On the Place of the 'Parmenides' in the Chronological Order of the Platonic Dialogues

Author(s): Lewis Campbell

Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Apr., 1896), pp. 129-136
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/693640
Accessed: 18-09-2016 04:12 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Classical Review

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Classical Review
APRIL 1896.

ON THE PLACE OF THE PARMIENIDES IN THE CHRONOLOGICA

OF THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES.

THE question of the order of the which

Platonic
the different periods of each master
dialogues has, ever since the time of are severally distinguished. The prejudice
Schleiermacher, been actively discussed inagainst the argument from internal evidence
Germany. In England, when the subject is notwithstanding easily intelligible.
has been mooted at all, it has been slightly What is harder to account for, is that the
regarded, chiefly, I believe, because of the question of the chronological order of
variety of the theories which have been Plato's writings should ever have been
propounded, and the rooted distrust of thought unimportant. The industry of
internal evidence which is not unnaturally half a century, at the most critical time in
entertained by English scholars. The ex- the development of Hellenic culture, re-
ternal evidence that has any real bearingflecting the life-long struggle of a supremely
on this inquiry is scantier even than thatpowerful mind with the central problems
for a chronological arrangement of Shake- of philosophy, must surely be better
speare's Plays :-especially when the understood, when at least some grouping
of his works, corresponding to the prin-
Platonic Epistles are discarded as an ,early
forgery. For even granting that the forger
cipal periods of their production, has been
worked upon a real tradition (and who obtained.
is
to guarantee us this l), we cannot rely uponMore than thirty years ago, when, after
him for those details which are alone in
editing the Theaetetus, I addressed myself
to the
point. We are thus thrown back upon a closer study of the Sophistes and
kind of evidence which is justly discredited,
Politicus, I was confronted by the twofold
because it has been so often abused. One
problem of genuineness and of chrono-
who undertakes such an investigation logicalinposition. It occurred to me that
England has a thankless task. When he
the metaphysical tests which had been
records his own impressions, he is applied
warned to the solution of such problems
against 'subjectivity'; and when he seeks
were insufficient, because they were apt to
to verify his perceptions, to visualize
vary and
with the philosophical 'standpoint' of
make them objective by collecting thein-
inquirer. For example, the Parmenides,
concluding
stances, he is reminded of the plasticity of as it does with unreconciled
'antinomies,'-though only, as Kant would
genius, which nullifies such a 'mechanical'
mode of analysing a work of art.say, Andbetween 'empty forms of the under-
yet no connoisseur of painting doubts that
standing,'-might seem to Kantian students
Titian or Turner had an earlier, middle, more advanced than the Sophistes, in which
and later manner, or that a competent Hegel (with some perversity of interpreta-
expert deserves to be listened to when he tion, it is true) found his own identification
calls attention to the points of techrnique by of Being with Not-Being. I therefore had
NO. LXXXVI. VOL. X. K

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
130 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

portion ofindependent
recourse to the wholly the Parmenides to one in five,
test
style and diction (not
the same ofascribed
with that course to t
by me in 1867
neglect of any more substantial eviden
to the Euthydemus.3
which a further examination of the two dia- In what remains of this paper I shall
logues might disclose). In bringing theassume the general correctness of that
subject of diction to a point I drew uparrangement
a of the dialogues according to
list of genuine dialogues, showing the pro-which the Sophistes, Politicus and Philebus
portion of words which a page of each ofwith the Timaeus Critias and Laws form
them (in the edition of Stephanus) con- the latest group, while the Phaedrus and
Theaetetus belong to the middle period of
tained that were 'common and peculiar' to
it with three dialogues that were con- which the Republic was the central work:
the rest, with some doubtful and unim-
fessedly later than the Republic, viz. the
Timaeus, Critias and Laws. In this list the portant exceptions, such as the Menexenus,
being relegated to the earlier time. The
Parmenides held a low place, having only
about one such word in seven pages (or, toproofs of this position have been long
accumulating and, though often ignored,
speak more exactly, six words in the forty-
and even laughed to scorn, are easily
one pages (St.) of which the dialogue con-
sists). I said at the time, however, thataccessible to scholars. I do not wish like
this proportion, in the case of the Parme-
Thrasymachus to thrust my argument do
nides, was due to 'exceptional circum- unwilling throats. I will only call atten
stances'; and Mr. W. W. Waddell in his tion to one topic which has not yet b
sufficiently noticed in this connexion, v
elaborate edition of the dialogue, inquires,
' What circumstances I' This question hasthe character of the vocabulary which
been to some extent answered in my Essayshared with the Laws by the other lat
dialogues. The un-Attic words,4 taken
on the Structure of the Republic etc., but
connexion with the introduction of the
I am surprised that so careful a student of
the Parmenides should ask it. For a Eleatic stranger, of Timaeus from Locri
writing which deals almost exclusively Epizephyrii,
withHermocrates the Syracusan,
high abstractions in the severest Megillus
way; the
from Spartan, Cleinias the Cretan,
which accordingly all rhetorical, poetical,
and with the scene of the last dialogue in the
neighbourhood of Cnossus in Crete, appear
ethical, political, physical,1 cosmological,
psychological2 terms, as well to
as justify
words a threefold
of inference; (1) Plato
had travelled;
common life are banished, is really incom- (2) he had become increas-
mensurable in this respect alike
inglywith the
familiar with pan-Hellenic literature;
Republic and the Laws, and much SFor more so
the convenience of the reader, I copy here
with the Phaedrus. To compare it the
without with
numbers the order in which the dia-
them is like comparing two works
logues come un-
out, when tried by this single test, viz.
doubtedly attributable to the the
same proportion of words common and peculiar to
period
of that versatile author, Lewis Carroll,--
them
Legg. with the group consisting of -Tim. Critia,
the Hunting of the Snark and the1.Evaluation
Polit. 2. Soph. Polit. (in one). 3. Phaedr.
of Ir. 4. Soph. 5. Rep. 6. Menex. 7. Phaedo. 8.
The six words which are 'common and Symp. 9. Philebus. 10. Ion. 11. Theaetetus.
Cratylus.
peculiar' to the Parmenides with the group
Protag.
consisting of Tim. Critia, Legg. are:--12. Laches. 13.Apologu.
Euthyphro. fEuthydemu
14. Parmenide
* 8UaZjLeXTO, Parm. Critia, Legg. Lysis. Gorgias.
* or7lov, Parm. Legg. 15. Crito (misprinted 'Critias' in the editio
Soph. Polit.). 16. Hippias Minor. 17. Meno.
t? Trac/yLLEyOs, Parm. Legg. I. Alcibiades. 19. Charmides.
The one thing proved so far is the close affinity of
t /cpLporT, Parm. Tim. Soph. Polit. to the latest group. These dialogues
f phvWS, Parm. Tim.
are shown by these and other signs to divide the
t cravsvo, Parm. Tim. Legg. Republic from the Laws. The Phaedrus from its
If we separate pp. 126-138 from 138--
exuberance takes a higher place than of right
166 we get the following result:-- belongs to it. The same is true in a less degree of
1. 3in 12 = j. the Symposium. On the other hand the Philebus
2. 4in28 =}. and Parmenides, and to a less extent the Theaetetus
And if to these six words are added the and Sophistes stand lower in this list than they
would if tried by other considerations. Both
adverbial use of 'erov in o'ov arrXELv" (Parm.
friendly and unfriendly critics have unfairly treated
this quarter of a page as if it represented the whole
Tim. Critia) and the adverb ravro8arr7,
of we
my argument, which extends over twenty-seven
get a sum of eight words, raising the pro-
1 Except y4VEols and ickEvrss.
pages.
aI may call special attention to the use of ?r4cvov
3 ixcepting ineu7py, vdcpa, &dqa, 4'dvrao/ha.
for arsltov and of ,yvva7rais for 7raLorpE$?s.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 131

(3) he was writing for a (unpersuadable,

* &?,lavos, wider irrefutable),
public,-not
only for his countrymen, Parm. Phaedr. but
Legg. for 'livers out
of Attica'; in short for the whole Grecian
world. * drTPE7r, Parm. Rep. Legg. (&rpEr.S,
Phaedr.)
To which then of the three groups t /3C/3Ka (= insisto, sto), Parm. Rep.
above distinguished does the ParmenidesTim. Critia.
belong? And to continue first of all the
t yvwo'rdo, Parm. Rep. Theaet.
previous method, what evidence is supplied by * ypcpqa (= scriptum), Parm. (singular)
diction ? For although this test has proved Rep. Phil. Tim. Legg. (plural).
fallacious in finding the place of the Par- * yvxvaura, Parm. Theaet. Legg.
menides on a general survey, it may still be * 8rEcOTEla, Parm. Rep. Legg.
of value towards ascertaining to which of * &aKOwO, Parm. Rep. Soph. Polit. Tim.
the three groups in question its vocabulary t SaLbopdro7, Parm. Rep. Theaet. Phil.
(jejune though it be) exhibits most affinity. t yKaorLfL, Parm. Phil.
If with the three dialogues already t ~$wo-oiau, Parm. Rep. Legg.
brought into question, the Timaeus, Critias t -rvcVEu = to revert (to a previous
and Laws, we throw in the other three nowargument), Parm. Rep. Theaet. Legg.
grouped with them, viz. Soph. Polit. Phil., * eVKoXov, Parm. Rep. Legg.
four words are added to the previous eight,
t ErfrTE, Parm. Rep. Soph. Legg.
making twelve in all which are common(&rars, Euthyd.)
and peculiar to the Parmenides with this t iooi3ac, Parm. Phaedr.
latest group. These are:-- *" l~vevo, Parm. Rep. Phaedr. Tim. Legg.
t drcpla, Parm. Phil. Legg. t /iEelTfLalU, Parm. Rep. Tim. Legg.
F* pErd)a'qL (in different senses), Parm.
* &aMLEXEZr, Parm. Critia, Legg. Rep. Theaet.
t ~oov adv., Parm. Critia, Legg.
* tErLov, Parm. Legg.
t aysapoi,
Phil. Parm. Rep. Theaet. Polit.
Tim. Legg.
t ,tdOfte, Parm. Soph.
t pAp.lEP, Parm. Soph. Polit. Tim. t /LKTo%, Parm. Rep. Phil. Tim. Legg.
t pUEPTo'r, Parm. Tim. * A/oL'o/a, Parm. Phaedr. Soph. Legg.
t po'VwO, Parm. Tim. * b yVVEos, Parm. Rep. Phaedr. Soph.
Polit. Legg.
t* 'atxiyEs', Parm. Legg.
* ravVowarrocw, Parm. Legg. * 7rdTrro, Parm. Rep. Theaet. Legg.
* 7rokXo', Parm. Polit. Tim. t E(KLaypa4 /LEoV, Parm. Rep. Legg.
t v'v8vo, Parm. Tim. Legg. t o-Tpo/ZL, Parm. Rep. Phaedr. Theaet.
* These occur in the introductory portion, pp.Soph. Phil. Legg.
126-138. Besides these thirty-four, there are some
+ These are in the main portion of theother words which occur incidentally in the
dialogue,
pp. 138-166.
Meno or the Cratylus, but are otherwise
Almost any of these words might have confined to these ten dialogues.
occurred in any Attic writer without sur- Thus E/Lpov (= measure not metre) occurs
prising the reader. Suppose now that to only in Crat. Parm. Rep. Theaet. Polit.
the seven dialogues above considered we Phil. Tim. Legg.
add those of the middle period,-Phaedrus,
5/oa~ Tim.
Republic, Theaetetus,-the list of words Theaet. only Legg.
in Crat. Parm. Rep. Phaedr.
common and peculiar to the Parmenides 6ppy only in Crat. Parm. Rep. Phaedr.
with the other nine is considerably larger. Polit. Tim. Legg.
It comprises :-
The opposition of or-dar-t and K/e"L is
* dyVoTros, Parm. Rep. Theaet. confined to Crat. Parm. Rep. Phaedr.
* &8oXtErXL'a, Parm. Phaed. Theaet. Theaet. Soph. Phil. Tim. Legg. [Cf. also
t aKLVr70T, Parm. Rep. Theaet. Soph. Tim. the use of roTLXEta in the Cratylus and
Legg. in the later dialogues.]
* vjravXa, Parm. Rep. Phil. Legg. Akgain rs'pas in the sense of 'limit'
occurs only in Meno, Phaedr. Rep. Soph.
ta dvopLodry,
Rep. Theaet. Polit.t avoloui, Parm. Phaedr.
Tim. Legg. Phil. Tim. Legg.
t' rz-spos IrTEpLEXO only in Meno, Parm. Soph. Tim.
Soph. Polit. (infinite), Parm. Rep. Theaet.
Phil. Tim. Legg. Legg.
t lripavro;, Parm. Rep. Theaet. Soph. ov/L(LE7rpo only in Meno (quoting Gorgias)
Polit. Tim. Critia, Legg. and in Parm. Theaet. Phil. Tim. Critia,
"~* Ardo (disto), Parm. Rep. Tim. Critia, Legg.
Legg. Now if in this list of ten dialogues the
rs

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 132 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

Phaedo and the Gorgias are belongs.

the Republic substituted for
EApnKIY occurs else-
the Phaedrus and Theaetetus, the result is where only in Eur. and Xen.; aprTaKL~ and
strikingly different. The only words common rEP~LrTKLS are somewhat forced expressions.
and peculiar to Parm. with Gorg. Phaedo, The use of yYlos as equivalent to 8o0s and
Rep. Soph. Polit. Phil. Tim. Critia, Legg.
are :- the periphrasis with 4b0-ts, e.g. 4 70o ivbO
/vcrsn, j 70T iEaicvrgs cV'cru (cf. ?j 70T IrTTpoOV
44Vcr~
t tvLco%, Parm. Phaedo, in the Phaedrus)
Rep. Legg. do not belong to
Plato's earliest manner.
t &vLcrdrT, Parm. Phaedo, Tim.
* 8crnreo, Parm. Phaedo,Add toRep.
these peculiarities
Legg. the use of 'r
t 8vdv, Parm. Phaedo. 8? without 'r v preceding-the most likely
t JrocrrEp, Parm. Gorg. Rep.
reading Soph. Tim.
in 154C.
t IravrEO)%, Parm. Phaedo,
The employmentRep. Polit.
of particles in the Par-
Phil. Tim. Legg. menides has to be treated with the same
caution as the general vocabulary. The
t o'vyKpLvwo'aOL, Parm.
naturePhaedo,
of the subjectTim.
does not Legg.
admit of the
t crvy&a, Parm. Phaedo.
* rpqLo, Parm. Phaedo,variety
Rep. of the Republic. In the absence
Here are but six coincidences with the of an Index Platonicus or Concordance to
Plato (both sorely needed) it is difficult to
Phaedo, and only one with the Gorgias.
To these seven (none of them ofspeak anywith confidence. But the German
striking significance) may be added, 'statisticians'
rather have reached results which
doubtfully, 4Oopd, only quoted by Astarefrom
not at variance with the preceding
Parm. Phaedo, Phil. Tim. Critia, Legg. (but
argument.
with ' cet.' following) and the active and
passive voices of XaTrrTo. (The middle
Assuming then, in accordance with these
voice occurs also in Symp. Menex.)indications, that the Parmenides belongs to
the same period with Phaedr. Rep. Theaet.,
This comparative study of the vocabulary
(by no means a rich one) raises a strong it remains to inquire what place it holds in
presumption in favour of placing the this central group. Here the stylistic data
Par-
menides in the group of dialogues belonging will hardly serve us, especially if I am
to the middle period. Some slighter rightin-
in maintaining that the exuberance of
dications pointing in the same direction language in the Phaedrus and the scanty
may be further noticed. Plato's diction is of the Parmenides are alike due
vocabulary
so varied that even this dialogue has in
to 'exceptional circumstances.' We must
forty-one pages sixteen words that haveare
recourse to considerations of a larger
peculiar to it:- and more general scope.
And first I recognize as common to the
1. * &Iveo0, ira$ XEaoydOcvov for J vo'os.o.
2. t cbrovoia, in the curious phrase Phaedrus and Republic an exulting and
oUVCLa asrov-Tea.
triumphant note, a tone of smiling opti-
3. t &prTLKLo, nowhere in earlier Gr.mism, in marked contrast, for example, to
4. * &SvcpLVov/aL, Xenophon. the spirit of the Politicus and the Laws.
Those who do not recognize this are not the
5. * 6vcLavrEaoTos, a70a X yd/LEvov.
persons for whom this paper is written.
6. * r~aLmJLa, Xen. Demosth. [Hippocr.].
7. t erpo~os, Hdt. [Hippocr.]. The philosopher in composing Phaedr. Rep.
8. t irEpodT/ls, [Philo, Eustath.]. is conscious of being in possession of a
9. * erKS, Eur. Xenophon. method, which (although he states it some-
what differently in either dialogue) he
10. * KafarLETfLvvvLt, Hem. II. Aristoph.
(with dat. as here), Eur. Xen. evidently believes to be all-prevailing. In
the Parmenides and Theaetetus on the other
11. t ravraXi, Isocr. Menander, Demosth.
12. t rpTrra dKL%, Plut. Iambl. hand he is grappling with difficulties, with
13. * rpay1arLoSLe8, [Schol. in Gorg.
metaphysical dhroplat, which remain un-
Eustath.]. solved, while without their solution the
14. t 7rpoaL'pcEr, Isocr. etc. philosophic mind remains unsatisfied. It is
15. * v'ror, Aesch. Aristoph. [Hom. Od.]. hardly conceivable that works written in
such different moods can have been com-
16. * o-vv3iotaL, Demosth.
Now the greater number of these wordsposed simultaneously. Thus the group of
belong to the class of new derivatives four divides itself into two pairs: Phaedr.
(rEpoLO'T, cf. 7roLdrv) and compounds Rep. on the one hand; Parm. Theaet. on
(8vovrJinoroTo) which, as I have shown in the other.
my Essay on Plato's Use of Language, he With regard to the Phaedrus a slight
used increasingly in the period to whichexternal datum is supplied by the death 6f

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 133

Lysias in B.c. 378, since Theaet.the has come in the interval would
dialogue which
seem to have been written in his lifetime.
separates the Republic from the later
But, as the Republic gives us no suchdialogues.
evidence (unless we count the allusion to I conclude therefore that the Phaedrus is
Ismenias in B. 1), this point is practically
the earliest of the four dialogues, and that
useless. For two reasons, however, it the sceptical pair, Parm. Theaet., are a
appears to me that the Phaedrus must have little later than the Republic. The ques-
been composed before the publication of the tion which remains is one of extreme
Republic. I say the publication, because adifficulty, viz. whether the Parmenides
work may long have existed in petto or the Theaetetus is the earlier. I speak with
even partially in MS., before it was pro-much less confidence on this than on the
dluced even for a limited circle. Cf. what preceding questions.
Zeno is made to say in the Parmenides Before entering upon it I will put for-
about his ypa'pqa, which he regards as a ward some considerations which appear to
pech6 de jeunesse but is unable to keep back me to corroborate the linguistic argument,
because it has been pirated. in favour of placing the Parmenides and
1. It seems improbable that shortly after Theaetetus, as here proposed, together after
bringing out a book of such extent and ofthe Republic and before the Sophist, etc.
such world-wide interest, as the Republic, Mr. W. W. Waddell, in his edition of the
Plato should belittle written composition in Parmenides,--an edition characterized not
comparison with oral discourse, as he doesonly by great labour, but by exceptional
in the Phaedrus; and- candour and love of truth,-contends that
2. The philosophical portion of the the Phaedo is later in the order of com-
Republic in Bks. vi., vii. exhibits a position. His chief reason for this appears
maturity of judgment, a sobriety ofto ex-
be that the singular argument, in which
pression, a 'temperance giving smooth- the inseparable association of Life with
ness,' which is hardly to be found in that
Soul is illustrated by the constant con-
'Psalm in praise of logic,' which Socrates
junction of Heat with Fire, presupposes
pours forth to Phaedrus. that communion of kinds, KoLvovla 1-wv
The next point to be settled is which of
yevJ/v, which is elaborately proved in the
Sophistes. But (1) Is Plato never to
the two pairs of dialogues has the priority
in the order of composition. anticipate himself ? And (2) Is fire in the
Some would compare the tentative Phaedoor a yivos in the sense here spoken of I
'peirastic' arguments and negative con- Mr. Waddell cannot have forgotten that
clusions of Parm. Theaet. with those of the Socrates in the Parmenides is doubtful
Euthyphro, Charmides, Protagoras andwhether or not to assume an 8G0os of 7rip.
Meno, and would construe them as evidence Another cause of this opinion is the
of an early date. But although there isimpression which Mr. Waddell shares with
some resemblance in the dialectical form,Mr. H. Jackson, that the notion of the
the writings thus compared are not in pari idea being a pattern (rapd&scyLa) is expressed
materia. In those earlier dialogues the in a manner which shows it to have been
subject of inquiry was either the definitionhitherto unfamiliar. And he is well aware
of a simple ethical notion or the Unity ofthat in the Phaedo this conception as well
Virtue. But that which is here subjected
as that of 7rapovw'a is clearly implied. But
to the Elenchus, is Unity itself in its arguments of this kind (turning on Plato's
highest abstraction, the nature of defini-manner of stating a view) have really not
tion, and the whole metaphysical problemmuch force. It is more pertinent to
of Knowing and Being. And the essential observe that while in the Phaedo the
point in reference to our present inquiry is
to observe that both the ontological andare different modes and
treated loosely of iLe~EL
vaguely(or IErdcO-?XEo-
as in-
the epistemological doctrines thus nega-different or interchangeable, in the Par-
tively discussed have a strong affinity tomenides they are distinctly stated in a well-
those which are so confidently affirmed in considered order, and separately examined.
the Phaedrus and Republic. When it is Such isolated coincidences, when unduly
further considered that in the Sophist, pressed, must lead, as they have often led,
Politicus and Philebus a more mature theoryto strange and contradictory inferences.
is carefully elaborated, with no blinking of The indications of close affinity, notwith-
difficulties and no singing of paeans, thestanding great differences, which 'spring
inference is obvious that the cold fit of to the eyes' when, in accordance with the
philosophic doubt represented by Parm. linguistic hints, the Parmenides and

