Shorey's Unity of Plato's Thought the Unity of Plato's Thought. by Paul Shorey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Shorey's Unity of Plato's Thought The Unity of Plato's Thought. By Paul Shorey. University of Chicago Decennial Publications, 1st Series, Vol. VI. 75 pp. 4to, paper. Net \$1.25. 1903. R. G. Bury The Classical Review / Volume 18 / Issue 02 / March 1904, pp 120 - 122 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00209451, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00209451 How to cite this article: R. G. Bury (1904). The Classical Review, 18, pp 120-122 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00209451 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 129.78.139.28 on 05 May 2015 120 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. exceed in absurdity the commas in ix. 15. 1 apparatus readings of Apr. put forward T<O, otv av vfiaiv <paveirj, and xi. 19. 1 TOS ^«Vwithou, t any qualification may be as in- vevUrjKal One more example, which, un- secure as readings followed by a mark of like the rest, has a bearing on the text, and interrogation or preceded by ft. What I have done with these trivialities. In proportion of the new supplements would XpCofjiai (vi. 1.1) the last two letters werebe upheld by a professional palaeographer written in an erasure by A2, who also armed with a powerful microscope and a changed the accent. Buermann's record is portable electric lamp, I cannot conjecture. ' xP^f- • • • • W-i corr. 2.' Blass (Antiph.2 My own experience warns me that it is easy praef. p. xv) saw XP"/* ••<>., concluded to find in erasures and mended letters what that the original reading was xp<6/«vos and you expect to find. Collating the MS. with that the emendation of A2 lacked plausi- Buermann's edition and dominated by his bility, and consequently proposed <rvy- suggestions I sometimes put down a letter X*vo>> xP'"fievos' whi°h I think right. where the scientific record was an asterisk. Thalheim has in the text xpuyxat, in the The area of uncertainty is even wider than note ' xpwiievoi pr., corr. 2.' Two comments I imagined. No^c, ical inefivaor' airurTfivr may be made. (1) In plain passages of the apOpa ravra T5>V <f>ptvmv. codex Crippsianus, where there has been no With regard to the extract from Diony- botching at all, the letters t and s(c) are sius of Halicarnassus, which forms or. xii, sometimes identical in shape, so that the it may be noted that Thalheim has missed reader is kept straight only by his know- Mr. Poynton's paper in the Journal of ledge of the language and the context. (2) 2 Philology xxviii. p. 161 sqq., which shows If in this passage A had not interfered, that the Oxford MS., Misc. Gr. 36, is a and xfMfievoi were perfectly legible, consider- transcript of an ' exemplar Dvditianum' ing the sentence as a whole I should have made by Sir Henry Savile in the early part argued that the scribe had made here the of 1581 while visiting Andreas Dudith at same blunder as in vii. 21. 8, where he put Breslau, and that the marginalia, which vd/ioi for vo/ios (Aldus), and that all criticism contain some good emendations, are also must start from the reading xpa>/*evos. The in Savile's hand. With regard to the melancholy truth is that the structure on fragments I should like to express concur- which the editor has lavished so much rence with Mr. Smyly's acute conjecture labour {non mediocrem operam, praef. p. vii) that Oxy. Pap. iii. n. 415 is a bit of Isaeus' collapses at a touch. The line between speech against Elpagoras and Demophanes. hypotheses and facts of observation has been entirely obliterated. In this critical W. WTSE. SHOREY'S UNITY OF PLATO'S THOUGHT. The Unity of Plato's Thought. By PAUL ' consensus' in favour of attributing to- SHOEEY. University of Chicago Decen- Plato a philosophical evolution with very nial Publications, 1st Series, Vol. VI. marked stages, and of arranging and dating 75 pp. 4to, paper. Net $ 1.25. 