the Lysis, or of Friendship; the Euthyphron, or of | in assigning to Plato the greater part of the dialogues Piety, &c.-It will appear from this classification, that which Schleiermacher and Ast consider spurious, is the same dialogue may thus belong to different cate- unwilling himself to acknowledge the legitimacy of the gories at the same time, according to the point of view Sophists, Politicus, and Parmenides. Another interin which we regard it; which destroys, of course, all esting question is that which has reference to the the utility of the arrangement.-We come now to an- chronological order of the dialogues. This question other question of much greater importance. Inde- has a double aspect: it regards both the time when pendently of the thirty-five dialogues commonly at- the dialogue is supposed to have taken place, and that tributed to Plato, there are eight which the unanimous when the author is thought to have composed it. It opinions of the grammarians, at the commencement of is often impossible to fix the former of these periods, our era, has rejected as spurious. In the number, by reason of the numerous anachronisms with which however, of the thirty-five, there are several, of the au- Plato is justly chargeable. So numerous, indeed, are thenticity of which doubts have been entertained from they, that we are tempted to believe that Plato attachtime to time, until, in our own days, the rigid criticism ed no importance whatever to the giving an air of hisof Germany has undertaken to eliminate a large num- toric probability to his dialogues. The second period, ber of these dialogues from the list of the works of that of their composition, is important in a different Plato. Four writers, in particular, have turned their point of view; for, were it possible to fix with cerattention to this subject: Tennemann, Schleiermacher, tainty the time when each dialogue was written, and Ast, and Socher. (Tennemann, System der Platonis- thus to determine the chronological order of the whole chen Philosophie, 4 vols. 8vo, 1792.-Schleiermacher, collection, we would be much better able to mark the Platons Werke, 8 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1817-26-Ast, development of his system. We must bear in mind, Platons Leben und Schriften, Leipzig, 1816, 8vo.—however, that the historical data afforded by any one Socher, über Platons Schriften, München, 1820, 8vo.) dialogue is often insufficient for fixing the period when To these may be added Thiersch, the author of an able it was written, because Plato is very negligent in point criticism on the work of Ast (Jahrbuch der Literatur., of chronology -The literary life of Plato has been diWien., 1818, vol. 3, p. 59, seqq.). What renders the vided into four periods: the first ends with the death decision of this question peculiarly difficult is, that, of of Socrates, and reaches to the thirtieth year of Plathe writers contemporary with Plato, Xenophon alone to's life; the second extends to the founding of the remains to us, and he makes no mention of him. Ar- Academy, or Plato's fortieth year; the third embraces istotle, his disciple, refers but seldom to his master's the maturity of his life, or about twenty years; the dialogues: sometimes he mentions his opinions, but fourth his old age, also of twenty years.-To the first always under the name of Socrates, and that, too, when of these periods belong the four dialogues in which he even refers to dialogues in which the last-mention- reference is made to the trial and death of Socrates, ed philosopher is not one of the interlocutors, as in the such as the Euthyphron, Crito, Defence of Socrates, Laws. All the works of the philosophers of the three and Phædo. Socher is undoubtedly right in conjecfollowing centuries are lost, down to Dionysius of turing that this latter was written immediately after Halicarnassus, who is one of the principal authorities the death of Socrates. The reasons urged by Schleierin this inquiry. The number of witnesses increases macher for placing it in a later period are purely very considerably after this; but they lived at a period speculative, and advanced merely for the purpose of when that species of criticism which is able to separ- supporting his system. In the same period, and even ate the false from the true was as yet completely un- prior to the four dialogues just named, are ranged the known. The classification of Thrasyllus makes us Theages, one of the first of Plato's productions, the acquainted with the opinion of the grammarians of his Laches, first_Alcibiades, Hipparchus, Minos, Rivals, time, relative to the authenticity of the dialogues of Charmides, Lysis, second Hippias, Clitophon, CratyPlato those which he excludes from his categories lus, and Meno, supposing all these to be the composi were regarded as supposititious, but we are unacquaint- tions of Plato. -Ten dialogues are placed in the seced with the grounds on which the claim of legitimacy ond period, either because they contain some chronowas allowed to the rest, unless it be that the claim in logical particular which enables us to assign them to their case was never contested. Amid this array of the time that intervened between the death of Socnegative authorities, Ast, who of all the moderns rates and the founding of the Academy; or because, has pushed his scepticism on this head the farthest, though wanting such an index of their age, they still thinks that the only one deserving of being combated evidently belong to this period. In all these producis that of Aristotle, and he endeavours to destroy the tions, Plato appears to have had for his object the conweight of his testimony by denying Aristotle any au- tinuation of the enterprise which had been interrupted thority in matters of criticism. But can any one for a by the death of Socrates, namely, the war against the moment imagine that a man of high intellectual en- Sophists. These dialogues are the Ion, Euthydemus, dowments, after having passed twenty years of his life the first Hippias, the Protagoras, Gorgias, Theætetus, with Plato, could be so grossly deceived respecting Sophist, Politicus, Parmenides, and Philebus.-All the the works of his master? Admitting, too, the possi- other dialogues of Plato, excepting the Timæus and bility that one so eminently gifted with discernment Critias, namely, the Phædrus, Menexenus, Banquet, and taste could mistake to such a degree the style of Republic, were written by him in the prime of his life, his master, is it at all probable that he could have been and before age had impaired his mental powers, or deceived also as to the fact whether Plato did com- during the twenty years in which he directed the Acadpose such or such a work? After having rid himself emy. In the fourth period, Plato wrote the letters that in this unsatisfactory manner of the testimony of Aris- have come down to us (supposing that these are actutotle, Ast, acknowledging the authority of fourteen dia- ally his), his great work on the laws, and the two dialogues, attacks at the same time the remaining twenty-logues entitled Timæus and Critias. - We will now one by arguments deduced from the style in which they are written. He finds them inferior in this point of view to the others, and against some no doubt the charge will hold good; but the question may fairly be asked in reply, whether a writer, in other respects class ic, ought, in all his productions, to attain to that perfection which he appears to have reached in some? Most of the arguments advanced by Ast have been refuted by Thiersch and Socher. The latter writer, however,

proceed to give a brief sketch of the individual productions of the philosopher, premising that most of the Platonic dialogues have, as will presently be perceived, a double title. The former of these is commonly the name of the individual who bears the most prominent part in the dialogue; the second is the addition of some later hand, and has reference to the contents of the dialogue itself. As these contents, however, are, for the most part, very diversified in their nature, this

second class of titles are frequently apt to mislead the cas- | ing witness to all their paradoxes. Hence the prom. ual observer. (Wolf, ad Sympos., p. 35, seqq. —Ast, inence given in so many of Plato's dialogues to the subad Repub., p. 313.—Morgenstern, ad Repub., p. 29.)—ject of language; and especially the unvariable conThe works of Plato, then, are as follows: 1. IIpwrayó- nexion between the practical abuse of rhetoric and ρας, ἢ Σοφισταί, Protagoras, or the Sophists." This metaphysical discussions on the nature of pleasure and dialogue, a chef-d'œuvre of Plato, is directed against of truth. This is also the key to the Cratylus, a diathe sophists, who are described in it as exceedingly logue which, by the most singular misconception, has unfit either to impart knowledge of virtue to others, or been searched by Greek critics for etymologies, but to inspire them with the desire of practising it. Pro- which is, in reality, a serious extravaganza, to expose tagoras, one of the most celebrated of this class of the Horne-Tookism of the day, and its connexion with philosophers, and who, in the course of the dialogue, the metaphysics of sophistry. (British Critic and is made to appear a model of charlatanerie, had arri- Quarterly Theological Review, No 47, p. 31, seq.)— ved at Athens. A certain Hippocrates, unwilling to The Protagoras shows that Plato, wholly engrossed lose so favourable an opportunity of receiving instruc- with the philosophical topics which he makes Socrates tion, requests Socrates to present him to the sophist. and his interlocutors discuss, troubles himself but lit Socrates consents, but first impresses Hippocrates with tle about guarding against anachronisms. In this diathe propriety of his ascertaining the true nature of the logue Pericles and his two sons are still living, a cirscience which this stranger has brought with him, be- cumstance which necessarily supposes the era of the fore he ventures to become one of his pupils. They, piece to have been prior to B.C. 429; and yet, at the in consequence, pay a visit to Protagoras, and find him same time, we see, in the course of this same dialogue, surrounded by a numerous and brilliant auditory. A that the rich Callias has already lost his father Hipponcolloquy thereupon begins between the sophist and icus. Now we know, from a passage in the orator AnSocrates, in which Prodicus and Hippias, friends of docides, that Hipponicus was killed in the battle of the former, also bear a part. The object of Protago- Delium, or B.C. 424. Thus Plato makes Pericles to ras is to show the possibility of learning virtue as one have died five or six years too late, or Hipponicus five learns an art or exercise; but the questions put by or six years too early. (Journal des Savans, 1820, p Socrates embarrass him to such a degree, and the an- 678.)-2. Paidрos, ǹ περì Tov кahov, “Phædrus, or swers he makes from time to time involve him in so many concerning Beauty." This dialogue is a sort of concontradictions, that the futility of the pretended science tinuation of the preceding. In the Protagoras, Plato of the sophists becomes fully apparent. No little mis- shows that the sophists were bad guides to conduct one take has been caused by giving to the term "sophist" along the path to virtue, since they were unacquainted a wrong etymological signification. It does not mean with it themselves; and now, in the Phædrus, he what is denoted by the word in English, artful and il- characterizes their rhetoric as a futile art. Hænisch, logical reasoners: the Sophists were the persons who however, gives a more general explanation of the obprofessed to make others wise. They were the great ject of this dialogue. (Lysia Amatorius, Grace, ed. instructers. Undoubtedly the office they assumed im- Hanisch. Præmissa est Commentatio de auctore oraplied their own personal wisdom; and the necessity tionis, utrum Lysia sit an Platonis, Lips., 1827.) of maintaining appearances without any real stock of This dialogue was composed, according to Stallbaum, knowledge, coupled with the principle of pleasing with- in the fourth year of the 98th Olympiad. (Stallb., Disout any regard to truth, seduced them into the habits putatio de Platonis vita, &c., p. 25.) It may be regard-· of ingenious trickery which have since been known by ed as consisting of two parts, the first of which has a their name. But, as Protagoras himself states, it was practical, the other a theoretical tendency. In the as the original introducers of a wholly new scheme of first of these Plato proves his thesis by an example, education that they took their stand, made their money, namely, by a discourse on love or beauty, composed and incurred, in no few instances, the odium of politi- by Lysias, who had just left the school of the sophists, cal innovators. In this light they were regarded by and to which Socrates opposes one on the same subPlato. Nothing could be more tempting than the con- ject: in the second part, the principles and rules of dition of the youth of Athens, for clever, conceited, the sophists are examined. It is in this dialogue that ambitious men, by their own theory discumbered of a we remark for the first time that blending of the Soconscience, and obliged, by a sense of duty, to provide cratic philosophy with the dogmas of the schools of for their own indulgences, to undertake the task of fit- Ionia, Elea, and Italy, which characterizes the system ting them for those public duties of life which in a of Plato. These dogmas are, that of a previous state Grecian democracy occupied the whole field of action. of existence, the reminiscences of which are the source And rhetoric, as the main engine of political eminence, of all our knowledge; that of the immortality of the they were thoroughly capable of teaching. The habit soul; that of the three virtues, or energies of the soul of disputation, which sent Hippias every year to the (Λογιστικόν, θυμικόν, Ἐπιθυμητικόν). The PhæOlympic games, to challenge a run upon his pantologi- drus is filled with poetry, and the discourse on Love, cal budget, and to improvise on all possible questions; put in the mouth of Socrates, is almost a continual just as scholasticism, in the middle ages, sent scholars parody on Homer. Whether the discourse on Love or up and down Europe, to post their themes and syllogisms Beauty, mentioned in this dialogue, was actually a proat the gates of universities, had given them a thorough duction of Lysias, is a question which Hanisch has command, not over language alone, but over all the made the subject of a separate dissertation, and for the arts of concealing ignorance and misleading weakness affirmative of which he gives his suffrage. (Compare which were necessary to a popular demagogue. Lan- Böckh, ad Plat. Minoem, p. 182-Van Heusde, Init. guage, as the instrument of power over minds; lan- Platen., vol. 1, p. 101.)—3. Topyías, î ñɛpì 'Pnτopiguage, as the imperfect medium of communicating ks, "Gorgias, or concerning Rhetoric." Rhetoric, ideas, and, therefore, the readiest means of mixing and which in the Phædrus has been considered as an art, embezzling them in the transfer; language, as the art is regarded in the Gorgias in a political point of view. of pleasing; language, as the never-failing subject for Socrates disputes with Gorgias, the rhetor Polus, and etymological ingenuity to anatomize; language, again, Callicles, on the utility of the science under this latter as the natural transcript of the human mind, and the aspect: he represents it as dangerous, because, inhuman mind in that low, vulgar form, in which alone stead of proposing to itself, as its only object, the tria popular leader or an expediency-philosopher can see umph of truth, it is mostly employed for the purpose of it, or wish to see it; language, in all these lights, was gaining the suffrages of the multitude.-In this diato the sophists everything. It was their stock in trade; logue Plato not only attacks the sophists, whose po the nostrum they offered for sale, the ready, unblush-litical influence is depicted as pernicious to the repub

