New-York tribune., 1842-01-08
T H E TRI B u e !.
Prof. WOolscy'S Lecture.

,ke,cil of ,hi. finished classical performance, FOL.
lowing solely the method Of it, argument Itwa.
introduced by Prof. WooLsEYb By the rarnal: that
!. was obviously neither to be expected nor desired
that, in the short space OF an evening Lecture, his
audience should obaia Il minute knowledge OF the
Platonic Phosop phys nor, were it desirable did be
feel competent to the task: for, however some might
be satisfied all it, teEet- 1t far otherwise
a,itt him and, in COMMON with many others, he
found i, difficult to form precise notion Of what
psro meant= b : many Of his docfrines-as his no.
.,ons= Of pure knowledge, ideas, and the supreme
good JVhatren1srs il It'll more difficult TO find the
bottom Of tho Patonic Philosophy, IN his opinion,
Is the fine form in which bis works appear: tor as
cJeor sp,ino sbo,y. the Subbes which rise from
il. bottom TO the -rfaco and thus deceiyes us into
the belief that it Is not SO very deep, so the ex-
ousitey beautiful! dress in which the works Of
PLATO are clothed leads S!tcn to think less
highly than it deserves Of his philosophy. In this
particular, ARISTOTLE and Plato perfect
contrasts. ARISTOTLE chose for hi, writings tie
.egeresl and often the harshest subsequently,
careless Of al but logical nlalhod. 1t had been
sai, that he had no Of bcantyi and though in
his work on Rhetoric he shows himself an accom-
p.ished master. yet he evidently draws his opinions
from the grandeur and glory Of the objects around
him rather than fran any sensr Of beauty within
his breast.
In Plato il IS easy 10 find the highest sense Of
the beautiful and the constant elegance and grace
of h.s style have forced those VINO did not ackne..
ledge the trusn Of the results which h, reached to
confess that Philosophy never appeared in a form
so divine. / is very natural that TINS delicate feel
ing of the beautiful and baGlting should have caused
him 10 neglect the strctness olslogica and scien
ufc method All Ills writings mr. in the form Of
dialogues, as musthe the case when various ind-
Ylual. proceed together their search! attertr truths
and this social converse vas ever the method in
which Plato chose Ia present hia lenela. nutit Is
iolhis peculiar form OF hi, works that li,e chief
dliisalty OF understanding them is to be attributed
Subjects not closely connected with the topic OF
discourse We're frequently introduced and followed
ont, and nothing like the order which seems essen
iialin philosophical dissertations il to be found in
lnege Dialogues His attitude as al humble wor.
,aper Of the highest truth which he believed to be
something far different from its real assumed
sais, the unrui!led good temper with which he an
swered the pctulance of the Sophsts, his continual
hab, Of Illustrating the great by the small, and the
general by the particuur-;hese and other features
o! his works are reproduced by PLATO with such
exquisite skill as to show him possessed OF the high
perfection Of Arts that his expectation OF the
Homerot Philosophers, and the saying OF Cicero
.lut if .Iupite: talked Greek he would use the
style and words OF Plato, are fully justified. The
care with which lie polished his style has been
shown by tablets found after his death, ON which
he had written Il portion Of his works, and which
was covered with eras1ros and aiIeraitons SO tar
did he carry this close regard tor the outward
beasty Of his writings, that AIiosto has preferred
as fault that they 90 beyond the strict hints oil
prose lh., if u fault is ore only OF highly Posuc
mind and the very passages IN which fiato seems
to depart laos, widely from the n.neaintc topic Of
discussion ara often the most beautiful and pleas
ing, and as natural AZ they charming. lhey
make Us feel that Plato scared beyond the province
OF mater:a nature, and was familiar with the crca-
lurcs of tie element that play IN the clouds %;
he may be compared Is skllul ropc-dancer, whose
failure we are led to fear from some apparent de-
iationa, but whsse perfect mastery OF Ills move.
heats We soon discover.
The method of Plato, it must be confessed, is
mol the best TO tcnch philosophy; and there Is
some reason TO believe that he had hui slight
opinion ofwrtten ,rea,ises as means Of Instruction
he compares them IN one OF his works, TO ot-
spring scnt away from their father, and unable TO
speak Far different is itwith tho living teacher;
!. !
defend himself and take back whatever was rash
lyorwrongtuly advanced.
With less sobricty of irJs cement aud more iiyei.
ness of imagination Plato might have been an en-
thu.ias,. 4 mystic or an iteaIisl but there Is no
ground for the charge lha, he was really either oil
/ them As 10 the frs, character, II by an eithu''-
a<t We mean or, who mistakes his own tancles Tor
reality. we sbnil find the severe dialcctc method
BY which ie drew the line between the real and
imaginary sufficient to establish his innocence OF
The ctarse. Nor can Plato be placed among ma
leriaisls. II by them We mean those wl'' axe
BERKELEY, deny tie existence Of matter, and give
reality solely 10 thc IDEAS OF the mind. lie dlstr-
I'd from the gtcat body OF Greet philosophers IN
believing thu; matter, which HIM was ever IN y
Changing, uansnnry state Is real ana nor i'''"s
n It's true that according TO him the realty
Cos.s,ed only in The i,ies, and ,ha, he never
thought j; exc.usivck the attribute of matter Nor
could lie be said 10 ioy this the vice
Of those who attempts torm clear conceptions OF
VIA, is beyond the reach of reason; and IT Is :
striking fault Of the new p.ae"is,s who arose soon
ai,et the Christian era. They attempted 70 com
prchend the incomprehs2sioie, AID 70 BRING
down ,othe sphere Of the understanding me tFg!as
| - =, 49,, ,,o,rera- OF knowing.