Republic

“Suppose now, Glaucon, someone were to ask them, My good friends, what numbers[*](This is one of the chief sources of the fancy that numbers are intermediate entities between ideas and things. Cf. Alexander, Space, Time, and Deity, i. p. 219: Mathematical particulars are therefore not as Plato thought intermediate between sensible figures and universals. Sensible figures are only less simple mathematical ones. Cf. on 525 D. Plato here and elsewhere simply means that the educator may distinguish two kinds of numbers—five apples, and the number five as an abstract idea. Cf. Theaet. 19 E: We couldn’t err about eleven which we only think, i.e. the abstract number eleven. Cf. also Berkeley, Siris, 288.) are these you are talking about, in which the one is such as you postulate, each unity equal to every other without the slightest difference and admitting no division into parts? What do you think would be their answer?” “This, I think—that they are speaking of units which can only be conceived by thought, and which it is not possible to deal with in any other way.” “You see, then, my friend,” said I, “that this branch of study really seems to be indispensable for us, since it plainly compels the soul to employ pure thought with a view to truth itself.” “It most emphatically does.” “Again, have you ever noticed this, that natural reckoners are by nature quick in virtually all their studies? And the slow, if they are trained and drilled in this, even if no other benefit results, all improve and become quicker than they were[*](Cf. Isoc. Antid. 267 αὐτοὶ δ’ αὑτῶν εὐμαθέστεροι. For the idiom αὐτοὶ αὑτῶν cf. also 411 C. 421 D, 571 D, Prot. 350 A and D, Laws 671 B, Parmen. 141 A, Laches 182 C. Educators have actually cited him as authority for the opposite view. On the effect of Mathematical studies cf. also Laws 747 B, 809 C-D, 810 C, Isoc. Antid. 276. Cf. Max Tyr. 37 7 ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν εἴη ἄν τι ἐν γεωμετρίᾳ τὸ φαυλότατον. Mill on Hamilton ii. 311 If the Practice of mathematical reasoning gives nothing else it gives wariness of mind. ibid. 312.)?” “It is so,” he said. “And, further, as I believe, studies that demand more toil in the learning and practice than this we shall not discover easily nor find many of them.[*](The translation is, I think, right. Cf. A.J.P. xiii. p. 365, and Adam ad loc.)” “You will not, in fact.” “Then, for all these reasons, we must not neglect this study, but must use it in the education of the best endowed natures.” “I agree,” he said. “Assuming this one point to be established,” I said, “let us in the second place consider whether the study that comes next[*](Cf. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, p. 111: Even Plato puts arithmetic before geometry in the Republic in deference to tradition. For the three branches of higher learning, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, Cf. Laws 811 E-818 A, Isoc. Antid. 261-267, Panath. 26, Bus. 226; Max, Tyr. 37 7.) is suited to our purpose.” “What is that? Do you mean geometry,” he said. “Precisely that,” said I. “So much of it,” he said, “as applies to the conduct of war[*](Cf. Basilicon Doron (Morley, A Miscellany, p. 144): I grant it is meete yee have some entrance, specially in the Mathematickes, for the knowledge of the art militarie, in situation of Campes, ordering of battels, making fortifications, placing of batteries, or such like.) is obviously suitable. For in dealing with encampments and the occupation of strong places and the bringing of troops into column and line and all the other formations of an army in actual battle and on the march, an officer who had studied geometry would be a very different person from what he would be if he had not.” “But still,” I said, “for such purposes a slight modicum[*](This was Xenophon’s view, Mem. vi. 7. 2. Whether it was Socrates’ nobody knows. Cf. pp. 162-163 on 525 C, Epin. 977 E, Aristoph. Clouds 202.) of geometry and calculation would suffice. What we have to consider is whether the greater and more advanced part of it tends to facilitate the apprehension of the idea of good.[*](Because it develops the power of abstract thought. Not because numbers are deduced from the idea of good. Cf. on 525, p. 162, note b.) That tendency, we affirm, is to be found in all studies that force the soul to turn its vision round to the region where dwells the most blessed part of reality,[*](Cf. 518 C. Once more we should remember that for the practical and educational application of Plato’s main thought this and all similar expressions are rhetorical surplusage or unction, which should not be pressed, nor used e.g. to identify the idea of good with god. Cf. Introd. p. xxv.) which it is imperative that it should behold.” “You are right,” he said. “Then if it compels the soul to contemplate essence, it is suitable; if genesis,[*](Or becoming. Cf. 485 B, 525 B.) it is not.” “So we affirm.[*](γε δή is frequent in confirming answers. Cf. 557 B, 517 C, Symp. 172 C, 173 E, Gorg. 449 B, etc.)”

“This at least,” said I, “will not be disputed by those who have even a slight acquaintance with geometry, that this science is in direct contradiction with the language employed in it by its adepts.[*](Geometry (and mathematics) is inevitably less abstract than dialectics. But the special purpose of the Platonic education values mathematics chiefly as a discipline in abstraction. Cf. on 523 A, p. 152, note b; and Titchener, A Beginner’s Psychology, pp. 265-266: There are probably a good many of us whose abstract idea of triangle is simply a mental picture of the little equilateral triangle that stands for the word in text-books of geometry. There have been some attempts to prove (that of Mr. F. M. Cornford in Mind, April 1932, is the most recent) that Plato, if he could not anticipate in detail the modern reduction of mathematics to logic, did postulate something like it as an ideal, the realization of which would abolish his own sharp distinction between mathematics and dialectic. The argument rests on a remote and strained interpretation of two or three texts of the Republic (cf. e.g. 511 and 533 B-D) which, naturally interpreted, merely affirm the general inferiority of the mathematical method and the intermediate position for education of mathematics as a propaedeutic to dialectics. Plato’s purpose throughout is not to exhort mathematicians as such to question their initiatory postulates, but to mark definitely the boundaries between the mathematical and other sciences and pure dialectics or philosophy. The distinction is a true and useful one today. Aristotle often refers to it with no hint that it could not be abolished by a new and different kind of mathematics. And it is uncritical to read that intention into Plato’s words. He may have contributed, and doubtless did contribute, in other ways to the improvement and precision of mathematical logic. But he had no idea of doing away with the fundamental difference that made dialectics and not mathematics the coping-stone of the higher education—science as such does not question its first principles and dialectic does. Cf. 533 B-534 E.)” “How so?” he said. “Their language is most ludicrous,[*](The very etymology of geometry implies the absurd practical conception of the science. Cf. Epin. 990 C γελοῖον ὄνομα.) though they cannot help it,[*](Cf. Polit. 302 E, Laws 757 E, 818 B, Phileb. 62 B, Tim. 69 D, and also on 494 A. The word ἀναγκαίως has been variously misunderstood and mistranslated. It simply means that geometers are compelled to use the language of sense perception though they are thinking of abstractions (ideas) of which sense images are only approximations.) for they speak as if they were doing something[*](Cf. Aristot. Met. 1051 a 22 εὑρίσκεται δὲ καὶ τὰ διαγράμματα ἐνεργείᾳ· διαιροῦντες γὰρ εὑρίσκουσιν, geometrical constructions, too, are discovered by an actualization, because it is by dividing that we discover them. (Loeb tr.)) and as if all their words were directed towards action. For all their talk[*](For φθεγγόμενοι cf. on 505 C, p. 89, note g.) is of squaring and applying[*](Cf. Thompson on Meno 87 A.) and adding and the like,[*](E. Hoffmann, Der gegenwärtige Stand der Platonforschung, p. 1091 (Anhang, Zeller, Plato, 5th ed.), misunderstands the passage when he says: Die Abneigung Platons, dem Ideellen irgendwie einen dynamischen Charakter zuzuschreiben, zeigt sich sogar in terminologischen Andeutungen; so verbietet er Republ. 527 A für die Mathematik jede Anwendung dynamischer Termini wie τετραγωνίζειν, παρατείνειν, προστιθέναι Plato does not forbid the use of such terms but merely recognizes their inadequacy to express the true nature and purpose of geometry.) whereas in fact the real object of the entire study is pure knowledge.[*](Cf. Meyerson, De l’explication dans les sciences, p. 33: En effet, Platon déjà fait ressortir que la géométrie, en dépit de l’apparence, ne poursuit aucun but pratique et n’a tout entière d’autre objet que Ia connaissance.)” “That is absolutely true,” he said. “And must we not agree on a further point?” What? “That it is the knowledge of that which always is,[*](i.e. mathematical ideas are (Platonic) ideas like other concepts. Cf. on 525 D, p. 164, note a.) and not of a something which at some time comes into being and passes away.” “That is readily admitted,” he said, “for geometry is the knowledge of the eternally existent.” “Then, my good friend, it would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward.” “Nothing is surer,” he said. “Then nothing is surer,” said I, “than that we must require that the men of your Fair City[*](καλλιπόλει: Plato smiles at his own Utopia. There were cities named Callipolis, e.g. in the Thracian Chersonese and in Calabria on the Gulf of Tarentum. Cf. also Herod. vii. 154. fanciful is the attempt of some scholars to distinguish the Callipolis as a separate section of the Republic, or to take it as the title of the Republic.) shall never neglect geometry, for even the by-products of such study are not slight.” “What are they?” said he. “What you mentioned,” said I, “its uses in war, and also we are aware that for the better reception of all studies[*](Plato briefly anticipates much modern literature on the value of the study of mathematics. Cf. on 526 B, p. 166, note a. Olympiodorus says that when geometry deigns to enter into matter she creates mechanics which is highly esteemed.) there will be an immeasurable[*](For ὅλῳ καὶ παντί cf. 469 C. Laws 779 B, 734 E, Phaedo 79 E, Crat. 434 A.) difference between the student who has been imbued with geometry and the one who has not.” “Immense indeed, by Zeus,” he said. “Shall we, then, lay this down as a second branch of study for our lads?” “Let us do so,” he said. “Shall we set down astronomy as a third, or do you dissent?” “I certainly agree,” he said; “for quickness of perception about the seasons and the courses of the months and the years is serviceable,[*](Xen. Mem. iv. 7. 3 ff. attributes to Socrates a similar utilitarian view of science.) not only to agriculture and navigation, but still more to the military art.” “I am amused,[*](For ἡδὺς εἶ cf. 337 D, Euthydem. 300 A, Gorg. 491 E ἥδιστε, Rep. 348 C γλυκὺς εἶ, Hipp. Maj. 288 B.)” said I, “at your apparent fear lest the multitude[*](Cf. on 499 D-E, p. 66, note a.) may suppose you to be recommending useless studies.[*](Again Plato anticipates much modern controversy.) It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified[*](Cf. Xen. Symp. 1. 4 ἐκκεκαθαρμένοις τὰς ψυχάς, and Phaedo 67 B-C.) and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes[*](Another instance of Plato’s unction. Cf. Tim. 47 A-B, Eurip. Orest. 806 μυρίων κρείσσων, and Stallbaum ad loc. for imitations of this passage in antiquity.); for by it only is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively[*](For ἀμηχάνως ὡς Cf. Charm. 155 D ἀμήχανόν τι οἷον. Cf. 588 A, Phaedo 80 C, 95 C, Laws 782 A, also Rep. 331 A θαυμάστος ὡς, Hipp. Maj. 282 C, Epin. 982 C-E, Aristoph. Birds 427, Lysist. 198, 1148.) true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine.[*](This is the thought more technically expressed in the earlier work, Crito 49 D. Despite his faith in dialectics Plato recognizes that the primary assumptions on which argument necessarily proceeds are irreducible choices of personality. Cf. What Plato Said, p. 478, Class. Phil. ix. (1914) p. 352.) For they can see no other benefit from such pursuits worth mentioning.

Decide, then, on the spot, to which party you address yourself. Or are you speaking to neither, but chiefly carrying on the discussion for your own sake,[*](Cf. Charm. 166 D, Phaedo 64 C, Soph. 265 A, Apol. 33 A.) without however judging any other who may be able to profit by it?” “This is the alternative I choose,” he said, “that it is for my own sake chiefly that I speak and ask questions and reply.” “Fall back[*](ἄναγε is a military term. Cf. Aristoph. Birds 383, Xen. Cyr. vii. 1.45, iii. 3. 69.) a little, then,” said I; “for we just now did not rightly select the study that comes next[*](ἑξῆς Cf. Laches 182 B.) after geometry.” “What was our mistake?” he said. “After plane surfaces,” said I, “we went on to solids in revolution before studying them in themselves. The right way is next in order after the second dimension[*](Lit. increase Cf. Pearson, The Grammar of Science, p. 411: He proceeds from curves of frequency to surfaces of frequency, and then requiring to go beyond these he finds his problem lands him in space of many dimensions.) to take the third. This, I suppose, is the dimension of cubes and of everything that has depth.” “Why, yes, it is,” he said; “but this subject, Socrates, does not appear to have been investigated yet.[*](This is not to be pressed. Plato means only that the progress of solid geometry is unsatisfactory. Cf. 528 D. There may or may not be a reference here to the Delian problem of the duplication of the cube (cf. Wilamowitz, Platon, i. p. 503 for the story) and other specific problems which the historians of mathematics discuss in connection with this passage. Cf. Adam ad loc. To understand Plato we need only remember that the extension of geometry to solids was being worked out in his day, perhaps partly at his suggestion, e.g. by Theaetetus for whom a Platonic dialogue is named, and that Plato makes use of the discovery of the five regular solids in his theory of the elements in the Timaeus. Cf. also Laws 819 E ff. for those who wish to know more of the ancient traditions and modern conjectures I add references: Eva Sachs, De Theaeteto Ath. Mathematico, Diss. Berlin, 1914, and Die fünf platonischen Körper (Philolog. Untersuch. Heft 24), Berlin, 1917; E. Hoppe, Mathematik und Astronomie im klass. Altertum, pp. 133 ff.; Rudolf Eberling, Mathematik und Philosophie bei Plato, Münden, 1909, with my review in Class. Phil. v. (1910) p. 114; Seth Demel, Platons Verhältnis zur Mathematik, Leipzig, with my review, Class. Phil. xxiv. (1929) pp. 312-313; and, for further bibliography on Plato and mathematics, Budé, Rep. Introd. pp. lxx-lxxi.)” “There are two causes of that,” said I: “first, inasmuch as no city holds them in honor, these inquiries are languidly pursued owing to their difficulty. And secondly, the investigators need a director,[*](Plato is perhaps speaking from personal experience as director of the Academy. Cf. the hint in Euthydem. 290 C.) who is indispensable for success and who, to begin with, is not easy to find, and then, if he could be found, as things are now, seekers in this field would be too arrogant[*](i.e. the mathematicians already feel themselves to be independent specialists.) to submit to his guidance. But if the state as a whole should join in superintending these studies and honor them, these specialists would accept advice, and continuous and strenuous investigation would bring out the truth. Since even now, lightly esteemed as they are by the multitude and hampered by the ignorance of their students[*](This interpretation is, I think, correct. For the construction of this sentence cf. Isoc. xv. 84. The text is disputed; see crit. note.) as to the true reasons for pursuing them,[*](Lit. in what respect they are useful. Plato is fond of the half legal καθ’ ὅ τι. Cf. Lysis 210 C, Polit. 298 C.) they nevertheless in the face of all these obstacles force their way by their inherent charm[*](An eminent modern psychologist innocently writes: The problem of why geometry gives pleasure is therefore a deeper problem than the mere assertion of the fact. Furthermore, there are many known cases where the study of geometry does not give pleasure to the student. Adam seems to think it may refer to the personality of Eudoxus.) and it would not surprise us if the truth about them were made apparent.” “It is true,” he said, “that they do possess an extraordinary attractiveness and charm. But explain more clearly what you were just speaking of. The investigation[*](πραγματείαν: interesting is the development of this word from its use in Phaedo 63 A (interest, zeal, inquiring spirit. Cf. Aristot. Top. 100 a 18, Eth. Nic. 1103 b 26, Polyb. i. 1. 4, etc.) of plane surfaces, I presume, you took to be geometry?” Yes, said I. “And then,” he said, “at first you took astronomy next and then you drew back.” Yes, I said, “for in my haste to be done I was making less speed.[*](An obvious allusion to the proverb found in many forms in many languages. Cf. also Polit. 277 A-B, 264 B, Soph. Antig. 231 σχολῇ ταχύς, Theognis 335, 401 μηδὲν ἄγαν σπεύδειν, Suetonius, Augustus 25, Aulus Gellius x. 11. 4, Macrob. Sat. vi. 8. 9, festina lente, hâtez-vous lentement (Boileau, Art poétique, i. 171), Chi va piano va sano e va lontano (Goldoni, I volponi,I. ii.), Eile mit Weile and similar expressions; Franklin’s Great haste makes great waste, etc.) For, while the next thing in order is the study[*](μέθοδον: this word, like πραγματεία came to mean treatise.) of the third dimension or solids, I passed it over because of our absurd neglect[*](This is the meaning. Neither Stallbaum’s explanation, quia ita est comparata, ut de ea quaerere ridiculum sit,” nor that accepted by Adam, quia ridicule tractatur, is correct, and 529 E and 521 A are not in point. Cf. 528 B p. 176, note a.) to investigate it, and mentioned next after geometry astronomy,[*](Cf. Laws 822 A ff.) which deals with the movements of solids.” “That is right,” he said. “Then, as our fourth study,” said I, “let us set down astronomy, assuming that this science, the discussion of which has been passed over, is available,[*](i.e. assuming this to exist, vorhanden sein, which is the usual meaning of ὑπάρχειν in classical Greek. The science, of course, is solid geometry, which is still undeveloped, but in Plato’s state will be constituted as a regular science through endowed research.) provided, that is, that the state pursues it.”

“That is likely,” said he; “and instead of the vulgar utilitarian[*](Cf. Vol. I. p. 410, note c, on 442 E, Gorg. 482 E, Rep. 581 D, Cratyl. 400 A, Apol. 32 A, Aristot. Pol. 1333 b 9.) commendation of astronomy, for which you just now rebuked me, Socrates, I now will praise it on your principles. For it is obvious to everybody, I think, that this study certainly compels the soul to look upward[*](Cf. my review if Warburg, Class. Phil. xxiv. (1929) p. 319. The dramatic misunderstanding forestalls a possible understanding by the reader. Cf. on 523 B. The misapprehension is typical of modern misunderstandings. Glaucon is here the prototype of all sentimental Platonists or anti-Platonists. The meaning of higher things in Plato’s allegory is obvious. But Glaucon takes it literally. Similarly, modern critics, taking Plato’s imagery literally and pressing single expressions apart from the total context, have inferred that Plato would be hostile to all the applications of modern science to experience. They refuse to make allowance for his special and avowed educational purpose, and overlook the fact that he is prophesying the mathematical astronomy and science of the future. The half-serious exaggeration of his rhetoric can easily be matched by similar utterances of modern thinkers of the most various schools, from Rousseau’s écarter tous les faits to Judd’s Once we acquire the power to neglect all the concrete facts . . . we are free from the incumbrances that come through attention to the concrete facts. Cf. also on 529 B, 530 B and 534 A.) and leads it away from things here to those higher things.” “It may be obvious to everybody except me,” said I, “for I do not think so.” “What do you think?” he said. “As it is now handled by those who are trying to lead us up to philosophy,[*](ἀνάγοντες is tinged with the suggestions of 517 A, but the meaning here is those who use astronomy as a part of the higher education. φιλοσοφία is used in the looser sense of Isocrates. Cf. A.J.P. xvi. p. 237.) I think that it turns the soul’s gaze very much downward.” “What do you mean?” he said. “You seem to me in your thought to put a most liberal[*](For οὐκ ἀγεννῶς Gorg. 462 D, where it is ironical, as here, Phaedr. 264 B, Euthyph. 2 C, Theaet. 184 C. In Charm. 158 C it is not ironical.) interpretation on the study of higher things,” I said, “for apparently if anyone with back-thrown head should learn something by staring at decorations on a ceiling, you would regard him as contemplating them with the higher reason and not with the eyes.[*](The humorous exaggeration of the language reflects Plato’s exasperation at the sentimentalists who prefer star-gazing to mathematical science. Cf. Tim. 91 D on the evolution of birds from innocents who supposed that sight furnished the surest proof in such matters. Yet such is the irony of misinterpretation that this and the following pages are the chief support of the charge that Plato is hostile to science. Cf. on 530 B, p. 187, note c.) Perhaps you are right and I am a simpleton. For I, for my part, am unable to suppose that any other study turns the soul’s gaze upward[*](Cf. Theaet. 174 A ἄνω βλέποντα.) than that which deals with being and the invisible. But if anyone tries to learn about the things of sense, whether gaping up[*](Cf. Aristoph. Clouds 172.) or blinking down,[*](συμμύω probably refers to the eyes. But cf. Adam ad loc.) I would never say that he really learns—for nothing of the kind admits of true knowledge—nor would I say that his soul looks up, but down, even though he study floating on his back[*](Cf. Phaedr. 264 A, and Adam in Class. Rev. xiii. p. 11.) on sea or land.” “A fair retort,[*](Or rather, serves me right, or, in the American language, I’ve got what’s coming to me. The expression is colloquial. Cf. Epist. iii. 319 E, Antiphon cxxiv. 45. But δίκην ἔχει in 520 B = it is just.)” he said; “your rebuke is deserved. But how, then, did you mean that astronomy ought to be taught contrary to the present fashion if it is to be learned in a way to conduce to our purpose?” Thus, said I, “these sparks that paint the sky,[*](Cf. Tim. 40 A κόσμον ἀληθινὸν αὐτῷ πεποικιλμένον, Eurip. Hel. 1096 ἀστέρων ποικίλματα, Critias, Sisyphus, Diels ii.3 p. 321, lines 33-34 τό τ’ ἀστερωπὸν οὐρανοῦ δέμας χρόνου καλὸν ποίκιλμα τέκτονος σοφοῦ. Cf. also Gorg. 508 A, Lucretius v. 1205 stellis micantibus aethera fixum, ii. 1031 ff., Aeneid iv. 482 stellis ardentibus aptum, vi. 797, xi. 202, Ennius, Ann. 372. The word ποικίλματα may further suggest here the complication of the movements in the heavens) since they are decorations on a visible surface, we must regard, to be sure, as the fairest and most exact of material things but we must recognize that they fall far short of the truth,[*](The meaning of this sentence is certain, but the expression will no more bear a matter-of-fact logical analysis than that of Phaedo 69 A-B, or Rep. 365 C, or many other subtle passages in Plato. No material object perfectly embodies the ideal and abstract mathematical relation. These mathematical ideas are designated as the true,ἀληθινῶν, and the real,ὄν. As in the Timaeus (38 C, 40 A-B, 36 D-E) the abstract and ideal has the primacy and by a reversal of the ordinary point of view is said to contain or convey the concrete. The visible stars are in and are carried by their invisible mathematical orbits. By this way of speaking Plato, it is true, disregards the apparent difficulty that the movement of the visible stars then ought to be mathematically perfect. But this interpretation is, I think, more probable for Plato than Adam’s attempt to secure rigid consistency by taking τὸ ὂν τάχος etc., to represent invisible and ideal planets, and τὰ ἐνόντα to be the perfect mathematical realities, which are in them. ἐνόντα would hardly retain the metaphysical meaning of ὄντα. For the interpretation of 529 D cf. also my Platonism and the History of Science, Am. Philos. Soc, Proc. lxvi. p. 172.) the movements, namely, of real speed and real slowness in true number and in all true figures both in relation to one another and as vehicles of the things they carry and contain. These can be apprehended only by reason and thought, but not by sight; or do you think otherwise?” “By no means,” he said. Then, said I, “we must use the blazonry of the heavens as patterns to aid in the study of those realities, just as one would do who chanced upon diagrams drawn with special care and elaboration by Daedalus or some other craftsman or painter.

For anyone acquainted with geometry who saw such designs would admit the beauty of the workmanship, but would think it absurd to examine them seriously in the expectation of finding in them the absolute truth with regard to equals or doubles or any other ratio.” “How could it be otherwise than absurd?” he said. “Do you not think,” said I, “that one who was an astronomer in very truth would feel in the same way when he turned his eyes upon the movements of the stars? He will be willing to concede that the artisan[*](δημιουργῷ: an anticipation of the Timaeus.) of heaven fashioned it and all that it contains in the best possible manner for such a fabric; but when it comes to the proportions of day and night, and of their relation to the month, and that of the month to the year, and of the other stars to these and one another, do you not suppose that he will regard as a very strange fellow the man who believes that these things go on for ever without change[*](Cf. Bruno apud Höffding, History of Modern Philosophy, i. 125 and 128, and Galileo, ibid. i. 178; also Lucretius v. 302-305.) or the least deviation[*](Plato was right against the view that Aristotle imposed on the world for centuries. We should not therefore say with Adam that he would have attached little significance to the perturbations of Neptune and the consequent discovery of Uranus. It is to Plato that tradition attributes the problem of accounting by the simplest hypothesis for the movement of the heavenly bodies and saving the phenomena. The alleged contradiction between this and Laws 821 B ff. and Tim. 41 A is due to a misapprehension. That the stars in their movements do not perfectly express the exactness of mathematical conceptions is no more than modern astronomers say. In the Laws passage Plato protests against the idea that there is no law and order governing the movement of the planets, but that they are wandering stars, as irregular in their movements as they seem. In the Timaeus he is saying that astronomy or science took its beginning from the sight and observation of the heavenly bodies and the changing seasons. In the Republic Plato’s purpose is to predict and encourage a purely mathematical astronomy and the indicate its place in the type of education which he wishes to give his guardians. There is not the slightest contradiction or change of opinion in the three passages if interpreted rightly in their entire context.)—though they possess bodies and are visible objects—and that his unremitting quest[*](The meaning is not appreciably affected by a slight doubt as to the construction of ζητεῖν. It is usually taken with ἄτοπον (regarded as neuter), the meaning being that the Philosophic astronomer will think it strange to look for the absolute truth in these things. This double use of ἄτοπον is strained and it either makes παντὶ τρόπῳ awkward or attributes to Plato the intention of decrying the concrete study of astronomy. I think ζητεῖν etc. are added by a trailing anacoluthon such as occurs elsewhere in the Republic. Their subject is the real astronomer who, using the stars only as diagrams or patterns (529 D), seeks to learn a higher exacter mathematical truth than mere observation could yield. Madvig’s ζητήσει implies a like view of the meaning but smooths out the construction. But my interpretation of the passage as a whole does not depend on this construction. If we make ζητεῖν depend on ἄτοπον (neuter)ἡγήσεται, the meaning will be that he thinks it absurd to expect to get that higher truth from mere observation. At all events Plato is not here objecting to observation as a suggestion for mathematical studies but to its substitution for them, as the next sentence shows.) the realities of these things?” “I at least do think so,” he said, “now that I hear it from you.” “It is by means of problems,[*](That is just what the mathematical astronomy of today does, and it is a πολλαπλάσιον ἔργον compared with the merely observational astronomy of Plato’s day. Cf. the interesting remarks of Sir James Jeans, apud S. J. Woolf, Drawn from Life, p. 74: The day is gone when the astronomer’s work is carried on only at the eyepiece of a telescope. Naturally, observations must be made, but these must be recorded by men who are trained for that purpose, and I am not one of them, etc. Adam’s quotation of Browning’s Abt Vogler in connection with this passage will only confirm the opinion of those who regard Plato as a sentimental enemy of science.) then,” said I, “as in the study of geometry, that we will pursue astronomy too, and we will let be the things in the heavens,[*](Cf. also Phileb. 59 A, Aristot. Met. 997 b 35 οὐδὲ περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡ ἀστρολογία τόνδε. This intentional Ruskinian boutade has given great scandal. The Platonist, we are told ad nauseam, deduces the world from his inner consciousness. This is of course not true (Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, p. 45). But Plato, like some lesser writers, loves to emphasize his thought by paradox and surprise, and his postulation and of a mathematical astronomy required emphasis. Cf. my Platonism and the History of Science, pp. 171-174. This and similar passages cannot be used to prove that Plato was unscientific, as many hostile or thoughtless critics have attempted to do. Cf. e.g. the severe strictures of Arthur Platt, Nine Essays, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1921, pp. 12-16, especially p. 16: Plato being first and foremost a metaphysician with a sort of religious system would not have us study anything but metaphysics and a kind of mystic religion. Woodbridge Riley, From Myth to Reason, p. 47: . . . Plato...was largely responsible for turning back the clock of scientific progress. To explain the wonders of the world he preferred imagination to observation. Cf. also Benn, Greek Philosophers, vol. i. pp. 173 and 327, Herrick, The Thinking Machine, p. 335, f. C. s. Schiller, Plato and he Predecessors, p. 81: . . . that Plato’s anti-empirical bias renders him profoundly anti-scientific, and that his influence has always, openly or subtly, counteracted and thwarted the scientific impulse, or at least diverted it into unprofitable channels. Dampier-Whetham, A History of Science, pp. 27-28: Plato was a great philosopher but in the history of experimental science he must be counted a disaster. Such statements disregard the entire context of the Platonic passages they exploit, and take no account of Plato’s purpose or of other passages which counteract his seemingly unscientific remarks. Equally unfair is the practice of comparing Plato unfavorably with Aristotle in this respect, as Grote e.g. frequently does (Cf. Aristotle, p. 233). Plato was an artist and Aristotle an encyclopaedist; but Plato as a whole is far nearer the point of view of recent science than Aristotle. Cf. my Platonism and the History of Science, p. 163; also 532 A and on 529 A, p. 180, note a and What Plato Said, p. 236.) if we are to have a part in the true science of astronomy and so convert to right use from uselessness that natural indwelling intelligence of the soul.” “You enjoin a task,” he said, “that will multiply the labor[*](Cf. Phaedr. 272 B καίτοι οὐ σμικρόν γε φαίνεται ἔργον.) of our present study of astronomy many times.” “And I fancy,” I said, “that our other injunctions will be of the same kind if we are of any use as lawgivers. “However, what suitable studies have you to suggest?” Nothing, he said, “thus off-hand.” “Yet, surely,” said I, “motion[*](Plato here generalizes motion as a subject of science.) in general provides not one but many forms or species, according to my opinion. To enumerate them all will perhaps be the task of a wise man,[*](The modesty is in the tone of the Timaeus.) but even to us two of them are apparent.” “What are they?” “In addition to astronomy, its counterpart, I replied.” “What is that?” “We may venture to suppose,” I said, “that as the eyes are framed for astronomy so the ears are framed,[*](For πέπηγεν cf. 605 A.) for the movements of harmony; and these are in some sort kindred sciences,[*](The similar statement attributed to Archytas, Diels i.3 p. 331, is probably an imitation of this.) as the Pythagoreans[*](Pythagoras is a great name, but little is known of him. Pythagoreans in later usage sometimes means mystics, sometimes mathematical physicists, sometimes both. Plato makes use of both traditions but is dominated by neither. For Erich Frank’s recent book, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer, cf. my article in Class. Phil. vol. xxiii. (1928) pp. 347 ff. The student of Plato will do well to turn the page when he meets the name Pythagoras in a commentator.) affirm and we admit,[*](For this turn of phrase cf. Vol. I. p. 333, 424 C, Protag. 316 A, Symp. 186 E.) do we not, Glaucon?” “We do,” he said. Then, said I, since the task is, so great, shall we not inquire of them[*](For the reference to experts Cf. 400 B, 424 C. Cf. also What Plato Said, p. 484, on Laches 184 D-E.) what their opinion is and whether they have anything to add? And we in all this[*](παρά of course here means throughout and not contrary.) will be on the watch for what concerns us.” “What is that?” “To prevent our fosterlings from attempting to learn anything that does not conduce to the end[*](I take the word ἀτελές etymologically (cf. pp. 66-67, note b, on 500 A), with reference to the end in view. Others take it in the ordinary Greek sense, imperfect, incomplete.) we have in view, and does not always come out at what we said ought to be the goal of everything, as we were just now saying about astronomy.

Or do you not know that they repeat the same procedure in the case of harmonies[*](This passage is often taken as another example of Plato’s hostility to science and the experimental method. It is of course not that, but the precise interpretation is difficult. Glaucon at first misapprehends (cf. p. 180, note a, on 529 A) and gives an amusing description of the mere empiricist in music. But Socrates says he does not mean these, but those who try to apply mathematics to the perception of sound instead of developing a (Kantian) a priori science of harmony to match the mathematical science of astronomy. Cf. also p. 193, note g, on 531 B, W. Whewell, Transaction of the Cabridge Philos. Soc. vol. ix. p. 389, and for music A. Rivaud, Platon et la musique, Rev. d’Histoire de la Philos. 1929, pp. 1-30; also Stallbaum ad loc., and E. Frank, Platon u. d. sog. Pyth., Anhang, on the history of Greek music. He expresses surprise (p. 199) that Glaucon knows nothing of Pythagorean theories of music. Others use this to prove Socrates’ ignorance of music.)? They transfer it to hearing and measure audible concords and sounds against one another,[*](This hints at the distinction developed in the Politicus between relative measurement of one thing against another and measurement by a standard. Cf. Polit. 283 E, 284 B-C, Theat. 186 A.) expending much useless labor just as the astronomers do.” “Yes, by heaven,” he said, “and most absurdly too. They talk of something they call minims[*](πυκνώματα (condensed notes). The word is technical. Cf. Adam ad loc. But, as ἄττα shows, Plato is using it loosely to distinguish a measure of sense perception from a mathematically determined interval.) and, laying their ears alongside, as if trying to catch a voice from next door,[*](Cf. Pater, Renaissance, p. 157. The phrase, ἐκ γειτόνων, is colloquial and, despite the protest of those who insist that it only means in the neighborhood, suggests overhearing what goes on next door—as often in the New Comedy.) some affirm that they can hear a note between and that this is the least interval and the unit of measurement, while others insist that the strings now render identical sounds,[*](Cf. Aldous Huxley, Jesting Pilate, p. 152: Much is enthusiastically taught about the use of quarter tones in Indian music. I listened attentively at Lucknow in the hope of hearing some new and extraordinary kind of melody based on these celebrated fractions. But I listened in vain. Gomprez, Greek Thinkers, iii. pp. 334-335, n. 85, thinks that Plato shrugs his shoulders at experiments. He refers to Plutarch, Life of Marcellus, xiv. 65, and Quaest. Conv. viii. 2. 1, 7, where Plato is represented as having been angry with Eudoxus and Archytas because they employed instruments and apparatus for the solution of a problem, instead of relying solely on reasoning.) both preferring their ears to their minds.[*](So Malebranche, Entretiens sur la métaphysique, 3, x.: Je pense que nous vous moquez de moi. C’est la raison et non les sens qu’il faut consulter.)” You, said I, “are speaking of the worthies[*](For χρηστός in this ironical sense cf. also 479 A, Symp. 177 B.) who vex and torture the strings and rack them[*](The language of the imagery confounds the torture of slaves giving evidence on the rack with the strings and pegs of a musical instrument. For the latter cf. Horace, A.P. 348, nam neque chorda sonum reddit quem vult manus et mens Poscentique gravem persaepe remittit acutum. Stallbaum says that Plato here was imitated by Aristaenetus, Epist. xiv. libr. 1 τί πράγματα παρέχετε χορδαῖς;) on the pegs; but—not to draw out the comparison with strokes of the plectrum and the musician’s complaints of too responsive and too reluctant strings[*](This also may suggest a reluctant and a too willing witness.)—I drop the figure,[*](Cf. on 489 A, p. 23, note d.) and tell you that I do not mean these people, but those others[*](He distinguishes from the pure empirics just satirized those who apply their mathematics only to the data of observation. This is perhaps one of Plato’s rare errors. For though there may be in some sense a Kantian a priori mechanics of astronomy, there can hardly be a purely a priori mathematics of acoustics. What numbers are consonantly harmonious must always remain a fact of direct experience. Cf. my Platonism and the History of Science, p. 176.) whom we just now said we would interrogate about harmony. Their method exactly corresponds to that of the astronomer; for the numbers they seek are those found in these heard concords, but they do not ascend[*](Cf. Friedländer, Platon, p. 108, n. 1.) to generalized problems and the consideration which numbers are inherently concordant and which not and why in each case.” “A superhuman task,” he said. “Say, rather, useful,[*](Cf. Tim. 47 C-D. Plato always keeps to his point—Cf. 349 B-C, 564 A-B—or returns to it after a digression. Cf. on 572 B, p. 339, note e.) said I, for the investigation of the beautiful and the good,[*](Cf. on 505 B, p. 88, note a.) but if otherwise pursued, useless.” “That is likely,” he said. “And what is more,” I said, I take it that if the investigation[*](μέθοδος, like πραγματείαν in D, is used almost in the later technical sense of treatise or branch of study. Cf. on 528 D, p. 178, note a.) of all these studies goes far enough to bring out their community and kinship[*](Cf. on 537 C, Epin. 991 E.) with one another, and to infer their affinities, then to busy ourselves with them contributes to our desired end, and the labor taken is not lost; but otherwise it is vain.” “I too so surmise,” said he; “but it is a huge task of which you speak, Socrates.” “Are you talking about the prelude,[*](Plato is fond of this image. It suggests here also the preamble of a law, as the translation more explicitly indicates. Cf. 532 D, anticipated in 457 C, and Laws 722 D-E, 723 A-B and E, 720 D-E, ;772 E, 870 D, 854 A, 932 A and passim.)” I said, “or what? Or do we not know that all this is but the preamble of the law itself, the prelude of the strain that we have to apprehend? For you surely do not suppose that experts in these matters are reasoners and dialecticians[*](Cf. Theaet. 146 B, and perhaps Euthyd. 290 C. Though mathematics quicken the mind of the student, it is, apart from metaphysics, a matter of common experience that mathematicians are not necessarily good reasoners on other subjects. Jowett’s wicked jest, I have hardly ever known a mathematician who could reason, misled an eminent professor of education who infers that Plato disbelieved in mental discipline (Yale Review, July 1917). Cf. also Taylor, Note in Reply to Mr. A. W. Benn, Mind, xii. (1903) p. 511; Charles Fox, Educational Psychology pp. 187-188: . . . a training in the mathematics may produce exactness of thought . . . provided that the training is of such a kind as to inculcate an ideal which the pupil values and strives to attain. Failing this, Glaucon’s observation that he had hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning is likely to be repeated. On the text cf. Wilamowitz, Platon, ii. pp. 384-385, and Adam ad loc.)? “ “No, by Zeus,” he said, “except a very few whom I have met.” “But have you ever supposed,” I said, “that men who could not render and exact an account[*](λόγον . . . δοῦναι A commonplace Platonic plea for dialectics. Cf. 534 B, Prot. 336 C, Polit. 286 A, Theaet. 202 C, 175 C, 183 D, Soph. 230 A, Phaedo 78 C-D, 95 D, Charm. 165 B, Xen. Oecon. 11. 22. Cf. also λόγον λαβεῖν Rep. 402 A, 534 B, Soph. 246 C, Theaet. 208 D, and Thompson on Meno 76 D.) of opinions in discussion would ever know anything of the things we say must be known?” “No is surely the answer to that too.”

“This, then, at last, Glaucon,” I said, “is the very law which dialectics[*](Cf. Phileb. 58 D, Meno 75 C-D, Charm. 155 A, Cratyl. 390 C, and on 533 B, pp. 200 f., note f.) recites, the strain which it executes, of which, though it belongs to the intelligible, we may see an imitation in the progress[*](This is not a literal rendering, but gives the meaning.) of the faculty of vision, as we described[*](Cf. 516 A-B. Plato interprets his imagery again here and in B infra.) its endeavor to look at living things themselves and the stars themselves and finally at the very sun. In like manner, when anyone by dialectics attempts through discourse of reason and apart from all perceptions of sense[*](Cf. p. 180, note a, and p. 187, note c. Cf. also 537 D, and on 476 A ff. Cf. Bergson, Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 9: Metaphysics, then, is the science which claims to dispense with symbols; E. S. Robinson, Readings in General Psych. p. 295: A habit of suppressing mental imagery must therefore characterize men who deal much with abstract ideas; and as the power of dealing easily and firmly with these ideas is the surest criterion of a high order if intellect . . . ; Pear, Remembering and Forgetting, p. 57: He (Napoleon) is reported to have said that there are some who, from some physical or moral peculiarity of character, form a picture (tableau) of everything. No matter what knowledge, intellect, courage, or good qualities they may have, these men are unfit to command; A. Bain, Mind, 1880, p. 570: Mr. Galton is naturally startled at finding eminent scientific men, by their own account, so very low in the visualizing power. His explanation, I have no doubt, hits the mark; the deficiency is due to the natural antagonism of pictorial aptitude and abstract thought.; Judd, Psychology of High School Subjects, p. 921: It did not appear on superficial examination of the standings of students that those who can draw best are the best students from the point of view of the teacher of science.) to find his way to the very essence of each thing and does not desist till he apprehends by thought itself the nature of the good in itself, he arrives at the limit of the intelligible, as the other in our parable, came to the goal of the visible.” “By all means,” he said. “What, then, will you not call this progress of thought dialectic?” Surely. “And the release from bonds,” I said, “and the conversion from the shadows to the images[*](εἴδωλα: cf. my Idea of Good in Plato’s Republic, p. 238; also 516 A, Theaet. 150 C, Soph. 240 A, 241 E, 234 C, 266 B with 267 C, and Rep. 517 D ἀγαλμάτων.) that cast them and to the light and the ascent[*](ἐπάνοδος became almost technical in Neoplatonism. Cf. also 517 A, 529 A, and p. 124, note b.) from the subterranean cavern to the world above,[*](Lit. sun, i.e. the world illumined by the sun, not by the fire in the cave.) and there the persisting inability[*](See crit. note. The text of Iamblichus is the only reasonable one. The reading of the manuscripts is impossible. For the adverb modifying a noun cf. 558 B οὐδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν σμικρολογία, Laws 638 B σφόδρα γυναικῶν, with England’s note, Theaet. 183 E πάνυ πρεσβύτης, Laws 791 C παντελῶς παίδων, 698 C σφόδρα φιλία, Rep. 564 A ἄγαν δουλείαν, with Stallbaum’s note.) to look directly at animals and plants and the light of the sun, but the ability to see the phantasms created by God[*](θεῖα because produced by God or nature and not by man with a mirror or a paintbrush. See crit. note and Class. Review, iv. p. 480. I quoted Sophist 266 B-D, and Adam with rare candor withdrew his emendation in his Appendix XIII. to this book. Apelt still misunderstands and emends, p.296 and note.) in water and shadows of objects that are real and not merely, as before, the shadows of images cast through a light which, compared with the sun, is as unreal as they—all this procedure of the arts and sciences that we have described indicates their power to lead the best part of the soul up to the contemplation of what is best among realities, as in our parable the clearest organ in the body was turned to the contemplation of what is brightest in the corporeal and visible region.” “I accept this,” he said, “as the truth; and yet it appears to me very hard to accept, and again, from another point of view, hard to reject.[*](This sentence is fundamental for the understanding of Plato’s metaphysical philosophy generally. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, p. 30, n. 192, What Plato Said, p. 268 and 586 on Parmen. 135 C. So Tennyson says it is hard to believe in God and hard not to believe.) Nevertheless, since we have not to hear it at this time only, but are to repeat it often hereafter, let us assume that these things are as now has been said, and proceed to the melody itself, and go through with it as we have gone through the prelude. Tell me, then, what is the nature of this faculty of dialectic? Into what divisions does it fall? And what are its ways? For it is these, it seems, that would bring us to the place where we may, so to speak, rest on the road and then come to the end of our journeying.”

“You will not be able, dear Glaucon, to follow me further,[*](This is not mysticism or secret doctrine. It is, in fact, the avoidance of dogmatism. but that is not all. Plato could not be expected to insert a treatise on dialectical method here, or risk an absolute definition which would only expose him to misinterpretation. The principles and methods of such reasoning, and the ultimate metaphysical conclusions to which they may lead, cannot be expounded in a page or a chapter. They can only be suggested to the intelligent, whose own experience will help them to understand. As the Republic and Laws entire explain Plato’s idea of social good, so all the arguments in the dialogues illustrate his conception of fair and unfair argument. Cf. What Plato Said, Index s. v. Dialectics, and note f below.) though on my part there will be no lack of goodwill.[*](For the idiom οὐδὲν προθυμίας ἀπολίποι Cf. Symp. 210 A, Meno 77 A, Laws 961 C, Aesch. Prom. 343, Thucyd. viii. 22. 1, Eurip. Hippol. 285.) And, if I could, I would show you, no longer an image and symbol of my meaning, but the very truth, as it appears to me—though whether rightly or not I may not properly affirm.[*](On Plato’s freedom from the dogmatism often attributed to him Cf. What Plato Said, p. 515 on Meno 86 B.) But that something like this is what we have to see, I must affirm.[*](On Plato’s freedom from the dogmatism often attributed to him Cf. What Plato Said, p. 515 on Meno 86 B.) Is not that so?” Surely. “And may we not also declare that nothing less than the power of dialectics could reveal[*](The mystical implications of φήνειεν are not to be pressed. It is followed, as usual in Plato, by a matter-of-fact statement of the essential practical conclusion (γοῦν)that no man can be trusted to think straight in large matters who has not been educated to reason and argue straight.) this, and that only to one experienced[*](Plato anticipates the criticism that he neglects experience.) in the studies we have described, and that the thing is in no other wise possible?” “That, too,” he said, “we may properly affirm.” “This, at any rate,” said I, “no one will maintain in dispute against us[*](i.e. dispute our statement and maintain. The meaning is plain. It is a case of what I have called illogical idiom. Cf. T.A.P.A. vol. xlvii. pp. 205-234. The meaning is that of Philebus 58 E, 59 A. Other science may be more interesting or useful, but sound dialectics alone fosters the disinterested pursuit of truth for its own sake. Cf. Soph. 295 C, Phaedr. 265-266. Aristotle, Topics i. 2. 6, practically comes back to the Platonic conception of dialectics. The full meaning of dialectics in Plato would demand a treatise. It is almost the opposite of what Hegelians call by that name, which is represented in Plato by the second part of the Parmenides. The characteristic Platonic dialectic is the checking of the stream of thought by the necessity of securing the understanding and assent of an intelligent interlocutor at every step, and the habit of noting all relevant distinctions, divisions, and ambiguities, in ideas and terms. When the interlocutor is used merely to relieve the strain on the leader’s voice or the reader’s attention, as in some of the later dialogues, dialectic becomes merely a literary form.): that there is any other way of inquiry[*](Cicero’s via et ratione. περὶ παντός is virtually identical with αὐτοῦ γε ἑκάστου πέρι. It is true that the scientific specialist confines himself to his specialty. The dialectician, like his base counterfeit the sophist (Soph. 231 A), is prepared to argue about anything, Soph. 232 cf., Euthyd. 272 A-B.) that attempts systematically and in all cases to determine what each thing really is. But all the other arts have for their object the opinions and desires of men or are wholly concerned with generation and composition or with the service and tendance of the things that grow and are put together, while the remnant which we said[*](Cf. 525 C, 527 B.) did in some sort lay hold on reality—geometry and the studies that accompany it— are, as we see, dreaming[*](The interpreters of Plato must allow for his Emersonian habit of hitting each nail in turn as hard as he can. There is no real contradiction between praising mathematics in comparison with mere loose popular thinking, and disparaging it in comparison with dialectics. There is no evidence and no probability that Plato is here proposing a reform of mathematics in the direction of modern mathematical logic, as has been suggested. Cf. on 527 A. It is the nature of mathematics to fall short of dialectics.) about being, but the clear waking vision[*](Cf. Phileb. 20 B and on 520 C, p. 143, note g.) of it is impossible for them as long as they leave the assumptions which they employ undisturbed and cannot give any account[*](Cf. on 531 E.) of them. For where the starting-point is something that the reasoner does not know, and the conclusion and all that intervenes is a tissue of things not really known,[*](The touch of humor is the expression may be illustrated by Lucian, Hermotimus 74, where it is used to justify Lucian’s skepticism even of mathematics, and by Hazlitt’s remark on Coleridge, Excellent talker if you allow him to start from no premises and come to no conclusion.) what possibility is there that assent[*](Or admission. Plato thinks of even geometrical reasoning as a Socratic dialogue. Cf. the exaggeration of this idea by the Epicureans in Cic. De fin. i. 21 quae et a falsis initiis profecta, vera esse non possunt: et si essent vera nihil afferunt quo iucundius, id est, quo melius viveremus. Dialectic proceeds διὰ συγχωρήσεων, the admission of the interlocutor. Cf. Laws 957 D, Phaedr. 237 C-D, Gorg. 487 E, Lysis 219 C, Prot. 350 E, Phileb. 12 A, Theaet. 162 A, 169 D-E, 164 C, Rep. 340 B. But such admissions are not valid unless when challenged they are carried back to something satisfactory—ἱκανόν—(not necessarily in any given case to the idea of good). But the mathematician as such peremptorily demands the admission of his postulates and definitions. Cf. 510 B-D, 511 B.) in such cases can ever be converted into true knowledge or science?” None, said he. Then, said I, “is not dialectics the only process of inquiry that advances in this manner, doing away with hypotheses, up to the first principle itself in order to find confirmation there? And it is literally true that when the eye of the soul[*](Cf. on 519 B, p. 138, note a.) is sunk in the barbaric slough[*](Orphism pictured the impious souls as buried in mud in the world below; cf. 363 D. Again we should not press Plato’s rhetoric and imagery either as sentimental Platonists or hostile critics. See Newman, Introd. Aristot. Pol. p. 463, n. 3.) of the Orphic myth, dialectic gently draws it forth and leads it up, employing as helpers and co-operators in this conversion the studies and sciences which we enumerated, which we called sciences often from habit,[*](All writers and philosophers are compelled to speak with the vulgar. Cf. e.g. Meyerson, De l’explication dans les sciences, i. p. 329: Tout en sachant que la couleur n’est pas réellement une qualité de l’object, à se servir cependant, dans la vie de tous les jours, d’une locution qui l’affirme.) though they really need some other designation, connoting more clearness than opinion and more obscurity than science. Understanding,[*](Cf. on 511 D, pp. 116-117, note c.) I believe, was the term we employed. But I presume we shall not dispute about the name[*](This unwillingness to dispute about names when they do not concern the argument is characteristic of Plato. Cf. What Plato Said, p. 516 on Meno 78 B-C for numerous instances. Stallbaum refers to Max. Tyr. Diss. xxvii. p. 40 ἐγὼ γάρ τοι τά τε ἄλλα, καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐλευθερίᾳ πείθομαι Πλάτωνι.) when things of such moment lie before us for consideration.” “No, indeed,” he said.[*](The next sentence is hopelessly corrupt and is often considered an interpolation. The translation omits it. See Adam, Appendix XVI. to Bk. VII., Bywater, Journal of Phil. (Eng.) v. pp. 122-124.)---