North American Philosophical Publications

Recent Work on Presocratic Philosophy Author(s): G. B. Kerferd Reviewed work(s): Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 130-140 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009160 . Accessed: 15/03/2012 15:22
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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

American Volume

Philosophical 2, Number 2, April

Quarterly 1965

IV. RECENT WORK ON PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY

G. B. KERFERD of this work he was recovering for us secure infor? mation about the doctrines of the Presocratics which could be used to supplement and interpret the scanty surviving fragments of their original works. In 1935 H. Cherniss had given expression to major doubts about what Aristotle tells us in connection with the Presocratics, showing that in their doctrines many cases he restated or distorted to make them fit within his own philosophic In 1953 J. B. McDiarmid framework.5 published an important article on "Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes"6 in which he argued that seem to have had may although Theophrastus access to the original texts, in fact, and in general, he contented himself with and reproducing what he found in Aristotle. If this elaborating view were to be correct it would be nearly fatal to the traditional picture of the Presocratics built up years. This extreme by scholars over a hundred
conclusion has in fact been drawn by some, e.g.,

the period survey deals with following from 1953 to 1962. The period has seen a THE interest in the Presocratics, with steadily mounting the volume of publications increasing year by year. One new periodical, Phronesis,1 is wholly devoted and they bulk to problems in Greek philosophy, in the revived Archiv f?r Geschichte der largely the new Archiv f?r Begriffsgeschichte,2 Philosophie,2 and the Italian Rivista critica d?lia Storia di Filosofa. in Japanese, are found Publications Turkish, and Czech as well as in other Serbian, Russian, and articles and Books proliferate languages. in classical and philosophical discussions journals to list them each year.4 The require many pages here is to find significant lines of develop? problem studies. In what ment among a mass of detailed of particular follows I ignore detailed discussions or problems unless they contribute fragments of some wider to the understanding markedly
question. I am also very conscious that I have not

seen,
interest

let alone
or

read, much
few

that
such

is likely
items

to be of
I mention

by E. A. Havelock,7
know day." less Even and those less who

and
about stop

in the aphorism
the short Presocratics of such

"we

importance?a

and mark with

others include. as

an asterisk. But I am sure there are

of mention as those which I

every extremes

deserving

have tinge
sidering.

been in much
But

influenced
extent, the and

by
there

the

thesis
is a strong

to a very
sceptical

considerable

in the of the most important questions of Aristotle and has been the authority period of the Preso? for the understanding Theophrastus cratics. In the nineteenth century Diels showed that One
almost all the later statements in ancient authors

writing
other

in the decade
side has also

we
been

are con?
repre?

about the Presocratics derived from Theophrastus' lost work, The Opinions of the Physicists, and he the main contents that in reconstructing believed

sented, above all by W. K. C. Guthrie, first rather in an article published in 1957 entitled cautiously as a historian "Aristotle of philosophy: some and then resoundingly in his preliminaries,"8 History of Greek Philosophy, vol. I,9 to which frequent reference will be made in what In this follows.
1955. to Greek terms; others contain nothing relating to ancient

1 in November, the first number appeared Assen, Van Gorcum; 2This was revived in i960 after a lapse of 27 years. 3 are wholly devoted Some numbers Bonn, 1955 and subsequently.

philosophy. 4The the fullest coverage to me. in UAnn?e Philologique known annual surveys provide 5Aristotle's Criticism "Characteristics and Effects of Presocratic (Baltimore, 1935), and his article, of Presocratic Philosophy 12 (1951), pp. 319-345 of Ideas, vol. of the History Journal Philosophy," 6 Harvard Studies in Classical Philogy, vol. 61 (1953), pp. 85-156. 7A "The Fragments of the Presocratic 1963), pp. vi-vii. See also J. A. Philip, Phoenix, Preface to Plato (Oxford, Philosophers," vol. 10 (1956), pp. 116-123. 8 PP- 35-41 Studies, vol. 77 (i957), of Hellenic Journal 9 see, e.g., Kahn, "Der ;J. Kerschensteiner, Anaximander, pp. 17-24 (n. 34 below) 1962. For other discussions Cambridge, vol. 83 (1955), p. 385; and F. Solmsen, ?ber Heraklit," "Aristotle and Presocratic Cosmo? des Theophrast Hermes, Bericht vol. 63 (1958), p. 277. gony," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 130

RECENT

WORK

ON

PRESOCRATIC

PHILOSOPHY

131

award the victory to Guthrie, but on which debate will unquestion? of individual Most discussions Presocratics, including those which are not directly can be and McDiarmid, influenced by Cherniss battle I would this is a matter continue. ably
placed somewhere between the two poles of ex?

without

treme scepticism and critical acceptance of the of the Aristotelian basis and Theophrastean
tradition.

concerns to be the place second debate to religious and mythical elements in the assigned The traditional of the Presocratics. thinking rational in classicist view of the Greeks as wholly from outlook tended to present the Presocratics a complete break with Tha?es onward as marking thinking, and themselves as previous mythological scientific and rational in outlook. The idea wholly is now that there was any break in continuity in the change being marked rejected, generally in his edition of Diels' Fragmente when Kranz 1934 der Vorsokratiker10 brought the section on "Early and Cosmological Poetry" out of the Appendix it before the treatment of Tha?es. This is placed in the very large section dealing with reflected A
"The Forerunners" at the commencement of Kirk

The Presocratic work, important Philosophers,11 above all in the treatment of Phere is the emphasis upon continuity cydes. Sometimes with a radical scepticism about the later, coupled or philosophized Aristotelian-style, picture of the and Raven's
Presocratics, so as to stress the mythical and

the evidence of Aristotle and rejecting carries through a highly successful Theophrastus, of the Pythagoreans and Heracli reinterpretation tus which shows a profound understanding of the non-rational and traditional sides of their thinking, although he is inclined to retain perhaps rather too much of the traditional picture of the Milesians, and to underrate the mythical element in them. At other times it is the rational element in thinkers before Tha?es, and indeed in the myths themselves which have been emphasized.13 More and more what was happening is being seen as a gradual in a process, now often called Entmythologisierung sense from that in which different that slightly term was applied in Biblical to mean scholarship, a sort of historical process of change from mythical to rational formulations of a world-picture which in the process.14 changed only gradually A related but distinct problem is the correct assessment of the rational element philosophic present in the thought of individual unquestionably Presocratics its extent or limitations. whatever to detect the begin? Some have been concerned as distinct of metaphysical from physical nings and have traced this back as far as theorizing, Anaximander15 real plausibility. without much Parmenides is still generally the first considered of these,16 but if the doctrine that a thinker may be of what he is in fact doing is quite unconscious
added to the view of the Presocratics as represent?