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 134 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

Theaetetus are examined philosophic side

mind. by side,
In Parm. Theaet.arethey of
a different order from these. are for the first time seriously encountered,
1. There is first the supposed meeting ofalthough the seriousness is not unmixed
the young Socrates with the aged Parme- with irony.
nides, mentioned only in Parm. Theaet. In Soph. Polit. these same difficulties are
Sophist. partially removed,--in the Sophist by laying
2. Secondly, there is the reflex of the down the principles of a working logic; in
Zenonian as distinguished from the Socratic the Politicus by obtaining an actual stand-
Elenchus, which pervades both dialogues, ing-ground for the scientific statesman;
and in Soph. Polit. is continued in the not without a lingering backward look at
person of the Eleatic Stranger. This (or athe Ideal, which in its perfection is un-
derivative form of it) had been ridiculed inattainable 'upon this Earth.'
the Euthydemus and contrasted with the 4. Fourthly, there is the gradual transi-
sweet reasonableness of Socrates; but in tion, increasingly perceptible in Parm.
these dialogues it is seriously confrontedTheaet. Soph. Polit., from an ontological
and earnestly grappled with. And in the towards a logical conception of Being. It
Cratylus he had touched slightly on thewas this which gave occasion to the acute
opposition of Eleaticism and Heracliteanism,and perspicacious doubts of Socher. There
but here we have the first stages of ais not room in this paper for developing
critical survey which pierces the very soul this view, nor have I the time or strength
and marrow of both philosophies. for such a task. I leave it to some historian
3. Thirdly, there is the haunting sense ofof the Science of Logic. I will only say
the great difficulty, if not of the impossi-that, in common with much else, this
bility,-after rising through heights of tendency is anticipated (but only antici-
abstraction to the Universal,-of descending pated) in the Phaedrus, where not only the
again, and finding a way from the Ideal to method of diaeresis and synag8ge is bodied
the Actual, from Divine to Human Know- forth, but even amidst the poetic vision of
ledge, from the One to the Many, from thethe Heaven above the Heavens occur the
certainty of Knowledge to the uncertaintiespregnant words (249 B) Sic yap &vOprrov
of Opinion and Sensation; also of passing
over from Being to Becoming, and so recon- evtLvaX K~XT coio Xyo'pcvov, (K 7roX wv iv
(Badham conj. iYTr') alGoe(O-c El V XoyuTEL
ciling the equally necessary conceptions of $VaLpoV/Lrvov.
Stability and Movement. 5. Fifthly, there is, common to both
In the Phaedo, the philosopher climbsdialogues, the determination that, in spite
without the sense of effort out of the con- of logical difficulties which are clearly set
tradictions of sensible particulars into aforth but for the present remain unsolved,
region of universals by whose light thethat high philosophic quest, which Plato
objects of sense are seen in their true identifies with LLaXEKTLK , shall be stedfastly
nature as transient phenomena. The waypursued. Few parallels in Plato are closer
upwards in accentuated, the way down- or more significant than that between Parm.
wards costs little thought. Both methods135 C t ov VroTLacTE LtXooo4tas 7rL p L; wroi
are included in the Phaedrus and RepublicpcIELt ayVoov/.LvCV TOVTWv; and Theaet.
Book vi.; but the difficulties which beset the
196 E LXX a TV T'pOrov SLaX$EL, & ~WKpLTE%,
Dialectic which is there imagined, though
ToVyV LTrXo/YVos; 3. oVOEva v TYe yE O L/.
they are not ignored, are discounted through 6. Some minor points of coincidence may
all-confident faith in the powers of thebe added. Compare, e.g.:-
The aged Parmenides. The aged and grave Theodorus.
An f 8 oo of man, fire, water (Parm.
130). cvLOpodv 7r....K KL XMov KaL Ka0 "KGTOV
(O)v 0TELKL c T o (Theaet. 157).
The promise of youth in Socrates (Parm. The promise of youth in Theaetetus
135). (Theaet. 155).
SXElV = ' to be obnoxious to' (a dialectical
expression).
vr-vv roXh...I
The ?X v (Parm.
esoteric tone.135 A). ToVr' L KO/AtoLTaOV (Theaet. 171 A).

