The Cambridge Ritualists Reconsidered (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 475 which genesis tells us little about substance. What we want to know instead is what these political views were, and whether they were more or less defensible than available competing views. Otherwise, all we are in a position to note is that, like religious doctrines, metaphysical systems may enjoy a dialectical relationship with their cultural settings. While such views are sensitive to the ideological and cultural matrices of those who advocate them, they are also capable of exerting a corrective or transforming effect upon the cultural and ideological biases of their advocates. At very least, this is an empirical, case-based issue that ought not to be settled a priori, solely by reliance on dogmatic twaddle. The most serious problem with this project, however, is not simply the naive and uncritical historicism of its author, but Morris's lack either of a substantive historical thesis or of a recognizable body of historical data with which to work. There is simply no body of "social and political thought" to be found for either process philosopher. Neither Whitehead nor Hartshorne expressed any genuine interest in or knowledge of political philosophy or ethics. Not one of twenty-nine contributors to the recent (t 99 l) Hartshorne volume encompassing 567 pages in the "Library of Living Philosophers" series, for example, finds Hartshorne's "political or social philosophy" worthy of comment , largely because (as with Whitehead) there is simply nothing upon which to base such commentary. Instead, such thought is itself the end result of an elaborate exercise in speculative exegesis. Morris's attempt to subject his speculative exegetical results, in turn, to historicist criticism strikes me as oddly contorted and ultimately fruitless. GEORGE R. Luc^s, JR. National Endowmentfor the Humanities William M. Calder III, ed. The Cambridge Ritualists Reconsidered. Illinois Classical Studies , Supplement ~. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991. Pp. ix + 295- Paper, N.P. Calder says that great scholars are admired and feared during their lives, disparaged after their deaths, and, when passions have cooled, reconsidered. Twelve experts reconsider the work of Gilbert Murray, Jane Harrison, Francis Cornford, and Arthur Cook--the "Ritualists." The disparagement to which Calder alludes is an oblique reference to the Ritualists' interpretations of Greek religion and literature, which came to be disparaged as infected with the anthropological theory of Emile Durkheim. M. I. Finley, reviewing the past collaboration of classics with anthropology, reminded his audience that the Cambridge School "has become a pejorative by-word, shorthand for 'the dreadful consequences of the straying by Hellenists into the slime of anthropological Hellenism'.... It was sufficient to say 'the Cambridge School' and one grasped the implications at once."' However what makes this work of interest of philosophers is that among the Ritualists Cornford included philosophy within their purview and hence affected the interpretation of the origins of Greek philosophy. Although interpretations of Greek M. I. Finley,The Useand AbuseofHistory(NewYork: Viking. 1975), Ioa--I9. 476 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 31:3 JULY I993 religion and literature have come into disfavor, the interpretation of the origins of Greek philosophy remains uncriticized and still pervades the history of philosophy. Unfortunately, these essays shed little light on the influence the Ritualists had on interpreting the origins of Greek philosophy. The Ritualists' interpretations are based on Durkheim's hypothesis that individuality is an evolution away from more "primitive" social life. Hence, the earliest writing was the expression of a group, a guild, or a corporation. The term 'Ritualists' obscures that they were also evolutionists. The ubiquitous notions of 'evolution', and 'development ' were part of the intellectual ferment and used indiscriminately to explain everything . Consequently, the origins of Greek philosophy were seen persuasively, but speculatively, as a "development" from, and continuous with, more primitive Near Eastern creation myths. However, most of the essays are about the Ritualists' treatment of religion and most concern Jane Harrison, with little information about Cornford on Greek philosophy. Among the essays which dwell on Harrison, Robert Ackerman reminds us of her affection for the irrational, chthonic elements in religion. Thomas W. Africa's essay describes her thus: "To her allies and admirers, Jane Harrison was an inspired scholar whose intuitive forays.., into prehistory often outran...