Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/229

Rh 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 is not accurate (cf. Plato, Rep., 430 E, 431 E; also Überweg-Heinze, Geschichte d. Phil. d. Alterthums, 7te 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 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, (pp. 37, 39),  (p. 127), Ilyssus (p. 110), Amyutas (p. 161), Boetia (p. 42), dianœtic (p. 213), homoumeria (p. 42).

.