Early German Philosophy. Kant and his Predecessors (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 549 that he himself was an associationist (though unlike either Hume or Hartley), or that there is "something almost Freudian" about his view on how the chain of ideas starts upon waking. These may be important comments about the views of a man whose influence on eighteenth-century British thought has not been much appreciated since the deaths of Thomas Reid and Adam Smith, but they do not adequately represent that thought, or begin to show why it should be taken seriously. There is little question but that a knowledge and understanding of Kames would generally improve our understanding of Hume, Reid, Smith and Scottish Philosophy in general. For the nonce, however, that end will be best attained by reading Kames' Essays on the Principles o] Morality and Religion. DAVID FATE ~ORTON McGill University Early German Philosophy. Kant and his Predecessors. By Lewis White Beck. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969. Pp. xi -I- 556. $15) It is not very fashionable to write general "national" histories of philosophy. In 1946 H. W. Schneider published his history of American philosophy, while E. Garin's history of Italian philosophy appeared in 1947; A. Levi's history of Roman philosophy, B. Tatakis' history of Byzantine philosophy, and W. H. Warkmeister's history of philosophical ideas in America all saw publication in 1949. F. Sassen's history of Dutch philosophy appeared in 1969; the enormous--and splendid history of Spanish philosophy , the product of several authors, advances very slowly (the latest volume was published in 1957), and even now, does not reach beyond the Renaissance. The number of general national histories of philosophy published prior to these years is small and, with the exception of McCosh's history of Scottish philosophy (1875), the previous works are, and probably always have been, of little use (of course, I do not refer to the histories of ancient Greek, Arabic, Jewish, and oriental philosophy, which are obviously exceptional cases). In fact, on the whole, the universal histories of (western) philosophy prevailed in number and in reputation. History of philosophy was "universal" from its modern origins, as was the history of science, and that of music. History of literature and history of art, meanwhile, are "national," as are political and social history, and history of law. Economic history developed in both directions. While it is not easy to frame hypotheses as to the origination of this state of affairs, it is even more difficult to decide whether or not it is satisfactory. On the one hand, the character of the history of music, and that of history of literature, are easy to explain. Music does not know any frontiers of language, and its composers and performers can exercise an almost complete mobility; thus, its international vocation is clear. Literature, to the contrary, is confined by linguistic borders which cannot be crossed without a certain amount of effort, and an objective loss. The language of science, for a long time Latin, is comparatively easy to translate in any case and, in general, does not suffer in the process; moreover, the old delusion as to the linear progress of science led to the elimination of all sidetracks, and to the view that each of the sciences is "one" in the western world. The original character of political history is more difficult to explain; in modern times it was motivated, in general, by the need for dynasties and bodies politic to record a certain version of their res gestae for obvious purposes of internal and foreign propaganda, or by the needs of certain groups as they exerted ideological pressure in internal contests for power. This is not to mention the nineteenth-century "national" ideals. Social history, at its inception, naturally followed the same path. History of law is bound by nature to a certain commonwealth, as its making is conditioned by political, 550 HISTORY OF PI-IILOSOPHY social, and economic events occurring within a jurisdiction which delimits its field in a rather precise way. The national character of art history calls for a different explanation. The language of art is no less universal than that of music, and artists migrate quite easily. Moreover, especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth...