Hippias to enlighten him and answer his
questions.]

Upon this point, Hippias (says Sokrates), I dissent from you
entirely. I am, unhappily, a stupid person, who cannot find out the
reality of things: and this appears plainly enough when I come to
talk with wise men like you, for I always find myself differing from
you. My only salvation consists in my earnest anxiety to put
questions and learn from you, and in my gratitude for your answers
and teaching. I think that those who hurt mankind, or cheat, or lie,
or do wrong, _wilfully_--are better than those who do the same
_unwillingly_. Sometimes, indeed, from my stupidity, the
opposite view presents itself to me, and I become confused: but now,
after talking with you, the fit of confidence has come round upon me
again, to pronounce and characterise the persons who do wrong
_unwillingly_, as worse than those who do wrong _wilfully_.
I entreat you to heal this disorder of my mind. You will do me
much more good than if you cured my body of a distemper. But it will
be useless for you to give me one of your long discourses: for I warn
you that I cannot follow it. The only way to confer upon me real
service, will be to answer my questions again, as you have hitherto
done. Assist me, Eudikus, in persuading Hippias to do so.

Assistance from me (says Eudikus) will hardly be needed, for Hippias
professed himself ready to answer any man's questions.

Yes--I did so (replies Hippias)--but Sokrates always brings trouble
into the debate, and proceeds like one disposed to do mischief.

Eudikus repeats his request, and Hippias, in deference to him,
consents to resume the task of answering.[61]

[Footnote 61: Plat. Hipp. Min. 373 B.]

[Side-note: Questions of Sokrates--multiplied analogies of the
special arts. The unskilful artist, who runs, wrestles, or sings
badly, whether he will or not, is worse than the skilful, who can
sing well when he chooses, but can also sing badly when he chooses.]

Sokrates then produces a string of questions, with a view to show
that those who do wrong wilfully, are better than those who do wrong
unwillingly. He appeals to various analogies. In running, the good
runner is he who runs quickly, the bad runner is he who runs slowly.
What is evil and base in running is, to run slowly. It is the good
runner who does this evil wilfully: it is the bad runner who does it
unwillingly.[62] The like is true about wrestling and other bodily
exercises. He that is good in the body, can work either strongly or
feebly,--can do either what is honourable or what is base; so that
when he does what is base, he does it wilfully. But he that is bad
in the body does what is base unwillingly, not being able to help
it.[63]

[Footnote 62: Plat. Hipp. Min. 373 D-E.]

[Footnote 63: Plat. Hipp. Min. 374 B.]

What is true about the bodily movements depending upon strength, is
not less true about those depending on grace and elegance. To be
wilfully ungraceful, belongs only to the well-constituted body: none
but the badly-constituted body is ungraceful without wishing it. The
same, also, about the feet, voice, eyes, ears, nose: of these organs,
those which act badly through will and intention, are preferable to
those which act badly without will or intention. Lameness of feet is
a misfortune and disgrace: feet which go lame only by intention
are much to be preferred.[64]

[Footnote 64: Plat. Hipp. Min. 374 C-D.]

Again, in the instruments which we use, a rudder or a bow,--or the
animals about us, horses or dogs,--those are better with which we
work badly when we choose; those are worse, with which we work badly
without design, and contrary to our own wishes.

[Side-note: It is better to have the mind of a bowman who
misses his mark only by design, than that of one who misses even when
he intends to hit.]

It is better to have the mind of a bowman who misses his mark by
design, than that of one who misses when he tries to hit. The like
about all other arts--the physician, the harper, the flute-player. In
each of these artists, _that_ mind is better, which goes wrong
only wilfully--_that_ mind is worse, which goes wrong
unwillingly, while wishing to go right. In regard to the minds of our
slaves, we should all prefer those which go wrong only when they
choose, to those which go wrong without their own choice.[65]

[Footnote 65: Plat. Hipp. Min. 376 B-D.]

Having carried his examination through this string of analogous
particulars, and having obtained from Hippias successive
answers--"Yes--true in that particular case," Sokrates proceeds to
sum up the result:--

_Sokr._--Well! should we not wish to have our own minds as good
as possible? _Hip._--Yes. _Sokr._--We have seen that they
will be better if they do mischief and go wrong wilfully, than if
they do so unwillingly? _Hip._--But it will be dreadful,
Sokrates, if the willing wrong-doers are to pass for better men than
the unwilling.

