Journal of the History of Philosophy

134 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 32" I JANUARY X994 rightly finds the criteria for distinguishing these readings to be imprecise. I felt that much of the material discussed under this heading did not repay the attention spent on it. All the passages discussed are translated and the Latin texts are quoted after them. The translations are often interpretative but not misleading. A first modern edition (sans apparatus) is given of the Latin text of Paul of Venice's LogicaMagna, part 1, treatise ~4 (on categorematic and syncategorematic senses of"whole"), but it is unfortunately marred by errors and some omissions, as are some other quotations, too. The author's prose would have benefited from a firmer editorial hand, though it is not unclear. Some amusing asides lighten the reader's load. As a framework for understanding medieval mereological thought Henry champions Lesniewski's formal mereoiogy, which is developed as an extension of Lejewski's protothetic and ontology. In the final chapter he presents the little relatively elementary formal material referred to in passing throughout the book. However, no formal background is needed to follow the account of medieval texts, save an elementary grasp of categorial grammar, which Henry imparts early on. NEIL LEWIS GeorgetownUniversity Ilai Alon. Socratesin MedievalArabicLiterature. Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science , Voi. X. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. Pp. 198. Cloth, Gld. 95.oo. Readers of the second part of Volume III of W. K. C. Guthrie's A Histo~ of Greek Ph//os0phy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), the part entitled "Socrates ," will find the formal structure of Alon's book familiar. Both present the relevant Q~Uenforschungwhich attends the tradition and transmission of Socratic materials, and then follow up with a presentation of Socrates' life and "teachings." Given that Socrates wrote nothing, reports of his teaching have varied, from reports of theoretical speculation about what can and cannot be known and about the nature of the temporal order to more practical considerations about how to live one's life and achieve happiness. I think it is clear that these latter, practical, aspects of Socrates' life and thought are paramount in Alon's presentation of the material relating to Socrates in medieval Arabic literature. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. The context in which Socrates (Arabic: Suq~t) plays a role in Arabic literature is in the tradition of wisdom literature, the gnomological tradition, which the late Greek schools bequeathed (often through Syriac) to the Arabic world. Socrates, his life and thought, finds his place among the Arab literati in the context of their own adab literature--belles lettres--from the ninth century on. In such belletristic literature, often not at odds with traditional ~d~ (hagiographical reports of the Prophet), the practical side is, quite naturally, pronounced. Further, as F. Rosenthal has noted (in "On the Knowledge of Plato's Philosophy in the Islamic World," IslamicCulture14 [a94o]), the character and personality of Socrates which we find in medieval Arabic literature betray a prior (Greek) Cyn/c influence. Indeed, Socrates is often conflated in the Arabic tradition with the colorful BOOK REVIEWS 135 founder of Cynicism, Diogenes. This conflation of Socrates with Diogenes, which goes back at least to the second century c.z. (see Lucian, Demonax 5 and 62), allows a tradition of Socrates the Cynic to become established, and with it Socrates appears in the Arabic gnomological Literature as quite radically ascetic and iconoclastic. Quite in character, Socrates can present himself to his Muslim audience as an (Abrahamic) monotheist, "a religious rebel who stands up against idol worshipping" (60, and his defense against impiety can be seen as a defense on behalf of monotheism. Socrates a monotheist? For those (pagans) working in Greek philosophy, Socratic piety will seem to be perversely congruent with the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But for the medieval Muslim intellectual, growing up against the backdrop of a living Graeco-Arabic cultural tradition, Socrates might well begin to appear, anachronistically to be sure (but so what?), as a "legitimizing authority.., between the more rationalistic-minded Muslims and the more traditionalistic ones" (1 l). Seeking "a link of principle to Greek culture, one that...