of question and answer, says Favorinus in the eighth book of his Miscellaneous History; he was the first to explain to Leodamas of Thasos the method of solving problems by analysis The same statement that Plato made over to Leodamas the analytical method occurs in Proclus, On Eucl.
i. p. 211, 19-23 ed. Friedlein. See T. L. Heath, Euclid, vol.
i. p. 36, also p. 134 note 1, and p. 137; vol. iii. p. 246.; and the first who in philosophical discussion employed the terms antipodes, element, dialectic, quality, oblong number, and, among boundaries, the plane superficies; also divine providence.
He was also the first philosopher who controverted the speech of Lysias, the son of Cephalus, which he has set out word for word in the Phaedrus, 230 e sqq. and the first to study the significance of grammar. And, as he was the first to attack the views of almost all his predecessors, the question is raised why he makes no mention of Democritus. Neanthes of Cyzicus says that, on his going to Olympia, the eyes of all the Greeks were turned towards him, and there he met Dion, who was about to make his expedition against Dionysius. In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus there is a statement that Mithradates the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed upon it these words: "Mithradates the Persian, the son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses a likeness of Plato made by Silanion."
Heraclides declares that in his youth he was so modest and orderly that he was never seen to laugh outright. In spite of this he too was ridiculed by the Comic poets. At any rate Theopompus in his Hedychares says Meineke, C.G.F. ii. 796.: There is not anything that is truly one, even the number two is scarcely one, according to Plato.
Moreover, Anaxandrides Comic poet; ib. iii. 170. in his Theseus says: He was eating olives exactly like Plato.
Then there is Timon who puns on his name thus: Ib. vi. 25.
As Plato placed strange platitudes.
Alexis again in the Meropis Ib. iii. 451.: You have come in the nick of time. For I am at my wits' end and walking up and down, like Plato, and yet have discovered no wise plan but only tired my legs.
And in the Ancylion Ib. iii. 382.: You don't know what you are talking about: run about with Plato, and you'll know all about soap and onions.
Amphis, A poet of the Middle Comedy; Meineke, loc. cit. iii. 302. too, in the Amphicrates says: a. And as for the good, whatever that be, that you are likely to get on her account, I know no more about it, master, than I do of the good of Plato.
b. Just attend.
And in the Dexidemides Meineke, C.G.F. iii. 305.: O Plato, all you know is how to frown with eyebrows lifted high like any snail.
Cratinus, Sc. Cratinus Junior, of the Middle Comedy; Meineke, C.G.F. iii. 378. too, in The False Changeling: a. Clearly you are a man and have a soul.
b. In Plato's words, I am not sure but suspect that I have.
And Alexis in the Olympiodorus Meineke, C.G.F. iii. 455.: a. My mortal body withered up, my immortal part sped into the air.
b. Is not this a lecture of Plato's?
And in the Parasite Ib. iii. 468: Or, with Plato, to converse alone.
Anaxilas, Of the Middle Comedy; Meineke, iii.
342-352. again, in the Botrylion, and in Circe and Rich Women, has a gibe at him.
Aristippus in his fourth book On the Luxury of the Ancients says that he was attached to a youth named Aster, who joined him in the study of astronomy, as also to Dion who has been mentioned above, and, as some aver, to Phaedrus too. His passionate affection is revealed in the following epigrams which he is said to have written upon them Anth.
Pal. vii. 669, 670.: Star-gazing Aster, would I were the skies, To gaze upon thee with a thousand eyes.
And another: Among the living once the Morning Star, Thou shin'st, now dead, like Hesper from afar.
And he wrote thus upon Dion Anth.
Pal. vii. 99.: Tears from their birth the lot had been Of Ilium's daughters and their queen.
By thee, O Dion, great deeds done New hopes and larger promise won.
Now here thou liest gloriously, How deeply loved, how mourned by me.
This, they say, was actually inscribed upon his tomb at Syracuse.
Again, it is said that being enamoured of Alexis and Phaedrus, as before mentioned, he composed the following lines Anth. Pal. vii.
100.: Now, when Alexis is of no account, I have said no more than this. He is fair to see, and everywhere all eyes are turned upon him. Why, my heart, do you show the dogs a bone? And then will you smart for this hereafter? Was it not thus that we lost Phaedrus?
He is also credited with a mistress, Archeanassa, upon whom he wrote as follows Anth. Pal.
vii. 217.: I have a mistress, fair Archeanassa of Colophon, on whose very wrinkles sits hot love. O hapless ye who met such beauty on its first voyage, what a flame must have been kindled in you!
There is another upon Agathon Anth.
Pal. v. 78.: While kissing Agathon, my soul leapt to my lips, as if fain, alas! to pass over to him.
And another Anth. Pal. v.
79.: I throw an apple to you and, if indeed you are willing to love me, then receive it and let me taste your virgin charms.
But if you are otherwise minded, which heaven forbid, take this very apple and see how short-lived all beauty is.
And another Anth. Pal. v.
80.: An apple am I, thrown by one who loves you. Nay, Xanthippe, give consent, for you and I are both born to decay.
It is also said that the epigram on the Eretrians, who were swept out of the country, was written by him Anth. Pal. vii. 259.: We are Eretrians by race, from Euboea, and lie near Susa. How far, alas, from our native land!
And again Anth. Pal. ix.
39.: Thus Venus to the Muses spoke: Damsels, submit to Venus' yoke, Or dread my Cupid's arms.
Those threats, the virgins nine replied, May weigh with Mars, but we deride Love's wrongs, or darts, or charms.
And again Anth. Pal. ix.
44.: A certain person found some gold, Carried it off and, in its stead, Left a strong halter, neatly rolled.
The owner found his treasure fled, And, daunted by his fortune's wreck, Fitted the halter to his neck.
Further, Molon, being his enemy, said, "It is not wonderful that Dionysius should be in Corinth, but rather that Plato should be in Sicily." And it seems that Xenophon was not on good terms with him.
At any rate, they have written similar narratives as if out of rivalry with each other, a Symposium, a Defence of Socrates, and their moral treatises or Memorabilia. Diogenes is probably comparing with the Memorabilia the shorter dialogues of Plato, the Laches, Charmides, Crito, etc. Next, the one wrote a Republic, the other a Cyropaedia. And in the Laws 694 c. Plato declares the story of the education of Cyrus to be a fiction, for that Cyrus did not answer to the description of him. And although both make mention of Socrates, neither of them refers to the other, except that Xenophon mentions Plato in the third book of his Memorabilia.
It is said also that Antisthenes, being about to read publicly something that he had composed, invited Plato to be present. And on his inquiring what he was about to read, Antisthenes replied that it was something about the impossibility of contradiction. "How then," said Plato, "can you write on this subject?" thus showing him that the argument refutes itself. Thereupon he wrote a dialogue against Plato and entitled it Sathon.
After this they continued to be estranged from one another.
They say that, on hearing Plato read the Lysis, Socrates exclaimed, "By Heracles, what a number of lies this young man is telling about me!" For he has included in the dialogue much that Socrates never said.
Plato was also on bad terms with Aristippus. At least in the dialogue Of the Soul Cf. ii. 65 with note. he disparages him by saying that he was not present at the death of Socrates, though he was no farther off than Aegina.
Again, they say that he showed a certain jealousy of Aeschines, because of his reputation with Dionysius, and that, when he arrived at the court, he was despised by Plato because of his poverty, but supported by Aristippus. And Idomeneus asserts that the arguments used by Crito, when in the prison he urges Socrates to escape, are really due to Aeschines, and that Plato transferred them to Crito because of his enmity to Aeschines.
Nowhere in his writings does Plato mention himself by name, except in the dialogue On the Soul Phaedo, 59 b. and the Apology. 34 a. Aristotle remarks that the style of the dialogues is half-way between poetry and prose.
And according to Favorinus, when Plato read the dialogue On the Soul, Aristotle alone stayed to the end; the rest of the audience got up and went away. Some say that Philippus of Opus copied out the Laws, which were left upon waxen tablets, and it is said that he was the author of the Epinomis.
Euphorion and Panaetius relate that the beginning of the Republic was found several times revised and rewritten, and the Republic itself Aristoxenus declares to have been nearly all of it included in the Controversies of Protagoras.
There is a story that the Phaedrus was his first dialogue. For the subject has about it something of the freshness of youth.
Dicaearchus, however, censures its whole style as vulgar.
A story is told that Plato once saw some one playing at dice and rebuked him. And, upon his protesting that he played for a trifle only, "But the habit," rejoined Plato, "is not a trifle." Being asked whether there would be any memoirs of him as of his predecessors, he replied, "A man must first make a name, and he will have no lack of memoirs."
One day, when Xenocrates had come in, Plato asked him to chastise his slave, since he was unable to do it himself because he was in a passion.
Further, it is alleged that he said to one of his slaves, "I would have given you a flogging, had I not been in a passion." Being mounted on horseback, he quickly got down again, declaring that he was afraid he would be infected with horse-pride. He advised those who got drunk to view themselves in a mirror; for they would then abandon the habit which so disfigured them. To drink to excess was nowhere becoming, he used to say, save at the feasts of the god who was the giver of wine. He also disapproved of over - sleeping. At any rate in the Laws 808 b. he declares that "no one when asleep is good for anything." He also said that the truth is the pleasantest of sounds. Another version of this saying is that the pleasantest of all things is to speak the truth. Again, of truth he speaks thus in the Laws 663 e.: "Truth, O stranger, is a fair and durable thing. But it is a thing of which it is hard to persuade men." His wish always was to leave a memorial of himself behind, either in the hearts of his friends or in his books.
He was himself fond of seclusion according to some authorities.
His death, the circumstances of which have already been related, took place in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Philip, as stated by Favorinus in the third book of his Memorabilia, and according to Theopompus The awkwardness of this last clause can be explained, but not excused, if we suppose that Diogenes Laertius got his citation of Theopompus from Favorinus. honours were paid to him at his death by Philip. Cf. Hdt. vi. 39 Myronianus in his Parallels says that Philo mentions some proverbs that were in circulation about Plato's lice, implying that this was the mode of his death.
He was buried in the Academy, where he spent the greatest part of his life in philosophical study. And hence the school which he founded was called the Academic school.
And all the students there joined in the funeral procession. The terms of his will were as follows: "These things have been left and devised by Plato: the estate in Iphistiadae, bounded on the north by the road from the temple at Cephisia, on the south by the temple of Heracles in Iphistiadae, on the east by the property of Archestratus of Phrearrhi, on the west by that of Philippus of Chollidae: this it shall be unlawful for anyone to sell or alienate, but it shall be the property of the boy Adeimantus to all intents and purposes: the estate in Eiresidae which I bought of Callimachus, bounded on the north by the property of Eurymedon of Myrrhinus, on the south by the property of Demostratus of Xypete, on the east by that of Eurymedon of Myrrhinus, and on the west by the Cephisus; three minae of silver; a silver vessel weighing 165 drachmas; a cup weighing 45 drachmas; a gold signet-ring and earring together weighing four drachmas and three obols. Euclides the lapidary owes me three minae. I enfranchise Artemis. I leave four household servants, Tychon, Bictas, Apollonides and Dionysius.
Household furniture, as set down in the inventory of which Demetrius has the duplicate. I owe no one anything.
My executors are Leosthenes, Speusippus, Demetrius, Hegias, Eurymedon, Callimachus and Thrasippus."
Such were the terms of his will. The following epitaphs were inscribed upon his tomb Anth.
Pal. vii. 60.: Here lies the god-like man Aristocles, eminent among men for temperance and the justice of his character. And he, if ever anyone, had the fullest meed of praise for wisdom, and was too great for envy.
Next Anth. Pal. vii. 61.: Earth in her bosom here hides Plato's body, but his soul hath its immortal station with the blest, Ariston's son, whom every good man, even if he dwell afar off, honours because he discerned the divine life.