in earlier thinkers and even in fanciful element and his successors. This is the ten? Parmenides I would in Kirk and Raven, and say, dency,
also in U. Hoelscher's articles, Anaximander und die

from earlier thought, ing a continuous development then anticipations be traced back almost may indefinitely. Others have been concerned with the sees the beginnings of origins of science. Guthrie
science their in search the for naturalism an underlying of the Ionians17 and order.18 in impersonal

Anf?nge

der Philosophie.12, Guthrie

in his History,

10 Fifth edition. The some 40 pages of extra notes, but subsequent is a reprint of the fifth with sixth edition, "edi? 1951-52, to and including tions" down the tenth are unchanged reprints of the sixth. 11 1957. Cambridge, 12 Hermes, vol. 81 (1953), pp. 257-277, 385-418. 13 See s.v. "Weltsch?pfung" in Pauly-Wissowa, Les origines de la pens?e grecque (Paris, 1962) ;H. Schwabl Real J. P. Vernant, et philosophie A. Rivier, "Pens?e IX pp. 1513-1537; pp. 1433-1582, archaique encyklop?die Supp. especially pr?so (1962), et de Philosophie, Revue de Th?ologie vol. 3 (1953), PP- 93_I?7> des premiers and "Sur le rationalisme criaique," philosophes 1 (Paris, treatment too de la Philosophie, Histoire vol. ibid., vol. 5 (1955), pp. 1?15. The grecs," by J. Chevalier, 1955) is much here. traditional 14 Similar use is made term seems of the term "d?sacralisation," e.g., in J. P. Vernant English (n. 13 above). No particular use. into common yet to have been brought 15 a Study in the Origin and Function of Metaphysical The Apeiron of Anaximander, So in an extreme way P. Seligman, Ideas (London, "Parmenides and the Invention in quite different ways D. Grey, of Metaphysica," Bulletin of the Institute of Classical of London), and G. E. L. Owen, "Eleatic Questions," vol. 7 (i960), Classical Quarterly, vol. 10 pp. 67-68, (University pp. 84-102. (i960), 17 See his In the Beginning, Some Greek Views on the Origins of Life and the Early State of Man (London, 1957), chap. 6. 18 here is O. Gigon, "Die Theologie Fondation Hardt, Entretiens Tome I, der Vorsokratiker," History, vol. 1, pp. 26-29. Relevant La Notion du Divin zu den Vorsokratikern (Munich, Kosmos, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen 1954), and J. Kerschensteiner, (Geneva, Studies 1962). 1962). 16 So

I32

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

But

surely
divine

if such a wide view is taken of science it was already present both in Greek
thought explanations to of the extent that were some phenomena

then and
non

absent
History.21 logists

in Kirk

and Raven's
the and

book, and
Presocratics on occasion

in Guthrie's
as as cosmo theolog?

non-Greek

present They and scientists,

known,

and an underlying impersonal order is presented inmany early myths which are so fantastic that we would not normally wish to call them scientific. asks how far the Presocratics Another approach or experiment, and how far their used observation was a priori. Popper in a much discussed thinking that the Presocratics address19 has maintained and not from theories and speculations worked
from observations or experiments. He has been

ians and mystics, but generally speaking not as sense of the term. As a in any modern philosophers result many feel that there is something that they have missed.22 Existentialist tend interpretations to seem obviously wrong both in method and in to most members of the resulting interpretation world.23 The same tends to be English speaking the case with the idealist and neo-Hegelian trend of some Italian scholarship, above all the numerous
writings and commentaries of M. Untersteiner.24 An

that by Kirk20 who claims convincingly observation (but not experiment) "imaginative" a large part in many theories, but is on played in suggesting that if Tha?es used weaker ground this merely means that he is conceptions mythical of men before him. the stored observations using of The problem of "philosophic" interpretations answered
the Presocratics remains acute, quite apart from

or Theo? of distortion the question by Aristotle in which like The way philosophers phrastus. and the neo-Kantians falsified Hegel, Nietzsche, in it the history of Greek philosophy by finding too much of their own theories iswell known, but is seldom taken as an object lesson. If Aristotle read that were of his into the Presocratics assumptions own making we find it just as easy to do the same with our own philosophic presuppositions, although we protest with indignation at attempts to do this which we do not ourselves with presuppositions are largely hold. Philosophical presuppositions

to problems tends analytical and logical approach to seem natural and proper to those brought up in the English analytical tradition, and there is a that an interest in such questions may be danger or to an exaggerated identified over-readily, extent, in the Presocratics, and that this should not even be suspected by those who are doing it.25 The only is eternal vigilance and the determined remedy use of the whole apparatus of scholarship applied to all the evidence before any interpretation is
propounded?mere intuitive accounts can no

longer be accepted as sufficient. Certain other themes of hardly less importance more briefly. The attitude of must be mentioned toward the Presocratics the idea of subjective is discussed in R. Mondolfo's existence large work, first published in Spanish in 1955.a6 Ethical thought
is set in a new and wider context in an important

book by A. W. H. Adkins, which falls partly out? side the scope of this survey.27 The history of

19 "Back as chap. 5 in his to the Presocratics," pp. 1-24, reprinted Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 54 (1958-59), there ed. (London, (London, 1963). See also his Logic of Scientific Discovery English 1958). For Popper Conjectures and Refutations in such proceedings; rather the reverse is the case. unscientific is nothing 20 vol. 69 (i960), pp. 318-339, and "Sense and Common-sense in the Develop? Science and the Presocratics," Mind, "Popperon to chap. 5 in an appendix ment of Greek Philosophy," Popper has replied Journal ofHellenic Studies, vol. 81 (1961), pp. 105-117. of his Conjectures and Refutations (n. 19 above). 21 Notes 9 and 11 above. 22 reason even exclude the sophists, for the unintentionally that "their positive Kirk and Raven revealing philosophical in the fields of epistemology and sematics." often exaggerated, contribution, (Pref. p. vii). lay mainly 23 in his Holzwege Der Spruch des Anaximanders, and discussed discussion (Frankfurt, subsequently published 1950), Heidegger's etMorale, Revue M?taphysique vol. 59 modernes in her article "Sur quelques d'Anaximandre," interpr?tations by G. Ramnoux ou Vhomme entre les choses et les mots (Paris, seems to have influenced Heraclite her subsequent i1 954)j PP- 233_252- This outlook see J. Beaufret's L. Winterhaider, Das Wort Heraklits Intro? disclaimers, (Zurich, 1962). For Parmenides 1959), and, despite Die Grossen Philosophen, Bd. I (Munich, duction to his Le Po?me de Parm?nide (Paris, 1955), and see also K. Jaspers, 1957), pp. vol. 101 (1957), pp. 30-54 is perhaps als Entfaltung des Seins," Philologus, "Die Metaphysik Empedokles J. Bollack, 619-655. in character. than existentialist rather Kantian 24 e Frammenti / sofisti, Fase, all in the i-iv (1949-1962), (1963), (1955), Parmenide (1958), ?enone Senofane, Testimonianzee at Florence, tr. (Oxford, his separate book / Sofisti (Turin, di Studi Superiori published series Biblioteca 1949), English 1954), and numerous listed in his books. articles 25 on which see below. be Owen's article A controversial (n. 16 above) example might 26La en la cultura antigua 1955); La Comprensione (Buenos Aires, Comprensi?n del sujeto humano classica (Florence, 1958). 27 a Study in Greek Values (Oxford, and Responsibility, Merit i960).

del soggetto

umano nelVantichit?

RECENT

WORK

ON

PRESOCRATIC

PHILOSOPHY

133

Presocratic in Marxist terms thought is analyzed in George Thomson's Studies in Ancient Greek Society, vol. II,28 and a number of key terms and have been the subject of important concepts studies which must be taken into account in
any future attempts to make general statements

clearer

picture
we

of the nature
can

of the doxographic
more answer precisely, some of

tradition, and it is possible

pose questions can even that we

about
thought.29

the course

of development

of Presocratic

I turn now to detailed studies of one or more of the individual Presocratics. i. Thales. Kirk, following in this U. Hoelscher,30 emphasizes the probable near-Eastern ( ?Egyptian) origin of Thales's thinking, and doubts whether he really held that the earth consists of water, even if he did think that it originated from water, while Guthrie31 holds that "at the conscious level, he had made a deliberate break with mythology and was seeking a rational account." These will no doubt to be the two main for long continue attitudes taken toward Thales. In either case it is as the founder of that his importance probable Greek philosophical thinking has been exaggerated, but few will wish to go quite as far as D. R. Dicks in dismantling the whole tradition of his achieve? ments in mathematics.321 find nothing new in the is more concerned survey by E. Stamatis33 who with Thales as one of the traditional sages than with his physical doctrines.
2. Anaximander. Here there have been a num?

confidently. To take details first: it is doubtful whether he thought of his becoming as an Arche or first principle in Aristotelian Apeiron terms, and he probably did not speak of it as an Arche at all.35 His Apeiron may well have been unbounded rather than qualitatively spatially and its god-like indeterminate,36 "controlling" influence is now at last fully recognized.37 Whether he ever envisaged an infinite series of worlds either
successively or simultaneously becomes increas?

them more

ingly doubtful, and it is fairly clear that for him at or least the term Kosmos did not mean world
universe, but rather any one of a number of

subordinate areas within the whole.38 The tradition as to how these Kosmoi developed out of the Apeiron is incomplete and confused in detail, but the main features of the process can be reconstructed with considerable plausibility.39 Most important of all
we seem to be reaching a clearer understanding of

ber of really important above all of C. Kahn's

28 The First 29 Kosmos

discussions. As book34 we have

a result a much

famous fragment?the things that pay the penalty to one another must in some way or other be the opposites, and they do so by passing into one another and not back into the Apeiron.*0 All this involves a fairly large change from traditional pictures of Anaximander. Though controversy will the Nietzschean continue, interpretation positing of the existence of ordinary things the wickedness now finally must be banished. Anaximander

the

(London, Philosophers 1955). :J. Kerschensteiner and W. Kranz, Archiv f?r Begriffsgeschichte, vol. 2 (1955), pp. 1-282. Aition: (n. 18 above) H. Boeder, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques, vol. 40 (1956), pp. 421-442. Arche: Archiv f?r Begriffsgeschichte, vol. 1 (1955), Lumpe, W. Burkert, Philologus, vol. 103 (1959), pp. 167-197; Reallexicon f?r Ant. und Christ., vol. 4 pp. 104-116. Elementum: Lumpe, and Archiv fur Begriffsgechichte, vol. 7 (1962), pp. 285-293. and Aletheia: H. Boeder, Archiv f?r (1959), pp. 1073-1100, Logos vol. 4 (1959), pp. 82-112. Here may be mentioned also R. Joly, Le Th?me philosophique des genres de vie dans Begriffsgeschichte, Vantiquite classique (Brussels, 1956). 30Kirk in Hermes, & Raven, cf. Hoelscher vol. 81 (1953), pp. 385-391. pp. 74-98; 31 vol. 1, p. 62. History, 32 Classical Quarterly, vol. 9 (1959), pp. 294-309. A more is that of A. Wasserstein, view Studies, positive Journal of Hellenic vol. 75 (i955)j PP- 114-n6; and vol. 76 (1956), p. 105. 33Das Altertum, vol. 6 (i960), pp. 93-103. 34 and the Origins of Greek Cosmology Anaximander (New York, i960). 35 So Kirk in Classical Quarterly, N.S. vol. 5 (1955), pp. 21-23, and Kirk & Raven, in Harvard Studies pp. 107-108; McDiarmid in Classical Philology, vol. 61 (1953), PP- *38-140; vol. The contrary view in 1, p. 77 (with qualifications). Guthrie, History, and Vlastos in Gnomon, vol. 27 (1955), p. 74, n. 2. Kahn, Anaximander, pp. 29-32, Seligman, Anaximander, pp. 19-20, 26-28, 36 in Hermes, vol. 90 (1962), pp. 159-166. I find nothing in the argument Kahn, Anaximander, II, Classen appendix plausible of B. Wisniewski, Revue des ?tudes Grecques, vol. 70 (1957) that the Apeiron was spatially finite. That it was qualitatively indeter? is still maintained minate by Kirk and by Guthrie. 3 7 So G. J. Classen, and also F. Solmsen in Archiv f?r Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 44 ( 196 2), pp. 109-131. Kirk, Guthrie, Seligman, 38 and Kerschensteiner, to the Gornford Kosmos holds worlds. Kirk, Kahn, (n. 18 above). Guthrie theory of innumerable 39 For a full see N. Rescher, discussion with diagrams in Anaximander," "Cosmic Evolution Studium Generale, vol. 11 (1958), pp. 718-731. 40Kahn Broecker in Hermes, vol. 84 (1956), pp. 382-384. The (see my review in Classical Review, vol. 12 (1962), pp. 34-35), truth was seen earlier by Vlastos, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 42 (1947), pp. 168 ff. The wrong in Hoelscher, view vol. 81 (1953)5 PP- 257 ff. Hermes,