[Side-note: Dissent and repugnance of Hippias.]

_Sokr._--Nevertheless--it seems so: from what we have said.
_Hip._--It does not seem so to me. _Sokr._--I thought that
it would have seemed so to you, as it does to me. However, answer me
once more--Is not justice either a certain mental capacity? or else
knowledge? or both together?[66] _Hip._--Yes! it is.
_Sokr._--If justice be a capacity of the mind, the more capable
mind will also be the juster: and we have already seen that the more
capable soul is the better. _Hip._--We have. _Sokr._--If it
be knowledge, the more knowing or wiser mind will of course be
the juster: if it be a combination of both capacity and knowledge,
that mind which is more capable as well as more knowing,--will be the
juster that which is less capable and less knowing, will be the more
unjust. _Hip._--So it appears. _Sokr._--Now we have shown
that the more capable and knowing mind is at once the better mind,
and more competent to exert itself both ways--to do what is
honourable as well as what is base--in every employment.
_Hip._--Yes. _Sokr._--When, therefore, such a mind does what is base,
it does so wilfully, through its capacity or intelligence, which we
have seen to be of the nature of justice? _Hip._--It seems so.
_Sokr._--Doing base things, is acting unjustly: doing honourable
things, is acting justly. Accordingly, when this more capable and
better mind acts unjustly, it will do so wilfully; while the less
capable and worse mind will do so without willing it?
_Hip._--Apparently.

[Footnote 66: Plat. Hipp. Min. 375 D. [Greek: ê( dikaiosu/nê ou)chi
ê)\ du/nami/s ti/s e)stin, ê)\ e)pistê/mê, ê)\ a)mpho/tera?]]

[Side-note: Conclusion--That none but the good man can do evil
wilfully: the bad man does evil unwillingly. Hippias cannot resist
the reasoning, but will not accept the conclusion--Sokrates confesses
his perplexity.]

_Sokr._--Now the good man is he that has the good mind: the bad
man is he that has the bad mind. It belongs therefore to the good man
to do wrong wilfully, to the bad man, to do wrong without wishing
it--that is, if the good man be he that has the good mind? _Hip._--But
that is unquestionable--that he has it. _Sokr._--Accordingly,
he that goes wrong and does base and unjust things
wilfully, if there be any such character--can be no other than the
good man. _Hip._--I do not know how to concede _that_ to
you, Sokrates.[67] _Sokr._--Nor I, how to concede it to myself,
Hippias: yet so it must appear to us, now at least, from the past
debate. As I told you long ago, I waver hither and thither upon this
matter; my conclusions never remain the same. No wonder indeed that I
and other vulgar men waver; but if you wise men waver also, that
becomes a fearful mischief even to us, since we cannot even by coming
to you escape from our embarrassment.[68]

[Footnote 67: Plat. Hipp. Min. 375 E, 376 B.]

[Footnote 68: Plato, Hipp. Min. 376 C.]

I will here again remind the reader, that in this, as in the other
dialogues, the real speaker is Plato throughout: and that it is
he alone who prefixes the different names to words determined by
himself.

[Side-note: Remarks on the dialogue. If the parts had been
inverted, the dialogue would have been cited by critics as a specimen
of the sophistry and corruption of the Sophists.]

Now, if the dialogue just concluded had come down to us with the
parts inverted, and with the reasoning of Sokrates assigned to
Hippias, most critics would probably have produced it as a tissue of
sophistry justifying the harsh epithets which they bestow upon the
Athenian Sophists--as persons who considered truth and falsehood to
be on a par--subverters of morality--and corruptors of the youth of
Athens.[69] But as we read it, all that, which in the mouth of
Hippias would have passed for sophistry, is here put forward by
Sokrates; while Hippias not only resists his conclusions, and adheres
to the received ethical sentiment tenaciously, even when he is unable
to defend it, but hates the propositions forced upon him, protests
against the perverse captiousness of Sokrates, and requires much
pressing to induce him to continue the debate. Upon the views adopted
by the critics, Hippias ought to receive credit for this conduct, as
a friend of virtue and morality. To me, such reluctance to debate
appears a defect rather than a merit; but I cite the dialogue as
illustrating what I have already said in another place--that
Sokrates and Plato threw out more startling novelties in ethical
doctrine, than either Hippias or Protagoras, or any of the other
persons denounced as Sophists.

[Footnote 69: Accordingly one of the Platonic critics, Schwalbe
(Oeuvres de Platon, p. 116), explains Plato's purpose in the
Hippias Minor by saying, that Sokrates here serves out to the
Sophists a specimen of their own procedure, and gives them an example
of sophistical dialectic, by defending a sophistical thesis in a
sophistical manner: That he chooses and demonstrates at length the
thesis--the liar is not different from the truth-teller--as an
exposure of the sophistical art of proving the contrary of any given
proposition, and for the purpose of deriding and unmasking the false
morality of Hippias, who in this dialogue talks reasonably enough.

Schwalbe, while he affirms that this is the purpose of Plato, admits
that the part here assigned to Sokrates is unworthy of him; and
Steinhart maintains that Plato never could have had any such purpose,
"however frequently" (Steinhart says), "sophistical artifices may
occur in this conversation of Sokrates, which artifices Sokrates no
more disdained to employ than any other philosopher or rhetorician of
that day" ("so häufig auch in seinen Erörterungen sophistische
Kunstgriffe vorkommen mögen, die Sokrates eben so wenig verschmaht
hat, als irgend ein Philosoph oder Redekünstler dieser Zeit").
Steinhart, Einleitung zum Hipp. Minor, p. 109.

I do not admit the purpose here ascribed to Plato by Schwalbe, but I
refer to the passage as illustrating what Platonic critics think of
the reasoning assigned to Sokrates in the Hippias Minor, and the
hypotheses which they introduce to colour it.

The passage cited from Steinhart also--that Sokrates no more
disdained to employ sophistical artifices than any other philosopher
or rhetorician of the age--is worthy of note, as coming from one who
is so very bitter in his invectives against the sophistry of the
persons called Sophists, of which we have no specimens left.]

[Side-note: Polemical purpose of the dialogue--Hippias
humiliated by Sokrates.]

That Plato intended to represent this accomplished Sophist as
humiliated by Sokrates, is evident enough: and the words put into his
mouth are suited to this purpose. The eloquent lecturer, so soon as
his admiring crowd of auditors has retired, proves unable to parry
the questions of a single expert dialectician who remains behind,
upon a matter which appears to him almost self-evident, and upon
which every one (from Homer downward) agrees with him. Besides this,
however, Plato is not satisfied without making him say very simple
and absurd things. All this is the personal, polemical, comic scope
of the dialogue. It lends (whether well-placed or not) a certain
animation and variety, which the author naturally looked out for, in
an aggregate of dialogues all handling analogous matters about man
and society.

But though the polemical purpose of the dialogue is thus plain, its
philosophical purpose perplexes the critics considerably. They do not
like to see Sokrates employing sophistry against the Sophists: that
is, as they think, casting out devils by the help of Beelzebub. And
certainly, upon the theory which they adopt, respecting the relation
between Plato and Sokrates on one side, and the Sophists on the
other, I think this dialogue is very difficult to explain. But I do
not think it is difficult, upon a true theory of the Platonic
writings.

[Side-note: Philosophical purpose of the dialogue--theory of
the Dialogues of Search generally, and of Knowledge as understood by
Plato.]

In a former chapter, I tried to elucidate the general character and
purpose of those Dialogues of Search, which occupy more than half the
Thrasyllean Canon, and of which we have already reviewed two or three
specimens--Euthyphron, Alkibiadês, &c. We have seen that they are
distinguished by the absence of any affirmative conclusion: that they
prove nothing, but only, at the most, disprove one or more supposable
solutions: that they are not processes in which one man who knows
communicates his knowledge to ignorant hearers, but in which all are
alike ignorant, and all are employed, either in groping, or guessing,
or testing the guesses of the rest. We have farther seen that the
value of these Dialogues depends upon the Platonic theory about
knowledge; that Plato did not consider any one to know, who could not
explain to others all that he knew, reply to the cross-examination of
a Sokratic Elenchus, and cross-examine others to test their
knowledge: that knowledge in this sense could not be attained by
hearing, or reading, or committing to memory a theorem, together with
the steps of reasoning which directly conducted to it:--but that
there was required, besides, an acquaintance with many
counter-theorems, each having more or less appearance of truth; as
well as with various embarrassing aspects and plausible delusions
on the subject, which an expert cross-examiner would not fail to urge.
Unless you are practised in meeting all the difficulties which he can
devise, you cannot be said _to know_. Moreover, it is in this
last portion of the conditions of knowledge, that most aspirants are
found wanting.

[Side-note: The Hippias is an exemplification of this
theory--Sokrates sets forth a case of confusion, and avows his inability
to clear it up. Confusion shown up in the Lesser Hippias--Error in the
Greater.]

Now the Greater and Lesser Hippias are peculiar specimens of these
Dialogues of Search, and each serves the purpose above indicated. The
Greater Hippias enumerates a string of tentatives, each one of which
ends in acknowledged failure: the Lesser Hippias enunciates a thesis,
which Sokrates proceeds to demonstrate, by plausible arguments such
as Hippias is forced to admit. But though Hippias admits each
successive step, he still mistrusts the conclusion, and suspects that
he has been misled--a feeling which Plato[70] describes elsewhere as
being frequent among the respondents of Sokrates. Nay, Sokrates
himself shares in the mistrust--presents himself as an unwilling
propounder of arguments which force themselves upon him,[71] and
complains of his own mental embarrassment. Now you may call this
sophistry, if you please; and you may silence its propounders by
calling them hard names. But such ethical prudery--hiding all the
uncomfortable logical puzzles which start up when you begin to
analyse an established sentiment, and treating them as non-existent
because you refuse to look at them--is not the way, to attain what
Plato calls knowledge. If there be any argument, the process of which
seems indisputable, while yet its conclusion contradicts, or seems to
contradict, what is known, upon other evidence--the full and patient
analysis of that argument is indispensable, before you can become
master of the truth and able to defend it. Until you have gone
through such analysis, your mind must remain in that state of
confusion which is indicated by Sokrates at the end of the Lesser
Hippias. As it is a part of the process of Search, to travel in the
path of the Greater Hippias--that is, to go through a string of
erroneous solutions, each of which can be proved, by reasons shown,
to _be_ erroneous: so it is an equally important part of the
same process, to travel in the path of the Lesser Hippias--that is,
to acquaint ourselves with all those arguments, bearing on the case,
in which two contrary conclusions appear to be both of them plausibly
demonstrated, and in which therefore we cannot as yet determine which
of them is erroneous--or whether both are not erroneous. The Greater
Hippias exhibits errors,--the Lesser Hippias puts before us
confusion. With both these enemies the Searcher for truth must
contend: and Bacon tells us, that confusion is the worst enemy of the
two--"Citius emergit veritas ex errore, quam ex confusione". Plato,
in the Lesser Hippias, having in hand a genuine Sokratic thesis, does
not disdain to invest Sokrates with the task (sophistical, as some
call it, yet not the less useful and instructive) of setting forth at
large this case of confusion, and avowing his inability to clear it
up. It is enough for Sokrates that he brings home the painful sense
of confusion to the feelings of his hearer as well as to his own. In
that painful sentiment lies the stimulus provocative of farther
intellectual effort.[72] The dialogue ends but the process of search,
far from ending along with it, is emphatically declared to be
unfinished, and, to be in a condition not merely unsatisfactory
but intolerable, not to be relieved except by farther investigation,
which thus becomes a necessary sequel.

[Footnote 70: Plato, Republ. vi. 487 B.

[Greek: Kai\ o( A)dei/mantos, Ô)= Sô/krates, e)/phê, pro\s me\n
tau=ta/ soi ou)dei\s a)\n oi(=os t' ei)/ê a)nteipei=n; a)lla\ ga\r
toio/nde ti pa/schousin oi( a)kou/ontes e)ka/stote a)\ nu=n le/geis;
ê(gou=ntai di' a)peiri/an tou= e)rôta=|n kai\ a)pokri/nesthai u(po\
tou= lo/gou par' e(/kaston to\ e)rô/têma smikro\n parago/menoi,
a)throisthe/ntôn tô=n smikrô=n e)pi\ teleutê=s tô=n lo/gôn, me/ga to\
spha/lma kai\ e)nanti/on toi=s prô/tois a)naphai/nesthai . . . e)pei
to/ ge a)lêthe\s ou)de/n ti ma=llon tau/tê| e)/chein.]