And a third of later date Anth. Pal.
vii. 62.: a. Eagle, why fly you o'er this tomb? Say, is your gaze fixed upon the starry house of one of the immortals?
b. I am the image of the soul of Plato, which has soared to Olympus, while his earth-born body rests in Attic soil.
There is also an epitaph of my own which runs thus Anth. Pal. vii. 108.: If Phoebus did not cause Plato to be born in Greece, how came it that he healed the minds of men by letters?
As the god's son Asclepius is a healer of the body, so is Plato of the immortal soul.
And another on the manner of his death Anth. Pal. vii. 109.: Phoebus gave to mortals Asclepius and Plato, the one to save their souls, the other to save their bodies. From a wedding banquet he has passed to that city which he had founded for himself and planted in the sky.
Such then are his epitaphs.
His disciples were Speusippus of Athens, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Aristotle of Stagira, Philippus of Opus, Hestiaeus of Perinthus, Dion of Syracuse, Amyclus of Heraclea, Erastus and Coriscus of Scepsus, Timolaus of Cyzicus, Euaeon of Lampsacus, Python and Heraclides of Aenus, Hippothales and Callippus of Athens, Demetrius of Amphipolis, Heraclides of Pontus, and many others, among them two women, Lastheneia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Phlius, who is reported by Dicaearchus to have worn men's clothes. Some say that Theophrastus too attended his lectures. Chamaeleon adds Hyperides the orator and Lycurgus, and in this Polemo agrees. Sabinus makes Demosthenes his pupil, quoting, in the fourth book of his Materials for Criticism, Mnesistratus of Thasos as his authority.
And it is not improbable. Here begins the first of three appendices, being an introduction to the study of the Platonic writings (47-66).
Freudenthal, in Hell. Stud. iii., has shown that the extant fragment of the *pro/logos of Albinus is similar and probably derived from the same source. Albinus lived in the second century a.d., for in 151-2 Galen was his pupil in Smyrna.
The reader will note the careful style of the preface with its avoidance of hiatus. In x. 29 is a similar personal appeal to the reader.
Now, as you are an enthusiastic Platonist, and rightly so, and as you eagerly seek out that philosopher's doctrines in preference to all others, I have thought it necessary to give some account of the true nature of his discourses, the arrangement of the dialogues, and the method of his inductive procedure, as far as possible in an elementary manner and in main outline, in order that the facts I have collected respecting his life may not suffer by the omission of his doctrines. For, in the words of the proverb, it would be taking owls to Athens, were I to give you of all people the full particulars.
They say that Zeno the Eleatic was the first to write dialogues. But, according to Favorinus in his Memorabilia, Aristotle in the first book of his dialogue On Poets asserts that it was Alexamenus of Styra or Teos. In my opinion Plato, who brought this form of writing to perfection, ought to be adjudged the prize for its invention as well as for its embellishment.
A dialogue is a discourse consisting of question and answer on some philosophical or political subject, with due regard to the characters of the persons introduced and the choice of diction. Dialectic is the art of discourse by which we either refute or establish some proposition by means of question and answer on the part of the interlocutors.
Of the Platonic dialogues there are two most general types, the one adapted for instruction and the other for inquiry. And the former is further divided into two types, the theoretical and the practical. And of these the theoretical is divided into the physical and logical, and the practical into the ethical and political. The dialogue of inquiry also has two main divisions, the one of which aims at training the mind and the other at victory in controversy. Again, the part which aims at training the mind has two subdivisions, the one akin to the midwife's art, the other merely tentative. And that suited to controversy is also subdivided into one part which raises critical objections, and another which is subversive of the main position.
I am not unaware that there are other ways in which certain writers classify the dialogues. For some dialogues they call dramatic, others narrative, and others again a mixture of the two. But the terms they employ in their classification of the dialogues are better suited to the stage than to philosophy. Physics is represented by the Timaeus, logic by the Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides and Sophist, ethics by the Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus and Symposium, as well as by the Menexenus, Clitophon, the Epistles, Philebus, Hipparchus and the Rivals, and lastly politics by the Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, and the dialogue concerning Atlantis. i.e. Critias.
