Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/555

 NT.Y lio.iKS. ;, || One of the chief features of the earli. ,- part of the work is the separation that is made lietweeii Py ,,,| ,|,,, PythagoreM moral and religion* reformer of the mid. lie of the ,,,1 the school of philosophers identified with a particular upon the greal prohlem of metaphysics as it was left l.y I and Heraclitus at the end of tin- fifth. This is a dmtiii. requires to be stated to be accepted. Another important change (for which English reader* have pared by Professor Kurnet's treatment of the sul.|, . Leucippus, whose existence Vindelband does not think it necessary to vindicate against the Epicureans, from Demoeritus. While it is necessary to give the earlier thinker the credit of originating tli. and of the existence of the void it is highly doubtful wh-ther ; application of the theory in explaining the origin of quality- is earlier than the latter half of the fifth century. On the oti is quite certain that the theory of knowledge founded upon it i<>_ with the ethical interpretations presupposes a Inter strain of thought. It is, therefore, right that while Leucippns has his place assigned to him among the physical philosophers of the first period Dei hould appear as one of the leaders of the great philosophical movement which succeeded the period of the Enlightenment. It is indeed impossible to represent Democritus the Abderite as a part of Greek (which by tin- was Attic) philosophy in the same sense as his junior content].. his own reported words, ^uv (Is 'r^vas ita nCrit /it lyvtoxiv, I significant in this respect yet his works were perfectly familiar to totle, whose philosophy is best understood as an attempt to embrace in a higher form of unity the materialistic and the Ideological accoi. the world represented respectively by his two great predecessors. Another interesting innovation is the inclusion of ' Patristics " as part of ancient philosophy. For this, too, there is much to be said. The Gnostics made a real contribution to previous thought in their con- ception of a philosophy of history, and may thus hi- regarded as having supplemented the history of philosophy in an important detail. It moreover, be claimed that the whole movement of Christian philosophv of which Gnosticism was a part is best understood as an attempt parallel both in time and motive with Xeoplatonism to overcome the dualism which had been inherited from the golden age, the difference i that while Xeoplatonism conceived of the reconciliation bttwei ! and the world under the fonii of the ecstatic vision of the individual soul Christian philosophy represented it as a cosmic process of redemption. It is doubtful, however, whether this is really an improvement on the older arrangement. There is, of course, continuity hi thought. Without it there could he no history of philosophy. But it is questionable whether anything is gained by postponing the beginning of Christian and medieval philosophy to the fourth century after the historical events in which it rose began to operate in speculation. Minor points on which Windelband differs from older authorities will be found in his treatment of familiar controversies. He accepts the Philebus as undoubtedly genuine, classing it as one of the chief logical works of Plato, while at the same time he rejects the /' as the work probably of ' an older member of the Platonic circle '. Both the Sophist and the Politicus are condemned, the latter for the - what unconvincing reasons that its teaching is incompatible with that of the Republic, and that it is unlikely that Plato should have tried t< the same problem in two books. The treatment of the vovs ira6rfri> general agreement with Trendelenburg, as the unity of all the I