Charmides | Page 4

a harmonious whole. Any such arrangement
appears to me not only to be unsupported by evidence, but to involve
an anachronism in the history of philosophy. There is a common spirit
in the writings of Plato, but not a unity of design in the whole, nor
perhaps a perfect unity in any single Dialogue. The hypothesis of a
general plan which is worked out in the successive Dialogues is an
after-thought of the critics who have attributed a system to writings
belonging to an age when system had not as yet taken possession of
philosophy.
If Mr. Grote should do me the honour to read any portion of this work
he will probably remark that I have endeavoured to approach Plato
from a point of view which is opposed to his own. The aim of the
Introductions in these volumes has been to represent Plato as the father
of Idealism, who is not to be measured by the standard of utilitarianism
or any other modern philosophical system. He is the poet or maker of
ideas, satisfying the wants of his own age, providing the instruments of
thought for future generations. He is no dreamer, but a great
philosophical genius struggling with the unequal conditions of light and
knowledge under which he is living. He may be illustrated by the

writings of moderns, but he must be interpreted by his own, and by his
place in the history of philosophy. We are not concerned to determine
what is the residuum of truth which remains for ourselves. His truth
may not be our truth, and nevertheless may have an extraordinary value
and interest for us.
I cannot agree with Mr. Grote in admitting as genuine all the writings
commonly attributed to Plato in antiquity, any more than with
Schaarschmidt and some other German critics who reject nearly half of
them. The German critics, to whom I refer, proceed chiefly on grounds
of internal evidence; they appear to me to lay too much stress on the
variety of doctrine and style, which must be equally acknowledged as a
fact, even in the Dialogues regarded by Schaarschmidt as genuine, e.g.
in the Phaedrus, or Symposium, when compared with the Laws. He
who admits works so different in style and matter to have been the
composition of the same author, need have no difficulty in admitting
the Sophist or the Politicus. (The negative argument adduced by the
same school of critics, which is based on the silence of Aristotle, is not
worthy of much consideration. For why should Aristotle, because he
has quoted several Dialogues of Plato, have quoted them all?
Something must be allowed to chance, and to the nature of the subjects
treated of in them.) On the other hand, Mr. Grote trusts mainly to the
Alexandrian Canon. But I hardly think that we are justified in
attributing much weight to the authority of the Alexandrian librarians in
an age when there was no regular publication of books, and every
temptation to forge them; and in which the writings of a school were
naturally attributed to the founder of the school. And even without
intentional fraud, there was an inclination to believe rather than to
enquire. Would Mr. Grote accept as genuine all the writings which he
finds in the lists of learned ancients attributed to Hippocrates, to
Xenophon, to Aristotle? The Alexandrian Canon of the Platonic
writings is deprived of credit by the admission of the Epistles, which
are not only unworthy of Plato, and in several passages plagiarized
from him, but flagrantly at variance with historical fact. It will be seen
also that I do not agree with Mr. Grote's views about the Sophists; nor
with the low estimate which he has formed of Plato's Laws; nor with
his opinion respecting Plato's doctrine of the rotation of the earth. But I
'am not going to lay hands on my father Parmenides' (Soph.), who will,

I hope, forgive me for differing from him on these points. I cannot
close this Preface without expressing my deep respect for his noble and
gentle character, and the great services which he has rendered to Greek
Literature.
Balliol College, January, 1871.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS.
In publishing a Second Edition (1875) of the Dialogues of Plato in
English, I had to acknowledge the assistance of several friends: of the
Rev. G.G. Bradley, Master of University College, now Dean of
Westminster, who sent me some valuable remarks on the Phaedo; of Dr.
Greenhill, who had again revised a portion of the Timaeus; of Mr. R.L.
Nettleship, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, to whom I was
indebted for an excellent criticism of the Parmenides; and, above all, of
the Rev. Professor Campbell of St. Andrews, and Mr. Paravicini, late
Student of Christ Church and Tutor of