The ranks

of the

sanctuary, take a leap out of the arts into philosophy; those who do so being probably the cleverest hands at their own miserable crafts? For, although philosophy be in this evil case, still there remains a dignity about her which is not found in the other arts. And many are thus attracted by her whose natures are imperfect and whose souls are marred and disfigured by their meannesses, as their bodies are by their arts and crafts. Is not that true? Yes.

Are they not exactly like a bald little tinker who has just got out of durance and come into a fortune; he washes the dirt off him and has a new coat, and is decked out as a bridegroom going to marry his master's daughter, who is unworthy of left poor and desolate ?

Sophists are recruited from those

an educa

tion.

The char

acter of the true philosopher.

The figure is exact.

And what will be the issue of such marriages? Will they not be vile and bastard?

There can be no question of it.

And when persons who are unworthy of education approach philosophy and make an alliance with her who is in a rank above them, what sort of ideas and opinions are likely to be generated? Will they not be sophisms captivating to the ear, yet having nothing in them genuine, or worthy of or akin to true wisdom?

No doubt, he said.

Then there is a very small remnant, Adeimantus, I said, of worthy disciples of philosophy: perchance some noble nature, brought up under good influences, and detained by exile in her service, who in the absence of temptation remains devoted to her; or some lofty soul born in a mean city, the politics of which he contemns or neglects; and perhaps there may be a few who, having a gift for philosophy, leave other arts, which they justly despise, and come to her; and peradventure there are some who are restrained by our friend Theages' bridle (for Theages, you know, has had everything to draw him away; but his ill-health keeps him from politics). My own case of the internal sign is indeed hardly worth mentioning, as very rarely, if ever, has such a monitor been vouchsafed to any one else. Those who belong to this small class have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and have

also seen and been satisfied of the mass of the multitude, and known that there is no one who ever acts honestly in the administration of States, nor any helper who defends the cause of the just, by whose aid he may be saved. Such

a defender may be compared to a man who has fallen among wild beasts he would not join in the wickedness

of his fellows, but neither would he be able alone to resist all their fierce natures, and therefore he would be of no use to the State or to his friends, and would have to throw away his life before he had done any good to himself or others. When he reflects upon all this, he holds his peace, and does his own business. He is like one who retires under the shelter of a wall in the storm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along; and when he sees the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he is content if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil or unrighteousness, and depart in peace and good-will, with bright hopes.

Yes, he said, and he will have done a great work before he departs.

A great work-yes; but not the greatest, unless he find a State suitable to him; for in a State which is suitable to him, he will have a larger growth and be the saviour of his country, as well as of himself.

Enough, then, of the causes why philosophy is in such an evil name; how unjustly, has been explained; and now is there anything more which you wish to say?

IV. GREEK EDUCATIONAL THEORISTS:

THE HISTORICAL VIEW

The Period and the Sources in General. This phase of Greek education does not constitute a distinct period in time, but falls in that of the New Greek Education. In fact, these writings form but one portion of the literature of the Attic period, which is one of the essential features or results of the new education. At the same time the writings of the theorists present an aspect of Greek education wholly different from those treated as the old and the new education. The literature on this topic is more voluminous than that on any of the others so far treated, and includes the writings of Plato and Aristotle as well as the selection from Xenophon first given. Incidentally these selections, especially those from Aristotle, give much information concerning the actual practices of Greek schools.

The Problem of the Theorists. The writers of this group, while for the most part contemporary with the Sophists, differ from them in two important respects. The Sophists were practical teachers and were interested in the educational movement of the times chiefly in a personal way. They claimed to be able to prepare for a successful career, and were primarily concerned in achiev ing such a success for themselves. They taught for money and for reputation, as do most teachers at the present. Some of them, as Socrates, had a profound

public interest as well, but the earlie Sophists were not native Athenians, and had little patrc or national interest. On the other hand, the theorists were profoundly interested in education on account of its national importance, and so far as practical teachers, they were wholly disinterested and refused to accept any remuneration for their efforts. The second distinction is a more important one. The teachings of the Sophists were wholly critical and destructive in character. Their influence accorded with the current tendency to reject the old interpretations of legend and religious myth, and to produce a religious scepticism. At the same time, the claims of the state upon the individual were being questioned, and an indifference or a self-centred individualism replaced the old patriotic ardor. In fact, the old religious and political morality was being replaced by an individualism that made the individual man "the measure of all things." On the other hand, while the theorists recognized the validity of the criticisms upon the old order, they were unwilling to accept the wholly negative and disintegrating view. Their attempt was to supply new moral, religious, and political motives and ideals that would replace the old, now no longer effective. The Sophists believed that the interest of the individual was a sufficient motive and an adequate ideal. The theorists sought to find this in higher forms of life than had hitherto been realized, and strove to develop a higher morality and a broader patriotism than had hitherto existed, for the most part, by some reform in education. Some of these new educational schemes suggested, such as the Republic, are wholly idealistic; others, such as the Cyropædia and the Laws, are but modifications or purifications of the old régime.

Socrates was the source of, and furnished the inspiration for, this ent movement in educational thought Though he has left no writings, the character and the substance of his teachings can be quite accurately reproduced from the writings of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato. Socrates lived from 469 to 399 B.C. The earlier portion of his life was spent as a sculptor, but the middle and later portion, though from what exact date is not known, as a teacher. Yet he never opened a school or delivered public lectures, in these respects differing from the Sophists and from the philosophers who continued his line of thought and work. His method was to engage in conversation any interested person, either old or young, in the market-place, the shop, or the gymnasium. In the latter places he found abundant opportunity, and there his teachings were especially influential upon those just entering that period of their education, hitherto devoted wholly to physical training and the service of the state. With these, his influence was wholly at variance with the old training, and was at one with that of the Sophists in inclining the youth to neglect the old training and to devote their time to intellectual development. His custom of teaching wholly through conversation was of importance educationally in that it introduced an entirely new method of study and teaching. As opposed to the old methods of the early philosophers and of the popular Sophists, this method was essentially inductive; though with Socrates it was applied to a limited field only, that of the phenomena of human conduct, as opposed to the old interest in physical investigation or speculation. It is through this new method that Socrates came to be the founder of ethics and of philosophy as it relates to the theory of