Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/583

Socrates^ Schleiermachev^ and Delbmeck^ 573 Against the Apology, it seems, Mr Ast had long harboured a peculiar degree of polemical bitterness, which has vented itself in terms of the harshest censure in the work we are speak- ing of. Yet the Apology and its author have been gainers by this virulence ; for it has drawn forth a defense of them from Thiersch in the abovementioned review, which much more than compensates for any injury they can have received from Mr Ast^s attack. Mr Ast'^s mode of proceeding exhibits a striking contrast with Mr Delbrueck's diffidence. While the latter was approaching the Apology with modest reverence, and scarcely ventured to give utterance to the unfavorable impression which some parts of it made upon his mind, fearing to stand alone in his disapprobation of them, Mr Ast was actually engaged in making an impetuous assault upon the whole, to tear it down, without exception or reserve, from the place which it has occu- pied for ages in the estimation of all men whose opinions on such matters are worth knowing^ He considers it as a forgery, which by its very nature, as well as its contents, betrays itself as the production of a mere rhetorician, who has failed most signally botii in his attempt to imitate the style of Plato, and to represent the character of Socrates. The first is a fundamental objection, which, if it had any weight, would supersede the necessity of any otlier. Mr Ast contends, that a set speech, like the Apology, was utterly in- consistent with the character of Socrates, who disdained all rhetorical arts, and with the principles of Plato, who disap- proved of them. In confirmation of this remark he appeals to person who feels that he is not likely to make any converts by argument (Ueber das Studium des Homer, p. 22. foil). His praise of Mr Ast's sagacity, as manifested in the rejection of the Laws, is qualified with wonder at his infatuation, in still retaining the Timmus and the Critias in the list of Plato's works. ■■ Mr Ast has produced, in favour of his own opinion, the solitary judgement of Cassias Severus, who pronounced the Apology unworthy both of Plato and Socrates (Senec. Excerpt. Controv. in. p. 397. Bip.): eloquentissimi viri Platonis oratio, qua pro Socrate scripta est, nee patrono nee reo digna est. Thiersch justly observes that such a partisan must do more hurt than good to IMr Ast's cause, for this is the same Cassius whose incurable greediness of defamation is branded by Tacitus (Ann. i. 7-. IV. 21), and whose natural rhetorical talent was rendered powerless by the ungovernable violence of his malevolent passions (De Causs. Corr. Eloqu. c. 2b). The opinion of such a man on such a subject might very naturally be opposed to that of Cicero (Tusc. Qu. 1.42.); and Montaigne, who (Essais. in. c.l2.) expresses the effect which the Apology produces on a mind open to its impressions, in very lively terms, bee par- ticularly p. 217 and 219 of Tom. iv. Didot's small edition.