Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 9.djvu/594

582 E. FLINT'S vico. speculation on the course of history, which he studied chiefly in that of his own Italy, is summed up in his conception of corsi and ricorsi. It is extraordinary that his view should ever have been confused with such a theory of exactly recurring cycles as we find in many ancient cosmogonies, and as an undercurrent to the political philosophy of Plato, and even of Aristotle. After the fall of the Eoman Empire (the first "human" period), the "divine" and "heroic" ages recur in the barbarous and feudal times, but Vic6 knew well enough the difference between these periods and the ages of early Greece and Borne. In fact, Vico's philosophy of history belongs to the same class with that of Hegel. Professor Flint would probably question this. Vico is indeed generally claimed by the " sociologists," while Hegel is put aside as a mere idealist. Yet Vico insists on recognising a definite "rhythm" in history as much as Hegel; and Hegel's dialectic formalism, often artificially employed, need not blind us to his generally firm grasp of historical reality. The words which Professor Flint uses (p. 193) to describe Vico's conception : " The entire history of mankind is but the eternal idea of that history which existed in the divine mind realised and manifested in actual events," might quite well be applied to Hegel's. The difference of course is that Hegel tried to find the movement of this "eternal idea" everywhere. Whether such an interpretation of history can have more than an " aesthetic " value is ques- tioned by Lotze, and probably by most Englishmen, however much they are unconsciously or half-consciously influenced by it. Whether it includes the new scientific conception of Evolution, or requires to be modified by it, is an interesting question which needs more discussion than it has yet received. Professor Flint has made a careful use of the extensive "Vico" literature which abounds in Italy. In this it is out of our power to follow him. It need only be said that his long-promised account of other Italian philosophies of history will now be more eagerly looked for than before. We have noticed one small error at least a word which may be misleading. Plato is said (p. 162) to have divided Govern- ments into monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, of which the per- versions are tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy. The reference is/- obviously to the Politicus ; but the word "ochlocracy," of which some modern political writers are very fond, is not used by Plato (who applies "democracy" to both good and bad forms), and appears not to occur in any author before Polybius. There are some Italian phrases which should, perhaps, have been translated for the "English Eeader," whom Professor Flint, like Mr. Merz in his Leibniz, possibly credits with too much of his own knowledge. D. G. KITCHIE.