An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy by A. H. Armstrong (review)

BOOK REVIEWS An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. By A. H. ARMsTRONG. Westminster : Newman, 1949. Pp. 222, with index. $8.25. With an easy style, indicative of the origin of the book in a series of lectures at the London Headquarters of the Newman Association, Mr. Armstrong writes a competent introduction to the ancient Western philosophies from Ionian Thales, traditionally the first, to St. Augustine on the threshold of the Middle Ages. It is well to note at the beginning that he is dealing primarily with philosophies, with philosophers only subordinately and to the degree that their personalities reflect some light on their thought; this is not a series of anecdotes but a preface to the history of early thinking. The development measures up to its expressed purpose, which is to trace out the core of philosophical evolution in European culture; philosophical and not theological, European and not Asiatic. Since these distinctions are sometimes non-existent in fact, especially after the proclamation of the New Law, a rational division must be imposed on the matter at certain stages. This is, however, indicated in the text and causes no difficulties. Within its boundaries the account is clear, complete and well unified. To span the births and growths and decays of more than one thousand years in a subject as diverse in content and as diversely elaborated as philosophy immediately forces a major problem on the author who seeks a unified effect without misrepresentation. This author resolves the problem by a fine articulation of progressive influence and historical context, introducing each stage of the evolution with a brief, instructive analysis of the . cultural milieu, the particular limitations and advantages of the period, the direction of practical and speculative activity at the time, and the peculiar aptitude or approach of the philosopher in question, wherever these factors make a suggestive frame for the thought itself. He concludes his stages by drawing off, as interpretive summary, the significant influences , the growth in concept, method and approach that will shape the subsequent extensions of intellectual progress, to make a well-woven texture of remote and proximate, direct and indirect causality. He supplements this emphasis on internal cohesion with one external point of reference, the conclusions of the Catholic Faith and the Philosophia Petennis, which are the common possession of the group he is addressing. This single, widely understood standard provides a convenient principle for a number of simple and illuminating comparisons. The intent of the book is to give more than a sketch of the basic principles and conclusions comprising ancient philosophies. The book is an intro597 10 598 BOOK REVIEWS duction, and consequently designed to attract the reader to more intimate knowledge of the thought introduced. With Plato and St. Augustine, the author persuades the reader in the warmth of his own enthusiasm to turn to the great, classic, stirring texts. Aristotle he introduces less winningly, as necessary, indeed essential, but as though he does not expect cordial relations to develop. It is probably true that men are by nature either Platonic or Aristotelian and no strength or subtlety of argument or persuasion can alter these basic configurations. Yet since the genius of one flowers as the complement of the other, as the author notes, the interaction should achieve an enriching and mellowing of human thought more than sterile opposition. It is historically interesting to wonder whether Aristotle himself succeeded in grasping the force of Plato's teaching. The negative conclusion is common enough, but not the easier to justify. For, if Aristotle did not bring to the Academy a mind superlatively penetrating and comprehending and if he shrank from twenty years' devotion to the living thought of his Master, if he lacked the 'pietas' that disposes the well-ordered disciple, our persuasions might well be bent by the textual criticisms. (True enough, in his later writings he fustigates some more gullish predecessors, but he does not fail in honor and reverence to those whose work paved the way for his own, least of all, to Plato.) Rather he followed the Master as long as he lived and taught, and held his friendship to the end. When, therefore, in the elaboration of his own thought...