Charmides | Page 9

adapted to it. The
rapidity and abruptness of question and answer, the constant repetition
of (Greek), etc., which Cicero avoided in Latin (de Amicit), the
frequent occurrence of expletives, would, if reproduced in a translation,
give offence to the reader. Greek has a freer and more frequent use of
the Interrogative, and is of a more passionate and emotional character,
and therefore lends itself with greater readiness to the dialogue form.
Most of the so-called English Dialogues are but poor imitations of
Plato, which fall very far short of the original. The breath of

conversation, the subtle adjustment of question and answer, the lively
play of fancy, the power of drawing characters, are wanting in them.
But the Platonic dialogue is a drama as well as a dialogue, of which
Socrates is the central figure, and there are lesser performers as
well:--the insolence of Thrasymachus, the anger of Callicles and
Anytus, the patronizing style of Protagoras, the self-consciousness of
Prodicus and Hippias, are all part of the entertainment. To reproduce
this living image the same sort of effort is required as in translating
poetry. The language, too, is of a finer quality; the mere prose English
is slow in lending itself to the form of question and answer, and so the
ease of conversation is lost, and at the same time the dialectical
precision with which the steps of the argument are drawn out is apt to
be impaired.
II. In the Introductions to the Dialogues there have been added some
essays on modern philosophy, and on political and social life. The chief
subjects discussed in these are Utility, Communism, the Kantian and
Hegelian philosophies, Psychology, and the Origin of Language.
(There have been added also in the Third Edition remarks on other
subjects. A list of the most important of these additions is given at the
end of this Preface.)
Ancient and modern philosophy throw a light upon one another: but
they should be compared, not confounded. Although the connexion
between them is sometimes accidental, it is often real. The same
questions are discussed by them under different conditions of language
and civilization; but in some cases a mere word has survived, while
nothing or hardly anything of the pre-Socratic, Platonic, or Aristotelian
meaning is retained. There are other questions familiar to the moderns,
which have no place in ancient philosophy. The world has grown older
in two thousand years, and has enlarged its stock of ideas and methods
of reasoning. Yet the germ of modern thought is found in ancient, and
we may claim to have inherited, notwithstanding many accidents of
time and place, the spirit of Greek philosophy. There is, however, no
continuous growth of the one into the other, but a new beginning, partly
artificial, partly arising out of the questionings of the mind itself, and
also receiving a stimulus from the study of ancient writings.
Considering the great and fundamental differences which exist in
ancient and modern philosophy, it seems best that we should at first

study them separately, and seek for the interpretation of either,
especially of the ancient, from itself only, comparing the same author
with himself and with his contemporaries, and with the general state of
thought and feeling prevalent in his age. Afterwards comes the remoter
light which they cast on one another. We begin to feel that the ancients
had the same thoughts as ourselves, the same difficulties which
characterize all periods of transition, almost the same opposition
between science and religion. Although we cannot maintain that
ancient and modern philosophy are one and continuous (as has been
affirmed with more truth respecting ancient and modern history), for
they are separated by an interval of a thousand years, yet they seem to
recur in a sort of cycle, and we are surprised to find that the new is ever
old, and that the teaching of the past has still a meaning for us.
III. In the preface to the first edition I expressed a strong opinion at
variance with Mr. Grote's, that the so-called Epistles of Plato were
spurious. His friend and editor, Professor Bain, thinks that I ought to
give the reasons why I differ from so eminent an authority. Reserving
the fuller discussion of the question for another place, I will shortly
defend my opinion by the following arguments:--
(a) Because almost all epistles purporting to be of the classical age of
Greek literature are forgeries. (Compare Bentley's Works (Dyce's
Edition).) Of all documents this class are the least likely to be
preserved and the most likely to be invented. The ancient world
swarmed with them; the great libraries stimulated the demand for them;
and at a time when there was no regular publication of books, they
easily crept into the world.
(b) When one epistle out of a number