podal opening was not, we may assume, imagined by Plato in vain. Those souls which, after being judged (whether above or under ground does not appear in the Phaedo-but probably underground), go, not to the Islands of the Blessed, but down the river Acheron to the Acherusian Lake (which is certainly subterranean), have entered the infernal regions, we may fairly suppose, by the opening in our hemisphere, and will come out, after their penance, by the other-the antipodal— opening, and will start thence on their journey-always above ground-to the river of Lethe. That Plato actually thought of the souls as going into Tartarus, and coming out of it, by distinct openings, we know from the Myth of Er. But while the entrance and exit are antipodally placed in the Phaedo Myth, which takes careful account of cosmographical and geological conditions, in the Myth of Er the purpose of pictorial composition is served by placing them side by side, opposite the entrance and exit of "Heaven"; the "Meadow," at once the place of judgment and the starting-place for the plain of Lethe, lying between Tartarus and "Heaven." It would be easy to give examples, from Greek vase-painting, of similar compression in pictorial composition. I call attention to this discrepancy between the Phaedo Myth and the Myth of Er, to show how absurd it would be to attempt to construct one topographical scheme for Plato's Eschatological Myths, as rigid as the one scheme to which Dante is so faithful in the Divina Commedia. What I venture to suggest, however, is that, in the Phaedo Myth, Plato is possibly—or shall I say "probably " ?-thinking of the world of the departed, so far as it is not subterranean, or celestial, as somewhere in the other hemisphere of the terrestrial globe,somewhere, but as in a dream, in which inconsistencies are accepted as natural; for the "True Surface of the Earth," though somewhere in the antipodal hemisphere, beneath us, is yet a region above us, whence gems have found their way down to our hollow!

I have dwelt on the parallel between the geography of the Phaedo Myth and that of the Divina Commedia with the view, not of clearing up particular difficulties in mythological geography, but of suggesting a method by which the function of Myth in the Platonic philosophy may be better understood

-the method of sealing the impression made on us by the Myth of one great master by study of the Myth of another great master with whom we may happen to be in closer sympathy. The service which Myth, and poetical treatment generally, can render to the faith on which conduct and science ultimately rest is, I think, more easily and finely appreciated by us in Dante than in Plato; for we live, though in late days, in the same Christian epoch with the medieval poet.

III

Let me close these observations on the Phaedo Myth by calling attention to what Socrates says at the end of the narrative (114 D),-that, while it would not be sensible to maintain that all about the Soul and the next world contained in the Myth is absolutely true, yet, since the Soul is plainly immortal, one ought to hazard the pious belief that, if not absolutely true, this Myth, or some other like it, is not far from being true, and "sing it over oneself" as if it were an enchanter's song:—τὸ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα διισχυρίσασθαι οὕτως ἔχειν, ὡς ἐγὼ διελήλυθα, οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί· ὅτι μέντοι ἢ ταῦτ ̓ ἐστὶν ἢ τοιαῦτ ̓ ἄττα περὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις, ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ φαίνεται οὖσα, τοῦτο καὶ πρέπειν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄξιον κινδυνεῦσαι οἰομένῳ οὕτως ἔχειν· καλὸς γὰρ ὁ κίνδυνος· καὶ χρὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπάδειν ἑαυτῷ, διὸ δὴ ἔγωγε καὶ πάλαι μηκύνω τὸν μῦθον. The distinction between Dogma and Myth is carefully insisted on here, and also the practical value of Myth as an expression of moral and religious feeling. Myth, it is suggested, may be put into such form that it will react favourably on the feeling expressed, and make it a surer guide to what is good. The reaction of expression on that which it expresses-of style on the man-is a matter about which Plato had reflected deeply, as is apparent from his whole scheme of education, mental, moral, and physical, in the Republic. If, then, the sense of responsibility, and the attendant sense of being a continuously existent Self, naturally express themselves, as Plato holds, dià vooλoyías, pictorially, in visions of an immortal life, it follows from the general law of the reaction of expression on feeling, that, by refining and ennobling μvooλoyía, we shall be able to

I

refine and ennoble morals and faith. This is the "use" to which μulos is put by Plato, not only in the education of young children, but in dialogues offered to mature readers as models on which they may mould their own conversations about the highest things. This is the "use" of great poetry, like Dante's Commedia, or of great painting, like the fresco on the left-hand wall of the Spanish Chapel-"the most noble piece of pictorial philosophy and divinity in Italy."' As philosophy and pictorial composition are blended together in that fresco-the philosophy is seen as a whole, in all the beauty of its μέγεθος καὶ τάξις—so are philosophy and poetry blended together where Plato is at his highest—in his Myths. In the Phaedo Myth the poet -philosopher has taken moral responsibility as the motif of his piece. Moral responsibility cannot, he knows, be explained in scientific terms, as a phenomenon is explained by being put into its proper place among other phenomena; for moral responsibility attaches immediately to the subject of all phenomena-the continuously existing Self. But if it cannot be explained, moral responsibility may be pictured-pictured in a Myth representing the continuity of the responsible Self in terms of Pre-existence, Reminiscence, Judgment, Penance, Free Choice, Re-incarnation —a Myth not to be taken literally, but to be dwelt on (xpn τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπάδειν ἑαυτῷ), till the charm of it touches one deeply so deeply that, when the "uninitiated" say “it is not true," one is able to answer by acting as if it were true.

1 Ruskin's Mornings in Florence, chap. iv., "The Vaulted Book"; cf. Renan, Averroes et l'Averroïsme, pp. 245, 246.

THE GORGIAS MYTH

CONTEXT

GORGIAS, the famous teacher of Rhetoric, and his young disciple Polus, meet Socrates at the house of Callicles, an Athenian gentleman; and the conversation turns on the difference between Rhetoric and the Way of true Knowledge and the true Conduct of Life.

What is Rhetoric? Socrates asks. Neither Gorgias nor Polus can give an intelligible answer; and Socrates answers for them by describing it as the Simulation of Justice, the Art of getting people to believe what the Professor of the Art wishes them to believe, and they themselves wish to believe, without regard to Truth or Justice. It is the Art of Flattery. It ignores the distinction between Pleasure and the Good-a distinction to the reality of which human nature itself testifies-for all men, bad as well as good, wish the Good, and bad men, in doing what they think best for themselves, do what they do not wish to do. To seek after the Good is of the very essence of Life -it is better to suffer evil than to do evil; and if a man has done evil, it is better for him to be chastised than to escape chastisement.

Here Callicles, speaking as a man of the world, takes up the argument, and maintains that Statesmanship does not recognise this distinction drawn by Socrates between Pleasure and the Good. Pleasure is the Good. Might is Right.

After much talk Callicles is silenced, and Socrates points out that there are two kinds of Statesmanship-that which uses Phetoric as its instrument, and flatters people, and deceives them, holding up Pleasure before them; and that which, keeping the Good always in view, makes them better.

At the Day of Judgment, which the Myth now told by Socrates declares, there will be no place for the Art of Flattery. Pretence will not avail. There will be no side issues then. The only issue will be: Is this man righteous or is he wicked?

With the Myth of the Day of Judgment the Gorgias ends.

523

Gorgias 523 A-527 c

Ακουε δή, φασί, μάλα καλοῦ λόγου, ὃν σὺ μὲν ἡγήσει μῦθον, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, ἐγὼ δὲ λόγον· ὡς ἀληθῆ γὰρ ὄντα σοι λέξω ἃ μέλλω λέγειν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ Ὅμηρος λέγει, διενείμαντο τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ Ζεὺς καὶ ὁ Πλούτων, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παρέλαβον. ἦν οὖν νόμος ὅδε περὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ Κρόνου, καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἔστιν ἐν θεοῖς, τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν μὲν δικαίως τὸν βίον διελθόντα καὶ ὁσίως, Β ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ, ἐς μακάρων νήσους ἀπιόντα οἰκεῖν ἐν πάσῃ εὐδαιμονίᾳ ἐκτὸς κακῶν, τὸν δὲ ἀδίκως καὶ ἀθέως εἰς τὸ τῆς τίσεώς τε καὶ δίκης δεσμωτήριον, ὃ δὴ τάρταρον καλοῦσιν, ἰέναι. τούτων δὲ δικασταὶ ἐπὶ Κρόνου καὶ ἔτι νεωστὶ τοῦ Διὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος ζῶντες ἦσαν ζώντων, ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ δικάζοντες, ᾗ μέλλοιεν τελευτᾶν. κακῶς οὖν αἱ δίκαι ἐκρίνοντο. ὅ τε οὖν Πλούτων καὶ οἱ ἐπιμε ληταὶ οἱ ἐκ μακάρων νήσων ἰόντες ἔλεγον πρὸς τὸν Δία, C ὅτι φοιτῷέν σφιν ἄνθρωποι ἑκατέρωσε ἀνάξιοι. εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ζεύς, ̓Αλλ ̓ ἐγώ, ἔφη, παύσω τοῦτο γιγνόμενον. νῦν μὲν γὰρ κακῶς αἱ δίκαι δικάζονται. ἀμπεχόμενοι γάρ, ἔφη, οἱ κρινόμενοι κρίνονται· ζῶντες γὰρ κρίνονται. πολλοὶ οὖν, ἢ δ ̓ ὅς, ψυχὰς πονηρὰς ἔχοντες ἠμφιεσμένοι εἰσὶ σώματά τε καλὰ καὶ γένη καὶ πλούτους, καί, ἐπειδὰν ἡ κρίσις ᾖ, ἔρχονται αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ μάρτυρες μαρτυρήσοντες, ὡς δικαίως D βεβιώκασιν. οἱ οὖν δικασταὶ ὑπό τε τούτων ἐκπλήττονται, καὶ ἅμα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀμπεχόμενοι δικάζουσι, πρὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τῆς αὑτῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ὦτα καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα προκεκαλυμμένοι. ταῦτα δὴ αὐτοῖς πάντα ἐπίπροσθεν γίγνεται, καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν ἀμφιέσματα καὶ τὰ τῶν κρινομένων. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ἔφη, παυστέον ἐστὶ προειδότας αὐτοὺς τὸν θάνατον· νῦν μὲν γὰρ προἴσασι. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν καὶ δὴ εἴρηται τῷ - Προμηθεῖ ὅπως ἂν παύσῃ αὐτῶν. ἔπειτα γυμνοὺς κριτέον ἁπάντων τούτων· τεθνεῶτας γὰρ δεῖ κρίνεσθαι. καὶ τὸν