# The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. I (Jowett, 2nd ed.) - Author: Plato - Source: Internet Archive item `dialoguesofplato01joweuoft` (https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato01joweuoft) - Note: OCR plain text from a scanned public-domain edition; minor OCR artifacts may remain. --- THE DIALOGUES OF PLATO JO WETT VOL. I. MACMILLAN AND CO. PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ©xforD THE DIALOGUES OF PLATO TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH ANALYSES AND INTRODUCTIONS BY B. JOWETT, M.A. MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN IN FIVE VOIUMES VOL. I SECOND EDITION REVISED AND CORRECTED THROUGHOUT, WITH ADDITIONS AND AN INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND PROPER NAMES #^f0rir AT THE CLARENDON PRESS M DCCG LXXy \_All rights reserved '\ JUN . 9 19)9 Goas? TO MY FORMER PUPILS IN BALLIOL COLLEGE AND IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, WHO DURING THIRTY YEARS HAVE BEEN THE BEST OF FRIENDS TO ME, THESE VOLUMES ARE INSCRIBED, IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF THEIR NEVER FAILING ATTACHMENT. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. The Text which has been mostly followed in this Translation of Plato is the latest 8vo. edition of Stallbaum ; the principal deviations are noted at the bottom of the page. I have to acknowledge many obligations to old friends and pupils. These are : — Mr. John Purves, Fellow of Balliol College, with whom I have revised about half of the entire Translation ; the Rev. Professor Campbell, of St. Andrews, who has helped me in the revision of several parts of the work, especially of the Theaetetus, Sophist, and Politicus ; Mr. Robinson Ellis, Fellow of Trinity College, and Mr. Alfred Robinson, Fellow of New College, who read with me the Cratylus and the Gorgias ; Mr. Paravicini, Student of Christ Church, who assisted me in the Symposium ; Mr. Raper, Fellow of Queen's College, Mr. Monro, Fellow of Oriel College, and Mr. Shadwell, Student of Christ Church, who gave me similar assistance in the Laws. Dr. Greenhill, of Hastings, has also kindly sent me remarks on the physiological part of the Ti- maeus, which I have inserted as corrections under the head of errata at the end of the Introduction. The degree of accuracy which I have been enabled to attain is in great measure due to these gentlemen, and I heartily thank them for the pains and time which they have bestowed on my work. 351 viii PREFACE TO THE I have further to explain how far I have received help from other labourers in the same field. The books which I have found of most use are Steinhart and Miiller's German Translation of Plato with Introduc- tions ; Zeller's ' Philosophie der Griechen,' and ' Pia- tonische Studien;' Susemihl's ' Genetische Entwickelung der Platonischen Philosophie;' Hermann's ' Geschicte der Platonischen Philosophie ; ' Bonitz, ' Platonische Studien ; ' Stallbaum's Notes and Introductions ; Pro- fessor Campbell's editions of the ' Theaetetus,' the * Sophist,' and the ' Politicus ; ' Professor Thompson's 'Phaedrus;' Th. Martin's 'Etudes sur le Timee;' Mr. Poste's edition and translation of the ' Philebus ; ' the Translation of the ' Republic,' by Messrs. Davies and Vaughan, and the Translation of the ' Gorgias,' by Mr. Cope. I have also derived much assistance from the great work of Mr. Grote, which contains excellent analyses of the Dialogues, and is rich in original thoughts and observations. I agree with him in rejecting as futile the attempt of Schleiermacher and others to arrange the Dialogues of Plato into a harmonious whole. Any such arrangement appears to me not only to be unsupported by evidence, but to involve an ana- chronism in the history of philosophy. There is a com- mon spirit in the writings of Plato, but not a unity of design in the whole, nor perhaps a perfect unity in any single Dialogue. The hypothesis of a general plan which is worked out in the successive Dialogues is an after-thought of the critics who have attributed a system to writings belonging to an age when system had not as yet taken possession of philosophy. If Mr. Grote should do me the honour to read any portion of this work he will probably remark that I have FIRST EDITION. ix endeavoured to approach Plato from a point, of view which is opposed to his own. The aim of the Introduc- tions in these volumes has been to represent Plato as the father of Idealism, who is not to be measured by the standard of utilitarianism or any other modern philo- sophical system. He is the poet or maker of ideas, satisfying the wants of his own age, providing the instruments of thought for future generations. He is no dreamer, but a great philosophical genius struggling with the unequal conditions of light and knowledge under which he is living. He may be illustrated by the writings of moderns, but he must be Interpreted by his own, and by his place in the history of philosophy. We are not concerned to determine what is the re- siduum of truth which remains for ourselves. His truth may not be our truth, and nevertheless may have an extraordinary value and interest for us. I cannot agree with Mr. Grote In admitting as gen- uine all the writings commonly attributed to Plato in antiquity, any more than with Schaarschmidt and some other German critics who reject nearly half of them. The German critics, to whom I refer, proceed chiefly on grounds of internal evidence ; they appear to me to lay too much stress on the variety of doctrine and style, which must be equally acknowledged as a fact, even In the Dialogues regarded by Schaarschmidt as genuine, e.g. in the Phaedrus, or Symposium, when compared with the Laws. He who admits works so different In style and matter to have been the composition of the same author, need have no difficulty (see vol. iv. Appendix) In admitting the Sophist or the Politicus. [The negative argument adduced by the same school of critics, which is based on the silence of Aristotle, is not worthy of much consideration. For why should Aristotle, because VOL. I. b X PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION, he has quoted several Dialogues of Plato, have quoted them all ? Something must be allowed to chance, and to the nature of the subjects treated of in them.] On the other hand, Mr. Grote trusts mainly to the Alexandrian Canon. But I hardly think that we are justified in attributing much weight to the authority of the Alexandrian librarians in an age when there was no regular publication of books, and every tempt- ation to forge them ; and in which the writings of a school were naturally attributed to the founder of the school. And even without intentional fraud, there was an inclination to believe rather than to enquire. Would Mr. Grote accept as genuine all the writings which he finds in the lists of learned ancients attributed to Hip- pocrates, to Xenophon, to Aristotle ? The Alexandrian Canon of the Platonic writings is deprived of credit by the admission of the Epistles, which are not only unworthy of Plato, and in several passages plagiarized from him, but flagrantly at variance with historical fact. It will be seen also that I do not agree with Mr. Grote's views about the Sophists ; nor with the low estimate which he has formed of Plato's Laws ; nor with his opinion respecting Plato's doctrine of the rotation of the earth. But I • ' am not going to lay hands on my father Parmenides' [Soph. 241 D], who will, I hope, forgive me for differing from him on these points. I cannot close this Preface without expressing my deep respect for his noble and gentle character, and the great services which he has rendered to Greek Literature. Balliol College, January, 1871, PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In publishing a Second Edition of the Dialogues of Plato in English, I have to acknowledge the assistance of several friends : of the Rev. G. G. Bradley, Master of University College, who sent me some valuable remarks on the Phaedo ; of Dr. Greenhill, who has again revised a portion of the Timaeus ; of Mr. R. L. Nettleship, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, to whom I am indebted for an excellent criticism of the Parmenides ; and, above all, of the Rev. Professor Campbell of St. Andrews, and Mr. Paravicini, late Student of Christ Church and Tutor of Balliol College, with whom I have read over the greater part of the translation. I am also indebted to Mr. Evelyn Abbott, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, for a complete and accurate index. The Prefaces to the Dialogues have been enlarged, and essays on subjects of modern philosophy having an affinity to the Platonic Dialogues have been intro- duced into several of them. The analyses have been corrected, and innumerable alterations have been made In the Text. At the end of a long task, the translator may without b2 xii PREFACE TO THE impropriety point out the difficulties which he has had to encounter. These have been far greater than he would have anticipated; nor is he at all sanguine that he has succeeded in overcoming them. I. It may seem a truism to say that an English trans- lation must have a distinct meaning and must be English. Its object is not merely to render the words of one language into the words of another, but to produce an impression similar or nearly similar to that of the original on the mind of the reader. It should be rhythmical and varied, and, above all, equable in style. It should in some degree at least retain the charac- teristic qualities of the ancient writer — his freedom, grace, simplicity, stateliness, weight, precision ; or the best part of him will be lost to the English reader. It should read as an original work, and should also be the most faithful transcript which can be made of the language from which the translation is taken, consistently with the first requirement of all, that it be English. But it is difficult to harmonize all these opposite claims. In translating Plato what may be termed the interests of the Greek and of the English will often be at war with one another. In framing an English sentence or in rounding a paragraph the attention is insensibly diverted from the exact meaning of the Greek. The freest and the most literal translation are not necessarily opposed, but the two principles can only be harmonized by a series of corrections. All the subtle effects of words upon one another, the allusions which play upon the surface or lie underneath, are not perceived at a first or a second reading, and cannot, with the utmost pains of the translator, be perfectly imitated. There are fundamental differences in Greek and English of which some may be managed while others I SECOND EDITION, xiii remain intractable, (i)- The structure of the Greek lan- guage is partly adversative and alternative, and partly inferential ; , that is to say, the members of a sentence are either opposed to one another, or one of them expresses the cause or effect or condition or reason of another. The two tendencies may be called the I Jaorizontal or perpendicular lines of the language ; and ^^Bie opposition or inference is often much more one of ^^words than of ideas. But modern languages have rubbed off this inferential and adversative form : they have fewer links of connection, and are content to place sentences side by side, leaving their relation to one another to be inferred from their position or from the rest of the sentence. The difficulty of preserving the effect of the Greek is increased by the want of adversative or inferential particles in English, and by the nice sense of tautology which characterizes all modern languages. We cannot have two * buts ' or ' fors' in the same sentence where the Greek repeats aXXa or 70^0. There is a similar want of particles expressing the various gradations of objective and subjective thought — Trof, ^i, /x^t/, jULhroi, and the like, which are so thickly scattered over the Greek page. And while English is more dependent than Greek upon the apposition of clauses and sentences, there is a further difficulty in using this form of construction owing to the want of case endings. For the same reason there cannot be an equal variety in the order of words or an equal nicety of emphasis in English as in Greek. (2). Still greater is the difficulty which arises from the restriction of the use of the genders. Men and women in English are masculine and feminine, and there is a similar distinction of sex in the words denoting xiv PREFACE TO THE animals; but all things else, whether outward objects or abstract ideas, are relegated to the class of neuters. Hardly in some flight of poetry do we ever endue any of them with the characteristics of a sentient being, and then only by speaking of them in the feminine gender. The virtues may be pictured in female forms, but they are not so described in language ; a ship is humorously supposed to be the sailor s bride ; more doubtful are the personifications of church and country as females. So rare are the exceptions to the general rule which has just been laid down. Now the genius of the Greek language is the opposite of this. The same tendency to personification which is seen in the Greek mythology is common also in language ; and genders are attributed to things as well as persons according to their various degrees of strength and weakness ; or from fanciful resemblances to the male or female form, or in consequence of some analogy too subtle to be discovered. When the gender of any object was once fixed, a similar gender was naturally assigned to all similar objects. This use of genders in the denotation of objects or ideas not only affects the words to which a masculine or feminine gender is attributed, but the words with which they are construed or connected, and passes into the general character of the style. Hence arises a difficulty in translating Greek into English which cannot altogether be overcome. Shall, we speak of the soul and its qualities, of virtue, power, wisdom, and the like, as feminine or neuter ? The usage of the English language does not admit of the former, and yet the life and beauty of the style are impaired by the latter. For how can we attribute intelligence and mind to what is neuter ? Often the translator will have recourse to the repetition of the I SECOND EDITION, xv word, or to the ambiguous 'they/ 'their,' or 'whose,' etc. ; for fear of spoiling the effect of the sentence by introducing ' it' Words signifying things or persons can almost always be expressed by equivalents in English ; the difficulty begins with the intermediate degrees or half personifications which pervade a Greek sentence. (3). The use of relation is far more extended in Greek than in English. Partly the greater variety of genders and cases makes the connection of relative and ante- cedent less ambiguous : partly also the greater number of demonstrative and relative pronouns, and the use of the article, make the correlation of ideas simpler and more natural. The Greek appears to have had an ear or intelligence for a long and complicated sentence which is not to be found in modern nations. Neither is the same precision required in Greek as in English ; there was nothing shocking to the contemporary of Thucydides and Plato in anacolutha and repetitions. In such cases the genius of the English language requires that the translation should be more perspicuous than the Greek. The want of more distinctions between the demonstrative pronouns is also greatly felt. Fre- quently the noun has to take the place of the pronoun. 