Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 15.djvu/108

VI. CEITICAL NOTICES. The Myths of Plato. Translated with Introductory and other Observations by J. A. STEWART, M.A., Whyte's Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford. Macmillan, 1905. Pp. xii, 532. ALL good Platonists will welcome this book, chiefly, I think, for what its title calls the " other Observations ". I do not believe that Prof. Stewart's main contention can be accepted, at least as expressing the mind of Plato himself ; but I do think he has done good service to the cause by raising an issue of great importance, even if that issue should eventually be decided against him. As he rightly says (p. 1), " Myth is an organic part of the Platonic drama, not an added ornament," and we cannot, therefore, interpret Plato without determining the true place and function of myth in his dialogues. On the answer we give to this question depends, for instance, our whole view of the Timaus, which has had more influence on human thought than all the rest of Plato and Aristotle put together. Can we dispose of it as " merely mythical," or is its mythical form an indication that we are to look in it for Plato's deepest thought ? We must be grateful to Prof. Stewart for making us face this question, even if we should be led to a conclusion almost the exact opposite of his. Of the text and translation which make up a large part of the volume, little need be said. The text translated is, we are told, that of Stallbaum's 1867 edition, except in a few places where readings preferred by the editor are given in footnotes. If one may venture to say so, there is something vcavi/coi/ in thus treating all the work that has been done on the text for the last half-century as simply non avenu. The very existence of Schanz is ignored. It is true, of course, that Stallbaum did his work with great judg- ment; but his knowledge even of the principal manuscripts was quite inadequate, and his text should not be reprinted to-day. Nor are we much helped by the " preferred readings " ; for we are not told whether they are based on testimony or are merely conjectural. It is not fair to bid us read fuo-TaTw for fwio-Ta/tei/a TW in Tim., 33, A, without telling us that it was read by Proclus. With regard to the translation, only one remark of importance has to be made. Prof. Stewart has adopted all through an elevated and prophetic style, modelled to some extent on Bunyan, and it is certain that there