lic, but also the enemies and calumniators of Socrates, | circumstances to which they refer.-7. ПoλITIKòs, and even many of the illustrious men whom Athens Tepi Bariλeias, “The Statesman, or concerning the had produced, especially Pericles. What most of all, Art of Governing." The researches commenced in however, characterizes this production, is, that Socra- the Theætetus and Sophist are applied in this dialogue tes does not pursue his ordinary method of question and to the case of the statesman. We are here made acanswer; he pronounces, on the contrary, connected quainted with Plato's ideas respecting Providence, or discourses; and, far from inerely stating doubts, he the manner in which God governs the world, as well expresses his sentiments in clear and precise terms. as respecting the changes which the latter has underIn general, there reigns in this dialogue a more serious gone. We see in it also his opinion on the different tone than that which pervades the two previous ones, forms of government, among which he gives the prefand less of irony. But the place of the latter is sup- erence to that in which the power is vested in the plied by a caustic kind of manner, which is not found hands of a single person. This dialogue contains an in the others. According to Stallbaum, this dialogue Oriental mythus, according to which the Deity takes was written not long after 413 B.C. A writer in the rest at certain periods, and during this time abandons Jena Review controverts this opinion. (Stallbaum, to chance the government of the world. Such a docad Phileb., p. xl-Jena Allgem. Lit. Zeit., 1822, No. trine being unworthy of Plato, Socher thinks that this 195.)—4. Haidov, † πepì Yvxñs, "Phædon, or con- dialogue, as well as the Sophist, cannot be regarded cerning the Soul." This dialogue is one of the most as his. And yet they must, in that event, have been remarkable of those that bear the name of Plato. The produced by some contemporary, since Aristotle cites interlocutors are Phædon, the subsequent founder of the present dialogue, though in truth without assignthe school of Elis, and Echecrates. The former of ing it to Plato by name.-8. Hapμevidno, ǹ πepì '18these gives the latter an account of all that happened cov," Parmenides, or concerning Ideas." This diatowards the close of Socrates' life, and relates the con- logue is a kind of appendage to the three that precede. versation of this philosopher with Cebes and Simmias. As in these the false dialectics of the Megaric school Socrates undertakes to prove the immortality of the had been refuted, so in this Parmenides, the head of soul by its spirituality; and we have here the first the true dialectic system, comes forward to support his traces of a demonstration, which modern philosophy, doctrine of absolute unity, and does it with great force under the guidance of revelation, has carried on to so of reasoning. The Parmenides is the most difficult successful a result. The doctrine which Plato here of all Plato's works, as well from the abstract topics puts into the mouth of Socrates is not entirely pure; and metaphysical subtleties discussed in it, as because it is amalgamated with the Pythagorean hypothesis of the author is driven to the necessity of employing the metempsychosis, and with all sorts of fables bor- terms either entirely new, or else little used, in treatrowed from the Greek mythology.-The Phædon is ing of matters on which no writer had as yet exerregarded by all critics as one of the dialogues of Plato cised his pen. The Parmenides leads to no positive respecting the authenticity of which not the least result; it has merely for its end the demonstration of doubt can be raised. And yet, if we are to believe certain propositions of a philosophical nature; and it an epigram in the Anthology (Epidict., n. 358, An- tends solely to exercise the mind in metaphysical specthol. Pal.; 1, 44, Anthol. Plan.), the celebrated ulation, and to show, by an example, the true dialectic Panatius rejected it as supposititious. It is most method. It is uncertain, however, whether we have probable, however, that the author of the epigram the end of this production. The Parmenides has a in question mistook the sense of the passage in which form entirely philosophic, and without any dramatic Panatius spoke of the Phædon, and that the phi- movement. The characters of the several interloculosopher merely meant to say that Plato puts into tors are not as distinctly marked as in the other diathe mouth of Socrates a doctrine which he, Pana-logues. Socrates appears in it as a very young pertius, did not admit; for we know from Cicero that son, and as one just beginning to turn his attention to Panatius differed in this point from the tenets of Pla- philosophical subjects, and to whom many of the propto. (Tusc. Disp., 1, 32.)-5. OɛaíTηTOS, ǹ περì krio-ositions of the schools are as yet new. It has been Thuns, "Theatetus, or concerning Science." The inferred from this circumstance that Plato wished to geometer, Theodorus of Cyrene, his pupil Theætetus, give credit to the tradition that Socrates had seen Parand Socrates, are the interlocutors in this dialogue: menides in his youth. Socher rejects this dialogue, the subject discussed is the nature of science. Socra- together with the two that immediately follow. (Contes, assuming the character of ignorance, and compa- sult Schmidt, Parmenides als dialektisches Kunstwerk ring himself to a midwife, pretends that all his wisdom dargestellt, Berlin, 1821. Goetz, Uebers, des Paris limited to the aiding of others in giving birth to their men., pt. iv, p. 107.)-9. Kрarúλos, ĥ πεpì ¿voμúτwv ideas. Under this pretext he refuses to define sci- opórnros, “Cratylus, or concerning the Correct Use ence; and yet, at the same time, he shows the inad- of Words " This dialogue is written in ridicule of missibility of all the definitions given by Theætetus. the etymologies to which the sophists attached so This dialogue is a kind of sportive dialectics, and leads much importance as to make use of them for demonto no positive result. In it Plato, as usual, combats strations with which to support their propositions. the sophists; he turns his arms, too, against all the They even went so far as to assert that we may learn schools that had been produced from the Socratic, the nature of objects from the words by which they namely, the Megaric, Cynic, and Cyrenaic: he attacks, are designated, inasmuch as a perfect accordance prein particular, the dualistic system of Heraclitus.-6. vailed between each thing in nature, and the appellaZopcorns. Tepi Tov ovτos, “The Sophist, or con- tion by which it was known. Agreeing in the main cerning that which exists." This dialogue is a con- principle, they made of it applications widely different tinuation, as it were, of the preceding. After having in their nature. The adherents of the Eleatic school shown, in the Theaetetus, that there exists no science pretended that the authors of language, in their invenobtained through the medium of the senses, Plato heretion of words, went on the supposition that everything examines the contrary doctrine, maintained by the Eleatic school, namely, that of existence, and shows its inadmissibility. Although the subject of this dialogue is speculative and abstract in its nature, Plato nevertheless has succeeded in imparting to it a pleasing and varied air, and has sprinkled it with many satirical allusions: the greater part of these last, however, are lost for us, from our limited acquaintance with the

in nature is immutable: the followers of Heraclitus maintained directly the reverse. Setting out from these two points of view, so diametrically opposed to each other, these philosophers analyzed the meaning of words, each in accordance with his favourite the ory.-Of the interlocutors of the Cratylus, one, Hermogenes, a disciple of Parmenides, maintains that there is an inherent force and propriety in words, in

:

dependent of all conventional arrangement; the other, | for which he professes to treat of it is unequivocally ex Cratylus, a disciple of Heraclitus, regards them as arbitrary signs of our ideas, imposed on the objects which they designate, either from accident, use, or some fitness which they possess. Socrates shows the insufficiency of each of these systems, without, however, replacing them by a third. This discussion gives rise to many etymological discussions, which cannot now be very interesting for us.-10. Þíλŋboç, ǹ ñɛpì dovis, "Philebus, or concerning Pleasure." This dialogue is distinguished from those already mentioned in that it is not limited to the overthrow of false doctrines, but examines the subject matter itself with great care. It has an end in view strictly dogmatical, that is, to establish a truth and enunciate a positive proposition this proposition is, that good consists neither in pleasure nor in knowledge, but in the union of the first and the second with the sovereign good, which is God. The Philebus is almost entirely devoid of irony; but it is sometimes deficient in clear ness. It is one of the principal sources from which to obtain an acquaintance with the moral system of Plato.-11. EvróσLOV, ǹ) πEрì EρWτos, "The Banquet, or concerning Love." Plato appears to have had a double object in view in writing this dialogue: the first, to discourse upon the nature of love; and the other, to defend Socrates against the calumnies to which he had been exposed. Agathon celebrates by a banquet a poetical victory which has just been gained by him. The guests agree that each one, in turn, shall write a eulogium on love. Phædrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon, speak each on this subject, according to their respective principles and views; and in this species of oratorical encounter, Aristophanes assumes a character most in accordance with his peculiar talent, that of satire. Socrates, who succeeds, paints metaphysical love, that is, philosophy, the end of which is to excite the love of virtue, the only true and imperishable source of beauty. The Banquet is that one of the productions of Plato on which he would seem to have bestowed the greatest care. He has spread over it all the riches of his imagination, his eloquence, and his talent for composition.-12. Hoλireía, î ñερì dikaίov, “A Republic, or concerning what is Just." The following able analysis of this celebrated production is deserving of insertion. (Southern Review, No. 7, p. 127, seqq.) "To say of Plato's Republic that it is the idea of a perfect commonwealth, is not to give by any means an adequate, or even a just description of it. It is, in one sense, to be sure, a dream of social and political perfection, and, so far, its common title is not altogether inapplicable to it; but it bears hardly any resemblance to the things that generally pass under that name; to the figments, for example, of Harrington and Sir Thomas More. Compared with it, Telemachus, though a mere epic in prose, is didactic and practical; the Cyropædia deserves to be regarded as the manual of soldiers and statesmen, and as the best scheme of discipline for forming them. Plato's is a mere vision, and that vision is altogether characteristic of his ge. nius as his contemporaries conceived of it. It is something between prose and poetry in style; it is something made up both of poetry and philosophy in the plan and design. But a very small part of it is given to any topics that can pretend to the character of political. Indeed, Socrates expressly says, that the institution of a commonwealth is but a subordinate object with him. His principal aim is to unfold the mystery of perfect justice. Of the title of the work, the latter part (epi Sikatov) is unquestionably the more appropriate designation. If it were possible to have any doubts, after reading the work, the repeated and emphatic declarations of the philosopher himself would remove them. It is in the second book that he first alludes to the commonwealth, and then the purpose

plained. He compares himself to one who, not having very good eyes, is required to read a text at some distance from him, written in distressingly small letters, and who prepares himself for his task by conning over the very same text which he happens to find set forth somewhere else in larger characters. The justice, the high and perfect justice, whose nature he is endeavouring to penetrate and unfold, exists not only in individuals, but, on a grander scale, in the more conspicuous and palpable image of that artificial being, a body politic. This idea is perpetually recurring. Thus it runs through the whole eighth book, which, it may be remarked by the way, is a dissertation of incomparable excellence, and decidedly the most practical part of the work. In this book he treats of injustice. He again resorts to the larger type, to the capital letters. He illustrates the effects of that vice, or, rather, of that vicious and diseased state of the soul, by corresponding distempers and mutations of the body politic. We are told that the form of government is an image of the character of the citizen; that whatever may be said of the democracy or the oligarchy, applies as strictly to the democrat and the oligarchist; that there are as many shapes or species of polity, as there are types or varieties of the human soul; that, as the most perfect commonwealth is only public virtue imbodied in the institutions of a country, so every vice generates some abuse or corruption in the state, some pernicious disorder, some lawless power incompatible with national liberty. In running this parallel between the individual and the corporate existence, he unfolds his idea of the rò dikalov, not in a prologue, as Tiedemann affirms, but throughout the whole body of his work. He begins by showing that there can be no happiness without it here; and ends by a revelation of other worlds, and a state of beatific perfection, which it fits the soul to enter upon hereafter. We must take care, however, not to confound this sublime justice with the vulgar attribute commonly known by that name. Plato's justice is that so magnificently described by Hooker, that law whose seat is the bosom of God, and whose voice the harmony of the world.'-The whole dialogue is a Pythagorean mystery. Plato finds the key of the universe in the doctrine of number and proportion. He sees them pervading all nature, moral and physical, holding together its most distant parts and most heterogeneous materials, and harmonizing them into order, and beauty, and rhythm. Socrates declares his assent to the Pythagorean tenet, that astronomy is to the eye what music is to the ear. The spheres, with the Sirens that preside over them, and the sweet melodies of that eternal diapason, the four elements combined in the formation of the world, the beautiful vicissitude of the seasons, light and darkness, height and depth, all existences and their negations, all antecedents and consequences, all cause and effect, reveal the same mystery to the adept. Man is, in like manner, subject throughout his whole nature to this universal law. Of the four cardinal virtues, take temperance for an example. What is it but a perfect discipline of the passions by which they are all equally controlled, or, rather, a perfect concord and symphony in which each sounds its proper note and no other; in which no desire is either too high or too low; in which the enjoyment of the present moment is never allowed to hurt that of the future, nor passion to rebel against reason, nor one passion to invade the province or to usurp the rights of another. The rò dikatov goes somewhat farther. It is that state of the soul wherein the three parts of which it is composed, the intellectual, the irascible, and the sensual, exercise each its proper function and influence; in which the four cardinal virtues are blended together in such just proportion, in such symphonious unison; in which all the faculties of the mind, while they are