This passage, attesting the effect of the Sokratic examination upon
the minds of auditors, ought to be laid to heart by those Platonic
critics who denounce the Sophists for generating scepticism and
uncertainty.]

[Footnote 71: Plato, Hipp. Minor, 373 B; also the last sentence of
the dialogue.]

[Footnote 72: See the passage in Republic, vii. 523-524, where the
[Greek: to\ paraklêtiko\n kai\ e)gertiko\n tê=s noê/seôs] is declared
to arise from the pain of a felt contradiction.]

There are two circumstances which lend particular interest to this
dialogue--Hippias Minor. 1. That the thesis out of which the
confusion arises, is one which we know to have been laid down by the
historical Sokrates himself. 2. That Aristotle expressly notices this
thesis, as well as the dialogue in which it is contained, and combats
it.

[Side-note: The thesis maintained here by Sokrates, is also
affirmed by the historical Sokrates in the Xenophontic Memorabilia.]

Sokrates in his conversation with the youthful Euthydemus (in the
Xenophontic Memorabilia) maintains, that of two persons, each of whom
deceives his friends in a manner to produce mischief, the one who
does so wilfully is not so unjust as the one who does so
unwillingly.[73] Euthydemus (like Hippias in this dialogue) maintains
the opposite, but is refuted by Sokrates; who argues that justice is
a matter to be learnt and known like letters; that the lettered man,
who has learnt and knows letters, can write wrongly when he chooses,
but never writes wrongly unless he chooses--while it is only the
unlettered man who writes wrongly unwillingly and without intending
it: that in like manner the just man, he that has learnt and knows
justice, never commits injustice unless when he intends it--while the
unjust man, who has not learnt and does not know justice, commits
injustice whether he will or not. It is the just man therefore, and
none but the just man (Sokrates maintains), who commits injustice
knowingly and wilfully: it is the unjust man who commits injustice
without wishing or intending it.[74]

[Footnote 73: Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 19. [Greek: tô=n de\ dê\ tou\s
phi/lous e)xapatô/ntôn e)pi\ blabê=| (i(/na mêde\ tou=to
paralei/pômen a)/skepton) po/teros a)dikô/tero/s e)stin, o( e(kô\n
ê)\ o( a)/kôn?]

The natural meaning of [Greek: e)pi\ blabê=|] would be, "for the
purpose of mischief"; and Schneider, in his Index, gives "nocendi
causâ". But in that meaning the question would involve an
impossibility, for the words [Greek: o( a)/kôn] exclude any such
purpose.]

[Footnote 74: Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 19-22.]

This is the same view which is worked out by the Platonic Sokrates in
the Hippias Minor: beginning with the antithesis between the
veracious and mendacious man (as Sokrates begins in Xenophon); and
concluding with the general result--that it belongs to the good
man to do wrong wilfully, to the bad man to do wrong unwillingly.

[Side-note: Aristotle combats the thesis. Arguments against
it.]

Aristotle,[75] in commenting upon this doctrine of the Hippias Minor,
remarks justly, that Plato understands the epithets _veracious_
and _mendacious_ in a sense different from that which they
usually bear. Plato understands the words as designating one who
_can_ tell the truth if he chooses--one who _can_ speak
falsely if he chooses: and in this sense he argues plausibly that the
two epithets go together, and that no man can be mendacious unless he
be also veracious. Aristotle points out that the epithets in their
received meaning are applied, not to the power itself, but to the
habitual and intentional use of that power. The power itself is
doubtless presupposed or implied as one condition to the
applicability of the epithets, and is one common condition to the
applicability of both epithets: but the distinction, which they are
intended to draw, regards the intentions and dispositions with which
the power is employed. So also Aristotle observes that Plato's
conclusion--"He that does wrong wilfully is a better man than he that
does wrong unwillingly," is falsely collected from induction or
analogy. The analogy of the special arts and accomplishments, upon
which the argument is built, is not applicable. _Better_ has
reference, not to the amount of intelligence but to the dispositions
and habitual intentions; though it presupposes a certain state and
amount of intelligence as indispensable.

[Footnote 75: Aristotel. Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1025, a. 8; compare
Ethic. Nikomach. iv. p. 1127, b. 16.]

[Side-note: Mistake of Sokrates and Plato in dwelling too
exclusively on the intellectual conditions of human conduct.]