134

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

a interested in developing appears as primarily individual he even highly cosmology?whether thought of the question of a primary substance as such becomes doubtful. His philo? increasingly in the sophic lay rather importance probably implications of what he said, and these implications were probably much clearer to Aristotle than to It is even possible that he was quite himself. unaware that he was raising any questions that were not purely physical in character.
3. Anaximenes. Here there are only points of

whether
of his

in the thought
successors.44

of Pythagoras

himself,

or

a fully-developed that there was Assuming at least by the middle of Pythagorean cosmology the fifth century, and that it is to this that Aristotle refers, the following have been the more important It is now generally I points discussed. supposed, an ultimate that the system involved think, dualism based upon the Limit and the Unlimited, and so should be contrasted with the monistic tendencies of theMilesian systems. This involves the
rejection of F. M. Gornford's thesis that there was an

detail to report. Kirk stresses (in Kirk & Raven) the evidence that Anaximenes of the world thought
as a living creature, while Guthrie is more con?

cerned with the reasons which led him to regard Air as a primary is source, but the difference one of emphasis only. Nor is there much of im? to report about later Ionian physicists, portance of Apollonia has been the Diogenes although claims by subject of some rather far-reaching J. Zafiropulo.41
4. even depends Pythagoras more upon than the and for the Pythagoreans. Here Anaximander of the everything sources. There

One behind all else, although the im? of the One within the system is not in portance then is this One, which may well question. How as divine, to be related to have been regarded the Limit and the Unlimited? it should Probably be identified with the One which was one simply of the opposites and stood in the column headed by or Zeno the Limit.45 Whether either Parmenides was attacking Pythagorean as such has doctrines
begun to seem more and more doubtful,46 and as a

ultimate

assessment

are some signs that a period of extreme the possibility of knowledge concerning
even the existence of, important

scepticism about, or

Pythagorean

doctrines in the fifth century may be passing,42 but no generally is yet in sight. agreed picture the existence of a developed Pythagorean However, in the fifth century is beginning to seem cosmology more likely than it once did, and there is a growing
readiness to make at least cautious use of the

result it is also doubtful whether any modifications were made in Pythagorean to meet doctrine such attacks.47 One possibility is that while Pythagorean physical doctrines were fully elaborated at an early date, they were not generally known to other think? ers until well into the second half of the fifth century. On the method by which things come into out of numbers, Guthrie48 existence has argued the common view that what Aristotle against says in the Metaphysics involves three mutually incon?
sistent maintained accounts?the that things may Pythagoreans are numbers, well that have the

in this connection.43 There fragments of Philolaus is also perhaps a better understanding of the way in which and fantasy could religious mysticism combine with a rationally elaborated cosmology,

principles of numbers are the principles of things, and that things imitate numbers, just as in effect Plato could maintain all three when considering

41 in Classical Review, vol. 8 (1958), pp. review I do not deal separately Diog?ne d*Apollonie (Paris, 1956) with my 185-186. with Zafiropulo's other writings, notably Emp?docle d'Agrigente (Paris, 1953), Vox Zem)ms (Paris, 1958), where he gives expression to his "animistic" to which of the Presocratics Parmenides offered and Heraclitus, all, including interpretation according a view of reality as the spiritual and the material in a way never See also chap, iv of S. combining subsequently possible. book Zeppi's (n. no below). 42 H. Thesleff, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings Period in claiming of theHellenistic (Abo, 1961), p. 45, is premature that this movement of thought is universal, his own discussion in this direction. although points strongly 43 is sceptical So holds Guthrie, vol. the other hand Raven On and so is 1, pp. 329-333. pp. 308-311), (Kirk & Raven, W. "Hellenistische vol. oder Pythagoras?" Burkert, 105 (1961), pp. Pseudo-pythagorica," Philologus, Hermes, 16-43, "Plato vol. 88 (i960), pp. 159-177, and in his large book Weisheit und Wissenschaft, Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaus und Platon (N?rnberg, in the editions is continued of the fragments initiated 1962). In Italy the positive approach by Mondolfo by M. Timpanaro I Pitagorici Fase. I (Florence, I Pitagorici Gardini, 1958), Fase. II, 1962, and A. Maddalena, (Bari, 1954). 44 of Samos," Classical Quarterly, vol. 50 (1956), pp. 135-156; "The Origins of Plato's See, e.g., J. S. Morrison, "Pythagoras ibid., vol. 52 (1958), pp. 198-218. Statesman," Philosopher 45 So vol. 1, pp. 243-244. is that Guthrie, Contra, e.g., Burkert, Weisheit (n. 43 above), p. 33, n. no. The most likely alternative the One is a compound of the Limit and Unlimited. 46 See n. 70 and n. 73 below. 47As p. 236). against Raven (in Kirk & Raven, 48 vol. 1, pp. 229-231. History,

RECENT

WORK

ON

PRESOCRATIC

PHILOSOPHY

I35

the relationship between Forms and Particulars. This may be the correct explanation of the alleged of the Pythagoreans. Number-Atomism Two are of importance further points in Guthrie's treatment of Pythagoreanism?his of the warning that Pythagoras of the evidence dis? weakness covered the numerical basis of the intervals in the musical scale, and derived from it the theory that that the things are numbers,49 and his argument doctrine of the soul as Harmonia is not inconsistent with a transmigratory soul, provided the harmony
is one of the soul's own parts, and not as for Plato

deal with by Kirk,54 which propounded raised by previous scholars, virtually every problem despite the fact that only a little more than half the surviving fragments, those bearing directly upon
problems of the world as distinct from man, are in?

tions

in his edition. The cluded of Kirk's importance book was immediately but while some recognized, supposed that itwould involve forthwith a decisive should be change in the way in which Heraclitus others have remained unconvinced regarded, by in the all the more radical changes proposed
traditional picture.55 Fundamental is Kirk's con?

in the Phaedo a harmony of the body.50 The only full-scale 5. Xenophanes. study in the decade is that ofM. Untersteiner in his book a series of in 1955.51 This proposes published novelties, but none of them is soundly based. Above all his use of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De source of Melisso Xenophane Gorgia as a realiable cannot about Xenophanes' information doctrines be admitted, and while he may be correct in
treating Xenophanes as a pantheist rather than a

was that the tradition about Heraclitus radically distorted at a very early stage, and that what Plato and Aristotle say about his doctrines his basic position. This completely misrepresents it is claimed, was carried still further distortion, whom the Stoics by Stoic interest in Heraclitus to have anticipated of many wrongly supposed the Flux their distinctive contentions. So (i) doctrine, expressed by later writers in the formula "all things flow," and supposedly illustrated by tention
the fragment "you cannot step twice into the same

dualist, the way in which he does so does not carry conviction. While later sources were no doubt as standing at the in treating Xenophanes wrong of Eleatic doctrine, it is becoming clearer beginning
how such a mistake was possible. a In particular