(Parm. 136 D) &7rpei7r yap T" 7orav'a oiTre yp SLKa(TT ', K.T.X. (Theaet. 173 C).
irokov ravVlov X~4ycw, (137 B) avTroL iJcEv.
Distinction of yly&'voac and ycv&oaG.
EL yap ycv v T o, o )v L yv o L v o
(ParfMi. 155 A). o /Ltq7a~O
LLVEV 70T 'qY,
YOV LLAL
e L vcy'cpov
K"L 'EVTTVat
cy cL15 'aL
LLSvaTov (Theaet. 155 B).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 135

Three kinds of motion.

JMoowos, rrcpefopd, 4opc (Parm. 162). (Theaet. 181).
(Theaet: 185).
irEpov, CKCTCpOV,
Distinction 4.44c
of 7riv, 7rivTa, &Aov(Parm.
(Parm. 139, 143).
144, 145, 153). (Theaet. 204).
[oim E] KCL oi Oix 07m (Parm. 159). (Theaet. 183).
70io eKEVOV Kal TO7 7TLVO K.T.X. (Parm. 160,
164). (Theaet. 157, 202).
oi48 40cyyrO8a (Parm. 161). (Theaet. 183).
E T E Av 9Br (Parm. 161). (Theaet. 154).
(Theaet. 178, 179).
ov Ta = &4xi (Parm. 161).
CLX X Xo ~p y C (C CTT. TOVTO yi/p (LVTOZ CL
XE Lr CTaL (Parm. 164 C).
X-7raL 1...Zv&XXXo...
EvacL (Theaet. 160 B).
In the absence of Unity only oyKoL remain In the absence of Being, only an d0por pa
(Parm. 165). (Theaet. 157).

To come now finally to the question,-- another purpose, which I pointed out in the
Art. ' Plato' in Encyc. Brit. ed. ix., and
Which was written first, the Theaetetus,
or the Parmenides 1 M. W. Lutoslawski which Mr. Waddell has suggested inde-
proposes to prove in his forthcoming work pendently: this imaginary circumstance
on Plato's Logic that the Parmenides was accentuates Plato's implied confession, that
composed some time after the Theaetetus, the doctrine of Ideas as previously held by
i.e. in the interval between the Theaetetus
him was a crude theory, Apr~t E v<^ Ov 7vm
and the Sophist. I am inclined to place
TLYvO iblgarrroLvov 80SiXo vcoycv~s Av.1
it slightly earlier: and for the following2. Teichmiiller imagined that he had
reasons :- found a dividing link between earlier and
1. I think that most Platonic scholars later dialogues in the Preface to the
will agree with me in assuming thatTheaetetus;
the all narrated dialogues being
meeting of Socrates with Parmenides isearlier,
an and all those later, in which 'said
invention of Plato's. That Parmenides I,' 'said he,' etc., are omitted. And so
should have visited Athens at all in the much at least is true, that the latter form
is adopted in all those of the Platonic
middle of the fifth century is unlikely.
Did any 'coryphaeus' of philosophy writings
come which are demonstrably late, viz.
Soph. Polit. Phileb. Tim. Critia, Legg.
thither before the ascendancy of Pericles
But even granting the reality of such Therefore,
a although Plato was free at any
time to vary his style, and it cannot be
visit, is the meeting of the .LEpdoKLov
Socrates, the stonecutter's son, with admitted
the that the Euthyphr. Apol. Laches,
great man at the house of Pythodorus Crat. Gorg. lo, Meno, and Phaedrus are
later than the Theaetetus, it does seem
likely to be more real than the intercourse
of the same Socrates with Gorgias of
from the fact mentioned above that after a
Leontini in the house of Callicles or with
certain date Plato consistently preferred
Timaeus of Locri Epizephyrii and Hermo- the more succinct and concentrated form,
crates of Syracuse at a later Panathenaeawhich,
1 although in some ways less suited to
(Compare the opening of the Laches, wherethe imaginative treatment of philosophy,
Socr. is personally unknown even in his was more convenient for the presentation
father's neighbourhood.) Or, once more, of dialectical drybones, Now the state-
ment of this preference is one motive
even if, for the sake of argument, we make
so sweeping an admission, would Plato in of the Preface to the Theaetetus, and
the Theaetetus have made Socrates at it seems improbable that he should have
seventy revert for the first time to thatdeparted from this method in his next
succeeding Essay, and then have main-
occasion of fifty years ago, unless he had
some special motive And what motive tained it during the rest of his time. M.
can be more natural than to connect the Lutoslawski thinks that the terms of this
Theaetetus with an already existing and
Preface are sufficiently accounted for by a
kindred dialogue The representation of
reaction from the tediousness of repeating
Socrates as 'very young' at the time of the
(v
the8' Republic.
interview was of course inevitable, if the 7y4, 4 8' osButandif i~y, at every
we are turn in
to speculate
alleged meeting was to have any plausi- at all, is it not still more likely that he had
bility. But I still think that the youthwearied
of himself and his readers in the
Socrates is made by Plato's skill to serve 1 Soph. 259 D.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 136 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

