162 GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 



to be illustrated in a striking light. But we must be very careful not 

 to confuse these resulting distinctions with the primitive one from 

 which they flowed, and still more not to suppose that they were the 

 cause of it ; for we shall see presently that want of attention to this 

 caused in later writers first of all most inaccurate expressions as to the 

 nature of this celebrated division, and, finally, an utterly erroneous view 

 of it, and of the spirit in which it originated. 



Cicero's Cicero, in two of his letters to Atticus, 1 speaks of having composed 



imitations. ^ wo works in the manner of Aristotle's exoteric ones. The points of 

 comparison which these two treatises (the ' De Finibus ' and the ' De 

 Republica) offer, consist in the dialogic form in which they are written, 

 and the prefaces which serve to introduce the dramatis personce who 

 carry on the discussion to the reader. The objections interposed by 

 some of these to the view which it is the design of the author to elu- 

 cidate are turned into a means of bringing it out in stronger and 

 bolder relief. This mode of treatment in the hands of a master 

 obviously offers many advantages. The dramatic interest keeps the 

 attention of the reader from flagging ; and the peculiar obstacles which 

 the differences of individual temperament not unfrequently interpose to 

 the reception of any doctrine may be in this way most clearly set forth 

 and most easily removed. The dialogues of Plato are an obvious ex- 

 ample of this. But if we consider the ' De Oratore,' * De Finibus,' 

 and * De Republica ' of Cicero to represent with tolerable accuracy 

 the character of the Aristotelian Dialogues, we see at once a very con- 

 siderable change. The genial productive power of the artist has given 

 way to the systematic reflection of the philosopher. The personages 

 introduced are not living and breathing men, with all their feelings, 

 prejudices, and individual peculiarities, they are mere puppets which 

 speak the opinions entertained by those whose name they bear. These 

 opinions may be fairly and lucidly stated, they may be backed by all 

 the pomp and power of rhetoric, as they are in Cicero, and as they 

 probably were in Aristotle, but the speakers have no life, the scene no 

 reality ; and in spite of the pains taken by the author to prevent it by 

 allusions to particular times, places, and circumstances, we rise from the 

 perusal with our opinions more or less modified, but with no more dis- 

 tinct recollection of the parties by whom the discussion has been carried 

 on than if they had been distinguished by the letters of the alphabet 

 instead of the names of known characters. 2 But what these produc- 



1 Ad Attic, iv. 16. Hanc ego de Republica, quam institui disputationem in 

 Africani personam et Phili et Laelii et Manilii contuli : adjunxi adolescentes, Q. 

 Tuberonem, P. Rutilium, duo Laelii generos, Scaevolam et Fannium. Itaque cogi- 

 tabam, quoniam in singulis libris utor procemiis, ut Aristoteles in iis, quos e|<wTe- 



OIKOVS vocat, aliquid efficere ut non sine causd istum appellarem, &c Ad 



Attic, xiii. 19. Quse autem his temporibus scripsi, Aristoteleum morem habent ; 

 in quo ita sermo inducitur ceterorum, ut penes ipsum sit principatus. Ita confeci 

 quinque libros irepl reAcDj/, &c. On the same principle he had composed his books 

 De Oratore, Epp. Attic, iv. 16, Epp. ad Famil. i. 9, sec. 23. 



2 Bishop Berkeley's Hylas and Philonous and Minute Philosopher make no pre- 



