The Presocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts by G. S. Kirk; J. E.RavenReview by: George D. GoldatIsis, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Jun., 1960), pp. 229-231Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/226871 .

Accessed: 02/09/2014 06:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:20:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 229

satisfactory of the book, because they fail to bring out the great variety of tech- nologies already extant in Antiquity. Still, they can be read with great profit for the choice of quotations to illustrate the general lack of interest in technology of the philosophers is excellent. A minor blemish is the caption of Fig. 4 (page 29). In no way does the inscription or any further evidence suggest that these Egyptian workmen transporting a large statue are slaves. Historians of technol- ogy should once and for all stop talking about slave labour in Egypt since no proof exists that slaves formed an in- tegral part of the Egyptian labour force nor of that of Mesopotamia, slave labour being characteristic of late Republican times at Rome and of the first two cen- turies of the Roman Empire where en- tirely different social circumstances pre- vrailed.

R. J. FORBES

Amsterdam

G. S. KIRK; J. E. RAVEN: The Preso- cratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. xi + 487 pp. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1957. $9.50.

Ever since the relatively successful attempt by F. W. A. Mullach to collect the fragments of the Greek philosophers, a specialized field of research has devel- oped, a field now commonly known as that of the history of Presocratic thought. Due to the indefatigable efforts of H. Diels, scholars have been availed of what is at present the most compre- hensive collection of fragments and re- ports pertaining to this early period of Greek thought. Upon this foundation, many studies have been written with the aim of revealing the domain of ideas in which early Hellenic thought traveled. In the study under consideration, Pro- fessors Kirk and Raven of the Univer- sity of Cambridge have written a book which, as they tell us in the Preface, is "designed primarily for those who have more than a casual interest in the hiis- tory of early Greek thought; ... [and] by translating all Greek passages, and confining some of the more detailed dis- cussion to small-type notes at the end of

the paragraphs, [they] have also aimed to make the book useful for those stu- dents of the history of philosophy or science who have no previous experi- ence with this important and fascinating field."

Their book is divided into five parts. Professor Kirk has written the intro- ductory note, Chapters II-VI, XVII and XVIII while Professor Raven has written Chapters VII-XVI. "The con- tributions of each author were of course subjected to detailed criticism by the other, and the planning of the book as a whole is by both."

The introductory note treats the as- sessment of the sources as well as the doxographical and chronological tradi- tions. The second part considers the cosmogonical and cosmological explana- tions of Homer, Hesiod, the Orphic tra- ditions and Pherecvdes of Syros. At this stage Professor Kirk concludes that we have not yet arrived at the character- istically philosophical mode of thought. Third, the account of the Ionian think- ers (Chapters II-VI) relates the at- tempts of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes to explain the world in terms of a single substance. Professor Kirk maintains that Thales can justly claim title to being "the first philoso- pher." His reasons for this are two- fold: the abandoning by Thales of mythical thinking and his attempt "to explain the seen world in terms of its seen constituents."

Having considered the "Milesian tra- dition" among the early thinkers of Ionia, Professor Kirk proceeds to the achievements of Xenophanes and Hera- clitus. The former, according to our author, was essentially a poet and critic who turned his talents and attention to the problems of relationship, knowledge, theology and human limitations. As for Heraclitus, the importance of his con- ceptions lies, in Professor Kirk's opinion, in the fact that he explains all aspects of the world in terms of a maxim of dynamic equilibrium the cause or prin- ciple of which is the Logos-fire sub- stance. This principle, we are told, pro- vided Heraclitus with the means to ex- plain systematically the various features of the world and it also gave a compre- hensive unity to his thought.

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:20:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

230 BOOK REVIEWS

Coming now to the fourth part writ- ten by Professor Raven, the next stage in Presocratic speculation is surveyed- namely, the Pythagorean and Eleatic movements. After criticizing modern scholars who tend to read too much into these thinkers, the author states that in his opinion "the only form of existence recognized by the Presocratics was ex- istence in space." Professor Raven then goes on to discuss Pythagoras, Alcma- eon and pre-Parmenidean Pythagore- anism (in Chapters VII-IX), followed by Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus and finally Philolaus and Eurytus (in Chap- ters X-XIII). The last and fifth part of The Presocratic Philosophers deals with Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Archelaus (Chapters XIV-XVI, written by J. E. Raven), and concludes with the atom- ists, Leucippus and Democritus (Chap- ter XVII), and finally Diogenes of Apollonia (Chapter XVIII), both chap- ters written by G. S. Kirk.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this book, at least insofar as this re- viewer is concerned, is the strange ap- proach and attitude of the authors towards the value of presenting reasons for their evaluations. In some places they dogmatically assert that the inter- pretations of other historians are un- tenable, but nowhere do they explain why this is so. In other places, the au- thors assert that it would be incredible to maintain that such-and-such a thinker could hold such-and-such a view. Let me give some examples by raising the following questions: Are the Pythago- reans confusing the geometrical point and the arithmetical unit by thinking that they both possess magnitude (as Professor Raven holds), or are they still thinking concretely? Is not the crucial question that we may raise with respect to Parmenides this: Had he ever asked himself whether he knew what he had conceived when he con- ceived the distinction between being and non-being, inasmuch as he did maintain that one knows being, but one cannot know non-being? Who are the "pluralist assailants in general," in addition to the "Pythagoreans in particular" that Zeno is attacking? Last, but not all, is Zeno arguing against motion, or is he arguing against the possibility of motion when

certain conceptions of space, time and motion itself are held?

Be that as it may, it seems that from the outset the authors have posed for themselves a paradoxical task-namely, to write a history of Presocratic philos- ophy in which the principals are, as they tell us," the chief Presocratic physicists." Here we are faced with more than a mere question of definitions or seman- tics. We are faced with a profound problem, the problem of the evolution or birth of the scientific spirit, but have we or rather they at that stage entered into philosophy? This clearly is the prob- lem that our authors have not squarely faced, and upon the consideration of this question, depends in great measure the value of their work. If before Plato there was philosophy, then one can ex- pect the authors to set forth the stages in the movement towards the very idea of philosophy itself. But is it, as Pro- fessors Kirk and Raven have assumed, quite the same thing to study nature or reality and to have some idea of what that study is? To put it another way, are science and philosophy indistinguish- able from each other with the Presocrat- ics ? Apparently our authors think so and this is probably why they found themselves compelled to consider what they have designated as "more special- ized scientific interests."

The Presocratic Philosophers, there- fore, deals with those thinkers who, while taking hold of reality, are still struggling to come to grips with the idea of science itself. To consider the ideas of science and philosophy as one and the same seems to me to be dubious at the very least. Surely the historian of classical philosophy can render the his- torian of ancient science a great service, but not by confusing the domain of phi- losophy with that of science. In conclu- sion, therefore, I should like to indicate that my criticism stems from the con- viction that this book can and probably will serve as an important text for stu- dents interested in this period of intel- lectual history. As a consequence, every effort should be made to present its readers with as clear an idea of the veritable achievements of Presocratic thought as is possible. The authors should, in any event, be praised for un-

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:20:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 231

dertaking a difficult task and I urge everyone who is interested in this "heroic age of science" to read The Presocratic Philosophers.

GEORGE D. GOLDAT Harvard University

* * *

CHARLES MUGLER: Dictionnaire histo- rique de la terminologie geometriqute des Grecs. 2 vols., A-K, A-2. 456 pp., Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1958, 1959. 22,000 Fr.

This work is intended to cover Greek geometry of the "pre-Byzantine" period (the latest authors quoted are Eutocius, Simplicius and Olympiodorus). It is arranged alphabetically by words ex- plained. For each entry a translation of the term into Latin, French, German and English is given, then a detailed ex- planation in French, with quotations from Euclid and subsequent writers in chronological order. There follows, where appropriate, a section headed: "Avant Euclide," in which the use of the term in Plato, Aristotle and Autoly- cus, as well as the fragments of other pre-Euclidean authors, is explained and illustrated by quotation. Quotations are given at a satisfactory length, they are usually translated, and the reference (occasionally incorrect) is nearly always added. Mugler includes not only geo- metrical "terms" in the strict sense, but also prepositions and even particles (e.g. gar) and conjunctions (e.g. hina) which are used in a special way by geo- metrical authors.

There is an introduction of 26 pages entitled "La Langue des geometres grecs." In it Mugler gives a short ac- count of certain characteristic features of Greek geometrical language, notably its economy of expression and adher- ence to tradition. He then attempts to show from what sources the geometers drew their vocabulary and on what prin- ciples they coined new terms. After a short section on syntax he gives a re- sume of the geometrical use of the prep- ositions, particles and conjunctions. The introduction is followed by a "Reper- toire geometrique," which simply lists terms under 59 headings. (Typical head- ings: "Definitions,". "Proportions,"

"Circle and Semicircle"). On a few points references are given to modern works, to which there is an index (not complete) at the back.

The work is clearly and well printed (I have noticed only nine misprints), and well arranged formally. The ex- planations of the meanings and uses of terms are usually clear and almost al- ways correct. The same is true of the translations of the quotations, which are well chosen.

This accuracy does not extend to the Latin and other translations preceding every article. Often no attempt is made in these to express the geometrical meaning. For instance, the English equivalent of onoma is given as "name" instead of "term." There is no standard Latin terminology to give meaning to "Latin translation" of geometrical terms. In short, this feature is useless as well as pointless.

Mugler claims to cover only geometri- cal terms. So he omits many standard arithmetical and other terms which occur in the Greek geometers, such as moira in the sense of "degree." Con- sistency is impossible: he includes dipla- sios but omits hemiolios. Astronomical terms are similarly omitted. Yet Greek astronomy is so closely connected with geometry that this is a damaging di- vorce: a reference to the Ptolemaic use of parallaxis would have illuminated its geometrical use. Inclusion of arithmetic, astronomy, optics, etc., would have enor- mously increased the bulk of the work, and Mugler is not to be blamed for re- stricting his field. It is the more surpris- ing to find included a number of non- geometrical terms which are of no sig- nificance in the development of the mathematical language. Examples: na- ston, diathige.

If one seeks to learn from this book where a geometrical term first occurs and what subsequent authors do or do not use it, one must proceed with cau- tion. Mugler is hampered by his choice of authorities (see below). If the word occurs in one of the texts he has chosen as his main sources, he is likely, but not certain, to record it. If it does not occur in the texts but is otherwise known to have been used by an author, Mugler is unlikely to say so. For instance, to

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:20:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions