The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
Burnet's Greek Philosophy Greek Philosophy: Part I., Thales to Plato. By John Burnet. London: Macmillan and Co., 1914. 10s. net.
A. C. Pearson
The Classical Review / Volume 29 / Issue 05 / August 1915, pp 141 - 143 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00048587, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00048587
How to cite this article: A. C. Pearson (1915). The Classical Review, 29, pp 141-143 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00048587
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 130.88.90.140 on 30 Mar 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 141 REVIEWS BURNET'S GREEK PHILOSOPHY. Greek Philosophy: Part I., Thales to accordingly obliged to meet the inevit- Plato. By JOHN BURNET. London : able difficulty arising out of the incon- Macmillan and Co., 1914. 10s. net. sistency of their doctrine with the ideal system expounded in the Phaedo and THIS is a book of first-rate importance. Republic. To put it briefly, what are In the course of 350 pages Professor we to make of the criticism of the Burnet provides his readers with a Parmenides and of the ontology of the succinct account of the progress of Philebus ? Or again, what is the Greek philosophy up to and including significance of Aristotle's references to the final development of the Platonic the ideal numbers ? Whereas Jackson system. It is not so much a general found the solution in a revised Platon- history of the various philosophical ism, Burnet (as those who are ac- schools aiming at the inclusion of all quainted with his edition of the Phaedo the chief points of doctrine, as a are aware) sees in those of Plato's summary appreciation of what each writings, which are usually accounted thinker contributed to the common most characteristic, very little1 that is stock. It is probably superfluous to not to be regarded as the actual teach- commend the author's complete control ing of Socrates. In other words, the of his material, his thorough indepen- Platonic Socrates is not to be separated dence of judgement, and the admirable from Socrates as he really was. clearness of style whereby, notwith- This startling conclusion, which is standing the obscurity of much of the developed in Book II., is so subversive subject-matter, he never allows us to of established opinion that it is not miss the track of his argument. likely to pass unchallenged. But The volume is divided into three Professor Burnet goes even further Books. The first deals with the pre- than has been indicated above in his Socratics ending with Leucippus, the reconstruction of the figure of Socrates. second with the Sophists, Socrates, Thus it is held that the theory of ideas and Democritus, and the third, which originated with the Pythagoreans is half as long again as either of the (p. 91), and that Socrates, who was in others, with Plato. It is unnecessary fact at the head of a Pythagorean to speak of the first Book, which is society at Athens (pp. 147, 152), in- mainly a resume of the 1908 edition of herited it from them (p. 156 f.). The Early Greek Philosophy. On the other oracle given to Chaerephon marked a hand, Book III. is entirely new, and dividing-point in Socrates' life; whereas will be eagerly read; though it should the earlier part was occupied with re- be observed that the author apologizes ligious and scientific study and parti- in his Preface for being obliged to cularly with his theory of the ' forms,' state conclusions without .discussing the later was almost entirely devoted their grounds, and hopes to remedy to the prosecution of the mission the defect on another occasion. The whereby he set himself to convict his greater part consists of an analytical fellow-citizens of ignorance (p. 144). exposition of the philosophical results The difference between the respective obtained in the dialogues Theaetetus, Par- menides, Sophist, Politicus, Laws, Phile- 1 Professor Burnet does not venture to main- bus, and Timaeus. The enumeration is tain that Socrates is never employed to advocate Platonic doctrine; a notable instance in the Re- enough to show that Professor Burnet public is discussed on p. 232. But the attempts is in sympathy with the movement to account for the appearance of Socrates as pioneered by Professor Henry Jackson, protagonist in the Theaetetus and the Philebus which sought to vindicate the import- (pp. 235, 237, 248, 324) are not without a suspi- cion of special pleading, or of what is elsewhere ance of the later dialogues as the ulti- (p. 150) deprecated as 'picking and choosing mate expression of Platonism. He is whatever we please out of Plato.' 142 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW portraits in the Clouds and the Memor- represent him as advocating in his own abilia is explained as partly due to the person the views of each particular fact that Xenophon only knew Socrates adherent. This was a convention which when he was already an old man everyone understood, and the procedure (p. 147). Even apart from this, the attributed to Plato was exactly parallel credibility of Xenophon is very severely to that adopted by Aeschines, Antis- assailed: his acquaintance with Socrates thenes, and Phaedo. was slight, and his motive was that of The main issue cannot, of course, be the professional romance-writer. On adequately discussed within the limits the other hand, it is incredible that in of a review; but a few observations on a dialogue designed to record the con- the treatment of the evidence may not versation of his teacher's last hours Plato be out of place. Much of it is difficult used Socrates merely as a mask for his to appraise; but I am afraid that, in own personality. spite of his candour, Professor Burnet In belabouring the inadequacy of has not always avoided the advocate's Xenophon, Professor Burnet is engaged bias. Verbal points are sometimes in flogging a dead horse. Everyone pressed which are without substance. admits that for its life-like representa- Thus it is argued that the use by tion of Socrates both as man and as Polyxenus of the terms i^roxn and philosopher the value of Plato's testi- fjue-Tovaia in his statement of the rpirot mony is incomparable. But the ques- avdpairo'i shows that the objection was tion still remains whether the very not directed against Plato, who never poverty of Xenophon's philosophical employs these words (p. 259, n. 2). insight has not made him a trustworthy But surely the Platonic fierexeiv and witness concerning the general scope fieOegi? are a sufficient justification for and outline of Socratic teaching. It Polyxenus' terminology. When Aris- does not help matters to argue that totle (de gen. et corr. B 6 335b 10) quotes Xenophon was an associate of Socrates' ' Socrates in the Phaedo' as the author old age ; for on the same principle we of the doctrine of /te'tfeft?, Professor should have expected Plato to be chary Burnet strangely insists (p. 166 n.) in his references to the ideal theory, that the theory is not attributed to which ex hypothesi belonged chiefly to Plato, but to ' Socrates in the Phaedo.' the earlier period. A good deal of It would be at least equally cogent to stress is laid on the contention that observe that it is attributed to ' Socrates the Platonic Socrates should not be in the Phaedo' rather than to Socrates. treated as a fictitious character, and But these are small matters. In general, that if Plato did not mean what he I doubt if sufficient weight has been said his procedure was no less myster- given to the consensus of later opinion ious than inexcusable (pp. 150, 155, that Plato originated the theory of 179 : cf. Phaedo, pp. x-xii). But there ideas. The consequent depreciation of are other circumstances to be con- Aristotle is perhaps the least satisfac- sidered before we can refuse to admit tory feature of the book. When the that even in the Phaedo Socrates may question under discussion is the inter- have posed as the mouthpiece of pretation pf the Platonic documents, Platonism. We have seen that it is it is misleading to describe the evidence impossible to get rid of ' the Platonic of Aristotle—our best independent wit- Socrates' altogether; and we must ness—as being merely ' hearsay and not forget the character of the public inference' employed ' to discredit first- for whose benefit the dialogues were hand testimony' (p. 157, n. 4). A great published. In a limited circle much deal necessarily turns on what Aristotle may be taken for granted. The Socratic meant by saying that Socrates did not schools after the death of the master make universals xmpuna, whereas Plato vied with each other in claiming to be did {Met. A 6. g8yh 8, M 4. io78b 32). his true successors; and the various He is understood by Professor Burnet leaders, in order to base their teaching (pp. 165, 316) to have been referring to on Socrates' authority, made it a the Kowtovla of the forms with the practice in their published writings to particulars as expounded by Socrates THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 143 in the Phaedo and Republic. The reason- other. In Book M precisely the same ing fails to convince when we remem- influences are attributed to those who ber that it was Plato, who, according first propounded the theory of ideas. to the same authority, inferred the The inference that Plato was referred separate existence of the ideas from to in the later passage is surely irresist- the participation in them of T« voXTui ible.2 (Met. A 6. o.87b 9). Exactly the same Although the chief importance of the account, emphasizing more in detail book consists in the bold attempt to the error of Plato's new departure, re-state the relationship between appears in Met. M 9. io86a 35—bi2. Socrates and Plato, it is full of interest It is difficult to avoid the implication in its bearing on the interpretation of of these passages, but escape is no the dialogues, and for the admirable longer possible if Aristotle actually manner in which the leading arguments identified Plato as having been the first of the later works are summarized. I to maintain the existence of forms. would select as instances the discussion This he is commonly believed to have concerning the identity of the elSav stated expressly in Met. M 4. ioy8b 13. THE WORKS OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN. The Works of the Emperor Julian, with Himself on the Departure of Sallust; as an English translation. By WILMER satirist we have him seen to advantage CAVE WRIGHT, Ph.D. Vol. II. in The Caesars, and at great disadvan- London: Heinemann, 1913. tage in Misopogon ; his philosophic views are displayed in the Letter to IT was a happy idea of the editors of Themistius, and more clearly in the the Loeb Classical Library to include two Orations to the Cynics ; and his in their series the works of the Emperor projects as religious reorganiser, with Julian ; and a yet happier thought, per- his ideal of priestly functions, are set haps, to comprise within this second forth in the Fragment to a Priest; volume almost all the treatises that are while the Letter to the Senate and most characteristic of the writer, and People of Athens serves as an apology most likely to interest the general reader. for his whole life and conduct, and by This implies, of course, that the collec- its very address reveals him as the tion is varied in character. Julian as romantic devotee of the ancient glories friend appears in the Consolation to of Greece. At the same time there is