LRQA YY NY SAN \ AW A

NAN

o On

THE LIBRARY OF

The UNIVERSIEY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES

FROM THE LIBRARY OF ERNEST CARROLL MOORE

oO 5 O e) = ws eS) H = 4 =

THE

ORIGIN AND GROWTH

OF

foe) Ss LOGIC

WITH AN ACCOUNT OF PLATO’S STYLE

AND OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIS WRITINGS

BY

WINCENTY LUTOSLAWSKI

REISSUE

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

89 PATEKNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

; 1905

All rights reserved

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009

https://archive.org/details/origingrowthofplOOluto

TO

LEWIS CAMPBELL

ON THE THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS

‘INTRODUCTION TO THE SOPHISTES AND POLITICUS’

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE

OF TRUE FRIENDSHIP AND KINDNESS

1327093

PREFACE

——+——

In undertaking the investigations summarised in this volume, the author’s chief aim was to explain the origin of Logic by a psychological study of the first logician. This required a knowledge of the chronology of Plato’s writings, not supplied by our historical tradition nor by the extant Platonic investigations. English and French — scholars mostly believed this problem to be insoluble ; the prevalent opinion in Germany, represented by the suc- cessive editions of ,Zeller’s and Ueberweg’s handbooks on Greek philosophy, was plainly wrong. Under these cir- cumstances there was need of a new method in order to attain.a greater certainty as to the order in which Plato wrote his dialogues. The method here proposed improves the stylistic tests used heretofore by formulating the theoretical principles on which a new science of Stylo- metry should be based (pp. 145-161) and by applying ~ these principles (pp. 162-193) to five hundred peculiari- ties of Plato’s style (observed in fifty-eight thousand cases) collected in the course of fifty years by some twenty authors working independently (pp. 74-139). his stylo- metric method, supplemented by many comparisons of the contents of Plato’s works (for instance, pp. 329, 333, 366, 368, 372, 396, 430, 452, &c.), and by such observa~ tions and suggestions as were found available in the

Vlll ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

Platonic literature of all countries, led the author to determine the chronological order of about twenty among the most important of the Platonic dialogues.

On this basis an account of Plato’s logical theories and of their development is given here for the first time. It is ascertained that the theory of ideas, generally believed to be the unique form of Plato’s logic, was only a first attempt of the philosopher to settle the difficulties of the relation between Knowledge and Being ; and that, when past fifty, he produced a new logical system, in which he anticipated some conceptions of modern philosophy, arriving at the recognition of the substantial existence of the individual soul and substituting a classification of human notions for the intuition of divine ideas.

This being a work of research, not a general hand- book, the reader need not expect a digest of literature. The authors chiefly quoted are those who were the first to make an important observation, or who have expressed more amply the author’s own views on some subject briefly treated here, or whose remarkable want of judgment, makes them instructive as examples to avoid. A full indication of the bibliography on any special question has nowhere been attempted except in Chapter III on Plato’s style. However, it has been sought to demonstrate the merits of some writers as yet insufficiently appreciated (for instance, pp. 83, 112, 352). As a Pole, the author may possibly be more impartial than the representatives of other nations more active in Platonic research. The works of British scholars are little known in Germany, and, on the other hand, many special German investigations are overlooked in France and Great Britain. Here the results obtained through unconscious international collaboration have been summed up and presented in a general outline,

PREFACE 1x

though without bibliographical completeness. The absence of alphabetical indices in the majority of works on Plato makes it hard to remember by whom a given observation was first made. These historical debts have been acknowledged in many instances, and wherever such an acknowledgment is missing, this should be attributed to defective memory.

The peculiar method of research used in the. present work is a result of the author’s previous study of natural sciences and mathematics (1881-1885), and he feels much indebted to his teachers at the late German University of Dorpat!: Carl Schmidt, Arthur von Oettingen, Johannes Lemberg, Gustav Bunge, Wilhelm Ostwald, Andreas Lindstedt, and Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, all of whom in their lectures and also in private intercourse with their pupils insisted on exactness of method in scientific in- vestigation. His interest in Plato the author owes to Gustav Teichmiiller,? from whom however he now differs somewhat in his views on the method of Platonic research and on Plato’s philosophy (pp. 57-59, 102-103).

1 To acknowledge this debt of gratitude is all the more a duty, as since the change of this German seat of learning into the Russian University of Jurjew all its most eminent professors have been obliged to resign, and Dorpat University is now but a historical reminiscence, dear to all its ancient pupils.

? Under Teichmiiller’s influence the author wrote ten years ago his first work on Plato: Erhaltung und Untergang der Staatsverfassungen, nach Plato, Aristoteles und Machiavelli, Dorpat 1887 (Breslau 1888), wherein Plato’s views on political revolutions are shown to be the source of later theories on that subject. The chief contents of Chapter I of the present work have been more amply treated in the author’s Polish publica- tions: O Logice Platona, Part I, Krakéw 1891 and Part II, Warszawa 1892, condensed in the French Bulletin de l’ Académie des sciences de Cracovie, April 1890 and November 1891. Also Chapters V, VII and VIII rest chiefly on a Polish work of the author: O pierwszych trzech tetralogiach dziet Platona, published by the Académie des sciences de Cracovie, Cracow 1896; condensed in the same Bulletin for October, November 1895, and

in the Archiv filr Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. ix. pp. 67-114, October 1895.

x ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

The author feels deeply obliged to all who have helped him, and in the conviction that the collaboration of many is needed to bring full light to bear upon the difficult problems dealt with in this volume, he ventures to invite his readers also to assist him in his further studies on Plato by pointing out such errors or even formal deficiencies, however minute, as may be observed (address, care of Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London).

La CoruNa, SPAIN: October 1897.

CoN EAN IPSs

CHAPTER I

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN (pp. 1-34)

Progress of logic questioned, p. 1/-Mill against Platojand Kant, 2—Univer- sality and permanence of knowledge to be tested by history of logic, 2—

Plato the first logician, 3—Exceptional preservation of his works, 3—Its reasons, 4— Permanence of the Academy, 5—Protection by the Christian clergy, 6—Plato’s logic unknown, 7—Opinion of Plethon, 8—of Gen- nadios, 8—Champier, 9—Patrizi and other historians of the XVIth century, 10—Morainvillier, 11—Stanley and Gassendi, 12—Reaction against Plato in the XVIIth century, 13—Tennemann, 13—He did not attempt to represent the evolution of Plato’s logic, 14—Various opinions on Platonic ideas, 15—Van Heusde and other writers in the XIXth century, 16—Recent logical writers, 17—-They were ignorant of Platonic chronology, 18—Susemihl first combined both problems, 19—Ueberweg first recognised the difference between Plato’s earlier and later logic, 20—Misunderstood by Oldenberg, 21—Confirmed by Peipers, 22—Jack- son, 23—Benn, 23—Aristotle still held by some historians to be the first logician, 23—Many useless dissertations on Plato’s dialectic, 24—and theory of ideas, 25—-Conditions of a better study of Plato’s logic, 27— Zeller objects to the representation of Plato’s logic, 28—Our aim is to learn about Plato’s logic more than he expressed himself in his works, 29—To explain his psychological evolution, 30—To know him better than he could know himself, 31—To find out how he progressed in his views, 33—and what was the last stage of his thoughts, 34

CHAPTER II

AUTHENTICITY AND CHRONOLOGY OF PLATO’S WRITINGS (pp. 35-63)

Order of dialogues proposed by Patrizi, like that of Serranus, of no import- ance, 35—First inquiry by Tennemann, 35—Schleiermacher agrees with Tennemann on important points, 36—He left uncertain the order of small dialogues, 37—He supposed that Plato had planned from the

xi ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

beginning the whole of his literary activity, 37—Difference between early Socratic criticism and the later Platonic criticism, 37—Progress from ethics to metaphysics, from polemical to didactic tone, 38—Ast denies the authenticity of all Socratic small dialogues, 38—Socher recognises a gradual evolution of Plato, 39—but proclaims the dialectical dialogues as spurious, 39—Stallbaum in favour of a late date of the Phaedrus, 39—H. Ritter, 40—Hermann establishes a Socratic period from which such important works as Parmenides must be excluded, 40 —In many particulars Hermann agrees with Stallbaum and Schleier- macher, 41—All these authors are wrong as to the supposed early date of the dialectical dialogues, 42—First origin of the myth of a Megaric period, 42—Erroneous identification of the presumed date of a conversa- tion and the date of the composition of a dialogue, 43—Based on equally wrong identification of the Platonic and the historic Socrates, 43— Residence of Plato in Megara based on no valid testimony, 43—but on an isolated opinion of an unknown and evidently ignorant witness, 43— There was no danger for Plato to remain in Athens, 44—The author of the Crito was not a coward, 44—Cicero trustworthy as to Plato’s life, quotes Egypt as the first place whereto Plato travelled after Socrates’ death, 45—Schleiermacher speaks of Plato’s ‘ flight’ without quoting authori- ties, 45—Ast increases the duration of the supposed sojourn at Megara, 46—Influence of Euclides on Plato taken for granted by Stallbaum, 46 — This myth repeated by Ritter and Hermann, 47—Its acceptance a con- sequence of the same esthetical prejudice which reigned in the method of editing Plato’s text before the Zurich edition, 47—Ingenious hypo- thesis preferred to careful weighing of the evidence, 48—A change in the beautiful theory of ideas esthetically objectionable, 48— Every historian built on some wrong leading hypothesis, 49—We must get rid of such prejudice and learn to measure probabilities, 49—Plato’s philosophical consistency more probable than his cowardice, 49— Hermann recognised that Hermodorus’ testimony deserved no confidence, 49—and dis- trusted it as to the date of Plato’s first journey, 50—Followers of Her- mann and Schleiermacher, 50—Suckow, in a work full of errors, first recognised an important truth : the late date of the dialectical dialogues, 51—He was followed by Munk, 52—True genetic method first applied by Susemihl, 52—who recognised the near relation between Phaedrus and Theaetetus, 53—Ueberweg the first logician who investigated the problem of Platonic chronology, 54—and gave strong reasons for the late date of the dialectical dialogues, 55—but he came to doubt the authenticity of the Parmenides, 55—In this scepticism he was followed by Schaarschmidt, 56—while Grote and Chaignet defended the authen- ticity of all the dialogues, 56—Jowett, 56—Philosophers begin after Ueberweg to investigate his problem, 57—Tocco defended the authen- ticity and late date of the Parmenides and other dialectical dialogues, 57—Teichmiiller exaggerated the polemical aspect of Plato’s works, 57 — but he supported Ueberweg’s conclusions as to the late date of the dialectical dialogues, 58—This confirmed by Peipers, who convinced Susemihl, §9—but Zeller and the editor of Ueberweg’s ‘History of Philosophy’ maintain the old mythus of the Megaric period, 59—and

CONTENTS Xlil

are therein followed by other popular writers, 60—New arguments in favour of the late date of the dialectical dialogues, collected by Bergk, Rohde, Christ, Siebeck, remain little known, 60—Diimmler confirms Ueberweg’s finding by new applications of Teichmiiller’s method, 61— Anarchy in Platonic literature, 61—Not removed by the efforts of the French Académie des sciences morales, 61—-which crowned a work in which the chronological problem is regarded as insoluble, 62—This is contradicted by the whole progress of these studies, 62—to which the comparison of the logical contents will add new conclusions, 63

CHAPTER III THE STYLE OF PLATO (pp. 64-193)

Style as a mark of identity of a writer, 64—What Plato thought of it, 65— Modern science deals with problems beyond the reach of Plato, 65— Identification. of handwriting, 66, not easier than that of style, 66— Peculiarities of vocabulary, 67—Kinds of words, 68—Their frequency, 69—Arrangement of words, 70—Other stylistic marks, 71— Stylistic investigations easy and useful, 72—A new Lexicon Platonicum and a full bibliography of Platonic literature needed, 73

REVIEW OF FORTY-FIVE PUBLICATIONS ON THE STYLE OF PLATO AND LIST OF 500 PECULIARITIES OF PLATO’S STYLE (pp. 74-139)

Engelhardt, 74—Peculiarities 1-5 (anacoluthiae), 76—Kayssler, Braun, Lange, 77—Kopetsch: Peculiarities 6-11 (adjj. in tos), 783-79—-Schéne, 79—Martinius, 81— Campbell, 82—Remained unknown for twenty-eight years, 84—Peculiarity 12, 85—Peculiarities 13-20, 86-87—Peculiarities 21-22, 88—Originality of Plato’s vocabulary, 89—Affinities with the latest group, 90—First table of stylistic affinity, 92—Peculiarity 23, 93—Peculiarities of later vocabulary 24-181, 94-97—Classification of these peculiarities, 98—Riddell, 99—Peculiarity 182, 100—Schanz, Lingenberg, Imme, 100—Blass, Roeper, 101—Peculiarity 183, 101— Peculiarities 184-198, 102—Teichmiiller, 102—Dittenberger, pecu- liarity 199, 103—Peculiarities 200-206, 104—Jecht, 105—Peculiarities 207-222, 106-107—F'rederking, Hoefer, 107—Peculiarities 223-235, 107- 109—Peipers, 109— Peculiarities 236-249, 109-110— Weber, peculiarities 250-253, 111—Droste, 111—Newly invented adjectives in «dys and dns, 112—Their distribution, 113-114—Peculiarities 254-278, 115-117 —Kugler, 117—Peculiarities 279-308, 118-120—Schanz, peculiarities 809-311, 120—-Gomperz, 120—C. Ritter, 121—Peculiarities 312-355, 122_124—.Walbe, peculiarities 356-875, 125-126—Siebeck, 126—Pecu- liarities 376-378, 127-128—Tiemann, peculiarities 379-388, 128-129— Lina, 129—Peculiarities 389-447, 130-133—Baron, van Cleef, 133— Grunwald, Bertram, 134—Campbell, 135—von Arnim, 136—Peculiari- ties 448-457, 137-138—Campbell, peculiarities 458-500, 138-139

xv1 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

acknowledged, 279—Allusions to the theory of ideas, 280—Analogy between individual and state, 281—Relation to the Phaedo, 282—Traces of oral teaching, 282—Increased interest in logic, 283—Method of exclusion, 283—-Hegemony of justice, 284—-Conception of a self-sufficient aim, 285—Relation to Cratylus and Meno, 285—To Symposium, 286— and Phaedo, 287—To Laches, 288—Pretended relation to Aristophanes, 288—Contradicted by Aristotle and Plato, 289—Date of Books ITI.-IV., 289— Books V._VII. a natural part, 290—Even if added later belong to the plan of the whole, 291—Theory of ideas, 291—Terminology, 292-293 —Intuition of the good, 294—Metaphors explained, 295—Philosophical training, 296—Philosopher opposed to the mere practical man, 297— Idea of Good, 298—Initiation through mathematical study, 298—Units and figures, 299—Solid geometry, 300—Nature of theoretical knowledge, 300—Contempt for observations, 301—Probabilities neglected, 301— Science limited to truth, 301—Dialectic based on absolute principles, 302—System of human knowledge, 303—Final cause of universe, 303— Allegory of the cave, 304—Use of hypotheses in mathematics, 305—Dis- tinction between Sidvoia and émorhun irrelevant, 305—as that between eikacla and mlortis, 306—Object of opinion defined, 307—Accident and substance, 307—Thought independent of the body, 307—Not-Being, 308 —Relation to the Phaedo, 308—Traces of teaching activity, 309—Re- lation to Symposium, 310—Books VIII.-IX.: happiness of the philo- sopher, 311—True opinion and science, 312—Book X.: ideas of manu- factured things, 3183—Unity of each idea, 3183—Immortality, 314—Truth found in thought, 315—Unity of consciousness, 315—Method of revision, 315—Relation to the Phaedo, 316—Opinion and knowledge, 317—Law

of contradiction, 318—Contempt of poets, 318 (Style and date of the Republic.) Early style of Book I., 319—Harlier than Cratylus, —All other books later than Phaedo, 322—Books V.—

