tyrant of Syracuse. But here his conduct seems to have
given grave offence. Dionysius was so angered by his mor-
alizings and philosophical diatribes that he put Plato up
to auction in the slave market. Plato narrowly escaped
the fate of slavery, but was ransomed by Anniceris, the
Cyrenaic. He then returned to Athens, his travels having
occupied a period of about ten years.
With the return of Plato to Athens we enter upon the
third and last period of his life. With the exception of
two journeys to be mentioned shortly, he never again left
Athens. He now appeared for the first time as a profes-
sional teacher and philosopher. He chose for the scene of
his activities a gymnasium, called the Academy. Here he
gradually collected round him a circle of pupils and disci-
ples. For the rest of his life, a period of about forty years,
he occupied himself in literary activity, and in the man-
agement of the school which he had founded. His manner
of life was in strong contrast to that of Socrates. Only in
one respect did he resemble his master. He took no fees
for his teaching. Otherwise the lives of the two great men
bear no resemblance to each other. Socrates had gone out
into the highways and byways in search of wisdom. He had
wrangled in {168} the market-place with all comers. Plato
withdrew himself into the seclusion of a school, protected
from the hubbub of the world by a ring of faithful disciples.
It was not to be expected that a man of Plato’s refine-
ment, culture, and aristocratic feelings, should appreciate,
as Socrates, the man of the people, had done, the rough-
and-tumble life of the Athenian market-place. Nor was it
desirable for the advancement of philosophy that it should
be so. The Socratic philosophy had suffered from the So-
cratic manner of life. It was unmethodical and inchoate.
Systematic thought is not born of disputes at the street
corner. For the development of a great world-system, such
as that of Plato, laborious study and quiet seclusion were
essential.This period of Plato’s mastership was broken only by two
journeys to Sicily, both undertaken with political objects.
Plato knew well that the perfect State, as depicted in his
“Republic,” was not capable of realization in the Greece
of his own time. Nevertheless, he took his political phi-
losophy very seriously. Though the perfect republic was
an unattainable ideal, yet, he thought, any real reform of
the State must at least proceed in the direction of that
ideal. One of the essential principles of the “Republic”
was that the rulers must also be philosophers. Not till
philosopher and ruler were combined in one and the same
person could the State be governed upon true principles.
Now, in the year 368 B.C., Dionysius the Elder died, and
Dionysius the younger became tyrant of Syracuse. Diony-
sius despatched an invitation to Plato to attend his court
and give him the benefit of his advice. Here was an op-
portunity to experiment. Plato could train and educate a
{169} philosopher-king. He accepted the invitation. But
the expedition ended disastrously. Dionysius received him
with enthusiasm, and interested himself in the philosoph-
ical discourses of his teacher. But he was young, impetu-
ous, hot-headed, and without genuine philosophic bent. His
first interest gave place to weariness and irritation. Plato
left Syracuse a disappointed man; and returned to Athens.