The Philosophical Review/Volume 1/Review: Mitchell - A Study of Greek Philosophy

by William Alexander Hammond

A Study of Greek Philosophy. By Ellen M. Mitchell. With an Introduction by William Rounesville Alger. Chicago, S. C. Griggs Co., 1891. — pp. xxviii, 282.

The ten pages of platitudes, which serve as introduction to this so-called "Study" of Greek Philosophy, awaken in the reader at the outset an unfavorable prognostication of the book. In the further reading of the volume this unfavorable impression receives some modification; though with a half-dozen reasonably good handbooks already on the market, it is not easy to find a justification for the appearance of this one. The volume presents nothing new in matter or original in treatment; it is further marred by many inaccuracies, which render it unserviceable for pedagogical purposes; and scholars familiar with the theme handled (though these are evidently not the persons for whom the book was intended) will find it smacks strongly of dilettantism. The character of the illustration on the front cover will help much to confirm this. Why permit a book-cover to be used for the conveyance of such distorted notions as those conveyed by this illustration?

As for the contents of the book in general, there is nothing to justify the use of "study," as it appears to me, rather than the more ordinary title "history." The material, I should say, was obtained chiefly, if not exclusively, at second hand. Good use is made of both those Nestors in the investigation of Greek philosophy, Hegel and Zeller, but more particularly of the former (wherein one readily sees the influence of Dr. Harris). Two or three excellent translations of fragments of Parmenides are found on page 22. In the matter of classification the author follows in the main the divisions of Zeller, though she prefers the pre-sophistic division of Überweg-Heinze to the pre-Sokratic one of the former historian. Inasmuch as we have both in English and German an abundance of passably good histories of this period of philosophy, and the materials have been in the main already critically sifted, there is no likelihood of a writer nowadays making very glaring mistakes in the compilation of a handbook. But under these circumstances, in order for a book to be good, it must be very good; it must be lucid in interpretation, vigorous in style, and, if intended for a textbook, it must in manner of presentation and arrangement satisfy a high pedagogical standard. None of these conditions is satisfactorily met. Further than this, there are certain particular defects, some of which I shall proceed to point out. I am the less loath to do this because the history of philosophy is not the field, as it seems to me, for exercising the gift of authorship after the fashion of dilettanti.

When the author says (p. 20) that Xenophanes wrote in verse like all the older philosophers, she had evidently forgotten Herakleitos. This applies equally to her calling Zeno the first philosophical prose writer (p. 24). On page 32, Empedokles' doctrine of the four elements is said to be referred to under the names of Zeus, Here, and Nestis. How can this be without the addition of Ἀϊδωνεύς or γῆ? A curious oversight is found in the statement (p. 37) that the differences in the atoms of Demokritos are exclusively quantitative, yet this is followed immediately by a quotation from Aristotle which assures us that these differences were also differences of form. What is meant (p. 38) by knowledge as an "investigation of principles" will probably remain the exclusive secret of the author. In the light of existing evidence, to set the date of Protagoras 490 B.C. (p. 55) is not defensible. When the author speaks of poisoned hemlock (p. 72), one wonders what species of innocuous plant she had in mind. On page 78 the author finds the elements in the philosophies of Sokrates and Plato, as set forth in the dialogues of the latter, easily discernible; one is glad to find this obscure matter suddenly becoming clear, but has some misgivings when, a few pages further on (p. 90), the author says, "Whether this sentiment is Plato's own, or that of the historical Sokrates, is undetermined." In characterizing the philosophy of Aristippos the author says correctly enough that "pleasure is a sensation of gentle motion; pain, of violent motion;" but she says further, and not so correctly, "the mean between the two is indifference" (p. 99). Is, then, calm, which Aristippos associates with indifference, a mean between gentle and violent motion? On what evidence are we to suppose that the academy was not a gymnasium, as one would conclude from page 110? The chapter on the Dialectic of Plato is reprinted, with slight verbal alterations, from the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. XXII, and is the best chapter of the book. But why the emendation of geometry, as in the article to geography (p. 123), in the book before us? To say that self-control or temperance (p. 150) is the virtue of sensuous appetite (ἐπιθυμητικόν) is not accurate (cf. Plato, Rep., 430 E, 431 E; also Überweg-Heinze, Geschichte d. Phil. d. Alterthums, 7^te Aufl. p. 175). The statement on page 223 about the little work of Aristotle on Poetry would not lead the reader to suppose that the "little work" is only a little fragment; and when the famous definition of tragedy in this fragment is mentioned by the author, she quotes it all awry. Did any one before her ever suppose that Aristotle meant a purification of the emotions of fear and pity (p. 224), and not through (διά) pity and fear? This, however, is not more inaccurately stated than Xenophon's (Mem. iv. 8. 11) characterization of Sokrates on page 65. Instead of new academy (p. 254), the author evidently means to say middle academy. These are a few of the defects, from which one can readily conclude that the volume is ill-fitted for a handbook of reference. The book is further disfigured by a great many careless mistakes, such as, νοὐς (pp. 37, 39), δοχα (p. 127), Ilyssus (p. 110), Amyutas (p. 161), Boetia (p. 42), dianœtic (p. 213), homoumeria (p. 42).

Wm. A. Hammond.