capizzi, antonio_the cosmic republic. notes for a non-peripatetic history of the birth of philosophy...

8/9/2019 Capizzi, Antonio_The Cosmic Republic. Notes for a Non-Peripatetic History of the Birth of Philosophy in Greece_1990 [Evans, J. D. G._cr, 43, 1_1993!75!77]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/capizzi-antoniothe-cosmic-republic-notes-for-a-non-peripatetic-history-of 1/4

Rescuing the Presocratics?The Cosmic Republic: Notes for a Non-Peripatetic History of the Birth of Philosophy inGreece by Antonio CapizziReview by: J. D. G. EvansThe Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1993), pp. 75-77Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/710652 .

Accessed: 21/02/2015 22:58

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 201 5 22:58:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/710652?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/710652?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



76 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

permissive, as it encourages the perception of all sorts of connections over space andtime. C. too credulously accepts every suggestion of contact and influence betweendifferent

figures.He wishes to correct the habit of

detachingthe

philosophersfrom

other elements in their culture, but he overreacts.As illustrations of C.'s methods and results, let us briefly consider his accounts of

Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras. Heraclitus was more interested in instructinghis fellow citizens about local wars than in the metaphysical significance of conflictand opposition. Parmenides' proof that there is one homogeneous thing, is designedto reinforce the distinctness of his colony: for example, the sharp antithesis betweenbeing and non-being distinguishes the local culture from its Phoenician surroundswhere the verb 'to be' lacked explicit formulation. Anaxagoras is a scientist, whilethese earlier thinkers were not. But for all that, he is equally the emblem of a cultural

paradigm; in his case, this is the democratisation of the mind, which wasinstitutionalised in Periclean Athens.Now it is true that this is not the way in which Aristotle presented these figures; nor

is it how we (or most of us) have viewed their interest and importance as contributorsto the development of the human intellect. In the case of all three our main knowledgederives from Aristotle, but in such a way that we can check the accuracy of thetransmission. For it is largely by his own discussions that later commentators areprompted to supply the actual quotations through which we can test Aristotle'sinterpretations. But C. seems to be both confused and mistaken about the significanceof these phenomena.

Despite the evident anachronisms in the way that Aristotle presents the ideas of thepresocratics, his reports and comments have withstood attempts to test them foraccuracy. Why is this? Aristotle's interest in the thoughts and pronouncements of hispredecessors are bound up with his theory of dialectical method in philosophy. Heutilises these inputs as part of a balanced concert of witnesses to the truth. There isin this process no disinterested concern with the historical record as such; but equallythere is a premium on accurate representation of the views that really have beenmade available.

C. has a number of arguments, of an aprioristic bent, to show that Aristotle wasculturally prevented from achieving a proper understanding, particularly of the

earlier presocratics. For example, he was too steeped in literacy to appreciate thesignificance of the epistemic modalities of seeing and hearing for an oral society. Or,his articulation of different studies into distinct and autonomous intellectualenterprises makes him incapable of grasping the central importance of politicalmotive for the presocratics.

But these complaints are beside the point. Aristotle's explicit purpose is not totransmit himself back into some earlier stage of the culture, but instead to try todetermine the final development towards which it was tending. Our only legitimateconcern is that he should have left us the materials for a historical reconstruction; andC. does not succeed in establishing a contrary position. He does, indeed, ratherobliquely suggest that the real objects of Aristotle's concern were not the actualpresocratics but rather unnamed contemporaries for whom the historical figuresstand proxy; but this claim is not seriously pressed.

To defend Aristotle as a philosophically serious and historically credible witness,is not to give carte blanche to all his interpretations. Our interest in the earlierthinkers need not be the same as his. We value Heraclitus for his interest in theconstructive role of contradiction, Parmenides for his emphasis on the conditions ofintelligible discourse, and Anaxagoras for his bold grasp of the method of top-down

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







777HE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEW

naturalistic nalysis.But nothing n these nsights erves o show that Aristotle, withhisparticular hilosophical urposes, misrepresented ismaterial r can now misleadus as to its significance.

This book isengagingly

writtenn a loquacious, even breathless tyle. It containsnumerous minor infelicities of expression, as well as errors of spelling and

nomenclature. omeexamples:' George Vlastos' (p. 3), ' intirity' p. 13),' elencations'(p. 49), 'the egregious work of Moses Finley' (p. 197), 'D. J. Eurley' (p. 392), andsoon. Since he author's name for Elea s 'Vele', we may suspect hat not all of theseerrors are unintentional. To be fair, such blemishes do not seriously disturb theunderstanding; ut they convey a useful warning as regards weightier matters ofcontent.

The publishers have presented he volume in a curiously anonymous and self-effacingway. They tell us nothing about the author and his Preface hardly adds the

needed nformation), or indeed about their other ventures n this fieldof enquiry. Allwe earn s that this is Volume 3 in a series entitled Philosophica. recommend hatthere hould be some tightening of editorial control over the presentation of thematerial.

C.'s book is stimulating but muddle-headed, oth in overall conception and indetail. t deserves o be studied and discussed, but critically and with care.Queen's niversity,Belfast J. D. G. EVANS

IN SEARCH OF THESOPHISTS

EDWARD SCHIAPPA: Protagoras and Logos: a Study in GreekPhilosophy and Rhetoric. (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication.) Pp.xvii+ 239. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South CarolinaPress, 1991. 29.95.

JACQUELINE DE ROMILLY: The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens.Translated by Janet Lloyd. Pp. xv+260. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1992

(originally published in French, 1988), ?35.The rotean nature of the Sophists, whom Professor de Romilly aptly describes as'maddeningly lusive', ensures hat no two studies produce dentical portraits. DrSchiappa's ook is a response o modern accounts of the early history of rhetoricwhichhe author regards as methodologically nsound. The first section s thereforedevotedo clarifying he 'hermeneutic rinciples' which he considers necessary forany istorical reconstruction f Sophistic hought. These are certainly sufficientlyimportant o be fully set out, since he has in his sights both traditional iews of theSophists hich perpetuate he negative appraisals y Plato and Aristotle, and morerecent ccounts which import anachronistic oncepts and categories.

Centralo S.'s own reconstruction s first of all the belief, derived rom Havelockand thers, that the Sophists were active during a period which saw an earlier'mythic-poetic radition' challenged by a 'humanistic-rationalistic ovement', sothat hey present a mixture of oral and literate practices. Secondly he 'grantsprimacy' o Protagoras' actual words and to fifth-century usage, arguing thatrhetorike as a term coined by Plato, and that the Sophists wereconcerned with logosin much broader ense. Thirdly, he undertakes study of an individual Sophist as?Oxford University Press 1993

naturalistic nalysis.But nothing n these nsights erves o show that Aristotle, withhisparticular hilosophical urposes, misrepresented ismaterial r can now misleadus as to its significance.

This book isengagingly

writtenn a loquacious, even breathless tyle. It containsnumerous minor infelicities of expression, as well as errors of spelling and

nomenclature. omeexamples:' George Vlastos' (p. 3), ' intirity' p. 13),' elencations'(p. 49), 'the egregious work of Moses Finley' (p. 197), 'D. J. Eurley' (p. 392), andsoon. Since he author's name for Elea s 'Vele', we may suspect hat not all of theseerrors are unintentional. To be fair, such blemishes do not seriously disturb theunderstanding; ut they convey a useful warning as regards weightier matters ofcontent.

The publishers have presented he volume in a curiously anonymous and self-effacingway. They tell us nothing about the author and his Preface hardly adds the

needed nformation), or indeed about their other ventures n this fieldof enquiry. Allwe earn s that this is Volume 3 in a series entitled Philosophica. recommend hatthere hould be some tightening of editorial control over the presentation of thematerial.

C.'s book is stimulating but muddle-headed, oth in overall conception and indetail. t deserves o be studied and discussed, but critically and with care.Queen's niversity,Belfast J. D. G. EVANS

IN SEARCH OF THESOPHISTS

EDWARD SCHIAPPA: Protagoras and Logos: a Study in GreekPhilosophy and Rhetoric. (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication.) Pp.xvii+ 239. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South CarolinaPress, 1991. 29.95.

JACQUELINE DE ROMILLY: The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens.Translated by Janet Lloyd. Pp. xv+260. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1992

(originally published in French, 1988), ?35.The rotean nature of the Sophists, whom Professor de Romilly aptly describes as'maddeningly lusive', ensures hat no two studies produce dentical portraits. DrSchiappa's ook is a response o modern accounts of the early history of rhetoricwhichhe author regards as methodologically nsound. The first section s thereforedevotedo clarifying he 'hermeneutic rinciples' which he considers necessary forany istorical reconstruction f Sophistic hought. These are certainly sufficientlyimportant o be fully set out, since he has in his sights both traditional iews of theSophists hich perpetuate he negative appraisals y Plato and Aristotle, and morerecent ccounts which import anachronistic oncepts and categories.

Centralo S.'s own reconstruction s first of all the belief, derived rom Havelockand thers, that the Sophists were active during a period which saw an earlier'mythic-poetic radition' challenged by a 'humanistic-rationalistic ovement', sothat hey present a mixture of oral and literate practices. Secondly he 'grantsprimacy' o Protagoras' actual words and to fifth-century usage, arguing thatrhetorike as a term coined by Plato, and that the Sophists wereconcerned with logosin much broader ense. Thirdly, he undertakes study of an individual Sophist as?Oxford University Press 1993

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions





capizzi, antonio_the cosmic republic. notes for a non-peripatetic history of the birth of philosophy...

Documents