Rescuing the Presocratics?

The Cosmic Republic: Notes for a Non-Peripatetic History of the Birth of Philosophy in
Greece by Antonio Capizzi
Review by: J. D. G. Evans
The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1993), pp. 75-77
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable 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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL

75

REVIEW

of the theatre in the early Empire (seating arrangements, displays of opinion, factions
etc.). (14) Peter Herz gives a useful survey of the evidence for musical and dramatic
competitions (as distinct from theatrical performances) under the Empire and
considers a number of questions relevant to their organisation. (15) Etienne Aubrion
discusses possible reasons for Tacitus' hostility to Nero's theatrical and ludic
innovations. (16) Alain Malissard summarises a number of theatrical elements in
Tacitus' presentation of events in Histories and Annals and argues that they are not
merely decorative but integral to Tacitus' conception of his subject.
(17) Nicole Fick places Apuleius' description of the pantomime-type performance
of the Judgement of Paris at Met. 10.30ff. in the context of a Platonic interpretation
of the whole work. (18) Gustav Adolf Seeck argues that Lucian knew Euripides' plays
from his own reading, had opportunities to see productions, and regarded Greek
tragedy as having social value as an instrument of moral education. (19) Klaus
Sallmann discusses the failure of the church fathers to deter Christians from attending
spectacula and summarises the arguments with which they tried. (20) Juirgen
Blansdorf uses a number of provisions in the Codex Theodosianus as evidence for the
continuing popularity of the theatre in late antiquity.
Trinity College, Oxford

P. G. McC. BROWN

RESCUING THE PRESOCRATICS?

ANTONIO CAPIZZI: The Cosmic Republic: Notes for a Non-

PeripateticHistoryof the Birthof Philosophyin Greece.(Philosophia,

3.) Pp. ix+521. Amsterdam:J. C. Gieben, 1990. fl. 160.
The author of this large and wide-ranging book has the aim of rescuing the history
of presocratic philosophy from the distorting straightjacket which Aristotle and his
tradition have imposed on it. In particular, he sets himself the task of performing for
Metaphysics A, the same kind of demotion of Aristotle's intellectual hegemony which
Galileo achieved for the Physics and de Caelo, or Frege and Russell for the Prior
Analytics.
Since Metaphysics A is Aristotle's most extensive investigation of the basic ideas of
his predecessors on the nature of reality and change, this enterprise has implications
not just for our assessment of Aristotle, but also for all earlier Greek Philosophy.
Capizzi welcomes the challenge. This is not an untrodden path. Forty years ago
Harold Cherniss raised essentially the same question about Aristotle's relation to
earlier philosophy. His case was advanced with considerable erudition and immense
labour, but it was not accepted. Can C. do better?
He certainly casts his net wide. He covers individual thinkers, social movements,
historical and political systems. The cosmic republic of the title - and the cosmic
monarchy which, as the book informs us, preceded it - have the status of paradigms:
their function is to provide a socially and intellectually complete context - a culture
- within which individual thoughts and their thinkers can be appraised. What this
approach means in practice is that philosophers (as Aristotelians tend to label them)
must be considered in relation to the entire cultural milieu in which they lived; narrow
concentration on the strictly philosophical aspect of their existence is precisely the
fault for which the malign influence of Aristotle is held to account.
Such a holistic method of interpretation can, of course, rather easily become too
? Oxford University Press 1993

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

permissive, as it encourages the perception of all sorts of connections over space and
time. C. too credulously accepts every suggestion of contact and influence between
different figures. He wishes to correct the habit of detaching the philosophers from
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 instructing
his fellow citizens about local wars than in the metaphysical significance of conflict
and opposition. Parmenides' proof that there is one homogeneous thing, is designed
to reinforce the distinctness of his colony: for example, the sharp antithesis between
being and non-being distinguishes the local culture from its Phoenician surrounds
where the verb 'to be' lacked explicit formulation. Anaxagoras is a scientist, while
these 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 was
institutionalised 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 contributors
to the development of the human intellect. In the case of all three our main knowledge
derives from Aristotle, but in such a way that we can check the accuracy of the
transmission. For it is largely by his own discussions that later commentators are
prompted to supply the actual quotations through which we can test Aristotle's
interpretations. But C. seems to be both confused and mistaken about the significance
of these phenomena.
Despite the evident anachronisms in the way that Aristotle presents the ideas of the
presocratics, his reports and comments have withstood attempts to test them for
accuracy. Why is this? Aristotle's interest in the thoughts and pronouncements of his
predecessors are bound up with his theory of dialectical method in philosophy. He
utilises these inputs as part of a balanced concert of witnesses to the truth. There is
in this process no disinterested concern with the historical record as such; but equally
there is a premium on accurate representation of the views that really have been
made available.
C. has a number of arguments, of an aprioristic bent, to show that Aristotle was
culturally prevented from achieving a proper understanding, particularly of the
earlier presocratics. For example, he was too steeped in literacy to appreciate the
significance of the epistemic modalities of seeing and hearing for an oral society. Or,
his articulation of different studies into distinct and autonomous intellectual
enterprises makes him incapable of grasping the central importance of political
motive for the presocratics.
But these complaints are beside the point. Aristotle's explicit purpose is not to
transmit himself back into some earlier stage of the culture, but instead to try to
determine the final development towards which it was tending. Our only legitimate
concern is that he should have left us the materials for a historical reconstruction; and
C. does not succeed in establishing a contrary position. He does, indeed, rather
obliquely suggest that the real objects of Aristotle's concern were not the actual
presocratics but rather unnamed contemporaries for whom the historical figures
stand 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 earlier
thinkers need not be the same as his. We value Heraclitus for his interest in the
constructive role of contradiction, Parmenides for his emphasis on the conditions of
intelligible discourse, and Anaxagoras for his bold grasp of the method of top-down

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

77

naturalisticanalysis.But nothingin theseinsightsservesto show that Aristotle,with

hisparticularphilosophicalpurposes,misrepresented
his materialor cannow mislead
us as to its significance.
Thisbook is engaginglywrittenin a loquacious,even breathlessstyle. It contains
numerous minor infelicities of expression, as well as errors of spelling and
nomenclature.
Someexamples:'GeorgeVlastos'(p. 3), ' intirity'(p. 13),'elencations'
(p. 49), 'the egregiouswork of Moses Finley' (p. 197), 'D. J. Eurley'(p. 392), and
so on. Sincethe author'snamefor Eleais 'Vele', we may suspectthatnot all of these
errorsare unintentional.To be fair, such blemishesdo not seriouslydisturbthe
understanding;but they convey a useful warningas regardsweightiermattersof
content.
The publishershave presentedthe volume in a curiouslyanonymousand selfeffacingway. Theytell us nothingabout the author(andhis Prefacehardlyaddsthe
neededinformation),nor indeedabouttheirotherventuresin thisfieldof enquiry.All
welearnis that this is Volume3 in a seriesentitled
Philosophica.I recommendthat
thereshould be some tighteningof editorialcontrol
over the presentationof the
material.
C.'sbook is stimulatingbut muddle-headed,both in overallconceptionand in
detail.It deservesto be studiedand discussed,but criticallyand with care.
Queen'sUniversity,Belfast
J. D. G. EVANS
IN SEARCH

OF THE

SOPHISTS

EDWARD SCHIAPPA: Protagoras and Logos: a Study in Greek

Philosophy and Rhetoric. (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication.)
Pp.
xvii+ 239. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press, 1991. $29.95.
JACQUELINEDE ROMILLY: The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens.
Translated by Janet Lloyd. Pp. xv+260. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1992(originally published in French, 1988), ?35.
Theproteannatureof the Sophists,whom Professorde Romillyaptly describesas
'maddeningly
elusive', ensuresthat no two studiesproduceidenticalportraits.Dr
book is a responseto modernaccountsof the early historyof rhetoric
Schiappa's
which
the authorregardsas methodologicallyunsound.The firstsectionis therefore
devoted
to clarifyingthe 'hermeneuticprinciples'which he considersnecessary for
anyhistoricalreconstructionof Sophisticthought. These are certainlysufficiently
to be fully set out, sincehe has in his sightsboth traditionalviews of the
important
whichperpetuatethe negativeappraisalsby Plato and Aristotle,and more
Sophists
recent
accountswhichimportanachronisticconceptsand categories.
Central
to S.'s own reconstructionis firstof all the belief,derivedfrom Havelock
andothers, that the Sophists were active during a period which saw an earlier
'mythic-poetic
tradition' challengedby a 'humanistic-rationalistic
movement', so
thatthey present a mixture of oral and literate practices. Secondly he
'grants
to Protagoras' actual words and to fifth-centuryusage, arguing that
primacy'
rhetorike
was a termcoinedby Plato, andthatthe Sophistswereconcernedwith
logos
in
a muchbroadersense.Thirdly,he undertakesa studyof an individual
Sophistas
?OxfordUniversityPress 1993

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:58:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions