led to take the part of those ancient Greek teachers who held similar principles; and these are to be found not on the side of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but on the side of Protagoras and the Sophists. How strongly his speculative tendencies gravitate in this direction the learned historian has amply shown in his book on Plato, a work in which the reader will more readily find an eager and acute advocacy of the adversaries of Plato than an intelligent and loving estimate of the great idealist himself. In expounding Plato Mr. Grote put himself pretty much in the same position that Voltaire would have done had he undertaken to write a commentary on the Gospel of John. It is not enough, in order to see a thing, that a man have sharp eyes; he must have a soul behind the eye, to teach him both what is to be seen, and what it signifies when it is seen. [32.1] See the singular dialogue with Theodote, afterwards mistress of Alcibiades, in the _Memorabilia_. [42.1] Professor Grote says--“Law is the public reason of a society, participated in more or less by the mass of individuals, enforcible upon all who will not participate in it.”--_On Utilitarianism_. [43.1] The Communists, who declare war against Capital, can get over this only by saying that every society is entitled to demand of its members that they shall sacrifice any part of their natural rights for the good of the whole to which they belong, and further, that man being essentially a social animal has no right to anything except as a member of society. The question will then be, whether it is good for society to be so exclusively society as to swallow up all individualism and what naturally belongs thereto. [49.1] εὐδαιμονία happiness, literally, well-goddedness,--the state of a creature to whom the gods are kind. [49.2] So Austin (_Province of Jurisprudence_, Lecture iv.) calls “Good the aggregate of pleasures,” a language borrowed from Bentham, which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would with one consent have repudiated. [66.1] _On the Philosophy of Ethics_. By S. S. Laurie: Edin. 1866. [70.1] “Atheism is repugnant to moral and political economy, for it necessarily destroys the idea of morality. If there is no law in the material world, there can be no law in the spiritual and social worlds. Every motive for self-restraint is removed; for the idea of an object for which to strive is rejected.”--Baring-Gould, _Development of Religious Belief_, vol. i. p. 283. An original and powerful work. [74.1] This seems the best way of translating the τὸ δαιμόνιον in the mouth of Polytheists. It is a sort of vague step towards Monotheism.