Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 8.djvu/424

 410 CRITICAL NOTICES : that with such a view the writer should pronounce that "the common politician is always vulgar ". But it is rarely that Wallace lapses into the arrogance so common among (shall I say?) the "common philosophers " nurtured in his School. He has reminded us indeed that the philosopher is after all also & man, and this book is full of evidence that in him at least the philosopher had not extinguished the humanity of a very noble nature. But has the philosopher nothing to say to the man? It. would seem not, according to the present philosopher's teaching. It is strange that one who was so keenly alive to the connexion between the teaching of philosophers and the practical tendencies- of their age, between individual character and philosophic creed, should recommend so impotent an attitude towards both the in- tellectual and the practical problems of his age. That perhaps ia one of the necessary inconveniences of living in an age in which Philosophy has out-lived the dreams and illusions of her youth. H. EASHDALL. The Philosophy of Greece Considered in Relation to the Character and ^story of Its People. By ALFRED WILLIAM BENN. London : Grant Eichards, 1898. Pp. x., 308. ME. BENN'S present volume has all the stimulating quality of his. Greek Philosophers. It presents the same distinctive view of the factors of Greek thought. The difference is that while the geo- graphical, political and religious circumstances of Greek antiquity are brought more systematically into view, references to modern thought are as far as possible avoided. The result has been that by far the greatest space is given to the formative period of Greek philosophy, down to the death of Socrates ; Plato, Aristotle and the post-Aristotelian schools getting only the last third of the volume. In his treatment of the early thinkers, Mr. Benn has evi- dently kept his eye on the many important contributions to their history which have appeared since the publication of his former work. By notes and slight indications in the text he is able to make clear the view that he deliberately takes. No attentive reader is in danger of supposing that he has unknowingly passed over views adverse to his own. At the same time he displays, along with the most extensive knowledge, a facility in generalising which, like the plan itself, reminds us of Buckle. The parallel is indeed almost too obvious. As with Buckle, though we cannot complain that he is ignorant of the facts, we may occasionally desire that rather more account should be taken of " negative instances ". To point out cases of this kind does not need knowledge equal to the author's. It will probably strike even the general reader