Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/228

212 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 or ? 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