selves rather in the literary form than in the philosophical
substance. We find here all the familiar Socratic proposi-
tions, that virtue is knowledge, is one, is teachable; that all
men seek the good, but that men differ as to what the good
is; that a man who does wrong deliberately is better than a
man who does it unintentionally; and so on. Moreover, just
as Socrates had occupied himself in attempting to fix the
concepts of the virtues, asking “what is prudence?”, “what
is temperance?”, and the like, so in many of these dialogues
Plato pursues similar inquiries. The “Lysis” discusses the
concept of friendship, the “Charmides” of temperance, the
“Laches” of bravery. On the whole, the philosophical sub-
stance of these early writings is thin and meagre. There is
a preponderance of incident and much biographical detail
regarding Socrates. There is more art than matter. Con-
sequently, from a purely literary point of view, these are
among the most charming of Plato’s dialogues, and many
of them, such as the “Apology” and the “Crito,” are espe-
cially popular with those who care for Plato rather as an
artist than as a philosopher.
The second group of dialogues is generally connected with
the period of Plato’s travels. In addition to the influence of
Socrates, we have now the influence of the Eleatics, which
naturally connects these dialogues with the period of the
philosopher’s sojourn at Megara. But it is in these dia-
logues, too, that Plato for the first time {174} develops his
own special philosophical thesis. This is in fact his great
constructive period. The central and governing principle of
his philosophy is the theory of Ideas. All else hinges on this,
and is dominated by this. In a sense, his whole philosophy
is nothing but the theory of Ideas and what depends upon
it. It is in this second period that the theory of Ideas is
founded and developed, and its relationship to the Eleatic
philosophy of Being discussed. We have here the spectacle
of Plato’s most original thoughts in the pangs of childbirth.
He is now at grips with the central problems of philosophy.
He is intent upon the thought itself, and cares little for
the ornaments of style. He is struggling to find expression
for ideas newly-formed in his mind, of which he is not yet
completely master, and which he cannot manipulate with
ease. Consequently, the literary graces of the first period
recede into the background. There is little incident, and
no humour. There is nothing but close reasoning, hard and
laborious discussion.The twin dialogues, “Gorgias” and “Theaetetus” are proba-
bly the earliest of this group. They result in nothing very
definite, and are chiefly negative in character. Plato is here
engaged merely in a preparatory clearing of the ground.
The “Gorgias” discusses and refutes the Sophistic identi-
fication of virtue and pleasure, and attempts to show, as
against it, that the good must be something objectively
existent, and independent of the pleasure of the individ-
ual. The “Theaetetus,” similarly, shows that truth is not,
as the Sophists thought, merely the subjective impression
of the individual, but is something objectively true in itself.
The other {175} dialogues of the group are the “Sophist,”
the “Statesman,” and the “Parmenides.” The “Sophist” dis-
cusses Being and not-being, and their relationship to the
theory of Ideas. The “Parmenides” inquires whether the
absolute reality is to be regarded, in the manner of the