152 



PROFESSOR THOMPSON, ON THE GENUINENESS OF 



the two succeeding dialogues : and no resemblance between the method of investigation pursued 

 in the Sophista and in the Thecetetus. A definition, it is true, is the professed object of both: 

 the question proposed in the one being, "What is knowledge?" in the other, "What is a 

 Sophist?" Each dialogue is, therefore, a hunt after a definition; but the instruments of the 

 chase are not the same in both instances. 



I propose the following as a plausible, though I do not put it up for a certain explanation 

 of the connexion intended by Plato to subsist between the two dialogues. 



The art of Definition, it is well known, was an important constituent part of the Platonic 

 Dialectic. It held its ground in the Dialectic of Aristotle, who, however, devotes a larger 

 share of attention to the Syllogism ; a branch of Dialectic for which Plato had omitted to give 

 rules. Both are elaborately investigated by the Schoolmen, as by Abelard in his Dialectice ; 

 nor was it, I believe, until the commencement of this century, or the end of the last, that 

 Definition dropt out of our logic books', and the art of Syllogism reigned alone, or nearly 

 alone. Now, in the Phcedrus of Plato, a dialogue written for the purpose of magnifying 

 the art of dialectic at the expense of its rival, Rhetoric, occurs a passage in which two methods 

 are marked out for the dialectician to pursue in searching for definitions'. Either, it is 

 said, he may start from particulars, and from these rise to generals : or he may assume a 

 general, and descend by successive stages to the subordinate species (the species specialissima) 

 which contains the thing or idea which he seeks to define. He may begin, to take the 

 example given in the dialogue, with examining the different manifestations of the passion 

 of Love, and after ascertaining what element or elements they possess in common, and 

 rejecting all those in which they differ, he may frame a definition or general conception 

 of Love, sufficiently comprehensive to include its subordinate kinds, and sufficiently restricted 

 to exclude every other passion. Or he may reverse the process, and divide some higher 

 genus into successive pairs of sub-genera or species, until he " comes down " upon the 

 particular kind of Love which he seeks to distinguish. The first of these processes is styled 

 by Plato avva'yw'yrj. Collection: by Aristotle etra-yoDyr), Induction: the second is called 

 by both Plato and Aristotle ^laipsarK, or the ^laipeTiKt) ixeOo^o^, Division, or the Divisive 

 method. Whoso is master of both methods is styled by Plato a Dialectician, and his art, the 

 Art of Dialectic^ We have, therefore, in this passage of the Phcedrus a Platonic organon 

 in miniature. 



Now it so happens, that the Thecetetus and the Sophista pretend, each of them, to be 

 an exemplification of one of these two dialectical methods : the Thecetetus of a avvayarytj, the 

 Sophista of a SiaipeaK*. It is this fiction which gives life and unity of purpose to the Thece- 



' It was first re-instated, so far as I know, by Mr Mill. 



^ See Appendix I. Phcedr. 265 D, foil. 



' Those who are unskilled in the application of these pro- 

 cesses are termed IpicrTiKol in the PMlebus, 16 E. ol ik vuv 

 Twv dvQpunritiV <TO<pot ev fxeit^ ottws dif TU)(a)<rt, Kai daTTOv Koi 

 PpaovTcpov nrowvai tov Scovto^ p-erd Be rd ej/ aireipa ev6v9' 

 Ta Sk fieaa axiToii^ cKtpeuyeL' oTs BiaKexiopiarTai to Te iiaXcK- 

 TtKui TrdXiv Kai TO cptffTtKtos Tj^ot nToteTadaL irpoi 

 dWnXovt Tout Xoyous. It is needless to enlarge on the im- 

 portance of this quotation towards the illustration of the 



Sophista, as well as of the passage from the Phadrus now 

 under review. In the received text we read xal voWd 

 flaTToi/, K.T.X. The sense manifestly requires the omission of 

 nroWd. The Eristics admit a One and an Infinite: the Pla- 

 tonists divide the One into Many, and define the number of 

 the Many (Phileb. paulo supra). In other words, they employ 

 the method of Division or Classification, as well as that of Col- 

 lection or Induction. 



♦ Compare Theat. 145 D — 148, with Sophista, init, and 

 253, §§ 82, 83, Bekk. 



