Statesman

In the Phaedrus, the Republic, the Philebus, the Parmenides, and the Sophist, we mayobserve the tendency of Plato to combine two or more subjects or different aspects of thesame subject in a single dialogue. In the Sophist and Statesman especially we note that thediscussion is partly regarded as an illustration of method, and that analogies are broughtfrom afar which throw light on the main subject. And in his later writings generally wefurther remark a decline of style, and of...
More Description

In the Phaedrus, the Republic, the Philebus, the Parmenides, and the Sophist, we mayobserve the tendency of Plato to combine two or more subjects or different aspects of thesame subject in a single dialogue. In the Sophist and Statesman especially we note that thediscussion is partly regarded as an illustration of method, and that analogies are broughtfrom afar which throw light on the main subject. And in his later writings generally wefurther remark a decline of style, and of dramatic power; the characters excite little or nointerest, and the digressions are apt to overlay the main thesis; there is not the 'callidajunctura' of an artistic whole. Both the serious discussions and the jests are sometimes outof place. The invincible Socrates is withdrawn from view; and new foes begin to appearunder old names. Plato is now chiefly concerned, not with the original Sophist, but with thesophistry of the schools of philosophy, which are making reasoning impossible; and isdriven by them out of the regions of transcendental speculation back into the path ofcommon sense. A logical or psychological phase takes the place of the doctrine of Ideas inhis mind. He is constantly dwelling on the importance of regular classification, and of notputting words in the place of things. He has banished the poets, and is beginning to use atechnical language. He is bitter and satirical, and seems to be sadly conscious of therealities of human life. Yet the ideal glory of the Platonic philosophy is not extinguished. Heis still looking for a city in which kings are either philosophers or gods (compare Laws).The Statesman has lost the grace and beauty of the earlier dialogues. The mind of thewriter seems to be so overpowered in the effort of thought as to impair his style; at leasthis gift of expression does not keep up with the increasing difficulty of his theme. The ideaof the king or statesman and the illustration of method are connected, not like the love andrhetoric of the Phaedrus, by 'little invisible pegs,' but in a confused and inartistic manner,which fails to produce any impression of a whole on the mind of the reader. Platoapologizes for his tediousness, and acknowledges that the improvement of his audience hasbeen his only aim in some of his digressions. His own image may be used as a motto of hisstyle: like an inexpert statuary he has made the figure or outline too large, and is unable togive the proper colours or proportions to his work. He makes mistakes only to correctthem--this seems to be his way of drawing attention to common dialectical errors. TheEleatic stranger, here, as in the Sophist, has no appropriate character, and appears only asthe expositor of a political ideal, in the delineation of which he is frequently interrupted bypurely logical illustrations. The younger Socrates resembles his namesake in nothing but aname. The dramatic character is so completely forgotten, that a special reference is twicemade to discussions in the Sophist; and this, perhaps, is the strongest ground which can beurged for doubting the genuineness of the work. But, when we remember that a similarallusion is made in the Laws to the Republic, we see that the entire disregard of dramaticpropriety is not always a sufficient reason for doubting the genuineness of a Platonicwriting.