Gerald A. Press

Craig Walton 1934-2007

the Journal of the History of Philosophy is saddened to report that Craig Walton died on october 11th, 2007. Professor Walton served the Journal for many years. He was involved with it from its inception in 1963 and knew personally many of the founding philosophers, who had been at the Claremont Graduate Center. He was the Book Review Editor from 1975 until 1981 and was a member of the Board of Directors from 1978 until 2004, where he promoted the study of the history of philosophy in many ways and maintained our institutional memory. for instance, it was Craig who remembered the important roles salih alich and oskar Piest played in our early history. from 2001–03, he was the treasurer of the Board. He believed strongly in the cosmopolitan nature of scholarship, and, as Book Review Editor, he was tireless in his efforts to review books on the history of philosophy written in languages other than English.

Plato's Dialogues One by One. A Structural Interpretation (review)

many more than two hodoi envisaged in the poem as a whole (36ff.), such as the journey from Darkness to Light undertaken by the Youth himself, and the wanderings of the akrita phyla in Fr. 6. Indeed, Jean Fr~re is already on record as distinguishing four. But C. himself goes rather overboard on this, ultimately distinguishing no less than ten, and rejoicing in this as a good Pythagorean number. On the other hand, his analysis of the meaning of myth in a Parmenidean context, drawing on the insights of such thinkers as Vernant and D~tienne, is most useful. All too often no clear distinction is made between mythical and allegorical discourse, and which of these Parmenides is employing. In fact, though his connections with epic, and with Hesiod in particular, are universally recognized (being explored very fully by Mourelatos, for one), the way in which Parmenides transposes the genealogic tradition of the epic into his myth as of the way has not been investigated, I think, with such acuteness as C. employs here. The body of the book is a detailed, more or less line-by-line exegesis of the surviving fragments, f rom which much may be learned, if only by forcing one to challenge ones assumptions, without necessarily changing them. C. himself sees his distinctive contribution to the understanding of the poem as moving the center of attention from Being to the concept of the multiple paths by which knowledge is conducted to its goal. Even the way of seeming is thus designed to bring us, by means of a properly structured cosmogony, to a knowledge of the Same, or the oneness of Being. His argument certainly serves to make plausible sense o f the second half of the poem and to refine our view of Parmenides relation to genealogical myth, and as such it is worthy of consideration by all students of Parmenides. Particular topics on which he seems to me to be right or useful are: the analysis of the meaning and subject o f esti in Fr. ~ (175ff.); the nature of the eonta of Fr. 7, a (2ooff.); on Parmenides not having a true concept of eternity (226ff.); the Same as the subject of Fr. 3 and 8, 34 (~38 ft.); the discussion of metaphor, myth, and allegory at 252ff. (also well discussed before him by Mourelatos, however, in chap. x of The Way of Parmenides); the analysis of dokein and cognates (252ff.); the rendering ofgnOmas at 8, 53 as signifying marks (i.e., they proposed two forms for naming significant marks); and the decision to move Fr. 4 to the second half of the poem, between Fr. 8 and t 9 (334ff.). No contribution to Parmenidean studies these days can, I suppose, hope to constitute the last word, or even to command very wide assent, but C.s work deserves welcome, I think, for its many stimulating insights and suggestions. JOHN DILLON Trinity College, Dublin

Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (review)

The few stylistic liberties that are taken are all noted and explained. Among these is the substitution o f first person for third person (my mind for the authors mind, etc.), since Schelling refers to several other authors in many passages and a literal translation would be repetitious and confusing. There are also occasional insertions in brackets identifying the referent of pronouns when it might otherwise be ambiguous or, less often, completing a sentence fragment. Brackets are also used to indicate alternative translations of particular terms; for example, Inhalt is translated first as content and in brackets as meaning (p. 43). Detailed and instructive notes identify and comment upon explicit and implicit references to Kant, Spinoza, Fichte, and Leibniz; many other thought-provoking connections are made to philosophers from Parmenides to Tillich. Difficult and often misunderstood concepts, such as intellektuelle Anschauung, are illuminated not only by Martis own careful commentary and etymological observations but by reference to other relevant passages of the text, as well as to Schellings letters and later writings. Perhaps most useful for the person who does not read German are the biographical comments on such seldom translated figures of the time as F. H. Jacobi, G. E. Schulze, and Karl Leonhard Reinhold, who were influential on the thought of the young Schelling. This is especially important since Schelling rarely identifies by name those of whom he is critical in the essays, and the uninitiated reader is often at a loss to understand who or even what is being so strenuously objected to without some guidance. Finally, the notes that discuss the significance and translation of such important terms as Bedingung, Erkenntnis, and Vorstellung increase the readers appreciation of the wealth of interpretations to which these essays have been subjected and still remain open to. Martis book accomplishes more than its stated purpose of furnish[ ing] . . . the four basic essays as an introduction to further study of Schelling. It also stimulates an awareness of the importance of studying Schelling, whose writings mirror so clearly the challenges and conflicts with which philosophers found themselves confronted after Kant. DALE LOUBET Emory University