Guthrie,52
the

who

treats him
so as

as identifying
pantheist?argues

god and
that

a doctrine held by Heraclitus to Kirk, and the supposed fragment does according not represent anything that would in Heraclitus if Plato's support such a doctrine. Consequently indicated, and as the thinking rested as Aristotle river" was not
Theaetetus seems to show, upon a doctrine of the

world?and

while he excluded motion in the tion from his world, and so had static universe, this need not mean In this way he provides change. that god could Kirk's objection identified with the world, because
not have been described

sense of locomo? to that extent a that he excluded an answer to not have been if so he could
The pos? is

incessant flux of phenomental objects, this did not come from Heraclitus. As against Kirk on these
points, very strong arguments have been adduced

as motionless.53

sible relation
6. Heraclitus.

of this to Parmenides
Here the period

is surely clear.
in question

dominated

by discussion

of the series of interpreta

by G. Vlastos and by Guthrie,56 and there seems to be a growing that in some sense conviction Heraclitus did hold a doctrine of Flux. (2) The world is a harmony of opposites, Kirk claims, for Heraclitus in such a way that the tension between to them enables things in the world of experience be stable for a time. But Guthrie points out57 that

49 50 Ibid., pp. 221-223. Ibid., pp. 381-383. 51 See n. 24 above, and my review in Gnomon, vol. 29 (1957), pp. I have not seen A. Farina, 127-131. Senofane di Colofone i-ii of S. Zeppi's below. (Naples, book, n. no 1961). See also chaps, 52 vol. 1, pp. 381-383. History, 53 Kirk & Raven, p. 172. 54 theCosmic Fragments in Heraclitus," Museum Helveticum, vol. Heraclitus, 14 (1957), (Cambridge, 1954), "Men and Opposites Some Comments," in Heraclitus, pp. 155-163, Phronesis, vol. 4 (1959), pp. 73-76? "Logos, Harmonie, Lutte, Dieu "Ecpyrosis et feu," Revue Philosophique, vol. 147 (1957), pp. 289-299, "The extent of Heraclitus fr. 92D," Anales de Filolog?a Classica (Buenos are included vol. 7 (1959), pp. 5-12. Some of the ethical in Kirk & Raven, Aires), fragments pp. 204-214. 55 Reactions critical of Kirk's will be found in the review by T?te in Classical Review, vol. 6 fundamentally interpretations the discussion in American Journal vol. 76 (1955), pp. 337-368; R. Mondolfo, (I95^)j PP. 20-22; by G. Vlastos of Philology, e of Plato and Aristotle to the Ecpyrosis," "Evidence II frammenti vol. 3 (1958), pp. 75-82; del hume Phronesis, Relating il flusso universale in Eraclito, Revista Critica di Storia di Filosofa, vol. 15 (i960), pp. 3-13; Zeller-Mondolfo, dei Greci La Filosofa vol. I., vol. 4, ?raclito 1, pp. 403-492. (Florence, History, 1961); and Guthrie, 56 American Journal vol. 1, pp. 449-452 and 488-492. Vlastos, Guthrie, of Philology, vol. 76 (1955), PP- 33^-344; History, 57 vol. 1, p. 452. History,

I36

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

and even identity of between opposites, need not for Heraclitus have excluded opposites, tension
cyclical change backwards and forwards as we

Kirk's
merely

work

at the very
approaches

least ought
out of

to have put all

court, although

intuitive

two poles. Here the metaphor, would say between not used by Guthrie, of a tug of war where con?
tinuous tension does not exclude movement may

be helpful. substance out (3) Fire as a primary of which is generated after the fashion the world it may be des? of the Milesians, and into which troyed by Ecpyrosis is denied to Heraclitus by Kirk, to him by Aristotle. it is ascribed As although this view held by Kirk, Vlastos has argued against to Anaximander the case for relating Heraclitus and Mondolfo59 defends Ecpy? and Anaximenes,58 on this last point Guthrie rosis as well, although the analogy of the accepts Kirk's view. Perhaps If the cosmological of war might be extended. tug fire which operates as an arche is not outside the then in its aspect world, but rather is the world,
of strife or tension it never ceases to operate. From

it may have led some to be over-impressed by the sheer quantity of scholarship which has been brought to the task of interpretation.61 The most radical discussion 7. The Eleatics. of Parmenides in the period is due to Unter steiner.62 By emendation of the text he is able to argue that the question of the One was first raised or and not by either Parmenides by Melissus, Zeno. This involves the rejection of what Plato says in the Sophist and Theaetetus, as well as the evidence of Aristotle and is and Theophrastus More fruitful have been completely unconvincing. discussions about what the surviving lines of
Parmenides may mean when not emended. First

time to time one side in the tug of war collapses on the ground, of and the immediate pattern tension is destroyed. But the basic strife remains, the collapsed side rises to its feet and the world is renewed. (4) On the Logos, Kirk argues that this
means an objective state of things, a sort of formula

common on to all things, which of arrangement occasion could be treated as divine and identified with fire. He excludes, as Stoic only, interpretations which identify it with human reason and thinking. this Guthrie demurs60 and insists that it Against must at least have included human thought for
Heraclitus.

of all there is the problem of the subject of the verb a subject "to be" in the poem when used without is something like agree? directly expressed. There ment perhaps that the grammatical subject can be a rather indefinite "it" or "a thing"?no only is actually and grammatical subject expressed, statements such as "it is" occur too early in the poem for anything more specific to be understood.63 But what of the logical subject? What is it that is actually Parmenides about? The view talking that it is the world or universe does not now seem to find somuch favor as earlier.64 G. E. L. Owen65 is" as argues that the subject cannot be "What nor "The One" or Diels and Cornford supposed, "The One Being," and concludes that the subject is "what can be talked or thought about." He goes on to challenge seems to the whole basis of what
have been Aristotle's view of Parmenides according

Other
listed. ness world. of

writings
Someone the has attraction

about

Heraclitus
the for his

can

only

be

of spoken of Heraclitus or not,

unwholesome the modern revolt

to which
confusion senses menides' of

Parmenides5
between the basic verb the "to

thinking
existential be," and as he

rested
and he

upon
Par? it, as

predicative regards a

Unwholesome

supposed

has led to a whole against rational explanations stream of books. Many of these are not critical but or even mystical in their approach. intuitive
58

contention,

interprets

in importance innovation comparable philosophic with Descartes' Cogito.66 He argues further that

59 See n. 60 vol. See n. 56 above at pp. 361-365. 1, p. 426, n. 2. 55 above. History, 61 run to 1,000 pages) on a vast scale (two volumes is announced of which the first will A new work on Heraclitus by M. at Merida Parte pp. 1-80, dealing with fr. 1 and published for 1963. I have seen only the Primera Marcovitch (Venezuela) and Winterhaider. H. Quiring, Worte t?nen durch Jahrtausende in 1962. See n. 23 above for books by Ramnoux Heraklit, (Berlin, P. Wheelwright, Heraclitus criticized for who has not read Kirk. (Princeton, by a physicist 1959) has been x959) is a work assume as well as deficiency but some of the criticisms merely alternative have been in scholarship, explanations inaccuracy the case. See also K. Axelos, this is hardly proved when 62 See n. his view of 24 above. He further discusses 63 to argue that "The way" Untersteiner's attempt emend the text Melissus, Gorgias (Assen, 1959) would is likely. He goes on to maintain but the interpretation et la Philosophie Heraclite (Paris, 1962). in an Appendice to his ?enone Parmenides (1963). to take seriously. is hard is the subject Leonen, J. H. M. to yield an expressed emendation subject "anything"?the

in the Way is "necessary that Parmenides' of Truth Being in the Way of Truth, but this is hard to accept. with is contrasted being contingent 64But see L. in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 63 (1958), pp. 145-160. Woodbury 65 "Eleatic 10 (i960), Classical Quarterly, vol. pp. 84-102. Questions," 66 in a different is already with Descartes The comparison sense, in Kirk & Raven, p. 266. found,

Parmenides, is unlikely, and being"

RECENT

WORK

ON

PRESOCRATIC

PHILOSOPHY

I37

of truth Parmenides did not claim any measure or reliability in the "Way of for the cosmology Opinion," which merely represents the (erroneous) that his assumptions through? opinions of mortals, out do not derive from earlier cosmologies, and that he does not argue for the existence of a spheri?
cal universe. More than one of these contentions

be debated.
remains

The

unique

position
his

of Parmenides
claim to stand

unquestioned,

especially

at

the beginnings of the development of logic, to make excessive claims the temptation although
has 8. interest modern not always The Zeno. as ever, been resisted.72 of Zeno been excite the as much concern very much of paradoxes and have who are not

has reply, but so far no full discussion the belief that Parmenides' appeared. However, had a higher status than Owen "Way of Opinion" allows has much support,67 and the details suggest to their that he gave his personal attention invites
elaboration.68 One may also ask is not the "Way

thinkers

otherwise

as well as those concerned with the Presocratics, who are deeply concerned with them. It is now that he was not in his quite widely supposed
paradoxes attacking any particular previous

at least something that can be thought of Opinion" about and spoken of although it clearly cannot be said to be about something that is in the sense in which this word is used in the earlier part of
the poem.

to Raven,69 what Parmenides has According done is "to take his own sphere of reality, the One, and fill it, quite illegitimately, with the sensible opposites of light and darkness." This remains a of likely view. But less likely is the treatment a reaction as involving Parmenides' thought or indeed doctrine, any against Pythagorean It is more particular Presocratic.70 likely that he was concerned with the opinions of all mortals as he understood them. The older view that that which is thinks has been revived by E. D. Phillips.71 These and other questions will surely continue to

thinker, but rather all those who would not or had not given their assent to the basic Eleatic conten? tions about Being.73 The conclusive is argument the point brought out by G. E. L. Owen, perhaps that the contradictions which he sets up namely, only arise if two separate views are brought together. Discussion of particular paradoxes, primarily from the point of view of their logical solution, have been in his edition of the frequent.74 Untersteiner discerns the two worlds which he fragments75 found also in Parmenides?the world of being outside time and the world of sensible experience in time?and contends that Zeno set himself to reconcile of dialectic. ths^two by a new method a highly The detailed is necessarily analysis technical matter in the case of the Paradoxes, and there have been a number of important discussions
which cannot be summarized here.76

67 See H. Schwabl, "Sein und Doxa bei Parmenides," Wiener Studien, vol. 66 (1953), pp. 50-75; W. R. Chalmers, "Parmen? ides and the Beliefs of Mortals," on Names," n. 64 above. "Parmenides Phronesis, vol. 5 (i960), pp. 5-22; L. Woodbury, 68 See discussion "Parmenides and Er," Journal by J. S. Morrison, of Hellenic Studies, vol. 75 (1955), pp. 59-68. 69Kirk & Raven, p. 281. 70 K. Reich, "Parmenides und die Pythagoreer," N. B. Booth in Phronesis, vol. 2 (1957), Hermes, vol. 82 (1954), pp. 287-294; see W. Kranz, to Heraclitus the other hand a reference in fr. 6.9 is fairly certain, 101 Rheinisches Museum, vol. pp. 92-99. On Vlastos in American Journal (1958), pp. 250-254; (as against Kirk) of Philology, vol. 76 (1955), p. 341, n. 11 and pp. 348-353; and Guthrie, vol. 1, p. 468. History, 71 on Thought "Parmenides and Being," Review, vol. 64 (1955), pp. 546-560. Philosophical 721 do not deal with discussions of the Proem?see E. A. Havelock in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 63 (1958), zur Gottin and K. Deichgraber, "Parmenides' Auffahrt des Rechts," pp. 133-143, Abhandlungen Akademie der Wissenschaften see G. Jameson, zu Mainz and Logic "Well-rounded Truth and Circular in (Wiesbaden, 1958). For Parmenides Thought in Philosophical For Phronesis, vol. 3 (1958), pp. Parmenides," 15-30, and J. Stannard Review, vol. 69 (i960), pp. 526-533. see Beaufret, n. 23 above, existentialist and for a Hegelian view W. Broecker, contra Parmenides," interpretations "Gorgias vol. 86 (1958), pp. 429-430. Hermes, 73 N. B. Booth, the Pythagoreans?" "Were Zeno's Arguments Directed "Were Against Phronesis, vol. 2 (1957), pp. 90-103; a Reply to Attacks Zeno's Arguments "Zeno and the upon Parmenides?" Phronesis, vol. 2 (1957), pp. 1-9; G. E. L. Owen, "Zenon und die Lehre Mathematicians," pp. 199-222; W. Kullmann, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 58 (1957-58), des Parmenides," Raven main? Hermes, vol. 86 (1958), pp. 157-172; Vlastos, Philosophical Review, vol. 68 (1959), pp. 532-535. are directed tains that the arguments the Pythagoreans?Kirk & Raven, particularly against pp. 290-291. 74 G. Ryle, Dilemmas and the Tortoise"; in Analysis, vol. 15 (1954), iii, "Achilles (Cambridge, 1954), chap, J. F. Thomson in Journal vol. 52 (1955), pp. 449-459; V. C. Chappell, pp. 1-13; D. S. Schwayder of Philosophy, ibid., vol. 59 (1962), pp. See also Max 197-213. Black, Problems of Analysis (Ithaca, 1954), p. 109, n. 1. 75 See n. 24 above. 76 See N. B. Booth, "Zeno's in Gnomon, vol. 31 Paradoxes," Studies, vol. 77 (1957), pp. 187-201; Vlastos of Hellenic Journal and the discussion (l959)> PP* I95~I99 by him inW. Kaufmann, (New York, Philosophic Classics 1961), pp. 27-45, with further on p. 28 n. 4. references

I38 9? Melissus. Interest

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

has

always

centered

two supposed in Eleatic around developments to Melissus: His view that doctrine attributed (i) the One Being is infinite in extent as well as in time. This doctrine has now been denied by it would but without Vlastos,77 good grounds, that the One is seem.78 view Being (2) The
incorporeal. peachable.79 For But this it has the been evidence attacked seems once unim? again,80

the system of Anaxagoras is of all the Presocratic to reconstruct the most difficult world-pictures A succession of major but divergent satisfactorily.
modern out. reconstructions Anaxagoras seems might clearly seem to to bear have this two

success. There I would although judge without on points of have been interesting contributions detail as well,81 but there is some truth in the has not that on the whole Melissus contention received the attention he deserves which is made by J. H. M. Loenen,82 although probably few will new interpretations follow him in the radically he offers. which
10. Empedocles. The considerable literature

to him : ( i ) that positions or contentions attributed a portion of everything contains else everything and (2) that things consist (Universal Mixture), of parts that are like the whole and like one another (Homoeomereity). The difficulty has been
to relate these two contentions to each other. It

to discussion of details83 can hardly be devoted to the solution of said to have contributed much
major problems, with one exception. On the

after a the two poems Raven, compatibility that Empedocles careful discussion, concludes84 con? soul and physical the migratory regarded in themselves, and yet sciousness as quite distinct the former had some sort of physical basis as being an attunement or harmony the four involving elements together with Love and Strife. The prob? lem of the two poems has been further discussed in an interesting and valuable article by Kahn.85 of
Zafiropulo has sought to incorporate Empedocles

may (a) that they were in fact inconsistent in Anaxagoras' thought, and he either noticed this or failed to notice it; (b) that they are somehow was Mixture (c) that Universal fully consistent; true in some limited or qualified sense, e.g., only only seeds or opposites have all qualities and things are constituted in the first instance out of these or must grow out of them; (d) that Homoeomereity in order to be limited or sacrificed in some way For a long period Mixture. preserve Universal variants under (c) have seemed to scholars likely be held
to provide structions a solution, and and by Raven,88 here belong C. Mugler.89 the recon? However,

all such
matter.

solutions
There is no

involve
reference

a two-stage
to this

analysis
ancient

of

in any

author; Aristotle in his own mind

there were

seem clear is emphatic, it would in each thing that for Anaxagoras

of every substance; and

portions

within

of the his general view of the development and to this may be added the Presocratics,86 is perhaps G. N?lod,87 which survey by general intended more for the general reader than for the
specialist.

formula for Universal finally Anaxagoras' Mixture has no qualification of this kind attached, it has a qualification about Nous. This although that it had no other qualification apart suggests from the case of Nous. Views involving (d) are
presented by R. Matthewson,90 and M. E. Reesor.91

own

11. Anaxagoras.

It has often

been

held

that

In all such reconstructions reader will give assent more

that the it is probable to the criticisms readily

77 Gnomon, vol. 25 (1953), PP- 34~35 78 So in Kirk & Raven, Raven p. 300. 79 n. 78 above. ibid., pp. 302-304; Vlastos, Raven, 80 in Incorporeal Believe "Did Melissus American Journal vol. 79 (1958), pp. 61-65. N. B. Booth, of Philology, Being?" 81 So Kirk and and D. A. Greenberg, Stokes, Phronesis, vol. 5 (i960), pp. 1-4; G. E. Gershenson ibid., vol. 6 (1961), pp. 1-9. 82 See in n. 63 above. p. 124 of the book mentioned 83 of N. B. Booth, be made Account of Breathing," may Studies, vol. 80 of Hellenic Journal Special mention "Empedocles' Eudoxan Astronomy, and Aristotle's Connate Pneuma pp. 10-15 and H. A. T. Reiche, (Amsterdam, Empedocles* Mixture, (i960), i960). 84 Kirk & Raven, pp. 335-360. 85 in Empedocles' of the Soul," Archiv f?r Geschichte der Philosophie, and Natural Doctrine Philosophy "Religion "Zur Beweisf?hrung vol. 82 (1954), pp. See also H. Munding, des Empedokles," pp. 3-35. Hermes, 129-145. 86N. 41 above. 87 (Brussels, d'Agrigente 1959). Emp?docle 88Classical and in Kirk & Raven, pp. 367-394. 123-137, Quarterly, vol. 48 (1954), pp. 89Revue des ?tudes Grecques, vol. 49 (1956), pp. 314-376. 90 "Aristotle and Anaxagoras," Classical Quarterly, vol. 52 (1958), pp. 67-81. 91 "The of Anaxagoras," vol. 55 (i960), 1-8. Classical Philology, pp. Meaning

vol.

42

(i960),

RECENT

WORK

ON

PRESOCRATIC

PHILOSOPHY

I39

made

of

other

reconstructions

than

to

the

positive

proposals. No final solution is in sight, but a clue con? answer may to the ultimate lie in Vlastos' its subsequent tention,92 despite rejection by C. that there need be nothing vicious in a Strang,93 sequence such that gold, while containing a portion of everything else, has a predominant ingredient a portion of every? while containing (gold) which, ingredient (gold) thing else, has a predominant
which. . . . The objection usually made to this is

and The

of the school calls for. than the importance treatment in Kirk and Raven is extremely brief, and no one as far as I am aware has discussed of perception in the atomic fully the problem to The one really important contribution system. the study of atomism is probably that of J. Mau,98 discussing the question of how and when the prob? was first raised?whether lem of infinitesimals
before Zeno or not, and whether it was in con?

nection
between

with
the

that it gives no starting point for building larger But if the constituents. units out of primary question posed was how to analyze phenomenal in existence this objection might objects already not apply. This would open the way for an inter? from this under (b) above. Apart pretation there have been important fundamental question of points of detail,94 and the method discussions of the world has been studied by of formulation
D. Bargrave-Weaver.95 12. Atomism. Democritus. The system of

mensurability.

the Pythagorean problem of incom? He adopts an intermediate position

two main extreme views and then

carries the story of infinitesimals down to Epicurus. on theories of life and has written C. Mugler on in Democritus," and D. McGibbon conscience
Pleasure.100

13. The
briefly. Two

Sophists.
parts

With

these I can deal only

commentary

of Untersteiner's

Democritus book with

has been studied by V. E. Alfieri in a a somewhat misleading title, ?tomos del concetto deW ?tomo nelpensiero greco,96 Idea, l'Origine which is not concerned with the origins of atomism in the historical sense.97 Accepting that the logical for atomism was the Eleatic position, starting point of the problems he deals with most concerning and has important though controver? Democritus, sial things to say about the doctrine of the soul. In general fundamental studies of atomism in this are fewer than one might have hoped for period

on the texts fall in this period.101 On Protagoras, has discussed Kerferd the consistency of the ascribed to him by Plato,102 positions apparently and R. F. Holland has protested against the manner to the of approach adopted by Untersteiner of theMan-measure doctrine.103 The whole problem is sensibly dealt range of evidence for Protagoras with by A. Capizzi,104 and by S. Zeppi,105 and
there is a valuable summary treatment by K. von

of the of the evidence Fritz.106 For discussion Theaetetus one may mention the articles by A. in general Capelle,107 and L. Versenyi.108 More is G. M. in Sciacca's book, Gli Dei approach which does not deal only with Prota Protagora,

92 Review, vol. 59 (1950), p. 51. Philosophical 93 "The own 101-102. Archiv f?r Geschichte der Philosophie, of Anaxagoras," vol. 45 (1963), pp. Physical Theory Strang's a portion falls under that elements of everything do not contain else, although interpretation pheno? (c) in that he maintains can never be isolated, Thus menal existence. and so seem to have than physical objects do. But his elements logical rather sources. The that there is nothing trouble about this in ancient is, as so often, (d) also is in effect preserved. 94 10 (i960), "A note on fr. 12," Classical Review, vol. pp. 4-5. Eg,, A Wasserstein, 95 "The of Anaxagoras," Phronesis, vol. 4 (1959), pp. 77-91. Cosmogony 96 Florence, 1953. 97 einer Entstehungsgeschichte "Wie das Atom erdacht werde, Versuch For this see O. Luschnat, des antiken Atomismus," and W. Kranz, "Die Entstehung und Fortschritte, vol. 27 (1953), pp. des Atomismus," Convivium Forschungen (Fest? 136-141, 14-40. schrift Ziegler) (Stuttgart, 1954), pp. 98 bei den antiken Atomisten Zum Problem des Infinitesimalen (Berlin, 1954). 99Revue de vol. 33 (1959), pp. 7-38. Philologie, 100 vol. 5 (i960), pp. 75-77. Phronesis, 101 See n. 24 above. 102 in the 'Protagoras' Doctrine of Justice and Virtue of Plato," Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 73 (1953), pp. "Protagoras' Introduction to the Liberal Arts Press Translation o? Plato's Protagaras See also G. Vlastos' 42-45. (New York, 1956). 103 Classical Quarterly, vol. 7 (1956), pp. 215-220. 104 le testimonianze eframmenti Protagora, (Florence, 1955). 105 Protagora e lafilosof?a del suo tempo (Florence, 1961). 106 vol. 45 (1957), pp. 908-921. S.v. Protagoras, Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklop?die, 107 vol. 88 (i960), pp. 265-280. Hermes, 108American of Philology, vol. 83 (1962), pp. 178-184. Journal

140

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUARTERLY

goras.109 On Prodicus
his one ethical summary doctrines article.111

two discussions
may In be

dealing with
and I

interpretations
by Kerferd,120 on

of his doctrines
and J.

have

been
For

offered
other

mentioned,110 the case of Gorgias,

S. Morrison.121

sophists
Hourani123

I mention

Max

Salomon122
and B.

and G.
Wisneiw

F.

omit works
rhetorical

dealing
aspects and

primarily
doctrines.112

with

literary
Treatments

and
of

Thrasymachus,

the arguments in his work On that which have been provided by V. di Benedetto,113
ferd,114 Loenen,115 and W. Broecker.116 G.

is not Ker
Calo

gero has argued on rather weak evidence for a link with Socrates.117 The edition of the fragments by is rather slight. In the case of C. Moreschini118 controversy has continued as to whether Antiphon
there were two Antiphons or only one,119 and

ski124 and E. S. Ramage125 on the Dissoi Logoi as raising points of interest. In general itmay be said that while, pace Kirk and Raven,126 there is a growing recognition of the philosophic importance of the major sophists, this has yet to be reflected in any large scale treatment which will present the detailed and not at the same time evidence, a distorted or eccentric view of the movement give
as a whole.

University College, Swansea, Wales

109 Palermo, 1958. 110G. B. of Prodicus," "The Relativism Bulletin and Kerferd, pp. 249-256, of the John Rylands Library, vol. 37 (1954-55), 11 (1956), pp. 265-272, "L'etica di Prodico," S. Zeppi, Rivista Critica di Storia di Filosofa, vol. in his Studi sulla Filo reprinted (Florence, 1962). sofiia Presocratica 111 s.v. Prodikos, Pauly-Wissowa, K. von Fritz, vol. 45 (1957), pp. 85-89. Realencyklop?die, 112But Dodds' edition of Plato's Gorgias be mentioned. (Oxford, 1959) must 113Rendiconti delta Reale Accademia dei 10 (1955), pp. 287-307. Lincei, vol. 1X* 1 (1955), pp. 3-25. Phronesis, vol. 115 N. 63 above. 116 vol. 86 (1958), pp. 425-440. Hermes, 117 nemo sua sponte peccat," Journal and the Socratic Studies, vol. 77 (1957), pp. Principle "Gorgias 12-17. of Hellenic 118 Turin, 1959. Classical Review, vol. 3 (1953), pp. 3-6; E. R. Dodds, Pro ibid., vol. 4 (1954), PP- 94~95? J- S. Morrison, 119J. S. Morrison, ceedings of the Cambridge Philology Society, vol. 7 (1961), pp. 49-58. 120 Proceedings of the Cambridge Philology Society, vol. 4 (1956-57), pp. 26-32. 121 vol. 8 (1963), pp. 35-49. Phronesis, 122 Zeitschrift f?r Philosophische Forschung, vol. 7 (1953), pp. 481-492. 123 110-120. vol. 7 (1962), pp. Phronesis, 124 and Classica etMediaevalia, vol. 12 (1961), pp. 106-116, both articles being L'Antiquit? Classique, vol. 28 (1959), pp. 80-97, concerned with Hippias. nominally 125American of Philology, vol. 82 (1961), pp. 418-424. Journal 126N. 22 above.