To the class of mental obstetrics belong the two Alcibiades, Theages, Lysis and Laches, while the Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus illustrate the tentative method. In the Protagoras is seen the method of critical objections; in the Euthydemus, Gorgias, and the two dialogues entitled Hippias that of subversive argument. So much then for dialogue, its definition and varieties.
Again, as there is great division of opinion between those who affirm and those who deny that Plato was a dogmatist, let me proceed to deal with this further question. To be a dogmatist in philosophy is to lay down positive dogmas, just as to be a legislator is to lay down laws. Further, under dogma two things are included, the thing opined and the opinion itself.
Of these the former is a proposition, the latter a conception. Now where he has a firm grasp Plato expounds his own view and refutes the false one, but, if the subject is obscure, he suspends judgement.
His own views are expounded by four persons, Socrates, Timaeus, the Athenian Stranger, In the Laws. the Eleatic Stranger. In the Sophist and the Statesman. These strangers are not, as some hold, Plato and Parmenides, but imaginary characters without names, That the Eleatic Stranger is not Parmenides is decisively proved by Soph. 241 e. for, even when Socrates and Timaeus are the speakers, it is Plato's doctrines that are laid down. To illustrate the refutation of false opinions, he introduces Thrasymachus, Callicles, Polus, Gorgias, Protagoras, or again Hippias, Euthydemus and the like.
In constructing his proofs he makes most use of induction, not always in the same way, but under two forms. For induction is an argument which by means of certain true premisses properly infers a truth resembling them. And there are two kinds of induction, the one proceeding by way of contradiction, the other from agreement. In the kind which proceeds by contradiction the answer given to every question will necessarily be the contrary of the respondent's position, e.g. "My father is either other than or the same as your father. If then your father is other than my father, by being other than a father he will not be a father. But if he is the same as my father, then by being the same as my father he will be my father."
And again: "If man is not an animal, he will be either a stick or a stone. But he is not a stick or a stone; for he is animate and self-moved. Therefore he is an animal.
But if he is an animal, and if a dog or an ox is also an animal, then man by being an animal will be a dog and an ox as well." This is the kind of induction which proceeds by contradiction and dispute, and Plato used it, not for laying down positive doctrines but for refutation. The other kind of induction by agreement appears in two forms, the one proving the particular conclusion under discussion from a particular, the other proceeding by way of the universal [by means of particular facts]. The former is suited to rhetoric, the latter to dialectic. For instance, under the first form the question is raised, "Did so-and-so commit a murder?" The proof is that he was found at the time with stains of blood on him.
This is the rhetorical form of induction, since rhetoric also is concerned with particular facts and not with universals. It does not inquire about justice in the abstract, but about particular cases of justice. The other kind, where the general proposition is first established by means of particular facts, is the induction of dialectic. For instance, the question put is whether the soul is immortal, and whether the living come back from the dead. And this is proved in the dialogue On the Soul by means of a certain general proposition, that opposites proceed from opposites. And the general proposition itself is established by means of certain propositions which are particular, as that sleep comes from waking and vice versa, the greater from the less and vice versa. This is the form which he used to establish his own views.
But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasylus says that he published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Pots. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.
Now, says Thrasylus, the genuine dialogues are fifty-six in all, if the Republic be divided into ten and the Laws into twelve. Favorinus, however, in the second book of his Miscellaneous History declares that nearly the whole of the Republic is to be found in a work of Protagoras entitled Controversies. From iii. 37 we infer that Favorinus drew upon Aristoxenus for this wildly improbable assertion. This gives nine tetralogies, if the Republic takes the place of one single work and the Laws of another. His first tetralogy has a common plan underlying it, for he wishes to describe what the life of the philosopher will be. To each of the works Thrasylus affixes a double title, the one taken from the name of the interlocutor, the other from the subject.
This tetralogy, then, which is the first, begins with the Euthyphro or On Holiness, a tentative dialogue; the Apology of Socrates, an ethical dialogue, comes second; the third is Crito or On what is to be done, ethical; the fourth Phaedo or On the Soul, also ethical.
The second tetralogy begins with Cratylus or On Correctness of Names, a logical dialogue, which is followed by Theaetetus or On Knowledge, tentative, the Sophist or On Being, a logical dialogue, the Statesman or On Monarchy, also logical. The third tetralogy includes, first, Parmenides or On Ideas, which is logical, next Philebus or On Pleasure, an ethical dialogue, the Banquet or On the Good, ethical, Phaedrus or On Love, also ethical.
The fourth tetralogy starts with Alcibiades or On the Nature of Man, an obstetric dialogue; this is followed by the second Alcibiades or On Prayer, also obstetric; then comes Hipparchus or The Lover of Gain, which is ethical, and The Rivals or On Philosophy, also ethical. The fifth tetralogy includes, first, Theages or On Philosophy, an obstetric dialogue, then Charmides or On Temperance, which is tentative, Laches or On Courage, obstetric, and Lysis or On Friendship, also obstetric. The sixth tetralogy starts with Euthydemus or The Eristic, a refutative dialogue, which is followed by Protagoras or Sophists, critical, Gorgias or On Rhetoric, refutative, and Meno or On Virtue, which is tentative.
The seventh tetralogy contains, first, two dialogues entitled Hippias, the former On Beauty, the latter On Falsehood, both refutative; next Ion or On the Iliad, which is tentative, and Menexenus or The Funeral Oration, which is ethical. The eighth tetralogy starts with Clitophon or Introduction, which is ethical, and is followed by the Republic or On Justice, political, Timaeus or On Nature, a physical treatise, and Critias or Story of Atlantis, which is ethical. The ninth tetralogy starts with Minos or On Law, a political dialogue, which is followed by the Laws or On Legislation, also political, Epinomis or Nocturnal Council, or Philosopher, political, and lastly the Epistles, thirteen in number, which are ethical. In these epistles his heading was "Welfare," as that of Epicurus was "A Good Life," and that of Cleon "All Joy." They comprise: one to Aristodemus, two to Archytas, four to Dionysius, one to Hermias, Erastus and Coriscus, one each to Leodamas, Dion and Perdiccas, and two to Dion's friends. This is the division adopted by Thrasylus and some others.
Some, including Aristophanes the grammarian, arrange the dialogues arbitrarily in trilogies.
In the first trilogy they place the Republic, Timaeus and Critias; in the second the Sophist, the Statesman and Cratylus; in the third the Laws, Minos and Epinomis; in the fourth Theaetetus, Euthyphro and the Apology; in the fifth Crito, Phaedo and the Epistles. The rest follow as separate compositions in no regular order.
Some critics, as has already been stated, put the Republic first, while others start with the greater Alcibiades, and others again with the Theages; some begin with the Euthyphro, others with the Clitophon; some with the Timaeus, others with the Phaedrus; others again with the Theaetetus, while many begin with the Apology. The following dialogues are acknowledged to be spurious: the Midon or Horsebreeder, the Eryxias or Erasistratus, the Alcyon, the Acephali or Sisyphus, the Axiochus, the Phaeacians, the Demodocus, the Chelidon, the Seventh Day, the Epimenides. Of these the Alcyon Cf. Athenaeus xi. 506 c. The same statement about the authorship of the Alcyon is attributed to Nicias of Nicaea. is thought to be the work of a certain Leon, according to Favorinus in the fifth book of his Memorabilia.
Plato has employed a variety of terms in order to make his system less intelligible to the ignorant.
But in a special sense he considers wisdom to be the science of those things which are objects of thought and really existent, the science which, he says, is concerned with God and the soul as separate from the body. And especially by wisdom he means philosophy, which is a yearning for divine wisdom.
And in a general sense all experience is also termed by him wisdom, e.g. when he calls a craftsman wise.
And he applies the same terms with very different meanings. For instance, the word fau=los (slight, plain) is employed by him As e.g.
Theaet. 147 c Cf. Rep.
527 d ou) pa/nu fau=lon a)lla\ xalepo\n pisteu=sai. in the sense of a(plou=s (simple, honest), just as it is applied to Heracles in the Licymnius of Euripides in the following passage Nauck, staunch to do great deeds, unversed in talk, with all his store of wisdom curtailed to action.
But sometimes Plato uses this same word ( fau=los ） to mean what is bad, and at other times for what is small or petty. Again, he often uses different terms to express the same thing. For instance, he calls the ( a)rxh/ ) and cause ( ai)/tion ). He also uses contrary expressions for the same thing. Thus he calls the sensible thing both existent and nonexistent, existent inasmuch as it comes into being, non-existent because it is continually changing. And he says the Idea is neither in motion nor at rest; that it is uniformly the same and yet both one and many. And it is his habit to do this in many more instances.
The right interpretation of his dialogues includes three things: first, the meaning of every statement must be explained; next, its purpose, whether it is made for a primary reason or by way of illustration, and whether to establish his own doctrines or to refute his interlocutor; in the third place it remains to examine its truth.
And since certain critical marks are affixed to his works let us now say a word about these. The cross X is taken to indicate peculiar expressions and figures of speech, and generally any idiom of Platonic usage; the used in early papyri to denote a fresh paragraph. (>) calls attention to doctrines and opinions characteristic of Plato; the dotted cross (?) denotes select passages and beauties of style; the dotted diple (?) editors' corrections of the text; the dotted obelus (÷) passages suspected without reason; the dotted antisigma (?) repetitions and proposals for transpositions; the ceraunium the philosophical school; the asterisk (?) an agreement of doctrine; the obelus (-) a spurious passage. So much for the critical marks and his writings in general. As Antigonus of Carystus says in his Life of Zeno, when the writings were first edited with critical marks, their possessors charged a certain fee to anyone who wished to consult them.
Here begins the second appendix observed that there is absolutely no trace of Neo-Platonist tendencies.
Cf. Plato, The doctrines he approved are these. He held that the soul is immortal, that by transmigration it puts on many bodies, Cf. Plato, Tim. 42 b sqq., 90 e. and that it has a numerical first principle, whereas the first principle of the body is geometrical Cf. Plato, Tim. 54 a sqq.; and he defined soul as the idea of vital breath diffused in all directions. He held that it is self-moved and tripartite, the rational part of it having its seat in the head, the passionate part about the heart, while the appetitive is placed in the region of the navel and the liver. Cf. Plato, Tim. 69 c sqq., 89 e..
And from the centre outwards it encloses the body on all sides in a circle, and is compounded of elements, and, being divided at harmonic intervals, it forms two circles which touch one another twice; and the interior circle, being slit six times over, makes seven circles in all. And this interior circle moves by way of the diagonal to the left, and the other by way of the side to the right. Hence also the one is supreme, being a single circle, for the other interior circle was divided; the former is the circle of the Same, the latter that of the Other, whereby he means that the motion of the soul is the motion of the universe together with the revolutions of the planets. Cf. Plato, Tim. 36 d-37 c..
And the division from the centre to the circumference which is adjusted in harmony with the soul being thus determined, the soul knows that which is, and adjusts it proportionately because she has the elements proportionately disposed in herself. And when the circle of the Other revolves aright, the result is opinion; but from the regular motion of the circle of the Same comes knowledge. He set forth two universal principles, God and matter, and he calls God mind and cause; he held that matter is devoid of form and unlimited, and that composite things arise out of it Cf. Plato, Tim. 50 d. e; 51 a.; and that it was once in disorderly motion but, inasmuch as God preferred order to disorder, was by him brought together in one place. Cf. Plato, Tim. 30 a, 69 b.
This substance, he says, is converted into the four elements, fire, water, air, earth, of which the world itself and all that therein is are formed.
Earth alone of these elements is not subject to change, the assumed cause being the peculiarity of its constituent triangles. For he thinks that in all the other elements the figures employed are homogeneous, the scalene triangle out of which they are all put together being one and the same, whereas for earth a triangle of peculiar shape is employed; the element of fire is a pyramid, of air an octahedron, of water an icosahedron, of earth a cube. Hence earth is not transmuted into the other three elements, nor these three into earth.
But the elements are not separated each into its own region of the universe, because the revolution unites their minute particles, compressing and forcing them together into the centre, at the same time as