Parmenides with the suggests that a gap of timeof

management must
whahave
Hegel calls the fourth person: ify come between, and except in the last sen
tence, which may have been tacked on
'AvrTLV <ofvat TAv IIveo8wpov...rTv IIap-
any time, the Theaetetus presents no trace
EVL&Vrlyv fdvaL, K.T.X. ? The elaborate manner
ofishaving been originally intended to b
in which both dialogues are introduced
the first of a series.
in accordance with the date of composition
here assigned to them. For it indicates But, once more, in looking at the Parme-
the writer's consciousness of a wide gapnides as a whole, while the style is that of
between the lifetime of Socrates and his Plato's maturity, the dialogue presents
more
own, which has to be bridged over in the effect of a first effort in a new
some
way. But in the Theaetetus his way of
region,-that of pure dialectical abstrac-
tions,-than the Theaetetus with its mellow
doing this is far neater, and his comment
upon it in the Preface to that dialogue
blending - of ethical, psychological, logical
betrays the consciousness of a difficulty
and metaphysical elements, and its profound
overcome.
analysis (taken up afterwards in the
3. The most original and suggestive
Timaeus) of the nature of perception.
At thein
passage of the Parmenides, that same time I am ready to admit
which
the possibility of changethat this particular question
(perafloX) is may be argued
in a contraryof
provided for through the conception sense;-that
the the thorny
subtilties
Instantaneous (4 70o i$alcdvr of the Parmenides,
4nois), by so remote
from the spirit
removing the speculative difficulty whichof the Republic, are only
stood in the way of admitting approached
the towards
reality the end of the Theae-
of y~veco-s, may have cleared tetus, a
that the thorough-going
path for notion of a
Plato's onward thought, towards that philosophy which despises nothing however
analysis of sensation, perception, judgment, trivial is shared by the Parmenides with
memory and opinion, as processes, which the later dialogues (Soph. Phileb.), and that
fills so large a space in the argument of the the EXEyKILKOF &vp of the Theaetetus (a con-
Theaetetus. Mr. Waddell finds that the
temporary portrait) may have led Plato
back toof
insertion of this passage creates a want Zeno and through Zeno to the re-
symmetry between the two iTwoerEocl,examination
i~v d of 'the great Parmenides.' I
orwv and tv de p~g &iov, but to have have far less of certitude on this point than
pursued
the latter into the third consequence I'neither
have in maintaining that the Theaetetus
all nor none,' would have been tediousandand
Parmenides are sister dialogues and
unmeaning. that they are intermediate between the
4. That Plato himself connected the Republic and the Sophistes.
Sophist with the Theaetetus is not a con- LEWIS CAMPBELL.
clusive argument, for the evidence of style

THE CAMPAIGN OF BASIL I. AGAINST THE PAULICIANS IN 872 A.D.

THIS campaign of Basil is of great
makes-no reference to this campaign, because,
interest and importance from a topo- as he informs me, it was not possible at the
graphical point of view and will well repay a time to localize the names mentioned. But
careful examination because of the mention he has very kindly directed my attention to
of several geographical names which haveMr. Guy Le Strange's interesting transla-
tion (with notes) of Ibn Serapion [from
not hitherto been definitely localized-the
fortress Zapetra or Sozopetra (Zibatra Journal
in of Royal Asiatic Society, 1895],
which has given me invaluable aid in
the Arab writers) which plays so important
a part in frontier wars with the Saracens,
writing this paper, as will be seen from the
numerous references to the work.1
the city Taranta (probably Derende), and
the River Zarnouk (= Zarniik) which is
SSince these lines were written, I have received
apparently not elsewhere mentioned in the
from the Author (through the kindness of Professor
Byzantine authors. When Zapetra is once
Ramsay) a copy of his book with MS. corrections
and additional notes. I am glad to find that in
fixed, it is possible to fix (from statements
several points Mr. Le Strange's views now agree with
in the Arab geographers) the site of Adataconclusions reached in this paper, e.g. in reference
(Al-Hadath). In his well-known Historical
to the River Hurith (Jurith) and the identification
of the River Karlkis with the Sultan Su, &c.
Geogrcaphy of Asia Minor Professor Ramsay

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:12:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms