150 



PROFESSOR THOMPSON, ON THE GENUINENESS OF 



into account that the description occurs in no other part of Plato's writings, and nothing will 

 be wanting to the proof that Aristotle had not only read with attention two dialogues answering 

 to those which bear the titles of the Sophista and the Politicus^, but that he knew or believed 

 them to have been written by his Master. 



The recognition of a dialogue by Aristotle is at least strong evidence of its genuineness : 

 and it would require stronger internal evidence on the other side to justify us in setting such 

 recognition at defiance". Of the dialogues generally condemned as spurious, .some owe tiieir 

 condemnation to the voice of antiquity ; others betray by their style another hand ; while those 

 of a third class have fallen into discredit on account of the comparative triviality of their 

 matter or the supposed un-Platonic cast of the sentiments they contain. To objections 

 founded on the matter of a suspected dialogue I confess that I attach comparatively little 

 weight, except when they are supported by considerations purely philological. We need have 

 little scruple in rejecting a dialogue so poor in matter and dry in treatment as the Second 

 Alcibiades, when we find the evidence of its spuriousness strengthened by the occurrence of 

 grammatical forms which no writer of the best times would have used^. But it would be 

 rash criticism to condemn the Second Hippias, in which no such irregularities occur, merely 

 because it contains paradoxes apparently inconsistent with other parts of Plato's writings. 

 Tried by this test, the Lysis and the Laches, and perhaps the Charmides, would fare but 

 ill. Yet in them, those who have eyes to see have not failed to recognize the touches 

 of the Master's hand, and the perfection of the form has outweighed the doubtfulness of 

 the matter. 



Now I am not aware that any philological objections have been urged against the 

 Sophista. So far as the mere style is concerned, there is no dialogue in the whole series 

 more tiioroughly Platonic. In their structure the periods are those of Plato, and they 

 are unlike those of any other writer. Throughout, as it seems to me, the author is writing 

 his very best. His subject is a dry*one ; and he strives to make it palatable by a more than 

 ordinary neatness of phrase, and by a sustained tone of pleasantry. His style is terse or 

 fluent, as terseness or fluency is required : but the fluency never degenerates into laxity, nor 

 the terseness into harshness. The most arid dialectical wastes are refreshed by his humour : 

 and bloom in more places than one with imagery of rare brilliancy and felicity. Few besides 

 Plato would have thought of describing the endless wrangling of two sects who had no 



> I cannot but think that had the Master of Trinity exa- 

 mined the Polilicus with the same care which he has bestowed 

 on the Sophista, he would have formed a different opinion of 

 the genuineness of the two dialogues. The Politicus contains 

 passages full not only of Platonic doctrine, but of Platonic 

 idiosyncrasy. I may mention, as a few out of many, the 

 grotesque definition of Man as a "featherless biped" {Pol. 

 p. 2(i(;E. 99) which exposed the philosopher to a well-known 

 practical jest : the somewhat wild but highly imaginative 

 mythus, redolent of the Timceus, (p. 269 foil.) : and, finally, 

 the fierce onslaught on the Athenian Democracy, (p. 299), 

 breathing vengeance against the unforgiven murderers of 

 Socrates. On reading these and similar passages, it would be 

 difficult for the most sceptical to repress the exclamation, 

 " Aut Plato aut Diabolus!" 



° The Sophista is also recognized, as we have seen, by the 

 vigilant and profoundly learned Simplicius, also by Porphyry 

 (ap. Simp, ad Phi/s. p. 335, Brandis). Clemens Alexandrinus 

 and Eusebius quote it as Plato's. If it is not named by Cicero, 

 neither are the Philebus and ThecBtetus. The omission of any 

 mention of this latter dialogue by the Author of the Academic 

 Questions is really remarkable. 



^ e.g. dirOKptdilval for aTroKpiuacrQaL, iyK€TrT€tjdat for <TKO- 

 ■jreicrdai. The latter barbarism, I presume, would be defended 

 from Laches, p. 185b. ti wot etn-t Trepi ou (iovXevo/^eda kul 

 aKevTo/jLeSa, but to me it seems clear that o-KeTrxo'|ne6a is an 

 interpretamentum of /SouXeuo/xfea, which is used in a sense 

 not strictly its own, as in the same passage, paulo supra; 

 el eo-Tt Tis TexviKd^ irepl ou (iovXevoneda. 



