Positive Science and Philosophy.*

They were neither arrived at in the same way, nor have they the same signification.

Ritter's chapter on Democritus is one of the worst in his book. He has misrepresented almost every point, and even failed, we believe, to seize the meaning of the very texts he quotes. For instance, he says, "Only one physical property was attributed to these atoms-weight."

This is in

defiance of authority, † and the very passage from Aristotle which is quoted to maintain it, is, we believe, against it. The passage is this: "Atoms, indeed, are heavy according to excess" (кαтà TηY VπερоXV.) Excess of what? Clearly excess of aggregation, i. e., of force. But if only heavy in excess, they cannot individually be heavy; ergo, weight is not a property of each atom, but of a combination of atoms.

We can enter into no further details. Attempts have been made, from certain expressions attributed to Democritus, to deduce an Intelligence, somewhat similar to that in the Anaxagorean doctrine, as the Formative Principle. We cannot see our way on this path. Evidence is so small and so questionable, that we refrain from pronouncing on it. Certain it is that he attributed the formation of things to Destiny; but whether that Destiny was intelligent or not is uncertain.

In conclusion, we may observe that his system was an advance on that of his predecessors. In the two great points of psychology and physics, which we have considered at length, it is impossible to mistake a very decided progress, as well as the opening of a new line in each department.

*See our Introduction.' + See 'Renouvier,' i. 245, 6.

THIRD EPOCH.

INTELLECTUAL CRISIS.-THE INSUFFICIENCY OF

ALL ATTEMPTS TOWARDS A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EXISTENCE, AS WELL AS THAT OF KNOWLEDGE, PRODUCES

THE SOPHISTS.

THIRD EPOCH.

THE SOPHISTS.

THE Sophists are a much calumniated race. That they should have been so formerly does not surprise us; that they should be so still is an evidence that historical criticism is yet in its infancy. In raising our voices to defend them, we are aware that we shall incur the charge of paradox. But, looked at nearly, the paradox is on the side of those who credit and repeat the traditional account. In truth we know of no charge so unanimous, yet so paradoxical, as that brought against the Sophists. It is as if mankind had consented to judge of Socrates by the representation of him in "the Clouds." The caricature of Socrates by Aristophanes is quite as near the truth as the caricature of the Sophists by Plato ;* with this difference, that the one was wilfully, consciously caricaturing, the other unconsciously.

On the Sophists we have only the testimony of antagonists; and the history of mankind clearly proves that the enmities which arise from difference of race and country are feeble, compared with the enmities which arise from difference of creed: the former may be lessened by contact and intercourse, the latter only aggravated. Plato had every reason to dislike the Sophists and their opinions: he,

*See in particular that amusing dialogue the 'Euthydemus,' which is quite as exaggerated as Aristophanes.

therefore, lost no occasion of slandering the one, and misrepresenting the other. Yet from Plato alone do writers draw their opinions of the Sophists as a class as thinkers, Aristotle, if the work be his, also misrepresents them.

This may look presumptuous. We have nothing remaining of what the Sophists taught, except the opinions reported by others. These opinions we pronounce to be garbled. And why? The Sophists were wealthy; the Sophists were powerful; the Sophists were dazzling, rhetorical, but shallow. Interrogate human nature-above all the nature of philosophers-and ask what will be the sentiment entertained respecting these Sophists by their contemporaries? Ask the solitary thinker what is his opinion of the showy, powerful, but shallow rhetorician, who usurps the attention of the world. The man of convictions has at all times a superb contempt for the man of mere oratorical, or dialectical display. The Thinker knows that the world is ruled by Thought; yet he sees Expression gaining the world's attention. He knows perhaps that he has within him thoughts pregnant with human welfare; yet he sees the giddy multitude drunk with the enthusiasm excited by some daring sophism, clothed in enchanting language. He sees through the sophism, but cannot make others as clear-sighted. His warning is unheeded. His wisdom is spurned. His ambition is frustrated. The popular Idol is carried onward in triumph. Now the Thinker would not be human if he bore this with equanimity. He does not bear it. He is loud and angry in lamenting the fate of a world that can so be led; loud and angry in his contempt of one who could so lead it. Should he become the critic or historian

of his age, what exactness ought we to expect in his account of the popular idol?

Somewhat of this kind was the relation in which the Sophists and Philosophers stood to each other.

The Sophists were hated by some because powerful, by others because shallow. They were misrepresented by all. In later times, their antagonism to Socrates has brought them ill-will; and this illwill is strengthened by the very prejudice of the Could a Sophist be other than a cheat and

name.

a liar? As well ask, could a Devil be other than Evil? In the name of Sophist all odious qualities are implied; and this implication perverts our judgment. Call the Sophists Professors of Rhetoric, which is their truest designation, and then examine their history; it will produce a very different impression.

We said it was a paradox to maintain that the Sophists really promulgated the opinions usually attributed to them. And by this we mean that not only are some of those opinions nothing but caricatures of what was really maintained, but, also, that in our interpretation of the others we grossly err, by a confusion of Christian with Heathen views of morality. Moderns cannot help regarding as fearfully immoral, ideas which, by the Greeks, were regarded as moral, or, at least, as not disreputable. For instance: the Greek orators are always careful to impress upon their audience, that in bringing a charge against any one, they are actuated by the strongest personal motives; that they have been injured by the accused; that they have good honest hatred, as a motive, for accusing him. Can anything be more opposite to Christian feeling? A Christian accuser is just as anxious to extricate