Both Sokrates and Plato (in many of his dialogues) commit the error
of which the above is one particular manifestation--that of dwelling
exclusively on the intellectual conditions of human conduct,[76] and
omitting to give proper attention to the emotional and volitional, as
essentially co-operating or preponderating in the complex meaning of
ethical attributes. The reasoning ascribed to the Platonic Sokrates
in the Hippias Minor exemplifies this one-sided view. What he
says is true, but it is only a part of the truth. When he speaks of a
person "who does wrong unwillingly," he seems to have in view one who
does wrong without knowing that he does so: one whose intelligence is
so defective that he does not know when he speaks truth and when he
speaks falsehood. Now a person thus unhappily circumstanced must be
regarded as half-witted or imbecile, coming under the head which the
Xenophontic Sokrates called _madness_:[77] unfit to perform any
part in society, and requiring to be placed under tutelage. Compared
with such a person, the opinion of the Platonic Sokrates may be
defended--that the mendacious person, who _can_ tell truth when
he chooses, is the better of the two in the sense of less mischievous
or dangerous. But he is the object of a very different sentiment;
moreover, this is not the comparison present to our minds when we
call one man veracious, another man mendacious. We always assume, in
every one, a measure of intelligence equal or superior to the
admissible minimum; under such assumption, we compare two persons,
one of whom speaks to the best of his knowledge and belief, the
other, contrary to his knowledge and belief. We approve the former
and disapprove the latter, according to the different intention and
purpose of each (as Aristotle observes); that is, looking at them
under the point of view of emotion and volition--which is logically
distinguishable from the intelligence, though always acting in
conjunction with it.

[Footnote 76: Aristotle has very just observations on these views of
Sokrates, and on the incompleteness of his views when he resolved all
virtue into knowledge, all vice into ignorance. See, among other
passages, Aristot. Ethica Magna, i. 1182, a. 16; 1183, b. 9; 1190, b.
28; Ethic. Eudem. i. 1216, b, 4. The remarks of Aristotle upon
Sokrates and Plato evince a real progress in ethical theory.]

[Footnote 77: Xen. Mem. iii. 9, 7. [Greek: tou\s diêmartêko/tas, ô(=n
oi( polloi\ gignô/skousi, mainome/nous kalei=n], &c.]

[Side-note: They rely too much on the analogy of the special
arts--They take no note of the tacit assumptions underlying the
epithets of praise and blame.]

Again, the analogy of the special arts, upon which the Platonic
Sokrates dwells in the Hippias Minor, fails in sustaining his
inference. By a good runner, wrestler, harper, singer, speaker,
&c., we undoubtedly mean one who can, if he pleases, perform some
one of these operations well; although he can also, if he pleases,
perform them badly. But the epithets _good_ or _bad_, in
this case, consider exclusively that element which was left out, and
leave out that element which was exclusively considered, in the
former case. The good singer is declared to stand distinguished from
the bad singer, or from the [Greek: i)diô/tês], who, if he sings
at all, will certainly sing badly, by an attribute belonging to his
intelligence and vocal organs. To sing well is a special
accomplishment, which is possessed only by a few, and which no man is
blamed for not possessing. The distinction between such special
accomplishments, and justice or rectitude of behaviour, is well
brought out in the speech which Plato puts into the mouth of the
Sophist Protagoras.[78] "The special artists (he says) are few in
number: one of them is sufficient for many private citizens. But
every citizen, without exception, must possess justice and a sense of
shame: if he does not, he must be put away as a nuisance--otherwise,
society could not be maintained." The special artist is a citizen
also; and as such, must be subject to the obligations binding on all
citizens universally. In predicating of him that he is _good_ or
_bad_ as a citizen, we merely assume him to possess the average
intelligence, of the community; and the epithet declares whether his
emotional and volitional attributes exceed, or fall short of, the
minimum required in the application of that intelligence to his
social obligations. It is thus that the words _good_ or
_bad_ when applied to him as a citizen, have a totally different
bearing from that which the same words have when applied to him in
his character of special artist.

[Footnote 78: Plato, Protagoras, 322.]

[Side-note: Value of a Dialogue of Search, that it shall be
suggestive, and that it shall bring before us different aspects of
the question under review.]

The value of these debates in the Platonic dialogues consists in
their raising questions like the preceding, for the reflection of the
reader--whether the Platonic Sokrates may or may not be represented
as taking what we think the right view of the question. For a
Dialogue of Search, the great merit is, that it should be suggestive;
that it should bring before our attention the conditions requisite
for a right and proper use of these common ethical epithets, and the
state of circumstances which is tacitly implied whenever any one uses
them. No man ever learns to reflect upon the meaning of such familiar
epithets, which he has been using all his life--unless the process be
forced upon his attention by some special conversation which brings
home to him an uncomfortable sentiment of perplexity and
contradiction. If a man intends to acquire any grasp of ethical
or political theory, he must render himself master, not only of the
sound arguments and the guiding analogies but also of the unsound
arguments and the misleading analogies, which bear upon each portion
of it.

[Side-note: Antithesis between Rhetoric and Dialectic.]

There is one other point of similitude deserving notice, between the
Greater and Lesser Hippias. In both of them, Hippias makes special
complaint of Sokrates, for breaking the question in pieces and
picking out the minute puzzling fragments--instead of keeping it
together as a whole, and applying to it the predicates which it
merits when so considered.[79] Here is the standing antithesis
between Rhetoric and Dialectic: between those unconsciously acquired
mental combinations which are poured out in eloquent, impressive,
unconditional, and undistinguishing generalities--and the logical
analysis which resolves the generality into its specialities,
bringing to view inconsistencies, contradictions, limits,
qualifications, &c. I have already touched upon this at the close
of the Greater Hippias.

[Footnote 79: Plato, Hipp. Min. 369 B-C. [Greek: Ô)= Sô/krates, a)ei\
su/ tinas toiou/tous ple/keis lo/gous, kai\ a)polamba/nôn o(/ a)\n
ê)=| duschere/staton tou= lo/gou, tou/tou e)/chei kata\ smikro\n
e)phapto/menos, kai\ ou)ch o(/lô a)gôni/zei tô=| pra/gmati, peri\
o(/tou a)\n o( lo/gos ê)=|], &c.

A remark of Aristotle (Topica, viii. 164, b. 2) illustrates this
dissecting function of the Dialectician.

[Greek: e)/sti ga/r, ô(s a(plô=s ei)pei=n, dialektiko\s o(
protatiko\s kai\ e)nstatiko/s; e)/sti de\ to\ me\n protei/nesthai,
e(\n poiei=n ta\ plei/ô (dei= ga\r e(\n o(/lô| lêphthê=nai pro\s o(\
o( lo/gos), to\ d' e)ni/stasthai, to\ e(n polla/; ê)\ ga\r diairei=,
ê)\ a)nairei=, to\ me\n didou/s, to\ de\ ou)/, tô=n
proteinome/nôn.]]

CHAPTER XIV.

HIPPARCHUS--MINOS.

In these two dialogues, Plato sets before us two farther specimens of
that error and confusion which beset the enquirer during his search
after "reasoned truth". Sokrates forces upon the attention of a
companion two of the most familiar words of the market-place, to see
whether a clear explanation of their meaning can be obtained.

[Side-note: Hipparchus--Question--What is the definition of
Lover of Gain? He is one who thinks it right to gain from things
worth nothing. Sokrates cross-examines upon this explanation. No man
expects to gain from things which he knows to be worth nothing: in
this sense, no man is a lover of gain.]

In the dialogue called Hipparchus, the debate turns on the definition
of [Greek: to\ philokerde\s] or [Greek: o( philokerdê/s]--the love of
gain or the lover of gain. Sokrates asks his Companion to define the
word. The Companion replies--He is one who thinks it right to gain
from things worth nothing.[1] Does he do this (asks Sokrates) knowing
that the things are worth nothing? or not knowing? If the latter, he
is simply ignorant. He knows it perfectly well (is the reply). He is
cunning and wicked; and it is because he cannot resist the temptation
of gain, that he has the impudence to make profit by such things,
though well aware that they are worth nothing. _Sokr._--Suppose
a husbandman, knowing that the plant which he is tending is
worthless--and yet thinking that he ought to gain by it: does not
that correspond to your description of the lover of gain?
_Comp._--The lover of gain, Sokrates, thinks that he ought to
gain from every thing. _Sokr._--Do not answer in that reckless