BU emu su C mm CS mum EL CRUn Tet Leese 1d Ua ae Mm AOME FROM THE PRESOCRATICS TO PLOTINUSbate RL) - Canada $18.50 opment of philosophy for Catholic seminary students, Frederick Copleston’s nine-volume A History of Philosophy has journeyed far beyond the modest purpose of its author to TTT Testol Cote E-Ten a AOL LUTON atte TSO Copleston, an Oxford Jesuit of immense erudition who once tangled with A. J. Ayer in a fabled debate about the exis- tence of God and the possibility of metaphysics, knew that TENA UM cml R MOLT NMliLe (oie elcome etme mT as ATCT cele MTOM LMT UNE ATO A TULL) ath TES tory’s great thinkers was reduced to simplistic caricatures. Copleston set out to redress the wrong by writing a complete LUCA MAN SM es) AMET mM Vm (el Ula) intellectual excitement—and one that gives full place to each CA CU MUR Ue Ue se Melee eae LOR Lys and showing his links to those who went before and to those who came after him. The result of Copleston’s prodigious labors is a history of philosophy that is unlikely ever to be surpassed. Thought mag- azine summed up the general agreement among scholars and students alike when it reviewed Copleston's A History of Pei eee) ON MM LAOH e (Cee TaLO Me) ey Leathe MmLe LT LeU SN} and scholarly, unified and well proportioned...We cannot rec- ommend [it] too highly.” eaeees originally as a serious presentation of the devel- Dee Ce ary ~~A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHYA HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY — VOLUME I _ Greece and Rome Frederick Copleston, S.J.Aw Ince Boor. ‘alison of Barts Doubleday Dl Poishing rou, 1540 Broady, New York, New Yor 1036 aoe, DousssDay nthe poreayal of der deals ‘om ates ae tademart of Dovey. divin of ‘Bart Doubleday Del Pabshing Grow I= Ft ge Boks ition of Vhane LA Hinry of Posy pobtibd 1962 ypc araneent wth The Nea rs ‘Th nage don ple Ape 1999 De sea Super Ord rcs Magan, Prey, Pow Ane ‘NIM Otwtat Late, 8, Censor Depts mormetur: Tomes, rence Bemngamienas De 1 Mart 1946 Libary of Congres Calagigsn-Fuboton Data Cepenn, Freer Cha Astor of pioep Freer Cope, Inches bib ere a inns content v1 Gree snd Rome huge eae 2 ie Aer and erty amare, 1 tent, Ae Pan He. Fay, 90a) "Saou ‘lame cope 1946 by reer Capleton Ags ReservedPREFACE ‘Twene are so many histories of philosophy already in existence that it seems necessary to give Some explanation why one has added to their number. My chief motive in writing this book, ‘whichis designed to be the frat volume of a complete history of Philosophy, has been that of supplying Catholic ecclesiastical {eminaries wth a work that should be somewhat more detailed 4nd of wider scope than the text-books commonly in use and whieh at the same time should endeavour to exhibit the logical evelopment and interconnection of philosophical systems, Tt is ‘true that there are several works available in the English language ‘which (as distinct from scientific monographs dealing with restricted. topics) present an account, at once scholarly and philosophical, of the history of philosophy, but their point of ‘iew is sometimes very diferent from that of the present writer and of the type of student whom he had in mind when writing this book. Te mention 2 "point of view at all, when treating of the history of philosophy, may occasion a certain lifting of the ‘eyebrows; but no true historian can write without some point of View, some standpoint, if for no other reason than that he must have a principle of selection, guiding his intelligent choice and arrangement of facts. Every conscientious historian, itis true, will strive to be as objective as pssible and will aveid any temptation to distort the facts to ft a preconceived theory o to ‘omit the mention of certain facts simply because they will not support his preconceived theory; but if he attempts to write ‘story without any principle of selection, the result will be a 1mere chronicle and no real history, a mere concatenation of events (or opinions without understanding or motif. What would we {think ofa writer on English history who set down the number of ‘Queen Elizabeth's dreses and the defeat of the Spanish Armada as facts of equal importance, and who made no intelligent attempt to chow how the Spanish ventore arose, what events led to it and what its results were? Moreover, in the case of an historian of philosophy, the historian’s own personal philosophical outlook is bound to induence his selection and presentation of facts of, at least, the emphasis that he lays on certain facts or aspects. To ‘take a simple example. Of two historians of ancient philosophy,tt Peer ‘each may make an equally objective study of the facts, eg. of the history of Platonism and Neo-Platonism but if the one man is convinced that all “transcendentalism” is sheer folly, while the other firmly believes in the reality of the transcendental, i is hardly conceivable that their presentation of the Platonic tradi- tion should be exactly the same. They may both narrate the ‘opinion ofthe Platonists objectively and conscientiously; but the {ormer will probably lay little emphasis on Neo-Platonic metar physics, for instance, and will indicate the fact that he regards Neo-Platonism as a sorry ending to Greek philosophy, asa relapse {nto mysticism’ or “orientalis,” while the other may emphasise the syneretistic aspect of Neo-Piatonism and its importance for Christian thought. Neither will have distorted the facts, in the sense of attributing to philosophers opinions they did not hold ‘or suppressing certain of theit tenets or neglecting chronology or logical interconnection, but all the same their pictures of Paton im and Neo-Platonism willbe unmistakably diferent. This being 5, Thave no hesitation in claiming the right to compose a work (nthe history of philosophy from the standpoint of the scholastic philosopher. ‘That there may be mistakes or misinterpretations ‘due to ignorance, it would be presumptuous folly to deny; but T {do claim that T have striven after objectivity, and T claim at the same time that the fact that I have written from a definite stand point isan advantage rather than a disadvantage. At the very Teast it enables one to give a fairly coherent and meaningfl account of what might otherwise be a mere jumble of incoherent ‘opinions, not as good as a fairy-tale From what has been sai, it should be clear that I have writen not for scholars or specialists, but students ofa cetain type, the ‘reat majority of whom are making their fst acquaintance with {the history of philosophy and who are studying it concomitantly ‘with systematic scholastic philosophy, to. which latter subject they ate called upon to devote the greater part of theie attention for the time being. For the readers I have primarily in mind (though T should be only too glad if my bok should prove of any ‘se to others as well) a series of learned and original monographs ‘would be of less use than a book whichis frankly designed as a text-book, but which may, inthe ease of some students, serve as an incentive to the study of the original philosophial texts and ‘of the commentaries and treatises on thove texts by celebrated scholars. T have tried to bear this in mind, while writing thePREFACE vi t work, for gui vult fnem, el liam madia. Should the ‘work, therefor, fall into the hands of any readers who are well, equtinted with the literature on the history of ancient philo- Sophy, and cause them to reflec that this idea is founded on what Burnet of Taylor say, that idea on what Ritter or Jaeger or Stenzel or Praechter have sad, let me remind them that T am quite well aware ofthis myself, and that T may not have greed uneriticlly or unthinkingly with what the scholar in (question says. Originality is certainly desirable when it means the discovery of a truth not hitherto revealed, but to pursue originality forthe sake of originality isnot the prope task of the Iistorian. T willingly acknowledge my debt, therefore, to those ‘men who have shed lustre on British and Continental scholarship, to men like Professor A. E. Taylor, Sir David Ross, Constantin Ritter, Werner Jaeger and others. In fact, it i one of my exeuses for writing this book that some of the manuals which fare in the hands of those for whom T am writing have paid but seant attention to the results of modern specialist crite. For my own part, T should consider a charge of making in- sfcient use of such sources of light a more reasonable ground for adverse criticism, than a charge of making too much use of them, Grateful thanks are due to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Co,, Ltd, for permission to use diagrams taken from Sir Thomas Little Heaths article on Pythagoras (rth edit); to Profesor ALE. Taylor (and Messrs. Macmillan & Co,, Ltd) for his generous ‘permission to utilise so freely his study on Forms and Numbers in Plato (reprinted from Mind in Philsophical Studies: to Si David Ross and Meats. Methuen & Co. for kind permission to incorporate his table of the moral virtues according to Aristotle (trom Aristotle, p. 203); to Messrs, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd, for permission to quote a passage from the English translation of Professor Nicolai Hartmann’s Ethics and to utilise diagram from that work; tothe same publishers and to Dr. Oscar Levy to ‘make some quotations from the authorised English translation of Nietzsche's ‘works (of which Dr. Levy is editor; to Messrs Charles Scribner's Sons (U.S.A.) for permission to quote the ‘translation of Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus by Dr. James Adam (rom Hicks’ Stoic and Epicurean), to Protessor E. R. Dodds and the SP.CK. for permission to utilise translations found in Selec Passages Musiraing Neoplatoniom (SPCK. x23); and tOvii PREFACE Messrs. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., for permission to quote from RIL. Nettleship' Lestares om the Republic of Plato. ‘References to the pre-Socratic philosophers are given according to the fifth edition of Diels’ Vorsokratter(D. intext), ‘Some of the fragments I have translated myself, while in other cases I Ihave (with the kind permission of Messrs A. & C. Black, Ltd) adopted the English translation given by Burnet in his Early Greak Philosophy. The title ofthis work s abbreviated in reference tO EGP,, and Outlines of the History of Gresk Philosophy, by Zeller—Nestle—Palmer, appear generally as Ouine. Abbrevia- tions forthe titles of Platonic dialogues and the works of Aristotle should be suficiently obvious; forthe full tiles of other works referred to recourse may be had to the first Appendix at the end of the volume, where the abbreviations are explained. T have ‘mentioned a few works, by way of recommendation, inthe third ‘Appendix, but I do so simply forthe practical convenience of the type of student for whom I have primarily written; T do not dignity the short lst of books with the ttle of bibliography and T disclaim any intention of giving a bibliography, forthe simple reason that anything approaching a fall bibliography (especially iH it took into account, as it ought to do, valuable articles in learned periodicals) would be of such an enormous size that it ‘would be quite impracticable to include it in this work. For a bibliography and a survey of sources, the student can tuen to eg. Utberweg-Praechter's Die Philasophie des Altrtums. AUTHOR'S FOREWORD. TO REVISED EDITION My thanks are due to the Rev, T. Paine, $.J, the Rev. J. Weodlock, S.J, and the Reader of Mestrs. Burns Oates and Washbourne, Lid, for thir valuable assistance in the correction of misprints and other errors of form which disfigured the rst Impression, and for their suggestions in regard to the improve- ‘ment of the index. Some slight additions to the text have been ‘made, a8 on p. 126, and for these Tam entirely responsible0. a W. vi vu vu x samt xv. xv. xv. xv. xv XC, XXII xa. ro0v, XV, xv, CONTENTS Puce ‘ a i IWernopverion : i Parr T PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY ‘Tae Caaots o” Wesranx Tuoucs: oma . ‘Tar Prowenss: Easy Towtaw Putcosoraess ‘Tue Proaconean Socterr ‘Tue Wono oF Henaccrros ‘Tue Ont oF Panwenines AnD Miuissis ‘Taz Duuseric oF Ze¥0 Eurepocues or Axnacas | ‘Tar Anvawex oF AWAxAcoRAs Tae Arowsrs Par-SocmTie Punosonity Pax 1 THE SOCRATIC PERIOD ‘Tue Sormsrs- Sous Tnorvipoas Sopaiirs Socsarss Miwon Socratic Scnoous Dawocarrus or Ampeaa axe IIT PLATO Lame or Puaro Puaro's Woaxs ‘Taeony oF Kwowizoce ‘Tw Doctue or Fones Zax Prvcrotocy oF Pua Desa Pascs oP Pisro Nore on ‘ra inrinvck oF Paro Tar Ovo ACADchap XXVIL XXVIIL SOUR. 2X XXXL XXX XXXII XXXIV, xX. XXXVI, XXXVI XXXVI 200%, xL. XL XLIL xu XL. XLY, XLV XLVI 0 mr ‘CONTENTS Pas IV ARISTOTLE Lire avo Warrns oF ARISTOFLE [ocre or Aniston. ‘Tae Metarnvstes or AsroT ‘Punosopay oF NATURE AND PSYCHOLOGY Aniston's Brincs Pouities AESTHETICS oF ARssTOrLE ‘Nome on re Onben Penirarerice Pato avo ANTOTLE Paar V Inernopvcrony ‘Tae Eansy S104 Eniconzanisi Nore on Cynic mx the Finer Penop oF Tt Hetursic Broo ‘Te Ocoen Scermics, Te “Mivoue AND ‘New “AcaDEx ‘Tae Minot SrO4 Nore. ov tmz PEnnarene Scoot 1 Te Hinuunnrie ROMAN Penioo ‘Tae Laven S10 Cynics, Eexzcnes, Seernies NeoPrawsconzanisw Note on AroLowios oF Tyaea Mroous Piarowise Jewist-Hauuesisric Paizosorsy Prova Neo Puaroston ‘Ormen Neo-Praroric Setoots CCoxctuone Review Sou Avexzviarions oseD DH raus VOLUME A Nore on Sounces 1A Pew Boous Torx 6 = hy = ae 3st 359 x9 we so se 37A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHYCHAPTER T INTRODUCTION 1, Why Study the History of Philsophy? 1. We would scarey call anyone “educated” who bad no tnowledge whatsoever of history we all recognise tht a man tould Know something ofthe history of his wa country, its Palit socal and economic development, its literary and [istic achiovements—prefraby indeed in the wider seting of ‘European and, toa certain extent, even World history. Buti an cocited and cultured Englihinan may be expected to poses: Some knowlege of Alived the Great and Eliabeth, of Commell fant Marborough and Nelson, of the Norman ‘invasion, the Reformation, and the Industral Revolution, it would seem equally clea tat he should know something atleast of Roger Bacon and Dons Scotus, of Francis Bacon and Hobbes, of Locke, Berkeley and Hume, of J. Mil and Herbert Spencer. Moreover, fan ‘cated man i expected to be not entirely ignorant of Gree nd Rome if he would be ashamed to have to confes that he had ‘ever even heard of Sophocles or Ving and knew nothing ofthe gms of European cts, he might saul be expected 0 now something of Plato and Arstoue, two of the greatest, ‘thinkers the world bas ever Known, two ten who stand a¢ the had of European philosophy. A cultured man will know a ithe oncraing Dante and Shakespeare and Goethe, concerning St Francs of Assit and Fra Angelco, concerning Frederik the Great and Napoleon I: why should he not be expected also to ow something of St.” Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Spinoca, Kant and Hege? Tt would be absurd to suggest that we shoud inform ourtives concerning the great conquerors and. destroyers, but Femaia ignorant of the great creators, those who have realy contrbted to our European calture But its not only the great painters and sculptors who have let us an abiding legacy and treasure tis also the great thinkers, men lke Plato abd Aristotle, St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, who have enriched Europe and her eure. Te long, therefore, toa eltored education to know something at leat of the course of European philosophy, frit sou thinkers,a INTRODUCTION ss well as our artists and generals, who have helped to make our time, whether for good or il "Now, no one would suppose that tis wast of time to read the works of Shakespeare or contemplate the creations of Michel- fngelo, for they have intrinsic value in themselves which is not diminished by the number of years that have elapsed between their deaths and our own time. Yet no more should it be con- sidered a waste of time to study the thought of Plato or Aristotle ‘or St. Augustin, for their thought-creations abide as outstanding achievements of the human sprit. Other artists have lived and Painted since the time of Rubens, but that does not lessen the ‘alue of Rubens’ work: other thinkers have philosophised since the time of Plato, but that does not destroy the interest and beauty of his philosophy. ‘But if tis desirable forall cultured men to know something of the history of philosophic thought, so fer as occupation, cast of ‘mind and need for specialisation permit, how much more is this not desirable for all avowed students of philosophy. I refer ‘expecially to students of the Scholastic Philosophy, who study it fas the philorophia perenne. That itis the philorophia ferennis I Ihave no wish to dispute; but it did not drop down from Heaven, 5 grew out of the past; and if we really want to appreciate the ‘work of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Bonaventure or Duns Scotus, ‘we should know something of Plato and Aristotle and St. Angus- tine, Again, if there is a phiosophia porennis, itis only to be ‘expected that some of its principles should be operative in the ‘minds even of philosophers of modern times, who may seem at fiat sight to stand far ffom St. Thomas Aquinas, “And even if this were not so, it would be instructive to cbserve what resalts follow from fale premisses and faulty principle, Nor ean it be enied that the practice of condemning thinkers whose pesition and meaning has not been grasped or seen in its true historic Setting is greatly to be deprecated, while it might also be borne ‘ mind that the application of true principles to all spheres of philosophy was certainly not completed in the Middle Ages, and it may well be that we have something to learn from ‘modern thinkers, eg. in the field of Aesthetic theory or Natural Philosophy. 2. It'may be objected that the various philosophical systems ofthe past are merely antique relics; that the history of philosophy consists of “refuted and spiritually dead systems, since each haseee eee a ie ad brid the other Did not Kant dere that Meta Bae Sac the baen abd opens vs ahd ae and Yt ae meer fled” fat "ve Ne tes cnlealy sivenng in Meapsyae ee nd tesa rae waa Bee Perey a Patenan, Attclen,” Slaten tect” Kani, Hegde have had. the nioptany dal Nee brn lng: Europe Fee aie he Sepracted ty hntred wilt netehynca Tie elated abe tucoweled "Wy muah eo ase ane of te unter of sn? ae te poses pst had ee ot ly caged wich obo) bet ao rele hh bt a al Sane i i wl tones tre at “ro ae aa Mate caning of case tnt ploy pestle Sits ard ent of fae -newbp. Te tke an eps STRAT ralceale, conch’ tooneh Engr Hibben on neon hd td thous to we Nominal ead Sara et lade et he sso poten of who's we soit ins nes teens he ted oom ee eee ee eae alte tes art nthe Shoo Agia the eet that Abbie Haein fas fund st eye Sf proving ny adequate toplnnton of te teen sa be see dar sone Frenette rape gee reverie thltcry anh rny at kadlg ede See oboe Tv lol, Sse a he extragune owe has ok {tay rte ne eat asta no moe be ede 1s Sbjct than bjt to uber. me Mars, notte, {2 'endementel arom, oil each a not feng the tenes sand ese ur co pet oe teat Caltre Tom cesaly wo doo not touts fan ave ‘pete peony bet apt haps at oe tRestady a the heey of pnp ape theres hel a tne fit fceing do ln and repeating ‘habs af ts pcan, hom foes Sad Pas thought git frp hee eed hi 2 Tha a nny of te hay of lsophy may ted to tee iaouien cen. wteepiennne RS a tr MORE ‘ease aeLd ERECTION {nice a sceptical frame of mind is true, but it must be remem ‘ered thatthe fact ofa succession of systems doesnot prove that any one philosophy is erroneous. 1 X challenges the postion of Y and abandons it that does not by itself prove that the position (of Y is untenable, since X may have abandoned it on insuficient ‘rounds of have adopted false premisses, the development of ‘which involved a departure from the philosophy of Y. The world has ten many religions—Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Mchammedanism, et, but that doesnot prove that Christianity is not the true Religion; to prove that, a thorough refutation of Christian Apologetics would be necessary. But just as itis absurd to speak as if the existence ofa variety of Religions {so facto disproved the claim of any one religion to be the trae Religion, so itis absurd to speak as though the succasion of philosophies ipso facto demonstrated that there is no trve philo- Sophy and can beno true philosophy. (We make this observation, fof course, without meaning to imply that there is no truth of value in any other religion than Christianity. Moreover, there is this great dference between the true (revealed) Religion and the ‘true philosophy, that whereas the former, as revealed, is neces- sacily true in its totality in all that is revealed, the troe philo- Sophy may be trve in its main lines and principles without reaching completion at any given moment. Philosophy, whichis the work of the human spirit and not the revelation of God, ‘grows and develops; fresh vistas may be opened up by new lines (of approach or application to new problems, newly discovered facts, fresh situations, ete, The term “true philosophy” or ‘hilosophia perennis should not be understood to denote a static and complete body of principles and applications, insuseeptible of development or modiseation) 1, Nature ofthe History of Philosophy 1. The history of philosophy is certainly not a mere congeries ‘of opinions, a narration of isolated items of thought that have no ‘connection with one another. If the history of plillosophy is ‘treated “only a the enumeration of various opinions,” and if all, these opinions are considered as of equal value or dsvalue then becomes “an ile tale, or, if you wil, an erudite investigation.” There is continuity and connection, action and reaction, thesis ‘and antithesis, and no philosophy can really be understood fully "Hag oe Pipeee eee 3 unless i it seen in its historical setting and in the light ofits con- ection with other systems. How can one really understand what Plato was gcttng at or what induced him to say what he di, {less one knows tomething of the thought of Heraclitus, Parmen- ies, the Pythagoreans? How can one understand why Kant fdopted such an apparently extraordinary postion in regaed to Space, Time and the Categories, unless one knows something of British empiricism and realises the effect of Hume's sceptical conclusions on the mind of Kant? ‘2 But if the history of philosophy is no mere collection of ‘eolated opinions, it cannot be regarded as a contisual progress for even a spiral ascent. ‘That one can find plausible instances in the course of philosophic speculation of the Hegelian triad of ‘thesis, antithesis and synthesi is true, but iis scarcely the task ofa Scentfc historian to adopt an a ricri scheme and then to St the facts into that scheme. Hegel supposed that the succession (of philosophic systems "represent the necessary succession of Stages in the development” of philosophy, but this can only be So ifthe philesophie thought of man isthe very thinking of the "World Spit." That, practically speaking, any given thinker is limited as to the direction his thought will take, limited by the Immediately preceding and the contemporary systems (limited also, we might add, by his personal temperament, his education, ‘the historical and social situation, ete) is doubtless true; none the Jess he is not determined to choose any particular premistes oF Principles, nor to react to the preceding philosophy in any particular way. Fichte believed that his system fllowed logicaliy on that of Kant, and there is certainly a direct logical connection, 1s every student of modern philosophy is aware; but Fichte was ‘ot determined to develop the philosophy of Kant inthe particular way he did. The succeeding philosopher to Kant might have ‘chosen to re-examine Kant's premisses and to deny that the con- lusions which Kant accepted from Hume were true conclusions; fhe might have gone back to other principles or excogitated new ‘ones of his own. Logical sequence there undoubtedly is in the ‘istry of philosophy, but not necessary sequencein the strict sense. ‘We cannot, therefore, agree with Hegel when he says that "the {inal philosophy ofa period is the result ofthis development, and {s truth in the highest form which the slf-consiousness of spirit affords of itseli."* A good deal depends, of course, on how you6 INTRODUCTION divide the “periods” and what you are pleased to consider the ‘inal philosophy of any period (and here there is ample scope for arbitrary choice, in accordance with preconceived opinion and wishes), but what guarantee is there (unless we fret adopt the ‘whole Hegelian position) that the inal philotophy of any period represents the highest development of thought yet attained? TE ‘one can legitimately speak of a Mediaeval pericd of philosophy, land if Ockhamism ean be regarded as the final main philosophy Of that period, the Ockhamist philosophy can certainly not be regarded as the supreme achievement of mediaeval philosophy. ‘Mediaeval philosophy, as Professor Gilson has shown! represents 1 curse rather than a straight line. And what philosophy of the present day, one might pertnently ask, represents the synthesis ofall preceding philosophies? 3. The history of philosophy exhibits man's search for Truth by the way ofthe discursive reason. A Neo-Thomist, developing St, Thomas’ words, Oma copnosentia comotcunt smplicte Deut fn quaibe copnite; has maintained that the judgment always points beyond itsell, always contains an implicit reference to Absolute Truth, Absolute Being? (We are reminded of F. H. Bradley, though the term “Absolute” has not, ofcourse, the same meaning in the two cates) At any rate we may say that the search for truth is ultimately the search for Absolute Truth, God, land even those systems of philosophy which appear to refute this Statement, eg. Historical Materialism, are nevertheless examples Of it, for they are all seking, even if unconsciously, even if they would not recognise the fact, for the ultimate Ground, the ‘supremely Real. Even if intellectual speculation has at times ed to bizarre doctrines and monstrous conclusions, we cannot but have 2 certain sympathy for and interest in the struggle of the hhoman intellect to attain Truth. Kant, who denied that Meta physics in the traditional sense were or could be a scence, none fhe les allowed that we cannot remain indifferent to the objects with which Metaphysice profess to deal, God, the sou, freedom:* 44nd we may add that we cannot remain indifferent to the human intellet’s search forthe True and the Good, The ease with which smistakes are made, the fact that personal temperament, education {and other apparently “fortuitous” circumstances may 20 often S[DRRRIE e ee efer ts aapage Cai“ sett! ot Ente of te RoanINT RUDUL LU . read the thinker wpa ftellctual cles, the fact that we are wot pure inteligences, but that the process of our minds may Fequently be infuenced by extraneous factor, doubtless shows therned for religious Revelation; but tat should not cause ws fo pai altogether of human speculation nor make us despise the Sonate attempt of past thinkers Co attain Truth "r'The_ present writer adberes to the Thomistic standpoint ta there ies phlouphia porewnt and that tis phesopia fpeonns i Thomam in wide cece. But he would ike t9 make {ovo observations on this matter) To say that the Thomist system is the peremial philosophy does not mean that that ‘sjotem is closed at any given historical epoch and is incapable of {lrther development in any dvecon. (2) The perennial pilo- soph after the close ofthe Mediaeval period dows not develop tmerey alongside of and apart from “oder” pifosophy, but ‘evelops als in and through modera pilesophy. I donot mean {0 suggest thatthe philosophy of Spinoza or Hegel for istance, fan be comprehended under the trm Thomism: but eather that ‘when philosophers, even if they would by no means eal them- Uehves"Scholsti,” arrive by the employment of true principles valuable conclusion, these conclusions must be looked a8 ‘nonging to the perennial philosophy. St.Thomas Aguas extainly makes some statements con- cerning the State for example, and we have no nciation to Squeston his principles; but i would be absurd to expect « developed ‘phlosophy of the moder State in the thirteenth fentury, and trom the practical point of view itis diffcalt to se how a developed and articulate philrophy of the State on ‘cholic principe could be elaborated inthe concrete, atl the modern State had emerged and until modem attudes towards the State had shown themscives. Iti only when we have had experience of the Liberal State and of the Totalitarian State and ofthe coresponding theories ofthe State that we ean realise all the implications contained inthe Ile that St. Thomes says on ‘he State and develop an elaborated Scholastic politcal philceophy ‘ppliable tothe modern State, which wil expres contain all the good contained in the other theories wile renaming the {Tor The renutant State-philesophy willbe seen to be, when Jooked atin the concrete, not simply a evelopment of Scholastic Principle in absolute polation from the actol historical situation Ad from intervening theories, but rather a development oftheseies Pee eee principles in the light of the historical situation, a development Achieved in and through opposing theories of the State. If this point of view be adopted, we shall be enabled to maintain the ‘dea of a perennial philosophy without committing ourselves, on ‘the one hand, to a very narrow outlook whereby the perennial philosophy is confined to a given century, or, on the other hand, to an Hegelian view of philosophy, which’ necessarily implies (though Hegel himself seems to have thought otherwise—incon- sistently) that Truth is never attained at a given moment ams, Hou fo Study the History of Philosphy 1. The first point to be stressed is the need for seeing any philosophical system in its historical setting and connections This point has already been mentioned and does not require farther elaboration: it should be obvious that we ean only grasp adequately the state of mind of a given philosopher and the raison d tre of bis philosophy if we have frst apprehended its Iistrial poi de départ, The example of Kant has already been given; we can understand his state of mind in developing his theory ofthe « priori only if we see him in his historical situation visd-ois the extical philosophy of Hume, the epparent bank- ruptey of Continental Rationalism and the apparent certainty of ‘mathematics and the Newtonian physics. Similarly, we are beter tnabled to understand the biological philosophy of Henri Bergson if we se it, for example, in its relation to preceding mechanistic theories and to preceding French “spiritualism.” 2, For a profitable study of the history of philosophy there is aleo need for a certain “sympathy,” almost the paychologial approach. It is desirable that the historian should know some- thing of the philosopher as a man (this is not possible in the case of all philosophers, of course), since this will help him to fel his vray into the system in question, to view it, as it were, from inside, and to grasp its peculiar favour and characteristics. We have to endeavour to put ourelves into the place of the pil sopher, to try to see his thoughts from within. Moreover, this sympathy of imaginative insight is eaential for the Scholastic Philosopher who wishes to understand modern philosophy. If a ‘man, for example, has the background of the Catholic Faith, the modern systems, or some of them atleast, readily appear to him as mere bizarre monstrosities unworthy of serious attention, but i he succeeds, as far a5 he can (without, of couse, surrenderingINTRODUCTION 9 is own principles), n sting the sjstems fom within, he stands Ich more chance of understanding what the philosopher meant. Smut twee eee pep wih he yehlogy of the philosopher as to ‘the truth oF fal Pit aan in heal or thee conection of System with preceding thought payors may just confine Finslf tothe st viewpoit, bot not an isorian of philosophy For example, a parely poyhologcal approach might lead one to Suppor that the system of Arthur Schopenhauer was the eeation tan embittered, sored and disappointed man, who atthe sane {ime possesed trary power and aesthetic imagination and insight, and rthing more a6 though Ns philosophy were simply the manifestation of certain psychological states. But this view: Dost would leave out of account the fact that his pessimistic otuntaristie system is largely a reaction to the Hegelian opt istic Rationalism, asi would alo Teave out of account the fact that Schopenhauers aesthetic Cheory may have value ofits fwn, independent of the hind of maw that proponnded it, snd ‘oul also neglect the whole probem of evl and safering which is raised by Schopenhauer’ system and which i avery real problem, whether Schopenhaver himself was a disappointed and Ailsoned man or not Sina, although itis great Delp towards th understanding of the thought of Friedrich Nitzche if we know something of the petsonal history of the man, his ‘eas canbe looked at in themselves, apart ftom the man who ‘ought then. 4 To work one's way into any thinkers system, thoroughly to understand not only the words and phrases a8 they stand, bat sls the shade of meaning thatthe sath intended to convey (0 far as this sfeasibe), to view the details ofthe system In thet ‘elation to the whole, flly to rasp its genesis and it implications, allthis is not the work of afew moments. It but natural, then, that specialisation inthe eld ofthe Nstory of pilowopy should ‘be the general rue, a tin the elds ofthe varous sciences A specialist knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, for instance <2auires besides thorough knowledge of Grek language and ilo anor of Ger matheatic, Grek ion science, ete The specialist thus requires great apparatas seinlaritip, ut it esvental, i hei to be ste Ntorian philosophy, that he should not be so overwhelmed with his Scholarly eqtipment and the details of learning, that he fils~” INTRODUCTION to penetrate the spirit of the philosophy in question and fails to rmake it live again in his writings or his lectures. Scholarship is Indispensable but i is by no meane enovgh, ‘The fact that a whole lifetime might well be devoted to the study of one grea thinker and stil leave much to be done, means that anyone whois so bold as to undertake the composition of 2 continuous history of philosophy can hardly hope to produce a ‘work that will offer anything’of much value to Specialists. The author of the present work is quite conscious ofthis fact, and as hie has alreadysaidin the preface, he is not writing for specialists Dat rather utilising the work of specialists. There is no need to repeat aguin here the authors reasons for writing this work; but the would like once more to mention that he wil consider himself well repaid for his work if he can contribute in some small degree, not only to the instruction of the type of scadent for whom the ‘work is primarily designed, but also to the broadening of his outlook, to the acquirement of a greater understanding of and ‘sympathy with the intelectual struggle of mankind, and of course {o- firmer and deeper hold onthe principle of true philosophy. Wy. Ancient Philosophy Tm this volume we treat of the phiotophy of the Greeks and Romans, There can scarcely be much need for dwelling on the importance of Greek culture: as Hegel says, "the name of Greece strikes home to the hearts of men of education in Europe." No fone would attempt to deny that the Greeks left an imperishable legacy of liteatare and art to our European world, and the same is true in regard to philosophic speculation. After its first begin hings in. Asia Minor, Greek philosophy pursued ‘its course of evelopment until it flowered in the two great philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and later, through Neo-Platonism, exercised 8 great influence on the formation of Christian thought. Both in its character as the fist period of European speculation and also for its intrinsic value it cannot but be of interest to every student ‘of philosophy. In Greek philosophy we watch problems come to light that have by no means lost their relevance fr us, we find answers suggested that are not without valve; and even though ‘we may discern a certain nated, a certain over-confidence and ‘recitation, Greek philosophy remains one of the glories of European achievement. Moreover, if the philosophy of the * i Php 2INTRODUCTION: a ests mont be of nee to every student of phioophy fr anes on sabongent spect sod for fi ow le ie ea mere sho beot ners to saent of Sati why, hich owes so moc to Pato and fo Arstte And safely a he Crests wat rally tnt ow chev te Rie of thet vigour ant eines of mind, ut ae the Mesure and rt eth ovm sevens” We us st Uo the Iota eee thing int acme pole none {ek inte to nd we fo eagpctethe importance of tak fence nd fo underestimate te siglo he Grek int Meath that we ave far ote ly fo dete the orig ay ofthe Grecian to eagpente f°" Tae tendency ofthe aldinahape to we fersastrer o coune, pode ot tinck valle crea! investigation, and weld be fly fo eit i butt rata treat the tndeny ane ped tp nore to lng when ec trates obo onger ‘Testi’ For nas one tt tse # pr hat vey Spain of every thnks booed em pedecase i ‘Penne the we shld be ogaly compl fo sau the ‘cicec some eral Cotta, om whom a Stesqeatphloopte gpeaaton & ltmataly Served Nor Can mally tonne tat, wimnevet fe tueatng crater porary tsk or tts of int tld tna dns, on Fa have borowe rom the ote amd an fo Spon that sme Chtan aoa ie pati found (ERS iter ron Genny must have bred hat Custom rite om tt so seid fo oppone hat Oreck ‘pecaaon cnt soe ought sia t nt aperng 22 Gnenal eopby, the later mat be oe tcl sro {i tormer. After a the human itet I que eae st Inerecting sine expentacar na sinat wy, whet be that of Greta sn fd, hot ng cer spp ha sary of ration an etal Poot of Eecreing. These emt re not rent to prec Mor cam ind etch, Do rater to pot oat hsaral ‘Stim mat reat fi culos on tora pots and ot tedae thm om « isp, ging te with Peer Baeur” age Tera etiam won fot aya ests to Sate erty impatedthe da Crinity deo tea of te Grea ene eee Roman philosophy, however, is but a meagre production com- pared with that of the Greeks, fr the Romans depended in large pert on the Greeks for their philosophic ideas, just as they Sepended on the Greeks in art and, toa great extent at last in the fed of literatare. They had their own peculiar glory and Achievements (we think at once of the creation of Roman Law land the achievements of Roman political genius), bat thei glory id not lie in the realm of philosophical speculation, Yet, though the dependence of Roman Schools of philosophy on Greek pe- ecessors is undeniable, we cannot aflord to neglect the philosophy of the Roman world, since it shows us the sort of ideas that became current among the more cultured members of the class that was Master of the European civilised world. The thought of the later Stoa, for example, the teaching of Senece, Mareas Aurelius and Epictetus, affords in many respects an impressive and noble picture which can hardly fal o arouse admiration and tsteem, even if at the same time we are conscious of much that is lacking. It is desirable too that the Christian student should know something ofthe best that paganism had to fer, and should acquaint himself with the various currents of thought in that Greco-Roman world in which the Revealed Religion was im- planted and grew. It isto be regretted if students should be Acquainted with the campaigns of Julius Caesar or Trajan, with the infamous eareess of Caligula or Nero, and yet should be ignorant of the philosopher-Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, of the induence at Rome of the Greek Pltinus, who though not a Christian was a deeply religious man, and whore name was s0 dear tothe fist great figure of Chistian philosophy, St. Augustine ‘of Hippo.PART I PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY CHAPTER 1 ‘THE CRADLE OF WESTERN THOUGHT: 1ONIA ‘Tus birthplace of Greek philosophy was the sea-board of Asia Minor and the early Greek philosophers were Tonfans. While Greece itzet was in a state of comparative chaos or barbarism, consequent on the Dorian invasions ofthe eleventh century b., ‘which submerged the old Aegean culture, Fonia preserved the {pirt ofthe older civlsation,*and it was to the Tonian world that Homer belonged, even if the Homeric pooms enjoyed the patron: age of the new Acharan aristocracy. While the Homeric poems ‘annot indeed be called a philosophical work (though they are, of course, of great value Uhrough their revelation of certain stages ofthe Greek outlook and way of lf, while their educational intu- fence on Greeks of later times should not be underestimated), since the igolated philosophical ideas that occur in the poems are ‘very far from being systematied (considerably les 0 than in the ‘poems of Hesiod, the epic writer of mainland Greece, who por- ‘rays in his work his pessimistic view of history, his conviction of ‘the reign of law inthe animal world and his ethical pasion for justice among men), itis significant that the greatest poet of Greece and the first beginnings of systematic philosophy beth Delong to Tonia, But these two. great productions of Tonian genius, the poems of Homer and the Tonian cosmology, did not ‘merely follow on one another, atleast, whatever view one holds of the authorship, composition and date or dates of the Homeric Poems, it is cleat enough thatthe society reflected in those poems was not that of the petiod of the Ionian cosmology, but belonged to 8 more primitive era. Again, the society depicted by Hesiod, the later ofthe "two" great epic poets is a far ery from that of set id AE pensar ater pre rd ssa Aatit Hy ofthe Now” Bap. i4 PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY ‘the Greek Polis, for between the two had occurred the breakdown ‘of the power of the noble aristocracy, 2 breakdown that made possible the free growth of city life im mainland Greece. Neither ‘the heroic life depicted in the Iliad nor the domination of the landed nobility depicted in the poems of Hesiod was the setting in which Greek philosophy grew up: on the coutrary, early Greek philosophy, though naturally the work of individuals, was also the product of the City and reflected toa certain extent the reign of law and the conception of law which the preSocratia sys- tematically extended to the whole universe in their cosmologis. ‘Thus in a sense there is «certain continuity betwoen the Homeric conception of an ultimate Iaw or destiny or will governing gods lard men, the Hesiodi picture ofthe world and the poet’s moral emands, and the early Tonian cosmology. When social life was settled, men could turn to rational reflection, and in the period ‘of philoeophy’s childhood it was Nature as a whole which frst ‘occupied ther attention. From the psychological standpoint this {only what one would expect ‘Thus, although itis undeniable that Greek philosophy arose among a people whose civilisation went back to the pre-historic times of Greece, what we call early Greek philosophy was “early” ‘only in elation to subsequent Greek philosophy and the fowering of Greek thought and culture on the mainlan; in relation to the preceding centuries of Greek development it may be looked on {ther asthe frit of a mature civilisation, marking the closing period of Ionian greatness on the one hand and ushering in on the ‘ther hand the splendour of Hellenic, particuasly of Athenian, culture! ‘We have represented early Greek philosophic thought as the ‘ultimate product of the anclent Tonian civilisation; but it must bbe remembered that Tonia forms, as it were, the meeting-place of West and East, so that the question may be raised whether or not Greek philosophy was due to Oriental infuences, whether, for Instance, it was borrowed from Babylon or Egypt. This view has been maintained, but has‘had to be abandoned. The Greek philosophers and writers know nothing of it—even Herodotas, ‘who was so eager to run his pet theory as tothe Egyptian origins of Greek religion and civlization—and the Oriental-erigin theory {is due mainly to Alexandrian writers, from whom it was taken Bevin gp a There Mpg a Onin, Blt She Wipe ae irae Et seesTHE CRADLE OF WESTERN THOUGH: Juma 15 cover by Chistian apologist. The Egyptians of Helens tines, $ritlancs interpre their myths scoring to the seas of farisphy, and then aserted tha ther myths were the Gee Eth Cre pilosophy. Bot thes simply an iatancs of epson the pact ot the. Alerandiane’ has no more Thfve vale than the Jewish notion that Plato drew his Tam fom the Old Tesiament. There wosl, of coune, be “teas in explaining how Eeyptian thought could be tran ‘fe to the Cases (dere art not the sort of people we would {ipect to convey pilxopic notion), but, a bas been remarked ‘Burnet, ts racoeally waste of Gime to inqir wheter the Zicvophial des ofthis or that Eastern people could be come Tuniated tothe Greck of not nfs ve have fat acertained that te pope in question realy poses pilsopy.* That the Eeyfias had = phlosphy to communicte has never been Shown, and itis oot of the Question to suppee that Greek Philosphy came from India trom Chi ‘Bt there ina frther pont to be considered. Greek philosophy was closely bound up with mathemati, and has ben main {Sind that the Gris Jrived their mathematic fom Egypt and Shr astonomy from Babylonia Now, that Greek mathematics vere infanced by Egypt and Grek stonomy by Babylon is tore than probate: fr one thing Greek since and phisopby tegan to develop in thet very cgi where interchange wth the East wat most to Beexpected. ut that no he sme a ying that Greek scenic mathemati dete from Exypt of tet Asttoncmy fom Babylon. Detaled arguments left ee et Sethe fo point out that Egyptian mathematics conied of erpirial,Fough and ready metho of obtaining «practical fest. “Thus Egyptian gemety largely consisted of practical tethods of mag out atch the felis after the inundation af the river Mie Scentfe geometry was not developed by them, oti was developed by the Grecn Similarly Babylonian ssttonomy was parted with view to vinaton: was manly ‘stoogy, bat among the Greeks became 8 scente posit. Se even it we grant that the practical gardenermathematis of the Egyptians tnd the asronomiealobaevetions of Babylonian eR i 0 — Poteet Bt A ca ew Sema tr caf Ra16 PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY astrologers influenced the Greeks and supplied them with pre- liminary material, this admission is in no way prejudicial to the originality ofthe Greek genius. Science and Thought, as distinct from mere practical calcalation and astrological lore, were the result of the Greck genius and were due neither to the Egyptians nor to the Babylonians. ‘The Greeks, then, stand as the uncontested original thinkers and scientists of Europe.t They frst sought knowledge for its fown sake, and pursued knowledge in a scientific, free and un- Prejudiced spirit. Moreover, owing to the character of Greek religion, they were free from any risey clas that might have strong traditions and unreasoned doctrines oftheir own, tenac- cusly held and imparted only to afew, which might harper the evelopment offre science. Hegel, in his history of philosophy, dismisses Indian philosophy rather curtly, on the ground that it {s identical with Tndian religion. While edmitting the presence of philosophical notions, he maintains that these do not take the form of thought, but are couched in poetical and symbolic form, and have, like religion, the practical purpose of freeing men from the lusions and unhappiness of life rather than knowledge for its own sake. Without committing oneself to agreement with Hegel's view of Indian philosophy (which has been far more ‘dearly pretented to the Western world in its purely philosophic aspects since the time of Hegel), one can agree with him that Greek philosophy was from the first shought pursued in the spirit of free science. It may with some have tended to take the place ‘of religion, both from the point of view of belief and condact; yet this was due to the inadequacy of Greek religion rather than to any mythologieal oF mystical character in Greek philosophy. (It js not meant, of course, to belitle the place and function of Myth’ in Gree thought, nor yet the tendency of philosophy at ‘certain times to pass into religion, eg. with Piotinus. Indeed as ‘regards myth, "In the earlier coamologies of the Greek physicists ‘the mythical and the rational elemeats interpenetrate in an a8, ryet undivided unity.” ‘So Professor Werner Jaeger in Arist, Fundamentals ofthe History of His Development, p. 377) ‘Profesor Zeller emphasises the impartiality of the Greeks 25 they regarded the world about them, which in combination with 1 A,r ptt (pa th lon scion of re spe ey a ae Set ye Cra ea at ci cl Sieersteal a eters ewe ice nan poopy ropes I ould te appar to trhr tan tbe Eo‘THE CRADLE OF WESTERN THOUGHT: IONIA 17 nei seas ofreity and power of abstraction, "enabled them at thei sereiy date ta reoguse thei oligos ideas for what they Sly were creations of an artistic magination"* (This, of see! would srcely hold good forthe Greck people a arge—- ‘he nompilosphicl majority) From the moment when the 1 ol wndom ofthe Wie Men andthe myths ofthe poets Peer rareeded by the hallseietifc, hall philosophic reflections [a nvestigations of the Tonan cosmologis, art may be said te'have been stcceeded fopcaly, at any rate) by philosophy, Sih was to reach a aplendh olmination in Pato and Arstote Indie length in Plotinos to reach ap to the heights where Pilsopy ie transcended, notin mythology, ut in mpi Fe there was no abrupt transition fom "myth to philosophy cee might even ty that the Hesodic theogony, for example, ound Scaler ta onan cosmopentespectlston, te mythelement feteating belore growing rationalisation yet not dsappearog. Ta- “ee it present in Gres phonophy even in port Scrat fines “The splendid achievement of Greck thought was cradled i Joni and if Tonia was the cradle of Gres phsopby, Mile tras the cradle of Tontan philwophy. For it wae at Mets that Thales the reputedly earest Ionian philcsopher, fouled. The Tonian philosophers were profoundly impresed withthe fact of change, of bth snd growth, Gey ad deat Spring and ‘Aotumn inthe external world of natute childhood and ld age {nthe lie of man, coming to-bing and pasing-avay —there we the Svs ti inp as ofthe aera {eat mistake to sappose thatthe Gresks were happy and cares fhilren ofthe san, who only wanted to lounge inthe portico of the cities and gaze atthe magnificent works of at or a the Achievements of thelr athletes They were very consctous ofthe dat side of our existence om this plant, or agunst the Beek {ound of sun aod joy they saw the uncertainty and insecurity man's lie, he certainty of death, the darks of the future ‘The best for man were not to have been orn and not to have seen the light ofthe sun; but once bor (the second bet for ‘im is) to pas through the gates of death ax specdly a may be” declares Theogns*eminding ws ofthe words alderé (ao dear to Sehopenhaver, "El mayor dele del hombre, Es haber nacido ‘And the words of Theogis re reecheed inthe words of Sophos Sans of he Hstry of re Paspty by Eder Zl, 108 wt. ‘eve ty Nite amas 97 Palle fp To Wass PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY in the Oadipus Colonns, "Not to have been born exceeds every reckoning’. get sb Eee wa ou! Moreover, although the Greeks certainly had their ideal of ‘moderation, they were constantly being lured away from it by the will to power. The constant fighting of the Greek cities among themselves, even at the heyday of Greek culture, and feven when it was to their obvious interest to unite together ‘against a common foe, the constant uprisings within the cities, ‘whether le by an ambitious oligarch ora democratic demagogue, ‘the venalty of 0 many pubic men in Greek political life~even| ‘when the safety and honour of their city was st stake—all mani {est the will power which was so strong in the Greek. The Greek admired efficiency, he admired the ideal of the strong man ‘who knows what he warts and has the power to get it; his con- ception of dpe was largely that of ability to achieve success, ‘As Profesor De Burgh remarks, "The Greek would have regarded ‘Napoleon as a man of preeminent areté"» For a very frank, of rather blatant, acknowledgment of the unscrupulous will to ‘power, we bave only to read the report that Thucydides gives of ‘the conference between the representatives of Athens and thote fof Melos. ‘The Athenians declare, "But you and we should say ‘what we really think, and aim only at what is posible, for we ‘oth alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the ‘question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is ‘equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak {gant what they must” Similarly inthe celebrated words, "Por Of the Gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of ‘heir nature wherever they can rule they will’ This law was not made by us, and we are not the Grst who have acted upon it; we 4d but inherit it, and shall bequeath it to al time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong a8 we are, would do as we do."* We could hardly ask for a more unashamed vowal of the will to power, and Thucydides gives no indication that he disapproved of the Athenian conduct. It isto be recalled ‘that when the Melians eventually had to surrender, the Athenians put to death all those who were of military age, enslaved the ‘women and children, and colonised the island with their own ES jin jn alae ft Ba *‘THE CRADLE OF WESTERN THOUGHT: IONIA 19 In close connection with the will to power stands the conception cof ove. The man who goes too far, who endeavours to be and to fave more than Fate destines fr him, will inevitably incur divine Fesloosy and come to main. The man or the nation who is by the unbridled lust for selassertion is driven head Pong into reckless self-confidence and so to destruction. Blind ‘breeds self-confidence, and overweening self-confidence Ends in ruin. "tis as well to realize this side of the Greek character: Plato's condemnation of the "Might is Right” theory becomes then all the more remarkable. While not agreeing, of course, with [Nietzsche's valuations, we cannot but admire his pespicacity in seeing the relation between the Greek culture and the will to power. Not, of course, that the dark side of Greek culture x the nly side—fa from it. Ifthe drive ofthe will to power is a fact 0s the Gretk ideal of moderation and harmony a fact. We must ‘realise that there are two sides tothe Greek character and culture: there isthe side of moderation, of art, of Apolo and the Olympian deities, and there is the side of exoess, unbridled self-asertion, of Dionysian frenzy, as seen portrayed in the Bacchae of Euripides, ‘As beneath the splendid achievements of Greek culture we see the abyss of slavery, so beneath the dream-world of Olympian religion and Olympian art we see the abyss of Dionysian frenzy, of pessimism and of all manner of lack of moderation. It may, ater al, not be entirely fanciful to suppose, inspired by the thought of Nietzsche, that there ean be seen in much of the Olympian religion a self-imposed check on the part of the Dionysian Greek. Driven on by the will to power to sel-destruc- tion, the Greek creates the Olympian drearm-world, the gods of which watch over him with jealousy to see that he does not tranagress the limits of human endeavour, So does he exprest his consciousness thatthe tumultuous forces in his soul would be ‘ultimately ruinous to him, (This interpretation is not of couree (fered a8 an account ofthe origin of the Greek Olympian religion from the scientific viewpoint of the historian of religion: itis on ‘eant to suggest psychological factors—provisons of Nature.” 41 you tike—that may have been operative, even if unconsciously, in the soul of the Greek) ‘To return from this digression. In spite ofthe melancholic side of the Gree, his perception of the constant process of change, of transition from life to death and from death to life, helped to lead