VII. probably later than Book IX., 323—The Republic composed in about six years, 325

Il. Phaedrus on rhetoric, 326—Speech of Lysias authentic, 327— Use of examples, 328—Widened horizon, 329—Spirit of conciliation, 330 —Contempt of poets and tyrants, 331—Relation to Symposium, 331— Dialecticians, 332-—Proof of immortality, 332—Compared with that of the Republic, 334—Later than Phaedo, 334—Compared with the Laws, 335—Partition of the soul, 336—Classification of men, 337—Authority of the philosopher, 338—Metaphorical representation of ideas, 339—Thei relation to particulars, 340—Analysis and synthesis, 341—Teaching and rhetoric, 342—Programme of a future art, 344—Plato’s and Aristotle’s view of writing, 345—Invitation to the Academy, 346—Recognition of Isocrates and others, 347—Thompson and Teichmiiller on the Pane- gyricus, 348—Date of the Phaedrus, 348—Arguments in favour of an early date, 349—Thompson unknown, 352—Relation of the Phaedrus to the Phaedo, 353—To the Symposium, 354—To the Republic, 355—To the Cratylus and Gorgias, 356—Style of the Phaedrus, 357

Middle Platonism, 358—Lasted up to Plato’s fiftieth year, 358— Transformation of the theory of ideas, 359—Objective idealism, 360— Plato compared with Kant, 361

CONTENTS XVil

CHAPTER VII REFORM OF PLATO’S LOGIC (pp. 363-415)

Ideas independent of particulars, 363—Problem of the order of ideas, 364— General classification, 364—Theaetetus and Parmenides as critical dialogues, 365—Qualitative change a kind of movement, 365—This dis- tinction unknown in Republic and Phaedrus, 366—Its fundamental importance, 367—Highest kinds or categories, 368—Progress from intui- tion to discursive investigation, 369—Influence of physical studies, 370.

I. Theaetetus, 371—Earlier definitions of knowledge, 371—Unity of consciousness, 372—Specific energy of the senses, 372—Senses instru- ments of the soul, 373—-Common predicates of different perceptions, 373 —Immediate activity of the soul, 374—TIllusions of the senses, 374— Refutation of materialism, 375—Knowledge expressed in judgments, 375 Affirmation and negation, 376—Unity of judgment, 376—Different meanings of Adyos, 377—Definitions not peculiar to knowledge, 378— Heraclitus refuted, 878—Training of philosophers, 379—Widened horizon, 380—Impartiality of research, 3881—Rhetorie and philosophy, 381—Ideas and categories, 382—Example of antinomies, 382—Axioms in the soul, 383—Activity and passivity, 384—-Conditions of error, 384— Difference between earlier and later inconclusiveness, 384—Date of the Theaetetus, 385—Zeller’s arguments in fayour of an early date, 386— Corinthian war, 386—Peltasts, 387—List of twenty-five ancestors, 388 —Relation to the Republic, 389—To the Symposium, 389—To Antis- thenes and Euclides, 390—To later dialogues, 390—Allusions to Plato’s school, 391—To his travels, 392—Dramatic form, 392—Twelve kinds of dialogue, 393—Theaetetus later than Republic, 395—Than the Phaedrus, 397—Probably later than 367 B.c., 398—Stylistic confirmation, 399

II. The Parmenides, 400—Authenticity, 400—Objectioris to the theory of ideas, 402—Ideas as notions, 403—Increasing importance of the soul, 404—Perfect ideas and imperfect notions, 404—Hypothetical reasoning, 405—Mutual relations of all things, 405—Antinomies of reason, 406—Definition of knowledge, 406—Progress of ideas, 407—Late date of the Parmenides, 408—Meeting of Parmenides with Socrates, 409— Eleatic influence increasing, 410—Stylistic comparison of Theaetetus and Parmenides, 411—Date of the Parmenides, 412

Critical Philosophy, 413—Knowledge existing in an ascending scale of souls, 413—Movement chief factor, 413—Mode of exposition, 413— Protreptic character, 414—Results obtained, 415

CHAPTER VIII NEW THEORY OF SCIENCE (pp. 416-471)

I. The Sophist, 416—Historical method, 416—Form of the dialogue, 417— Didactic authority, 418—Logical method, 418—Disinterestedness of science, 419—Definition and classification, 420—Progressive logical exercise, 421—New dialectic, 422— n : No animated ideas, 424—System of souls, 42—Object of Knowledge, 426—Relations of ideas, 427—Influence of experience, 427—Fixity of ideas, 428—Not- Being, 428—Origin of error, 429—Judgment analysed, 430—Subject and predicate, 431—Variety of predication, 441—Meaning of negation, 432—

XVill ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

Materialism and idealism, 433—Existence of souls, 433—Criticism of earlier metaphysics, 434—Authenticity of the Sophist, 434—Relation to the Parmenides, 435—Style of the Sophist, 437_Relation to the Republic) 438—Confirmation by Hirzel, 438—by Ivo Bruns, 440—Date of the Sophist, 441

II. The Politicus, 442—Appreciation of method, 442—Logical training, 443—Building up of a system of knowledge, 444—Intolerance, 445 —Unity and divisions of science, 445—Rules of classification, 446— Meaning of ideas, 447—Use of analogy, 449—Examples, 450—Ideal standard, 451—Final and efficient cause, 452—Authenticity of the Politicus, 453—Schaarschmidt’s arguments, 454—Relation to the Re- public, 455—Silence of Aristotle, 456—Huit’s objections, 457—Date of the Politicus, 458

Ill. The Philebus, 458—Its authenticity, 459—Relation to the Re- public, 460—Horn’s arguments, 461—Power of reason, 462—Final aim of the universe, 463—Juvenile logic, 463—System of notions, 463— Ideas only in the soul, 464—Middle terms, 464—Importance of dialectic, 465—Imperfection of physical science, 466—Genus and species, 466— Theory of sensation, 467—Judgments in the soul, 468—Relation of Philebus and Politicus, 469—Date of the Philebus, 470

New dialectic, 470—Different meaning of existence, 471—System of

knowledge, 471 CHAPTER IX LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF PLATO’S THOUGHT (pp. 472-516)

I. The Timaeus, 473—Opinion and knowledge, 473—Priority of the soul, 474—Unity of the world, 475—Divine rule, 476—Eternal ideas, 477— Partial immortality, 478—Reincarnation, 479—Categories, 480—Judg- ment and sentence, 480—Physical science, 481—Time and space, 482— Matter, 484—-Causality, 485—Date of the Timaeus, 486—Relation to the Republic, 488

II. The Critias, 490

Ill. The Laws, 491—Theory of ideas, 491—View of philosophy, 492 —FPriority of the soul, 494—True Being, 495—Soul as self-moving principle, 496—Protreptic character of the Laws, 498—Oral teaching, 499—Nature of the soul, 500—Divine Providence, 501—Telepathy, 502 —Hierarchy of souls, 502—Insignificance of human life, 503—Aims of human activity, 505—Unity of consciousness, 506—Classification of faculties, 506—Knowledge and opinion, 507—Experience and reason, 509 —Unity of science, 511—Metaphysical truth, 512—Power of reason, 513 —Definitions and names, 514—Eternity of mankind, 515—Reconcilia- tion with Athens, 515—Hierarchy of souls, 516

CHAPTER X

PLATO’S LOGIC (pp. 517-527)

Limitations of Plato’s writings, 517—Socratie stage, 519—Theory of ideas, 520—Middle Platonism, 521—Critical reform, 522—New dialectic, 523—Logical rules, 524—Power of the soul, 525—Relation to later philosophy, 526— Unique philosophical excellence of Plato, 527

bo =)

INDEX . - . i : . - i > : ‘ ran)

ORIGIN AND GROWTH

OF

APO Sinn Lal Ma DG

CHAPTER I

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN

WHILE the amount of scientific knowledge, as distin- guished from mere opinion and prejudice, constantly increases, there is not such progress in its quality, or in the degree of certainty attained, as to make knowledge undeniable and infallible. This certainty, being not inherent in reasoning, but dependent upon the logical perfection of our investigations, can be increased only through the development of logical method. Yet we see that the highest truths of natural science are questioned, and not even the law of gravitation is held sacred. \Kant said in the introduction to his Krituk der reinen Vernunft that the logical rules for- mulated by Aristotle have the rare privilege of being a permanent and unchangeable scientific acquisition. But we have since witnessed vehement attacks on the Aristotelian theory of syllogism, and to some logicians of our century even our oldest logical principles seem to be uncertain.

After two thousand years of philosophical specula- tion, based on concepts of pure reason, came Mill, with

B

History of logic: in- strumental to logic.

Plato the first logician.

2 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO'S LOGIC

his belief that general notions could be built up, by some mental process unknown to Kant and to Plato, out of particular sensible experiences. And Mill is reputed in his own country and elsewhere to be a great logician. He stands not alone: his predecessors range from Demo-_ critos and Protagoras downwards, and his adherents are numerous. If not even our mathematical notions are acknowledged to be independent of sensation, then every advance in mental philosophy might be questioned, and the crowd of ignorant Bavavoo. would exult in proclaiming the uselessness of philosophy.

In these discussions on the foundations of human knowledge, small use has been made of historical investi- gation concerning the origin of prevailing logical theories. Still, it cannot be denied that such inquiries form an essential part of logical science itself. If there is some- thing like truly universal and permanent knowledge, it must have had this character from the beginning, and to show its beginning is to explain its permanence. If, on the other hand, all our knowledge be mere personal opinion, and if it be impossible for man to attain fixed and certain knowledge, if every truth pretending to be scientifically proven hold good only till it be replaced by a better truth, then we can convince ourselves of the provisional condition of our certitude by no better means than by discovering such changes in the fundamental principles of science, in the theory of science itself, which we call logic.

The origin of logic has been largely discussed. Old- fashioned historians! thought that logic was as old as mankind, and wrote on the logic of Adam or of Pro-

1 Tt was a general custom in early times to begin the history of every science with the creation of man. See, for instance, Jacob Friedrich Reimmann, Versuch einer Hinleitung in die Historiam literariam antedi- luwvianam, Halle 1709, wherein the author quotes in a humorous way such historians of logic. Much later Antonio Genovesi said in his widely read Logic (Antoniit Genuensis artis logicocriticae libri V., editio iv*, Neapoli 1758), p. 7: ‘Ego non negaverim, quin, cum Ada magna sapientia a Deo

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN 5

_metheus.? But, leaving aside such conceits, the oldest accessible documents for the history of logic are the works of Plato. In such difficult matters second-hand testimony is worthless, and of philosophers earlier than Plato we have only fragments. These fragments—pre- served by Plato, Aristotle, and later writers as casual quotations—may give rise to conjectures and discussions ; they never afford a clear and full representation of their authors. We can only infer from them that all philo- sophers before Socrates were more interested in the nature of Being than in the conditions of Knowledge.

They used their reason and imagination without making reason itself an object of reasoning.

The first man whom we meet in the history of human thought as a logician, or at least the first logician whose writings have reached us in a form as complete as they were known by his contemporaries, is Plato.

The complete preservation of his works is amazing, if Excep- we consider that no other Attic writer is so well known tional pre- to us by his own writings. Of one hundred-and thirty **vation works by Sophocles_seven survive; of ninety-two by one

" Euripides we have but nineteen. Of forty-four comedies bis by Aristophanes only eleven are preserved ; and the comic author who succeeded Aristophanes in Plato’s time, Antiphanes, is said to have written two hundred and sixty comedies, of which not one remains. Of the five hundred and twenty-six plays written by these four poets, the most renowned dramatists of Plato’s age, we know only thirty- seven—a fourteenth of the whole. When Plato in his fuerit ornatus, usu rationis plurimum valuerit, id est, quin egregius fuerit Logicus.’

* The strange hypothesis that Prometheus was the first logician is due to a misinterpretation of p. 16 c of the Philebus, where Plato speaks of “some Prometheus ’ whomight have brought the light of reason from heaven. Pierre de la Ramée (Petri Rami Scholae in liberales artes, Basileae 1578, p- 312) infers that Prometheus was the first logician according to Plato. He also credits Plato with a great logical importance, remarking (p. 325)

‘logica Platonis non tantum 4 dialogis continetur, ut videtur Laertius dicere, sed omnibus fere aspergitur.’

Peculiar conditions for the preserva- tion of Plato’s works,

4 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

Republic proclaimed war against dramatic poets, he could not foresee that his verdict would be so mercilessly enforced by time.

No happier was the fate of the orators, against whom Plato wrote. ( Lysias)was known to him by four hundred and twenty-five speeches, of which but thirty-four remain. Of the sixty works ascribed to his rival Isocrates, two- thirds have disappeared. We have to judge of the famous speeches of these two orators by a fractional part (one ninth) of their work.

Philosophers fared no better. Democritos, reputed to have written sixty works, had great influence on his time. His notion of atoms still remains the basis of our conception of matter, and his ethical principles anticipated Christian teaching: but not one of his works is left. Of all the philosophical lterature of Plato’s time to which he refers, scarcely anything remains. Not even the works of Aristotle have reached us in a shape nearly so complete or so correct as Plato’s.

Our most ancient manuscript of Plato is a thousand_ years old, and might well proceed from some MS. pre- served in Plato’s Academy. It has been shown? that the

_Phaedo-of—Plato was known to readers two thousand two

hundred years ago in copies less correct than our present editions. A papyrus of the third century B.c, containing fragments of the Phaedo embodies evident blunders, unknown to our best manuscripts, and differs in few par- ticulars from the text as read in the nineteenth century. The creation by Plato of a philosophic school per- manently fixed in one place during centuries‘ explains * I,. Campbell, ‘ On the text of the Papyrus fragment of the Phaedo’ in the Classical Review, Oct._Dec. 1891, vol. v. pp. 363-365, 454-457. The detailed analysis of all the readings of the papyrus leads to the conclusion that ‘the amount both of incrustation and of decay is extremely small’ and that ‘the readings of the papyrus are not to be accepted without question.’ Cf. H. Usener, ‘ Unser Platontext,’ pp. 25-50, 181-215 in Nachrichten der Kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1892.

‘ Up to the year 87 8.c. the Academy was undisturbed. Sulla obliged the Academicians to leave the gardens of Academos, but the Platonic

~-

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN 9)

the preservation of his works in so remarkable a state of correctness and purity. The accidental name of Academy, given to that spot, has been more honoured than that of

founded by Plato had the character of a religious associa- tion, thus possessing a stability greater than any purely scientific institution could attain. Such associations were respected by the Roman conquerors, and lasted till the Christian monasteries gave to Plato’s works a refuge not less safe than his own Academy.

In such a monastery, on the isle of Patmos, at the beginning of this century, Clarke found the manuscript now preserved\.in the Bodleian Library,: and written

896 A.D.; one of the most ancient Greek manuscripts in existence. This continuity of religious protection was a very exceptional circumstance: alone among the authors of the fourth century B.c. Plato has been read con- tinuously for twenty-three centuries. His school, lasting more than nine hundred years, outlived the schools of Aristotle and Epicurus.

It was fortunate, too, that the Academy was still in being, when the great improvement of writing materials 7 occurred in our fourth and fifth centuries. The light papy- rus rolls were then copied on stout and lasting parchment :

school continued to exist in Athens up to 529 a.p., when Justinian dissolved the philosophical schools. On Plato’s school see Grote’s Plato, London 1888, vol. i. p. 265, Zumpt, ‘ Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen’ (Abh. der Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin aus dem J. 1842, Berlin 1844, pp- 27-119), Tl. Kwvoraytwidos, ‘H “Akadijuia jo. mpaypyatela wep THs "AOnynce TlAatwvikjs oxoAjs, ev ’EpAdvyn, 1874, Usener, ‘Organisation der wissen- schaftlichen Arbeit’ (Preussiche Jahrbiicher, Band 53, 1884), E. Heitz, ‘ Die Philosophenschulen zu Athen’ (Deutsche Revue, 1884), O. Immisch, ‘ Die Academie Platons’ in Fleckeisens Jahrb. 1894, pp. 421-442.

5 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Philologische Untersuchungen, 1881, Hett iv.

° Gardthausen, Griechische Paldographie, Leipzig 1879, p. 344, gives a list of the oldest dated Greek manuscripts and quotes only one older than the Clarkianus, a MS. of Euclid, also at Oxford.

7 On this reform see T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhdltniss zur Litteratwr, Berlin 1882.

6 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

one parchment volume, including the matter of many papyrus rolls, occupied less space. Such copies are the definite form in which we now possess the oldest texts of Greek writers, while the papyri have preserved for us only tattered fragments.

Plato’s works, copied on parchment while his Academy still flourished, survived in a more correct shape than the text of other writers whose works were not continually read in a school lasting over nine centuries. And it is no mere supposition that they were read, because we know that, up to the last scholarch Damascius, many leaders of Plato’s Academy spent their lives in writing commentaries on the Master’s dialogues. Such commentaries as those of Proclus (411-485 a.p.), head of the Academy eight hundred years after Plato’s death, show great care for correctness of text, a religious awe and conviction of the deep meaning of each word. Our oldest manuscripts of Plato (Clarkianus and Parisinus A) were written in Greece, and this increases the probability of their descent from the copies of the Academy, while many other Greek works came to us through Alexandria_and Rome. Moreover, though Plato’s writings were often edited in Alexandria_ and Rome, our oldest manuscripts were written by Greeks for Greek scholars, as is shown by the indications of the copyists.

While other pagan writers were despised by the early Christian clergy, Plato found admirers among the Christian bishops: as, for instance, Eusebius (264-340), St. Augustine (854-430), Theodoretus (390-457), and many others. St. Augustine thought that Plato came nearer to Christianity than any other writer... This means that Christianity was built upon Plato more than upon any other philo- sopher. The monk who, in the ninth century, copied the works of Plato, knowing that these writings were admired by the greatest authorities of the Church,

5 St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, lib. viii. cap. iv-xi. in the edition of Migne, tom. vii. pp. 227-236.

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN 7 transcribed with the greatest care, feeling the same veneration for these texts as Plato’s own followers in the Academy. iy

These unique circumstances explain the survival of Plato’s text in a state more correct and authentic than that of contemporary poets or orators, and they further explain why not one of the works written by Plato has perished. There is no valid testimony as to the ex- istence of a single work by Plato not contained in our collection.® a

Considering these facts, and the varied contents of Plato’s dialogues, we might expect that each part of the philosophy of Plato would have been made the subject of special investigation by all who were interested in the origin of philosophic thought. But, strange to say, Plato’s logic remains almost unknown, as may easily be seen from a short survey of the chief opinions expressed on this subject. Such a survey is tedious, but it helps us to establish the proper method of resolving the proposed problem: What was the origin and growth of Plato’s logic? This problem, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, becomes identical with the apparently more important problem of the origin of logic generally, and the origin of scientific certitude as opposed to unscien- tific and transitory opinions.

Early Platonists up to the fourteenth century are of little importance for cur purpose, because their writings are very insufficiently preserved and we could not easily obtain a clear idea of the progress, if any, made by them in

Plato’s logic neglected.

the study of the Platonic writings. Our present scientific |

tradition begins with the fifteenth century and the revival of classical studies in Italy, so that it suffices to learn what has since been done for the knowledge of Plato’s logic.

The first champion in modern times of the general im-

® On the completeness of Plato’s works see Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, 4° Aufl., II Theil, 1 Abth. Leipzig 1889, pp. 436-440.

Platonists and Aris- totelians of the XYV.-Xvi. centuries.

8 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

portance of Plato’s logic was Georgios Gemistos,!? named also Plethon, who came in 1438 from Greece to Italy to take part in the Council of Ferrara. He wrote a pam- phlet'! on the difference between Plato and Aristotle, wherein he insists on the logical merits of Plato, against _Aristotle’s assertion at the end of his Organon (183 b 34) that he was the first to find a method of reasoning (ué00d0s tav Noywov, De Sophisticis Hlenchis, cap. xxxiv. 6, 183 b 13; cf. Plato, Sophist 227 a, Politicus 266 pv, &c.). Plethon accuses Aristotle of acting in this particular like a sophist and in a way unworthy of a_philosopher,!” because the method of reasoning was well known to Plato, as is shown by his writings.

Gemistos did not take the trouble to go into details, but his allusion to Plato’s ‘method of reasoning’ shows that he gave much more importance to Plato’s Sophist and Politicus than has been usual in this century with the great majority of Platonic scholars.

Georgios Scholarios Gennadios answered with a plea in favour of Aristotle, and Plethon rejoined,’ insisting upon

© Georgios Gemistos, born 1355 in Constantinople, died 1450. He appears to have been named Plethon only after coming to Italy in 1438. On him see: Fritz Schultze, Georgios Gemistos Plethon und seine reforma- torischen Bestrebungen, Jena 1874.

"The first edition of Plethon’s work was published according to Fabricius at Venice 1532, together with a Latin paraphrase of it, written by Bernardino Donato. The British Museum has an edition of 1540: Ber- nardini Donati Veronensis, De Platonicae atque Aristotelicae philosophiae differentia, Venetiis 1540, 8vo. In this publication, after seventy-one pages of Latin text, begins the Greek original of Plethon: ‘Tewpytov rod Tewiorod Tov Kal TAndwvos, repli av ’ApioroTeAns mpds MAdtwva diapéperat,’ with a separate pagination of twenty-three leaves. Both the Latin and the Greek text were reprinted at Paris, 1541, 8vo, in the same order. The Latin text of Donato differs from the Greek of Plethon in so far as the last chapter is used as introduction, and the whole put into the form of a dialogue between Policarpus and Callistus, the second representing Plato’s thoughts. Schultze quotes only the edition in 4to. published at Basel 1574. Plethon’s pamphlet has been reprinted in vol. 160, pp. 889-934, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Paris 1866.

'*, Page 23 of the Venice edition (Migne 928 d): “ApsororéAns . . . mavu Topiotikiy TovVTO ToLay Kal piriocdpov TpdToV GAAOTPLOTAaTOV.

'8 The pamphlet of Gennadios is lost, but Plethon’s reply to it was pub- p

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN 9

Plato’s superiority. These Greek polemics, continued later in the fifteenth century by George of Trebizond and Bessarion,'? were more rhetorical than scientific, and led to no objective study of Plato’s logic. For those who wrote on that subject in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the chief aim was not to ascertain Plato’s logical theories, nor how he found them. They acted rather as political opponents, fighting under the standard of Plato or of Aristotle. The champions on Plato’s side failed to give exact quotations from his text in proof of their assertions.

In such comparisons between Plato and Aristotle some authors ascribed to their favourite thinker more than he would have claimed himself. In France, for instance, Champier!® (1516, 1537) ventured to say that Plato in- vented the figures of syllogism; in Italy, Patrizi !’ (1571)

lished by W. Gass in vol. ii. pp. 54-117 of his work: Gennadius und Pletho, Aristotelismus und Platonismus in der Griechischen Kirche, Breslau 1844 : ‘Plethonis liber contra Gennadii scripta pro Aristotele ex codice Vratisla- viensi nune primum editus.’

4 Comparationes Philosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis a Georgio Trapezuntio . . . Venetiis 1523. Plato is, in this author’s opinion, ‘rudis, turpis, arrogans, invidiosus, obtreetator in 4 viros Graeciae salva- tores,’ &e.

1S Bessarionis Cardinalis Sabini et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani capitula libri primi adversus calumniatorem Platonis, without date, but printed at Rome 1469. Another edition, Im calummniatorem Platonis libri quatuor, Venetiis 1503, is also in the British Museum. The author is anxious to show that Plato used all moods of all the figures of syllo- gisms.

16 Symphoriam Champerii, Symphonia Platonis cum Aristotele et Galeni cum Hippocrate, Parrhisiis 1516. Of the same author: Libri VII. de Dialectica, Rhetorica, Geometria, Arithmetica, Astrononvia, etc., Basileae 1537. In this work, chap. v. of part 2,‘ Quid syllogismus secundum Pla- tonem,’ contains the assertion ‘ Plato noster syllogismorum tractatu utitur arguendo et demonstrando.’ Then, in the next chapter, ‘De syllogismis cathegoricis,’ we read ‘Syllogismorum cathegoricorum tres figuras posuit Plato.’

‘7 Francesco Patrizi (on him see R. Bobba, ‘Commentatori italiani di Platone,’ Jan. 1892, Rivista italiana di filosofia) wrote: Discussionum peripateticarum tomi IV., Basileae 1581 (first published at Venice 1571). On p. 180 Plato is named ‘logices sive dialectices inventor ;’ p. 189: ‘ syllogismi frequens est apud Platonem mentio.’ In another work, Nova de

10 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF PLATO’S LOGIC

supposed that Aristotle wrote under his own name accounts of Plato’s oral teaching; Ramus! (1578), Buratelli® (1573), Mazoni”’ (1576), and Theupolis #! (1576) insisted upon the identity of the Platonic and Aristotelian teachings. On Plato’s side were also Bernardi ” (1599), Calanna * (1599), and Wower * (1608).

Again, Zabarella” (1587) in Italy and Keckermann

universis philosophia libris quinquaginta comprehensa, Venetiis 1593 (first published in Ferrara 1591), in the chapter ‘ Plato exotericus,’ p. 42, he starts the supposition that Plato’s dialogues represent faithfully the historical Socrates, while Aristotle has written out the secret doctrine of Plato. He adds confidently, ‘in philosophia Aristotelis nihil est certum,’ and ‘in philosophia Platonis rarissima sunt ea quae non sint certissima’ (p. 44).

** P. Ramus says (Scholae in liberales artes, p. 325): ‘Speusippo nunquam persuasisset Aristoteles, Aristotelem primum logicae artis aucto- rem fuisse, cum hac in arte Speusippi discipulus Aristoteles potius fuisset et ex ejus emptis libris suos libros contexuisset.? Against the Aristotelicae animadversiones of the same author, published 1543, is directed: T. Carpentarit Platonis cum Aristotele in universa philosophia comparatio, Lutetiae 1573, wherein Plato is treated in George of Trebizond’s manner.

'’ Gabriel Buratellus, Conciliatio praecipuarum controversiarum Aris- totelis et Platonis, Venetiis 1573. Morhof (Polyhistor literarius, ed. 2°, Lubecae 1714, p. 40) is right in saying on the author: ‘potius suo quam auctorum ingenio rem egit, ut solent plerumque omnes conciliatores.’ Buratelli has been followed in Sweden by J. Hising (Praeside... F. Toérner, ideam Platonis breviter delineatam ... proponit J. Hising, Upsaliae 1706).

*© Jacobi Mazonit Caesenatis de triplict hominum vita, Caesenae 1576, fol. 148, quaestio 2142: ‘Plato demum veram excogitavit dialecticam, quam Aristoteles auxit....’ In a later work, Im wniversam Platonis et Aristotelis Philosophiam Praeludia, Venetiis 1597, p. 118 FF., he enu- merates the points in which both philosophers agree.

"1 Stephani Theupoli, Benedicti filii, patricii Veneti Academicarum con- templationwm libri decem, Venetiis 1576.

” J. B. Bernardi, Seminarium philosophicum continens Platonicorum definitiones, Venetiis 1599.

*8 Petri Calannae Philosophia senior, sacerdotia et Platonica, Palermi 1599.

** Joann. a Wower, De polymathia tractatio, Basileae 1603, chap. xx.

* Jacobi Zabarellae Patavini Opera, Lugduni 1587, p. 42.

*6 Praecognitorum logicorum tractatus, a B. Keckermamo~Dantiscano secunda editione recogniti, Hanoviae 1606, II. ii. 15, p. 82. This history of logic, published for the first time in 1598, was also reprinted in Keckermanni Opera, Genevae 1614. The author proclaims himself a Pole (vol. ii. p- 1009 of his works), despite his German name.

PLATO AS A LOGICIAN Et

(1598) in Poland strongly favoured Aristotle’s pretension to be considered as the founder of logic, while Crispi” (1594) denounced Plato as having given rise to a great number of heresies. All