IDEA OF ETHICAL SCIENCE. 441 down those means and conditions under which the nearest approach can be made to that end : there may also be precepts, prescribing to every man the conduct and character which best enables him to become an auxiliary towards its attainment, and imperatively restraining him from acts which tend to hinder it ; precepts deduced from the theory, each one of them separately ji/uj- TrpuTTfiv TU ov/i<j>opuTa.Ta aiiTolf Trpurmv, all used as equiva- lents. Plato, Symposion. p. 205, A. K.TTjaei yap uycduv rvAaluovef iaovrat KOI OVKETI npoo6fl ipeodai, Ivan 6e POVACTOI evdaipuv flvai ; uXha reTiOf 6oKti ix etv V dxoKpiais : compare Euthydem. c. 20, p. 279, A ; c. 25, p. 281, D. Plato, Alkibiades, ii, c. 13, p. 145, C. 'Ocrnf upa n ruv TOIOVTUV oldev, iiiv [ii> napinijTai avroJ i] TOV flel.TiaTov eiriffr^firj avri) (T rjv jj avTTi df/TTOv f/irep Kal if TOV ufyehiuov (ppoviuov ye (IVTOV fqaofiev Kal unoxpuvra !;vft{3ov%.ov, Kal ry KuXet Kal aiirov eavru- rdi> 6e firj iroiovvra, ruvuvTia TOVTUV ; compare Plato, Republic, vi, p. 504. E. The fact that this dialogue, called Alkibiades II, was considered bj some aa belonging not to Plato, but to Xenophor. or jEschines Socraticus, does not detract from its value as evidence about the speculations of SokratSs (see Diogen, Lae'rt. ii, 61, 62; Athenoeus, v, p. 220). Plato, Apol. Sok. c. 1 7, p. 30, A. ovdev yiip uM.o irpuTruv t) KEL'duv iifitiv KOI veuTepovf Kal npefffivTepovf, ////re aufiuruv UTJTE xpyftuTuv npo-epov HTJTE OVTU oQotipa, uf rijf Tl>vx>js, OTTUC wf upiart) carat- Aeyuv 5ri OVK iK xpil/tu'ruv aperi) yi-yverai, u A V I f upeiqc para Kal ruTiXa uyadii rotf uv&piJTroif uiravra Kal I Zcller (Die Philosophic der Gricchcn, vol. ii, pp. 61-64) admits as a fact this reference of the Sokratic ethics to human security and happiness as their end; while Brandis (Gesch. der Gr. Rom. Philosoph. ii, p. 40, seq.) resorts to inadmissible suppositions, in order to avoid admitting it, and to explain away the direct testimony of Xcnophon. Both of these authors consider this doctrine as a great taint in the philosophical character of Sokrates. Zcller even says, what he intends for strong censure, that " the endaemonistic basis of the Sokratic ethics differs from the sophistical moral philosophy, not in principle, but only in result," (p. 61.) I protest against this allusion to a sophistical moral philosophy, and have shown my grounds for the protest in the preceding chapter. There was no such tiling as aojrfciatical moral philosophy. Not only the sophists were no sect or school, but farther, not one of them ever aimed, so far as we know. at establishing any ethical theory: this was the great innovation -jf Sokra- tos. But it is perfectly true that, between the preceptorial exhortation of Sokr.U'V and that of Protagoris or Prodikus, there was no great ot material difference : and this Zellcr seems to admit. 19*
