his own age, providing the instruments of thought for future generations. He is no dreamer, but a great philosophical genius struggling with the unequal conditions of light and knowledge under which he is living. He may be illustrated by the writings of moderns, but he must be interpreted by his own, and by his place in the history of philosophy. We are not concerned to determine what is the residuum of truth which remains for ourselves. His truth may not be our truth, and nevertheless may have an extraordinary value and interest for us. I cannot agree with Mr. Grote in admitting as genuine all the writings commonly attributed to Plato in antiquity, any more than with Schaarschmidt and some other German critics who reject nearly half of them. The German critics to whom I refer proceed chiefly on grounds of internal evidence; they appear to me to lay too much stress on the variety of doctrine and style, which must be equally acknowledged as a fact, even in the Dialogues regarded by Schaarschmidt as genuine, e. g. in the Phaedrus, or Symposium, when compared, with the Laws. He who admits works so different in style and matter to have been the composition of the same author, need have no difficulty (see vol. iv. Appendix) in admitting the Sophist or the Politicus. On the other hand, Mr. Grote trusts mainly to the Alexandrian Canon. But I hardly think that we are justified in attributing much weight to the authority of the Alexandrian librarians in an age when there was no regular publication of books, and every temptation to forge them; and in which the writings of a school were naturally attributed to the founder of the school. And even without intentional fraud, there was an inclination to believe rather than to inquire. Would Mr. Grote accept as genuine all the writings which he finds in the lists of learned ancients attributed to Hippocrates, to Xenophon, to Aristotle? The Alexandrian Canon of the Platonic writings is deprived of credit by the admission of the Epistles, which are not only unworthy of Plato, and in several pass plagiarized from him, but flagrantly at variance with torical fact. It will be seen also that I do not agree Mr. Grote's views about the Sophists; nor with the estimate which he has formed of Plato's Laws; nor his opinion respecting Plato's doctrine of the rotatio the earth. But I "am not going to lay hands on father Parmenides" [Soph. 241 D], who will, I hope, give me for differing from him on these points. I ca close this Preface without expressing my deep respect his noble and gentle character, and the great serv which he has rendered to Greek Literature. BALLIOL COLLEGE, January, 1871. |