'This' and 'that' are found repeating themselves to weariness in the translation. As in the previous case, while the feeling of the modern language is more opposed to tautology, there is also a greater difficulty in avoiding it. (4). Though no precise rule can be laid down about the repetition of words, there seems to be a kind of impertinence in presenting to the reader the same thought in the same words, repeated twice over in the same passage without any new aspect or modification of it. Evasions of tautology — that is to say, the substitution xvi PREFACE TO THE of one word of precisely the same meaning for another — are resented by us equally with repetitions of words. Yet on the other hand the least difference of meaning or the least change of the word from a substantive to an adjective, or from a participle to a verb, will often remedy the unpleasant effect. Rarely for the sake of emphasis or clearness can we allow an important verb or substantive to be used twice over in two successive sen- tences. The particles and pronouns, as they are of most | frequent occurrence, are also the most troublesome. Strictly speaking, except a few of the commonest of them, 'and,' 'the,' etc., they ought not to occur twice in the same sentence. But the Greek has no such precise rules ; and hence a literal translation of a Greek author is full of tautology. The tendency of modern languages is to become more correct as well as more perspicuous than ancient. And, therefore, while the English translator is limited in the power of expressing relation or connection, by the law of his own language increased precision and also increased clearness are required of him. The familiar use of logic, and the progress of science, have in these two respects raised the standard. But modern languages while they have become more exacting in their demands, are in many respects not so well furnished with powers of expression as the ancient classical ones. Such are a few of the difficulties which have to be overcome in the work of translation ; and there are many others. (5). The excellence of a translation will con- sist not merely in the faithful rendering of words, or in the composition of a sentence only, or yet of a single paragraph, but in the colour and style of the whole work. The metaphors admissible in different languages vary, and the translator will often be compelled to I SECOND EDITION. xvii substitute one for another, not giving word for word, but leading up to and making preparation for striking or metaphorical expressions. He must find modern equivalents taken from Scripture, or from the English poets, for ancient phrases ; for ideas must be given through something. He must also provide expressions for phi- losophical terms of very indefinite meaning in the more definite language of modern philosophy. And he must not allow discordant elements to enter into the work. For example, in translating Plato, it would equally be an anachronism to intrude on him the feeling and spirit of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures or the technical terms of the Modern German philosophy. (6). As no two words are precise equivalents (just as no two leaves of the forest are exactly similar), it is impossible that the same Greek word should always be translated by the same English word. In such cases the translator may be allowed to employ two words — sometimes when the two meanings occur in the same passage, varying them by an *or' — e.g. eTria-Trjixri^ 'science' or ' knowledge,' eUo^, ' idea ' or ' class,' — at the point where the change of meaning occurs. Proverbial ex- pressions may be replaced by parallel expressions in English or modern languages. If translations are intended not for the Greek scholar but for the general reader, their worst fault will be that they sacrifice the general effect and meaning to the over precise rendering of words and forms of speech. (7). There is no kind of literature in English which corresponds to the Greek Dialogue ; nor is the English language easily adapted to it. Most of the so-called English Dialogues are only imitations of Plato, which fall very far short of the original. The breath of con- versation, the subtle adjustment of question and answer, xviii PREFACE TO THE the lively play of fancy, the power of drawing characters, are wanting in them. But the Platonic dialogue is a drama as well as a dialogue, of which Socrates is the central figure, and there are lesser performers as well : — the insolence of Thrasymachus, the anger of Callicles and Anytus, the patronizing style of Protagoras, the self-consciousness of Prodicus and Hippias, are all part of the entertainment. To reproduce this living image the same sort of effort is required as in translating poetry — ttoXX^? ka-Ti Trelpag reXeuratov eTnyivvrjjULa. The English language is slow in lending itself to the form of question and answer, and so the ease of conver- sation is partly lost, and at the same time the dialectical precision with which the steps of the argument are drawn out is apt to be impaired. II. In the Introductions to the Dialogues have been added some essays on modern philosophy, and on political and social life. The chief subjects discussed in these are Utility, Communism, and the Kantian and Hegelian philosophies. Ancient and modern philosophy throw a light upon one another : but they should be compared, not con- founded. Although the connection between them is sometimes accidental, it is often real. The same questions are discussed by them under different conditions of language and civilization ; but frequently a mere word has survived, while nothing or hardly anything of the Platonic or Aristotelian meaning is retained. There are other questions familiar to the moderns, which have no place in ancient philosophy. The world has grown older in two thousand years, and has enlarged its stock of ideas and methods of reasoning. The germ of modern thought is found in ancient, and we may claim to have inherited, notwithstanding many accidents of I SECOND EDITION. xix time and place, the spirit of Greek philosophy. Yet there is no continuous growth of one into the other, but a new beginning, partly artificial, partly arising out of the questionings of the mind itself, and also re- ceiving a stimulus from the study of ancient writings. Considering the great and fundamental differences which exist in ancient and modern philosophy, it seems best that we should at first study them separately, and seek for the interpretation of either, especially of the ancient, from itself only, comparing the same author with himself and with his contemporaries, and with the general state of thought and feeling preva- lent in his age. Afterwards comes the remoter light which they cast on one another. Then we feel that the ancients had the same thoughts as ourselves, the same difficulties which characterize all periods of tran- sition, almost the same opposition between science and religion. Although we cannot maintain that ancient and modern philosophy are one and continuous (as has been affirmed with more truth respecting ancient and modern history), for they are separated by an interval of a thousand years, yet they seem to recur in a sort of cycle, and we are surprised to find that the new is ever old, and that the teaching of the past has still a meaning for us. III. In the preface to the first edition I expressed a strong opinion at variance with Mr. Grote's, that the so called Epistles of Plato were spurious. His friend and editor, Professor Bain, naturally thinks that I ought to give the reasons why I differ from so eminent an authority. Reserving the fuller discussion of the question for another work, I will shortly defend my opinion by the following arguments : — (a) Because almost all epistles purporting to be of XX PREFACE TO THE the classical age of Greek literature are forgeries ^ Of all documents they are the least likely to be preserved and the most likely to be invented. The ancient world swarmed with them, and it may be questioned whether any of the extant Greek epistles are genuine. (b) When one epistle out of a number is spurious, another can hardly be genuine ; when all but one are spurious, overwhelming evidence is required of the genuineness of the one. But no one, not even Mr. Grote, would maintain that all the Epistles of Plato are genuine, and very few critics think that more than one of them is so. The external probability therefore against them is enormous, and the internal probability is not less : for they are trivial and unmeaning, devoid of delicacy and subtlety, wanting in a single fine expression. And even if this be matter of dispute, there can be no dis- pute that they are full of plagiarisms, inappropriately borrowed, which is a common note of forgery. Compare 330 foil, with Rep. iv. 425 E, 426 B, vi. 488 A ; Laws vi. 752 D : 347 E with Phaedrus 249 D : 326 A and 328 A with Rep. v. 473 C, etc. They also contain several historical blunders, such as the statement that Socrates was put to death by the Tyrants (324 C) ; or that respecting the nephews of Dionysius (328 A), who, being of the age of six or seven, are said to ' have been well inclined to philosophy, and well able to dispose the mind of Dionysius in the same course ' ; or the foolish allusion to the Athenian empire, and the other allusion to the empire of Darius (332 A), which shows a spirit very different from that of Plato. These pal- pable errors and absurdities, for the observation of « * Compare Bentley's Phalari?, vol. ii. 182 foil. I SECOND EDITION, xxi which I am indebted to Karsten (Comment. Critica), are absolutely irreconcileable with the genuineness of the Seventh Epistle, which is supposed to be the most genuine of them. They appear to have a common parentage, and therefore the condemnation of one is the condemnation of all ; and the more they are com- pared, the more they will be found to furnish evidence against one another. I have to correct an oversight in the first edition, which has been continued in the second. In speaking of an early work of Professor Zeller, I omitted to mention that in his History of Philosophy he has re- tracted his former opinion respecting the un-Platonic character of the Laws. May I take the opportunity of saying that there is no living writer to whom I and many other students of Plato are under greater obligations than to Professor Zeller ? CONTENTS. CHARMIDES i LYSIS 39 LACHES 11 PROTAGORAS 107 EUTHYDEMUS 181 ION 237 MENO 257 EUTHYPHRO 307 APOLOGY 335 CRITO 377 PHAEDO 397 CHARMIDES, VOL. 1. INTRODUCTION The subject of the Charmides is Temperance or a-coffipoavvi], a peculiarly Greek notion, which may also be rendered Moderation^ Modesty, Discretion, Wisdom, without completely exhausting by all these terms the various associations of the word. It may be described as ' mens sana in corpore sano,' the harmony or due proportion of the higher and lower elements of human nature which ' makes a man his own master,' according to the definition of the Republic. In the accompanying translation the word has been rendered in different places either Temperance or Wisdom, as the connection seemed to require : for in the philosophy of Plato a-axfypoa-vvr] still retains an intel- lectual element (as Socrates is also said to have identified o-