VICTORIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

TORONTO, ONTARIO

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
PLATO S ETHICS

THE

METAPHYSICAL BASIS
OF

PLATO S ETHICS
BY

ARTHUR BERNARD COOK

M.A.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

"Quis

ille

primus, cuius ex imagine

Natura

solers finxit

humanum

genus,

Aeternus, incorruptus, aequaevus polo,

Unusque

et universus,

exemplar

Dei?"

MILTON

DEIGHTON BELL &
LONDON
1895

CO.

GEORGE BELL & SONS

V

B
392

CAMBRIDGE
PRINTED BY JONATHAN PALMER

ALEXANDRA STREET

CONTENTS
PAGE

PREFACE

.

ix

PART

I.

THE PLATONIC THEORY OF MIND
The Parmenides The Sophist
.

i

i.

I

2.

.

...
.

.

.

.

.

17

3.

Aristotle s Psychology

.

.

.

.

.23
.

PART

II.

HIGHER AND LOWER MENTALITY
Purpose and Necessity
Identity and Difference

.

54
55

i.

2.

68
85
113
153

3.

Theology

PART

III.

METAPHYSICAL DESCENT AND MORAL ASCENT.

INDEX LOCORUM

PREFACE
Ti

ovv

TjfMf is

4pov/j.fv

firl

roffovrois
e/e

Kal

TOIOVTOIS

UKarwvos ;

Kal ri TrpoffQ^oo^v

TT in

PROKLOS

Farm.

ed.

Cousin

vi.

30.

THE

following essay
s s

is

neither a systematic account

of Plato

metaphysics, nor an adequate exposition
ethics.
Its

of Plato

scope

is

a narrower one.

It

aims at clearing up the connection between the two.

And,

if

the attempt has led

me

to reinterpret the

metaphysical scheme that

underlay the ethics of

matured Platonism,
to

my

purpose throughout has been

latter

show how intimately and indeed vitally the was connected with the former. Thus far at
I

least

find

myself

in

accordance with the general
criticism.

tendency of modern Platonic

For the sup
mars

posed independence, not to say antagonism, of the
several parts of Plato s philosophy,

which

still

the work of certain exponents,
into disrepute.
all

is

nowadays

falling

We

are beginning to look askance on

constructions involving the philosopher in incon

gruous positions.

And

this

is

due

partly,

I

think, to

PREFACE.
a growing appreciation
of the artistic side of his

thought, partly to special efforts that have been

made
The

to determine from theoretical content or linguistic
style the true order of the Platonic writings.

former movement postulates that here,
speculative system must

if

anywhere, a
;

mean

a harmonious whole

the latter has shown that sundry seeming inconsis
tencies are but tide-marks of a progressive develop

ment.

But, whatever be

the precise causes which

have of recent times tended to discredit the patch work Platonism of the past, it will fairly be demanded
of

any

fresh

endeavour to articulate the
it

Idealist

doctrine that
unity.

represent that doctrine as an organic

This being admitted, the only safe course

is

to

regard the Platonic philosophy from the standpoint of

some

opo? 6pto-#ei? /^eyas for

which Plato

is

himself
is

responsible.

Now

of

all

such opoi that which

most
is

constantly affirmed and most jealously guarded the reality of the Ideal world. The late Dr.

Maguire

has somewhere said that
is

"the

objectivity of the Idea
I

the corner-stone of

Platonism."

should prefer to

substitute the term

"reality"

as a translation of ovala.

because the cardinal

dogma
is

of the Timaeus asserts

that the nature of ovaia

to be at once ravrov

and

PREFACE.
i.e.

xi

Odrepov,

not only objective but also subjective.

And

here

it I

may conduce
the briefest

to clearness
drift

if,

by way of
essay, in
this

preamble,
dicating

sketch the main

of

my

in

possible

manner how

theory of objective and subjective ova ia furnished a
satisfactory

foundation

for

the

superstructure

of

morality.

Plato conceived the universe to be a VOTYTOV

,wov

containing within

itself a series

of voyra

wa.

Every
if it
is

such
to

oW, whether supreme
its

or subordinate,

make good

claim to real being

must (he says)

pass from the objective phase of self-identity into the
subjective phase of self-differentiation.
state

The former
of

consists
;

in

the

intuitional

exercise

pure

thought
tions

the latter comprises the emotive presenta

But the knowledge, opinion, sensation. passage from the one to the other is a necessary feature of each and every VOIJTGV %wov. As regards
of

nomenclature,
dition
it

the supreme %wov in

its

higher con

is

the sovereign

Mind

;

in its

lower condition
coa

is

the 6eol Oewv.

The subordinate
;

in

their

higher condition are the Ideas

in

their lower con

dition they are particular specimens of the natural

kinds.

And

since

the

higher mentality

must be

deemed superhuman, Plato

calls the sovereign

Mind

xii

PREFACE.

0eo?

and the Ideas

ai&ioi Oeoi, in contradistinction to
$ai/j,oves.

particulars which are at best only

The

once significance of these remarks will be at
if

apparent
j,
f<y

we

consider the case of a single vorpov

sa y that of

Man.

Man

being one of the sub

ordinate fwa expresses one aspect, viz. the humanity,
of

the supreme

%wov.

He

is

endowed with
and
he

four

faculties,

named

respectively vovs,

eVicrr^/xT;, Sofa,
is

aiaOrja-^.

As

possessed of vovs

the Idea of

Man, an immutable entity correlating with, i.e. think ing and thought by, all entities of the same order.

As

possessed of

eVtcrr/jyUT;,

Sofa, aio-Orjcns,

Man

lapses

from permanent thought into transient knowledge,
opinion, sensation,

no longer functioning as a unitary

Ideal Mind, but as an indefinite plurality of particular

minds.
i.e.

These particulars in their turn correlate with, apprehend and are apprehended by, particulars of
the vorjra
ijrin^at,

all

wa

:

as actively apprehensive

we

call

them

as passively apprehensible

we

call

them

Further, the world of absolute being (the sovereign

Mind +
whose
starry

the

Ideal
is

Minds)

is

termed a

Trapd$6iyiJ,a,

elittov

the world of relative becoming (the

gods

+

all

specimens of the natural kinds).

And

just as metaphysics insists that the former

must

PREFACE.
pass into the latter, so morality
latter

xiii

demands

that the

to

the

best

of

their

ability

must return

towards the former.
partial

But since the Ideal Minds are
determinations of the sovereign

and
this

serial

Mind,

demand

of conformity to their appropriate

Ideas implies the desirability of attaining, so far as

may

be, to the condition of the sovereign
in

Mind

itself.

Such attainment
and limited
after
;

the present

life is

perforce

meagre
*

but the theory of transmigration herepossibilities

opens up
ethical
s

beyond compute.
as

In

fine,

the

end

for
is

particulars

determined

by

Plato
their

ontology

to minimise the difference

between

own

psychosis and that of the supreme 0eo?
leads

a

quest which

them through the

successive

stages of the Ideal series.

The

discussion of the system here summarised

has fallen into three divisions.

The

first

educes the

main outlines from a consideration of certain passages
of importance in the Dialogues and elsewhere.

The

second emphasises the distinction between the realm
of
objective

being

and

the

realm

of

subjective

becoming.
of the

The
as

third states the metaphysical view

latter

a copy of the

former,

and en

deavours to show

how

that view impliedly incul

cates the rational treatment of individual souls

and

xiv

PREFACE.
accordance with
the
ethical

bodies

in

end above

mentioned.
It

will

be seen

from

this

statement that

my
Dr.
(vols.

obligations to

Cambridge
to

teaching are not slight.

Jackson

s

papers in the Journal of Philology

x

xv) have,

my

thinking,

established

beyond

reasonable doubt the chronology of the more im
portant
Plato
s

Dialogues.

Any

attempt

to

reconstruct

mature Idealism must henceforward be based
P/iilebus, the

mainly upon the
actetus,

Parmenides, the 77^-

the Sophist, the Politicus, the Timaeus, and

the Laivs.

And

those

who

set

about
"(i)

it

may

spare

themselves the burden of proving
the
list

a revision of

of Ideas,

whereby

relations, negations,

and

products ceased to be regarded as Ideas and (2) a modification proper (aura KCL& avra eiBrj)
artificial
;

of the conception of the relation subsisting

between

the Idea and
tion
(fjueOegis)

its

particulars,

whereby

for

participa

of the latter in the former
(/u/^cri?)."

was sub

stituted

imitation

Again, Mr. Archerall

Hind

s

interpretation of the
ears to
"

Timaeus proves to

who have

hear that, according to
the one universal
finite

Plato

s

esoteric meaning,
itself into a

Thought evolves
which

multitude of

intelligences,

are so constituted as to apprehend not only

by pure

PREFACE.
reason, but
all their
space."

xv

also

by what we

call

the senses, with

attendant subjective phenomena of time and

If in

some points
it is

dissent from those
opinions,

of moment I have ventured to who propounded these weighty
I

because

cannot but pursue to the end
is

the principle that the Ideal world
6Vra, understanding

composed of
every case

by the word

ova-la in

a combination of objective with subjective thought.

One

great outcome of that principle has,
:

I

believe,

been hitherto overlooked

I

mean

the fact that for

Plato the unit of metaphysical and ethical measure

ment
vorf-rov

is

neither the Idea nor the individual, but the

%wov

a

personal

being

whose

intellectual
"

activity

comprises the two essentials of
the

reality,"

namely

unitary
of
this

vbya-is
its

of the

Idea

and
press

the

diffracted

yvaxri^

particulars.

To

the

consequences of
to

fundamental doctrine seemed

me

not only legitimate, but necessary.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
July SM, 1895.

ERRATUM.
Page
141, line II,

for T& Kvpros read rb KVTOS.

PART

I.

THE PLATONIC THEORY OF MIND.
Before the ethical bearings of Plato s Idealism can be appreciated, it is of primary importance to deter

mine the

relation in

which the Ideas themselves stand
essential as
it is

towards Mind.

This relation

to

a sound understanding of the Platonic system is nowhere explicitly set forth in the extant dialogues. Their author has more suo left it to be inferred either
tenets, or

from the necessary presuppositions of certain broad from a few incidental passages of pregnant
meaning.

The

former,

among which may be men

tioned the doctrines of Metempsychosis and
nesis, will

Anam

be more conveniently dealt with at a later

stage of the present argument. The latter call for immediate analysis, as enabling us to formulate

simply and directly the connection which we seek
to ascertain.

I.

The Parmenides.
seq.

In

Farm. 132 B

to. secure the

the Platonic Sokrates, wishing of the Idea against the criticism unity

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

of the Platonic Parmenides, suggests that perhaps each Idea is a thought (v6r)/jLa) existent only in souls
(ev Tfrvxaty(i)

To

this

suggestion Parmenides retorts
ov

:

That a voi^a must have a content, an
this

n

;

and that the content which
previously refuted.

vo^pa voel will be as previously described and therefore as the Idea

That if on the one hand each Idea is a voi^a, (ii) and on the other hand particulars are related to Ideas

by

then particulars as aggre may be said to consist gates of immanent Ideas CK vorjfjLciTwv, in fact to be themselves votjfjLara, objects
participation
(/Ae 0efi<?),

of pure thought.
tives
:

Hence

follows one of

two alterna
(b)

either (a) all particulars are voovvra, or

some

in spite of their being particulars are not voovvra,

1

I understand vo-fj/mara ovra, avorjra elvai
if
s

(Parm. 132
eVrtV,
it

c) as

of particulars ; for, phrase of Aristotle

a thing

e/c

vori^o- ruv

is

to

spoken borrow a

ffvvOea-is ris i)5tj vorjfjLaTwv tio-irep ev

t>vr<av,

and

may

Another logically correct "or there of the second limb of the dilemma would be interpretation But this are some Ideal j/oTj/uara which are not contained in minds."
justly

be described as

itself

a

v6rj/j.a.

:

seems to me inadmissible on two grammatical grounds (i) It involves a somewhat awkward change of subject from TrdvTa particulars to Ideas ; (2) the word o.v6i}ros is elsewhere used in a passive iW/jucn-a
:

=

=

sense only
h. horn.

when
v.

passivity
#</>pa(rr

is

distinctly suggested

Merc. 80
73

7/8

avdrjra Si7rA.6K6 Qavnarh epya,

R. and P.
juei/
.
.

rV

^ev

cai/ ai/6-rjTov, avfavvfjiov,
. .

by the context (e.g. Farm. ed. Plat. Phaedo 80 B
8e
.

r<$

.

vof]T(f Kal /j.ovoei5e? Kal o.Sia\vrcf

.

T

.

.

avo^Tcp

KCL\

Kal 8ia\vT$, Dionys.

Areop. de

div.

nom.

c.

I

inrepovtrios

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

the

put the dilemma in other words. If we choose horn (a), we assume that voijfj,ara (i.e. par ticulars, regarded as aggregates of Ideas) must in
first

To

every
that

case

possess

the

power

of

thinking
If

;

and

thereby we
e.g.

contradict

common
that

sense,

which affirms

a palm-tree cannot think.
(b),

we choose the
sense
is
;

second horn
in

we hold

common

right

and declaring e.g. a palm-tree to be dvorjrov thereby we deny the assumption that would equate all vor)para (i.e. particulars, regarded as aggregates of with voovvra. Ideas)

Now

this

argument as a whole turns on the

acceptance of the equation between vorj^a and voovv. For the wording of the first alternative 77 Bo/celv aou
K
voriiJLdTtov

6/cacTTOp

elvcii is

Kal

"jravra

voelv

clearly

implies that irdvia voelv
etc

vorjfjudr&v e/cao-rov elvat,.

the natural consequence of And the second alterna

tive offers

no

difficulty at all, unless
:

we

are convinced
J

that every
difficulty

vo^a must be a voovv that it does offer is shown by Sokrates answer A\\ ovSe

rovroj
in

(frdvai, e^a \6yov. Again, it is noteworthy that Parmenides first retort the same postulate was

oiicria

Kal vovs avSr^ros

ical

\6yos

Uppriros),

and not always then

(e.g.

[Alex.] in Arist. Met. ed.
iro\\ol /A^ flvai
a.i/oT)Tcas

Hayduck

p. 670,

aire<f>-f>vavTo).

27 rfc yhp vof\T\]v Kal Be iav In view of these objections I
"

have followed a simpler syntax, and given to av6tiros a meaning that Stephanus calls frequentissimum et passim obvium (e.g. Plat. Tim. 30 B, where, as in Gorg. 514 c, av6rjros is opposed to vovv
"

THE METAPHYSICAL
tacitly
/celvo

BASIS

made by the words

Ov%

evbs TWOS, o eVi
;

rb vorjfia ITTOV voelj piav iiva ovaav loeav In short, both the language of the first retort and the fact that the second is couched in the form of
a dilemma
lead
us

Sokrates and his

critic

tain that every vbrj^a

suppose that the Platonic were alike prepared to main must be a voovv.
to
is

Whether
will

this

assumption

an axiom or a paradox
"

depend upon the exact significance that we attri bute to vorjua. As with our own word thought," so in
the case of vorj^a
it is

possible to distinguish a variety

of allied meanings.

Proklos in Farm. ed. Cousin
<yap

v.

147 observes \eyerai

vorj/jia

KOI rb voyrbv avrb TO

vorjOev KOL TO evepyrjiia KCLI TO ryvwcrTMCov TOV VOOVVTOS.
i.e.

the term vot^a

is

applied

(i)

to the actual object

of thought, the thing thought of; (2) to the process of thinking, or more strictly to that process as exem
plified

on any definite occasion

;

(3) to

the cognitive

faculty of the thinker.

If in the

passage with which

we

are concerned

vorjfia

bears this third sense, then

the statement

vorj/jia

voel is self-evident,

and further

enquiry is futile. But the usage of i/o^a to denote the "cognitive faculty" is poetical, as may be seen

from the

lexiccP\

and at

this juncture,

where much

may
2

hinge on the right selection of a single word, a

e.g.

Horn. Od. 215, Hes. Op. 129, Theog. 656, Empedocl. ed.

Karsten vv. 313, 316, 317.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
poet s licence would be utterly out of place. Had Plato meant the thinker or the thinking faculty,"
"

"

"

he would assuredly have used TO voovv or 6 vovs. Can it be then that vorj^a here bears its second meaning,
process of thinking"? Two objec In the first place, tions at once suggest themselvds.

and denotes

"a

if

A
s

thinks B,
;

it

is fair

to describe

A

or

A

s

mind

as

thinking
.Z?

it

may

also be fair to

presume that
?

B
is

or
it

mind has a
say that

similar faculty for thought; but
s

fair to

A

thinking thinks

Has

the express

ion vorjpa voei thus interpreted

any

intelligible

mean

And in the second place, if we grant that by ing ? a laxity of phraseology such a statement might be made 3 it must be admitted that vQj]^a thus becomes
,

the equivalent of But it is difficult to believe that for a common and straightforward term Plato would have substituted a comparatively rare and
v6rj<ri<;.

4 ambiguous one.

A

glance at

Ast s Lexicon

will

English language tolerates the following sen passing thought be the directly verifiable existent, which no school has hitherto doubted it to be, then that thought is itself the thinker, and psychology need not look beyond" (W. James, The
elasticity of the

3

The
:

tence

"

If the

Principles of Psychology, i. 401, cp. 369). The nearest approach to this that I know of in Greek is a clause quoted by Stephanus s.v. vocp6s :
"Mire

cum

j/Jrjyua
.

conjungit Niceph. Callist. H. E. vol.
.
.

i.

p.

SB,

(v

rj

ffoi jjifv

KOI 6 vovs

ad6\ti)Tos, fipvuv voepa. KCU 0eTa

j/o^/xaro."

But

Byzantine bombast
4

is

foreign to the Parmenides.

It

407 a 7
v6fi<ris.

might be argued, on the strength of Arist. Psych. A. 3. 13. TJ 8e v6ri(ris ra j/oTjjuaro, that i/oTj/uara is used as the plural of

But

(i) in that

passage

"thought is thoughts"

means

that the

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
show
that, as

compared with

vor)cr^ y voijfui

occurs but

seldom

in the Platonic writings.

Discounting

Meno
E,

95 E, Soph. 237 A, 2580, as quotations

and Symp. 197

an avowedly poetical passage in Agathon s speech, we meet with it again only in Politicus 260 D, where
heralds
as

a

class

are

said

to

issue

commands

a\\nrpia voi^ara Trapa^e^ofievov. The word is appos ite there just because it has not a subjective but an the king entrusts his vorj^a to the objective value
herald, as the manufacturer

hands over

his

wares to

the retail dealer.

It

appears to

me

certain, therefore,

that in the present passage also v6vj(j,a is used in the It first of the three senses enumerated by Proklos.

denotes

"the

actual

object

tion

still, thought whether voTjpa means (a) the object thought
of."

We may

the thing however, raise the ques
of,

of thought,

as
(b)

it

is

independently of the
object

the

thought

of,

thinking subject, or as represented by the

thinking subject to his own mind. The former, to speak with all accuracy, is TO vorjrov or TO voovnevov,
"

that which can

be"

or

"

that which actually

is

appre-

activity of the thinking subject consists in representations of objects thought, not merely in repeated exhibitions of itself: where the process of thinking is entirely self-contained, etrrii/ r? voTjcris vo-fifffus v6f)<rts, not vo^^aros or vo-nndruv v6i)(ris ; (2) the plural wf)<rcis was available. To Arist. Probl. Iff. 7. 91 7 a 39 (quoted by L. & S.) and

mental

Plut.

Holsten

Mor. 6910, 1 1 20 A (quoted by Stephanus) add Porphyr. Op. ed. p. 66 ciy 5e cavrV irpbs rbv vovv ev TOLLS vo^ffea-t
tVtoC<ro

yiyvcrtu

(sc.

TJ

^VXT]}

.

.

.

/coi

a! vofofis

OVK &vev

OF PLATO
bended by
5
Tao>a

S

ETHICS.
latter is TO vorjfia. 8e vorj^a

thought."

The

Thus
<f>dv-

Plutarch de placit. phil.

iv. 1 1

Siavoias \OJIKOV faov

says eWt a definition elsewhere
\efcr6v,

used to elucidate the Stoic term

which also

was the mental representation This distinction between (a) TO voovpevov and (b) TO voovpevov y voovpevov would be important enough if we were dealing with objects sensibly perceived. But
of TO d^^aivo^vov.
in the case of the Platonic
us,

Ideas

it

does not trouble
it

because

as Proklos, ibid. 140, puts
t

o

v vor)iLacn Tidlv ovcn&crdai ras

Sea? v7re\a/3v.

Idea and Mind s thought of the Idea are former has no existence apart from the latter.

^Wpcm;? Q The one. The

We

have mounted to a
in

so

far

as
is

it

perception,

where the word ^avraa-^a^ implies the low ground of sensenot applicable, a level where less
level
:

venturesome theorists are not likely to linger Arist. Psych. I\ 3. 8. 432 # 12 TO. Se Trpwra vorj/jbara tivi
Siolffei

rov

fMrj

(f)avrd(7fjiara elvai

;

rj

ovbe

Ta\\a
I

<$>av-

T(i(Tfj,aTa,

aXX

OVK avev ^avraff/jidrcov.

conclude,

5

efts

T<

Cp. Alex, de anini. ed. Bruns p. 85, 20 tyylvvrtu 5e TJ airb TTJS irepl ra ot vif r^v apxV faro. Sxnrep otyiv Tiva cnr avruv \afJL0dvovros rov Kado\ov
/j.(Ta.&a<Tti>

0eeop7j-

/car

ap%as

/J.fv

v6r]fj.a

/cal

tvvoia /caAelrat, TrAeovorrai

Se

na.1

Kal iroXvrpoiTov yiv6iJ.svov, us SvvcurOai Kal
roieiv
6

TOVTO, vovs

^5rj.

Cp. Alex, in Arist. Met. ed. Hayduck
t

p.

92,

19,

22,

*V

Se ats

T\

inr6<na.<Tis

and rb

fivai OLVTUV cV

T$

voeiffQai.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
then, that the

section

meaning of vo^a as it occurs in this of the Parmenides may be satisfactorily
"the

defined as

qualification.

And

object of thought" without further the it is of such a vbrjpa that

interlocutors
viz.

assume what

that

it

possesses

by no means a the power of thinking.
is

truism,

We
a
vorjfjia

set out, then,

impressed with the belief that has a capacity for vorjaw, and furnished with

Sokrates suggestion that each Idea is a vo^/ma. are, however, hampered by the difficulty which Parmenides urged in the first horn of the dilemma,
viz.,

We

that

if

the Idea

is

a i/o^a, and if particulars

rwv elSwv /uere^e^, particulars too consist may in fact, are vorj/jiara e/c vorj/udrcov and therefore
be said
;

particulars

ought always

to

be

voovvra

a

result

which

difficulty disproved by experience. vanishes with the surrender of the immanence of the
is

This

Ideas.

Sokrates
TI

now

declares that the peOegis
avrols (Farm. 132 D).

is ov/c

a\\7j ri?

eltcaaOrjvai,

Hence
in

particulars are no longer

made up

of

vo^ara

such
;

a

way

as to be themselves the objects of pure thought

rather they
jAijjirj/jLaTa

should be described as
It follows

o/jLoico/jLara

or

of the Ideas.

or

would

follow,

if

the conversation did not take another turn
is

that a

particular as such

incapable of

vbr)(n<s,

and we escape

the paradoxical conclusion that e.g. a palm-tree has the faculty of thought indeed, we confine these
;

voijfjicna

voovvra to the world of Ideas.

OF PLATO
Having surmounted
our position.
Firstly, in

S ETHICS.

this obstacle,

we

reconnoitre

Two principles
:

of importance have been

deliberately admitted

every instance of vbrjvis the voov^evov
real existence,

must be a single
Secondly,
all

an 6v

TL.

vo^ara have

a capacity for vorja^.

showing (i) is a really Consequently it will be possessed of such properties and subject to such conditions as
existent unit.

The

Idea, then, on this

may

hereafter be proved essential to ovoria.
"

(ii)

It is

a thought that thinks. Now to the question, "What does it think ? we can but reply, Thoughts." And
"

since
"

every

vorjfj.a

is

a voovv,

our

answer means
as

Thoughts that

think."

Moreover,
think"

we have
of

confined
Ideas,

"Thoughts

that

to

the world

we

are

now

asserting that

any given Idea
voovvra which

thinks Ideas.

Thus the

Ideal series, as at present

conceived, consists in certain

vo^ara

think
7

themselves 7 and one another,8
that,

the range of

Note

when Sokrates answers
7rl

in the affirmative the question,
tirbv voe?, /j.iav Tiva oixroiv

Oi>x

fv6s Tii/os, &

iraviv ^/celVo rb

v6r)/j.a

I8fav;
itself

(Farm. 1320), it is not to the conception of the Idea thinking that Parmenides demurs, but to the reappearance of the Idea as
all its

previously defined with
8

former

disabilities.
ov<ria
.

In Phaedrus 247 C, D, soul is described as an . ovrws . Of this intelligible entity it is said Ka6opa pey avr^v fj.6vtf 6tar^ v$. Sutaioffwrii , KaQopa 5e (Tw(ppo(rvvTjv, KaOopif, 5e firia T f]HTjv 1 yevtcris
:
oi>x
"?)

irp6cre<rTiv

.

.

.

oAAo r^v
TO.

eV

T$

6 Iffnv

ttv

tivrus

firio-T^fjL rjv

olffav Kal

r&\\a wo-avTws
passage
is

ovra ovrtas

Qfa<ra.^4vt]

K.T.A..

Mutatis mutandis this

applicable to the Idea as

it is

portrayed in the Parmenides.

io

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
mental activity being exclusively restricted to
:

this

the domain of Ideal truth

Parm.
fjiev

134

A OVKOVV

Kal

eiricrTrjfJM],

fydvat,,

avrrj

o eariv eTricmjiJir), rfjs o ecrrtv
;

aX ndeia^ aim)?
Efcdo-rf] Se

av e/eeo^s eirj eTTLcrr^jjirj av TWV eTTio T rj/jLwv ?}
elrj

Haw
;

ye.

<TTIV,

efcdo rov

TWV OVTMV^

o

av

eVicrTrJyLt?y

^ ov

Nal.

Let us here pause to enquire from what sources these fundamental doctrines derive. The conviction
that every vor^ia must be a voovv might primd facie be ranged under the general belief that like is known
"

by

like,"

appeal being
A, B.

ance
6eiw

:

Phaedo 80
dOavdrw
the soul

made rae
.

to Plato s earlier utter
rjfuv
.

jfvaftaivei,,

TW

fj^ev

/cal

/cal

vorjra)

.

o/jLoiorarov elvai

^rv^v.

For

if

resembles

intelligibles,

intelligibles
is

presumably resemble the

soul.

But

it

one thing

to assert that the object of thought is incorporeal (even the Stoics went thus far), and another thing to hold that the thoughts of the thinking soul must

be themselves capable of thinking.

This latter creed

was apparently based on the authority of the historical Parmenides, from whose poem two passages may be
cited as illustrative of the point.
(ed. R.

The

first

of these

and

P. vv.

39

40)

is

yap av
ovre

yvoirjs TO

ye

/ur)

eov, ov

yap awarov,
Kal elvai.

<j>pdo-aw

TO yap avro voelv C&TIV r

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

n
"

The

9 can think general sense of the last clause is and the argument shows that, of what exists only if we can think of nothing but TO 6V, TO fj,rj ov will be
"

We

;

In fact, Parboth unknowable and unspeakable. menides held that every thought has a truly existent content, inasmuch as TO voovpevov must ever be TO 6V,

And
in his

this is just
first

what the Platonic Parmenides urges
:

retort to Sokrates tentative reconstruction

Farm.

132 B TI ovv, $avai, ev etcaarov

ea-Ti

rwv

L7reiv.

*A\\a TWO?

;

Nal.

"Ovros f)

OVK

6Wo<?

/

The second passage and P. vv. 94 96)
TWVTOV 8 earl

to which

I

allude

is (ed.

R.

voelv re Kal ovveicev eari
a>

ov yap avev rov eoiro?, Iv
evpijaeis TO voelv.

TrecfraTiafjLei

The argument here may be thus paraphrased, You do not find thought apart from TO 6V, wherein
thought finds
its

expression
s

:

[You do not
6V:]

find

thought

object apart from TO

9

Literally, the
for thinking
its

words may be rendered
"

"The

same thing
"

exists

both

and

for being

to fffnv

technical
for

same both

meaning thinking and for being.

=

(Datival Infinitive) : or possibly, giving "// we should translate // is the
is,"
"

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
Ergo thought and thought
sive 10
It
s

object are co-exten

both are TO

ov.

be observed that the two passages are complementary. The minor premiss, which is wanting
will

exactly supplied by the first. The argument as a whole, led to the simple corollary that, if thought coincides with thought s object, that object
in the second, is

may be

said to think. 11

And

this,

as

we have

seen,

was the substantial assumption of the Platonic Parmenides in his second retort.
It is
seq.

clear therefore, that,

Plato puts into

Farm. 132 B the mouth of the Eleate the two
in

when

the actual

weighty principles enunciated above, he is adducing tenets of the historical Parmenides as

It matters little whether we follow Simplicius (in Phys. A, ed. Diels p. 87, 17) and translate "Thought is coincident with thought s or adopt Mr. Burnet s version (Early Gr. Philos. p. 186) : It object," is the same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the
"

10

thought exists." In the former case we identify the subject with the object ofv6i]ffis, in the the latter the object with the subject. Whichever z, z, and_y rendering we choose, the argument will be the same, viz. x

=

=

therefore
11

x =y.

to imply that Parmenides himself expressly drew spoke of rb %v as a vovs. We have no better authority for such an assertion than Plotinus Enn. v. i. 8, and Simplicius in Phys.
I

do not mean

this inference, or

A.

ed. Diels p. 143, i8ff. Moreover, there is the negative evidence of Plato, who, in Soph. 244 B, c, states that the Eleatics called their principle by the two names ev and &v, but makes no mention of vovs

as a recognised appellation.

My point is merely that the historical Parmenides identification of voov^evov and voovv paved the way for the Platonic Parmenides postulate of vo-fiftara voovvra.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
corrective of his
to

13

own

unrevised Idealism.

And we

appreciate the dramatic propriety which begin caused him, at the expense of an obvious anachronism,
to choose Parmenides as his
critic.

significance of that choice has not yet If Parmenides held that the object sounded. been
full

But the

thought was also the subject thinking, he did so only because he identified both alike with TO ov. And
similarly Plato,

who assumes

that every vo^pa.

voel,

assumption on the belief that in any of vorjcris the subject and the object are alike process

must base

his

referable to a single underlying entity.
is

described

by him elsewhere

in

That entity terms which corres
a vorjrov

pond

to the active

and passive functions of the Ideal
z/o^ara, so
ra)V
It is
:

Minds.

As they are Tim. 37 A ifrv%r},

voqrwv del re ovrwv

VTTO rov

As they

yevvrjdevrayv. dpiarov dpicmy <yevofj,evrj are voovvra, so It is a vovs
:

rwv

Phileb. 30 C ea-rw, a 7roX\a/9
re ev
ra>

epi?*a/fcei>,

aTreipov
?r

iravrl TTO\V Kal Trepas Ircavbv /cai Tt9
<j>av\r}

aurot? atria ov

KOfffjiovcrd re real avvrdr-

rovca

.