1903. the dialogues in corresponding groups. Prof. Shorey's dissertation is a protest THE tendency of most of the recent contri- against this tendency. As I myself pro- butions to Platonic literature has been in tested some years ago (./. of Philol. xxiii. the direction of disintegration. In place of p. 201) against ' the creed of a double Plato, a self-consistent body of thought, recent a self-criticising " Dipsycbus " whose old interpreters have been in the fashion of age is at war with his youth,' so Prof. presenting us with a Platonism that is a Shorey protests now against both the 'many-headed multitude' of conflicting methods and the conclusions of 'the in- dogmas. It is true that the champions of a creasing number of investigators who, in ' later Platonism ' are by no means agreed emulation of the triumphs of the statistical as to the precise form which that doctrine method, are endeavouring to confirm, refute, takes—whether an emasculated ' idealism' or correct its results by a study of alleged or a thorough-going ' conceptualising But inconsistencies, contradictions, or develop- none the less, there seems to be a growing ments in Platonic doctrine' (p. 3). In oppo- THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 181 sition to all forms of the 'evolutionary' revision of the theory or by a change of hypothesis, in pointed antagonism to all the terminology, to dispose of these objections would-be Sutdpavovrts of Platonism, Prof. and to fashion an inexpugnable doctrine? Shorey maintains both generally and in Or may we rather suppose that he simply detail ' the unity of Plato's thought.' To looks these aporiae in the face and, with a him, every guise of ' later Platonism' is contemptuous shrug, passes on? Prof. alike ' anathema.' The sacrilegious hand Shorey adopts the latter explanation. The that would rend the tissue of Plato's substance of these objections, he argues, ' is thought he denounces with his wonted in the Republic, not to speak of the Phaedo, vigour; for to his eyes it is a vesture the Enthydemus, the Timaeus, and Philebus. ' without seam, woven from the top through- Their presentation in the Parmenides, then, out.' does not mark a crisis in Plato's thought To attempt to summarise the arguments calling for a review of his chief article of here put forward would be to do an injus- philosophic faith. Plato does not and tice to their author. But one may venture cannot answer them, but he evidently does thus roughly to state some of his main not take them very seriously,...they arise positions. (1) The earlier (' Socratic') from the limitations of our finite minds.' dialogues are intended to lead up to the Those, on the other hand, who hold that ' Republic' and imply, if they do not Plato did take these objections ' seriously' actually express, an ideal theory. (2) The are forced to explain away the ascription of Ideal theory, under whatever varieties of dAAijAow Koivun/Ca to the elSrj in Sep. 476 A, expression, remains the same throughout, which seems an anticipation of the ' later ' from the 'Lysis' to the 'Laws,' and is theory, and the ascription of transcendental never altered in substance, much less sur- being to the etSi; in Tim. 51-2, which is an rendered, by Plato. (3) The criticisms of evident reversion to the doctrine of the the theory in the ' Parmenides,' and the ' middle' period. And we might reasonably expect them to show us further what supposed modifications in the ' Parmenides ' ; and ' Sophist,' are either mere dialectical Plato's metaphysics gained in value by the gymnastics or candid acknowledgments of change. Is the ' later ' conceptualism really the necessary paradox of thought—the in- an advance on the ' earlier ' idealism ? Is herent contradiction of the ' One and Many.' it better philosophising to disbelieve in in- (4) It is absurd to suppose, as Lutoslawski dependent objective realities than to believe does, that in his later writings Plato means in them 1 Is it a mark of more consistent to substitute a system of souls for the thinking to decimate the ranks of the ideas ideas, or to reduce the idea to the level of a until they stand only for ' natural kinds ' mere psychic fact. And equally erroneous (or £<3a) and not for all possible con- is the view which would distinguish between cepts ? aira KOO' avrd and other tlSrj and make of Finally, is it not true that all philosophies the Mater' idealism a theory of specific of the Absolute are open to just the same 'types.' order of objections as Plato produces in With regard to the first of these points, the Parmenides; and is it not true that it may be doubted whether Prof. Shorey these objections are ' unanswerable by any- does not overstate his case. The most body who separates the phenomenal from natural conclusion from the silence about the real' ? ideas in such dialogues as the ' Laches,' Some of the special difficulties in the way ' Lysis,' and ' Charmides ' is, surely, that of the exponents of a ' later' Platonism they represent a period antecedent to the have already been alluded to. One more formation of the ideal theory. The case of may be briefly mentioned. As Shorey the ' Laws ' adduced by Shorey, is scarcely points out (and as I had already pointed parallel; nor is it enough to assert that out, I.e.