.

.

<70(f)la

teal

vovs \eyofj,evrj SiKaiorar av.

Laws 897

C

rj

gvfjiTrao-a

ovpavov 6809 apa Kal

(f>opa

Kal rwv ev avrco ovr&v aTravrcov vov Kivijeei Kal
7repi<f)opa

Kal \o^La-^iol^

Ofjioiav

<f>v(Ti,

This conception of a vorjrbs vovs and of voovvra may well have been the source of Aristotle
statements concerning ra avev
v\r)<$

s

vorjrd

:

I

4

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
Met. A.
7.

1072 b 2O eavrov Be voel 6 vovs /cara rov vorjrov" vorjrbs yap ylyverai 0iytea vowv, ware ravrbv vovs KOI vorjrov.

Ibid. A. 9. 1075
jjLevov

/cal

ov% erepov ovv rov vov, ova /JLTJ vXrjv
3

a

6Wo<?

rov voovTO avro-

e^et,
/juia.

earau KOI

f)

voxels TO) voovpevu)

Psych. T. 4. 12.
/tat

430^

2 oVep av^^aivei eVl TOU

z^oO.

avro? 8e vorjros

ecmv waTrep ra
TO auTo
eo-Tt

voTjrd.

eVl

yuef

7p
/

TWZ/ a^eu

;X?;9

TO voovv /cal

TO VOOV/JLVOV.

Porph.

Categ.

ed.

Busse

p. 91,

14

Xe7a>

6Vt

aljiw[iai avrbv (Aristotle) on, KVpLcorara Kara avrbv /cal fjud\t,(TTa real TrpcoTft)? \eyo^evwv TrpooTwv

OVGIWV TMV
vov

vorjrcov olov

TOV vorjTov Oeov
KOI TWV ISewv,

/cal

rov

/cat, eiirep elcrlv

t 8eat,

TrpcoTa? ovala? e^rj Ta? eV Tot?

may, unlocked for results have been reached. When Sokrates threw out his sug gestion that the Idea might be a yo^a, he probably
But, be that as
it

meant no more than a human thought or concept.

By

the aid of Parmenides

questions

we have now

come

to see that the Ideas are
:

beyond the reach of
ye
TJ/JLWV

particular cognition

Farm. 134 B
elo*ct)v

Ov/c

apa

VTTO

ryiyvtocnce-Tai

ovSev,

eVetS^

avrfjs

iTriavf)^^

ov

We

must

in fact conceive

them

to be a plurality

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

15

of Minds into which one supreme
itself,

reproducing in them
it

its

Mind has multiplied own essential features

of thinking and being thought.
called vofaaTa,
is

Hence, if they are primarily because they are the thoughts of that Intelligence which is their under
lying cause Plut. de placit. phil.
:

i.

10 IlXarwv ^copto-ras
t

rf)$

oucr/a?

ra?

Sea?

v7ro\afA{3dvei,

eV

rot?

Kal eV rat?
T6(7Tt,

<j>avTaa-iais

TOV Oeov, rov-

TOV VOV,
I.

V(f)(TTC0<TaS.

Stob. Eel.
127,

i6a (Aetios), ed. Wachsmuth i. p. n^aTcov Apto-TO) vos ISea 8e ovcria 19
x.
.

.

.

ao-(*)fj,aTO<;

ev TO?? vorjfjiacn

Kal rat?

rov Oeov.

Proklos in Farm. ed. Cousin

v.

148
et&q* Kal e/5 TTJV

apa aXX^Xot?

o re i^oO? Kal
a>?

ra

Gvyyeveiav TavTrjVj
6 2(0KpdTr)s TCL

efjuol

SoKel, d7ro/3\e7T(i)v Kal

iSrj vorj/jiaTa a<pa)plcaTO.

secondarily because they mentally regard themselves and one another.

A

scrutiny of

Farm. 132 B

scq.

then, to the following conclusion.

has brought us, Plato, at the time

when he

reconstituted his early theory of Ideas, held

on the one hand that the object of any process of pure thought must be a single real existence, and on
the other that such an object must itself possess the power of pure thinking. These two articles of belief

he had adopted from the writings of Parmenides, a

16

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

philosopher for
reverence.
12

whom he entertained the deepest And further, he had adopted them on
namely the
o>

the original ground of their validity, recognition of one underlying entity
:

Farm.
ev

128

A
.

Mav0dva>,
. .

etVew/

TOV Zcofcpdrrj,
ev rot?
TKjjLrjpia

IIapiJ,evi&r],
<$9

&v pev yap
TOVTWV

elvai TO irdv, Kal

/caXto<?

re

/cal ev.

As
result

applied to his

own

Idealism, their immediate
in positing

was to warrant him

a single

really

and conditioning cause of a the series of really existent Minds called the Ideas, of thought for any given Mind being itself or object any other Mind. The relation thus formulated may be denoted, at any rate provisionally, by the accom
existent

Mind

as basis

panying diagram

:

vovs

= The

Supreme Mind.

voovvra.

The

Series of Ideas.

12

al5o"i6s

Cp. Theaet. 183 E riop^evi Sr/y 5e p.oi Qaiverai, rb TOV re /j.01 ?yat o/ta Seivds re ... KOI pot ft ados
<f>dvr)

n

ytvvcuov, Soph. 237

A rbv

TOV iraTpbs Hapnevtiov \6yov

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

17

II.

The Sop /list.

Thus far the components of the Platonic scheme have been characterised as oWa and as voovvra
voovpeva.
teristics
It

may now be shown
certain

that these charac
properties, without

involve

further

which any account of real and phenomenal nature would be altogether inadequate. In Soph. 248 A the el8&v draw a distinction between yevea-Ls and ovcria the changeable nature of
</\ot
:

the former

we apprehend through our body by means
;

of sense-perception
in

we apprehend through
Again,
dcroofjiaTa
ei&rj

the changeless nature of the latter our soul by means of reasoning.
vorjra
teal

248 C these same adherents of
declare
that yeveo-is
iroielv
lies

within, true

cvcrla without, the

domain of

KOL Trda^etv.

While passing these opinions

in review,

the Eleate

s

remarks are supplementary rather than destructive. He points out that, if the Idealists hold, on the one

hand that ovaia
that ovaia

yiyvtocriceTai,,

and on the other hand

is a-Tratfrj?,

then

to avoid inconsistency

they must by the process which they describe as TO
<yi<yv(ixTKeiv

rf

TO

<yi<yvto(TKe(TQ(u

mean something
TrdOos.
If,

totally

different

from a
is

7roir)/j,a

rj

<yL<yv(ti<rtceiv

Stranger

s

point of fact Troielv words hint that such is the case
in

however, TO TI and the
then

they

will allow

that
Tt,

its

correlative TO yiyvwo-KeaOcu
still

must be Trao-^ew

and,

holding to their doctrine
2

18

THE METAPHYSICAL
is yiyvcoa-Ko/jLevrj VTTO

BASIS

that ovffia

TTJ? 7^c6cre&)?,

admit that

icaO*

oaov

yiyvaya-fteTai,

they will Kara TOGOVTOV tcivelrai

Sta TO irdo-^eiv.

In this paragraph the Eleate s critique of Idealism brings before us two conceptions
:

(i)

That
"

ovffia is aTraBrfs,

must be known ledge which transcends the
in

if truly known some sense of the word know

and

"

71-0/77^,0, f)

trdBos properly
rj

attached to any process of yiyvcaaKeiv

yiyvaMTKecrOai.

higher intellectual state may be we are not yet told, but bearing in mind the ovra of the Parmenides, which were further determined as voovvra

What

this

presume that it is vorjcris, pure thought, and our presumption will be justified by the immediate sequel.
and
voovfJLeva,

we

shall

(ii)

That

ova-ia

Trda^eL,

so

far

at

least

as

it

provides an object for

7^w<rt?,

rightly so
its

called,
rjp^^ ia.

and that therein
In
accepts
(i)

it

departs from

own

effect

the
ruling,

Stranger
that

rules,
is

and

Theaetetus
:

his

ovcrla

double-faced
vorja-^

As
As

the

subject and object of

it

is

(ii)

the subject and object of yvwcns
a-rraOf is

it

la

Arist.

Topica Z. IO. 148 a 2O
t

yap Kal

aitivriTOi

$oicov<nv

at

tSeat roTs \syovffiv
itieai

Se as flvai,frag. 184.

151004

eri Siaiperal

kv elef al
Se

Kal

/j.epi(TTai,

flSuv fv GKaffTov aiSidv re Kal

olaai airadels, Diog. Laert. III. 12, 13 v6f]/j.a Kal irpbs TOVTOIS airades.
to

e<m

ruv Hence
yap>

Ideal
avrals

monads are said oUv re virapx^v

be cnraBe is in Met. A.

9.

991 b 26 ouSey

irdOos, ibid.

M.

8.

1083 a

9.

Compare

Aristotle s

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

Can

we, however, reconcile these opposing con

Can we predicate both aspects alike of ceptions ? the same ova-la ? This is the problem to which the
Eleate

now

addresses himself in a passage of unusual

lucidity and directness.

He
present,

contends (249 A) that TO Tra^reXw? bv cannot
ayiov, vovv ov/c e%ov.

be cepvov Kal

And

if z/ou?

be

we

shall

be forced, he

says, to

admit also

and tcivqa K. At the same time we must far), be careful to retain that element of erracrt?, without which vovs could not anywhere exist.
^t>%77,

Ovcrla then, wherever

it

is

found, will be

endowed

with two qualities which are evavTiwrara d\\r)\ois,

namely
(i)

:

(ii)

with arda-^j in which case we have 1/01)5 with Kivrja-is, in which case we have far; and
;

Soph. 249
.
.

D

ro3
TTJV

8?;

0\ocr6<ft>

.

.

.

Trdcra

dvdj/crj

.

Kara

TWV nrai^wv
teal

ev^rjv ocra dtcivrjTa

Kal KKt,vrjfjLeva TO ov T
\eyeiv.

TO 7rav gvva/jL(j)6Tepa u

own

doctrine
f<rnv,

:

O7ro06s

ibid.

Psych. A. 4. 14. 408 b 29 6 8e vovs fooos Qei6rep6v Kal F. 5. i. 430 a 17 Kal OVTOS 6 vovs (the vovs iroiyTiKts)
airad-f)s, rrj ovffia

n

Xopio-rbs Kal afj.iy^s Kal
1 1

&v evepyeia, Met. A.
ovffia
.

7.

1073 a
Stob.

which predicates
I. Ixi.

airaOes Kal
T^"

ava\\oiwrov of the
ala-Bijruv.
i.

.

.

aiSios Kal

aKlvrjTos

Kal Kexpto7i"?
i,

Hermes (quoted by
has 6 vovs
$>v

Ed.
14

ed.

Wachsmuth

p. 275, 17)

a-rraO-fis.

This explains

why

the definition of ovrus
final.

given in Soph. 247 E,

248 c was regarded as provisional and not

Whatever possesses

20

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
Applying
this all-important

result

to the issues

of last section,

we note

that the argument from the

It Partnenides dealt with only one side of the truth. of vo^a-is, regarded ova-la as the subject and object

without taking into account any lower intellectual The or \o^icrfio^. faculty, such as that of yvwatf

such neglect. Sophist warns us against persisting in of the It bids us to observe that the supreme
i>oD?

Philebus

is not only a 1/01)9, Tim. 39 E iva roS Cp.

but also a voyrbv
&><?

o/jLoiorarov

77

TCO
fJiipr}(Tiv

Kal vorjrq)

co&>

Trpo? TTJV TT}?

Statoma?

Phileb. 30

D

OVK.OVV eV

.

.

.

rfj

TOV Jto?

e/aet?

</>

ecrOcu

$t>a

TTJV

rr}<?

alrias

and that the
only

ideal vori^ara of the

Parmenides are not
iravfa

vorj/jLaTa,

but also

vorjTa

%wa

Cp. 7Y;#. 30 C ra yap 8^ vorjra ev eavrw TrepiXafibv e%et.
7foV/.

fwa

eicelvo

31

A

TO 7ap irepie^ov Travra, OTroaa voTjTa

o^ fcoa.

inasmuch as every

you?,

whether supreme or sub-

power of doing or suffering would indeed aptly characterise oltrla qua subject and object of yvuxris. But qua subject and object of v6r](rts this same ova-la was admitted to be ccTroflfc. Consequently, unless or Svvafjus can be taken to denote the power of passing from the first static into the second or kinetic condition, we must substitute the
"

the

amended

definition implied in

249 D.

ffi

2

OF PLATO
ordinate,
is

S

ETHICS.
of

23

forced

by the necessary nature
its

its

own
the

ova-la to
TroirjfjLara

pass out of

tranquil airddeia into

and

TraOrj/jiaTa

of animation. 15

Thus

by
is

emphasising the fact that, wherever pure thought found, there will its shadow the lower mental
also,
it

phase be found

enables us to extend our

previous scheme as

in the

diagram.

III.

Aristotle s Psychology.

Having

learnt in the preceding section that all

ovaia deserving of the name must necessarily pass from higher to lower phase, we have yet to enquire

15

For Plato

s

following passages
7TOT6 yfvo urdrjv,

conviction that vovs must be attached to tyvx^ see the Phileb. 300 /J.TIV Kal vovs avev ^VXTJS OVK &v
:
(ro<pia

Farm. 132
(vovs

B

/u^

TUV

ci Swi/
4)

fKa<rrov 77

TOVTWV
ou

voT]/j.a,

Kal

ovSanov ainif

TTpoa-f}KTj

tyyiyvfffOai &\\o6t

iv tyvxais, Soph,
Ae-yo/iei/,
l

249 A ciAAa
cV tyvxfi
;

Tavra
*ye
<f>

/J.fv

aju</>oT6pa

and

^0)77)

eV^r aur
b.v

/Arjv

fi<ToiJ.v

avrb %X flv oura;
KTOLcrdai

/cal

TtV

frepov fX

Tp6irov

Tim. 30 K
Arist.

vovv S

a5

X U P^ S ^ U X^ J
fj.6v(f)

afivvarov irapayeveaQai ry, Ibid.
Trpoo"f]Ki,

46 D TUV yap
TOTTOV eiSuv,

OVTWV $ vovv
Psych. F.
TT\))V

\fKTfov

^ivx^]v.

Compare

4. 4. 4290;

27 Kal fv ty

ol

\eyovres ryv ^t/xV

^vai

ic AAo Svvd/nei TO, elfSyj, r} vorjriK-f], ovrt 4vrf\fx f t Tao-o oAA o vovs, Archytas in 1070 a 26 TJ ^vx^l frag. phil. Gr. ed. Mullach i, 565 afoQacris fj.fv Iv (report yivfrai, vaos

on

ovrt o\r] d\A

Met. A.

3.

.

^

8
16

See Soph. 249 B
ire pi

uyuau ei

6

ovv,

&

eo/Trjre,

vovv

wSfvl

wo eris
;

flvai ^Sa/jiov, the counterpart of

aKiv^rwv T ovruv 249 C Tt 5 ;

&vtv rovrtDV

(sc.

rov Kara ravra K.T.A.) vovv xaQopas ovra ^ yev6/j.fvov

if Kal btrovovv

24

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
this passage may be effected, transporting us as does from the realm of serene intelligence Tim. 5 2 A TO Kara ravrd eZSo? e%oVj &y&Wov Ka ^
dva>\e6pov,

how
it

ovT6

et? ft?

eavro

elo-^e^of^evov
Trot lov,

a\\o

a\\o0ev ovre avro
teal

a\\o

doparov Se

aXXcw? aval(T0ijTOV, TOVTO o

Brj 1/6770-6?

to the world of

complex
ay 61
yfjv
ical

sensitivity

Laws 896 E
ovpavov
crecriv,

[lev
teal

ra Srj ^w^r] Trawra Od\arrav rat? avrrjs

Kivrj-

at? ovofjuard IVTL /SovXecrQai,

,

\VTTOV/jievrjv, Oappovaav,
crrepyovaav,
ical

(f>oflov-

fjbiaovcrav,
%vy<yvels f)

Trdaais

ocrat,

Trpwrovpyol Kivr](7^i^ ovpyovs av TrapdXafjiftdvovcrai Kivr)Gi<$
ayovo-i,

ra? Sevrep-

irdvra

et?

av^cnv

Kal
<j>6iaiv

fcal

Kal

<rvy/cpi(Tiv.

The method
Psychology.
I

of transition

will, I think,

be best

fol

lowed by the aid of a vexed paragraph
shall first state
;

in Aristotle s

what

I

take to be the
offer

argument of that paragraph
justification for the

and then
I

some
to
its

meaning which
is

assign

several parts.

Aristotle s thesis

(Psych. A.

2. 6.

404^

8)

that

those thinkers,
in

who

find the

main

characteristic of

TO yivcoo-Keiv

Kal

TO

al<r9dve<r6ai,

identify
for

witn their

dp^

or ap^at.

Empedokles,

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

25

example, constructs the percipient soul out of the same six elements which go to form the percepts of
his system.

And

that Plato acted in a similar
:

way
and

may
TCL

be inferred from three considerations 17
In the Timaeus Plato

(i)

makes both
(sc.

77

^nJ\r]

TTpdyfjiara

out of the same elements
to

ravrbv and

Odrepov,
(ii)

combining

produce

ovo-ia).

In ra irepl $t\ocro(/av \e^6^eva he distinguishes four stages in the evolution of the percipient Idea corresponding to four stages in the evolution of the

percept Ideas.
Trpwrov
(iii)
JU.T}*O<?,

These four are

77

TOV

ei

o? ZSea,

and

The

TTp&Tov TrXaro?, irpwrov fiddos. percipient Idea thus evolved apprehends
i/ofc,

by means
Sofa,

of four faculties (namely

and

eirtffrtffjLr),

cucr0rj<n<i),

which correlate with four

eiSrj

TOW

with things grouped according to the irpayiJidrwv, said four stages in the evolution of the percept Ideas.
i.e.

like

For these reasons Aristotle concludes that Plato, Empedokles, constructed the subject and the
I

17

append the exact words
KO.\

:

Psych. A.

8e Tpoirov

UXdrwv

Iv

r$
TJ

Ti/j.ai(f

16 TOV avrbv 2. 7. 404 * T^V ^vx^v 4* ruv (TTOI^ MV irotet

yivdxTKea-Qai
6/jLoia>s

y&p r$
TT}S

6/j.oi(p

ftpoiov. TO. 5e

5e Kal Iv rols irepl

<pi\o(ro<l)ias

\9yofltvotS

Trpdy^ara IK ruv apx&v elvai. Siupiffdifj, avrb JJLSV rb

<aov

e|

avrys
TO.

fidQovs,

5

a\\a

TOV tvbs iSeas Kal TOV irpuTov p-^Kovs Kal irXaTovs Kal ert 8e Kal a\\ws, vovv n\v TO 4V, op,oioTp6Tr<as.
fj-ovax^s

firio T fjiJ.rfV 5

TO Svo

y&p

*
4"

*v

>

86j-av,

at<rQi}<nv

5e T~bv TOV o~Tpfov
tlffl

of p.ev

yap

T ^ I/ &* rov eVtTreSov apiO/mbr oura Kal apid/JLol TO. eftr;
8
of api6fj.ol

apxal f\4yovTO
/jLfV

8

e/c

TU>V

o-Totxfiw
86i;T),

,/fptVerot 5e TO. Tfpa.yp.aTa TO.

v$, TO. 8

^7r/(TT7)fi77,

TO.

Sc

TO.

8

alo~0-f)fffi

ftSr;

OVTOl

T&V

26

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS
constituents and

object of cognition out of the

same

by

parallel processes, thereby preserving the law ytva)a-KtcrOai TO opoiov rc5 6/W&) (Psych. A. 2. 20. 405 b 15).
i.

The

first

of the three clauses here summarised
:

represents Plato as arguing to this effect
(a)
(b)

Like
ra
TT

is

known by
(i.e.

like.

pay par a

things in general, the object

of knowledge) are formed IK. rwv dp^Mv. too (the subject^ of knowledge) (c) Therefore tyvxh

must be made IK rwv

crroi^eiwv.

This conclusion, says Aristotle, is to be found in the Timaeus. And we can hardly doubt that he refers

on the one hand to Tim. 35 A, where the cosmic soul is composed of ravrov and ddrepov, which coalesce to
produce ovaia and on the other hand to Tim. 41 D, where the subordinate souls are compounded of the
;

same
seems

ingredients,

though

in

certain, therefore, that

a less pure condition. It by ra Grro^ela Aristotle

here denotes the principles of Identity and of Differ ence, which are represented in the Timaeus by the

symbols ravrov and Sdrepov.
Again, the force of the argument depends on the It has, identification of these o-rot^eta with al ap^al.
indeed, been suggested that ra cnoiyzla are ravrov, Odrepov and ovcria considered as the elements of the
18

roivvv

Cp. Simplic. in Arisl. Psych, ed. Hayduck p. 29, II (is TOS a.px-s ra re yixaara TTOJ/TO, rovrfffri TO 6Vro,

/cai

ras

TOVTUV

8vvd.iJ.fiS

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

27

material world, whereas at ap-^ai are the same prin ciples considered as the constituents of the immaterial
soul
;

but

I

fail

to find adequate support for such a
If

view

in either Platonic or Aristotelian diction.
is

any

should prefer to say that distinction ravrbv and Od-repov regarded by themselves as ulti mate principles are apxai, regarded as the elements
I

to be drawn, 19

of derived existences are aroi^ela cp. Arist. Met. N. 4. 1091^ 3 Sta TO TO ev apyj)v KOI
:

dpxn v
Ibid.

&>?

N.

4.

(rroi^elov KalTovdpiO^oveKTOV lOQI^ 19 TO i*ev $dvai Trjv
ev\oyov
d\ij6e<;

1/69.

elvai,

elvaf

TO

rovro, GTOiyziQV re rj JJ,TJ KOI (TTOi^elov dpiOfjLwv, dSvvarov. nraaav aroL^elov Ibid. N. 4. IO92# 6
elvai TO ev,
et

dp^v

TTOLOVCTI,.

However
employed by
of Platonism
:

that

may

be,

both terms are regularly

Aristotle to describe the
e.g.

same two bases

Met. N.

I.

1087$ 12 d\\a /JLrjv KOL Ta? dp^a^ a? Ka\ovGriv ov /taXw? d jro^iSoaa iv ol
/JLeya
ical

TO

TO

fiitcpbv

\eyovres

/JLCTCL

TOV

rpia ravra (noi^ela TWV dpidjjiwv. Ibid. M. 9. 1086^: 26 eVet ovv \eyova-i Tives roiavTa9 elvai Ta9 t 8ea9 KOI dpiOpovSj Kal ra
Toi>9

TOVTWV aroL^ela rwv OVTWV
K.T.\.
19

elvai,

o-TOt^eta Kal

Stob.

Ed.

i.

x.

i6b, ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p. 128,

14 has

ol

^v

olv

rjyovvrai

28

THE METAPHYSICAL
if

BASIS

the substitution of rwv dp^wv for TWV within the bounds of a single argument seem strange,
it is

And

corroborated

by the

similar case of
avdyrcrj

Met.

M.

/.

!O8l# 31

8

,

eVetTrep

ffrai TO

el 5 dSvvara Sua? (Troi^ela. f) dopKTTO? rd crvfJijBaivovTa, real ra? ap%a? iivai Tavras

ev KOI

dBvvarov.

The outcome
ty v xtf

of this

first

clause, therefore,

is

that

is an ova-la inasmuch as it is composed and ddrepov has for the content of its of ravrou cognitions objects formed of the same constituents as

which

itself,

in

short other psychic

ovcriat,.

And

whereas,

when dealing with vorjo-is only, we concluded that the object of thought for any given Mind is itself or any other Mind, we have now extended the same con
clusion to the whole ^rvxn whereof i/oO? is the static phase, and are prepared to affirm that the object of

cognition for any such eptyvxov

is itself

or

any similar

Moreover in the terms ravrbv and Odrepov we have obtained a convenient notation 20 for higher and lower psychosis, which permits us to re-edit our scheme in
the appended form.
ii.

The

precise import of the second clause

is

less

20 Foreshadowed 249 B TO Kara ravra

in dialogues earlier than the
/cal
U<TO.VTWS

/cal irepi

Timaeus, e.g. Soph. rb avr6 K.r.K. Farm. 1580
Qarepov
fyvffiv).

TV

fTfpav Qixriv TOV

effiovs

(=

Tim. 35 A

TV

OF PLATO
easy to determine

S ETHICS.

31

and widely divergent views have been advanced, of which some account must be
;

rendered before further progress

is

possible.
p.
.

22
8

Simplicius (in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck seqq.} takes the whole clause 6/W<o? Se /cai

28,
.

.

ra

a\\a

ofuiOLorporrax; to

the objects

known
Se

:

be descriptive of ra the next words, ert Se KOL a\\ws
<yi>a)orrdj

....

ai(r6r]cnv

rov rov

crrepeoO,
:

then

denote ra

yvwcrrifcd, the subjects
lines, ol
fjuev

knowing
. . .

yap

apiOfjLol

ol dpiBfJbol ovroi

and the concluding rwv rrpaj-

fjbdrwv,

between object and But, apart from the fact that (a) the words subject. en Se teal a XAw? clearly mark a third exposition
point

the

parallelism

coordinate with rov avrbv oe rporrov tc.r.\. and oyiWw? oe Kal AC.T.X. rather than a mere sub-section, this
division
(b)

introduces

special

difficulties

into

the

passage with which
For,

we

are immediately concerned.

granted that by avro ro wov is meant the 21 to ra avro(6 I^OT/TO? 8^*007x09 intelligible world and by ra a\\a the knowable opinable and etoij), sensible world (ra \oirra rr}? rwv yvcocrrwv
e*>

21

I fail to see

any such

justification for the

term as Mr. Wallace

(ed. Arist. Psych, p.

205) finds in Tim. 308 ovrtas ovv 5^ Kara \6yov SeT \eyeiv r6v5f rbv K6<r/J.ov oaov ^fj^v^ov evvovv re rrj

Sta

TOV

Qeov

yeveffdai

trpovoiav.
its

The cosmos can

only be

described as a

uov in so far as

intelligibility implies the evolution

of eTrto-T^Tci, So^acrrd, ajVflTjra

and

this is just

what Simplicius would

exclude

;

for these

he finds

in

T& &\\a.

32

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
eTTKrrrjrd TO,

ra

said that the latter

Bo^aara ra atffBrjrefy, is constructed

can hardly be o/jboiorpoTrw? with
it

regard to the former. Simplicius himself acknow rwv et Scoi/, ledges ra a\\a to be 6fc rwv dp^wv fjiev
. .

.

ovKen

etc

rwv avroap^wv
er)
Y)iJLevwv
<

009

etc

<7Tot^e/ft)i/,

aXA, ef

to?

e

>

alrlwv rwv

Themistius,

who

(66 B, ed. Spengel p. 2oseqq.) simi
6/Wo>?

larly finds in the

words

e

^at

.

.

.

o^oLOTpoirw^

a description of the cosmos as object thought, and in the succeeding clause an account of the soul as sub
ject thinking,
(a)
is

liable to the

same
. .

objections, viz.
.

that in the words

oyLto/w? Be KOI

o/jLoiorpoTrcos

we

and and

expect to discover a comparison between 7^w(TToi/, not between different kinds of
(6)

that the phrase ra 8 aXXa
22

6yu,otor/307rco9 is

an

over-statement

of the case.

Nor does Philoponus (C. fol. 2 A) improve upon this by understanding ra a\\a of such ill-assorted
elements as ra
vorjrdj

ra

(frvffiKa,
"

and ra

alffdrjrd.

As

Trendelenburg remarks

Neo-Platonica

satis

olent."

Lastly, Sophonias gives, along with much irrelev ant matter, the view of his predecessors (de Anim.

paraph, ed.
22

Hayduck

p. 13, 6),

making both members

Themistius

KOfffJLOV

explanation is T& ^tv olv avro&ov, TOV VOTIT^V, ^K tlTo lOW apX&V, TO. TTp(t>TUV
TU>V

M

row cert
/uLfpOUS

rbv
fK

TUV
IS fas

vQei/jifvui

&ffirep

yap

rck a(V0i}rck

*x ei VP^ &\\T)\a. OUTW xal ras
p. 21).

avrwv

irpbs oAA^jAas

*x flv ( e d. Spengel

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

33

of the clause under discussion descriptive of the object rov of cognition rerrapa yap avrq) oroi^eta
:

.

.

.

.

.

.

vorjrov

^LaKoafJLOV TreTroirjvrat,^ ev
f)

(o

rb rwv ISewv
fcal
rj

ir\r]-

rb avroev,
deft

avrobvds,

r)

avrorpids

avrorer-

MVTrep

/col 6

al&OrjTbs ouro?
teal at

KOO-/JLOS

r/pr^rat co?

UTT alrlov TOV vorjrov

dp%al avrov efceWev.

Passing from the older commentators to more
recent interpreters,

we
to

find

Trendelenburg

though
still

in several points correcting their

extravagance

misled by them

as

the

sequence of the

main

argument
"

:

Ita et Plato,

quemadmodum
cognoscerentur,
fecit,

pergitur, ut similia

similibus

eosdem

numeros
Sic

avTo^ooov
utraque
altera
loci

eosdem menti

indidit.

pars artissime coniungenda, neque
illo ert 5e
2

ab altera divellenda, quasi ab
incipiatur."

KOL a\Xo)5 novi quid

The
"

result of this misconception

is

that he fails to
:

explain the words ra 8 a\\a o/zotorpoTTG)? Quae fuerint haec reliqua, non definimus, universas

tantum

ideas,
24

ne quid Platoni obtrudatur,

intellegentes."

aware that the explanations propounded by but Simplicius and Philoponus are unsatisfactory,
is

He

has

little

to offer in their stead.

23

Arist.

deanima,
24

ed. 1877, P- l8 71

Ibid. p.

88.

34

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

Others have seen that the key to the passage lies in the very divulsio which Trendelenburg deprecates.
"

"

TO %wov

Dr. Jackson, for example, proposes to translate avrb by "the universal Subject"^ and ra d\\a by

This is a distinct move in universal Object? "the it is, however, open to criticism the right direction on the following grounds
: :

(a)
is

An inexact and
"

therefore unsatisfactory

mean
"the

ing universal Subject

attached to the words which describe
:

avTo nev TO
TTpCOTOV

ffiov e f
fjLlj/COVS

ai/r?}<?

T?}?

TOV

^05 ZSea? KOI TOV
ftdOoV<$.

Kal 7T\aTOV 9 Kol

The phrase
loosely used
(/3)

avrrjs TT}? TOV ez/o? /Sea? for

would thus be

avTov TOV

0/05.

Elsewhere

signifies

term avTo TO tyov merely the Idea from which a particular
in Aristotle the
its

animal derives
e.g.

animality, the Idea of "animal," Met. Z. 14. 1039$ 9 16 iroKka ecrrai CLVTO TO
K.T.\.
ibid.

wov avTo

1085^ 26 TTOTepov TO avTov ^toov^frag. 184. rj eTepov 14 fl fAV Kal %WOV (7Ti, /i6T6%Ot CLV Kal UVTOV TOV (t)OV. Plato himself employs the plural of the same term to
9.

M.

ev To3

a)w

describe the Ideas of animals generally

:

That is, the supreme Nous in its passage into cosmic existence, as opposed to that cosmic existence which originates from the evolution of the supreme NoOs.

23

OF PLATO
Rep. 532

S

ETHICS.

35

A

7T/309

avra

ij^rj

ra

wa

ejn^ipelv arro-

{3\e7T6lV Kal
I

7T/905 CLVTCL CLCTTpa tf.T.A,.

"the

conclude, therefore, that to restrict the phrase to universal Subject" is a limitation unwarranted
either Aristotelian or Platonic usage.

by

Mr. Wallace,
subject knowing
"the

who
"

interprets avro TO

oi>

as

"

the

i.e.

the microcosm, and ra a\\a as
i.e.

objects

known"

first

of these objections

the macrocosm, escapes the because the particular foW
(97

(the

microcosm)

is

of course the given Idea

rov

<h>o?

But IBea) as it appears in three-dimensional space. he too traverses the terminology of Aristotle, who

by

ctvro TO

foW

elsewhere denotes not a particular 26 but

an Idea.

ra a\\a as

Another suggestion takes both avro TO fcooi/ and the contrast between subject "subjects"

and object being not expressed but only implied in the sentence. The former will then mean the supreme

&W
from

;

the latter the subordinate wa.
its liability

to the objections which

This view, apart I have brought

against Dr. Jackson s version, seems to me to destroy the balance of Aristotle s triple argument. should

We

have him adducing three clauses for the express pur pose of pointing out the similarity between subject
26 Plato, according to Mr. Archer-Hind &ov of the individual animal in Tim. 89 B shall see, may be taken differently.

s
:

rendering, uses auri rb but the passage, as we

36

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
object,

and

and then omitting to make any mention
in the central clause of the three.
27

of that object
It
is,

by

think, possible to rectify all these flaws the absolute as understanding avro TO
I
"

a>o*>

animal"

any given vor\rov ^wov (whether it be the iravreXes &ov of Tim. 3 1 B, or one of the eV and ra a\\a as tlie of Tim. 30 C), /zepou? et Set wa
that
is
"

remaining absolute animals? This somewhat obvious rendering of the words ra a\\a is suggested by Philo-

ponus (C. 2 ra S aXXo- o/xoiorpoTrci)?, ra aXXa, rjrot ra a\\a rra palely para, olov TO avroicaXov, TO avrodvand strongly ^pt7T09, Kal eVt TWV \onra)v o/^o/co?)
.
.

.

TI

supported

8 aXXa? by the variant readings (Themist. 66 B) and T? aXXa? 6//,otoT<?

(Philop.

C.

2),

which

refer
is

clearly

to

the

remaining ISeai. may be gathered from such expressions as the
lowing
:

That the phrase

a natural one
fol

Tim. 3OC ov

e

cm raXXa
a\\a

1

o>a

tcaO"

ev ical

Kara ye

Ibid.

90 E ra yap

a)a

fj

<yeyovi>

av

tc.r.X.

Phaedr. 247 E KOI
K.r.\.

ra\\a

waavrcos ra ovra

27

This

is

in a

manner the converse of Trendelenburg

s error.

For

both parts he, following the lead of the Greek commentators, held that of the clause referred to the objects of cognition ; and the present sugges tion makes both parts refer to the subjects of cognition.

OF PLATO
Both the given
ing
in
coa as

S

ETHICS.

37

fwoi/ as percipient

and the remain

every

percepts are constructed o/zotorpoTrco?, since case an absolute animal if subjected to

logical analysis will be found to consist of that

form

of TO ev which
article
T?}<?

is

appropriate

to

itself

(hence the

rov evbs ISeas) and the successive dimen
it

sions through which

is

evolved.

This interpretation escapes the two objections urged on p. 34 by admitting the claim of any and
every intelligible animal to the title avrb TO instead of confining the term to the supreme It preserves too the symmetry of the argument
fwoz/,
28
woi>.

;

and

that, not only by emphasising Aristotle s main con the similarity between percipient and percept tention but also by identifying the subject of the present

with that of the preceding sentence
clause

:

for in the first

we saw

that

any given

eftTJrvxov

whether

it

be the whole cosmic &ov or one of the partial Ideal is formed out of the same elements as the other wa.

e^v^a

which constitute the objects of its cognition and now in the second clause we see that any given whether it be the whole cosmic animal or avrb CJMOV
;

28

As a matter

of fact
is

the supreme avrb rb &ov.
aiSiov ov

&ov

It is
/col

excluding Tim. 89 B, at present subjudice not elsewhere, either in Plato or Aristotle, called however spoken of as aurb faov in Tim. 37 C, D us

5e mvriQev aur&
/C.T.A..,

&v
is

lv6-n<Tf

.

.

.

KaOdirfp ovv

aur2>

rv-yx^
rov

1

uov

which

Proklos on perhaps the passage referred to by
/cal

Tim.
yov

40^

I/OTJT^

Travruv curia

TrapaStiy/jiaTiKTi
Siet

r<av

UTT&

5rjfj.iovp-

TrotoujueVwi/.

V fal avro^uiov

TOVTO /ca\e?v

6

U\O.TUV

ftit

38

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
of the partial Ideal

one
the

animals

is

four stages as the other tute the objects of its cognition. conceive, is exactly parallel in the

same

developed through which consti
o>a

The argument,
first

I

two
be so

clauses,
in the

and

raises a

presumption that

it

will

third also.

But before passing to the last consideration we must enquire further concerning the nature of the four stages that have hitherto been mentioned without
comment. Aristotle alludes
2.

to

them again

in

Met.

M.

1077*2 24
fjLrjKos

e-ri

al

76i>e<76t?

eVt

yiyverai, etra

/3a#o9, Kal reXo? ecr^ev.

Trpwrov JJLW jap re\vraiov 8 et? TrXarov, And his remarks both there
&r)\ovcrw.
7rl

and here are best elucidated by a reference to Plato

s

Laws 894 A
rj

Trdvrcov ryeveaw, fjViK

av ri 7ra#o?

77 ;

SrjXov &)? OTTOTCIV

ap%^
1

\a/3ovcra avr]v et? rrjv
et9

Sevrepav e\6r) peTdpaGiv, Kal diro Tavrrjs
TT\i)(riov,

Kal

^XP

Tpi&v eXdovaa alaOrjcriv
fjL6ra/3d\\ov
<yL<yveTai

rot?

alcrdavofJbivoLS.

fjue

Kal fjLTaKivov{jievov
OK,

Trdv eart Se
8e et? a\\r)v e

oirorav jmevp-

perapaXov
I

From

these citations

conclude that the Platonic

Idea possesses four phases or conditions, whereof the first is opposed to the remaining three as OVTWS ovaia
to
rj

As 6W&>5 bv Aristotle calls the Idea aurrj yeveais. rov evbs ISea and Plato adds that it fjuevei (= the
;

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

39

As 7*71/0/^6^0^ Aristotle of Soph. 2496, c). couples it with space of one, two, and three dimen sions and Plato adds that it is developed through
;

these

same stages
29

/jLera0d\\ov

ical

^ICLKIVOVILGVOV

(=the

KivTjax of Soph. 249 A, B).

Thus, on the one hand, the separation between

phenomenal yevecrw, enquired after by the Platonic Parmenides Farm. 1 30 B avrbs crv ovrw Siyprjcrai co? Xeyet?,

Ideal ovaia and

k

fJLev

el S?;

avTa arra, %w/H9

Se TCL

TOVTWV

and affirmed by the elSwv 0t\ot
Soph. 248

A

<yev6(TW)

vrjv Se
;

ovaiav %wpt5 TTOV
for the

pevoi \eyere
ls still

;

rj

yap
s

Nai
mature ontology
;

retained in Plato
6Wo>?

Idea eaTW
a\\rjv

ov

oTrorav

^vy

e&v ^ie^OapTai iravrekw. neither the Ideal nor the hand,
complete apart from its /civrjaiSj although eWzmcoraTa
essential
factors

^era(Ba\ov 8e 6t? While, on the other

phenomenal world is for crrao-t? and correlative
;

aXXrJXot?,
is

are

both

every case ovo-ia, of the former through evolved from the single state
of

which

in

the threefold condition of the

latter.

There are two further

reflections suggested

by the
indi-

passage from the Laws, which
29

may

be briefly

[Alexander] in Arist. Met.
firl

M.

2.
r/

1077^ 14 ed. Hayduck
a#|7?<rts

p. 731,

16 TTptrepov yap
fireiTa ets TrAaros,

HTJKOS

yiverai

^

6\ws

elra ets

40

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

cated here, (a) In the first place, without discussing the details of the context in which that passage is set I may point out that by the dpxn of Laws 894 A Plato

means
dpa

tyvxn-

Thus much

is

clear from the similarity

of the language that follows in 896 A, B
eri
7ro0ovfjL6i>

/z?)

iKavws BeSel^Oat,
^evecnv KOI

"^v^v

ravrov

ov

/cal rrjv Trpairrjv

icivr)aiv rwv

re OVTGOV

/cal

tyeyovorwv KOI ea-o^evwv KCU rrdvrwv av r&v
/jL6ra(3o\rj<^

evavrleov TOVTOIS, eTreiBtf 76 avefydvr]

re

KOL Kivrjaews airaarfi air la arraaiv
l/cavcorara
ffvrdrr),
e$Lfcrai,

;

OVK, d\\a
rrpecr-

tyv^rj

royv

iravrwv

(fraveiad

76 dp^rj Kwrja-ews.

This identification 30 supports
avro ro
tfaov,

my

contention that

the subject of the second clause in the
s

argument from Aristotle
distinguished from
clause
in

^rvx>l,

Psychology, the subject
;

is

not to be
first

of the
as

the

same argument

inasmuch

the

four stages assigned by the PsycJiology to the avro to -v/ri^. tfaov are by the Laws attributed (b)

Secondly, the
calls
Trrjyrj

full

phrase dpyri Kwiiaew, which re

the language of earlier days (Phaedrus 245 c KOI dp^ Kivija-ews), may be taken to include
-v/ru^

both aspects of
30

the rjpepia of

its

higher,

and

If it be objected that Aristotle (vid. p. 27) uses the term apx^i to denote not ^vx?i but the elements of which \^vx^i is constructed, I answer that the pupil s usage is no voucher for the master s. Indeed Aristotle himself (Psych. A. 2. 7. 404^ 24), as we shall see directly, complains that Plato "calls the api6fMol efSrj /cai ap al whereas X they really are

K TUV

OF PLATO
the
Kivrja-is

S

ETHICS.

41

of

its

of the

Platonic opoi was
vorjcris

lower intellectuality. The compiler not far wrong when he

defined

as ap^rf brurnjitifi,

and

aiadr)cns as

vov KivrjGis.

But the mention of the diverse
reminds us that we have
of Aristotle
iii.

faculties of ^rv^rj

still

to analyse the

remainder

s

argument, which treats of them seriatim.
is

The

third clause

epitomized by Dr. Jackson

as follows

We

reduce things to apid^oi (i.e. Ideal Numbers), and therefore to the elements of these aptOfJioij
sc.

to

i. 2.

3.4.

Again, the processes of mind are expressed by the

same elements,

1.2. 3.4.

This interpretation, though furnishing the needed parallelism between subject and object, labours under

two

serious
(a)

drawbacks

:

The

numbers

aroL^ela of the Ideal apiO/Aol are not the 1.2. 3.4., but the principles of Identity and

Difference, which were technically

known by

this

very

name

;

see, for
I.

example,
io8/
fjiera

Met. N.
\eyovr

14
rov

$

peya KOI TO e^o? rpia ravra
ol TO

TWV
(13)

aplOfjLWV. Either the words

eiBtj

8

ol dpid^ol ov-roi Trpay.

IJLa-rwv,

or the words ol ^ev yap apiOfMol
;

... ra

&

alcrOrjcret,,

become superfluous without them. Nor do plete

the argument is com we mend matters much

42

THE METAPHYSICAL
we
invert the order of these

BASIS

if

two sentences.

For,
:

that transposition granted, the passage will run "And these numbers (sc. 1.2.3.4.) are forms things
;

of

for

on the one hand the Numbers were
Ideas and
first

known

as

the absolute

principles,

and they are constructed out of their elements (sc. while on the other hand things are appre 1.2.3.4.) hended some by vovs, some by eTncrr?}^??, some by
;

Sofa,

some by
TWV

aiadrjvw"

But that

etoij

&

ol

api6 jjuol

Trpay/jLcircoi should be followed immediately eXeyoi/ro, a sentence by ol fAevyap apiO^ol TCL eioq in which both leading words are repeated in a different

ovroi

.

.

.

sense,

is

hardly credible.
I

In the face of these difficulties
retain the text unaltered,
ol
<yap

should prefer to
if

remarking that

the words

fjuev CLOT) avra Kal ap^al e\eyoi/TO, elal apiOfJiol 8 etc TWV o-roi xelwv had stood alone, they would have The etBrjTiKol aptQpol been interpreted without fail

ra

"

:

were spoken of as the absolute Ideas and principles,

though

in point of fact

they are compounded of the

Moreover, the expression etc rwv aToiytiwv would have been understood here in 404$ 25 as it was
elements."

understood a few lines higher up in 404$ 17 elements TavTbv + 6drepov=ovcrla." Again, it
to suppose that the

"

of the

is

natural

word

ovrot,

the last sentence,
faculties just

is

intented to

added to ol dpiBfiol in connect them with the

enumerated and to distinguish them from
Lastly, the statement that these

the Ideal apiO^oi

OF PLATO
four

S

ETHICS.

43

numbers

(1.2. 3.4.) represent eiSrj

TWV

Trpajfjidrcov

must balance the statement that the percipient has four modes of cognition symbolically denoted by the same numbers (1.2.3.4.); and since a quasi-spacial
account of those modes has been given already the words e7rtcmjfjLr)v 8e ra %vo fiova^a)^ yap e $
(in

V

rbv Be rov eTTiTre&ov apid/jiov So^av, ai(r6i)crw Se rov rov crrepeoO), it is probable that these el Sr? rwv
Trpay^drwv are things in general grouped according to the four stages 31 through which, as we learnt from
the second clause, percept Ideas pass into the region of ato-Ovais certainly the broad meaning thus assigned
:

to the

word

eZSo?

=

"

"

class

or

"

"

group

is

supported

by when used above in its technical sense is here absent. The argument, I take
out as follows
:

the fact that the

article, prefixed to the

same word
et 8?;

(ra
it,

aura),

may

be

set

Again, the one
the two the no. of the plane (i.e. three) the no. of the solid (i.e. four)

is vovs, is
eiTKTrrjfJL rjj

is
is

Sofa,
at<70i?<rt9.

Now, on the one hand (/*/) the Numbers were called the fundamental Ideas of the Platonic system
though, to speak with
31

all precision,

they are conrd re

Simplic. in Arist. Psych, ed.
TrActros,

Hayduck

5e p. 29, 12 Hijpovir

&vra ov Kara

a\\a Kara

)8a0os, fts re

ra

vorjra

/cat

eTriar^ra Kal

So|ao-To Kal alvQyra, Kal 6/jLoius ras yvaxreis fis vovv Kal eirKrr^/j. rjv Kal
at<rQt](nv.

44

THE METAPHYSICAL
(sc.

BASIS

structed out of the crroL^ela

ravrov -\-6drepov

over (a)

and they apprehend things by means of the four faculties above mentioned.

On

the other hand
1.2. 3.
4.,

(Be)

these four numbers

(z>.

the

numbers

representing the four faculties) are

groups of things.
In brief, Aristotle s point is that the percipient Ideas evolved as aforesaid apprehend by means of four faculties, and that these faculties correspond to
four stages in the spacial evolution of the percept Ideas what those stages are we already know.
:

recognition of the planes of consciousness symbolised by these numbers I. 2. 3. 4. throws light

The

where

light

is

much needed

technical term

Be/cds.

upon the use of the Aristotle more than once affirms

that certain Idealists continued their Ideal

Numbers

Met. A.

8.

1073 a 20

rrepl Be

rwv

dpiO/juwv ore
&>?

&)? rrepl

direlpcov \eyovaiv, ore 8

Ibid.

M.

8.

1

084*? 12

el

Be

TOVTO yap Bel \eyecr0ai, ov fiovov cm, ; d\\a KOI BIOTI. u\\a IJLTJV el fjue^pi rijs Be/cdBo?
7ro(7ov

6 dpiOfJios, wcTTrep rives

(f)acrii>,

irpwrov
r)

/j,ev

ra)(v

ra
,

eiBrj

olov el GCTTLV

rpias avrodv;

r/9 carat,

dpiO^o^ avrolrrrros
Be/cdBos.

avrb yap

Kacrros

diQos ^ei

OF PLATO
Ibid.

S

ETHICS.
el 6 apt^/xo?

45

M.

8.

1084^: 29 ert aroTTOv

r^9 Be/cd&oS) fjuaXkov TI ov TO ev Kal eZSo?
7779 SetfaSo?.

pe au

Ibid.

N.

I.

1088^ IO
r

olov

17

SeKas TTO\V,

el

rav

pr)

eo"n

JT\elov.

Phys. F.

6.

206 b 32 pexpi jap

Setcd&os Troiel TOV

Now

the statement that Ideal
1

Numbers were con

tinued pexP T ^ ? SeaSo? is open to two interpretations. On the one hand, it might mean that there are but
ten Ideas in the Ideal series. It was, in fact, obviously so understood, or misunderstood, by certain crude
followers of the
first

Academy.

Aristotle s evidence

on the point

is

rendered explicit by

[Alex.] in Arist. Met. ed.

Hayduck
6

p.

700, 27

el

yap

at

l&eai,

dpiOftoi,

B

apt#/i.o<?

&XP
is

1

T *? ?

Sefcdbos laTaraij al ISeai

dpa

Se/ea.

But

to

impute such puerility to Plato himself

out of the question.

Aware

surely that his materials for a

comparative study of nature were as yet scanty in the extreme, he probably refrained from delivering any exact dogma with regard to the number of absolute
Ideas
:

Met. A.

8.

1073 #
<ra$e9

1

6

Trepl

TrX^ou? ovSev

elprjrcaaw,

o TL Kal

eiTrelv.

At most he may have vouchsafed

the remark that the

Ideas were ^vpia^ in order to prevent the supposition

46

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
This limitation
Aristotle
olov
rj
:

that they were aTretpa.

is

possibly

alluded to elsewhere

by
II
Yj

Met. N.
1*>V)

i.

io88

Se/ca? TTO\V, el TOUT?;?

6(7TL 7T\eloV,

TO, flVplCL.

In any case Plato cannot have ignored the palpable absurdity of a system comprising only ten infimae
species.

On

the

Se/eaSo? is susceptible of

other hand, the phrase /xe%pt a different interpretation.

TT}?

It

may imply
itself

that each individual Idea contains within

the perfect
s

number

ten.

And

that this

was

Plato

real

Aristotelian fragment (ed.

meaning appears Rose 1477
in Arist. Psych. A.
(frdo-fcew

from an

interesting

b 40) preserved

by Philoponus

2. 7.

404

1

8

:

\ejei ovv (Aristotle)

avTovs (Plato and the
apidpoi
elcriv,

Pythagoreans) ort
i

TO. etSr;

apiOpol

e/cacrrov

yap rwv elSwv SeicdSa

Recent exegesis has regarded the testimony of Philoponus either as erroneous and without founda
tion (see
reliable
libris p.

Trendelenburg de an. ed. 1877 p. 189), or as and important (see Brandis de perd. Arist.
seqq.}.

49

Those who
for

credit the assertion have,
shifts to

however, been put to strange
view.
p.

Maguire,
seq. t

example,

in

support their The Platonic Idea
:

69

"The

obtains his decad in the following fashion Idea as I is the result of II the combination of

III the Indefinite

and of IV Unity ____

The Idea

OF PLATO
is

S

ETHICS.

47

a Result of a Combination of
indirectly,

Two

Elements, of

which the former
rests

and the
. .

latter directly,

That is to say, The IV presupposes The III The III presupposes The II The II presupposes The I; while The I is selfon an absolute
Basis.
;
.

;

sufficing,

and verges on the absolute.

But, since

we may

see how, in Plato s mind, The Ten denoted not only the highest form, but also the living sub stance of Supreme Reality." I do not think that

we need

resort to such subtleties for a satisfactory

If every Ideal Number possesses four explanation. phases of consciousness denoted respectively by the

numbers

i.

2. 3. 4.,

then

it is

evident that in a sense

every Ideal Number is the sum of I + 2 + 3 + 4, or, in other words, is a Se*a9. 31a In short, the problematic
as applied to the Platonic Ideas finds a simple solution in this third clause of the
Seara?

use of the term

argument from Aristotle

The

s Psychology. of that clause general bearing
32

may

be thus

illustrated.
31

We

particular
is

men, who fancy ourselves
when he adds
TIJV
(he.
cit.)
T<av

"

apiO/j.ol

Philoponus, then, fjitv otiv 8icb rovro

partially right

SeKaSiKol 8e

5tck

r\fi6r-rira

fiSav. The TravT\(as bv of Soph. 248 E was found to involve the and the symbols of development of vovs into ^Trio-T^^r;, SJ|o, these four stages produce the decad, which the Pythagoreans named
at<rdr)<ris,

Tlavrf\eia (Stob.
32

Ed.

I.

ed.

Wachsmuth
cp.

i.

p. 22, 5).

For the ensuing description
p. 29, 2

Simplic.

in Arist. Psych, ed.

Hayduck

0^70^

5e els ras etSrjrt/cas

apxas Kal ras tyvxixas

48

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

separate entities, are but the Ideal animal Man re garding itself on the plane of aiad^cn^ what we see is therefore a plurality of men moving in three:

dimensional

space.

When we

entertain

opinions

about things, we

rise to

them
they

to ourselves

by

a higher level and portray a kind of mental delineation
:

still

shape themselves as
in

moving

pluralities, but pluralities two dimensions, a flat and it may be
life.

delusive picture of surrounding

As

individuals

we

are capable of a yet higher
that of eVto-T^/iu?
"

namely
yap

:

method when a man knows a
"

of cognition,
thing,

he so to speak goes
6(j)

straight to the point

(/jLovax&s

ev] in his intellectual

presentation

;

and though

rraffas yyucreis,

els TT)v juoj/aSo,

TV

T^V n\v voepav &s naff 5e iri(TTr}fJ.oi/iKr)V us
Trpoayo/JLevrjv,
ets

evuxriv a/AepHTTov orvvaipov/j.fvr)v
ave\i(r(rofj.evT]v nal

us

cbrb ere pou

TOV airfov
8ja

ets

Tb aiTiaTbv

&s 5e KOI 5ia Tb airwaves Kal
fls r))V

del

T&V avTcov 68evov
yur/

T^V SvdSa, T^V 5e 86av

^vya/jLtv avrijs
cirl

eVi rb avrb aet,

aAAa Tore

fiej/

M

rpidSa Sia rb T^JV rb d\7j0es Tore 5e

rb tyevSos K\iveiv, fls Se rrjv rcrpaSa r}]V ouaQ^aiv 5td rb (rcafJ-dTuv flva.1 avTik-rjirriK^v. Themist. in Arist. Psych, ed. Spengel p. 21, 17 e^e/i e TTJS TOV cvbs tSe as avr-fjv (sc. r^v tyvxyv) 8t/>(^OVTO,
ev Kal TJ eVc rys vpuTijs Svdtios tubs yap yap TWV irpordcrfcav fTrl rb <rv/j.Trepaff/J.a, rfyv 8J|ov 5e e /c T^S irpurtfjs rpidSos, ttffos ^v Kal TOV eVnre Sou api6fj.6s TTJS yap 8^775 IjSt] Kal rb oA7j0es Kal rb i^evSos IK rwv irpordaewv, atffOrjffiv 5e aTrb rrjs
5e
fTTi<rri]fji-riv
a<p

^

airb

irpwTfjs

rerpdSos ^| ^s Kal
ffta/j.a
f)

f)

TOIOVTOV
PI
3>

afod-rja-is.

TOV ffTcpeov aujj-aTos tSe a* irepl yap Tb Sophonias in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck
Tb -noQev
TTT)

.

37 Sues yap TO

firi(TTTJiJ.oviKa

Sopiffp.4vws

e^ovTO
a-rrb

Tpias
Se Trjs

8e ^ 8J|o-

TptTTa yap Kal

TO.

So^affTa Sia Tb apqippeirfS

V afcr8r)a i.v t fai irepl

Tb

(Toi/io,

ft

TeTpaSi a

OF PLATO
Aristotle 33 scoffs at those

S

ETHICS.

49

who

the soul

s

knowledge as a

series

are content to regard of lines, yet the

modern

science of psychophysics has certainly tended

to confirm Plato s acute conjecture.
eTTio-rij/Jir) is

To

rise

above

impossible for us
fArj

Laws 897 D

roivvv eg evavrias olov

et<?

ijXtov

aTro^XeTro^Te?, vvK-ra ev pea-rjpfiplq eira yo^evoi,
7roir)(7a)fjLe6a

rrjv

aTTOKpio-tv,

&>9

vovv

Trore

o/tfiacriv oifrofievoi re Kal

inasmuch as particular thinkers are the Ideal animal
actively functioning in the

mode

of Qdrepov, and in the

next stage
It is

1/6170-19

particulars coalesce into the Idea.

reserved for the Idea itself to enjoy that direct intuition of which the neo-Platonists said 34 voel ov

all

are now in a position to combine the results of three clauses and to indicate the advance made by

We

the passage as a whole. From the critique of the
fittingly
33

supplemented by

Platonic Parmenides, that of the Eleatic stranger,

M. 2. 1077 a 29, Psych. A. 4. 17. 409 a 5. It is, however, to be observed that in 407 a 29 Aristotle has himself been guilty of much the same conception as that which he ridicules: al 5 Kal
Met.
OLTT
fj.fl
f}

airoSfi^eis apx^s, Kal fgoiKrl irus re\os, T^tv <rv\\oyKT(jLbv t) rb o-vfjurepa(Tfj.a- et 5f TTfpaTovvTai, a\\ OVK avaKci/jnrTovfri ye ird.\iv ^TT apx
5
34

del /j-fGov Kal aKpov

tvQviropovtTiv.
4, cp.

Plotinus

Enn. V.

i.

V.

i.

10,

V.

v.

i.

4

50

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

we had conceived

the ground-plan of the universe as

a single ovcria multiplying itself into a series of oveiai. Each ovcria was a vorjrbv %wov, whose nature necessarily

comprised two functions

;

on the one hand a power
;

of

passionless thought, that might be named voycns on the other hand a power of active and passive thought,

that might be
universal ovcria,

named

<yvwcri<s.

In the case of the

NoO?

;

in

vorjcris was represented by the supreme the case of the series of ovcriai., vorjais was

represented

by the Ideas. The argument from
in

Aristotle s

Psychology,

re

viewed

connection with certain corroborative state
:

ments, has amplified this theory as follows
(1)

Ovcria

is

now

identified

with ^ru^rj 35
woz>,

the

single all-embracing ov with the Trai/reXe?

the

assemblage of partial or Ideal ovra with the eV uuepov? The higher and lower mentality, which effiei
<wa.

are thus together formed the ovcria of a VOTJTOV equated with ravrbv and Qdjepov, which together form the ovcria of an Ideal e^v-^ov. Further, the objects
woi>,

of cognition for any such eptywxpv are declared to be the remaining and similarly constructed e^v^a.
(2)

Every absolute animal, whether

it

be the whole

cosmic animal or one of the partial arid subordinate
animals, evolves itself through four phases or con-

^
otiv

Cp. Simplicius in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck, p. 10, 33 Uvday6peioi Kal Tl\dTwv ovffiav avr-fjv (sc. r^v tyvxyv)
<t>d<riv.

of

-PI

152
o

I? I

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
ditions, viz. [a] the

53

immutable being of 97 rov

ei/o?

t

Sc a,

and

the mutable becoming of the same in space of ({3) Its objects of cogni one, two, and three dimensions. tion are again the remaining and similarly developed
animals.
(3)

Each Idea

in its perceptive evolution acquires
:

four planes of consciousness

As endowed with vovs it voel As passing into eV^crTTJ/u,?; it eirurraTai, As passing into it Sofafet, As passing into aiaBrjais it alo-ddverat,.
;

86<z

Moreover, the object of
these four stages
is

its

perception throughout

any other Idea, perceived

by 1/01)9 as an by eTTco-jij/jLTj as a by Sofa as an by aiardrjcris as a arepeov. Thus the passage as a whole enables us

to

fill

up and

complete the outlines of the Platonic scheme.

PART

II.

HIGHER AND LOWER MENTALITY.
At the outset of the present enquiry I proposed to analyse certain incidental passages of pregnant meaning in order to obtain some simple and yet adequate formula for the interrelations of Plato s
Idealism.
fact

This analysis has established the main

that Mind is operant in two different ways within the limits of Platonic ontology. For, in the first place, Mind is a Unity self-pluralised into a

conclave of Minds, which are objective i.e. really existent And in the second place, on pain Ideas.
claim to real existence, Mind passes everywhere out of its own condition of permanent and immutable thought into the transitory and
of forfeiting
its

mutable phases of knowledge, opinion,

sensation,

thereby producing subjective i.e. phenomenally exist ent particulars. In the words of Proklos iraa-a r)
:

TCOV

tyvx&v rdfys

e/!?

Bvo raura? avijprrjrai, 77777^9, rtfv

T

6 Srjfuovpyitcrjv /cat rrjv Zwoyovi/crjv.^

So

far the outlines of the theory.

It

remains to

36

Proklos in Tim. 3 19 A.

OF PLATO
indicate

S

ETHICS.
of the whole.
it

55

the

ethical

colouring

But

before attempting this further task,

will

be well

afresh the to secure due perspective by emphasising in the I shall, therefore, salient points of view. endeavour to illustrate from the

present chapter Platonic dialogues

the

contrast

thus

formulated

between the

of Mind, subjective aspects successive illustration, while in the hope that each in the use of exhibiting Plato s technical consistency the non-technical terms, may bring into clearer light
objective

and

moral significance of his design.

I.

Purpose and Necessity.

Sta vov Timaeus 47 E discriminates (a) ra and dvdvtcr)* wvfava, Hiovpwt** from the combined product declares that the universe is

W

^

of both

:

pepiwtvri
teal

7P

V

CSe rov Koa^ov ytveaK
learnt from

ef avdyrcris re

vov o-vardaetoS eyevvrjOr].

Now

(a)

the creations of vow, as

we

the Parmenides,

comprise a series in a single Minds called the Ideas, which are unified basis and ground as their supreme Mind conceived
work.
results

of subordinate

the necessary passage of brought about by of -being" into the said Minds from the higher mode this lapse, this lower mode of becoming" and
"

Again,

(b)

rd

&

1

dvdyic^

y^vo^va

are the

the

;

56

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
is

deviation,
r]

as such 37 referred

in

the Timaeus to

TrXavw/iievrj alria.

when he
Si

It is clear, therefore, that Plato, contrasts ra Sia vov SeS^/uou/yy^eW with ra
is I

dvdjKr)? yiyvofteva,

describing just those two

aspects of

Mind which

have termed

"

"

objective

and

"subjective."
:

And we

are confronted

by the

on what principle of distinction is the question latter and not the former assigned to (ivdy/cr) ?
reason of the change is not, I think, far to is dvdyKy that the supreme Mind should pass from the ravror^ of vovs into the erepor?;? of
seek.
It
It is avdy/cr}, too, that the eTna-rtf/AT], Soa, aiaBrjai^. subordinate Ideal Minds should similarly pass from But it is not avdyKij perfect to imperfect thought.

The

that the supreme Mind should multiply itself into the Ideas. That process of objective pluralisation is never in Plato described as dvaytcalov. It is on the

contrary
38

directly

referred

to
@oi>\<r)ai<;,

the

very

of dvdyKTj. opposite In proof of this contention
37

I

may

cite first

Tim.
Tim.

Mr. Archer-Hind seems to
that
"Plato

me

ill-advised in stating (ed.

p.

167 n.)

calls

avdyKij

the

KKa.vuy.evT)

alria,

though working
term

strictly in

part as inscrutable to us as
TT\av<a^.fv^

obedience to a certain law, it is if it acted from arbitrary caprice."

because, for the most

The
is

surely denotes nothing more than deviation., equivalent of 6a.Tpov as opposed to Ta.vr6v.
38

and

the

For

&ov\rj<Tis

) (

&ov\i]<Ttv

yiyvo^evov

is

avayKT] cp. Crat. 420 D where rb Kara TV opposed to rb avayKaTov Kal avrirvirov, irapa

OF PLATO
29 E
premising that
the

S ETHICS.

57

supreme
7-979

i/oO<?,

which

in

Phileb. 28

A

31

A

is

the alrla

/ufe<w<?,

must be

identified with

the 0eo? to

whom
is

in

the Timaeus
:

precisely the
(6

same function

allotted

TO irav roSe fwtora?) irdv-ra on, ^aKicrra
6{3ov\r)0r) TrapaTrXrjcria
t
ea>?

eavra>.

TCIVTTJV

KCLI Koo-fjiov fjid\ta-r
1

av rt? dp%f)
tt7ro8e^0yu,e^o?
<yap

Trap

dvSp&v

<j>povlfj,a>v

6p0orara

av.
.ev

j3ov\ij0l<i

6

0eos

dyuOa

Trdvra, (frXavpov Be fwfiev elvai
r]

Kara

Svva/j,iv,

OVTCI)

,

rjv opaTov 7rapa\a{3a)v ov% ayov d\\o Kivov^evov TrX^yueXw? KOLI efa rdfiv avro fyyayev etc T/}? araf/a?,
>

Trav QIJOV

M

eKeuvo

rovrov

/

/

TTUVTWS

V

ajj-eivov.

(29 E

3

A).

In this paragraph logical analysis lays before us the conception of a supreme Mind brought face to
face with a visible chaos.

Thus

far

we

are concerned

only with

dvdytcrj,

into ato-#??o-9, 39

which compels vovs to degenerate but does not determine under what

forms such aiaOrjais shall work. At this point, how the supreme Mind ever, a new element is announced
:

59

Laws 8l8 A

foiKfv 6 rbv debit irpurov
els

Trapoifj.ia(ra.p.fvos (cp. ibid.

741 A, Protag. 345 D)

ravra

airo/3\f\l/as flirew

ws ovSe 6ebs avdyKrj

/j.-f)

wore

pax&ptvos, ovai dftai ye, oT/iOi, rwv avayKtav eiffiv, K.T.\. Similarly the author of the Epinomis (? Xenokrates) 982 B avayKT] vovv KeKTf]fj.fvt]s airaaruv avayKuv TTO\V /jLeyiffrrj yiyvoi
(f>avp

&PXOVCTO.

yap a\\ OVK

a.pxofji.evi)

58

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

is

said to reduce the confusion to order

;

and

this
is

codification of anarchy, this marshalling of motion,
distinctly ascribed to divine /BovXrjcris. be shown that et? TCI^LV ayeiv TO oparov
If
etc

then
TT}?

it

can

dia^ias

was the recognised function of the Ideal be justly urged that the existence of this
lates a continued exercise of volition

series, it will

series

postu

on the part of
is

the supreme Mind. Phileb. 1 6 C 17

A informs

us that confusion

reduced to order by the interposition of a definite number of species between the one genus and the
indefinite plurality of particulars.

These species are
from
Eristic.

the TroXXa which connect the ev with the ajreipov, and
ipso facto

distinguish
satisfied,
fjirj

Dialectic

We
eVrt

must not be
KCIT

says Sokrates, ^e^piTrep av TO
aTreipd

dpxas

ev

OTL ev KOL iro\\a KOI

/Aovov i$y rt?, d\\a /cal OTrocra. The method is exemplified by the conduct of the

Creator both in Tim. 53 B
ore S

eVe^etpetro Koo-fjuelaOai TO
/cal
<yi)v

TCCLV^

Trvp

KOI vSwp Kal

depa, fyvrj pev e^ov

arra, TcavTciTcacfl 76

^v

SiaKeipeva wcrTrep
#609, OVTCO $rj

anal/, OTCLV airf)

TWO?

Tore

TavTa Trp&Tov
T
/cal

Stecr^yLtaT/o-aro

dpid/jiols.

and

in

Tim. 69 B
ardfCTO)?

TavTa

e%ovTa
7r/>o?

6

6ebs ev etcdo-TW re

7T/30?

auro

/cal

aXX^Xa

OF PLATO
crev,

S

ETHICS.
OVVCLTOV

59

oera?

re KOI
elvai.

a-vfJifieTpa

rvvrj TL fjieTefyev,

dvdXoya /cat, Tore yap ovre TOVTWV ocrov f^rj ovre TO rrapdrrav ovo^daai TWV
OTTT)

rjv

vvv ovo^aCp^kvwv d%i6\oyov
KCLI

r)V

ovoev, olov rrvp

v$a)p KOI ei rt

TWV a\\a)V d\\a iravra ravra
eVeir
etc

TrpwTov

SieKoa-fJLrjcrev,

TOVTOIV irav ro8e

gvvearricraTo, tfiov
6vr)-ra

ev Jwa eyov ra iravra ev aurco

dOdvaTa

re.

will be discerned most application to Idealism The of the Parmmides. clearly from the latter part dialectical exercise educes, second hypothesis of that

But

its

among

others, the following results
i.e.

:

ev el eariv,
(a)

If ev participates in

ou<r/a,

then

ev ov

is

a

each Part

is itself

Whole comprising Parts, whereof a ei; ov comprising lesser parts and
;

we by continuing this process of subdivision that the original ev ov is arceioov TO rrXfjBos.

may show
(142 C

H3 A).
(/3)

ev
is

ovaia)

from (not ev ov, but ev conceived apart The possession of owria, an undivided unity.
ei;

however, forces

into combination with TO eVepoi/,

and occasions the production of vvfyylcu, which may be regarded either as couplets or as triplets, according as we fix our attention on any two of their three factors,
or

add the

third

which completes the given triunity

60

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
Further, the interaction of such factors produces

every imaginable number

;

and we conclude
elvai.
eij] /cal

El apa
\4XXa

eanv
fjirjv

eV) dvdy/crj ical

dpiO^ov

Avdy/cij.

dpiOjjLov

ye 6Wo? TroXX av

7rX?5#09 aireipov

rwv ovrwv.
(7)

(143

A

144

A).

Every

dpiO/ubs participates in oucn a,

and has

ftopta, viz. units,

which likewise participate in ovaia. Thus the original ev ov is not an indivisible Whole,
is

but a Whole that has Parts and
of
its

equal to the
eari.

sum
A

Parts.

TO ev

1

dp"

avro KeKep^arLa/jbevov
7r\rj66<$

VTTO TT)?

oucrm? 7ro\\d re KOL aTreipa TO

(144

-I44E).
(8)

Lastly, TO

ei>

may
is

be called Trepan and TreTrepaa\
\>

(jbevov in
40 apa ov
>

so far as
r ^ 1

^

a Trepie^ov o\ov. Hence TO ev f/x ev re earn TTOV Kai TroXXa, nai oXov /cat nopia,
it
/ / \ \

Kal

TreTrepao-fjievov

/cal

aTreipov rr\r)6ei.

(144 E

145 A).

Again, the fourth hypothesis of the Parmenides maintains these propositions
:

ev el eariv
(a)

(i.e.

If ev participates in over la), then
eV6<?,

On
ev.

are not

the one hand TaXXa, being aXXa ToO On the other hand ra\\a f^ere^et, Try rov
fjiopia,

e^o? in virtue of possessing

which are

/jiopia

rov

o\ov re
40

/cal

Heindorf, Bekker, Schleiermacher, and the Zurich edd. wrongly bracket the word ov : it is just this possession of which renders
ov<ria

possible

the subdivision

of

r2>

eV,

apart

from

ova-la

it

would

be

indivisible.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

61

Thus we
ef

posit

jjuia

rt? l&ea ical ev rt, o

cnrdvjwv ev reXeiov yeyovos (1571), E), and oXov, affirm that it is composed of vroXXa fjiopia which serve
to link

TaXXa with the

ev o\ov -reXeiov.

(157 B

157

E).

Both the oXov and each popiov may be said (/3) IJLere^eiv TOV ez/6?, and therefore to be erepa rov evos.

And

77

erepa

<f>vais

TOV

fl Sou?

will

ever be aireipov

Tr\r)9ei.

(I57E

1580).

(7) Lastly, ra a\\a rov e^o?, when combined with TO eV, give rise to a third class of existences, viz. ra
fj,6pia,

which

Trepan

7rdpo"^

Trpos

aXX^Xa, thereby
establish

limiting the aTreipta inherent in ra

aXXa and

ing certain

fixed

relations

with TO 6\ov.

(1580

1580).

The argumentation
7rXr)#o5

of these two hypotheses re

iterates the lesson of the Fhilebus.

Between

ev ov

and

aneipov TWV ovrcov must be ranged a series of vroXXa ovra related to the former as apiO^ol to ev or as to 6 Xoz^, to the latter as Trepa? Trape^ovra to

These conditions being granted, knowledge

becomes a

possibility

(Farm. 1550).
in this class of

We may

well

follow Dr. Jackson

when

intermediates

he recognises the Ideas of Plato s own ontology. 41 It appears, then, that both in the Philebus and

in

the Parmenides the Ideas are regarded as a bond between the single objective Mind and the indefinity
41

The Journal of Philology,

xi,

318.

62

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

of subjective phenomena, their prerogative being to introduce the Trepas of the former into the cnreipia of the latter.

The words

of Aetios 42 are strictly

accurate
ISea

:

eo"T\v

OVGICL acrco/Aaro?, avria
Tr)<?

TWV oia

ea"Tiv

avrrj

Kal

TrapdSevyfjLa

rwv Kara

(frvaiv

al<76ijTcov

vTrocrrdcrewSj avrrj f^ev

e^ovrwv v^earwcra KCL&

eavTijv

[>],

elKovi^ovaa Be ra? afjiopfyovs #Xa9 Kal
TT)?

atria

<yi<yvo/ji,ev7]

TOVTWV StaTafea)9.

And since this very introduction of order into disorder is stated in the Timaeus to be the outcome of the
divine intent,
it

results that the objective pluralisation

of

which produces the Ideal vorj/jLara is due to 43 to the sub Oeia fiovXrjais, and is rightly opposed
i>oO?

jective action of dvdy/cr] or

77

7r\ava)jjLevr)

ah la.

As

Tim. 68 E puts
Se delov.

it

:

%pr) $v atr/a?

el&r]

Siopl^ecrOai, TO /lev dvayfcawVj TO

And

here

lest

we should misconstrue

Plato s

deliberate recognition of fiovXrjais into an acknowledge ment of despotic caprice on the part of the Creator
42

Stob.

Ed.

I. xii. I a,

ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p.

134, Qff.

43

Unless, indeed,

hypothetical avdyK-rj.

we The

hold that Plato like Aristotle recognised a latter author sometimes (e.g. Psych. B. 8. 10.

420 b 19
(e.g.

seq.) distinguishes avayKaiov from eVe/ca rov c5, but elsewhere de part. an. A. I. 642 a 32 TJ 8 avayKi] brl tnifudvtt 6n el ^Kftvo fffrat rb ov eVe/co. ravra avdyKT) etrrlv %x*u , ore 8e /c.r.A.) admits
/xe</

a necessity of a conditional or hypothetical sort. Plato s Ideal series would be itself avayicaiov.

In the second sense

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
let

63

us recall the tenor of Tim. 41

o roSe TO Trav yevvrjcras

B. In that passage addressing the Oeol Oe&v assures

them of endless
ov TI
fjiev

life

:

Srj

\v6ricrea-0e ye ovSe rev^eaOe

Oavdrov

poipas, rr)?
teal

e//% /SouX^o-ea)?

^etfo^o?

en

Sev-

Kupicorepov Xa^oi/re? etceivcov, ot? or

Now

the bonds wherewith the deal Oewv had been
at birth

bound

were those of ^vyr] and
eyLf^ry^ot?

^COTJ

:

cp.

Tim. 38 E

oeoy-tot?

trcwyLtara

SeOevTa

^wa

Ibid.
ev

40 B fwa 6ela oina KOI TauTw (rrpe^ofjueva.

di&ia

ical

Kara ravra

And

it

has been shown that

far)

and ^u%v are the
I

predicates of ovo-ia
infer that the

when
when

it is

in a state of motion.

//.e/&>i>

Seoyzo? will
it is

be that which
of
rest,

is

predicable of ovaia
vorja-^.

in a state

namely

The

inference

is

supported by

Tim. 48 A,

which denies the demotic creed ovSels dvdyK^ pel%ov affirming that vovs is lord even over

Thus Tim. 41 B corroborates the coextension of
with vocals,

inasmuch as

it

attributes to

14

Frag. Trag. adesp. 421 N. cp. Eur. Alk. 965
xpfiffffov ouSej/

avdyKas

-nlpov.

64

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

the former 45 a supremacy which is elsewhere ascribed to nothing less than the latter, and by the same

means provides the needed assurance

that

we

are

dealing with no arbitrary display of divine volition, but with the unvarying purpose of a Being whose eternal aim is the multiplication of his own inherent
qualities.
r)

8e 6e\7](7i^ OVK

Plotinus has read Plato aright dXoyos rjv, ov&e TOV etV?), ovB
:

&>?

7rr)\9ev avrcc,

a\)C

o>?

e Set,

0)9

ouSei>o?

6Wo?

EK6L

iQ
itCr).

These conclusions accord with the wording of
41 A, where the supreme #eo? speaks of the handiwork of the deol sc. the rpla dvr/ra yevij
$ecoi>,

a

SL

/JLOV

ryev6/j,va

a\vra

e/Jiov

76

/JLTJ

e0e\ovro$ TO

/jiV

ovv &] SeOev irav \vrov, TO y e

^
tca/cov.

dp/jLO(r6ev Kal

e^ov eu \veiv eOe\eiv

That
could,

is,

the Creator

were he

/ca^o?,

not a

by

ceasing to will the existence of the Ideas,

at a single

blow abolish

The security that he will character of his fundamental attributes.

dependent ^evofieva.^ not do so lies in the ethical

their

1

45 The correspondence in point of diction with Cratylus 403 c is remarkable: Aeer^ubs (acp orcfovf, Sxrre jj.4vsiv dirovovv, TrSrepos
,

OLvdyKt]

f)

eiridv/nia;

HoAu

Siatpepei,

46
47

Enn.

vi.

viii.

18.
i/iro

Cp. Tim. 32 C &\VTOV

rov &\\ov irX^v

inrb

TOV

vv8r]<rai>Tos

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

65

The moral
of no

issues of the doctrine thus elicited are

trivial order.

To

follow

them out

to

any length

would
I

at this stage of

my
to

argument be premature.
in the sequel.

shall

have occasion to revert to them
it

Here

must
1/0770-1?

suffice

say
all

that
true

the

fiovXrja-Ls

confines
if

volition

equation to the

Ideal world.

For

neither knowledge nor opinion

nor sensation, but pure thought alone, be designated
as the seat of
action
is

will, it

follows that the unit of voluntary
vo-q-rov
go>oi/,

no longer the particular but the

since nothing short of the VOTJTOV %coov possesses the

prerequisite vorjaw.

Turning next from ra &a vov SeS^toupv^/oteW to
TO,

St

dvdy/cTjs

^v^vo^va (Tim. 47

E),

we

find that

Plato regards the degradation whereby Mind lapses from the mode of Identity into that of Diversity as

a necessary

The transition, taking place perforce. Creator in Tim. 35 A combines the psychic ingre dients rrjv Qarepov (frixnv Sva-fjiiKTOV ovaav et? ravrov
^vvapnoTTtov /9/a.

The
are

substantive avdyfcrj and the
applied, primarily

adjective

avar/tcaios

to

the

appearance of Mind

in the three

lower planes, or in

popular parlance to the incarnation of tyvxtf, e.g. Tim. 42 A OTTOTC 77 e^vrevdzlev
<ra)fjLa<riv

ef

dvdy/erjs (al ^v^ai) K.T.\. Ibid. 68 E ravTa $rj Trdvra Tore ravTy

Tr

dvdy/cirjs 6 TOV Ka\\l(rrov re /ecu dplcrrov

ev rot? yiyvopivots irape\dfJL^avev /c.r.X.
5

66

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

and secondarily to the states consequent upon that incarnation, whether they be physical laws, e.g.
Tim. 79 B Kara TavTijv
\avv6/j,evov K.T.\.
Ibid.
rrjv

avdyrcrjv irdv

Trept,-

68 B &v

(Jbrjre

TIVCL

dvdyKrjv pyre TOV

elfcora

\6<yov

K.T.\.
e.g.

bodily dispositions,

Tim. 75 A
OGTOVV
Ibid.

TI

yap ef dvay/crj^i ^i^vQ^kin] KOI %vv(ftvais
ovBa/jifj

Tpe<pofjievr)

TrpoffBe^eraL

TTVKVOV

/c.r.\.

77 A

rrjv

Be

fyj&rjv

eV

jrvpl

ical

%vvej3a,Lvev

ef dvayfct]^ e%ety avTw.
e.g.

sensory impulses,

Tim. 42 A TTpwrov
piav
Trdcnv
etc

fJLv

aLO-Orjcriv

dvayfcciLOv

/Biaiwv

Tradrjfjidrciyv

Ibid.

896 TWV

% dvdry/crjs
e.g.

T

emotional concomitants,

Tim.

690

D aXXo

re elSo? eV avra)

^^^J?
. .
.

TT/OOCT-

TO Owrjrov, Seivd KOI

dva<yicalaev

eavTw
eVetra
. .

.

.

.

%ov, TTp&rov ^ev rjftovrjv av Odppos Kal ert 8

<>6/3ov

.

ei,

Be

d\6yy Kal eTTL^eipTjTfj iravros L ravra dva<yicaLws TO
Kal Bid ravra
o
TI
pr]
BTJ
rp>

<yevo$

^vvedeaav.
6elov,

piaiveiv TO
K.T.\.

Trdaa

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

67

or the broader conditions of morality in general, e.g. Theaet. 1 76 A a\V our drrdXeaOai ra /ca/fd Svvarov,
a>

@e6B(0pe

vrrevavriov

yap

rt,

r<a

dyada) del

elvai,

dvdyKT].

ovr

ev deals

avrd iSpvaOat,

rrjv

Be
e

Ovrjrriv (frixriv
dvd<y
KT]<S.

/cal

rovBe rov rorrov irepLirdKel

f

This usage of the word and
to
Plato,

its

derivatives

is

peculiar

though

it

was seemingly prefigured by
^Avdy/cr}

Empedokles, who held that the essence of lay in the combination of JVet/eo? and $i\ia
Simplic.
in

Arist.
. .

Phys.

ed.

Diels
TTJV
.

p.

197,

10

E/jLTreSoKXrjs

avveKopv^wcre
(evavriwaiv)
.

rov

velteovs

KOL TT}?

^>t\ia?

et?

(JiovdSa

Hippolyt. Ref. vii. 29 Avdy/crjv KaX&v TTJV e f ez/o? et? TroXXa /cara TO Net/co? /cal etc TTO\\COV et? ev
/card rrjv
3>i\iav

iierajBo\r)V.

and spoke of the punitive incarnation of the heavenly
beings as Avdytcrjs %pfjfia. To sum up. Plato recognises both an objective and a subjective aspect of Mind. In the former he dis
in the latter the

cerns the purposive pluralisation of unitary thought ; decadence necessarily attached to

of every real intelligence. As to the importance of these two there can be no Be vov /cal eVto-Tq/-^? epaaTrjv d question

the

movement

relative

:

TOJ>

ra?

TT}<?

e/i.0/3oz/o9

0ucrft)5 air Las Trpwr
Kivovaevwv, erepa Be
e

QGCLI Be vrr

d\\cov

fjuev

68

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
8

KIVOVVT&V yiyvovrai, Bevrepa^ (Tim. 46 E). 49 nutshell when he says puts the matter in a

Hermes
Trpovoia

6da

v rdgis, dvdyicr) Trpovoia

II.

Identity

and

Difference.

method of notation for the same two aspects of Mind may be found in the quasiHitherto I have technical terms ravrov and Bdrepov.

An

alternative

used these symbols to betoken respectively the one of psychic existence, higher and the three lower planes

whether conceived as actively cognising or as passively cognised and I have secured provisional consistency
;

avTo by adhering strictly to the statement that every &ov unites in itself ravrbv the mode of pure thought with ddrepov the mode of knowledge, opinion, sensa It seems, however, desirable to justify this tion. the matter somewhat more procedure by probing not unnatural tendency deeply, in view of a certain to confuse the issues of this terminology with the
ev implications of the antithesis
KCL\

iro\\d.
in

To
that

begin with,

it

must be kept steadily

mind

we

are employing neither pair of opposites in

48 Tim. 41 E ed. Wrobel p. 203 "iuxta Cp. Chalcidius in Plat. divina Platonem praecedit providentia, sequitur fatum," p. 204 his proxima sunt secundum providquidem atque intellegibilia quaeque
"et

entiam solam
49

(fiunt),
I.

naturalia vero et corporea iuxta
I.

fatum."

Stob.

Ed.

xlL

ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p.

277, 15.

OF PLATO
widest acceptation. question ri Trorav vvv
its

S

ETHICS.

69

For the
OUT&>?

Sophist, raising the

/cal

Odrepov

;

(254

E),

elprjicafjuev TO re ravrov makes answer that these signs

denote general relations applicable to

all

things in
PJiilebus,

heaven and

earth.

And

in like

manner the

declaring the conjunction of unity and multiplicity to be rwv \o ya)v avrcov dddvarov teal dyijpcov Trddos
i

n

(15 D), states that

ev teal

7ro\\d

vrrb

Trdvrrj

KaQ eicaarov rwv \&yofievwv
is

\6ycov yiyvo/jieva Trepirpe^ecv del KOI 7rd\ai

KOL vvv.

Our

business then

not with the broad logical sense

of these words, but rather with their narrower meta

And the restriction thus imported physical meaning. assumes the following specific form
:

(A) In the Platonic ^jrv^oyo^ia the term ravrov is taken to denote that which does not, ddrepov that

which does, depart from its own identity. It is true that Parmenidean precision might have desiderated the full phrase ravrov eavrw as opposed to e-repov
eavrov

compare e.g. Farm. 146 A KOI /JL^V ravrov
;

Set elvai
<ye

avrb eaurcS

/col

erepov eauroC K.T.\.

Ibid.

1460

TO erepwQi ov av-ro eavrov ev
dvd<y/crj

TW

avra>

eavro) OVK
ical

avrb eavrov erepov
;

elvai y

erepwdi ecnai

"E/Aoiye

Sofcet.

But

for technical

purposes

it

was obviously convenient
all

to adopt a shortened symbolism,

ambiguity being

70

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

avoided by the explicit reference of ravrbv and Odrepov
to a single
ovo-ia.

logical usage

in the following respect.

Thus the metaphysical limits the Whereas the

appraising words at their current price predicates both ravrov and ddrepov of any thing or aggregate of things, whether real or phenomenal, on
logician

the ground that it is the same as itself and different from all else, the metaphysician fixing the intrinsic value of the terms by a reference to the unvarying

standard of
Odrepov to

ova-la

assigns ravrov to ovrws ovra

and

<yi^vo^eva

as inalienable characteristics, in
bv abides in eternal self-same
is

asmuch

as every

6Wo>9

ness, while every yiyvofjuevov

the fleeting projection of

some permanent being 50

vrpo? rd\rjdivov d^wfjiotw^evov

erepOV rOlOVrOV (Sop/I. 2^O A).

Now
6W&K

if all

that lapses not from the identity of
fitly

ovcria

ravrort]? will
;

termed ravrov, the domain of comprise on the one hand (a) the supreme
be

Mind for the ordering of the chaotic universe could not impair the moveless calm of intelligence Tim. 42 E 6 /jiev $ij (#609, i.e. z/oO?) airavra ravra
:

epevev eV

rw eavrov

/card rpoTrov

rjdei*

$e voYivavres ol TralSes K.T.\.

and on the other hand
for

(/3)

the series of Ideal Minds

;

they are as stable as the goodness that gave
:

them

birth

50

Vid.

e.g.

Tim. 520.

OF PLATO
Tim.
5

S

ETHICS.
elvai rb

71

2

A

6(j,o\o<yr}reov

ev

fjuev

Kara ravra

>,

dyevrjrov Kal dvwXeOpoVj ovre et? eavrb

aXXo a\\oOev ovre avrb
TTOL iov,

et?

aXXo

doparov

Be Kal a XXcu? dvala-Qrjrov, rovro

The

latter as

comprehended by the former constitute

the TrapaBely/jLaros eto?, vorjrbv Kal del Kara ravra bv

(Tim. 48

E).
if all

Again,
ovffia

be

fitly

that lapses from the identity of 6Ww? termed erepov, the domain of erepbr^
(a)

will

comprise on the one hand

the visible mani

festation of the
(/3)

supreme Mind, and on the other hand

the visible manifestations of the Ideal Minds.

The

latter as
fiifMT] fjua

comprehended by the former

constitute the

Kal TrapaBely/jLarov, yeveaiv e\ov

bparbv (Tun.

49 A).
primary
In short, the terms ravrbv and Odrepov in their discriminate ontological significance serve to

the dvrio-roi xa of Tim. 27
ovo-ia, the province of

D

29 D

:

7 e v e a-

1

9

the province

of

290.
TO
6i>

7T/0-Tt9.
ov/c

29

C.

aet,

Be
<yeve<riv

TO yiyvojAevov fiev del, bv Be
ovBeirore (27 D)

(27 D)

TO Kara ravra e^pv (28 A)
TO Kara ravra Kal
(29 A)

TO 76701/69 (28 B)
TO 76701/69 (29 A)

TO dtSiov (29 A)

TO 7670^69 (29 A)

72

THE METAPHYSICAL
voTf]o~i /JLera
\6<yov

BASIS

TO

Trepi-

TO

XVJTTTOV, del tcara

ravra

d\6yov
teal a7ro\\v{j,evov,

ov (2 8 A)

Be

ovSeTrore

ov

(28 A)

TO
\6<yft>

Ka

acr-

\rj7TTOv icai

Kara ravrd
yevvrjrd (28 B)
\

teal

TO

exov (29 A) fjiovi/AOv Kal (3ej3aiov KOI
e?(29B)

I

TO Trpo? pev exeivo d 0&, ov Be elicvv (290)

There
of the

are,

moreover, certain secondary applications

same terms, of which brief mention may here be made. For since TCLVTOV and Bdrepov correspond to ova-la and yevecns, each to each, they may by a
slight extension of

usage designate also the essential
yeve<ri<;.

properties of ovcria and

Thus

(a)

ravrbv connotes
fj,ev

rest,

Odrepov motion

:

Tim. 57 E vrdcriv

ev 6fjLa\6rrjri, Kivrjaiv Se et?

dvco/jLaXoTrjTa del TiOw/LLev air la be dvicroTTjs
TT)? dvGD/ji,d\ov
0uo-6ft>9.

av

Oarepov

<f>vais

is

(That CLVIGQTY]<$ here=r?J clear from its employment in

Arist. Met. B. 4. 1001 & 23,

N.

I.

1087
5.

4ff.,

1088 #
29)-

15,

2.

1088

32,

1089

6ff.,

1092 a

Arist. Phys. P. 2. 201 & 19 or)\ov Be O-KOTTOVVIV
TiQeacriv avrrjv eviotj

a>?

ereporrjra KOI d

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
Kal TO
fir]

73;

bv

<f>d(TKOVTes

elvai TTJV Kivrjcrtv (cp,

Met. K.

9.

1066 a

51

io).
rfj

So

in the disputed
7rpoa"xp(i)/j,evos

passage Tim. 74 A
ev

Oarepov

aurot?

co?

ueo-y

evLCTTafjievrj

Bvvd/Ji 9 Kivrjffecos Kal Kdatyeays eve/ca it is not the number of parts that is insisted on, but
"
"

rather their mobility and flexibility
e^eiv
Kivricrews
it

T&>

p%a?

drro

TWOS

ev

rat?

Ka^irat^ as

Aristotle has

52 (Met. Z. 16. 1040^ I2).

The

rationale of this usage

may

be found

in

Cratylus

439 E
TOVTO

avTo eVrt, TTW? ai/ (el Se del aya-avTcos e^et Kal TO
rye

/Ltera/3aXX(H
;

fj

KLVOITO,

/jurjoev

e^KTTdfjievov TT)?

avTov t 8ea?

OuSayuak) as contrasted with Arist. Psych.
12
(rraGa
KLvrjcns

A.

3.

8.

406$
rj

eWrao-/?

ecrTt
:

roO

KwdTai], or in Farm. 145 E
p,ev TTOV, ecrrep

146 A
IGTIV.

avTo ev eavTw

ev

evl bv Kal IK
6677,

TOVTOV

pr) /jieTa(3aivov ev rc5 aurco

yap av

ev eavrcp.

"EaTt

yap.

To

8e ye ev

T>

aurca
ye.

del bv e0TO? STJTTOU dvdyKrj del elvai.

Hdvv

Ti

oe

;

TO ev eTepw del bv ov TO evavTiov dvdyKi) ev TO) avTut elvai, fjujoerroTe Be bv ev
^

T&>

e

ecrTdvai,

JJLTJ

ecrro? Be KiveiaOat,

;

OUTW?.

Again

(/3)

TavTov connotes good, OaTepov

evil.

51 These passages probably refer to Plato notwithstanding Philop. in Arist. Phys. ed. Vitelli p. 352, 20 c\eyov 8e ot TIv8ay6pioi r^v fiv. /cat avi(r6T7)ra Kal rb

^

52

Arist. Psych. P. io. 8.

433 b 24

is

parallel only in appearance.

74

THE METAPHYSICAL
For
this

BASIS

we have
6.

Aristotle s express testimony
Se rrjv rov eu
(sc.

Met. A.

988 # 14 en

/ecu

rov KCLKWS

air Lav rot? errot^e/ot?

to ravrbv

and ddrepov)

cnr&wKev
Ibid.

e/carepois

/carepav.

A.

IO.
roi)

efo>

ei/09

1075 a 34 airavra rov $av\ov /xeflefet TO jap KCLKOV avrb Odrepov rwv

Ibid.

M.

8.

1084^ 34 ra
KLvrjcnv

(lev

yap

rat?

a?ro<i/>%at?

St8oa,o~tz/, otoi/

crrd<ri,v

dyaQbv

/cafcov,

ra 8

aXka
Phys. A.

rot? dpiO/jbois.
9.

192

<2

14

77

8 erepa fjuolpa TT}? evavriwaeco^
ra>

7roXXa/a?
01)7779

az^

(fravracrOeir)
ri^v

77/909

TO /caKOTroibv
etz/at

drevifyvn

Sidvoiav

oi)S

TO

would by no means have shrunk from the conclusions of the reductio ad absurdum in Met. N. 4.
Plato, then,

1091 b 25
It

10920
partly,

5.

was

no doubt, the

facility afforded

by the
such

terms ravrbv and Odrepov

for the expression of

secondary meanings (e.g. the common euphemism of = /ca:o?), which recommended their adoption as Tepo9

symbols
(B)

for the

primary aspects of Idealism.
to the antithesis ev KOI TroXXa
it

With regard

may

be shown that the limitations imposed by philo

sophic usage differed at different stages of Plato s

development.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
i.

75

During the period to which the Republic and the Phaedo belong, the words are sometimes found in
.a

broadly physical sense to denote (a) the one particular with its many attributes :
Phileb.

140

OT-av rt?

6fj,6 (f)fj

IIpwTapxov,
ical

va

<yeyov-

ora

(f>V(7i,

TroXXou?

elvau ira\iv TO 1/5 e/^e /cal

evavTtovs aXX??Xot?, fieyav

afjuxpov Tt

KOI fSapvv KOI Kovfyov TOV avroVj KOI

a\\a

5240, Phaed. 102 B Cp. the drift of Rep. 523 A 103 A, though the phrase does not actually occur in
either passage
(j3)

the one particular with its
1

many parts :
teal
fjuev

Parrn.

29 C
,

el

8

e/z-e

ev rt? a7roSe/a ovra

rl Oav/jLacrTov, \eywv, brav
ft)?

fiovXrjTai,

a
fiov

a7ro<f)ati>iV)

erepa

fiev

ra eVl Sefta
K.T.\.
<yap

<TTLV,

erepa Se ra

eV

api<rrepd

526 B, e.g. 525 A Cp. Rep. 5240 ev re opwfjLev teal co? caret, pa
ft>9

afjia

TCLVTOV
5

TO TrX^^o?,

25

E

lav

(TV

KepfjuaTifys

avro

(sc.

the visible
/i-rj

unit),

eicelvoi TToXXaTrXacrioOcrw/,
^>a^

evXa^ov^evoi
fjiopia.

Trore

TO ev

firj

ev

aXXa TroXXa

But even

at this date they

were normally confined
for

to a narrower and more directly metaphysical scope,
53 being the ordinary equivalents

(7) the
53

informing Idea
is

and its informed particulars.

An

exceptional usage WTO iro\\a O7ro8e/ei

/JLCU

(cp.

represent

1290 ou T& ///^ /^/j

e?/

Farm. 129 B dAA. ei iro\\a Srj eV, roDro ^5r; QavpaaoTro\\a ov5f TO TToAAo eV), where e^ and iro\\a
that of
/col

o5

ret

^/"

Unity and Multiplicity.

76

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
So, for example, in the

two cardinal rubrics of

immature Platonism we read
Rep.
5 96

A

eZSo?

<ydp

TTOV

n

ev etcacrrov

ela>0afj,ev

TideaBai irepl

etcacna

ra TTO\\U,

ol?

ravrov

ovopa
Ibid.

eTTL^epo/jiev.
/j,ev

476 A avro
Kal

ev e/caa-rov
/cal

elvai,

rfj

Se

TWV

(JWfJbdrwv

d\\TJ\a)V

Koivwvla

avra^o/jieva
TOV.

7ro\\a

fyaiveaOai, etcacr-

ii.

The

Philebits

marks a

transition.

All these

denotations are passed in review (Philcb. 140 150), the first two being summarily dismissed, the last

alone retained

as

suggesting

serious discussion.

problems worthy of Subsequently, however, an im

portant change of nomenclature is observable. For whereas 15 B drew our attention to the cruces of ev Kal
TroXXa, the Sialpeo-is of

i6c

E

is

yu,etoz/&>?

8^77/377^6^77

and embraces the three terms

ev,

TroXXa,

and

aireupa.

Again, the ev KOI TTO\\CL of 1 5 B were expressly stated but to be the one Idea and its many particulars
:

in

i6c

lectical,

E, though the application is primarily dia and the terms signify Genus, Species, and
it is

Specimens,

evident from the sequel that Plato is also thinking of its metaphysical bearings and to the metaphysician ev denotes henceforward the single
;

supreme Mind, 7ro\\a the subordinate Ideal

series,,

aTretpa the indefinite range of particular existence.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
iii.

77

In Plato

s

later writings the revised termin

It will be ology has become firmly established. remembered, for instance, that the eV, TroXXa, and 7retpa, educed by Parmenides TrXdvrj from Platonic

data, stood

for

Mind, the Ideas, and Particulars.

the same phraseology obtains throughout all the works posterior to the Philebus as distinct from those of the preceding period.
I

And

do not mean to
earlier dia

imply that the doctrine underlying the

logues ignores the unity of the supreme Idea and nor do I hold that the indefinity of particulars 54
;

the teaching of the later dialogues fails to attain a higher conception of the singleness and indivisibility

of each several Idea:
reader of Plato
s less

I merely contend that to the mature discourse the terms

/

*al TroXXa naturally suggest the one Idea and the many particulars, while to the student of his aKpiftffTpoi \6joi they represent the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds a new term aireipa being added as

a truer description of particulars.
iv.

It

may be

objected that this contention

is

to

some extent

invalidated

by

Aristotelian

evidence,

-which shows that the phrase ev eVt 7ro\\wv continued
In point of fact I cannot find a satisfactory example of the supreme Idea, in the earlier dialogues. particulars, nor even of ec The nearest approach to the former seems to be Rep. 445 C \v pfv eJvai
54

=

elSos TTJS operas,

fadpa

5e rrjs Kaic ias.

The latter

is

of course deducible

from the use of the singular number.

78

THE METAPHYSICAL
be used
in the

BASIS

to

Platonic school as denoting

any

Closer inspection proves that the passages in which that collocation occurs, viz.

given Idea.

Met. A.

9. 990 and Z. 32)

7, 13,
1

991 a 2
55

(=M.

4.

1079 a 2

>

9>

6.

1040$

29,

are

directed

against

certain

Idealists

probably

followers of Xenokrates o vc06p6s bQ who despite the explicit criticism of the Parmenides adhered to the

ontology of the Republic.
in the sense of
"

988 # 2, etc.) which caused the retention of the term ^e0ei?
place of the more exact /u/^o-t? (Met. A.
6.

Further examples of iro\\a particulars (e.g. Met. A. 6. 987 # 10,. be due to the same inaccuracy may
"

in

the

987

b 10,

M.

4.

1079 # 2

5>

Phys. A.

2.

209 b

35).

On

the other hand Aristotle

commonly

identifies

the Platonic aireipov with the material cause, and habitually speaks of the Ideas as dpiBpoi, a word

which we have elsewhere seen applied by Plato him
self to their multeity

page 61) so that the regular Aristotelian terminology may be said to agree
(Farm.
I.e.
:

with that of the later rather than with that of the
earlier dialogues.

If the foregoing exposition

stantially correct,

it

will

be seen

be accepted as sub that, in strict meta
the ev

physical parlance,
55

ravrov embraces

KOI

The

list

in the
56

Index Arist. 618 a 25
Diog. Laert.
iv. 2. 6.

is

incomplete.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

79

ddrepov the arreipa of later Platonism. The supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds, so far as they do not
transgress the limits of their own noetic existence, are termed ravrbv so far as they pass beyond those
;

limits into gnostic phase, they are

termed Odrepov.

And

since the objective and subjective aspects of Idealism were distinguished by the same criterion, it is evident that ravrov and Odrepov may be regarded as apt sym

bols for the double operation of Mind.
I

would end by anticipating two misconceptions.
first

In the

expression

place the erepoTT/s of the ev does not find For in the ravrbrr]<$ of the TroXXa.

ereporw always connotes the motion and imperfection of yvyvo/jieva, whereas the ravrbrrjs of the TroXXa i.e. the Ideal series is endowed with the permanence
ovra. When, therefore, the and perfection of on Aristotle speak of the Ideas Greek commentators as erepa, 57 it follows that they are using the term in
6Vro>?

its

its metaphysical acceptation, the fact that the Ideas are a series and are referring to 58 of different and differently constituted entities. But

logical rather

than

57 26 ff., 147, 2 1 ff. E.g. Simplic. in Arist. Phys. ed. Diels p. 143. vov CK^O-TTJ iSe a, aAA* Plotinus, though right in saying oix erepa TOU vovs ol 6\os fj.ev & vovs ra iravra. 6^77, eitaffTov Se elSos e/caa-TTj vovs. commits a fatal blunder when he severs 6 vovs V. ix. eicavTos

from T&

8), (Enn. !*/ by means of r)

irptarn erepJrrjy

(Enn. V.

i.

i).

w
M.
7.

Ideal

SiaQopoi, at 5

Numbers ei/ T^ avry
ff.)

are composed of

monads which

are at
p.6va.i

/tc"

*

"

fa*V
Met.

apiBp-f aSta^opot oAArjAots

(Arist.

1081^ 35

8o

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

such differences do not entitle them to be described
as Platonic erepa
(i.e.

erepa avra eavTwv)
:

;

at

most they
it

warrant the use of the word aXXa
Tim. 52
is

cp.

C,

where of the particular phenomenon
erepov 8e TWO? del
<f>eprai

said

Sia TavTa ev

but of the Ideal
eo><?

erepw kingdom

TTpoaiJKei, TLVL

av TL TO

fJiev

aXXo

$, TO Be

aXXo, ovSeTepov

ev

ovSerepa) TTOTG yevofjievov ev
ryevrj&ecrdov.

apa

TCLVTOV

teal

$vo

In the second place the erepoTrjs of TO ev
be confused with the IT 6/36x779 of TO, TroXXa.

is

not to
is

This

at first sight less obvious. It might have been thought that the demands of Necessity would be satisfied and

the Ideas alone passed into the sphere of OaTepov, and left the supreme Mind to that i/o^o-eo)? which it enjoys in Aristotle s

her law

fulfilled, if

vor)o-i<;

conception (Met. A. g. 10746 33). But that such is not the case appears to me certain from the following
considerations
(i)
:

Plato teaches that ova-la

is
If,

necessarily an
therefore, TO ev

alliance of TavTov with daTepov.

the evolution .acquires the latter element only through its existence to the of Ta TroXXa, then Unity owes

But we have already Ideas, not the Ideas to Unity. concluded that the permanence of the Ideal series depends upon the volition of the supreme Mind.
Hence, though prepared to allow that Unity does

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

81

not as a matter of fact exist without the Ideas, we must deny that its existence is contingent upon theirs.
Rather, the Ideas

owe

their ova-ia

its erepoTrjs

as well

as

its

TavTorrj?

to a self-subsisting Unity.
z>.

Again, the Ideas are ovra, they possess Their TavroTrjs they TCLVTOTTJS and erepor^?. admittedly derive from Unity. Their ereporrj^ either
(2)

both

is

or

is

not derived from the same source.

If

it is,

are justified in discriminating between the ere/cxm?? of TO ev and the erepor?;? of ra 7ro\\d. If it is not,

we

whence comes it ? Certainly not from the mere fact that the Ideas are a plurality that, as we have seen, makes them a\\a but not erepa.
:

(3)

The

Ideal

Minds stand

to the
It

in the relation of 7ro\\a to ev.

supreme Mind would seem then

that they are to be considered multiples of an original Unit. As such, their TCLVTOTT]? presupposes its TCIVTOTTJSJ
their ereporrj^ its eTepor???.

neither fractional

Otherwise they would be nor integral powers, but utterly

incommensurate
(4)

quantities.

Plato
Jo>oz>

s

own words suggest a erepotWt?

of the

cosmic
f<wa.

as distinct from that of the subordinate

a comparison between the in and sensible universe he declares that the telligible partial Animals embraced by the entire Animal answer to the particular specimens contained in a
visible

In drawing

cosmos

:

Tim. 30 C ra yap

Brj VOTJTO,

wa

Trdvra
6

82

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
ev

eavrw irepi\a^ov
the

e^et, KaOdirep 6 Se 6 KO
%vve<Tr7)Kv
:

oaa re d\\a Opea/uara
158 A makes
ra>

opara.

59

Pann.
OVKOVV
;

same point
/cat

Mere^eiv
.

Se 76 rov evbs

re

oXw

rut aopla)

.

.

Ovrcos.

ere pa ovra rov evbs

i^eOe^ei

ra fjuere^ovra avrov

w9 8

ov ;

That

is

to say that TO o\ov

(=rb

rcav-

reXe? tyov of Tim. 3 1 B) as well as ra popia (= ra eV
/j,epov$ elBei

fwa of Tim. 30
this

c)

passes into the sphere of

Odrepov.

30 D represents the Creator as having not only vovs but also ^v\r) OVKOVV ev fjbev rfj rov ftaa-ikitcrjv aev epels

Agreeably to

Phileb.

-<dio9

<f>va-ei

fBaGiXiKov Be vovv eyyiyvea-Qai, Sia rrjv r?}? air las

this

And Phileb. 30 A clearly distinguishes K.r.\. cosmic soul from the souls of its particular crea
%fl.
;

tions

To

1

Trap

rjfjJiv

crwua ap ov ^v^rj
%fl. IloOev,

1

FLPfl. Arfkov on,
j

<f>rj(TOfjLev.

w

\aj36v, eiTrep

urj

TO 76 TOU rravros

ervy^ave, ravrd ye e^ov rovru> Kal en IlPfl. ArjXov w? ovSauoOev a\\o6ev, rrdvrrf Ka\\iova ;
ov

Finally,

two

circles

we have the problematic assignment of Now the circle of to the mundane soul.

the Other (Tim. 360, 380) cannot represent the part icular souls of men, horses, etc., since they have

59

To

the
i.

same
p.

effect

Arius Didymus in Stob.

Ed.

I.

xii.

2a. ed.

Wachsmuth

136, 10.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

83

special irepioSoi, (Tim. 420, 430, 85 A, 87 A, 88B, 91 E),

which are expressly distinguished from those of the universe (Tim. 47 B, 900). Nor can it denote the
Ideal

e^v^a

:

for,

so far as these possess vorjcrw they
at
all,

do not belong to the realm of ddrepov
far as

and so

they lapse into yvwo-is they are represented by It must, therefore, stand for the lower particulars.

phase of the cosmic soul as distinguished on the one hand from the Ideas, and on the other from their
particulars.
(5)

If there

cosmic soul
souls,"

we

be no perception of matter "by the apart from the perceptions of finite are of course driven to say No to the

question of the Platonic Parmenides
9

Ap

ovv olos re av eVrat o

$eo<?

ra
;

Trap* rjfuv 747^0)-

aKeiv avrrjv liriarrf^v e^ow

(Farm.

1

34 c)

Sokrates awe-struck
r)

comment

\lav, tyrj, Oavfiatnos o \6yoSj el rt? rbv

6ebv

aTroGTepr)<reLe

rov elbevai.

(Ibid.

I34E)
s

prepares
evaded.

us,

however, to find that in Plato
is

maturest

judgment

this decision

reversed, or at

any

rate

And Laws
/JLCV

905 D
el&l teal

on

yap

OeoL r

dvOpwTrcov
</>au\o)5

ovvrai,,

70)76 ov TravTCLTracri

av

repeats the assurance of Phaedo 62

D

THE METAPHYSICAL
^efc

BASIS
GO

TO deov ie elvai TOP
rjfjLas

7rL/jL6\ovfjL6vov

KOI

etceivov KTijfjiara elvai.

bearings of this question call for further consideration for the present I proceed, noting merely
:

The moral
if

that

the supreme fwcw can

to the individual souls of men,

pay separate attention unless the it must

argumentation of Parmenides be entirely groundless pass from the ravTorrj^ of pure thought into the Te/30T?7? of knowledge, opinion, and even sensation.
challenge that passage is indeed to obscure the connection between Plato s ethical speculations and
their ontological basis.

To

Mr. Archer-Hind commenting on Tim. 86 E Absolute being, absolute thought, and writes
(6)
"

:

absolute goodness are one and the same. Therefore from the absolute or universal soul can come no evil."

repeated the word thought," no exception could have been taken to the dictum. As it stands, the second clause seems to me a specific

Had

he

"

in lieu

of

"

"soul

denial of the evil world-soul described in the tenth

book of the Laws.
cannot be ignored
;

The

description

there given

Trpoa-Xapovaa del Oeov 6eos ovcra,

opOa

/cal evSaifjiova

TraiSaywyel Trdvra, avoiq Be Travra av Tavavria rourot?

.

(897 B)
ical

60

Cp. Phaedr. 246 E Zeus HiaKoffptav irdvra

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
and
it

85

forces

upon us the conclusion that the cosmic

soul qua cosmic functions not only in the

ravrov as perfect thought, but also in the

mode mode

of
of

OaTepov as imperfect thought. These are the main arguments which tend to
that the ere/? or 77 9 of the
either with the

show

One must not

be confused

the

Many.

Its

ravTortj^ or with the ereporrj^ of more precise determination will be
succeeding section.

attempted

in the

III.

Theology.

In discussing the evolution of 1/01)9 we have more than once had occasion to use the words 0eo? and

We are not, however, entitled to adapt theo terms to the purposes of philosophy unless we logical can return an affirmative answer to the vexed ques
0eto9.

tion

Did

Plato, or did he not, bring his religious

convictions

into

any intimate connection with
?

his

metaphysical views

Dr. Zeller,

who

here as else

where represents modern orthodoxy

at its best, holds

that theology does not rank with Dialectics, Physics, and Ethics, as a definite part of the Platonic doctrine ;
that
it

cannot even be
;

classified
"

under any of these

the particular notions that, short, which bring Plato in contact with positive religion are
in
61

sciences 61

Plato

and The Older Academy,

p. 494.

86

THE METAPHYSICAL
most part mere outworks of

BASIS
his system, or else

for the

an inconsistent relapse into the language of ordinary 62 And yet there are certain a priori con opinion."
siderations which militate strongly against the ortho

dox

position.

It is difficult to

believe that a speculator

so thorough-going and fearless as Plato would have shrunk from the attempt to base his own religion on

a sound intellectual foundation.
it

And

that foundation

that, if lay ready to hand. For by a personal being is meant one conscious of uniting

must be observed

in itself a diversity of its

own

states,

then the supreme

Mind and

the Ideal Minds have substantial claims to

personality; and further, that in the said Minds is shall not vested the directorate of the universe.

We

then be sinning against antecedent likelihood,

if

we
the

provides enquire expression of the Idealist creed in terms of divinity.

how

far

Plato

material

for

(A) Broadly speaking we may say that, in the Platonic scheme, the objective realm of TCLVTQV is
characterised as divine, and
Polit.
its

denizens as deities

:

2690

TO Kara Tavra
elvat,

ical

ftxrauro)? e^euv ael

Kal ravTov

ro?

irdvrcov

OeioraTOis

irpo-

In

fact, 1/0770-49
:

and OeioT^ are everywhere mutual

implicates

63

Plato

and The Older Academy,

p. 505.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

87

Laws

897 B

"^rv^rj

vovv

fj,ev 7rpo<T\a@ov(ra

a el Oebv e
to the

#eo? ova-a K.T.\.

Phaedr.

2470 6eov
applies

iavoia

vw

re

ical

And
Minds.
(a)

this

on the one hand
(&)

(a)

supreme Mind, and on the other

to the

Ideal

With regard

to the

supreme Mind, we have

already seen that the functions which the Philebus The assigns to it are in the Timaeus given to o 0e6?.

22 c) phrase TOV aXrjOivov apa ical delov vovv (Phileb. of this i/ou? ftacrikiKos to Zeus and the attribution

30 D) serve to link the two titles together. that in Plato s is, therefore, no room for doubt of his immediate successorsteaching as in that
(Phileb.

There

absolute

Mind

and

absolute
Aetios,

Godhead
the

coincide.

registers following view correctly in the words 6 Be Oebs

Stobaeus,

Platonic
e er

vow

TOV

(b)

With regard

to the Ideas

we have
TWV

the evidence

of Tim. 37 c
ft)?

8e Kivrjdev avrb Kal {fav evolve
76701/0?
aya\iJ>a

ai&lcov

o yevvrfaas

63

Stob.

Ed.

I.

x.

i6a

ed.

Wachsmuth
Se rb Hv, rb
TO,

i.

p. 127, 20.
/toi/o</)ues,

Ed.

I.

i.

29

(Aetios)

ibid. p. 37,

forces &v, Ta.yaQ6v.
<nreu5t.

4 U\drwv Udvra tie

rb p.ova$iK6v, rb rotavra ruv ovofjuirtav els rbv vovv
I. vi. la (Menander) 8e6s; vovs.

Nous

olv 6 eedr.

Cp. Ed.
iffrl

ibid. p.

83,

20,

I.

i.

24, ibid. p. 31, 5 rt iror

88

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

isation 64 of

where they are termed Oeol as being the first pluraland ai Stoi 0eol as being the first
0eo<?,

pluralisation of that which

is

an
65

dlbiov tyov (Tim. 37D).

Mr. Archer-Hind well urges that Plato "used this strange phrase with some deliberate purpose in view." I cannot however agree with him that the signific
"

ance of so calling them
appears to
the partial
multiplies

me

is very hard to see." It a direct indication that the Ideas are

Minds

into which

the universal

Mind

itself.

The
in the

Politicus perhaps allegorizes the
it

same Unity

and Plurality of gods, when

states (271

D

seg.)

that

golden age the universe as a whole was managed
its
66

by a

separate portions by Oeol a/^oire?. These departmental gods are spoken of in terms that

0eo5 apxowj

certainly suggest

Plato

s

deification of the natural

kinds

:

ra

o>a

/cara yevij tcai a^yeXa? olov vofiel^ Oeloi SieiSal/toves, avrdptcrjs et? iravra
eAcao-ro?

wv
(B)

ot<?

auro?

eW/xei/.

(2/1 D)

There

is

But ravTov must of necessity pass into Odrepov. need, therefore, to examine the subjective

manifestation of these objective deities.
64

And

since

irpura. SiaKCKpifjieva rrjs afjLfpiffTQv fvctxrews, as Simplicius in Arist.

Psych, ed.
65
66

Hayduck

p. 28,

22

calls

them.

Ed. Ttmaeusp.

nSn.
of
/corei

Cp.

Polit.

272 E

rovs roirovs crvvdpxovres

r$

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

89

we have

distinguished the eYepotWi? of the cosmic 0eo5 from that of the partial 6eoi, our enquiry sub
:

divides itself into two questions minor mode of the supreme
0e6<?

(a)

?

and
?

What is the (b) What is

the minor
(a)

mode

of the Ideal Qeoi
in

It

was shown

the course of the last section
v is

that the eTeporrjs of TO
rcoo-pos,

bodied forth as a Trepie^wv

all particular animals, taking of their individual conduct, and being in cognisance

which embraces

some

sort responsible

for their

special deficiencies.

Now
of TO

the said
is

KoV//,o5,

considered as the visible entire

of course a unity. /, the Academy or the Lyceum,
nise eva ovpavov
7
,

Whether we hail from we are bound to recog
apart from
all

because

question

any physical totality may be logically 68 But to infer regarded as a single phenomenon. that this case we have an idea with only one
of Idealism
"in

particular

corresponding"

seems to

me

premature.

When Plato mentions the externality of the supreme 0eo? in the singular number, it behoves us to ask first
whether
it is

not this collective unity that
B, for
6Wo<?

is

intended.

In Tim. 34
OUTO?
Srj

A

example,
ael \oyia-fibs Oeov Trepl
.

mi?

TOV
etc

IT ore

deov \oyw6els
eiroi^ae.
67

.

.

reXeov

Tim. 3 1 A, cp. Bonitz Ind. Arist.

p.

542 a

8.

68

Cp. Farm. 1640 07*01 eowrat,

cTs CKOO-TOS

<pa.iv6nevos,

&v 5e

ov.

Soph. 237

D

avdyirr)

r6v

n

Xsyovra tv yt

rt Xeytiv.

90

THE METAPHYSICAL
take
it

BASIS

I

that o
#eov,

cov del

6eb<$

is

contrasted with 6 vrore
eternal

eVoyu-e^o?

i.e.

God qua

with

God qua

temporal.

Again, in Tim. 92 c opa,Tov ra 6 para Trepie^ov^ GIKCOV TOV #eo? alcrOrjTos el? ovpavos ooe
. . .

and

in

Tim. 68 E
Br]...6

ravra

TOV Ka\\i(TTov re
r
<yi<yvo/jU6vots

/cal

apiarov

o? ev rot?
avTap/crj re

jrape\diJi(3aveV) fjvifca TOV

tfal
is

TOV T6\(*)TaTOv Oeov eyevva.

God qua we must

Creator

opposed to God qua created.

But

not on the strength of such passages argue

that the supreme being appears to sense-perception as a unitary god. And this for the excellent reason

that such an appearance would impugn the very nature of particular existence. To explain. By a particular is meant a localisation of any given VOT/TOV ffiov by
itself or

any other

VOTJTOV tfiov.

The

percipient

Animal

and the percept Animal, both functioning in the fourth plane of consciousness, provide what the Theaetetus
calls KLvr)crea)s Svo
^vva/jbLv 8e
clSr],

TrXrfOei

fjuev

ajreipov

e/caTepov,

TO

/juev

TTOIGIV e^oz/,

TO Se irdcr^eLv.
is
"

This being so, a unique particular in terms inasmuch as the predicate
;

(156 A). a contradiction
"

that the object
tcivrja-i?

is

but

in its

implies perceived not in its shifting phase of permanent condition of o-rdat^ that

unique

Hence in every is, not as a particular but as an Idea. case particularity connotes numerical indefinity. The

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

91

denial of a solitary specimen is confirmed alike the wording of Parmenides fourth hypothesis

by
.

Farm.

1

5

8 B

Ta

8 erepa rov

ez>o?

7ro\\d TTOV av

eirf..

-E-Tre!

oe 76 7r\ela)
TO,

e^o? ecrrt rd re rov evbs
ez>o?

fjiopiov real

rov

6\ov

/juere^ovra, OVK

dvdyfcvj

ijor)

7T\r)6ei ajreipa eivai
;

aura 76

etcelva

ra

/jLeraXa/ji/BdvovTa TOV evos

and by the testimony of Aristotle
Met.
Zi. 15.

:

1040

tf

25 eorrat

<yap

l&ea rt?
e^o?.

rjv

a&vva rov

eVt rjr\ei6vwv /caTiyyoprja-ai

r)

ou So /eel 8 6,

a\\a Trdaa
It

ISea elvai

fieOe/CTij.

would seem, therefore, that the minor mode of the supreme 0eo? may indeed be regarded as a unity, inasmuch as it is a physical totality 69 containing
within itself
all

the visible manifestations of the Ideal

Tim. 30 D
(frvciv

oW

ev oparov, trdvO

oaa avrov Kara

%vyyevf) ^coa et To? e%ov eavrov.

but that nevertheless this Trepikyav /cocr/^o? must in some sense be an indefinite plurality, if it represents
the ereporr;? of TO ev. And here we should avoid the error of supposing that the particular specimens of the natural kinds
69 Compare Cicero s description of Xenokrates theology: "Decs enim octo esse dicit ; quinque eos qui in stellis vagis nominantur, unum qui ex omnibus sideribus quae infixa caelo sunt ex dispersis quasi membris

simplex sitputandus Deus, septimumsolem adiungit, octavamque (De Nat. Dear. i. 13. 34).

lunam."

92

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

supply the needed plurality. That would be to mis take the eTeporrjs of ra TroAAa for the erepoTTjs of TO ev.

The whole
their

visible universe

is

the

full

concourse of

objective deol as viewed subjectively

company

localised

on the plane of

by any one of But aicrOrjais.
0eb<?

what we are seeking is the single sovereign viewed by the same spectator on the same plane.
If,

as

functioning on the fourth level apprehends the 0eo? Palm as a multiplicity of palm-trees, there is no reason why he should not
then, the 0eo9

Man

as a multiplicity supreme of supreme 6eoL Only, whereas particulars are desig nated by the plural form of the name affixed to their
similarly apprehend the
6eb<;

corresponding Idea, and whereas each of the Ideal 6eol has some distinguishing name Man, Horse, or Palm from which such a plural may be derived, the

supreme
Beoij

has no appellation of the sort. He supreme over the Ideal might, however, as a
0eo<?

#eo<?

be

fittingly
is

titled

0eo? 6ewv,

the

God of

gods.

Indeed he

so

named by
:

Proklos in his account of

Platonic Theology The. Plat. ii. II.
eart

p.

HO

(o TT/OWTO?

#e6?)

o><?

$609

Oewv

cLTravTtov,

Kol

&>?

was

evda)Vj...ayio<}

ev aylois, rot? vorjTofc evairoKeKpv^jjievo^ Oeols.
70

Cp. the fragment from Porphyry
I.

irepl

a.ya.\na.T<av

cited

by Stob.
faov IK
a<p

Ed.
(t>(i>v

25 ed. Wachsmuth i. p. 31, 8 Kal debs CK dfuv. Zevs Se Kal
i.
,

Zevs ovv 6 iras
<5

/c<fo>tos,

<

Qe6s

>

,

Ka6b vovs

ov

tin $

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

93

When,

therefore,

we meet
it

are tempted to find in

the phrase Qeol Oewv we the plural (representing the
is

subjective indefinity) of
far as the

him who

the #eo? 6ewv.

phrase

itself is

concerned, this

So would be a
But
it

perfectly simple

and straightforward

solution.

remains to be seen whether the nature and functions
of the deal dewv, as described in the Timaeus, tally with those of the supreme vorjrbv &ov conceived as

the percept of particular percipients.

And
rates

first

as to their nature.

Tim. 34 B

seqq.

nar

how the

original blend of -^u^r;

was compounded

of the three primal elements. It was used for the cosmic soul, being divided into the circles of the Same

and the Other. Tim. 410 tells how the second blend of tyw)(r) was compounded of the same elements, though in a less pure condition. It went to form the subord
inate souls, each of which possessed a similar pair of
circles.

Now
fwa

in

between these two brews we have
as
Seoy^ofc

the planets described
SeOevra
(38 E),
B).

e/^Jrt^ot?

aco/jiara

and the fixed
it
?

Kal dtSia (40

Whence

fwa 6ela be asked came may
It

stars called

the animation of these %wa

could not be fur

nished by the second mixture of -^f%7, since that had not yet been compounded. Moreover, the first mixture had been entirely used up (366) in the

making of the cosmic

soul.

It is obvious, therefore,

that the starry fcoa are the externalisation of the cosmic soul as distinguished from the subordinate souls.

94

THE METAPHYSICAL
It

BASIS

was natural that
in the circle

their bodies should

be placed

of the Other to perform the not only planetary functions, but also in the circle of the Same to be a veritable KOCT/JLOS. For they are the exponents

of the

Godhead

in the sight of
"

men

;

and by setting
"

forth the twofold aspect of

their great original
It

act

as an everlasting witness to an eternal truth.

was

no mere access of astronomical ardour which led Plato
to write
:

TWV vvv \6ywv
TTore epptjB T)

trepl
fjurfre

rov Traz/ro? Xeyofjuevow
acrrpa pyre rj\iov

ovftels

av

fjujre

ovpavov

l&ovrwv (Tim. 47 A).

There

can, then,

be

little

doubt that the
with these

Oeol Oe&v,

simply a subjective pluralisation of the supreme Mind. Were we capable of pure 1/6770-49, we should apprehend them
as a single
#eo<?

whom

Tim. 41 A

identifies

stars, are

6ewv.

The same

lesson

may

be learnt from the

Laws

along with sundry practical corollaries. For it is more than probable that the gods, whose care over men is there vindicated by the Athenian, are identical
with the
deal

Be&v of the Timaeus.

This becomes
ravra avra
yfjv 0)9

evident, orav
7rpo<f)epovT$,

reKfj^ijpia \eya)/JLev co? el&l Oeoij

rfkiov re KOL creXrjvrjv KOI

avrpa KOI

KOI Oela ovra (Laws 886 D).

71

Cp.

Laws 950 D

T^\iov...Kal rovs

&\\ovs

fleous,

828 C ruv
fj.oi

8<rovs

o5 Ocovs ovpaviovs tirovonaffreov, Crat. 397 C Qatvovrai

ol

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

95

And

in the conclusion

drawn by 899 B
:

I

discern a

hint that this synod of Xa/juirpol Bvvda-rai, embodiment of a single Mind
Se
$rj irepi

is

but the

TrdvTcov teal

cre\rivr)<$

eviavTwv re

Kal

/j,7)va>v

real

\6yov

epov/jiev

Traawv wpwv Trepi riva a\\ov rbv avTov TOVTOV, rj
&>?

dyadal 8e Tracav apenjvj deovs
elvai eire ev crftifJLacriv evovaai, %wa ovra, Kocrpovai iravra ovpavov e lre airy re Kal OTTO)? ;
<j>ijcro/jL6Vj

note that, as in this passage and ^rv^al are used alternatively, so in those of the Timaeus which deal with the doings of parts the deal Oewv there is a constant oscillation between
It is interesting to

the use of the singular and the plural number.

Thus

we have deoi (44 D)
...0eo?

. . .

Oeov (44 E)

. . .

deoL (45 A)

...

6eos (46 c)
(47 C).

(47 A)... 0fo j;

(47B)...0eo

(47 C)

. . . 0ewz>

The

alternation

may be

seen on an extended scale

from Tim. 69 C to almost the end of the dialogue. In 92 A the grammatical change is riot even marked, the subject of e^evvrfcav viz. Oeol being supplied from the
still more striking previous Oeov ySacret? viroTiOevios. in 71 A where an actual anacoluthon is case occurs

A

irpuroi

ra>v

o.vty&K<av

rav

ircpl

T^V E\\dSa rovrovs

i*6vovs robs Ocovs

,

ov<rirfp

vvv iro\\ol

affrpa Kal

96

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
et Sore?

produced:

8e

72

avr6...deo^...^vve(7Trj(7

.

In

much
etc. is

the

same way

o oyfjLiovpyb? of

pluralised into ol
into ol

Tim. 28 A, 29 A, Bq/juavpyol of 75 B, 6 ^vviaras of
of /I D.

29 E

fucr<JT7;cra^T69

Again, Plato s later writings consistently denote the possession of Tavrorrjs by the term aQdvarov, that of erepoT?;? by the term Ovrjrov. If, then, the deal Qecov

were objectively existent as a plurality, they would doubtless be endowed with adavavia. But in Tim.
41 B

we

read

:

d6dvaroi pev ov/c
TL
i*,ev

ecrre

73

ouS aXvroi TO

TrdfjLirav,

ov

Sr)

\v0ijo-e00e ye ovSe rev^eade Oavdrov
/jurjs

yLto/pa?,

TT)?

ySoi/X^o-ea)? jj,el%ovos ert

al Kvpiayrepov Xa^ovre^ e/cetvow, ols or

and this agrees with the tenor of Politicus 270 A, where the visible cosmos is spoken of as
72 The converse change from 1340 QVKOVV ei irapa r$ 6e$ avrt)

singular to plural occurs in
e<rrlv

Farm.
ovr

rj

aKpifieffTdrr)
,

eiriffTrnj.r],
rj

&v

77

SeffiroTeia

f)

^Ksiixav

VJ/JLWV

irore

kv Seo TrJo e/ej

OUT &v

firiffT^/jLT)

fjftas yvoit]...oijT

yiyv(txrKOVfft

TO

ai Opwireia irpdyfj.ara

deol Sures.
>ov
a>a

r68e fui/eo-T^o-aro, ev *X OV T To-VTa ev O.VT$ dvtjTa aQa.va.rd re, and in Tim. 92 C Qvt]Ta, yap /col AfldVoTa \a&ii)v /cat |u^7rArjpa>0ets 38e 6 Koff/j.os K.T.\. the "immortal
It follows that in
irav
"

73

Tim. 690

<a

animals
o0aj/aTo
ra.in6v,

"

are not
oDa

as has

= the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds so far as they are = the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds so far as floret aia
10.

commonly been supposed

the stars. Rather,

they

become Odrepov. Cp. Arist. Top. Z. dpi&rai rb Qvt\T^v irpoadirruv fv rots ruv
olov avrodvBptairos.

1480; 15 &s

Uhdruv

(a<av

6ptff/j.o7s

^ ykp tSea OVK

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

97

7* eTrio-Kevaarrjv rrapa rov Srj/j,iovpyov. These passages confirm us in the belief that the

existence of the starry gods as a plurality is merely subjective and phenomenal. In brief, the Bed 6e&v are related to the

supreme
Aetios

0eo9 as particulars to their corresponding Idea.

account of that relation

in Eel.

I.

xii.

i

a ed. Wachs-

muth

i.

p. 134,

9
a(ra)jj,aro<*
. . .

loea early ovcria

rrarpos e7re%ov(7a

TO?? aiV0?7Tot? Tfifyv
is

apparently founded on, and certainly justified by, Tim. SOD where the Idea is compared to a rrarrjp,

the particular to an eicyovov. Now in 42 E the Oeol flew with reference to the supreme #eo? are called ol
TratSe?

rov rrarpo^.
75 7Q
<yevvr)fjiara.

6

yevvrjo-as Trarrfp,

and

Similarly in 37 C the latter is in 69 C the former are ra

eavrov

This coincidence of nomenclature,
:

by

As particulars their establishing the proportion Ideas:: the Oeol de&v the supreme #eo? certainly
:

have put forward, that the 6eol Qewv are not an objective but a subjective pluralisation
I
1 of their Creator}

favours the view

Cp.
75 70
77

Polit.

273 E

0os

6

KOff/j.Tja as

....

aQavmov

avrbv

Cp.

Polit.

273

B.

Soph. 266 B has 0eoD yew-fi/taTa of particular
Chalcidius in Tim. 41

men

etc.
"Illi

A

ed.

enim optimates, id est stellae, vero fabricator eorum intellegibilis

Wrobel p. 200 well remarks: non sunt intellegibiles sed sensiles
adprime."

;

at

7

98

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

To

deal next with their functions,

(i)

In Tim.

4142
says
:

the 0eo9 addresses himself to the Oeol Oe&v and
"

Three mortal

tribes

have

still

to be created

that the universe

may be complete. So far as their souls are imperishable and divine, they are mine to make yours be it to fashion their bodies and thereby
:

cause such part of their souls activity as
perishable."

is

necessarily

Here Plato distinguishes the direct creations of the 0609 from the indirect creations of the Oeol Oewv.

To

the former belongs the task
self:
.

of providing the

immortal and passionless Tim. 41 C KCL& oo ov
.

.

CLVTWV dOavdrots

o^vv^ov
...

elvai Trpoo-rjKei, Oelov \y6/jt,evov rjyefjiovovv re

(nreipas
Ibid.

real

virap^d^evo^.
dp^rjv OVIJTOV fyoov

42 E dOdvavov

= 69 C dp^v
its

tyvxfy dOdvarov
to the latter that of
:

adding the mortal body and
veois

attendant passions Tim. 42 D TO Se pera TOV airopov rot?

78 Ovrjrdj TO Te e eoyLtara TrXarret^

TL rjv tyv %}? dvOpwirivr]^ Seov Trpoayeveadaij

rovro KOI TTOV& oaa dicoXovOa

eiceivois direp^/a-

78

It

may be remarked
ftffoi

that the office

which Rep. 41 5 A (a\\
"bv

6 8ebs

TrAaTTOJf,

/J.v V/J.UV iKavol

^pxetr,

xp va

eV rf) yevecrei
<*6s)

vve/j.i}-ev,

cp. Arist. Pol.

in the

B. 5. 1264 12 6 irapa rov 6eov xp v Timaeus assigned to the 6eol Qeuv.

assigns to the

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
Ibid.

99

6gC

TO

/juera

TOVTO dvqrov

<ra)/j,a

avrfj irepi-

eropveva-av

.... d\\o re
TO
OvrjTov,

eZ&o? eV avra)

TTpo(T(f>Ko^o^ovv

Sen/a

KOI

ev eavru) TraOij/juara

%ov.

This, as I understand

it,

means

:

men s

very selves

are due to the evolution of the absolute
first

Mind on the
by
objective

or noetic plane, being brought about
;

pluralisation

bodies and bodily affections are due to the evolution of the absolute Mind on the

men s

remaining or gnostic planes, being brought about by
subjective pluralisation.

This statement of the case involves one issue of
If the ultimate consciousness peculiar importance. of every individual is a direct creation of the Artificer,

metaphor an objective multiple of Mind, the objective multiples of Mind are none other than the Ideal series, it follows that the souls of par
to drop
if

or

and

ticular

be called truly existent, are not to be distinguished from the Idea of Man. The realisation of this truth throws light

men, so

far

as

they

may

upon several

now

see

why

details of the present passage. can the aOdvaTos ap^rj OVTJTOV coov was called
:

We

Oelov fyepovovv re (Tim. 41 C) plainly because the Idea, and as dwelling within the pale of is entitled not only to aOavavia but also to

it

is

Again, when the Creator urges that, were he to make the perishable part of his creatures, their mortal would put on immortality and take rank with the gods,

I00

THE METAPHYSICAL
Tim. 41 C
St
efjLov e

BASIS
teal

ravra

<yev6fj,eva

/3/ou

he

virtually

declares

that the

distinction
;

between
transient

and ravrbv would be abolished invade the dominion particulars would
dd-repov

of

Ideal

S eo

But
all is

be conceded that the immortal part of us identical with the Idea of Man, which Idea as it
if it

attached appears in the cosmos becomes subjectively to bodies and split into a seeming multitude of souls
Trepl

ra aca^ara

<yiy

vo^evrj

pepicrTr)

(Tim. 35

A),

there are yet two
signalised.

possible errors

which should be
this
;

On

the one hand,

it

must be observed that

the unity of the Idea procedure in no wise imperils since the multiplicity of particular souls belongs only
potentially
to
is

the

realm of Ideal ova La.

As

vovs,

the Idea

a single eternal Mind.

As

eTno-r^rj or

manifold activities Sofa or aic-Qrja-v;, it passes into the But the latter phase is dynamic of human thought. the former is the implicit latent in the former
ally
;

verity of the latter

:

Soph. 247

D

\eya>

8rj

TO

teal
.

ojroiavovv KCKT rjfJLevov
. .

elr ek TO Trda-^eiv SvvafjLiv elV et? TO iroielv . . irav TOUTO oWcw? elvac ride/tat, yap opov opi^eiv
.

ra 6Wa,
79

to?

eemz>

OVK a\\o TI

7T\rjv

in Tim.

This passage then furnishes a parallel to the use of Oeot 370 cp. also the terminology of the neo-Platonists
:

=
(p.

"Ideas"

H2).

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

101

On

the other hand, the ancient landmark between

the soul and the

body of any given
is

individual remains

unmoved.
Idea of
ality.

Sokrates

Man

a special localisation of the functioning in the mode of lower ment
a double being, comprising both His soul is the Ideal Animal con
is

As such he
and body.

soul

ceived as actively cognisant on the planes of
his

yeveo-is

:

body or, to speak strictly, his bodily shape is the same Animal conceived as passively cognised on the same planes. 80 The one, inasmuch as its activity
the procession of an Ideal Mind, Plato regards as the handiwork of God qua Being, viz. the supreme 81 The other, inasmuch as its passivity is the 0e6?.
is

result of imperfect

apprehension, he

refers

to

the

workmanship of God qua becoming, viz. the Oeol Oewv. It may here be objected and the objection is a valid one that, allowing the body and its accom
panying emotions to be the outcome of imperfect apprehension, we have as yet shown no reason why
the Oeol Oewv rather than the lower phase of any other VOTJTOV %wov should be named as the cause of their

appearance. the Ideal

The

reason,

I

think, lies in the fact that

<wa

are multiples of the

supreme

Jifloz/,

whose

80

dialogues,

This doctrine was a refinement upon the teaching of the earlier e.g. Phaedrus 245 E irav yap aw^a $ ptv eca6ev rb Kive?<r6ai, Sf evtioQev avrcp avrov, f/j.\^vxov, us rairrrjs ofays tyvaews

81

Cp. Tim. 6QC

TOJJ/ fjifv

Be

i<av

avrbs yiyvercu

102

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

subjectivity therefore takes logical precedence of theirs.

Plato in fact goes more to the root of the matter by assigning the causation of the OwrjTov 76^09 to the

lower aspect of the supreme
penetrates source
:

#609.

Elsewhere
their

he

beyond

their

ulterior

to

ultimate

Tim. 41 A Seol
ep ycov. Soph. 265 C

OecoVj

&v

e<ya)

877/^01^709 irarrjp re

&5a
r)

orj

TTavra dvrira

real

d\\ov TWOS
vcrrepov
(2)

6 eov

SrjfjLiovpyovvTos
;

<yi<yve(r6ai

Trporepov OVK ovra

A
D

second

office attributed to

the 6eol dewv in Tim.

41

42 E

may

be thus expressed.

The

Artificer

begins his task of providing the delov ^e^ovovv re portion of individuals by dividing the whole mass of
soul at his disposal into -^rv^a^ laapiQpovs rot9 Bearing in mind what was said concerning
fjLepMTTr)

we

shall

expect Dr. Zeller

s

view 82 to prove

correct, viz. that these -fyw)(al are the souls of particular

men.

tion of the

But the point may be certified by a considera word l<rdpi,0^oi, whose significance has, I

believe, been

unduly neglected. of the terms o\ov and popia to denote the supreme ^wov and the Ideal %wa shows that,

The employment
s

in

Plato

view, the

sum

total of the latter represents

the content of the former.

Now

this equivalence

was

83

Plato

and The

Older

Academy

p. 390, n. 8.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
:

103

not confined to the higher phase of Ideal ravroTrjs it applied also to the lower order of particular ereporrjs.

Hence the Platonic Parmenides,
144 c) that ovala is himself and observes
split into
:

after stating

(Farm.

ir\el<j-ra

pepr), corrects

OVK dp
evi.

1

d\rj6rj
rj

dpn
E)

eXeyopev, \eyovres

&>?

Ti\el(rra
eoifce,

fjt<epr]

ovcria

vevefjLTjTai,,

a\\

Icra, GO?

TW

(1440

Kal

firjv TOL

ye Trdvra

/J-eprj

rd avrov TO
77

ev eVr*, Kal

ovre TI irXeov ovre

\arrov

iravra.

(145 C)

these passages I gather that what Aristotle 83 calls ra 7ro\\a TWV (TVVWVU/JLCOV rot? e&eaiv correspond

From

numerically to the similar phase of TO ev, that is, to the 6eol 6ev. The meaning of the expression in Tim. 41 D will then be as follows. The ^ir^al lo-dpiO/Aoi
rot? aorpois are the souls of

men which

the Creator
the starry

divides and distributes to the

number of

gods, that they
universe.
souls,

may

severally learn the laws of the
Tfrv%al IcrdpiQ^Qi are particular

Thus the
as

but particular souls considered as not yet embodied
still

and therefore
Creator.

the direct handiwork of the

Their state of dynamic multiplicity is of course merely an analytical abstraction for, if the
;

body be but the soul passively apprehended by lower psychosis, actual multiplicity must synchronise with
incarnation.

The
83

state

of

potential

plurality

is,

Met. A.

6.

987 b

10.

io4

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

however, recognised and described in Farm. i$6l) as TO efa/<z/779 84 a condition intermediate between ovaia

and

yevcn,s
Srj

:

Kara

TOV avrbv

\6<yov

KOI ef evos
V

eirl

7ro\\a Ibv

KOI

K

TToXXftJI/ 6(

6V OVT

CTT(V

OVT6 TToXXa,

ovre Sia/cplveTcu ovre o-vyKpiverat, (157 A). It may be added that the sojourn in the ^vvvo^o^
oifcrj&is

avrpov rationalises the influence over a

man s

character which ancient astrology universally attri buted to his birth-star. For the rest, having heard
their destiny, these potential particulars are

sown

into

the planets where they are clothed upon with bodies by the subjective action of the late-born gods.

In

fine, this

examination of the nature and func

tions of the Oeol 6ewv enables us to determine their

metaphysical value with some assurance. They are not co-ordinate with the rpia Bvrjra yevTj, except in so far as they constitute the erepoiaxns of a vorjrbv ^wov,
but are related to them as the supreme Now is to the Ideal vorjfjLara. If the term TrapdSeiy/jLa be understood
to denote the cognitions of
84

^rv^

functioning in the

Compare

the use of

tai<pvris

in

rt Oav/jLaarbv r\\v tyvaiv

na\6v

K.T.A., Gorg.

Symp. 2IOE 523 E avrfj
that

rfj

r^v xJ/vxV 9*povrra f^al^vris
conceives the individual
jucfl

a.TroQa.v6vTos e/coo-rou.

The former passage
is

mind confronting
ftv,

which

avrb naff avrb

the latter represents the disembodied soul of the particular man after death. Both depict a juxtaposition of the properties of ovcria and yeveo-ts, which except in a moment of transition
impossible.

O.VTOV /j.ovoei5es del

is

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

105

mode

of TCLVTOV, and the term elKwv to denote the

cognitions of ^f%^ functioning in the mode of Odrepov, then I conceive that the position assigned by Plato to the 6eol Oe&v may be fairly represented by the follow

ing diagram

:

TrapdSeiyfjLa Oed?

eltccov

Oeoi 0cu!v

Oeoi
(b)

rpia QvijTa

the question, What of the There is but subjective aspect of the Ideal gods ? one fitting term for a minor order of dlSioi Oeoi, namely
Lastly,

we approach

Sat/move?.

And

this Plato

has used to describe the
:

reasoning powers of particular men Tim. 90 A TO 8e Trepl rov Kvptwrdrov Trap
SiavoeicrOai, Set T^Se,
&>?

rjjuv

apa avro

Ibid.

90 C are

Se del depaTrevovra TO delov

re avrbv ev KeKocr^pevov rbv SaijULova %VVOLKOV
ev avrq)

By
85

SaliJUtiv

SiafapovTws evbainova elvai. 86 then Plato means the intelligence
derivation from
Sa-fi/J-uv

With the Platonic

in Crat.
flffl

398 B L. and S.

compare

Archil. 3, 4 TCIUTTJS yap Kfivoi 8ai/j.ovcs

fj-dx^s.

io6

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

that part of us which is the nearest approximation to 86 Ideal OewTTjs. called TO It is indeed sometimes

on grounds which we have already examined. But for the most part individuals are relegated to the
6elov

region of
as

ere/oor?;?,

and

their highest faculty described

TO Oeiorarov TWV Trap rjjuv (Tim. 73 A)

TO OeioraTov TWV ev rjfuv (Ibid. 88 B)
o detorarov

r

eo"n

KOI T&V ev r^jMV irdvrtov Seo*7TOT-

ovv (Ibid.

44 D)
its

TO eavrov deio-rarov (Rep. SSgE).

He who
0eto? (Rep.
life
is

precepts deserves the name of 500 D, Epist. 340 c), and the resultant
follows
".

TrdvTcov

TWV

/Slav

deio-rcnos (Phileb.

33

B,

cp.

Laws 766 A).
Enough has now been
The
OeoL
objective aspect

said to prove that a theo
is

logical designation of Plato s Idealism

not chimerical.

of

Mind

is

represented on the one
the other by the Ideal

hand by

the supreme 0eo?,

and on

The

subjective aspect
;

of the former finds expres
Sa///,oz/e?

sion in the Beol 6e&v

that of the latter in the

of individuals.
If
it

be asked

stand to the evil World-soul of the

In what relation does this hierarchy Laws ? I should

reply that, since vow is del 0eo? (Laws 897 B), Necessity or the force which produces the degeneration of
86

Tim. 41

c,

69 D, 720.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

107

justly described not only as avoia, but also as TO aQeov 87 whether in the case of the supreme

may be
Mind,

,

Laws
Theaet,

897 B ^rv^rj...dvoia

vyyevo{jiei>r}

TrdvTO,

av

rdvavrta TOVTOL^ aTrepyd^erat,.

I/6E

Trapa^e^yfjidrcDv,

o>

(f>i\6,

eV

TO>

own

eaT(i)T(tiv,

rov pev Oelov evBaifjioveardrov, rov 8e

ddeov dOXtwrdrov
or
in

that of the subordinate minds,
Brj

Tim. 86 B voaov ^ev
Rep.

^u^?

avoiav
&ov\ovrai,...ovK

58QE

el

Se TO eavrov fetor arov VTTO
teal

rdra)

re

^napwrdrw

apa

Thus the
o?,

Oeoi Oewv, so far as

they represent the

are dyaOol irdaav dpeTtjv

they deviate from his
sible
for

(Laws 8996), so far as perfection, are evil and respon
of their

the

defects

dependent creations.

natural Similarly with particular specimens of the kinds so far as they approximate to their Idea, they
:

are Bela and evbaipova

;

so far as they recede therefrom,

they are adea and

A
from

word or two may be added with regard to

subsequent terminologies. next to nothing is known
ev

;

Of Speusippos usage but his severance of vow

and rdyaObv must have produced theological
sort.
8c6s. airy rii/bs

complications of a serious
67

Cp. Tim. 53 B 6Tav

io8

THE METAPHYSICAL
With regard
to

BASIS

Xenokrates our information
88

is

less

scanty.

Aetios

affirms of this philosopher s

religious theories that ra Trporepa Trapa rov TlXdrayvos
/jLTa7re<f)patcev.

And

if

we

allow for

Xenokrates*

identification of the Ideas with

Mathematical
in

num

bers

the statement

may

be accepted as

the main

the gods of the Platonic theocracy play their part in the comprehensive system of Xeno
correct.

At least all

krates.
(a)

A

Corresponding to the objective deities we find supreme and unitary IVot)? called Zevs or
:

(/3)

TTpWTO? #609. Certain Swa/zet? or Oeiai Siwa/xet? inherent in elemental forms.
6eu>v

The
(7)

place of the subjective deities is filled by The stars or OXv^Tnoi Oeol, which combine make a collective ovpavos also known as a
stars are the result of a union

to

0eo<?.

These
the

between
or,

One and

the indeterminate

Dyad

in

allegorical phrase,

between Zevs

Trarrjp

and the

(8)

The
/-toi/e?

souls of individual
89
;

men

are called

&u-

and even the beasts have some

instinct

of the Divine. 90
38

Stob.

Ed.

i.

i.

29 b ed. Wachsmuth

i.

p. 37, 2.

89
90

Arist. Top.

.6. 112 a 37.
xiii.

Clemens Strom. V.

87 KaQ6\ov yovv

rV v*pl

TOV Qelov Zvvoiav

EevoKpciTTjs.. OVK aTTf\irici Kal eV rots a\6yois fyois

(quoted by Zeller

op. at. p.

592.)-

OF PLATO
Plato
s

S

ETHICS.

109

opposition between the power that makes for good and the power that makes for evil reappears 91 perhaps in Xenokrates broad contrast between Zeu?
UTraro?

and Zevs

vearos.

But the

further recognition

abparoi seems a mere concession On the whole, Xenokrates to popular superstition. their theology follows the Platonic outlines, though author s design is marred and obscured by the attempt
of vTrocek rjvoi
SaiiJioves

ed innovations of his successor.
Aristotle likewise held the truth of the

maxim 92-

But a modified system of Trdvra (pvaei e%et TL Oeiov. metaphysics caused certain changes in his theological
vocabulary.

The conception

of a creative

i/ou?

he

s account of the appears to have borrowed from Plato like his master, he describes it by supreme Mind, and,

the term #eo?

:

Met. A.
6
6.

7.

1072 b
TI

1830.
rj

0eo<?

vovs earlv

eTre/cetvd TL
y

C^.frag. 46, 1483 a 27 rov vov, Top. E.

136^
6
fj,ev

28

= 6 6ebs Pol.T. 16. 12870 7 %wov vor)Tov ovv rov vovv Ke\eva)v apxew So/eel Ke\eveiv
12.

End. H. dpxetv rov 0eov, Eth.

1245 b 16 ov
rj
w<7Te

yap OVTCOS 6 Oeds ev e%6f, d\\a @e\Tiov d\\o n voelv irap auro? avrov.

Since, however, Aristotle s ontology recognises

no

91 Clemens Strom. V. xiv. 116, Plut. Plat. Qu. Phil. Gr. p. 287). (quoted by R. and P. Hist.

ix.

I,

2.

p.

1007

93

Arist. Eth. Nic.

H.

14.

1153^

32-

I

io

THE METAPHYSICAL
ISecu,

BASIS

Xcopi&ral

he

is

free to transfer the title Oeol

from

the Ideas to the starry spheres, without the

encum

brance of a neologism such as Plato s Oeol Oewv, or the confusion of equivocal names such as those of Xenokrates gods
:

Met. A.
ova las

8.

8 14 Oeovs 1074 de mund. 2. 391 b elvau,
.

.

.

ra?

1419

Oewv

OiKrjrripiov

ovpavbs

tovofjuaGrai

Oela Psych. A.

2. 17.

405 a

K.r.\. Cp. ra de part. an. A. 5. 32,

645 a
1
1

4, dvOpcoirov TroXv Oeiorepa Eth. NIC. Z. f. 141 a 34, ra Qavepa rwv Oeiw Met. E. I. 1026 a

ra Oeiorara TWV fyavep&v Phys. B. 4. 196^ 33, ra Oela crcofjiara Met. A. 8. 1074^ 30, de caelo B. 12. 292$ 32, and the more definite
8,

expressions of [Alex.] in Met. ed. Hayduck p. rocrovTot, QGCLL at o-fyalpai, 709, 28 ff. Oeol
. . .

e^rjpTTjfjLevot

rfj?

deiOTdrrj^ Kal

apLerrjs ovarian,

ibid. p.

709, 33 elvlv ovv Oeol Kal Oelov

Trepte-^ov TTJV o\ijv (frvcriv Kal
ibid. p. ?2I,
/jLevwv

rov anravia

31

els

Oeos eVrt.
/J.ev,

ra yap rwv
fteOegei

air La

Oeol

a\\a

Kal

Tc3

/3ov\rjfjLari,

rov Trpcorov Kal ftaKapicordrov e%ijp-

rrjvrai z/oo?.

Again, Aristotle who is similarly impressed with the divine nature of thought (Psych. A. 4. 14. 408 b 29, Met. A. 8. 1074^ 1 6, de part. an. A. io. 686 # 28, de an.
gen. B.
3.

736

27)

speaks of particular minds in

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

ill

terms that repeat the language of the Platonic dia
logues Eth. End. H.
:

14.

12480 27 opposes
A.o>

TO ev r^fuv

Oelov to ev ro3 6

6eb<$.

Eth. NlC. K.
Probl. AT.

7.

II77&
irepl

1

6 TWV 6V
(cp. 9.

rjfjLLV

TO OeiQTCLTOV.
35) uses TO

7.

9620 22

9620

0i6rarov TWV
It
is,

r)fj>as

of the

human

head.

ing was
pupil
:

therefore, highly probable that Plato s teach the source of the saying attributed to his

Clemens Strom.

VI.

vi.

53

ApivTOTek rjs
TT}?

Saifjioo-i,

Ke XprjcrOai irdvTas

av6p(i>irovs

\eyet (TvvofjLaproveVo-ft)/>taTco(7eQ)9,

aiv auTOt? irapa TOV xpovov

Trpo^rjTiKov TOVTO /jLadrj/jLa \a/3oov /cal /cara0e/jLvo^ els ra eavrov /3i@\la, fjurj o/xo\07jcra? o0ev
v<j)el\-

ero TOV \6yov TOVTOV.
Cic. defin.
ii.

12.

Aristoteles,

40 "hominem ad duas res, ut ait ad intellegendum et agendum esse
deum"
. .

natum quasi mortalem

\oyiKov &ov TO Arist.frag. 187, 1511 a 43 TOU TO 8e avOpcoTros, TO 8e olov TlvQafjt,v ecTTt Qeos,
.

76/909.

might be shown that the theology of the neoPlatonists in some measure revived the usage of the Academy. Plotinus, for example, mentions
It
(a)

6 TTaTrjp Oeos 6

93
,

i.e.

the supreme Triad of TO ev

+

vow +
93

Enn.

v.

i.

112

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
(ft)

The

voepal Swa/xet?,
in

z>.

the Platonic Ideas,

which consist
sharing
(7)
(8)
its

the supreme IVoi)? and, as 94 animation, are termed 0eot
.

of particular men. But to pursue the subject would carry us too far It is of more immediate importance to pass afield.
SatfjLoves

The The

6pa)jj,evoi 6eol

95
,

i.e.

the stars.
96

and the

6eol

from the theological aspect of Plato s philosophy to the moral deductions which he expressly drew there
from, bearing in

mind that

his ontology

was from

first

to last intended to serve as a
reflection.

sound basis

for ethical

94

Enn.

V.

i.

4, cp. ibid. II. ix.
ftiroi;

Ka\bv

rwv VOIJTUV Ofwv
ircd/ras
/.

ibid.

8 TTUS OVK &v ris &ja\fj.a fi/apyes V. i. 7 irav p.ev rb T&V

K<i\\os t

8e

Oeovs voyrots.

lamblichus too

calls the

Ideas

vofpoi (v.
95

votjToi) Qeoi ap.

Prokl. in Tim. 94 C.
i.

Enn.
&\\a

V.

i.

4, cp. ibid. V.

2

errrt Se Kal

faios 0eJs, 6ri

e^vxos

t

Kal TO.
96

&(TTpa.

Enn.

v.

i.

2, 4.

to Porphyry, others
rbi>

by

their respective Saifioves,
v<pei/j.cvov

Plotinus was himself guided by a 6e6s, according Mo/copjos c? 8fbv

i\<av

Sai/Jiova Kal ov

rou

yevovs rbv

<rvv6vra

(

Vit. Plot.

IO).

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

113

PART

III.

METAPHYSICAL DESCENT AND MORAL ASCENT.
In the foregoing chapter I have emphasised the between the objective and the subjective

distinction

aspects of Plato s ontology. The former was found to be the purposive pluralisation of a supreme Mind,

abiding in eternal self-sameness, and invested with all the credentials of divinity. The latter was the necessary
eWTacrt9 of every such Mind, whereby it passed out of the sphere of identical being into that of diverse

becoming, and stooped from the sovereignty of an
Ideal 0eo9 to the subservience of individual Saipoves.

however, counterbalanced by certain compensatory tendencies which must not be over looked. Metaphysics indeed compels a 0809 tcdra),
is,

This declension

but Morality with equal insistence demands a 0809 avw and it remains to present the dictates of the one
;

in

such a manner as will satisfy the claims of the

other.

Now it will be remembered that we have repeatedly
described the objective world as a pattern, the sub
jective

as its copy. And this language not only to particulars themselves which, applies

world

u4

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
7^77,

whether they be the 6eol Oecov or the rpia OVIJTO, are in any case semblances of higher verities,
Tim. 39 E TOVTO
Trpo? rrjv
fjirep
8rj

TO Karakonrov aireip^d^ero avrov
(f>va-iv.

rov TrapaSeiyfJLaros aTrorvTrovaevos
1/01)9

ovv

eVoucra? tSea?

T&>

o ecrrt ffiov, olai

re eveiai Kal oaaij KaOopa, roiavras KOL rocraura?
elv

Kal roSe cr%eiv.

etcrl

Srj

rerrape?,

ovpdviov 06MV 76^09, a\\rj $e Trrrjvbv Kal e Kal aepoTropov, rplrrj Se evvftpov eI8o?, Tretyv

Xepaalov riraprov but also to the conditions of particular existence.

For

Time,

according to Plato,
is

is

an image of Eternity, and

Space a simulacrum of Ideal Otherness.

The former fact Tim. 37 D et/co) 8
ev evl

stated in so

many words

:

eVt^oet KLVTJTOV Tiva alwvos Tro^oYU,
a/jia

Kal SiaKoafjicov

Ka T

ap(6fjLov

ovpavbv iroiel fuevovros alcovos lovaav alaviov elKova, TOVTOV

ov 8^ ypovov

a)VOfjLaKafjiev.

The

latter

is

a legitimate inference from Tim. 520,

where the

thesis that

we wrongly import
is

spacial con

ceptions into the world of Ideas following argument
"

supported by the

:

A

particular has not an absolute but a relative existence it is in fact the mere phantasm of
;

another object
in

:

hence

it

demands a something
it

which

it

may

appear, unless indeed
utter nonentity.

is

to be reduced to an

[This

something

is

Space.]

But

in the region of real

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

115

existence for one thing
in

(sc.

Idea) to be formed

another thing (sc. Idea 97 ) would be to make that other thing both one and two, which is
[Therefore between the Ideas there no Space, but only Otherness.]" This amounts to saying that Space, the medium
impossible.
is

of subjective pluralisation, corresponds to numerical Otherness, the medium of objective pluralisation.

Thus the question

raised

by
.
.

Aristotle in Phys. A. 2.

209^33
TlXdrcovi /jLV70i Xeicreov
iSr)
.

Sia rl ov/c ev TOTTCO

ra

KCU ol apiduoi, elirep TO /AeOeKTi/cbv 6 TOTTO?,

176

70V

/J,<yd\OV

KCU

7OV

fJLlKpOV

6Wo? 70V
Tft)
TifJbO,i(i>

fJLedeK7t,KOV

617

T7J?

uX???,

to<77Te/3

V

yeypafav will be met by the answer that the term TOTTO?
rightly used
till

is

not

Ideal alterity has passed into indi

vidual extension.
It was this doctrine that particulars and the modes of particular existence bear to ideas and the modes of Ideal existence the relation of an ei/ccov to

Mr. Archer-Hind (ed. Tim. p. 171) paraphrases: "For true reason declares that, while the type is one, and the image another, they must be apart ; for they cannot exist one in the other and so be one and

97

two

at
:

once."

But surely rb

fj.ev

and rb

Se are both forus ovra,

i.e.
/*>

Ideas
K.T.A..

this is
.
,T<f

.

shown by the whole form of construction eiKovi Se ovrcas ovn. It is no question of the old doctrine of
"

irapovvia,"

but a clear statement of the reason

why

particulars are

extended, Ideas unextended.

n6
its

THE METAPHYSICAL
irapaSevyfJia

BASIS

which determined the whole alle and so popularised the gorical form of the Timaeus,
"

belief that

This visible World

is

but a Picture of the

a Pourtraict, things are not and as they counter truely, but in equivocal shapes, some more real substance in that invisible fabrick." feit
invisible, wherein, as in

The

it links the peculiar value of this imagery is that world of relative to the world of absolute being, and

thereby expresses just that aspect of Idealism which of might best serve as a basis for the structure
In other words, the artistic setting of the has a special significance of its own, inasmuch Timaeus as the raison d etre of Plato s ethics may be said to lie
morality.
in the simple reflection that, if the world as we know it is a portrait, it ought to be as exact a portrait as
possible.
f Starting from this point of contact between

physics and Morals,

I

shall

attempt to

Meta show how the

mark out the rational larger lines of matured Platonism In so doing we should of individual conduct. end
remember
thati-the true unit of voluntary action
is

not the particular but the VOIJTOV l&ov.
&aXe7o//,e0a,
"We

Nevertheless

aAA ov

0eofc,

and therefore

must translate our motives, like our speech, Into the lower phrase that suits the sense
the limitedly apprehensive.
level

O

Let
"

Each
It will

have

its

language

!

be convenient to begin by resuming the

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

117

constitution of the moral agent. Every VOTJTOV possesses four faculties, namely yoO?, e-Tn 0-777^77, Sofa, the three last being moments in the sub a0-#77<jt9,
jective evolution of the
yevecris
first,

and opposed

to

it

as

to

6W&>?

over la.

Particulars which, as such,
<yi<yv6fjieva

belong to the region of debarred from vorj&is they with 7ricmj/j,r), Sofa, and
:

are consequently
98

are,

however, endowed
,

lower forms of

life

though in the even these are to a greater or less
ai<r0rj<ris

extent in abeyance. This catalogue of the cognitive powers accords well with the usage of the more advanced Platonic
writings.

In the earlier dialogues pure thought is not unfrequently ascribed to individual thinkers (e.g. Rep.

The Philebus adopts 5 1 1 C, D, 5 24 c, Phaed. 83 B. alib.). a half-way position for it expressly distinguishes the human i/oO? of 21 D, 22 c, 580, from the a\j]Qivo^ ical
;

Betas

vov<;

of 22

C,

28

C,

30

D.

But the Timaeus no

where"
i>oO?

:

it

speaks of the particular man as possessing describes him as being at most a vov teal
epao-TTJv (46 D),

and

his finest faculty as

98

Cp. Stob.

Ed.

i.

Ixi.

I

(Hermes) ed. Wachsmuth

& vovs fv Ttf 6*$, 6 \oyiv/j.b? ev

T$

avOp<air(f.

i. p. 275, 16 Aristotle after describing

{Mel. A. 9. 1074 b 35 seqq.) the v6t]cris vo-^ffews of the supreme Being continues Qaivcrai 5 aid &\\ov i) liri<TT-}]i*.i) /col TJ atffdijffis Kal rj

$6a
99

Kal
It

fj

Sidvota, eouTTjs 5

tv -rraptpycp.
ex**"

does indeed use the phrase vovv
reasonable,"

(68 B), vovv

ex*"

(89 B )

=

"sensible,

(90 D)

etc.

But to

and the compounds Ivvosiv (870), ttaravo^lv avoid them would have been mere pedantry.

ii8

THE METAPHYSICAL
rov vov
fapo/jLevr)

BASIS
10

Svvafus
it

(7

1

B).

To
D

females and the lower animals

alludes in 91

arranging them in a descending scale according as they approximate to or recede from that higher

92

B,

mentality vov KOI avoids d7ro@o\fj KOL /crrjo-ei, (92 B) while 77 B brings even vegetable life into the same
register,
<w

;

0^77? pev

real

\oyio-pov

(

= eVto-TT;^?;?)

re

In like Se. alaOrjaeoos manner the second hypothesis of the Parmenides
/cal
yu-ereo-rt

vov

TO

101

/JbrjSev,

enumerates the powers of the human intellect Farm. 15 5 D va ^ eTrtcmjfjLTj ST; eirj av avrov
:

teal

86ga
avrov
but, as

Kal aladricris, eiTrep Kal vvv rj^el^ Trepl
TTCLVTCL

ravra TTpdrrofAev
since, this dialogue

we have seen sometime

confines the range of pure thought to the Ideal world.

Here, however, we encounter a difficulty which has beset the student of the Platonic system ever
since

Farm. 134 B was penned.
is /JLOVQ)

If the realm of true
C),

existence

Oearr)

vu>

(Phaedr. 247

and

if

vovs

100 This strange expression seems chosen to escape the direct attri bution of vovs to a particular. Similarly in 51 D, where Plato calls the Ideas a*/o/<r07jTo rj/j.uv efty, voov^va. n6vov, the position of the
u<

pronoun
101

is

instructive.

Simplicius (in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck p. 317, 11) states that plants %x ftv Al/J/ TWO. alffdrjffi^, a.fj,v8poTpav 5e t) KOTO TO &\\ws cD/To, xal &s UXdrtav olov Ka6cv8ov(rav atffBtiffiv. Similarly Empedokles (according to Sextus Math. viii. 286) TrdVro j}iov \oyiica rvyx&veiv, Kal
f<j)Tj

ov

ua pAvov a\\a

Kal Qvrd, prjrus

ypaQuv

irdura yap

IffQi
<f>p6vr)<riv

OF PLATO
is

S

ETHICS.

119

not allowed to the individual as such,

how

is it

that

a supreme
plurality
?

Plato himself feels so secure about his ground-plan of Mind existent both as a unity and as a

The

confidence which he displays
[lev

e.g. in

Tim. 29 B TOV vov

ovv

JMOVI/JLOV

KOI (BejBaiov

teal

per a

KaTa<j)avov<>

IAOVI/AOVS KOI
yifTOi<;

KO.& oaov [olov] re dve\6
elvai Kal diaviJTOis,

TOVTOV Bel

could only be justified by the actual intuition of an Ideal
#eo<?

:

Tim. 7 2 D ra

fjuev

ovv irepl

^f%)9 ...

TO pen d\rj/aoz^o)?

102

f fyu,^>/J(ra^T05,
TO ye
/JLTJV

TOT av OVTO)

a

etVo? /c.r.X.,

intuition is beyond the reach of the indi however great his genius and however unceasing vidual,
his efforts.

and that

As

Chalcidius

103

"

puts

it,

sine divinitatis

adminiculo ipsa per se anima
atque intellegere
divinum."

nihil

valeat spectare

The

difficulty

was a

real one,

and such as

to bring
:

a consistent thinker within sight of scepticism

Farm. I35C

ri ovv Trotrjo-eis

0i\o(7o^>/a?

Trepi,

;

Trot

Tptyei dyvoov/JLevwv TOVTCOV ; Plato meets it by two considerations,
103

(i)

The

highest

Cp. Tim. 68 D 0ebs pev TO vo\\a

fls ev

tvytcepawvyai Kal

Trd\ti>

e{ cvbs fls TTO\\O. Sia\vetv iitavus ftriffrdfievos

apa

Kal SUJ/OT^S, avQptaciffavBis TTOT*

iruv Se ouSels ovStTfpa
(<rrai.

TOVTWV iKavbs o&Tf

Herri

vvv O&T

103

In

Plat.

Tim. 41

E, ed.

Wrobel

p. 202.

THE METAPHYSICAL
human
VOTJO-IS,

BASIS

eTrtcm^fy though

it

can never attain to divine

may
104
:

yet

be

reckoned

an approximation
irdvra

thereto

Tim.

5

1

E Kai TOV

/*ev

(sc.

Sogrjs

d\7)0ov<>)

avSpa fjL6Te%iv (frareoVj Be yevos ^pa^v TL.

vov $e 0eou?

The
ro)v

761/0? in

op&w?

ye

question is no doubt TO TWV KOI d\77&w? yevo? (Epist.

%

3 26 A).

Philosophers

may

in

a sense be said vov ^ere^ELv

inasmuch as
the

their intelligence leads

them

to desiderate

certain transcendent fixities in nature as a basis for
eTTUTTijfjLr}
fjLev

which they do possess.
1

They apprehend
...

rav

l&eav vow /car

eV terra pav

ra
105

S*

airoye vvdit is

fjuara alcr6rj(Tt ical

Sofa (Tim. Locr. 946).

And

to

this

appeals
truth.

ayad&v dvBpwv o/jLo^pdSfjLcov 1/0770-4? when he wishes to establish any fundamental
that Plato
See, for example, the tenor of
.
(ro(f>ol

Phileb. 28 C Trai/re? yap (TD^WVQIXTIV 01 z/ou? eVrt /3ao-t\eu? rjfiiv ovpavov re Kal
fo>?

.

.

777?.

Nevertheless the wisdom of
earth-born.
"

men

It

cannot by

itself

only provide the needed
Plato, half in jest,

is

at best

divinitatis adminiculum."

Hence

half seriously, delights to invest his authorities with a

supernatural halo, and to speak of their contributions to knowledge as of a divine revelation. In Soph. 216 B
104

See the admirable remarks of Mr. Archer-Hind ed. Timaeus pp.
Plat. Epist. d. 3 10 A.

48-49.
105

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
the
critic
;

123

of

KTUCOS

and

in P/iileb.

immature Idealism is #609 rt? i6c the revised ontology
"a

is

called in so

many words

gift of the gods to

man

kind

"

vOpwTrovs
fj,ol,

6<n?,

o>?

76

Ka-ra<f>aiv6Tcu

Trodev CK Qewv Ippityrj Sid TWOS Ilpo/jirjOea)?
(f>avordr(f)

TLVL Trvpi
ical

teal

ol fiev TraXaioi,
oltcovvres,

fjfjLwv

ejyvrepw Oecov
&>?

ravrrjv
7ro\\(t)V

<f>?ifjLrjv

Trape&ocrav,

ef

ei/o? fjiev /cat etc

OVTWV TWV uel

Xeyofjievcov elvai, Trepas oe
^v/jL(f)urov

KOI aireipiav ev aurot?

e^ovrwv.

The
his

phrase of this passage aptly expresses just that scheme which one particular man could not by
last

unaided reason have descried
in

;

it

gives us the

appended diagram, Mind, and iro\\a the Ideal
(2)

which

ev

denotes the supreme

series.

any one turns a deaf ear to this theory of inspiration, or quotes by way of retort Rep. 381 E
But
if

av

VTTO

TOUTODV

dvaTreiOo/jLeval

al /j,r}Tpes ra

W,
fjurj

ox?

apa
et?

6eoi rti/e? irepiep Xpv Tcu

TroXXot? feyot?

teal

TrarroSaTTot? iv%a\\6nevoi, iva

apa pev

0eoi>9

^Xaa^^waLv, apa

Be TOU?

TratSa? aTrep^d^wvTai, SetXcrepou?

Plato can

He

fall back on a less pregnable position. holds that the souls of individuals have before

their incarnation stood face to face with the Creator,

I2 4

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

and learnt from

his lips rrjv rov iravros fyvcriv

(Tim.

41 E). This they were enabled to do, because the souls of men conceived as not yet associated with
their bodies

do not
all

differ

from the Idea of Man, under

whose
fall.
106

intuition

noetic existence

would naturally
in fact
:

The

doctrine of Anamnesis
It

is

the safe
it

guard of Idealism.

may

be denied

but

can

hardly be disproved, and as has before been hinted it presupposes some such relation of the ideas to Mind
as

was

from the assumptions of the Parmenides. The confinement of pure thought to the world of
elicited

Ideas cannot, then, invalidate the foundations of the
Idealist system, because the individual philosopher

not only builds

upon the experience of previous

thinkers but also possesses an innate criterion of his

own

structure

:

Phaedrus 2496, C
)

Set

yap avOpwirov %vvievai
rovro Be ecrnv
r)

KCLT

CK 7ro\\(H)v lov aladrjcrewv et? ev
dvd/jivrjffis

^vvaipov^evov.
e/ceivwv.
teal

a TTOT elSev

rjfjLWv

^rv)(rj cv/juTropevOelara
(fra/JLev

vTrepiSovGa a vvv elval
TO ov oVro)?.
8to

real

dvafJ.6vrj

Brj

St/caiW
7T/305

TTTepovrcu

rj

Tov

<f>t\oa6(j>ov

Sidvoia
8um/z>,

yap

eVetVot? del eari
0eb<f
a>

i^vrifMrj

Kara

vrpo?

106

Diog. Laert.
vot\T<i)V

iii.

38 iSmfrara

/j.ev

aofyiav

vyc irai
irepl

(sc.

Plato) eivai

ruv

xal uvrus &VTUV

4iri(rTr)/jLir)v,

^v

<pT)(n

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

125

The removal
clears the

of this difficulty in epistemology also
for ethical advance.
It

way

might have

been argued that to make the world as we know it conform to an Ideal pattern is a futile task for those

who have no acquaintance with that pattern. But if it be conceded that we can not only approach to such knowledge but also appraise our own progress, the
reduction
of
individual

conduct to directive rules

demands immediate

attention

The foremost
is

of these rules, as laid

down by
6ea>.

Plato,

This was the general obligation of bpoiwai* indeed a duty inculcated at all stages of his philo sophic development, with the constant qualification of

approximate success
Rep. 500 C
fc6<r(jLi6$
#/&>

:

&rj

KOI

ico(T/jbi(p

6

-ye

faXocrocfros

6/u\<wv

re Kal

Oelos

et?

TO

Svvarbv dv@pa)7rq)

yiyverat.
Ibid.

613 B

eTTiTrjSevcov

dperrjv

efc

ocrov

SWCLTOV

dvOpcoTTto bfJioiovddai dew.

Phaedrus 25 3 A
KOLdOaL
?rpo<?

eviropovai

ia TO (rvvrbva)? rjvay/cal
ef;

rbv Oebv /SXeTret^,
ev0ov(n,a>vTes,

avrov

rfj

jjLVTJfjir))

etceivov

dvovai ra

edrj

KOI ra eVtTT/Seu/u-aTa, ica& oaov
(cp.

Svvarbv 0eov dvQpayrra) /jLeraa^elv
Theaet.
1

249

c).

76 A,

B

Sto teal ireipacrdai %pr) evdevbe e/celae

favyeiv o TI Td%t,<7Ta. Kara TO Bvvarov.

Be
<f>vyrj

126

THE METAPHYSICAL
Tim. 29 E Trdvra 6

BASIS

ri /-caXwra yeveo-dat,

(3ov\ij0rf

TrapaTrXtfcria eavrw.

Laws 716 C

rbv ovv

rc3

TOIOVTM

(sc.

Oew) TrpocrfaXf}

yevrjo-opevov et? ^vvafjuv o TI fidXicrTa teal

avrbv

TOIOVTOV dvayxalov yiyveo-Oai.

But with the modification of the earlier metaphysic it became possible to employ more precise definition.
I

have said that

in

Plato

s

maturer view the individual

and body soul being the active, the passive function of the same entity. One body result of this is that the later dialogues, while deter
consists of soul

man

mining the human reXo?
emphasise
aspects.

the

a twofold application, complementary nature of both its
in

The Timaeus,
fuyLtyu-erp/a

for

example, affirms that
r)

KOI a^etpia {Jbe^wv

^U^T)?

avrfjs

<r(t)jj,a

ment

avro (87 D), and insists on parallel develop as a mutual security. And the Lazvs, adopting

the customary division of TraiSeva-is into Music and Gymnastic, interpret the former to mean ra TT}? (0)^7}?

T?7<?

T ^ ? tyv%i)s Trpo? aper?}? TraiSelav, the latter ra rov crco/taTO? dperfjs (673 A).

(A)

To speak
is

first

individual souls

not

of ^y%/;. The rational end for as we might have supposed

the minimising of the difference between their own eTTio-Tij/jir) and the VOTJGIS of their corresponding Idea. For the Ideas themselves are as Aristotle says
(Met.

M.

6.

1080

12, alib.)
is,

irporepov KOI vorrepov, that

Numbers involving TO a definite succession of

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

127

Minds, each of which exhibits some part of the entire Mind and takes rank according to its noetic iroa-ov.

Hence Plato
to the

finds the

summum bonum

in

conformity

supreme
is

0eo? rather than in resemblance to

any
Par

of the Ideal OeoL

But how
ticulars, as

this o/itotWt?

Qew to be effected

?

such, are

debarred from rising to the

spaceless

and timeless condition of pure thought. Happily for us, the supreme 0eo9 no less than the Ideal 6eo\ passes into space and time as a plurality
ctfafiijcri?.

possessed of eVtcrr^T;, Sofa,
object

The aim and
to the

of particular morality

is

approximation

supreme
to theirs.

0eo? as revealed to us in the #eot Oewv.

Our

eTria-TrjfjLT),

our Sofa, our afoOrjcri*;, must be made like Otherwise we shall have failed of life s true

purpose Tim. 90 D
:

TO) 8
7raz>To<?

eV rjiuv 6eiw jfvyyevels

eld

Kivrjcreis

al TOU
Srj

Siavorjaeis KOI Trepifyopai

raurat?

^vveTTo/jievov e/cacrrov Sel
ie<f>6apfjieva<s

ra?

Trepl TTJV
e

ev rp /c<f)a\f) rjfjuwv TreptoSovs OovvTa Sta TO Kara^avOdveLV ra? rov
dpfjLOvtas re Kal
7T6pi,<f>opa$

TO) Karavoovfjievq) TO

tcaravoovv efo/AOtwo-at Kara rrjv dp^aiav fyvaw, o/uLOiaxravTa 8e Te\o? e^eiv rov TrporeOevTos dvOpcoTTOt? U7TO 00)V dpiCTTOV /3/OU TTpO? T6 TOV

Kal TOV eVetTct 107
words are noteworthy. Had the bonum been defined it might have been inapplicable to

107

These

last

as approximation to any single Idea,

128

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

This statement supersedes all previous and partial It is introduced by words which determinations.
epitomise the teaching of the Republic, the clause
rj

iravri

(sc.

rrj<;

^f%}9
Tpo<j)a<;

et Set)

ot/ceta?

/td(TT<0

ical

(90 C)

recognising just that apportioned activity which is the mark of genuine justice. 108 Nor do we lose sight
of the
fjLiKTos jSlos

advocated

in the Pkilebtis, for

with

this conception of the rational object is closely linked

a

ovce>Jri9

dv6pa)7rlvr)<;

evScu/jLovlas Kal dOXioTrjTOs (Theaet.
evSaijjLovia

175

c).

As

in the

Republic

was proportioned
c),

to attainment of SucauHrvinj (Rep. 5806,
later dialogues true pleasure

so in the
reali

depends upon the

sation of the
Theaet.
1

human end

109
:

ev T&J OVTI e<7TO)TCt)^, 76 E 7rapa&i,yiJ,dT(ov 7ov JAW Oelov evBat/jLOveardTOv, TOV Se aOeov
.

.

.

Laws 664 B
0ea)v
epovfjiev.

rbv avrov JjBiaTov re Kal apurTov VTTO
Xeyea-Qat,
$d<TKovre<$

j3lov

dXrjOea-Tara

the particulars of that Idea in their future

may by metempsychosis change
108

life, because such particulars their status in the Ideal order.

M Cp.

irpais
Kal

SiKaioffvvT)

7)/Ji<av

Rep. 433 E fj TOV oiiceiov re Kal tavrov efis re Kal kv 6fj.o\oyo iTO, 441 D Mj/rj/ioj/eureoj/ apa T]\uv, 6n fv avrtf sparry, Ka(TTos, KTOV kv ra avrov fKaffrov
e.g.
TU>V

ovros Sfacuoy re
109
(sc.
fj.ei>

<rrai

Kal

ra avrov irparruv. 42
irepl

Diog.

Laert.
yuci/

iii.

5e

ayaBwv

t)

naKuv rotavra e\eye
r^v 5
aper)]ir avrdpKrj

Plato)- reAos

zivai r}\v ItyfUtlwriv rep 6cf-

eTvai -rrpbs evSai/Jtoviav K.r.\,

OF PLATO
Ibid.

S

ETHICS.

129

732 E
a)?

Sei 8rj TOV tcdXXia-Tov filov eiraiveiv
T<a

^

povov
KOL
ro3

on

o-^rj^an Kparel vrpo? evSogtav, d\\a
eXarro) Be \VTrela-6ai Trapa

... /cparel Kal TOVTW o Trdvres ^jTovfie^j
7r\eto>,

%alpet,v

rov ftiov aTravra.

is

external manifestation of the supreme called collectively a evSafacov 0eo? (Tim. 34 B).

The

Mind The

philosopher who studies truth /crrjo-eax; eveica ev$al/j,ovos filovj KO.& ooov rjfjLwv T) <pva^ eVSe^erat (Tim. 68 E) may

win much

felicity in

the present

life

Tim. 90 C are Se
avrov
avTO)

del depairevovra TO 0elov e^ovra re

v

K6/co(T/jLr)]j,evov

TOV Saifjiova ^VVOLKOV ev

8ia<f>ep6vTO)s

evSatfj,ova elvai,

and

in the future

Ibid.

42 B 7rd\Lv eh
11

TTJV

TOV ^VVVO/JLOV i
evSai/jiOva
/cal

oi/crjo-Lv

do-TpoVj

ffiov

efot.

For

in truth the o-vvayvpfAos (frpovrfaews, the conversion
is

of opinion into knowledge,
&i,a(f>epa)v

pvpia) ?rpo? evScupoviav

(Politic.

272

c).

Even on

the perceptive

plane conformity to nature s design is attended by Thus of sensation in general we read pleasure.
:

Tim. 64 C TO
69
.

ftev Trapd tyixrw
.

.

.

.

dkyeivov, TO S

.

<f)V(7lV

f)$V.

110

The number
(see p.
103).

6fuv must balance that of the rpla Qv-nra. the philosopher is said to travel to the of the star, not to become an actual star himself.
of the
fleol

Hence

9

THE METAPHYSICAL
Tim. 8 1 D

BASIS

E Kara
//.ez>

<f>v(T(,v

peO"

77801^9

efe

av yap TO

irapa

<])V(n,v

d\yew6v, TO
ovKer

Ibid.

83

A

rdtyv rwv Kara
,

fyvaiv

pa /juev avra avTols Sea TO airoKavcnv eavrwv e^ew

^6

and of the single senses Tim. 66 B OTrorav Taste.
:

rj

^varaa-i^

.

.

.

ol/ceia

Travrl TTCLV TO TOIOVTOV.

S me ll.
ev
.

Ibid.
.
.

67 A TO

1
O"

f)Si>

Kal TO Xwirrjpbv ... TO
77

(Buifypevov ... TO 8e ... tra\iv

ir

Hearing.

Ibid.
Be Tot?

80 B

fj&ovrjv

pev TO??

afypocriv,

ev<f)po-

e^pocn
ev

Sia TTJV rrjs Qelas dpjjLOvevofiewrjv
</>opat9

Ovrjrals

In the last extract 1780^

is

the emotion normally
;

accompanying that which conforms to nature to consciousness of that vvvri is the higher feeling due
conformity.
(B) Secondly,

ev(f>po-

we have
crw/ui.

to consider the character
distinction

and conditions of

Here a

must be
is

made between matter and shape. of which our limbs are apparently constructed
a portion of the whole U7ro8o^
7ez/e<re&>9,

The

material out

but

borrowed

therefrom (Phileb. 29 c) and to be returned thereto

OF PLATO S ETHICS.
(Tim. 43
A).

131

By

a law of orderly development, akin

to that which fixes the quadruple classification of the

natural kinds, this uTroSo^r/
sent

is

figured throughout with

the forms of the four elements

forms which repre
avTa, self-existent
111

not indeed
still

Ideas, but

any avra icaO certain avra e $

eavrcov,

logically

In this substrate the transient shapes of particulars, the elaiovra ical egiovra of Tim. 5OC, are momentarily expressed. They are declared to
distinct types.

be TWV

OVTCOV ael /xt/^^ara

already stated

for bodily shape the individual soul as viewed
;

is

as

by our

imperfect faculties, and the individual soul is but the Idea as it passes into the triple phase of genetic thought. This holds good, whether percipient and

percept belong to different species or to the same, or again coincide in a single personality. So far as

method

is

concerned
star,
is

it

matters not whether Sokrates

beholds a

or a friend, or himself.

vorjrbv cognised by of sensation, and the result must be a localisation of
cooi>

a VOTJTOV

oW

In any case a on the plane

the former

by the
clear

latter in the vTroSo^rj.

Now

it is

of this localisation

enough that the material content is a fractional part of the whole

cosmic avo-racns.

What

is

not at once clear

is

the

determination of specific contour and its connection with the shape of the universe. Why, for example,
111

Tim. 51

B.

132

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
Sokrates

is

body

unlike that of a star, and

by no
?

means hard

And how

to distinguish from are all three related to the

that of his friend

mundane sphere

?

The answer
rather than
evitable.

to these questions,
in

explicit

Plato

s

writings,
is

though implicit seems in

If a particular

shape

a particular soul

as

it follows that appears to particular cognition, of difference of embodiment presupposes difference^ the law As is the imita In fact we formulate soul.

it

:

tion

of the active

^v^,

so wil1 be the

unitation

f ^te

passive o-w/im.

certain definite types,

Individual souls were grouped under to viz. the fwa, according
vorjra

to the cosmic soul. their degree of approximation be similarly grouped Therefore individual bodies will viz. the natural kinds, tinder certain fixed forms, to the to their degree of approximation

according

cosmic body.

being endowed with superhumanwill be apprehended not as a man say, stellar thought limits of each several but as a star. Again, within the of personal shape will be referred species differences allowance being to differences of personal attainment, tendencies soon to be certain

A

made

for

retarding

noticed.

That
Aristotle

in

Plato

upon psychical

view physical was thus dependent from development may be gathered
s

s criticism in

Psych. A.

3.

22-23, 407 ^ *S- 2 4
TTW?

ov6ev Trpoo-SioptWre? 8ta TIV

alrlav

teal

OF PLATO
TOV

S

ETHICS.
Bo^etev av

133

(rco/xaro?.

KaiTot,

TOT*

dvayKalov elvai" Sia yap rrjv KouvwvLav TO fiev 7TOL6L TO 8e TTcicT^et Kol TO JJL6V KlVeiTCLl TO $ Kivel, TOVTWV 8 ovdev V7rdp%i TT/JOV a\\r)\a
ol 8e /JLOVOV TV^pixnv. TTOLOV ri r) tyv)(r), Trepl $e rov

ou^e^

eVt

TrpocrSiop%ovcriv,

axrTrep
TTJV

Kara TOV? IIvOcuyopiKOVS pvOovs
L&IOV ex^tv e28o? Kal

here brought against the Timaeus, admits the Koivuvia of an active soul with a which of this theory are passive body, is that adherents

The

objection

satisfied

when they have determined

the nature of

the former and do not trouble themselves about the The objection is a typical one. fitness of the latter.
It

amounts to a complaint that the theory
not with

is

incon

sistent,

presuppositions, of Aristotle s rejection of them as is said elsewhere those who posit Ideal Numbers, S OVK vtroOecriv, \eyoveiv, 6
:

Plato

s

but with

Trpo? ftey TTJV

op0w

X&>?

opOw
1082 b

7ro\\a
32).

yap

dvaipovcnv

(Met.

M.

7.

the Platonic standpoint to determine the also to determine the TTOiOTns of a given soul was as that body is the TTOIOTW of its body, inasmuch This account of the rela visualisation of that soul.

From

tion

subsisting between

the two

is

confirmed

by

I 34

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

Tim. 91 D 92 B, a passage which implies throughout that the nature of the body depends upon the nature
of the soul.
It agrees, too,

assigned by Plato to with awfj,a, e.g.

^rv^

with the priority always as analytically contrasted
vvv vvrepav
KOL
o

Tim. 34 B, C

rr)v Se Sr) tyvxfjv
\e<yeiv,
oi>To>9

ov%

o>?

7n^ei,povfjL6V

e^^av^aro

#eo9 vewrepav
VTTO vecorepov

ou yap av apyeadcn, Trpea-fivrepov

Laws 896 B
KOI

%vvep%as eiaaev. op#w? apa Kal /cvpia)s d\r)9e(TTaTd re
elprjKores

reXecorara

av elpev ^rv)
TJ/JLLV,
cra>//,a

Trporepav yeyovevai creo/zaTO?

repbv re Kal va-repov
icara
(frva-iv.

^^779 ap^o

Moreover, it justifies certain materialistic descriptions of soul which occur for the most part in the Timaeus

and are sometimes almost obtrusively
In 87 A, for example,
that,
it

unspiritual.

is

said of bodily
rfi

humours

when

rrjv

a$>

avrwv ar^iSa

TT}?

/j,7roi,ovcn.
<r<f)o$p(t)s

And

in

aeiovcrat,

ra?

43 D sensations are described as So too the TT)? ^v^ij^ irepiobovs.
in

bonds that bind soul to body are mentioned strangely tangible and visible connection
:

a

TOVTOIS gv/ATraaiv ap%rj [lev
<yap

f)

TOV fiveXov

<yevecn<s

ol

rov

(Biov

Secr/Aol

T^?

^^7)9

TO)

o-(t)fj,art

Iv

TOVTW

SiaSovfjuevoi,

Kareppi^ovv TO

76^09 (73 B )

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

135

Aristotle

These and similar examples of verbal license is never weary of attacking his motive if
;

being the elimination of all metaphor and inexactitude from the domain of rigid science
trust his followers
:

we may

Simplic. in Arist. Psych, ed.
Apia-TOTeXrjs
. .
.

Hayduck
. .

p.
. .

28,

n

ael euoOw?

.

OVK

.

avaipelv

avrrjv TTJV a\r)6eiav,

a\\a

JJLQVQV

26 Still, when in Psych. A. 3. n, 406 23, 407 25 he refutes at length the manner in which o Tifiaios it is hard to (frv&toXoyei rrjv "fyvxrjv K-WZIV TO
<r&>/Aa,

him of ignoring the language, namely Plato s another aspect of mind a
acquit

real justification for

such

belief that matter

belief

only which warranted the

is

extension of physical terminology to psychical pheno mena, and even palliated the chiasmus of the cosmic
soul.

There is, however, one difficulty besetting this view of the relation between mind and matter which
has not yet been examined.
as apprehended
If the

body

is

the soul
there

by

particular cognition,

how can

be any such disproportion between soul and body as is contemplated in Tim. 87 D ?
la"xypav

teal Travrrj

i

fjn~

yd\r)v a&Oevea Tepov

KOLI

etSo5 oiav

0^77?

Ka ^ orav av rovvavriov
woz>.

TOUTO), ov /ca\bv oXov TO

136

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
first

At

sight this passage certainly appears to gainsay
"

the rule enunciated above

:

As is the

imitation of the

active ^v^r), so will be the imitation of the passive

But a little reflection will show that the two statements are quite compatible. If a and p denote the active and passive aspects of the individual
o-wyu-a."

Sokrates on the plane of

en-Krrqfjuj,
a"

a

and/

the

same

and on the plane of aspects on the plane of Sofa, ala-Orjo-is, then the law concerning the parallel develop ment of ^f%?7 and crw/za may be represented by a
p"

series of equations

:

5.

Suppose now that Sokrates, though intellectually superior to the average man, suffers from some T&V o^^drwy. By the law physical defect, say TO
efo>

of correspondence this peculiar conformation of the eyes must accurately express a limitation of the power
of sight.

But such limitation may well coexist

with,

or even be brought on by, unusual mental develop ment. Indeed it is just this sacrifice of one set of
faculties to another that Plato here deprecates.

Let

us, he says, have no ill-conditioned disparity between If a be fully developed higher and lower functions.

and

a"

starved, or

if

a be starved and

a! fully

developed,

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

137

in either case there is a lack of
o>oi>

symmetry about
a^co,
fJLr)T

TO

%vvafjL<j)6Tepov,

o KaXovpev.
Srj

Tim. 88 B

fjbla

awr^pia

TT/JO?

fjbrjre

rrjv

avev
fjs,
"va

0"a>/*flT09

Mvelv

(Tw/jba

avev
KOI

afAVvo/Jieva) rylyvrjo-Oov

la-oppoirco

vyirj.

a practical precept, both yL6e\eT?; Siavoia, the exercise of active thought, and o-cofjLao-Kia, the cultiva tion of a healthy frame, are alike enjoined upon one

As

who would

imitate the

the result being a

mode

example set by the Universe of life more harmonious than

the high-souled but somewhat ascetic aspirations of the Phaedo:

Phaed. 67 D

TO

/ieXeT??/x<x

avro

rovro

ecm

KOL

Soul and body are indeed distinct, but the distinction Rather it is the is no longer to be an antagonism. Active contrast between inseparable complements.

and passive functions are to the particular what and voel&OaL are to the Idea.

voelv

condition is deter Granting, then, that physical mined by psychical development, we return to consider the effect produced upon the one by the graduated

attainment of the other.

The nearest approach to the vo^ais of the supreme 0eo? is, we hold, to be found in the sublime intelligence

138

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
u2
6ea)i>
.

of the Beol

Consequently the best imitation

of that circularity which symbolises 113 pure thought will be the spherical shapes and revolving orbits of

the ovpdvioi 6eol

:

Tim. 40 A
. .

TW

e

Travrl

Trpoa-eiKa^tov

evtcvicXov

Kivr)<rew

Be &vo Trpoarj^frev e/cdcrTq), rrjv
Trepl

ev TXVTO)

Kara ravra

TWV avrwv

del

ra

eavra) SiavoovfJLevq), rrjv 8e efc TO TrpoaOev.

Aristophanes
ov\o<f)Vis

myth
the

turns

to

similar

account the

TVTTOL of

makes the
moon,
still

children of the sun, the earth,

Empedoklean cosmogony. He and the
:

bear the impress of their divine origin Symp. iSQE, 190 B o\ov rjv eKacrrov TOV d TO elSo? V&TOV teal TrXeupa?
<TTpo<yyv\ov,
.

.

.

7rpL<f)6p rj

Se

rjv

KOL avra KOI

fj

Tropeia

&v

Sta TO Tot? yoveva-w ofioia elvai.

regards the present human frame, the #eol 6ewv have confined the revolutions of immortal soul in a
terrestrial

As

body, whereof the cranium

is

a copy of the
8uo oucra? TO
ov
irept,<f>epe<s

cosmos

:

Tim. 44 D Ta?
TOV TravTos
^9

fiev $rj Oeias irepio^ov^
a^rjfjLa aTro^fjirja-d/jLevoi,
o-coyua

<7^>atpoetSe?

eveSrjcrav,

TOVTO

o

vvv
teal

Ke<j>a\r]v

67rovojjtd%o/Jiev,

o deiOTCLTOV

T

CO-TL

ev

rMV

irdvTwv

112
s,

They

are repeatedly said to follow the example of the supreme
E,

c.g.

Tim. 410, 42

69

C.

113

Tim. 34 A, Laws 898 A.

OF PLATO
Tim. 73 C
Trjv

S

ETHICS.

139

... TO Qelov

o-Trep/JLa

olov apovpav /ue\-

\ovarav e%eiv ev avrrj

7Tpi(f>eprj

Travra^fj TrXaaa?.
avT(*>

The
440)
T)9

rest of the
;

body

is
it

a mere vTr^peaia

(

Tim.

yet,

inasmuch as

tyv-xfis, it

contains TO \onrov KOI Bv^rov was fashioned of the next best shape
:

a/jLd

(TTpoyyvXa

/cal TT poorer)

11 *

SiypeiTo (r^fiara (73 D).

marked by two curious The head is held in position by sinews expressions. which the Creator TrepicrTijcras KVK\W Trepl TOV rpd^rjXov
This difference
in dignity is

whereas in making Ko\\7)crev ofjLoioTTjrt, (Tim. 75 D) the vertebral column he acted ry da-repov
:

7rpo<7%p&>-

/j,evos

Swd/jiei (ibid. 74 A). Apart from one another these expressions are barely intelligible. Viewed together, they recall Tim. 57 E crrdo-iv nw ev
.
. .

ojjLoXoTrjTL,

Kivr](Tiv

Se

et?

dvco/jLaXorrjra

del

TiQ^^v
as
I
77

atria Se dviooTrj^ av

r^
In

dvca/jbaXov

<ucreet)9,

where

showed from Aristotle
Barepov
Svva/j,w.
is

awo-oT???

is

equivalent to

short,

Plato means that the

backbone
of the

flexible, while the
is

head

is

not.

So strong

his faith in the

microcosmic structure

human body
evaifjia
. .

that in

Tim. 81 A he does not
to
it
:

scruple to apply the

word ovpavbs

Ta Se

TrepLeC^rj^^eva axnrep VTT* ovpavov e/cdarov TOV feoou, rrjv TOV
.

i
<f>opdv.

114

For
is

irp6iJ.r}Kfs

as a deterioration of o-^atpoetSes cp.

Tim. 91 E

re Kal iravroias

apyias iKavrwv al TrepupopaL

140

THE METAPHYSICAL
this

BASIS

phrase will become clearer not only does the vibration of the vTroSoxrj correspond to the due motions of the
if

The significance of we consider that,
body,
Tim. 88 C

teal TCL fi^prj

OepairevTeov^ TO TOV Travrb?

Ibid. 88

D

lav Se

r]v

re

Tpo<f>bv

/cal
teal

rMvrjv
TO
crco/u-a

irpoaei jrofJLev
fj,ev /jLTjSeTTOTe
yu/oi ?

pi^Tai
Y](TV)^Lav

rt?,

ayeiv ea,
.
.

Kivfj Se /cal
.

dei

Tim?

GfjuTroiwv avTay

/caraKocr/jifj,

Kara TOP
e\eyo/jLv,
.

TTpbcrOev
.

\6yov, bv Trepl TOV

.

vyleiav Trape^et,

but even the concentric spheres of air and fire, which form the mantle of the universe, find their counterpart
in the fiery

and airy envelopes of the human frame,

This, I believe, is the purport of the Platonic theory of respiration, the main points of which may here be

summarised.

The passage in which that theory is set forth (Tim. A 79 E, cp. Tim. Locr. 101 D) has a reputation for 78
difficulty,

which
facts

it

would

not,
in

I

think,

have gained

begin with, the whole apparatus of breathing is independent of the animal organism 115 the &ov was already ir\aa6ev
;

had two

been borne

mind.

To

115
"

This

is

not so puerile a notion as

it

seems at

first

sight to be.

We

can as yet hardly say what are even the local boundaries that

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

141

it (Tim. 78 c). the preliminary remarks in 78 A show secondly, that TTCLvra ocra ef eXarrovwv fiWcrTarat areyei ra ra 5 K fjLeityvwv ra G/jLi/cporepa ov &vvarai hence

when

the contrivance was added to

And

:

/u,ei&>,

the structure of the
air

human body
which
is

is

pervious to both
o-^iKpofjuep-

and

fire,

but

fire

rrdvrwv yevwv

ecrrarov excludes air.

According to Plato, the Creator constructed a 116 which olov ol Kvprot network or bag (irXeyiJLa ),
.
.
.

was apparently formed of two layers
(TO /cvpros) of
fcvpros
air,

the outer one

the inner one of

fire.

This TrXe^a or

was subdivided

into a couple of smaller bags
air.

(ey/cvpna) also

made

of

The

whole,
fro

by

alternate

impletion and depletion, swings to and
divide the organism from
"

through the
air in

its

environment.

When

does the

our

a constituent lungs begin to belong to us, and when does it cease to be of the body ? (Lotze Microcosmus i. 136).
116

By

a /eupros

is

meant a basket of wicker work with a wide mouth
:

but a comparatively narrow neck, used for catching fish see the illus trations in Rich Diet. Ant. s.v. nassa, Daremberg & Saglio Diet. Ant.
Prof. Cook Wilson in his polemic on the Timaeus mouth of the trap adopts M. Th. H. Martin s view that the must have the ends of the reeds pointing inwards. But he himself admits that "there is nothing about such a hindrance in Plato," and it seems more probable that Kvpros here denotes that form of fish-trap a lid ; for we should thus obtain a parallel between which was closed
s.v.

colum.

p.

78

seq.

by

the lid and the closing of mouth and nostrils. with a lid gives a full account of this Kvpros

Oppian Hal.
:

iii.

341370

fisherman claps to the

lid

and

lifts

the trap is full, the the whole out of the water WHO.
|

when

ykp iro\\oi re Kal cfanrees reAeflaxn,
7rot>fj.a

5$J

Ka\vvTi

|

e5 apap6s

TOVS 5 tvSov eV

r6r avfy Kvproio irepl ffr6(ia vffrdnov ireirr nwTas
e>Kt
\

KV<t)ffffovra.s

avfipvffev.

142

THE METAPHYSICAL
et? TJ]V

BASIS

body

IK T/}? KoiKias

crrl

ra?

(f)\efta<;

vSpelav.

The

process may readily be followed by the help of the appended illustration. It comprises two movements, and (b) avairvor). (a) Expiration. We (a) eKTrvor)
start with our eyicvpna full of air
(fig.
i).

This

air,

heated by the fiery envelope, escapes upwards by the nearest way ets- rrjv avrov %a)pav TT/JO? TO %uy<yve$.
ef&>

The
it

nearest

way

is
it

Kara TO

arofjia KOL

ra? plvas.

As
it,

issues thence,

would leave a vacuum behind

did not the principle of TrepiwGis come into operation. By this principle the whole Kvpros is compressed, so

B

was just outside the body, enters Sia /jiav&v T&V crapK&v and occupies the position described as TO rwv crrrjOcov K.OLI rov 7r\ev/jLovo<;. (b)
that the air at A, which

Inspiration.

The

air at

B

(fig.

ii)

is

now

in its turn

heated by the fiery envelope, and rushing out the nearest way Sia pavwv TWV crapK&v sets up Trepiwcris
again. Kal

The

Treplwcris forces fresh air

Kara TO

crro/u-a

T<z9

pivas into

the

eyKvpTia, and we reach our

original position once more.

This arrargement of air and fire in concentric layers recalls the elemental \r)%ei 9 of Tim. 5 3 A, 63 B seqq., and the oscillation of the whole is described in

terms which tally with the alcopa of Phaed. 1 1 1 E Sia Tim. 78 E Siaimpovfjievov KoiXlas.
.
. .
TT}<?

:

Ibid.

80 D TOV

Trvpos,

alwpovfjievq)
TCLS

.

.

.

eVTo?
CK

TW
TTJS

TTvevfiaTi,
Koi\ia<s

^vveirofjievoV)

(frXe/Bas

T

Trj

PIG.l.
To fa.ce page

FIG

2

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

143

Indeed, Plato himself draws out the comparison Phaed. 1 1 2 B KOI wa-irep rcov dvaTrveovTwv del eKTrvel
:

re Kal dvairvel peov TO
J~waiG)poviLt,voi>

Trvev/Jia,

ovrco

Kal

Kt
Kal

TGO vypoi)

TO

iTvevfjLa Seivovs TIVQSS

Kal dfjbTvxdvGvs irape^erai, Kal

elcriov

So

far the

human

form.

The shapes

of the lower

animals are similarly proportioned to their degree of
intellectual
activity.

Indulgence

of

emotion

Flighty conceits beget wings. and appetite distorts the
trail

spherical cranium

and increases the number of earthly
the body in the dust,

props.

Lower passions

or

SLKTJV

Tew
life.

plunge

apaOias eV^aT??? eV^aTa? oiKtjoeis elXrj^oit into the impurities of subaqueous

Moreover, just as the differing grades of soul s intelligence were accompanied by differing grades of evSaL/jLovta, so the approximation to cosmic sphericity
entails

an approximation to perfect beauty.
crw/jia
.

The
Ka\Other

evKVK\ov

of a star

is

\afjL7rp6raTov ibelv T6

\icrTov

.

.

KO&IJLOS

d\r)0ivos

(Tim.

40

A).

particulars reach a positive or comparative degree,

according to the rank of their corresponding Idea

and

their

products are

own conformity to it. In more or less beautiful
ovv

fact, all

natural

since they are
:

more

or less accurate copies of Ideal types
fjLev

Tim. 28 A orov

av

o

SijiJLiovpybs

Trpo?

TO Kara Tavra e%pv

/3\e7ro>z>

aet, TOIOVTCO rtvl

144

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS
rrjv ISeav
fitv

KOI SvvaOVTCOS

amov

a.Trep ydfyj Tai,
TTCLV.

Ka\bv

e

dvdjK^
ere

airoreketadai,

Tim. 30 A
fyvcLv

Xo7tcTtt//,ei>o<?

ovv evpia/cev

TWV Kara
eftovros

oparwv ovbev dvoTjrov rov vovv

6\ov o\ov rcdXXiov eaeo-Oai irore epyov. In a word, Plato looks upon beauty as the visible
manifestation of that goodness which
attribute of mental activity
:

is

the essential

Tim. 87 C irav STJ TO dyaObv Ka\ov. Herein he outstrips contemporary art, which, while
carrying to completion the principle of unity in variety, omitted that other necessary feature of beauty, viz.

may surely regard Plato s fusion expressiveness. of the two, a fusion ultimately derived from his identi fication of TO ev with rdyaOov, as a distinct anticipation
of the

We

modern

aesthetic judgment.

Our examination

of the

human

re\o9 in

its

twofold

application to soul and to body has brought before us in clear relief the conception of the individual as a

microcosm, of the universe as a macrocosm. In using these terms I do not necessarily imply that the former resembles the latter in the important respect of being

an animal comprising other animals, but merely that the individual is a miniature a better or worse copy At the of Mind as it passes into cosmic existence.

same time

I

may

sections of the

point out that, just as the opening Timaeus reassert the valid parts of the

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

145

Republic, so the triple division of the soul in Tim. 69 c seq. recalls the threefold simile of Rep. 588 B seq. and

suggests the image of a man containing diverse animal natures 117 within himself:

The Timaeus.
TO Qdov

The Republic.

= lSea
fc

avOpoairov (5880).

Sea Xe o^TO? (588 D, cp.

590 B

avrl

= ISea

(hjplov Troixikov /cal

(5880).

help to explain the "curious quasi-personiFor if fication of sexual impulse" in Tim. 91 A seq.

This

may

the various mental states of the individual stand to

him
%wov

in

somewhat the same
it
iwoi>,

relation as the Ideal

?<wa

to the cosmic
eii fyvxpv

is

legitimate to use the phrase

of such a definite state as that indicated
in
rfjs

by the passage
7ndv^rjrLKov evov

question.

The

expression
is

wov

Trai&oirouas (Tim. 91 C)

to

my

mind a

distinct

reminiscence

of the

7ro\v/ce<f)a\ov

which
:

in

cp. e.g.

the Republic symbolises TO eTriOvthe drift of Rep. 5 90 A

117

Cp. also the

|u^<f>irros

8vvafj.i$ viroirrepov

e6yovs re Kal

of Phaedrus 246 A.

10

146

THE METAPHYSICAL
OVKOVV
fcal

BASIS
Sia Toiavra rrdXat,

TO aKO\ao~Tatvetv

otet

tye<yeo~dai,

em

avierai ev TOJ TOLOVTM TO Sewbv
/cal

TO

fjieya

eiceivo

7ro\ueiSe9

dpe/jufjua

Trepa TOV

with Tim. 91 B
s

re KOI auro/cpare? 7670^69, olov ,wov avvrrtj-

KOOV TOV

It remains to investigate one further result trace able to the law of correspondence between ^tn^r) and I do o-wjjia namely, the belief in Metempsychosis.
118 that such a belief not hold with Mr. Archer-Hind
"

has no essential connexion with the Platonic onto

logy."

For

if

Z&ov attains that degree of excellence

the localised activity of a given VOTJTOV which is the

external manifestation of the next higher $ovj or sinks to that degree which marks the next lower fwoi/,

the particular shape under which the said activity was seen must of necessity undergo a corresponding change. To take an example. The Ideal being Man

on the plane of sensation perceives himself as a diverse multiplicity of men. One member of this multiplicity
say,

Orpheus

is

genius.

When

his particular
is

apprehended as possessing poetic form perishes, a com
to appear

pensating form

bound

somewhere within

118

Ed. Tim. p. 344;;.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

147

the limits of the cosmic JoW. tion is ever towards TO o^oiov

And

since transmigra

Laws 904 E
i/ru^a?,
11!

/cafcici)

i^ev ryvyvo^evov Trpo?

Ta? Katciov$

a/jbeivo)

8e

Trpo?

Ta? a/zetVou? Tropevo-

fJLGVOV

the

will appear in the presentations of that the paradeigm of the acquired qualities, What has happened is this. say, the Idea of Swan.

new form
is

Idea which

The Idea
for every

of

Man
is

has not become the Idea of

Swan

;

an eternal being oine eh eavrb etVSe^a\\o a\\o6ev ovre avrb et? aXXo TTOL lov (Tim. opevov 52 A). But one e%iov of Man has vanished and one
Idea
of

elcriov

Swan appeared
is the

in virtue of the fact that the

Ideal series
But,
infallible
it

unitary

Mind existent
if

as a plurality.
is

will

be asked,

the

body

such an

why do not acquired characteristics gradually display themselves in form and features ? How comes it that Horace s fancy is
index of the soul,
not a commonplace fact
"

?

lam iam
pelles, et

album mutor

residunt cruribus asperae in alitem

superne, nascunturque leves

per digitos humerosque

plumae."

119 Stobaeus Ed. I. xlix. 60 (Porphurios) ed. Wachsmuth i. 23 observes that, according to Plato, the soul eV TOIS \eyofj.fvai

p.

445,

(T^fi Kal

fj.eTaK6(Tfj.Tfj<riv

els e repo

T&

TTp6(T<pOpOV

Kttl

OlKe lC

148

THE METAPHYSICAL
is

BASIS

not a satisfactory answer to this question to reply that the natural kinds are permanent types between
It

which no hybrid means

may be

inserted,

and that the

species of the individual is determined by the prepon derance of his characteristics. For, once allow that

the soul as passively apprehended on the level of sense-perception is the body, and it follows that all traits whether they preponderate or not must, so far
as they are apprehended, take shape as corporeal The truer reason is, I take it, that during deviations.

a man

upon and influence of his fellowmen, society which prevent him from rising or sinking to any very marked extent. 120 But in TO egatyvrjs, the moment
s

life-time certain restrictions are laid

him by the

of transition
soul
is

which we

call

death,

the
121
:

individual

therefore

not distinguished from the idea {BovXyais comes into play and, the limitations of
;

humanity being removed, that particular fraction of the entire Mind leaps into sudden realisation of faculties towards which it had previously felt but
an incipient tendency.

120

feathers
121

In Tim. 76 E he has the rudiments of a bird and beak.
i.

s

talons,

not the

Cp. Stob. Ed.
vr^j
K.a&"

xlix.

6 (Hermes) ed. Wachsmuth
ouata
.

i.

p. 324, 5

Toivvv ttfrlv euStos

J/OIJTIK)]

.

.

a7raAAa*yr<ra

5e TOV QVITIKOV

avr^v

/xeVct,

OUT^ IOUTTJS

olffa.

v)

/car

ovffiav (/cu/rjcns)

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

149

Other questions relative to this transition suggest themselves. It is brought about, according to the a failure of bodily conditions, a relaxation Timaeus, by
of the bonds

by which we

are

bound

to a certain

Accident or disease or mere portion of the VTTO^O^. old age may so disorder or dislocate the complex of
elemental triangles, which

man

s

members, that
for him.
s

ment
Plato

It

make up the material of a becomes no longer a fit tene has sometimes been held that, in
it

theory, the molecular angles are dulled and

blunted by the wear and tear of life till they can no longer retain the soul. This, I think, is an inexact statement of the case. For (i) if triangulation is the
expression of a law, ever to be warped
"

we should
"

not expect the triangles

or malformed.
"

When
"

pressure
;

takes place shearing into double the number of they simply crystallise sides. The octahedron does not become two fouris

applied,

no

distortion or

sided pyramids, as it would if a model were cut with a knife, but two t/iree-sided pyramids or tetrahedra

(Tim. 560).
TpLjwva to
7T/309

Again,

(2)

Plato himself explains icatva
TTJV
v<yK\i,(riv

mean la^vpav
/ceKTrj/jueva

CLVT&V

a\\T]\a

(Tim. 8 1 B), that

is,

triangles
in 81

whose hamation

is

as yet unimpaired.

Hence

C

the 7ra\aiorepa KOI acrOevecnepa must be those which are no longer so securely interlocked and in 73 B a&rpafifj will denote the opposite of <7T/aa/3o?, "dis
;

located."

Agreeably

to

this

in

81 C

we have

the

150

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

phrase fjpi^a TWV rptywvwv %a\a, a double metaphor intended to recall the wording of 73 B
:

TOVTOIS ^vfjiTTacnv dp%r)

fjuev

T)

TOV

fj,ve\ov yevecris
rc5

ol

yap TOV fiiov
Bov/jLevr)<;

Secr/jLol TT}?

^^77?

ev

TOVTW &ia$ov/j,vo

TO 9VT]TOV

761/09.

Thus
adds

8 1 C declares that,

when the
TTCLV

triangles of the

spinal chord are loosed, fyOivei
that,

%wov: and 81

D

when

the

same

triangles give

way

alto

gether, then death follows.

But
that
I

if

death ushers

in the

sudden transpeciation
?

have described, what enables the dead body to

retain the lineaments of

humanity

How is the awpa

rap^evdev (Pkaedo 80
hypothesis
?

C)

Again

I

would

explicable on the Idealist refer to the distinction

already drawn between the matter and the shape of our bodies. At the moment of death the soul s
appropriate shape that portion of the vTroBo^rj to which it has hitherto
activity ceases to impress with
its

been confined, and begins to imprint another portion of the same susceptible medium with new-born out lines. Nevertheless the previous portion is left with a certain definite arrangement of
naturally subsists
this
till it

triangles,

which
forces
:

is

dissipated

by other

arrangement of inanimate matter

the corpse

is

neither soul nor

body (though
.

it

may

popularly be
86 C SevSpov.

122

Cp.

ibid.

73 C

a"irepfj.a

.

.

&povpai>,

846 TWV

fri^iav,

OF PLATO
termed the
123
,

S

ETHICS.

151

latter),

but a mere congeries of elemental
u-TroSo^?)

triangles part and parcel of the cosmic whose store-house it has been returned.

to

Sokrates

may

say with more truth than ever
1 1

:

PJiaedo

5

D ovKen

vfuv Trapa/jLevw, aXA, ot^fjcro/uat

aiTLCov et9 fMaicdpayv 8/7 Tivas ev^ai^ovla^.

For the soul escapes and the bodily form though not the matter which it once impressed attends its
;

124

flight.

Reappearance involves change of place

:

Laws 9040

fjLTa(3d\\ovTa Se ^eperot

Kara

Trjv TT)?
fjiev

ia%iv KOI

vofjiov.

oyu/cporepa

TWV

/jLera/3d\\ovTa ekdrTW Kara TO
aTTOpeveraLj 7r\ela) 8e
et?
/cal

/3d9os

TO,

T6 Kara)

TOTTfOV.

In other words, the supreme

Mind transforms and

deserts transports individual souls according to their

Laws

903 D eVel Be

del

^f%7
eavrrjv

cvvrerajfjievr}

Tore pev aXXw, Tore 8e aXXw, ftera^aXX
o/a? //,6Ta/3o\a?
i
rj

Si

erepav

123

The same
"

the

"house

and

all artificial objects explanation must be given of which are not fytotcfyxaTa of Ideas but colloc ring
"
"

ations of inert material.
124

Alexis Olympiad, frag. com. ed. Meineke iii. 455 rb 5 aQavarov ttfpf irpbs atpa. 0V7JT&J/ alov ^eVero,
rbi>
|

j.v
\

<ru>/j.a

ravr

ov

ffoX^ TlXaruvos

;

152

METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF PLATO S ETHICS.
epyov
TO
ico

fj^ev

apeivov yiyvofjievov

r}6o<$

els

TOTTOVj ^elpov Se et? TOV ^eipova^ TTpeTTOV CLVTMV Ka<TTOV

-

Kara TO

so that particular

life is

justly said to

depend on the
ef

supreme %wov Tim. 89 B

:

tear

1

avro TO ^wov

el/juap/juevov

e^ov TOV ftiov

Thus

in the last resort

we come back

to the #609 Oe&v,

and have warrant

for describing Plato s ethical theory

as the moral synthesis of a metaphysical analysis, the return of Unity towards itself, a process that is
discrete rather than continuous,

inasmuch as the

aTreipa

journey towards the
the

w

through the several stages of

INDEX LOCORUM
Alex, de anim. ed. Bruns p.

85,20
in Artst. Met. ed.

Hay22

duck

-

p. 92,

19,

p.

p. p.

PPp.

l6 Alexis Olympiad, frag. com.
ed.

670, 700, 709, 709. 721, 73 J

27 27 28
33
31

ff

Meineke
3.

iii.

455

Archilochus

4

Archytas in frag. phil. Gr. ed. Mullach i. 565 Arist. de an. gen. B. 3. 736
27 decaelo B. 12.

292* 32
19
I.

demundo
32

2.

391 b 14

no

de part. an. A. *
5.

6420

-

645

4
12.

A.

10.

6860 28
1245*

Eth.Eud.H.
16

14. 12480 27 Eth.Nic. Z. 7. 1141034 - H. 14. 1153* 3 2

K. -

7.

11770 16
15100 4 15100 14

frag. 46. 14830 27
184. 184.

187.

1511043

apud Philoponum Met. A. 6. 987 b 10 6. 987* 10 6. 987* 10
6.

988

2

154

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

155

I

56

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

157

158

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

159

i6o

INDEX LOCORUM.

J.

PALMER, PRINTER, ALEXANDRA STREET, CAMBRIDGE.

FEB1 5 Q84
NOV
1

9

1980

CT

7 195,

flTT

S 5
Cf>

*

CvJ

10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful