5B.,,riw;",ssaai5tt!

i^^^

^J J

.^

Q>ZLVb
A313>ia3g

VD

'A313>ia39

08/21 'luo9 '9aa -QN

WdOd

'VINyOdnVDdOAllSaSAIND
-

2861 8 T

AON

M0139 aadwvis sv ana

>jsaa

a^Dp anp oi joud sAop t7 apooi sq Aduj s86jDqDaj puo spMauaa uouD|n3jQ Oi s>tooq 6ui6uijq Aq p86jOL|Daj aq Aduj sudo| qiuooi-p ^<^VZ'Z^9 6ui||DD Aq pa/wauaj aq Adlu suoo| muooiSAva L aaidv aanvDaa 39 avw s)ioofl nv
\

c?

t^

3Sn3WOH _
i:

AjDjqin

aom3d Nvon z ujDW SOS -^01

L

iNawiavdaa NOiivrnDUD

Nsn^n

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in

2007

witii

funding from

IVIicrosoft

Corporation

littp://www.arcliive.org/details/burnetgreekOOburnricli

'^EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

BY

JOHN BURNET,

M.A., LL.D.
ST.

PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNITED COLLEGE OF AND ST. LEONARD, ST. ANDREWS

SALVATOR

,-

Ilept

fjiAv

rCbv 6vT0)v tt]v 'oK-qdeiav iaKdirovv,

tA

5'

^vra urAo/So

ehai tA

alffdrjTd. ix6vov.

Aristotle.

SECOND EDITION
OF TifE

UNIVERSITY
or

LONDON ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

I

908

ULNERAL
First Edition published April 1892.

"

/'oU%

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

It has been no easy task to revise
a
this

volume

in

such

way

as to
it

make

it

more worthy of the favour with

which

has been received.

Most of

it

has had to be

rewritten in the light of certain discoveries

made
all,

since

the publication of the

first

edition,

^ove

that of

the extracts from Menon's 'larpiKa, which have furnished,

as I believe, a clue to the history of Pythagoreanism.
I

trust that all other obligations are duly

acknowledged

in the
It

proper place.
did not seem worth while to eliminate
all

traces
first

of a certain youthful assurance which marked the

edition.
I

should not write

;

now
feel

as

wrote at the age

the main con-

of twenty- five
tentions of the
to
"

but

still

that
I

book were sound, so

have not
to
Zeller

tried

amend

the style.
Preller
"

The

references

and

Ritter

and

are adapted throughout to the

Aristotelian

latest

editions.

The

commentators are
of the Berlin

referred

to

by the pages and

verses

Academy

edition, and Stobaeus by those of Wachsmuth.

B.

J. St.

Andrews,

1908.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

No
apology
is

needed

for the

appearance of a work

dealing with Early Greek Philosophy.

The want

of

one has long been

felt

for there are

few branches of

philology in which more progress has been

made

in

the last twenty years, and the results of that progress

have

not

yet been

made

accessible

to

the English

reader.

My
;

original intention

was simply to report

I

these results
dissent from

but

soon found that

it

was obliged

to

some of them, and

Very
likely
I

seemed best to say

so distinctly.
these cases, but

my
I

mistakes

am wrong in most of may be of use in calling

In any case,
I

attention to unobserved points.

hope

no one

will

think

have been wanting

Zeller,

in the respect

due to the great authority of

who was

the

first

to recall the history of philosophy from the extrava-

gances into which

I

it

had wandered
all

earlier in the century.

am

glad to find that

my

divergences from his

further in the path

account have only led

that he struck out.
I

me

little

am

very sensible of the imperfect execution of

some

parts of this

work

but the subject has become

authorities
it is

so large, and the

number of
is

whose testimony
not easy for any

must be weighed

so great, that
vii

viii

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in
all

one writer to be equally at home

field.
I

parts of the

have

consulted

the

student's

convenience

by

giving references to the seventh edition of Ritter and

Preller (ed. Schultess) throughout.

The
edition,
I

references to

Zeller are to the fourth

German

from which

the English translation was made.

to

have been able

fifth

make some

use also of the recently published

edition (1892),

and

all
I

references to

it

are distinguished
it

by the symbol Z^
in

can only wish that

its

had appeared

time for
I

me

to incorporate

results

more thoroughly.
and sugges-

have to thank many friends

above
all,

for advice

tions, and,

Mr. Harold H. Joachim, Fellow of

it

Merton College, who read most of the work before

went to
press.
J.

B. A^V

Oxford,

1892.

CONTENTS
PAGBS

Introduction

1-35

CHAPTER
V^The Milesian School

37-84

CHAPTER n
Science and Religion
85-142

CHAPTER
\^ERAKLEITOS. OF EpHESOS

HI
I43-I9I

CHAPTER
\/parmenides of Elea

IV
192-226

CHAPTER V

y. Empedokles
y
Anaxagoras /a>

of Akragas

227-289

CHAPTER
of Klazomenai
.

VI
.

290-318

CHAPTER
\/t The Pythagoreans
ix

VII
39-356

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER Vni
HAGES

The Younger Eleatics

357-379

CHAPTER
t^EUKIPPOS OF MiLETOS

IX
380-404

CHAPTER X
Eclecticism and Reaction.

....

405-418

APPENDIX
The Sources
419-426

INDEX

427-433

ABBREVIATIONS
Arck.

Archiv fur
1888-1908.

Geschichte

der Philosophie.

Berlin,

Beare.

Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition^ by John

Beare.

I.

Oxford, 1906.

DiELS Dox. Doxographi graeci. Hermannus Diels. Berlin, 1879. DiELS Vors. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker^ von Hermann
Diels, Zweite Auflage, Erster Band.
Berlin,
1

906.

GOMPERZ.
Jacoby.
R. P.

Greek Thinkers^ by Theodor Gomperz, Authorised

(English) Edition, vol.
i.

London, 1901.

Apollodors Chronik, von Felix Jacoby {Philol. Unters.

Heft

xvi.).

Berlin, 1902.
et L. Preller.

Historia Philosophiae Grccecae^ H. Ritter

Editio octava,

quam

curavit

Eduardus Wellmann.
von Dr.
Auflage.

Gotha, 1898.

Zeller.

Die Philosophie der Griechen^

dargestellt

Eduard

Zeller.

Erster

Theil,

Funfte

Leipzig, 1892.

XI

.^/>\:..;r >

>

^ t

C.

KS

OF

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

INTRODUCTION
I,

It was not

till

the primitive view of the world The

rules of
life

cosmo-

and the customary

had broken down, that

a^^^ofeaiiy

the Greeks began to feel the needs which philosophies ^^y/^^''^

of nature and of conduct seek to

those needs
felt
all at

satisfy.

Nor were

once.

The

traditional
till

maxims
the old

of conduct were not seriously questioned

view of nature had passed away

the
earliest

and, for this reason,

philosophers

busied

themselves

mainly
In
fresh

with speculations about the world around them.

due season, Logic was called into being

want.

to

meet a

The

pursuit of cosmological inquiry beyond a

certain point inevitably brought to light a wide diver-

gence between science and

itself

common

sense,

which was

a problem that

demanded

solution,

and moreover

constrained philosophers to study the means of defending

their

paradoxes against the prejudices of the unscientific

Later
still,

many.

the prevailing interest

in

logical

matters raised the question of the origin and

of knowledge
;

validity

while, about the

same

time, the break-

down of

traditional morality gave

rise to Ethics.

The

period which precedes the rise of Logic and Ethics has

yj M'c/' EAKiLV.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
its

thus a distinctive character of

treated apart.^
The
primitive

own, and

may fitly

be

H. Evcn

in the earliest

times of which
is

we have any
fast

view of the

record, the pri mitive view of jhe worl d

passing

We are left to gather what manner of thing it away. was from the stray glimpses we get of it here and there
in the older literature, to

which

it

forms a sort of sombre

strange myths and
it

background, and from the

many
if

stranger rites that lived on, as

later times, not only
in

to bear witness of

to

out-of-the-way parts of Hellas,

"

but even
states.

in

the
far as

"

mysteries

of the more cultivated

it

So

we can

see,

must have been essenfall

tially

a thing of shreds and patches, ready to

in

pieces as soon as stirred

by the

fresh breeze of a larger

experience and a more fearless curiosity.

The only
as

explanation of the world

of the
origin

it

could offer was a wild tale

of things.

Such a story

that

of

Ouranos, Gaia, and

Kronos belongs

plainly, as

Mr.

Lang has shown

level of

in

Custom and Myth, to the same

;

thought as the Maori tale of Papa and Rangi

its

while in

details the

Greek myth

is,

if

anything, the

more savage of the two.

We
these,

must not allow ourselves to be misled by meta"

phors about
if

the childhood of the race," though even

properly understood, are suggestive enough.

Our

ideas of the true state of a child's

mind

are apt to be

coloured by that theory of antenatal existence which has

found, perhaps,
1

its

highest expression in Wordsworth's

falls

It

will

be observed that Demokritos

outside the period thus

limited.

The common

practice of treating this younger contemporary of

Sokrates along with the " pre-Socratic philosophers" obscures the true course of historical development. Demokritos comes after Protagoras, and his theory is already conditioned by the epistemological problem. (See Brochard, " Protagoras et Democrite," Arch. ii. p. 368. ) He has also a
regular theory of conduct (E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth.
iv.

514

n.).

INTRODUCTION
Ode on
of the
the Intimations

of Immortality.

We transfer these

ideas to the race generally, and are thus led to think

innocent creatures

men who made and repeated myths as simple, who were somehow nearer than we are
and
so,

to the beginning of things,

clearer vision.

perhaps, saw with a

A truer view

of what a child's thoughts

really are will help to put us

on the

right track.

Left

to themselves, children are often tormented

terrors of surrounding objects

by vague

which they

fear to confide

to any one.

Their games are based upon an animistic

in luck
" cult

theory of things, and they are great believers

and

in the lot.
"

They
which

are devotees, too, of that

is

of

odds and ends

fetishism

and the unsightly

old dolls which they often cherish

more fondly than

remind
us

the

choicest

products

of the

toy-shop,

forcibly

of the

ungainly

stocks

and

stones

which

Pausanias found in the

stately

Holy of Holies of many a

the Tyndaridai were

Greek temple.

At Sparta

a couple of boards, while the old image of Hera at

Samos was a roughly-hewn log.^ On the other hand, we must remember that, even in the earliest times of which we have any record, the world was already very old. Those Greeks who first
tried

to

understand

nature

were

not at

all

in

the

position of

men

setting out

on a hitherto untrodden
in

path.

There was

already

the

field

a tolerably
it

consistent view of the world, though no doubt

rather implied

was

and assumed
than

in

ritual

and myth than

distinctly realised as such.

far greater thing

The

early thinkers did a

merely to make a beginning.

By
1

turning their backs on the savage view of things,

See E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth.
ii.

64

Menzies, History of

Religion^ pp. 272-276.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it,

they renewed their youth, and with

as

it

proved, the

youth of the world, at a time when the world seemed

in its dotage.

The marvel

is

that they were able to

do

this so

thoroughly as they did.

savage myth might be pre;

served here and there to the scandal of philosophers

fetishes, totems, and magic rites might lurk in holes

and
But

corners with the moles and with the bats, to be unearthed

long afterwards by the curious in such matters.

the all-pervading superstition, which

we
it

call

primitive

because we
for ever
;

know and we

not
find

how

or

whence

came, was gone

Herodotos noting with unfeigned

surprise the existence

among

" barbarians "

of beliefs
forefathers

and customs which, not so long ago,

his

own

had taught and practised quite as zealously as ever did

Libyan or Scyth.

Even

then, he

might have found

most of them surviving on the "high places" of

Hellas.
Traces of the

HI. In One respect the way had been prepared

already.

Sw in^eariy
iterature.

Long

before history begins, the colonisation

^^

^^^ islands and

the

coasts

of Asia

Minor had

brought about a state of things that was not favourable to the rigid maintenance of traditional customs and

ways of thought.

myth

is

essentially a local thing,

and though the emigrants might give the names of

ancestral sanctuaries to similar spots in their

new homes,

they could not transfer with the names the old senti-

ment of awe.
favourable
occiipation
to
is

Besides, these were, on the whole, stir-

ring and joyful times.

The
are

spirit

of adventure

is

not

superstition,

and

men
some

whose

chief

fighting

not apt to be
tell

oppressed
us
is

by

that " fear of the world " which

the

normal state of the savage mind.

Even the savage

INTRODUCTION
becomes
in

great measure free from

it

when he

is

really happy.

That
frankly

is

why we

find so

few traces of the primitive

i.

Homr r

view of the world

The gods have become and human, everything savage is, so far as may
in

Homer.
There

be, kept out of sight.

are,

of course, vestiges of

early beliefs

and

practices, but

they are exceptional.

In that strange episode of the

the Iliad

Fourteenth Book of

The Deceiving of Zeus we find a number of theogonical ideas which are otherwise quite
as
foreign to

known

Homer, but they

that the

are treated with so

little

seriousness

whole thing has even been

re-

garded as a parody or burlesque of some primitive

poem on

the birth of the gods.

spirit of

That, however,

is

to

mistake the

Homer.
in

He
it

finds the old

myth

ready to his hand, and sees

tale," just as

matter for a "joyous

Demodokos
There
is

did in the loves of Ares and

traditional

Aphrodite.

no antagonism to

views, but rather a complete detachment from them.

It

has often been noted that

Homer

never speaks

of the primitive custom of purification for bloodshed.

The dead

heroes are burned, not buried, as the kings of

continental Hellas were.

In the Iliad
in close

Ghosts play hardly any part

we

have, to be sure, the ghost of Patroklos,

connexion with the solitary instance of human

sacrifice in

Homer.

All that was part of the traditional

little

story,

and Homer says as

is

about

it

as he can.

There

also the

Nekyia

in the

Eleventh Book of the

Odyssey, which has been assigned to a late date on the

ground that

it

contains Orphic ideas.

The

reasoning

does not appear cogent.

did not so

much

invent

As we shall new ideas as

see, the

Orphics

revive old ones,

and

if

the legend took Odysseus to the abode of the

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it.

dead, that had to be described in accordance with the

accepted views about

In
fact,

we

are never entitled to infer from

Homer's
to him.
is

silence that the primitive view

was unknown

The
to

absence of certain things from the poems

reticence

due

rather

than

ignorance

for,

wherever

anything to his purpose was to be got from an old

story,

he did not hesitate to use

it.

On

the other

hand, when the tradition necessarily brought him into

contact with savage ideas, he prefers to treat them with
reserve.

We may

infer, then,

that at least in a certain

society, that of the princes for

whom Homer

sang, the

primitive view of the world was already discredited by

a comparatively early
2.

date.-^

Hesiod.

IV.

When we come

to

Hesiod,

we seem

to be in

another world.

We

hear stories of the gods which are

not only irrational but repulsive, and these stories are

told quite seriously.
"

Hesiod makes the Muses say

that are like
to utter

We

the truth
is

know how to tell many false things but we know too, when we will,
;

what

true."

This means that he was quite conscious of

the difference between the Homeric spirit and his own.

The
to

old light-heartedness

is

gone, and

it

is

important
too,

tell

the truth about the gods.

Hesiod knows,

that

he belongs to a later and a sadder time than

In describing the

Homer.
a
fifth

Ages of the World, he

inserts

age between those of Bronze and Iron.

That
It
it,

is the Age of the Heroes, the age Homer sang of. was better than the Bronze Age which came before

^
"^

On

all this,

see especially

Hes.

Theog. 27.
in

which means,
vehicle,

Rohde, Psyche, pp. 14 sqq. same Muses who inspired Homer, our language, that Hesiod wrote in hexameters and used

They

are the

the Epic dialect.

The new
elegy.

literary

genre has not yet found

its

appropriate

which

is

INTRODUCTION
and
'

7
it,

far better

than that which followed

lives.^

the

Age

of
is

Iron, in

which Hesiod
for

He
It
is

also feels that he to

singing

another

class.

shepherds

and
for

husbandmen he addresses

himself,

and the princes

whom Homer
give
"

sang have become\emote persons who

crooked dooms."
in hard,

For common men there

toil.

is

no

hope but

unceasing

It is

the voice of the

people we
for

now hear
the

for the first time,

and of a people

romance and splendour of the Greek Middle Ages meant nothing. The primitive view of the

whom

world had never really died out

natural for their
first

among them
to
in

so
it

it

was
his
old,

spokesman
find

assume

in

poems.
savage

That
tales,
it

why we which Homer

is

Hesiod these

disdained to speak of
in

Yet mere

would be wrong to see

the

Theogony a

revival of the old superstition.

it

Nothing can ever

is

be revived just as

was

for in

every reaction there

it

a p olemic al element which differentiates

completely
reproduce.

from the

earlier stage

it

vainly

seeks

to

Hesiod
spirit

could

not help being

affected

by the new

which trade and adventure had awakened over the

in spite

sea,

and he became a pioneer

of himself

The

rudiments of what grew into Ionic science and history

are to be found in his poems, and he really did more

than any one to hasten that decay of the old ideas which

he was seeking to arrest

to reduce
all

The Theogony

is

an attempt

the stories about the gods into a single

is

system, and system

necessarily fatal to so

wayward

a thing as mythology.

Hesiod, no less than Homer,

;

teaches a panhellenic polytheism

the only difference

There

is

great

historical
first

insight

here.

It

was Hesiod,

not

our

modern

historians,
in the

who

pointed out that the

"Greek Middle Ages"

were a break

normal development.

8
is

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

that with

him

this

is

more

directly

based on the

legends attached to the local

cults,

which he thus sought

to invest with a national significance.

The

result

is

that

the

myth

becomes primary and the cult secondary, a

relation.

complete inversion of the primitive

tells

Herodotos

us that
for

it

was Homer and Hesiod who made a

theogony

the Hellenes,

names, and distributed

arts,^

and

it is

perfectly

who gave the gods their among them their offices and true. The Olympian pantheon
in

took the place of the old local gods

this

men's minds, and

was as much the doing of Hesiod as of Homer.

ties to this

The ordinary man had no

company
;

of gods,

but at most to one or two of them

and even these

he would hardly recognise

detached from
all

in

the humanised figures,

local associations,

which poetry had

substituted for the older objects of worship.

The gods
;

of Greece had become a splendid subject for art

but

they came between the Hellenes and their ancestral

religions.

They were incapable

is

of satisfying the needs

of the people, and that

revival
Cosmogony,

the secret of the religious

in the sequel.

which we
is
it

shall

have to consider
in

V. Nor

Only

this

way

that Hesiod shows

is

himself a child of his time.

His Theogony

at the

same time a Cosmogony, though it would seem that here he was following others rather than working out
a thought of his own.
the

At any

rate,

he only mentions

two great cosmogonical

really bring

figures,

Chaos and Eros,

and does not

his

them

into connexion with

system.

The conception

of Chaos represents

distinct effort to picture the

beginning of things.
its

It is

not a formless mixture, but rather, as

indicates, the

etymology yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as

^

Herod,

ii.

53.

INTRODUCTION
yet}

9
is

We may

be sure

that

this

not primitive.

Savage man does not

of the very

feel called

upon
things

to form an idea
;

beginning

of

all

he takes

for

granted that there was something to begin with.

The
rise

other figure, that of Eros, was doubtless intended to

explain the impulse to production which gave

the whole process.

to

That, at

least, is

what the Maoris

the
following

mean

by

it,

as

may
:

be

seen

from

remarkable passage^

From the conception the increase, From the increase the swelling, From the swelling the thought, From the thought the remembrance, From the remembrance the desire. The word became fruitful,
It
It

dwelt with the feeble glimmering. brought forth the night.

Hesiod must have had some such primitive speculation

to

work

on, but he does not tell us anything clearly

on the

subject.

We
B.C.,

have records of great activity

in the

production

of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century

and

we

know something
this

of

the

systems

of

Epimenides, Pherekydes,^ and Akousilaos.

As

there

were speculations of

kind even before Hesiod, we

in believing that the earliest
too.

need have no hesitation

Orphic
1

cosmogony

goes back to that century

means the

The word

x<^05 certainly

" gape

" or " yawn," the Orphic

Xdfffia ire\d)piov.

Grimm compared it with the Scandinavian Ginnunga- Gap.

2 Quoted from Taylor's New Zealand, pp. no- 112, by Mr. Andrew Lang, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, vol. ii. p. 52 (2nd ed.). 3 For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels, Vorsokratiker, pp. 506 sqq. (ist ed.), and the interesting account in Gomperz, Greek Thinkers^

vol.

pp. 85 sqq. ' Rhapsodic This was the view of Lobeck with regard to the so-called Theogony " described by Damaskios, and was revived by Otto Kern {De Orphei Epivienidis Pherecydis Theogoniis, 1888). Its savage character is the best proof of its antiquity. Cf. Lang, Myth, Ritual, attd Religiw,
i.

vol.

i.

chap.

X.

lO

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

feature which
is

The

common
place.

to all these systems

is

the attempt to get behind the gap, and to put Kronos

or Zeus in the

first

This

is

what Aristotle
"

has

in

view when he distinguishes the

theologians

"

from those who were half theologians and half philosophers, and
ning.^

who put what was

scientific,

best

in

the beginis

It is obvious,

however, that this process

the

very reverse of
indefinitely
;

and might be carried on

nothing
to

so
in

we
our

have

do with the
so far

cosmogonists
as they can

present

inquiry, except

be shown to have influenced the course of

investigations.

more sober
are
still

Indeed, these speculations

based
fall

on the primitive view of the world,

the
limits

and

so

outside

we have

traced

for

ourselves.
General characteristics of

VI. What, then, was the step that placed the Ionian
cosmologists once for
all
it

early

Greek

above the

level of the

Maoris

cosmolog)'.

Grote and

Z eller_ make

consist in the substitution- of

impersonal causes acting according to law for personal

causes acting arbitrarily.

But the distinction between

felt in antiquity,
it.

personal and impersonal was not really

and

it is

a mistake to lay

rather that the real

much stress on advance made by the

left

It

seems

of Miletos was that they

off telling tales.

gave up the hopeless task of describing

as yet there

men They what was when

scientific
all

was nothing, and asked instead what

principle
it

things really are now.

Ex

nihilo

The
thinking,

great

which
first

underlies
into
into

all

their

nihil.

though
is

is

put
^

words

by

Parmenides,
nothin gs

that

No thing
passes

r.gpi ps

being out of

and nothing
that
1

away

into no thing.

They
always

saw,

however,

particular
Met. N,
4.

things
8.

were

Arist.

109 1 b

INTRODUCTION
coming
it

ii
this

into being

and passing away again, and from

followed that their existence was no true or stable

one.

The only
original

things that were real and eternal were

all

the

matter which passed through

rise to

these

changes and the motion which gave

them, to

which was soon added that law of proportion or compensation which, despite the continual

becoming and passing

permanence and

away of

things, secured the relative

stability of the various

forms of existence that go to

make up
be proved

the world.

That these were,

in

fact,

the

leading ideas of the early cosmolog:ists, cannot, of course,

we have given a detailed exposition of their systems but we can show at once how natural it was for such thoughts to come to them. It is always
till
;

^the
-".

problem of change and decay that

says,
this,
is

first

excites the

wonder which, as Plato

all

the starting-point of

philosophy.

Besides

there was in the Ionic

it

nature a vein of melancholy which led

to

brood
the

upon

the

instability

of

things.

Even

before

time of Thales, Mimnermos of Kolophon sings the

sadnes.S-_Qil-change
;

and, at a later date, the lament

of Simonides, that the generations of

men

fall like

the

leaves of the forest, touches a chord already struck

by

Now, so long as men could believe everything they saw was alive like themselves, the spectacle of the unceasing death arid new
the earliest singer of lonia.^
birth of nature
certain
in

would only tinge

their thoughts with a

find
its

mourn fulness, which would

expression

such things as the Linos dirges which the Greeks

borrowjed
\
^

from their Asiatic neighbours

'^

but

when

Simonides,
vol.

fr.

85, 2 Bergk.

//. vi.

146.

On Adonis-Thammuz,
i.

Lityerses, Linos,

and

Osiris, see Frater, Ccldtn

Bough,

pp. 27S sqq.

12

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

life

primitive animism, which had seen conscious

every-

where, was gone, and

polytheistic

mythology, which
striking

had

personified

at

least
it

the

more

natural

phenomena, was going,

must have seemed that there

reality.

was nowhere any abiding

accustomed, for

Nowadays we
to

are

good and

for

ill,

the

notion

of

dead things, obedient, not to inner impulses, but solely

to mechanical laws.

But that

is

not the view of the

natural man, and

we may be
it

sure that,

when

first it

forced itself on him,

must have provoked a strong

Relief was only to be had

sense of dissatisfaction.

from the reflexion that as nothing comes from nothing,

nothing can pass away into nothing.
then, be something

There must,

which always

is,

something fundaall
it

mental

which

persists

throughout

change,

and

ceases to exist in one form only that

another.
It is significant that this
"

may

reappear in
is

something

spoken

of as " deathless
^va-Li.

and
as
I

" ageless."

VII. So

far

know, no historian of Greek

it

philosophy has clearly laid

down

that

the

word
was

which was used by the early cosmologists to express

this

idea of a permanent and primary substance

<f>vcn<i
;

none other than

so

and that the

title

Uepl

(j>vcrco<;,

commonly given
and
the
fifth

to

philosophical
B.C.,^

works of the
simply
Plato

sixth

centuries

means
Both
sense

Con-

cerning

Primary
the term
a.B&.va.To%

Substance,
in

and
are
this.

Aristotle use
^

this

when they

The Epic phrase

koX ^y-fipoi^

seems to have suggested

Anaximander applied both epithets to the primary substance (R. Euripides, in describing the blessedness of the scientific 17 and 17 a),
(fr.
'^

P.
life

inc. 910), says

I
;

do not mean
for

selves

(puaeus Kbafiov ayifpoi (R. P, 148 c fin.)imply that the philosophers used this title themearly prose writings had no titles. The writer mentioned his
.

adavarov
to

name and

the subject of his

work

in the first sentence, as Herodotos, for

instance, does.

INTRODUCTION
discussing the earlier philosophy,^ and
clearly
its

13
history shows

enough what
that

its

original

meaning must have

fundamental,

been.

In Greek philosophical language, (pvai^ always

means

which

is

primary,
is

and
^

persistent, as

opposed to what
;

secondary, derivative,
as opposed
is

and transient
which
is

what

is

" given,"

to

that

^
'

made
It

or becomes.
is

It

what
his

is

there to
/

begin with.
also identify

true that Plato

and

successors

</)ucrt9
;

with the best or most normal con-

dition of a thing

but that

is

just because they held

the goal of any development to be prior to the process

by which

it

is

reached.

Such an idea was wholly un-

They sought the explanation of the incomplete world we know, not

to the pioneers of philosophy.
in the end,
that, if

known

but in the beginning.

It
all

seemed

to

them

only they could strip off

the modifications

which Art and Chance had introduced, they would get

at the ultimately real
first
;

and so the search

after ^u<ri9,

in

the world at large and

afterwards in

society,

became the

chief interest of the age

^
:.,

human we have to

deal with.

\i-^v.,,,,u.^.
dp'^rj,

The word
search,
is

by which the

early cosmologists

are usually said to have designated the object of their

in

this

sense purely Aristotelian.

it

It

is

quite natural that

should be employed in the well-

known

historical sketch of the First

for Aristotle
is

Book

of the Meta-

physics',

there testing the theories of

earlier thinkers

by

his

own

doctrine of the four causes.

in this

But Plato never uses the term

it

connexion, and

does not occur once in the genuine fragments of the

*

Plato, Laws, 892 c 2,

irepl tcl irpun-a

4>i<n.v
{i.e.

^oijXovTai \4yeiv y4ve<nv

-rijv

{i.e.

rb i^ o5
I.

flyvcrai) t^v

tQv

irpibruiv).

Arist.

Phys. B,

193 a 21,

5t67rep ol p.kv irvp,

ol

d^ yrjv,

oi 5'

dipa

4>a<Tiv, ol

S^ CSup, ol S*

^via to6tuv, ol 5^ irdPTa ravra tt]v

(f>vai.v

elvat

ttjj'

tQiv dyrojv.

14

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It
is

early philosophers.
Peripatetic

confined to the

Stoic

and

handbooks from which most of our know-

ledge

is

derived,

and these simply repeat

^

Aristotle.

Zeller has pointed out in a footnote

that

it

would be
use

an anachronism

to refer the

subtle

Aristotelian

of the word to the beginnings of speculation.

To

Anaximander ap^v could only have meant "beginning," and it was far more than a beginning that the
early cosmologists were looking for
:

it

was the eternal

ground of

all things.
is

There
at once
^vo-t?,

one very important conclusion that follows

from the account just given of the meaning of

it
is,

and

that the search for the primary sub-

stance really was the thing that interested the Ionian

philosophers.

Had
it

their

main

object

been,

as

Teichmiiller held

was, the explanation of celestial

their researches

and meteorological phenomena,

not have been called Ilepl
Yiepl ovpavov

would

<j)vaco<;

laropir]^ but rather

or Uepl fierecopcov.

And
in

this

we

shall

find confirmed

by a study of the way

which Greek

cosmology developed.

The growing thought which

that

may

be traced through the successive representatives

school
is

of any

always

which concerns the

primary substance, while the astronomical and other

theories
thinkers.
are,

in

the main, peculiar to the individual

Teichmiiller undoubtedly did good service

by

his protest against the

treatment of these theories

as mere
1

isolated curiosities.
2 (Eng. trans,
p.

They
248, n.

form, on the conSee below, Chap,

this
I.

Zeller, p. 217, n.
I.

2).

p. 57, n.
2

We have

the authority of Plato for giving

8r]

them

name.

Cf.

PM.

96 a
'

7, rai^TT;? ttjs <ro(plas fjv

koXovo-l irepl (pvaeus laropiau.

So, in the

fragment of Euripides referred to on p. 12, n. i, the man who discerns ' the ageless order of immortal (f>6cns " is referred to as dans rijs laropias

INTRODUCTION
trary, coherent

15-^

systems which must be looked at as

it is

wholes.

But

none the
it

less

true

that

Greek
what
y/

philosophy began, as

ended, with the search

for

was abiding
of which
?

in the flux of things.

Motion and

VIII. But how. could this give back to nature the

life

ledge

had been robbed by advancing knowSimply by making it possible for the life
it

that had
particular

hitherto

been supposed
be transferred

to
to

reside

in

each

thing to
all

the one thing

of which

others were

process of birth,

The very growth, and decay might now be

passing forms.

regarded as the unceasing activity of the one ultimate

reality.

Aristotle

and
early

his followers expressed this

by
an

saying
" eternal

that

the

cosmologists
in

believed
this
is

in

motion," and
it

substance
that they

correct,

though

is

not

probable

said

anything
It is

about the eternal motion

in their writings.
it

more
be

likely that they simply took

for granted.

In early-

times,

it

is

not movement but rest that has to

accounted

for,

and we may be sure that the

till it

eternity

of motion was not asserted

had been denied.

As we shall see, it was P armenjd es who first denied it. The idea of a single ultimate substance, when
thoroughly worked out, seemed to leave no room
for

motion
find
it

and

after

the time of

Parmenides, we do
to

that

philosophers were concerned

show how
to
require^

began.

At

first,

this

would not seem

give

explanation at

all.

Modern

writers
this

sometimes

the

name

of
is

Hylozoism to

way
It

of thinking, but the term

apt to be misleading.
the separate reality of

suggests theories which deny

life

and
far

spirit,

whereas, in the
the
distinction

days of Thales, and

even

later,

i6

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

spirit

between matter and

formulated in

had not been

that
it

felt, still

less

such a

way

could

be denied.
these
if

The

uncreated,

indestructible

reality

of which

early thinkers

tell
it

us was a body, or even matter,

so
;

we
the

choose to

call

but
is

it

was not matter

spirit.

in

sense in which matter

The
tive

opposed to

downfall
view'of

ViX.

We

have indicated the main characteristics of

^he primitive view of the world, and

jj^

the world.

outline the view which displaced

we have sketched it we must now

;

consider the causes which led to the downfall of the

one and the

rise of the other.

Foremost among these

was undoubtedly the widening of the Greek horizon

occasioned by the great extension of maritime enterprise

which followed the decay of the Phoenician naval

supremacy.
rule,

The

scene of the old

stories

had,

as

been

laid just outside the

boundaries of the world

known
in

to the

men who

believed them.

Odysseus does
which

not meet with Kirke or the

the
familiar

Kyklpps or the Sirens

in

Aegean,

but

regions

lay

beyond the ken of the Greeks

was composed.
explorers

at the time the Odyssey

Now, however, the West was beginthem

the
to

ning to be familiar too, and the fancy of the Greek

led

identify the lands

which they

discovered

with

places

which the hero of the

to in his wanderings.
It

national fairy-tale had

come

was soon discovered that the monstrous beings in question were no longer to be found there, and the belief grew up that they had never been there at all.
So, too, the Milesians

had

settled colonies all

round the

Euxine.

The

colonists

fjLeXovaa in their

minds

went out with ^Apyo) iraai and, at the same time as they
" far

changed the name of the Inhospitable to the Hospitable Sea, they liopalised the

country

" (ala)

of the

INTRODUCTION
primitive tale,

17

and made Jason

fetch the

Golden Fleece

from Kolchis.

Above

all,

the Phokaians had explored

the Mediterranean as far as the Pillars of Herakles,^

and the new knowledge that the

the sea had boundaries must have
in in

'*

endless

paths

"

of

moved men's minds

will
illustrate

much^khe same way as the discovery of America did

later

days.

single

example

the

process which was always going on.

According to the

primitive view, the heavens were supported by a giant

called Atlas.

No

one had ever seen him, though he

was supposed
Africa,

to live in Arkadia.

The Phokaian

exin

plorers identified

him with a cloud-capped mountain

this,

and once they had done

It

the old belief was

in

doomed.

was impossible to go on believing

also a

god who was

quest of
r

mountain, conveniently situated

for the trader to steer by,^as

silver.

he sailed to Tarshish

in

X. But by
1

far the
r
^

most important question we have

Alleged
Oriental origiD of philosophy,

to face

IS

that of the nature

and extent of the mfluence

Eastern wisdom on
idea even
the

rt

exercised

by what we
It is a

call

Greek mind.
Greeks
in

common

now

that the

some way derived their philosophy from Egypt and Babylon, and we must therefore try to understand as clearly as possible what such a statement
that
really means.

To

begin with,

we must observe
which Greek
at
all

no writer of the period

during

philosophy flourished

knows anything

of

its

having come from the East.

Herodotos

would not
it
;

have omitted to say

so,

had he ever heard of

his

for

it

would have confirmed

origin of
^

own

belief in the

Egyptian
Plato,

Greek
is

religion

and

civilisation.'^

who

Herod, i. 163. All he can say

transmigration

came from Egypt

that the worship of Dionysos and the doctrine of shall see that both these (ii. 49, 123).

We

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

for the

had a very great respect

rather than

Egyptians on other

grounds, distinctly implies that they were a businesslike

philosophical

people.^
in

Aristotle

speaks only of the origin of mathematics

point to which

Egypt ^
he

(a

we

shall

return), though, if
it

had

known
his

of an Egyptian philosophy,

would have suited

It is

argument better to mention

that.

not

till

far later date,

when Egyptian
vie with

priests

and Alexandrian
in discovering the

Jews began to
have

one another

sources of Greek philosophy in their

first

own

past, that
it

we

definite statements to the effect that

came
word

from Phoenicia or Egypt.

carefully note
"

Here, however,
In the
first

we must
include

two had

things.

place, the

philosophy

"

come
less

by

that

time

to

theology of a more or

mystical type, and was even

applied to various forms of asceticism.^

place,

In the second

the

so-called

Egyptian

philosophy
primitive

was only

arrived at
allegories.

by a process of turning

myths

into

We

are

still

able

to judge Philo's

Old

Testament interpretation
sure that the
arbitrary
;

for ourselves,

and we may be

Egyptian
they had

allegorists

were even

more

for

far less

promising material to

work

on.

Nothing can be more savage than the myth

^
;

of Isis and Osiris

yet

it

is

first

interpreted accord-

statements are incorrect, and in any case they do not imply anything
directly as to philosophy.
^ In Rep. 435 e, after saying that rh Ovfioecd^s is characteristic of the Thracians and Scythians, and rb <pi\o/j.a9is of the Hellenes, he refers us to Phoenicia and Egypt for t6 cfxXoxp'fitijaTov. In the Laws, where the Egyptians

are so strongly

commended

for their conservatism in matters of art,

he says

(747 b 6) that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove aXlavekevdepia and (piXoxpVf^'^'''^'^ from the souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce

vavovpyla instead of (ro0^a, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, " Arist. Met. A, i. and many other peoples do. 981 b 23. ^ See Zeller, p. 3, n. 2, Philo applies the term irarpLos ^iXoaocpla to the
theology of the Essenes and Therapeutai.
^

On

this, see

Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion,

vol.

ii.

p. 135.

INTRODUCTION
declared to be the original source of that philosophy.

19

ing to the ideas of later Greek philosophy, and then

This

method of

interpretation

niay

be said

to

culminate with the Neopythagorean Noumenios, from

whom

it

passed to the Christian Apologists.

It

is

Nounienios
ing Attic

who asks,
It

"

What

is

Plato, but

Moses speak-

seems likely, indeed, that he was thinkmarked resemblances between Plato's Laws and the Levitical Code when he said this
ing of certain

? " ^

resemblances

due to the

fact

that certain
;

primitive

legal ideas are similarly modified in both

but in any

case Clement and Eusebios give the remark a far wider

application.^

At

the Renaissance, this absurd farrago

else,

was revived along with everything

for

and
the

certain

ideas derived from the Praeparatio Evangelica continued

long to

colour accepted

views

on

subject.

Even Cudworth speaks complacently of the

"

ancient

Moschical or Mosaical philosophy

It
is

"

taught by Thales
realise the true

and Pythagoras.^
origin

important to

of

this

deeply -rooted
Greeks.
It

prejudice

against

the

originality

of the

does

not come from

;

-^J^rTmodern researches into the beliefs of ancient peoples

-

'^or
V

thes.e

have disclosed absolutely nothing

in the

way of
It is

eil/^idence for

a Phoenician or Egyptian philosophy.

a mere residuum of the Alexandrian passion for allegory.

^

Noumenios, fr. 13 (R. P. 624), Hl-^ip iart. nXdrw*' ^ Mwua^s iLTnKi{wv Clement {,Strom. i. p. 8, 5, Stahlin) calls Plato 6 i^ 'E^paluv
;

<f)i\6a'o<f>os.

We

learn from

Strabo

introduced

Mochos of Sidon

(xvi. p. 757) that it was Poseidonios who He attributes into the history of philosophy.

the atomic theory to him.

later tour de force.

His identification with Moses, however, Ls a Philon of Byblos published what purported to be a

translation of an ancient Phoenician history by Sanchuniathon, which was used by Porphyry and afterwards by Eusebios. How familiar all this became, is shown by the speech of the stranger in the Vicar of Wakefield^

chap. xiv.

20

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Of
course no one nowadays would rest the case
the Oriental origin

for

of Greek philosophy on or

the

evidence

of

Clement

Eusebios

the

favourite

argument
arts

in recent

times has been the analogy of the

and

religion.

We

are seeing

more and more,

and

it

is

said, that the

Greeks derived their art and

ideas from the East
will in all probability
;

many
is

of

their

religious

it

urged

that the

same
least

prove true of their

philosophy.
in

This

is

specious
It

argument, but not

altogether

the

conclusive.

ignores

the

essential' difference in the

way

these things are trans-

mitted

from people to
arts

people.
easily

Material

civilisation

and

the

may

pass

from one people to

another,

though they have not a

common

language,

and certain simple

ritual

religious ideas can be

conveyed by

better than in

any other way.

only be

Philosophy, on
in

the

other hand, can

it
'

expressed

abstract

language, and

can only be transmitted by educated

men, whether by means of books or oral teaching.

Now we know
with,

of no Greek, in the times

we

are dealing

who knew enough

of any Oriental language to

read an Egyptian book or even to listen to the discourse of an Egyptian priest, and
a late date of Oriental teachers

we never hear till who wrote or spoke in

it is

Greek.
pick

The Greek

traveller in

Egypt would no doubt

certain that

up a few words of Egyptian, and

or other the priests could

somehow
rebuke
tells

understood

by the

Greeks.
for

make themselves They were able to

pride,

Hekataios

his

family

and

Plato

a story of the same sort at the

beginning of

the

Timaeus}

But
it

they
is

must

have
to
b
3.

made

use

of

interpreters,

and
*

impossible

conceive

of

Herod,

ii.

143; Plato, Tim. 22

INTRODUCTION
philosophical
ideas

21

being communicated through an

uneducated dragoman.^

But really it is not worth while tp ask whether the communication of philosophical ideas was possible or not, till some evidence has been produced that any of
these peoples had a philosophy to communicate.

No
far as

such evidence has yet been discovered, and, so

we know, the Indians were the only people besides the ^ Greeks who ever had anything that deserves the name. No one now will suggest that Greek philosophy came
from India, and itjdeed everything points to the conclusion

that

Indian

philosophy

came from Greece.

is

The chronology
difficult subject
;

of Sanskrit literature
but, so far as

an extremely
see,

we can
date

the great
'

Indian

systems

are

later

in

than

the

Greek

philosophies

which they most nearly resemble.

mysticism
of
the

Of
of
in-

course

the

Upanishads

and

Buddhism were of native growth and profoundly

fluenced

philosophy,
in

but

they were

not

themselves

philosophy

any true sense of the word.^

Egyptian

XL
I

It

would, however, be another thing to say that

quite

(Greek

philosophy originated

independently of
believed

Oriental influences.
^

The Greeks themselves

Gomperz's " native bride," who discusses the wisdom of her people
vol.
i.

with her Greek lord (Greek Thinkers,

either.

p. 95),

does not convince

me

She would probably teach her maids the rites of strange goddesses but she would not be likely to talk theology with her husband, and still
philosophy or science. The use of Babylonian as an international language will account for the fact that the Egyptians knew something of Babylonian astronomy ; but it does not help us to explain how the Greeks could communicate with the Egyptians. It is plain that the Greeks did not even know of this international language ; for it is just the sort of
less

thing they would have recorded with interest

if

they had.

In early days,

was apparently forgotten. 2 For the possibility that Indian philosophy came from Greece, see Weber, Die Griechen in Indien (Berl. Sitzb. 1 890, pp. 901 sqq.), and
they

may have met

with

it

in Cyprus, but that

Goblet d'Alviella, Ce que VJnde doii

d,

la

Grke

(Paris, 1897).

22

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Egyptian
origin,

their mathematical science to be of

and they must

lonian

also

have known something of BabyIt

astronomy.

cannot

be

an

accident

that

philosophy originated inTloma just at the time when

communication with these two countries was

easiest,

and

it

is

significant that the very

man who was

is

said

to have introduced

geometry from Egypt

of

also reIt

garded

as

the

first

the
for us

philosophers.
to discover, if

thus
can,

becomes very important

we

what Egyptian
that,

mathematics

meant.

We

shall

see

even here, the Greeks were really original.

is

There
British

a papyrus in the Rhind collection at the

gives us an instructive glimpse

Museum ^ which

of arithmetic

and geometry as these sciences were

It is

understood on the banks of the Nile.

the work

of one Aahmes, and contains rules for calculations both

of an arithmetical and a geometrical character.

The

arithmetical problems mostly concern measures of corn

and

fruit,

and deal particularly with such questions as

the division of a

number
to the

of persons, the

number of measures among a given number of loaves or jars of beer

and the wages due
piece
for

that certain measures will yield,

workmen

a
in

certain
fact,

of work.
description

It

corresponds

exactly,

to

the

of

Egyptian arithmetic which Plato has given us

in the

LawSj where he

tells

us that the children learnt along

in

with their letters to solve problems

the distribution

of apples and wreaths to greater or smaller numbers of

^ I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor's Vorlestmgen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp. 46-63. See also Gow's Short History of Greek Mathematics, 73-80 ; and Milhaud, La

The discussion in the last-named work is of based on M. Rodet's paper in the Bulletin de la Soci^ti Math^mcUique, vol. vi., which in some important respects supplements
science grecque, pp. 91 sqq.

special value because

it is

the interpretation of Eisenlohr, on which the earlier accounts depend.

INTRODUCTION
people,
forth.^

23

the pairing of boxers and wrestlers, and so

This

is

clearly the origin of the art which the

Greeks called
that from

Xoyto-TL/ci],
;

and they certainly borrowed

is

Egypt

but there

not the slightest trace

or the scientific

of what the Greeks called

apiOfjirjTtKt],

study of numbers.

The geometry

of the Rhind papyrus

is

of a similarly
tells

utilitarian character,

and Herodotos, who

us that

Egyptian geometry arose from the necessity of measuring the land afresh after the inundations,
far nearer the
is

obviously
it

mark than
leisure

Aristotle,

who

says that

grew out of the

enjoyed by the priestly

caste.^

We find, accordingly, that the

areas are only exact
fields are usually

rules given for calculating

when

these are rectangular.

As
for

more

or less rectangular, this would

be

sufficient

for
is

practical

purposes.

The
is,

rule

finding

what

called the seqt of a

level, as

pyramid

however,
;

on a rather higher

we should expect

for the

angles of the Egyptian pyramids really are equal, and

there must have been
result.
It

some method
this.
is,

for obtaining this

"

comes to

Given the

length across

the sole of the foot," that

the diagonal of the base,

" ridge," to find

and that of the piremus or

which represents the
ratio

a number
is

between them.

This

done

by dividing
and
it

half the diagonal of the base

by the

" ridge,"

is

obvious that such a method might quite well

It

be discovered empirically.

seems an anachronism

to speak of elementary trigonometry in connexion with

^

Plato,
Kal

Laws, 819 b

4, it.T]Ku3v

t4 tivuv diavopial Kal

apidiiCiiv

<rre<pdi>o)

TXdoaiy
Kal

Afia

iXdrroffLv

ap/xoTTdyTcav

tQiv

aiVrw*',
icpe^ijs

koI

ttvktup

vaXaLO-TQv icpedpeias re Kal (TuXXiJ^ews iv

yiypeadai.
Kal
di]

fiipet

Kal

Kal ws Te0i5*ca<rt

Kal iral^oPTes, <f>id\as &fia xP^<^o*^

ol

k-^ X*^*<''' *<*^

ipyvpov
In
its

Kal TOLoiruiP tivGjv &\\iav KepavvOpres,

3^ Kal 6\as ttwj 5ia8iS6pTS.

context, the passage implies that

2

Herod,

ii.

no more than this could be 109; Ari^Ljl^^ A^^9^i b 23.

learnt in Egypt.

>i

24

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

this,

a rule like
the

and there

is

nothing to suggest that

Egyptians went any

further.^

That the Greeks

see to be highly

learnt as much from them, we

shall

probable, though

we

shall

see also that, from a

it

comas
to

paratively early period, they generalised

so

make

it

of use in measuring the distances of inaccessible

as ships at sea.
It

objects, such

was probably

this

generalisation that suggested the idea of a science of

geometry, which was really the creation of the Pythagoreans,

and we can

see

how

far

the Greeks

soon

surpassed their teachers from a remark of Demokritos

which has been preserved.

He says (fr. 299) " I have men, but no one has yet listened to many learned
:

surpassed

me

in the construction of figures

out of lines

accompanied by demonstration, not even the Egyptian

harpedonaptSy as
X

they

call

them."

Now

the
It

word

apirehovdirTT}^

is
^

not Egyptian but Greek.

means
the

" cord-fastener,"

and

it

is

a striking coincidence that

treatise
is

the oldest

Indian

geometrical

called

(^ulvasutras or " rules of the cord."

to the use of the triangle of

These things point

3, 4, 5,

which the sides are

angle.

and which has always a right

this triangle

We

was used from an early date

know that among the

it

Chinese and the Hindus,

who
There

doubtless got

from

Babylon, and we shall see that Thales probably learnt

the use of
for
it

in

Egypt.*

is

no reason whatever
in

supposing that any of these peoples had

troubled
fuller

any

degree
^

themselves

to

give

theoretical

account of this method, see Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, pp. 127 sqq. ; and Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 99.

For a

2 2

R. P. 188.

The

real

meaning of

apTredovdTTTrjs
is

was

first

The gardener
the
*

laying out a flower-bed

the true

pointed out by Cantor. modern representative of

" harpedonapts.
See Milhaud, Science grecque,
p.

103.

INTRODUCTION
demonstration
of
its

25

properties,

though Demokritos
so.

would certainly have been able to do

Finally,

we must note
XII.

the

highly significant

fact

that

all

mathematical terms are of purely Greek

origin.^

The

other

source

from which

the

lonians

Babylonian

directly or

indirectly derived

material for their cos-

^^'y-

mology was the Babylonian astronomy.

recorded

There

is

no

doubt that the Babylonians from a very early date had

all

celestial

phenomena

like eclipses.

They

had

also studied the planetary motions,

and determined

the signs of the zodiac.

predict

Further, they were able to

the

recurrence of the
considerable

observed

with

accuracy

phenomena they had by means of

I

cycles based on their recorded observations.

can see

no reason
have

for

doubting that they had observed the

precession.

phenomenon of
failed

Indeed, they could hardly

for

to

notice

it

their observations
it

went

back over so many centuries, that

appreciable.

would be quite

We

know

that, at

a later date, Ptolemy

estimated the precession of the equinoxes at one degree

in a
this

hundred years, and

is

it

is

extremely probable that

value.

just

the Babylonian
well

At any
it

rate,

it

agrees very
circle

with their division

degrees,

of the celestial
possible for a
"

into

360

and made

century to be regarded as a day in the

a conception

Great Year,"

we

shall

meet with

later on.^

1 The word irvpafiis is often supposed to be derived from the term piremus used in the Rhind papyrus, which does not mean pyramid, but ** ridge." It is really, however, a Greek word too, and is the name of a kind of cake. The Greeks called crocodiles lizards, ostriches sparrows, and obelisks meat-skewers, so they may very well have called the pyramids cakes. We seem to hear an echo of the slang of the mercenaries that carved their names on the colossus at Abu-Simbel. 2 Three different positions of the equinox are given in three different Babylonian tablets, namely, io, 8 15', and 8 o' 30" of Aries. (Kugler. Motuirechnung, p. 103 ; Ginzel, Klio, i. p. 205. ) Given knowledge of this

26

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

We
shall see that

Thales probably knew the cycle

eclipses ( 3)

which the Babylonians used to predict

but
it

would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers

astronomy.

of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of the

Babylonian
of Plato

It

was not

till

the

time

that

even the names of the planets were

known/ and the recorded observations were only made available in Alexandrian times. But, even if they had known these, their originality would remain. The Babylonians studied and recorded celestial phenomena for what we call astrological purposes, not
from any
all

scientific interest.

There

is

no evidence at

that their accumulated observations ever suggested

to

them the

least

dissatisfaction with the primitive

view of the world, or that they attempted to account

for

what they saw

in

any but the crudest way.

of

The
capital

Greeks, on the other hand, with far fewer data to go

upon,

made
first

at

least

three

discoveries

importance
In the

in the course of

two or three generations.

is

place, they discovered that the earth

sphere and does not rest on anything.

In the second
it

kind, and the practice of formulating recurrences in cycles,

precession.

is

scarcely

conceivable that the Babylonians should not have invented a cycle for
It is

equally intelligible that they should only have reached a

;

rough approximation

for the precessional period is really

and not 36,000.

It is to

about 27,600 years be observed that Plato's "perfect year "is also

36,000 solar years (Adam's Republic, vol, ii, p, 302), and that it is probably connected with the precession of the equinoxes. (Cf. Tim. 39 d, a passage
w^hich
is

most

easily interpreted if referred to precession.

This suggestion

as to the origin of the

p. 305),

and

is

was thrown out by Mr. Adam {op. cit. now confirmed by Hilprecht, The Babylonian Expedition of
"

" Great Year

the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1906).

^ In classical Greek literature, no planets but "Eo-Tre/sos and "Ewer 06pos are mentioned by name at all. Parmenides (or Pythagoras) first identified these as a single planet ( 93). Mercury appears for the first time by name in Tim. 38 e, and the other divine names are given in Epin. 987 b sq., where they are said to be " Syrian." The Greek names ^aivw, ^aiOwv, Uvpdeis, ^u<y<p6po$, SWX/Swj', may be older, but this cannot be proved.

INTRODUCTION
place,

27

they discovered the true theory of lunar and

;

solar eclipses

and, in close connexion with

this,
is

they
not

came

to see, in the third place, that the earth

it

the centre of our system, but revolves round

like the

other planets.

Not very much

later,

certain

Greeks

even took, at least tentatively, the

final step

of identify-

ing the centre round which the earth and the planets
revolve with the sun.

These discoveries
;

will

be

dis-

cussed in their proper place

they are only mentioned

here to show the gulf between Greek astronomy and

everything

that

had preceded
years

it.

The Babylonians
the

many thousand centuries to make these

had
as
originality

as

Greeks
it

had

discoveries,

and

does not

appear that they ever thought of one of them.

of
till

The

the
it

Greeks

cannot

be

successfully

questioned

can be shown that the Babylonians

call the solar

had even an incorrect idea of what we

system.

We may

sum up

all this

by saying

that the Greeks

did not borrow either their philosophy or their science

from the East.

They

did, however, get

from Egypt
generalised,

certain rules of mensuration which,

when

gave birth

to

geometry;

while from

Babylon they
recur in piece

learnt that the

phenomena of the heavens

regularity.

cycles

with

the greatest

This

of

knowledge undoubtedly had a great deal to do with

the
rise

of science
questions
^

for

to the

Greek

it

suggested
did

further

such

as

the

Babylonian

not

dream of
^

The

Platonic account of this matter

is

is

to be found in the EpinomiSy

986 e 9 sqq., and

summed up by
Theon

the words Xd^ui/xev 5^ ws Smrep tv

"'EWrivei fiap^dpioi^ trapaXd^uai,

The

point

is

well put by

KdWiov toOto els t^Xos direpyd^ovTai (987 d 9). 20 Hiller, who (Adrastos), Exp. r>. t:
.

speaks of the Chaldaeans and

Egyptians as

&vt:v

<;'cj\oylas

ireXeis

28
The
scientific

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

XHI.
It
IS

necessary to say something as to the

to

ch3.r3.ctcr of

the early

Scientific

worth of the philosophy we are about

moiogy'"

Study.

We

have just seen that the Eastern peoples

were, at the time of which

we

write, considerably richer

facts,

than the Greeks

facts

in

accumulated

though these

had certainly not been observed

for

any

scientific

purpose, and their possession never suggested a revision

of the primitive view of the world.

ever,

The

Greeks, howto

saw

in

them something that could be turned

account, and they were never as a people slow to act

on the maxim, Chacun prend son bien partout

oil

il le

The most striking monument which has come down to us is the work
trouve.

of this spirit
of Herodotos

and the

visit

of Solon to Croesus which he describes,

it

however unhistorical
faithful picture of
it.

may

be, gives a very lively

tells

and
and
has

Croesus

Solon that he has

heard

much

of "his of

wisdom and
knowledge

his wanderings,"

how, from love

travelled

((pLXoaocpecov),

he

over
to

much

land for the purpose of seeing

{Oewpir)^
elveKev).
fact,

what was
Oecoplrj,

be seen

The words
the catch-

<pL\oao(f)L7j,

and

laroplr] are, in

words of the time, though they had, we must remember,

a somewhat different

meaning from that which they

were afterwards made to bear at Athens.^

that underlies
in

The

idea

them

all

may, perhaps, be best rendered

;

English by the word Curiosity

Ta$ fiedddovs, Siov
tols '"EtWrjcrLV

and
irepl

it

was

just this
^incrKOireiv'
rets

iroioiix^voi

afia

koL

(pvaLKUs

Toiruu

6irep

ol

irapa

aaTpokoyqcfavres iireipwuro woLeTu,

Traph

TOVTUJv \a^6vTs apxo.^ xal t<2v (paivo/xevuv Trjprjaeis.

this last

The importance

of

passage
the

is

that

it

represents the view taken at Alexandria,

where

the facts were accurately known.

^

Still,

word dewpia never wholly

felt

Greeks always
spectator."

that the decoprjTiKos

Its special use,

and the meant literally "the life of the and the whole theory of the " three lives,"
lost its early associations,
/Sios

seem

to

be of Pythagorean

origin.

See

my

edition of Aristotle's Ethics,

p. 19 n.

INTRODUCTION
great gift of curiosity, and the desire to see
all

29
the

wonderful things

pyramids, inundations, and so forth

that were to be seen, which enabled the Greeks to pick

to their

up and turn

as they could

own use such scraps of knowledge come by among the barbarians. No

n
'-\

sooner did a Greek philosopher learn half a dozen

geometrical propositions, and hear that the phenomena
of the heavens recur in cycles, than he set to work to

look for law everywhere in nature, and, with a splendid

audacity, almost

'

amounting

to

v/3pL<;,

to

construct a rwJj^^

system of the universe.

We may smile, if we please, at

and some-

the strange medley of childish fancy and true scientific

insight which these Titanic efforts display,

times
the

we feel disposed to sympathise with the sages of day who warned their more daring contemporaries
But we
shall

"to think the thoughts befitting man's QstdlQ". {avOpwiriva

(ppovelv).

do well to remember

at the

same time

that even

tions of experience

now it is just such hardy anticipathat make scientific progress possible,

inquirers

and that nearly every one of the early

whom
up
i

we

are about to study

made some permanent

addition

to the store of positive' knowledge, besides opening

new views
There

of the world in every direction.

is

',

no

justification

either for the

idea that
less

Greek science was

built

up

solely

by more or

lucky

guesswork, instead of by observation and experiment.

The nature
Placita

of our tradition, which mostly consists of

is,

that

of what

we

call

" results "

"

tends,

no

doubt, to create this impression.

We
"

are seldom told

why any
the

early philosopher held the views he did,

string

and

appearance of a

of

opinions

suggests

dogmatism.

There

are,

however, certain exceptions to

;

the general character of the tradition

and we

may

30

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

if

reasonably suppose that,

the later Greeks had been

interested in the matter, there

would have been many

more.

We

shall

see

that
in

Anaximander made some

marine biology, which the
fully con-

remarkable discoveries

researches of the nineteenth century have

firmed

21),

and even Xenophanes supported one

fossils

of his theories by referring to the

and petrifactions

of such widely separated places as Malta, Paros, and

Syracuse
theory, so

59).

This

is

enough

to

show

that

the

commonly held by

the earlier philosophers,

that the earth had been originally in a moist state, was

not mythological in origin, but was based on, or at

any

rate confirmed by, biological

and palaeontological
and
scientific

observations
type.
It

of a

thoroughly modern

would surely be absurd to imagine that the

could

men who
the

make

these observations had not the

curiosity or the ability to

make many

others of which

memory

is

lost.
is

Indeed, the idea that the Greeks

were not observers

almost ludicrously wrong, as

is

proved by two simple considerations.

The anatomical
order,

accuracy of Greek sculpture bears witness to trained

habits of observation,

and those of the highest

while the fixing of the seasons

by the

heliacal rising

and

setting

of

the

stars

shows
is

a familiarity with

celestial

phenomena which

by no means common
affecting
agriculture,

at the present day:^

We
in
arts,

know, then, that the Greeks

could

observe well

matters

avigation,

and the

and we know that

Is
it

they were

P: did
1

curious about the world.

conceivable that they

not use their powers of observation to gratify that

?

curiosity

It is true,

of course, that they had not our

emphasised by Staigmiiller, Beitrdge zur
klassischen Altertume. (Progr. Stuttgart,

These two points are

8).

rightly

Gesch. der Naturwissenschafteti

im

1899, p.

INTRODUCTION
instruments of precision
discovered
;

31
can

but a great deal

be

not to

by the help of very simple apparatus. It is be supposed that Anaximander erected his
that

gnomon merely
seasons.^

the

Spartans

might know the

Nor

is

it

true that

the Greeks

made no

use or

experiment.

The
the

rise

of the

experimental method
schools began

dates from the time

to

when the medical

of

influence

development

philosophy, and

accordingly

we

find that the first recorded

is

experiment
the
100),

of a modern type
klepsydra.

that

of Empedokles with
this
(fr.

We

have his own account of

it

and we can see how

anticipating both

brought him to the verge of

Torricelli.
It
is

Harvey and

once

more inconceivable that an

without extending

inquisitive people should

have applied the experimental

cjise
it

method

in

a single

to the elucidation of other

problems.

Of

course the great difficulty for us

is

the geocentric

hypothesis from which science inevitably started, though

only to outgrow
long as the earth

it

in a surprisingly short time.

So

is

supposed to be

in

the centre of

the world, meteorology, in the later sense of the word,

is

necessarily identified with astronomy.

It

.is

difficult

for us to feel at

home
an
"

in this point of view, and indeed

we have no
at
first

suitable

word
"

to express
It
it
;

what the Greeks

be
convenient

called

ovpavo^.

will

to use the

word
it

world

for

but then

we must
chiefly,

remember
^

that

does not refer solely, or even

erected on a flat surface, These were drawn so that the end of the gnomon's shadow touched the innermost circle at midday on the summer solstice, the intermediate circle at the equinoxes, and the outermost circle at the winter solstice. See Bretschneider, Die Geometric
in the centre of three concentric circles.

The gnomon was not a sundial, but an upright

vor Euklid,

p. 60.

32

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The
later

to the earth.

word

Koafio^ bears witness to

It

the growth

of scientific ideas.

meant

at

first

the

marshalling of an army, and next the ordered constitution of a state.

It in

was transferred from

early
life

this to the

world

because

days
far

the

regularity

and

constancy of
the

human

was

more

clearly seen than

in

uniformity of nature.

Man

lived

a charmed

circle of
still

law and custom, but the world around him

lawless.

seemed

That, too,

is

why, when

the

regular course of nature

was

first

realised,

no better

word

for

it

could be found than

hiKT).

It is the

same

metaphor

which
^

still

lives

on

in

the

expression

" natural law."

The
are

science

of the

sixth

century was

mainly

concerned, then, with those parts of the world that

" aloft "

{ra jierewpa),

and these

include,

along

with the heavenly bodies, such things as clouds, rainbows, and lightning.

That

is

how

the heavenly bodies

came sometimes

to be explained as ignited clouds, an

idea which seems

astonishing to us.

But we must

bear in mind that science inevitably and rightly began

with the most

obvious hypothesis, and that

it

was

only the thorough working out of this that could show

its

inadequacy.
first

It

is

just

because the Greeks were

the

the

people

to

take

geocentric

hypothesis
it.

seriously that

they were able to go beyond

Of

course the pioneers of Greek thought had no clear idea

of the

nature of scientific hypothesis, and supposed

reality.

themselves to be dealing with ultimate

That

was inevitable before the

^

rise

of Logic.

At

the
It

same
was not
of

The term

Kbafios

seems to be Pythagorean
k6<t/jlos'''

in this sense.

familiar even at the beginning of the fourth century.

Xenophon speaks
For
diKr),

"what

the sophists call the

{Mem.

i.

ii).

see below,

14, 72.

INTRODUCTION
time, a sure instinct guided

33

them

to the right method,

and we can see how

ances
"
^

it

was the
that

effort to "

save appearfirst.

that

really operated

from

the

It

is,

therefore, to those

men

we owe
They

the conception of
in the

an exact science which should ultimately take

whole world as
enough, no

its

object.

fancied

doubt

absurdly
this

that

they could

work out

science at once.

We
it

sometimes make the same mistake

nowadays

and

can no more rob the Greeks of the

first

honour of having been the

to see the true, though

perhaps unattainable, end of

our

all

science than

it

can rob

own

scientific

men

of the honour of having brought

it

that end nearer than

was.

It is still

knowledge of
that

the kind foreseen and attempted

by the Greeks
writer to
treat

they are

in search

of
first

XIV. Theophrastos, the

history

the
2

Schools of philosophy.

of

Greek

philosophy

in

a systematic way,

represented the early cosmologists as standing to one

another in the relation of master and scholar, and as

members of

regular societies.
writers
as

This has been regarded

by many modern

an

anachronism,
**

and
"

some have even denied the existence of

philosophy altogether.

schools

of

Such a

reaction
it

against the

older view was quite justified in so far as

was directed
"

against

arbitrary classifications

like

the " Ionic

and

" Italian " schools,

which are derived through Laertios

Diogenes from the Alexandrian writers of" Successions."

But the express statements of Theophrastos are not

in use there

The method of research was for the leader to "propound" (Tporclveiv, irpo^dWeadai) it as a ''problem" {irpd^Xruj.a) to find the simplest "hypothesis" (Hyuv vTToredipTuv) on which it is possible to account for and do justice to all the It was in its French form, sauv^ Us observed facts (o-vfeij/ ret (paivdfj-eva). apparencesy that the phrase acquired the meaning it usually has now.
1

This phrase originated in the school of Plato.

See Appendix,

7.

34

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

As
this point
is

to be so lightly set aside.

of great
it

importance,

it

will

be necessary to elucidate

still

further before

we

enter

upon our

story.

of the

The modern view way in which

really rests

upon a mistaken idea

In almost

civilisation develops.
life,

every department of
at
first is

we

find that the corporation

everything and the individual nothing.

The

peoples of the East hardly got beyond this stage at

all
;

their

science,

such as

it

is,

is

anonymous, the

inherited property of a caste or guild,

clearly in

and we

still

see

some
"

cases that

it

was once the

same among

the Hellenes.
"

Medicine, for instance, was originally the

it

mystery
all

of the Asklepiads, and

(Srjfitovpyoi),

is

to be supposed

that

craftsmen

amongst
first

whom Homer
organised in

classes

the bards (doiBoi), were at

a similar way.

What

distinguished the Hellenes from

other peoples was that at a comparatively early date

these crafts
individuals,

came under the

influence of outstanding

who gave them

is

a fresh direction and a

impulse.

It

doubtless in
the

some such way

of

that
to

new we
the

should

understand

relation

Homer

The Asklepiads at a later date produced Hippokrates, and if we knew more of such guilds as the Daidalids, it is likely we should find something of the
Homeridai.

same

kind.

But

this

does not destroy the corporate

;

character of the craft

indeed,

it

rather intensifies

it.

The
vital

guild becomes

what we

call

a " school," and the

disciple takes the place of the apprentice.

That
a

is

change.
is

close guild

with none but

while

official

heads

essentially

conservative,

band of
is

disciples

attached

to

master

they

revere

the

greatest progressive force the world knows.

It
is

certain that the later

Athenian schools were

INTRODUCTION
organised
corporations,
its

35
of which,
the

the

oldest

Academy, maintained
decide

existence as such for

some

nine hundred years, and the only question

is

whether
B.C.,
it

this

we have to was an innovation made in the

fourth century
tradition.

or rather the continuance of an old

As

happens,

we have

the authority of

Plato for speaking of the chief early systems as handed

down men

in schools.

He makes
the

Sokrates speak of

"

the

of Ephesos,"

Herakleiteans, as
day,^

forming

strong body in his

Sophist
as
^*

own

and the stranger of the

speaks
of
his

and
in

the

Statesman
at

school

still

existence
^

Elea.^

We

also

hear

of

Anaxagoreans,"

and no one, of

course, can doubt

that the Pythagoreans were a society.

is

In

fact,

there

hardly any school but that of Miletos for which we

;

have not external evidence of the strongest kind

even as regards
it,

and
that

we have the significant

of the

fact

Theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a

as

later

date of

having

been
*

"associates

philosophy
first

Anaximenes."

We
is

shall see too in

the

chapter

that the internal evidence in favour of the existence of

a Milesian school
this

very strong indeed.

It

is

from
to

point of view, then, that

we

shall

now proceed

consider the
^

men who
. .

created Hellenic science.

Tht. 179 e 4, avroh

that the Herakleiteans

5aifx6vLe
;)

^ SoJ>k.

roh irepl tt^v ''E<peaov. The humorous denial . had any disciples (i8o b 8, UoLois fiadTjTais, u> implies that this was the normal and recognised relation. Cf. ib. 216 a 3, Trap' ijfjuv 'EXeariKbv ^dvo$. 242 d 4, rd
.

eratpov

8k

tCjv

d/xipl

Uapfj-evidrju Kai Z-fjvwva {eralpwv']

;

(where iralpuiv

is

probably interpolated, but gives the right sense)

Tbirov.
^
*

217

a, i, ol

wepl rbv iKcT

409 b 6, efirep iCK't]Brf ol Ava^aybpeioi Xiyovaiy. Chap. VI. 122 and, on the whole subject, see Diels, " Uber die altesten Philosophenschulen der Griechen " in Philosophische Aufsdtze
Crat.
*

Cf.

Eduard Zeller gewidmet

(Leipzig, 1887).

CHAPTER

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

I.

It

was

at

Miletos

that
its

the

eariiest

school
it

ofMiietosand
^

scientific

cosmology had
were
in

home.

At

the time

arose,

the

Milesians

an

exceptionally

favourable

position for scientific as well as commercial pursuits.

They

had, indeed,

come

into conflict

more than once

with the neighbouring Lydians, whose rulers were

now
but,

bent upon extending their dominion to the coast

towards the end of the seventh century

boulos, tyrant of Miletos,

B.C.,

Thrasy-

had succeeded

in

making terms
for the

with

King

Alyattes, and

an alliance was concluded

between them, which not only saved Miletos

present from a disaster like that which befell Smyrna,

but

secured

it

against

molestation

for

the

future.

Even

half a century later,

father's

forward policy,

when Croesus, resuming his made war upon and conquered

still

Ephesos, Miletos was

treaty-relation,

able

to

maintain the old

speaking,

and never,

strictly
all.

became

subject to the Lydians at

We
to

can hardly doubt

that the sense of security which this exceptional position

would

foster

had something

do with the
is

rise

of

scientific inquiry.

Material prosperity

necessary as a
;

foundation for the highest intellectual effort

37

and

at this

38

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in possession

time Miletos was

life

of

all

the refinements of

to a degree

unknown
only
in

in continental Hellas.

Nor was
connexion
Miletos.

it

this

way

that

the

Lydian
at

would

favour

the

growth

of

science

What was

called

Hellenism at a
in the

later date

seems to have been traditional

dynasty of the
in

Mermnadai.

There may well be some truth

all

the

statement of Herodotos, that

the " sophists " of the

time flocked to the court of Safdeis.^

The

tradition
call

which represent^ Croesus as what we should

"

the the

patron

" of
;

Greek wisdom, was

fully

developed
its

in

fifth

century
it

and, however unhistorical

clearly

details

may
in

be,
fact.

must

have some sort of foundation

Particularly

noteworthy

is

"

the

common

tale

among

the Greeks," that Thales accompanied

him on
indeed,

his luckless

campaign against
military

Pteria, apparently in the

capacity

of

engineer.

Herodotos,

disbelieves the story that he diverted

the course of

the Halys

but he does not attack

it it

on the ground
is

of any antecedent improbability, and

that those

quite clear

who

reported

it

found no
it

difficulty in accept-

ing

the

relation

which

presupposes

between the

philosopher and the king.

^ Herod, i. 29. Some other points may be noted in confirmation of what has been said as to the "Hellenism" of the Mermnadai. Alyattes had two wives, one of whom, the mother of Croesus, was a Karian the other was an Ionian, and by her he had a son called by the Greek name Pantaleon {ib. 92). The offerings of Gyges were pointed out in the treasury of Kypselos at Delphoi {ib. 14), and those of Alyattes were one of the " sights" of the place {ib. 25). Croesus also showed great liberality to Delphoi {ib. 50), and to many other Greek shrines {ib. 92). He gave most
;

of the pillars for the great temple at Ephesos.

37) and
2

The

stories pf Miltiades (vi,

Alkmeon
i.

{ib.

125) should also be mentioned in this connexion.

disbelieves
it

'

Herod,

75.

He

because he had heard, probably from

the Greeks of Sinope, of the great antiquity of the bridge on the royal

road between Ankyra and Pteria (Ramsay, Asia Minor^ p. 29). Xanthos recorded a tradition that it was Thales who induced Croesus to ascend his pyre when he knew a shower was coming (fr. 19).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

It

39

should be added that the Lydian alliance would

greatly facilitate intercourse with Babylon and Egypt.

Lydia was an advanced post of Babylonian

culture,

and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of both Egypt and Babylon. It is noteworthy, too, that

Amasis of Egypt had the same Hellenic sympathies

their

as

Croesus, and that the Milesians possessed a temple of

own

at Naukratis.^

I.

Thales

'

"^2. There
logists,

can be no doubt that the founder of the

first

Origin.

Milesian school, and therefore the

of the cosmo-

was Thales

^
;

but

all

we can

really be said to

know

of him comes from Herodotos, and the romance

of the Seven Wise

Men was
us, in

already in existence when

the
first

he wrote.

He

tells

place, that Thales

was of Phoenician descent, a statement which other

writers explained

by saying he belonged

to the Thelidai,

a noble house descended from

Kadmos and

Agenor.^

This

is

clearly connected with the view of

Herodotos

that there were "

original
really
cities.*
^

Kadmeians

"

from Boiotia among the

it

Ionian colonists, and

is

certain
in

that there

were people called Kadmeians

several Ionic
origin
is,

Whether they were of Semitic

of

Milesians at Naukratis, Ilerod. ii. 178, where Amasis is said to have been (pi\4\\r]v. He subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at Delphoi
after the great fire {id. 180).
^ Simplicius, indeed, quotes from Theophrastos the statement that Thales had many predecessors {Z>ox. p. 475, 11). This, however, need not trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells us that Theophrastos made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is merely an

application of Peripatetic Uteralism to a remark of Plato's {Phileb. 16 c

Cf.

6).

Appendix, 2. 3 Herod, i. 170 (R. P. 9

*

d.)

Diog.

i.

22 (R. P.

9).

Priene was called Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636 ; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. Kadme, and the oldest annalist of Miletos bore the name Kadmos. See
E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth.
ii.

158.

40

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Herod otos probably mentions the supposed descent of Thales simply because he was
course, another matter.

believed to have introduced

certain

improvements
rate,

in

navigation from Phoenicia.^

At any
It is

the

name

Examyes, which

his father bore, lends

no support to

the view that he was a Semite.

a Karian name,

and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated

by the
there

lonians.

On

the monuments,
in the

and Karian names alternating

is

we find Greek same families, and

citizen,

therefore

no reason to suppose that Thales was

though

anything else than an ordinary Milesian

perhaps with Karian blood
The
eclipse

in his veins.^

3.

By

far

the

most remarkable statement that

is

Thales.

Herodotos makes about)Thales

eclipse of the sun

that he foretold the

which put an end to the war between

the Lydians and the Medes.^

Now, we may be sure

were
so,*

that he was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses.

Anaximander and
it is

his successors certainly

and

incredible that the right explanation should once

have been given and then forgotten so soon.

supposing, however, Thales had
eclipses,

Even
of

known
that
in

the cause of
scraps

no

one

can

believe

such

elementary geometry as he picked up

Egypt would

enable him to calculate one from the elements of the

moon's path.
^

Yet the evidence

5'

for the prediction is

riji

Diog.

i.

23, KaWL/j-axos

\iyo}p iv rots 'Idfi^ois outws

Koi

avrbv oWev evperrju r^s &pKTOv

fiiKpas

Trjt a/ia^ijs

iKtyero

(TTaOfJii^a-aaOai,

Tovs a<Trtpt<TKOVs, i TrAeouo-t ^oiVtKe?.

2 See Diels," Thales ein; Semite?" {Arch. ii. 165 sqq.),'and Immisch, "Zu Thales Abkunft" {ib. p. 515). The name Examyes occurs also in Kolophon (Hermesianax, Leontion, fr. 2, 38 Bgk.), and may be compared with other

Karian names such as Cheramyes and Panamyes. ^ Herod, i. 74. ^ For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see infra,
19, 71-

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

too strong to be rejected ofif-hand.

41
of

The testimony

Herodotos
about
a

to

an event which must have happened

years
before
;

hundred

his

own
it

birth

may,

perhaps, be

deemed

insufficient

but that of Xenois

phanes

is

a very different matter, and

this

we
he
In

have really to deal with/

According to Theophrastos,
of Anaximander, and

Xenophanes was a

disciple

may
any

quite well have seen

case,

and spoken with Thales.

he must have known scores of people who

were able to remember what happened, and he had no

conceivable
interest
in
is

misrepresenting

it.

The

pre-

diction of the eclipse

really better attested than

any

other fact about Thales whatsoever, and the evidence

for
it is

about as strong as for anything that happened

in the early part of the sixth century B.C.

Now
knowing

it is

quite possible to predict eclipses without

their true cause,

and there

is

no doubt that

the Babylonians actually did so.

On

the basis of their

astronomical observations, they had

made out

a cycle

of 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun

and moon recurred at equal

it is

intervals of time.^

This,

true,

would not enable them to predict

eclipses of
;

the sun for a given spot on the earth's surface

these

for

phenomena
is

are not visible at

all

places where the

sun

above the horizon at the time.

We
has

do not
be

occupy a position at the centre of the

astronomers
^

earth,

and what
to

call

the geocentric
d^

parallax

Diog.

i.*

23, doKei

Kard riuas
i!)S

TrpCoros

darpoXoyTjaai
iv
-rg

Kai

ijXiaKhs

^/cXet'^ets

Kal rpoirds
IffTopig.,

vpoenreiu,

<f>r]<rLu

'Ei^drjfx.os

Tepi tQv aarpo-

Xoyov/J^vwp
2

Sdev avrhv Kal

e!,VO(pdPT)i

Kal 'Hpddoros dav/xdi^et.

Chaldaean cycle in this connexion seems to have been the Rev. George Costard, Fellow of Wadham College. See his Dissertation ott the Use of Astronomy in History (London, 1764), It is inaccurate to call it the Saros; that was quite another thing p. 17.
first

The

to call attention to the

(see Ginzel, Klio,

i.

p. 377).

42
taken

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

into

account.
tell

It

would

only,

therefore,

be

possible to

by means

of the cycle that an eclipse

of the

sun

would be

visible

somewhere, and that

it.

it

might be worth while to look out for

Now,

if

we

may judge from

the

a report by a Chaldaean astronomer

this

which has been preserved,

Babylonians.
;

was

just the position of

for

They watched
if

eclipses

at

the

proper dates

and,

they did not occur, they announced

the fact as a good omen.^

told about Thales

To

explain what

we

are

no more than

this is required.
;

He

simply said there would be an eclipse

luck would have
it,

and, as good

it

was

visible in

Asia Minor, and on

a striking occasion.
Date of 4.

The
light

prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw

much
but, if

upon the

scientific
it

attainments of Thales

we can

fix its date,

will give us

a point from

which to
he
lived.

start in trying to

determine the time at which

calculated

Modern astronomers have

that

there was

an eclipse of the sun, probably

visible in

Asia Minor, on

May

28

(O.S.),

585

B.c.,^

while Pliny
as Ol.

gives the date of the eclipse foretold

by Thales
is

XLVIII. 4 (585/4
^

B.C.).^

This,

it

true,

does not
The
inscrip-

tion
'*

See George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875), which follows was found at Kouyunjik
:

P- A^9-

To

the king

my

lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.

" Concerning the

me

in the cities of

and then in made, and the eclipse took place.

eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to Akkad, Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they made, the city of Akkad, we saw part. The observation was
. . .

"And when
observation was

for the eclipse of the sun

we made an

observation, the
I

made and

it

did not take place.

That which

saw with
Spezieller

my
'^

eyes to the king

my

lord I send."

For the literature of this subject, see R. P. 8 b, adding Ginzel, KanoUf p. 171. See also Milhaud, Science greajue, p. 62.
3

Pliny,

N.H.

ii.

53.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

exactly tally; for
B.C.

43

May

585 belongs to the year 586/5

It

is

sufficiently near, however, to justify us in

is

identifying the eclipse as that of Thales, and this

confirmed by Apollodoros,

who

fixed his floruit in the

same
wise

year.^

The

further statement that, according to

Demetrios Phalereus, Thales "received

" in

the

name

of

the archonship of Damasias at Athens, agrees

this,

v^ry well with

and
;

is

doubtless based on the story

of the Delphic tripod

is

for the

archonship of Damasias

the era of the restoration of the Pythian Games.^

5.

The
is

introduction
universally

of Egyptian
to

geometry into
it

Thales

in

Hellas

ascribed

Thales, and

is

extremely probable that he did

visit

Egypt

for

he

had a theory of the inundations of the

Nile.

In a

well-known passage,^ Herodotos gives three explana^ For Apollodoros, see Appendix, 20. The dates in our text of Diogenes (i. 37 R. P. 8) cannot be reconciled with one another. That given for the death of Thales is probably right ; for it is the year before the fall of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., which is one of the regular eras used by Apollodoros. It no doubt seemed natural to make Thales die the year before the " ruin of Ionia" which he foresaw. Seventy-eight years before
;

this brings us to

625/4

B.C. for the birth of

Thales, and this gives us 585/4

B.C. for his fortieth year.

That

is

Pliny's date for the eclipse,

and

Pliny's

dates
2

come from Apollodoros through Nepos.

i.

For a

full

discussion of the

subject, see Jacoby, pp. 175 sqq.

Diog.

22 (R. P.

9).
it

of Damasias here, though the date

B.C.,

appears to

do not discuss the Pythian era and the date me that the last word has not yet
(pp.

been said upon the subject.

Jacoby

now
is

generally accepted.

170 sqq.) argues strongly for 582/1, Others favour the Pythian year 586/5

which

how

those historians

the very year of the eclipse, and this would help to explain who used Apollodoros came to date it a year too

It is late ; for Damasias was archon for two years and two months. even possible that they misunderstood the words Aa/taa/ou roxi devr^pov, which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier archon of the same name, as meaning **in the second year of Damasias." Apollodoros gave

only Athenian archons, and the reduction to Olympiads is the work of later writers. Kirchner, adopting the year 582/1 for Damasias, brings the

archonship of Solon down to 591/0 {J^A. Mus. liii. pp. 242 date of Solon's archonship can never have been doubtful.
reckoning,
Solon.
^

sqq.).

But the

On

Kirchner's

we come

to

586/5

B.C.,

if

we keep
ii.

the traditional date of

See also E. Meyer, Forschungen^ Herod, ii. 20.

pp. 242 sqq.

44

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

falls in

tions of the fact that this alone of all rivers rises in

summer and

winter

but, as his

custom

is

in

such cases, he does not

name

their authors.

The

first

of them, however, that which attributes the floods to

the Etesian winds,
is

ascribed to Thales in the Placita}

and

also

by many
to

later writers.

Now, those statements

Rise of the Nile
to

are derived from a treatise on the

attributed
Aristotle

and

known

the

Greek

commentators, but now extant only

of the thirteenth century.^

in a

Latin epitome
first

In this work the

is

of

the three theories mentioned by Herodotos

to Thales, the second to

ascribed

Euthymenes of Massalia, and

the

third

to

Anaxagoras.

Where

did
?

Aristotle,

or

whoever wrote the book, get these names

naturally once
often reproduces without mentioning his
this conjecture is

We
;

think

more of Hekataios, whom Herodotos so

name and much strengthened when we find that

Hekataios actually mentioned Euthymenes.^

conclude, then, that Thales really was in

We may
;

Egypt

and,

perhaps, that Hekataios, in describing the Nile, took

account,
as

was only

natural,

of his

distinguished

fellow-citizen's views.
Thales and geometry,

6.

As

to the nature

and extent of the mathematical

j^^owledge brought back

by Thales from Egypt,

it

seems desirable to point out that many writers have

seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition.*

In

his

commentary on the
enumerates,
iv.
I.
I

First

Proclus
^

on

the

authority

Book of Euclid, of Eudemos,

Aet.

Dox. pp. 226-229.

{Dox, p. 384). The Latin epitome will be found in Rose's edition

of the Aristotelian fragments.

Hekataios, fr. 278 {F.H.G. i. p. 19). See Cantor, Vorlestmgen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp. 12 sqq. Allman, " Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid " {Hermaihena,
3

iii.

pp. 164-174).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

certain

45

propositions

which

he

says were

known

to

Thales.^

One

of the theorems with which he credits

him
side

is

that two triangles are equal

when they have one

This he must

and the two adjacent angles

equal.

have known, said Eudemos, as otherwise he could not

have measured the distances of ships at sea from a
watch-tower
in

the
all

way he was
the

said to have done.^

Here we see how

remarkable feats

these statements arose.

Certain

in

way
all

of measurement

were

traditionally ascribed to Thales,

and

it

was assumed

that he

must have known But

the propositions which

these imply.
inference.

this is quite

an illusory method of

Both the measurement of the distance of

ships at sea,

and that of the height of the pyramids,

which
.^

is

also ascribed to him,^ are easy applications of

157, 10; 250, 20; 299, i 352, 14; wrote the first histories of astronomy and mathematics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of philosophy,
;

Proclus, in Eucl. pp. 65, 7;

(Friedlein).

Eudemos

^ Proclus, p. 352, 14, EiJdrj/jLOs di iv raXs yeu/xerpiKais IcrTopian eis QaXrju tovto dvayei rb deuprjfia i^Eucl. i. 26) r^v yap tGjv iv 6a\dTT7)

irXoLojv
(p7}(TLv

cLTrdcrTacnv di

o0 Tpbirov (paalv avrbv SeiKv{>paL ro&rq} irpoaxpW^o-l-

dvayKOiov.
p.

For the method adopted by Thales, see Tannery, Giomitrie

I

grecque,

90.

agree,

however, with Dr.

Gow

(Short History of

Greek Mathematics, % 84) that it is very unlikely Thales reproduced and measured on land the enormous triangle which he had constructed in a
perpendicular plane over the sea.
to

Such a method would be too cumbrous

be of use. Egyptian seqt.

'^

It is

much

simpler to suppose that he

made

use of the

The

oldest version of this story

is

given in Diog.
ttjs

i.

27, 6 5^ 'lepdw/ios

/cat

iK/JLCTpTjaaL (prja-Lv

avrbv raj irvpafiidas, iK

crKids TraparrjpT^aavra Sre

rjfuv

tudinis

icTlv. Cf. Pliny, B. Nat. xxxvi. 82, mensurain altiearum deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius umbrain nietiendo qua hora par esse corpori solet. (Hieronymos of Rhodes was contemporary with Eudemos. ) This need imply no more than the simple reflexion that the shadows of all objects will probably be equal to the objects at the same hour. Plutarch [Conv. sept. sap. 147 a) gives a more elaborate method,
laofiey^drjs

tV
Ty
eZxe,

paKTTfplav
iiracpfi

(TTTjcras iiri t<^

iriparc ttjs CKids

fjv

ij

irvpafils ivoiei, yevofj^vuv

T^s

d/CTij/os

dvotv Tpiywvuv, ^dei^as 6v

i] cr/cta

irpbs rijv ffKidv

\byov
points

TT]v Tvpafiida irpbs ttjv

is

^aKrqpiav ^xovcav.
seqt,

This, as Dr.

Gow

out,

only another calculation of

and may very well have been the

method of Thales.

46

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

calls

what Aahmes
tion

the

seqt.

These
brought

rules of

mensura-

may

well

have

been

from Egypt

by

Thales, but we have no ground for supposing that he knew any more about their rationale than did the

author of the

Rhind papyrus.

Perhaps,

indeed, he

gave them a wider application than the Egyptians had

done.
Still,

mathematics, properly so called, did not

till

come
Thales as a
/.

into existence

some time
once

after Thales.
in
fall

Thales

appears

more

the

pages

of

Herodotos some time before the

empire.

of the Lydian

He

is

said to have urged the Ionian Greeks

its

to unite in a federal state with

capital

at Teos.^
in

We
in

shall

have occasion to notice more than once

the sequel that the early schools of philosophy were

the

habit

of trying
;

to

influence

the

course
things,

of
for

political

events

and

there

are

many
in

instance the part played

revolt,

by Hekataios

the Ionian
scientific

which point to the conclusion that the

men

of Miletos took up a very decided

position

in

the stirring times that followed the death of Thales.

It is this political action

which has gained the founder

of the Milesian school his undisputed place

among

the
his

Seven

Wise Men

and

it

is

owing mainly to
that

inclusion

among

those

worthies

the

numerous

anecdotes which were told of him in later days attached

themselves to his name.^

Uncertain
thrtradTtion.

8.

If

Thales evcr wrote anything,

it

soon was
his

lost,

^"*^

^^

works which were written

in

name

did

not, as a rule, deceive

^

even the ancients.^

Aristotle

Herod,

i.

170 (R. P. 9

d).

story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, Tht. 174 a) is nothing but a fable teaching the uselessness of <TO(f>ia. ; the anecdote about the "corner" in oil (Ar. Pol. A, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to inculcate the
2

The

opposite lesson.

ggg

j^

p^ g ^

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

professes to

49
;

but he does not pretend to

at,

know something about the views of Thales know how they were arrived

nor the arguments by which they were supported.

does, indeed,

He

make

certain suggestions, which are

;

repeated by later writers as statements of fact

but he

himself simply gives them for what they are worth.^

There

is

another

difficulty

in

connexion

with

the

tradition.

Many

a precise -looking statement in the

Placita has
ascribing

no other foundation than the habit of

the

any doctrine which was, roughly speaking,

of
his

characteristic
"

whole

Ionic

"

Succession

"

to

Thales

and

followers,"

and

so

producing

the

appearance of a definite statement about Thales.

in spite of all this,

But,

we need not doubt

regard

that Aristotle

was

correctly

informed with

to

the

leading
in

points.

We

have seen traces of reference to Thales

Hekataios, and nothing can be more likely than that

later

writers
its

of the school should have quoted the

views of

founder.

We may venture,
know

therefore,

upon

a conjectural restoration of his cosmology, in which

shall

we
for

be guided by what we

for certain of the

;

subsequent development of the Milesian school

we should

naturally expect

to find its

characteristic
its

doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of

earliest representative.

But
;

all this

must be taken

for

just

what

it

is

worth

speaking

strictly,

we do not
all.

know anything about the 9. The statements of

three
:

teaching of Thales at
Aristotle

may

be reduced to

Conjectural account of the cosmology of

Tbaks.

(i)
1

The
ib.

earth floats on the water/

R. P.

Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10) ; de Caelo, B, 13. 294 a 28 (R. P. Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of earthquakes (so Aet. iii. 15, i) ; but this is probably due to a " Homeric allegorist"
2 Arist.

II).

46
(2)

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Water
is

the material cause

full

of

all

things.
is

(3) All things are

alive
;

of gods.

The magnet

for

it

has the power of moving

iron.^

The

first

of these statements must be understood in

is

the light of the second, which

expressed in Aristotelian

terminology, but would undoubtedly

mean

that Thales

had

said water
all

was the fundamental or primary thing,

such a primary substance

of which
It was,

other things were mere transient forms.

see, just

we

shall

that the Milesian school as a whole was seeking, and

it

is

unlikely that the

earliest

answer to the great

question of the day should have been the comparatively

subtle one given
justified
in

by Anaximander.
he was the
"

We

are,

perhaps,

holding that the greatness of Thales confirst

sisted in this, that

to ask, not

what

was now
of?
Water.
"

the original thing, but

;

what

is

the primary thing

is

or,

more simply

still,

What

the world

made
Water,

The answer he gave

Aristotle

to this question

was

10. plicius

and Theophratos, followed by Sim-

and the doxographers, suggest several explana-

tions of this answer.

By
;

Aristotle these explanations

it

are given as conjectural

is

only later writers that

repeat

them

as

if

they were quite certain.^

to

The most
Cf.

(Appendix,
Diels,
1

11),

who wished

explain

the epithet ivvoaiyaLOs.

Dox.
ttjs

p. 225.
3.

Me^. A,
de

983 b 20 (R. P.
5.

10).

have said "material cause,"

because

vXrfs etdei dpxv^ (b 7). 411 a 7 (R. P. 13) ; ib. 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13 a). This comes from Hesychios of Diog. i. 24 (R. P. ib.) adds amber. Miletos ; for it occurs in the schoUum of Par. on Plato, Rep. 600 a. 3 Met. A, 3. 983 b 22 ; Aet. i. 3, i ; Simpl. Phys. p. 36, 10 (R. P. 10, 12,
2 Arist.

tom^ttjs dpxv^ (b 19)

means

ttjs iv

An. A,

12

a).

The

last

of the explanations given by Aristotle, namely, that Thales

was influenced by

early cosmogonical theories about Okeanos and Tethys, has strangely been supposed to be more historical than the rest, whereas Plato says more than once it is merely a fancy of Plato's taken literally. (Tht. 180 d 2 ; Crat. 402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors
{ol

piovTci) derived their philosophy

from

Homer

(//. xiv.

201),

and even

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

49

probable view of them seems to be that Aristotle simply

ascribed to Thales the arguments used at a later date

by Hippon of Samos

in

support of a similar

thesis.^

This would account for their physiological character.

The

rise

of scientific medicine had

in the fifth

made
;

biological
but, in the

arguments very popular

but rather what

century

days of Thales, the prevailing interest was not physiological,

we should

call meteorological,

and

it is

therefore from this point of view

we must

try

to understand the theory.

Now it

is

not very hard to see

how

considerations of

a meteorological kind
the view he did.
4

may have
all

led Thales to adopt

Of

the things

we know, water
It is familiar

seems to take the most various shapes.

to us in a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form, and so

Thales

may

well have thought that he

saw the world- V/

of evaporation
fire

process from water and back to water again going on

before his very eyes.
naturally

The phenomenon
everywhere
that

suggests
is

the

of the

heavenly bodies

kept up by the moisture which they

draw from the

" the

sea.

Even

at

the

present day, the

country people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as

sun drawing water."
;

Water comes down again

in

the rain

and

lastly,

so the early cosmologists thought,

Vors. ist ed. p. 491).

earlier sources

(Orph. frag.

2, Diels,
it

In quoting this

suggestion, Aristotle refers

to

" some "

and he calls the originators of the theory irafiiraXaiovs, as Plato had This is a characteristic done {Me^. 983 b 28 ThL 181 b 3). cf. example of the way in which Aristotle gets history out of Plato. See Appendix, 2. 1 Compare Arist. de An. A, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220) with the passages referred to in the last note. The same suggestion is made in Zeller's fifth edition (p. 188, n. i), which I had not seen when the above was written. Ddring, "Thales" {Zschr.f. Philos. 1896, pp. 179 sqq.), takes the same view. We now know that, though Aristotle declines to consider Hippon as a philosopher (.Met. A, 3. 984 a 3 R. P. 219 a), he was discussed in the history of medicine known as Menon's latrika. See Diels in Hermes, xxviii. p. 420.
; '
;

a word which often means Plato

50
it

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

This seems strange to
us,

turns to earth.

but

it

may

have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar

with the river of Egypt which had formed the Delta,

and with the torrents of Asia Minor, which bring down

unusually large alluvial deposits.

At

the present day

is

the Gulf of Latmos, on which Miletos used to stand,

completely

filled up.

Lastly, they thought, earth turns

once more to water

an
all

idea derived from the obser-

vation of dew, night-mists, and subterranean springs.

For these
to have
"

last

were not
to

in

early

times

supposed
rain.

anything at

do with the

The

waters under the earth " were regarded as an entirely

independent source of moisture.^

Theology.
is
1 1.

The

third of the statements

mentioned above

supposed by Aristotle himself to imply that Thales

"

believed in a
to

soul of the world," though he as

is

careful

mark

this

no more than an
world-soul
is

inference.^

The
quite
in

doctrine

of the

then

attributed

positively to

Thales by Aetios,

who

gives

it

the

Stoic
source,

phraseology which he found in his immediate

and

identifies

the world -intellect

with God.^

Cicero found a similar account of the matter in the

Epicurean manual which he followed, but he goes a

step
further.

Eliminating

the

Stoic

pantheism,

he

turns the world-intellect into a Platonic demiourgos, and

says that Thales held there was a divine mind which

formed
^

all

things out of water.^

All this
'
'

is

derived
allegorist

The view

here taken most resembles that of the

a).

Homeric

"

Herakleitos (R. P. 12
2 Arist. 3

That, however,

is

also a conjecture, probably

'

o-

Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.

^H|
to,

de
7,

An. A,

Aet.

i.

411 a 7 (R. P. 13). ii = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred
5.
i.

^^'

see Appendix, 11, 12.

*

Cicero, de Nat. Z>.

25 (R. P. 13

b).

On

Cicero's source, see

is,

Dox.

pp. 125, 128.

The Herculanean papyrus

of Philodemos

unfortunately-

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

no greater authority than
then,
its

51

from the cautious statement of Aristotle, and can have

source.

We need not enter,

If

upon the old controversy whether. Thales was an

or not.
It
is

atheist

really

irrelevant.

we may
beliefs

judge from

his successors,
;

he

may

very possibly have

called water divine

at
all,

but, if

he had any religious

we may be

sure they were quite unconnected

with his cosmological theory.

Nor must we make too much of the saying

that "
to
all

itself

things are
that

full

of gods."
attributed

It is often

supposed
life"

mean

Thales

a "plastic

to

matter, or that he

was a "hylozoist."

We
It is

have seen
is

already
be,^

how misleading this way and we shall do well to avoid

it

of speaking
it.

apt to

not safe to

regard such an apophthegm as evidence for anything

the chances are that

belongs to Thales as one of the

Seven

Wise Men,

rather

than as

founder

of

the
rule,

Milesian school.

Further, such sayings are, as a

anonymous

to begin with,

and are

attributed

now

to
it

one sage and now to another.^

is

On
That

the other hand,

extremely probable that Thales did say that the

souls.
is

magnet and amber had

no apophthegm,
in fact, just the

but something more on the level of the statement that

the earth floats on the water.
sort of thing
It
is,

we should expect Hekataios

It
it

to to

record

about Thales.

would be wrong, however,

draw
;

any inferences from

as to his view of the world

it is

for

defective just at this point, but

not likely that the Epicurean manual

anticipated Cicero's mistake.

1

See Introd. VIII.

Plato refers to the saying iravra
irK-f^pt) deQv in Laws, 899 b 9 (R. P. 14 b), That ascribed to Herakleitos in the aJr />ar/. be a mere variation on it. So in Diog. ix. 7

without mentioning Thales,

An. A,

5.

645 a 17 seems to
is
irXi^prj.

(R. P. 46 d) Herakleitos
Sai/Mdvuv

credited with the saying irivTo.

\f/vx^>'

eXmi Ka

52

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

magnet and amber are
alive
is

to say that the

if

to imply,

anything, that other things are not.^

n.
Life.

Anaximander
that has

2.

The next name

come down

to us

is

that of Anaximander, son of Praxiades.

He

too was

citizen of Miletos,
" associate "
is

and Theophrastos described him

as an

of Thales.^

We

have seen how that

expression

to be understood ( XIV.).

According to Apollodoros, Anaximander was sixtyfour years old in 01. LVIII. 2 (547/6 B.C.);
is

and

this

confirmed by Hippolytos,

who

says he was born in

Pliny,

01.

XLII.

(610/9

B-C.)>

and by

who

assigns

his discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the

same

Olympiad.^

We
all

seem

to

have here something more

;

than a mere combination of the ordinary type

according to

for,

the rules of Alexandrian chronology,

in 565 B.C., between Thales and Anaximenes,

Anaximander should have "flourished"

that
is,

just half-way

and

this

would make him

sixty, not sixty-four, in 546.

Now
for

Apollodoros appears to have said that he had

;

and his reason met with the work of Anaximander mentioning this must be that he found in it some indication which enabled him to fix its date without
having recourse
to

conjecture.

Diels
his

suggests

that

Anaximander may have given

age at the

time

of writing as sixty-four, and that the book

1

may have

Baumker, Das Problem der Materie, p. 10, n. I. R. P. 15 d. That th4 words iroXLrrjs Kai iraipos, given by Simplicius, de Uae/o, p. 615, 13. are the^ original words of Theophrastos is shown by the agreement of Cic. Acad. ii. 118, popularis et sodalis. The two passages represent quite independent branches of the tradition. See Appendix,
'^

7, 12.
3
ii.

Diog.

ii.

31.

Pliny's dates

2 (R. P. IS); Hipp. Rej. i. 6 {Dox. p. 560); Plin. come from ApoUodoroF through Nepos.

N.H.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

contained some other statement showing
it

53
to

have

been published

in

547/6

B.C.^

Perhaps, however, this

is

hardly does justice to the fact that the year given

just that

which preceded the

fall

of Sardeis and the

It

subjugation of the Lydian empire by the Persians.

may be
writing
his

a more plausible conjecture that Anaximander,

some years

later, incidentally

mentioned what
crisis.

age had been at the time of that great

We
old

know from Xenophanes that the question, were you when the Mede appeared ? " was an interesting one in those days.^ At all
seem
to be
justified in believing that

"

How

considered
events,

we

Anaximander was

a generation younger than Thales.

When

he died we

do not

really know.^
his

Like

predecessor,

Anaximander

distinguished

himself by certain practical inventions.

credited

Some
;

writers

him with that of the gnomon

Herodotos
tells

but that can

hardly be correct.

us this instrument

came from Babylon, so perhaps it was Anaximander who made it known among the Greeks. He was also
the
first

to construct a

map, and Eratosthenes said

this

was the map elaborated by Hekataios.*

^

Rhein. Mus. xxxi.

p. 24.
;

Xenophanes, fr. 22 (fr. 17, Karsten R. P. 95 a). Jacoby (p. 190) thinks that Apollodoros fixed \}s\q floruit of Anaximander forty years before that of Pythagoras, that is, in 572/1 B.C., and that the statement as to his age in 547/6 is a mere inference from this. 3 The statement that he " died soon after " (Diog. ii. 2 R. P. 15) seems to mean that Apollodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis (546/5), one of his regular epochs. If this is so, Apollodoros cannot have said also that he flourished in the days of Polykrates, and Diels is probably right in supposing that this notice refers to Pythagoras and has been inserted in
2
;

the
*

wrong

place.

For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 31, n. i ; and cf. Diog. ii. i (R. P. 15) Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes the Herod, ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). The truth seems invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes {^N.H. ii. 87). to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally ascribed to certain philosophers. That of Delos was referred to Pherekydes. For

54
Theophrastos
der's theory of IS
subs^liJ^e.'^
1 3.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Nearly
all

we know

of Anaximander's system

derived in the last resort from Theophrastos.^

As

to the credibility of
it

what we are

told

on his authority,

is

enough
in

to

remark that the original work, which

Moreover, he

was

the hands of Apollodoros, must certainly have

existed in

the time of Theophrastos.

least to

seems once at
words,

have quoted Anaximander's own

his
style.

and he

criticised

Here are the

:

remains of what he said of him in the First Book

Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen and associate of Thales,^ said that the material cause and first
element of things was the
Infinite,

he being the

first
it

to intro-

duce

this

name

for the material cause.

^

He

says

is

neither

water nor any other of the so-called

different

elements, but a substance

from them which

P. 16).
is

is infinite,

from which

arise all the

fr.

heavens and the worlds within them.

p.

Phys. Op.

(Dox.

476; R.

He
passes

says that this

all

the worlds.

Hipp.

eternal

and

ageless,
i.

and

that
a).

it

encom-

Ref.

6 (R. P. 17

And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, "as is ordained ; for they make reparation
and
satisfaction to

one another

for their injustice

according
poetical

to the appointed time," as he says* in these

\.&xvi\%.Phys. Op.
fr.

somewhat

2 (R. P. i6),

the

map

see Agathemeros,
T7}v

i.

I,

'Aua^ifj,av8po% 6 MtXrjffLos aKovarrjs

iv
irlvaKL
yp6.\pai,
/xed'

GaX^w
6

irpuTOs

T6\fXT]<T

oiKovfi^uTjv

6p 'E/caratos

MiXtJctios

ivTjp

TToXuTrXaj/Tjj

di.riKpi^u<rv,

(hare

dav/xaa-Orjpai

rb

Trpayfia.

This
^

is from Eratosthenes. Cf. Strabo, i. p. 7. See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels, Dox. p. 133 Fors. pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the words of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given them alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, 9 sqq. ^ Simplicius says "successor and disciple" (StdSoxos /cat /xadrjT^s) in his Commentary on the Physics ; but see above, p. 52, n. 2. ' For the expression to. Ka\ovfjiva aroixeTa, see Diels, Elementum, In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading dva.i, instead p. 25, n. 4.
;

of writing vvvi with Usener.

*
7\

Diels
.

Vors. p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the

. .

words

i^ cDr 5^

yipeais

The Greek

practice of blending quotations with the text

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

And
Ref.
i.

55

besides

this,

there was an eternal motion, in the course

of which was brought about the origin of the worlds.

6 (R. P. 17
a).

Hipp.

He

did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in

matter, but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which

was a boundless body, were separated

150, 20 (R. P. 18).
14.

out.

Simpl. Phyi. p.

Anaximander

taught, then, that there

was one

The primary
not one of the
^

eternal, indestructible substance out of

arises,

which everything
;

and into which everything once more returns

^"^^^

a boundless stock from which the waste of existence

continually being

is

made good.
thought

This

is

only the natural

ventured
to

development of the
ascribe
to

we have

Thales, and

there can

be no doubt that
it.

Anaximander

at least distinctly formulated

Indeed,

we can
led

still

follow to

some extent the reasoning which

him

to

do

so.

Thales had regarded water as the

most
which

likely of all the things

all

others are forms

we know to be that Anaximander appears

of
to

have asked himself how the primary substance could

be one of these particular things.
to be preserved

His argument seems

has the following
:

by

Aristotle,

who

passage

in his discussion

of the Infinite

Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which

infinite, either,

is

^
v

as

some

hold,

one
it,

distinct

from the elements,

which they then derive from

the elements) the infinite, the other things

For there are some who make

this

nor without this qualification. {i.e. a body distinct from

air or water, in

and not

order that

may

not be destroyed by their

infinity.

Thty

are in opposition one to another

fire

hot

and

air is cold,

water moist, and

infinite^ the

therefore, //

any one of them were

rest
tells

would have
against this.

ceased to be by this time.

It is

Accordingly they
open a verbal

very rare for a Greek

it

\vriter to

quotation abruptly.

Further,

is

safer not to ascribe the terms y4wait

and

<f>eopd in their

technical Platonic sense to Anaximander.

56

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

is infinite is

say that what

something other than the elements,

and from
(R. P. 16

it

the elements arise.

Arist.

Phys. F,

5.

204 b 22

b).

It is clear

that in this passage

trasted with Thales

Anaximander is conand with Anaximenes. Nor is there

his
is

any reason
reasoning
Aristotle's
is

to

doubt that the account given of

"

substantially correct, though the form

own, and the mention of

I

elements
it

" is

an

anachronism.^

Anaximander

was

struck,

would

seem, by the opposition and

strife
;

between the things

the

which go to make up the world

warm

fire

was

opposed to the cold

air,

the dry earth to the moist sea.

These opposites were

at war,

and any predominance of

which they

one over the other was an

" injustice " for

must make reparation

Thales had been right
reality, it

to

one another.^

We may

suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows.

If
in

saying that water was the

fundamental

would not be easy to see how

anything else could ever have existed.

One

side of
its

the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had

way unchecked, injustice would have prevailed, and the warm and dry would have been driven from the field
long ago.
not
itself

We

must, then, have something which

is

one of the warring opposites we know, some-

thing more primitive, out of which they arise, and into

which they once more pass away.

called
^

That Anaximander
^vcri^, is

this

something by the name of

clear
and

the

The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles ( word aroix^Xa, which is properly translated by elementa, was
by Plato.
For the history of the term, see
Diels,

106),
first

used

in this sense

Elementum

(1899).
2

but

is

The important word dWi^Xois was omitted in the Aldine Simplicius, in all the MSS. We shall see that in Herakleitos "justice" means

the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the elements ( 72). See also Introd. p. 32, n. i.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

from the doxographers
;

57

the current statement that the

" first principle "

word

a/o%r; in

the sense of a
is

was^ intro-

duced by him,

probably due to a misunderstanding

of what Theophrastos said.^

15.
It

was natural

for

Aristotle

to

regard

this

Aristotle's

theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his

doctrine of " indeterminate matter."
well, of course, that
^

own
very

^he*theory.

He knew

he himself was the author of that

but

it is

in

accordance with his method to represent his

own

theories as the distinct formulation of truths which

earlier thinkers

had only guessed

that

at.

It

was to be
express

expected,

then,

he

should
in

sometimes

the views of

Anaximander

terms of the theory of

"elements."

He knew

tod that the Boundless was a

there was
;

body,^ though in his

for

own system

no room
so he had
or

anything corporeal prior to the elements

it

to speak of
" distinct
^

as a boundless
"

body "alongside of"

crTOf)(ela).

from

the elements (irapa ra

So

words quoted from Theophrastos by Simplicius, Pkys. p. 24, by themselves, no one would ever have supposed them They would to mean that Anaximander called the Boundless apxhnaturally be rendered "having been the first to introduce this name {i.e. TO direipov) for the dpx'J"; but the words of Hippolytos {/if/, i. 6, 2), irpCJTos ToUvoixa KoXiaas rijs dpxv^, have led nearly all writers to take the passage in the less obvious sense. We now know, however, that Hippolytos is no independent authority, but rests altogether on Theophrastos ; so the natural view to take is that either his immediate source, or he himself, or a copyist, has dropped out tovto before roijpo/ia, and corrupted KofiLa-as into KoK^aas. It is not credible that Theophrastos made both statements. The other passage from Simplicius compared by Usener (p. 150, 23), irpwTos ai^Tos dpxw dvofjidaas rb viroKel/xevov, does not seem It means simply that to me to have anything to do with the question.
If the

15 (R. P. i6), stood

Anaximander was the first to name the substratum as the " material cause," which is a different point altogether. This is how Neuhauser takes the passage {Anaximander, pp. 7 sqq. but I cannot agree with him in holding that the word inroKeifieuov is ascribed to the Milesian. 2 Arist. Met. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). ^ This is taken for granted in FAjys. F, 4. 203 a 16 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), and stated in F, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. FAys. p. 150,
) ;
;

20 (R.

P. 18).

58
far as I

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

know, no one has doubted
he
is

that,

when he

uses

this phrase,

referring to

Anaximander.

In a
thinker,

number of other

places Aristotle speaks of a

whom

he does not happen to name,

who

held

that

the

primary substance
"

was something

" inter-

mediate between

the elements or between two of them.^

Nearly

all

the Greek commentators referred this to

also,
It

Anaximander
follow them.

but most modern writers refuse to

is,

no doubt, easy to show that

no
real objection to the
it is

Anaximander can
Boundless
in this

have never meant to describe the

is

way, but that

older interpretation.

It is difficult to see that

call
"

more.

of an anachronism to

the Boundless

"

intermediate
" distinct

between the elements

from the elements
the elements at
"
;

than to say that

if

it is

and indeed,

once we introduce
is

all,

the former description

in

some
rate, if

ways the more adequate of the two.

At any

we

refuse to understand these passages as referring to

shall

Anaximander, we

have to say that Aristotle,

paid a great deal of attention to some early thinker,

whose very name has been

as

lost,

and who not only

also,

agreed with some of Anaximander's views, but

is

shown by one passage, used some of

his
in

most
one

characteristic expressions.^

We may

add that

^ Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire and Air {Gen. Corr. B, i. 328 b 35 ib. 5. 332 a 21 ; Phys. A, 4. 187 a 14 Met. A, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something intermediate between Water and Air {Met. A, 7. 988 a 13 ; Gen. Corr. B, 5. 332 a 21 ;
;

Phys. r,

205 2. 2T, de Caelo, T, 5. 303 b 12). Once of something between Water and Fire. This variation shows at once that he is not speaking historically. If any one ever held the doctrine of t6 /^era^iJ, he must have known perfectly well
4.
;

203 a 18
i)

ib.

5.

{Phys. A, 6. 189 b

we hear

which two elements he meant.

2 Arist.

de

Caelo, T,

5.

303 b

12,

uSaroj

fxkv

Xeirr&repov, dipoi
direipov
6v.

5^

TVKvdrepov, 8
this refers to

trepUxeiv

(fxxal

irivras

roiis

oipavods

Idaios of Himera, as suggested

Aristotle

very improbable.

by Zeller (p. 258), nowhere mentions his name, and the tone

That seems

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

" intermediate " with the

59

or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the

something

" distinct

from

*'

the

elements.^

There
speak

is

even one place in which he appears to

"

of Anaximander's iBoundless as a
his

mixture,"
inter-

though

words

may
this

perhaps admit of another

is

pretation.^

But

of no consequence for our

himself.
It
is

interpretation of

Anaximander

certain

that he cannot have said anything about "elements,"

which no one thought of before Empedokles, and no

one could think of before Parmenides.
has only been mentioned at
the subject of a
it

The
it

question

all

because

has been

lengthy

controversy,^

and because

throws great light on the historical value of Aristotle's

statements.

From

the point of view of his

;

own

system,

these are abundantly justified

but

we

shall

have to

remember
bound
1

in

other cases that,

earlier

an idea to some
to believe

when he seems to attribute thinker, we are not in the least

in a historical sense.

what he says

6.

Anaximander's
Hippon
to

reason

for

conceiving

the The

primary substance is
'"^"'^6.

of his reference to
that he

was not Hkely

in Met. A, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a) shows pay so much attention to the iiriyovoL' of the

Milesian school.
^

Cf. P/iys. T,

TO, (TToixeia

passage
ivolT}<rev

is

refers t6 ira/)d 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly Now, at the end (205 a 25) the whole Anaximander. Kal 5ia tovt ovdels rb h /cai direipov irOp summarised thus

to

In Gen. Corr. B,

-^ vdu)p ^ &ipa ^ rb fi^aov ai/ruv. 328 b 35 we have first ri fiera^O Toirruv aufid re dv Kal Xupi<rT6v, and a little further on (329 a 9) fiiav v\vv irapb. ra eiprjfx^ua. In B, 5. 332 a 20 we have ov fiT)p ov8' &\\o tI ye irapb. ravra, olov /Uaov

oiU

yrjv tG)v (pv<no\6y(>}v, dX\'

I.

Ti d^pos Kal vSaros

2

ij

aipos Kal irvpds.

Zeller (p. 205, n. i) assumes an 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). **easy zeugma." I should prefer to say that Kal 'E/xiredoKXiovt t6 fxTyixa was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant t6 'Ava^ay6pov (v .

Met. A,

2.

teal

'Ava^ifidvSpov.

Phys. A,

4.

187 a 20 does not assign the "mixture"

Anaximander. A good deal of 8 For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. ISlight is thrown on this and similar questions by W. A. Heidel, " Qualitative
to

Change

in Pre-Socratic

Philosophy " {Arch.

xix. p. 333).

6o

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

by
^

primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, that

indicated
Aristotle,
It is

namely,

" that

becoming might
they

not

fail."

not likely, however, that these words

if

are his own, though the doxographers speak as

were.
It is

enough

for us to

know

that Theophrastos,

who had

seen his book, attributed the thought to him.

And

certainly the

way

in

which he regarded the world

would bring home to him with more than

force the
"

need of a boundless stock of matter.

common The

opposites " of which our world consists are,

seen, at

war with one another, and

" injustice "

their strife

by

"

unjust " encroachments on either side.

in

we have marked The warm

is

commits

summer, the cold

and

in

winter.

To

redress the balance, they must be

in their

absorbed once
this

more

common ground
itself, if

would lead

in the long run to the destruction of everything but

the Boundless

there were not an inexhaustible

supply of

it

from which opposites might continually

be separated out afresh.

then,

We

must picture to
is

ourselves,

an endless mass, which

not any one of the

opposites

we know,
This mass

stretching

out without limit on

every side of the heavens which bound the world

live in.^
is

we

a body, and out of

it

our world

is

^ Phys. r, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). That this refers to Anaximander shown by Aet. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The same argument is given in Phys. r, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaximander has just been quoted by

name,
Sdev

t^j

owtws hv ^ibvov
t6

fxr)

vxoXeiTreiv yiveaii' Kai <pdopav,

'

el

Aireipov

etri

cupaipeTraL

yL-yvdfxepov.

cannot,

arguments given at the beginning of this Anaximander's. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic
fact,

however, believe that the chapter (203 b 7 ; R. P. 17) are

dialectic,

and

are, in

those of Melissos.

2 I have assumed that the word Aireipov means spatially infinite (though not in any precise mathematical sense), not qualitatively indeterminatg, as maintained by Teichmiiller and Tannery. The decisive reasons for holding

word is "boundless in extent" are as follows: (i) Theophrastos said that the primary substance of Anaximander was direipov
that the sense of the

and contained

all

the worlds, and the

word

irepi.ix'^iv

everywhere means

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

once emerged by the
"

6i

separating out

"

of the opposites,
in the

which one day

less,
1

will all

be absorbed again

Bound-

and our world

7. "

will cease to be.

it

The doxographers say

that brought into being

was the
seen

" eternal The eternal

all
'" '"'

motion

" all the

heavens and

the worlds within them."

it

As we have

( VIII.),

is

not likely that

"

phrase

eternal

Anaximander himself used the motion." That is rather Aristotle's own

"

version of

what he found stated about the

separating

out" of opposites.

We

are

not told expressly

how

Anaximander conceived
" separating out " suggests
sifting as in

this to operate,

but the term

some process of shaking and

it is

a sieve.

Now
is

just such a process that

Plato makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe, and the

most probable theory

certainly that here, as in

many
PythaIn
"

other cases, he has reproduced a genuinely early view.

As we
any

shall

see,

it

is

quite likely that the

goreans should have followed Anaximander

case,
it is

in this.^

wrong

to identify the

" eternal

motion

with the diurnal

revolution

of the

heavens, as

has

sometimes been done.

be
eternal,
for

That motion cannot possibly

reason that the heavens
Aristotle says, indeed, that

the

simple

themselves are perishable.

all

who

believe the world has

come

into being represent

been suggested, " to contain potentially." (2) b 23) dia yap rb iv ttj vo-fjaei fi^ vroXelireiy Kal 6 dpidfibs 5oKL direipos eXvaL Kal tA nad-qixariKa fiey^d-rj Kai to. f^u) toO ovpavov' airelpov 8' 6vtos tov ^^w, Kai crQfxa AircLpov ehai 8oki Kai Kbap-oi. (3) Anaximander's theory of the Airetpov was adopted by Anaximenes, and he identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate. ^ Plato, Tim. 52 e, where the elements are separated by being shaken, stirred, and carried in different directions "just as by sieves and instruments for winnowing corn, the grain is shaken and sifted, and the dense and
to encompass," not, as has

"

Aristotle says (Phys. F, 4. 203

place

heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are carried to a different and settle there." For the relation of Pythagoreanism to Anaximander, see below,' $^..

62

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

by the
motion
^
;

the earth as having been forced into the centre

circular

but,

though

this doubtless refers to

Anaximander among
It
it

others,

it is

quite irrelevant here.

has to do only with the formation of the world after

has been once for

all

separated off and enclosed in

its

own heaven, and we shall have to remember it when At present, we we come to that part of the theory.
have
itself;

only to do with the motion of the Boundless

and,
if

we wish

to picture that,

it

is

much

safer

to regard

it

as a sort of shaking

up and down which

that

sorts out the opposites

1

from the

infinite mass.

8.

We
and

are told

more than once

"

Anaximander
in the

believed there were

less,"
^

innumerable worlds

Boundtime.

it

is

now

usual to regard these with Zeller

as an infinite series succeeding

It

one another

in

may

be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea

that the worlds are coexistent

and eternal

is

decisive.

To

suppose that Anaximander regarded

is

this

or

any

other world as eternal,

flat

contradiction of every-

thing

we

otherwise know, and of the Theophrastean

tradition that

he taught the world was perishable.

We

have, then, to decide between the view that, though all

the worlds are perishable, there

may

be an unlimited

number of them in existence at the same time, and the view that a new world never comes into existence till
^ Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 a 9. The identification of the eternal motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by Teichmiiller and Tannery, and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation which

It was obviously difficult to credit they give to the word direipov. Anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in a circle. The whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite spherical Kdafios within the ovpavbt and the infinite -rrepiixov outside it. 2 [Plut.] Strom, fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b). The words dvaKVKXov/x^vojv ttolvtwv

airQv are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an avaKijK\r)(XLS or It cycle of y^vecTLS and <pdopd in each of a multitude of coexistent worlds. would be a very strange phrase to use of a succession of single worlds.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

the old one has passed away.
there
is

63
^

Now,

Zeller allows

that
is

nothing in the

first

of these views that

;

inconsistent with

what we know of Anaximander

seems to

but
to

he thinks

all

the statements which have

It

come down

us point rather to the second.

this
is

me

that
is

by no means the

case, and, as
it

the matter

of fundamental

importance,

will

be

necessary to

examine the evidence once more.

In the
first

place, the doxographical tradition proves

all

that Theophrastos discussed the views of

the early

philosophers as to whether there was one world or an

infinite

number, and there can be no doubt

"

that,

when Now,

he ascribed

innumerable worlds

"

to

the Atomists,

he meant coexistent and not successive worlds.

if

he had really classed two such different views' under

least

one head, he would at

have been careful to point

is

out in what respect they differed, and there

no

trace of

any such
Diogenes,
all

distinction in our tradition.

On

the contrary,

Anaximander,
mentioned

Anaximenes,

Archelaos,

Xenophanes,

Leukippos, Demokritos, and Epicurus are

together
"

as
all

holding

the

doctrine

of

"

innumerable worlds

on

sides of this one,^

their

and the
is

only distinction drawn

while

between
the

views

that,

Epicurus

made

distances
all

between

these

worlds unequal, Anaximander said

equidistant.^
^

the worlds were

Zeller
234 sqq.

rejected

this

evidence, which he

Zeller, pp.

Zeller is wrong in understanding Kari. 3 {Dox. p. 327). tra<xav trpi.aybrfqv here of the revolution of a cycle. It means simply " in
^

Aet.

ii.

I,

every direction
irepiaraaiv.

we turn," and so does the The six irepiaTdaeis are irpbaui,

p. 85,
1 1,

alternative reading /card iraaav

diriau,
fivoj,

koltu, Se^id, dpiarepd.

(Nicom. Introd. rounding space.

Hoche), and Polybios uses Teplaraaii of

sur-

* Aet. ii. I, 8 {Dox. p. 329), tCjv dvelpovs diroiprjua/ji^yuv tovs Kbafiom 'Ava^lfjMv5pos t6 taop avrovs dWx"*' dXXiJXwi', 'KirlKOvpot dviaov ctvcu t6

fiera^i)

rdv k6chu)v

8id(rT7]fjLa.

64
supposed

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to

be

merely

that

of

Stobaios,
in

on

the

ground that we can have no confidence

a writer

who
two,

attributes " innumerable worlds " to

Anaximenes,
to the
first

Archelaos, and Xenophanes.

I

With regard
is

hope to show that the statement

it is

quite correct,
last.^

and that

not even incorrect in the case of the

it

In any case,

can be proved that the passage comes

is
is

from Actios,^ and there

in

no reason
derived

for

doubting that,

the

last

resort,

it

from Theophrastos,
been added

though the name of Epicurus

later.

may have

This

is still

further confirmed

by what SimpHcius

says in his

commentary on the Physics?

worlds,
e.g.

Those who assumed innumerable

that they

Anaximander,

Leukippos, Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held

came

into being

and passed away ad

infinitum.,

some

always coming into being and others passing away.

It is

probable that this too comes from Theophrastos

through Alexander.
things.

SimpHcius does not invent such

We
of
the

come

lastly

to

very important

statement

which Cicero has copied from Philodemos, the author

Epicurean
treatise

on

Religion

found

at

Herculaneum, or perhaps from the immediate source

of that work.
Velleius
"

Anaximander's opinion was," he makes

there were gods

say, " that

who came
intervals,

into

being, rising
^

and passing away at long

;

and

For Anaximenes, see 30 Xenophanes, 59 ; Archelaos, Chap. X. is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by Theodoret. See Appendix, 10.
^

This

Simpl. Phys.

p.

121, 5 (R. P. 21 b).

Zeller says (p. 234, n. 4) that

SimpHcius elsewhere {de Caelo, p. 273 b 43) makes the same statement more doubtfully. But the words Cos doKcT, on which he relies, are hardly an expression of doubt, and refer, in any case, to the derivation of the doctrine of "innumerable worlds" from that of the &Tipov, not to the doctrine
itself.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

that these were the innumerable worlds "
^
;

65 and
this

must

clearly be

taken

along with the statement of

Actios to the effect that, according to Anaximander,

the " innumerable heavens " were gods.^

Now

it is

very

much more

" natural to understand the " long intervals

which Cicero mentions as intervals of space than as

tervals of time
^
;

in-

and,

if

we take
it is

the passage in this way,

all

we have a
It

perfect

agreement among

our authorities.

may

be added that

very unnatural to under-

stand the statement that the Boundless "encompasses

all

the worlds" of worlds succeeding one another in

;

time

for

on

this

view there

is

at a given time only

one world to "encompass."

mentioned by Aristotle
heavens
is

Moreover, the argument

that, if

what

is

outside

the

infinite,

body must be

infinite,

and there

must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood

in

this

sense,

and

is

certainly intended
;

to represent

the reasoning of the Milesians

for

they were the only

cosmologists

who

held there was a boundless body

Lastly,

outside the heavens.*

Petron, one

we happen

to

know

that

of the earliest Pythagoreans, held there

were just one hundred and eighty- three worlds arranged

in

a triangle,^ which
1
"^

shows that views of

this

sort

Cicero, de

NaL D.

i.

Aet.

i.

7,

12 (R. P. 21

25 (R. P. 21). The reading of Stob., dweipovs a).

oipavoiji, is

guaranteed by the
^

d-rrdpovs Kbafiovs of Cyril,

and the

direlpovs vovs {i.e. ovvovt)

Sec Dox. p. Ii. suppose that Cicero found SiacrnJ/xacrtj' in his Epicurean source, and that is a technical term for the interjtnindia, * Arist. Phys. F, 4, 203 b 25, dirdpov 5' ^j/toj rod f^u (sc. rod oipayw)^ It is to be observed Kal <rCj/j.a direipov elvat 8oKt Kai Kda-fioi (sc. direipoi).
of the pseudo-Galen.
It is simplest to

that the next

words

tI

yap fidWov rod Kevov ivravda ^ ivravda

;

show

clearly that this refers to the Atomists as well

but the dweipoy

<Tu/xa will

not apply to them.

in the

Boundless a body and those

KdafjLoi
^

The suggestion is rather that both those who made the who made it a Kcvdv held the doctrine of &Teipot
Cf. Diels,

same

sense.

See below,

53.

Elementum, pp. 63

sqq.

66

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the Atomists, and looks like an

existed long before

attempt to introduce some order into Anaximander's

universe.
Origin of the
1

9.

The doxographers have not

by which the

left

us in the dark of the

bodies!^

as to the process

different parts

world arose from the Boundless.

The

following state:

ment comes ultimately from Theophrastos

\

He
From
this

says that something capable of begetting hot

off

and cold

was separated

from the eternal

at the origin of this world.

this arose

a sphere of flame which grew round the air

encircling the earth, as the bark grows

was torn
stars

and

round a tree. When and enclosed in certain rings, the sun, moon, came into existence. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2
off

(R. P. 19).

We
less

see from this that

when a
off

portion of the Boundrest to

had been separated

it

from the

form a
the two

world,

first

of

all

differentiated itself into

opposites, hot

and

cold.

The hot appears

;

as a sphere

of flame surrounding the cold

air

the cold, as earth with

told,

surrounding

it.

We
;

are not

however,

in this

extract
earth,

how
air,

the cold

came
but

to be differentiated

into
in

and water

there

is

passage
light

Aristotle's

Meteorology which

throws

some

on

the subject.

We

read there

But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an At first, they say, all the terrestrial region was moist ; and, as it was dried up by the sun, the portion of
origin for the sea.
it

that evaporated

produced the winds and the turnings of the

is

sun and moon, while the portion

they think the sea

and

that at last

it

will

left behind was the sea. So becoming smaller by being dried up, all be dry. ^-Meteor. B, i. 353 b 5.

And
earth

the same absurdity arises for those who say that the and the terrestrial part of the world at first were moist.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

but that
air arose

67

from the heat of the sun, and that the

this is the

whole world was thus increased, and that

winds and the turnings of the heavens.^
(R. P. 20
a).

cause of

Jb.

2.

355 a 21

us

commentary on the passage, Alexander tells was the view of Anaximander and Diogenes and what he says is amply confirmed by
In his
that
this
;

Anaximander's theory of the sea as

doxographers
the
first

it is

given by the

20).

We

conclude, then, that after

separation of the hot and the cold, the heat of

part

the sphere of flame turned

interior of the

of the

moist,
it is

cold

world into
that

air or

vapour

at

this

date

and

all

one

the expansion
itself into

of this mist
rings.
I

broke up the sphere of flame

give

the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of the heavenly bodies from these rings as
it

has been

preserved by Hippolytos, with

some supplements from

Aetios

The heavenly
the
fire

bodies are wheels of

fire

separated off from

in air.

which encircles the world, and enclosed

And

they have breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which

the heavenly bodies are seen.

For
to

this reason, too,

when the
the

breathing-holes are stopped, eclipses occur.

And

moon
is

appears

now

to

wax and now

wane because of the stopping

and opening of the

passages.

The

circle

of the sun

twenty-seven times the size (of the earth, while that) of the

moon

is

eighteen times as large.^

The sun

is

highest of

all,
i.

and lowest

are the wheels of the fixed stars.

Hipp.

Ref.

6 (R. P. 20).
^

Zeller's difficulty

to

be an imaginary one.
2 I

about the meaning of rpoirai here (p. 223, n. 2) seems The moon has certainly a movement in del).

clination and, therefore, TpowaL (Dreyer, Planetary Systems, p. 17, n.

something has fallen out in our text of Hippolytos. I have, however, with Tannery, Scietue hellhu, Zeller p. 91, supplied "eighteen times" rather than "nineteen times." (p. 224, n. 2) prefers the text of our MS. of Hippolytos to the testimony

assume with Diels {Dox.

p. 560) that

of Aetios.

68

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Anaximander
said the stars were hoop-like compressions of

air, full

of

fire,

breathing out flames at a certain point from

The sun was highest of all, after it came the moon, and below these the fixed stars and the planets. Actios, ii.
orifices.

13, 7;

15, 6 (R. P. 19 a).

Anaximander
and
full

said

the sun was a ring twenty-eight times

the size of the earth, like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow
of
fire,

showing the
of a
pair

fire

at a

certain

point, as
ii.

if
i

through the
(R. P. 19
a).

nozzle

of bellows.

Aet.

20,

Anaximander
ring from which
it

said the sun

was equal to the

it is

earth,

but the

breathes out and by which

was twenty-seven times as large as the

{Dox.
p.

earth.

carried

round
21,
i

Aet.

ii.

351).
said the
. .
.

Anaximander
size of the earth.

moon was
ii.

a ring eighteen times the

i

Aet.

25,

{Dox.

p. 355).^

Anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused by the blast. When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts forth with violence, then the breakage of the cloud makes the noise, and the rift gives the appearance of a flash by contrast
with the darkness of the cloud.

Aet.

iii.

3, i

{Dox.

p.

367).

Anaximander held that wind was a current of air {i.e. vapour) which arose when its finest and moistest particles were
set in

motion or dissolved by the sun.

Aet.

iii.

6, i

{Dox.

p. 374)-

earth by the sun.

Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the Hipp. Eef. i. 6, 7 {Dox. p. 560).

We
up
that
its

saw above that the sphere of flame was broken

into rings

by the expansion of the

air or

vapour

own

heat had drawn up from the moist, cold

interior.

must remember that Anaximander knew ;w nothing of the ring of Saturn. There are three
these rings, that
1

We

of the

sun, that of the

moon, an

Actios goes on to say that the

of
fire
is

moon

also

is

like a

hollow cart-wheel

i
;,

full

with an

iKtrvorj.

The
one

difference in the figures of Hippolytos

refers to the internal

and

Aetios

due

to the fact that

and the other

to the

Cf. Tannery, Science heiUne, p. 91 and Diels, " Ueber Anaximanders Kosmos" {Arch. x. pp. 231 sqq.).

external circumferences of the rings.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

lastly,

69

nearest to

the earth, the circle of the stars.

The

circle of the

sun was twenty-seven times, and that

of the

moon eighteen times as large as the earth, from which we may perhaps infer that the circle of the stars was nine times as large. The numbers nine, eighteen,
play a considerable
part
in

twenty-seven,

primitive
fire

cosmogonies.^

We
;

do not see the

for

rings of

as

complete

circles
fire,

the

mist

that

formed

them

encloses the

and becomes an outer ring of opaque

rings,

vapour.

These outer

however, have openings at

one point of their circumference, through which the

fire

escapes,

and these are the heavenly bodies we

actually see.^
It
circles,

will

be observed that we only hear of three

circle

and that the

of the sun

is

the highest.
It
is,

The
in

circle

of the stars presents some difficulty.

all

probability, the

Milky Way, the appearance of

It

which

may
"

well have suggested the whole theory.^

it

seems that Anaximander must have thought

had

more
is

breathing-holes " than one, though the tradition

silent

on

this

point.

There

is

not the slightest

it

reason for supposing that he regarded

as a sphere.

He

could not have

failed

to

see

that a

sphere

so

placed would
invisible.
^

make

the sun
are
x.

and moon permanently

What,

then,

we
p.

to

say of the

fixed

229) the explanation given by Gomperz, p. 53, cannot be right. It implies the fifth century theory of fivSpot. Anaximander knew nothing of the " great mass " of the sun.

As

Diels points out

{Arch.

this doctrine was first explained by Diels {Dox. flames rush forth />er viagni circum spiracula viundiy as Lucretius has it (vi, 493), The TrprjaTrjpo^ av\6s, to which these are compared, is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows, a sense which the
^

The

true

meaning of

pp. 25 sqq.).

The

word TrpT](TTT^p has in Apollonios Rhodios (iv. 776), and has nothing to do with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name, for which see Chap.
III. 71.
^

It is

not

now

It

cannot be the Zodiac

necessary to refute the earlier interpretations. for the planets were not separately studied ;

yet.

70
stars that

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

do not
lie in

the Milky
for

Way ?

There seems

to be

no way of accounting
they are the
"

them

unless
"

that

innumerable worlds

we assume which we
air

have just

discussed.

As

the

fire

and

which
rings,

surrounded the world have been broken up into

we must be
and

able to see right out into the Boundless,

stars
its

the fixed

must be

just

the worlds,
It

each

surrounded by

fiery envelope.
all

does not seem

possible to explain

we
the

are told in

any other way

and,
that

if this

is

right,

statement of some authors,

stars of

Anaximander regarded the

heaven as gods,
it

may

be more than the mere mistake which

is

now

generally taken to be.^

The explanation
was very
similar.

given

of thunder and too

air,

lightning

They
It

were
that

caused
is

by

fire

breaking through compressed

the storm-clouds.

to say, through
this is really

seems probable that

the

origin

of the
the

theory,

and

that

Anaximander
analogy
in

explained

heavenly

bodies

on

the

of

lightning, not vice versa.

That would be

perfect

agreement with the meteorological interest of the time.

Earth and
sea.

20.

We

turn

now

to

what we are told of the

and which

origin

of earth and sea from the moist, cold

matter which
filled

was "separated

off" in the beginning,

:

the inside of the sphere of flame

The
it

sea

is

what

is

left
it

of the original moisture.

rest salt

The

fire

has dried up most of

and turned the

is

by scorching

Act.

iii.

1 6,

(R. P. 20 a).
cylindrical in form,
toj/s

He
The

says that the earth

and

that

its

Placita and Eusebios both have

aar^pas ovpaviovs instead of

it

Toi)S aireipovs oi'pavoiJi (see

above,

p. 65, n. 2),

and

seems just possible that

mere corruption of the text. The common source may have had both statements. I do not, however, rest the interpretation given above on this very insecure basis. Quite apart from it, it seems to be the
this is not a

only

way

out of the difficulty.

.Jl

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

depth
(R. P.
is

71
fr.

as a third part of it^ breadth.

Ps.-Plut. Strom,

ib.).

The
stays
Its

earth swings free, held in

it is

its

place by nothing.

It

where

because of

its

equal distance from everything.

shape

are

is convex and round, and like a stone pillar. We on one of the surfaces, and the other is on the opposite
i.

side.i Hipp. Ref.

6 (R. P. 20).

Adopting
"

for

moment
all

the

later

theory
fire

of

elements,"

we
is

see that

Anaximander put
This

on one
"

side as " the hot,"

cold,"

and

the rest on the other as

the

which

also
to

moist.

may

explain

how
inter-

Aristotle

came

speak of the Boundless as

mediate between

fire

and water.

And we

have seen
into "air"

also that the moist element

was partly turned

or vapour

by the

fire,

which explains how he could say

fire

the Boundless was something between

and

air,

or

between

air

and water.^
is

The

moist, cold interior of the world

It is

not,

it

will

be noticed, pure water.

or " the moist state."

always called
because
it

" the

moist
still

That

is

has to be

further differentiated under the influence of heat into

earth, water,

and vapour.
fire is

The gradual drying up

of

the water

by the
brings

a good

example of what Anaxi-

mander meant by
injustice
^

" injustice."

And we

see

how

this

about the destruction of the world.

Roeper read yvpbv of Hippolytos have v^phv aTp<ryy(i\ov. supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first ; but Diels has shown {Dox. p. 218) that both are wanted. The first means "convex," and applies to the surface of the earth; while the second

The MSS.

[<TTpoyyiL)\ov'\,

means "round," and

Kv\lp5p(i) (cf. Plut.

refers to its circuit.

It
fr.

As

to kIovl

\ld({), it

is

not easy

to say anything positive.

S/rom.

one.
kIovl
;

Aetios

(iii.

10, 2),

who

might, possibly, be a mere corruption of 2 ; R. P. 20 a) ; but, if so, it is a very old is quite independent of Hippolytos, has \i0(fi
;

while Teichmiiller, Kiovo^ \ldi^ Roeper suggested Aftoj'^77 Xf^y Diels doubtfully puts forward Xt^y kLovi, which he suggests might be a
;

Theophrastean modernisation of an original ^ See above, p. 58, n. i.

Xidixi kLovi

{Dox.

p. 219).

72

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fire will in

The

time dry up and burn up the whole of

the cold, moist element.

But then

it

will

not be
if

fire

any longer
choose to

it

will

simply be the

" mixture,"

we
will

call it so,

of the hot and cold

that

is, it
it,

be the

same

as the Boundless which surrounds

and

will pass

away into it. The view which Anaximander

to Thales,

takes of the earth

is

a great advance upon

attribute

anything we

can reasonably

and Aristotle has preserved the

it.

arguments by which he supported

It

is

equally

distant from the extremes in every direction,

is

and there

no reason

for

it

to

move up

or

down

or sideways.^
it is

Still,

he does not attain to the idea that

spherical.

He
The

believes that

we

live

on a convex

disc,

and from

this the cylindrical

form follows as a matter of course.

is

really

remarkable thing

that
is

he should have

seen,

however dimly, that there

in the world.

no absolute up and

down
Animals.

21.

We

have seen enough to show us that the

speculations of

Anaximander about the world were of an extremely daring character we come now to the
;

crowning audacity of
living creatures.

all,

his

theory of the origin of

of this

The Theophrastean account

:

has been well preserved by the doxographers

Living creatures arose from the moist element as

it

was

evaporated by the sun.

fish, in

the beginning.

Hipp.
b

Man

was

like

another animal, namely,

i.

Ref.

6 (R. P. 22

a).

The

first

animals were produced in the moisture, each en-

closed in a prickly bark.

^

As they advanced
10,

in age, they

came

Arist.

de Caelo, B, 13. 295

del 8i rives

ot 5ta ttjv d/xotdTrjTa.

(f>a(nv avTTjv

(rV TV^)
&P0}
ij

fJ^^veiv,
i)

wairep rQiv

apxaiiop 'Ava^l/jMpdpos' fxaWov

iirl
is

fxkv

yap ovdkv

KCLTU

els rd.

irXdyia (pipecrdai irpoa-qKeiv rb

t(rx<^'''-

rod
the

fx^aov ISpvfxivov koI o/xoiuis

irpos to.

^X^"-

That Aristotle

really

reproducing Anaximander seems to be shown by the use of

old sense of " equality."

dfioidrris in

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

out upon the drier part.
survived for a short time.

73
off,i

When
Aet.

the bark broke

i

they

v. 19,

(R. P. 22).

Further, he says that originally

man was born

is

from animals

of another species.

His reason

that while other animals

quickly find food by themselves,

man

alone requires a lengthy

period of suckling.

Hence, had he been originally as he now, he would never have survived. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr.

is

(R. P. ib).

He
of

declares that at

first

human

beings arose in the inside

like

fishes,

and

after

having been reared

sharks,-

and

become capable of protecting themselves, they were finally cast ashore and took to land. Plut. Symp. Quaest. 730 f

(R. P. ib).

The importance
been overrated and

of these statements has sometimes

still

more

often

underestimated.

Anaximander has been

mythological survival.
notice that this
is

called a precursor of

Darwin by

some, while others have treated the whole thing as a

It
is

therefore

important

to

one of the rare cases where we have

but

not

merely
it

a placitum^

an

indication,
it

meagre

though

be, of the observations

line of

on which
it

was based,
idea of

and the

argument by which
this that

was supported.

It is clear

from

Anaximander had an
to

what

is

meant
of the

by adaptation
fittest,

environment and

survival

and that he saw the higher

the
sea,

mammals
animal.
fixed

could

not

represent

original

type

of

For

this

he looked to the
fishes

and he naturally
the
closest

upon those

which

present

analogy to the maimnalia.

^

The statements
what we are
Kal

of Aristotle

This

is

to be understood in the light of

Arist.

told about 7o\eo/

o&J

below.

Cf.

Hist.

An.

Z, lo.

565 a 25,
irepippayji

rots fih otv aKv\loit,

iKiriaxi
"^^

KoKouai Ttves ve^plai yaKeoOs, Srau ylvovTai ol veoTToi.

tirrpaKOv,

- Reading wairep ol yaXeoi for wairep ol irdKaiol with Doehner, who compares Plut. de soil. anim. 982 a, where the (ptXixrropyov of the shark is

described.

See

p. 74, n. i.

74

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

levis

about the galeus

Miiller

were shown long ago by Johannes

accurate

to

be

more

than

those

of

later

naturalists,

and we now know that these observations

were already made by Anaximander.

The manner

in

which the shark nourishes

its

young furnished him with

the very thing he required to explain the survival of

the earliest animals.^
Theology.

2 2.

In

the

course of our discussion

"

of the "in-

numerable worlds
these as gods.
to the

we saw

that

Anaximander regarded

It is true,

of course, as Zeller says,^ that

Greeks the word ^eo? meant primarily an object

of worship, and he rightly adds that no one would think of worshipping innumerable worlds.
This, however,
it

is

no

real objection to

our interpretation, though

serves

to bring out an interesting point in the

development

of Greek theological ideas.

The

philosophers, in fact,

departed altogether from the received usage of the

word

^609.

Empedokles

called

the

Sphere and the

Elements gods, though

it is

not to be supposed that he

regarded them as objects of worship, and in the same

Aristotle and the galeus levis^ see Johannes Miiller, "Ueber den Hai des Aristoteles" {K. Preuss. Akad. 1842), to which my attention has been directed by my colleague, Prof. D'Arcy Thomson. The precise point of the words Tpecpofxevoc (ba-irep 61 yoKeoi appears from Arist. HisL An. Z, 10. 565 b I, 01 5k KoKo^jfievoL Xeioi tQv yoKiCiv tcl [xkv ipa tcrxovcL /JLcra^v
^

Oh

glatten

TU)V va-repuv 6/J.oiws tois (TKvXiois, TrepiaravTa Sk

ravra
8oKe7v

els

eKar^pau

ttjp

BiKpdav

T^s

va-ripas
iocTTe

Karafiaivei, Kal to,

^^a yiverai rbv

6[i(paKbv

ix^'^'^ ""P^s
"^^

Ty

varepg.,

avaXiffKOfJLivwv tCjv i^Cov o/xoius

It is

^x^'^

^/x^pvop

Toiis

TeTpd-rrocnv.

not necessary to suppose that Anaximander referred to

Aristotle,

the further

phenomenon described by

who more
their

than once says

young and take them back again " {i^acfuacrL Kal MxovTai eh eavrovs roi/s veoTTovs, ib. 565 b The 23), for which compare also Ael. i. 17; Plut. de soil, anini. 982 a. placenta and umbilical cord described by Johannes Miiller will account sufficiently for all he says. At the same time, I understand that deep-sea fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also, and two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they have seen the thing happen with their own eyes.
that all the yaXeol except the aKavdias
2

" send out

Zeller, p. 230.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

way we
shall find that

75

Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of

learn from the Clouds of

Air as a god}
Aristophanes,
it

As we may
was
just this

way

of speaking that got

It is of great
;

philosophers the

name

of being aOeoc.

importance to bear

this point in

mind

for,

when we
It

come
also

to

Xenophanes, we

shall see that the

god or gods
seems
itself

he spoke of meant just the world or worlds.

that

Anaximander
is

called

the

Boundless

divine,^

which

quite in accordance with the language

of Empedokles and Diogenes referred to above.

III.

Anaximenes
Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was,
Life,

23.

Anaximenes of

according to Theophratos, an "associate" of Anaxi-

mander.^

Apollodoros
the

said,

it

appears,
fall

that

he

"flourished" about

time
in 01.

of the

of Sardeis
B.C.).*

(546/5

B.C.),

and died

LXIII. (528/524
this

In other words, he was born

and

" flourished "

when Thales when Thales died, and

" flourished,"

means
the

that Apollodoros had no definite information about his

date at

all.

He most

probably made him die

in

sixty-third

Olympiad because

that gives just a hundred

years, or three generations, for the Milesian school from

the birth of Thales.^

^

We

cannot, therefore, say anyfor Diogenes,

For Empedokles, see Chap. V. 119; and

fr.

Chap. X.

188, in this.

5.

The

cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists

one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos. 203 b 13 (R. P. 17). 3 Theophr. Mjys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 26). ^ This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3 with Hipp. Ref. i. 7 (R. P. 23). In the latter passage we must, however, read rpWov for vpCrrov with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros mentioned the
Arist. F/ij>s. r, 4.

No

Olympiad without giving the number of the year is inadequate ; for Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian archons. ^ Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date of his death into connexion with the
flontit of Pythagoras, which seems to
1898, p. 202) objects to

me less probable.

Lortzing {Jahresher.,

my view on

the ground that the period of a hundred

76

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

younger
than

thing positive as to his date, except that he must have

been

Anaximander, and
B.C.,

must

have
of

flourished

before

494

when the

school was,

course, broken

up by the destruction of Miletos.

certainly surfor

24.

Anaximenes wrote a book which

;

vived until the age of literary criticism

we

are told

that he used a simple and unpretentious

different,

lonic,^

very

we may suppose, from

the poetical prose of

this criticism,
;

Anaximander.^

We may

probably trust

which comes ultimately from

furnishes

Theophrastos
of the
truth

and

it

good

illustration
is

that

the

character of a man's thoughts

in

sure to find expression

his style.

We
;

have seen that the speculations of

Anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood and breadth those of Anaximenes are marked by just
the opposite quality.
his

He

appears to have thought out

system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious

theories of his predecessor.

his

The
it

result

is

that^_while
less

view of the world

is

on the whole much

is

like
in

the truth

than Anaximander's,

more

fruitful

ideas that were destined to hold their ground.

25.

Anaximenes

is

one of the philosophers on

^
;

whom
this

Theophrastos wrote a special monograph

and

gives us an additional guarantee for the trustworthiness

of the

tradition

derived

from his great work.

The

following* are the passages which seem to contain the

fullest

and most accurate account of what he had to

:

say on the central feature of the system

years plays no part in Apollodoros's calculations.

;
It will

from Jacoby, pp. 39 sqq.

that there

is

some reason

for

be seen, however, believing he made

use of the generation of 33J years. 1 Diog. ii. 3 (R. P. 23).

2
'^

Cf. the statement of

On

Theophrastos above, 13. see Dox. p. 103. See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in >ox.
these

monographs

p. 135.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

an associate of Anaximander,
lying substance
said, like

'jy

Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been

him, that the under-

was one and

like

infinite.

He .did

not, however,

say
for

it

was indeterminate,
it

Anaximander, but determinate

fr.

he said

was

Air.

Phys. Op.

2 (R. P. 26).

From
shall

be, the

other

and have been, and gods and things divine, took their rise, while things come from its offspring. Hipp. Ref. i. 7
it,

he

said, the things

that are,

(R. P. 28). " Just as," he said, " our soul, being

air,

holds us together,

so do breath and air encompass the whole world."

Aet.

i.

3,

4 (R. P. 24). And the form of the

even,
it is

air is as follows.
;

Where

it

is

most

invisible to our sight

but cold and heat, moisture

;

and motion, make it visible. It is always in motion it were not, it would not change so much as it does.
Ref.
i.

for,

if

Hipp.

7 (R. P.

28).

It differs in different

substances in virtue of
fr.

its

rarefaction

and condensation.

Phys. Op.

2 (R. P. 26).
it

When
from Air

it is

dilated so as to be rarer,

winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air.

becomes fire ; while Cloud is formed

by felting j^ and this, still further condensed, becomes water. Water, condensed still more, turns to earth and when condensed as much as it can be, to stones. Hipp.

Ref.

i.

(R. P. 2 8).2

26.

At

the

first

glance, this undoubtedly looks like

Rarefaction
tion.

a falling off from the more refined doctrine of Anaxi-

mander show

to a cruder
this
is

viev^^

but a moment's reflexion will

that

not altogether the case.

On
In

the

contrary, the introduction of rarefaction

tion into the theory
^

and condensafact, it

is

a notable advance.^

"Felting"

(TriXrjais)

is

the regular term for this process with

all

the
3).

early cosmologists, from

2

whom

Plato has taken

it

{Tim. 58 b 4

76 c
is

A more

condensed form of the same doxographical tradition

fr.

given

by

Ps.-Plut. Slroi.
3

3 (R. P. 25). Simplicius, F/iys. p. 149, 32 (R. P. 26 b), says, according to the

MSS.,

that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction

and condensation
(p.

in the case of

Anaximenes

a/one.

We

must either suppose with Zeller

193, n. 2) that

- 78

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

consistent
;

makes the Milesian cosmology thoroughly

for the first time

since

it is

clear that a theory

which

explains everything by the transformations of a single

substance

is

bound
'

to regard all differences as purely

infinite

quantitative.

The

substance of Anaximander,
" in
it

from which the opposites

" are "

separated out,"

cannot, strictly speaking, be thought of as homogeneous,

and the only way

substance
is

to save the unity of the primary

to say that all diversities are

it

due to the

presence of more or less of

in

a given space.
it

And
is

when once

this

important step has been taken,

no

longer necessary to

make

the primary substance some-

thing "distinct from the elements," to use Aristotle's

inaccurate but convenient phrase
;

it

may

just as well

be one of them.
Air.

27.

The

air that

good deal that we should not

its

Anaximenes speaks of includes a call by that name. In

it is
it

normal condition, when most evenly distributed,

invisible,

and

it

then corresponds to our

" air "

is

identical with the breath

we

inhale and the wind that

it

blows.

That

is

why he

called

Trvevfjua.

On

the
that

other hand, the old idea, familiar to us in

Homer,

mist or vapour

is

condensed

air, is still

accepted withthat Anaxi-

out question.

In other words,
it

we may say
It

menes supposed
air

to be a

good deal

easier to get liquid

than

it

has since proved to be.

was Empedokles,

we

shall see,

who

first

discovered that what

we

call

air

was a

distinct corporeal substance,

and was not

space.

identical

either with vapour or with

empty

In the earlier

cosmologists " air

this

"

is

always a form of vapour, and^

fJibvc

means "alone among

the oldest lonians" or read irpdiTov for

tt^kvojo-ls

with Usener.

The

regular terms are

and

dpaiojcris

or fxavoxTLS.

term rh xaXapo;'

Plutarch, de pri7n. frig. 947 f (R. P. 27), says that for the rarefied air.

Anaximenes used the

Ji

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

even darkness
cleared
is

79

a form of

up

this point too

it. It was Empedokles who by showing that darkness is a

shadow.^
It

^
for

was natural

Anaximenes
;

to fix

upon Air

in

this sense as the

primary substance
it

for, in

the system
place

of Anaximander,

occupied

an

intermediate

between the two fundamental opposites, the sphere of

flame and the cold, moist mass within
it

19).

We
this

know from Plutarch when rarefied, and

he
satisfied

that he fancied air

became warmer

colder

when condensed.

Of

himself by a

curious experimental proof.

air is
it

When we
warm
;

breathe with our mouths open, the

breathe

when we

with

our

lips

closed,

is cold.^

2 8.

This argument from

human

breathing brings us The

_
.

world

to an important

pomt
by the

the theory of Anaximenes,

breathes.

which

is

attested

single fragment that has

soul,
air

come

down

to us.^

"Just as our

being

air,

holds us

together, so

do breath and

encompass the whole

world."
to the

The primary
life

substance bears the same relation

of the world as to that of man.

Now
it is

this,

we

shall see,

was the Pythagorean view and so marks the

*
;

and

also

an early instance of the argument from the microcosm

to the macrocosm,
first

beginnings of

an interest
1

in physiological matters.
in

^
;

For the meaning of

re
TToXiis

a-f]p

Homer,
^Tri

see Schmidt, Sytiommik, 35

and

for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, Jlepl d^pwv, iSdruv, rdiruv, 15,
di^ip

Kar^x^t

ttjj/

x^PW
;

the old meaning of the word

for

rdv vddrcjv. Plato is still conscious of he makes Timaios say d^pos {y^vv) "^^ f^"
6 8^ doXepurraros OfjUxXrj Kol <rK6nros

evayiararov

iirLKXrjv

aldrjp KaXoOfievos,

{Tim. 58
I

d).

The view given

sur

in the text has

been

criticised
viii.

by Tannery,

" Une nouvelle hypothese

have
is

Anaximandre
it

" {Arc/i.
to

pp. 443 sqq.), and

criticisms.

slightly altered

my

expression of

meet these

The

point

of fundamental importance, as

we

shall see, for the interpretation

of Pythagoreanism.
3

2 pjut. de
-

prim. frig. 947

II. 53.

f (R. P. 27).

Aet.

i.

3,

4 (R. P. 24).

See Chap.

8o
The
parts of

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

29.

We

turn

now

to the doxographical tradition

its

concerning the formation of the world and

parts
first

He

says that, as the air

It is

was

felted,
is

the earth

came

into being.

very broad and

fr.

accordingly supported by

the air. Ps.-Plut. Strom,

3 (R. P. 25).

In the same way the sun and the

heavenly bodies, which are of a
the air because of their breadth.

moon and

the

other

fiery nature, are

supported by
bodies were
it.

The heavenly
rising

produced from the earth by moisture

this is rarefied, fire

from

When
com-

comes

into being,
aloft.

posed of the
with them.

fire

thus raised

and the There were

stars,

stars are

also bodies of

earthy substance in the region of the

revolving along

And he

says that the heavenly bodies

under the

earth, as others suppose, but

round our head.

The sun

is

do not move round it, as a cap turns hidden from sight, not because it
it is

goes under the earth, but because

parts of the earth,
greater.

concealed by the higher

and because its distance from us becomes The stars give no heat because of the greatness of

their distance.

Hipp.

Ref.

i.

7,

4-6 (R. P. 28).

air is

Winds
thickened
to water.^

are

produced when
;

condensed and rushes

it

along under propulsion

still

but when

is
;

concentrated and
and,
lastly, it

more, clouds are generated

Ref.
i.

turns

Hipp. The heavens.

Aet.

7,

{Dox. p 561).

stars are fixed like nails in the crystaUine vault of the

ii.

14, 3 {^Dox. p. 344).

They do not go under

16, 6 {Dox. p. 346).

the earth, but turn round

it.

lb.

The sun
It is

is fiery.

lb. 20, 2

{Dox.

p. 348).

broad

like a leaf.

The heavenly

p. 352). bodies are diverted from their courses by the

air.

lb. 22, i

{Dox.

resistance of compressed

lb. 23, i

{Dox.
p.

p.

352).

The moon
as

is

of

fire.

lb. 25, 2

{Dox.

356).

an

Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which

flashes

when divided by the

text
is

oars.

lb.

iii.

3, 2

{Dox.

p.

368).

The

very corrupt here.

I retain iKireirvKvu/j.dvos,

because

we^

are told above that winds are condensed air, and I adopt Zeller's dpat^
la-(pipT)TaL (p.

246, n.

i).

Jl

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

Hail
is

8i
snow,
iil

produced when water

is

freezes in falling;

when
{Dox,

there
p.

some
is

air

imprisoned

in the water.

Aet.

4,

370).

The rainbow
thick condensed

produced when the beams of the sun

fall

on

air.

Hence

the anterior part of

it

seems
is

red,

being burnt by the sun's rays, while the other part

dark,

owing

to the
is

predominance of moisture.
at night
is

And

he says that a

rainbow

produced

because there

not constantly a

by the moon, but not often, full moon, and because the
Schol.

moon's
{Dox.

light is

weaker than that of the sun.

Arat}
(Dox.

p.

231).

The
p.

earth was like a table in shape.

Aet.

iii.

10, 3

377).

The

cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of

the earth, occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.

/^. 15, 3

{Dox.

p.

379).
justified in

We

have seen that Anaximenes was quite

in
;

going back to Thales

regard to his general theory of

the primary substance

but

it

cannot be denied that

the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was

unfortunate.

The

earth

is

once more imagined as a

air.

table-like disc floating

upon the

The

sun,

moon,

and planets are

"like leaves."

also fiery discs which float on the air

It

follows

that the

heavenly bodies

cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night,

but only as going round
millstone.^
Aristotle's
it

laterally like a
is

cap or a
in

This curious view

Meteorology^ where

also

mentioned
of

the

elevation
it

the

northern parts of the earth, which makes

^

possible for
Dox.

The

source of this

is

Poseidonios,

who

used Theophrastos.

p. 231.
2 Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution hke that Diels {Dox. p. of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel.

46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively. They come, of course, from Actios (Appendix, 10), though they are

given neither by Stobaios nor in the Placita.

3

B,

I.

354 a 28 (R.

P.

28

c).

82

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

is

the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight,

to.

referred

In

fact,

whereas Anaximander had regarded the

stars

orbits

of the sun, moon, and

as oblique with

reference to the earth,

itself

Anaximenes regarded the earth

real

as

inclined.

The only
stars,

advance
freely

is

the the

distinction
air,

of the planets,

which

float

in

from the fixed

which are fastened

sky.-^

to the

" crystalline "

vault of the
bodies,

The

earthy

which

circulate

among

the

planets, are doubtless intended to account for eclipses

and the phases of the moon.^

Innumerable wor s.

30.

As might be
about the
"

expected,

there

is

the

same

difficulty

innumerable worlds

"

ascribed to

Anaximenes

as about those of

Anaximander, and most

(
1

of the arguments given above

8)

apply here

also.

The
that

evidence, however,

is

far less satisfactory.

air as

Cicero

says that
it

Anaximenes regarded
into being.^
Air, as

a god, and adds

is

came

That there

some confusion
is

here

is

obvious.

the primary substance,

certainly eternal,
called
it

and

it is

" divine," as

quitwlikely that Anaximenes Anaximander did the Boundless

but

it is

certain that

he also spoke of gods who came

into being

and passed away.

This
is

These

arose,

he

said,

from

the
also
^

air.

expressly stated by Hippolytos,* and

by

St.

Augustine.^

These gods are probably to

We

It is

do not know how Anaximenes imagined the " crystalline " sky. probable that he used the word irdyos as Empedokles did. Cf. Chap.

V. 112. 2 See Tannery, Science hellene, p. 153. For the precisely similar bodies assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. 135. See further Chap.
i. 26 (R. P. 28 b). On what follows see Krische, Forsckungen, pp. 52 sqq. 4 Hipp. Ref, i. 7, I (R. P. 28). " Anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinito ^ Aug. de civ. D. viii. 2 aeri dedit nee deos negavit aut tacuit ; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum,
:

VII. 151. 3 Cic. de nat. D.

sed ipsos ex acre ortos credidit " (R. P. 28 b).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

be explained like Anaximander's.
takes another view
^
;

83

Simplicius, indeed,

but he

may have
for

been misled

by a
in

Stoic authority.
It
is

31.

not quite

easy

us

to

realise

the eyes of his contemporaries, and for long after,

figure than

that, influence of '-

Anaximenes was a much more important

Anaximander.

And

yet the fact

is

certain.

We

shall

see that Pythagoras, though he followed

in

Anaximander
theory
of

his account of

the heavenly bodies, was far more

his

indebted to Anaximenes for

reality ( 53).
later

general

We

shall see further that

when, at a
Ionia,
it it

date,
"

science

revived

once

more
"

in

was
his

the

philosophy of Anaximenes

to

which

attached

itself ( 122).

Anaxagoras adopted many of

and some of them
of
the
into

most

characteristic views ( 135),

their

even

found

way

the

cosmology

Atomists.^

Diogenes of Apollonia went back to the

central doctrine of

Anaximenes, and once more made

substance,

Air

the

primary
it

though he also
on
but

tried to
(

combine

with the theories of Anaxagoras

to
all

188).

We

shall

come

this

later

it

seemed

desirable to point out at once that

Anaximenes marks
of thought which

the culminating point of the

^

line

Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12 (R. P. 28

of higher authority than this from Simplicius.

to

Anaximenes,

passage from the Placiia is Note, further, that it is only Herakleitos, and Diogenes that successive worlds are
a).

The

With regard to Anaximander, Simplicius is quite For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see Chap. III. 78 ; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. 188. That Simplicius is following a Stoic authority Cr .^so Simpl. is suggested by the words koX iiarepop ol dwb t^s Sroas.
ascribed even here.
clear.

de Caelo,
^

p.

202, 13.

In particular, the authority of Anaximenes was so great that both Cf. Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth.
Aet.
iii.

10, 3-5 (Ilf/ji o-x^MaTOS 7^5).

'Avaft/i^j'Tjj rpairefofiS^ {ryj^ yhv).

fikv

AeiiKtTTTTOs Tvii.izavoeihr\.
T(fi
fji.4(T(i}.

AvfJ-^KpiTOS

5iaiAei8rj

ry

irXdret,

KoiXiiv

This, in spite of the fact thal^the spherical form of the earth

in circles affected

was already a commonplace

by Pythagoreanism.

84

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and to show how the
"

started with Thales,

philosophy

of Anaximenes" came to
as a whole.
really the

mean

the Milesian doctrine

it

This

it

can pnly have done because

school, of

was

work of a

which Anaximenes was

because his

the last distinguished representative, and

contribution to
it

was one that completed the

from
his

sy^m
really

he

had

inherited

predecessors.

That the

theory

of

rarefaction

and

condensation

was

such a completion of the Milesian system,

seen already
( 26),

we have

and

it

need only be added that a

clear realisation of this fact will be the best clue at

once to the understanding of the Milesian cosmology

itself

and to that of the systems which followed

it is

it.

In

the main,

from Anaximenes that they

all start.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

*

32.

So

far

we have not met with any

trace of direct
beliefs,

Migrations to

antagonism between science and popular

though

the views of the Milesian cosmologists were really as

inconsistent with the religions of the people as with

the mythology of the anthropomorphic poets.^ things hastened the conflict

to the West,

Two

the shifting of the scene

and the

religious revival
B.C.

which swept over

Hellas in the sixth century

The

chief figures in the philosophical history of the

period were Pythagoras of

Samos and Xenophanes

birth,

of

Kolophon.

Both were lonians by

and yet both

spent the greater part of their lives in the West.

see from Herodotos

We
and

how

the Persian advance in Asia

Sicily

Minor occasioned a
Southern Italy
;

series of migrations to
this,

and

of course,

made

a great

difference to philosophy as well as to religion.

The
and
so,

new views had probably grown up

gradually
in

so naturally and

Ionia

that
;

the

shock

of conflict

reaction was avoided

but that could no longer be

to a region

when they were transplanted

where men

were wholly unprepared to receive them.

^

For the theological views of Anaximander and Anaximenes, see

Cf.

22 and 30.
"

Herod,

i.

170 (advice of Bias)

.8;

vi.

22 sqq. (Kale Akte).

86

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Another, though a somewhat
later, effect

of these

migrations was to bring

Science

into

contact

with

Rhetoric, one of the most characteristic

products of

Western Hellas.

Already

in

Parmenides we

may

note

the presence of that dialectical and controversial spirit

which was destined to have so great an influence on

Greek thought, and

arguing for

it

was
with

just this fusion of the art of

victory

the

search

for

truth

that

before long gave birth to Logic.

The
religious

33.

Most important of
this

all

in

its

influence

on

philosophy was the religious revival which culminated

about

time.
in

The

religion of continental

Hellas
that of

had developed
Ionia.

a very different

way from

In particular, the worship of Dionysos, which

came from Thrace, and is barely mentioned in Homer, contained in germ a wholly new way of looking at
man's relation to the world.
It

would certainly be

wrong

to

credit

the Thracians themselves with any

;

very exalted views

the Greeks, the

but there can be no doubt that, to

phenomenon of ecstasy suggested that the soul was something more than a feeble double of " the self, and that it was only when " out of the body it could show its true nature.^ To a less extent, such
ideas were also suggested

by the worship of Demeter,

at Eleusis
;

whose mysteries were celebrated

later days, these

though, in

came

to take

the leading place in

men's minds.

That was because they were incorporated

Athens.

in the public religion of

Before the time with which

we

are dealing, tradition

shows us dimly an age of inspired prophets

Bakides

^ On all this, see Rohde, Psyche^ It is probable that he pp. 327 sqq. exaggerated the degree to which these ideas were already developed among

the Thracians, but the essential connexion of the

new view

of the soul with

Northern worships

is

confirmed by the tradition over and over again.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

and Sibyls
like

87

followed by one
and
Aristeas
is

of strange medicine-men of

Abaris

Prokonnesos.

With
history,

Epimenides of Crete, we touch the fringe of

while Pherekydes of Syros
early cosmologists, and

the contemporary of the

we

still

have some fragments

if

of his discourse.

It

looked as

Greek

religion

were

about to enter upon the same stage as that already

reached by the religions of the East
rise of science,
it is
;

and, but for the

hard to see what could have checked

say that the Greeks were

this tendency.

It is usual to

saved from a religion of the Oriental type by their

having no priesthood
for

but this

is

to mistake the effect

the

cause.

Priesthoods

do not make dogmas,

;

though they preserve them once they are made

in the earlier stages of their

and

development, the Oriental

peoples had no priesthoods either in the sense intended.^

It

was not so much the absence of a priesthood

as the

existence of the scientific schools that saved Greece.

34.

The new
in

religion

for in

one sense

it

was new,
its

The Orphic
^^ '^'"'

though

another as

old

as

mankind
far as
;

reached

highest point of development with the foundation of

the

Orphic communities.-

So

we can
in

see, the

original

home

of these was Attika

but they spread

with
Italy
for

extraordinary rapidity,

especially
first
;

Southern

and

Sicily.^

They were
of

of

all

associations

the

worship

Dionysos

but they

were

dis-

tinguished by two features which were

Hellenes.
^

new among

the

They looked
is

to a revelation as the source

^^

See Meyer, Gesck. des Alterth.

often attributed to priesthoods

thinking.

The exaggerated role ii. 461. a survival of French eighteenth century

2 See E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 453*460, who rightly emphasises the fact that the Orphic theogony is the continuation of Hesiod's work. As we have seen, some of it is even older than Hesiod.

88

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

authority,

of religious
artificial

and they were organised

as

communities.

The poems which contained

into

their theology

were ascribed to the Thracian Orpheus,V

who had

himself descended

Hades,

and was

therefore a safe guide through the, perils which beset

the disembodied soul

in

the next world.

literature,

We

have

considerable

remains of this
late

but they are

mostly

of

date,

and

cannot safely be used as

evidence for the beliefs of the sixth century.

We

do

know, however, that the leading ideas of Orphicism

were quite
early.

A
^
;

number of

thin gold plates with

Orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered

in

Southern Italy
in

and though these are somewhat

the

later

date than

period

dealing, they belong to the time

with which we are when Orphicism was

revival.

a living creed and not a fantastic

What
which

can
a

be made out from them as to

startling

the doctrine has

beliefs

resemblance

to

the
the

were
it

prevalent in

India about

same

time,

though

seems impossible that there should have been any

actual contact between

India and Greece at this date.

^

The main purpose

believer's soul,
"

of the Orgia

was

to " purify " the

and so enable
and
it

it

to escape

from the

wheel of

birth,"

was

for the better

in

attainment of
communities.
to the

this

end that the Orphics were organised

Religious associations must have been

known

Greeks from a
^

fairly

early date

^
;

but the oldest of

Appendix
to

For the gold plates of Thourioi and

Petelia, see the

Miss

Harrison's Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, where the text of them is discussed and a translation given by Professor Gilbert Murray.
2 This was the oldest name for these '' mysteries," and it simply means "sacraments" (cf. ^0/370). Orgia are not necessarily " orgiastic." That association of ideas merely comes from the fact that they belonged to the

worship of Dionysos.
^

Herodotos mentions that Isagoras and those of

his 7^'os

worshipped

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

these were based,
at
least
in

89
tie

theory,

on the

of

kindred blood.

What was new was

in
is

the institution of

communities to which any one might be admitted by

initiation.-^

This was,

fact,

the

establishment
.

of

churches, though there

no evidence that these were

connected

with each

other in such a

way

that

could rightly speak of them as a single church.

we The
as

Pythagoreans came nearer to realising

35.

that.

We

have to take
a "

account
it

of

the

religious Philosophy
^
^^

revival here, chiefly because

suggested the view that

of
life."

philosophy was above

all

way

Science too
the

was a

"purification,"

means oJ escape from

" wheel."

This

is

the view expressed so strongly in

Plato's P/medo,

which was written under the influence

ideas.^

of

Pythagorean

Sokrates
it

became
was

to

his

followers the

ideal "

wise man," and

to this side

of his personality the Cynics mainly attached themselves.

From them proceeded

saint,

the Stoic sage and the Christian

and also the whole brood of impostors

pilloried for our edification.^

whom

Lucian has

Saints and

sages are apt to appear in questionable shapes, and

the Karian Zeus

(v. 66),

and

it is

probable that the Orgeones attached by

Kleisthenes to the Attic phratriai were associations of this kind.

See

Foucart, Les associations religieuses chez

^

les

Grecs.
this
p.

striking parallel

is

afforded to

all

Robertson Smith's Religion of the Semites,

that distinguished
B.C.)

339.

by what we are told in " The leading feature

them " "from the old public

from

(the

cults with

Semitic mysteries of the seventh century which they came into competition, is

that

they were not

recruits

men

of every race

based on the principle of nationality, but sought who were willing to accept initiation

through the mystic sacraments."

2 The Phaedo is dedicated, as it were, to Echekrates and the Pythagorean society at Phleious, and it is evident that Plato in his youth was impressed by the religious side of Pythagoreanism, though the influence of Pythagorean science is not clearly marked till a later period. Note specially the Arpairos oi Phd. 6^5 b 4. In Rep. x. 600 b i, Plato

speaks of Pythagoras as the originator of a private 656s rts /3/ou. ^ Cf especially the point of view of the Auction of Lives (Biajv

T/)a<nj).

90

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Tyana showed
It

Apollonios of

in

the end where this

view

may
is

lead.

was not wholly absent from any

after

Greek

philosophy
as

the

days
it

of

Pythagoras.
as

Aristotle

much

possessed by

as

any one,

may

see from the

still

Tenth Book of the

distinctly if
in

Ethics^

and as

we we

should see

more

we possessed such
entirety.^

works as the Protreptikos

indeed, tried to

their

Plato,

make

the ideal wise

man

of service to

the state and mainkind

king.
insisted
It

by

his doctrine of the philosopher

was he

alone,

so

far

as

we know,

that

on philosophers descending by turns into the

cave from which they had been released and coming

to the help of their former fellow-prisoners.^
not, however, the

That was
"

view that prevailed, and the

wise
the
to
for

man

"

became more and

Apollonios of

world.

more detached from Tyana was quite entitled

;

regard himself as the spiritual heir of Pythagoras

the theurgy and thaumaturgy of the late Greek schools

was but the

fruit

of the seed sown in the generation

before the Persian Wars.

36.

On

the

other

hand,

it

would

be

wrong

to

suppose that Orphicism or the Mysteries suggested any

definite doctrines to philosophers, at least during the

period

which we are about to consider.

We

have

admitted that they really implied a new view of the

soul,

and we might therefore have expected

they profoundly modified
it.

to find

that

men's

theory of the
is

world and their relation to

1

The

striking thing

For the UpoTpeirTiKds of Aristotle, see Bywater in y. P/it7. ii. p. 55 ; i. p. 477 ; and the notes on Ethics, i. 5, in my edition. 2 Plato, Rep. 520 c i, Karapariov odu iv fiipei. The allegory of the Cave seems to be Orphic, and I believe Professor Stewart's suggestion {Myths of Plato, p. 252, n. 2), that Plato had the Kard^acns eis "Aidov in mind, to be quite justified. The idea of rescuing the "spirits in prison"
Diels in Arch.
is

thoroughly Orphic.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

that
this did

91

not happen.
closely
in

Even those philosophers

touch with the
religious

who were most

movement,
like

Empedokles and the Pythagoreans,

which really contradicted

held views about the soul

the theory implied
is

by
to

their religious practices.^

in

There

no room
period.

for

an immortal soul

any philosophy of
immortality

this

Up
rites,

Plato's

time

was

never treated in a scientific way, but merely assumed

in the

Orphic

to which Plato half seriously turns

for confirmation of his

own

teaching.^
for.

All

this

is

easily

accounted

With us

religious revival generally

means the
at

vivid realisation

of a

new

or forgotten doctrine, while ancient religion

has properly
Aristotle

no doctrine

all.

"The

initiated,"

said, "

were not expected to learn anything,

in
^

but merely to be affected

a certain

way and

put

into a certain frame of mind."

Nothing was required

but that the

ritual

should be correctly performed, and

give

the worshipper was free to

it

any explanation of
exalted
as that

he

pleased.

It

might be as

of

Pindar and Sophokles, or as material as that of the

itinerant

mystery-mongers described by Plato

in

the

Republic.

The

essential

thing was that he should

duly

sacrifice his pig.

I.

Pythagoras of Samos
Character ot
the tradition.
,

"KT.

It is

an account of Pythano easy ' task to give

goras that can claim to be regarded as history.

^
'^

Our
oOt<h

For Empedokles, see 119 for the Pythagoreans, see 149. Cf. Phd. 69 c 2, KoX KiudvveOovai Kal oi tols TeXerAj ijfiiy
;

Karaa-rqa-avTes
K.T.X.

ov

^avXoi Tives

ehai,
this

ctXXcii

T<p

^"ti

irdXai

aiwlTreaBat

The
fr.

gentle irony of

and similar

passages

ought to
ti
SeiP,

be

unmistakable.
^ Arist.

45,

1483 a 19,

roi/s

reXov/x^vovs ov fiadeiv

dXXd

irade'iv

Kai diaredTJvai.

92

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

^

principal sources of information

are the Lives

com-

posed by lamblichos, Porphyry, and Laertios Diogenes.

That of lamblichos
chiefly

is

a wretched compilation, based

on the work of the arithmetician Nikomachos

of Gerasa in Judaea, and the romance of Apollonios

of Tyana,

who regarded

himself as a second Pythagoras,

liberties

and accordingly took great

with his materials.^

Porphyry stands, as a
lamblichos
;

writer,

on a

far higher level

than

but his authorities do not inspire us with

more

confidence.
certain

He,

too,

made use

of Nikomachos,

and of a

novelist

called Antonius Diogenes,

author of a work entitled Marvels from beyond Thule}

Diogenes quotes, as
authorities,

usual, a

considerable

number of

and

the

statements

he

makes must be
must be conFurther
a

estimated according to the nature of the sources from

which they were

fessed, our material

drawn.^

So

far,

it

does not seem promising.

however,
that

examination

shows,

good

many
These

fragments of two

much

older authorities, Aristoxenos

in

and Dikaiarchos, are embedded

writers were

the mass.
;

both disciples

of Aristotle

they were

natives of Southern Italy,

last
^

and contemporary with the

school.

generation

of

the

Pythagorean

Both

See E. Rohde's admirable papers, " Die Quellen des lamblichus in seiner Biographie des Pythagoras" {Rh. Mtis, xxvi., xxvii.).
"^

lamblichos was

disciple

of Porphyry, and

contemporary with

Constantine.

Nikomachos no evidence that he added anything to the authorities he followed, but these were already vitiated by Neopythagorean fables. Still, it is to him we
chiefly
3

Life of Pythagoras has been edited by Nauck (1884). There is belongs to the beginning of the second century A.D.

The

owe the preservation of the valuable evidence of Aristoxenos. Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras is the only considerable extract from his History of Philosophy, in four books, that has survived. The romance of
Antonius
"*

is

the original parodied by Lucian in his Vera Historia.

The importance

of the

life in

Laertios Diogenes

lies in

the fact that

it

gives us the story current at Alexandria before the rise of Neopytha-

goreanism and the promulgation of the gospel according to Apollonios of Tyana,

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

wrote accounts of Pythagoras
;

93

and Aristoxenos, who

last

was personally intimate with the

of scientific of the sayings of his friends.
story, as

representatives

Pythagoreanism, also made

a collection

Now
;

the Neopythagorean
is

we have
and

it

in

lamblichos,

tissue
sift

of

incredible

fantastic

myths

but, if

we

out

the

statements

which go back

to

Aristoxenos

and

Dikaiarchos,
in

we can

easily construct a rational narrative,

which Pythagoras appears not as a miracle-monger

religious innovator, but simply as a moralist

and

and

statesman.
that this
is

We

might then be tempted to suppose

;

the genuine tradition

but that would be

fact,

altogether a mistake.
still

There

is,

in

a third and

earlier

stratum in the Lives, and this agrees with

in

the latest accounts

representing Pythagoras as

wonder-worker and a religious reformer.

Some

of the most striking miracles of Pythagoras

Tripod^

are related on the authority of Andron's

and and

of Aristotle's work on the Pythagoreans.^

treatises

Both these
B.C.,

belong

to

the

fourth

century

are

therefore
it

untouched by Neopythagorean
is

fancies.

Further,

only

by assuming

the

still

earlier

existence of this view that

of Herodotos.
that

we can explain the allusions The Hellespontine Greeks told him

or

Salmoxis

Zamolxis
is

had
a

been

slave

of

Pythagoras,^ and
class as
^

Salmoxis

figure

of the

same

Abaris and Aristeas.

Andron of Ephesos wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, called The Tripod, in allusion to the well-known story. The feats ascribed to
Pythagoras in the Aristotelian treatise remind us of an ecclesiastical legend. For example, he kills a deadly snake by biting it ; he was seen at Kroton and Metapontion at the same time ; he exhibited his golden thigh at
river Kasas.

Olympia, and was addressed by a voice from heaven when crossing the The same authority stated that he was identified by the
Krotoniates with Apollo Hyperboreios (Arist.
'*

fr.

i86).

Herod,

iv.

95.

94
It

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

seems, then, that both the oldest and the latest

accounts agree in representing Pythagoras as a

of the class

man
but,
his

to which Epimenides and Onomakritos

belonged
for

in fact, as a sort of "

medicine-man
to

"
;

some

reason, there
this

was an attempt and

save

memory from

imputation,

that

attempt

belonged to the fourth century

of this will appear in the sequel.
38.

B.C.

The
for

significance

We may

be

said

to

know
and he

certain

that

Pythagoras passed his early manhood at Samos, and

was the son of Mnesarchos

are
told,

^
;

" flourished,"

we

in
far

the

reign
;

of Polykrates.^

This

date

cannot be
of

wrong

for Herakleitos already

speaks

him

in the past tense.^

The
late

extensive travels attributed to Pythagoras

are,

writers

of

course,
visited

apocryphal.

by Even the
far

statement

that
if

he

Egypt, though

from

improbable

Polykrates of
authority.^
^

we consider the close relations between Samos and Amasis, rests on no sufficient
it

Herodotos,
iv.

is

true, observes

that

the

and Herakleitos, fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). Herodotos On the other hand, Aristoxenos said at Samos. of the islands which the Athenians occupied after that This suggests Lemnos, from expelling the Tyrrhenians (Diog. viii. i). which the Tyrrhenian " Pelasgians " were expelled by Miltiades (Herod, vi. 140), or possibly some other island which was occupied at the same time. There were also Tyrrhenians at Imbros. This explains the story that he was an Etrurian or a Tyrian. Other accounts bring him into connexion with Phleious, but that is perhaps a pious invention of the Pythagorean society which flourished there at the beginning of the fourth century B.C.
Cf.

Herod,

95,

represents

him as living he came from one

Pausanias
2

(ii.

13, i) gives

it

as a Phleiasian tradition that Hippasos, the

great-grandfather of Pythagoras, had emigrated from Phleious to Samos.

Eratosthenes identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor of 01. I (588/7 B.C.), but Apollodoros gave My-, flortiit as 532/1, the era He doubtless based this on the statement of Aristoxenos of Polykrates. quoted by Porphyry ( V. Pyth. 9), that Pythagoras left Samos from dislike

XLVni.

to the tyranny of Polykrates (R. P. 53 a).

For a
fr.

full discussion,

see Jacoby,

pp. 215 sqq. * It occurs

Herakl.

16, 17 (R. P. 31, 31 a).

first

in the Bousiris of Isokrates, 28 (R. P. 52).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Egyptians agreed
called Orphic
in

95

certain practices with the rules

really Egyptian,

and Bacchic, which are

-^

and with the Pythagoreans

that

but this does not imply

these
directly

the

Pythagoreans

derived

from

Egypt.
in

He

says also in another place that the belief

transmigration

came from Egypt, though

certain

Greeks, both at an earlier and a later date, had passed

it

off as their

own.

He
;

refuses,

however, to give their

names, so he can hardly be referring to Pythagoras.^

Nor does
in

it

matter

for the
all,

Egyptians did not believe

transmigration

at

and Herodotos was simply

or

deceived

by the

priests

the

symbolism

of

the

monuments.
Aristoxenos
said

that

Pythagoras

left

Samos

in
It

order to escape from the tyranny of Polykrates.^

was

at Kroton, a city already

famous

for its medical

school,* that

he founded his society.

;

How
first

long he

remained there we do not know

he died at Metasignal of

pontion, whither he had retired on the

revolt against his influence.^

^ Herod, ii. 8i (R. P. 52 a). The comma at AlyvirTioLai is clearly right. Herodotos believed that the worship of Dionysos was introduced from Egypt by Melampous (ii. 49), and he means to suggest that the Orphics got these practices from the worshippers of Bakchos, while the Pythagoreans got them from the Orphics. 2 Herod, ii. 123 (R. P. zb.). The words "whose names I know, but do not write " cannot refer to Pythagoras ; for it is only of contemporaries that Herodotos speaks in this way (cf. i. 51 ; iv. 48). Stein's suggestion that he meant Empedokles seems to me convincing. Herodotos may have met him at Thourioi. Nor is there any reason to suppose that ol jxkv wpdrepov refers specially to the Pythagoreans. If Herodotos had ever heard of Pythagoras visiting Egypt, he would surely have said so in one or other of these passages. There was no occasion for reserve, as Pythagoras must have died before Herodotos was born.

3
"*

Porph. V. Pyth. 9 (R. P. 53

a).

Demokedes (iii. 131) we can see that the medical school of Kroton was founded before the time of Pythagoras.
tells

From what Herodotos

us of

Cf. Wachtler,
^

De Alcmaeone

Crotoniata, p. 91.
last

It

may be

taken as certain that Pythagoras spent his

days at

96
The
Order.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

3 9.

There

is

no reason to believe that the detailed

statements which have been handed

down with

regard

to the organisation of the Pythagorean Order rest upon

any

historical basis,
still

and

in the case of

many

of

them

we can

see

how they came

to

be made.

The

distinction of grades within the Order, variously called

Mathematicians and Akousmatics^ Esoterics and ExotericSy

Pythagoreans and Pythagorists}
to explain
sets
is

an invention designed

how

there

came

to be

two widely

different

of people,

each

calling

themselves disciples of
B.C.

Pythagoras, in

the fourth century

the

So, too, the

statement
inviolable
is

that

Pythagoreans

were

bound

to

secrecy,

which goes back to Aristoxenos,^

intended to explain

why

there

is

no trace of the
-^

Pythagorean philosophy proper before Philolaos.

The Pythagorean Order was

simply, in

its origin,

religious fraternity of the type described above,

and

not,

as has sometimes been maintained, a political league.^

Nor had

it

anything to do with the

"

Dorian aristocratic

Metapontion

(Z>^ Fin. V. 4)

Aristoxenos said so {ap. Iambi. V. Pyth. 249), and Cicero speaks of the honours which continued to be paid to his
distinctions, see

Cf. also Andron, fr. 6 {F.H.G. ii. 347). Porphyry ( V. Pyth. 37) and lamblichos The name aKova/xariKoi is clearly ( V. Pyth. 80), quoted R. P. 56 and 56 b. related to the dKoixTfxaTa, with which we shall have to deal shortly ( 44).

memory
1

in that city (R. P. 57 c).

For these

2 For the "mystic silence," see Aristoxenos, ap. Diog. viii. 15 (R. P. 55 a). Tannery, " Sur le secret dans I'ecole de Pythagore" {Arch. i. pp. 28sqq.), thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets of the school, and but the most reasonable view is that these were divulged by Hippasos
;

that there

were no secrets at all except of a ritual kind. 2 Plato, Pep. X. 600 a, implies that Pythagoras held, no public office. The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, maintained in modern times by Krische {De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo politico^
1830), goes back,

as

Rohde has shown

{loc.

cit.),

to Dikaiarchos,
it

the

champion of the "

scientific society

Practical Life," just as the view that

was primarily a

goes back to the mathematician and musician Aristoxenos.

Archytas, just as the latter antedated Philolaos (see
Grote's good sense enabled

The former antedated

Chap. VII.
(vol. iv.

138).

him

to see this quite clearly

pp. 329 sqq.).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

ideal."

97

Pythagoras was an Ionian, and the Order was

originally confined to

Achaian

states.^

Nor

is

there the

slightest evidence that the

aristocratic

Pythagoreans favoured the

rather than

the democratic party. ^'

for its

main purpose of the Order was to secure

The own
It

members a more adequate

instinct than that supplied

satisfaction of the religious

by the State
for the

religion.

was, in
ness.

fact,

an institution
it

cultivation of holi-

In this respect
it

resembled an Orphic society,

though

seems that Apollo, rather than Dionysos,

was the chief Pythagorean god.

That

is

doubtless

why
'aiT

the Krotoniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo

Hyperboreios.^

From

the nature of the case, however,

independent society within a Greek state was apt

to be brought into conflict with the larger body.

^

The

Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth.

insist

ii.

502,

Anm.

It

is

still

necessary

to

upon

this,

as

the idea that the Pythagoreans represented the

"Dorian ideal"
^*

dies very hard.

In his Kulturhistorische Beitrdge (Heft

P- 59)>

M^x

C. P. Schmidt imagines that later writers call the founder

of the sect Pythagoras instead of Pythagores, as he

is called by Herakleitos and Demokritos, because h^ had become *'a Dorian of the Dorians." The fact is simply that llvQaribpa.% is the Attic form of IIv^aYi/w/s, and

that the writers in question wrote Attic.

Similarly, Plato calls Archytas,

who
2

did belong to a Dorian state, Archytes, though Aristoxenos and others

retained the Dorian form of his name.

Kylon, the chief opponent

ot

the Pythagoreans,

is

described

by

Aristoxenos (Iambi. V. Pyth. 248) as -^hu koX dd^-g Kai TrXoiJrv irporreduir tQ)v ttoXltQv. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans, was a democracy. The truth is that, at this time, the new religion appealed to
the people rather than the aristocracies, which were apt to be " freeXenophanes, not Pyththinking" (Meyer, GescA. des Alt. iii. 252).
agoras,
3

is

their

man.
fr.

We have the authority of Aristotle,

186, 15 10

20, for the identifica-

tion of Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios.

of Abaris and movement parallel to the Orphic, but based on the worship of Apollo. The later tradition makes them predecessors of Pythagoras ; and that this has some historical basis, appears from Herod,

The names

Aristeas stand for a mystical

iv.

13 sqq., and above all from the statement that Aristeas had a statue at Metapontion, where Pythagoras died. The connexion of Pythagoras with Zamolxis belongs to the same order of ideas. As the legend of the Hyperboreans is Delian, we see that the religion taught by Pythagoras was

genuinely Ionian in

its

origin.

98

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it

only way in which

could then assert

its

right to

exist was by identifying the State with

itself,

that

is,

by securing the
traced,

control of the sovereign power.

it

The

history of the Pythagorean Order, so far as

is,

can be

accordingly, the history of an attempt to

;

supersede the State

and

its

political action is to

be

explained as a mere incident of that attempt.

Downfall of
the Order.

40. For a time the

new Order seems

Under

actually to

^^^^ succeeded in securing the supreme power, but

reaction

came

at last.

the leadership of Kylon,

to assert
itself

wealthy

noble,

Kroton

was able

victoriously against the Pythagorean domination.

This,

we may
" rule

well believe,
saints "

had been galling enough. would be nothing to

it
;

The

of the

and we

can

still

imagine and sympathise with the

irritation felt

by the
done

plain

man

of those days at having his legislation

set of

for

him by a
his

incomprehensible pedants,

who

made
let
its
fr.

a point of abstaining from beans, and would not

him beat

own dog because they

recognised in

howls the voice of a departed friend (Xenophanes,

7).

This feeling would be aggravated by the private

religious worship of the Society.

Greek
of

states could

never pardon the

introduction

new

gods.

Their

objection to this was not, however, that the gods in

question were false gods.

If

they had been,

it

would

not have mattered so much.

tolerate

What

they could not

was that any one should establish a private

between
himself and
the

means of communication
unseen powers.
incalculable

That introduced an unknown and

into

element

the

arrangements

of the

State^ which might very

likely be hostile to those citizens

who had no means

of propitiating the intruding divinity.

Aristoxenos's version of the events which led to the

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

downfall of the Pythagorean Order
is

99

given at length

by lamblichos.
refused to receive
fore

According to

this,

Pythagoras had

Kylon

into his Society,

and he there- y

became a
he
died.

bitter

foe

of the Order.

From

this

cause Pythagoras removed from Kroton to Metapontion,

where

The Pythagoreans, however,

Kylon

still
till

retained possession of the government of Kroton,

at last the partisans of

set fire to Milo's house,

where they were assembled.

Of
to
later

those in the house

only two, Archippos and Lysis, escaped.

retired to

Archippos

Taras

Lysis,

first

Achaia and then to

Thebes,

where he became

on

the teacher of

Epameinondas.

The Pythagoreans
;

who

remained

concentrated themselves at Rhegion

but, as things

went

from bad to worse, they

This account has

all left

Italy except Archippos.^

all

the air of being historical.

proves,

The mention of Lysis

events were spread

however, that those

over more than one generation.

The

coup d'etat of Kroton can hardly have occurred

before

4^0
must

B.C.,
it,

if

the
it

teacher

of

Epameinondas
that

escaped from

and

may

well have been even later.

But

it

have been
left

before
for

410
;

B.C.

the

Pythagoreans
certainly at

Rhegion

Hellas

Philolaos

was

Thebes about that

time.^

See Rohde, Rh. Mus. xxvi. p. 565, n. i. The narrative in the text V. Pyth. 250 ; R. P. 59 b) 'goes back to Aristoxenos and Dikaiarchos (R. P. 59 a). There is no reason to suppose that their view of Pythagoras has vitiated their account of what must have been a perfectly well-known piece of history. According to the later story, Pythagoras himself was burned to death in the house of Milo, along with his disciples. This is merely a dramatic compression of the whole series of events into a single scene we have seen that Pythagoras died at Metapontion before the
^
i(

Iambi.

The valuable reference in Polybios ii. 39 (R. P. 59) to the burning of Pythagorean avviZpia. certainly implies that the disturbances went on for a very considerable time.
final catastrophe.
2 Plato,

Phd. 61 d

7,

7.

100

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

political

The

power of the
for ever,

Pythagoreans as

an

Order was now gone

exile they

though we

shall see that

some of them returned

seem
to

to Italy at a later date.

In

have dropped the merely magical

and

superstitious parts of their system,

and

this

enabled

them
Want

to take their place as one of the scientific schools

of Hellas.
of

41.
less

Of

the opinions of Pythagoras

life.

the teaching of

than of his

Aristotle clearly

we know even knew nothing

going back
Aristoxenos
Dikaiarchos
is

Pythagoras.

^^^ Certain of ethical or physical doctrines

to

the founder of the Society himself.^

only gave a string of moral precepts.^

quoted by Porphyry as asserting that hardly anything

of what

Pythagoras taught his disciples was known

the
doctrine

except
cycle,
fact
is,

of transmigration,
all

the

periodic

and the kinship of

that, like all teachers

living creatures.^

of living rather than a

preferred oral

who new view of the

it

introduce a

The new way

world, Pythagoras

instruction to the dissemination of his

opinions by writing, and

was not
to

till

Alexandrian books
in

times that any one ventured

^
*

forge

his

When

discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers

it

to

the Pythagoreans," not to Pythagoras himself.

seems to be proved by the phrase ol Kokoitxevoi more than once {e.g. Met. A, 5. 985 b 23 de Caelo, B, 13. 293 a 20). Pythagoras himself is only thrice mentioned in the whole Aristotelian corpus, and in only one of these places [AI. Mor. 1182 a 11) is any philosophical doctrine ascribed to him. We are told there that he was the first to discuss the subject of goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its But this is just one of the things which prove various forms with numbers.
;

was intentional UvdaySpeLoi, which occurs

this

That

the late date of the

Magna

Moralia.

Aristotle himself

is

quite clear that

what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days for, after mentioning these, of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as " contemporary with and earlier than them" [iv hh toijtols Kal irpb to'utwv, Met. A, 5. 985 b 23).
;

The fragments
Vofs. pp.

of the HvdayopiKal diro<pdcreLS of Aristoxenos are given,

by

Diels,
3

282 sqq.

V: Pyth. 19 (R. P. 55).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

name.

loi

The

writings

ascribed

to the earliest Pytha-

goreans were also forgeries of the same period.^

early history of Pythagoreanism
is,

The
to

therefore, wholly

conjectural

but

we may

still

make an attempt

understand, in a very general way, what the position

of Pythagoras in the history of Greek thought must

have been.
42.

In the

first

place, then, there can be

no doubt

Transmigra
tion.

that he really taught the doctrine of transmigration.^

The

story told

by the Greeks of the Hellespont and

if

Pontos as to his relations with Salmoxis could never

have gained currency by the time of Herodotos

he

had

not been

known
life
is

as

man who

taught strange
the doctrine of

views of the
transmigration

after death.^

Now
to

most

easily

be explained as a

development of the savage

belief in the kinship of

men
held.

and

beasts, as all alike children of the Earth,* a view

which

Dikaiarchos

said

Pythagoras
this

certainly
is

Further,

among

savages,

belief

commonly
for its

associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of

food,

and the Pythagorean

goes far to show that

rule

is

best

known

prescription of similar forms of abstinence.

itself
it

This in

originated in the

same

ideas,

and we have seen that the revival of these would

be quite natural in connexion with the foundation of

a

new
^

religious society.
p.

There
"Ein

is

a further considera-

See Diels, Dox.

iii.

150; and
Cf.

gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch

{Arch.
n.
I.
'^

pp. 451 sqq.).

jjroper

also Bernays,

Die Heraklitischen BrUfe^

and the inaccurate

The

Greek term

for this is 7raXt77e'e<r/a,

/aere/xi/'uxwo'ij

only occurs in late writers.

Alexandria say fieTeixrw/xATuais,

which

is

Hippolytos and Clement of See accurate but cumbrous.

Rohde, Psyche,
' *

p.

428, n.

2.

On

Dieterich,
47).

the significance of this, see above, p. 93. " Mutter Erde " (^Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft^ viii pp.

29 and

I02
tion

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

which
tells

strongly in the same direction.

In
it

India
is

we have
ideas
will

a precisely similar doctrine, and yet

to

not possible
at

assume any actual borrowing of

date.

Indian

this

The only explanation

is

which

account for the facts

that the two systems

were independently evolved from the same primitive

ideas.

These are found

in

many

parts of the world

but

it

seems to have been only

in India

and

in

Greece

that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine.

Abstinence.

43- It has indeed been doubted whether

we have

a right to accept what

as

we

are told

by such

late writers

Porphyry on the subject of Pythagorean abstinence.

Aristoxenos,
earliest

witnesses,

whom we have may be

use

admitted to be one of our

cited

to

prove

that

the

original Pythagoreans

knew nothing

of these restric-

tions

on

the

of animal flesh

and beans.

He

undoubtedly said that Pythagoras did not abstain from

animal
flesh
in

general,

but only from that of the

ploughing ox and the ram.^

He

also said that Pytha-

goras preferred beans to every other vegetable, as being

the most laxative, and that he was partial to suckingpigs and tender kids.^

Aristoxenos, however,

is

a witness

who

very often breaks

down under
to

cross-examination,

and the palpable exaggeration

of these statements

shows that he
^

is

endeavouring
viii.

combat a

belief

Aristoxenos ap. Diog.

20, Trdi'Ta ixhv

rh.

dXXa av^x'^P^^^ avrbv

eadletu ^ix\f'vxa, fi6vou 5' dw^x^'^^'^'- /^^^s dpoTTJpos Kal KpioO.

2

Aristoxenos ap. Gell.

edoKlfiaaep

iv.

il,-5,

Kiaixov

XeiavTLKdv
;

fidXiara KixRVTo-i- avrip

ib. 6,

Uvdaydpas 8^ tCiv 6<nrplwv /ndXiara tov yap elvai Kal dLax(*}p'r}TiK6v 5i6 Kal " porculis quoque minusculis et haedis tenerire
'

oribus victitasse,

idem Aristoxenus
it

refert."

It is,

of course, possible that

Aristoxenos
mistake.
least

may be

right about the taboo

on beans.

We

know

that

it

was Orphic, and

may have been

transferred to the Pythagoreans

affect the general

by

That, however, would not

that
is

conclusion that at

some Pythagoreans
is all

practised abstinence from various kinds of food,

which

required.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

which existed
in his

103

to show, out of his

own day. own mouth,

We

are therefore able

that the tradition which

made

the Pythagoreans abstain from animal flesh and

beans goes back to a time long before there were any

Neopythagoreans interested

in

upholding

it.

Still,

it

may
for

be asked what motive Aristoxenos could have had

denying the
instructive.

common
;

belief

The answer

is

simple
last

and

He had

been the friend of the

of the Pythagoreans
superstitious part of

and, in their time, the merely

Pythagoreanism had been dropped,

except by some zealots

whom

the heads of the Society

is

refused to acknowledge.

That

why he
;

represents

Pythagoras himself
the older and

in

so different a light from both

it

the later traditions

is

because he
"^

gives us the view of the

more

e nlightened sect of the

Order.

Those who clung

faithfully to the old practices

all

were

now

regarded as heretics, and

manner of

theories were set on foot to account for their existence.

It

was

related, for instance, that

"

they descended from

initiated
^

one of the

Akousmatics,"

who had never been

The

into the deeper mysteries of the " Mathematicians."

All

this,

however,

is

pure invention.

satire of the

poets of the Middle

that,

Comedy

proves clearly enough

even though the friends of Aristoxenos did not

practise abstinence, there were plenty of people in the

fourth century, calling themselves followers of Pythagoras,

1

who

did.^

History has not been kind to the

said to descend from

The

sect of the
V. Pyth.

"Akousmatics" was
;

Hippasos

Now Hippasos was the author of a R. P. 56). fivaTiKbs \6yos (Diog. viii. 7 ; R. P. 56 c), that is to say, of a superstitious ceremonial or ritual handbook, probably containing Akousmata like those
(Iambi.

8i

we

are about to consider Uvdaydpov.

2

for

we

are told that

it

was written
(

ivl Sto/SoXj

Diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form

Fiors.

pp. 291
fr.

sqq.).

For our purpose the most important passages are Antiphanes,

135,

104

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

out.

Akousmatics, but they never wholly died

The

names of Diodoros of Aspendos and Nigidius Figulus

help to bridge the gulf between them and Apollonios
of Tyana.

We
of
\

know, then, that Pythagoras taught the kinship

beasts

and

men, and

we

infer

that

his

rule

of

abstinence from flesh was based, not upon humanitarian

or ascetic grounds, but on taboo.

This

is

strikingly

confirmed by a fact which

Defence of Abstinence.

we

are told in Porphyry's

in question

The statement
does
^

does
of
all

not indeed go back to Theophrastos, as so

much
in
is

Porphyry's
probability,
^effect

tract

certainly

but

it

is,

due to Herakleides of Pontos, and

though the Pythagoreans
did
it

to the

that,

as

a rule

abstain from flesh, they nevertheless ate

when they
peoples,

sacrificed to the gods.^

Now, among savage

is

we

often find that the sacred animal

wo-Trep

slain
ft.

and eaten
oi
|

Kock,
ioj/res
fr.

UvdayopL^uv
ihs

ecrdiet
\

^fxxj/vxov oiid^v

Alexis,

220,

Uvdayopi^fiypvxov
\

yap,

aKOTjofxev,

oiir

6\pov iadiovaiv oUt

i]

&W'
;

ovd^ iv

196 (from the Tlvdayopi^ovaa),

'

d' ia-rlaa-LS
\

i(rx<^Sei

Kal (XTi[i(f>vKa

Kai

Tvpbs ^crrai

ravra yap ddeLV

v6fios

rois Uvdayopeiois
deCov
\

Aristophon,
rrdXai irori,
\

fr.

(from the IlvdayopiffTrjs),

ni;^a7o/)io-Tas

irpbs tCjv

oldfxeda roiis
^

toi>s
;

yepo/x^uovs 8vt(>}$
fr.

pvirav

cKbvra^
Oiuoiieu

^opeiv rpi^Cbvat ijS^us

Ko^iq.
\

Mnesimachos,

l,

ws

UvdayopLo-Tl

ry

^fi\pvxov

See also Theokritos, xiv, 5, toiovtos uxpbs KdvvwodrjTds 'KOrjvoios 5' ^^ar' ijfxev. ^ See Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift iiber Frdmmigkeit. Porphyry's tract, Ile/Jt dTox^Js eix\pijx<^v, was doubtless saved from the general destruction of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic tendencies of the age.
iadiovres iravreKCJs.
a<f>iKeTO HvdayopiKTcis,
\

oiUv Kal trpav ru

'

Even

St.

Jerome made constant use of

is

though he

The

tract

Plotinos,

it in his polemic against lovianus, mention Porphyry's name ( Theophr. Schr. n. 2). is addressed to Castricius Firmus, the disciple and friend of who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the

careful not to

Pythagoreans.
2

The

passage occurs

De

Abst. p. 58, 25
toi)s

Nauck

ia-Topova-i 8i

nves Kal

a&roifs dwrecrdat

rdv

efx-^ijx<^v

livdayopelovs,

ore dvoiev

deoTs.

The

part of the

work from which

this is

whom
made

see Bernay, Theophr. Schr. p.

taken comes from one Clodius, on 11. He was probably the rhetorician

Sextus Clodius, and a contemporary of Cicero.

sacrifice

use of the work of Herakleides of Pontos

Bernays has shown that he {j.b. n. On "mystic 19). " generally, see Robertson Smith, Rel. Sem. i. p. 276.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

sacramentally

105
solemn

by

its

kinsmen

on

certain

occasions, though in ordinary circumstances this would

be the greatest of
to

all

impieties.

Here, again,

we have
of

do with a very primitive

attach

belief;

and we need not

the
denials

therefore

any

weight

to

Aristoxenos.^
44.

We shall now know

what

to think of the various Akousmata.

Pythagorean rules and precepts which have come down

to us.
sources.

These are of two kinds, and have very

different

Some

of them, derived from the collection of

for

Aristoxenos,

and

the

most part

preserved

by

/-

lamblichos, are mere precepts of morality.

They do

not pretend to go back to Pythagoras himself; they

are
*'

only

the

sayings
"

which

the

last

generation of

Mathematicians
is

heard from their predecessors.^

The

second class

of a very different nature, and the sayings

it

which belong to
which had

are called

Akousmata^ which points'^

Later
;

to their being the property of that sect of Pythagoreans

faithfully preserved the old customs.

writers interpret

them

as "

symbols " of moral truth

but their interpretations are extremely far-fetched, and

it

does not require a very practised eye to see that

they are genuine taboos of a thoroughly primitive type.

^ Porphyry ( F. Pyth. c 15) has preserved a tradition to the effect that Pythagoras recommended a flesh diet for athletes (Milo?). This story must have originated at the same time as those related by Aristoxenos, and in a similar way. In fact, Bernays has shown that it comes from

Herakleides of Pontos {Theophr. Schr.

n. 8).

lamblichos

V.

Pyth.

5.

25)

and others (Diog. viii. 13, 47) got out of this by supposing it referred to a gymnast of the same name. We see here very distinctly how the Neoplatonists for their own ends endeavoured to go back to the original form of the Pythagorean legend, and to explain away the fourth century
reconstruction.

For these see Diels, Vors. pp. 282 sqq. There is an excellent collection of kKoiayixxra. koX (nJ/x/SoXo in Diels, It is impossible Vors. pp. 279 sqq., where the authorities will be found.
2
^
^

to discuss these in detail here, but students of folklore will see at once to

what order of ideas they belong.

io6
I

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

life

give a few examples in order that the reader may-

judge what the famous Pythagorean rule of

really like.
1.

was

To

abstain from beans.

to pick

2.

3.

4.
5. 6. 7.

8.
9.

10. II.
12.

Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not
it

up what has

fallen.

to touch a white cock.

to break bread. to step over a crossbar. to stir the fire with iron. to eat

from a whole loaf

to pluck a garland.

to

sit

on a quart measure. on highways.

is

to eat the heart.

to walk

to let swallows share one's roof.

13.

When

the pot

taken off the

fire,

not to leave the

mark

of

in the ashes, but to stir

them

together.
light.

14. 15.

Do not look in a mirror When you rise from the

beside a

bedclothes, roll

them together

and smooth out the impress of the body.

It

would be easy to multiply proofs of the close

between
Pythagoreanism

connexion

and

primitive

modes of thought, but what has been said is really The kinship of men and sufficient for our purpose.
beasts, the abstinence

from

flesh,

and the doctrine of

perfectly

transmigration
intelligible

all

hang together and form a

whole from the point of view which has been

ijidicated.j
Pythagoras

45-

scienS^"

the

Were this all, we should be tempted to delete name of Pythagoras from the history of philosophy
and relegate him
to the class of " medicine" (7077T69)

altogether,

men

along with Epimenides and Onomakritos.

This, however, would be quite wrong.

As we

shall see,

the Pythagorean Society

schools of Hellas, and

became one of the

it

chief scientific

is

certain that Pythagorean

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

the master himself.
Herakleitos,

107

science as well as Pythagorean religion originated with

who

is

not partial to
scientific

him,

says

that

Pythagoras

had

pursued

investigation further than other men, though he also

says that he turned his

mischief^

much
called

learning into an art of

Herodotos

Pythagoras

"by

no
title

means the weakest sophist of the Hellenes," a

which
at
this

date

does

not

imply

the

slightest

disparagement.^
first

Aristotle even said that Pythagoras

busied himself with mathematics and numbers, and

it

that

was

later

on he attached himself to the miracleIs

it

mongering of Pherekydes.^
trace

possible

for us to

any connexion between these two

?

sides of his

activity

We

have seen that the aim of the Orphic and other

"

Orgia was to obtain release from the

wheel of birth

"

by means of

" purifications,"

which were generally of

thing in the Society
that, while
it

a very primitive type.

The new

founded by Pythagoras seems to have been

it

admitted

all

these half-savage customs,

at

the

same time suggested a more exalted idea of what

" purification "

really

was.

Aristoxenos

tells

us

that

the Pythagoreans employed

as they used medicine

music to purge the soul

to purge the body,

Aristotle's

and

it

is

abundantly clear
KaOapai^i
^

that

famous theory of

is

derived from Pythagorean sources.*

17 (R. P. 31

Such

Herakl.
it

fr.

What

chiefly

a). The word IcTopli} is in itself quite general. means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by

lamblichos, V. Pyth. 89, iKoXdro hk 17 yeu/xerpla irpbs Hvdaydpov Icrropla, Tannery's interpretation of this statement is based on a misunderstanding, and need not be discussed here.
^
'

Herod, iv. 95. Arist. Hepi tQv Uvdayopeluv,

rb
ttj^

fr.

vlbs

fikv irpCoTov dieiroveiTo irepl rd. fxadififiaTa Kal toi)s dpidjMvs,

186, 1510 a 39, UvOaySpas ^vrj<rdpxov Harepov

d^ irore Kal
^ Its

$epexi55ou reparotroCtas ovk dir^arri.

is

immediate source

to be found in Plato,

Laws, 790 d 2 sqq..

io8

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

familiar in the Orgia

methods of purifying the soul were

of the

Korybantes,

and
in

will

serve

to

explain
is

the

Pythagorean interest
than
this.

Harmonics.

But there

more
was

we can Pythagoras who first

If

trust Herakleides so far,

it

distinguished the "three lives,"

|

the Theoretic, the Practical, and the Apolaustic, which

Aristotle

made
in

use

of in
is
it

the Ethics,

The

general

theory of these lives

clear,

and

it

is

impossible to

doubt that

substance

belongs to the very beginning

of the school.
this world,

It is to this effect.
is

We

are strangers in
soul,
;

and the body

the

tomb of the

and yet

we must not seek

the chattels of
his

to escape

by self-murder

for

we

are

God who is our herdsman, and command we have no right to make our
life,

without
escape.^

In this

there are three kinds of men, just as there

are three sorts of people

Y
1

Games. The lowest come to buy and sell, and next above them are those who come to compete. Best of all, however, are those who come simpl}^ to look on (dempelv). The greatest
purification of all
it
is,

who come to the Olympic class is made up of those who

therefore, disinterested science,

and ^^

is

the

philosopher,

man who devotes himself to that, the true who has most effectually released himself i^"
wheel of birth."
expressed
It

from the
that

"

would be rash to say

in

Pythagoras
;

himself exactly

this

manner
and
it

but

all

these ideas are genuinely Pythagorean,

is

only in some such

way

that

we can bridge

the gulf which separates Pythagoras the

man

of science

where the Korybantic rites are adduced as an see Rohde, Psyche, p. 336, n. 2.
^

instance.

For a
62

full

account
for

Plato gives this as the of which

it

Pythagorean view in
Espinas in Arc/i.
viii.

PM.

b,

the

interpretation
distinctly

cf.

implies that

was not

Plato pp. 449 sqq, merely the theory of Philolaos, but

something older.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

from Pythagoras the religious teacher.^

109
must now

We
to

endeavour to discover how much of the later Pythagorean

science
himself.

may

reasonably

be

ascribed

Pythagoras

.
Arithmetic.

46. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said

that

Pythagoras

was the

first

to

carry

that

study
is

beyond the needs of commerce,^ and

end of the
century

his statement

confirmed by everything we otherwise know.

fifth
B.C.,

By

the
is

we

find that there

widespread interest in such subjects and that these are

studied
for

their

own

sake.

Now

this

new
;

interest
it

cannot have been wholly the work of a school

must
is

have originated with some great man, and there

no
As,
I

one but Pythagoras to

whom we
teaching

can refer
sure

it.

however, he wrote nothing,

distinguishing
his

we have no
from

means of
of his

own

that

followers in the next generation or two.

safely say
is that,

All

we can

.;

the more primitive any Pythagorean

doctrine appears, the

more
all

likely

it

is

to be that of

Pythagoras himself, and

the

more

so

if it

can be

shown
^

to have points of contact with views which

pp. 505 sqq.

we

See Doring in ArcL

**

v.

There seems
fr.
;

to

be a reference to

the theory of the

three lives" in Herakleitos,

iii.
for

It

was apparently

taught in the Pythagorean Society of Phleious

Herakleides

made

Pythagoras expound

a conversation with the tyrant of Phleious (Cic. Tusc. V. 3 ; Diog. pr. 12, viii. 8), and it is developed by Plato in a If it should be dialogue which is, as it were, dedicated to Echekrates.
it

in

thought that this is interpreting Pythagoras too much in the light of Schopenhauer, it may be answered that even the Orphics came very near such a theory. The soul must not drink of Lethe, but go past it and drink of the water of Memory, before it can claim to become one of the
heroes.

only question
sources.

This has obvious points of contact with Plato's dva/xyrjan, and the is how much of the Phaedo we are to ascribe to Pythagorean

A
i.

great deal, I suspect.

See Prof. Stewart's Myths of Plato,

pp. 152 sqq.

^

Stob.

p.

20,

I,

iK tCjv 'Apiaro^^vov irepl dpidfjurrtKiji,

Toi/s dpidfioijs

irpayfiareiav

fidXiara irdvruv

rifxijaai

doKei

T^v 3^ vepi Hvdaydpai koI

irpoayayeiv

iirl

t6 trpbadev d7ra707u;' dirb

ttjs

tCjv (fXTdpuv xP^^oj.

no
know
before

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to have been held in his
it.

In

particular,

own time when we find

own
day,

or shortly

the

later

Pythagoreans teaching things that were already something of an anachronism in their

we may be
survivals

reasonably

sure that

we

are

dealing

with

which only the authority of the master's name Could

have preserved.

Some
It is

of these must be mentioned at

once, though the developed system belongs to a later

part of our story.

only by separating

its earliest

form from
in

its later

that the true place of Pythagoreanism

clear,

Greek thought can be made

between

though we must

always remember that

no one can now pretend to

its

draw the
certainty.

line

successive stages with

any

The

figures.

47.
that

Now

one of the most remarkable statements

is

we have about Pythagoreanism

what we are

told

of Eurytos on the unimpeachable authority of Archytas.

Eurytos was the disciple of Philolaos, and Aristoxenos

expressly

mentioned

him

along

with

Philolaos

as

having taught the last of the Pythagoreans, the

with

men

whom

he himself was personally acquainted.

He
fully

therefore belongs to the beginning of the fourth century

B.C.,

by which time the Pythagorean system was

developed, and he was no eccentric enthusiast, but one

of the foremost

men

in

the school.^

We
and

are told

of him, then, that he used to

all

give the

number of
men,

sorts

of things,

such

as

horses

and

that
in

he

demonstrated
way.
It

these
is

by arranging
to

pebbles
that

certain

to

be noted further
that

Aristotle
^

compares

his

procedure
(

of those

Apart from the story in lamblichos

be noticed that he
is

V.

Pyth. 148) that Eurytos heard

the voice of Philolaos from the grave after he had been

is

many years

dead,

it

to

mentioned
viii.

after

him

in the statement

of

Aristoxenos referred to (Diog.

46

R. P. 62).

A\

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

who
the square.^

bring numbers into figures like the triangle and

Now

these statements, and especially the remark of

Aristotle last quoted,

this date,

seem

to imply the existence at

and

earlier,

of a numerical symbolism quite

distinct

from the alphabetical notation on the one hand

and from the Euclidean representation of numbers by

lines

on the other.

The former was

inconvenient for

arithmetical purposes, just because the zero was one of

the few things

the Greeks did

not invent, and they

were therefore unable to develop a really serviceable

numerical symbolism based on position.
as
will

The

latter,

appear shortly,

is

intimately bound

up with
is

that absorption of arithmetic

least

by geometry, which
cannot be primitive.^

at
It

as old as

Plato, but

seems rather that numbers were represented by dots

arranged in symmetrical and easily recognised patterns,
of which the marking of dice or dominoes gives us the
best idea.

And
this

these markings are, in fact, the best

is
;

proof that
indicating

a genuinely primitive method of

for

numbers

they are of unknown antiquity,

and go back
as

to the time

when men could only count by

This way of counting
fingers, or

arranging numbers in such patterns, each of which became,

it

were, a fresh unit.

may

well

be as old as reckoning with the

1

even older.
is

Arist.

Met. N,

5.

1092 b 8 (R. P. 76
p.
vi.

a).

Aristotle does not quote the

authority of Archytas here, but the source of his statement

clear

made
rb
fiij

quite
m^X/>*

by Theophr. Met.

a 19 (Usener), tovto yap

\pi^<pov$

(sc.

Tov TrpoeXddpTa iraveadai) reXiov Kai (f>povovvTOt, Btrcp 'Apx'^Tas

xoLcTv EiipvTou SiaTidivra rivas

iror' (<fnf

Xiyeiv

ykp ws 85e

(ikv

avdporrov

6 a.pLdfx6$, 68e 5^ Uttttou,

2

6'5e

5'

AXKov rivbs

rvyx'i-vei.

Arithmetic

is

older than geometry, and was

in the

much more advanced

in

form which the Greeks called XoyLOTucfi rather than as dpiefnjTiKTfi proper. Even Plato puts Arithmetic before Geometry His own theory of number, in the Reptiblic in deference to the tradition. however, suggested the inversion of this order which we find carried out
Egypt, though
still

in Euclid.

112
It
is,

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

therefore, very significant that

we do not
figures
like

find

any adequate account of what Aristotle can have meant

by

"

those

who

bring numbers into

till

the
late

triangle
writers

and the square"

we come

to certain

who
the

called

themselves

Pythagoreans,

and
inde-

revived

study of arithmetic as a science

pendent of geometry.

These men not only abandoned

the linear symbolism of Euclid, but also regarded the

alphabetical notation, which they did use, as something

conventional,

and

inadequate

to

represent

the

true

nature of number.

Nikomachos of Gerasa says exnumbers are

pressly that the letters used to represent

only significant by

human usage and

units,

convention.
linear or

The
prime

most natural way would be to represent

numbers by a row of
and

polygonal numbers by units

figures,

arranged so as to mark out the various plane

solid

numbers by units disposed

in

pyramids and
:

so forth.^

He

therefore gives us figures like this

a a a

a a a a

a a a

a a

aaa aaa

a a a a a a a a a

Now
but,

it

ought to be obvious that

so

this is

no innovation,

like

many

things

in

Neopythagoreanism, a

reversion to primitive usage.

Of

course the employis

ment of the

letter

alpha to represent the units

;

derived

from the conventional notation

clearly in presence of

but otherwise

we

are

something which belongs to the

very earliest stage of the science

^

something,

in fact,

Nikomachos of Gerasa, Introd. Arithm. p. 83, 12, Hoche, 'U.pbT^pov hk &n ^Kaarov ypd-fx/j-a y ffTjfjLeLo^iJLeda dpi.6p.6v, olov rb i, ^ to 8^Ka, TO K, ^ TO. etKOcn, to w, y tA dKTaKbaia, vbpup Kal (TvvdT}p.aTi The same dv6po}Trlvi{}, dW ov (p^crei arjp.avTiKbv iaTi toO dpid/xov k.t.X.
iTTvyvasffriov

symbolism
p.

is

used by Theo, Expositio, pp. 31 sqq.

Pistelli,
i(STkov

Cf. also Iambi. Introd.

(pvaiKiirrepov
ol

56,

27,

yap ws to iraXaibv

irpba-dev

iarjfiaipovTO rds tov dpidfiov jro(TbTriTas,

dW oi/x

uffirep oi vvv av/x^oXiKi

V.\.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

113

which gives the only possible clue to the meaning of Aristotle's remark, and to what we are told of the

method of Eurytos.
48. This
is
still

further confirmed

by the

tradition

Triangular,

which represents the great revelation made by Pythagoras to mankind as having been precisely a figure of
this

obiong

"*^^'

kind,

namely the
to

tetraktys,

by which the Pythahave no

less

goreans

used

swear,^

and we

an

authority than Speusippos for holding that the whole

theory which

it

implies

was genuinely Pythagorean.^

In later days there were

the
original

many

kinds of tetraktysf but

one,

that

by which the

Pythagoreans
It

swore, was the "tetraktys of the dekad."

figure like this

was a

'
.

p
four.

and represented the number ten as the triangle of

In other words,
it

showed

at a glance that

+ +3+
2

4=10.
is,

Speusippos

tells

us

of

several
in the

properties

which the Pythagoreans discovered

dekad.
it

It

for instance, the first number that has in number of prime and composite numbers.
^

an equal

How much
Terpaicriy,

Cf.
is

the
all

formula
the

Ow

/td

rhv

a/xer^pq.

yeveqi
it

TapaSdvra

which
self
!

more

likely to

be old that

is

put into the mouth of

Pythagoras by the forger of the Xpvad iin), thus making him swear by himThe Doric dialect shows, however, See Diels, ArcA. iii. p. 457. that it belongs to the later generations of the school. ^ Speusippos wrote a work on the Pythagorean numbers, based chiefly

on Philolaos, and a considerable fragment of

Theologuviena Arithmetica.
It

it

is

preserved in

thfe

be found in Diels, Vorsokratiker^ P- 23s, 15, and is discussed by Tannery, Science hell^tu, pp. 374 sqq. ^ For these see Theon, Expositio, The rerpaicrvs pp. 93 sqq. Hiller. used by Plato in the Timaeus is the second described by Theon {.Exp.
will p.

94,

10 sqq.).

It

is

no doubt Pythagorean, but hardly

as

old as

Pythagoras.

114

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Pythagoras himself, we cannot
but

of this goes back to

tell
;

we

are probably justified in referring to

it is "

him
all

the conclusion that

according to nature

"

that

Hellenes and barbarians count up to ten and then

begin over again.
It is

obvious that the tetraktys

may

be indefinitely
series of

extended so as to exhibit the sums of the

successive

numbers

in a graphic form,

and these sums

of

are accordingly called " triangular numbers."

For similar reasons, the sums of the

successive

series

odd numbers are

to

called "square numbers,"

If

and those of successive even numbers "oblong."

odd numbers are added

gnomons^ the result
square, while,
if
is

the unit

in

the form of

always a similar

figure,

namely a

even numbers are added, we get a

series of rectangles,^ as
Square Numbers.

shown by the

figure

Oblong Numbers.

It

is

clear,

then, that

we

are

entitled

to

refer

the

study of sums of series to Pythagoras himself;

1

but

Milhaud, Philosophes g^ometres, pp. 115 sqq. Aristotle puts the irepiTidefiivcov yap rwv yvufibvwv wepl 4. 203 a 13) rb ^v Kol X'^'P'S O'''^ P^^ &X\o del yiyveadai rb elbos, ot^ Se ^v. This is
Cf.

matter thus [Phys. F,

more

clearly stated
irepLcraCiv
bfiolojs

by

Ps.-Plut. (Stob.
6

i.

p. 22, 16),

^^e^TJs

TrepiTLdefxivuu

yivbfievos

"En 5k ry fiovdbi rdv dd rerpdyuubs i<TTi- ruv be

Avtffoi,

dprlwv

irepiTidefi^vcop

eTepofiriKeLS

Kal

irdvTes

diro^aivovaiv,

ia-ws be IcrdKis ovbeis.

cannot

feel satisfied

with any of the explanations

which have been given of the words /cat x^pl-^ ^^ the Aristotelian passage (see Zeller, p. 351, n. 2), and I would therefore suggest raXs x^P'^'-^t comparing Boutheros (Stob.
i.

p. 19, 9),

who

says, according to the

MS.
irpbs

reading,
/novdbas,
(sc.

Kai
TOis

6 fikv (6

Trep(.a<r6s)i

birdrau

yevvwvrai dvd \6yov Kat

toi)s

aOrov

X'^P^''-^

KaraXafi^dvei

rats

ypafifiais

irepiexofi^vovs

dptd/xois).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

whether
he

115

went

beyond the oblong, and studied

say.^

pyramidal or cubic numbers, we cannot

49. It
is

easy to see

how

this

way

of representing Geometry and

""'"-

numbers would suggest problems of a geometrical

nature.

The

dots which
"

stand for the pebbles are

"
(^opoc^

regularly
"

called

boundary -stones

Unrn'm,

terms

"),

and the area which they occupy, or rather

is

mark

out,

the "

field "

{^dapa).^

This

is

evidently

a very early way of speaking, and

referred to

may
it

therefore be

Pythagoras himself
that " fields " could be
it is

Now

must have
as well as

struck

him

compared

numbers,^ and

even likely that he knew the rough

methods of doing
though
certainly

this

which were traditional

in

Egypt,
him.

these

would
is

fail

to

satisfy

Once more

the tradition

singularly helpful in suggest-

ing the direction that his thoughts must have taken.

He
it

knew, of course, the use of the triangle

3, 4, 5 in

constructing right angles.

We

have seen

(p.

24) that

was

familiar in the East from a very early date,

it

and

that Thales introduced

to the Hellenes,
it

if
is

they did
actually

not

know

it

already.

In later writers

called

the " Pythagorean triangle."

/<3:r excellence is

Now

the Pytha-

gorean proposition

just that, in a rightis

angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse

^

equal

of four as the

In the fragment referred to above (p. 113, n. 2), Speusippos speaks first pyramidal number ; but this is taken from Philolaos, so we cannot safely ascribe it to Pythagoras. * We have itpoL of a series (^/c^ecris), then of a proportion, and in later times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, and .*. are a survival of the original The term x'^P^ is often used by the later Pythagoreans, though Attic use.

The spaces between the ypa/ifial usage required x^P^o" for a rectangle. of the abacus and the chess-board were also called x^P-^' ^ In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority of Eudemos that the irapa^ok-f), (Weixl/is, and virep^oXi^ of x^P^o- were
Pythagorean inventions.
^^OinHres^ pp. 81 sqq.
application of the terms in

For an account of these and the subsequent Conic Sections, see Milhaud, Fhilosophcs

ii6
to

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the
soits

the squares on the other two sides, and

called

Pythagorean triangle
to
"

is

the application of

converse
"

particular

case.

The

very

name
means
is

hypotenuse

affords strong confirmation

of the inIt

timate connexion between the two things.

literally " the

cord stretching over against," and this

^

surely just the rope of the " harpedonapt."

An

early

tradition says that Pythagoras sacrificed an

ox when

he discovered the proof of

it

this proposition,

and indeed

was the
50.

real foundation of scientific mathematics.^

incommensurability.

One

great

disappointment, however, awaited

Pythagoras.

It follows at

once from the Pythagorean

proposition that the square on the diagonal of a square

is

double the square on

its side,

and

this

ought surely

to be capable of numerical expression.

As

a matter

of

fact,

however, there

is

no square number which can

doubtless

be divided into two equal square numbers, and so the

problem cannot be solved.

In this sense,

it is

true that Pythagoras discovered the incommensurability

of the diagonal and the side of a square, and the proof

mentioned

by

Aristotle,

namely,

that,

if

they were

commensurable, we should have to say that an even

number was equal

Pythagorean
^

to

an odd number,

is

distinctly

in

character.^
is,

However
me much
i.

that

may
The

be, it

The verb

virorelveiv

of course, used intransitively.

pp. 64sqq.).
;

explana-

tion suggested in the text

seems to

simpler than that of

Max

C. P. Schmidt {Kulturhistorische Beitrdge^ Heft

the hypotenuse as the longest string in a triangular harp

He explains but my view seems

more
"^

in accordance with analogy.

So

y]

Kaderos
;

is, literally,
it

The statement comes from Eudemos

i.

for

is

a plumb-line. found in Proclus's

it

commentary on Euclid
pythagorean fancy.
^ Arist.

47.

Whether
a 26,
dprioLS

historical or not,

is

no Neo5id rb

An. Pr. A,
rd.

23.

41
toIs

5ti aaifxfxvrpot
(rvfifxirpov
iii.

t)

didfjLerpos

yiyyeadaL

irepiTTa

Icxa

Tedeiarjs.

The

proofs

given at the end of Euclid's Tenth

Book

(vol.

pp. 408 sqq., Heiberg) turn

on

this

very point.
Cf.

They

are not Euclidean, and

may be

substantially

Pythagorean.

Milhaud, Philosophes giometres^

p. 94.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

is

117

certain that Pythagoras did not care to pursue the

subject

any

further.

He

had, as

it

were, stumbled
is

on the

fact that the

square root of two

a surd, but

we know that it was left for Plato's friends, Theodoros of Kyrene and Theaitetos, to give a complete theory of the matter.^ The fact is that the discovery of the
Pythagorean proposition, by giving birth to geometry,

had

really superseded

the old view of quantity as a

till

sum
full

of units

but

it

was not

Plato's time that the

consequences of this were seen.^

For the present,

the incommensurability of the diagonal and the square

remained, as has been said, a

"

scandalous exception."

Our

tradition says that

Hippasos of Metapontion was

this

drowned
cupboard.^
51.

at

sea

for

revealing

skeleton

in

^e
it is

These

last considerations

show

that, while

Proponionand
harmony.

quite safe to attribute the substance of the First

Book
are

of Euclid to Pythagoras, the arithmetic of Books VII.IX.,

and the "geometrical algebra" of Book

II.

certainly not his.

They

operate with lines or with

areas instead of with units, and the relations which they

establish therefore hold

good whether they are capable That

Euclid
is

of numerical expression or not.

arithmetic
is

doubtless
after

why

not treated in

till

plane

geometry, a complete inversion of the original order.

For the same reason, the doctrine of proportion which

we
^

find

in

Euclid cannot be
d 3 sqq.
is

Pythagorean,

and

is

Plato, Theaet. 147

How novel these

5,

consequences were,

shown by the

fact that in Lcnvs^

819 d
in
life.

the Athenian Stranger says that he had only realised

them

late

' This version of the tradition is mentioned in lamblichos, V. Pyth. 247, and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later ( 148). Hippasos is the enfant terrible of Pythagoreanism, and the traditions about

him

are full of instruction.

ii8

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Yet
it

indeed the work of Eudoxos.

is

clear that the

early Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself,

studied proportion in their

"

own way, and

go back
complicated
to

that the three

medieties

"

in

particular

the founder,

especially
"

as

the

most

of

them,

the

harmonic," stands in close relation to his discovery of

octave.
6,^

the

If

we

take

the
is
it

harmonic
the octave,

proportion

12:8:
fifth,

we
:

find that

12:6

12:8

the

and 8
it

6 the fourth, and

can hardly be doubted

that

was Pythagoras himself who discovered these

intervals.

The

stories

which have come down to us

in a smithy,

about his observing the harmonic intervals

and then weighing the hammers that produced them,

or of his suspending weights corresponding to those of

the

hammers
;

to equal strings, are, indeed, impossible

and absurd
them.^
merit.

but

it is

sheer waste of time to rationalise

their absurdity
stories
is

For our purpose

their chief

They

are

not

which

any

Greek
in-

mathematician or

musician

could

possibly have

vented, but genuine popular tales bearing witness to

the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was

the author of this
Things are
numbers.

momentous

discovery.

52.

It

was

this too,

no doubt, that led Pythagoras to

^^^

^|j

things were numbers.

We

shall see that, at a

later date, the

Pythagoreans identified these numbers

;

with geometrical figures

1

but the mere fact that they

ravry yu^pet mean as ry\v The harmonic mean of
.
. .

Plato {Tim. 36 a 3) defines the harmonic

'^"'^

tQ>v &Kpo}v aiiTQv virep^x^<^^^

vTre pexo/J-evrju.

12 and 6
2

is

therefore 8
stories

for 8

= 12 - -i/ = 6 + 1.
criticism of them, see

For these

and a
i.

Max

C. P. Schmidt,

Kulturhistorische Beitrdge,

pp. 78 sqq.

The

smith's

hammers belong

to the region of Mdrchen, and it is not true either that the notes would be determined by the weight of the hammers, or that, if they were, These the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes. inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, J^hides sur le Thn^e,
i.

p. 391).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

called

119

them

"

numbers," when taken in connexion with

told

what we are
sufficient to

about
this

the method

of Eurytos,

is

show
It is

was not the

original sense of

the doctrine.

enough to suppose that Pythagoras

If musical

reasoned somewhat as follows.

sounds can

be reduced to numbers,
else?

why

should not everything

in things,

There are many likenesses to number

and

it

may

well be that a lucky experiment, like that

will reveal

by which the octave was discovered,

true numerical nature.

their

The Neopythagorean

writers,

going back

in

this as in other matters to the earliest

tradition of the school, indulge their fancy in tracing

out analogies between things and numbers in endless

variety
;

but

we
in

are

fortunately

dispensed

from

following
distinctly

them
that

these vagaries.

Aristotle tells us

the

Pythagoreans

explained

only

few things by means of numbers,^ which means that

Pythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the subject,

while the Pythagoreans of the

fifth

century did not

care to add anything of the sort to the school tradition.

Aristotle does imply, however, that, according to

them
four,

the

" right

time

"

(Kacp6<;)

was seven,

justice

was

and marriage

three.

These identifications, with a few

safely refer to Pythagoras or
;

others like them,

his

we may

immediate successors

but

much importance

to them.
If

we must not attach They are mere sports of

we wish to understand the cosmology of Pythagoras, we must start, not from them, but from any statements we can find that
the analogical fancy.
present
points

of contact with the teaching of the

The 1 Arist. Me/. M, 4. 1078 b 21 (R. P. 78) ; Zeller, p. 390, n. 2. Theologumena Arithmetica, wrongly attributed to Nikomachos of Gerasa, Alexander in Met. is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject (R. P. 78 a). c). P- 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old (R. P. 78

120

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

These,
its

Milesian school.
to the system in
Cosmology.
5 3-

we may

fairly

infer,

belong

most primitive form.

this

Now the
''

most striking statement of

kind

is

one of

Aristotle's.

The Pythagoreans
"

held,

he

tells us,

that there was

boundless breath

outside the heavens,

and that
this
is

it

was inhaled by the

certain

world.^

In substance,
it

the doctrine of Anaximenes, and

that
it

becomes

practically

was that of Pythagoras,

it.^

when we
also

find that

Xenophanes denied

We may
is

infer, then,

that the further development of the idea

due to Pythagoras himself

first

We are

told that, after

the

unit

had been formed

have taken place

however
and

that

may
it

the nearest part of the Boundless

;

was

first

drawn

in

and limited

further, that

is

just the Boundless thus inhaled that keeps the units

separate from each other.^

It

represents the interval

primitive

between
'\

them.

This

is

very

way
to,

of

describing the nature of discrete quantity.

*

In the passages of Aristotle just referred

the

Boundless

is

also

spoken of as the void or empty.

air

This identification of

and the void

in

is

a confusion

which we have already met with

it
^
"^

Anaximenes, and

need not surprise us to find

Arist. Phys. A, 6.

it

here too.^

We

find

213 b 22 (R. P.

75).

Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true that Diogenes is here drawing from a biographical rather than a doxographical source {Dox. p. 168), but this touch can hardly be an invention. ^ Arist. Met, M, 3. 1091 a 13 (R. P. 74). ^ Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 b The words Stopifet raj 23 (R. P. 75 a). 0i5(rets have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been supposed
to attribute the function of limiting to the &irLpov.
clear that his

Aristotle

makes it

quite

meaning

is

that stated in the text.

Cf. especially the

words

Kal dLopLaeus. The term diiopiafxivov is the proper antithesis to cvpexh. In his work on the Pythagorean philosophy, Aristotle used instead the phrase dcopi^ei ras x^P^^ (Stob. i. p. 156, 8 ; R' P- 75)i which is also quite intelligible if we remember what the PythaXwptcr/ioO TLvoi tCjv i(pe^Tj%

goreans meant by
^

X'^P<* (cf. p. 115, n. 2).

Cf. Arist. Phys. A, 6.

213 a 27,

oi

d'

dvOpuiroi

tpaalp iv

SXojs

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

also, as

121

we might

expect, distinct traces of the other

confusion, that of air

in fact, that

and vapour.

It

seems

certain,
fire,

Pythagoras identified the Limit with

and the Boundless with darkness.

Aristotle that Hippasos

We
in

are

told

by

made

Fire the

first principle,^

and we
view

shall see that

Parmenides,

discussing the

opinions of his contemporaries, attributes to them the

that there were

two primary

" forms,"

Fire and

Night.^
in the

We

also find that Light

and Darkness appear

Pythagorean table of opposites under the heads

of the Limit and the Unlimited respectively.^

identification of breath with darkness here implied

The
is

a
;

strong proof of the primitive character of the doctrine

for in the sixth century darkness

was supposed to be a
its

sort of vapour, while in

the

fifth,

true nature
historical

was
tact,

well

known.

Plato,

with

his

usual

makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe mist and

darkness as condensed
a "
field "
air.*

We

must

think, then, of

of darkness or breath marked out by luminous

units,

an imagination which the starry heavens would

It
is

naturally suggest.,

even probable that we should

ascribe to Pythagoras the Milesian view of a plurality

of worlds, though

it

would not have been natural

infinite

for

him

to speak of

an

number.

We

know, at
.

least, that

Petron, one of the early Pythagoreans, said

just

there were

a hundred and
;

eighty- three

worlds

*^

arranged
y.y\hkv iari,

in

a triangle

and Plato makes Timaios

;

tovt ehai KevSu, 8ib rb

irXijpes d^poi Kevbv eivai

irXrjp^i iari
;

de Part. An, B,

10.

656 b

15, t6

7ap K^vbv KoKoifievov dipos

elvai Keubv 6 drip.

de

An. B,

lO.

419

34, 8oKii
1

fkp

984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c). See Chap. IV. 91. 3 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 25 (R. P. 66). Plato, Tim. 58 d 2. ^ This is quoted by Plutarch, de de/. orac. 422 b, d, from Phanias of If we may Eresos, who gave it on the authority of Hippys of Rhegion.
2
*

Arist. Met. A, 3.

122
admit,

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

when laying down
five,

that there

is

only one world,

that something might be urged in favour of the view that there are
54.

as there are five regular solids.^

Anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies

of "air"
filled
(

as

wheels

with
19),

fire

which
is

escapes

through certain openings

that

and there

evidence

Pythagoras adopted the same view.^

We

have

seen that Anaximander only assumed the existence of

three such wheels, and held that the wheel of the sun

was
with

the

lowest.

It

is

extremely

probable

that

Pythagoras identified the intervals between these rings

the
three

musical

intervals
fifth,

which

he

had

discovered, the fourth, the

and the octave.

for

That
later

would be the most natural beginning

doctrine of the "

the

harmony of the

spheres," though that

if

expression would be doubly misleading

applied to

any theory we can properly ascribe

himself

to

Pythagoras

The word
"

apfiovia does not

mean harmony,

and the
at

spheres

"

are an anachronism.
or
rings

We

are

still

the stage

when wheels
also

were considered

sufficient to

account for the motions of the heavenly

is

bodies.
planets,
in the

It

to

be observed that sun, moon,

and fixed

stars

must

all

be regarded as moving

same

direction from east to west.

Pythagoras

certainly did not ascribe to the planets an orbital motion

of their

own from west

left

to east.

The

old idea was rather

that they were

behind more or

less

every day.
is

As

compared with the

least of
all,

fixed stars, Saturn

left

behind

and the

Moon most
p.

so,

instead of saying

follow Wilamowitz {Hermes, xix.

444) in supposing that this really

means

Hippasos of Metapontion (and it was in Rhegion that the Pythagoreans took refuge), this is a very valuable piece of evidence. 1 Plato, Tim. 55 c 7 sqq. 2 This will be found in Chap. IV. 93.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

that the

123
Saturn to

Moon
its

took a shorter time than

complete
said
it

path through the signs of the Zodiac,

men

Saturn travelled quicker than the Moon, because

in

more nearly succeeds

keeping up with the

signs.

Instead of holding that Saturn takes thirty years to

complete

its

revolution, they said

it

took the fixed stars

thirty years to pass Saturn,

and only twenty-nine days

This
in
is

and a half to pass the Moon.

most important points to bear

one of the

mind regarding the

planetary systems of the Greeks, and

to
it

we

shall return

again.^

The account
is,

just given of the views of Pythagoras

no doubt, conjectural and incomplete.

We
it

have

simply assigned to him those portions of the Pythagorean

system which appear to be the

even been
possible
at
this

oldest,

and
cite

has not
the
will

stage

to
is

fully
It

evidence on which our discussion

based.

only appear in

its

true light

when we have examined

of Parmenides and the

the second part of the

poem
I

system of the
will then

later Pythagoreans.^

For reasons which

to

be apparent,

do not venture to ascribe

seems

Pythagoras himself the theory of the earth's revolution

round
that he

the
still

central

fire.

It

safest

to suppose

adhered to the geocentric hypothesis of

In spite of
this,

Anaximander.
clear that he

however,
in the

it

will

be

opened a new period

it

development

of Greek science, and

its

was certainly to

his school that

greatest discoveries were directly or indirectly due.

^ For a clear statement of this view (which was still that of Demokritos), see Lucretius, v. 621 sqq. The view that the planets had

an orbital motion from west to east is attributed by Aetios, ii. 16, 3, to Alkmaion ( 96), which certainly implies that Pythagoras did not hold it. As we shall see ( 152), it is far from clear that any of the Pythagoreans did. It seems rather to be Plato's discovery. 2 See Chap. IV. 92-93, and Chap. VII. 150-152.

124

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Plato deliberately attributes

When

some of

his

own

most important discoveries to the Pythagoreans, he

was acknowledging

in

a characteristic

way

the debt he

owed them.

II.

Xenophanes of Kolophon
we have now

Life.

5 5.

We

have seen how Pythagoras identified himself

with the religious

movement

of his time

to consider a very different manifestation of the reaction

against that view of the gods which the poets had

made

familiar to every one.

Xenophanes denied the

but

anthropomorphic
unaffected

gods

altogether,

was

quite

by the
all

revival of

more primitive

ideas that

was going on

round him.

We
"

still

have a fragment

of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the

doctrine of transmigration.

Once, they say, he was

ill-treated.
*

passing by

when a dog was being

it
!

Stop
!

he

said,
it

'

don't hit

It is

the soul of a friend

^

knew
and

when

heard

its voice.' "

We
is

are also told

that he opposed the views of Thales and Pythagoras,

attacked

Epimenides,

which

likely

enough,

though no fragments of the kind have come down to

us.^

His chief importance

author
of the
quarrel

lies in

the fact that he was

the

between

philosophy and

poetry which culminated in Plato's Republic.

It is

not easy to determine the date of Xenophanes.

said

Timaios

he

was
and

contemporary

of

Hieron
to

and
1
'^

Epicharmos,
See
fr.

he certainly
viii.

seems
88).

have

7
ix.

= 18

Karst.), ap. Diog.

36 (R. P.
41, n.

Diog.

18 (R. P. 97).
of the sun
it

We

know

that
I. p.

Xenophanes
i).

referred to the

prediction of an eclipse by Thales (Chap.

his

We shall

see that

own view

a prediction, so him.

was hardly consistent with the possibility of such may have been in connexion with this that he opposed

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

court which

125

played a part in the anecdotical romance of Hieron's

amused the Greeks of the

of
the
B.C.,

fourth century

much

as

that of Croesus and the Seven

Wise Men
reigned

amused

those

fifth.^

As

Hieron

from 478 to 467

even

that would

malcekimpossible
earlier

to date the birth of

B.C.,

Xenophanes much
to

than
till

70

if

we suppose him

have lived

the

age of a hundred.

On

the other hand, both Sextus

Ol.

and Clement say that Apollodoros gave

XL. (620-

616
and
on

B.C) as the date of his birth, and the former adds

till

that his days were prolonged

the time of Dareios

Cyrus.^

Again,

Diogenes,

whose
from

information

such

matters

mostly

comes

Apollodoros,
B.C.),

says that he flourished in Ol.

LX. (540-537

and

Diels holds that Apollodoros really said

so.^

HowB.C.

ever that
is

may
its

be,

it

is

evident that the date 540

based on the assumption that he went to Elea

foundation, and
is,

in

the year of

therefore, a

mere

combination.*
^ Timaios ap. Clem. Strom, L There is only one p. 533 (R. P. 95). anecdote which actually represents Xenophanes in conversation with Hieron (Plut. Reg. apophth. 175 e), but it is natural to understand Arist. Met. r, 5. loioa 4as an allusion to a remark made by Epicharmos to him. Aristotle has more than one anecdote about Xenophanes, and it

seems most likely that he derived them from the romance of which Xenophon's Hieron is an echo. * Clem. , loc. cit. ; Sext. Math. L 257. The mention of Cyrus is confirmed by Hipp. Ref. L 94. Diels thinks that Dareios was mentioned first for metrical reasons ; but no one has satisfactorily explained why Cyrus should be mentioned at all, unless the early date was intended. On the whole
subject, see Jacoby, pp.
i-xpi

204

sqq.,

tQjv

Aapelov xal Kvpov

p. 22.

who is certainly wrong in supposing that y^tav can mean "during the times of
assumes an early corruption of

Dareios and Cyrus."

'

Rh. Mus. xxxL

He

N into M.

As Apollodoros gave

might with more having the same name. * As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left Phokaia (Herod. L 164 sqq.) its date is just 540-39 B.C Cf. the way in which Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi ( 98).

the Athenian archon, and not the Olympiad, we probability suppose a confusion due to two archoos

126

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

for certain is that
life

What we do know
had
led

Xenophanes
at the

a wandering
still

from the age of twenty-five,

and that he was

age of ninety- two.
R. P. 97)

alive

and making poetry

(fr.

He

says himself

24

Karst.

:
this

There are by
have tossed
Hellas
;

time threescore years and seven that

my

careworn souU up and down the land of

and there were then five-and-twenty years from

can say aught truly about these matters.

my

birth, if I

It

is

tempting to suppose that

in

this

passage

Xenophanes was

referring to the conquest of Ionia

is,

by

Harpagos, and that he

tion asked in another

in
^

fact,
(fr.

answering the ques-

poem

22

17 Karst.

R. P.

95 a):
This
the
meal,
is

the sort of thing

we should
on
soft

say by the fireside in

after

winter-time, as

we

lie

couches

a good
:

drinking sweet wine and crunching chickpeas

sir ?

what country are you, and how old are you, good how old were you when the Mede appeared ? "

"Of And

We
main

cannot, however, be sure of

is,

this,

and we must
in the

be content with what

fact,

after

all,

for

our purpose the

namely, that he refers to Pythagoras

is

past tense, and

in turn so referred to

by

Herakleitos.^
"

Theophrastos said that Xenophanes had

heard

Anaximander,* and we

shall see that

he was certainly

acquainted with the Ionian cosmology.

When

driven

^ Bergk {Litteraturgesch. ii. p. 418, n. 23) took (ppovrb here to mean the literary work of Xenophanes, but it is surely an anachronism to suppose that at this date it could be used like the Latin cura.

2 It

was

certainly another
is
fr.

poem

for

it

is

in

hexameters while the

frs.

preceding fragment
2

in elegiacs. 7

Xenophanes,
p.

(above, p.

124, n.

i);

Herakleitos,

16,

17

<below,
4

147).
ix.

Diog.

21 (R. P. 96

a).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

from his native
told, at
city,

127

he Hved

in

Sicily, chiefly,

we

are

Zankle and Katana.-^

Like Archilochos before

satires,

him, he unburdened his soul in elegies and

which

he recited

at the

banquets where, we

may

suppose, the

refugees tried to keep

society.

up the usages of good Ionian

that he was a rhapsode has

The statement
at
all.^

no foundation
professional
his listeners.

The

singer of elegies was no

like the rhapsode,

but the social equal of

still,

In his ninety-second year he was

we have

seen, leading a

wandering

life,

which

is

hardly

consistent with the statement that he settled at Elea

and founded a school

there, especially if

we

are to think
It

of him as spending his last days at Hieron's court.

is

quite probable that he visited Elea, and

it

is

just

possible that he wrote a

poem

of two thousand hexacity,

meters

on the

foundation

of that
all

which was

naturally a subject of interest to

the Ionic emigres?

But

it

is

very remarkable that no ancient writer ex-

pressly says that he ever

was

at Elea,

and the only thing

which connects

besides the doubtful

poem

referred to

him with

it is

a single anecdote of Aristotle's as to the

answer he gave the Eleates when they asked whether

they should sacrifice to Leukothea and lament her or
not.
^

" If
Diog.
ix.

you think her a goddess," he

18 (R. P. 96).

said, "

do not

The

use of the old

name Zankle,

instead of

the later Messene, points to an early source for this statement

probably

the elegies of Xenophanes himself.

different thing.
ippaxf/i^iSei rb. eavToO, which is a very anywhere of his reciting Homer, and the word pa\f/ipdeTu is used quite loosely for "to recite." Gomperz's imaginative picture (G^r^^i^ Thinkers, vol. i. p. 155) has no further support than this single word. Nor is there any trace of Homeric influence in the fragments.

Diog.

ix.

18 (R. P. 97) says auris

Nothing

is

said

They are in the usual elegiac style. 3 The statement is justly suspected by Hiller {Rh. Mus. xxxiii. p. 529) to come from Lobon of Argos, who provided the Seven Wise Men,
Epimenides,
etc.

Even

if true,

with stichometric notices, however, it proves nothing.

,

all

duly recorded in Diogenes.

128

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

;

lament her
absolutely
is

if not,

do not
it

sacrifice to her."

That

is

all,

and

is

only an apophthegm.^

It

strange there should

really

be no more
at
last

if

Xenophanes

had

found

home

in

the Phokaian

colony.
Poems.

56.

According to a notice preserved

in

in

Diogenes,

Xenophanes wrote
elegies

hexameters and also composed

and iambics against Homer and Hesiod.^

his

No

good authority says anything about

a philosophical poem.^
Simplicius

having written
us he had never

tells

met with the downwards

strange
find the

verses about the earth stretching infinitely

28),*

(fr.

and

this

means that the Academy

Simplicius was able to

possessed no copy of such a poem, which would be very

if it

had ever

existed.

complete works of much smaller men. Nor does

internal evidence lend

any support

to the view that

he

wrote a philosophical poem.

eight
lines

Diels refers about twentyall

to

it,

but they would

come

in

quite
I

as naturally in his attacks

on

Homer and

Hesiod, as

have endeavoured to show.

considerable
1

It is also significant that

number of them

are derived from

com-

Arist. Rhet, B, 26,

really

13),

1400 b 5 (R. P. 98 a). Anecdotes like this are anonymous. Plutarch transfers the story to Egypt {P. Ph. Fr, p. 22, and others tell it of Herakleitos. It is hardly safe to build on such

a foundation. Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97).

"^

The word
poem Hepl

eTTLKdirTcoj/

is

a reminiscence of
iwiKSTTrji.

Timon,
^

fr.

60

Diels, Setvo^dj/T/s

inr6.TV(j>o% 'OfxrjpaTrdT-qs

The

oldest reference to a

^ijaecos is in

the

Geneva scholium

on

//. xxi.

We

196 (quoting fr. 30), and this goes back to Krates of Mallos. must remember, however, that such titles are of later date than Xeno-

phanes, and he had been given a place

the time of Krates.

among

philosophers long before

is that the Pergamene some poem of Xenophanes. ^ Simpl. de Cae/o, p. 522, It is true that two of our 7 (R. P. 97 b). fragments (25 and 26) are preserved by Simplicius, but he got them from Probably they were quoted by Theophrastos fo'r it is plain Alexander. If he that Alexander had no first-hand knowledge of Xenophanes either. (See p. 138, n. 4.) had, he would not have been taken in by M.X. G.

All

we can

say, therefore,

librarians gave the title Hepl ^iJcrews to

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

mentators on Horner.^
It

129

seems probable, then, that

Xenophanes expressed
the

his theological
satires.

and philosophical
see from the

views incidentally in his

in

That would be quite

manner of the

time, as

we can

remains of Epicharmos.

The satires themselves are called Silloi by late writers, and this name may go back to Xenophanes himself.
It is also possible,

however, that

it

originates in the

fact that

Timon of Phleious, the " sillographer " {c, 259 B.C.), put much of his satire upon philosophers into the mouth of Xenophanes. Only one iambic line has been
preserved, and that
is

immediately followed by a hexaThis suggests that Xeno-

meter

(fr.

14=5

Karst.).

phanes inserted iambic

the

lines

among

his

hexameters

in

manner of the Margites, which would be a very

him
to do.^

natural thing for

57.
I

give

all

the fragments of any importance The fragments,

according to the text and arrangement of Diels.

Elegies
(I)

Now

is

the floor clean, and the hands and cups of

all

one
full

sets twisted garlands

on our heads, another hands us

fragrant

ointment on a
of gladness,

salver.

The mixing bowls

is

stand ready,

more wine at hand that promises never to leave us in the lurch, soft and smelling of flowers in the jars. In the midst the frankincense sends up its holy Brown smoke, and there is cold water, sweet and clean. loaves are set before us and a lordly table laden with cheese and
and there
rich honey.

The

altar in the
fill

midst

is

clustered round with

flowers

song and revel

the halls.

(30, 32) are

^

Three fragments (27, 31, 33) come from the Homeric from Homeric scholia. Cf. Wilamowitz, Progr. Gryphiswald. 1880.

Allegories^

two

130
But

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

first
it

is

meet that men should hymn the god with

;

joyful song, with holy tales and pure words

then after libation

for

and prayer made

that as a
is

that

we may have
way

strength to do right
it

in truth the better

no

sin is

to drink as

much

man

can take and get

in years.

home

without an attendant, so he
all

be not stricken
praised
trial

And above

men

is

he to be

who
skill,

after drinking gives

goodly proof of himself in the

Let him not
fictions of the
is

of

as

memory and
and Giants

voice will serve him.

sing of Titans

those

men

of old
at all

nor of turbulent

civil broils in

which

no good thing

but ever give heedful reverence to the gods.

What
springs,

if

man win

victory in swiftness of foot, or in the

is

pentathlon^ at Olympia, where

or

in

wrestling,
call

what

the precinct of Zeus by Pisa's

if

by cruel boxing or that

all

fearful sport

men

pankration he become more glorious in

the citizens' eyes, and win a place of honour in the sight of

at the

games, his food at the public cost from the State, and
to

gift

be an heirloom

for him,

chariot-race,

he
!

what
all
art.

if

he conquer in the

will

not deserve
is

this for his portion so

much

as I do.

Far better

our art than the strength of

men
is it

and of horses

These are but thoughtless judgments, nor

before our

fitting to set strength

Even

if

there arise a

mighty boxer among a people, or one great

stands in honour before
city
all

in the pentathlon

or at wrestling, or one excelling in swiftness of foot

tasks of

men

at the

and that games the

would be none the better governed for that. It is but little joy a city gets of it if a man conquer at the games by Pisa's banks ; it is not this that makes fat the store-houses of
city.

(3)

They

learnt dainty

and unprofitable ways from the Lydians,

;

so long as they were free from hateful tyranny

they went to

the market-place with cloaks of purple dye, not less than a

thousand of them

all

told,

vainglorious

and proud of

their

comely

tresses, reeking

with fragrance from cunning salves.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Satires
(10)

131

Since

all at first

have learnt according to Homer.

(")

Homer and Hesiod have

that are a adulteries

ascribed to the gods

all

things

shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.
(12)

They have
stealings

uttered many,
adulteries

many

lawless deeds of the gods,

and

and deceivings of

one another.

R. P.

ib.

(14)

But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes ^ like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.

(is) Yes, and

if

oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could

paint with their hands,

and produce works of

art as

men

do,

horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen
like oxen,

and make
ib.

their bodies in the

image of

their several

kinds.

R. P.

(16)

The

Ethiopians

make

their

gods black and snub-nosed

hair.

the
b.

Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red

R. P.

00

(.8)

The gods have

R. P. 104
b.

not revealed

all

things to

men from
is

the

beginning, but by seeking they find in time what

better.

^ I formerly, with Zeller, preferred Theodoret's reading oXaQyfaiVy but both Clement and Eusebios have iffdijTa, and Theodoret is entirely dependent on them.

132

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(23)
the greatest

One god,
like

unto mortals nor in thought.

among gods and men, ... R. P.

neither in form

100.

He
102.

sees

all

over, thinks all over,

and hears

all over.

R. P.

(25)

But without
mind.

toil

he swayeth
b.

all

things

by the thought of

his

R. P. io8

(26)

And he
all
;

abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at

it

nor doth

befit

him

to go about

now

hither

now

thither.

R. P.

no

a.

(27)
All things

come from

the earth, and in earth

all

things end.

R. P. 103

a.

(28)

This limit of the earth above

the air;^ below
it

is

seen

at

our feet in contact with

a
limit.

reaches

down without
(29)

R. P. 103.

All things are earth

and water

that

come

into being

and

grow.

R. P. 103.
(30)

The

sea

is

the source of water and the source of wind

for

neither in

the clouds (would there be any blasts of wind

sea,

blowing forth) from within without the mighty

streams nor rain-water from the sky.
of clouds and of winds and of rivers.^

nor
is

rivers'

The mighty

sea

father

R. P, 103.

Reading rjipi for Kal pel with Diels. This fragment has been recovered in its entirety from the Geneva scholia on Homer (see Arck. iv. p. 652). The words in brackets are added
1

by

Diels.

See also Praechter,

*
'

Zu Xenophanes "

{Philol. xviii. p. 308).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

(3-)

133

The sun swinging

over

the earth and warming it

(32)

She that they call Iris is a cloud and green to behold. R. P. 103.

likewise, purple, scarlet

(33)

For we

all

are born of earth

and

water.

R. P.

ib.

(34)

There never was nor

will

be a

man who
all

has certain knowof.

ledge about the gods and about

the things I speak

truth, yet

Even

if

he should chance to say the complete

it is

he

himself knows not that

so.

But

all

may have

their fancy.

R. P. 104.
(35)

Let these be taken as fancies

R. P. 104
a.

something

like the truth.

(36)
All of

them

that are visible for mortals to behold.

(37)

And

in

some caves water

drips.

(38)
If
far

god had not made brown honey, men would think

figs

sweeter than they do.

58.
is

The

intention of one of these fragments

" Iris

(fr.

32) The

heavenly

perfectly clear.

too

"

is

a cloud,

and we may

infer that the

^

same thing had

virepUfieyoi.

just been said of the sun,

quoted from the AlUgories as an doubtless Xenophanes so meant it.

The word

is

This

is

explanation of the
2 ^

name Hyperion, and

Reading beSo^&adu with Wilamowitz.

As

Diels suggests, this probably refers to the stars, which

Xenophanes

held to be clouds.

134

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

stars
;

moon, and
were
the
St.
all

for the
"

doxographers

tell

us that these
^

explained as

clouds ignited

by motion."
preserved.

To
"

same context
Elmo's
fire

clearly belongs the explanation of the

which Actios has

The

things like stars which appear on ships,"

"

we

are told,

which some

call

the Dioskouroi, are

little

clouds

made
this

luminous

by motion."^
is

In

the

doxographers

explanation
the

repeated with trifling variations under

stars,

head of moon,

comets, lightning, shooting

stars,

and so

forth,

which gives the appearance of a

systematic cosmology.^

But the system

is

due to the

arrangement of the work of Theophrastos, and not to

Xenophanes
for the

for

it

is

obvious that a very few hexa-

meters added to those we possess would amply account

whole doxography.
hear of the sun presents some
difficulties.

What we

We are
cloud
;

told,

on the one hand, that

it

too was an ignited

but this can hardly be right.

is

The evaporation
distinctly said to

of the sea from which clouds arise

be due to the sun's heat.

sun, according to

Theophrastos stated that the

Xenophanes, was a collection of sparks

;

from the moist exhalation

exhalation
little, if

but even this leaves the

That, however, matters
to discredit

itself

unexplained.*

the chief aim of

Xenophanes was
rather

the
1

anthropomorphic
Cf.

gods,

than

to

give

Diels

ad

loc.

{P. Ph.

cum
*

in nebulas evanescerent,

Fr. p. 44), "ut Sol et cetera astra, quae deorum simul opinio casura erat." Cf. Arch.
rods

X. p. 533-

Aet.

ii.

18, I

{Dox.

p. 347), ^vo(f>dvr]%

iirl

twv irXoiuv

(paivofievovs

olov dffripas, o&j Kai Aio(rKo6povs KoKovai rivey, ve<pi\i.a elvai KarcL tt]v ttoiolv
Klvrjaiy irapaXd/iTrovra.
^
(

The
Aet.
^Xiov.

passages from Aetios are collected in P. Ph. Fr. pp. 32 sqq.

20, 3 {Dox. p.
Qedippao'Tos
iv

Vors, p. 42).
*
ii.

348),

'^evo<l)6.vris

eK v<pu>v ireTTvpoifi^vuiv elvat

e/c

rbv

tols ^vaiKols

yiypa(j)ev

irvpidiuv

ixkv

twv

<rvvadpoi^o/Ji^vo)v ck ttjs

vypas avadvfudaews, avvadpoL^bvTuv Sk t6v

ijXioy.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

scientific

135

theory of the heavenly bodies.

that Helios too
is

The important
as

thing

is

a temporary phenomenon.
the earth,

The sun does not go round

mander
a circular path
is

Anaxi-

taught, but straight on, and the appearance of

solely

due to

its

increasing distance.

So
a

it is

not the same sun that

;

rises

next morning, but

new one altogether while the old one " tumbles into a hole " when it comes to certain uninhabited regions of the earth. Besides that, there are many suns and
moons, one of each
is

for

every region of the earth.^

It

obvious that things of that kind cannot be gods.

The
himself,

vigorous expression

"

tumbling into a hole

"

seems clearly to come from the verses of Xenophanes

and there are others of a similar kind, which

we must suppose were quoted by Theophrastos.

stars
" like

The

go out

in

the daytime, but glow again at night

^

charcoal embers."

The sun
in

is

of some use in
in
it,

producing the world and the living creatures

the

but

moon "does no work

the boat."^

Such exbe well to

pressions can

only be meant to
it

make

the heavenly

bodies appear ridiculous, and

will therefore

ask whether the other supposed cosmological fragments

can be interpreted on the same principle.

^

Aet.

ii.

24,

KXtfiara

rrji yrjs

9 {Dox. p. 355), iroWods ehai rjXiovs Kal <reXiJvaj Acard Kal dtroToixbis koL ^wvay, Karii di riva Kaipbv ifjLiriirTfH' rby
v(f>
i]fjLu)v

SicTKov ets Tiva dTOTo/XTjv TTJs yijs oC/k olKovfiivrjv

Kal ovtus Coairep

els

Kevefi^arovvTa

iK\ei\//tv

inro(palveLv
Std,

5'

avrb^ rbv

fjKi.ov

Aireipov fi^v

TTpoUvaL, doKeip 5k KVK\el<T6ai

tt/i'

dTrbaraa-iv.

It is clear that in this

5i/<rtv,

notice

^KXeixf/iv

has been erroneously substituted for

p. 354).

as

it

has also in
sufficiently

Aet.
^

ii.

24,

4 (Dox.

That

this is the

meaning of wairep KevenfiaTovvra appears

from the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott. * Aet. ii. 13, 14 (Dox. p. 343), dva^wirvpeip viKTup Kaddtreprods ArdpaKas. * Aet. ii. 30, 8 {Dox. p. 362), rbv fih i^Xiov x/'V'A""' f^""*' ""pdr rijv Tov Kbafiov Kal rijv twv iv avrip ^(pu)v yivecLv re koI 5iolKr}<riy, rijv 5i
<Tt\fivrjv irap^XKeiv.

The verb

irap^XKCLv

means "to cork."

Cf.

Aristo-

phanes, Pax, 1306.

136
Earth and

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

In
fr.

29 Xcnophanes says thatJ^lLtJhiags_axe garth__aiidjivatrj^' and Hippolytos has preserved the

59.

account given by Theophrastos of the context

this occurred.
It

in

which

was as follows

Xenophanes
is

said that a mixture of the earth with the sea

taking place,

and

that

it is

being gradually dissolved by the

this.

moisture.

He

says that he has the following proofs of

and on hills, and he says that in the quarries at Syracuse has been found the imprint of a fish and of seaweed, at Paros the form of an anchovy in the depth of the stone, and at Malta flat impressions of all marine animals. These, he says, were produced when all things were All formerly mud, and the outlines were dried in the mud* human beings are destroyed when the earth has been carried down into the sea and turned to mud. This change takes
Shells are found in midland districts

place for

all

the worlds.

Hipp. Ref.

i.

14 (R. P. 103

a).

This

is,

of course, the theory of Anaximander, and

credit

we may perhaps
all,

him rather than Xenophanes

fossils.^

with the observations of

Most remarkable of

however,

is

the statement that this change applies to

It really

" all

the worlds."

seems impossible to doubt

"

that Theophrastos attributed a belief in

innumerable

worlds

"

to

Xenophanes.

As we have
list

seen already,

Actios includes him in his

doctrine,

of those
it

who
him
it

held this
also.^

and Diogenes ascribes

to

In

this place,
^

Hippolytos seems to take

for granted.

There

is
i.

(Eng. trans,
the

an interesting note on these in Gomperz's Greek Thinkers I have translated his conjecture <t>vKCl3v instead of p. 551).
involve a paloeontological impossibility,
in the quarries of Syracuse,

MS.

(pwKiJp, as this is said to

and impressions of fucoids are found, not indeed

but near them.
It is said also that there are

no

fossils in

Paros, so the

anchovy must have been an imaginary one.

2 Aet. ii. I, 2 {Dox, p. It is true, 327) ; Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). of course, that this passage of Diogenes comes from the biographical

compendium {Dox. p. 168) ; but, for all that, it is a serious matter to deny the Theophrastean origin of a statement found in Actios, Hippolytos, and
Diogenes.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

137

We

shall also find, however, that in

another connexion
If

he said the World or God was one.

tion of
1

our interpreta-

him

is is

correct, there
that, so far

is

no

difficulty here.

The
is

main point and

"

from being a primeval goddess,

things ever," Gaia too
to the attack

a sure seat for

all

passing appearance.

That belongs

upon

Hesiod, and,

if in

this

connexion Xenophanes spoke,

with

Anaximander, of "innumerable worlds," while

that

elsewhere he said
that
is

God

or the

World was

one,

probably connected with a

still

better attested

contradiction which

we have now

to examine.
Finite or

60. Aristotle tried without success to discover from

the

poems of Xenophanes whether he regarded the

finite

world as

or infinite.
subject,"

"

He made
tells us.^

no

clear pro-

nouncement on the
spherical

he

Theophrastos,
it

on the other hand, decided that he regarded

as

and

finite

because he said

it

was

"

equal every

way."

This, however, leads to very serious difficulties.

We

have seen already that Xenophanes said the sun^

to infinity,

went right on

and

this agrees with his

view
Still

of the earth as

an

infinitely

extended

plain.

more
and

difficult to

reconcile with the idea of a spherical

is

finite

world

the statement of

fr.

28
see,

that, while
it

the earth has an upper limit which

limit below.

we

has no

This

is

attested

by

Aristotle,

who

speaks

of the earth being

" infinitely

rooted,"

and adds that

holding
this

Empedokles
^

criticised

Xenophanes

for

5. 986 b 23 (R. P. lOi), oidiv dieaatpi^viaev. given as an inference by Simpl. Fkj^s. p. 23, 18 (R. P. 108 b), StA Tb xavrax^dev S/xoiou. It does not merely come from M.X.G. Hippolytos has it (R. P. 108), TrcLvr-Tji 5' S/aoioi/ tivro. <T<l>aipoL5TJ ehai.

Arist.

Mei. A,

This

is

Timon too {/iej. i. 14 ; R, P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos. of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way ; for he makes him call the One t<rov airdvTri (fr. 60, Diels = 40 Wachsm. ; R. P.
102
a).

138
view.^
\

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It

further

appears

from

the

fragment

of
said

Empedokles quoted by
therefore

Aristotle that

Xenophanes

"' the

vast Air extended infinitely upwards.^

We

are

bound

to try to find

room

for

an

infinite

earth and an infinite air in a spherical and finite world

That comes of trying

the other hand,

to find science in satire.

If,

on

we regard

these statements from the

same point of view

as those about the heavenly bodies,

we shall at once see what they most probably mean. V-The story of Ouranos and Gaia was always the chief
X^scandal of the Theogony^ and the infinite air gets rid of

Ouranos
infinitely

altogether.

As

to

the

earth

stretching

downwards, that gets

rid of Tartaros,

which

Homer

described as situated at the bottommost limit

of earth and sea, as far beneath

Hades

as heaven

is
;

above the
but, if
it

earth.^
is

This

is

pure conjecture, of course

even possible, we are entitled to disbelieve

startling

that

such

contradictions

occurred

in

cosmological poem.

more

subtle
itself to

explanation

of

the

difficulty

commended
extant in

the late Peripatetic

who wrote an
is

account of the Eleatic school, part of which

the
Aristotelian
corpus,

still

and

is

generally

known now
Gorgias}
^

as the treatise

on Melissos, Xenophanes, and

He
8a\l/i.\6s

said

that

Xenophanes declared the

b).

Arist. de Caelo, B, 13.

294 a 21 (R. P. 103

^ I

take

as

an attribute and direlpova as predicate to both

especially the words'
k.t.X.
oi55'

subjects.
^ //.
viii.

13-16,
\

478-481,
to

el

kc

rd,

veiara

ireipad'

iKTjat

yalrjs

Kal Trbvroio

Iliad

viii.

must have seemed a

Hepi
"Sicvo^xivovs,
its

particularly
*

bad book
irepl

Xenophanes.
title

In Bekker's edition this treatise bears the

7t7}vo3vos,

irepl

Topyiov, but the

best

MS.

gives as the titles of

three sections: (l) Uepl Zi^vuvos, (2) Uepl Sej/o^dvows, (3) Uepl Topyiov. The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so the whole treatise
is

now

entitled

De

Melissa,

Xenophane, Gorgia {M.X.G.).

It

has been

edited by Apelt in the Teubner Series, and

more recently by Diels {Abk.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

world to be neither
finite

139

nor
in

infinite,

and he composed
thesis,

a series of arguments

support of this
it,

to

which he added another

is

like

namely, that the world

neither in motion nor at rest.

This has introduced

endless confusion into

our sources.

Alexander used

this treatise as well as the great

work of Theophrastos,
it

and Simplicius supposed the quotations from

from Theophrastos he was completely
too.

to be

Having no copy of the poems

and
until recently all accounts

baffled,

of Xenophanes were vitiated by the same confusion.

It

may

even

be

suggested
little

that,

but
"

for

this,

we

should have heard very

of the

philosophy of
is

Xenophanes," a way of speaking which

in the

main

a survival from the days before this scholastic exercise

was recognised as having no authority.

61.
to,

In the passage of the Metaphysics just referred

(^od and

Aristotle

speaks

of

Xenophanes

as

"the

first

partisan

of the

One,"^ and the context shows that

first

he means to suggest he was the

of the Eleatics.
facts of his life

We

have seen already that the certain

it

make

very unlikely that he settled at Elea and

it

founded a school there, and

usual in such
der

is

probable that, as

cases,

Aristotle

is

simply reproducing

k. Preuss. Akad. 1 900), who has also given the section dealing with Xenophanes in P. Ph. Fr. pp. 24-29 {Vors. pp. 36 sqq.). He has now withdrawn the view maintained in Dox. p. 108 that the work belongs to the third century B.C., and holds that it was a Peripatetico ecUctico {i.e.

sceptica, platonica,

stoica admiscente) circa

is

Christi natalcm conscriptum.

no reason to doubt, as I formerly did, that the second section is really meant to deal with Xenophanes. The writer would have no first-hand knowledge of his poems, and the order in which the
If that is so, there

philosophers are discussed

is

that of the passage in the Metaphysics

It
is

suggested the whole thing.

possible that a section

which on Parmenides

preceded what
1

we now

have.

986 b 21 (R. P. 10 1), wpCrrosro&rup hltrat. The verb ^Fffctr occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of /iijSffeu', ** to unify." <Pi\iinrlj:iy, and the like. It is not likely that it means Aristotle could easily have said evibaas if he had meant that.
Met. A,
5.

I40
certain

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

statements of Plato.
of the
^

At any
the

rate,

Plato had

spoken
Whole,"

Eleatics

as

" partisans

of

the

and he had also spoken of the school as

with Xenophanes and even
earlier."
^

" starting last

The

words,

however, show

clearly

enough what he
^

meant.
of

Just as he called the Herakleiteans " followers

still

Homer and

more ancient

teachers,"

so

he
still

attached the Eleatic school to Xenophanes and

earlier authorities.

We

have seen

in

other instances

how
this

these playful and ironical remarks of Plato were

taken seriously by his successors, and

fresh

we need not
influence

let

instance of the

same thing
us
that

our

general view of Xenophanes unduly.

Aristotle

goes

on to

tell

Xenophanes,

" referring to the

whole world,^ said the One was god."

frs.

This clearly alludes to

23-26, where
is

all

human
one
be

attributes are denied of a

god who

said to be
It

and

"

the greatest

among gods and men."

as
closely

may

added that these verses gain very much

in point if

we
frs.

may

think

of them

connected with

^ Tht, 181 a 6, Tov S\ov a-racnurai. The noun (XTaanhT'q^ has no other meaning than " partisan." There is no verb aTacnovi/ " to make stationary," and such a formation would be against all analogy. The derivation araaiibras avb rijs ardaeta^ appears first in Sext. Math. x. 46, from which passage we may infer that Aristotle used the word, not that he
.
. .

gave the derivation. ^ Soph. 242 d 5 (R. P. loi

settled at Elea,
it

b).

If the passage implies that

Xenophanes

equally implies this of his predecessors.

in the

But Elea was

not founded
^

till

Xenophanes was

prime of

life.

Tht. 179 e 3, tG)v 'UpaKXeireiojv ij, tbairep <rb X^yeis, 'Ofxrjpelcjv Kai ^ti TToXaioripuv. In this passage, Homer stands to the Herakleiteans in

exactly the

same

relation

as

Xenophanes does

to the

Eleatics

in

the

SophtsL
^ Afef. 981 b 24. The words cannot mean "gazing up at the whole heavens," or anything of that sort. They are taken as I take them by Bonitz {zm Hinblicke auf den ganzen Himtnel) and Zeller {im Hinblickatif

das Weltganze).
to bear the other

The word

aTro^X^Tetv

had become much too colourless

later

meaning, and ovpav6$, as we know, means what was

called

K6<TfjLos.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

1 1 - 1

141

6,

instead of referring the one set of verses to the

Satires

and the other

in the
"

to a cosmological

poem.

It

was

probably

same context
equal every

that

Xenophanes
^

called

the world or god

it

way "

and denied that

is

breathed.^

The statement that

is it

there

ho masterfr.

ship

among

the gods^ also goes very well with

fitting for

26.

god has no wants, nor

62. That this " god
11

one god to be
in

the servant of others, like

"
/

Iris
is
f

and Hermes
1

Homer.
.

just

the world, Aristotle Monotheism

/I /
. .

tells

US,

and the use of the word ^eo?

It

or polytheism.

is

quite

in

accordance with Anaximander's.

it

Xenophanes regarded

as sentient, though

without any special organs of

things
it

sense,

and

it

sways

all

by the thought of
god," and,
if

its
is

mind.

He
this

also

calls

"one

that

monotheism, then

Xenophanes

was

monotheist,
is

though

is

surely not

how
that

the word
the

generally
"

understood.

The
all

fact

is

expression
in

one

god

"

wakens

sorts

of associations
all for

our mind

which did not exist at

the Greeks of this time.

likely to
else.

His contemporaries would have been more

call

Xenophanes an

atheist than
:

anything

As
part.

Eduard Meyer excellently says

of one

"

In Greece the question

god or gods many hardly plays any

divine power
is
is

Whether the

thought of as a unity
in

or a plurality,

irrelevant
it

comparison with the

question whether

exists at
is

all,

and how

its

nature

and
^

its

relation to the world

to be understood."*

See above,
Diog.
ix.

p.

137, n. 2.
5'

dvairveiv.
'

19 (R. P. 103 c), 6\ov See above, p. 120^ n. 2.

opdv Kal 8\ov dKoveiv,

vepl

fii/

fjJyrot

[Plut.]
iv

Strom,
avroTs

fr.

4,
'

diro(paLvTaL

5k

Kal

deQv
riva

u>5

ov5(fudi
$fQr,

iiyefMovlas

oifaijs

ov

ydp

Siriov

5e<nr6^ecdaL

tuiv

iTidetadai re firjSevbs airrwv fxrjS^va

Kal
*
fJiT}

/xrjS'

6\us, aKoOeiu 5k Kai bpdv KaQ6\ov

KttTcl fikpos.
ii.

Gesch. des Alterth.

466.

142

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the other hand,
it is

On

wrong
in

to say with Freudenpolytheist.^

in

thal that

Xenophanes was
only what

any sense a

That he should use the language of polytheism

elegies
is

his

we should

expect, and the other

references to " gods " can be best explained as incidental

to his attack on the anthropomorphic gods of

Homer
all

and Hesiod.
proverbial

In one case, Freudenthal has pressed a

of speaking too hard.^

way

Least of

can we admit that Xenophanes allowed the existence

of subordinate or departmental gods
;

for

it

was

just

the existence of such that he was chiefly concerned

to deny.

At

the

same

time,

cannot help thinking that

Freudenthal was more nearly right than Wilamowitz,

who
I

says

that

Xenophanes

"

upheld

the
earth."

only real
^

monotheism that has ever existed upon

fancy,
"

Diels,
it

comes nearer the mark, when he

*

calls

somewhat narrow pantheism."

really Goethe's
left

But

all

these views

would have surprised Xenophanes himself about equally.

He was
right

Weltkind, with prophets to

and

of him, and

he would have smiled

if

he had known that one day he was to be regarded

as a theologian.
^
'^

Freudenthal, Die Theologie des Xenophanes.

calls his god "greatest among gods and men," but this is simply a case of "polar expression," to which parallels will be found in

Xenophanes

Wilamowitz's note to the Herakles,

of Herakleitos
^
(fr.

v.

io6.

Cf. especially the statement

20) that

"no one
p. 9.

of gods or

men" made

the world.

Griechische Literatur, p. 38.

Parmenides Lehrgedicht^

CHAPTER

III

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
63.

HERAKLEITOS
is

of Ephesos, son of Blyson,

in Ol. in

is

said to
B.C.)
;

Life of

have "flourished"
that
to

LXIX. (504/3-501/0
the

"''^^""''
'

say, just

middle of the

reign

of

Dareios, with

whom

several traditions connected him.^

We shall

see that Parmenides

was assigned

to the
It is

same
more

Olympiad, though

for another reason ( 84).

important, however, for our purpose to notice that, while

Herakleitos refers to Pythagoras and Xenophanes by

name and
referred

in

the past tense

(fr.

16),

he

is

in

turn

to

are sufficient to

by Parmenides (fr. 6). These references mark his proper place in the history
Zeller
holds, indeed, that
till

of philosophy.

he cannot
B.C.,

have published his work

after

478

on the

ground that the expulsion of

alluded to in
before
so,
it
fr.

his friend

Hermodoros,

114, could

not

have taken place

'

the

downfall

of Persian
to see

rule.

If

that

were
could
is

might be hard

how Parmenides
;

have known the views of Herakleitos

surely no difficulty in

but there

supposing that the Ephesians

citizens
still

may have
banishment
^

sent
at

one of their foremost

a time

into

when they were

paying
inter-

Diog.

ix. I

(R. P. 29), no doubt from Apollodoros through

some

mediate authority.
^

Jacoby, pp. 227 sqq. Bernays, Die Hcraklitischen Brief e, pp. 13 sqq.
143

144

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The
of
Persians never took
cities,

tribute to the Great King.

their internal

self-government from the Ionian

Herakleitos

and the spurious Letters

show the

accepted view was that the expulsion of Hermodoros

took place during the reign of Dareios.^

Sotion
said

that
is

Herakleitos

was a
;

disciple

of

Xenophanes,^ which

not probable

for

Xenophanes
disciple

seems to have

left

Ionia for ever before Herakleitos

likely

was born.

More
but
it

he

was
the

not

of

any one
and

is

clear, at

same

time, that

he

was acquainted both with

with
the

the

Milesian

cosmology

poems

of

Xenophanes.

He

also

knew something
(fr.

of the theories taught by Pythagoras

17).

Of

the

life

of Herakleitos

we

really

know

nothing,

except, perhaps, that he belonged to the ancient royal

house and resigned the nominal position of Basileus

in

favour of his brother.^

it is

The

origin

of the other

statements bearing on
His book.

quite transparent.*
title

64.

We

do not know the

of the work
at
all

of
it

Herakleitos^
^

cit.

if,

indeed,

it

had one

and

Bernays, op.

pp. 20 sqq.
ix.

2
3

Sotion ap. Diog.

5 (R. P. 29 c).

6 (R. P. 31). * See Patin, Heraklits Einkeitslehre, pp. 3 sqq. Herakleitos said (fr. 68) that it was death to souls to become water ; and we are told accord-

Diog.

ix.

ingly that he died of dropsy.

He

said

(fr.
(fr.

114) that the Ephesians should

leave their city to their children, and

ing draughts.

We

79) that Time was a child playare therefore told that he refused to take any part in
to play with the children in the

pubhc

life,
(fr.

and went

temple of Artemis.
;

He
we
of

said

85) that corpses were

more

fit

are told that he covered himself with

dung and dung when attacked with dropsy.

to be cast out than

is said to have argued at great length with his doctors because For these tales see Diog. ix. 3-5, and compare the stories about Empedokles discussed in Chap. V. 100. 5 The variety of titles enumerated in Diog. ix. 12 (R. P. 30 b) seems to show that none was authentically known. That of '* Muses" comes from Plato, Soph. 242 d 7. The others are mere "mottoes" (Schuster) prefixed

Lastly,
fr.

he

58.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
is

145
contents.

not very easy to form a clear idea of

are told that
it

its

We

was divided
not

into three discourses

political,

one dealing with the universe, one

theological.^
It
is

and one
is

likely
all

that

this

division

due to Herakleitos himself;

statement
three parts
editions of
is

we can

infer

from the

that the

work

fell

naturally into these

their

when
it

the Stoic

commentators took

in

hand.
is

The
Dark."^

style

of Herakleitos

proverbially obscure,

and, at a later date, got him the nickname of "the

Now

the fragments about the Delphic god

(frs.

and the Sibyl

11

and 12) seem to show that

style,

he was quite conscious of writing an oracular

and we have to ask why he did

it

so.

In the

first

place,

was the manner of the

time.^

The

stirring events

of the age, and the influence of the religious revival,

gave something of a prophetic tone to

of thought.
all feel

all
it

the leaders
too.

Pindar and Aischylos have

They
It is

that they are in

some measure

inspired.

also the age of great individualities,

solitary
If
(fr.

who

are apt to be
so.
it

and

disdainful.

Herakleitos at least was

men
8)
).
;

cared to dig for the gold they might find

if

not, they

must be content with straw

(fr.

This seems to have been the view taken by

Theophrastos,

who

said that the headstrong temperaled

ment of Herakleitos sometimes

ness

him

into incomplete-

and inconsistencies of statement.*

But that

is

by Stoic editors, and intended to emphasise their view that the subject of the work was ethical or political (Diog. ix. 15 ; R. P. 30 c).
^

Diog.

ix.

5 (R. P. 30).

By water has

followed this hint in his arrange-

ment of the fragments.

2

R. P. 30

a.

already called
'

The him aiviKT-qs

three sections are 1-90, 9i-97> 98-130epithet 6 aK0Teiv6$ is of late date, but Timon of Phleious
(fr.

The

43, Diels).

See the valuable observations of Diels in the Introduction to his Herakleitos von EphesoSy pp. iv. sqq.
^

Cf. Diog. ix.

6 (R. P.

31).

10

146

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

arcani

a very different thing from studied obscurity and the

disciplina

sometimes

attributed

to

him

if

Herakleitos does not go out of his

way

to
11).

make

his

meaning
The
frag-

clear, neither

does he hide

it (fr.

65.

give a version of the fragments according to

ments.

the arrangement of Mr. Bywater's exemplary edition.^

(i) It
is

wise to hearken, not to me, but to my' Word, and

to confess that all things are one.^

(2)

R. P. 40.

Though

this

Word^
it
it

is

true evermore, yet

it

men
things
as

are as

unable to understand

when they hear

at
all.

for the first time as

all

before they have heard

For, though

come
they

to pass in accordance with this

Word, men seem

trial

if

had no experience of them, when they make

deeds such as
I set forth, dividing

of words

and
its

each thing according to

nature and showing

what they are

how it truly is. But other men know not doing when awake, even as they forget what they
R. P. 32.

do

in sleep.

In his edition, Diels has given up

all

attempt to arrange the fragments

according to subject, and this makes his text unsuitable for our purpose. I think, too, that he overestimates the difficulty of an approximate arrange-

ment, and makes too much of the view that the style of Herakleitos was "aphoristic." That it was so, is an important and valuable remark; but For a Greek, it does not follow that Herakleitos wrote like Nietzsche. however prophetic in his tone, there must always be a distinction between an aphoristic and an incoherent style. See the excellent remarks of Lortzing in Berl. Phil. Wochenschr. 1896, pp. I sqq. 2 Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk's X6701' for hb^}xa.ro% and Miller's Cf. Philo, /eg. all. iii. c, quoted in Bywater's note. dvai for eldevai. 3 The X670S is simply the discourse of Herakleitos himself though, as
;

he
n.
I

is

a prophet,

we may
ii.

call

it

"the Word."

It

can neither

mean a

discourse addressed to Herakleitos nor yet "reason."

;

(Cf. Zeller, p. 630,

Eng.

trans,

p. 7, n. 2.

A difficulty has been raised about the words

kbvTO% old.

How

could Herakleitos say that his discourse had always

The answer is that in Ionic i(iiv means "true" when coupled with words like X670S. Cf. Herod, i. 30, ry ibvTi xP'O'^o'-fJ-^vo^ \iyeL ; and It is only by taking the words even Aristoph. Frogs, 1052, ovk 6vTa \6yov. in this way that we can understand Aristotle's hesitation as to the proper
existed?

punctuation of the fragment {Pkel. V 5. 1407 b 15 ; R. P. 30 a). The Stoic interpretation given by Marcus Aurelius, iv. 46 (R. P. 32 b), must be
rejected altogether.

The word

X670S was never used like that

till

post-

Aristotelian times.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
(3) Fools

147
them when

when they do hear

bear
a.

are like the deaf: of

does the saying

present.

witness

that

they

are

absent

R. P. 31

Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if they have souls that understand not their language. R. P. 42. (5) The many do not take heed of such things as those
(4)

they meet with, nor do they mark them

when they

are taught,

though they think they do.

-

(6)
(7)

Knowing not how

If
it

to listen nor

how

to speak.
will

it

for

you do not expect the unexpected, you is hard to be sought out and difficult.^
for gold dig

not find

(8)
little.
.

Those who seek

up much

earth

and

find a

R. P. 34 f -(11) The lord whose is the oracle at Delphoi neither utters nor hides his meaning, but shows it by a sign. R. P. 30 a.
(12)
less,

R. P. 44 b. (10) Nature loves to hide.

And

the Sibyl, with raving lips uttering things mirth-

unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand

years with her voice, thanks to the god in her.

(13)

The
. . .

things that can be seen, heard,

R. P. 30 a. and learned are

what

I prize the most.

R. P. 42.

(14)

bringing untrustworthy witnesses in support of

disputed points.
(15) The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.^ R. P. 42 c. (16)
ing,

The

learning of
it

many

things teacheth not understand-

else

would

have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and

R. P. 31.
practised

again Xenophanes and Hekataios.

(17) Pythagoras,

son

of

Mnesarchos,

inquiry

beyond
for his

all

other men, and choosing out these writings, claimed

own wisdom what was but

art of mischief^

a knowledge
a,

of

many

things

and an

R. P. 3 1

have departed from the punctuation of By water here, and supplied a

fresh object to the verb as suggested

"^

by Gomperz {Arch.

i.

lOo).

Herod, i. 8. The application is, no doubt, the same as that of the last two fragments. Personal inquiry is better than tradition. 3 See Chap. II. The best attested reading is iiroi-f]<TaTo, p. 107, n. i. not iiroiria-ev, and iiroiricraTo eauTov means "claimed as his own." The words iKXe^dfievos ravras rds avyypatpds have been doubted since the time of Schleiermacher, and Diels has now come to regard the whole fragment as
Cf.

148
(i8)

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Of
b.
all

whose discourses

have heard, there

is

not one
all.

who

attains to understanding that

wisdom

is

apart from

R. P. 32
(19)

Wisdom

is

one

thing.

It is to

know
all,

the thought by

which
or

all

things are steered through

is

all things.

R. P. 40.

(20)
men
an

This world/ which

has

the

same
is

for

no one of gods
shall

made

but

it

was

ever,

now, and ever

be

ever-living

Fire,

with measures kindling, and

measures
sea

going out.
(21)

R. P. 35.2
transformations of Fire are,
is

The

first
.

of

all,

and

half of the sea

-

earth, half whirlwind.^

R. P. 35
for

b,

(22) All things are an exchange for Fire, and

things,

Fire for
wares.

all

even as wares

for

gold

and gold

P. 35.

(23) It becomes liquid sea, and

tale as before
it

is

measured by the same

a.

(24) Fire

is

became earth.^ R. P. 39. R. P. 36 want and surfeit.

This is because it was used to prove that Pythagoras wrote books (cf. Diels, Arch. iii. p. 451). As Mr. By water has pointed out, however, the fragment itself makes no such statement ; it only says that he read books, which we may presume he did. I would further suggest that the old-fashioned <n;77pa0ds is rather too good for a forger, and that The last the omission of the very thing to be proved is remarkable. suggestion of a book by Pythagoras disappears with the reading ^Trotijo-aro
spurious.
for
iTroi7]<xu.

Of

course a late writer

who

read of Pythagoras making

books would assume that he put them into a book of his own, For the rest, I understand laTopir) of just as people did in his own days. science, which is contrasted with the KaKorrexvlr) which Pythagoras derived from the (xvyypatpai of men like Pherekydes of Syros, 1 The word Kdcr/xos must mean '* world " here, not merely "order" for This use of the word is only the world could be identified with fire. Pythagorean, and there is no reason to doubt that Herakleitos may have
extracts from
;

known
^

it.

is internal accusative with airTSfievov, measures kindling and its measures going out." ^ On the word KprjffT'qp, see below, p. 165, n. 2. ^ The subject of fr. 23 is 7^, as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 36), b 5), TrdXt;' re ad tt]v yrjy x^^<^^<^'- > ^nd Aet. i. 3, II {Dox. p. 284 a I

It is

important to notice that fierpa

"with

its

iTTeira a.vaxo.\i>iiJ-^vr}v tt]v yijv virb rod Trvpbs x^<^^'- (Diibner

ijdujp

(pijaei,

libri)

diroTeXecadaL.

Herakleitos might quite well say

yij d6LKa<Taa diax^eraif

this.

and the context

phrase

in

Clement {Strom,

v. p.

712) seems to imply

The
i),

/wer/j^erat ets

rhv aOrbv \6yov can only

mean

that the proportion of

the measures remains constant.

derselben Grijsse.

So

practically Zeller (p.

690, n.

zzt

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
(25) Fire lives the death of
fire;
air,i

149
death of
i

and

air lives the

water

lives

the

death

of earth,

earth that of water,

R. P. 37.
(26) Fire in
its

advance

will

judge and convict

^ all

things.

R. P. 36
(27)

a.

How
is

can one hide from that which never sets?

the thunderbolt that steers the course of
all

(28) It
things.

R. P. 35 b. The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, (29) the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice, will find him out R. P. 39.
(30)
the Bear

The
is

limit of East

and West
it

is

the Bear; and opposite

the boundary of bright Zeus.^

(31) If there were no sun

other stars could do.*
(32)

would be

night, for all the

The sun
. . .

is

new every

day.

(33) See above, Chap. I. p. 41, n. i. the seasons that bring all things. (34) (35) Hesiod
is

most men's teacher.

a

Men

think he

knew

very

many

things,

man who

did not

know day

or night

They

are one.^

(36)

God

is

R. P. 39 b. day and night, winter and summer, war and

;

peace, surfeit
fire,^

and hunger

but he takes various shapes, just as

spices,
is

when

it is

mingled with
R. P. 39
b.

named according

to the

savour of each.

With Diels
I

adopt the transposition (proposed by Tocco) of i^poi and

irvphs i<f>o8os, for
is

yijs.
^

understand iirekObv of the

Diels has pointed out that KaraXafi^dpeiv

It is, literally,
^
*'

the old
is

which see below, p. 1 68. word for " to convict."

"

to overtake," just as alpeiv

it

In this fragment

is

clear that o^po$

boundary," not "hill."

its

As

aWpios Ztys

not think

oVpos can
I

the horizon.

am

be the South Pole, inclined to take the fragment as a protest against the

"to catch." and therefore means means the bright blue sky, I do It is more likely as Diels says.

= TipixaTa,

Pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere. We learn from Diog. ix. lo (quoted below, p. 164) that Herakleitos explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon, and this is doubtless a fragment of that passage. I now think the words ^i^exa rwr AWuv darpuv are from Herakleitos. So Diels. Hesiod said Day was the child of Night {Theog. 124). * Reading SKoxrirep trvp for 6K0}<Tvep with Diels.
*

ISO

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

all

(37) If

things were turned to smoke, the nostrils

would

distinguish them.

R. P. 46 d. things warm, Cold become and what (39) what is wet dries, and the parched is moisted..
" (40) It scatters and
(41, 42)
it

(38) Souls smell in Hades.

is

warm

cools;

gathers

it

advances and

retires.

You cannot

step twice into the

same

rivers; for

fresh waters are ever flowing in

upon

you.
:

R. P. ^^.
that
strife

Homer was wrong in saying " Would might perish from among gods and men " He
(43)
!

did not see

;

that he was praying for the destruction of the universe

his prayer

for, if

were heard,

all

things would pass away.^

R. P.

34

d.

(44)

War

is

the father of

all

and the king of

all

and some
free.

he has made gods and some men, some bond and some
R. P. 34.

(45) Men
itself.

do not know how what

the lyre.

is

at variance agrees with

like that of

It is

an attunement of opposite tensions,^ R. P. 34. the opposite which is good

is

the

bow and
(46) It
is

for us.^

(47)

The hidden attunement

better

than the open.

P. 34.

(48) Let us not conjecture at

things.

random about the

greatest

many
is

(49) Men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very things indeed.

(50)

The

straight

and the crooked path of the

fuller's

comb
a.

one and the same.

(51) Asses would rather have straw than gold.

R. P. 31

//. xviii.

107.

Cat. (88
that
^

b 30

schol. Br.

add the words oixvc^o^dai. yap iravra from Simpl. in ). They seem to me at least to represent something
likely that
I

was
I

in the original.
it

cannot think
ap/jLovit],

Herakleitos said both iraXivTovos and

prefer Plutarch's TraXLvrovos (R. P. 34 b) to the iraXivrpoiros of Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of Parmenides
iraXlvrpoiros

and

decides the question in favour of traXlvTpoiros

but see below, p. 184, n.

8' tarpetat
5td.

I,

and Chap. IV.

^

p.

198, n. 4.

This, I
^oridelv

now
tc^

think,
depfK^

is

the medical rule al

iirl

twu

ivavrluiv,

e.g.

to

\f/vxp6v

(Stewart on

Arist.

fA.

II04

16).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
- (51a)
eat.i

151

Oxen

are
b.

happy when they

find bitter vetches to

R. P. 48

(52) The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish it, and it is good for them to men it is undrinkable and destructive. R. P. 47 c. (53) Swine wash in the mire, and barnyard fowls in dust.
can drink
;

to delight in the mire. (54) (55) Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.^
. . .

(56)
-

(57)

(58)

Same as 45. Good and ill are one. Physicians who cut,
a fee for
it

R. P. 47

c.

burn, stab, and rack the sick,

get.

demand
47
-

which they do not deserve to

R. P.

C.3

is

'(59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and
things issue from the one.*

r^

all

(60)

Men would
To God
all

not have

known

the

name

of justice

if

these things were not.^

(61)
things are fair

and good and

right.

right,

but

men

hold some things wrong and some

R. P. 45.

(62)

We

is justice,

must know that war is common to all and strife and that all things come into being and pass away (?)

through

strife.

(64) All the things

all

we

see

when awake
R. P. 42
It is

are death, even as

c.^

we

see in slumber are sleep.

(65)

The

wise

is

one

only.

unwilling
40.
(/5ios),

and

willing to

be called by the
(66)
death.
^

name of Zeus. R. P. The bow (^tos) is called life

a.

but

its

work

is

R. P. 49

Fr.

51a was recovered by By water from Albertus Magnus.

ix. p.

See

lourn. Phil.
2

230.

On

fr.

^ I

now

55 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb. 1901, p. 188. read ^iraiT^ovrai with Bernays and Diels.

* On fr. 59 see Diels in Ber/. Sitzb. 1901, p. 188. The reading (rwd^'tef seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. It is not, however, correct to say that the optative could not be used in an imperative sense. ^ By " these things," he probably meant all kinds of injustice. '* Life, Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on OKbaa 5k redmjK&rei i'onj.

Sleep,

Death

is

the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics Fire,

Water, Earth."

152

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and dying the
others'
life.

(67) Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the

one

living the others' death

it is

R. P. 46.

(68) For
to water to

death to souls to become water, and death

earth.

become
soul.

But water comes from earth

the

and

from water,
(69)

R.

P. 38.

The way up and

d.

way down

is

one and the same.

R. P. 36

(70) In the circumference of a circle the beginning and

end are common.

(71)
in

You
It is

will

not find the boundaries of soul by travelling

is

any direction, so deep

(72)

the measure of

it.^

R. P. 41

d.
c.

pleasure to souls to

become
is

moist.

R. P. 46

man, when he gets drunk, (73) lad, tripping, knowing not where he
moist.

led by a beardless

steps,

having his soul

R. P. 42.

(74-76)
(77) time. (78)

The
is

dry soul

is

the wisest and best.^

R. P. 42.

Man
And

kindled and put out like a light in the night-

it is

the

same thing

in us that
;

is

quick and dead,

^

awake and
^

asleep,

young and old

the former are shifted

and

think

now

with Diels that the words ovtu) a.dvv \6yov ^x^l are
difficulty if

They present no means "measurement," as in fr. 23.

probably genuine.
^

we remember

that X670S

This fragment
it

is

interesting because of the great antiquity of the

corruptions which

has suffered.

According to Stephanus, who

read
:

is

followed

by Bywater and
^rjp-fj

Diels,

we should
gloss

Ai}7)

(or rather ^Tjpd

the Ionic form would only appear when the word got
mere
aiiri

\pvxn

<yo(p(i}TdTr]

Kai dpiaTTj,

upon the somewhat unusual aiiri. When became 01)717, and we get the sentence *'the dry light is the wisest soul," whence the siccum lunien of Bacon. Now this reading is certainly as old as Plutarch, who, in his Life of Romulus (c. 28), takes 0^777 to mean lightning, as it sometimes does, and supposes the idea to be that the wise soul bursts through the prison of the body like dry lightning (whatever that may be) through a cloud, I do not think that Clement's making the same mistake proves anything at all (Zeller, p. 705, n. 3 ; Eng. trans, i. p. 80, n. 2), except that he had read his Plutarch. Lastly, it is worth noticing that, though Plutarch must have written a.iyi\y the MSS. vary between a.\m) and avr-t]. The next stage is the corruption This yields the sentiment that " where the of the corrupt 0^797 into o5 7^. earth is dry, the soul is wisest," and is as old as Philo (see Mr. By water's
into the text) being a

once

^iqpij

got into the text,

notes).
^

understand fjLeTaTeabvra here as meaning " moved " from one

ypa/xfiri

or division of the draught-board to another.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS

153

become the latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and become the former. R. P. 47. (79) Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is
a child's.

R. P. 40

a.

(80) I have sought for myself.

R. P. 48.
into the

"(81) and are

We
not.
is

step

and do not step

a.

same

rivers

we are

R. P. 33

(82) It

a weariness to labour for the same masters and

be ruled by them.
^

- (83)
(84)

It rests

by changing.
posset separates
if it is

Even the

not

stirred.

(85) Corpses are

-

more

fit

to be cast out than dung.

(86)

When

they are born, they wish to live and to meet

with their

dooms or rather to rest and they behind them to meet with their dooms in turn.
(87-89)

leave children

A man may
who
is

be.ja

grandfather in thirty years.-^

.
.

(90) Those

are asleep are fellow-workers.

(91^) Thought
(9i<^)

common

to

all.

^""-itti.
fast

Those who speak with understanding must hold

is

to

what

common
strongly.

to all as a city holds fast to

its

law,

and

even more
divine law.

For

It prevails as

human laws are fed by the one much as it will, and suffices for all
all

things with something to spare.

R.

P. 43.

if

(92) So we must follow the common,^ yet the they had a wisdom of their own. R. P. 44.

many

live as

(93)

They
is

are estranged from that with which they have

most constant intercourse.^

(94) It

R. P. 32

b.

not meet to act and speak like

men

asleep.

(95) The waking have one common world, but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of his own.

^ Sext. Math. vii. It seems to me that 133, 5t6 Sei ^Treadai ry ^vv<^. On these words must belong to Herakleitos, though Bywater omits them. the other hand, the words toO \6yov 8i 6vtos ^woO (so, not 5* iSrros, the

best

following,

MSS.) seem clearly to belong to the Stoic interpreter whom Sextus is and who was anxious to connect this fragment with fr. 2 {6\lya
iiri<f>4pi)

irpoffSieXdCiiif

in order to get the doctrine of the Kowbs XA701.

The

whole context in Sextus should be read. ^ The words X67V ry to. 6\a SioiKovvriy which Diels prints as part of this fragment, seem to me to belong to Marcus Aurelius and not to
Herakleitos.

154
(96)

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The way
of

man

has no wisdom, but that of

God

has.

R. P. 45.
(97)

Man

is

called a

baby by God, even as a child by a

an ape compared to God, just

man.

R. P. 45.

(98, 99)

The

wisest

man
is

is

as the most beautiful ape

-

ugly

compared

to

man.
its

(100)

The people must

fight for its

law as for

walls.

R. P. 43 b. (loi) Greater deaths win greater portions.

--

R. P. 49

a.

(102) Gods and

a.

men honour

those

who

are slain in battle.

R. P. 49

(103) Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a R. P. 49 a. house on fire.
.

(104)

It is

not good for

men

to get
;

all

they wish to get.

;
I
''

It is sickness that

makes health pleasant

rest.

evil,^

good

hunger,

plenty; weariness,

R. P. 48
fight

b.

(105-107)

It

is

hard to
get,
it

with one's heart's desire.^

y^'

Whatever
R. P. 49

it

wishes to

purchases at the cost of soul.

a.

(108, 109)

It is best to

hide folly; but

it is

hard in times

of relaxation, over our cups.

(no) And
R. P. 49
a.

it

is

law,

too,

to

obey the counsel of one.

thought or wisdom have they ? They and take the crowd as their teacher, knowing For even the not that there are many bad and few good. best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like
follow the poets
beasts.^
'

(in) For what

R. P. 31

a.

(112) In Priene hved Bias, son of Teutamas,

rest.

who

is

of

more account than the

(113)
31

(He

said, "
if

Most men

are bad.")

One

is

ten thousand to me,

he be the

best.

R. P.

a.

(114)
^

The Ephesians would do

for Kal ^u/i6s

well to

hang themselves,

Adopting Heitz's KaKov

with Diels.
sense.

The word

has

its

Homeric
(fr.

The

gratification of desire

implies the exchange of dry soul-fire

understood
^

dvfxds

here as anger

{JSt/i.

74) for moisture (fr. 72). Nic. B 2, 1 105 a 8).

Aristotle

This seems to be a clear reference to the "three lives."

See Chap.

II. 45, p. 108.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
every grown
lads
;

155

man

of them, and leave the city to beardless

have cast out Hermodoros, the best man among them, saying, "We will have none who is best among us ; if
for they

there be any such,

let

him be so elsewhere and among

at every

others."

R.

R
a.

29

b.

(115)
31
(116)

Dogs bark

one they do not know.

not

R.

(The wise man)

is

known because of men's

want of

belief.

(117)

(118)

The fool is fluttered at every word. R. P. 44 b. The most esteemed of them knows but fancies;^
and

yet of a truth justice shall overtake the artificers of lies

the false witnesses.

(119) (120)

Homer

should be turned out of the

likewise.
is

lists

and whipped,

and Archilochos

R. P. 31.

One day

like

any
is

other.

(121)
(122)

Man's character
of.

his fate.2

There awaits men when they die such things as they

R. P. 46
d.

look not for nor dream

.

3 that they rise up and become the wakeful (123) guardians of the quick and dead. R. P. 46 d.
.
.

(124) Night-walkers,

Magians,

priests

of
. .

Bakchos and
.

priestesses of the wine-vat, mystery-mongers.

(125)
mysteries.

The

mysteries

practised

among men
if

are

unholy

R. P. 48.

(126)
R. P. 49

And
a.

they pray to these images, as

one were to
are.

talk with a

man's house, knowing not what gods or heroes

(127) For

if

it

were not to Dionysos that they made a

procession and sang the shameful phallic hymn, they would be

acting most shamelessly.

But Hades

is

the same as Dionysos

^ Reading SoK^ovra w-ith Schleiermacher (or SoKiovT Civ with Diels). I have omitted (pvXdaaeiv, as I do not know what it means, and none of the

conjectures
"^

commends
As

itself.

On
I

the meaning of dai/xwv here, see

my
it,

edition of Aristotle's Ethus^

pp.

sq.

Professor Gildersleeve puts

the Salfiuv

is

the individual

form of toxVj as kt^ip is of dduaros. ^ I have not ventured to include the words ivda 5' idyri at the b^inningi as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels's interesting
note.

156
in

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

feast of the wine-

whose honour they go mad and keep the

R. P. 49.
(129, 130)

vat.

They

vainly purify themselves

if

selves with blood, just as

by defiling themone who had stepped into the mud

were to wash his

doing thus, would
The doxographical
tradition,

mud. Any man who marked him deem him mad. R. P. 49 a.

feet in

66. It wiU bc seen that are far from clear,

some of
be

these fragments

and there are probably not a few of

will

which the

meaning

never

recovered.

We
;

naturally turn, then, to the doxographers for a clue

but, as ill-luck will

have

it,

they are

far less

instructive

with regard to Herakleitos than

in other cases.

we have found them

We

have, in fact, two great difficulties

first
is

to contend with.

The

the unusual weakness of

the doxographical

tradition

itself.

Hippolytos, upon

whom we
material

can

generally

rely

for

fairly

accurate the of
.

account of what Theophrastos really

for

said, derived

his

first

four

chapters,

which

treat

Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not*^

from the excellent epitome which he afterwards used,

but from a biographical compendium,^ which consisted
for the

most part of apocryphal anecdotes and apoIt

phthegms.
Successions
as

was based,

further,

on some writer of

Pythagoreans.
side,

who regarded Herakleitos and Empedokles They are therefore placed side
their doctrines are hopelessly

by

and

mixed up
and
in

together.

The

link

between

Herakleitos

the

Pythagoreans was Hippasos of Metapontion,

system, as
^

whose

we know,
p. 145.

fire

played an important part.

first

On

the source used by Hippolytos in the

four chapters of Ref.

i.

"We must carefully distinguish Ref. i. and Ref. ix. as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter book is an attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was derived from Herakleitos instead of from the Gospel, and is a rich mine of Herakleitean
see Diels,

Dox.

fragments.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
two
in

157

Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had spoken of the

the

same

sentence, and this

was enough

to put

the writers of Successio7is off the track.^'

then, to look to the

We

are forced,

more

detailed of the

two accounts

of the opinions of Herakleitos given in Diogenes,^ which

goes back to the

pretty
full

Vetusta PlacitUy and

is,

fortunately,

and accurate.

All our other sources are

more or
even

less tainted.

The second
more
certain
for

difficulty

which we

have to face

is

serious.

Most of the commentators on

their paraphrases

Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were Stoics,^ and

it

is

that

were sometimes
Stoics

taken

the
in

original.

Now, the
veneration,
possible
in

held

the
to

Ephesian
interpret
their

peculiar as far as

and

sought

him
" ^

accordance with
"

own
this

system.

Further, they were fond of

accom-

modating

the views of earlier thinkers to their own,

In particular,

^^d

has had serious consequences.

the Stoic theories of the X0709 and the iKirvptaai^ are

constantly ascribed to Herakleitos by our authorities,

and the very fragments are adulterated with scraps of

Stoic terminology.
67.

Herakleitos looks

down

The not only ^ on the mass

discovery of Herakleitos

of men,

but on

all

previous inquirers
:

into

nature.

^ Arist. Met, A, Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. 23, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c) 33 (R. P. 36 c). 2 For these double accounts see Dox. pp. 163 sqq. and Appendix, 15. ^ Diog. ix. Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this. 15 (R. P. 30 c).

The word

avvoiKnoxiv

is

used of the Stoic method of interpretation by

accomniodare.

and Cicero {N.D. i. 41) renders it by Chrysippos in particular gave a great impulse to this sort of thing, as we may best learn from Galen, de Plac. Hippocr. et Plat.
Philodemos
(cf.

Dox. 547

b, n.),

Book

iii.

Good examples
of,

are Aet.

i.

13,

28,

iv.

3,

12,

where

distinctively Stoic doctrines are ascribed to Herakleitos.

What

the Stoics

were capable
d^pa 5td
TT]v

we

see' from Kleanthes,

//.

fr.

55, Pearson.

He

proposed to

read ZeO d'a55a;j/ate in

'

xvi. 233,

ws rhv iK t^j yvs dya$vfuufieop

dvddoaiv AvaSioduvaToi' 6vTa.

158
This

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

must mean that he believed himself
insight
into
to

have
not
were,
if

attained
hitherto

some

truth
it

which
was, as

had
it

been recognised, though

staring

men

in

the face

(fr.

93).

Clearly, then,
in

we
we

wish to get a t the^ central thing

his teach ing,

must llXJ^,-&Qd_QuLwh g-t he was thinking of when h e

launched into those denu nciations of
a nd ignorance
.^

human

dulness

^9

The answer seems to be given in two From them we gather that the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently indepe ndent and conflicting things we know are really ojie, and that, on the other hand, this one is also manv The " strife of opposites " is really an " attunement From this it follows that wisdom is not {apixovLa). a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the
fragments,
i_8^

and 45.

underlying unity of the warring opposites.

really

That

this
is

was the fundamental thought of Herakleitos

stated

by

Philo.

He

says
is

"

For that which

;

is

made
is

up of both the opposites what the Greeks say

one

and,

when
Is

the one

divided, the opposites are disclosed.

their great

not this just

and much belauded

Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as

summing
covery
? " ^

it

all

up,

and boasted of

as

new

dis-

We

shall take the elements of this theory

one by one, and see how they are to be understood.

The One and
the Many.

68.

Anaximander

had

taught

already

that

the

opposites were separated out from the Boundless, but

passed away into

for their unjust

it

once more, so paying the penalty

It is

encroachments on one another.

1 See Patin, Heraklits Einheitslehre (1886). To Patin undoubtedly belongs the credit of showing clearly that the unity of opposites was the It is not always easy, however, to follow central doctrine of Herakleitos.

him when he comes

2

to details.
c).

Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 43 (R. P. 34

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
here implied that there
is

159 war
is

something wrong

in the

of opposites, and that the existence of the

Many
is

breach in the unity of the One.

Herakleitos

The
there

truth

which

proclaimed

was that

no

One

without the Many, and no

Many

without the One.

it is

The world
"

is

at

once one and many, and

just the

opposite tension " of the

Many

that constitutes the

unity of the One.

The

credit of having been

the

first

to see this

is

expressly assigned to Herakleitos by Plato.

In the

Sophist (242 d), the Eleatic stranger, after explaining

how
is

the Eleatics maintained that what

:

we

call

many

really one, proceeds

But certain Ionian and (at a later date) certain Sicilian Muses remarked that it was safest to unite these two things, and to say that reality is both many and one, and is kept " For," say the more severe together by Hate and Love.
Muses, " in
(cf. fr.

its

division

it

is

always being brought together

59)

while the softer

that

this

should always be

so,

Muses relaxed the requirement and said that the All was
power of Aphrodite,
because of something they

alternately

one and at peace and many and at war with

called Strife.

throiigh the
itself

In this passage the Ionian

for Herakleitos,

Muses

stand, of course,

and the

Sicilian for

Empedokles.

We

remark also that the

differentiation

of the one into

many, and the integration of the many into one, are

both eternal and simultaneous, and that
this
is
is

the

ground upon which the system'of Herakleitos

trasted

con-

with that

of

Empedokles.

We

shall

come

back to that point again.

selves

Meanwhile we confine ourHerakleitos

one.

to

this,

that,

according to Plato,

taught that reality was at once

many and

We

must be

careful,

however, not to imagine that

i6o

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

what Herakleitos thus discovered was a logical principle. This was the mistake of Lassalle's book.^ The identity
in

and through difference which he proclaimed was

;

purely physical

logic

did not yet exist, and as the

it

principle of identity

had not been formulated,

would

have been

impossible to protest against an

it.

abstract

application of

The

identity which he explains as

is

consisting in difference

simply that of the primary

This identity had

substance in

all its

manifestations.

been realised already by the Milesians, but they had

found a
treated
difficulty in the difference.

Anaximander had
" injustice,"

the

strife

of opposites as an
set himself to

and

what Herakleitos
contrary,
Fire^
it

show was
(fr^

that,

on the

was the highest

justice

62).

69. All this

made

it

necessary for him to seek out a

new^ primary substance.

He wanted

not merely some-

thing out of which the diversified world

we know might

^ The source of his error was Hegel's remarkable statement that there was no proposition of Herakleitos that he had not taken up into his own logic {Gesch. d. Phil. i. 328). The example which he cites is the statement that Being does not exist any more than not-Being, for which he

refers to Arist. Met. A, 4.

at all, but to

This, however, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos Leukippos or Demokritos, with whom it meant that space was
Aristotle does, indeed, tell us in the Metaphysics

as real as matter ( 175).

that

think Herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not be ; but he adds that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says I take this to mean that, though Herakleitos {Met. r 3. 1005 b 24). did make this assertion in words, he did not mean by it what the same

"some"

would naturally have meant at a later date. Herakleitos was speaking only of nature ; the logical meaning of the words never occurred This is confirmed by K, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by to him. being questioned in a certain manner Herakleitos could be made to admit the principle of contradiction ; as it was, he did not understand what he
assertion
said.

In other words, he was unconscious of

its

logical bearing.

Aristotle

was aware, then,

that

the theories of Herakleitos were not

to be understood in a logical sense.

On

the other hand, this does not

prevent him from saying that according to the view of Herakleitos, everyIf we remember his constant thing would be true {Met. A, 7. 1012 a 24).
attitude to earlier thinkers, this will not lead us to suspect either his
faith or his intelligence.

good

(See Appendix,

2.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
"

i6i

conceivably be made, or from which opposites could be

separated out," but something which of
else,
its

own

nature

would pass into everything would pass

it is

while everything else

in Fire,

in turn into
if

it.

This he found
consider the

and

easy to see why,

we
it

phenomenon

of combustion, even as

appears to the plain man.

The
call

quantity of

fire in

a flame burning steadily appears

to remain the same, the flame seems to be

what we
is

" thing."

And
place

yet the substance of

It
is
is

it

conin

tinually

changing.
its

always

passing

away
just

smoke, and

always being taken by fresh

it.

matter from the

fuel that feeds

This

is

what

we

want.
(fr.

If

fire"

20),
all

we regard the world as an " ever-living we can understand how it is always

becoming
ing to
it.^

things, while all things are always return-

70. This necessarily brings with

^

it

a certain

way

of

Flux.

"Air "of Anaximenes and

passages as Arist. Met. A,

That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the not a "symbol," is clearly implied in such
In support of the view that somemeant, Plato, Crat. 413 b, is somebut a consideration of the context shows that the passage
3.

984 a
fire

5.

thing different from times quoted

;

common

is

will not bear this interpretation.

Plato

is

discussing the derivation of dUaioy

from dta-idv, and certainly Ski; was a prominent Herakleitean conception, and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the school* Sokrates goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which
it is

"goes through" everything, he gets very inconsistent answers. One the sun. Another asks if there is no justice after sunset, and says
fire.

says
it is

simply

third says
it

it

is

not

fire itself,

but the heat which

is

in fire.

fourth identifies
is

with Mind,

Now

all

we

are entitled to infer from

this

that

different
little

These were a
for all that

accounts were given in the Herakleitean school. less crude than the original doctrine of the master, but

not one of them implies anything immaterial or symbolical.

it

The view

that

was not

fire

itself,

but Heat, which "passed through"

is

all things, is related to

the theory of Herakleitos as Hippo's Moisture

It is

related to the

Water of Thales.
ApoUonia

quite likely, too, that

some Hera-

kleiteans attempted to fuse the system of Anaxagoras with their own, just

as Diogenes of

tried to fuse
still

shall see, indeed, that

(p. 167, n. 2).

we

We it with that of Anaximenes. have a work in which this attempt is made

II

i62

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

movement
fuel

looking at the change and

of the world.
It

Fire burns continuously and without interruption.

is

therefore always

consuming
is

and always

liberating

smoke.
serve
as

Everything
fuel,

either

mounting upwards to
after

or

sinking
It

downwards
that

having

nourished the
reality
is

flame.

follows

the whole of

is

like

an ever-flowing stream, and that nothing

ever at rest for a moment.

things

we

see

is

in

constant change.

The substance of the Even as we look

composed
fresh
else,

at them,

some of

the matter of which they are

has already passed into something

mattcff has

while

come
"

into

them from another

up,

source.

This

theory
in

is

usually

summed
it

appropriately enough,
"

the phrase
it

All

things are flowing

(irdvra

pet),
is

though, as

happens,

cannot be proved that this

a quotation from Herakleitos.

the idea quite clearly.
"

Plato, however, expresses

is,

Nothing ever

everything

is
;

becoming "
kleitos says

"

All things are in motion like streams "

" All things are passing,

and nothing abides

all

"
;

"

Hera-

somewhere that

things pass and naught

"

.abides
I

and, comparing things to the current of a river,

he says that you cannot step twice into the same stream
(cf. fr.

41)

these are the terms in which he describes

the system. things

are

And
in

Aristotle says the

"

same

thing, " All

is."
^

motion,"
fact,

nothing

steadfastly
thing,

Herakleitos held, in
stable
in

that

any given

however
in

appearance,

was merely a section

it

the

stream, and that the matter composing

was never

the

same

in

any two consecutive moments of time.

We
1

shall see presently

;

how he

conceived this process

to operate

meanwhile we remark that the idea was

I
;

Plato, TA^. 152 e

Cra^. 401
;

5,

h 22;

de Caelo, T,

I.

298 b 30

Phys. 0,

402 a 8 3. 253 b

Arist. ToJ>. A, 11.

2.

104

HERAEXEITOS OF EPHESOS
not altogether novel, and that
point in
it

163

is

hardly the central

the system of

Herakleitos.

.The

Milesians

held a similar view.

The

flux of Herakleitos

was

at

most more unceasing and

71.
details

universal.

Herakleitos appears to have worked out the The Upward

of the perpetual
flux

with reference

to

the

path,

theories of Anaximenes.^

It is unlikely,

however, that

he explained the transformations of matter by means

of
rarefaction

and

condensation.^
;

Theophrastos,
it

it

appears, suggested that he did

but he allowed

was

by no means

clear.

The passage from Diogenes which

quote has faithfully preserved this
fragments,
at

we

are about to

touch.^

In

the

any

rate,

we

find

nothing

about

rarefaction
is

and

condensation.
(fr.

The
this
is

expression used
certainly a very
fire

"exchange"
for

22); and

good name

what happens when

gives out
It

smoke and takes

in fuel instead.

has been pointed out that, in default of Hippolytos,

our best account of the Theophrastean doxography of

Herakleitos
is

the fuller of the two accounts given

It is as follows
:

in

Laertios Diogenes.

His opinions on particular points are these:

He

held that Fire was the element, and that

for
fire,

all

things

were an exchange
rarefaction.

produced by condensation and

All things were
flux like a river.

produced

in opposition,
is

But he explains nothing clearly. and all things were in

The
fire,

all
is

and

finite and the world is one. It arises from consumed again by fire alternately through all

This happens according to fate. cycles. That which leads to the becoming of the opposites is called War and Strife that which leads to- the final conflagration is Concord and Peace.
eternity in certain
;

See above. Chap.

ix. 8, <ra0<i$ 5'

I.

29.
c.

See, however, the remark of Diels quoted R. P. 36

'

Diog.

oidiv itcrldcTai.

64

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

called change the

He
fire is

upward and the downward

moist,

path,

and

held that the world comes into being in virtue of

this.

When

and when compressed it and this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and fi-om it water arises, and from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the
condensed
it

becomes

turns to water;

water being congealed turns to earth,

evaporation

from

the

sea.

This

is

the

path

upwards.

R. P. 36.

He
the

held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea

;

land

some

bright

nourished by the bright

and pure, others dark. ones, and moisture by the

clear

Fire
others.

and was

He

does not make

world.

it

what
held,

is

the nature of that which

surrounds the
bowls in
it

He

however, that there

were

with the concave sides turned towards us, in which

the bright exhalations were collected and produced flames.

These were the heavenly bodies. The flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest ; for the other heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth ; and for that reason gave less light and heat. The moon, on
the other hand, was nearer the earth
;

but

it

moved through

an impure region.
region,

and unmixed and at the same time was at just the right distance That is why it gives more heat and light. The from us. eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the bowls upwards, while the monthly phases of the moon were produced by a gradual turning of its bowl. Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and winds, and things like these, were due to the diff'erent
in a bright

The sun moved

exhalations.

The

bright

exhalation,

when

ignited

in

the

circle of the sun,

produced day, and the preponderance of the

opposite exhalations produced night.

The

increase of warmth

proceeding from the bright exhalation produced summer, and

the preponderance
of

moisture

from the

dark

exhalation

produced

winter.

He

assigns the causes of other things in

conformity with

this.
its

As

to the earth, he

nature, any

makes no clear statement about more than he does about that of the bowls.
R. P. 39
b.
1

These, then, were his opinions.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
It is

165
it is

obvious that,

if

we can
;

trust this passage,

that,

of the greatest possible value

and

upon the whole,

it

we can

trust

it is

shown by the

fact that
all

follows the

exact order of topics to which

the doxographies

derived from the great work of Theophrastos adhere.

First

we have the primary

substance, then the world,

lastly,
it

then

the heavenly bodies, and

meteorological

phenomena.

We conclude, then, that may be accepted

firstly,

with the exceptions,

conjecture

of the probably erroneous

as
;

of

Theophrastos

to

rarefaction

and

condensation mentioned above

and secondly, of some

pieces of Stoical interpretation which

come from the

Vetusta Placita.

Let us look
fire,

at the details of the theory.

is

The pure
in

we

are

told,

to

be found chiefly
is

the sun.

This, like the

other heavenly bodies,

a trough or

bowl, or perhaps a sort of boat, with the concave side

turned towards

us, in

which the bright exhalations from

the sea collect and burn. pass into other forms?

How does
If

the

fire

of the sun

we

look at the fragments

find that the

which deal with the downward path, we

first

transformation that

it

undergoes

is

into sea,
is

and

we we

are further told that half of the sea

it

earth and

half of

Trprja-TTip

(fr.

21).

shall

see

presently,
is.

The full meaning of this but we must settle at once

theories have been advanced

what

irprjarrjp

Many
;

upon the subject

always
bears

but, so far as I

know, no one

has
it

yet proposed to take the word in

elsewhere,
that,

the sense which

namely,

of hurricane
this is

accompanied by a
^

fiery waterspout.-

Yet surely

Diels takes
"
ii.

In his HerakUitos von Epfusos (190O This was written in 1890. it as I did, rendering Glutwind. Seneca {Qums/. Nat. Cf. Herod, vii. 42, and Lucretius, vi. 424it

56) calls

igmtis turbo.

The

opinions of early philosophers on these

66

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

what
is

just

wanted.

It

is

amply

attested

that

Herakleitos explained the

rise

of the sea to
;

fire

by

means of the bright evaporations

similar

and we want a
something

meteorological

explanation of the passing of

the

fire

back into

sea.

We
for the

want, in

fact,

which

will stand equally for the

smoke produced by the

burning of the sun and

fire

immediate stage between

resembles smoke to

and water.

What
?

could serve the turn better than

a fiery waterspout

It sufficiently

be accounted

for as the

product of the sun's combustion,

in

and

it

certainly

comes down

the form of water.

practically

And

this

interpretation
in

becomes

certain

when taken
due,

connexion with the report of Actios as

to the Herakleitean theory of wpTjarrjpe^i.

They were
after

we
^

are told, "to

the kindling and extinction of

the bright vapour,

clouds."

In

other words,

kindling in the bowl of the sun and going out again,

reappears as the dark fiery storm-cloud, and so passes

once more into

continually

sea.

At
(

the next stage

earth.

we

find water

passing

into

We
path,"

are

already

familiar with this idea

lo), "

and no more need be said

about

it

Turning to the
is

upward

we

find that

the earth

liquefied in the

same proportion
is
still

as the sea

becomes

earth, so that the sea

" (fr.
(fr.

"

measured by

the same tale

it

23).
2i).

Half of

it is

earth and half of

that, at

is

Trprjarrjp

This must mean

is

any

given moment, half of the sea

phenomena
(Chap.
I. p.

taking the
The
of

downward
Anaximander

are collected in Actios,

69, n. 2)
is

iii.

3.

irfyqcT-l^p

a different thing altogether, but

the meteorological

it is

quite likely that

Greek
^

sailors

named
3,

phenomenon
ve(f>Qu

after the familiar

bellows of the smith.

Act.
iii.

9,

TTprjffTrjpas

5^

Kara

^/iTrpijcrets

Kal

(T^icreii

(sc. 'H/ad/cXeiTOs dirocpaiuerai

yiyveadai).

Diels [Herakleitos, p. v.) seems to

to heaven.

regard the

TpTja-T-rip

as the form in

which water ascends

But

the Greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and

come down.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
path,
it is

167

and has

just been fiery storm-cloud, while half of

going up, and has just been earth.

is

In proportion
;

as the sea

increased

by

rain,
is

water passes into earth

in proportion as the sea

it

diminished by evaporation,
Lastly,

is

fed

by the

earth.

the ignition of the

bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun completes. the circle of the

"upward and downward

arises.

path."
for

72.

The

question

now

How

of

this constant

flux, thi ngs

appear

that, in spit e Measure ^^' relatively stable ?

is it
it is

Th e

answer of Herakleitos was that

"

owing to the

observan ce of the

measures," in virtue of which the

aggregate bul k of each form of matter in the long run

re mains the

same, th ou gh
Certain
"

its

substance
"

is

constantl y

ch anging,

measures

of the

" ever-living fire "

"

are always being j^indled, while like " measure s

ar e

always goin^ out

will

(fr.

not exceed.
fire

and t hese measures the sun 20) All things are " exchanged " for fire
;

and

for all things

it

(fr.

22),

and

this implies that for

everything
will

takes, fire will give as

(fr.

much.

"

The sun
^

not exceed his measures"

yet the "
fixed.

29).

C^y^^.u,'^^'^^*''^

And

measures " are not to be regarded as

absolutely

We

gather

from

the

passage

of

Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke of an

alternate

preponderance

of

the

bright

and

dark
as

exhalations,

and Aristotle
all

"'speaks

of Herakleitos

explaining

things"

by evaporation.^
way.

In particular,
winter,

the alternation of day and night,

summer and
Now,
in
BcaLTr)<:

were accounted

for in this

a passage of

the pseudo-Hippokratean treatise Hepl

which

is

almost certainly of Herakleitean

*

origin,-

we read of an

rVCka awlmiav. An. B, 2. 405 a 26, ririv AvadvfdaaiP i^ presence of Herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out by Gesner, but Bernays was the first to make any considerable use of it in The older literature of the subject has been in reconstructing the system.
Arist. de
2

The

i68
"

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fire

advance of

and water "

fire "

in

connexion with day and

night and the courses of the sun and

again,

moon/
all

In

fr.

26,

we

read of

advancing," and

these things

seem to be intimately connected.

try to see whether there
is

We

must therefore
remaining

anything

in the

fragments that bears upon the subject.

Man.

73. In

studying
it

this

alternate

advance
to
start

of

fire

and

water,

will

be convenient

with the

microcosm.

We

have more definite information about

the two exhalations in

man

than about the analogous

it

processes in the world at large, and

would seem that

Herakleitos himself explained the world by

man

rather

than

man by

the world.

In a well-known
is

passage,

Aristotle

implies that soul

identical

with the dry

exhalation,^

and

this is fully

confirmed by the fragments.

Untersuchungen which concern us is

the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs' Hippokratische

(1899),

where also a
first

satisfactory text of the sections

given for the

first

time.

Fredrichs shows that (as I said already in the

to the period of eclecticism and reaction which I have briefly characterised in 184, and he points out that c 3, which was formerly supposed to be mainly Herakleitean, is really from some work which was strongly influenced by Empedokles and Anaxagoras. I think, however, that he goes wrong in attributing the section to a nameless * Physiker" of the school of Archelaos, or even to Archelaos himself; it is far more like what we should expect from the eclectic Herakleiteans whom Plato describes in Crat. 413 c (see p. 161, n. i). He is certainly wrong in holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be Herakleitean, and there is no justification for separating the remark quoted in the text from its context because it happens to agree almost verbally with the

edition) the

work belongs

beginning of
origin.
^

c. 3.

As we
5.

shall see, that passage too

is

of Herakleitean
rb fx-qKiarov

Ilcpi dtairrjs,
'

i.

should read thus

iTri

rjfJLipr]

Kal vipp6vr]

CTri

Koi i\dx'-<yTOv

^Xioj,

(TeKT]vrj

to

/xrjKLcrTov
is

Kal iXdxi-O'TOP ' irvpbs i<podos

Kal

vdaros.

In any case,
5^

the

meaning
Kal

the same, and the

Kal
dvdpdiirLva
&vu}

sentence
Kal
koltu}

occurs between xwpei

dfiei^dfieva

Travra

Beta

and iravra Taird

Kal ov rd aird,

which are surely Herakleitean

Diels attributes to Herakleitos

utterances.
2

Arist. de

An. A,

2.

405 a 25 (R. V.
rj/vxal

38).

himself the words Kal

twv vypijUp dvadvfxiwvTai., which are found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe, however, that He seems rather to have called the the word dvadv/j-iaais is Herakleitean. two exhalations Kairvbs and d-qp (cf. fr. 37).
8^ dirb

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
Man
is

169

made up

of three things,

fire,

water, and earth.

is

But, just as in the

macrocosm
has

fire

identified with
fire

the one wisdom, so in the microcosm the

conscious.

alone

is

When

it

left
is

the body, the remainder,

(fr.

the mere earth and water,

altogether worthless

85).

Of
the
fire

course, the fire

"

which animates

man

is

subject to
as the

upward and downward

path," just as

much

of the world.

The

Jlepl SiaLrrjf; has preserved the

:

obviously Herakleitean sentence

ing,

" All things are pass-

both

human and

divine,

upwards and downwards

by exchanges."^
not
the
fire

We

are just as

much

in

perpetual

flux as anything else in the world.

We

are and are

(fr.

same
in

for
is

two consecutive instants

81).

The

us

perpetually becoming water, and the

as

water earth y but,

simultaneously,
'

the

opposite

process

goes on^

we appear
'

to remain the same.^

all.

74. This, however, ' ^

is

not

Man

is

subject to a

certain oscillation in his " measures " of

'and
and
this

{^) Sleeping

waking.

fire

and water,
on
^

and

this gives rise to the alternations of sleeping

life
is

waking,
subject

and death.
a

The
of

locus

classicus

passage

Sextus

Empiricus,

which

reproduces the account of the Herakleitean psychology

given
is

by Ainesidemos
:

(Skeptic,

c.

80-50

B.C.).^

It

as follows (R. P. 41)

^

Uepl

Siairrjs,

i.

5,

x<^P^^ ^^

irdvTa Kod deia Kal &vdpibviva

Ap(0 xal

xdru) dnei^d/xeva.
2 We seem to have a clear reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels One grows and another passes (170 b, Kaibel) " Look now at men too. away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance (kotA <f>uaiv) and never abides in the same spot, will already be something different from what has passed away. So thou and I were different yesterday, and are now quite other people, and again we shall become others and never
:

the same again, and so on in the same way."

of a debtor
^

who

does not wish to pay.

i.

This is put into the mouth See Bernays on the av^afd/urot

to

"XSyosiGes. Abh.

pp. 109 sqq.).

Sextus quotes

"Ainesidemos according
p.

Herakleitos."
really

holds

(Forschttngeuy

78)

that

Ainesidemos

did

Natorp combine

lyo
The
us
^ is

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

natural philosopher
is

of opinion that what surrounds

and endowed with consciousness. According to Herakleitos, when we draw in this divine reason by means In sleep we forget, but of respiration, we become rational. For in sleep, at our waking we become conscious once more. when the openings of the senses close, the mind which is in us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds us, and
rational

only our connexion with

it

by means of respiration

is

pre-

served as a sort of root (from which the rest

and,
that

may

spring again)

when
it

it is

thus separated,

it

loses the

power of memory
it

had

before.

When we awake

again, however,
if

looks

out through the openings of the senses, as

through windows,

and coming together with the surrounding mind, it assumes Just, then, as embers, when they are brought near the the fire, change and become red-hot, and go out when they are taken away from it again, so does the portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body become irrational when it is cut off, and so does it become of
the power of reason.
like nature to the

the greatest

whole when contact number of openings.

is

established through

In

this

passage there
later

is

obviously a very large

admixture of

phraseology and of later ideas.

In

particular, the identification of " that

which surrounds
;

us " with the air cannot be Herakleitean

leitos

for

Herak-

can have

known nothing of
as

air,

which
(

in his

day

was

regarded

a
pores

form

of

water

27).

The
is

reference to the

or openings
;

of the senses

probably foreign to him also

is

for the theory of pores

due to Alkmaion

(^

96).
is

Lastly, the

distinction

between mind and body

the

far

too sharply drawn.

r61e

On
to

other

hand,

the

important

assigned
;

respiration

may

very well be

Herakleitean

for

we

Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels, on the other hand {Dox. pp. 210, 211), insists that Ainesidemos only gave an account of the theories of
Herakleitos.
passage.
1

This controversy does not

17/Aas,

affect the use

we make

of the

rd Trepiixoy

opposed to but parallel with to

irepL^x^v rbf Kocfiov.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
have met with
it

171
can

already in Anaximenes.

And we

hardly doubt that the striking simile, of the embers

which glow when they are brought near the

genuine
(cf.
fr.

fire

is

77).

The

true Herakleitean doctrine

doubtless

was,

that

sleep

was

produced

by
from

the the

encroachment

of moist,

dark

exhalations
fire

water in the body, which cause the

In sleep,

to burn low.

we
95).

lose contact with the fire in the world

which

is

common

to

all,

and

retire to a

world of our

own

(fr.

In a soul where the

is

fire

and water

are evenly balanced, the equilibrium

restored in the

morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation.

75. But
in

no soul are the

fire

and water thus

(^)

Life

and

evenly balanced for long.

One
in

or the other acquires

either case
It is
;

predominance, and the result

is

death.

Let us take each of these cases

in turn.
(fr.

death,

we
is

know, to souls to become water

just

6S)

but that

what happens
is

to souls

which seek

after pleasure.
(fr.

For pleasure

a moistening of the soul

72), as
in

may

be seen
it,

in the case of the

drunken man, who,

pursuit of

has moistened his soul to such an extent

not

that he does

know where he

is

going
it

(fr.

73).

Even
That

in

gentle
to hide

relaxation over our cups,

folly
is

is
(fr.

more
108).

difficult
is

than at other times

so

why
(fr.
it

it

necessary

for

us

to quench

wantonness
insists
fire

103);

for

whatever our heart's desire

life,

on

purchases at the price of

(fr.

that

is,

of the
case.

within us

105).

Take now the other

least moisture,
fire
is

The dry
(fr.

soul, that

which has

the best

74)

but the preponderance of

It is

causes death as

much
die
it

as that of water.

a very different death,

"

however, and wins " greater portions

(fr.

for those
fall

who

loi).

Apparently those

who

in

battle

172

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(fr.

share their lot

tells

102).
it is,

We

have no fragment which

us directly

what

but the class of utterances we

little

are about to look at next leaves

subject.

doubt on the

Those who

die the fiery

and not the watery

death, become, in fact, gods, though in a different sense

from that

in

which the one

Wisdom

is

god.

It

is

probable that the corrupt fragment 123 refers to this

unexpected

fate

(fr.

122) that awaits

men when
by

they

die.

Further, just as

summer and
and death.

winter are one, and

their "opposite
too, are one,

necessarily reproduce one another

tension," so

do

life

They,
(fr.

we
it

are told

and so are youth and age

78).

It follows
;

that the soul will be

will

now

living

and now dead

that

only turn to

fire

or water, as the case

may

be, to

recommence once more its unceasing upward and downward path. The soul that has died from excess
of moisture sinks

down

to earth
is

but from the earth

comes water, and from water

soul
(fr.

once more exhaled a

(fr.

68).

So, too,

we

are told

6y) that gods

life,

and men are and die each

really one.

They

live

each others'

others' death.

Those mortals that die

and
effect.

the fiery death

become immortal,^ they become the

(fr.

guardians of the quick and the dead

^

123)

;2

The popular word

is

used

for

the

sake of

its

paradoxical

Strictly speaking, they are all mortal

from one point of view and immortal

from another. 2 We need not hesitate to ascribe to Herakleitos the view that the dead

become guardian demons of the living it appears already in Hesiod, Works and Days, 121, and the Orphic communities had popularised it, Rohde, Psyche (pp. 442 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos believed
;

the

soul survived
;

after

death.

Strictly

speaking,

it

is
it is

inconsistency

but

I believe,

with Zeller and Diels, that

no doubt an one of a kind

we may well admit. Many thinkers have spoken of a personal immortality, though there was really no room for it in their systems. It is worthy of note in this connexion that the first argument which Plato uses to establish the doctrine of immortality in the Phaedo is just the Herakleitean parallelism of life and death with sleeping and waking.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
those immortals

173
Every(fr.

become mortal

in their turn.

thing

is

really the

death of something else

64).

The
(fr.
(fr.

living

and the dead are always changing places

the pieces on
this

78), 79),

like

a child's draught-board
that
fire
is

and

applies not only to the souls

have become water, but to those that have become

^nd are now guardian

.

spirits.

The
82),

real weariness

^ntinuance
is

in the
(fr.

same

state

(fr.

and the
other

real rest

change

83).

Rest
(fr.

in

any

sense

is

'

tantamount to dissolution
born once more.

84).^

So they

too are

Herakleitos estimated the duration

life

of the cycle which preserves the balance of

and

death as thirty years, the shortest time

in

which a man

may become
us that
fire

a grandfather

(frs.

87-89).^

^6. Let us turn

now

to the world.

Diogenes

was kept up by the bright vapours from land

tells The day and * ^*^'

and

sea,

and moisture by the dark.^

the " Air

What
we

are these
If

"dark" vapours which

increase the moist element?

"

we remember

of Anaximenes,
itself

shall

be

inclined to regard

them as darkness

We

know
is

that the idea of darkness as privation of light

not

natural to

the unsophisticated mind.

We

sometimes

hear even

now
I

of darkness

"

thick enough to cut with

a knife."
^

suppose, then, that

Herakleitos believed

in this very connexion (see R. P.

These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, lamblichos, and Noumenios 46 c), and it does not seem to me possible to hold, with Rohde, that they had no grounds for so interpreting them. They knew the context and we do not.
^ Plut. def. orac.

iv

(fi

415 d, ^tt) rpidKovra voiovai ttjv yevehv Ka9"HpdK\iroi', XP^^V y^vvwvra irap^X" t^*' ^^ avrov yeyevvrjfjidyov 6 yen^i^as.
Harris, p. 20,

Philo,

fr.

dwarby

iv

rpiaKoarf

fret

aO t6v (Lvdfxaxov rd-rroi^

Censorinus, de die nat. 17, 2, " hoc enim tempus (triaginta ?SiXvo%) genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia orbis cutatis in eo sit spatio :
yeviadai k.t.X.

orbem autem vocat

revertitur."

of

life."

aetatis, dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim The words orbis aetatis seem to mean aldvo^ ri/rXoj, '* the circle If so, we may compare the Orphic #fy#c\oj ytviattiit,
ix.

Diog.

9 (R. P. 39

b).

174

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

by the
rise

night and winter to be produced

ness from earth and sea,

of dark-

he

saw, of course, that the

valleys were dark before the hill-tops,

and

that this

darkness, being moist, so increased the watery element

as to put out the sun's light.
This, however, destroys
It
it
(fr.

the power of darkness itself

can no longer
motion, and

rise
it

upwards unless the sun gives

so

becomes possible
and
to

for a fresh
itself

sun
the

32) to be kindled,

nourish

at

expense of the moist

for

element for a time.

But

it

can only be

a time.

The

sun,

by burning up the bright vapour, deprives

It is in this sense that "

himself of nourishment, and the dark vapour once more

gets the upper hand.

day and

night are one"

(fr.

35).

Each

implies the other, and

they are therefore to be regarded as merely two sides

of the one, in which alone their true ground of explanation
is

to be found

(fr.

36).

Sumrr^er and winter were easily to be explained in

the same way.

We

know

that the " turnings " of the

in

sun were a subject of interest

those days, and

its

it

was

natural for Herakleitos to see in

retreat further to

the south the gradual advance of the moist element,

caused by the heat of the sun

itself.

This, however,

diminishes the power of the sun to cause evaporation,

and so

it

must return
itself

to the north once

more that
at

it

may
rate,

supply

with nourishment.

Such was,

any
it

the Stoic

doctrine on

the subject,^ and

to
8'

that

comes from Herakleitos seems

^

be proved by

its

See Kleanthes,

fr.

29, Pearson, wKeavbs

Cf. Cic. A^.D.
iii.

iarl <Kai yrjy ^s Tr]v avaQv:

/jdaaLv iTripifieTai (6

ij\i.os).

vobis placet
nisi alitur
:

omnem
ali

"Quid enim? noneisdem 37 ignem pastus indigere nee permanere ullo modo posse,

the earth), alia marinis

autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus (from ? eamque causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat
solstitiali

nee longius progrediatur

orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat

a cibo."

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
occurrence in the Hepl
refer the following
BialTrjf;.

175

It

seems impossible to
:

sentence to any other source

(fire

And

in turn

each

and water)

prevails

and
is

is

prevailed

over to the greatest and least degree that

possible.

For
If fire

neither can prevail altogether for the following reasons.

advances towards the utmost hmit of the water,

its
it

nourish-

ment
of the
still
;

fails

it.

It

retires,
if

then, to a place where

can get

nourishment.
fire,

And

water advances towards the utmost limit

and,

to resist,

movement fails it. At that point, then, it stands when it has come to a stand, it has no longer power but is consumed as nourishment for the fire that falls

upon it. For these reasons neither can prevail altogether. But if at any time either should be in any way overcome, then none of the things that exist would be as they are now. So long as things are as they are, fire and water will always be too, and neither will ever fail.^
77. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which The
is

Great

Year.

identified with the "

Great Year," and

is

variously-

described as lasting

18,000 and 10,800

years.^

We

have no definite statement, however, of what process

Herakleitos supposed to take place in the Great Year.

We
all

have seen that the period of 36,000 years was,

in

probability, Babylonian,

and was that of the revolu-

tion
^

which produces the precession of the equinoxes.*

For the Greek text of this passage, see below, p. 183, n. i. Fredrichs it is from the same source as that quoted above (p. 169), and, as that comes from Uepl diairrjs, i. 3, he denies the Herakleitean origin of
allows that
this too.

He
which

has not taken account of the fact that

raises a

it

gives the Stoic

doctrine,

presumption

in favour of that

being Herakleitean.

If I could agree with Fredrichs' theory, I should still say that the present

passage was a Herakleitean interpolation in the Physiker rather than that

the other was an interpolation from the Physiker xn the Herakleitean section. As it is, I find no difficulty in believing that both passages give the

Herakleitean doctrine, though

the sequel.

it

becomes mixed up with other theories

in

See

p.

167, n. 2.

^ Aet. ii. 32, 3, 'H/)<iK\eiTOj tK fivpiuv dKraKurxOdui' iptavrutf i^Xieucwr (t6v fUyav iviavrbv dvat.). Censorinus, de die not. 1 1, Heraclitus ct Linus,

Xdccc.
3

See Introd.

XH.

p. 25, n. 2.

176

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

1

Now
may
all

8,000 years

is

just half that period, a fact

which

be connected with Herakleitos's way of dividing

cycles into an "

all

upward and downward path."

It is

not at

likely,

however, that Herakleitos,

who

held

with Xenophanes that the sun was

"new

every day,"
of the
that

would

trouble

himself about

the
to

precession

equinoxes, and

we seem

forced

assume

he

gave some new application to the traditional period.

The

Stoics, or

some of them, held

careful,

that the Great

Year
a

was the period between one world-conflagration and

the next.

They were

however, to
did,

make

it

good deal longer than Herakleitos

case,

and, in

any

we

are not entitled without

more ado

to credit

him with the theory of a general conflagration.^ We must try first, if possible, to interpret the Great Year
on
the

analogy

of

the

shorter

periods

discussed

already.

Now we
time
in

have seen that a generation

is

the shortest
it

which a

man

can become a grandfather,

is

the period of the upward or

downward path of

the soul,

and the most natural interpretation of the longer period

would surely be that
it

represents the time taken

in

by a

"measure" of the

fire

the world to travel on the

fire

downward path

to earth or return to

once more by

the upward path.

Plato certainly implies that such a

parallelism between the periods of

^

man and

the world

For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, de nat. horn. 38 (R. P. 503). Adam allowed that no destruction of the world or conflagration marked the end of Plato's year, but he declined to draw what seems to me the natural inference that the connexion between the two things belongs to a later age, and should not, therefore, be ascribed to Herakleitos in the Nevertheless, absence of any evidence that he did so connect them. his treatment of these questions in the second volume of his edition of the Republic J pp. 302 sqq., must form the basis of all further discussion on It has certainly helped me to put the view which he rejects the subject. (p. 303, n. 9) in what I hope will be found a more convincing form.
Mr.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
was recognised/ and
from a passage in Aristotle, which
is

177

this receives a curious confirmation

usually supposed

to refer to the doctrine of a periodic conflagration.

is

He

discussing the question whether the " heavens," that

to say,

is

what he

calls the " first heaven," is eternal or

not,

and he naturally enough, from

his

own

point of

view, identifies this with the Fire of Herakleitos.

He
some

quotes him along with Empedokles as holding that the

"

heavens

" are alternately as

they are
;

now and

in

other state, one of passing

point out that this
is

away

and he goes on to

not really to say they pass away,

any more than

be, if

it

would be to say that a man ceases to

he turned from boy to man and then
again.^
It is surely clear that this is

we

said that

from

man

to

boy

a reference to the parallel between the generation and

the Great Year, and,
if so,

the ordinary interpretation of

It is true that
it

the passage must be wrong.

quite consistent
"

is

not

with the

theory to suppose that a

its

measure

"

of Fire could preserve

its

identity through;

out the whole of

it

upward and downward path

but
felt

is

exactly the same inconsistency that

to

we have

bound
of

recognise

with regard to the continuance

a fact which
It
is

individual souls,

really in

favour

of our interpretation.

should be added

that, while

18,000
*

is

half

36,000,

10,800

is

360x30, which

This is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the periods of the iivdpdnreLov and the detov yevvrjrdy, however we may undcr-

^nd
^

the details.

See Adam, Republic,

vol.

ii.

2 Arist.

de Caelo, A, 10. 279

<f>6eip6ixevoi/,
. .

14, ol 5'

ivaWh^

pp. 288 sqq. brk fih oikun^

6

irri

Si

AXXws ^x^'"
to saying that

wcnrep

'EfiireSoKXTj^

'AKpayavTivoi Kal

'Hpd/tXeiTos 6 'E(p4<rios.
it is

eternal

Aristotle points out that this really amounts only iK waiSds ArSpa and changes its form, ucirep et

yiyv6fivov Kal i^ dvdpbs iraida ori ixkv <f>delp(Tdai,

14).

6W

The

point of the reference to

I

Empedokles

will

Corr. B, 6. 334 a
that they

sqq.

What

Aristotle finds fault

(280 A appear from de Gem, with in both theories is

5' eli'cu ofoiro

do not regard the substance of the heavens as something outside the upward and downward motion of the elements.
13

178

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

make each
Most
generation

would
Year.^
Did Heraklcitos tcB.ch
'\j

day

in

the

Great

78.

modern

writers,

however,

ascribe

to

a general
conflagration?

Herakleitos the doctrine of a periodical conflagration or

^'^^^^^^,^^ to use the Stoic term.^
sistent with the theory, as

That

this is inconit,

we have
by

interpreted
Zeller.

is

obvious,

and

is

indeed admitted

To

his

paraphrase of the statement of Plato quoted above

(p.
1

9) he adds the

words

"

Herakleitos did not intend

to retract this principle in the doctrine of a periodic

change

in

the constitution

of the world
it is it

if

the two

doctrines are not compatible,

a contradiction which
in itself quite likely

he has not observed."

that

Now,

is

there

were
it

contradictions
is

in

the

discourse

of

Herakleitos, but
particular one.

very unlikely that there was this

first

In the

place,

it

is

a contradiction

of the central idea of his system, the thought that possessed his whole

mind

( if

6^)^

and we can only admit

it

the possibility of that,

the evidence for

should

prove

irresistible.

In the second place, such an inter-

pretation destroys the whole point of Plato's contrast

between Herakleitos and Empedokles

just that, while

68),

which

is

Herakleitos said the

One was always

many, and the

All was

Many always one, Empedokles said the many and one by turns. Zeller's interpretation
his

obliges us, then, to suppose that Herakleitos flatly con-

tradicted

own

discovery without noticing

it,

and

that Plato, in discussing this very discovery, was also

blind to the contradiction.^

^ This is practically Lassalle's view of the Great Year, except that he commits the anachronism of speaking of "atoms" of fire instead of "measures." 2 Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels, and Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos believed in the e/cTri^pwo-ty. 3 In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to feel this last difficulty ; for

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
Nor
Plato's
is

179

there anything in Aristotle to set against

emphatic statement.
in

We
that

have .seen that the

passage

which
as

he

speaks

of

him

along

with

Empedokles
to

holding

the
in

heavens

were

alternately in one condition

and
to

another refers not

the world

in

general, but

fire,

which Aristotle
" first heaven."
^

identified with the substance of his

own

It

is

also quite consistent with our interpretation

all

when
all

he says that
fire.

things at one time or another

become

This does
fire

not necessarily

mean
is

that they

become

at the

same

time, but

merely a statement

of the undoubted Herakleitean doctrine of the upward

and downward

path.^

The
tion

only

clear

statements

to

the

effect

that

Herakleitos taught the doctrine of a general conflagraare

posterior

to

the

rise

of

Stoicism.
is

It

is

unnecessary to enumerate them, as there

no doubt

about

their

meaning.

The

Christian

apologists too

were interested

in the idea of a final conflagration,

and

reproduce the Stoic view.

is

The

curious thing, however,

that there was a difference of opinion on the subject

he now says : " It is a contradiction which he, and which probably Plato too {und den wahrscheinlich auch Plato) has not observed." This seems to me still less arguable. Plato may or may not be mistaken ; but he makes the perfectly definite statement that Herakleitos says def, while Empedokles says iv ixipei. The Ionian Muses are called avvToy torepat and the Sicilian
p.a\aKiJTpai. just

because the latter

is

*'

doctrine that this

^
"^

always so (t6

dei

lowered the pitch " raGra oVtus (x^iv).

{ix<i-\aaay) of the

See above,
Phys.

p. 177, n. 2.

205 a 3 {.Met. K, 10. 1067 a 4), CxjTtp 'EpdKXeirSs (f)<rip diravTa ylveadal irore irvp. Even in his filth edition (p. 691) Zeller
5,

translates this es

werde

alles dereinst
is

zu Fetter werden

but that would

there anything in his suggestion that &warra ("not merely vavra") implies that all things become fire at once. In Aristotle's day, there was no distinction of meaning between tos and dwas.
require
yevi^a-ea-dai.

Nor

Even

if

he had said
is

noticeable

What is really avp.TravTa, we could not press it. the present infinitive yiyeadai, which surely suggests a con-

tinuous process, not a series of conflagrations.

i8o
even
says

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

among
:

the Stoics.
that
all

In one place, Marcus Aurelius

are

"

So

these things

taken up into

the Reason of the universe, whether by a periodical

conflagration

or

renovation

effected

exchanges."

Indeed, there were

by external some who said there

" I

was no general conflagration

hear
say, "
all

at all in Herakleitos.
his

that," Plutarch

makes one of
and
I

personages

from

many

people,

see the Stoic conflagrajust as

it

tion spreading over

the

poems of Hesiod,

does over the writings of Herakleitos and the verses of

Orpheus."
^

We

see from this that the question

therefore expect that
settle
is
it

was

debated, and

we should

any

state-

ment of Herakleitos which could

quoted over and over again.
It

would be

highly significant

that not a single quotation of the kind can be produced.

On

the contrary, the absence of anything to

show

that Herakleitos spoke of a general conflagration only

becomes more patent when we turn to the few fragments

which are supposed to prove
it.

The

favourite

is fr.

24,

where we are told that Herakleitos said Fire was

Want
has a

and

Surfeit.

That

is

just in his

manner, and

it

perfectly

intelligible

meaning on our
fr.

interpretation,,

which
hand,
^

is
it

further

confirmed by

36.

On

the other

seems distinctly
x. 7,

artificial

to understand

the

Marcus Aurelius,
dre Kara

wcrre Kai

ravra

dvaXrjcpdTJvaL els rhv rov Skov

Xb-yov,

ireplodou iKwvpov/x^POVy

etre didlois dfJLOi^ais dvaueovfihov.

The

d/Moi^ai are specifically Herakleitean,

and the statement

is

the

more

remarkable as Mai'cus elsewhere follows the usual Stoic interpretation. 2 Plut. de def. orac. 415 f, nal 6 KXed/x^poros, 'Akoijco raOr', ^(fyrj, iroWuv
Kal
opu)
T7]v

liTWLKT^v

iKTTijpuxnv

CoaTTcp

TO.

'HpaKXeiTov

Kai

'Op<pi(as

iirive/xo/jJvTjv ^itt] oUtu)

Kai rd 'HaiSdov Kai crvve^dTrrovcav.

As

Zeller admits

693 n. ), this proves that some opponents of the Stoic iK-rrvpu}<ns tried withdraw the support of Herakleitos from it. Could they have done so if Herakleitos had said anything about it, or would not some one have produced a decisive quotation ? We may be sure that, if any one had, it would have been reiterated ad nauseam, for the indestructibiUty of the world was one of the great questions of the day.
(p.

to

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
thing else up, and
still

i8i

Surfeit as referring to the fact that fire has burnt every-

more so
most of

to interpret
it,

Want

as

meaning that
world.
its
is

fire,

or

has turned into a

The next
will
this,

is fr.

26, where

we
all

read that
things.

fire in

advance

judge and convict

There
fire

nothing in
all

however, to suggest that

will

judge

things at

once rather than

in

turn, and,

indeed, the phraseology reminds us of the advance of

fire

and water which we have seen reason

is

for attribut-

ing to Herakleitos, but which

limited to a certain

expressly said to be

maximum.^

These appear to be

the only passages which the Stoics and the Christian

apologists could discover, and, whether our interpretation of

them

is

right or wrong,

it is

surely obvious that

they cannot bear the weight of their conclusion, and

that there

was

certainly nothing

more

definite to

be

found.
It
is

much
"

easier to find

fragments which are on

the face of
tion.

them
thing,

inconsistent with a general conflagra"

The
same

measures

of

fr.

20 and

fr.

29 must be

the
in

the light of
fr.

fr.

and they must surely be interpreted If this be so, fr. 20, and more 23.
directly
"

especially

29,

contradict
will

the

idea

of a

general conflagration.

The sun

not overstep his

"

measures."

Secondly, the metaphor of

exchange,"
fr.

which

is

applied to the transformations of

fire in
is

22,

points in the

same

direction.

When

gold

given in

exchange

for

"measure"

wares and wares for gold, the sum or of each remains constant, though they
All the wares and gold do not
3,

change owners.
1

come
is

Uepl

SialT-ns,

i.

iy

fjUpei

5i iKdrepoy

Kparei

Kal

KpaTcirai

t6

fiT^Kiarov Kal iXdxtiTTOv

'*

ws dpvffrdv.

let

'* measures,** If any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the him compare the use of the word by Diogenes of ApoUonia, fir. 3.

82

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

same hands.
fire,

into the

In the same way,

when anything
and

becomes
be

something of equal amount must cease to

"

fire, if
it

the

exchange

" is

to be

a just one

that

will

be

just,
(fr.

we
29),

are assured

by the watchfulness
it

of the Erinyes

who

see to

that the sun does

is,

not take more than he gives.

Of
;

course there
is

as

we

have seen, a certain variation

fined within limits,

but this

strictly

con-

and

is

compensated

in the

long run
fr.

by a
in

variation in the other direction.

Thirdly,

43,

which Herakleitos blames

strife, is

Homer

for desiring

the

cessation of
strife

very conclusive.

The

cessation of

would
or

upward

mean that all downward path at

things should

take

the

the

same

time,

and cease

to " run in opposite directions."

If they all took the

upward

path,

we

should have a general conflagration.

Now,

if

Herakleitos had himself held that this was the

fate,

appointment of
upbraid
tion
? ^

would he have been

likely

to

Homer

for desiring so necessary a

consummathis world,^
is

Fourthly,

we note
it

that in

fr.

20

it is

and not merely the

be eternal
;

" ever-living fire,"

which
that

said to

and

appears
it

also
is

its

eternity

depends upon the

always going out

fact that
in

always kindling and

"

the

same
in

measures,"
is

or

that

an encroachment
a
subsequent

in

one direction

compensated by
other.

encroachment

the

Lastly,

Lassalle's

argument from the concluding sentence of

the
Ile/jl
StatV'?;?,

the passage from

^

quoted above,

is

This
is

is

just the

prove the necessity of

passage
^

dvTa7r65oo-ts,

argument which Plato uses in the Phaedo (72 c) to and the whole series of arguments in that

distinctly Herakleitean in character.

However we understand the term Kda-fjuos here, the meaning is the same. Indeed, if we suppose with Bernays that it means " order," the argument in the text will be all the stronger. In no sense of the word
could a
KbcfJios
KSa-fios

survive the iKiripuais, and the Stoics accordingly said the

was

(pdaprds.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
really

183
it

untouched by

Zeller's objection, that

it

cannot

be Herakleitean because
fire

implies that
this,

all

things are

and water.
like

It

does not imply

but only that

fire

man,

the heavenly bodies, oscillates between

;

and water
It

and that

is

just

what Herakleitos taught.

passage we read

does not appear either that the measures of earth

at
fire
all.

varied
neither

Now,
is

in this

that

nor water can prevail completely, and a

given for
this,

very good reason

is

a reason too which

other

in

striking

agreement with

the

views

of

Herakleitos.^
in

And, indeed,

it

is

not easy to see how,

accordance with these views, the world could ever

if

recover from a general conflagration

such a thing

were to take place.

far as
or, in

The whole

process depends, so
is

we can

see,

on the

fact that Surfeit

fire

also

Want,

other words, that an advance of

increases the

moist exhalation, while an advance of water deprives

the
fire

of the power to cause evaporation.

The
rise

con-

flagration,

though

it

lasted but for a moment,^

would
of a

destroy the opposite tension on which the

new world depends, and then motion would become

impossible.
1

Ilepi

Sia^Tijs,

TroJTeXws dOvarai
imXeiirei.
i] Tpo(f>-fi'

8icl

ovUnpov yhp KpaTTJffai 3 (see above, p. 167, n. 2), rdde ' t6 <t> irvp iire^ibv iirl rb faxarov toO OSaros airoTpiireTai. odv Sdev /xAXei Tpi<peadai t6 C5u)p re ^e^ibp
i.
'

rod TTvpbs

^irl

t6 ^crxaroj',

iiriXeiirei

i)

Kbrjcni'

Urarai o^v
vvpl

iv rovTip, Tor
^5

5^ arfi, ovKiri iyKpar^s icriv,

dW

i^5-q

Tip i/jLTrliTToyTi

t^v

Tpo<pi)P

KaTaua\laKTar ovSirepov 5k did ravra S^i/aTOi Kparrjirai trayreXOs, fl 84 wvp' TTore KpaT-qdd-n Kal ow&repoy, omv Av etrj tQv vvv ibvTUv Cbcxep fx^t
rd airrd Kal ovSirepov ov5afid ^tXcii^et. Diels seeks to minimise the difficulty a of the iKwOpuxrii by saying that it is only a little one, and can last but moment ; but the contradiction noted above remains all the same. Diels
oih-u 5k ix^vTiov del ^arai
2

In his note on

fr.

66

= 26 Byw.),

holds that Herakleitos was

"dark only

in form,"

and that "he himself

and scope of his ideas " {Herakleitos^^ To which I would add that he was probably called ''the Dark" p. i.). own ideas just because the Stoics sometimes found it hard to read their

was

perfectly clear as to the sense

into his words.

84
79.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

We
the
are

now

in

a position to understand more

clearly the law of strife or opposition

itself in

which manifests
path."

"upward and downward

is

At

any-

given moment, each of the three forms of matter, Fire,

Water, and Earth,

made up

of two equal portions,

subject, of course, to the oscillation described above,

one of which

is

taking the upward and the other the

downward

path.

Now,

it

is

just
"

the fact that

the

two halves of everything are being

and maintains them

drawn

in opposite

directions," this " opposite tension," that " keeps things

together,"

in

an equilibrium v/hich

can only be disturbed temporarily and within certain

limits.

It

thus forms the " hidden attunement " of the

47), though, in another aspect of
it,

universe
Strife.

(fr.

it

is

Bernays has pointed out that the word apfiovia

originally " structure,"

meant

and the

illustration of the

bow and

the lyre shows that this idea was present.

On

the other hand, that taken from the concord of

high and low notes shows that the musical sense of the
word, namely, an octave, was not wholly absent.
to the "

As

bow and

the lyre

" (fr.

45),

think that Professor

simile.

Campbell has best brought out the point of the

"

As

the arrow leaves the string," he says, " the hands

are pulling opposite

different parts of the

ways

to each other,

and to the

bow

(cf Plato, Rep. 4.

is

the sweet note of the lyre

439); and due to a similar tensio]

is

and
I

retention.
is

The

secret of the universe

all

the same."

War, then,

the father and king of

things, in th

^ Campbell's Theaetetus (2nd ed.), See above, p. 150, n. 2. p. 244. Bernays explained the phrase as referring to the shape of the bow and lyre, but this is much less likely. Wilamowitz's interpretation is substantially the same as Campbell's. "Es ist mit der Welt wie mit dem Bogen, den man auseinanderzieht, damit er zusammenschnellt, wie mit der Saite, die man ihrer Spannung entgegenziehen muss, damit sie klingt " {Lesebuch,

p. 129).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
world as in
that strife

185

human

society

(fr.

44)

and Homer's wish

a prayer
for the

might cease was

(fr.

really

destruction of the world

43).

We

know from

Philo that Herakleitos supported

strife

his theory of the

attainment of harmony through

;

by a multitude of examples
of these can be recovered.

and, as

it is

happens, some
a remarkable

There
this

agreement between a passage of

Aristotelian
treatise,

kind in the pseudo-

entitled

The Kosmos^ and the

referred.

Hippokratean work to which we have already

That the authors of both drew from the same

namely, Herakleitos,
practically certain
is

source,
is

probable in
fact

itself,

and

made

by the

that

this

agreement

extends

in

part to the Letters of Herakleitos, which,

though spurious, were certainly composed by some one

who had

access to the original work.

just in

was that men themselves act

Nature, and
it is

The argument the same way as

do not
painter

therefore surprising that they

recognise the laws by which she works.

The

produces

his

harmonious

effects

by the

contrast

of

colours, the musician {jy that of high and low notes.

" If

one were to make

all

things alike, there would

be

no delight
in

in

them."

There are many similar

tract,

examples

the

Hippokratean

some of which
;

must

certainly

easy to
1

but it come from Herakleitos separate them from the later additions.^
all

is

not

See on

this

Patin's Quellensiudien
i.

sentence (nf/oi

diairrj^,

5)

Kal

rd. fikv

irp-fiaaovcnv

The zu Heraklit (1881). ovk otdacnv, A 8^ oil

dXX'
bfiois
fir)

irp-qaaovai 8ok^ov<tiv eldivai' Kal

ainrolffi,

tA

fx^p

6p4ov<Tiv ov yivdio-Kovaiv,

irdura yherat

Kal & ^o^Xovrai Kal &

poiiXoprai,

has the
:

true Herakleitean ring.

This, too, can hardly have had another author

than to their understanding, though their But I speak eyes are not fit to judge even of the things that are seen. these things from understanding." These words are positively grotesque in
trust to their eyes rather

"They

the

mouth of the medical compiler

things from the Ephesian.

but we are accustomed to hear such Other examples which may be Herakleitean are
;

i86
Correlation of opposites.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

There are a number of Herakleitean fragments
form a class by themselves, and are among the
all

^OYi^hich

most striking of

the utterances that have

come
that

down

to

us.

Their

common

characteristic

is,

they assert

in

the most downright

way

the identity of

various things which are usually regarded as opposites.

The
one.

clue to their

meaning

is

to be found in the account

already given of the assertion that day and night are

We
that

have seen that Herakleitos meant to say,

not

day was night or that night was day, but

that they were two sides of the

same

process, namely,

the oscillation

of the

"

measures

" of fire

and water,
other.

and that neither would be possible without the

Any

explanation that can be given of night will also be

vice versa
is
;

an explanation of day, and

for

it

will

be

an account of that
manifests
itself
it is

which
as

now
it

common one and now

it

to both, as

and

the other.
itself in
;

Moreover,

just because

has manifested

the one form that

for this
Justice.
is

must next appear

in the other

required

by the law of compensation

or

This
principle
division.

is

only a particular application of the universal

that
It

the

primary
is,

fire

is

one even

in

its

itself

even in
(fr.

its

unity, both surfeit

and want, war and peace

" satiety "

36).

In other words, the

which makes

fire

pass into other forms, which

(frs.

makes
itself"
is

it

seek "rest in change"

10) in the " hidden

82, 83),
"

and "hide
the
as

(fr.

attunement

of opposition,
other
is

only one side of the process.

The

"

want

"

which leads

it

to

consume the bright vapour

is

fuel.

The upward path

nothing without the down-

and the

the image of the two

illustration

men sawing wood "one pushes, the other pulls" from the art of writing.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
ward
(fr.

187

69).

If either

were to cease, the other would

;

cease too, and the world would disappear

for

it

takes

both to make an apparently stable

reality.

All other utterances of the kind are to be explained

in

the

same way.
;

If there

were no

cold, there

would

be no heat
so far

for a thing

can only grow

warm
39).

if,

and

in

as, it is

already cold.

And the same

and dry
(fr.

thing applies

to the opposition of wet

will

These,

it

be observed, are just the two primary oppositions

is

of Anaximander, and Herakleitos

showing that the

it is

war between them

element in them
that very strife

is
(fr.

really peace, for

the

common
and

62) which appears as

strife,

is justice,

and

not, as

Anaximander had

taught, an injustice which they

other,

commit one against the

itself is

and which must be expiated by a reabsorption of

the

both in their common ground.^ The strife common ground (fr. 62), and is eternal.

The most
affirms that

startling of these sayings

evil are

is
(fr.

that which
5 7).

good and

the

same

This
is evil

does not mean

or that evil
is

in the least,

however, that good

good, but simply that they are the two

the same thing.
it

inseparable

halves of one and

thing can become good only in so far as

evil,

is

already

and

evil

only in so far as

it is

already good, and

everything depends on the contrast.

given in
say,
fr.

The

illustration

shows

this clearly.
it

Torture, one would

was an

evil,

and yet
evil,

is

made a good by
;

the

presence of another

namely, disease

as

is

shown
hand,

by the
it

fact that

surgeons expect a fee

Justice,

for inflicting

upon
is

their patients.

on the other

which
it

a good, would be altogether

unknown were
is

not for the existence of injustice, which

1

an

evil

Chap.

I.

16.

88
60).

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

And
that
is

(fr.

why

it

is

not good for

men

to

get everything they wish

tion of strife in the world

(fr.

104).

Just as the cessaits

would mean

destruction,

so the disappearance of hunger, disease,

and weariness

would mean the disappearance of

satisfaction, health,

and
t
/

rest.

This leads to a theory of relativity which prepares

the

way

for the doctrine of Protagoras, that "

all

Man

is

the measure of

things."^
(fr.

Sea-water

is

good

for fish

and bad
things.

for

men
the

52),

and so with many other

is

At

same

time, Herakleitos

not a believer
is

in absolute relativity.

The
"

process of the world

not

merely a

circle,

but an

upward and downward

path."

At
is

the upper end, where the two paths meet,

fire,

we have

the pure

in which, as there is

no separation, there
are good,

no

relativity.

We

are

told expressly that, while

to
all
is

man some

things are evil and

some things

things are good to

God
wise,"

(fr.

61).

Now

by God there

no doubt that Herakleitos meant

it

Fire.

He

also
it

calls
"

the
all

"

one

and perhaps was that

said

that

knows

things."

There can hardly be any question

to say
in
it

that w^hat he
tion

meant

the opposithe world

and

relativity

which are universal

in

disappear.

It is doubtless to this that

frs.

96, 97,

and

98
The
v^ise.

refer.

8
in

Herakleitos speaks of
senses.
"

"

wisdom

"

" or the " wise

two

We

have seen already that he said

else

wisdom was

something apart from everything

^ Plato's exposition of the relativity of knowledge in the Theaetetus (152 d sqq. ) can hardly go back to Herakleitos himself, but is meant to show how Herakleiteanism might naturally give rise to such a doctrine. If the soul is a stream and things are a stream, then ofcourseknowledge is relative. Very possibly the later Herakleiteans had worked out the theory in this direction, but in the days of Herakleitos himself the problem of knowledge had not yet arisen.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
(fr.
1

189

8),

meaning by

it

the perception of the unity of the

many ; and he also applies the term to that unity itself regarded as the " thought that directs the course of all
things."
is

This

is

synonymous with the pure

path.

fire

which

not differentiated into two parts, one taking the

upward and the other the downward

has wisdom
;

That alone

the partial things

ourselves are only wise in so far as

82.

we see have not. we are fiery (fr.

was
the

We
74).

With
call

certain reservations, Herakleitos

pre- Theology,

pared to
Such, at

the one

Wisdom by
it is

name

of Zeus.
fr.

least,

appears to be the meaning of

easy to guess.

65.
It is

What
saying

these reservations were,

not, of course, to
this,

be pictured

in the

form of a man.

In

Herakleitos would only have been repeating

laid

what had already been

Xenophanes.
j

down by Anaximander and

to be called so,
is

He

agrees further with Xenophanes in

if it is

holding that this " god,"

one

but his polemic against popular religion was directed

rather

against

the

rites

and

ceremonies themselves

than their mere mythological outgrowth.

list
(fr.

He

gives a

124)

of

some of the
of
his
is

most

characteristic

religious

figures

time,

and

the

context
in

in

which the fragment

quoted shows that he

some

way
(fr.

threatened them with the wrath to come. He comments upon the absurdity of praying to images
126),

and the strange idea that blood-guiltiness can

(fr.
1

be washed out by the shedding of blood

30).

He

seems also to have said that

the

it

was absurd to celebrate

worship of Dionysos by cheerful and licentious

ceremonies, while H_ades was propitiated by gloomy rites

(fr.

127).

According to the mystic doctrine

really

itself,

the

two were

one

and the one Wisdom ought to be

worshipped

in its integrity.

190

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

deal with theology

The few fragments which

sympathy with the

and

religion hardly suggest to us that

Herakleitos was in

religious revival of the time,

his
-^

and yet
" in

we have been asked to consider

light of the idea of the
is

system

the

mysteries."

Our
"

attention

called to the fact that he

is,

was

"

king

of Ephesos,

that

priest of the

branch of the Eleusinian mysteries

established in that city, which was also connected in

some way with the worship of Artemis

Mother.^

or the Great
;

These statements

may

be true

but, even if

they

are,

what follows

We
this
all

ought surely to have

learnt from
" idea "

Lobeck by
the

time that there was no

;

in

mysteries at
recent

and

on

this

point

the

results

of

anthropological
those

research

have

abundantly

confirmed

of

philological

and

historical inquiry.
Ethics of

83.

The moral teaching

theory of Ethics.^
insists
is,

of Herakleitos has some"

times been regarded as an anticipation of the

sense
"

commonvery

The

"

common

"

upon which

Herakleitos
different

nevertheless,
sense, for

something

from

common

which, indeed, he
(fr.

had the greatest possible contempt

in
fact, his

iii).

It

is,

strongest
in

objection

to

" the
(fr.

many," that
if

they

live

each

his

had a private wisdom of

opinion
is

own world their own

95), as

they

(fr.

92)

and public

therefore just the opposite of "the

common."

The
views.
^

Ethics of Herakleitos are to be regarded as

anthropological
is

a corollary of his

and
that

cosmological

Their chief requirement

we keep our

E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der

Mystei'ienidee (1886).
2

Antisthenes (the writer of Successions) ap. Diog.

ix.

6 (R. P. 31).

Cf. Strabo, xiy. p.

2

633 (R. P. 31
d.

b).

Kostlin, Gesch.

Ethik,

i.

pp. 160 sqq.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS
souls dry,

191

and thus assimilate them

fire.

to the

one Wisdom,

which
the
that

is

That
is

is

what

is

really

"common," and
asleep
(fr.

greatest fault
is,

to act like

men

94),

by
off

letting our souls

grow

moist, to cut

our-

selves

from the

fire

in

the world.

We

do not

know what were

deduced from

the consequences which Herakleitos

rule
it

his

that
is

we must hold
easy to
wise
see

fast

to

what

is

common, but
good without

what

their

nature must have been.

to secure

The
its

man would

not try

correlative evil.

He would He

not seek for rest without exertion, nor expect to enjoy

contentment without

first

suffering

discontent.

would not complain that he had to take the bad with

the good, but would consistently look at things as a
whole.

Herakleitos prepared the

state
city.

by comparing

"

the

way for the Stoic worldcommon " to the laws of a

more than a type of the
embodiments of
;

And
law
:

these are even

divine

they are

imperfect

it

They cannot, however, exhaust it altogether for in all human affairs there is an element of relativity
(fr.

91).

"Man
they
its

is

a baby compared to

God"
must

(fr.

97).
for

Such

as

are,

however, the
;

city

fight

them

as for

walls

and,

if it

has the good fortune

is

to possess a citizen with a dry soul, he

worth ten

thousand
embodied.

(fr.

113);

for in

him alone

is "

the

common

"

CHAPTER

IV

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
Life.

84.

PARMENIDES, son

of Pyres, was

citizen

of

Hyele, Elea, or Velia, a colony founded in

Oinotria

by refugees from Phokaia

tells
B.C.),

in

540-39
the

B.C.^

Diogenes

us that he "flourished" in 01.

LXIX. (504-500
date
given

and

this

was

doubtless

by
that

Apollodoros.^

On

the

other

hand, Plato says

in

Parmenides came to Athens

his

sixty -fifth year,

accompanied by Zeno, and conversed with Sokrates,

who was

then quite young.

Now

Sokrates was just

;

when he was put to death in 399 B.C. and therefore, if we suppose him to have been an
over seventy
ephebos^ that
is,

from

eighteen

to

twenty years

old,

at the time of his interview with Parmenides,

we

get

451-449
hesitate
^

B.C. as

the date of that event.

Plato's

do not
as

to
ix.

accept

statement,^

especially

Diog.

165 sqq. 2 Diog.

It

21 (R. P. III). For the foundation of Elea, see Herod, i. was on the coast of Lucania, south of Poseidonia (Paestum). Cf. Diels, Rhein. Mus. xxxi. p. 34; and ix. 23 (R. P. III).

Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq. 3 Plato, Farm. 127 b (R. P. ill d). There are, as Zeller has shown, a certain number of anachronisms in Plato, but there is not one of this In the first place, we have exact figures as to the ages of character.

Parmenides and Zeno, which imply that the latter was twenty-five years younger than the former, not forty as Apollodoros said. In the second place, Plato refers to this meeting in two other places {Tht. 183 e 7 and Soph. 217 c 5), which do not seem to be mere references to the dialogue
192

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
we have independent evidence
to Athens, where Perikles
is

193
of
"

of the
to

visit

Zeno

said

have

heard

him.^

The date

given

by Apollodoros, on the other

hand, depends solely on that of the foundation of Elea,

which he had adopted as the floruit of Xenophanes.

Parmenides
in
is

born

in that year, just as

Zeno

is

born

the year when Parmenides

" flourished."

Why

any

one should prefer these transparent combinations to

the testimony of Plato,
I

am

at a loss to understand,

though

it

is

equally a mystery

why Apollodoros him55)

that
Aristotle

self should

have overlooked such precise data.

seen

We
mentions

have
a

already

statement which

made Parmenides
in

the
testi-

disciple of

Xenophanes
and

but the value of this

mony
he

is

diminished
it

by the doubtful way

is

which
he
is

speaks,

more than
Plato

likely
in

that

only referring
It
is,

to

what

says

the

Sophist}

we

also saw, very improbable that

it

Xenophanes

founded the school of Elea, though

is

quite possible

he

visited that city.

He

tells
still

us himself that, in his

ninety-second year, he was

(fr. 8).

wandering up and down

At

that time Parmenides would be well advanced

in

life.

And we must
"

not

overlook

the

statement

of Sotion, preserved to us by Diogenes, that, though

Parmenides ^ heard
him.
the
"

Xenophanes, he did not

this

" follow

'*

According to
associate
" "

account, our philosopher was

of a Pythagorean, Ameinias, son of

Diochaitas,

poor
a

but

noble
as
to

man
a

to

whom
It

he

afterwards

built

shrine
parallel

hero."

was

entitled Parmenides.

can be quoted for an anachronism so glaring 'and deliberate as this would be. E. Meyer {Gesch. des AUerlh. iv. 509, Anm.) also regards the meeting of Sokrates and Parmenides as
historical.
^

No

Plut. Per. 4, 3.

See below,
II. p.

p. 358, n. 2.
2.

See above, Chap.

140, n.

13

194
Ameinias

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and
to

not

Xenophanes

that

"

converted

Parmenides

the philosophic

life.^

This does not

that the

read like an invention, and

we must remember
about

Alexandrians

had

information

the history of
shrine erected

Southern Italy which we have not.

The

by Parmenides would
also

still

be there

in later days, like

It

the grave of Pythagoras at Metapontion.

should

be mentioned that Strabo describes Parmenides

talks of a

and Zeno as Pythagoreans, and that Kebes

"

Parmenidean and Pythagorean way of

all

life." ^

Zeller

explains

this

by supposing

that, like

Empedokles,

Parmenides approved of and followed the Pythagorean

mode
It
is

of

life

without adopting the Pythagorean system.

that
35),
;

possibly true
(

Parmenides

believed

in

"philosophic life"

and that he got the idea

but
there
is

from

the

Pythagoreans

very

little

trace, either

in his writings

or in what
in

we

are

told

about him, of his having been

any way

affected

by the

religious side of Pythagoreanism.

is

The

writing

of Empedokles

obviously modelled
is

upon that of
so

Parmenides, and yet there

the
two.

an impassable gulf between

is

The touch
model.
It

of charlatanism, which
copy,
true,
is

strange

a feature in the
is

altogether

absent

from

the

no doubt, that there

are traces of Orphic ideas in the

1

poem

of Parmenides

^
;

Diog.

ix.

21 (R. P. Ill), reading

Sotion, in his

'A/JLeLplg.

Aioxoira with Diels {Hermes,

separated Parmenides from
146,

XXXV. p.
148, 166).
2

197).

Successions,

Xenophanes and associated him with the Pythagoreans {Dox. pp.

Strabo,
is vi. i, p.

252

(p. 195, n. i)

Ceb. Tab. 2 (R. P.

in

c).

This

Kebes
the

not the Kebes of the Phaedo

but he certainly lived some time

who speaks of him as a well-known writer. A Cynic of mentioned by Athenaios (156 d). The statements of Strabo for they are based upon historians now lost. are of the greatest value ^ O. Kern in Arch. iii. pp. 173 sqq. We know too little, however, of the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century B.C. to be sure of the details. All we can say is that Parmenides has taken the form of his poem from
before Lucian,

name

is

PAUMENIDES OF ELEA
but they are
introduction
all

195

to be found either in the allegorical

or in

the second part of the poem, and

we need not
Parmenides

therefore take

them very

seriously.

Now
had
little

was

western

Hellene, and
it

he
a

probably been

a Pythagorean, so

is

not

remarkable that he should be so free from the

common
any-

tendency of his age and country.

where, that

It is here, if

we may

trace the influence of Xenophanes.

As

regards his relation to the Pythagorean system,

shall

have something to say

later on.

At

present

we we

need only note further

that, like

most of the older

;

philosophers, he took part in politics

and Speusippos
city.

recorded that he legislated for his native

Others

add

that the magistrates

of Elea

made

the citizens

swear every year to abide by the laws which Parmenides

had given them.^

85. Parmenides

was

really the

first

philosopher to The poem,

expound

his

system

in metrical language.
it

As

there

is

some confusion on
of explanation.

this subject,

deserves a few words

J.

In writing of Empedokles, Mr.

"

A.

Symonds

said

The age

in

which he lived had not

in

yet thrown

off the

form of poetry

philosophical
his
is

composition.
austere

Even
to

Parmenides

had committed
verse."

theories
put.

hexameter

Now

this

wrongly

The

earliest philosophers,
all

Anaximander,
in prose,

Anaximenes, and Herakleitos,

the only Greeks
some such source. Parmenides" {^Berl.

wrote

and

who

ever wrote philosophy in verse

'* Ueber die poetischen Vorbilder des and the Introduction to his Parmenides

See Diels,
Sitzb.

1896),

Lehrgedicht^ pp. 9 sqq. ^ Diog. ix. 23 (R. P.

(airrov

III).

Plut. adv. Col.

apla-rois,

1226

a, UapfievlSris S^

tV
vi.

iraTpida

8iK6(rnr}<7

vdfiois

Sxm

rds dpx^i xad' iKacrov

i/6/xoty.

iviavrbv i^opKovv
I.

toi>s troXlTas
tJs

^fifieveiv rots

Uap/ieviSov

Strabo,

p. 252, ('EX^aj/) (^
fioi

IlapiJipi5r}s Kal
irt.

Zt^vuv iyivovTO &v8p(s U.v$ay6pi<H.

SoKcl d4

Kai

5t'

^Kcivovs Kal

irpbmpov evvoniidTJvax.

196

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and Empedokles
a
;

at all were just these two, Parmenides

for

Xenophanes
than
;

was

not

primarily

philosopher
copied

any more
Parmenides

Epicharmos.
he,

Empedokles

and

no doubt, was influenced by

But the thing was an
itself.

Xenophanes and the Orphics.

innovation, and one that did not maintain

The fragments
in

of Parmenides are preserved for the

most part by Simplicius, who fortunately inserted them

his

commentary, because
rare.^
I

in

his time the original

work was already

Diel^.;
\

follow the arrangement of

'

n/ >
car that bears
it

,; (0

desired, since

me carried me as far as ever my heart me and set me on the renowned way of the goddess, which alone leads the man who knows through all things. On that way was I borne along for on it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my car, and maidens showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the socket for
The
brought
;

it

was urged round by the whirling wheels

at

each

end

gave forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the

Sun, hasting to convey
10 veils

me
and

into the light, threw

left

back their

from

off their faces

the abode of Night.

above with a

There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day,^ fitted lintel and below with a threshold of stone.

15

themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, and Avenging Justice keeps the keys that fit them. Her did the maidens entreat with gentle words and cunningly persuade to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates.

They

Then, when the doors were thrown back, they disclosed a

wide opening, when
nails

their brazen posts fitted with rivets

after the other.

and

swung back one

Straight through them,

20

on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the
^

Simpl. Phys.

144, 25 (R. P.
at
his

117).

Simplicius, of course,

had the

library of the

Academy

command.

Diels notes, however, that

Proclus seems to have used a different MS. For these see Hesiod, 7'heog. 748.
'^

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
car,

197

and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand in hers, and spake to me these words Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car
!

that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers

It is

no

ill

25

chance, but right and justice

travel

that has
it

sent thee
lie

forth

to

on

this way.
!

Far, indeed, does

it

from the beaten

track of

men

Meet

is

that thou shouldst learn all things,

as

as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth,

the

opinions of mortals in which

is

no

true belief at
also,

all.

none the
are,

less shalt

thou learn these things

the
all

how they
inquiry,

Yet 30

should have judged that

things

which seem to them

as thou goest through

things in thy journey.^

But do thou
nor
let

restrain thy thought from this

way of

by its much experience force thee to cast upon this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue but judge by argument the much disputed proof uttered by me. There is only one way left that can be spoken of.^ ... R. P.
habit
;

35

113.

The Way of Truth

(^)

Look
if

steafdastly with thy

mind

at things

though afar as
is

they were at hand.

fast

Thou
is,

canst not cut off what

itself

from
in

holding

to

what

neither scattering

abroad

>

order nor coming together.

R. P.
(3)

1 1

a.

It is all

one

to

me

where

begin

for I shall

come back

again there.

(4.5)

Come

now,

will tell
it

saying and carry

away

thee

and
the

do thou hearken
zs^

to

my
it

the only two ways of search that

can be thought
is

of.
it

The

first,

namely, that //
is

and

that

impossible for

not to be,

way of

belief, for truth is

See below,

p. 211, n. i.
fr.

^ I

read fivdoi as in the parallel passage

8 ad

itiit.

Diels's inter-

pretation of 6vfih% bboto (the

MS.

reading here) as ein Ubendiger

is

not convince me, and the confusion of the two words

fairly

Wr^does common.

198
5 its
it

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The
be,

companion.

other, namely,

that //

is not,

and
not

that

must needs not

all.

that, I tell thee, is

a path that none can

is

learn of at
is

impossible

nor

For thou canst not know what

utter
it
;

that

for

it is

the same thing that can

be thought and that can

be.^

R. P. 114.
(6)

It

needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of

it is

is

for
is

possible for

it

to be,
is

and
what

it

is

not possible for

I

what

nothing to be.^
this

This
first

bid thee ponder.

hold thee back from

5

other also,

upon

way of inquiry, and from this which mortals knowing naught wander
borne along stupefied
like

two-faced; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in

their breasts, so that they are

men
it is,

deaf and blind.

Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes

all
*

and

is

not, the

same and not the same,^ and

!

things travel

in opposite directions

R. P.

1 5.

(7)

For
^

this shall

never be proved, that the things that are not

558 n. i, Eng. trans, p. 584, n. l) to yap ai/rb Apart from the philosophical anachronism of making Parmenides say that " thought and being are the same," it is a grammatical anachronism to make him use the infinitive (with or without
I read with Zeller (p.
voetv

^ariv re

Kal elvai.

the article) as the subject of a sentence.

On

the other hand, he does use

the active infinitive after elvai in the construction where

passive infinitive (Monro, JI. Gr, 231 sub Jin.
for thinking,"
i.e.
).

we

usually use a

" are " can be thought." 2 The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note. It is surprising that good scholars should acquiesce in the translation of to \iyeiv T voeip T as " to say and think this." Then ?<tti yap elvai. means "it can be," not "being is," and the last phrase should be construed
Cf.
fr.

4, eiVt I'OTjo-at,

ovK iari
'^

fjjqbkv {etvai).

I construe

oh

veudfjLiarai

to ir^Xeiv re Kai

oiK
oiiK

elvai
etvai is

rairrbv

koI

ov

Tairrbv.

The

subject of the infinitives iriXeiv Kal

^a-riv

the

zV,

which

has to be supplied also with

and ovk

^<xtiv.

This way of taking the

(t6) ovk elvai
is

words makes
instead of (t6)
TrAetJ'
*

it

unnecessary to believe that Parmenides said

el^at for

/jlt)

"not-being."

There

no

difference

between

and

elvai

except in rhythmical value.

of Herakleitos.

take TrdvTuv as neuter and understand TraXivTpoiros K^Xevdos as

k6.toj

equivalent to the 656s dvu

do not think
ap/xovirj.

anything to do with the iraXlvTovos (or TraXivTpoTros)

Ill, p. 150, n. 2.

it has See Chap.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
are; and do thou restrain thy
inquiry.

199
this

thought

from

way of

R. P. 116.
(8)

One
In
it

path only

is left

for us to

speak

of,
is

namely, that //
is

is.

are very
;

many
for
it

tokens that what

is

uncreated and

indestructible

it

complete,^ immovable, and without

end.

Nor was

once, a continuous one.

thou look for?

will it be; for now it isj all at\ For what kind of origin for it wilt In what way and from what source could it

ever,

nor

have drawn
that
it

its

increase

?
is

I shall not let thee say

nor think

came from what

not
not.
it

for

it

can neither be thought

if it

nor uttered that anything

Therefore must
will

is

And,

came from

nothing,

what need could have made

it

arise later rather than sooner ? 10

all.

either be altogether or be not at

Nor
from
'

-^
^

the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides

is

itself

that which
fetters

not.^

Wherefore, Justice doth not loose her

and
it

let

anything

holds
//

fast.

come into being or pass away, but Our judgment thereon depends on this "Is
:

15

or

is it

not}''

Surely

it

is

adjudged, as

it

needs must be,

way as unthinkable and no true way), and that the other path is real and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into 20
that

we

are to set aside the one

(for
it

nameless

is

being,

it

is

not

nor

is

it

if it

is

going to be in the future.

to be

Thus
heard

is

becoming extinguished and passing away not

R. P. 117.
divisible, since
it is all

of.
is it

Nor
^

alike,

and there

is

no more

I still prefer
c).

to read ion. yd.p oi\ofie\4s

{ill

with Plutarch {adv.

Col.

1114

Proklos

Parm.

152, 24) also read oyXo/ieX^y.

Simplicius,

who has fiovpoyevis here, calls the One of Parmenides o\ofjie\^s elsewhere {Phys. p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.] Strom. 5, fxovvov fioivoyevis helps to explain the confusion. have only to suppose that the letters

We

Academy copy of Parmenides mind. ^ Diels formerly read (k ttt] idvroi, " from that which in any way is" ; but he has now reverted to the reading iK firj idvTos, supposing that the other horn of the dilemma has dropped out. In any case, " nothing but
fi,

y were written above by some one who had Tim.

p,
.

the line in the

31

b 3

in

what
^

is

not can arise from what

difficulties

is

not " gives a perfectly good sense.

felt

For the
If the

which have been

about /xdWov
is

here, see Diels's

;

note.

word

is

to be pressed, his interpretation

admissible

but

it

200
of
it

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in

one place than

nor
it
is.

in another, to hinder
it,

it

from holding
of what
is.

together,

less
is

of

but everything
;

is

full

25 Wherefore

wholly continuous

for

what

is, is

in contact

with what

bonds of mighty chains, coming into being and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away. It is the same, and it rests in the self-same
Moreover,
it

is

immovable

in the
;

without beginning and without end

since

30 place, abiding in
its

itself.

And

thus

it
it

remaineth constant in
in the

place;

for

hard necessity keeps

it

bonds of the
it is

limit that holds

fast

on every
;

side.

Wherefore
it

not per-

mitted to what
while, if
it

is

to be infinite
it

for

is

in

need of nothing

were

infinite,

would stand

in

need of everything.^
that for the sake of
for

R. P. 118.

The
35

thing that can be thought

exists is the

which the thought

and same ^
;

you cannot find

it

thought without something that

is,

as to

which

is

uttered.^

And
is,

there

is

not,

and never
it

shall be,

anything besides what

since fate has chained

all

so as to be whole and immovable.

Wherefore

40 given, believing

names which mortals have into being and passing away, being and not being, change of place and
these things are but

them

to

be true

coming
it

alteration of bright colour.

R. P. 11 9.
limit,
is

Since, then,
side, like the

it

has a furthest

complete on every

mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from

direction
;

45 the centre in every

for

it

cannot be greater or
is

smaller in one place than in another.

For there

no nothing

seems to
true that

me
it is

that this

is

simply an instance of "polar expression."

is
;

It is

only the case of there being less of what

in

one place than

if

another that
in

is

important for the divisibility of the

One

but

there

is less

one place, there is more in another than in that place. The Greek language tends to express these implications. The position of the relative clause makes a difficulty for us, but hardly for a Greek. ^ Simplicius certainly read /iTj khv 5' hv iraprbs idelTo, which is metrically impossible. I have followed Bergk in deleting /xri, and have interpreted with Zeller. So too Diels. ^ For the construction of ^crri voeTv, see above, p. 198, n. I.
'

As

Diels rightly

points
I

out,

the
is

Ionic

(pari^eiv

is

equivalent to
as
is

ovofid^eiv.

The meaning,

think,

choose, but there can be no thought

may name things corresponding to a name that

this.

We

we
not

the

name

of something real.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
that could keep
that
is
it

201

from reaching out equally, nor can aught

less there

be more here and

than what
it

is,

since

it is

all

inviolable.

For the point from which

is

equal in every

direction tends equally to the limits.

R. P. 120.

The Way of Opinion

Here
about the
shall
truth.

close

my

trustworthy speech and thought 50

Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals,

giving ear to the deceptive ordering of

my

words.

Mortals have

made up
truth.

their

minds

to

name two
that
is

forms,

one of which they should not name,^ and

go astray from the
from one another.

where they

They have

distinguished

them

as 55

opposite in form, and have assigned to them marks distinct

To

the one they allot the

fire

of heaven,

gentle, very light, in every direction the

same

as

itself,

but not
it,

the same as the other.

The
it

other

is

just the opposite to

dark night, a compact and heavy body.

the whole arrangement as

Of
;

these I

tell

thee 60

seems

likely

for so

no thought

of mortals

will

ever outstrip thee.

(9)

R. P. 121.

Now
the

that all things have

to

been named

light

and

night,

and
been
at

names which belong

light

the power of each have

assigned to these things and to those, everything

is full

once of

and dark

night,

both equal, since neither has

aught to do with the other.

(10, II)

And

thou shalt

know

the substance of the sky, and

all

the

signs in the sky, sun's pure torch,

and and whence they

the resplendent works of the glowing

arose.

And

thou shalt learn

likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced

^

moon, and
me
the
eitu

This

is Zeller's

way

of taking the words, and

still

seems to

best.

Diels objects that erip-qv would be required, and renders

nur

derselben, das set unerlatibt^ giving the

words to the "mortals."

This

seems to
of
tiio.v

me

to involve

more

serious grammatical difficulties than the use

for

tV

ir^pav,

which

is

quite legitimate
it

when
;

there

is

on the number.
the
nop<l>ai is to

Aristotle must have taken

so

for

he

infers that

an emphasis one of

be identified with rd

i6v.

202
5

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Thou
shalt

of her substance.

know,

too, the

heavens that sur-

round

whence they arose, and how Necessity took them and how the earth, bound them to keep the Hmits of the stars and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is common to all, and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos, and the
us,
. .
.

10

burning might of the stars arose.

(12)

R. P. 123, 124.

The

narrower rings are

filled

with unmixed

fire,

and those

next them with night, and in the midst of these rushes their
portion of
fire.

In the midst of these

;

circles is the divinity

is

that directs the course of all things

5 all

for she

the beginner of

painful birth

and

all

begetting, driving the female to the

to that of the female.

embrace of the male, and the male

R. P. 125.
(13)
First of all the

gods she contrived Eros.

(14)

R. P. 125.

Shining by night with borrowed

the earth.
(15)

light,^

wandering round

Always looking

to the

beams of the
('6)

sun.

For just as thought finds at any time the mixture of

erring organs, so does
is
it

its

come
is

to

men

for that

which thinks

the same, namely, the substance of the limbs, in each

every

man

for their

thought

that of

which there

is

and more in

them.2
1

R. P. 128.
//. v.

Note the curious echo of

discovered that the

214.

Empedokles has

it

too

(v.

154).
it

It

appears to be a joke,
^

first

made in the moon shone by

spirit

of Xenophanes,

when

was-

reflected light.

the second part of the

This fragment of the theory of knowledge which was expounded in poem of Parmenides must be taken in connexion with what we are told by Theophrastos in the *' Fragment on Sensation" {Dox,

499 ; cf. p. 222). It appears from this that he said the character of men's thought depended upon the preponderance of the light or the dark element in their bodies. They are wise when the light element predominates^ and foolish when the dark gets the upper hand.
p.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
(17)

203

On

the right boys

on the

left girls.^

(19)

Thus, according to men's opinions, did things come into being, and thus they are now. In time they will grow up

and pass away. To each of these things men have assigned a fixed name. R. P. 129 b.
S6.

In

the

First

Part

of

his

poem, we
// zs
;

find "it

is.

Parmenides chiefly interested to prove that

it is

but

not quite obvious at

is.

first

sight

what

it

is

precisely

that

He

says simply,

W/mt

zSj zs.

To

us this does

not seem very clear, and that for two reasons.

first

In the
it,

place,

we should never
therefore,

think of doubting

and
be

we

cannot,

understand

why
sorts

it

should

asserted with such iteration

place,

and vigour.
to
all

In the second
of distinctions
reality,

we

are accustomed

between different kinds and degrees of

and we
"

do not see which of these

which
with

is

meant.

Such

distinctions,

however, were quite unknown in those days.

is,"

That
in
is
is
\

Parmenides,

is

primarily
;

what,

popular language,

we

call

matter or body

only
else.
it is

it

not matter as distinguished from anything

certainly regarded as spatially extended
;

It

for

quite

seriously spoken of as a sphere

(fr.

8, 40).

Moreover,

Aristotle tells us that Parmenides believed in none but

a sensible reality, which does not necessarily

mean with
senses,
if

him a

reality that

is

actually perceived

by the

but includes any which might be so perceived

senses were
^

the

more
the

perfect than they are.^

Parmenides
Diels's
fr.

This

is

a fragment of Parmenides's embryology.

of

18

retranslation

Latin

hexameters of
iKctvoi

Caelius

Aurelianus

is a quoted

R. P. 127 a.
2 Arist.

de

Caeh, P,
did.

i.

298 b 21,
ixkv

Si (oi repi MiXiffffSf re ccU

rifv

llap/j.vi5r}v)

rb

firjdku

AWo

vapd.

tuv

aladrirQp

odfflai^

204

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

"

does not say a word about

asser tion

Being
jiif^ t

"

anywhere.^
to
is

The
the

that
is

it

is
;

ar"^""^s

th is, that

universe
as

a plenum

and th at there
insid e

no ^uch thing
.

empty
this

space, either
it

or

outside the world

From

follows that there can be

no such thing as
with an impulse

niotiqn.

Instead of endowing the

One

to change, as
it

Herakleitos had done, and thus making

capable of explaining the world, Parmenides disillusio n.

missed change as an
that
if

He showed

once for a ll
to

you take the One seriously you are bound

els_e .

deny

e very t hing

All previous solutions of the

question, therefore,

had missed the point

Anaximenes,

who thought
by

to save the unity of the

primary substance

his theory of rarefaction

and condensation, did not

less

observe that, by assuming there was

of what

is in

one place than another, he virtually affirmed the existence

of what
is

not

(fr.

8,

42).

The Pythagorean
air

explanation implied that empty space or

outside the world, and that
the units
(
it

existed

entered into

it

to separate

53).

It,
is

too,

assumes the existence of

of Herakleitos

what

is

not.

Nor
;

the theory
it is

any

more
that

satisfactory
fire

for
is

based upon the contradiction

(fr.

both

is

and

not

6).

The
(a/>.

allusion to Herakleitos in the verses last referred

So too Eudemos,
ina
B.u

VTToXa/x^dveLv ehac k.t.X.

in the
:

first

book of
iK

his Physics

Simpl.
ofjTe

F/ijfs. p.

133, 25), said of Parmenides

to.

t6 fih odv kolvov ovk hu

vcrrepov
ttcUs

X^yoi.

yap

e^-qTelrb

Toiavra,

dX\'

rdv Xoywv
^arai.

irpoifKdev,

oOre iTriSexoiTO

rip

6vti eirCkiyH.
rip 8^

yhp

tovto

" fi^aa-odev
in the

IcroTraXes" Kal to, TOiavra ;

oipavip (the world) cx^^of

irdvTes i(/)app.6aov(nv ol toiovtoi \6yoi.

The

Neoplatonists, of course, saw

figment."

calls the sphere a "mythical See especially Bailmker, "Die Einheit des Parmenideischen Seiendes " (ya/^r^. /. ki. Phil. 1886, pp. 541 sqq.), and Das Problem der

One

the vorfrbs

Kda-fios,

and Simplicius

Materie, pp. 50 sqq. ^ We must not render rh ibv by " Being,"

**

dSa:^

Sein ot titre.
it

It

is

what

is,"

das Seiende, ce qui

est.

As

to {t6) elvai

does not, and could

not, occur.

Cf. p. 198, n. i, above.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
to has been doubted, though

205

upon

insufficient grounds.

Zeller points out quite rightly that

Herakleitos never

says Being and not-Being are the same (the

translation of
fr.

common
more

6, 8)

and, v/ere there nothing

than

this,

the

reference

might well seem doubtful.

The

statement, however, that, according to the view in

question, "all things travel in opposite directions," can

hardly be understood of anything but the

"

upward and
And,
as

downward path" of Herakleitos

71).

we

have seen, Parmenides does not attribute the view that

Being and not-Being are the same to the philosopher

whom
the

he

is

attacking

he pnly says that

it \s

and

is

not

same and not the same.^ That is the natural meaning of the words and it furnishes a very accurate
;

description of the theory of Herakleitos.

87.
is

The

great novelty in the

poem
first

of Parmenides The method

is

the

method of argument.
presupposition of
all

He

asks what

the

common
what
is

the views with which he

is

has to deal, and he finds that this

not.

the existence o f
this

The next
the answer

question
is

is

whether

can b e

t hought,

^n d

that

it

cannot.

If

you think

at

all,

you must think of somethin g.

nothing^.

Therefore there

is __no

Philosophy had not yet learned to

\

make

the admission that a thing might be unthinkable

exist.

and nevertheless
be thought
(fr.

Only

that can be which can

5); for thought exists for the sake of

what

is (fr. 8,

34).
carries out with the

^This method Parmenides

rigour.

utmost

He

will

not have us pretend that

to be unthinkable.

we think
that

what we must admit

if

It is true

we

resolve to allow nothing but

what we can under-

stand,

we come

into direct conflict with the evidence

^

See above,

p. 198, n. 3.

2o6

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

So much the worse
for the senses, says

of our senses, which present us with a world of change

and decay.
Parmenides.

To many

this
let

will

doubtless

seem

mistake on his part, but

say on the point.
inevitable

us see What history has to

of Parmenides
is

The theory

the

outcome of a corporeal monism, and

it

his bold

declaration of
for ever.
If

ought to have destroyed that theory

he had lacked courage to work out the

prevailing views of his time to their logical conclusion,

and to accept that conclusion, however paradoxical

might seem to
be,

it

men might have gone on

for ever.
It

in

the

endless circle of opposition, rarefaction and condensation,

one and many,

of

was the thorough-

going dialectic
possible.

Parmenides

that

made

progress

Philosophy must now cease to be moni^ic

It

or cease to be corporealist.
corporealist
;

could not cease to be

for the incorporeal

was

still

unknown.

It

therefore

ceased

to

be monistic, and arrived at the

far as

atomic theory, which, so

we know,
is

is

the last

word of the view that the world

matter in motion.

Having worked out

its

problems on those conditions,

side.
It

philosophy next attacked them on the other

ceased to be corporealist, and found
it

possible to be

monistic once more, at least for a time.

This progress

would have been impossible but

for that faith in reason

which gave Parmenides the courage to

reject as untrue

what was to him

result

unthinkable, however strange the

might

be.
all

The

results.

88.

He

goes on to develop
it
is.

the conseque nces of

the admission that

indestructible.
for jthere is
It

It

must be uncreated and

;

cannot have arisen out of noth ing

.

no such thing as nothing

;

Nor can
no room

it

have
any-

arisen from something

for there is

for

PARMENIDES QF ELEA

207
it
;

thing b ut

itsel f.

-WhSt

is

cannot have beside

else

any
for

empty space

in
is

which something

might

arise

empty space
nor
is
it

nothing, nothing cannot be thought, and

therefore cannot exit.

What is,
.If it
is,

never came into being,

in the future.

anything going" to come into being

or
is
it

"Is

not?"

then

it

is

now,

all

at

once.

That Parmenides was

really

denying the existence

of empty space was quite well known to Plato.

says that Parmenides held "
all

He
in

things were one, and

that the one remains at rest in

itself,

having no place
clear.

which

to

move."^
it

Aristotle

is'

no

less

In the

de Caelo he lays
to take

down

that Parmenides was driven

up the position that the One was immovable

no one had yet imagined that there was
than sensible
;

just because

any

reality other

reality.^

That which
There
plenum
i

is, is

and

it

cannot be more or
of
it

less.

is,

therefore, as

much
is

in

one place as

in

another,
.

and the world

continuous, indivisibl e
it

From
If

this
it

it

follows at once that

it

must b e

mmovable.

moved,

must move

into an

empty
in

sp^c e. and there

is

no empty spac e.
real,
finite,

It is

hemmed

by what
reason,
it.

is,

by the

on every

side.

For the same

\

it

must be

and can have nothing beyond

It is

complete in

itself,

and has no need to stretch

exist.

out indefinitely into an empty space that does not

Hence,

too,

it is

spherical.
is

It is

equally real in every

direction,

and the sphere

the only form which meets

this condition.

Any

other would be in one direction

more than
^

in

another.

And
'iv

this

sphere cannot even

Plato,

Tht.

180 e

3,

wj

re vojuto. iari Kal far-qKey avrb iv airrt^

ci/K
2

(xof X^P-^ ^'' V Kivelrai. Arist. de Caelo, T, i. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 203, n.

2.

208

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

its

move round
of
Parmenides
the father of materialism.
it

own

axis

for there is
it

nothing outside

with reference to which

could be said to move.

is^

89.

To sum

up.

What

is

a
is

finite,

spherical,

motionless corporeal //<?;, and there

it.

nothing beyond

The appearances

of multiplicity and motion,

empty

space and time, are

illusions.

We

see from this that

the primary substance of which the early cosmologists

were

in

search has
It

now become

a sort of " thing in

itself."

never quite lost this character again.

What

appears later as the elements of Empedokles, the socalled "

homoeomeries " of Anaxagoras and the atoms

is

of Leukippos and Demokritos,

" being."
"

just the

Parmenidean
said,

Parmenides
;

is

not, as

some have
all

the

father of idealism "

his

on the contrary,
reality.

materialism

depends on
The
*'

view of

beliefs of

90.
his

It is

commonly

said that, in the

Second Part of

mortals."

poem, Parmenides offered a

dualistic theory of the

origin of things as his

own

conjectural explanation of

the sensible world, or that, as

Gomperz

says, "
;

What
this

he offered were the Opinions of Mortals

and

description did not merely cover other people's opinions*

It

included his

own

as well, as far as they were not

confined to the unassailable ground of an

philosophical necessity."
^

apparent

Now

it

is

true that in

one

place Aristotle appears to countenance a view of this

sort,

but nevertheless

it is

an anachronism.^

Nor

is it

really Aristotle's view.

1

He was
a).

perfectly well

aware

2
is

Greek Thinkers, pp. 180 sqq. Met. A, 5. 986 b 31 (R. P. 121

Aristotle's

way of

putting the matter

due to his interpretation of fr. 8, 54, which he took to mean that one of the two " forms " was to be identified with t6 iv and the other with t6 /xt; Cf. Gen. Corr. A, 3. 318 b 6, (acrirep JIapiJ.vi57]S X^yei 5tjo, rb bv koI t6 tv. This last sentence shows clearly that when Aristotle jXTfj bv etvat <f)da-Kc>}v. He cannot says U.apiJ.vi5r]s, he means what we should call " Parmenides." have supposed that Parmenides admitted the being of to /jlt) 6v in any sense whatever (cf. Plato, Soph. 241 d 5).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
that Parmenides did not admit the existence of
"

209
not-

being

" in

any degree whatever

but

it

was a natural
His Hearers
this

way

of speaking to call the cosmology of the Second

Part of the

poem

that of Parmenides.
at

would understand
meant.

once

in

what sense

was

At any
in

rate,

the Peripatetic tradition was that

Parmenides,
to

the Second Part of the poem, meant

givQ

the

belief

of

"the

many."

This

is

how

Theophrastos put the matter, and Alexander seems to

have spoken of the cosmology as

something which
false.^

Parmenides himself regarded as wholly

The
of

other view comes from the Neoplatonists, and especially

Simplicius,

who

very naturally regarded the

intelligible world,

Way

Truth as an account of the

and the
It

Way

of Opinion as a description of the sensible.

this
is

need hardly be said that

almost as great an

anachronism as the Kantian parallelism suggested by

Gomperz.^

Parmenides himself

tells
is

us in the most
at all in
it

unequivocal language that there

no truth

the theory which he expounds, and he gives

as

merely
led

the

belief

of

" mortals."
it

It

was

this

that

Theophrastos to speak of

as the opinion of "the

many."
His explanation however, though preferable to that
of Simplicius,
1

is

not convincing either.

fr.

"
a),

The many "

di

Theophr. Pkys. Op.

cf.

6 {Dox.

p.

482

R. P. 121

Kara 86^au

twv

jro\\(3v els rb "yiveciv diroSovvai tCjv (paivofjiivuv dvo iroiuv ris d/)xas>

For

Alexander
2

Simpl. P/iys.
p.

p. 38, 24.
b).

Simpl. FAys.

39,

10 (R. P. 121
{.Gesch.

Gomperz, Greei Thinkers^

iv.

p.

180.

E. Meyer says

des Alterlh.

510,

Anm.)

"How

too can
as to
if

we think that a teacher of wisdom taught the way in which they must take the existing
This implies

his disciples nothing

sensible world, even

between Appearance and Reality had been clearly grasped ; and (2) that a certain These are hypothetical and relative truth was allowed to Appearance. palpable anachronisms. Both views are Platonic, and they were not held even by Plato in his earlier writings.
only as a deception?"
(i) that the distinction

<

210

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it

are as far as possible from believing in an elaborate

dualism such as Parmenides expounded, and

highly
to
artificial

is

hypothesis to assume that he wished

show how the popular view of the world could best " The many " would hardly be be systematised. convinced of their error by having their beliefs
presented to them in a form which they would certainly
fail

to

recognise.

This,

indeed,
all.

seems
still,

the

most

incredible interpretation of

It

however, finds

adherents,

so

it

is

necessary to point out that the

" beliefs in question are called " the opinions of mortals

simply because the speaker

is

a goddess.

Further,

we have
research,

to note that Parmenides forbids

two ways of
these,

and we have seen that the second of

also expressly ascribed to " mortals,"

which

is

must be

the system of Herakleitos.

then, to find that the other

We
way

should surely expect,

too
it

is

the system of

some contemporary
discover

school,

and

seems

hard

to

any

of

sufficient
it is

importance

except

the

Pythagorean.

Now

admitted by every one that

there are Pythagorean ideas in the Second Part of the

poem, and

it is

therefore to be presumed, in the absence

of evidence to the contrary, that the whole system

comes from the same

source.

It

does not appear that

Parmenides said any more about Herakleitos than the words to which we have just
forbids the second
referred,
in

which he

way

of inquiry.

He

implies, indeed,

that there are really only two

of,

ways that can be thought

and that the attempt of Herakleitos to combine In any case, the Pythagoreans them was futile.^
^

Cf. frs.

4 and

6,

especially the

words

aJ^Trep

68oi fiovvai di^-qcnds elat

voriaai.

The

third way, that of Herakleitos,

^ireiT' airb

is

only added as an after-

thought

avrkp

t^s k.t.\.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
were
far
it

211

more

serious opponents at that date in Italy,

to

and

is

certainly

them that we should expect

Parmenides to define
It is
still

his attitude.

^
why he
it

not quite clear, however,

it

should

have thought

worth while to put into hexameters a

false.

view which he believed to be

Here

becomes

important to remember that he had been a Pythagorean

himself,

and that the poem

beliefs.

is

renunciation of his
feel

former

In such cases

men commonly

the

necessity of showing

where

their old views

were wrong.

The goddess
beliefs also "

tells

him that he must

them
really are."
^

learn of those

how men ought

it

to have judged that the

things which seem to

That

is

clear

so far; but

does not explain the matter

fully.
is

We
may

get a further hint in another place.

He
If

to learn

these beliefs " in order that no opinion of mortals

ever get the better of him

" (fr. 8, 61).

we remember
was handed
perhaps see
dissi-

that the Pythagorean system at this time

down by
what
this

oral

tradition

alone,

we

shall

means.
it

Parmenides was founding a

dent school, and

was quite necessary

for

him

to

instruct his disciples in the

system they might be called

upon
it

to oppose.

In any case, they could not reject

of
it,

intelligently

without a knowledge

and

this

Parmenides had to supply himself^

^

read x(^v

SoKifiuJa'

etvai in

fr.

i,

able to accept his rendering wte

man

bet griindlicher

32 with Diels, but I do not feel orschung Durehf

annehmen
infinitive

miisste,

dass sick jenes

{i.e.

Scheinwesen verhalte.

We
XPW

must,

think, take xp^" doKifiwixai

8oKi/xda-ai) quite strictly,

and

with the
for the

means "ought
rot

to have."

The most

natural subject

infinitive in that case is ^poroOs,

while etvai will be dependent on

SoKifitliaai,

and have

doKovvra for
fr.

its

subject.

confirmed by it with Zeller.

^

8, 54,

twu

fiiau ov

xp^w"

This way of taking the words is ^<rTO', if taken as I have taken

See above,

p. 201, n. i.

Second Part are those of and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever, is that of Diels. The objections of Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxxiv. pp. 203 sqq.) do not appear
that the opinions contained in the
others,

The view

2 12

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

1

The

dualist

The

viev^ that the

Second Part of the poem

cosmoogy.

^^ Parmenides was a sketch of contemporary Pytha-

gorean cosmology
demonstration, but
probable.

is,

doubtless, incapable of rigorous

can,
I

it

think, be

made extremely
conjectural

The
find

entire history of

Pythagoreanism up to

the end of the

but, if

fifth

century

B.C. is certainly

we

in

Parmenides ideas which are wholly

if

unconnected with his own view of the world, and

find precisely the

we

same

ideas in later Pythagoreanism,

the most natural inference will surely be that the later

Pythagoreans
decessors,

derived

these

views

from

their

pre-

and that they formed part of the

only be confirmed

original

stock-in-trade of the society to which they belonged.

This

will

if

wj|pnd

that they are

developments of certain
cosmology.

features-^in
fr|h

the

old

Ionian

Pythagoras came

Samos, which always

;

stood in the closest relations with Miletos

not, so far as

and

it

was

we can

see, in his

cosmological views that

It

he chiefly displayed his

originality.

has been pointed

out above (5 3) that the idea of the world breathing came from Anaximenes, and we need not be surprised to
find traces of
to

Anaximander
we
510,
interpret

as well.
rightly,
. .

Now,

if

we were

me

cogent.

If

him
is
.

"

this hypothetical
iv.

explanation
to

better than that of

Parmenides never says that any one else"

(E. Meyer,
altogether.

Anm.). What he does say is that it is untrue me, however, that Diels has weakened his case by refusing to identify the theory here expounded with Pythagoreanism, and referring it mainly to Herakleitos. Herakleitos was emphatically noi a dualist, and I cannot see that to represent him as one is even what Diels calls a "caricature" of his theory. Caricatures must have some point

It

seem

of likeness.
iv irdpTU

It

is

still

more

surprising to

me

that Patin,

who makes

ehai the corner-stone of Herakleiteanism, should adopt this view

{Parmenides im Kampfe gegen Heraklit, 1899). E. Meyer {loc. cit.) seems to think that the fact of Zeno's having modified the 56^a 01 Parmenides in an Empedoklean sense (Diog. ix. 29; R.P. 140) proves that it was supposed to have some sort of truth. On the contrary, it would only show, if true, that Zeno had other opponents to face than Parmenides
had.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
confined to what Aristotle
tells

213
it

us on this subject,
;

would be almost impossible to make out a case

his statements

but

require, as usual, to
care.

be examined with
all,

a certain

amount of
In this he

He

says, first of

that the

two elements of Parmenides were the

Cold.^
is

Warm

and the

so far justified

by the fragments
is,

that, since the Fire of

which Parmenides speaks

"

of
the

course,

warm, the other

form,"

which has

all

opposite qualities, must of necessity be cold.

theless, the habitual use of the
" the

But, never-

terms " the

warm

"

and

cold

"

is

an accommodation to Aristotle's own

system.

In Parmenides himself they were simply one

pair of attributes
Still

amongst

others.
is

more misleading

Aristotle's identification of
It is

these with Fire and Earth.

not quite certain that

this identifica-

he meant to say Parmenides himself made

tion
;

but,

on the whole,

it is

most

likely that

he

did,
It is

and Theophastros certainly followed him

another question whether
it

in this.^

is

accurate.

Simplicius,

who had
Darkness
"
is

the

poem
^

before

him

( 85), after

mentioning

Fire and Earth, at once adds

"
;

"or rather Light and

enough.
Lastly,

and
^

this is suggestive

Aristotle's

identification

of the

dense element with

what

is

not,"

the unreal of the First Part of the poem,

it

not very easy to reconcile with the view that

^

is

Phys. A, 5. 188 a 20 ; Gen. 5. 986 b 34, Qip^ihv KoX \j^vxpf)v 318 b 6 ; B, 3. 330 b 14. 2 Phys. A, 5. 188 a 21, ravTo. 5k {deptxbv Kal ^pv)a)6v) wpwrayopeijei xvp KoX yTJv ; Mef. A, 5. 986 b 34, olov wOp Kal yfjv X^ywi/. Cf. Theophr. PAys. Op. fr. 6 {Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a). [Plut.] S/rom. fr. 5 {Dox. p. 581),

Met>\^
3.-

Corr. A,

X^ei
n.
I

5^ T^v yrjv tou ttvkvov Karappv^vroi d^poj 7e70>'^>'ot.

Zeller, p.

5^>
y^p

3
(if

(Eng. trans, p. 593, n. 2). PAys. p. 25, 15, ws Uap/xcvldris iv rots

(pQs Kal CKdroi).
5.

irpbi

d6^av

irvp

Kal

fiSWov
*

Met. A,
/xr)

Sk Karb. rb

6v.

Karb. 986 b 35, To&rwv See above, p. 208, n.

fikv
2.

rb ov rb dfpfihv

ri.rri^

Birepop

214
earth.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

On
"

the other hand,

" forms,"
is

if

we suppose

that the

second of the two

the one which should not

have been

named,"

the Pythagorean Air or Void,

we

get a very good explanation of Aristotle's identification of

justified
it

with

"

what

is

not."

We

seem, then, to be

in

neglecting the identification of the dense

element with earth for the present.

At

a later stage,

we shall be able to see how it may have originated.^ The further statement of Theophrastos, that the Warm
was the
passive,^
efficient
is

cause and the Cold the material or

intelligible

enough

if

we

identify
;

them with
but
is

the Limit and the Unlimited respectively

not,

of course, to be regarded as historical.

We

have seen that Simplicius, with the poem of

Parmenides before him, corrects Aristotle by substituting

Light and Darkness for Fire and Earth, and
is

in this

he

amply borne out by the fragments which he

calls

quotes.

Parmenides himself
Fire,

one

"

form

"

Light, Flame, and

and the other Night, and we have now to consider

whether these can be identified with the Pythagorean

Limit and Unlimited.
believe
(

We

have seen good reason to

of the world

58) that the idea

earliest

breathing

belonged to the

form of Pythagoreanism, and

there can be no difficulty in identifying this " boundless

breath

"

with Darkness, which stands very well

"

for the Unlimited.

Air

" or

mist was always regarded

as the dark element.^

1

And

that which gives definite-

See below, Chap. VII. 147. Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 {Dox.

p.

482

R. P. 121

a),

followed by
in [Plut.]

the doxographers.
3

Note the
^

identification of the dense element with

p.

"air"

Strom.
with
'*

quoted

213, n. 2;
cf.

mist and darkness,"

and Chap.

for the
I.

identification of this

"air"
It is to

27,

and Chap. V.

107.

be observed further that Plato puts a Pythagorean ( Tim. 52 d).

this last identification into the

mouth of

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
ness to the vague darkness
is

215
fire,

certainly light or

and

this

may

account for the prominence given to that

element by Hippasos.^
then, that

We may

probably conclude,

the
the

Pythagorean

distinction

between the
shall

Limit

and

Unlimited, which

we

have to
in

consider later (Chap. VII.),

this

made

its first

appearance

crude form.

If,

on the other hand, we identify

darkness with the Limit, and light with the Unlimited,

as

we get into insuperable difficulties. 92. We must now look at the general cosmical view expounded in the Second Part of the poem. The
most
critics do,

The

heavenly

bodies.

fragments are scanty, and the doxographical tradition

hard to interpret
here,
too,

but enough remains to show that

we

are

on

Pythagorean

ground.

All

discussion of the subject

must
:

start

from the following

important passage of Actios

Parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one

another 2 and encircling one another, formed of the rare and
the dense element respectively, and that between these there

were other mixed crowns made up of light and darkness. That which surrounds them all was solid like a wall, and under it is a fiery crown. That which is in the middle of all the crowns is also solid, and surrounded in turn by a fiery circle. The central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause
of

movement and becoming

Aet.
ii.

to

all

the

rest.

He

calls

it

"the goddess who

directs their course,"

7.
i

"the Holder of Lots,"

and "Necessity."
93.

(R. P. 126).

The

first

thing

we have

to observe

is

that

it

is

The "crowns,

quite unjustifiable to regard these " crowns " as spheres.

The word

ariipavac can
sort,

mean
it

"

rims

" or "

brims

"

or
it

anything of that
^

but

seems incredible that

See above, p. 121. seems most likely that ivaXK-^Xovs here means "crossing one The term ixdWriXot is another," as the Milky ^Way crosses the Zodiac. opposed to TrapdWTjXof.
'^

It

2i6

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It

should be used of spheres.

does not appear, either,

all

that the solid circle which surrounds

to be regarded as spherical.

the crowns

is

The

expression "like a
in

wall

"

would be highly inappropriate

"

that

case.

We
it

seeni, then, to

be face to face with something of the

wheels
"

same kind
is

as

the

of Anaximander,

and

obviously quite likely that

this

Pythagoras

should

have taken

theory from him.

Nor

is

evidence

altogether lacking that the Pythagoreans did regard the

heavenly bodies in this way.

In Plato's
its

Myth

of Er,

which

is

certainly Pythagorean in

general character,

we do not hear
boxes.-^

of spheres,

but

of the

" lips "

of

concentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of

Even

in

the

Timaeus there are no spheres,

but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle.^

Lastly, in the

Homeric

Hymn

to

Ares, which seems to

have been composed under Pythagorean influence, the

word used must mean

for the orbit of the planet

" rim."
is, ^

is

dvrv^,

M
is

^i^h

The

fact

there

really

no evidence that aiT||one

all,
till

ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres at

Aristotle

turned the

geometrical

construction
" to

which
save

Eudoxos

had
"

set
{acp^eiv
5,

up
ra
ol

as

hypothesis

appearances
^

(f>atv6/jbva)
Kadot
ol

into real things.*

;

/^ep. X.

6l6 d

Kadairep

els

aW'^Xovs ap/xdrTOVTes

I,

kijkXovs
^

avwdev ra

X^'-^V

<t>OL'i-vovTas

{<x(}>ovdv\ovs).

Tim. 36 b
irpbs
ei's

6, Ta^TTjv odv t7]v crvaTacriv iraaav dnrXijv

Kara

jULrJKOS

cxicrar,

fx^<T7)v

iJLiaT)v
^j'

cKaripau dXXTjXats olov x^^ (the letter

/ci^/cXy.
:

X)

Trpocr/SaXwv

KariKa/xxJ/ev
2

Hymn

to

Ares, 6

TTupavyea kvk\ov ekiaawv

alGepos eTTTaJTopoi?
eiA,

retpeo-iv,

^a<j>X.eyees rpiraTTj? virep

v0a <Te ttwAoi. avTvyoi alev exovac.

So, in allusion to

an

essentially

Pythagorean view, Proclus says to the

vnep dvrvyas alOepa vaUi^.

planet Venus

(h. iv.

17)

elre Koi enTa. KVKk(ov

*

On

the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Dreyer, Planetary Systems^

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
From
that time forward

217

we hear a

great deal about

spheres,
attribute

and

it

was natural that

later writers
;

should
is

them

to the Pythagoreans

but there

no
by-

occasion to do violence to the language of Parmenides

turning his " crowns

date, spheres

"

into anything of the sort.

At

this

would not have served to explain anything

that could not be explained

more simply without them.

We
are
also

are next told that these " crowns " encircle one

another or are folded over one another, and that they

made
learn

of the rare and

that

the dense element.

"

We
to

between them are

darkness.

mixed crowns
it

made up

of light and
first

Now

is

be

observed, in the

place, that light

and darkness are

exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense, and
it

looks as

if

there was

some confusion
12,

here.

It

may

be doubted whether these statements are based on

anything else than

interpreted to

fr.

which might certainly be

fire

mean

that between the crowns of

fire

there were crowns of night with a portion of

in

them.

That may be

right

but

think

it

is

rather

more natural

to understand the passage as saying that

the narrower circles are surrounded

by wider
then

circles of

night, each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst

of

it.

These

last

words would

be

simple

repetition

of the statement that the narrower circles

are
chap.
this

filled
iv.

with unmixed

fire,^

and we should have a

unfortunate that the account of Plato's astronomy given in wholly inadequate, owing to the writer's excessive reliance on Boeckh, who was led by evidence now generally regarded as untrustworthy
It is

work

is

to attribute all the astronomy of ithe especially to Philolaos.

Academy

to their predecessors,

and

^ Such a repetition {waXLvSpo/xla) is characteristic of all Greek style, but the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch to the statement at the opening. The new touch is here given in the word

terai.

do not press

this

interpretation, but

it

seems to

me much

the

simplest.

2i8
fairly

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

exact reproduction of the planetary system of
It
is,

Anaximander.
less
likely,

however, possible, though

represented
the

think

that

Parmenides
as

space

between the
which the
having the
The
goddess.

circles

occupied by similar rings in

fire
fire

and darkness were mixed instead of

enclosed in the darkness.

94- " ^"

" is

the

middle of those," says

Parmenides,

the goddess
is,

who

steers the course of all things."

Actios, that

Theophrastos, explains this to

mean

in

the

middle of the
it

mixed
in the

crowns, while

Simplicius
the crowns,
It is

declares that
that
is

means

middle of

all

to say, in the centre of the world.^

not

very likely that either of them had anything better to

go upon than the words of Parmenides just quoted, and

these are ambiguous.
Simplicius, as
this
fire,

is

clear from the

language he

uses,

identified

goddess with

the

Pythagorean Hestia or central

could not do
this,

while Theophrastos

because he knew and stated that

in

Parmenides held the earth to be round and

centre of the world.^
that what
is

the

In this very passage

we

are told
is

in the

middle of

all

the crowns
in
fact,

solid.

The data
altogether.

furnished

by Theophrastos,

exclude
fire

the identification of the goddess with the central

We

cannot say that what

is

is

in the
it

middle
there
is

of all the crowns

solid,

and that under

it

again
1

fiery

crown.^

Nor does
b).

seem

fitting

to

2
^

Diog.
I

Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 ix. 21 (R. P. 126 a).

do not discuss the interpretation of

a, as it is
{^.

Trept S TrdXt*'

TrvpiaSr/s
is

Diels gave in Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p.

104,

and which

which adopted in
<v(f>'

R. P. 162
irakLv

now

virtually retracted.

In the second edition of his

<^y

Vorsokratiker

III) he reads koI to /xeaalraTou iraauiv arepebv,

irvpilidris [sc. <TT(l>(ipr)].

That
of Er.

is

flat

contradiction.

It is

of interest

to observe that

Mr.

Adam
Myth

also gets into the interior of the earth in his

It is instructive, too,

interpretation of the
that

because

it

shows
heroic

we

are really dealing with the

same order of ideas.

The most

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
earth.

219

relegate a goddess to the middle of a solid spherical

We

must try to
the

find a place for her elsewhere.

We
called

are further told

by Aetios
"

that this goddess

^

was

Ananke and

Holder of Lots."

We

know
is,

already that she steers the course of

all things,

that

that she regulates the motions of the celestial crowns.

Simplicius

adds,

unfortunately

without

quoting the

actual words, that she sends souls at one time from

the light to the unseen

world,
It

at another from

the
to

unseen world to the

describe

light.^

would be

difficult

more exactly what the goddess does

in the

Myth
in
fr.

of Er, and so here once more

It is to

we seem

to be

on

Pythagorean ground.

be noticed further that

10 we read how Ananke took the heavens and

fast the -fixed

compelled them to hold

stars,

courses of the
is

and that
all

in

fr.

12

we
first

are told that she

Lastly, in
all
fr.

the

beginner of

pairing and birth.

hear that she created Eros

of

the gods.

1 3 we Modern

parallels are dangerous, but

it is

not really going

is

much

beyond what

is

written to say that this Eros

the Will

to Live, which leads to successive rebirths of the soul.

So we

shall find that in

fire for

Empedokles
Pythagoras was

it

is

an ancient
hypothesb of

attempt to save the central

my own

an annular earth
ridicule
;

(ist

ed.

p.
it

203).
is

This has met with well - deserved

but

all

the same

the only possible solution on these lines.

Chap. VII. that the central fire belongs to the later development of Pythagoreanism. ^ R. P. 126, where FuUeborn's ingenious emendation KXijSovxoy for This is based upon the view that Aetios (or KXripovxov is tacitly adopted. Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the
shall see in

We

Proem
Beds.
2

(fr.

i,

14).

now

think that the KXijpoi of the

Myth

of Er

are the true explanation of the name.

Philo uses the term KXrjpoOxoi

Simpl. PAys. p. 39, 19,

deid^s
{i.e.

/cai

rdj rpvx^s ir^/Mweiv vork nkv

U rod ifitfKUfovs

ds rb

dtS^s),

ttot^ 5^

ivdvaXLv
ix.

(prjaiv.

We

should probably

connect this with the statement of Diog.

22 (R. P. 127) that men arose

for the conjecture iXvos in the

from the sun (reading

Basel edition).

ijXLov

with the

MSS.

220

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Ananke
in

oracle or decree of

that causes the gods to

births.^

fall

and become incarnate

a cycle of

We
this

should, then, be

more

certain of the place which

goddess occupies
sure

in the universe if
is

we could be
of Er.

quite

where

Ananke

in

the

Myth

Without, however, raising that vexed question, we

lay

may
to

down with some

confidence

that,

according

Theophrastos, she occupied a position

the earth and the heavens.
"

midway between Whether we believe in the

difference in this

mixed crowns
;

"

or not

makes no

respect

for the statement of Aetios that she was in

the middle of the mixed crowns undoubtedly implies

that she was in that region.

Now she
(p.

is

identified with

one of the crowns

Cicero,^

in a

somewhat confused passage of

69) that the whole

and we have seen above

theory of wheels or crowns was probably suggested by

the Milky

Way.

It

seems to me, therefore, that we

must think of the Milky

Way

as a

crown intermediate
this
it is

between the crowns of the Sun and the Moon, and

agrees very well with the prominent

way

in

which
to

mentioned

in

fr.

11.

It

is

better

not

be

too
it

positive about the other details of the system,

is

though
it

interesting to notice that according to

some

was

Pythagoras, and according to others Parmenides,

discovered
star.
^

who

the identity of the evening and

fits

morning

That

in
115.

exactly with our general view.^

Empedokles,
Cicero, de

fr.

7tat.

D.\.

1 1,

28

'*

Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium

appellat), continente ardore lucis

quiddam coronae
this the

simile

efficit {are^dyrit'

orbem, qui cingat caelum, quern appellat deum."

statement of Aetios,
airoKpidrivaL.
ii.

We may

connect with

20, 8, rbu

rjXtoj'

Kal ttjv aeKrjvrfu iK roO

yaXa^iov k6k\ov
^

Diog.

ix.

23,

Kol 5oKL {Tlapfivi8r]s) irpQTOS

(prjcrt

TretpoopaKivai rbv

axrrbv

iXvai "EaTrepov
fidrojv
'

Kal ^u}(r<f>6pov, &s

If,

^a^ojpTpoi iv ir^pLimp 'Airoixurjuovev-

ol

8^

Uvdaydpav.

as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of

in

had anticipated Parmenides

announcing

this discovery, that is to

Rhegion be

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
Besides
all

221

this, it is

quite certain that Parmenides

went on

to describe
fell,

how

the other gods were born and

how they

an idea which we
well

know

to be Orphic,

and which may

have been Pythagorean.

We
Plato's

shall

come

to

it

again in

Empedokles.

In

Symposium^ Agathon couples Parmenides with Hesiod

as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence committed

by the
expect

gods.^

If

Parmenides was
all this
is

expounding the

Pythagorean theology,
;

just

what we should
it

but

it

seems hopeless to explain

on any

of the other theories which have been advanced on

the purpose of the

Way
no

of Belief.

Such things do
to

not follow naturally from the

world,

ordinary view of the

and

we have

reason

suppose

that

Herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and

downward path of
bodies

the soul in this form.

He

certainly

did hold that the guardian spirits entered into

;

human

but the whole point of his theory was that he

gave a naturalistic rather than a theological account

of the process.
that
Still

less

can

we

think
stories

it

probable

Parmenides

made up

these

himself in

order to show what the popular view of the world

really implied if properly formulated.
I

We

must

ask,

think, that

any theory on the subject

shall

account

for

what was evidently no inconsiderable portion of

In describing the views of his contemporaries,
Physiology.

the poem.
95.

Parmenides was obliged, as we see from the fragments,

explained by the fact that Rhegion had

become the

chief seat of the

Pythagorean school.
implied that these iraXaid -rpdyfuiTa were The such things as KTo/ial and Sea/ioi. Epicurean criticism of all this is partially preserved in Philodemos, cU pietate^ p. 68, Gomperz ; and Cicero, dc not. D. i. 28 {Dox. p. 534 ; R. P.
^

Plato,
Kcd

Symp. 195 c
piaia,

I.

It is

ToXXd

including

126

b).

222
to say a

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

good deal about physiological matters.
else,

Like

everything

man was composed

of the

warm and

the cold, and death was caused by the removal of the

warm.

Some

curious views with regard to generation

were also

stated.

In the

first

place,

males came from

the right side and females from the

left.

Women
It
is

had

more of

the

warm and men

Empedokles
of the
character

of the cold, a view which

contradicting.-^

we

shall

find

just

the proportion

warm and
of
their

cold

in

men

that that

determines

the

thought, so

even corpses, from which the warm has been removed,

retain a perception of

what
but

is

cold and dark.^

tell

These

fragments of information do not

taken by themselves
in a
;

us

much when
themselves

they connect

most interesting way with the history of medicine,

to the fact that

and point

one of

its

leading schools

stood in close relation with the Pythagorean Society

Even

before the

days of Pythagoras, we know that

for
its

Kroton was famous

doctors.

Krotoniate,

Demokedes, was court physician

also

to the Persian king,

and married Milo the Pythagorean's daughter.^

We

know the name of a very distinguished medical writer who lived at Kroton in the days between Pythagoras and Parmenides, and the few facts we are
about

told

him enable

us

to

regard

the

physio-

logical views described

curiosities,

by Parmenides not

as isolated

but as landmarks by means of which we

can trace the origin and growth of one of the most

influential

of medical

theories, that

which

explains

health as a balance of opposites.

1 For all this, see R. P. 127 de Gen. An. A, I. 765 b 19. 2 Theophr. de sens. 3, 4 (R. 3 Herod, iii. 131, 137.

a,

with Arist. de Part. An. B,

2.

648 a 28

P. 129).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
96. Aristotle tells us that

223
^

Alkmaion of Kroton

was
does

Aikmaion

of

a young

man

in the old

age of Pythagoras.

He
he

not actually say, as later writers do, that he was a

Pythagorean, though
either to

he points
his

out

that

seems

have derived

theory of opposites from

In any

the Pythagoreans or they theirs from him.^

case,

he was intimately connected with the society, proved by one of the scanty fragments of
It

as

is

his

book.

began as follows

"

Alkmaion of Kroton,
and things
as

son of Peirithous, spoke these words to Brotinos and

Leon and

Bathyllos.

As

to things invisible
;

mortal, the gods have certainty

but, so far

men

may
in

infer

.
.

"

this

abrupt way, but

first

In

the

place,
all

The quotation unfortunately ends we learn two things from it. Alkmaion possessed that reserve
;

which marks
in the

the best Greek medical writers

and

second place, he dedicated his work to the heads

of the Pythagorean Society.*

Alkmaion's

chief

importance

in

the
is

history

of W
1^

philosophy really

lies in

the fact that he

the founder

of empirical psychology.^
^

It is certain that

he regarded

'

On

Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, 986 a 27 (R. P.

66).

De

Alcmaeone Crotoniata

(Leipzig, 1896).
2

Arist. Met. A, 5.

In a 30 Diels reads, with

iirl

great probability, iyivero t^v rjKiKlau Ky^osy

yipouri

TLv6ay6p<;f..

Cf.

Iambi. V. Pyth. 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the avyxpovlffaPTes Kal ixadrp-eiaavTe^ tQ Uvdaydpq, irpea^vrr) vioi.
^

'AXKfMaLuu KpwTWj/tTjTTjs rdSe IXe^e Ileipldov vlbs Bporbip Kal Kiovri. koX
'

'BadvWtf

irepl

rwv

&<f>av^(t}v, Trepi

tQv dvrjTuv,

catpi^veiav fx^v deol ?xo''^'> <^^

5^ dp6pu)irois reKfiaipeadai

/cat to, i^rjs.

The

fact that this is not written

is

in conventional Doric, like the forged

Pythagorean books,

a strong proof

of genuineness.
^ Brotinos (not Brontinos) is variously described as the son-in-law or father-in-law of Pythagoras. Leon is one of the Metapontines in the catalogue of lamblichos (Diels, Vors.'p. 268), and Bathyllos is presumably the Poseidoniate Bathylaos also mentioned there.
'^

Everything bearing on the early history of

Beare's
Gree/:
I

this subject is

brought

together and discussed in Prof.

Cognition, to which

Theories of

EUnutUary

must

refer the reader for all details.

224
the

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

brain
as

the

common

sensorium, an

important

discovery which Hippokrates and Plato adopted from

him, though
reverted
to

Empedokles,
the

Aristotle,

and the Stoics

more primitive view that the heart

There
is

performs this function.

that

no reason to doubt

he

made

this

discovery by anatomical means.

for

We

have some authority

saying that he practised

re-

dissection, and,

though the nerves were not yet

it

cognised as such,
"

was known that there were

might
be
prevented

certain

passages

"

which

from

com-

municating sensations to the brain by

lesions.^

He

also distinguished between sensation and understanding,

though we have no means of knowing exactly where he

drew the what

line

between them.

His theories of the special

senses are of great interest.

is

We

find in

him

already,

characteristic of

Greek theories of vision as a

whole, the attempt to combine the view of vision as an act

proceeding from the eye with that which attributes

it

to

an image reflected
air for

in the eye.

He knew the importance of

it

the sense of hearing, though he called

the void, a

thoroughly Pythagorean touch. With regard to the other

senses, our information
is

more

scanty, but sufficient to

show that he
His

treated the subject systematically.^

for

astronomy seems surprisingly crude

close
relations

one

who

stood in
are
told

with the Pythagoreans.

We

that

he

adopted Anaximenes'

theory

of the sun and Herakleitos's explanation of eclipses.^

^

Theophr. de

sens.

26 (Beare,
is

dissections of

Alkmaion
for

Our authority for the p. 252, n. i). only Chalcidius, but he gets his information on

such matters from

lesions are
2

far older sources.

The

irbpoL

and the inference from

vouched

The
Aet.

details will

by Theophrastos. be found in Beare, pp.

elvat.

1 1

sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq.

/card

(hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq. (taste).
^
ii.

22, 4, TrXarvv
TCLS

tqv fjXiov

29,

3,

TTf}v

toO (TKacpoeidovi

ffTpo(pr]v

Kai

irepLKKicreis

{iKKeiTreLV rrju aekqvrv).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA
It is all the

225

more remarkable that he

the
idea,

is

credited with
all

originating

which

it

required

Plato's

authority to get accepted later, that the planets have

an

orbital

motion

in

the
the

opposite
heavens.^

direction

to
if

the
true,

diurnal

revolution
in

of

This,

probably stood
that soul
things,
bodies.^

close connexion
it

with his

saying

was immortal because

in

resembled immortal
like

and was always

motion
to

the heavenly
real

He

seems, in

fact,

be

the

author

of the curious view which Plato put into the mouth

of the Pythagorean Timaios, that the soul has circles
revolving just as the heavens and the planets do.

This

too seems to be the explanation of his further state-

ment

that

man

dies

because

he

cannot

join

the

beginning to the end.^

bodies always

The

orbits of

the heavenly
circles
in

come
to

full

circle,

but the

the

head

may
of

fail

complete

themselves.

This

new
for

version

the

parallelism

between

the

microcosm

and the macrocosm would be perfectly natural

Alkmaion, though
it
is,

of

course,

no more than a

playful fancy to Plato.

Alkmaion's theory of health as "isonomy"

is

at

once that which most clearly connects him with

inquirers like

earlier

Anaximander, and

also that

which had

the greatest influence on the subsequent development

of philosophy.
things

He

observed, to begin with, that " most

human were two," and by this he meant that man was made up of the hot and the cold, the moist and
*

Aet.

ii.

16, 2, (twv (JLadrifiaTiKuiv riyes) Toi>s irXavfyras roli iLT\dM<Tiv

'AXKfiatiJv.
*

Arist.

flfe

An. A,
8ti.

2.

Arist.

Prod/.

17, 3.

rovTO dvbWvadat,

ov

405 a 30 (R. P. 66 c). 916 a 33, toi>j dvefxbirovi tfrqalp 'AXxfiaiuy JtA dvvavrai tt)v dpx^" tQ t{\ci Trpo<Td\l/ai.
15

226

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Disease was

the dry, and the rest of the opposites.^

just the "

monarchy " of any one of these

the

same

thing

that

Anaximander had
the

called

" injustice "

while health was

establishment in
laws.^

the

body of

a free government with equal

This was the

of medicine

leading doctrine of the

Sicilian

school

which came into existence not

shall

long
sequel

after,
its

and

we

have

to

consider

in

the

influence

on the development of Pythagoreanism.

with the theory of
" pores,"
^

Taken along
greatest

it

is

of the

importance
1

for later science.

A,
I,

Arist. Met.

5.

986 a 27 (R. P.
rrjs

66).

Aet.

V.

30,

'AXK/xaiuv

fx^v

vyieiai

elvat

crvveKTiKTjv

rrjv

i<ro-

vajxlav

tQp Svpd/xeuv, vypov,

5'

^rjpov,

\pvxpov, depfiov,

inKpov,
'

yXvK^oi, Kal
yikp

TiZv

XoLirwv, TT]v

iu avTois

ixovapx^-o-v vb<70v iroLTjTLKijv

<p6opoiroi,bv

eKaT^pov fiovapxtav.
3

My

colleague, Dr.

Fraser Harris, points out to

me

that Alkmaion's

Trdpoi

may have been

1

a better guess than he knew.

The

nerve-fibres,

when

magnified
the
fibrils

000 diameters, " sometimes appear to have a clear centre, as if were tubular." Schafer, Essentials of Physiology (7th edition),

p. 132.

CHAPTER V
EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
97.
to

The
the

belief that all things are

one was common

studied
;

Pluralism,

philosophers

we have

hitherto

but

now Parmenides has shown that, if this one thing really is^ we must give up the idea that it can take different forms. The senses, which present to us a world of change and multiplicity, are deceitful. From
this there

was no escape

the time was

still

to

come
in

when men would seek

something which, from
never perceive.
its

the

unity of the

world

very nature, the senses could

We

find,

accordingly,

that
all

from

the

time
in

of

Parmenides to that of Plato, hands philosophy made

monistic
real

thinkers

whose

progress abandoned .the

hypothes is.
critical

Those

who

still

held

by

it

adopted a

attitude,

and confined themselves

Parmenides against the

to a defence of the theory of

new
in

views.

Others taught the doctrine of Herakleitos

;

an exaggerated form

some continued

to

expound

the systems of the early Milesians.

This, of course,

showed want of

insight

but even those thinkers

left

who

saw that Parmenides could not be

unanswered,
in

were by no means equal to their predecessors

power
had

and thoroughness.

The

corporeal ist hypothesis

227

228
proved

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

itself
;

unable to bear the weight of a monistic

structure

but a thorough-going pluralism such as the

if

atomic theory might have some value,

final

not

as
as

explanation

of the world, yet at

it.

least

an

intelligible

view of a part of

Any

pluralism, on

the other hand, which, like that of Empedokles and

Anaxagoras, stops short of the atoms,

will achieve

no

permanent

result,
it

however many may be the

It will

brilliant

apergus which
to

embodies.

remain an attempt
be reconciled,
into

reconcile

two things that cannot

therefore,

and may always,

tradictions
Date of EmDcd oleics.

be

developed

con-

and paradoxes.

98.
Sicily,

Empedokles
and
his

was

citizen

of

Akragas

in

father's

name, according to the best

His
grandfather, also
in

accounts, was

Meton.^

called

Empedokles, had won a victory

the horse-race at

Olympia

in 01.

LXXI. (496-95
This
it

B.C.),^

and Apollodoros
01.

fixed the /^;'2V of

I

Empedokles himself in
is

LXXXIV.
in

(444-43
;

B.C.).

the date of the foundation of

Thourioi

and
that

appears

from

the

quotation

Diogenes

the

almost contemporary biographer,

Glaukos
1

of
3,

Rhegion,^ said

Empedokles
ap. Diog.
viii.

visited

the

Aet.

i.

20 (R, P. 164), Apollodoros

52 (R. P. 162).

The
2

details of the life of

Empedokles are

discussed, with a careful criticism

of the sources, by Bidez,

La

For

this

R. P. 162),

we have the authority who follows the Olympic

biographic d' Empddocle (Gand, 1894). of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; Victors of Eratosthenes, who in turn

appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his Ile/oi vbafav (see below, p. 233, n. 3), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a "breeder of

horses" (R. P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him as a distinguished man in his Fifteenth Book.
3 Glaukos wrote Ilept rOiv apxaiuv iroirjTuv Kai fxovaiKQv, and is said to have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros adds (R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides, Empedokles died It is to be observed, however, that the words ^ti d' at the age of sixty. "RpaKXeldTjs are Sturz's conjecture, the MSS. having tl 5' "Hpd/cXeiro/', and Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the Uepi ttoltjtwv, it is

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
new
in

229

city shortly

after

its

foundation.

But we are
just forty years

no way bound to believe that he was

at

old

the time of the event in

his life

which can

most by ApoUodoros
that his date
It
is,

easily be dated.
;

That

is

the assumption,

made

but there are reasons for thinking

too late

is

by some

eight or ten years.^

indeed, most likely that

till

Empedokles did not go

forty years old

to Thourioi

after

his

banishment from Akragas,

and he may well have been more than

when
to
alive

that happened.

All, therefore,
is,

we can be
was

said
still

know
in

of his date

that his grandfather

496
after

B.C.

that

he

himself was

active
;

at

Akragas

472, the date of Theron's death

and

that he died later than 444.

Even these
the tyrant
in

indications

are

enough to show that

reign

he must have been

a boy in the

of Theron,

who co-operated
of
the

with Gelon of Syracuse

the

repulse

Carthaginians

from

Himera.

His son
another

and successor, Thrasydaios, was a man of

stamp.
Before his
accession
in

to

the throne

of Akragas, he

had

ruled

his

father's

name

at
its

Himera, and completely estranged the affections of

inhabitants.

Theron died

in

472

B.C.,

and Thrasydaios
follies

at once displayed all

the vices and

usual

in

the

second holder of a usurped dominion.

After a

disastrous

war with Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven

free

out

and Akragas enjoyed a

government

till

it

not obvious why he should mention Herakleitos at all ; and Herakleides was one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles. 1 See Diels, * Empedokles und Gorgias," 2 {Berl. Sifzd., 1884). Theophrastos said that Empedokles was born " not long after Anaxagoras " {Dcx. under ParP- 477. 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno menides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, n. 5). Now Gorgias was a little older than Antiphon (^. Ol. LXX.), so it is clear we must go back a/ /east to 490 B.C. for the birth of Empedokles.

30

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

before the Carthaginians

fell

more than half a century

later.^

Empedokies
as a politician,

Empedokies certamly played an important part

our information on the subject
kind.
is

99.
,

In the political events of the next few years,

,
,

, ;

but

of a very curious
told

The
stories

Sicilian

historian

Timaios

one or

two

about him, which are obviously genuine

traditions picked
,

up about a hundred and

all

fifty

years

afterwards a
little

but, like

popular traditions, they are

picturesque
parts
incidents

confused.

The
the

are
story

remembered, but
are

essential

of

the

dropped.
of

Still,

we may be
tales,"
^

thankful
as

that

the

" collector

old

wives'

sneering

critics

called him, has

enabled

us to measure the historical

importance of Empedokies for ourselves by showing

us

how he was

pictured

by the great-grandchildren
once he was invited to sup
Tradition delights in such

of his contemporaries.

We
vague

read,

then,^ that
" rulers."

with one of the

titles.

"

Supper was well advanced, but no

in.

wine was brought

nothing, but
insisted

The

rest of the

company

said

Empedokies was righteously indignant, and

on wine being served.

The

host, however,

said he

was waiting
official

for

the serjeant of the Council.

When
the

that

arrived,
host,

he was appointed ruler of

course,

feast.

The
he

of
to

appointed
of an

him.

Thereupon
tyranny.

began

give hints

incipient

He

ordered the

company

either to drink or

have the wine poured over their heads^

At

the time,

Empedokies
1

said nothing

but next day he led both

The view taken
fr.

He

E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 508. is called ypaoa-vWeKrpia in Souidas,

is

s.v.

in the

text as to the value of his evidence

3

that of
i.

Holm.
88
a).

Timaios ap. Diog.

viii.

64 {F.H.G.

p. 214,

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
of

231

them before the

court,

and put to death

both

and had them condemned

the

man who asked him

feast.^

to

supper and the ruler

of the

This

was the
tale
is

beginning of his political career."

that
his

The next

Empedokles prevented the Council from granting friend Akron a piece of land for a family sepulchre
the

on

ground
his

of

his

eminence

in

medicine,

and

supported

objection

by

punning

epigram.^

Lastly, he broke

up the assembly of the Thousand

oligarchical

perhaps

some
been

association

or

club.^

It

may have
ship,
rate,

for this

that he was offered the king-

which Aristotle

we

see that

leader at
clear

tells us he refused.* At any Empedokles was the great democratic Akragas in those days, though we have no

knowledge of what he
is

did.
Empedokles
as a religious
teacher,

100. But there

another side to his public charit

acter which Timaios found

political

hard to reconcile with

to be

his

views.

He

claimed

god, and to

receive the

The

truth

homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity. is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman
"

he had a good deal of the

medicine-man " about him.

According to Satyros,^ Gorgias affirmed that he had

the analogy of accusations for "J'imagine qu'un Jacobin aurait mieux jug^ I'histoire" (than Karsten and Holm); "sous la Terreur, on etait suspect pour de moindres vetilles." 2 Diog. viii, 65. The epigram runs thus
1

In the

first

edition,

suggested

incivisme.

Bidez says

(p.

127),

SiKpov Itfrpop 'AKpoiv' 'AKpayavrlvov jrarpb?

KpviTTei
cp>i/uif6$

"Axpow

axpoc jrarpiSos

eucpoToiTiT?.

On
'

Akron, see M. Wellmann,

Diog.
viii.

op. cit. p. 235, n.i.

66, {jarepou
Itt]

5'

6 'E/attcSo/cX^s Kal t6

twv

x*^^*^" &dpo^(Tiux

KariKvae avvearCos iwl

legal council,
*

rpla.

The word

idpoia/xa hardly suggests a

Diog.
Diog.

viii. viii.

and avvlcTaadai suggests a conspiracy. Aristotle probably mentioned 63.

57.

this in his Sophist.

Cf. Diog.

viii.

59 (R. P.

162).
p.

Satyros probably followed Alkidamas.

358) that the
0i;<n/c6j

Diels suggests {Emp. u. Gorg.

of Alkidamas

was

232

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

his

been present when

master was performing sorceries.

We
new
"

can see what this means from the fragments of

the Purifications.
religion

Empedokles was a preacher of the

by purity and abstinence
it

which sought to secure release from the

"
;

wheel of birth

but

it

is

not quite certain to which form of

he adhered.

On

the one hand, Orphicism seems to have been strong at

Akragas

in

the days of Theron, and there are even

some

verbal

coincidences

between

the

poems

of

Empedokles and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar

addressed to that prince/

There are also some points

of similarity between the Rhapsodic Theogony^ as

we

know

it

from Damaskios, and certain fragments of

Empedokles, though the importance of these has been

exaggerated.^
to

On
^
;

the other hand, there

is

no reason
fr.

doubt the statement of Ammonios that

to Apollo

134

refers

and,

if

that

is

so,

it

would point

to his having been an adherent of the Ionic form of

the

mystic

doctrine,

as

we have seen

39)

that

Pythagoras was.

Further, Timaios already

knew the

story that he had been expelled from the Pythagorean

Order

for " stealing discourses,"

fr.

and

it

is

probable on
It

the whole that

129

refers to Pythagoras.^

would
;

be very hazardous to dogmatise on

it

this

subject

but

seems

most

likely

that

Empedokles had been

and
that, in

influenced
later
life,

by Orphic

ideas in his youth,

he preached a form of Pythagoreanism which

a dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker. statement would have little historical value.

In that case, the

See Bidez, p. 115, n. i. O. Kern, * Empedokles und die Orphiker" {Arch. For the Rhapsodic Theogony, see Introd. p. 9, n. 4.
^

i.

pp. 489 sqq.).

See below, note in

Diog.
viii.

loc.

*
^

54 (R. P. 162).
loc.

See below, note in

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
Society.

233

was not considered orthodox by the heads of the

In any case,
it

seems

far

more probable that

belong to the same

his political

and
life,

scientific activity

period of his

and that he only became a wandering

scientific

prophet after his banishment, than that his

work belonged
exile.^

to his later days

when he was a

solitary

We

hear of a number of marvels performed by

for the

Empedokles, which are

inferences from
his

most part nothing but

Timaios told

writings.

how he

weakened the
bags of
asses'

force of the etesian winds

by hanging

skins on the trees to catch them.

said, in

He

had certainly

his

exaggerated way, that the

knowledge of science as taught by him would enable

his disciples to control the

winds

(fr.

in); and
is

this,

along with the fabled windbags of Aiolos,

to account for the
tale.^

enough

We

are also told

how he
he

brought back to

life

woman who had

The

been breathless
verse where

and

pulseless

for

thirty days.

asserts that his teaching will enable Pausanias to bring

the dead back from

story

Hades

(fr.

in)

shows how
hear
that

this

may have

arisen.^

Again,

we

he

sweetened the
the sea
into
^

pestilent

marsh between Selinous and

rivers

by diverting the

Hypsas and

Selinos

it.

We
latter
1

know from
is

coins

that this purification

;

The

view

that of Bidez (pp. i6i sqq.)

but Diels has shown

psychologically

{Berl. Sitzb.,

898, pp. 406 sqq.) that the former

is

more

probable.
^

follow the wilder form of the story given by Diog.

viii.

60,

and not
epithets

the rationalised version of Plutarch {adv. Col.

dXc^ai'^/taj

1126

b).

The

and
;

KcaXvcrav^fias

were perhaps bestowed by some sillographer

in

mockery
3

cf. dvfxoKoiTT]s

The

Ilepl

have been a
(Diog.
viii.

sort

vbauv of Herakleides, from which it is derived, seems to The words are of medico -philosophical romance.
'RpaK\d5T\i T
'iv' Tifi'llepl v6<Tuv
\<t>rj<il

60):
avrbv

Kal\ Uavcoplq.

v<f>Try^<TaffdaL

tA

irepl

Ti}v

Hvwovv.

It

was a case of

hysterical

suffocation.

234

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

we may doubt
till

of the marshes actually took place, but

whether
time.^
Rhetoric and

it

was attributed

to

Empedokles

a later

10

1.

Aristotle

said
^
;

that

Empedokles

was

the

me

icine.

{nventor of Rhetoric

and Galen made him the founder

of the Italian school of Medicine, which he puts on a

level

with those

of

Kos and

Knidos.^
in
It

Both these

statements must be considered

political
w( that

connexion with his

and

scientific activity.

seems to be certain

Gorgias was his disciple

peculiarities

in physics

and medicine,
style
It is

and some of the

are to be found in the

which marked his poems of Empedokles.*

not to be supposed, of course, that Empedokles wrote

a formal treatise on Rhetoric
probable, and in
;

but

it

is

in every

way

accordance with his character, that

the speeches, of which he must have

^~-'

made many, were marked by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced to Athens at a later date, and which gave rise to the
idea of an artistic prose.

The

influence of

Empedokles
far

on

the

development
as
it

of

medicine

was, however,

more important,
but through
philosophical
it,

affected not only medicine

itself,

the whole tendency of scientific and

thinking.
It

has

been

said

that
is

Empedokles had no
^

successors,^

and the remark

For these coins see Head, Historia Numoriim, pp. 147 sqq.
Diog.
Galen,
viii.

2
^
oi oi

57 (R. P. 162

g).

X. 5, fipi^ov 5' avrois (the

schools of
icai

Kos and Knidos) ...

/cat

iK TTjs 'IraXfas iarpol, ^lXio-tIuv re.

ToijTuiu
;

'E/i7re5o/cX^s Kal Uavcxavia^ Kal

kraipoL k.t.X.
is

Philistion

was the contemporary and

friend of

Plato

Pausanias

the disciple to

whom Empedokles

addressed his poem.

4 See Diels, "Empedokles und Gorgias" {Berl Sttzb., 1884, pp. The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple 343 sqq.). of Empedokles is Satyros ap. Diog. viii. 58 (R. P. 162) ; but he seems to have derived his information from Alkidamas, who was the disciple of Gorgias himself. In Plato's Meno (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean theory

^
-

of effluvia and pores

5

is

ascribed to Gorgias.
p. 343).

Diels {Berl. Sitzb., 1884,

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
true
if

235

we

confine

ourselves

strictly

to

philosophy.

On

the

other

hand,

the

medical

school

which he
it

founded was

still

living in the

days of Plato, and

still

had considerable influence on him, and

Aristotle,^
Its

more on
identifica-

fundamental doctrine was the

tion of the four elements with the hot

and the

cold,^

the moist and the dry.

It also held that

we breathe

through

all

the pores of the body, and that the act of

is

respiration

closely connected with the motion of the

heart, not the brain,

blood.

The
of
the

was regarded

as the

organ of consciousness.^
istic

more external

character-

medicine
is

taught
still

by the

followers

of

Empedokles
of the

that

they

clung to ideas of a

magical nature.

protest against this

by a member

Koan
"

school has been preserved.

He

refers to

them as
quacks,
there
is

magicians and purifiers and charlatans and

profess to be very religious."^

who

Though

some

truth in this,

it

hardly does justice to

the great advances in physiology that were due to the

Sicilian school.

102. In

the

biography of Empedokles, we hear

Relation to
predecessors.

very

little

of his theory of nature.

The only

hints

we

get are

some statements about

his teachers.

Alkidamas,

who had good

^
i.

opportunities of knowing,

made him a

See M. Wellmann, Fragjuentsammhing dtt' griechischen Artzte, vol. According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the Ttmaeus) and Diokles of Karystos depend upon Philistion. It is impossible to understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without keeping the history of medicine constantly in view. For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon's latrika\
(Berlin, 1901).
'^

^CKLcrlfav

5'

ofcrat

e/c

5'

Ih^dv crvpeaTdvai

ijfids,

toOt iariv iK

5' rroix^ldtv

trvpds, dipos,

vdaroi, yijs.

eZpai 5i /cai iKdcrrov dwdfieis, toO ftkv irvpds rd

\l/vxp6v,

Bep/xdy,

Tou 5^ dipoi t6

toO

di

OSaros t6 iryp^v^

Trji

5k 717$
;

t6
for

^qpbv.

For the theory of

respiration, see
ib.

Wellmann, pp. 82
pp. 15 sqq.

sqq.

and

the heart as the seat of consciousness,

2
,

Hippokr. Uepl leprj^ v6<tov, c I fidyoi re Kal Kaddprai kolI ifiprat koI d\a^6ves. The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.

236

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of

fellow-student

Zeno under Parmenides.

likely.

That

is

both possible and

Theophrastos too made him

a follower and imitator of Parmenides.

But the further

^

statement that he had

right.

"

heard

"

Pythagoras cannot be
"

Probably Alkidamas said

Pythagoreans."

Some
effluvia

writers hold that certain parts of the system

of Empedokles, in particular the theory of pores and

(
1 1

8),

which do not

seem

to

follow very

naturally

from his own principles, were due to the

This, however,
is

influence of Leukippos.^
sarily the case.

not neces-

We

know
him

that

Alkmaion

96) spoke
it

of " pores " in connexion with sensation, and equally well be from
theory.
It

may
in

that

Empedokles got the

this
is

may

be

added

that

more

accordance with
logical

the history of certain other physioare

views which

common

to

Alkmaion and

the later Ionian philosophers.

that those reached

We

can generally see

Ionia through the medical school

which Empedokles founded.^

^eath.

103.
crater of

We

are told that

Empedokles
*

leapt into the

Etna that he might be deemed a god.

This

appears to be a malicious version

of a tale set on foot

by

his

adherents that he had been

in
viii.

snatched up to

heaven
1
'^

the night.^

Both

stories

would

easily get

Diog.

54-56 (R. P. 162).

Diels, Verhandl. d. 35 Philologenversamml. pp. 104 sqq., Zeller, p. 767.

It would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if it could be I hope to show proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean doctrine (Chap. IX. 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles (Chap. VII. 147). ^ For Ttbpoi in Alkmaion, cf. Arist. de Gen. An. B, 6. 744 a 8 ; Theophr. de sens. 26 and for the way in which his embryological and other views were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian physicists, cf.
;

Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen, pp. 126 sqq.

The story is always told with a hostile purpose. This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, end of his romance about the SiTrvovi.
*
5

R. P. 162 h.

R. P.

ib.

at the

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
accepted
did
;

237

for there

was no

local tradition.
in

Empedokles
or,

not die in

Sicily,

but

the

Peloponnese,

perhaps, at Thourioi.

He had

gone to Olympia to
;

have his religious poem recited to the Hellenes

seen in Sicily no more.^
104. Empedokles was the second

his

enemies were able to prevent his return, and he was

philosopher to

writings,

expound

his

system

in

verse, if

we

leave the satirist

also the last

Xenophanes out of account.

He was
imitates

among the Greeks may be neglected.^

;

for the forged

Pythagorean poems

Lucretius

Empedokles

in this, just as

Empedokles imitated Parmenides.

imagery creates a

Of

course, the poetical

interpreter
;

difficulty for the

but

it

would be wrong to make too much

it

of

it.

It

cannot be said that

is

harder to extract

the philosophical kernel from the verses of Empedokles

than from the prose of Herakleitos.

There
poetical

is

merit
is

some divergence of opinion as to The pand^ric of Empedokles.

in

the

of

Lucretius
that

well known.^

Aristotle says in one place

Empedokles and Homer have nothing

;

common
"

but the metre

in another, that

Empedokles was

most

Homeric."

'^

To my

mind, there can be no question

that he was a genuine poet, far

more so than Parmenides.

No

one doubts nowadays that Lucretius was one, and

really resembles

Empedokles
^

him very

closely.

Timaios took the trouble to refute the

viii.

(Diog.

71 sqq.

R. P.

never returned to

Sicily.

common stories at some length was quite positive that Empedokles Nothing can be more likely than that, when
td.).

He

in the Peloponnese, he should have seized the opportunity of joining the colony at Thourioi, which was a harbour for

wandering as an exile

many
2 *
*

of the

'*

sophists " of this time.

See Chap. IV. 85. Lucr. i. 716 sqq. Poet. I. 1447 b 18

;

cf.

Diog.

viii.

57 (R. P. 162. i).

238
The
remains.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

We
have

105.

more abundant remains of EmDiogenes and of

pedokles than of any other early Greek philosopher.

If

we may

trust our manuscripts of

Souidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the

Poem

on Nature and the Purifications together as 5600 verses,

of which about

2000 belonged
350
verses

to the former work.^

Diels gives about

and parts of verses from

fifth

the cosmological poem, or not a

is

of the whole.

It

important to

remember
has

that,

even in
lost.

this favourable

instance, so

much

been

Besides the two

poems, the Alexandrian scholars possessed a prose work

of

600 lines on medicine ascribed to Empedokles. The tragedies and other poems which were sometimes
him seem
really to belong to a
is

attributed to
writer of the

younger

same name, who

remains
as

said

by Souidas to
arranged

have been
I

his grandson.^

give
:

the

they

are

by

Diels

(i)

And do

thou give

ear,

Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise

(2)

For straitened are the powers that are spread over their bodily parts, and many are the woes that burst in on them and
1

Diog.
Ilepl

viii.

iiriov

0i5(rews

77 (R. P. 162); Souidas s.v. 'EfiireSoKX^s ' Kal ^ypa\p tQv tvrwv ^i^Xia /3', Kal ^ariv ^ttt] ws 5i(rxi\ia.

8l

It

hardly seems likely, however, that the Kadap/xol extended to 3000 verses,
so Diels proposes to read wavTa rpi.axl'Xia for Trevra/cicrx^Xia in Diogenes.
It
is

to

be observed that there

the Ilepl
(piffecas

is

dividing
2

into

three

no better authority than Tzetzes for books. See Diels, " tjber die
396 sqq.).
viii.

Gedichte des Empedokles " (^^r/.

forty-three of these tragedies

Sttzd., 1898, pp.

Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog.

;

58) that he

had met with

but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on the Persian Wars, which Hieronymos also refers to (Diog. viii. 57), seems to have arisen from an old corruption in the text of Arist. Probl. 929 b 16,

where Bekker

still

reads ^v rots

nepo-i/cois.

The same

passage, however,

is

said to occur iv toTs (pvaiKois, in Meteor. A, 4. 382 a

i,

though there too

reads nepcrtKOts.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
blunt the edge of their careful thoughts
brief
!

239

They behold but a doomed to swift death, are borne up and fly off like smoke. Each is convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon as he is hurried to and fro, and idly boasts he has found the whole.
span of a Hfe that
is

no

life,^

and,

So hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by

the ears of men, so hardly grasped by their
then, since thou

mind

Thou,^

hast found thy

way

hither,

shalt learn

no

more than mortal mind hath power.

(3)

R.

163.

...

to

keep within thy

dumb
(4)

heart.

But,

ye gods, turn aside from

of those men.^

Hallow

my

from

them
I

And
!

thee,

Muse, do

beseech that

my tongue the madness and make a pure stream flow much -wooed, white -armed Virgin I may hear what is lawful for the
lips

children of a day

Speed

me on my way
!

from the abode of

shall

no garlands of glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift them from the ground, on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond that which is lawful and right, and so to gain a seat upon
willing car

Holiness and drive

my

Thee

the heights of wisdom.

Go
thing

to now, consider with all thy

is

powers
in

in

what way each

credit

clear.

Hold not thy

sight

greater

as 10

compared with thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear above the clear instructions of thy tongue * and do not withhold thy confidence in any of thy other bodily parts by which there is an opening for understanding,^ but consider R. P. 163. everything in the way it is clear.
; ^

The MSS.

of Sextus have ^uijai piov.

Cf.
fr.

Diels reads fw^s IdLov.

5r?

I still

prefer Scaliger's fw^s d/3iou.

-

15,

t6

^Lotov KoKiovau

pedokles.
'
* ^

The person here addressed Cf. fr. in.

is still

Pausanias, and the speaker

Em-

No

doubt mainly Parmenides.

sense of taste, not speech.

The

Zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after vvneou^ thus
:

getting almost the opposite sense

" Withhold

all

confidence in thy bodily

senses"

but he admits in his

in favour of Stein,

who

edition (p. 804, n. 2) that the context is put only a comma at vo^o-ot and took dXXd^r closely
fifth

240

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(5)
it

'^But
betters.

is

ever the

way of low minds

to disbelieve their

Do

thou learn as the sure testimonies of

my Muse

bid thee, dividing the argument in thy heart.^

(6)

Hear

first

the four roots of

all

things

shining Zeus,

life-

bringing Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis whose tear-drops are a

well-spring to mortals.

R. P. 164.^
(7)

uncreated.
(8)

And
death
;

I shall tell thee another thing.

There

is
it

no coming
in baneful

into being of aught that perishes, nor any end for

but

only

mingling

and change of what has been

is

mingled.

Coming

into being

but a

name

given to these by

men.

R.

165.
(9)

But,

when

the elements have been mingled in the fashion

to the light of day, or in the fashion of the

of a

man and come

into

race of wild beasts or plants or birds, then

men
;

say that these

call

come

being;

and when they are separated, they

that woeful death.

They
it

call

it

not aright

but

too follow

the custom, and call

so myself.

(10)

Avenging death.
(11, 12)

Fools

for

they have

no far-reaching thoughts

who
id.) is

deem
with
1

that

what before was not comes into being, or that

So too
Diels.

yvlojv.

The paraphrase MS.

given by Sextus (R. P.

substantially right.

There

is

no

difficulty in the
(cf.

diarfnjdivTos if

we

take \6yoio as
5iacr(XT)9^vTos^

"discourse,"

"argument"
their

diaipeip).

Diels conjectures

words have passed through the sieve of thy mind." Nor does it seem to me necessary to read xoprd for Kapra in the first line. 2 The four elements are introduced under mythological names, for which Diels is clearly right in removing the comma after see below, p. 264, n. i. T^77ei, and rendering Nesits quae lacrimis suis laticem fimdit mortalibus
rendering

"when

destinatum.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
aught can perish and be utterly destroyed.
that

241

For it cannot be from what in no way is, and it is impossible and unheard of that what is should perish for it
aught can
arise
;

will

always

de^

wherever one

may keep
(13)

putting

it.

R. P. 165

a.

And

in the All there

is

naught empty and naught too

full.

(M)
In the All there
is

naught empty.
it ?

Whence,

then, could

aught come to increase

(IS)

A man

who

is

wise in such matters would never surmise in

his heart that as long as mortals live

so long they are,

and

suffer

what they call their life, good and ill ; while before they
just

were formed and

nothing at
all.

after they

have been dissolved they are

a.

R. P. 165

(16)

For of a truth they

shall

(Strife

and Love) were aforetime and

will

be

nor ever, methinks,

R. P. 166
c.

boundless time be emptied

of that

pair.

(17)

one only out of many instead of one. There

;

At one time it grew to be it divided up to be many is a double becoming of perishable things and a double passing away. The coming together of all things brings one generation into being and destroys it the other grows up and is scattered as things become
I shall tell

thee a twofold

tale.

at another,

divided.
places, at

And

these things never cease continually changing

all

one time
far as

uniting in one through Love, at another

Strife.

each borne in different directions by the repulsion of

Thus, as

it is

their nature to

grow

into

one out of many,

10

and
But,

to

asunder, so far they

become many once more when the one is parted come into being and their life abides not
their

inasmuch as they never cease changing

places

continually, so far they are ever

immovable

as they

go round

the circle of existence.

16

242

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to
I

But come, hearken

15

my

words,

for

it

is

learning that

increaseth wisdom.

As

said before,
tell

when

I declared the
tale.

heads of

my
it

discourse, I shall

thee a twofold

At
at
;

one time
another
Fire
it

grew together to be one only out of many,

parted asunder so as to be

many
the

instead of one

and Water

and

Earth

and

mighty

height

of

Air; dread
20

Strife, too,

apart from these, of equal weight to

and Love among them, equal in length and breadth. Her do thou contemplate with thy mind, nor sit with dazed eyes. It is she that is known as being implanted in the frame
each,
It is she that makes them have thoughts of love of mortals. and work the works of peace. They call her by the names of Her has no mortal yet marked moving Joy and Aphrodite. round among them,^ but do thou attend to the undeceitful

25

ordering of

my

discourse.

For
30

all

these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a

diiferent prerogative

and

its

own

peculiar nature.

And

nothing
;

do they pass away for, if they had been passing away continually, they would not be now, and what could increase this All and whence could it come? How, too, could it perish, since no place is empty of comes
into being besides these, nor

these things
35

They

are what they are

this,

but, running through

that,^

one another, they become now

evermore.

now

and

like things

R. P. 166.
(18)

Love.
(19)
Clinging Love.

(20)

This (the contest of Love and

Strife)
all

is

manifest in the

mass of mortal limbs.

high season

At one time

the limbs that are the

life's

body's portion are brought together by Love in blooming

;

at another,

severed by cruel
life's sea.
.

Strife,

they wander

each alone by the breakers of

^

It is

the

same with

Reading

/j-erdt,

roiaiv.

still

think, however,
deoTa-iu
{i.e.

that Knatz's palaeo-

graphically admirable conjuncture fiera

among

the elements)

deserves consideration.
^

Keeping dWore with

Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
plants

243

and the

fish that

make

their

homes

in the waters, with

the beasts that have their

that sail

lairs

on the
d.

hills

and the seabirds

on wings.

R. P. 173

(21)

Come
to their

now, look at the things that bear witness to

if

my

earlier discourse,

so be that there was any shortcoming as

form in the earlier hst. Behold the sun, everywhere and warm, and all the immortal things that are bathed in Behold the rain, everywhere dark heat and bright radiance.^ and cold ; and from the earth issue forth things close-pressed
bright

and
in

solid.

When

they are in

strife

all

these are different

form and

separated;

but

they

come

together in love,

and

are desired by

one another.
all things that were and are and men and women, beasts and birds dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that

For out of these have sprung

and shall be and the fishes

live

tree's

that

long lives and are exalted in honour.

R.

P.

166

i.

For these things are what they are

but, running through

one another, they take change them.

different shapes
g.

so much does mixture

R. P. 166

(22)

all their

and sea are at one with and wide from them in mortal things. And even so all things that are more adapted for mixture are like to one another and united in love by Aphrodite. Those things, again, that differ most in origin, mixture and the forms imprinted on each, are most hostile, being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very sorry by
all

For

of these

sun, earth, sky,

parts that are cast far

the bidding of

Strife,

since

it

hath wrought their

birth.

(n)
when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men whom wisdom hath well taught their art, they, when they
Just as

have taken pigments of many colours with their hands, mix

^

Reading A/x^pora

5'

Sa-ff'

(dei

with Diels.

For the word Wo?,

cf.

firs.

^2, 5; 73, 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of solidified Air, and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere. See

below, 113.

244
them
5

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in

due proportion, more of some and

like

less of others,

and
trees

from them produce shapes

unto

all

things,

making

and men and women, beasts and birds and

the waters, yea, and gods, that live long
in honour,

fishes that dwell in

lives,

and are exalted

so

let

not the error prevail over thy mind,^ that

all

there
10

is

any other source of

the perishable creatures that

appear in countless numbers.

Know

this for sure, for

thou

hast heard the tale from a goddess.^

(24)

Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one

path to the end.
.
. .

(^5)

What

is

right

may

well be said even twice.

(26)

For they prevail in turn as the circle comes round, and pass into one another, and grow great in their appointed turn.
R. P. i66
c.

They are what they they become men and

5

are

but, running

through one another,

the tribes of beasts.

At one time they

;

are

all

brought together into one order by Love

at another,

they are carried each in different directions by the repulsion they grow once more into one and are wholly Thus in so far as they are wont to grow into one out of many, and again divided become more than one, so but in far they come into being and their life is not lasting
of
Strife,
till

subdued.

10

so far as they never cease changing continually, so far are

they evermore, immovable in the

(27)

circle.

There are distinguished neither the

no, nor the shaggy earth in
its

swift

limbs of the sun,

might, nor the sea,

close

so fast

was the god bound

1

in

the
kl.

covering

of

Harmony,

Reading with Blass {/ahrb.f.

ouTW
(i.ri

Phil., 1883, p. 19)

<T

anaTr] (f>peva kcuvvtm k.t.K.

Cf.

Hesychios
2

Kaivvru

'

viKdru.

This

is

practically

what the MSS. of

glosses.

Simplicius give, and Hesychios has

many Empedoklean
Cf.
fr.

The " goddess"

is,

of course, -the Muse.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
spherical

245
solitude.^

and

round,

rejoicing

in

his

circular

R. P. 167.

(27a)

There

is

no discord and no unseemly

(28)

strife in his limbs.

But he was equal on every side and quite without end, spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.

Two
no

branches do not spring from his back, he has no

feet,

swift knees,

no

fruitful

parts

but he was spherical and

equal on every side.

(3o 31)

But^

when

Strife

was grown great in the limbs of the god

and] sprang forth to claim his prerogatives, in the fulness of

the alternate time set for them by the mighty oath,
all

...

for

the limbs of the god in turn quaked.

P. 167.

(32)

The

joint binds

two

things.',

(33)

Even

as

when

fig

juice rivets

and binds white

milk.

(34)

Cementing ' meal with

water.

...

(35. 36)

But now
that I
saying. vortex,

I shall retrace

my

steps over the paths of song

have travelled before, drawing from

my

saying a

new
it

When

Strife

was

fallen to the lowest

depth of the

and Love had reached

fiovl-p,

to the centre of the whirl, in

do

The word
is

There
2

no reason

The

cannot mean *' rest," but only solitude. though Simplicius has irepiyrjd^i. masculine KoXX^<ras shows that the subject cannot have been
if it is right,

for altering vepLtjyh,

*tX6T7;s;

and Karsten was doubtless

from

right in believing that

It
is

introduced the simile of a baker here.

illustrations

in his

Empedokles manner to take

human

arts.

246
5
all

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

come
together so as to be one only
will
;

things

not

all at

once,

but coming together at their

each from different quarters

and, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures were

scattered abroad.

Yet many things remained unmixed,

for

alter-

nating with the things that were being mixed, namely,

10
Strife

all

that

not fallen yet retained

it

had not

yet altogether retired

circle.

perfectly

from them to the outermost boundaries of the

it still

Some

of

remained within, and some had passed out from

the limbs of the All.

out, a soft,
in,

But

in proportion as

it

kept rushing

immortal stream of blameless Love kept running

15

and straightway those things became mortal which had before, those things were mixed that had been unmixed, each changing its path. And, as they mingled,
been immortal
countless tribes

of mortal creatures were

all

scattered abroad
to

endowed with
R. P. 169.

manner of

forms,

wonder

behold.

(37)

Earth increases
Air.

its

own

mass, and Air swells the bulk of

(38)

Come,
things

shall

now

tell

thee

first

of

all

the beginning of
all

the sun,i and the sources from which have sprung

the

we now behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the damp vapour and the Titan air that binds his circle fast
round
all things.

R. P. 170

a.

(39)
If the depths of the earth

and the

vast air were infinite, a

lips

foolish saying

which has been vainly dropped from the

of

many
All.
.

mortals,
.

though they have seen but a

b.

little

of the

.2

R. P. 103

The MSS.

of Clement have

ijXiov

dpxw> and the reading

t'

ijXiov

dpxn"

is

a mere makeshift.
2

Diels reads ^Xt/cd

apxh^,

"

the

first

(elements)

equal in age."

The

lines are referred to

de Caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21.

Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them See above, Chap. II. p. 137.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
(40)

247

The

sharp-darting sun

and the gentle moon.

(41)

But

(the sunhght)

is

gathered together and circles round

the mighty heavens.

(42)

And

she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a
as

shadow on

much

of the earth as

is

the breadth of the

pale-faced moon.^

(43)

Even so the sunbeam, having struck the broad and mighty circle of the moon, returns at once, running ^so as to reach
the sky.

(44)
It flashes

back to Olympos with untroubled countenance.

R. P. 170

c.

(45 46)

There

circles

round the earth a round borrowed

light, as

the nave of the wheel circles round the furthest (goal).

(47)

For she gazes

at the sacred circle of the lordly

sun opposite.

(48)
It is

the earth that makes night by coming before the

(49)

lights.

...

of solitary, blind-eyed night.

(so)

And

Iris

bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.

(sO
(Fire) swiftly rushing

upwards

hv

tri

Kad&irepdev.

have translated Diels's conjecture ireariyaaeM 54 The MSS. have AretTKe^aaev and (<rT

ol

aiyds,

(<rr'

alop.

248

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(52)

And many

fires

burn beneath the earth.

R. P. 171a.

(53)

For so as
otherwise.

it

ran,

it

met them

at that time,

though often

R. P. 171

a.

(54)

But the
R. P. 171

air
a.

sank

down upon

the earth with

its

long roots.

(55)

Sea the sweat of the earth.

R. P. 170

b.

(56)
Salt

was

solidified

by the impact of the sun's beams.

(57)

On

it

(the earth)

many heads sprung up without necks and

Eyes strayed up
a.

arms wandered bare and bereft of shoulders. and down in want of foreheads. R. P. 173
(58)
Solitary limbs

wandered seeking
(59)

for union.

But, as divinity was mingled

still

further with divinity, these

things joined together as each might chance,

things besides

and many other

them continually

arose.

(60)

Shambhng

creatures with countless hands.

(61)

Many

creatures with faces

;

and

breasts looking in different

directions were born

some, offspring of oxen with faces of

men, while others, again, arose as offspring of

heads of oxen, and creatures
in

men

with the

whom

the nature of

women

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
and men was mingled, furnished with
173
b.

249
R. P.

sterile^ parts.

(62)

Come
for

now, hear how the Fire as

it

was separated caused

the night-born shoots of

men and

tearful

women

to arise

my

tale

is

not off the point nor uninformed.

first

Whole-

natured forms

arose from the earth, having a portion

fire.^

both of water and

reaching
its like,

These did the

fire,

desirous of

send up, showing as yet neither the charming

form of women's limbs, nor yet the voice and parts that are
proper to men.

R. P. 173

c
(63)

But the substance of (the

it

child's)

limbs

is

divided

between them, part of

in

men's and part in women's (body).

(64)

And upon him came

desire reminding

him through

sight.

(65)
.

And

it

was poured out

in the
it.

pure parts

and when

it

met with cold women arose from

(66)

The

divided

meadows of Aphhrodite.
(67)

For
that
is

in its

warmer

part the

womb

brings forth males,

and

why men

are dark and

more manly and shaggy.

(68)

On
arises.^

the tenth day of the eighth

month

the white putrefaction

Reading

o-re/pots

with Diels, Hermes^ xv.

{i.e.

loc. cit.

Retaining el5eos

Wcos),

which

is

read in the

MSS.

of Simplicius.

Cf. above, p. 243, n.

^

i.

That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by An. A, 8. 777 a 7). The word iriov mesins pus. There may be a punning allusion to tv6s, " beestings," but that has its vowel
Aristotle {de Gen.

long.

250

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(69)
bearing.^

Double

(70)

Sheepskin.2
(71)

But

if

thy

assurance

deficient as to how, out of

things was in any way Water and Earth and Air and Fire

of these

mingled together, arose the forms and colours of all those mortal things that have been fitted together by Aphrodite, and
5

so are

now come

into being.

(72)

How

tall trees

and the

fishes in the sea

(73)

And
harden

even as

at that

time Kypris, preparing warmth, ^ after

it

she had moistened the Earth in water, gave

it.
.

to swift fire to

R. P. 171.
(74)

Leading the songless

tribe of fertile fish.

(75)
All of those which are

dense within and rare without,

of this kind
at

having received
Kypris.
. . .

a moisture

the hands of

(76)

This thou mayest see in the heavy-backed

shell-fish

that

dwell in the sea, in sea-snails and the stony-skinned

turtles.

In them thou mayest see that the earthy part dwells on the

uppermost

surface.

(77-78)
It
is

the

air
fruit

that

makes evergreen

trees

flourish

with

abundance of
^

the whole year round.

in

Said of

women

reference to births in the seventh and ninth

months.
2 ^

Of the membrane round

Reading

the foetus.

idea ironrpijov(Ta with Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
(79)

251

And

so

first

of

all tall olive trees

bear eggs.

(80)

Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.

(8i)

Wine

is

the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.

(82)

Hair and
that

leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the grow on mighty limbs, are the same thing.

scales

(83)

But the hair of hedgehogs

on
their backs.

is

sharp -pointed and bristles

(84)

And
fire,

even as when a

man

thinking to sally forth through a

stormy night, gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing

fastening to
it

horn plates to keep out

all

manner of

winds, and they scatter the blast of the winds that blow, but the light leaping out through them, shines across the threshold

with unfailing beams, as

much

of

it

as

is

finer

even so did

she (Love) then entrap the elemental

fire,

the round pupil,

confined within membranes and delicate tissues, which are

They pierced through and through with wondrous passages. keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil, but they let through the fire, as much of it as is finer. R. P. 177 b.
(85)

10

But the gentle flame

of earth.

(of the eye) has but a scanty portion

(86)

Out of these
^

divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.

where
^r\\iiv

See Beare,
loc.

p. 16, n. i,

Plato,

Tim. 45 b 4 {tov
is

irvpbs 6<rov rb fi^y

Kdetv oi>K fax^p, t6 3^ irap^eip

<f>ws i^fiepov),

aptly quoted.
ovpavbv^

ad

understands kotA

to

mean

/car'

Alexander which seems

improbable.

252

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(87)
fitting

Aphrodite

these together with rivets of love.

(88)

One

vision

is

produced by both the

(89)

eyes.

Know
into being.

that effluences flow from

all

things that have

come

R. P. 166

h.

(90)

So sweet

lays

hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter;

acid comes to acid, and

warm

couples with warm.

(91)

Water fits better R. R 166 h.

Brass mixed with

into wine, but

it

will

not (mingle) with

oil.

(92)
tin.

(93)

The

berry of the blue elder

is

mingled with

scarlet.

(94)

And

the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from

the shadow.

The same

is

seen in hollow caves.

(95)

Since they (the eyes)

Kypris.

first

grew together

in the

hands of

(96)

broad funnels two parts of and four of Hephaistos. So arose white bones divinely fitted together by the cement of
kindly earth received in
its

The

gleaming Nestis out of the

proportion.

eight,

R. P. 175.
(97)

The

spine (was broken).

(98)

And

the

earth,

anchoring
with
these

in in

the

perfect

harbours

of

Aphrodite,

meets

nearly

equal proportions,

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
with Hephaistos and Water and gleaming Air

253
little

either a

more of

it,

or less of

them and more of

it.

From

these did
c.

blood arise and the manifold forms of

flesh.

R. P. 175

(99)

The

bell

the fleshy sprout (of the ear).^

(100)

Thus 2 do
their bodies;

all

things

draw breath and breathe

the

it

out again.

All have bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of

and

at
is

mouths of these the outermost

all

surface of the skin

perforated

over with pores closely

packed together, so as to keep

passage
is

in the

blood while a

free

cut for the air to pass through.

Then, when the

thin blood recedes from these, the bubbling air rushes in with

an impetuous surge;
breathed out again.

and when the blood runs back

Just as

it

is

when

girl,

playing with a

water-clock of shining brass, puts the orifice of the pipe

upon

10

her comely hand, and dips the water-clock into the yielding

mass of

silvery water,

the stream does not then flow into the

air inside,
it

vessel, but the

bulk of the

pressing

upon the

close-

packed perforations, keeps

pressed stream; but then
of water runs
in,

out

till

she uncovers the com15

escapes and an equal volume same way, when water occupies the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and passage is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving to
air

just in the

get

in,

holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding

neck, pressing

upon

its

surface,

till

Then, on the contrary,

1
'^

just in

go with her hand. the opposite way to what

she
lets

20

On

fir.

99, see Beare, p. 96, n.

i.

This passage is quoted by Aristotle {de Respir, 473 b 9), who makes the curious mistake of taking l^wSiv for the genitive of pl% instead of pLvb%. The locus classicus on the subject of the klepsydra is Probl. 914 b 9 sqq. (where read avKov for A^Xov, b 12). The klepsydra was a metal vessel with a narrow neck (oi/\6j) at the top and with a sort of strainer (iJ^/xAs) pierced with holes {Tfrfifxara, rpviriffiaTa) at the bottom. The passage in the Problans just referred to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to Anaxagoras, and we shall see later that he also made use of a similar experiment ( 131).

254
happened

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

before, the

wind rushes

water runs out to

make room.^

in and an equal volume of Even so, when the thin blood

that surges through the limbs rushes backwards to the interior,

straightway the stream of air

comes
air

in with a rushing swell

but when the blood returns the

quantity.

breathes out again in equal

(lOl)

(The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the beast's limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave
in the soft grass.^

(102)

Thus

all

things have their share of breath

and

smell.

(103, 104)

Thus have

all

things thought by fortune's

will.

And

inasmuch as the

rarest things

came together

in their

fall.

(105)

(The
for the

heart),

dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in

is

opposite directions, where chiefly

what men

call

thought
R. P.

blood round the heart

is

the thought of men.

178

a.

(106)

them.

For the wisdom of men grows according to what R. P. 177.

(107)

is

before

For out of these are

^

all

things formed

and

fitted together,

ydp
iirl

Tts avrrjs (t^s K\\f/ij8pas) avrrjv

This seems to be the experiment described in Probl. 914 b 26, kb.v t^v Kwdiav i/xirX-^aas {jdaros, CTnXapCbv

rbv aiiXbv, KaTa<TTpi\pri

a-rdfia.

iirl top av\6v, ov <f>ip6Tai t6 vdwp Std rod aOXov avoLxdhros bk rod ardfiaTos, oiiK eidds iKpet Karb, rbv avKbv, dXXd, p.LKpoT4p(j3 OffTepov, ws ovk bv iirl rep ardfiari tqv aiiXov, dXX' iiarepov
5tdi

TOTjTov (/)ep6fj,vop dvoLxdivTos. The epithet dva-^xeos applied to icdpLolo best explained as a reference to the 4pvyfi6s or " belching " referred to at 915 a 7 as accompanying the discharge of water through the av\6s.
is

Any one
this

can produce this

it

epithet,

conjectured
2

this,

effect with a water-bottle. If it were not for would be tempting to read rje/jioio for iadfioio. Sturz and it is actually the reading of a few MSS.

On

fr.

loi, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
and by these do men think and
R. P. 178.
(108)
feel pleasure

255
and
pain.

And

just

so far as they

grow

to

be

different,

so far

do
(in

different thoughts ever present themselves to their

minds

dreams).^

R. P. 177

a.

(109)

For
water
love
;

it

is

with earth that

we

see Earth,
fire

and Water with

by

air

we

see bright Air, by

destroying Fire.
hate.

By

do we see Love, and Hate by grievous

R. P. 176.

(.10)

For

if,

supported

on

thy

steadfast

mind,

thou

wilt

contemplate these things with good intent and

then shalt thou have
thy
life^

faultless care,

all these things in abundance throughout and thou shalt gain many others from them. For these things grow of themselves into thy heart, where is each man's true nature. But if thou strivest after things of another kind, as is the way with men, ten thousand woes await thee Soon will these things desert to blunt thy careful thoughts. thee when the time comes round; for they long to return once more to their own kind for know that all things have wisdom and a share of thought.
;

(Ill)

And
against
all this.

thou shalt learn

ills

all

the drugs that are a defence

and old age

since for thee alone will I accomplish

Thou

shalt arrest the violence of the weariless

winds

that arise
desirest,

and sweep the earth; and again, when thou so thou shalt bring back their blasts with a rush. Thou

shalt cause for

men

a seasonable drought after the dark rains,

and again thou

shalt bring

shalt

change the summer drought

for streams

that feed the trees as they pour

down from
life

the sky.

Thou

back from Hades the

is

of a dead man.
An.
p.

That the reference

to dreams,

we

learn from Simpl. de

202,

30.

256

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

PURIFICATIONS
(112)

Friends, that inhabit the great town looking

down on

the

yellow rock of Akragas, up by the citadel, busy in goodly works,

harbours of honour for the stranger,

all hail.

men

unskilled in meanness,

go about among you an immortal god, no mortal

all

now, honoured among

flowery garlands.
in
is

as

is

meet, crowned with

fillets

and

Straightway, whenever I enter with these

my

train,

both

reverence done

men and women, into me they go after me

;

the flourishing towns,

in countless throngs,

asking of

me

what

is

the

way
all

to gain

some

desiring oracles,

while some,

who

for

many

a weary day have been pierced

by the grievous pangs of

from

manner of
R. P.
1

sickness,
f.

beg to hear

me

the word of healing.

62

("3)
But why do
matter that
I

harp on these things, as

if it

were any great

should surpass mortal, perishable

men ?

("4)
Friends, I
utter,

know indeed
is

but

it

hard

for

that truth is in the words I shall men, and jealous are they of the

assault of belief

on

their souls.

("5)
There
is

an oracle of Necessity,^ an ancient ordinance of

length of days, has

the gods, eternal and sealed fast by broad oaths, that whenever one of the daemons, whose portion
sinfully polluted his
is

hands with blood,^ or followed strife and forsworn himself, he must wander thrice ten thousand years from the abodes of the blessed, being born throughout the
time in
1

all

manners of mortal forms, changing one toilsome

Necessity
2

Bernays conjectured pruxa, " decree," for xp^o-, but this is not necessary. is an Orphic personage, and Gorgias, the disciple of Empedokles,
/cai

says deG)v ^ovXevfiaaLv

I retain
<p6v({}

dvdyKrjs ^??0iV/xa(rti' {He/. 6).

lost.

in v. 3 (so too Diels). The first word of v. 4 has been Diels suggests Nekei", which may well be right, and takes d/iaprija-as
I

as equivalent to ofuifrr^aas.

have translated accordingly.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
path of
life

257

for another.

the Sea, and the Sea spews

For the mighty Air drives him into him forth on the dry Earth
10

flings

Earth tosses him into the beams of the blazing Sun, and he him back to the eddies of Air. One takes him from
all

the other, and

exile

reject him.

One

of these

now am, an
put

and a wanderer from the gods,

R. P. 181.

for that I

my

trust

in insensate strife.

(116)
Charis loathes intolerable Necessity.

("7)
have been ere now a boy and a girl, a bush and a R. P. 182. bird and a dumb fish in the sea.

For

(118)
I

wept and

wailed

when

saw the unfamiliar land.

R. P. 182.
(119)

From what
fallen to

honour, from what a height of

bliss

have

go about among mortals here on earth.

(120)

We

have come under

this roofed-in cave.^

(.21)
.
. .

the joyless land, where are Death and

troops of

Dooms

besides

Wrath and and parching Plagues and Rotten-

nesses and Floods

roam

in darkness over the

meadow

of Ate.

(122, 123)

There were^ Chthonie and far-sighted Heliope, bloody

Discord and gentle-visaged Harmony, Kallisto and Aischre,

Speed and Tarrying, lovely Truth and dark-haired Uncertainty,

^

According to Porphyry, who quotes

{\pvxoirop.irol
Si/i/d/xeij).

these words were spoken by the

the world
-

this line {de Antra Nymph. 8), "powers" who conduct the soul into The "cave" is not originally Platonic

but Orphic.
xviii.

This passage is closely modelled on the Catalogue of Nymphs in Iliad 39 sqq. Chthonie is found already in Pherekydes (Di(^. i. 1 19).
17

258
Birth

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and Decay, Sleep and Waking, Movement and Imcrowned Majesty and Meanness, Silence and Voice.
a.

5 mobility,

R. P. 182

(124)
Alas,

are the strifes

wretched race of mortals, twice unblessed such and groanings from which ye have been born
:

("5)
From
forms.
living creatures

he made them dead, changing their

(126)

(The goddess) clothing them with a strange garment of

flesh.i

(127)

Among
the
hills

beasts they
their

become

lions that
;

make
and

their lair

on

and

couch on the ground

R. P. 181 b.

laurels

among

trees with

goodly

foliage.

(128)

Nor had they any Ares for a god nor Kydoimos, no nor King Zeus nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Kypris the Queen.
^
. . .

Her did

they propitiate with holy

gifts,

with painted

and perfumes of cunning fragrancy, with offerings of pure myrrh and sweet-smelling frankincense, casting on the And the altar did not ground libations of brown honey. reek with pure bull's blood, but this was held in the greatest abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing
figures *

out the

life.

R. P. 184.

have retained dWdyvurt as nearer the MSS. , though a little hard to On the subsequent history of the Orphic chiton in gnostic imagery see Bernays, Theophr. Schr. n. 9. It was identified with the coat of skins made by God for Adam. ^ This is the best /ieroi/cTjo-is (Ael. Nat. an. xii. 7). 3 The dwellers in the Golden Age. ^ The MSS. of Porphyry have ypawTols re ^{boiai, which is accepted by The emendation of Bernays (adopted in R. P.) does not Zeller and Diels. convince me. I venture to suggest /ia/crois, on the strength of the story related by Favorinus {ap. Diog. viii. 53) as to the bloodless sacrifice offered by Empedokles at Olympia.
^

interpret.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
(129)

259

And
most

there was

among them

man

of rare knowledge,

manner of wise works, a man who had won the utmost wealth of wisdom; for whensoever he strained
skilled in all

with

all his

mind, he easily saw everything of

all

the things
5

that are, in ten, yea, twenty lifetimes of men.^

(130)

For

all

things were

tame and gentle to man, both beasts

feelings

and
R.

birds,

and

friendly

were kindled everywhere.

184 a
(131)

If ever, as regards the things of a day,

immortal Muse, thou

didst deign to take thought for

my

endeavour, then stand by

me once more as I pray to thee, O Kalliopeia, as I utter a pure discourse concerning the blessed gods. R. P. 179.
(132)
Blessed
is

the

man who

has gained the riches of divine

wisdom

wretched he who has a dim opinion of the gods in

R. P. 179.

his heart.

(133)
It is

not possible for us to set

God

before our eyes, or to

is

lay hold of

him with our hands, which

the broadest way of

persuasion that leads into the heart of man.

(134)

human head on his body, two branches do not sprout from his shoulders, he has no feet, no swift knees, nor hairy parts ; but he is only a sacred and unutterable mind flashing through the whole world with
For he
is

not furnished with a

rapid thoughts.

R. P. 180.

(135)

This

is

not lawful for some and unlawful for others; but

all

the law for

extends everywhere, through the wide-ruling air

of heaven.

and the
^

infinite light

R. P. 183.

These
54).

lines

were already referred to Pythagoras by Timaios (Diog.

are told (Diog.
clear that
ii/.) that some no name was given.

viii.

As we
it is

referred the verses to

Parmenides,

26o

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(136)
?

Will ye not cease from this ill-sounding slaughter

See ye

not that ye are devouring one another in the thoughtlessness

of your hearts
?

R. P. 184

b.

(137)

And
slays

the father

lifts

up

his

own son

in a
!

changed form and

him with a

prayer.

Infatuated fool

And

they run

up
In

to the sacrificers, begging mercy, while he, deaf to their cries,

slaughters
like

them in his halls and manner does the son seize

tear
b.

gets ready the evil feast.

his father,

and children
the

their
flesh.

mother,

out

their

life

and

eat

kindred

R.

184

(138)

Draining their

life

with bronze.

(139)

Ah, woe

is

me

that the pitiless day of death did not destroy

me
R.

ere ever I wrought evil deeds of devouring with

my

lips

184

b.

(140)
Abstain wholly from laurel leaves.

(141)
Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans
!

(142)

Him
rejoice,

will

the roofed palace of aigis-bearing Zeus

. . .

never

nor yet the house of

(143)

Wash your

hands, cutting the water from the five springs

in the unyielding bronze.^

R. P. 184
(144)

c.

Fast from wickedness

R. P. 184

c.

^ On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. Poet. 21. 1547 b 13, and Diels in Hermes, xv. p. 173.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
(I4S)

261

Therefore are ye distraught by grievous wickednesses, and

will

not unburden your souls of wretched sorrows.

(146, 147)

But, at the

last,

they appear

among mortal men

;

as prophets,
rise

song-writers, physicians,

and princes

and thence they

safe

up

as gods exalted in honour, sharing the hearth of the other gods

and the same table, free from human woes, and incapable of hurt. R. P. 1 8 1 c.
(148)
. . .

from destiny,
5

Earth that envelops the man.

06.

At

the very outset of his poem, Empedokles Empedokies

is

careful to

mark the

difference between himself

and

menides.

previous inquirers.

He

speaks angrily of those who,

though
"

their experience

was only
(fr.

partial, professed to

have found

the
(fr.

whole
4).

2)

he even
is

calls

this

madness

"

No
own

doubt he
position
is

thinking

of

Parmenides.
sceptical.

His

not,

however,

He

only deprecates the attempt to construct

a theory of the universe off-hand instead of trying to

understand each thing we come across

" in

the

way

in

which

it

is

clear"

(fr.

4).

And

this

means that we
they are the

must

not, like

Parmenides, reject the assistance of the

senses.

Weak
at
all.

though they are

(fr.

2),

only channels through which knowledge can enter our

minds

We

soon

discover,

however,

that

Empedokles

is

not very mindful of his

is

own

warnings.

He

too sets up a system which

is

to explain everything,

though that system

It is often said

no longer a monistic one.

that this system

was an attempt to
It
is

mediate between Parmenides and Herakleitos.

not
easy,

however,

to

find
it,

any trace of
and
it

specially

Herakleitean doctrine in

would be truer to

262
say that

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it

aimed at mediating between Eleaticism

and the
the

senses.

He
"what

repeats, almost in the

for
is''

same words,
indehis idea of

Eleatic

argument

the sole reality and

(frs.

structibility of

11-15)

and

the " Sphere " seems to be derived from the Parmenidean

description of the universe as
it

truly

is.^

Parmenides

had held that the

reality

which underlies the illusory

world presented to us by the senses was a corporeal,

spherical, continuous, eternal,

and immovable plenum,

starts.

and

it is

from

this that

Empedokles

Given the

sphere of Parmenides, he seems to have said.

we we

to get from

it

to the world

we know ?

How How

are

are
?

to introduce motion into the

immovable plenum
denied the

Now
sibility

Parmenides

need

not

have

pos-

of motion within the Sphere, though he was

to

bound

deny

all

motion of the Sphere

itself;
it,

but

such an admission on his part, had he

not have served to explain anything.
the Sphere were to move, the

made
If

would

any part of
for

room of the displaced

by other matter,
would be
of
;

matter must at once be taken

there
is

no empty space.

This, however,
it

precisely the
for
all

same kind
is''

as the matter

had displaced

"that

is

one.

The
But,

result of the
rest
;

motion
could

would be precisely the same as that of

account for no change.
asked,
is

it

Empedokles must have

in
is

this

assumption of perfect homogeneity

?

the

Sphere really necessary

Evidently not

it

simply the old unreasoned feeling that existence must

be one.
If,

instead

of

this,
it

we were

to

assume a

number of
to apply
all

existent things,

would be quite possible

that Parmenides says of reality to each of

them, and the forms of existence

1

we know might be
fr.

Cf.

Emp.

frs.

27, 28, with

Farm.

8.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
explained
realities.

263

by the mingling and separation of those

The conception
So

of " elements

" {cnoi')(ela\ to

use a later term,^ was found, and the required formula

follows at once.
it

far as

concerns particular things,

that they

is

true, as

our senses
;

tell us,

come

into

being and pass away

ultimate elements
shall say with

but, if

we have
they are
"

regard to the

of which

composed, we
is " is

Parmenides that
(fr.

what

uncreated

and

indestructible

17).
all

107.

The "four

roots " of

things

(fr.

6) which The "four

Empedokles assumed were those that have become

traditional

Fire, Air, Earth,

and Water.

It

is

to be

noticed, however, that he does not call Air arfpy but aWrjpy

and

this

must be because he wished to avoid

any confusion with what had hitherto been meant by

the former word.

He

had,

in

fact,
is

made

the great

discovery that atmospheric air

substance, and
is

a distinct corporeal

not to be identified with empty space

rarefied mist

on the one hand or

is

on the

other.

Water
This

not liquid

air,

but something quite

different.^

truth Empedokles demonstrated by means of the apparatus known as the klepsydra, and we still possess

the verses in which he applied

his discovery

to

the

explanation of respiration and the motion of the blood

(fr.

100).
is

Aristotle laughs at those

who

try to

show

there

no empty space by shutting up

a thing.^

air in water-

clocks and torturing wineskins.

says, that air
^

They only

prove, he
is

is

That, however;

exactly

said {ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 7, 13) that Plato

For the history of the term oTovxdov see Diels, Elementum. Eudemos was the first to use it, and this is confirmed by the way the word is introduced in Tht. 201 e. The original * Cf. Chap. I. 27. term was fiopcpii or I5ia. ' Arist. Phys. A, 6, 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). Aristotle only mentions Anaxagoras by name in this passage but he speaks in the plural, and we know from fr. 100 that the kUpsydra experiment was used by Empedokles.
;

264

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to prove,

what Empedokles intended

of science.
the aiOrjp of
It will

and

it

was one

of the most important discoveries in the early history

be convenient for us to translate

" air "
;

Empedokles by

but we must be

careful in that case not to render the word arjp in the

same way.
to use
it

Anaxagoras seems
air.

to

have been the

first

of atmospheric

Empedokles

also called

names of

certain divinities

the
"

"

four

roots

"

by the
there

shining Zeus, life-bringing

(fr.

Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis

"

6)

though
is

is

some doubt
tioned

as to

how

these

names
Nestis

are to be apporsaid
to

among

the

elements.

have

been a Sicilian water-goddess, and the description of

her shows that she stands for Water
;

but there
This,

is

conflict of opinion as to the other three.

how-

ever,

need not detain

us.^

We

are already prepared

;

to find that
all

Empedokles
thinkers

called the elements gods

for

the

early

had spoken,
as

in

this

way

of

whatever they
^

regarded

the

ppmary

substance.

Air, a

In antiquity the Homeric Allegorists made Hera Earth and Aidoneus view which has found its way into Actios from Poseidonios. It

arose as follows.

The Homeric

Allegorists

were not interested

in the

science of Empedokles, and did not see that his aiO-qp was quite a different

thing from Homer's aijp. Now this is the dark element, and night is a form of it, so it would naturally be identified with Aidoneus. Again, Empedokles calls Hera (pep^cr^ios, and that is an old epithet of Earth in Homer. Another view current in antiquity identified Hera with Air, which is the theory of Plato's Cratylus^ and Aidoneus with Earth. The Homeric Allegorists further identified Zeus with Fire, a view to which they were doubtless led by the use of the word aXQi]p. Now aXQi]p certainly means Fire in Anaxagoras, as we shall see, but there is no doubt that in Empedokles it meant Air. It seems likely, then, that Knatz is right {^^^mY>tdoc\ea."inSchedae Philologicae Her7namio Usenero oblatae, 1891, pp. I sqq.) in holding that the bright Air of Empedokles was Zeus. This leaves Aidoneus to stand for Fire ; and nothing could Kave been more natural for a Sicilian poet, with the volcanoes and hot springs of his native island in mind, than this identification. He refers to the fires that burn beneath If that is so, we shall have to agree with the the Earth himself (fr. 52). Homeric Allegorists that Hera is Earth ; and there is certainly no

improbability in that.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
We
its

265

must only remember that the word

religious

is

not used in

sense.

Empedokles did not pray or

and the use of divine names
poetical

sacrifice to the elements,

is

in

the

main an accident of the

" roots

form

in

which he cast his system.

Empedokles regarded the

eternal.

of

all

things
or

"

as

Nothing can come from

(fr.
1

nothing

pass
is

away room

into nothing
for

2)

what

is is,

and there

no
8).

coming

into being
tells

and passing away

(fr.

Further, Aristotle

us,

he taught that they were

unchangeable.^

This Empedokles expressed by saying

(frs.

that "they are what they are"

17,

34; 21,
all "

13),

and
was

are "

always

alike."

Again, they are

equal,"

a statement which seemed strange to Aristotle,^ but

quite
all,

intelligible

in

the

days of

Empedokles.

Above
to

the elements are ultimate.

it,

All other bodies,

till

as Aristotle puts

might be divided

you came no

the

elements

but

Empedokles could give

further account of these without saying (as he did not)

that there

is

an element of which Fire and the

rest

are in turn composed.^

The

" four

roots "

are

given
(fr.

as

an

exhaustive
;

enumeration of the elements

account for
the senses.
all

2 3 sub fin.)

for they

the qualities presented

find, as

by the world

to

When we

we

do, that the school

its

of medicine which regarded Empedokles as

^

founder

/^/^, g^ 6. 333 a 16. i. 329 b i. This was so completely 325 b 19 (R. P. 164 e). misunderstood by later writers that they actually attribute to Empedokles the doctrine of o-roixeta 7r/)d rCiv (ttoix^Iuv (Aet. i. 1 3, I ; I7j 3)- "^^^ criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato had made the hypothesis of

Arist. de Gen. Corr. B,

Ibid.

A,

8.

elements almost unintelligible to Aristotle, and a fortiori to his successors. As Plato put it {Tim. 48 b 8), they were "not even syllables," let alone " letters " {^aroix'^'ia). That is why Aristotle, who derived them from

something

more primary, Elementum, p. 25).

calls

them

rb.

KaXo^/xeva

croix^la

(Diels,

266

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the " opposites," the

identified the four elements with

hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, which formed
the theoretical foundation of
its

system,

we

see at once
reality.^

how the theory is related to previous To put it shortly, what Empedokles

the opposites

views of

did was to take

to

of

Anaximander and

declare that
in the

they were

"

things,"
sense.

each of which was real

Parmenidean
conception

We

must remember that

not
yet

the

of

quality

had

been

formed.

Anaximander had no doubt regarded

as things
;

" his " opposites

though, before the time of Parnienides, no

one had

fully realised
is

how much was

That
still
is

implied in saying

that anything

a thing.
is

the stage

we have
quality,

now
in

reached.
is

There

no conception of

but there

a clear apprehension of whatjs involved

is.

saying that a thing

Aristotle twice
^

makes the statement

the

that,

though

Empedokles assumes
two, opposing Fire to

four elements, he treats

all

them as

rest.

This, he says,

we
the

can see for ourselves from his poem.

general theory of the elements goes,
see anything of the sort
origin of the world (
;

So

far as

it is

impossible to
to the

but,
2),

when we come
shall
this

1 1

we

find that

Fire

certainly plays a leading part,

Aristotle meant.
(
1 1

and

may

be what

It is

also true that in the biology

4- 1

6) Fire fulfils a unique function, while the

other three act

more

or less in the
it

same way.

But we

must remember that

rest
Strife
:

has no pre-eminence over the

all

are equal.

and
^

10 8. The Eleatic criticism J^ad made

Love.

it

necessary for

We
e).

know from Menon

Met. A,
4.

that Philistion put the matter in this way.

See
164

p. 235, n. 2.

2 Arist.

985 a 31

de Gen. Corr.

B,

3.

330 b 19 (R. P.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
subsequent thinkers to explain motion.^
starts, as

267

Empedokles

we have
in

seen,

from an original state of the

differs
is

"four roots," which only

from the Sphere of

Parmenides

so far as

it

a mixture, not a homo-

geneous and continuous mass.

The

fact that
;

it

is

mixture makes change and motion possible

there nothing outside the
in,

but,

were

Sphere which could enter

like

the Pythagorean "Air," to separate the four

it.

elements, nothing could ever arise from

Empedokles
effect of

accordingly assumed the existence of such a substance,

and he gave
this

it

the

name

of Strife.
all

But the
elements

would be to (separate
completely,
;

the

in

the

Sphere

and then
else

nothing

more

could

possibly happen

something

was needed

to bring

the elements together again.

in

This Empedokles found

Love, which he regarded as the same impulse to

is

union that
sqq.).

implanted
looks
at

in
it,

human
in

bodies

(fr.

17,

22

He

fact,

from

purely
for

physiological

point of view, as was

natural

the

founder of a

medical school.
the

No

mortal

marked, he says, that

very same
a place

had yet Love which

men know
elements.
It is

in

their

bodies had

among

the

important to observe that the Love and Strife

of Empedokles are no incorporeal forces, but corporeal

elements like the other

inevitable
;

four.

At

the time, this was

nothing incorporeal had yet been dreamt of

is

Naturally, Aristotle

puzzled by this characteristic of

efficient
" is

what he regarded as
of Empedokles," he
for
it

causes.

"The Love
efficient cause,

say^

both an

it is
1

brings things together, and a material cause, for

part

of the
VIII.

mixture."
2 ^rist.

And
Met. A,

Theophrastos
10.

Cf. Introd.

1075 b

3.

268

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

^

expressed the same idea by saying

that

Empedokles
Strife,

sometimes gave an

efficient

power to Love and

level

and sometimes put them on a

four.

with the

other

The
for

verses

of

Empedokles himself leave no

room
and
is

doubt that the two were thought of as spatial

All the six are called " equal."

corporeal.

Love
to the

said

to be "equal in length

and breadth"

others,
in

and

Strife is described as equal to

17).

each of them

weight

(fr.

The

function of

Love

is

to produce union

that of

Strife, to

break

it

up again.

Aristotle, however, rightly

it is

points out that in another sense

Lov,e that divides

is

and

Strife that unites.

Strife,

When
that
it

the Sphere

broken up

by
one

the result

is

all

the Fire, for instance,

which was contained

;

in

comes together and becomes

and

again,

together once more

divided.

when the elements are brought by Love, the mass of each is

is

In another place, he says that, while Strife

assumed as the cause of destruction, and does,

destroy the Sphere,
else in so doing.^
it

in fact,

really gives birth to everything

It

follows that

we must
to

carefully

distinguish

between

the

Love of Empedokles and

"

that

"

attraction

of like for like

which he also

attributed an important part in the formation of the

world.

The
;

latter is

not an element distinct from the

shall see,

others

it

depends,

we
is

on the proper nature

of each element, and

Strife divides the

only able to take effect when

Love, on the contrary,
is

Sphere.

something that comes from outside and produces an

attraction of unlikes.
^

Theophr. Phys. Op.

Arist.
i).

fr.

3 {Dox. p. 477) a
21 T,

ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 21

(R. P. 166 b).

2

Met.

A,

4.

985

4.

1000 a 24

b 9 (R.

P.

166

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
109. But,
elements, what
their

269
the
Mixture and

when
is
it

Strife

has

once

separated

that

determines the direction of

to

motion

Empedokles seems
than that
(fr.

have given no
"

further
in

explanation

each was

running

a certain direction
this in the
left for

53).

Plato severely con-

demns
is

Laws} on

the ground that no

room
for

thus

design.

Aristotle also blames

him

giving no account of the Chance to which he ascribed

so

much

importance.

Nor

is

the Necessity, of which

Strife enters into

he also spoke, further explained.^

the Sphere at a certain time in virtue of Necessity, or

"the mighty oath"

(fr.

30)

but we are

left in

the dark

as to the origin of this.

The expression used by Empedokles to describe the movement of the elements is that they "run through
each other
"(fr.

17,

34).

Aristotle tells us
"

that he

explained mixture in general by

pores."

the

symmetry of
of the

And

this

is

the

true

explanation

"attraction

of like for

like."

The "pores"
same
size,

of like

bodies are, of course,

much

the

and these

bodies can therefore mingle easily.

On

the other hand,

a finer body will " run through " a coarse one without

becoming mixed, and a coarse body

observed that, as Aristotle

will not
all.

be able be

to enter into the pores of a finer one at

says,
this
;

It will

really

implies
is

something

like

the atomic theory

but there

no

evidence that Empedokles himself was conscious of

that.

Another question raised by Aristotle

instructive.
If

is

even

more
full?
1

Are the

pores,

he asks, empty or

empty, what becomes of the denial of the

clusively, but the

2
3

x. 889 b. The reference is not to Empedokles exlanguage shows that Plato is thinking mainly of him. Arist. de Gen. Corr. B, 6. 334 a I ; Phys. 9, I. 252 a 5 (R. P. 166 k). Ibid. A, 8. 324 b 34 (R. P. 166 h).

Plato,

Laws,

270
void
?

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

If
full,

why need we assume

pores at
it

all ?

These questions Empedokles would have found

to answer.
in

hard

They

point to a real want of thoroughness stage in the

his

system, and

transition from
rhefour
1

mark it as a mere Monism to Atomism.

all

10.

It

wiU be clear from

which

this

that
First

distinguish four periods in the cycle.

we must we have
mixed

the

Sphere,

in

all

the

elements
is

are

together by Love.

Secondly, there
out and
are
Strife

the period
in,

when
when,

Love

is

passing
the

coming
the
is

therefore,

elements

partially

separated

and

partially

combined.

Thirdly,

comes

complete

Reparation of the elements, when Love

outside the

world, and Strife has given free play to the attraction of

like for like.

Lastly,

we have
us

the period

when Love
and
Strife

is
is

bringing the elements

passing
out.

together again,

This brings

back

in

time to the

Sphere, and the cycle begins afresh.

Now
if

a world

such as ours can exist only in the second and fourth of

these

periods

and

it

is

clear

that,

we
in

are

to

understand Empedokles, we must discover

these
that

which of

we now we are in

are.

It

seems to be generally supposed

^
;

the fourth period

hope to show that

Strife
is

we

are really in the second, that

when

gaining

the upper hand.

tur

world the ork of Strife.

HI- That
in the

a world of perishable things arises both

is

second and fourth period

(fr.

distinctly stated

by

Empedokles
1

17),

and
6.

it

is

inconceivable that he

Arist. de Gen. Corr.

326 b

the view of Zeller (pp. 785 sqq.), but he admits that the external testimony, especially that of Aristotle, is wholly in favour of the other.
2

This

is

His difficulty is with the fragments, and if it can be shown that these can be interpreted in accordance with Aristotle's statements, the question is Aristotle was specially interested in Empedokles, and was not settled. likely to misrepresent him on such a point.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
himself had not

271

made up
Aristotle
is

his

mind which of these

it is

worlds

is

ours.

clearly of opinion that

Strife
is

the world which arises

when

increasing.

In

one place, he says that

world
is

Empedokles "holds that the

in

a similar condition

now
^

in

the period of
In another, he

Strife as formerly in that of Love."

tell

us that

Empedokles omits the generation of things

Love, just because
it

in the period of

is

unnatural to

represent this world, in which the elements are separate,

as arising from things in a state of separation.^

This

remark can only

tained in the

mean that the scientific theories conpoem of Empedokles assumed the increase
other words, that they represented thf^

of

Strife, or, in

course of evolution as the disintegration of the Sphere,

not as the gradual coming together of things from a

state

of separation.^
if

That

is

only what

we

should

expect,

we

are right in supposing that the problem

he

set himself to solve

was the

origin of this world

it is

from

the Sphere of Parmenides, and

also in

harmony

with the universal tendency of such speculations to

represent the world as getting worse rather than better.

We

have only to consider, then, whether the details of

the system bear out this general view.

112.
roots of
^

To
all

begin with the Sphere, in which the

things
"

"

four Formation
strife.
\

of

are
6.

mixed
334 a 6
: :

together,

we note

in the
(prjaiv iirL

Arist de Gen. Corr. B,

rhv Kbcfiov ofiolus ^x^iv

re rod veiKovs vvv koX irp&repov ivl t^s

* Arist.

<l>i\ias.

de Caelo, F, 2. 301 a 14

iK dteaTuyruv d^ Kal Kivov/ji^voiv ovk

'EfiiredoKKijs

cifKoyov

iroieiv tt]v
'

yheaiv.
h.v

816 Kal

irapoKeiTrei

ttjv

iiri

rijs

(piXdrrjTOs

oit

ykp

ijdvvaro ffvar^aai t6v ovpavbv iK Kexwpitr/t^z'WJ' fikv

did.

KaraaKevd^up, avyKpL<nv 8k iroiQv

<Tvvi<TTT}Key 6 Kdafios

tV

(piKdrip-a' iK

diaKCKpi/xipuv

yap

tuv

aToixeift)^

("our world

consists of the elements in

a state of separation "), Coar' dvayKaiov yeuiadai, i^ ivbs Kal avyKCKpifiivov. ^ It need not mean that Empedokles said nothing about the world of Love at all ; for he obviously says something of both worlds in fr. 17. It is enough to suppose that, having described both in general terms, he went

on

to treat the

world of

Strife in detail.

272
first

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

place that
it is

called a

god

in the

fragments just

as the elements are,

refers to
it

and that Aristotle more than once

in

the

same way.^

We

must remember

that

Love

itself is

a part of this mixture,^ while Strife

it

surrounds or encompasses

on every side just as the

in

Boundless encompasses the world

Strife,

earlier systems.

however,

is

not boundless, but equal in bulk to

each of the four roots and to Love.

At

the appointed time. Strife begins to enter into

the Sphere and

Love

to

go out of

it

(frs.

30,

31).
this
;

The fragments by themselves throw

them preserved a very
fair

little

light

on

but Aetios and the Plutarchean Stromateis have between

tradition of

what Theo-

phrastos said on the point.

Empedokles held that Air was first separated out and Next came Earth, from which, highly compressed as it was by the impetus of its revolution, Water gushed forth. From the water Mist was produced by
secondly Fire.
'

Arist. de Gen. Corr. B, 6.

i).

333 b 21 (R. P. 168

e)

Met. B,

4.

1000 a 29

(R. P. 166

Simpl. Phys.^. 1124, i (R. P. 167b). Aristotle speaks of it as " the One." Cf. de Gen. Coi-r. A,
Cf.

In other places

168

e)

Met. B,

4.

1000 a 29 (R. P. 166

to say, as

This, however, involves a slight

quite the

i. 315 a 7 (R. P. 985 a 28 (R. P. ib.). Aristotelian "development." It is not

i)
;

A,

4.

gether "into one," and to say that they

Empedokles does, that all things come tocome together "into the One." The latter expression suggests that they lose their distinct and proper character in the Sphere, and thus become something like Aristotle's own " matter." As has been pointed out (p. 265, n. 3), it is hard for Aristotle
same thing
to grasp the conception of irreducible elements
;

but there can be no doubt

quite well, the Sphere

that in the Sphere, as in their separation, the elements remain

are " for Empedokles.

As
15.

Aristotle also

knows

"what they is a

mixture.
2

Compare the
I.

difficulties

about the

"One"

of Anaximander

discussed in Chap.

{Met. B,

This accounts for Aristotle's statement, which he makes once positively I. 996 a 7) and once very doubtfully {Met. P, 4. 1 00 1 a 12), that Love was the substratum of the One in just the same sense as the Fire of
Herakleitos, the Air of Anaximenes, or the

that all the elements

In this case,

it is

in

Water of Thales. He thinksbecome merged in Love, and so lose their identity. Love he recognises his own " matter."

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
evaporation.

273

The heavens were formed out

Aet.
ii.

of the Air and

the sun out of the Fire, while terrestrial things were condensed

from the other elements.

170).

6.

3 {poic. p.

334
off

R. P.

Empedokles held

that the Air

when separated

from the

original mixture of the elements

was spread round

in a circle.

After the Air, Fire running outwards,

and not finding any

other place, ran up under the solid that surrounded the Air.^

There were two hemispheres revolving round the earth, the one altogether composed of fire, the other of a mixture of air and a little fire. The latter he supposed to be the Night. The origin of their motion he derived from the fact of fire
preponderating in one hemisphere owing to
there.
Ps.-Plut. Strom,
fr.

its

accumulation
a).

10 {Dox.

p.

582

R. P. 170

The

first

of the elements to be separated out by

Strife, then,

was

Air,

which took the outermost position

(cf. fr.

surrounding the world

ever, take the
" in

38).
it

We

must

not,

how-

statement that
strictly.

surrounded the world

circle "

too

It

appears that Empedokles

Here,

regarded the heavens as shaped like an ^^'g}

probably,
rate, the

we have

a trace of Orphic ideas.

At any
the

outer circle of the Air

became

solidified or

frozen,

and we thus get a

crystalline

vault as
it

boundary of the world.

which
solidified the

We

note that
it

was Fire
Fire in

Air and turned

^

to

ice.

general had a solidifying power.^

In
its

upward rush Fire displaced a portion of the

upper half of the concave sphere formed by
sky.
it

Air
the

in the

frozen

This

air

then

sunk

downwards,
fire.

carrying with
*

a small portion of the

irepl

In this
i.

For the phrase rov

rbv

6.ipa.

irdyov

cf.
.

Ilepi dicUnjs,
. .

10,

I,

7rp6s

rbv irept^xovra irdyov.

Et.

M.

s.v.

^rjXds

rbf dvorrdTU) irdyov

KoL

vepLixovra rbv irdvTa dipa.

^
3

This probably comes ultimately from

n. i.

Anaximenes.
Aet. Aet.
ii.

ii.

Chap. I. p. 82, 31, 4 {Dox. p. 363). II, 2(R. P. 170 c).

Cf.

18

274

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fire,

way, two hemispheres were produced: one, consisting

entirely of

the diurnal hemisphere

the other, the

nocturnal, consisting of air with a

little fire.

The accumulation
to revolve

of Fire in the upper hemisphere

disturbs the equilibrium of the heavens and causes

;

them

and

this revolution

not only produces the

alternation of

day and

night, but

by

its

rapidity keeps

the heavens and the earth in their places.

illustrated, Aristotle tells us,

This was

by the

simile of a
string.-^

cup of

water whirled round at the end of a

The

verses which contained this remarkable account of socalled " centrifugal force "

have been

lost

but the ex-

perimental illustration
The
sun,

is

in the

manner of Empedokles.
day and night have

IIS- It wiU be observed that

ndearth.^^'

^^^" explained without reference to the sun.

Day

is

produced by the
while night
the fiery
is

light of the fiery diurnal hemisphere,

the

shadow thrown by the earth when

is
?

hemisphere
is

on the other side of

it (fr.

48).

What,
again

then,

the sun the

give

us

The Plutarchean Stromateis ^ " The sun is not fire in answer

:

substance, but a reflexion of

fire like

that which

comes
of
his

from

water."
:

Plutarch
"

himself
at

makes one
for

personages say
that the sun
is

You laugh

Empedokles

saying

a product of the earth, arising from the

reflexion of the light of heaven,

and once more

flashes
"
^

back
1

to

Olympos with

untroubled

countenance.'

Arist. de Caelo, B, 13.

295 a 16 (R. P. 170

kcltu},

b).

The experiment with

rb iv Toh KvdOois vdwp, which k}jk\(p toO kvolOov (pepofi^vov ttoWolkls Karw

Tov x'^^'^ou yLvofxevov ofxws oi (p^perai

reminds us of the experiment

R. P. 170
c). c).

with the klepsydra in fr. lOO. 2 [Plut.] Strom, fr. 10 {Dox.

3

p.

582, li
P.

Plut.

de Pyth.
'^y\v

Or. 400

b (R.

170
but

We
ii.

must keep the MS.

irepiavyrj in

reading

Tre/al

with Bernardakis and Diels.

;

The reading

R. P.

is

a conjecture of Wyttenbach's

cf.

Aet.

20, 13, quoted in the

next note.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
Actios says
suns
of
:

275

^
:

"

Empedokles held that there were two

fire

one, the archetype, the

in

one hemisphere

the

world,

filling
its

the

whole hemisphere always

reflexion
;

stationed

opposite

own

the other, the

visible sun, its reflexion in the other hemisphere, that

which

is filled

with air mingled with

fire,

produced by the

reflexion of the earth,

sun,

which

is

round, on the crystalline

fiery
is

and carried round by the motion of the

Or, to

hemisphere.

sum

it

up

shortly,

the sun

reflexion of the terrestrial

fire."

These passages, and especially the

last,

are

by no
one

means
for

clear.

The

reflexion

which we

call

the sun

cannot be
that
is

in the

hemisphere opposite to the

fiery

the nocturnal hemisphere.

We

must say
is

rather that the light of the fiery hemisphere

reflected

by the earth on
concentrated

to the fiery hemisphere itself in

one
the

flash.

From
call

this

it

follows

that

appearance which we
the earth.
follows.
It

the sun

is

the

same

size as

We may
had
just

explain the origin of this view as

been discovered that the moon

shone by reflected
to give

light,

and there

is

always a tendency
it

any novel theory a wider application than

In the early part of the
light
fifth
;

really admits of.

B.C.,

century

men saw

reflected

everywhere

the Pytha-

goreans held a very similar view, and when

we come

to

them, we shall see

expresses
^

why

Aetios, or rather his source,

"

it

by speaking of
13

two

suns."

Aet.

ii.

20,

(Dox.

p.

350),

'E/iTreSoAcX???

Uo

rfKiov^'

^rbv

fikv

apx^Txnrov, irvp
Tjtua<f>alpLov,

iv t<^ er^py
6.VTiKpi>

r]ijua(paipii{)

tov

Kda/xov,

veirXrjpwKbs
'

rd
rbv

aUl

Kar

ry
t<$

di/ravyelg.

iairrov

TTayfji.ivov

d^

<paiv6fj.evov,

dvra&yetav

iv

iripi^

i]/xi<r<f>aipi(i)

ry

tov
/car'

a^pos

tov

depfiofiiyoOs

ireTrXTjpw/x^^'y,

dirb

KVKKoTepoOs

ttjs

yrjs

dvdKXaaiv

yiyvo/j-^viiv els

Tbv ^Xtov Tbv KpvffToWoeLd'^,

(is

a-vfjLirepieXKO/j^vTjy

5^ rg Kiv^a-ei

TOV irvplvov.
irepl

bk

/Spax^wJ

elprjadai

avvTefxbvTa,

dvTavyeiav elvai tov

TT]v yiiv

Tvpbs Tbv ^\iov.

276
It

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

was probably
in this

connexion that Empedokles

announced that
its

light takes

some time

to travel,

though

speed
"

is

so great as to escape our perception.^

are told, "
it

The moon," we
by the
light
fire
;

was composed of
just like hail,

air

cut off

was frozen
It
is,

and

had

its

from the sun."

air,

in other words, a

disc of frozen

of the same substance as the solid

sky which surrounds the heavens.

Diogenes says that

Empedokles taught
Aetios
earth.^
tells

it

was smaller than the sun, and

us

it

was only half as distant from the

to explain the fixed

Empedokles did not attempt

stars

by

reflected light, nor even the planets.

fire

They

were
with

fiery,
it

made out of the when forced beneath

fire

which the

air carried

the earth by the upward

rush of

at the first separation, as

we saw

above.
;

The

fixed stars were attached to the frozen air

the

planets

moved

freely.^
(fr.

Empedokles was acquainted

moon's

42) with the true

theory of solar eclipses, which, along with that of the

light,

was the great discovery of

(fr.

this period.

He

also

knew

48) that night

is

the conical

shadow

of the earth, and not a sort of exhalation.

Wind was

explained from the opposite motions of

the fiery and airy hemispheres.

Rain was caused by

pores in the form of

the compression of the Air, which forced any water

there might be in
drops.
in
^

it

out of
fire

its

Lightning was
the

forced out from the clouds

much
* [Plut.]

same way.*
fr.

Arist. de Sensu, 6.

Strom,
I (cf.

446 a 28 ; de An. B, 7. 418 b 20. lo {Dox. p. 582, 12 ; R. P. 170 c)

sqq.).
9.

Diog,

viii.

77

Aet.
^

ii.

31,
ii.

Aet.

13,

Dox. p. 63). 2 and 11 {Dox. pp. 341

7
;

Aet.

iii.

3,

Arist.

Meteor. B,

369 b

12,

with Alexander^

commentary.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
The
earth was at
first

277

mixed with

water, but the

velocity of the

increasing compression caused

world's revolution

by the

made

the water gush forth, so that

the sea

is

called " the sweat of the earth," a phrase to

which Aristotle objects as a mere poetical metaphor.

The

saltness of the sea

was explained by the help of

this analogy.^

114. Empedokles went on to

elements,

show how the

four Organic combinations.

mmgled

different

I-/-/-

proportions, gave

rise
like.

to perishable things, such .as bones, flesh,

and the

These, of course, are the work of Love

but this in no

way

contradicts the view taken above as to the period

of evolution to which this world belongs.

Love

is

by

no means banished from the world

yet,
still

though one

day

it

will

be.

At

present,
;

it

is

able to form
is

combinations of elements
ever increasing, they are

but, just because Strife

all

perishable.

The
even

possibility

of organic
is still

combinations depends
water in the earth, and
springs of Sicily were a

upon the
proof of

fact that there

52).

fire (fr.

The warm

this,

not to speak of Etna.

These springs
his

Empedokles appears to have explained by one of

characteristic images,

drawn
will

this

time from the heating

similes

of
are

warm

baths.^
all

It

be

noted that his

nearly

drawn
and

from

human

inventions

and
the

manufactures.
115. Plants

animals were formed from

Plants,

four elements under the influence of

^

Love and

Strife.

Arist. Meteor. B, 3.

357 a 24
:

clear reference in Arist. Meteor. B,

- Seneca, Q. Nat. iii. 24 complures formas in quibus acre tenui

iii. 16, 3 (R. P. 170 b). Cf. the 353 b ii. " facere solemus dracones et miliaria et
;

Aet.

i.

fistulas

struimus per declive circumfluat

datas, ut

saepe

eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum

frigida

spatii

quantum idem sub

efficiendo calori sat est.

itaque intrat,

effluit

calida.

terra Empedocles-existimat fieri."

278

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

deal

The fragments which

are

with

trees

and
with

plants
certain

77-81

and

these,

taken

along

Aristotelian statements

and the doxographical

tradition,

enable us to
was.

make out

pretty fully what the theory

is

The

text of Actios

very corrupt here

:

but

it

may, perhaps, be rendered as follows

to

Empedokles says that trees were the first living creatures grow up out of the earth, before the sun was spread out,
;

and before day and night were distinguished that, from the symmetry of their mixture, they contain the proportion of male and female that they grow, rising up owing to the heat
;

which
as

is

in the earth, so that they are parts of the earth just

;

embryos are parts of the uterus

fire

that fruits are excretions

that those

of the water and

in plants,

and

which have a
is

deficiency of moisture shed their leaves

when

that

evaporated

by the summer heat, while those which have more moisture remain evergreen, as in the case of the
the palm
in
;

laurel, the olive,

and

that the differences in taste are

due

to variations

the particles contained in

the earth and to the plants

it,

drawing different particles from

for
it is

as in the case of vines

not the difference of the vines that makes wine good,

soil

but that of the

(R. P. 172).

which nourishes them.

Aet.

v.

26,

Aristotle finds fault with

Empedokles

for

explaining

the double growth of plants, upwards and downwards,

by the opposite natural motions of the earth and

contained in them.^
of course,
(

fire

For
the

"

natural motions

"

we

must,
like

substitute

attraction

of like for
the

109).

Theophrastos says much

of plants, then,
is

same

thing.^

The growth
incident
Strife
still

to be regarded as an

in

that

separation

of the

elements
fire
its

which
is

is

bringing about.
(fr.

Some

of the

which

beneath the earth

1

52) meeting in
B, 4. 415

upward

Arist. de

An.

28.
i.

Theophr. de

catisis plantarnm,

12, 5.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
course with earth,
still

279
running
"

moist with water and

its

"

down

so as to " reach

own

kind," unites with

still left

it,

under the influence of the Love

to form a

in

the world,
call

temporary combination, which we

a tree

or a plant.

At
desire,

the beginning of the pseudo- Aristotelian Treatise

on Plants}

we

are

told

that

Empedokles
for

attributed

sensation,

and the capacity

This

pleasure and

pain to plants, and he rightly saw that the two sexes

are combined in them.
is

mentioned by Aetios,
If

and discussed

in

the pseudo- Aristotelian treatise.

we may

so far trust that Byzantine translation from a

Latin version of the Arabic,^

hint as to the reason.
into being
fact, at

Plants,

we we

get a most valuable

are there told,

came
in

" in

an imperfect state of the world," ^

a time when Strife had not so far prevailed as

to differentiate the sexes.

We

shall see that the

same

thing applies to the original race of animals in this

world.
It is

strange that Empedokles never observed

the actual process of generation in plants, but confined

himself to the statement that they spontaneously

"

bore

eggs

"

(fr.

79), that

is

to say, fruit.

116.

The fragments which

(fr.

deal with the evolution

Evolution of animals.

of animals (57-62) must be understood in the light of the statement

into being
1

7) that there

is

a double coming
things.

and a double passing away of mortal

describes

Empedokles
which take
^
'^

two

processes
courses,

of

evolution,

exactly

opposite

one of them

[Arist.] de plantis. A, i. 815 a 15. Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in

the reign of
at the
^

Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy. A, 2. 817 b 35, " mundo diminuto et non perfecto in complemento
. . .

suo " (Alfred).

280

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The
four stages of this double evolution

belonging to the period of Love and the other to that

of
Strife.

are accurately distinguished in a passage of Actios,^ and

we

shall see that there

is

evidence for referring two of

them

to the second period of the world's history

fourth.

and

two to the

The

first

stage

is

that in which the various parts of

It is that

animals arise separately.

of heads without
forefirst

necks, arms without shoulders,

and eyes without

heads

(fr.

57).

It is

clear that this

must be the

stage in what

we have

called the fourth period of the

world's history, that in which

Strife passing out.

Love

is

coming
it

in

and

Aristotle distinctly refers

as
is

to the

period of Love,
the

period

by which, when Love

we have

seen,

he means
It
is

increasing.^

in

accordance with this that he also says these scattered

members were subsequently put together by Love.^ The second stage is that in which the scattered
limbs are united.
possible

At
59).

first,

they were combined

in all

ways

(fr.

There were oxen with human

heads, creatures with double faces and double breasts,

and
that

all

manner of monsters
fitted

(fr.

61).
so,

Those of them
while
the
rest

were

to
is

survive

did

perished.

That

how

the evolution of animals took

place in the period of Love.^

^

Aet.

V. 19, 5

(R. P. 173).

Plato has

made

use of the idea of reversed

evolution in the Politicus myth.

2 Arist.

de Caelo, P, 2. 300

722 b

17,

where

fr.

57

is

b 29 (R. P. 173 a). Cf. de Gett. An. A, 17. introduced by the words Kaddwep 'E/jLiredoKXiji
18, expresses the

yevvq. eirl rijs ^lXottjtos.

Simplicius, de Cae/o, p. 587,

same thing by saying

6vTa iirXavaTO.
3 Arist. *

fjLowofJLeXrj '4ti rd.

yvta airb

Trjs

rod 'SeUovs oiaKpiaeuis

de
is

An. V,

6.

430 a 30 (R.
.
.

P. 173 a).

well put by Simplicius, de Caelo, p. 587, 20. It is ore tov l^eiKovs iweKpaTeL Xolttov tj i>i\6Tr}s irrl rrjs 4>iX6t7?tos oSp 6 'Eytt7re5oKX?7S

This

Kiva

elirev,

oix

ws ^iriKpaToOa-rjs

ij8r}

ttjs

^iXottjtos,

dXV ws

fjLeWoOtnjs

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
The
third

281

stage
is

belongs to the period when the

unity of the Sphere

being destroyed by

Strife.

It

is,

therefore, the first stage in the evolution of our present

world.

It
is

begins with

"

whole-natured forms

" in

which

there

not as yet any distinction of sex or species.^

They

are

composed

of

earth

and water, and are

fire

produced by the upward motion of

to reach
its like.

which

is

seeking

In

the

fourth

stage, the

sexes and species have

been separated, and new animals no longer arise from

the elements, but are produced by generation.
shall

We
this

see

presently

how Empedokles

conceived

to operate.

In both these processes of evolution,

Empedokles
fittest.

was guided by the idea of the

Aristotle severely criticises this.

survival of the
"

We may

suppose,"

he says,
as they

"

that

all

things have fallen out accidentally just

if

would have done

they had been produced for

some
while

end.

Certain things have been preserved because

fitting

they had spontaneously acquired a

those

structure,

which

were not

so

put

together have

perished and are perishing, as Empedokles says of the

oxen with human

leaves too

faces."

This, according to Aristotle,

much

to chance.

One

curious instance has

been preserved.

Vertebration was explained by saying

that an early invertebrate animal tried to turn round

and broke
variation

its

back

in so doing.
It

This was a favourable

should be noted that
it

and so survived.^

clearly belongs to the period of Strife,

(triKpaTeiv.

and

not, like

In Pkys.

p.

371, 33, he says the oxen with

human heads were

Karh. rijv rrji ^iKlas

1

2 2

dpxVCf. Plato, Symp. 189 e. Arist. P/ij's. B, 8. 198 b 29 (R. Arist. dg Part. An. A, I. 640 a

P. 173 a).
19.

282

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

human
heads, to that of Love.

the oxen with

The

survival of the fittest

was the law of both processes of was an important

brought about by

evolution.
Physiology.

^^7'

^^^

distinction of the sexes

result of the gradual differentiation

the entrance of Strife into the world.

differed

Empedokles
in his

from the theory given by Parmenides

(

Second Part

95)
in

in

holding that the

warm element
(fr.

preponderated

the male sex, and that males were

65).

conceived in the warmer part of the uterus

The

foetus

was formed partly from the male and partly

(fr.

from the female semen

63)

and

it

was

just the fact

that the substance of a

new

being's

body was divided

between the male and the female that produced desire

when the two were brought together by sight (fr. 64). A symmetry of the pores in the male and female semen is, of course, necessary for procreation, and from
certain
its

absence Empedokles explained the

sterility

of mules.

The

children most resemble that parent

their formation.

who

contributed

most to
pictures

The

influence of statues

and
were

was

also

noted,

however, as modifying the

appearance of the offspring.

Twins and

triplets

due to a superabundance and division of the semen.^

As

to the

growth of the
it

foetus in the uterus,

in

Em-

pedokles held that

was enveloped

a membrane,

and that
formed

its

formation began on the thirty-sixth day

forty-ninth.

and was completed on the

first,

The
last.

heart was
"

the nails and such things

till

Respira-

tion did not begin

the time of birth,

when the fluids

place

round the
in
1

foetus

were withdrawn.

Birth took

the ninth or seventh month, because the day had

Aet. V. 10,
I
;

II,

12, 2

14,

2.

Cf.

Fredrich, Hippokratische

UntersMchungen, pp. 126 sqq.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
been
seven.
originally

283

nine

months

long,

and

afterwards

Milk
(fr.

arises

on the tenth day of the eighth

month

68)>
final

Death was the

separation

by

Strife of the fire

all

and earth

in

the body, each of which had

"

along

been striving to
element.^

reach

its

own

kind."

Sleep was a
fiery
its

temporary separation to a certain extent of the

At

death the animal

is

resolved

into

elements, which perhaps enter into fresh combinations,

perhaps become permanently united with "their own

kind."
soul.

There can be no question here of an immortal

Even

in

life,

we may

see the attraction of like to

it

like operating in animals just as

did in the upward

and downward growth of

thing as foliage
fiery part
(fr.

plants.

Hair

is

the same

8 2)

and, generally speaking, the

of animals tends upwards and the earthy

part downwards, though there are exceptions, as

may

be seen in the case of certain

the earthy part
possible because
in the world.
like
in
is

-shell-fish

(fr.

^6)^

where

above.
there
is

These exceptions are only

still

a great deal of Love

We

also see the attraction of like for

the different habits of the various species of

animals.

Those that have most

;

fire in

them
sat

fly

up

into the air

those in which earth preponderates take

to the earth, as did the

tile.^

dog which always

upon a

Aquatic animals are those in which water preThis does not, however, apply to
fiery,

dominates.

fishes,

which are very

themselves.*
1

and take to the water to cool

Aet.

V.

15,

21,

{Dox.

p.

190).

*
*

Aet. V. 25, 4 {Dox. p. 437). Aet. V. 19, 5 [Box. p. 431).

Arist. de Respir. 14.

Cf.
;

477 a 32

Eth. End. H, i. 1235 a ii. Theophr. de causis plant, i. 21.

284

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to the subject of
it

Empedokles paid great attention

respiration,

and

his very ingenious explanation of

in

has

been preserved

a continuous form
all

(fr.

lOO).

We
cause

breathe, he held, through

the pores of the skin, not

merely through the organs of respiration.

The

of the alternate inspiration and expiration of the breath

was the movement of the blood from the heart to

the surface of the

body and back

again, which

was

explained by the klepsydra.

The

nutrition

and growth of animals

attraction

is,

of course,
like.

to be explained from the

of like to

Each part of the body has pores

priate food will
fit.

into which the appro-

Pleasure and pain were derived

like elements, that
is,

from the absence or presence of nourishment which would

fit

of

the

pores.

Tears and
;

sweat arose from a disturbance which curdled the blood

they were, so to say, the whey of the blood.^
Perception.
1 1 8.

For the theory of perception held by Empethe original words of Theophrastos

in the
:

dokles

we have

Empedokles speaks
says that perception
is

same way of
to the

all

the senses,
fitting

and
into

due

"effluences"
that
is

the passages of each sense.

And

judge the objects of another;

for the

passages of

why one cannot some of

for

them

are too wide

and those of others too narrow

all.

the

sensible object, so that the latter either goes through without

touching or cannot enter at

R. P. 177

b.

He
earth

tries, too,

to explain the nature of sight.

fire,

He

says that
it

the interior of the eye consists of

while round about

is

and

air,^

through which

its

rarity enables the fire

to

pass like the light in lanterns

(fr.

84).

The

passages of the

v. 27, I pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15 ; v. 28, i ; and sweat, v. 22, i. That is, watery vapour, not the elemental air or aldiip ( 107). It is identical with the " water " mentioned below. It is unnecessary, therefore, to insert koX vdcjp after irOp with Karsten and Diels.
^

Nutrition, Aet.

tears
'^

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
fire fire

285

and water are arranged

alternately

through those of the

those of the water,
class of passages,

we perceive
;

light objects,
fits

through
the

dark

each class of objects

into each
to

and the colours are

R. P.
ib.

carried

sight

by

effluence.

But eyes are not

all

composed

in the

same way
;

composed of
the

like

elements and some of opposite

fire in the centre and some on the outside. some animals are keen -sighted by day and others by night. Those which have less fire are keen-sighted in the daytime, for the fire within is brought up to an equality by that

some are some have That is why

;

without
night,

those which have less of the opposite

{i.e.

water),

by
in

for

then their

deficiency

is

supplemented.

But,

the opposite case, each will behave in the opposite manner.

Those eyes

in

which

fire

predominates
being
still

will

be dazzled in the

daytime, since the

fire

further increased will stop

up and occupy the pores of the

predominates
fire
will,

water.

he

says, suffer the

will

the water

be obstructed by the water. is separated off by the air,

is

Those in which water same at night, for the And this goes on till
for in

each case

it

is

the opposite which

a remedy.
is

The

best tempered

and
in

the

most

excellent

vision

one composed

of

both

equal proportions.
sight.

This

is

practically

what he says about

Hearing, he holds,
the air

is

produced by sound outside, when

;

moved by
calls

the voice sounds inside the ear

is

for the

sense of hearing

a sort of bell sounding inside the ear,

which he
motion
it

" fleshy sprout."

solid parts

When

the air

is

set in

and produces a sound. Smell, he holds, arises from respiration, and that is why those smell most keenly whose breath has the most violent motion, and why most smell comes from subtle and light bodies.^ As to touch and taste, he does not lay down how nor by means
strikes

upon the

of what they arise, except that he gives us an explanation

applicable to
all,

that sensation
is

is

produced by adaptation to
is

the

pores.

Pleasure

produced by what
pain,

like
is

in

its

elements
R. P.
ib.

and

their

mixture;

by what

opposite.

Beare, p. 96, n.

i.

2 /^^-^^ p^ ,3^^

286

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

gives a precisely similar account of thought

And he
ignorance.

Thought
is

arises

from what

is

like

and and ignorance

is

from what

unlike, thus implying that thought

the same,

or nearly the

same, as perception.
thing by

For
itself,

after

enumerating
all

hdw we know each

is

means of

he adds, "for

things are fashioned

and fitted together out of these, and it by these men think and feel pleasure and pain" (fr. 107).
for this reason
all

And
it

we

think chiefly with our blood, for in

all

of

parts of the

body

the elements are most completely

mingled.

R. P. 178.

All, then, in

whom

the mixture

is

equal or nearly

so,

and

in

whom

the elements are neither at too great intervals nor

too small or too large, are the wisest and have the most exact

and those who come next to them are wise in Those who are in the opposite condition are the most foolish. Those whose elements are separated by intervals and rare are dull and laborious those in whom they are closely packed and broken into minute particles are impulsive, they attempt many things and finish few because of the rapidity with which their blood moves. Those who have a well-proportioned mixture in some one part of their bodies That is why some are good will be clever in that respect. The latter have a good orators and some good artificers. mixture in their hands, and the former in their tongues, and
perceptions
proportion.
; ;

so with

all

other special capacities.

R. P.

ib.

> in
;

Perception, then,

is

due to the meeting of an element

takes place
neither too

us vi^ith the same element outside. This when the pores of the organ of sense are

large

nor too

small

for

the

"

effluences "
(fr.

which

all

things are constantly giving off

89).

Smell was

explained by respiration.

The

breath drew in along

fit

with

it

the small particles

which

into the

pores.

From Actios ^ we learn that Empedokles proved this by the example of people with a cold in their head, who cannot smell, just because they have a difficulty
^

Aet.

iv.

17, 2 {Dox. p. 407),

Beare, p. 133.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
in

287
that

breathing.

We

also

see from

fr.

loi

the

scent of dogs was referred to in support of the theory.

Empedokles seems

to

have given no detailed account

all.-^

of smell, and did not refer to touch at

Hearing
swing

was explained by the motion of the

air

which struck
it

upon the
and sound

cartilage inside the ear

like a bell.^

and made

The theory
in the history

of vision

is
it,

more complicated
it is

and,

as Plato adopted

most of

of great importance
conceived,
fire

of philosophy.

The eye was

the flame
is

as

by Alkmaion
Just as

( 96),^ to be

composed of

and

water.

in

a lantern
(fr.

protected

from the wind by horn

is

84), so the

fire in

the
it

iris

protected from the water which surrounds

in the

pupil

by membranes with very

fire

fine

pores, so

that,
in.

while the

can pass out, the water cannot get

fire

Sight
to

is

produced by the
object.

inside the eye going forth

us,

meet the
are

This seems strange to

to

because

we

accustomed
the

the

idea

of

images
at a

being
thing

impressed upon

retina.

But looking
like

no doubt seemed much more

an action proceeding
state.

from the eye*than a mere passive

He
for
*

was quite aware,

too, that "effluences,"

as he

called them,

came from things

to the eyes

as well

he defined colours as
')

" effluences

from forms (or

^

things

fitting into the

pores and perceived."

It is

not quite clear

reconciled,

or

how how

these two accounts of vision were

far

we

are

entitled

to

credit

Empedokles with the Platonic

^

theory.
2
*

The statements

pp^ ^^ sqq. Theophr. de sens. 26. ' The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, Men. 76 d 4. All our MSS. have diroppoal <xxVf^<^T(^v, but Ven. T has in the margin yp. XPVI^a.Tuv, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for "things" is xP'^/j.ara. See Diels, Ertipedokks und Gorgias^ p. 439.
3

Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81.

m^^

Ibid. pp. 14 sqq.

288

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

which have been quoted seem to imply something very

like it^

Theophrastos
distinction

tells

us that

Empedokles made no

between thought and perception, a remark

Aristotle.^

already

made by

The

chief seat

of per-

ception was the blood, in which the four elements are

most evenly mixed, and especially the blood near the

heart
(fr.

105).^

This does not, however, exclude the

idea that other parts of the

body may perceive

all

also

indeed,

Empedokles held that

(fr.

things

have their

share of thought

103).

But the blood was specially

sensitive because of its finer mixture.*

From

this

it

naturally follows that

Empedokles adopted the

view,

already maintained in the Second Part of the

poem

of

Parmenides

(fr.

16),

that

our knowledge varies with

(fr.

the varying constitution of our bodies

consideration

106).

This

became very important

of scepticism
it
;

later

on as one

of the

foundations

but

Empedokles

himself only drew from

the conclusion that

we must

make
Theology and
religion.
1 1

the best use

(fr.

we can

of our senses, and check one

by the other
9.

4).

The
us

theoretical

theology
his

of

Empedokles
religious

reminds

of

Xenophanes,

practical

teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics.

in the earlier part of the

We

are told

poem
;

that certain " gods " are

composed of the elements

^
'^

and that therefore though

p. 18.

See Beare, Elementary Cognition^

Arist. de

An.
a.

T, 3. 427 a 21.

R. P. 178

This was the characteristic doctrine of the Sicilian

it

school,

from

whom

passed to Aristotle and the Stoics.

Plato and

Hippokrates, on the other hand, adopted the view of Alkmaion ( 97) that the brain was the seat of consciousness. Kritias (Arist. de An. A, 2.

405 b

6)

probably got the Sicilian doctrine from Gorgias.

of

At a

later date,
TvevfjLa

Philistion

Syracuse,

Plato's

friend,

substituted the

xf/vx^Kov

("animal
4

spirits ")

which circulated along with the blood.

Beare, p. 253.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS
they
" live

289
(fr.

long lives

"

they must pass away

21).

We

have seen that the elements and the Sphere are also
is

called gods, but that

If

in quite

another sense of the word.

teaching
turns

we

turn

to
find

the
that

religious

of

the

Purifications^

we

everything

on

the

doctrine of transmigration.

On the

general significance
(

of this enough has been said above

given by Empedokles are peculiar.
decree of Necessity,
forced to

42)

the details

According to a

"daemons" who have sinned are wander from their home in heaven for three
(fr.

times ten thousand seasons

115).

He

himself

is

such an exiled divinity, and has fallen from his high

estate because he put his trust in raving Strife.

The

four elements

toss

him from one

to

the other with

loathing

and so he has not only been a human being

even a
fish.

and a

plant, but

The only way

by

to purify
culti-

oneself from the taint of original sin was

by the

vation of ceremonial

holiness,
flesh.
it

purifications,

and

abstinence from animal

For the animals are our

parricide to lay

kinsmen
them.

(fr.

137),

and

is

hands on
"

In

all this

there are, no doubt, certain points of

contact with the cosmology.

We

have the

mighty
the

oath

"

(fr.

115;

cf. fr.

30), the four elements, Hate as

sin,

the source of original

and Kypris as queen

in

Golden Age

(fr.

128).

But these points are neither

fundamental nor of great importance.

And

it

cannot

be denied that there are really contradictions between

the two poems.

That, however,

is

just

what we should

expect to

find.

All through this period, there seems

to have been a gulf between men's religious beliefs, if

they had any, and their cosmological views.

points of contact which

The few

been

sufficient to hide this

we have mentioned may have from Empedokles himself.

19

CHAPTER

VI

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
Date.

120.

All

that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the

date of Anaxagoras seems to rest upon the authority

of

Demetrios

Phalereus,

who

said

of him,

in

the

Register of Archons^ that he began to study philosophy,

at the

age of twenty,

in the

archonship of Kallias or
B.C.).^

Kalliades at Athens (480-79

This date was

probably derived from a calculation based upon the

philosopher's

age

at

the

time

of his
of

trial,

which
from

Demetrios had

every

opportunity

learning

sources no longer extant.

Apollodoros inferred that

01.

Anaxagoras was born

01.
it

in

LXX. (500-496

B.C.),

and he adds that he died

at the
B.C.)."

age of seventy-two in

LXXXVIII.

(428-27

He

doubtless thought
still

natural that he should not survive Perikles, and natural that he should die the year Plato

more
born.^
origin,

was
that

We
but

have a
probably
lived

further

statement,

of doubtful
also,

due

to

Demetrios

Anaxagoras
^

at

Athens

for thirty

years.

This

Diog.

ii.

ib.

148

c.

The Athens

7 (R. P. 148), with the perfectly certain emendation referred to of 480 B.C. would hardly be a suitable place to

"begin philosophising"!
Jacoby,
"^

For the variation

in the archon's

name, see

p. 244, n. i.

We
On

must read

b^hQrf\KO(ST'q%

with Meursius to

make

the figures

come

right.
'

the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.

290

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
may
from
there.

291
get

be

genuine
to

tradition

and

if

so,

we

about 462

432

B.C.

as the

time he lived

There can be no doubt that these dates are very

nearly right.
Aristotle tells us
^

that

Anaxagoras was
B.C.

older than Empedokles,

(

who was born about 490

9^)
"

and Theophrastos said^ that Empedokles was

Demokritos, too,
in the old

born

not long after Anaxagoras."

said that he himself

was a

young man

age

of Anaxagoras, and he must have been born about

460

B.C.*

121.

Anaxagoras was born

tells

at

Klazomenai, and

Early

life.

Theophrastos
Hegesiboulos.^

us

that

his

father's

name was
they

The names

of both father and son

have an aristocratic sound, and we

belonged to a family which had

may assume
tradition

won

distinction in the

Nor need we Anaxagoras neglected

State.
science.
It is

reject his

the

that

possessions

to

follow

certain, at

any

rate, that in the fourth

century he was already regarded as the type of the

man who
*

leads the " theoretic

life." ^

Of course

the story

of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later

Diog., loc. cii. In any case, it is not a mere calculation of Apollodoros's he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years old at the date of his arrival in Athens, and this would give at most twenty-eight years for his
for

residence there.

The
3.

trial

cannot have been later than 432

11 (R. P. 150 a).

B.C.,

and may

have been
2

earlier.

Arist.

Met. A,
fr.

984 a

Phys. Op.
e).

3 {Dox. p. 477), ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 19 (R. P.

162
*

Diog.

ix.

41 (R. P. 187).

On

the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX.

171.
fr. 4 {Dox. p. 478), repeated by the doxographers. Hipp. ma. 283 a, Tovvavriov y&.p ^kva^aybpq. (paffl ffvfx^ijvcu ^ iffuv KaTaKeupdhruv yhp avrip iroWQv xPVt'^Twv KarafieXijaai Kai

Phys. Op.
Plato,

diroX^aai irdvra' ovrtos avrbv dviT^ra aoipi^eadai.

'

Cf. Plut. /Vr.

1 6.

Arist. Et/i. Nic.

15,

K,

9.

1179 a

13.

Cf. Eth.

Eud. A,

4.

1215

b6

and

1216 a

10.

292

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

historical

by the

novelist

and tricked out with the

here.

usual apophthegms.

These do not concern us

One

incident belonging to the early

is

manhood of
Aigospotamos But we
occasioned
earlier

Anaxagoras

recorded, namely, his observation of the

fell

huge meteoric stone which

in

into the
tell

468-67

B.C.^

Our authorities
is

us that he predicted

this

phenomenon, which

plainly absurd.
it

shall see reason to believe that

may have

one of

his

most striking departures from the

cosmology, and led to his adoption of the very view

for

which he was condemned at Athens.

fall

At

all events,,

the

of the stone
it

made

a profound impression at the

to tourists in the days of

time,

and

was

still

shown

Pliny and Plutarch.^

Relation to the

12 2.

The doxographcrs speak

This

of Anaxagoras as
is,

the pupil of Anaximenes.^

the question
;

of course, out of

Anaxagoras was born.

Anaximenes most probably died before But it is not enough to say

that the statement arose from the fact that the

name of
in

Anaxagoras
Successions.

followed

that
true,
its

of

Anaximenes
;

the

That

is

no doubt

but

it is

not the

whole

truth.

We

have

original source in a fragment

of Theophrastos himself, which states that Anaxagoras

had been

"

an associate of the philosophy of Anaxiii.

^ Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny, N.H. LXXVIII. 2 and Eusebios gives it under Marm. Par. 57, d0' o5 iv Aiyds iroTafioTs 6
;

149, gives the date as Ol. But cf. Ol. LXXVIII. 3.

. .
.

\ldos iireae

irrj

HHII,
;

dpxovTos
ii.

'Ad-rjvrjai

Qeayeyldov, which

is

468-67 B.C.

The

text of Diog.

1 1 is

corrupt.

For suggested
cit.,
*'

restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2

and

Diels,
'

Vors. p. 294, 28.

Pliny, he.

qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis

ko-X

colore adusto."
'

Cf. Plut. Lys. 12,

delKvvrai

^ti vvv.

Cicero, de nat.

D.

i.

26

(after

Philodemos), "Anaxagoras qui accepit

;

ab Anaximene disciplinam
Strabo, xiv.
'Aya^ifi^vovs
p.
6fji,i\r}T7js
;

{i.e.

dLTjKovae)

Diog.

i.

13 (R. P. 4) and
'

ii.

645, KXa^o/xivioi

8' Tjv dvrjp iiri<pavr]s

Ava^aybpas
Ifz'sf.

6 (pvciKds,

Euseb.
viii. 2.

F..

p.

504;

[Galen]

Phil. 3;.

Augustine, de Civ. Dei,

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
menes."
^

293

Now
if

this

expression

has a very
"

distinct

meaning

we

accept the view as to

(

schools " of
It

science set forth in the Introduction

XIV.).

means
in
it

that the old Ionic school survived the destruction of

Miletos

in

494
cities

B.C.,

and continued to
It

flourish

the other

of Asia.

means, further, that

its

produced no
presentative,

man

of distinction after
"

third great re-

and that

the philosophy of

Anaximenes

"

was

still

taught by whoever was

now

at the

head of

the society.

At

this point,

it

may

be well to indicate
shall

briefly the

conclusions to which

we

come

in the next few

chapters with regard to the development of philosophy

during the

first

half of the fifth century B.C.

We

shall

find that, while the old Ionic school

was

still

capable

of training great men,

them.

it

was now powerless to keep

his

Anaxagoras went

own

way

Melissos

and Leukippos, though they

inspiration, dialectic to

still

retained enough of

the old views to bear witness to the source of their

were too strongly influenced by the Eleatic

remain content with the theories of AnIt

aximenes.

was

left

to

second-rate

minds

like

Diogenes to champion
third-rate

the

orthodox

system, while

minds

like

Hippon of Samos even went

back to the cruder theory of Thales.

this anticipatory sketch
will
is

The

details of

become

clearer as

we go
the

on

for the

present,

it

only necessary to

call

reader's attention to the fact that the old Ionic Philo-

sophy now forms a

*

sort of
p.
'

background to our

story,

Phys.

Op.

fr.

4 {Dox.
rijs

478), 'Ai'a^a76pas yukv yap 'UynffifioOXov

K\a^o/iivios

KOiPuiv^ffas

Ava^ifiivovs <pi\oao<t)las k.t.X.

In his

fifth

edition (p. 973, n. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and confirms it by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos, KOivuv'^as
llapiJievi5-g Trjs <pCKoao<t>La.s.

See below, Chap. IX.

172.

294
just as

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Orphic and Pythagorean religious ideas have
preceding chapters.
first

done
Anaxagoras
at Athens.
1

in the

23.

Anaxagoras was the

shodc at Athens.

philosopher to take

^^

j^.^

We

are

not

to

suppose,

however, that he was attracted thither by anything in

the character of the

Athenians.
political

No

doubt Athens

had now become the

world
;

centre of the Hellenic

scientific

but

it

had not yet produced a single

hostile to free inquiry of
fell

man.

On

the contrary, the temper of the citizen

body

was and remained

Sokrates,
different

any kind.
victims in

Anaxagoras, and Aristotle

degrees
to

the

bigotry of the democracy,

offence

though, of course,

their

was

political

rather

than religious.

They were condemned not

religion.
in
its

as heretics,
Still,

but as innovators in the state

recent historian
observes, "

as

Athens

flourishing

period was far from being a place for free inquiry to

thrive

unchecked."

It

is

this,

no doubt, that has

been

in the

minds of those writers who have represented

It

philosophy as something un-Greek.

was

in reality

thoroughly
Athenian.
It

Greek,

though

it

was

thoroughly

un-

seems most reasonable to suppose that Perikles

himself brought

Anaxagoras to Athens,

just

as he

brought everything else he could.

with

Holm

has shown

much

skill

how

the aim of that great statesman

was, so to say, to Ionise his fellow-citizens, to impart

to

them something of the mind which characterised

It is possible that
it

flexibility

and openness of

their

kinsmen across the

Periklean

sea.

was Aspasia of Miletos who

introduced
1

the
Gesch,

Ionian
ii.

philosopher to the
The whole
chapter
is

Holm, Gr.

334.

well worth reading

in this connexion.

ANAXAGORAS OF -KLAZOMENAI
circle,

295

of which he was henceforth a chief ornament.

in derision

The

Athenians

gave him the nickname of Nous/

The
Perikles

close relation in
is

which Anaxagoras stood to

placed beyond the reach of doubt by the

testimony

of Plato.
:

In
all

the

Phaedrus'^

he

makes

Sokrates say

"

For

arts that are great, there is

need of talk and discussion on the parts of natural

science that deal with things on high
;

for that

seems

to be the source which inspires high-mindedness

effectiveness in every direction.

and
this
in, it

Perikles
gifts.

added
fell

very acquirement to his originar

seems, with

He

Anaxagoras, who was a

scientific

man

and, satiating himself with the theory of things on high,

and having attained

of intellect and
courses

to a

knowledge of the true nature

dis-

folly,

which were just what the

of Anaxagoras were mainly about, he drew

from that source whatever was of a nature to further

him

in the art of speech."

A
it

more

difficult

question

is

the alleged relation of

oldest

Euripides to Anaxagoras.
is

The

authority for

Alexander of

Aitolia,

poet and librarian,

{c.

who
B.C.).

lived at the court of

Ptolemy Philadelphos
as

280

He

referred to Euripides

the " nursling of brave

Anaxagoras."^

great deal of ingenuity has been

expended
in

in trying to find the

;

system of Anaxagoras
but,
it

the choruses of Euripides

must now be

admitted, without result*

^

The famous fragment on

i

Plut. Per.

4 (R. P. 148
P. 148 c).

ii.

p. 327, n. 4), in
-

c). I follow Zeller, p. 975, n. regarding the sobriquet as derisive.

(Eng. trans,

270 a (R.
Gell.
XV.
;

'

20,

"Alexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus

Valckenaer
for 6.pxoif-ov)

composuit "
K.T.\.
*

6 5' 'Ava^aYdpou rpbipifios xaxov (so

The

question was

first

raised

by Valckenaer {Diatribe,

p.

26).

Cf.

also Wilamowitz, Analecta Euripidea, pp. 162 sqq.

296

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

life

the blessedness of the scientific

refer to

might just as well

any other cosmologist

as to Anaxagoras,

and
one

indeed suggests more naturally a thinker of a more

primitive
type.^

On

the

other

hand,

there

is

fragment which distinctly expounds the central thought

of Anaxagoras, and could hardly be referred to any

one

else.^

We may

conclude, then, that

Euripides
not safe

knew
to

the philosopher and his views, but

further.

it is

go
1

The

trial.

24.

Shortly before the outbreak of the Pelopon-

nesian War, the enemies of Perikles began a series of

attacks upon

him through

his friends.^

Pheidias was

the

first

to suffer,

and Anaxagoras was the next.

That

he was an object of special hatred to the religious

party need not surprise us, even

though the charge

made
of his
of the

against

him does not suggest that he went out

their susceptibilities.

way
trial

to hurt

are

somewhat obscure,

The details but we can make

out a few points.

duction of a psephism

The first step taken was the introby Diopeithes the same whom
in

Aristophanes laughs at

The Birds ^

enacting that an

impeachment should be brought against those who did

not practise religion, and taught theories about " the
things on high."
is
^

What happened
related.

at the actual trial

very

differently
p. 12, n.
0(}(rewj
i.

Our
is

authorities

give

See Introd. words ii,Qa.v6.ra\)

older Milesians.
2
3

The fragment
Kdaixov
Ay-fipta

and

quoted R. P. 148 c. The carry us back rather to the

R. P. 150 b. Both Ephoros (represented by Diod. xii. 38) and the source of Plut. Per. 32 made these attacks immediately precede the war. This may, however, be pragmatic ; they perhaps occurred earlier, * Birds, 988. Aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when combined with democratic opinions. ' Plut. Per. 32 (R. P. 148), where some of the original words have been preserved. The phrase rd ^eta and the word nerdpaia are archaisms from
the
yp-iitfncfia.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
hopelessly conflicting accounts.^
to reconcile these
certain.
;

297

It is

no use attempting

it is

enough to

insist

upon what

is

Now we know
It

from Plato what the accusation

was.^

was that Anaxagoras taught the sun was a

red-hot stone, and the

moon

earth

and we
(

shall see

that he certainly did hold these views

133).

For

the

rest,

the most plausible account

is

that he

was got

out of prison and sent away by Perikles.^

that such things were possible at Athens.

We

know

Driven

from

his

adopted

home,

Anaxagoras
would
at

naturally went back to Ionia, where at least he

be

free

to teach

what he pleased.

He

settled

Lampsakos, and we
founded a school
long after his
altar to his

shall see reason to believe that

he

there.*

Probably he did

not live

exile.
in

The Lampsakenes

erected

an

memory
;

their market-place, dedicated to

his

Mind and Truth

at his
^

and the anniversary of

death was
it

long kept as a holiday for school-children,

was

said

own

request.^

These accounts are repeated by Diog. ii. 12-14. It is worth while to put the statements of Satyros and Sotion side by side in order to show the
unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition
:

Sotion.

Satyros.

Accuser.

Kleon.
Calling the sun a red-hot

Charge.
Sentence.

Thoukydides s. of Melesias. Impiety and Medism.

Sentenced to death in absence.

mass.

Fined

five talents.

Hermippos

represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of

death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly, Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him out of compassion The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead
!

of Perikles.
p. 306, n. 3).
2
='

This, too, explains the accuser's

name

(Busolt,

Gr, Gesch.

Apol. 26 d.
Plut. Nic. 23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf. Per. 32 (R. P. 148). See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. 191. The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras

*
'

is

Alkidamas,

298
Writings.
1

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

25. Dlogencs includes

Anaxagoras

in

his

list

of

philosophers

who

left

only a single book, and he has

it,

also preserved the accepted criticism of

it

namely, that
style."

was written "in

is

lofty

and agreeable

There

no evidence of any weight to set against this

testimony, which comes ultimately from the librarians

of Alexandria.^
treatise

The
^

story that

Anaxagoras wrote a
is

on perspective as applied to scene-painting

;

most improbable

and the statement that he com-

posed a mathematical work dealing with the quadrature

of the circle
sion
in
is

due to misunderstanding of an expres-

Plutarch."^

We
to

learn

from

the

passage

in

the

Apology^

referred

above,
at

that

the works

of

Anaxagoras could be bought

Athens

for a single

drachma
speak of
access

and that the book was of some length may

in

be gathered from the way

it.^

which Plato goes on to

In the sixth century A.D. Simplicius had

copy,

to
;

a
^

doubtless
is

in

the

library

of the

Academy
of
all

and

it

to

him we owe the preservation

our fragments, with one or two very doubtful

who
were
kept up in his

the pupil of Gorgias,

Arist. Rhet. B, 23.
1

said these
15.

still

own

time.

1398 b

Diog.

i.

16;

ii.

6(R.

P. 5

153).

p. 57) fabricated a work entitled t^ out of the pseudo- Aristotelian de plantis, 817 a 27. But the Latin version of Alfred, which is the original of the Greek, has simply et

Schaubach {An.
Aex^i'eoj'

Claz.

Fragm.

7r/36s

idea dicit kchineon ; and this appears to be due to a failure to make out the Arabic text from which the Latin version was derived. Cf. Meyer, Gesch._
d.

Bot,
'^

i.

60.

comes from Vitruvius, vii. pr. 11. A forger, seeking to decorate his production with a great name, would think naturally of the philosopher who was said to have taught Euripides, ^ Plut. de Exilio, 607 f. The words merely mean that he used to draw mathematical figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the prison
It
floor.

ApoL 26 d-e. more than one roll.

^

The

expression

pi^Ua perhaps implies

that

it

filled

Simplicius also speaks of ^i^Xla.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
exceptions.

299

Unfortunately his quotations seem to be

confined to the First Book, that dealing with general

principles, so that

we
as
it

are

left

somewhat

in the

dark
is

with regard to the treatment of details.

This

the

more unfortunate,

was Anaxagoras who

first

gave

the true theory of the moon's light and, therefore, the

true theory of eclipses.

126.

give the fragments according to the text and The

arrangement of Diels, who has made some of them

completely intelligible for the
first

time.

(i) All things were together infinite both in

in smallness
;

for the small too

was

infinite.

number and And, when all

none of them could be distinguished for air and aether prevailed over all things, being both of them infinite ; for amongst all things these are the greatest both in quantity and size.^ R. P. 151. (2) For air and aether are separated off from the mass
things were together,
their smallness.

For

tliat

surrounds the world, and the surrounding mass

R. P.
is
ib.

is

infinite

in quantity.

(3)

Nor
;

there a least of what

it

is

small, but there

is

is

always

a smaller

for

cannot be that what

is

should cease to be by

being cut.^

But there

also always

something greater than

both great and small.

what

is

great,

and

it

is

equal to the small in amount, and,

is

compared with
R. P. 159
(4)
a.

itself,

each thing

And

since these things are so,

we must suppose
all sorts in

that

there are contained

many

things

and of

the things

that are uniting, seeds of all things, with all sorts of shapes

and colours and savours (R. P. ib.\ and that men have been formed in them, and the other animals that have life, and that these men have inhabited cities and cultivated fields as
^

The

familiar sentence quoted

Simplicius tells us that this fragment was at the beginning of Book I. by Diog. ii. 6 (R. P. 153) is not a fragment
tri.vTa. pi

of Anaxagoras, but a summary, like the

ascribed to Herakleitos

(Chap. III.
/iij,

p. 162).

Zeller's to/jl^ still

seems to

me

a convincing correction of the

MS.

tA

which Diels

retains.

300
with us
;

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and
all

that they have a sun

with us; and that their earth brings forth for

things of

and a moon and the rest as them many

P.

kinds of which they gather the best together

into their dwellings,

and use them (R.

i6o
off,

b).

much have
it

I said

with regard to separating

to

Thus show that

off,

will

not be only with us that things are separated

but

elsewhere too.

But before they were separated

together, not

off,

when

all

things were

even was any colour distinguishable; for the

things prevented
cold,
it

mixture of

all

of the moist

and the

dry,

and the warm and the

and the light and the dark, and of much earth that was in it, and of a multitude of innumerable seeds in no way like each other. For none of the
is

other things either

so,

like

any other.

And

these things being

we must hold
(5)

that all things are in the whole.

R. P. 151.^

And

those things having been thus decided,

;

we must
is

know
R.

that all of

possible for

them are neither more nor less for it them to be more than all, and all are always
since the portions of the great
all

not

equal.

R
(6)

151.

And

and of the small

things will be in

are equal in amount, for this reason, too,

everything; nor

is

it

possible for

them

to

be
it

apart,
is

but

all

things have a portion of everything.

for there to

Since

impossible

be a

least thing,
;

they cannot be separated, nor

come
were

to be

by themselves

but they must be now, just as they

in the beginning, all together.

And

in all things

many

things are contained,

and an equal number both

in the greater
off.

and

in the smaller of the things that are separated

(7)

... So
The

that

we cannot know
either in

the

number of the

things

that are separated

(8)

off,

things that are in

word or deed. one world are not divided nor

cut off from one another with a hatchet, neither the

warm
e.

from the cold nor the cold from the warm.

(9)
.
.

R. P. 155

as these things revolve

swiftness.
is

the force

and

And

the swiftness

and are separated out by makes the force.

Their swiftness
^

not like the swiftness of any of the things

in the
first

had already pointed out

it

edition that Simplicius quotes

this three times as

a continuous fragment, and that

we

are not entitled to

break

up.

Diels

now

prints

it

as a single passage.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
that are
swift.

301
as

now among men, but

in every

way many times

is

(10)

How
is

can hair come from what

not flesh?

not hair, or flesh

from what

R. P. 155

f,

n. i.

(11) In everything there is a portion of everything except Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also.

R. P. i6o

b.

(12) All other things partake in a portion of everything,

while

and self- ruled, and is mixed with For if it were not by by itself. itself, but were mixed with anything else, it would partake in all things if it were mixed with any ; for in everything there is a portion of everything, as has been said by me in what goes before, and the things mixed with it would hinder it, so that it would have power over nothing in the same way that it has now being alone by itself. For it is the thinnest of all things and the purest, and it has all knowledge about everything and the greatest strength and Nous has power over all things, And Nous had both greater and smaller, that have life.

Nous

is

infinite

nothing, but

is

alone, itself

power over the whole revolution, so that it began to revolve in And it began to revolve first from a small the beginning.
beginning
;

but the revolution

now extends over a

larger space,

and

will

extend over a larger

still.

And
off

all

the things that are

all

mingled together and separated

and distinguished are

known by Nous.
to be,

And Nous

set in order all things that

were

and all things that were and are not now and that are, and this revolution in which now revolve the stars and the sun and the moon, and the air and the aether that are separated off. And this revolution caused the separating off, and the rare is
separated off from the dense, the

warm from

the cold, the light

from the dark, and the dry from the moist. And there are many But no thing is altogether separated portions in many things.
off

nor distinguished from anything else except Nous.

is alike,

And

all

Nous
else
is

both the greater and the smaller

else,

while nothing

like

anything

but each single thing

it

is

and was most

R. P. 155.

manifestly those things of which

has most in

it

(13) And when Nous began to move things, separating off took place from all that was moved, and so far as Nous set in

motion

all

was separated.

And

as things were set in

motion

302

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to be separated

and separated, the revolution caused them

much more. (14) And Nous, which

everything else
is,

ever

is,

is

certainly there,

where

in the surrounding mass,

and

in

what has

been united with it and separated off from it.^ (15) The dense and the moist and the cold and the dark came together where the earth is now, while the rare and the

warm and
(16)
for

the dry (and the bright) went out towards the

further part of the aether.^

R. P. 156.
is

From

these as they are separated off earth

is

solidified

from mists water

separated

From

the earth stones are solidified

and from water earth. by the cold, and these rush

off,

outwards more than water.

(17)

R. P. 156.

a wrong usage in speaking of away ; for nothing comes into passing and coming into being being or passes away, but there is mingling and separation of So they would be right to call coming into things that are. R. P. 150. being mixture, and passing away separation. (18) It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.

The Hellenes

follow

(19)

We call rainbow the reflexion

a sign of storm
;

of the sun in the clouds.

Now

it is

for the water that flows

round the

cloud causes wind or pours

down

in rain.

(20) With the rise of the Dogstar

men

begin the harvest;

It
is

with

its

setting

they begin to

till

the

fields.

hidden

for forty

days and nights.

(21)

From
truth.

the weakness of our senses

we

are not able to

judge the
(21a)
(21^)

What appears is a vision of the unseen. (We can make use of the lower animals) because we use our own experience and memory and wisdom and art. (22) What is called "birds' milk" is the white of the egg.
Anaxagoras
predecessors.

12/.

The System

of

Anaxagoras,

like

that

of

Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine

that
^

corporeal

substance
fr.

is

unchangeable
:

with

the

Simplicius gives

Kal vvv icTiv.

iariv.
2

6 5^ vovi 6<ra icrrl re Kdpra 14 thus (p. 157, 5) Diels now reads 6 5f vovSy 5s d<i> ^ctti, to xdpra Kat vvv

The correspondence
the text of
fr.

of del

Kal vvv
a.

is

strongly in favour of this.

R. P. 156 adding Kal rb \afxirpbv from Hippolytos.

15, see

On

have followed Schorn

in

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
existence of a world which

303
\

everywhere presents the

appearance of coming into being and passing away.

<

The

conclusions of Parmenides are frankly accepted and

restated.

Nothing can be added to

all,

all

things

for there
(fr.

cannot be more than

and

all is

always equal

5).

Nor can anything pass away.

call

What men commonly

is

coming
This

into

being and passing away

(fr.

really

mixture and separation

last

17).

fragment reads almost like a prose para(fr.

phrase of Empedokles

9)

and

it

is

in

every

way
of

probable

that

Anaxagoras
his

derived

his

theory

mixture from

younger contemporary, whose poem

was most

likely published before his

own

treatise.^

We

have seen how Empedokles sought to save the world

of appearance by maintaining that the opposites

and

cold, moist

and dry

were

hot

things^

each one of

which was

real in the

Parmenidean

sense.

Anaxagoras

regarded this as inadequate.

everything
are not
else,^

Everything changes into

is

the things of which the world

made
way.
is

" cut off

with a hatchet

" (fr. 8)

in this
:

On

the contrary, the true formula must be

(fr.
1
1 ).

There

portion of everything in everything

128.
1

A
^

part of the argument

,
.
.

by which Anaxagoras
1

"Everythin
i" everythinj

sought to prove this pomt has

been preserved

corrupt form by Aetios, and Diels has recovered

some

of the original words from the scholiast on St. Gregory

Nazianzene.
'*

"

We

use a simple nourishment," he said,

when we

eat the fruit of

Demeter or drink
is

water.

But

how can
^

hair be

made

of what

not hair, or flesh of

This

is

doubtless the meaning of the words rots ipyovi Ha-repoi in Arist.

;

Mef. A,
*

though (pya certainly does not mean 3. 984 a 12 (R. P. 150 a) writings" or oJ)era omnia, but simply "achievements." The other

possible interpretations are

in his
'^

"more advanced
b
i

in his

views" and "inferior

teaching" (Zeller,

p. 1023, n. 2).

Arist. P/ijys. A, 4. 187

(R. P. 155 a).

304
what
is

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

not flesh?
"
(fr.

lo).^

That

is

just the sort of

question the early Milesians must have asked, only the

physiological interest has
meteorological.

now

definitely replaced the

We

shall

find

similar
(fr.

train

of

reasoning in Diogenes of ApoUonia

2).

The statement
I
i

that there

is

a portion of everything
as
referring

in

everything,

is

not to be understood

simply to the original mixture of things before the

formation of the worlds
(fr.

i).

On
an

the contrary, even

now
"

"all things are together,"

great,

and everything, however

equal

small and however

portions
" (fr. 6).

has

number of
if
/j,

smaller particle of matter could

only contain a smaller number of portions,

those portions ceased to be
full
;

one of
in the

but
is

if

anything

Parmenidean

sense,
it

it

impossible that
(fr.

mere
is

division should
infinitely

make
;

cease to be
there
is

3).

Matter

divisible

for

no

least thing,

any

more than there

small a body

is

a greatest.
it

But however great or

may

be,
is,

contains just the

same number

of " portions," that

129.

a portion of everything.

What

are these "things" of which everything

?

contains a portion

It

once was usual to represent the

if

theory of Anaxagoras as

he had said that wheat, for

instance, contained small particles of flesh, blood, bones,

and the
"

like

but

we have
3),

just seen that matter

is

infinitely divisible

(fr.

and that there are as many

in

portions
6).

"

in the smallest particle as

is fatal

the greatest
If everything
else,

(fr.

This

to the old view.

were made up of minute particles of everything

we
was
^

could certainly arrive at a point where everything

"

unmixed,"
i.

if

only we carried division far enough.

See R.
P. 155 f

Aet.

3, 5

{Dox.

p. 279).

and

n.

i.

read KOLpvbir

with Usener.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
This
fr.

305
In
"

difficulty

can only be solved

in

one way}

8 the

examples given of things which are not

" are

cut

ofif

from one another with a hatchet

;

the hot and

is

the cold

and elsewhere

(frs. 4,

15),

mention

made of
if

the other traditional

" opposites."

Aristotle says that,

we suppose

the

first

principles to be infinite, they

may
refers

either be one in kind, as with Demokritos, or opposite.^

Simplicius, following

Porphyry and Themistios,

^
;

the latter view to Anaxagoras

implies that the opposites of
right

and Aristotle himself

"

Anaxagoras had as much

the

to
*

be

called

first

principles as

homoeo-

meries."
It is

of those opposites, then, and not of the different

forms of matter, that everything contains a portion.

Every
which

particle,

however

large

or

however

small,

contains every one of those opposite qualities.

is

That

hot

is

also to a certain extent cold.

^
;

Even
is,

snow, Anaxagoras affirmed, was black

that

even

the white contains a certain portion of the opposite

quality.
this
It
is

enough to indicate the connexion of

( 80).^
think that Tannery's
it

with the views of Herakleitos

helline, pp.

See Tannery, Science

is

283 sqq.

I still

interpretation

substantially right, though his statement of

requires

some

modification.

* Arist.
<rXi7/>toTt

Phys. A,
fi

2.

184 b 21, ^ oOrws &<nrep

if

Arifi6KpiT0St

rb yivos

?v,

8^

eidei 5ta0epoi}(ras,

Kal ivavrla^.
on"; to

Phys.

p.

44,

I.

He

goes

refer

to

depfi&njrai

Kal

ypvxpfyrTjTai ^"qpln-rjTds re Kal vypbrrp-as fiav&njrds re Kal TcvKvbrqTai Kal rets

dWas

/card iroibTT]Ta ivavTtdTrjTas.

rejected this interpretation

He observes, however, that Alexander and took diaipepovaas ^ koI ivavrias closely
fikv
{'

together as both referring to Demokritos.

*

Phys. A,

4.

187 a 25, rbv

Aristotle's

Ava^aybpav) Aireipa

Troieiv

rd re

ofwio/ieprf

Kal rdvavrla.

own

theory only differs from this in so far as he

b).

makes
5

OX?; prior to
i.

the ivavrla.

Sext. Pyrrh.

33 (R. P. 161
i.

'

The connexion was

the words

already noted by the eclectic

Herakleitean to

whom
Cf.

I attribute Ilepl SiafrTjs,

?X"

bk

dv

3-4 (see above. Chap. III. p. 167, n. 2). ' dXKiiKuw rd fih rvp dird toO vdaros t6 irypip

3o6
Seeds.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The
difference, then,

130.

between the theory of

is this.

Anaxagoras and that of Empedokles

dokles had taught
that, if

Empe-

you divide the various things

and
in particular the parts

which make up
enough, you

this world,

of the body, such as

flesh,

bones, and

the

like,

far

come

to the four " roots " or elements,

which

are,

accordingly, the ultimate reality.

Anaxa-

goras held that, however far you

these things

may
it

divide any of

and
bone.

they are infinitely divisible

you

never come
portions of

to a part so small that

all

does not contain

the opposites.

The

smallest portion of

bone

is

still

On

the other hand, everything can

pass into everything else just because the " seeds," as

he called them, of each form

portion of everything, that
in different proportions. "
is,

of matter

contain

of

all

the opposites, though

are to use the

If

we

word

element

" at all, it is

these seeds that are the elements

in the

system of Anaxagoras.

Aristotle expresses this

by saying that Anaxagoras

regards the

ofioLOfjuepi]

as aToi^^La}
is

We
word

have seen

that the term aroLx^lov

of later date than Anaxagoras,

ofiouofieprj is

and

it is

natural to suppose that the

also only Aristotle's

name

for the " seeds."

In his

own
the

system, the

ofioLOfieprj

are

intermediate between

elements
fvt

(<7Tot;^eta),
'

of which they are composed, and

'

yhp
1

iv TTvpl irypdrrji

rb 6^ HSup dirb rod Trvpbs t6 ^7)pbv

ivi yb.p

Koi

iv UddTi ^T]p6y.
Arist.

de

Gen.

Corr.

A,

I,

314 a

18,

6 fxlv yiip

(Anaxagoras)

to.

ofioiOfiepT]

aToix^Ta rldrjaiv, otov oarovv Kal a6.pKa koI /xveMv, kuI tGjv &\\u}v

Sjv Kd<rT(p ffvvibvvfiov rb p^pos iarlv. This was, of course, repeated by Theophrastos and the doxographers but it is to be noted that Actios, supposing as he does that Anaxagoras himself used the term, gives it an
;

entirely

wrong meaning.

He

says that the opoLopJpeiai were so called from

the likeness of the particles of the rpo^ij to those of the body {Dox. 279 a Lucretius, i. 830 sqq. (R. P. 150 a) has a similar 21 ; R. P. 155 f).

account of the matter, derived from Epicurean sources. cannot be reconciled with what Aristotle says.

Obviously,

it

Jl

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
the organs (Spyava), which
are

307

composed of them.
statement

The heart cannot be divided into hearts, but the parts

of
is
is

flesh are flesh.

That being

so, Aristotle's

quite intelligible from his

own

point of view, but there

no reason

for

supposing that Anaxagoras expressed

All

himself in that particular way.

infer
is

we

are entitled

tgr,

that he said the

" seeds,"

which he had sub-

stituted

for the " roots " of

Empedokles, were not the

opposites in a state of separation, but each contained a

portion of ..them
all.

If
"
^

Anaxagoras had used the

it

term

"

homoeomeries

himself,

would be strange
it.

that Simplicius should quote no fragment containing

The

difference between the

two systems may also

be regarded from another point of view.

Anaxagoras

was not obliged by

of

his theory to regard the elements

Empedokles

as primary, a view to

which there were

obvious objections, especially in the case of earth.

He

explained them in quite another way.

thing has a portion of everything in
it,

Though
(fr.

every-

things appear to

be that of which there

is

most

in

them
most

12 sub fin.\
is

We may say, then, that Air is

cold, Fire that in

that in which there

is

most
on,

which there

heat,
is

and so

without giving up the view that there

cold in the
fire

a portion of

and a portion of heat

in the air.^

The

great masses which Empedokles had taken for elements

are really vast collections

of

all

manner of

" seeds."

Each of them
*

is,

in fact,

a iravairepixia^
of the terminology of Anaxagoras 6\a oXwv.

It is

more

likely that
diai-nis, 3,

we have a trace
nipea
fiep4u)P,

himself in Ilepi
'^

Cf. above, p. 305.

Arist. de Gen. Corr. A,
(Arist. de

i. 314 a 29. The word irauavep/da was used An. 404 a 8 R. P. 200), and it occurs in the Ilc/ji dtahi^s {loc. cit.). It seems natural to suppose that it was used by Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term ffw^p/xara. Much difficulty has been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire among the
*

by Demokritos

308
"All things
toget er.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

From
all this it

131.

follows that,

when

"all things

^gj.g together,"

and when the

different seeds of things

(fr.
i

were mixed together in infinitely small particles

),

the appearance presented would be that of one of what

had hitherto been regarded as the primary substances.

As
of

a matter of
" air

fact,
;

they did present the appearance

for the qualities (things)
in

and aether "

to

which
other

belong

these

prevail

quantity over
is

all

things in the universe, and everything

that of which
then,
it

most obviously
Here,,

has most in

it (fr.

12 sub fin^.

Anaxagoras attaches himself to

Anaximenes.
only, with

The primary

condition of things, before the formation

is

of the worlds,

much

the

same
is

in

both

Anaxagoras, the original mass

no longer the primary

substance, but a mixture of innumerable seeds divided

into infinitely small parts.

This mass

is

infinite,

like the air of

is

Anaximenes,.

and
it.^

it

supports
Further,

itself,

since there
"

nothing surrounding
things
i).

the

seeds
in

"

of

all
(fr.

which

it

contains are infinite

number

But, as the

innumerable seeds

may

be divided into those in which

the portions of cold, moist, dense, and dark prevail, and

those which have most of the warm, dry, rare, and
light in them,

we may say
infinite

that the original mass was

infinite

a mixture of
seeds of
ofioiofjieprj

Air and of
contain

Fire.

The
of the

Air, of

course,
3.

" portions "

Bonitz under984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a). ^ trvp to mean " as we have just seen that Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles." In any case, Kaddirep goes closely with ovna, and the general sense is that Anaxagoras applies to the ofioLOfiep^ what is really true of the croix'^ia. It would be better to delete the comma after irvp and add one after (fnjai, for avyKphei Kai diaKpltret. fiopov is explanatory of ovna KaOdrrep. In the next sentence, I read dTrXws for dWws with Zeller {Arch. ii. p. 261). See also Arist. de CaelOy V, 3. 302 b I (R. P. 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put. Arist. Phys. P, 5. 205 b i (R. P. 154 a).
stands the words Kaddirep
ijdcap
.
.

in Arist. Me^. A,

^1

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
" things " that predominate in Fire,

309
;

and

vice versa

but has

we regard everything
most
an
in
it.

as being that of which

is

it

Lastly, there to

no void

in

this mixture,

addition

the

theory

made
It
is,

necessary by

the

arguments of Parmenides.

however, worthy of

note that Anaxagoras added an experimental proof of

this to the purely dialectical

one of the

Eleatics.

He

used

the klepsydra experiment as

Empedokles had

done
air

(fr. 100), and also showed the corporeal nature of by means of inflated skins.^ 132. Like Empedokles, Anaxagoras required some

Nous.

external

cause

to

produce

motion

in

the mixture.

Body,
itself,

Parmenides
as

had

shown,

would

never

move
It

the

Milesians had

supposed.

Anaxagoras
"

called the cause of motion

by the name of Nous.

was
like

this

which made Aristotle say that he

stood out

a sober

man from
^

the

random

talkers that

had

preceded him,"

and he has often been credited with

the introduction of the spiritual into philosophy.

The

disappointment expressed both by Plato and Aristotle

as to the

way

in

which Anaxagoras worked out the

theory should, however,

accepting too exalted

make
a

us pause to reflect before

it.

view of

Plato

makes

Sokrates say

" I

once heard a

man

reading a book,
it

as he said, of Anaxagoras,

and saying

was Mind
all

that ordered the world and

I

was the cause of

this cause,

things.

was delighted to hear of

and

thought he

really

was

right.

But

my extravagant

expectations

1 Phys. Z, 6. 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). We have a full discussion of the experiments with \Yic klepsydra in Probl. 914 b 9 sqq., a passage which we have already used to illustrate Empedokles, fr. 100. See above,

p. 253, n. 2.
2 3

Arist. Met. A, 3.

Plato, Phd. 97

984 b 15 (R. b 8 (R. P. 155

P. 152).
d).

3IO
were
all

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

dashed to the ground when
I

went on and
at
all.

found that the

man made no
airs,

use of

Mind
it

He

ascribed no causal power whatever to

in

the ordering

of things, but to
host of other

and aethers, and waters, and a

things."
^
:

strange

Aristotle,
"

probably

with this passage in mind, says

Anaxagoras uses
for the

Mind

as a deus ex
;

machina to account
is

formation

of the world

and whenever he
necessarily
is,

at a loss to explain
it

why anything
cause."

he drags

in.

But

in

other cases he makes anything rather than

Mind the

These utterances may well suggest that the

level
will

Nous of Anaxagoras did not really stand on a higher than the Love and Strife of Empedokles, and thjs
only

be

confirmed when

we

look at

what he

himself has to say about it

In the
first

place,

Nous
hardly

is

unmixed

(fr.

2),

and

does not, like other things, contain a portion of everything.

This

would
;

be worth

saying of an

immaterial mind

no one would suppose that to be

result of its
"

hot or cold.
it

The

being unmixed
is

is

that

"

has power over

everything, that
it

to say, in the

language of Anaxagoras,
Herakleitos had said as
of
Strife.
it

causes things to move.^

much
the

of Fire, and Empedokles

"

Further,

it

is

thinnest

"

of
it

all

things,

so that

can penetrate everywhere, and

would be
"

meaningless to say that the immaterial

than the material.
1

is

thinner

It is

true that

Nous

also "

knows

Arist. Met. A, 4.

2 Arist.

Phys. 0,

5.

985 a 18 (R. P. 155 d). 256 b 24, 5t6 koX 'Ava^aydpas opdm o.pxw

'K^yei,

rbv vovv

aTradi) (pdffKcov Kal AfuyTJ elvai, eireidriTrep /civijcrews

o-vrbv irotet efcai"

ouTU

yh.p

div

fxbvws KLUoirj dKlvrjroi Cbv Kat KpaTolt] dfiiyijs &v.

This

is

only

meaning of Kpareiv. Of course, the words aKlvrp-os dv are not meant to be historical, and still less is the interpretation in de An. F, Diogenes of ApoUonia (fr. 5) couples virb tovtov iravra. 4. 429 a 18. KvPepvdffOai (the old Milesian word) with irdpTiov Kpareiv.
for the

quoted

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
all

311
of

things "

but

so,

perhaps,

did

the

Fire

Herakleitos,^

and

certainly

the

Air of

Diogenes.^
to speak

Zeller holds, indeed, that

Anaxagoras meant
;

of something incorporeal

but he admits that he did

not succeed in doing

so,^

and that

is

historically the

important

point.
;

occupying space
parts of
it (fr.

for

Nous is certainly imagined as we hear of greater and smaller

'

12).

The truth probably is that Anaxagoras substituted Nous for the Love and Strife of Empedokles, because
he wished to
substance that
this with the
all things.

retain
"

the
"

old
all

Ionic

doctrine

of

knows

things,

and

to

identify

new theory

" of a substance that " moves

it

Perhaps, too,

was

his increased interest in

physiological as distinguished from purely cosmological

matters that led him to speak of

Soul.

Mind

rather than

The former word

clearly than

certainly

suggests

design

more

the latter.
lies

But, in
far

any
in

case, the

originality of

Anaxagoras

more

the theory

of matter than in that of Nous.

133.

The formation

of a

world

starts

with

a
of

Formation of

rotatory motion which

Nous imparts

to a portion

the mixed mass in which "all things are together"

(fr.

13),

and

this rotatory

motion gradually extends

Its

over a wider

and wider space.

rapidity

(fr.

9)

produced a separation of the rare and the dense, the

cold and the hot, the dark and the light, the moist and

the dry

(fr.

15).

This separation produces two great

light,

masses, the one consisting of the rare, hot,

dry, called

and

the

"

Aether

"

the other,

in

which the
(fr.

opposite
*

qualities

predominate, called "Air"

l5ivai in
'*

i).

If

we

retain the

MS.

fr.

i.

In any case, the

^

name

t6

<to4>6v

implies as much.

See

fr.

3, 5.

Zeller, p. 993.

312

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

these the Aether or Fire
^

Of

took the outside while

15).

the Air occupied the centre

(fr.

The next
clouds,

stage

is

the separation of the air into

water,

earth,

and stones

(fr.

16).

In

this

Anaxagoras

follows

Anaximenes
original.
"

closely.

In

his

account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, however,

he showed himself more

We

read at the

end of
water,"

fr.

6 that stones

rush outwards more than

and we learn from the doxographers that the

heavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from

the earth

by the rapidity of

its

revolution and

made

red-hot by the speed of their

the
fall

own

motion.^

Perhaps

of the meteoric

stone at

Aigospotamoi had
this theory.
It

something to do with the origin of

may

also be observed that, while in the earlier stages

of the world-formation

we

are guided chiefly

by the

analogy of water rotating with light and heavy bodies

floating in
it,

we

are here reminded rather of a sling.

134. That Anaxagoras adopted the ordinary Ionian

theory of innumerable worlds

fr.

is

perfectly clear from

4,

which we have no right to regard as other than

continuous.^

The words "that

that

it

was not only with

but elsewhere too
caused
a
rotatory

us that things were separated

ofl",

can

only mean
in

Nous has

movement
one.

more

parts of the boundless mixture than

Actios certainly includes

Anaxagoras among
;

those

who

held there was only one world

but this

testimony cannot be considered of the same weight as

^ Note that Anaxagoras says "air" where Empedokles usually said "aether," and that "aether" is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist. de CaelOy F, 3. 302 b 4, t6 70,^ vvp koX rhv aXQipa, vpoaayopeiet Toinb

and
^
^

id.

A,

3.

oi icoXwj

dfo/xd^ei ycLp aldipa dyrl

ii.

270 b 24, 'A'a|a76pa5 di KaTaxpvrai tQ wpds.

{Box.
p.

dwdfiari

roJJry

Aet.

13, 3

341
1.

R. P. 157

c).

See above,

p. 300, n.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAl
that of the fragments.^
" elsewhere,
Zeller's reference of the

313
words

as
Is
it

with

us " to the

moon

is

very im-

probable.

likely that

any one would say that

a sun and

the inhabitants of the

as with us
135.
" ?
^

moon "have

moon

The cosmology

of Anaxagoras
will

is

clearly based Cosmology

upon that of Anaximenes, as

be obvious from
*

a comparison of the following passage of Hippolytos

with the quotations given in Chap.
I.

29)

(3)

The

earth

because of

its size
is

reason the air

is flat in shape, and remains suspended and because there is no vacuum.* For this very strong, and supports the earth which is

borne up by
(4)

it.

Of

the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea

(for

arose

from the waters in the earth

when

these

were
rivers

evaporated the remainder turned

salt),^

and from the

which flow into

it.

(5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the waters in the earth ; for the earth is hollow and has waters in
its cavities.

And the

Nile rises in

summer owing
in Ethiopia.

to the water

that

comes down from the snows

^
'^

tlie

See above. Chap. I. p. 63. can be proved that this passage Ijeginning of the work. Cf. Simpl. Phys.
Aet.
ii.

I,

3.

Further,

it

(fr.

4) occurred quite near

34, 28, /ler

p.

6\lya

ttjs

dpxv^ Tov

irpibrov

which

itself

Uepl (pva^us, p. 1 56, I, xal fier' 6\lya (after fr. 2), occurred, fier' dXiyoy (after fr. i), which was the beginning of

A reference to other "worlds" would be quite in place here, but not a reference to the moon.
the book.
3 *

A'e/.

i.

8,

This

is

3 {Box. p. 562). an addition to the older view occasioned by the Eleatic denial

of the void.
*

The
iii.

text here is very corrupt, but the general sense

can be got from

Aet.
*

16. 2.

roU dpKTois, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs' have thought it safer to translate the iv t^ Aldioirig. which Actios gives (iv. i, 3). This view is mentioned and rejected by Herodotos (ii. 22). Seneca (A''.^. iv. 2, 17) points out that it was adopted by Aischylos {Suppl. 559, fr. 300, Nauck), Sophokles (fr. 797), and Euripides
reading
is if

The MS.

ev Tois dyrapicriKoii.

{Hel

3,

fr.

228).

314
(6)

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The sun and
the

moon and

all

the stars are fiery stones

carried

round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars are the sun and moon, and also certain bodies which revolve
with them, but are invisible to us.
(7)

We

do not

feel the heat of the stars

;

because of the

greatness of their distance from the earth

are not so
region.

and, further, they

The (8) moon has not a light of her own, but gets it from the sun. The course of the stars goes under the earth. (9) The moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun's light from it, and sometimes, too, by the bodies below the moon coming before it. The sun is eclipsed at the new moon, when the moon screens it from us. Both the sun and the moon turn in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air. The moon
turns frequently, because
it

warm as the sun, because they occupy a The moon is below the sun, and nearer us. The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size.

colder

cannot prevail over the cold.

first

(10) Anaxagoras was the

the
eclipses

to determine

what concerns

and the illumination of the sun and moon. And he said the moon was of earth, and had plains and
ravines
light

in

it.

The Milky Way was

stars

the

reflexion of the

of the
stars

that

were
it

not

illuminated

Shooting
to the

were sparks, as

were,

by the sun. which leapt out owing

motion of the heavenly

vault.

(11) Winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun, and when things were burned and made their way to the vault of heaven and were carried off. Thunder and lightning were produced by heat striking upon clouds. (12) Earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on that beneath the earth for the movement of the latter caused
;

the earth which floats on

it

to rock.

All this confirms in the most striking

way the

state-

ment of Theophrastos,
the
air,

that

Anaxagoras had belonged to

the school of Anaximenes.

The

flat

earth floating on

the dark bodies below the moon, the explanation

"

of the solstices and the " turnings

resistance of
air,

of the

moon by

the

the explanations given of wind and of

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
thunder and lightning, are
inquirer.
all

315

derived from the earlier

136.

"There

is

a portion of everything in every-

Biology,

thing except Nous, and there are some things in which

there
is

Nous also"

(fr.

11).

In these words

Anaxa-

goras laid

down
power
life,

the distinction between animate and

inanimate things.
that " has

He

tells

us that
is,

it is

the

same Nous

over," that

sets in motion, all things

(fr.
1

that have

both the greater and the smaller

the same in

2).

The Nous
and from

in living creatures is

all (fr.

2),

this

it

followed that the different grades of

intelligence

which

we observe

in

the

animal

and

vegetable worlds depend entirely on the structure of the

body.

The Nous was

the same,

but

it

had more
the
sort of
is

opportunities in one

body than another.

Man was

wisest of animals, not because he

had a better

Nous, but simply because he had hands.^

This view

quite in accordance with the previous development of

thought upon the subject.

Part of his
of

Parmenides, in the Second

poem

(fr.

6),

had already made the thought

men depend upon the constitution of their limbs. As all Nous is the same, we are not surprised
were regarded as living creatures.
the
trust
far,

to
If

find that plants

we may
Plants'^ so

pseudo- Aristotelian

Treatise

on
feel

Anaxagoras argued that they must

Plutarch says
^

pleasure and pain in connexion with their growth and

with the

fall

of their leaves.

that he

called plants " animals fixed in the earth."

Both plants and

animals originated
Plants

in

the

first

instance from the iravairepfiia.

1
'^

first

arose

when

Arist. de Pari.

An. A,
i.

[Arist.] dg plant. A,

lo. 687 a 7 (R. P. 160 815 a 15 (R. P. 160).

^ifiop
. .

b).

Plut.

Q.N.

(R. P. 160),

iyy^'iov.

3i6

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the seeds of

them which the air contained were brought down by the rain-water,^ and animals originated in a similar way.'^ Like Anaximander, Anaxagoras held
that animals
first

arose in the moist element.^

Perception.

3 7.

In these scanty notices

we seem

to see traces

of a polemical attitude towards Empedokles, and the

same may be observed

in

in

what we are

told of the

theory of perception adopted by Anaxagoras, especially

the view that perception
is

of contraries/
of
this
^

The
is

account
follows
:

which

Theophrastos

gives

as

But

Anaxagoras

says

that

perception

is

produced by
like.

opposites;

for like things

cannot be affected by

He

attempts to give a detailed

senses.

enumeration of the particular

;

means of the image in the pupil but no upon what is of the same colour, but only on what is different. With most living creatures things are of a different colour to the pupil by day, though with some this is so by night, and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that time. Speaking generally, however, night is more of the same colour with the eyes than day. And an image is cast on the
see by

We

image

is

cast

pupil by day, because light

is

a concomitant cause of the image,

casts

and because the prevailing colour upon its opposite.^

It is in

an image more readily

objects.

the same way that touch and taste discern their That which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor cools us by its contact and, in the same
;

way, we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of

themselves.

We know

cold by warm, fresh by

salt,

and sweet

by

sour, in virtue of our deficiency in

each

for all these are

in us to begin with.

And we

smell and hear in the

same

1
'^

.Irenaeus, adv.

* ^

Theophr. Hist. Plant, iii. i, 4 (R. P. 160). Haer. ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a). Hipp. Rtf. i. 8, 12 {,Dox. p. 563).
Beare, p. 37.

Theophr. de Sensu^ 27 sqq. (Dox.

Beare, p. 38.

p. 507).

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI
manner
;

317

the former by

means of the accompanying respiration,

is

the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone

which surrounds

this

hollow,

and

it

is

upon

it

that the

sound
to

falls.*

And

all

sensation implies pain, a view which would

seem

be the consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike And this pain is made things produce pain by their contact. perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a
Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot dwell long on the same things. The larger animals are the more sensitive, and, generally, sensation is Those animals proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and from a great distance, and contrariwise.^ And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.^ Rarefied air has more smell It is the same too with smell. A large animal for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself; so For smell is better perceived the large one perceives more. when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more

sensation.

condensed, while when dispersed

speaking, large animals

it

is

weak.

But, roughly

do not perceive a small animals a condensed one.* This theory marks

in

rarefied smell, nor

some
It

respects

an advance

upon that of Empedokles.

was a happy thought of

|

Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon

irritation

^
I

by

opposites,

and to connect

it

with

pain.
idea.

Many

modern theories are based upon a similar

That Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable of reaching the truth of things is shown by the But we must not, for fragments preserved by Sextus.
all that,

turn
^

him

into a sceptic.

The saying
* *

preserved

Beare, p. 208.
Ibid. p. 103.

Ibid. p. 209.
Ibid. p. 137.

3i8

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

^

by

Aristotle

that " things are as

all

we suppose them
It

to

be," has

no value at

as evidence.

comes from
treatise

some

collection of

apophthegms, not from the

;

of Anaxagoras himself

and
did

it

had, as likely as not, a

(fr.

moral application.

He

say

21)

that

"the

weakness of our senses prevents our discerning the

truth," but this
" portions "

meant simply that we do not

which are

see the
;

of everything which are in everything

for

instance, the portions of black

in the white.

Our

senses simply

show us the portions that prevaiL

which are seen give us
is

He

also said that the things

the power of seeing the invisible, which

the very

opposite of scepticism
^

(fr.

a).

Met. A,

5.

1009 b 25 (R. P. 161

a).

CHAPTER

VII

THE PYTHAGOREANS
138.

We

have seen

(5

40)

how

the

Pythagoreans, The
Pythagorean
school.

after losing their

supremacy
;

at Kroton, concentrated

themselves at Rhegion

but the school founded there

was soon broken up.

Italy
;

Archippos stayed behind

latter

in

but Philolaos and Lysis, the

of

whom
Hellas,

had escaped as a young man from the massacre of

Kroton,

betook

themselves

to

continental

settling finally at Thebes.

Philolaos was there

We know from Plato some time during the latter

and
Lysis

that

part

of the

fifth

century,

was afterwards the

of the Pythagoreans,
to
Italy
later

teacher of Epameinondas.^

Some
return

however,

were

able

to

on.

Philolaos certainly did so, and Plato implies that he

had
in

Thebes some time before 399 B.C., the year which Sokrates was put to death. In the fourth
left
is

century, the chief seat of the school

at Taras,

and

we

find the

Pythagoreans heading the opposition to

It
is

Dionysios of Syracuse.

to

this

period

that

Archytas belongs.
almost
realised, if

He was

the friend of Plato, and

--

he did not suggest, the ideal of the

philosopher king.
^

He

ruled Tarafe for years,

7
;

and Aris-

in Iambi.

For Philolaos, see Plato, Phd. 6i d V. Pyth. 250 (R. P. 59 b).

319

e 7

and

for Lysis, Aristoxenos

320
toxenos

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tells

us that he was never defeated in the field

of battle/

He was
At
the

also the inventor of mathematical

mechanics.

same

time, Pythagoreanism

had

taken root in Hellas.

at

Lysis,

we have

seen,

remained
heard

Thebes,

where

Simmias and

Kebes had

Philolaos,

and there was an important community of

Aristoxenos was personally
generation of
the school,

Pythagoreans at Phleious.
acquainted with
the
last

and mentioned by name Xenophilos the Chalkidian

from Thrace, with Phanton, Echekrates, Diokles, and

Polymnestos of Phleious.
disciples

They were
Eurytos.^

all,

he

said,

of Philolaos and

Plato was on

friendly

terms

with

these

men, and

dedicated

the

Phaedo to them.^

Xenophilos

was the teacher of

till

Aristoxenos, and lived in perfect health at Athens

the age of a hundred and
Philolaos.

five.*

139. This generation of the school really belongs,

however, to a later period, and cannot be profitably

studied

apart from

Plato

it

is

with

their

master

Philolaos

we have now

to deal.

The

facts

we know
in

about his teaching from external sources are few

number.
an

The doxographers,
theory
of the

indeed, ascribe

to

him
but

elaborate

planetary

system,

Aristotle never mentions his

this.

name
^

in

connexion with
'*

He

gives

it

as the theory of " the Pythagoreans

It

or of "

some Pythagoreans."

seems natural to

suppose, however, that the

^

Pythagorean elements of

Aristoxenos himself came from Taras. 79-83 (R. P. 61). For the political activity of the Tarentine Pythagoreans, see Meyer, Gesch.

Diog.

viii.

lies

AUerth.
Diog.

v.

824.

The
62).

story of

Damon and

Phintias

(told

by

Aristoxenos) belongs to this time.

2
*

viii.

46 (R. P.
the

Compare

way

in

which the Theaetetus

viii.

is

dedicated to the school

of Megara.
^

See Aristoxenos ap. Val. Max. See below, 150-152.

13, ext, 3

and Souidas

s.v.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
Plato's

321
mainly
from

Phaedo
Plato

and

Gorgias

come

Philolaos.

makes

Sokrates

express

surprise

that
it is

Simmias and Kebes had not

unlawful for a

learnt from

him whyit

man

to take his life/

and

seems

to be implied that the Pythagoreans at Thebes used

the word

"

philosopher

" in

the special sense of a

man

who

is

seeking to find a
life.^

way

of release from the burden

of this

It

is

extremely probable that Philolaos

((rTjfia)

spoke of the body {awfia) as the tomb

soul.^

of the

In

any

case,

we seem

to be justified in holding

that he taught the old Pythagorean religious doctrine

in

some

form, and

it is

likely that

he

laid special stress

upon knowledge as a means of release.

impression

That
is

is

the

we

get from Plato, and

he

by

far the

best authority

we have on
further
for

the subject.
that

We
"
1

know
"
;

Philolaos

wrote

on
the

numbers

Speusippos

followed

him

in

Plato, PAd. 61 d 6. This appears to follow at once from the remark of Simmias in PAd. The whole passage would be pointless if the words <t>CK6<xo<f>o$j 64 b.
^
<t)L\o(TO(ptv, <pi\oa-o<pia

had not

in

some way become

it

familiar to the ordinary

Theban of the

fifth

century.

Now

Herakleides Pontikos

made Pythagoras

invent the word, and expound

Leon, tyrant of Sikyon or Phleiotis. Cf. Diog. i. 12 (R. P. 3), viii. 8 ; Cic. Tusc. v. 3. 8 Doring in Arch. v. pp. 505 sqq. It seems to me that the way in which the term is introduced in the Phaedo is fatal to the view that this is a Sokratic idea transferred by Herakleides to the Pythagoreans. Cf. also the remark of Alkidamas quoted by Arist. Rhet. B, 23. 1398 b 18, Qri^tjaiv dfjui ol irpoffrdTai <f>i\6ao<f>oi iyhoPTo Kal evSaifwvrjcrev i} 7r6\is. ' For reasons which will appear, I do not attach importance in this connexion to Philolaos, fr. 14 Diels = 23 MuUach (R. P. 89), but it does seem likely that the fivdoXoywv K0fi\f/6s avqp of Gorg. 493 a 5 (R. P. 89 b) is responsible for the whole theory there given. He is certainly, in any case, the author of the Terprj/xivoi -irLdos, which implies the same general view. Now he is called taus 2tfeX6j tis ^ 'lTaXi/c6s, which means he was an Italian ; for the SiKeX6j ris is merely an allusion to the 2i/ce\dj K0fi\f/6s dv7}p iroH Th.v fiarip i<f>a of Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian from whom Plato could have learnt these views except Philolaos or one of his disciples. They may, however, be originally Orphic for all that (cf, R. P. 89 a).
in a conversation with

21

322

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It is

account he gave of the Pythagorean theories on that

subject.^

probable that he busied himself mainly

with arithmetic, and

we can hardly doubt

disciple,

that
in

his

geometry was of the primitive type described

earlier chapter.

an

Eurytos was his

and we have
wrote

seen

47) that his views were

also

still

very crude.

We

know
that,

now

that

Philolaos

on

medicine,^ and

while apparently influenced

by
he

the theories of the Sicilian school, he opposed them

from the Pythagorean standpoint.

said that our bodies were

In

particular,

composed only of the warm,

It

and did not participate

birth that the cold

in the cold.

was only

after

was introduced by

respiration.

The
is

connexion of
obvious.

this with the old

Pythagorean theory

Just as the Fire in the macrocosm draws in

and

limits the cold

( 53),

dark breath which surrounds the

world

so do our bodies inhale cold breath from

outside.

Philolaos
;

made

bile,

blood,

and phlegm the

causes of disease

and, in accordance with the theory

just mentioned, he

had to deny that the phlegm was

it

cold, as the Sicilian school held

was.

Its

etymology

proved that
strikes us as

it

was warm.

As

Diels says, Philolaos

an

" uninteresting eclectic " so far as his

medical views are concerned.^

that
it

We

shall see,

however,

was

just this preoccupation with the medicine

of the Sicilian school that gave rise to some of the

most striking developments of

Plato and the Pythagoreans.
1

later
see,

Pythagoreanism.

40.

Such, SO far as

we can

was the

historical

See above, Chap. II. p. 113, n. 2. It is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition (Introd. XIII.) that this was quite unknown till the publication of the extracts from Menon's latrika contained in the Anonymus Londinensis.
**

The

extract referring

to Philolaos'

is

given and discussed by Diels in

Hermes^ xxviii. pp. 417 sqq. ^ Hermes, loc. cit.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
Philolaos,

323

and he

is

a sufficiently remarkable figure.

He

is

usually, however, represented in a different light,

and has even been spoken of

Copernicus."

as

a " precursor of

To

understand

this,

we
till

shall

have to

consider for a

little

the story of what can only be

called a literary conspiracy.

Not
to
his

this

has been
the
real

exposed

will

it

be

possible

estimate

importance of Philolaos and

immediate

disciples.

As we

can see from the Phaedo and the Gorgias,

Plato was intimate with these

men and was

as his

deeply
plain

impressed by their religious teaching, though

too that he did not adopt
it

it is

own

faith.

He
of

was

still

more attracted

by the

scientific

side

Pythagoreanism, and to the

influence on him.

last this exercised

a great

His own system

it,

in

its
is

final

form

had many points of contact with

as he

careful to

mark
near

in the
it,

Philebus}

But, just because he stood so

he

is

apt to develop Pythagoreanism on lines

of his own, which

may

or

may

not have

commended

themselves to Archytas, but are no guide to the views

of Philolaos and Eurytos.

He

is

not careful, however,

in

to claim the authorship of his

own improvements

the system.

He

did not believe that cosmology could

is

be an exact science, and he

to
credit

therefore quite willing

" ancient

Timaios the Lokrian, or

sages

generally, with theories which certainly

in the

had

their birth

Academy.
Plato ha*d

Now

many enemies and

detractors,

and

this literary device

enabled them to bring against him

the charge of plagiarism.

these enemies, and

Aristoxenos

was one of

we know he made

the extraordinary

statement that most of the Republic was to be found in

1

Plato, Phileb. i6 c sqq.

U^

324

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

He
seems also to be the

a work by Protagoras/

original source of the story that Plato

bought

"

three

Pythagorean books" from Philolaos and copied the

Timaeus out of them.

books
"

According to

this,

the " three

and, as he had fallen able to buy

had come into the possession of Philolaos into great poverty, Dion was

them from him, or from

hundred minae?

his relatives, at
It
is

Plato's request, for a

at

certain,
in

any

rate, that this story

was already current

the

third century; for the sillographer

Timon

of Phleious

addresses Plato thus

"

And

of thee too, Plato, did

th^

desire of discipleship lay hold.

silver

For many pieces of

thou didst get

in

exchange a small book, and

learn
to

starting

from

it

didst

write

Timaeus^
"

Hermippos, the pupil of Kallimachos, said that

some

writer" said that Plato himself bought the books from

the relatives of Philolaos for forty Alexandrian minae

and copied the Timaeus out of

Aristarchean,

it

while Satyros, the

says

he got

it

through

Dion
in

for

hundred minae^

There

is

no suggestion

any of

these accounts that the book was

by

Philolaos himself;

they imply rather that what Plato bought was either a

book by Pythagoras, or
his

at

any

rate authentic notes of

teaching,

which

had

Philolaos.

In later times,

it

come was

into

the

hands

of

generally supposed

that the

work

entitled

The Soul of the

;

World, by
it

Timaios the Lokrian, was meant

but
this

has

now

been proved beyond a doubt that

*

cannot have

Diog.

iii.

37.

For

similar charges,

cf.

Zeller, Plato, p. 429, n. 7.

Iambi. V. Pyth. 199. Diels is clearly right in ascribing the story ta Aristoxenos {^Arch. iii. p. 461, n. 26).
2
3 *

Timon

ap. Gell. iii. 17 (R. P. 60 a). For Hermippos and Satyros, see Diog. iii. 9 ; viii. 84, So Iambi, in Nicom. p. 105, 1 1 ; Proclus, in Tim. p.

85.
i,

Diehl.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
existed earlier than the
first

325

century A.D.
tells

We

know
the

nothing of Timaios except what Plato

us himself,

and he may even be a

Eleatic Stranger.

fictitious

character like

His name does not occur among

the

the

Lokrians

in

Catalogue

of

Pythagoreans
the

preserved

by lamblichos.^
fulfil

Besides

this,

work

does not

the most important requirement, that

is

of being in three books, which

feature of the story
.^

always an essential

Not one of the

writers just
"

mentioned professes to
^
;

have seen the famous

three books "

but at a later

date there were at least two works which claimed to

represent them.

Diels

has shown

how

a treatise in

three sections, entitled HatBevrLKoVf iroXtri/cov, ^vaiKoVj

was composed
Pythagoras.

in
It

the Ionic dialect and attributed to

was largely based on the Uvdayopt/cal

its

airo^dacL^ of Aristoxenos, but

date

is

uncertain.*^

In the

first

century

B.C.,

Demetrios Magnes was able

to quote the opening words of the

Philolaos.^

work published by
written
it

That,

however,

was

in

Doric.

Demetrios does not actually say

himself,

was by Philolaos

though

it

is

no doubt the same work from

professed to

which a number of extracts are preserved under his

name

in

Stobaios and later writers.

If
in

it

be by Philolaos, that was not quite

the original story
;

accordance with

but

it

is

easy to see

how

his

name

^ -

Diels, Vors. p. 269.

They

are rd dpvXovfieva rpla /3t/3Ma (Iambi, F. Pyth. 199),

viii. 15).

rh.

dia^TjTa

rpla /3tj3Ma (Diog.

^

As Mr. Bywater says

(y. P/ii7.

i.

p.

29),

the history of this

work

"

reads like the history, not so

* ^

much

of a book, as of a literary ignis fattius

iii. pp. 451 sqq.)reads irpQrrov iKdovvai ruy

floating before the

Diels,

"Ein
viii.

minds of imaginative writers." gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch " {Arch.

P.

Diog.

85 (R.

63

b).

Diels

UvdayoptKuv

<^tjSXfa Kal iTriypd\//ai, nepi> 4>i5(res.

326

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

have become attached to
other
it.

may
the

We

are told that

book which

passed

under the

name of

Pythagoras was really by Lysis.^

that the

Boeckh has shown

as the

work ascribed to Philolaos probably consisted

it

of three books also, and Proclus referred to

Bakchai^ a
Herodotos.
It

fanciful title

which

recalls the "

Muses " of
it.

Two

of the extracts in Stobaios bear

is

must be confessed that the whole story

;

very
still

suspicious

but, as

some of the
closely.

best authorities
it is

regard the fragments as partly genuine,

to look at

necessary

them more

The

141. Boeckh argued with great learning and

all

skill

of^hUoiaos/' th^t

the fragments preserved

;

under the name of

Philolaos were genuine

far as this.

but no one will

now go
is

so

The lengthy

extract on the soul

given

up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the

rest.^

It

cannot be said that this position

it.

is

plausible

on the face of
for

Boeckh saw there was no ground

supposing that there ever was more than a single

work, and he drew the conclusion that

all

we must
all

accept

the remains as genuine or reject

as spurious.*

As,

however,

Zeller

and
of

Diels
the

still

maintain

the

genuineness
ignore

of most

fragments,

we cannot
true, present

them

altogether.

Arguments based on the

it

doctrine contained in
^

them would,

is

Diog.

viii. 7.

Proclus, in

End.

p.

22,

15 (Friedlein).

pp. 36 sqq.
^

Boeckh
is

refers to a sculptured

Cf. Boeckh, Philolaos^ group of three Bakchai, whom he

supposes to be Ino, Agaue, and Autonoe.

The

passage

given in R. P. 68.

For a

full

discussion of this

and
to

the other fragments, see

By water, " On

the Fragments attributed

Philolaus the Pythagorean" {J. Phil. i. pp. 21 sqq.). * Boeckh, Philolaos, p. 38. Diels ( Vors. p. 246) distinguishes the Bakchai

from the three books Ilepi (p^xrios {id. p. 239). As, however, he identifies the latter with the *' three books " ibought from Philolaos, and regards it as
genuine, this does not seriously affect the argument.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
the appearance of a vicious circle at this stage.

327
It is

only

in

connexion with our other evidence that these

introduced.

can

be

But

there

are

two

serious

objections to the fragments which

at once.

may

be mentioned

They
to

are sufficiently strong to justify us in

till

refusing

use them

we have

ascertained from

other sources what doctrines

may

fairly

be attributed

to the Pythagoreans of this date.

In the

first

place,

we must ask a
Is
? it

question which

has not yet been faced.

likely that Philolaos

should have written in Doric

of
all

Ionic
till

was the

dialect

science

and

philosophy
is

the time of the

Peloponnesian War, and there

no reason to suppose
Pytha-

that the early Pythagoreans used any other.^

goras was himself an Ionian, and

clear that in his time the

it

is

by no means
in

Achaian ^tates

which'ne

founded his Order had already adopted the Dorian

dialect.^

Alkmaion of Kroton seems

Diels says,
it

to have written

in

lonic.^

is

true, that

Philolaos

and

then Archytas were the

dialect of their

first
"^

Pythagoreans to use the

homes
had
a

but Philolaos can hardly be

the

said
^

to

have

home,^ and

fragments

of

See Diels in Arch. iii. pp. 460 sqq. On the Achaian dialect, see O. Hoffmann
ii.

in Collitz

and Bechtel,

Dialekt-Inschriften, vol.

p. 151.

How slowly

Doric penetrated into the

may be seen from the mixed dialect of the inscription of Mikythos of Rhegion {Dial.-Inschr. iii. 2, p. 498), which is later than 468-67 B.C. There is no reason to suppose that the Achaian dialect of Kroton was less tenacious of life. ^ The scanty fragments contain one Doric form, ^xo^ti- (fr. i)> but Alkmaion calls himself KpoTuuirjTrjs, which is very significant ; for KpoTuvidras is the Achaian as well as the Doric form. He did not, It therefore, write a mixed dialect like that referred to in the last note. seems safest to assume with Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniaia, pp. 21 sqq., that he used Ionic.
Chalkidian states
'*

Arch.

iii.

p.

460.

He

is

distinctly called

'loTpi/cd (cf.

Diog.

viii.

84).

a Krotoniate in the extracts from Menon's It is true that Aristoxenos called him and

328

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in
"

Archytas are not written

in

the dialect of Taras, but

Doric."

what may be called

have found
it

common

Archytas
;

may
he
is

convenient to use that dialect

but

at least a generation later than Philolaos,

difference.

which

makes a great

There
later,

is

evidence that, in

the time of Philolaos and

Ionic

was
for

still

used

even by the citizens of Dorian states

purposes.

scientific

Diogenes of Apollonia

in

Crete and
in

the

Syracusan historian Antiochos wrote

the

Ionic, while

medical

writers

of

Dorian,

continue to use the same dialect. of Pythagoras referred to above,

to Lysis,

Kos and Knidos, The forged work which some ascribed

was

in

Ionic

and so was the work on the

to

Akous77tata
that,

attributed
to

Androkydes,^ which shows

it

even down

Alexandrian times,

was

still

believed that Ionic

was the proper

dialect for Pytha-

gorean writings.
In the second
place, there can

be no doubt that

one of the fragments

four

refers to the five regular solids,

of which

are

identified

with

the

elements of

Empedokles.^

Now

Plato gives us to understand, in

a well-known passage of the Republic^ that stereometry

had not been adequately investigated

wrote,^
" Platonic figures," as in

at the time

he
five

and we have express testimony that the

they were called, were discovered

the

Academy.

In the Scholia to Euclid

we

read

Eurytos Tarentines (Diog. viii. 46), but this only means that he settled at Taras after leaving Thebes. These variations are common in the case of
migratory philosophers.

Eurytos

is

also called a Krotoniate

Cf. also p. 380, n.
i

pontine (Iambi. V. Pyth. 148, 266).

and a Metaon Leukippos,

and
^ iii.

406, n. I on Hippon. For Androkydes, see Diels, Vors. p. 281. As Diels points out {Arch. p. 461), even Lucian has sufficient sense of style to make Pythagoras
p.

speak Ionic.
"^

Cf.

fr.

12 = 20

M.

(R. P. 79),

TCI

iv rq,

(r<palp(f.

cib/JiaTa

irhre

evri.

Plato, Rep. 528 b.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
that

329
cube,

the

Pythagoreans

only

knew

the

the

pyramid (tetrahedron), and the dodecahedron, while the

octahedron and the icosahedron were discovered by
Theaitetos.^

This sufficiently
of

justifies

us in regarding

the "fragments

Philolaos "
shall find

with

something more
as

than suspicion.

We
must

more anachronisms
for

we go

on.

142.

We

look,

then,
it

other

evidence. The Probk

From what has been

meaning of
certainly from
it

said,

will

be clear that we

cannot safely take Plato as our guide to the original

the

Pythagorean
that

theory,

though

it

is

him alone

we can
on the

learn to regard
'other hand,

sympathetically.

Aristotle,

was

quite

out

of sympathy

with

Pythagorean

ways of

thinking, but took a great deal of pains to understand

them.

This was just because they played so great a

part in the philosophy of Plato and his successors, and

he had to

make

the relation of the two doctrines as

clear as he could to himself

and

his disciples.

What
tells

we have
doctrine

to do, then,

is

to interpret

what Aristotle
related
is

us in the spirit of Plato, and then to consider

how
to

the

we

arrive at

in

this

way
it.

is

the

systems

which

had

preceded
it

It

delicate
safer

operation, no doubt, but

*

has been
i,

made much
/9i/3X{(^,

Heiberg's Euclid, vol.

v.

p. 654,

'Ev to^ti^ t<$

Toin-iffTi

ra Xeydfieva UXdruvoi f (rxT^/iaTO, A airroO tikv rpia 5^ tQu Trpoeiprj/jJuuy f crx'J/iciTwi' tQv Ilvdayopeiuv iariy,
rt^ 47', 7p<i0erai

oi)K ^ariv,

5 re kO^os

xal

rj

irvpafxls

Kal rb

dudcKdedpov, QeaiT-fyrov
to this that, as

5k t6 re

dKrdeSpoy Kai t6
points out (Arck.

eiKoadedpov.

It is

no objection

Newbold

dodecahedron is more difficult than that of the octahedron and icosahedron. The Pythagoreans were not confined It may further be noted that Tannery comes to strict Euclidean methods.
xix. p. 204), the inscription of the

to a similar conclusion with regard to the musical scale described in the fragment of Philolaos. He says "II n'y a jamais eu, pour la division du tetracorde, une tradition pythagoricienne on ne pent pas avec sflret^ remonter plus haut que Platon ou qu'Archytas " {Rev. de Philologie^ 1904,
:

p. 244).

330

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in the early history of

by recent discoveries
and medicine.

mathematics

Zeller has cleared the ground

by eliminating the

purely Platonic elements which have crept into later

accounts of the
First of
all,

system.

These are of two kinds.

formulae, such

we have genuine Academic

the

as the identification of the Limit and the Unlimited

with

the

One and
there
it

Indeterminate

Dyad

and

secondly,
represents
Matter."

is

the

Neoplatonic

doctrine

which

as
is

an
not

opposition

between
to

God and
Zeller's

It

necessary
will

repeat

arguments here, as no one

these
doctrines
to

any longer
of

attribute

the

Pythagoreans

the

fifth

century.

This simplifies the problem very considerably, but

it

is

still

extremely

difficult.

According to Aristotle,

the Pythagoreans said Things are numbers^ though that

does not appear to be the doctrine of the fragments of

" Philolaos."

According to them, things have number,

their real essence is
intelligible

which make them knowable, while

something unknowable.^

That would be

enough, but the formula that things ^r^ numbers seems

meaningless.
it

We

have seen reason

for believing that

is

due to Pythagoras himself

feel

( 52),

though we did

not
^

able to say very clearly what he meant

b
25) that

by

it.

Aristotle says distinctly {Met. A, 6. 987

"to

set

up a dyad

instead of the unlimited regarded as one, and to

make

the unlimited consist

of the great and small, is distinctive of Plato. " Zeller seems to make an Eng. unnecessary concession with regard to this passage (p. 368, n. 2
;

trans, p. 396, n. i).

369 sqq. (Eng. trans, p. 397 sqq.). For the doctrine of *' Philolaos," cf. fr. i = 2Ch. (R. P. 64) and for It the unknowable ecrw rwv trpayixdriav, see fr. 3 = 4 Ch. (R. P. 67). has a suspicious resemblance to the later 6X17, which Aristotle would hardly have failed to note if he had ever seen the passage. He is always on the
3
;

2 Zeller, p.

lookout for anticipations of

OX?;.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
There
is

331
Aristotle

no such doubt as to

his school.

says they used the formula in a cosmological sense.

The

world, according to them, was

made
it

of numbers

in the

same sense

as others

had said

was made of
will

" four roots "

or " innumerable seeds."

It

not do

to dismiss this as mysticism.

Whatever we may think

fifth

of Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans of the

century

were

scientific

men, and they must have meant some-

thing quite definite.

that they used

We

shall,

no doubt, have to say

in

the words

Things are numbers

is

somewhat non-natural
in

sense, but there

no

difficulty

such a supposition.

We

have seen already how the

friends of Aristoxenos reinterpreted the old

( 44).

Akousmata
a
great

The Pythagoreans
but such veneration
licence
is

had

certainly

veneration for the actual words of the Master {avTo<i

e</>a)
;

often accompanied

by a
start,

singular

of interpretation.
tells

We
is

shall

then, from

what Aristotle
first
1 .

us about the numbers.

quite decided
. 1 1

143. In the

place,
Ti
1

Aristotle

Aristotle

on

m
the

the

Numbei

his

opmion that Pythagoreanism was mtended to

like

be a cosmological system
Pythagoreans," he
first

the others.
us,
"

"

Though
of less
rest,

tells

made

use

obvious

principles

and elements than

discussions

the

seeing that they did

objects,

not derive them from sensible

yet

all

their

and

studies

had

reference to nature alone.

They
it

describe the origin

of the heavens, and they observe the

parts, all that

phenomena
it

of

its

happens to
principles

and

all

does."^

They
things,

apply their
"

first

entirely

to

these

agreeing apparently with the other natural philosophers

in

holding that reality was just what could be perceived

senses,
'

by the

and

is

contained within the compass of

8.

Arist.

Met. A,

989 b 29 (R.

P. 92 a).

332

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

^

the heavens,"

though

" the first principles

and causes
to
^

of which

they

made use were

is

really

adequate

explain realities of a higher order than the sensible."

The
things,
is

doctrine

more

precisely stated

by Aristotle

to be that the elements of

numbers are the elements of

and that therefore things are numbers.^

positive

He

equally

that

these "things"

are

sensible

things,'*

and indeed that they are

is

bodies,^ the bodies of

which the world

constructed.^

This construction of

the world out of numbers was a real process in time,

which the Pythagoreans described

in detail.^

Further, the numbers were intended to be mathe-

matical numbers, though they were not separated from the things of sense.^

On

the other hand, they were

else,

not mere predicates of something

but had an
did not hold

independent reality of their own.

that the limited
^

"

They

and the unlimited and the one were

990 a
ras
3,

Arist.

Met. A,
ib.

8.

6yuoXo7oO^T6s to?j

dXXou

0i;<rtoX67ois 6ti

rb

7' ov TOVT^ iarlv 8<rov alcrdriTdv earl /cat irepLeiXr/cpev 6 /caXoiy/xevos oipav6s.^.
'^

Mel.

990 a

5,

5'

airias Kai ras dpxds, oxnrep etrrofieu, iKavhs

to,

X^yovaiv iirava^rjvaL Kal

vepi
^
<f)V(reo}s

iirl

dvur^pu) tQp 6vT(av,

/cat

fiaWov

i}

roils

\6yois dp/xoTToiaas.
5.

tQv dpidinQv croix'^'ia. tGjv tvTwv <rToixa 1090 a 22, elvai. fiev dpid/xoiis iirolT}<Tav tA 6vTa,, ov x^pto'Toi'S 5^, dXX' i^ dpidfj,Qv rd bvra. * Met. M, 6. 1080 b 2, tis c twv dpidfiuv ivvrrapxi>vTwv ovra rd aiadijTd ih. 1080 b 17, ^k roinov {jov fiadrifiaTiKov dpt.9/iov) rets aicrdrjrds
Afet.

A,

986 a
elyai

I,

TO.

irdvTWv

vTriXa^ov

N,

3.

oialai avvecTTdvai
^

(paffiv.

Met. M,

8.

1083 b

II,

rd aibfiara
6vT(t}v

e| dpid^x-Qv elvai cvyKelfieva

'

ib.

17, iKcTvoL

di rbv dpidfibv rd 6vTa X^yovcriv

<rd}iJ.aaiv

rd yovp
;

deiapiiixara trpba-

diTTovai Tois

us i^ (Keiuuv

tQv

dpidpiCju

N,
/xt}

3.

1090 a 32,

Kara
tX7}de

/xivTOi

t6

iroteTv i^

dpid/xQv rd (pvaiKd cdifiara, k

ix^^"^^^ ^dpos

Kov<p6Tr}Ta ^xo^'T'^ KovcpdTTjra Kal /Sdpos.

A, 8. 5. 986 a 2, rby 6\ov ovpavbv dpfxovlav elvat. Kal dpidnbv 990 a 21, rhv dpLdp.bv tovtov e^ o5 avv^ariqKev 6 Kbafios M, 6. 1080 b 18, rbv yap 8\ov ovpavbv KaraffKevd^ovcLv e| dpidfiQv de Caelo, V, I. 300 a 15, Tois ^^ dpidfiuiv avviCTTdai. rbv ovpavbv ^vlol ydp rrjv (pijaiv i^ dpiO/iuv cvvLffTaaiv, ibairep twv HvdayopeLwv tlv^.

Met. A,

'

'

Met. N,

3.

109 1 a

18, KoafxoiroLov(ri Kal tpvaiKQs ^oijXovrai

;

Xeyav.

* A/et.

M,

6.

1080 b 16

N,

3.

1090 a 20.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
certain other substances, such as
else of that sort
;

333
v

fire,

water, or anything
itself

but that the unlimited

and the

one

itself

were the

reality of the things of

is

which they

are predicated, and that

why
own

they said that number

^

was the

reality

of

everything."

Accordingly

the

numbers
formal,

are, in Aristotle's

language, not only the

but

also

the

material,

cause

of

things.^

According to the Pythagoreans, things are made of

numbers
air,

in the

same sense

as they were

made

of

fire,

or water in the theories of their predecessors.

Lastly, Aristotle notes that the point in which the

Pythagoreans agreed with Plato was

in giving
;

numbers
Plato

an

independent

reality

of their

own
in

while

differed
reality

from the Pythagoreans

holding that this

things.^

was distinguishable from that of sensible

in detail.

Let us consider these statements

1

44. Aristotle

speaks

of

certain

"

elements

" The eiemen

{(TTOL')(ela)

of numbers, which were also the elements of

things.

That,

of course,
;

is
it

only

his

own way
means.

of

putting the matter

but

is

clearly the

key to the
Pri-

problem,

if

we can
"

discover

what
"

it

marily, the

elements of number

are the

Odd and
were

the Even, but that does not seem to help us much.

We

find,

however,
in

that

the

Odd and Even

way with

identified

a somewhat violent

the Limit

and the Unlimited, which we have seen

regard as the original principles of the

reason

to

Pythagorean

cosmology.
gives

Aristotle tells us that

their

it is

the

things
in

unlimited
limited

character

Even which when it is

contained
1

them and

by the Odd,* and the

986 a 15 (R.
P. 66).

Arist.

Met
6.

Met. A,

A, 5. 987 a 15. 987 b 27, 6 fih

2 j^gf^ ^^,

(IIXctTWj') Toii% ipidfioiis Trapb. rb. aiadrjTd,

ol d' {ol

Hvdaydpeioi) dpidfiods elval (paaiv avrd rd aladrjTd.

5.

Met. A,

986 a 17 (R.

P. 66)

Phys. T,

4.

203 a 10 (R. P. 66

a).

334

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

at

commentators are

one

in

understanding

this

to

Even is in some way the cause of They get into great difficulties, infinite however, when they try to show how this can be.

mean

that the

divisibility.

Simplicius has preserved an explanation, in

all

prob-

ability Alexander's, to the effect that they called the

even number unlimited

into equal parts,
is

"

because every even

is

is

divided

and what

divided into equal parts

;

unlimited in respect of bipartition

for division into

equals and halves goes on

ad
it

infinittmi.
;

But,

when
its

the odd

is

added,

it

limits
^

for
it

it

prevents
plain that

division into equal parts."

Now

is

we

must not impute to the Pythagoreans the view that

even numbers can be halved
carefully
indefinitely.

They had
decad,

studied

the

properties

of the

and
6
is

they must

have

known
in
"

that
this.

the

even

numbers

and
really

lo do not admit of
to

The explanation
of

be

found

fragment

Aristoxenos,

where we read that

even numbers are those which

are divided into equal parts, while

odd numbers are

have
a

divided
term."
^

into

unequal
is
still

parts

and

middle

This
is

further elucidated

by a passage
goes
is

which

quoted

in

Stobaios
It

and
:

ultimately

back to Poseidonios.

runs

"

When
is

the

odd

divided into two equal parts, a unit

left

over in the

middle

but when the even

is

so divided, an

empty

^ Simpl. Phys. p. I owe the passages which I 455, 20 (R. P. 66 a). have used in illustration of this subject to W. A. Heidel, '* Il^/oaj and &TreLpov in the Pythagorean Philosophy " {Arch. xiv. pp. 384 sqq. ). The general

principle of

my

interpretation

is

also the

same

as his,

though

think that,

by bringing the passage

into connexion with the numerical figures, I have

avoided the necessity of regarding the words i] yap eis taa Kal Tjiuarj dialpeais iir^ Aireipoy as "an attempted elucidation added by Simplicius."
^ Aristoxenos,
TiKTji
.
. .

fr.

81, a/. Stob.

i.

p. 20, i, iK

rdv Apiaro^^vov
'

liepl dpidfirj-

Twi' 5^ dpi6/Auv dprioi fi^u ela-ip oi eis taa diaipotjfxevoi, trepicraol

THE PYTHAGOREANS
field
is
left,

335

without a master and without a number,

it is
:

showing that
Plutarch says

defective

and incomplete."

Again,

"

In the division of numbers, the even,

when parted
itself

in

any
;

direction, leaves as

it

were within
is

...

field

but,

when the same thing

left

done

to the odd, there

division."^
It is

is

always a middle

over from the

clear that all these passages refer to

else

the

same

thing,

and that can hardly be anything

"

than those arrangements of

terms
(

" in

patterns with
If

which we are already familiar

these,

47).
it

we think
true

of

we

shall

see

in

what sense

is

that

bipartition goes

on ad infinitum.

However high
in

the

number may
145. In

be, the

number of ways

which

it

can

be equally divided will also increase.

this

way, then, the

Odd and
means

the

Even
that

The numberj
spatial.

were identified with the Limit and the Unlimited, and

it

is

possible,

though

by

no

certain,

Pythagoras himself had taken this step.

there can be no doubt that

In any case,

by

his

Unlimited he meant

something spatially extended, and we have seen that

he identified
it

with

air,

night, or the void, so

we

are

prepared to find that his followers also thought of the

Unlimited as extended.
it

Aristotle certainly regarded

if
19,

so.
*

He

argues that,
i.

the
Koi
iiT]v

Unlimited
els

is

itself

[Plut.] ap. Stob.

vepiffffov

p.

22,

Mo

diaLpovfihuv

laa rod

fjukv

fiovas

iv

fxiaifi

irepUaTiy tov

bk

dpriov Kevr)

XeiweTat x^P^-

Kal dd^airoTos Kal

^

dpdpi.dfji.os,

ws hv ivSeovs Kal dreXovs 6vtos.

Plut. de

E apud Delphos,
irdvTTj
''"V

388

a, raits

ydp

els

taa. ro/xais

tQv

dpidfiQv,
ev
rijs

fJL^y

dpTLOS

dua^rdfievos

vToXelirei

rivd

8eKTiKT}v

eavT(^ Kai x'^P^-^i ^^ ^^

vefiifjaeus ydpifiov.

irepLTT^ ravrb iradbvTi.

I

fiiaov

dpx^v olov del vepiecm

to the further identification of

have omitted in translating refer with Male and Female. The passages quoted by Heidel might be added to. Cf., for instance, what Nikomachos says (p. 13, 10, Hoche), iaxL dk Apriov fj^v 8 oUv re els 8vo laa

The words which

Odd and Even

diaipedijpai fiovddos fiiaov

els
8{>o
tffa

fir)

TapefiiriirToOaris, xepirrbv dk rb
tt]v
TrpoeipTj/x^vTjv tt}s fiovdSos

firj

Svvd/xevov

/xepiaO^vaL

did

neairelav.

He

significantly

adds that

this definition is iK t^j drjfiudovs viroX-n^eus.

336
reality,

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and not merely the predicate of some other
then every part of
is
it

reality,

must be unlimited

too,
is

just as every part of air

air.^

The same

thing

implied in his statement that the Pythagorean Unlimited

was outside the heavens.^

hardly safe to go.

Further than

this,

it

is

Philolaos and his followers cannot

in the old
see,

have regarded the Unlimited

Pythagorean

way

as

Air
of

for,

as

we

shall

they adopted the

"

theory

Empedokles
it

as

to

that

element,"

and

accounted for

otherwise.
it

On

the other hand, they

;

can hardly have regarded

as an absolute void

for
It is

that conception was introduced

by the Atomists.

enough

to say that they

meant by the Unlimited the

the

res

extensa^ without analysing that conception any further.

As

the

Unlimited

is

spatial,

Limit must be
find that
all

spatial too,

and we should naturally expect to

line,

the point, the

and the surface were regarded as

forms of the Limit.

That was the

later doctrine
is

but

the characteristic feature of Pythagoreanism

just that
first

the point was not regarded as a limit, but as the

product of the

Limit and the

arithmetical

Unlimited,
unit.

and was

identified with the

According to

this view, then, the point has

one dimension, the line

In other

two, the surface three, and the solid four.^

Arist. Phys. F, 4.

204 a 20

sqq., especially
et

a 26, dXXet /tV

^o'lrep depos

drjp fiipos, oL'To; Koi direipov direlpov,

2 *

ye

oixrla iarl Kal

dpxv-

Cf.

See Chap. II. 53. Speusippos in the extract preserved in the Theologumena arith/atjv

metical p. 61 (Diels, Vors. p. 235), t6

8^ rpla rplyuvov, t6 8k 8 irvpafils.

ydp d cmy^n), t6

5^

ypafifiifi,

rb

We
11.

know

that Speusippos
/cai

is

following

Philolaos here.

Arist.

Afgt.

Z,

1036 b 12,
(p.

dvdyovffi irdpra eis

Tovs dptdfiovs, Kai ypafifxijs rbv \6yov rbv tQv Svo elvai (paaiv.
is

The matter

clearly put in the Scholia

fikv <Trifj.lov

on Euclid
(rdfia.

78,19, Heiberg),

oi

8e UvOayopeioi

rb

dvdXoyov eXd/x^avov

fxovdbi, 8vd8L 8k rrjv ypafifxriv, Kal Tpid8t

TO iviireboy, TeTpd8L 8k rb
64vai
(pTfjffl

KalroL

'

Apia-TOTiXyjs rptaStKtDs TrpoaeXrjXvtt]v ypa/u-fiifiu.

rb cru/xa,

(bs bidarrj/jLa irpCoTov

Xafx^dvuv

THE PYTHAGOREANS
lines breadth,

337

words, the Pythagorean points have magnitude, their

and

their surfaces thickness.

The whole

theory, in short, turns on the definition of the point

as a unit " having position."
^

It

was out of such

to

elements
world.

that

it

seemed

possible

construct

146. It

is

clear that this

is

way

of regarding the point, The numbers

^^^^^ bound up with the ^

the

line,

and the surface

closely

practice of representing

numbers by dots arranged

in

symmetrical patterns, which

we

have seen reason for

attributing to the Pythagoreans (47).

The

science

of geometry had already

made

considerable advances,

but the old view of quantity as a

sum
is

of units had not

been

revised,

and

so

doctrine

such as we have
the true answer to the
the

indicated was inevitable.

Zeller's

This
to

contention
as
spatial

that
is

regard
ignore

Pythagorean
fact

numbers
doctrine

to

that

the

was

originally

arithmetical

rather

than

geometrical.
that fact,

Our

interpretation takes full account of

peculiarities of the

and indeed makes the

whole system

depend upon

it.

Aristotle

is

very

decided as to the Pythagorean points having magnitude.

"

They
to

construct the whole world out of numbers," he

tells us, "

but they suppose the units have magnitude.

the
first

As

how

unit with
^

magnitude and he

arose, they

appear to be at a

loss."

Zeller holds

that this
is

is

only an inference of
right
in

Aristotle's,^

probably
felt

this sense, that the

Pythagoreans never

the need of saying in so

1

many words

that points had

by Aristotle,
i.

The

identification of the point with the unit is referred to

227 a 27. 2 Arist. Met. M, 6. 1080 b 18 sqq., 1083 b 8 sqq.; de Caelo, V, a 16 (R. P. 76 a).
/%>'j. E, 3.
^

300

Zeller, p. 381.

22

338

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It

magnitude.

does
oyKoi,}

seem probable, however, that

they called them

Nor

is

Zeller's

other argument against the view

that the Pythagorean numbers were spatial any

inconsistent with the
it.

more

way

in

which we have now stated

insists,

He

himself allows, and indeed

that in the
spatial,

Pythagorean cosmology the numbers were

he
raises difficulties

but

about the other parts of the system.

There are other

which cannot
lines,
is

things, such as the Soul

and Justice
and

and Opportunity, which are

and
surfaces.^

said to be numbers,

be regarded as constructed of points,

Now

it

appears to
in

me

that this

just the

meaning of a passage
Pythagoreans.

which Aristotle
he says, that

criticises the

They

held,

in

one part of the world Opinion prevailed, while a

above
it

little

or below

it

were to be found Injustice

or Separation or Mixture, each of which was, according

to

them, a number.
the

But
to

in

the very

same regions
having
can
this

of

heavens

were

be

found

things

magnitude which were also numbers.

be,
^

How

since

Justice

has

no magnitude?^

This means

b i, that Theaitetos called surds, what by the name of dwd/ncLs, while rational square roots were called fii^Kr}. Now in Tim. 31 c 4 we find a division of numbers into 6yKoi. and dwdfiet-s, which seem to mean rational and irrational quantities. Cf. also the use of 67/coi in Farm. 164 d. Zeno in his fourth argument about motion, which, we shall see { 163), was directed against the
Theaet. 148

We learn from Plato,

calls
Svvdfiet.

Euclid

a-i/Mfierpa,

Actios, i. 3, 19 (R. P. 76 b), says that Ekphantos of Syracuse was the first of the Pythagoreans 10 say that their units were corporeal. Probably, however, '* Ekphantos" was a personage in a dialogue of Herakleides (Tannery, ArcA. xi. pp. 263 sqq. ), and Hera-

Pythagoreans, used 6yK0L for points.

kleides called the

610).
2 ^

monads

avap/ioi 6yK0i (Galen, JlisL Phil. 18

Dox.

p.

Zeller, p. 382.

Arist. Met. A, 8.

990 a 22 (R. P. 81
little

e).

read and interpret thus

" For,

seeing that, according to them. Opinion and Opportunity are in

a given part of the world, and a Separation and Mixture,

above or below them Injustice and

of these

in proof of which they allege that each

THE PYTHAGOREANS
surely that the Pythagoreans had failed to give
clear account of the relation
fanciful analogies

339
any
less

between these more or

and

their quasi-geometrical constructhis

is,

tion of the universe.

And

after all, really Zeller's

own

view.

He

has shown that in the Pythagorean

spatial,^

cosmology the numbers were regarded as

of the system.^

and

he has also shown that the cosmology was the whole

We

have only to bring these two

things together to arrive at the interpretation given

above.
147.

When we come

to details,

we seem

what distinguished the Pythagoreanism of

from
its earlier

to see that The numbers and the this period elements.

itself

form was that

it

sought to adapt
It is just this

to the

new theory of
it

" elements."

which

makes
of
the

necessary for us to take up the consideration

system

once

more

in

connexion

with

the
to

pluralists.

When
Italy,

the

Pythagoreans

returned

Southern

they must have found views prevalent

there which

imperatively

demanded a

partial

recon-

struction of their

own

system.

We

do not know that

society, but there

Empedokles founded a philosophical

of these regions
is

can be no doubt of his influence on the medical school

;

and we
it

also
is

know now

that Philolaos

a number,

and

seeing that

also the case (reading au/AjSad/?/ ] with

number of comcomposed of the Limit and the Unlimited), because those affections (of number) are attached to their respective regions ; (seeing that they hold these two things), the question arises whether the number which we are to understand each of these things (Opinion, etc.) to be is the same as the number in the world (t.g. the cosmologicalfnumber) or a different one." I cannot doubt that these are the extended numbers which are composed {avviaTaTai) of the elements of number, the limited and the unlimited, or, as Aristotle here says, the ''affections of number," the odd and the even. Zeller's view that "celestial bodies" are meant comes near this, but the application is too narrow. Nor is it the number {irXijdos) of those bodies that is in question, but their magnitude {fiiyedos). For other views of the passage, see Zeller, p. 391, n. i.
Bonitz) that there
is

already in that part of the world a

posite magnitudes

{i.e.

Zeller, p. 404.

^ /did.

pp. 467 sqq.

340

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in the history of

played a part

medicine/

This dis-

covery gives us the clue to the historical connexion^

which formerly seemed obscure.

The

tradition

is

that

the Pythagoreans explained the elements as built

of geometrical figures, a theory which

for

up we can study
it

ourselves

in

the more developed

If they

form which

attained in Plato's Timaeus?

were to retain
study
in
Italy,,

their position as the leaders of medical

they were bound to account for the elements.

We
the
It

must not take

it

for granted,

however, that the

Pythagorean construction of the elements was exactly

same

as that which

we

find

in

Plato's

Timaeus.
is

has been mentioned

already that

there

good

reason for believing they only

solids, the

knew

three of the regular

cube,

the pyramid

(tetrahedron),

and the

dodecahedron.^
starts

Now
and

it

is

very significant that Plato

from

fire

earth,^

and

in the construction

ot

the elements proceeds in such a

way

that the octahedron

and the icosahedron can

easily be

transformed

inta

pyramids, while the cube and the dodecahedron cannot.

From

this

it

follows

that,

while air and water pass

readily into
1

fire,

earth cannot
its

do

so,^

and the dodeca-

All this has been put in

'larptfcd,

true light

by the publication of the extract

from Menon's
'^

on which see

p. 322, n. 2.

is

In Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80) the theory is ascribed to Pythagoras, which an anachronism, as the mention of " elements" shows it must be later In his extract from the same source, Achilles says than Empedokles, 01 Uv9ay6pi.oi, which doubtless represents Theophrastos better. There is a fragment of " Philolaos" bearing on the subject (R. P. 79), where the
rq.

regular solids must be meant by ra iv

2 4
^

acpaipq. aibixara.

See above, p. 329, n. Plato, Tim. 31 b 5.

Plato, Tim. 54 c 4.

i.

Tim. 48 b 5 Plato says avrQv fie/xT^vvKeu, which implies that there is some novelty in the theory as he makes Timaios If we read the passage in the light of what has been said in 141, state it. we shall be inclined to believe that Plato is working out the Pythagorean doctrine on the lines of the discovery of Theaitetos. There is another
It is to

be observed that

in

of the construction of the elements ouSeij ttw yevecriv

THE PYTHAGOREANS
hedron
is

341

reserved for another purpose, which

presently.
;

we
suit

shall

consider

This
for
it

would

exactly

the
for

Pythagorean system

would leave room

in

dualism of the kind outlined

the Second Part of the

poem

of Parmenides.
first

We

Fire the

principle,

know that Hippasos made and we see from the Timaeus

air

how
not

it

would be possible to represent

fire.

and water as

forms of
air,

The

other element

is,

however, earth,
it

as

we have seen

reason to believe that

was
re-

in early

Pythagoreanism.

That would be a natural

air

sult of the discovery of

atmospheric

by Empedokles
It

and of

his general theory of the elements.

would

also explain the puzzling fact, which

we had
with

to leave

unexplained above, that Aristotle

" forms "

identifies

the two
Fire
;

spoken
All this

of
is,

by

Parmenides

and
it

Earth.^
will
facts.

of course, problematical

but

not be found easy to account otherwise for the

The most interesting point in the theory is, perhaps, the use made of the dodecahedron. It was identified, we are told, with the " sphere of the universe,"
148.
or, as it is

The dodeca-

put

in the Philolaic
^

fragment, with the

"

hull

of the sphere."

Whatever we may think of the authenno reason to doubt that

it

ticity of the fragments, there is

this

is

a genuine Pythagorean expression, and

in

must

be taken

close connexion
same thing

with the word

330 b
16,

" keel

indication of the

in Arist. Gen. Corr. B, 3.

where we

are told that, in the Atatp^o-ets, Plato assumed three elements, but

made

the

middle one a mixture. This is stated in close connexion with the ascription of Fire and Earth to Parmenides. 1 See above, Chap. IV. p. 213, n. 2. Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80) ; " Philolaos," fr. 12 ( = 20 M. On R. P. 79).
""

the

6\/c(s,

see

Gundermann

with him in holding that

Mus. 1904, pp. 145 sqq. I agree the -reading is sound, and that the word means
in Rhein.

"
is

ship," but I think that

it is

the structure, not the motion, of a ship which

the point of comparison.

342
applied

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to

the

central

fire.^

The

structure

of the

world was compared to the building of a ship, an idea

of which there are other traces.^
are told of the dodecahedron
is

The key

to

what we
In

given by Plato.
if

the Phaedo

we

read that the " true earth,"

looked at

from above,

is "

many-coloured

like the balls that are

^

made
as

of twelve pieces of leather."

is

In the Timaeus the

:

same thing
there
is

referred

to

in

these words
left,

"

Further,

still
it

one construction

the

fifth,

Gqd
it."
*

made use of The point is

solids.

for the universe

when he painted

that the dodecahedron approaches

more

nearly to the

sphere than any other of the regular

pieces of leather used to

The twelve
all

make a
if

ball

would

be

regular

pentagons

and,

the

material were not flexible like leather,

we should have
This points to

a dodecahedron instead of a sphere. the

Pythagoreans having had at least the rudiments

of the " method of exhaustion " formulated later by

Eudoxos.
circles

They must have

studied the properties of

by means of

inscribed polygons
solids.^

and those of

spheres by means of inscribed

That gives us
;

a high idea of their mathematical attainments

^

but
irauTos

Aet.

ii,

4,

15,

iirep

rpoTreus

5iktiv

irpovire^dXeTO

t^

tov

<i<T4>aipq.y

6 8T]iJ.iovpy6s dedi.

^ Cf.
*'

the viro^uifiara of Plato, /?ep. 616 c

for shipbuilding

3.

timber"

(when

it

does not

As mean

iiXij

generally

means

firewood), I suggest

that

we should look
word
.
, .

in this direction for

an explanation of the technical use

of the
'iviKo.

in later philosophy.

Cf. Plato, Phileb.

is

$401,

7ej'^(Tews

rrdcav vXrjv TrapaTidea^dai irdaLv, which

part of the answer to

the question voTepa irXoiuu vavirtiyiav ^veKo.

^veKa vavmjyias
* ;
1

<j>^ -ylyveadat

fMoXKov ^ irXota
vXij

{ib.

2)

Tim. 69 a
oi

6,

ola.

t^ktoctiv

ij/xiv

vapaKeLTai.

Plato, P/id.

10 b 6, wffTep

dcodcKdffKVTOi <r0a?pat with

Wyttenbach's

note.
^ Plato, T'im. 55 c 4. Neither this passage nor the last can refer to the Zodiac, which would be described by a dodecagon, not a dodecahedron.

What
fields.
^

is

implied
S/iori

is

the division of the heavens into twelve pentagonal

Gow,

History of Greek Mathet?iaticSy pp. 164 sqq.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
that
it

343
fact that the

is

not too high,

is

shown by the

famous lunules of Hippokrates date from the middle

of
the
fifth

century.

The

inclusion

of

straight

and

curved in the

"table of opposites" under the

head of Limit and

direction.^

Unlimited

points

in

the same

The
system.

tradition confirms

in

an interesting way the

in

importance of the dodecahedron

the

Pythagorean

According to one

account,

Hippasos

was

drowned
was,

at sea for revealing its construction

and claim-

ing the discovery as his own.^

What

that construction

we may

partially

infer

from the fact that the

Pythagoreans adopted the pentagram or pentalpha as

their symbol.

The

use of this figure in later magic

still

is

well

known

and Paracelsus
which
is

employed

it

as

symbol of

health,
it.^

exactly what the Pytha-

goreans called
1

49.

The view

that the soul

is

is

"

harmony," or The

Soui a
^^'

rather an attunement,

intimately connected with the

It

^^^

theory of the four elements.

cannot have belonged

;

to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism

in Plato's

for,

as

shown

Phaedo^

it is

quite inconsistent with the idea

It

that the soul can exist independently of the body.

is

the very opposite of the belief that " any soul can
*

enter any body."

On
it

the other hand,

we know

also

from the Phaedo that

Kebes,

was accepted by Simmias and

Philolaos at Thebes, and

who had heard

of
Phleious,

by
of

Echekrates
*

who was

the

disciple

This is pointed out by Kinkel, Gesch. der Phil. vol. i. p. I2i. Iambi. V. Pyth. 247. Cf. above, Chap. II. p. 117, n. 3. * See Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, p. 1 51, and the passages there referred to, adding Schol. Luc. p. 234, 21, Rabe, rb vevrdyfKLfxfwp] 6tl rh iv ry avfrjdelg, \ey6fievoy ir4vTa\<f>a cvfi^oXov ^p irpds d\XiJ\oi/s
2

llvdayopelup araypiopiaTiKby Kal

* Arist.

roirrip ip ratj iiruTTokaii ixpCipTo.

de

An. A,

3.

407 b 20 (R. P. 86

c).

344

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The account
origin.

Philolaos and Eurytos.^

of the doctrine

given by Plato
that
it

is

quite in accordance with the view

was of medical

Simmias says

"Our

body being, as it were, strung and held together by the warm and the cold, the dry and the moist, and things of that sort, our soul is a sort of temperament
and attunement of
these,
in

when they

are mingled with

If,

one another well and

due proportion.

then, our

soul is an attunement, it is clear that, when the body has been relaxed or strung up out of measure by

diseases
at once."

and other
^

ills,

the soul must necessarily perish

This
(

is

clearly an application of the theory

of Alkmaion

96),

and

is

in

accordance with the

It

views of the Sicilian school of medicine.

completes

the evidence that the Pythagoreanism of the end of

the
fifth

century was an adaptation of the old doctrine

to the The
central
I

new principles introduced by Empedokles. 5 o. The planetary system which Aristotle attributes
Pythagoreans" and
Actios
earth
to
is is

to

"the

Philolaos

is

sufficiently remarkable.^

The
;

no longer

in

the

middle of the world

fire,

its

place

taken by a

central

which

is

not to be identified with the sun.

ten bodies.
First

Round

this fire revolve

comes the

Antichthon or Counter-earth, and next^the earth, which

thus becomes one of the
planets.

After the earth

comes the moon, then the

the heaven
central
fire

sun, the five planets,

and

of the fixed stars.

We

do not see the

and the antichthon because the side of the

earth on which
1

we
;

live

is

always turned away from

ib.

Plato, Phd. 85 e sqq.

and for Echekrates,

88

d.

2 Plato,
3

Phd. 86 b 7-c
is

5.

For the

authorities, see R. P. 81-83.

to Philolaos

perhaps due to Poseidonios.

The attribution of the theory The "three books" were

doubtless in existence by his time.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
them.
This
is

345

to be explained

by the analogy of the

face to

moon.
us
;

That body always presents the same

living

and men

on the other side of

it

would never
all

see the earth.

This implies, of course, that

these

bodies rotate on their axes in the same time as they

revolve round the central
It
is
fire.^

not very easy to accept the view that this

Aristotle

system was taught by Philolaos.

mentions him
in

nowhere
Phaedo
position

connexion with

it,

and

in the
its

Plato gives a description of the earth and

in

the

world which

is

entirely

opposed to

it,

but

is

accepted without demur by Simmias the disciple of

Philolaos.^
It is

undoubtedly a Pythagorean theory,

however,

and

marks a noticeable

advance

on

the

Ionian views then current at Athens.

that Plato states
it

It is clear too

as something of a novelty that the

earth does not require the support of air or anything

of the sort to keep

it

in its place.

Even Anaxagoras
free of that idea,

had not been able to shake himself

and Demokritos

still

held

it.^

The

natural inference

from the Phaedo would certainly be that the theory of

a spherical earth, kept in the middle of the world by
its

equilibrium,

was that of Philolaos himself

fire

If so,

the doctrine of the central

would belong to a some-

what

later

generation

of the school, and Plato

may

1 Plato attributes an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies ( Tim. 40 a 7), which must be of this kind. It is quite likely that the Pythagoreans already did so, though Aristotle was unable to see the point. He says {de Caelo, B, 8. 290 a 24), dXXd /irjj/ 6tl ovbk KvXlerai to. dorrpa, (papep6v rb fietf yap KvXiS/ievov <rrpi<f>a6af. dydyK-rj, rrji 5k aeXi^pris del 5t]\6v i<m t6 KoKoifxevov wpdauirov. This, of course, is just what proves it does rotate. 2 Plato, PM. 108 e 4 sqq. Simmias assents to this doctrine in the emphatic words Kai dpdun ye. 3 The primitive character of the astronomy taught by Demokritos as compared with that of Plato is the best evidence of the value of the Pythagorean researches.

346

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it

have learnt

from Archytas and his friends after he

had written the Phaedo.

of such importance that
It is
it

However

that

may

be,

it

is

cannot be omitted here.

that the revolution of the

commonly supposed
fire

earth round the central

for the alternation of

was intended
night,

to account
clear that

day and

and

it is

an orbital motion of the kind just described would

have the same

axis.

effect as the rotation of the earth

on

its

As

the

same
fire,

side of the earth

is

always turned

to the central

the side upon which

we

live will
is

be turned towards the sun when the earth

on the
it

same

side of the central

fire,

and turned away from

when the
ment of

earth and sun are on opposite sides.

This

view appears to derive some support from the stateAristotle

that

the earth "being in

night."
;

motion
^

round the centre, produces day and

remark, however, would prove too

That
the

much
the

for in

Timaeus Plato
artificer

calls

the

earth

"

guardian

and

of night and day," while at the same time he

declares that the alternation of

day and night

is

caused
is

by the diurnal revolution of the heavens.^

explained, no doubt quite rightly,
if

That
that,

by saying
rest, it

even

the earth were regarded as at

could
is

still

be

said to produce

day and night

for

night

due to

the intervention of the earth between the sun and the

hemisphere opposite to

it.

If

we remember how

recent

was the discovery that night was the shadow of the

earth,

we

shall see

how

it

may have

been worth while

to say this explicitly.

In any case,
^

it

is

wholly incredible that the heaven

293 a 18 sqq. (R. P.
yii^

Arist. dt Caeloy B, 13.

83).
iffj^pai

Plato,

Tim. 40 c

I, {yriv)

0iyXoKa koI drjfiiovpybv vvkt6$ re Kal

/i^r
oitv

ifi-nxavT^aaro.

On
ij

the other hand,

^fjApa.

re yiyovtv

ovrws
l).

Kai 5i4 toDto,

ttjs

/uas Kal (ppopifXdJrdrTji

/cv/cXtJotcws

xepioBos (39 C

THE PYTHAGOREANS
of the
fixed
stars

347
regarded
as

should

have

been

stationary.

That would have been the most

scientific

startling

paradox that any

man had

yet propounded,

and we should have expected the comic poets and

popular literature generally to raise the cry of atheism
at once.
totle to

we should have expected ArisHe made the circular say something about it.
Above
all,

motion of the heavens the very keystone of his system,

and would have regarded the theory of a stationary

heaven as blasphemous. who,
like the

Now

he argues against those

Pythagoreans and Plato, regarded the

^
;

earth as in motion

but he does not attribute the

view that the heavens are stationary to any one.

is

There
All

no necessary connexion between the two

ideas.

the heavenly bodies

may

be moving as rapidly as we
relative

please, provided that their

motions are such

as to account for the phenomena.^

It

seems probable that the theory of the

round the central
fire

earth's

revolution

really originated in

the account given

by Empedokles of the

sun's light.

The two things are brought into close connexion by Aetios, who says that Empedokles believed in two
suns, while Philolaos believed in
^

two or even

in three.^

293 b 15 sqq. - Boeckh admitted a very slow motion of the heaven of the fixed stars, which he at first supposed to account for the precession of the equinoxes, though he afterwards abandoned that hypothesis (Untersuchungetty p. 93). But, as Dreyer admits (Planetary Systems, p. 49), it is '* not necessary with Boeckh to suppose the motion of the starry sphere to have been an exceedingly slow one, as it might in any case escape direct observation."
Arist. de Caelo, B, 13.
.

Aet.

ii.

20, 13 (Chap. IV. p. 275, n. i)

cf. ib.

12 (of Philolaos),

fio-re

Tpbvop
citt'

Tiva.

diTTOvs ijXiovs ylyyecrdai, t6 re ip

'

rqj ovpapt^

vvpQdes Kal t6

avToD irvpoeiSii Kara t6 iaoiTTpoeLdis

el fi-q rij

koL rplrou Xi^ei Ti}v

rod ivbiTTpov Kar

Tip ovpavifi

ivdnKaaiv
is

dtaaireipo/j^vrjp 7rp6s
fire,

rjfjLds

avyqv.

drb Here rb iv
i.

TvpuSei

the central

in accordance with the use of the

p. 196,

word ovpapds explained

18 (R. P. 81).
It

in another passage of Aetios, Stob. Eel.

seems to

of an attempt to

me that these strange notices must be fragments show how the heliocentric hypothesis arose from the

348

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of Empedokles
is

The theory
as
is,

unsatisfactory in so far
It

it

gives two inconsistent explanations of night.

seen, the

we have
time

shadow of the earth

recognised

but at the
diurnal

same

Empedokles

fiery

hemisphere and a nocturnal hemisphere with only a

little

fire

in it^

All this could be simplified by the

fire

hypothesis of a central
light.

which
in

is

the true source of

Such a theory would,

fact,

be the natural

issue of the recent discoveries as to the

moon's light

and the cause of

eclipses, if that

theory were extended

so as to include the sun.

The
names.

central
It

fire

received a

number of mythological
"
"

was

called the
"

Hestia or

hearth of the of Zeus, and

universe," the "

house

or

"
^

watch-tower

the " mother of the gods."

That was

in the

manner
scientific

of the school
the
fact

but these names must not blind us to

that
It

we

are

dealing with

a real

hypothesis.

was a great thing to see that the

best

phenomena

could

be

"

saved

"

by a

central

luminary, and that the earth must therefore be a revolving sphere like the planets.

Indeed,

we

are almost

tempted to say that the

fire

identification of the central

first

with the sun, which was suggested for the

time

in the

Academy,

is

a mere detail in comparison.

The
so,

great thing was that the earth should definitely take

place among the we can proceed to
its

planets

for

once

it

has done

search for the true " hearth " of

It is probable, at
it

the planetary system at our leisure.

any

rate, that it

was

this theory

which made

possible

theory of Empedokles as to the sun's light.

central fire really
it \)y
1

The meaning is that the was the sun, but that Philolaos unnecessarily duplicated
its

supposing the visible sun to be Chap. VI. 113.

Aet.
i.

reflexion.

7, 7 (R. P. 81).

Procl. in

Tim.

p. 106, 22,

Diehl (R. P. 83

e).

THE PYTHAGOREANS
for

349

Herakleides of Pontos and Aristarchos of Samos

reach
the
heliocentric

to

hypothesis,^

and

it

was

certainly Aristotle's reversion to the geocentric theory

which made
truth afresh.

it

necessary for Copernicus to discover the

We

have

his

own word

for

it

that the

Pythagorean theory put him on the right

track.^

,...,151.

The

existence of the antichthon was

hypothesis mtended to account for

eclipses.

/-It the phenomena

^

also

a The of
n antichthon,

In one place, indeed, Aristotle says that the

it

Pythagoreans invented

in order to bring the

;

number
a mere

of revolving bodies up to ten

sally,

but that

is

and Aristotle

really

knew
told,

better.

In his work

on the Pythagoreans, we are

of the
tion

he said that eclipses

the interven-

moon were caused sometimes by

the
;

of

earth

and

sometimes

by that

of

the

antichthon

and the same statement was made by

authority on

Philip of Opous, a very competent

matter.*

the

Indeed, Aristotle shows in another passage

exactly

how

the theory originated.

He

teljs

us that

some thought

there might be a considerable

number

of bodies revolving round the centre, though invisible

^

On

these points, see Staig^iuIIer, Beitrdge zur Gesch. der Naturwissen;

schaften

im klassichen Altertume (Progr., Stuttgart, 1899) and "Herakleides Pontikos und das heliokentrische System " {Arch. xv. pp. 141 sqq.). Though, for reasons which will partly appear from the following pages, I should not put the matter exactly as Staigmiiller does, I have no doubt that he is substantially right. Diels had already expressed his adhesion to the view that Herakleides was the real author of the heliocentric hypothesis {Berl. Sitzb.
,

1893. p. i8)'^

In his

letter to

Pope Paul IH., Copernicus quotes

Plut. Plcu.

iii.

13,

2-3 (R. P. 83 a), and adds " Inde igitur occasionem nactus, coepi et ego de
terrae mobilitate cogitare."

paraphrased by Dreyer, from the original MS., which was first printed in the edition of 1873, translated by Dreyer, ib. pp. Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 314 sqq. 3 (R. P. 83 b). * Aet. ii. 29, 4, Twv '^vdar^opdiav Tivh Kardi ttjv kpiaroriXeLov iaroplav
is

The whole passage

Planetary Systems^

P-

3li-

Cf. also the passage

'

Kal rify ^iXiirirov toO 'OitovvtIov

fief

air6(paffiv avravyeiq. Kai

(^/cXe/ireti'

dvTKppd^ei

Tork

T^s

yiji,

TOT^ Si r^l iyrlxOovoi

rifv <xe\Tfivriv).

350

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and that
accounted
of
in

to us because of the intervention of the earth,

they

eclipses

the

this way moon than

for

there

being

more
is

of

the

sun.^

This

mentioned in close connexion with the antichthon, so

there
is

no doubt that Aristotle regarded the two

hypotheses as of the same nature.

theory seems to be
the
existence
this.

The
to

history of the

Anaximenes had assumed

planets
(

of

dark

account

for

the

frequency of lunar eclipses

29),

and Anaxagoras

had revived that view

the central

( 135).

Certain Pythagoreans^

had placed these dark planets between the earth and

fire in

order to account for their invisibility,

and the next stage was to reduce them to a single

body.

Here again we see how the Pythagoreans

tried

to simplify the hypotheses of their predecessors.

Planetary
I

52.

We must not assume that even the later Pythamade

the sun, moon, and planets, including the

goreans

earth, revolve in the opposite direction to the

heaven of
is

the fixed stars.

It

is

true that

Alkmaion

said to
"
^

have agreed with

"

some of the mathematicians

it is

in

holding this view, but

or even to Philolaos.

never ascribed to Pythagoras

old theory was, as

The

we have

seen

( 5 4),

that

all

the heavenly bodies revolved in the

same

direction,

from east to west, but that the planets

revolved more slowly the further they were removed

^

Arist. de Caelo, B, 13.

irepl

293 b 21,
rb fi^aov

ivioL% 8k 8ok7 Kai

tj/mv

vXelw aibfiara roLavra

ttjv
iTriirpbad'qcn.v
ttj":

ivb^eadaL tpipeadai
yrjs.
<f>aa-iv

&8r)\a

didi

616 /cat rets t^s ae\'f]vris

tcDj*

iK\d\peis wXeiovs ^ tAs tov ijXlov ylyveaOai

yap

(pepo/x^vwv ^Kaarov ,dvTt.(ppdTTeiv ai>T-^v,

dXX' oi fxovov

tt]v

yijv.
^

It is

not expressly stated that they were Pythagoreans, but

it is

natural
Caelo,

to suppose so.
P- 515, 25).
^

Such, at

least,

was Alexander's opinion (Simpl. de

that used

The term

ol /xadrjfiaTiKol is

by Poseidonios

for the

Chaldaean
seen,

astrologers (Berossos).

Diels, Elementum., p. 11, n. 3.

As we have

the Babylonians

knew

the planets better than the Greeks.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
earth are " overtaken "

351

from the heavens, so that those which are nearest the

by those

that are further away.

This view was

it

still

maintained by Demokritos, and that

was

also Pythagorean,

seems to follow from what we

spheres."

are told about

the "

harmony of the

We
fifth

have seen
in
its

54) that

we cannot
the

attribute this theory

later

form

to

Pythagoreans of the

century, but

we have the express testimony of

that

Aristotle

to the fact that those Pythagoreans

whose doctrine he
bodies

knew

believed

the

heavenly

produced

musical notes in their courses.

Further, the velocities

of these bodies depended on the distances between

them, and these corresponded to the intervals of the

octave.

He

distinctly implies that the

;

heaven of the
he mentions

fixed stars takes part in the concert

**

for

the sun, the moon, and the stars, so great in magnitude

in

and

number

as they are," a phrase which cannot

refer solely or chiefly to the

F'urther,

remaining

five

planets.^

we

are told that the slower bodies give out

a deep note and the swifter a high note.^

Now
it

the

prevailing tradition gives the high note of the octave to

the heaven of the fixed stars,^ from which

1

follows

Arist. de Caelo, B, 9.

290 b 12 sqq. (R. P.

p.
ire pi

82).

Alexander, in Met.

39, 24 (from Aristotle's

work on the Pytha-

goreans), tGiv yap cufidruv rCbv

dTToa-rdaeis ix^i'Twv
. .

rb fiiaov (^epofiivoov iv avakoyLq. ras

iroLoiJfTuv di Kal ^6<f)oy ev t(^ Kiveiadai

ppadvrepwv

fiapiv,

rdv 5i Taxvripup

6^6v.

tQv /j^v "We must not attribute the

identification of the seven planets with the seven strings of the heptachord

to the Pythagoreans of this date. Mercury and Venus have in the long run the same velocity as the sun, and we must take in the earth and the fixed stars. We can even find room for the antichthon as irpoaXafipat'dfievos. For the various systems, see Boeckh, Kleine Schriften^ vol. iii.
*

and Carl v. Jan, ** Die Harmonie der Spharen " (Philol. 1893, pp. 13 sqq.). They vary with the astronomy of their authors, but they bear witness to the fact stated in the text. Many give the highest note to Saturn
pp. 169 sqq.,
to the Moon, while others reverse this. The system which corresponds best, however, with the Pythagorean planetary system must include the heaven of the fixed stars and the earth. It is that upon which

and the lowest

352
that
all

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the

heavenly

bodies

revolve

in

the

same

direction,

and that

their velocity increases in proportion

to their distance

from the centre.

that
is

The theory
also

the proper

motion of the sun,

east,

moon, and planets

heaven of the fixed
the

from west to

and that they

appearance
is

share in the motion

stars,

from east to west of the

its first

makes

in

Myth
"

of

Er

in Plato's Republic,

and

fully

worked

out in the Thnaeus.

with the
told

In the Republic
spheres,"

it is still

associated

harmony of the
it

though we are not

how

is

reconciled with that theory in detail.^

In the Timaeus

we

read that the slowest of the heavenly

;

bodies appear the fastest and vice versa

and, as this

statement

is

put into the mouth of a Pythagorean,

we
of

might suppose the theory of a composite movement to

have been anticipated by some members at
that school."
least

That

is,

of course, possible

for

the

the verses of Alexander of Ephesos quoted by

4, are

Theon of Smyrna,
vaUi
k.t.A,

p. 140,

based

yata

jixei/

ovv

vncLTi} re

Papeld re

fjLe(r<To9i

avkaveuiv 6e

<r<f)alpa <rvvr)fLfj.evr} eir^ero t^rr),

The "base
^

of Heaven's deep
xiii.
)

Organ"

in Milton's

" ninefold harmony'*

{//jymn on the Nativity,

implies the reverse of this.

The

difficulty

ii.

p. 452).

There the

appears clearly in Adam's note on Republic, 617 b (vol. a.TT\a.vi\% appears rightly as the j'tjttj, while Saturn,

which comes next to it, is the viriTi). It is inconceivable that this should Aristotle touches upon the point {de Caelo, have been the original scale. B, 10. 291 a 29 sqq.); and Simplicius sensibly observes {de Caelo, p.
476, 11),
01

5^ Trdcras rds

arcpaipas

tt]v

avTrjv

X&yovTes

Kivriaiv

t7)p

oltt*

dvarokdu
Trap
fj-ev

KiveicrdaL Kad' virbXrixpiv

(ought not the reading to be

r)/j.^pap

virbXeixj/iv ?),

(bare Tr\v fikv Kpoviav <T(f>aipav <TVvairoKadi<XTacr6ai Kad'

ry dirXaveL

oXlyov, Tr]v d^ rod Aibs irapa irX^ov Kal ^(pe^Tjs ovtojs, oStol TroXXdj

This is what is dSi^j'aros. and the exclusion of earth The only solution would have been to and dirXavq^ from the ap/xovia. make the earth rotate on its axis or revolve round the central fire in
dXXas dwopias
K<f>eTjyov(n,

but their virbdecns

led

to the return to the geocentric hypothesis

twenty-four hours, leaving only precession for the dTrXaj'^s.

seen,

As we have
If

Boeckh attributed

this to Philolaos,

but without evidence.

he

had thought of it, these difficulties would not have arisen. ^ Tim. 39 a 5-b 2, especially the words ra Tdxi-(TTa Trepudvra

virb rGtr

II

THE PYTHAGOREANS
Pythagoreans were singularly open to new
the
ideas.
is

353

At
even

same

time,

we must note
is

that the theory

more emphatically expressed by the Athenian Stranger

in the If

Laws, who

in a special sense Plato himself.

we were to praise the runners who come in last in the race, we should not do what is pleasing to the competitors and in the same way it cannot be pleasing to the gods when we suppose the slowest of the The passage unheavenly bodies to be the fastest.
;

doubtedly conveys the impression that Plato

is

ex-

pounding a novel theory.^

153.
Aristotle

We

have

still

to

consider

view,

which

Things
likenesses of

sometimes attributes to the

" like

Pythagoreans,

numbers.

that things were

numbers."

He

does not appear

doctrine that

to regard this as inconsistent with the

things are numbers, though

it

is

hard to see
is

how he
as

could reconcile the two.^

that

There

no doubt, however,
Pythagoreans

Aristoxenos

represented

the

teaching that things were like numbers,^ and there are

other traces of an attempt to

make

out that this was

the original doctrine.

letter

was produced, purportthe Hellenes think

ing to be by Theano, the wife of Pythagoras, in which

she says that she hears

Pythagoras said things

many of were made

of number, whereas

^padvripwv i<paipeTo KaraXafipdvopra KaraXafi^dveadai

(** they appear to be overtaken, though they overtake "). ^ Plato, Laws, 822 a 4 sqq. The Athenian says of the theory that he had not heard of it in his youth nor long before (821 e 3). If so, it can hardly have been taught by Philolaos, though it may have been by

Archytas.
2 Cf. especially

Mei. A,

6.

same thing when he

perceived
^

says, as in

787 b 10 (R. P. 65 d). It is not quite the A, 5. 985 b 23 sqq. (R. P. id.), that they

many

likenesses in things to numbers.

etc.

That
.

refers

to

the

numerical analogies of Justice, Opportunity,

Aristoxenos ap. Stob.
i.

pr.

(p.

20),

HvdaySpas

iravra

to.

Trpdyixara direiKdi^uv rots dpid/xoTi.

23

354

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to

he really said they were made according

It is

number.^
theory

amusing to notice that

this fourth-century

had to be explained away

lamblichos actually
said
tells

in

its
it

turn later on, and

us that

was Hippasos who

mind, Aristotle

number was the exemplar of

this

things.^
in his

When
seems
tion "

view

is

uppermost

to find only a verbal difference

between Plato
of " participa-

and the Pythagoreans.

This

The metaphor

was merely substituted

is

for that of "imitation."

not the place to discuss the meaning of Plato's

;

so-called " theory of ideas "

but

it

must be pointed
the
is

out

that

Aristotle's

ascription

of

doctrine

of

" imitation "

to

the

Pythagoreans

abundantly
immortality

justified

by the Phaedo.

The arguments

for

given in the early part of that dialogue

various sources.

come from

Those derived from the doctrine of

Reminiscence, which has sometimes been supposed to

be Pythagorean, are only known to the Pythagoreans

by

hearsay, and

Simmias requires
to the question

to have the whole

psychology of the subject explained to him.^

however,

When,
that our

we come

what

it

is

sensations remind

us

of,

his

attitude
real,

changes.

The
it,

view that the equal

itself is

alone

and that what

is

we
is

call

equal things are imperfect imitations of

quite familiar to him.*

finally

He

requires

no proof of

it,

and

convinced of the immortality of the soul just

because Sokrates makes him see that the theory of

forms implies
It is

it.

also to

be observed that Sokrates does not

introduce the theory as a novelty.

1

The

reality of the

Stob.

Ed.

i.

p.

125, 19 (R. P. 65 d).

p. 10,

2 '

Iambi, in Nicom.

20 (R. P. 56
^

c).

Plato, Phd. 73 a sqq.

Ibid.

74 a sqq.

THE PYTHAGOREANS
" ideas " is the sort

355

of reality

"

we

are always talking

about," and they are explained in a peculiar vocabulary

which

is

represented as that of a school.

terms are introduced by such formulas as

The technical " we say."

to

Whose
it

theory

is

it?

It

is

usually supposed
it

be

Plato's own,
his

though nowadays

is

the fashion to call

to

"early theory of ideas," and

it

say that

he

modified

profoundly in later

life.

But there are

is

serious difficulties in this view.

Plato

very careful

to

tell

us that he was not present at the conversation

recorded in the Phaedo.

Did any philosopher ever

his

propound a new theory of

as already familiar to a

own by

representing

it

number of

distinguished living
It

contemporaries

It

is

not easy to believe that.

would be

rash,

on the other hand, to ascribe the theory

there seems

to Sokrates, and

nothing for
"

it

but to
IhkaC)

suppose

that

the

doctrine

of

forms

"

(el'S?;,

originally took shape in

Pythagorean

circles,

perhaps

under Sokratic influence.

this.

There

is

nothing startling in

It

is

a historical fact that Simmias and Kebes

;

were not only Pythagoreans but disciples of Sokrates

for,

by a happy chance, the good Xenophon has included

in

them

his

list

of true -Sokratics.^
for believing that the

We

have also

sufficient

ground
like

Megarians had

adopted a

theory under similar influences, and

Plato states expressly that Eukleides and Terpsion of

d 8). The phrases avrb 5 assumed to be familiar. "We" " define reality by means of question and answer, in the course of which " we give an account of its being (^s \6yov Bidofieu tov elvat, 78 d I, where TOV elvai is equivalent to \6yov t^s odaias). When we have done \6you this, "we" set the seal or stamp of avrb 8 ?<rTi.v upon it (75 d 2). Technical terminology implies a school. As Diels puts it {Elementum, p. 20), it is in a school that '* the simile concentrates into a metaphor, and the metaphor condenses into a term." ^ Xen. Mem. i. 2, 48.
^

Cf. especially the

^ariv, airb Ka6' avrd,

words 8 and the

OpvXov/xeu del (76

like are

356

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

at the conversation

Megara were present

the Phaedo.

recorded in
"

There were, no doubt, more

than we generally recognise.

friends of

the ideas
in

"

It is certain,

any

case, that the use of the

realities
it

words

eihr)

and

l^kai to

express ultimate

is

pre-Platonic,

and

it

seems

most natural

to regard

as of Pythagorean origin.^
limits of this

We
where

have really exceeded the

work by

tracing the history of Pythagoreanism

it

down

to a point

becomes practically indistinguishable from the

;

earliest

form of Platonism

but

it

was necessary to do

so in order to put the statements of our authorities in

their true light.

Aristoxenos

is

not likely to have been

mistaken with regard to the opinions of the

men he
must

had known personally, and

have had some foundation.

Aristotle's statements

We

must assume, then,

not the form of

a later form of Pythagoreanism which was closely akin

to early Platonism.
it

That, however,

is

which concerns us here, and we

shall see in the

next

chapter that the fifth-century doctrine was of the more

primitive type already described.
Plato, Soph. 248 a 4. See Diels, Elenientum, pp. 16 sqq. Parmenides had already called the original Pythagorean "elements" fiopcpal ( 91), and Philistion called the " elements " of Empedokles I84at.. If the ascription of this terminology to the Pythagoreans is correct, we may say that the Pythagorean "forms"
1

developed into the atoms of Leukippos and Demokritos on the one hand" ideas" of Plato on the other. ( 174), and into the

CHAPTER

VIII

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS^

154.
all

The

systems we have just been studying were

pluralist,

fundamentally

and they were so because

if

Relation to ^'^ ecessors.

Parmenides had shown

that,

we take

a corporeal

monism
of a

seriously,

we must

ascribe to reality a

number

of predicates which are inconsistent with our experience

world which

everywhere
(

displays

multiplicity,

motion, and

change

97).

The
"

four

"roots" of

Empedokles and the innumerable

the problem which
127).

seeds " of

Anaxa106,

goras were both of them conscious attempts to solve

Parmenides had raised

There

is

no evidence, indeed, that the Pythait

goreans were directly influenced by Parmenides, but

has been shown
(

147)

how
the

the later form of their

system was

based

on

theory

of

Empedokles.

Now

it

was

just this prevailing pluralism that

;

Zeno

criticised

from the Eleatic standpoint

and

his argu-

ments were especially directed against Pythagoreanism.

Melissos, too, criticises Pythagoreanism
to
find
;

but he

tries

common ground
the
old

with his adversaries

thesis

by
is

maintaining
infinite.

Ionian

that

reality

357

358

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

I.

Zeno of Elba
Zeno
flourished in
is

Life.

155. According to Apollodoros,^

01.

LXXIX. (464-460

B.C.).

This date

arrived at
his

by making him
Parmenides.

forty years

younger than

master

We

have seen already

( 84) that the

meeting of Parmenides

and

Zeno with the young

Sokrates cannot well have occurred before

449
"

B.C.,

and Plato
about 489

tells

us that
^

Zeno was

at that time

nearly

forty years

old."

He

must, then, have been born

after

B.C.,

some twenty -five years

Parmenides.

He was
is

the son of Teleutagoras, and the statement of

ApoUodoros that he had been adopted by Parmenides

only a misunderstanding of an expression of Plato's
Sophist?

He

was, Plato further

tells

us,^ tall

and of

a graceful appearance.

Like Parmenides and most other early philosophers,

Zeno seems
native city.

to have played a part in the politics of his

Strabo ascribes to him some share of the

credit for the

good government of Elea, and says that

This statement can easily be

he was a Pythagorean.^
explained.

Parmenides, we have seen, was originally a

Pythagorean, and the school of Elea was no doubt

popularly regarded as a mere branch of the larger
society.

We
ix.

hear also that Zeno conspired against a

is

tyrant,
^

whose name

differently given,

and the story

for Zeno's date

29 (R. P. 130 a). ApoUodoros is not expressly referred to but, as he is quoted for his father's name (ix. 25 ; R. P. 130), there can be no doubt that he is also the source of \ht floruit. Plato, Farm. 127 b (R. P. iii d). The visit of Zeno to Athens is
Diog.
;
'^

confirmed by Plut. Per. 4 (R. P. 130 e), where we are told that Perikles "heard" him as well as Anaxagoras. It is also alluded to in Ale. I.
1 19 a, where we are told that Pythodoros, son of Isolochos, and Kallias, son of Kalliades, each paid him 100 minae for instruction.

Plato, Soph. 241 d (R. P. 130 a).

Plato,

Farm.,

loc. cit.

Strabo,

vi. p.

252 (R. P.

ni

c).

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

of his courage under torture
with varying
156.
details.^
is

359

often repeated, though

Diogenes

speaks
titles

of

Zeno's

"books,"

and

Writings

Souidas gives some

the

which probably come from

through

Alexandrian

librarians

Hesychios

of

Miletos.^

In the Parmenides^ Plato

makes Zeno say

written
his will.^

that the
in
is

work by which he

is

best

known was

his

youth and published against

As he

supposed to be forty years old at the time of the

dialogue, this

must mean that the book was written

and
it

before

460

B.C. ( 84),
it.

is

very possible that he

title

wrote others after

has come

The most remarkable

is

which

down
It

to us
is

that of the Interpretation of

Empedokles.

not to be supposed, of course, that

Zeno wrote a commentary on the Poem of Empedokles

but, as Diels has pointed out,*
it

is

quite credible that

it,

he should have written an attack on

afterwards called by that name.
against
If

which was

he wrote a work

the

" philosophers,"

that

must

Pythagoreans, who, as

we have

seen,

the term in a sense of their own.^

mean the made use of The Disputations

not,

and the Treatise on Nature may, or may

be the

same
It

as the
is

book described

in Plato's

Parmenides.

not likely that Zeno wrote dialogues, though

certain references in Aristotle have been supposed to

imply

this.

In the Physics^

we hear

of an

argument

of Zeno's, that any part of a heap of millet makes a

1

Diog.
Diog.

ix.

26, 27,

and the other passages referred to

s.v.

in

R. P. 130

c.

2
"

26 (R. P. 130) ; Suidas Plato, Farm. 128 d 6 (R. P. 130

ix.

(R. P. 130 d).

d).

Berl

Sitzb., 1884, p. 359.

' See above, p. 321, n. 2. It hardly seems likely that a later writer would make Zeno argue 7rp6s toi>s 0iXo<r(i0ous, and the title given to the book at Alexandria must be based on something contained in it. Arist. Phys. H, 5. 250 a 20 (R. P. 131 a).

36o

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Simplicius
illustrates

sound, and

this

by quoting a

passage from a dialogue between Zeno and Protagoras.^

If our
in
is

chronology

is

right, there is

nothing impossible
;

the idea that the two

most unlikely that

men may have met Zeno should have made

but

it

himself

a personage in a dialogue of his own.

later fashion.

That was a

In another place Aristotle refers to a

"

passage where

the answerer and

is

Zeno the questioner "

easily to be under-

occurred,^ a reference which

most

stood in the same way.

Alkidamas seems to have

written a dialogue in which Gorgias figured,^ and the

exposition of Zeno's arguments in dialogue form must

always have been a tempting exercise.

also that Aristotle

It

appears
writer

made Alexamenos

the

first

of dialogues.^
Plato gives us a clear idea of what Zeno's youthful

work was
course,"
sections,

like.

It

contained
discourses

more than one

were subdivided

" dis-

and

these

into

each dealing with some one presupposition

of his adversaries.^

We owe

the preservation of Zeno's

arguments on the one and many to Simplicius.^

^

Those

to,
It

Simpl. Phys. p. 1108, 18 (R. P. 131). If this is what Aristotle refers is hardly safe to attribute the Keyxpirrjs \6yos to Zeno himself. is worth noting that the existence of this dialogue is another indicait

tion of Zeno's visit to Athens at an age

when he could converse with Protagoras, which agrees very well with Plato's representation of the matter. 2 Arist. So/>h. El. 170 b 22 (R. P. Chap. V. p. 231, n. 5. 130 b). * Diog. iii. It is certain that the authority whom Diogenes follows 48.

here took the statement of Aristotle to writer of prose dialogues.

^

mean

that

Alexamenos was the

first

first

Plato,

Farm,

it.']

d.

Plato speaks of the

virbdeai-s

of the

first

which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections. Proclus {in loc. ) says there were forty of these Xfyyoi altogether. ^ Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30 ; R. P. 133) that he is quoting /carA X^^iv. I now see no reason to doubt this, as the Academy would certainly have a copy of the work. If so, the fact that
X670J,

the fragments are not written in Ionic

is

another confirmation of Zeno's

residence at Athens.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

relating to motion

361

have been preserved by Aristotle

he has restated them
in his

himself

but, as usual,

own

language.

157. Aristotle in his Sophist'^ called

Zeno the

in-

Dialectic,

ventor of dialectic, and

true,

this,

no doubt,

is

substantially-

though the beginnings at

least of that

method of

arguing were contemporary with the foundation of the

Eleatic school.

Plato

gives us a spirited account of

the style and purpose of Zeno's book, which he puts

into his
In

own mouth

reality, this

writing

is

a sort of reinforcement for the

argument of Parmenides against those who try to turn it into ridicule on the ground that, if reality is one, the argument becomes involved in many absurdities and contradiction^.

who uphold a Many, and them back as good and better than they gave its aim is to show that their assumption of multiplicity will be involved in still more absurdities than the assumption of unity, if it is sufficiently worked out.
This writing argues against those
gives
;

The method
his

of Zeno was, in

fact, to

take one of

adversaries'
it

fundamental

postulates

and
This

deduce
is

from

two contradictory conclusions.*

what

Aristotle

meant by

calling

him the inventor of

dialectic,

which

is

just the art of arguing, not

from true premisses,

side.

but from premisses admitted by the other

^

The

239 b 9 sqq. 25 (R. P. 130). 3 Plato, Farm. 128 c (R. P. 130 d). ^ The technical terms used in Plato's Parmenides seem to be as old -as Zeno himself. The virSdeais is the provisional assumption of the truth oll^' a certain statement, and takes the form d iroWd iari. or the like. The word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation, but the
Arist. Phys. Z, 9.
2 Cf.

Diog.

ix.

setting before one's self of a statement as a

virod^adai, Attic Trpodiffdai).

If the conclusions

problem to be solved (Ionic which necessarily follow

o,

from the virodeais (rd avfi^alvovra) are impossible, the vTodeait is "destroyed" (cf. Plato, AV/. 533 c 8, rds virod^aeis dvaipovaa). The.
author of the Hepi dpxalrjs iarpiK^s (c
similar sense.
i)

knows the word

vir60eats in

362

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the evidence of the senses, and
fresh

theory of Parmenides had led to conclusions which

contradicted
object
itself,

Zeno's

was not to bring

proofs

of the theory

but simply to show that his opponents' view

led to contradictions of a precisely similar nature.

Zeno and
ism^^^^"^^^"
1

5 8.

That Zeno's
statement,

dialectic
is
it

was mainly directed

suggested
to

against the
Plato's

Pythagoreans
that

certainly

by
the

was

addressed

adversaries of Parmenides,
*

who

held that things were

it

a many."

Zeller holds, indeed, that

was merely

the popular form of the belief that things are

that

many many
'^

Zeno

set himself to confute

^
;

but

it is

surely not

true that ordinary people believe things to be " a

in the sense required.

Plato

tells

us that the premisses

of Zeno's arguments were the beliefs_of the adversaries

of Parmenides, and the postulate from which

contradictions are derived
therefore
units,
is
it

all

his

is

the view that space, and

of a

body,
is

is

made up

number of
is

discrete

which
at
all

just

the Pythagorean doctrine.

Nor

probable that Anaxagoras

aimed at^

We

know from

Plato that Zeno's book was the work

of his youth.^

Suppose even that

it

was written when

B.C.,

he was

thirty, that is to say,

about 459
at

Anaxagoras

had and
him.

just taken
it

up

his

abode

Athens

at that time,^

is

very unlikely that Zeno had ever heard of

is,

There

on the other hand, a great deal to be

said for the view that

Anaxagoras had read the work

of Zeno, and that his emphatic adhesion to the doctrine

^ The view that Zeno's arguments were directed against Pythagoreanisni has been maintained in recent times by Tannery {Sciettce helUne, pp,

249 sqq.), and Baumker {Das Problem der Materie, pp. 60 sqq.). - Zeller, p. 589 (Eng. trans, p. 612). This is the view of Stallbaum in his edition of the Parmenides
^

(pp. 25 sqq.).
"

Parm.,

loc. cit.

Chap. VI.

120.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

younger contemporary.^
It

363

of infinite divisibility was due to the criticism of his

will

be noted how much clearer the

historical

position of

Zeno becomes
somewhat

if

we

follow Plato in assign-

ing

him

to a

later date

than

is

usual.

We

have

first

Parmenides, then the

This, at

pluralists,
rate,

and then the

criticism of Zeno.

any

seems to have
historical

been the view which Aristotle took of the

development.^
159.

The polemic

of Zeno

is

clearly directed in what

""*

is

>e

the

first

instance against a certain view of the unit.

in his Physicsf

Eudemos,
that "
if

quoted from him the saying

any one could

tell

him what the one was, he

are."

would be able to say what things

mentary of Alexander on
is

The comhe says,

that

this,

preserved by Simplicius,'^
relates,"

quite satisfactory.

"

As Eudemos

"
it

Zeno the
there

disciple of

Parmenides

tried

to

show

was impossible that things could be a many, seeing

was no unit
units."
in

that

things,

whereas

'

many
be

means a number of
reduced to a
^

Here we have a

clear refer-

ence to the Pythagorean view that everything

may

sum
fr.

of units, which
fr.

is

what Zeno denied.^

fr.

Cf. for instance

Anaxagoras,
3.
i

3,

with Zeno,

and Anaxagoras,

fr.

5,
'

with Zeno,

Arist. Phys. A, 3. 187 a

(R. P. 134 b).

See below, 173.

{'A\4^av8pot),
/i7j

Simpl. Phys. Simpl. Phys.

elpai

p.

138, 32 (R. P. 134 a).

p. 99, 13,

ws yb.p
4v rots

la-ropeT, i^-qalv

Ei557;/ioj,
to.

Zr}uu)u

6 n.apfJLepl5ov yvupifjiOi iireipaTO bcLKviivai &n.

T^J
firjdkv

olbv

re

6vTa

TToWA
eva.8(av.

elvai

oPcrtv

^v,

tA 5^ ToXXd irX^^ot dvax

This is the meaning of the statement that Zeno dviQpci t6 iv, which is not Alexander's (as implied in R. P. 134 a), but goes back to no less an authority than Eudemos. It is perfectly correct when read in connexion with the words ttjv yitp ariy/x^v cij t6 iv X^ (Simpl. Phys.
p.

99. II). ^ It is quite in order that Mr. Bertrand Russell, from the standpoint of

pluralism, should accept Zeno's arguments as

'* immeasurably subtle and We know from Plato, profound " {Principles of Mathematics^ p. 347). however, that Zeno meant them as a redtictio ad absurdttm of pluralism.

364
The
ragments.
^^^.^
1

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

60.

The fragments
^^.^

^^^

j.^^

Zeno himself also show that I give them according ^^ argument.

of

to the arrangement of Diels.

(')

If the

one had no magnitude,

is,

it

would not even

be.

each one must have a certain magnitude and a certain thickness, and must be at a certain distance from
But,
if it

another,
for
it,

and the same may be

said of what

is

in front of
will

it

too, will

have magnitude, and something

the same to say this once
it

be in front
it

of
for

it.^

It is all

and

to say

always

no such

part of

will

be the

last,

nor

will

one thing not

So, if things are a many, they must be both small and great, so small as not to have any R. P. 134. magnitude at all, and so great as to be infinite.

be -compared with another.^

For

if it
;

were added to any other thing

for nothing

it

would not make

it

any larger

can gain

in

magnitude by the addition

it
if,

of what has no magnitude, and thus

follows at once that

what was added was nothing.^

But

when
;

this

is

taken

away from another thing, that thing is no less and again, if, when it is added to another thing, that does not increase, it is plain that what was added was nothing, and what was taken away was nothing. R. P. 132.
(3)
If things are a
are,

many, they must be just as many as they and neither more nor less. Now, if they are as many as
will

they are, they

^

be

finite in

number.

formerly rendered "the same

;

smallness

for

smallness."

may be said of what surpasses it in too will have magnitude, and something will surpass it in This is Tannery's rendering, but I now agree with Diels in
it

thinking that dTr^x^"' refers to /xeyedos and Trpo^x^*" to iraxos. showing that the Pythagorean point has really three dimensions.

Zeno

is

2 Reading, with Diels and the MSS., oOre erepov irpb^ 'drepov ovk ^(rrai. Gomperz's conjecture (adopted in R. P.) seems to me arbitrary. ' Zeller marks a lacuna here. Zeno must certainly have shown that the subtraction of a point does not make a thing less ; but he may have

done so before the beginning of our present fragment.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

If things are a

365
;

many, they

will

be

infinite in

there will always be other things between them,

number for and others

number.

again between these.

R. P. 133.'

And

so| things are infinite in

161. If

we hold
required

that the unit has no magnitude

Theuniu

and

this

is

by what

Aristotle calls the argu-

ment from dichotomy,^ then everything must be inNothing made up of units without finitely small.
magnitude can
other hand,
if

itself

have any magnitude.

On

the

we

insist that the units

of which things

are builtup are something and not nothing,

hold that everything

infinitely divisible
;

is

infinitely great.

we must The line is

it

and, according to this view,

will

be

made up
That
this

of an infinite

number of

units,

each of

which has some magnitude.

argument

refers to points is

proved by an

instructive passage

from Aristotle's Metaphysics?

We

read there
If the

unit

is

indivisible,

it

will,

according to the pro

position

of Zeno,

be nothing.
its

That which neither makes

it,

anything larger by
traction

addition to

nor smaller by
;

its

sub-

from
real

it,

is

not,

he

says, a real thing at all

for clearly

what
it is

is

must be a magnitude.
;

And,

if it is
is

a magnitude,

corporeal

for that

is

corporeal which
the plane

in every

dimen-

and the line, if added in one way will make things larger, added in another they will produce no effect but the point and the unit cannot make
sion.

The

other things,

i.e.

things larger in any way.

From
*

all this it

seems impossible to draw any other

calls

This

is

what Aristotle
I
;

"the argument from dichotomy" {Phys.

If a line is made up of points, we ought to R. P. 134 b). be able to answer the question, " How many points are there in a given line ? " On the other hand, you can always divide a line or any part of it

A,

3.

1S7 a

into
^

two halves
See

so that,

if

a line

is

made up of
*

points, there will always

be more of them than any number you assign.

last note.

Arist.

i^/<r/.

B, 4. looi

7.

366

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

that
"

conclusion than

the " one " against which

"

Zeno

argued was the

"
Space.

one
is

of which a

number

constitute a
unit.

many," and that

just the

Pythagorean

162. Aristotle refers to an argument which seems

to

be directed against the Pythagorean doctrine of

space,^

and Simplicius quotes

is

it

in this

form
;

^
:

If there

space,

it

will
is

be in something
something
is

for all that is is

in something,
will
is

and what

in

in space.

So space

be in space, and
space.

this

goes on

ad infinitum^

therefore there

no

R. P. 135.
is

What Zeno
attempt
occupies
to
it.

really arguing

against here
the

is

the
that

distinguish
If

space

from

body

we

insist that

body must be
what space

in space,
in.

then

we must go on
is

to ask
"

itself is

This

"

reinforcement

of the Parmenidean denial

of the void.

Possibly the argument that everything

must be

" in "

something, or

must have something

beyond

it,

had been
finite

used against the Parmenidean

it.

theory of a
Motion.

sphere with nothing outside

163. Zeno's arguments on the subject of motion

have been preserved by Aristotle himself

of Parmenides
successors

The system

made

all

motion impossible, and his

had been driven to abandon the monistic

order to avoid
this

hypothesis in

very consequence.
proofs
is

Zeno does not bring any

possibility of motion
;

fresh

of the

im-

all

he does

to

show that a
is

pluralist theory, such

as the

Pythagorean,

just as

unable

to

explain

it

as

was that of

Parmenides.

Looked
1

at in this way, Zeno's

i.

arguments are no mere

a).

Arist. Phys. A,

209 a 23

3.

210 b 22 (R. P. 135

Simpl. Phys. p. 562, 3 (R. P. 135). The version of Eudemos is given in Simpl. Phys. p. 563, 26, d|tot ^h.p irav t6 ov ttov elvai ei d^
2
*

6 rdiros tu>v 6vt(j3v, ttov

div

etri ;

ovkovv iv

SXXy

rbirifi

KCLKeipOi dr) iv &\\ip

Kal

oxh-ois

els

rb Trpbau.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

quibbles, but

367
conception

of quantity.
(i)

mark a great advance They are as follows

:

in the

You cannot

get to the
infinite

cannot traverse an

end of a race-course.^ You number of points in a finite time.

You must

traverse the whole,

any given distance before you and the half of that again before you This goes on ad ififinitum^ so that there can traverse it. are an infinite number of points in any given space, and you cannot touch an infinite number one by one in a finite
traverse the half of

time.2
(2) Achilles will
first

never overtake the tortoise.

He
By

must
that

reach the place from which the tortoise started.

will

time the tortoise then

is

have got some way ahead.

tortoise will

Achilles

must

make up

that,

and again the

be ahead.
it.^

He
the
is

always coming nearer, but he never makes up to

The
same
the

"

hypothesis

"

of the second argument

first,

is

as that in the
;

namely, that the line

is

series of points

but the reasoning

of

complicated by
object.

introduction

another
is

moving

The
first

difference, accordingly,

not a half every time, but

ratio.

diminishes

in

constant
that

Again,
object
fast it

the

argument shows
traverse

no
all,

moving
however

can

ever
;

any distance at

may move

the second emphasises

it

the fact that, however slowly

moves,
(3)

it

will traverse
in flight

an
is

infinite distance.

The arrow
it

at rest.

For,

if

everything

is is

at in

rest

when

occupies a space equal to

itself,

and what

flight at
itself, it

any given moment always occupies a space equal to

cannot move.*
Top. rb

Arist.

e,

8.

i6o b
dieXdety.

8,

Zijvwj'os

(X670S),

Srt

ovk

cVS^erat
ii

Kiveiffdai oiid^
2 Arist.

<tt6.5iov

PAjfs. Z, 9.
a).

239 b

11

(R. P.

136).

Cf. Z, 2.

233 a

a 21

(R. P. 136
3 *

Arist. Phjys. Z, 9.
F/iys. Z, 9.

latter

passage

is

239 b 14 (R. P. 137). 239 b 30 (R. P. 138) ; id. 239 b 5 (R. P. 138 a). The I have translated corrupt, though the meaning is plain.

368

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

further

Here a
positions

complication

is

introduced.

The

moving object
are
in

itself

has

length,

and

its

successive

not points
it

but

lines.

The

successive

moments
remember

which
It

occupies them are

still,

however^

points of time.

may

help to

make

this clear if

we

that the flight of the arrow as represented

this nature.

by the cinematograph would be exactly of

(4)

Half the time may be equal to double the time.

is

Let

us suppose three rows of bodies,^ one of which (A)

at rest

while the other two (B, C) are moving with equal velocity in
opposite directions (Fig.
i).

By

the time they are

all

in the

same

part of the course,

will

have passed twice as

many of
2.

the bodies in

as |n
I.

(Fig. 2).
Fig.

A.

<-..

. IT^ .
->
.

Fig.

A
B

Therefore the time which

long as the time
it

it

takes to pass

is

twice as

takes to pass A.

But the time which

is

and

take to reach the position of

is

the same.

Therefore

double the time

equal to the half ^

Aristotle, the paralogism here

According to

depends

upon the assumption that an equal magnitude moving

Zeller's version of
5'
it

ei

yap,

(prjcrlv,

TjpefjLei

-rrav

orau

??

Kara to
k.t.X.

1<tov,

?<tti

del

t6 ^epofievov iv ry vvv Kara t6

at

tcrov,

olkIvtjtov

Of

course

any time," not " always," and /card rd taov is, literally, *' on (to itself)." For other readings, see Zeller, p. 598, n. 3 ; and Diels, Vors. p. 131, 44. ^ The word is 6yK0L ; cf. Chap, VII. p. 338, n. i. The name is very appropriate for the Pythagorean units, which Zeno had shown to have
del

means "

a level with a space equal

length, breadth,
2 Arist. F/iys.

argument

in

my
is

and thickness (fr. i). Z, 9. 239 b 33 (R. P. 139). I have had to express the own way, as it is not fully given by any of the authorities.
1016, 14), except

The

figure

practically Alexander's (Simpl. Pkys. p.

that he represents the 67/cot

by

letters instead of dots.

The

conclusion

is

plainly stated
T(p SiTrXaaiip

by

Aristotle
tj/jucvv,

{loc.

V.),

avfi^aiveiy oterat laov etvai

xpo""
it

rbv

and, however

we

explain the reasoning,

must

be so represented as to lead to

this conclusion.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

with equal
velocity

369
time,
is

must move

for
it

an equal
is

whether the magnitude with which

rest or
in

equal

at

motion.

That

is

certainly so, but

is

we

are

not to suppose that this assumption

Zeno's own.

The

fourth

argument
is

is,

in

fact,
first.

related to the third

just as the second

to the

The

Achilles adds

a second the
first

moving point
argument
;

to the single

moving point of
the arrow

this

argument adds a second

moving
in

line

to the single
lines,

moving

line of

flight.

The

however, are represented as a

is

series

of units, which
;

just

how
is

the

Pythagoreans
if

represented them
a

and

it is

quite true that,

lines are

sum

of discrete units, and time

is

similarly a series

of discrete moments, there

no other

measure of

motion possible than the number of units which each

unit passes.

This argument, like the others,

out
the

is

intended to bring
follow

absurd
that

conclusions
all

which
is

from

the

assumption

quantity
is

discrete,

and

what

Zeno has

really

done

to establish the conception of

ad absurdum of the other hypothesis. If we remember that Parmenides had asserted the one to be continuous (fr. 8, 25), we shall see how accurate is the account of Zeno's method which Plato puts into the mouth of Sokrates.
continuous quantity by a reductio

II.

Melissos of Samos
Life

164. In

his

of

Perikles,

Plutarch
the

tells

us, Ufe.

on the authority

of Aristotle,

that

philosopher

Melissos, son of Ithagenes,

was the Samian general

who
1

defeated the Athenian

Plut. Per.

fleet in

441/0

B.C. ;^

and
24

it

26 (R. P. 141

b),

from Aristotle's

ZoAiiwi' ToXirefo.

370

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

for this reason

was no doubt
his floruit in
this,

that Apollodoros fixec

01.

LXXXIV.

(444-41 B.C.y
his
life.

Beyond

we

really

know nothing about

it

He

\i

said to have been, like Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides

but, as

he was a Samian,

is

possible that he was

originally a

member

of the Ionic school, and

we

shal

see that certain features of his doctrine tend to beai

out this view.

On

the other hand, he was certainly

dialectic,
it

convinced by the Eleatic

and renounced

the

Ionic doctrine in so far as

that.

was inconsistent with

facility

We

note here the effect of the increased

of intercourse between

East

and West, which was

secured by the supremacy of Athens.

The
Fragments.

165.
^.
first,
..
.

The fragments which we have come from

and are given, with the exception of
Diels.^
it
, .
. , ,
.

/-

bimplicius,

the

from the text of

is,

(i) If nothing

what can be said of

as of something

real?
^

meant the

It is possible, of course, that Apollodoros 24 (R. P. 141). and not the fourth year of the Olympiad. That is his usual era, the foundation of Thourioi. But, on the whole, it is more likely that he meant the fourth for the date of the pavapxia would be
ix.
first
;

Diog.

given with precision.

2
'

See Jacoby,
141).

p. 270.

Diog.
It is

ix.

24 (R. P.

no longer necessary
it

to discuss the passages

which used

to appeal

as

frs.

1-5 of Melissos, as

has been proved by A. Pabst that they an

merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments {De Melissi Samiifragtnentis Bonn, 1889). Almost simultaneously I had independently come to tht

same conclusion

(see the first edition, 138).

Zeller

and Diels have botl

accepted Pabst's demonstration, and the supposed fragments have beer

I still believe, however, have numbered \a is genuine. See next note. * These words come from the beginning of the paraphrase which wa so long mistaken for the actual words of Melissos (Simpl. Phys. p. 103, 18; R. P. 142 a), and Diels has accordingly removed them along wit; I believe them to be genuine because Simplicius, who ha the rest. access to the complete work, introduces them by the words Apx^rat to cvyypdiJ,/j.aTos oihcjs, and because they are thoroughly Eleatic in charactei It is quite natural that the first words of the book should be prefixed t

relegated to the notes in the last edition of R. P.

that the fragment

which

the paraphrase.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

(i)

371
if
it

What was was

into being, into being.
it

ever,

and ever

shall be.

For,

had
it

come came

needs must have been nothing before

if it

Now,
it

were nothing,

in

no wise could

anything have arisen out of nothing.

(2) Since, then,
is,

R. P. 142.
into being,

has not

come
it

and since
it

it

was
is

ever,

and ever
limit.

shall be,

has no beginning or end,

into being, to
it

but

without

For,
(for

if it
it

had come

would
into

have had a beginning

ceased to

would have begun

come
;

being at some time or other) and an end (for

would have
but,
if it
it

come

into being at

neither began nor ended,

some time or other) and ever was and ever

it

shall be,

has no beginning or end

to

for

is

not possible for anything

be ever without

all

being.
it

R. P. 143.
is,

(3) Further, just as

ever

so

it

must ever be

infinite in

magnitude.
(4)

R. P. 143.
is

But nothing which has a beginning or end

R. P. 143.
it it

either

eternal or infinite.
(5) If
else.

were not one,

a.
is

would be bounded by something must be one;

for if

R. P. 144

(6)

For

if it

(infinite), it

it

were

two,

it

could not be

infinite

for then they

would be bounded
for if

by one another.^
were unlike,
(7)

R. P. 144.
it is

(6a) (And, since

it

one,

it

is

alike throughout

it

would be many and not one.) ^ So then it is eternal and infinite and one and
cannot perish nor become greater, nor does
For,
if
it

all alike.

And
or

it

suffer pain
it

grief.

any of these things happened to For

if it is altered,

it,

would

no longer be one.
not be
all alike,

then the real must needs

but what was before must pass away, and what

was not must come into being.

Now,

if it

changed by so
it

much

as a single hair in

ten thousand years,

would

all

perish in the whole of time.

This fragment
insertion of the

is

quoted by Simpl. de Caelo,

infinite " is justified

p. 557,

16 (R. P.

144).

The
5vo

word "

by the paraphrase (R.

*

P.

144 a) and by
?)

M.X.G. 974 a

li, irav 5^ Hirupov ov <#v> eZvat

tl

y^p

etr], iripar hv dvai ravra irpbs AWrjXa. have ventured to insert this, though the actual words are nowhere It is represented in the paraphrase (R. P. quoted, and it is not in Diels. 145 a) and in M.X.G. 974 a 13 (R. P. 144 a).

irXfiu

"^

372

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it is

Further,

not possible either that

its

order should b
perisl

changed
nothing

for the order

which

it

had before does not

into being.

nor does that which was not

is

come

But, sine

added to it or passes away or is altered, ho^ have had its order changed ? For if anythin became different, that would amount to a change in its orde: Nor does it suffer pain ; for a thing in pain could not a For a thing in pain could not be ever, nor has it th be. same power as what is whole. Nor would it be alike, if
either

can any

real thing

were in pain
be

for
it

it is

only from the addition or subtraction

feel pain,
is

something that
alike.

could

and then
feel

it

would no longe
;

Nor could what

whole

pain

for

then whs

was whole and what was

not would

real

would pass away, and what wa

come

into being.

And

the

same argument
is

applie

to grief as to pain.

Nor is anything empty. For what What is nothing cannot be. Nor does it move for it has nowhere
;

empty

is

nothing

to betake itself to, bu

is full.

For

if

there were aught empty,

is

it

the empty.

But, since there

to.

naught empty,

would betake itself it has nowher

it is

t^

to betake itself

And
what
at
is

it

cannot be dense and rare

for

not possible
is

fo
i

rare to

be as

full as

what
is

is

dense, but what

rare

once emptier than what

This

dense.

is the way in which we must distinguish between wha and what is not full. If a thing has room for anythin; else, and takes it in, it is not full ; but if it has no room fo anything and does not take it in, it is full. Now, it must needs be full if there is naught empty, and

is full

it is full, it

does not move.

R. P. 145.
is

(8)

This argument, then,

the greatest proof that

it

it is

om
;

alone

but the following are proofs of

also.

If there

were

many, these would have to be of the same kind as I say thj. For if there is earth and water, and air and iroii the one is.

and gold and fire, and if one thing is living and another dea([ and if things are black and white and all that men say the] if that is so, and if we see and hear aright, eact really are, one of these must be such as we first decided, and they cannoi But, be changed or altered, but each must be just as it is.

j.i

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

it

373

yet

we say that we see and hear and understand aright, and we believe that what is warm becomes cold, and what is that what is hard turns soft, and what is soft cold warm
is,
;

hard

that

what
not
;

is

living dies,

and

that things are born from

and that all those things are changed, and that what they were and what they are now are in no way alike. We think that iron, which is hard, is rubbed away by contact with the finger;^ and so with gold and stone and everything which we
what
lives

fancy to be strong, and that earth and stone are

made

out of

water;
realities.

so that

it

turns out that

we

neither see nor

know

do not agree with one another. We said that there were many things that were eternal and had forms and strength of their own, and yet we fancy that they all suffer alteration, and that they change from what we
these things
see each time.
after all,
It is clear, then, that

Now

we did not
all

see aright

nor are we right in believing that

these things are

many.

thing would be just what

is

They would not change if they were real, but each we believed it to be for nothing
;

stronger than true reality.

But

if it

has changed, what

is

was has passed away, and what was not

come

into being.
to

So then,

if

there were

many

things, they

would have

be

just of the

(9)
if it
is

same nature Now, if it were

one,
it

as the one.
to exist,
;

R. P. 147.

it

cannot have body

for, if it

must needs be one but had body it would

;

have

parts,

(10)
it

If

and would no longer be one. R. P. 146.^ what is real is divided, it moves but if it moves,
;

cannot be.

R. P. 144

a.^

166. It

has been

pointed out that Melissos was Theory

reality.

of

perhaps not originally a

member
all

of the Eleatic school

but he certainly adopted

the views of Parmenides

as to the true nature of reality with

one remarkable

exception.
^

He

appears to have opened his treatise with

Diels keeps the

Reading
613, n.
i)

biiovpiwv with Bergk.

MS.

byioxi

ft4uy

Zeller

(p.

conjectures
oZv

inr^

loO

^uv.

2 I

read
still

el fx^v

etrj

with
is

which
'

stands in R. P.

E F for the el fikv bv etri of D. The ib^ a piece of local colour due to the editors.
149, 2).
for the dfia of F,

Diels also
Diels

now reads oZv ( Vors. p. now reads dXXd with E

and attaches the word

to the next sentence.

374

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

is

a reassertlon of the Parmenidean " Nothing

I

not

"

(fr,

a),

and the arguments by which he supported

with Parmenides,
in

this

view are those with which we are already

(fr.

familiar

i).

Reality, as

is

eternal,

an

attribute

which Melissos expressed

way

of his

own
into

He

argued that since everything that has come

being has a beginning and an end, everything that has

not come into being has no beginning or end.
totle is

Aris-

very severe upon him for this simple conversion

^
;

of a universal affirmative proposition

his

but, of course

belief

was

not

founded

on
it

that.

His

whole
tc

conception of reality
regard
it

made
It

necessary for him

as

eternal.^

would be a more
right
in

serious

matter

if

Aristotle

were

believing,

as

he
thai

seems

to
is

have done,^ that

Melissos
space,
time.

inferred

what

must be

infinite

in in

because

it

had

neither beginning nor

end

This, however

seems quite incredible.

which Aristotle
quite
entitled

As we have interprets in this way

understand
it

the
(fr.

fragment
2),

we

are
1

to

for

ourselves,

and

cannot see anything to justify Aristotle's assumption

^

Arist. F/tj/s.

A,
the

3.
:

186 a 7 (R. P. 143

(i)
\j/v8i]

a).
;

Aristotle finds
(2)

two flaws

ii

the Eleatic reasoning

ol

Xafi^dvova-iv

davWdy laroi

elaiv avrdi

\6yoL.

This

is

first

of these flaws.

It is also

mentioned in Sopk. El
oiy

168 b 35 (R. P. ib.). et rh yevb^ievov dpxw

t6
fiT]

So Eudemos
^X^'j "^^

ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 105, 24,

70/5

yev^fxevov

dpxhv ovk

?x^*>

/xdWov 8
2:

^ov dpxhv OVK iy^vero. The real reason is given in

142
a), a-vyxojpetTai

the paraphrase in Simpl. F/rys. p. 103,

yap Kai tovto vwb tG)v (pvacKuv, though o He regardec course Melissos himself would not have put it in that way. himself as a (pvaiKds like the rest ; but, from the time of Aristotle, it wa a commonplace that the Eleatics were not (pvcriKol, since they deniec
(R. P.

motion.
{Arch.

This has been denied by Offner, "Zur Beurtheilung des Melissos' Cf. especially iv. pp. 12 sqq.), but I now think he goes too far. Top. ix, 6, wj &fi(f>(a Tavrd tvra tQ dpxr]v ^X^'''> "^^ '''^ yeyovbs Kai tI
3

ireirepacTfi^vov.

The same

point

is

made

in

Soph. El.

167 b 13 anc

181 a 27.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

that

375

the expression

"without limit" means without

limit in space.^

167. Melissos did indeed differ from Parmenides in ReaUty

holding that reality was spatially as well as temporally

infinite
;

infinite.

but he gave an excellent reason for this

it

belief,

and had no need to support

by the extraordinary
said

argument
if it

just

alluded
it

to.

What he

was

that,

were limited,

would be limited by empty space.

Aristotle himself,^ and
it

This we
real

know from
to

marks a
it it

advance upon Parmenides.

regard
reality

He
to

had thought

possible

as

a finite sphere, but

would have been

in detail.

difficult for

him

work out

this

view

He
is

would have had to say there was nothing

;

outside the sphere

that there that

but no one

knew

better than he

no such thing as nothing.

imagine
a
finite

Melissos saw

you

catinot
it

sphere

without
^
;

regarding

as surrounded

by an

infinite

empty space
reality

and

as,

in

common
(fr.
(fr.

with the rest of the school, he

denied the void

spatially

7),

he was forced to say

It
is

was

infinite

3).

possible that he

was

influenced
school.

in

this

by ^

his

association with

the Ionic

From
be one
;

the infinity of reality,

for, if it

it

follows that

it

must

were not one,

(fr.

it

would be bounded by
one,
it

something

else

5).

And, being
(fr.

must be
what we

homogeneous throughout
^

6a), for that is

The words
this is

dW

&ireip6v

ian mean simply " but

it

it

is

without limit,"

and
end.

simply a repetition of the statement that

has no beginning or

The

nature of the limit can only be determined by the context, and

accordingly,

when Melissos does introduce

(fr.

the subject of spatial infinity,

he

is

careful to say rb fidyedoi iireipov

3).

^ Arist.

Gen. Corr.
'

i.

8.

325 a 14, ^v koX

Slv

a.Klvt\TOv

rh -kov elvai

<pa<ri

Kal

iireipov ivioi

rb yd,p tripas irepalveiv

irpbi

t6 Kfvbv.
n. 2).

That

this refers

to Melissos has
'

been proved by Zeller (p. 612, Note the disagreement with Zeno ( 162).

376

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

one.

mean by

Reality, then,

is

a single, homogeneous,

corporeal plenum^ stretching out to infinity in space, and

going backwards and forwards to

Opposition to
1

infinity in time.

68. Eleaticism

was always

critical,

and we are not

flaw which he
all

without indications of the attitude taken up by Melissos

towards contemporary systems.

The

found

in the Ionian theories

was that they

in the
all

assumed
is

some want of homogeneity

inconsistency.

One, which

a real

Further, they
if all

allowed the possibility

of change

but,

things are one, change must be a

If

form of coming into being and passing away.

you

admit that a thing can change, you cannot maintain

that
it

is

eternal.

Nor can

the arrangement of the

for instance,

parts of reality alter, as

Anaximander,

had held

any such change necessarily involves a

and passing away.
point

coming

into being

The next
peculiar.
for that
is

made by

Melissos

is

somewhat
;

Reality, he says, cannot feel sorrow or pain

always due to the addition or subtraction of

is

something, which
sure

impossible.

It is
it is

not easy to be
to the theory of

what

this refers to.

its

Perhaps

Herakleitos with

Want and
^

Surfeit,

perhaps to some-

thing of which no record has been preserved.

Motion

in general

and rarefaction and condensation

;

in particular are impossible

for

both imply the existis

ence of empty space.

Divisibility

excluded

for the

same

reason.

These

are

the

same arguments

as

Parmenides employed.
^

The view

of

Baumker
kl.

that Melissos admitted avTiirepiaraffis or motion

Das Problem der Materie, p. 59) ; depends upon some words of Simplicius [Phys. p. 104, 13), ovx (ire fx^ dvparbv dia irX-f^povs KivetadaL, ws iirl rCiv crwfi&Twv \iyofJLey k.t.X. These words were formerly turned into Ionic and passed off as a fragment of Melissos. They are, however, part of Simplicius's own argument against Alexander, and have nothing to do with Melissos at all.
in plena {Jahrb. f.
Phil., 1886, p. 541

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

169. In
Melissos,

377
system
of
the
is

nearly
find

all
it

accounts
stated

of

the

we

that

he

denied

Opposition to agoreans. ^

corporeality

of what

is

real,

an
fr.

opinion which

supported by a reference to

9,

which

is

certainly
If,

quoted by Simplicius to prove

this

very point.^

however, our general view as to the character of early

Greek Philosophy
incredible.

is
it

correct, the statement

will

must seem

And

seem even more surprising

when we

find that in the Metaphysics Aristotle says

that, while the unity of

Parmenides seemed to be

ideal,

that of Melissos
it

was

material.^

Now

the fragment, as

stands in

the

MSS.

of Simplicius,^ puts a purely

hypothetical case, and would most naturally be under-

stood as a disproof of the existence of something on

the ground that,
if it

existed,

it

would have to be both

refer to the
;

corporeal and one.

This cannot

Eleatic

One,

in

which Melissos himself believed

is is

and, as the
as
it

argument
Zeno's,^
it

almost
natural

verbally
to

the

same
that

one of
also

suppose

was

directed against the Pythagorean assumption of ulti-

mate

units.

The only

possible objection

is

that Sim-

plicius,
it

who

twice quotes the fragment, certainly took

usually given to
to
it.^

in the sense

But
"
in

it

was very

natural for

him

make
B.C.

this

mistake.

The One
the middle

was an expression that had two senses

of the
fifth

century

it

meant

either the

whole of

^ See, however, Baumker, Das Problem der Materie^ pp. 57 sqq. , who remarks that ibv (or <5v) in fr. 9 must be the predicate, as it has no article. In his fifth edition (p. 611, n. 2) Zeller has adopted the view here taken. He rightly observes that the hypothetical form d ixJkv ov etrj speaks for it, and that the subject to ctij must be fKaarov twv itoXXwj', as with Zeno. 2 Met. A, S. 986 b 18 (R. P. loi). ^ Brandis changed the tlri to fan, but there is no warrant for this. * Cf. Zeno, fr. i, especially the words l S^ (anv, ivdyKrj (Karrop

fi^eddi TL (x^iy Kal irdxoj. ' Simpl. PA}fs. pp. 87, 6, and

no,

i.

378

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

To
maintain
it

reality or the point as a spatial unit.

in the first sense, the Eleatics
it

were obliged to disprove

in the

second

and so

it

sometimes seemed that they

"

were speaking of their own

One " when they

really

meant the
difficulty
Opposition to Anaxagoras.
1

other.
felt

We

have seen that the very same

" one."
^

was

about Zeno's denial of the

70.

The most remarkable fragment

last
(fr.

of Melissos

is,

perhaps, the

8).

It

seems

to

be directed

against Anaxagoras

at least the

language used seems

else.

more applicable

to

him than
(

to

any one

Anaxa-

goras had admitted

ceptions go, they

137, fin^ that, so far as our perentirely agree with his theory, solely to their weakness.
this

do not
this

though he held
Melissos, taking
that, if
reality,

was due

advantage of

admission, urges

we we

give up the senses as the ultimate test of

are not entitled to reject the Eleatic theory.

With wonderful penetration he

points out that

if

we

are to say, with Anaxagoras, that things are a many,

we
as

are

bound
the

also to say that each

one of them
to
be.
is

is

such

the

Eleatics

declared

the

One

In other
the

words,
theory.

only consistent

pluralism

atomic

Melissos has long been unduly depreciated owing to

the criticisms of Aristotle
;

but these, we have seen, are

based mainly on a somewhat pedantic objection to the

false

conversion

in

the early part of the argument. the rules of conversion

;

Melissos

knew nothing about

and

if

he had, he could easily have made his reasoning

formally correct without modifying his system.

greatness consisted in
this,

His

that not only was he the

real systematiser of Eleaticism,

see,

but he was also able to

it

before the pluralists

1

saw
p.

themselves, the only

See above, 159,

363, n. 4.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

way
in

379

which the theory that things are a many could

be consistently
" sophists "

worked

out.^

It

is

significant

that

Poly bos, the nephew of Hippokrates, reproaches those

who

taught there was only one primary

substance with "putting the doctrine of Melissos on

its feet."
2

^ Baumker, op. cit. p. 58, n. 3 : '* That Melissos was a weakling is a fable convenue that people repeat after Aristotle, who was unable to appreciate the Eleatics in general, and in particular misunderstood Melissos not inconsiderably."

^ Ilepi

<f>TL>(TLOs

dvdpdjTTOV, c. I,

dW

^fjLOLye

Sok^ovclv ol toiovtol &v6p(i}iroi

ai/Tol euvToi/s
effirjs,

Kara^dWeiv
'M.cKLaaov

iv rdicnv dvbfiaai tCjv Xlyytav

avrwv

virb

daw-

rhv

5k

\byov bpdovv.

The metaphors

are taken from

wrestling,

and were current

Plato implies a

Protagoras).
Aristotle's.

at this date (cf. the Kara^dWovTes of more generous appreciation of Melissos than
2,

In Theaet. 180 e

he

refers to the Eleatics as MAto-cro^ re

KoX Hapfievidai,

and

in

183 e 4 he almost apologises for giving the pre-

eminence to Parmenides.

CHAPTER

IX

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
eukipposand
1

1.

We

have seen

31, 122) that the

school

of

'

Miletos did not

it

come

to an

end with Anaximenes, and

is

a striking fact that the

man who gave

first

the most

complete answer to the question

'

asked by Thales

was a Milesian.^

It

is

true that the very existence of

in question.

Leukippos has been called

Epicurus said

there never was such a philosopher, and the

same thing

has been maintained in quite recent times.^

On
it

the

other hand, Aristotle and Theophrastos certainly

made
still

him the

originator of the atomic theory, and

'

seems possible to show they were right

Incidentally

^ Theophrastos said he was an Eleate or a Milesian (R. P. 185), while Diogenes (ix. 30) says he was an Eleate or, according to some, an Abderite. These statements are exactly parallel to the discrepancies about the native cities of the Pythagoreans already noted (Chap. VII. p. 327, n. 5), Diogenes adds that, according to others, Leukippos was a Melian, which Aetios (i. 7. i) calls Diagoras of Melos a Milesian is a common confusion. Demokritos was called by some a Milesian (R. P. 186) (cf. Dox. p. 14). We may also for the same reason that Leukippos is called an Eleate. compare the doubt as to whether Herodotos called himself a Halikarnassian

or a Thourian.
2

Diog.

X.

13 (R. P. 185 b).

The

theory was revived by E. Rohde.

For the

literature of the controversy, see

R. P. 185 b.

Diels's refutation of

Rohde has convinced most competent

quite unconvincing.

judges.

Brieger's attempt to unsettle

the question again {Hermes, xxxvi. pp. 166 sqq.)

is only half-hearted, and be seen, however, I agree with his main contention that atomism comes after the systems of Empedokles and

As

will

Anaxagoras.

380

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
we
shall see

381

how

later writers

came

to ignore him,

and

thus

made possible the sally of Epicurus. The question is intimately bound up with that of the date of Demokritos, who said that he was a young

man

in the old
it

age of Anaxagoras, a statement which

makes
before
floruit}

unlikely that he founded his school at

B.C.,

Abdera
for his

420

the date given

by Apollodoros

Now

Theophrastos stated that Diogenes of

Apollonia borrowed some of his views from Anaxagoras

and some from Leukippos,^ which can only mean that

there were traces of the atomic theory in his work.

Further,

Apollonios

is

parodied

in

the

Clouds
B.C.,

of

Aristophanes, which was produced in

which

it

follows that the

423 work of Leukippos must have

that date.
It

from

become known considerably before

that

What
was the

work was, Theophrastos

also tells us.

to

Great Diakosmos

usually attributed

Demokritos.^

This means further that what were known later as the

works of Demokritos were

school of Abdera, and
^

really the writings of the

included, as
As

was

natural, the

Diog.

ix.

41 (R. P. 187).

Diels points out, the statement suggests

was dead when' Demokritos wrote. It is probable, too, that it was this which made Apollodoros fix the floruit of Demokritos just We cannot make forty years after that of Anaxagoras (Jacoby, p. 290). much of the other statement of Demokritos that he wrote the Mt/cpds didKoafios 750 years after the fall of Troy ; for we cannot be sure what
that Anaxagoras

era he used (Jacoby, p. 292).

Theophr. a/>. Simpl. PAj^s. p. 25, i (R. P. 206 a). This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he He gives arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato.
2
8

Tetr.
(paalv

iii.

thus:
;

(l)

M^as
Mt*fp6s

5l6.ko<tixos

{6v
;

ol

wcpl

Q6<f>pa<TToy
;

AevKiirirov

Ilepi twp would only be distinguished as fiiyas and A quotation /xi.Kp6s when they came to be included in the same corpus. purporting to be from the Uepl voO of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. The phrase ^i* rots AevKinirov KoXovfiivois \6yois in Af.X.G. 980 a 8 160. seems to refer to Arist. de Gen. Corr. 325 a 24, Aci/zctxTOj 5' (x^iv <^i/idrf Cf. Chap. II. X670UJ K.T.X., and would prove nothing in any case.

dvai)

(2)

SidKocfios

(3)

Ko<T/xoypa<piT]

(4)

irKavfiTwv.

The two

StdKoafiot

p. 138, n. 4.

382
works of

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

its

founder.

They formed,
it

in

fact,

a corpus

comparable to that which has come down to us under

the

name

of Hippokrates, and

was no more possible

to distinguish the authors of the different treatises in

the one case than

hesitate,
for
all

it

is

in

the other.
that

We

need not

that,

to

believe

Aristotle
this point

and
than

Theophrastos were better informed on

later writers,

who

naturally regarded the whole mass as

equally the work of Demokritos.

Theophrastos

found

Leukippos described
if

as

an

Eleate in some of his authorities, and,

we may
Elea.-^

trust
It
is

analogy, that means he had settled at

possible that his emigration to the west

was connected
B.c.^

with the revolution at

Miletos in

450-49

In

any

case,

Theophrastos

says distinctly that he had

been a member of the school of Parmenides, and the

way
that
well

in

which he speaks suggests that the founder of

school

was

still

at

its

head.^

He may

very

have been
"

so,

if

we
is

accept Plato's chronology.*

Theophrastos also appears to have said that Leukippos

"

heard

Zeno, which

very credible.

We

shall see,

at
is

any
1

rate,

that the influence of

Zeno on

his thinking

unmistakable.^
See above,
p.

380, n.

i.

The

aristocrats

had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown

Cf. [Xen.] 'A^.
ttoX. 3, ii.

in their turn fixed

3

by the Athenians. by C.I.A. i. 22 a.

KOLvwvrjaas

The

date

is

Note the difference and KOLvuifrjo-as rijs 'A-va^tfi^jfovs (l>iKo(jo<plas, which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of Anaxagoras (p. 293, n. l). The dative seems to imply a personal relationship. It is quite inadmissible to render " was familiar with the doctrine of Parmenides," as is done in Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345.
p. 28,

Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys.

4 (R. P. 185).
0tXoo-o0/as

of case in

Uap/xeviSr}

rrjs

4
^

See 84. Cf. Diog.

i.

ix.

30, oCtos
, .

iJKOva-e

Z-qvuvos (R. P.

185 b)

and Hipp.

Ref.

12, I, Aety/ctTTTTos

Ztjvwvos eraipos.

Diels conjectured that the

name

of Zeno had been dropped in the by Simplicius {Dox. 483 a li).

extract from Theophrastos preserved

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
The
relations

383

of

Leukippos to
difficult

Empedokles and
It

Anaxagoras are more

to

determine.

has

become part of the case

systems of these
without
that

for the historical

reality of
in

Leukippos that there are traces of atomism

the

men

but the case

Besides,

is
it

strong enough
lands
is

assumption.

us
that

in
it

serious difficulties, not

the least of which

would require us to regard Empedokles and Anaxagoras

as

mere

eclectics like

Diogenes of Apollonia.^
the
that

The

strongest influenced

argument
but

for
is

view

that

Leukippos

Empedokles
;

drawn from the doctrine

of " pores "

we have
it is it

seen that this originated

with Alkmaion, and

therefore

more probable that

Leukippos derived

from

Empedokles.^

We

have

seen too that Zeno probably wrote against Empedokles,

and we know that he influenced Leukippos.^

it

Nor.

is

at all probable that

Anaxagoras knew anything of

It is
;

the theory of Leukippos. the existence of the void

true

that he denied

but

it

does not follow that

in

any one had already maintained that doctrine

atomist sense.

the

The

early Pythagoreans had

spoken
it

of a

void

too,
air
is
;

though they had confused

with

atmospheric
^

and the experiments of Anaxagoras

overstatement of

is weakened by Brieger's Hermes^ xxxvi. p. 183. He says that to assume such a reaction as Anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once been discovered would be something unexampled in the history of Greek Diogenes of ApoUonia proves the contrary. The real point philosophy. So is that Empedokles and Anaxagoras were men of a different stamp.

This point

important, though the argument

in

it

far as

Empedokles
i.

is

concerned,

Gomperz
i
;

states the case rightly {Greek

Thinkers^ vol.
2

p. 560).

See above, Chap. V.

p.

224, n.

and Brieger

in

Hermes^ xxxvi.
See above,

p. 171.
^

Diels (formerly at least) maintained both these things.

;

and p. 382, n. 5. If, as seems probable ( 158), Zeno wrote his book some time between 470 and 460 B.C., Leukippos can hardly have written his before 450 b. c. and even that is too late for him It may well have been later still. to have influenced Empedokles.
p.

359, n. 4

384

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

if

with the klepsydra and the inflated skins would only

have had any point

they were directed against the

If

Pythagorean

theory.^

he

had

really

wished

to

refute Leukippos,

he would have had to use arguments

of a very different kind.

Theophrastos on the atomic
theory.

172. Theophrastos wrote of Leukippos as follows

in the First

Book of

his Opifiions
(for

Leukippos of Elea or Miletos

both accounts are given

of him) had associated with Parmenides in philosophy.

He

did not, however, follow the same path in his explanation of

things as Parmenides

and Xenophanes
P.

did, but, as

is

believed,

the very opposite

(R.

185).
finite,

immovable, uncreated, and

to search for

They made the All one, and did not even permit us

what

is

not; he assumed innumerable and ever-

moving elements, namely, the atoms. And he made their forms infinite in number, since there was no reason why they should be of one kind rather than another, and because he saw that there was unceasing becoming and change in things. He held, further, that what is is no more real than what is
and that both are alike causes of the things that come for he laid down that the substance of the atoms was compact and full, and he called them what is, while they moved in the void which he called what is not, but affirmed
not^

into being

to be just as real as
Leukippos and
the Eleatics.

what

is.

R. P. 194.

173. It will be observed that Theophrastos, while

noting the
points

affiliation

of Leukippos to the Eleatic school,

is,

out that his theory

prima faciei

just

the

opposite of that
1

maintained

by Parmenides.

Some

See above, Chap. VI. 131 ; and Chap. VII. 145. tij ^ok^I do not imply assent to the view introduced by them indeed they are used, far more often than not, in reference to beliefs The translation " methinks " in which the writer does not accept. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345, is therefore most misleading, and there is no justification for Brieger's statement {Hermes, xxxvi. p. 165) that Theophrastos dissents from Aristotle's view as given in the passage We should be saved from many errors if we about to be quoted. accustomed ourselves to translate 5o/cet by "is thought" or *'is believed" instead of by " seems."
^

The words
;

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
have
been
led

385

by

this
;

to

deny the Eleaticism of

is

Leukippos altogether
on
"

but this denial

really based

the

view that

the

system
with
a

of

Parmenides
reluctance

was
to

metaphysical," coupled
scientific
"

great

admit that so

a hypothesis as the atomic

theory can have had a

really

metaphysical

"

origin.

It

is

due to prejudice, and

we must not suppose

this is really the

Theophrastos himself believed the two theories to be

so far apart as they seem.^

As
it

most

important point in the history of early Greek philosophy,

and

as, rightly

understood,
it

furnishes the key to the

whole development,
passage

is

worth while to transcribe a

the
historical

of Aristotle^
in

which explains

connexion

way

that leaves nothing to be desired.

all

Leukippos and Demokritos have decided about

practically

things
theory,

by the same method and on the same

first.

taking as their starting-point what naturally comes

Some

of the ancients had held that the real must necessarily be

one and immovable;

real,

for, said they, empty space is not and motion would be impossible without empty space separated from matter ; nor, further, could reality be a many, And it makes no if there were nothing to separate things.

difference
discrete,

if

any one holds that the All

its

is

not continuous, but

with

parts

in

contact
is

(t/ie

Pythagorean view),

instead of holding that reality

there
is is

many, not one, and that

empty space. For, if it is divisible at every point no one, and therefore no many, and the Whole is empty {Zend) ; while, if we say it is divisible in one place
there
^ This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz's Greek Thinkers^ and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same imaginative work. ix)int of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the

Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions {Hermes^ xxxvi. p. 185). am sorry that I cannot agree with either side ; but the bitterness of the

disputants bears witness to the fundamental importance of the questions

raised
2

by the

early

Arist. de Gen. Corr. A, 8.

Greek philosophers. 324 b 35 (R.

P. 193)-

25

386

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

;

for and not in another, this looks like an arbitrary fiction up to what point and for what reason will part of the Whole be in this state and be full, while the rest is discrete ? And, on the same grounds, they further say that there can be no

In consequence of these reasonings, then, going beyond perception and overlooking it in the belief that we ought to follow the argument, they say that the All is one and immovable {Parmenides\ and some of them that it is
motion.
infinite {Melissos\ for

any

limit

would be bounded by empty

space.
truth,

This, then,

is

the opinion they expressed about the

and these are the reasons which led them to do so. Now, so far as arguments go, this conclusion does seem to but, if we appeal to facts, to hold such a view looks follow
;

like

madness.
fire

No
and

one who
ice

is

mad

is

so far
;

out of his
it

senses that

appear to him to be one

is

only

and things that appear right from habit, in which madness makes some people see no difference. Leukippos, however, thought he had a theory which was in harmony with sense-perception, and did not do away with coming into being and passing away, nor motion, nor the
things that are right,
multiplicity of things.

He made

this

concession to experience,

while he conceded, on the other hand, to those

the

who

invented

One
real.

that

motion was impossible without the void, that

"that which
;

the void was not real, and that nothing of what was real was

not

"For," said he,

is

strictly
is

speaking

real is

an absolute plenum

but the plenum

not one.

On
They

the contrary, there are an infinite

are
invisible

number
;

of them, and they

their

owing to the smallness of

(for there is

bulk.

'move in the void

passing away."

a void)

together they effect coming into

and by their coming being; by their separation,

It

is

true that in this passage

Zeno and Melissos

them
is

are not named, but the reference to

able.
is

unmistak-

The argument
;

of Zeno against the Pythagoreans

w^as the

clearly given

and Melissos

only Eleatic
distinctly

who

made
tioned.

reality infinite, a point

which

is

menwords

We

are therefore justified

by

Aristotle's

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
in

z%7
its

explaining the genesis of

Eleaticism as follows.

Atomism and

relation

to

pluralist

Zeno had shown that all systems yet known, and especially Pythadivisibility

goreanism, were unable to stand before the arguments

from

infinite

which he adduced.

Melissos

had used the same argument against Anaxagoras, and

had added, by way of

there were

reductio

ad absurdum^

that, if

many

things, each

one of them must be

such as the Eleatics held the

One
? "

to be.

To
limit

this

Leukippos answers,
force

"

Why

not

He
setting

admitted the
a
to

of

Zeno's

arguments

by

divisibility,

and

to each of the
all

atoms which he thus

arrived at he ascribed

the predicates of the Eleatic

if it
is, it

One

for

Parmenides had shown that

must
is

have these predicates somehow.

The same view

"

implied in a passage of Aristotle's Physics}

Some,"

we

are there told, "surrendered to both arguments, to the

first,

the argument that

all

things are one,

if

the word
afifirming

is is

used

in

one sense only {Parmenides\ by

is

the reality of what

not

to the second, that based

indivisible

on dichotomy {Zeno\ by introducing

tudes."
this

magniin

Finally,

it

is

only by regarding the matter

way

that

we can

attach any meaning to another

statement of Aristotle's to the effect that Leukippos

and Demokritos, as well as the Pythagoreans,

virtually
in fact,

make

all

things out of numbers.^

Leukippos,

gave the Pythagorean monads the character of the

Parmenidean One.
174.
1

We

must observe that the atom

A,
3.

is

not mathe-

Atoms.

Arist. Phys.

187 a
4.
rb.

(R. P. 134 b).

8, rpbirov

2 Arist.

de CaelOy F,

303 a

ydp riva

Kal oh-oi (Aei/iriirxos

This dpi6fiC). what Herakleides may have meant by attributing the theory of corporeal 6yKoi to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse
Kal
ArjfidKpiTOi)

wdvra

tvra woiovaiv dpid/xods Kal ^f

also serves to explain

(above, p. 338, n.

i).

388
matically

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

indivisible,

for

it

has

magnitude

it

is,

however, physically indivisible, because, like the

of Parmenides,
it

One
Each

contains in

it

no empty

space.^

atom has extension, and

alike in substance.^

all

the atoms are exactly

all

Therefore
for either

differences in things

must be accounted
or

by the shape of the atoms

seems probable that the

by

their arrangement.

It

three ways in which differences arise, namely, shape,

position,.,

and arrangernent, were already distinguished

;

by Leukippos

for

Aristotle

mentions his name

too,

in

connexion with them.^

This explains,
"

atoms are called

"

forms

or

" figures,"

why way

the

of

speaking which seems to be of Pythagorean origin.^

That they are

if

also called <pvat<;^

is

quite intelligible

we remember what was

(

said

of

that

word

in

the Introduction
order,
^

VII.).

The

differences in shape,
to

and position

just referred
this

account for the

or misrepresented
;

order to magnify their

ii.

The Epicureans misunderstood own originality

de
Caelo,
4.

point,

it

in

(see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3

Eng.

trans,

p. 225, n. 2).
^ Arist.

filav

Phys. F,

A, 7. 275 b 32, t^v 8k ^vcnv elvai (paaiv avrCbv 203 a 34, aury {Arj/MOKplTCf) rb koivop adfia irdvTuv iarlv
6.
is

apxn3

As

Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 b 13 (R. P. 192) ; cf. de Gen. Corr. 315 b Diels suggests, the illustration from the letters of the alphabet
It

shows, in any case, how the word (TTotxe'OJ' came to be used later for "element." We must read, with Wilamowitz, rh hk Z tov H Qkau for rh 8k Z toO N diaa, the older form of the letter Z being just an H laid upon its side (Diels, Eletnentum^
probably due to Demokritos.
p. 13, n. I).

204),

Demokritos wrote a work, Ile/at l8eQiv (Sext. Math. vii. 137 R. P. which Diels identifies with the Ilepi rdv 8La(pep6i>T(,}v pva/xQp of Thrasylos, Tetr. v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, iv toTs irepl
^
;

tG)v eiSQv {de Senszdtis, 51).

arbfiovs, ISias
i/ir'

I8ias, Diels).

Plut. adv. Col. I ill a, elvai 8k iravra rds avrov KoKov/jAvas (so the MSS. ISius, Wyttenbach ; <^> Arist. F/ij/s. T, 4. 203 a 21, (Atj/mSkpltos) iK ttjs iravairepfilas
:

tQv o-X'7Mtwv
(R. P. 196).
^

{direipa Troiet

rd

(XTOLxeta).

Cf. de Gen. Corr.

A,

2.

315 b 7

Arist.

Phys. 0,
ffdj/JLara)

9.

265 b 25

Simpl. Phys.

p.

1318, 33, raOra yap

(to. drofj-a

iKeivot (p6<n.v iKdXovv.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
" opposites," the "

389

elements

"

being regarded rather as

as

aggregates of these

(jrava-'jrepiiiai)^

by Anaxagoras.^
void.

175. Leukippos affirmed the existence both of the The

Full

and

the

Empty, terms which he may have

borrowed from Melissos.^

to

As we have
make

seen,

he had

assume theexisjenc&^of empty sp ace, which the

had denied,
in order to

Eleatics

his explanation
is

of the nature of body possible.

Here again he

developing a Pythagorean view.

The Pythagoreans
it

had spoken of the void, which kept the units apart

but they had not distinguished
^ij*

from atmospheric
to

S3)>

which Empedokles had shown

( 107).

be

corporeal substance

Parmenides, indeed, had

of space, but only to
this.

formed a

clearer
reality.

conception

deny

its

Leukippos started from

real,
it

Hel
is

admitted, indeed, that space was not

say, corporeal
;

that

to

but he maintained that

hardly,
;

existed

all I
"*

the same.

He

it

is

true,

had words to express

be
"

his discovery in

for the

verb

" to

had hitherto
But he did
that
is " (in

been used by philosophers only of body.

his best to
"

make
" (in

his

meaning

clear

by saying

what

is

not

the old corporealist sense) "

another sense) just as

is

much

as "

what

is."

The
who

void

as real as body.
It
is

a curious fact that the Atomists,

are

commonly
antiquity,

regarded

as

the

great

materialists

of

were actually the

first

to say distinctly that

a thing might be real without being a body.

Cosmology, 176. It might seem a hopeless task to disentangle

the cosmology of Leukippos from that of Demokritos,

with which
1

it is

generally identified
p. 36,
I

but that very fact

and R. P. 196
fr.

Simpl. Phys.

(Diels, Vors. p. 346),

192).

a.

2 Arist.

Met. A,

4.

985 b 4 (R. P.

Cf. Melissos,

7 sub Jin,

390

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

So
far as

affords an invaluable clue.

after

we know, no one

Theophrastos was able to distinguish the doctrines

it

of the two men, and

follows from this that all definite

in

statements about Leukippos

later writers

must, in

the long run, go back to him.

If

we

follow this up,

we

shall

be able to give a

fairly clear

account of the

system, and

we

shall

even come across some views

which are peculiar to Leukippos and were not adopted

by Demokritos.^

We

shall

start

from the

fuller

of the two doxo-

graphies in Diogenes, which comes from an epitome of

Theophrastos.^

It is as follows

He

says that the All

is infinite,

part empty.

elements.

These (the From them

them.

full

and that it is part full, and and the empty), he says, are the arise innumerable worlds and are
worlds

resolved

into

The

come

into

being thus.

There were borne along by "abscision from the infinite" many bodies of all sorts of figures " into a mighty void," and
they being gathered together produce a single vortex.
as they

In

it,

one another and were whirled round in all manner of ways, those which were alike were But, as they were separated apart and came to their likes.
into collision with

came

no longer able to revolve

multitude,

in

equilibrium

owing to

their

those of them
if

that

were

fine

went out to the

;

external void, as
together,

passed through a sieve

the rest stayed

and becoming entangled with one another, ran down together, and made a first spherical structure. This
was
in substance like a

membrane

or skin containing in itself

in

all

kinds of bodies.

And, as these bodies were borne round

thin,

a vortex, in virtue of the resistance of the middle, the surrounding

membrane became
Cf. Zeller,

as

the contiguous bodies kept

" Zu Leukippus" {Arch.

31 sqq. (R. P. 197, 197

xv. p. 138).
c).

with

This passage deals expressly Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even " Leukippos and Demokritos." For the distinction between the ** summary" and
ix.

Diog.

"detailed" doxographies in Diogenes, see Appendix,

15.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
flowing together from contact with the vortex.

391

And

in this

way the earth came

borne
towards
the

into being, those things which

had been
the

middle abiding

there.

Moreover,

containing

membrane was
it

increased by the further separating

;

out of bodies from outside a vortex,

and, being

itself carried

round
it

in

further got possession of all with

which
but,

had

come

in contact.

Some

of these becoming entangled, produce

first

a structure, which was at

moist and

muddy

when

they had been dried and were revolving along with the vortex of the whole, they were then ignited and produced the substance of the heavenly bodies.

The

circle of the

sun

is

the

outermost, that of the

moon

is

nearest to the earth,

and those

of the others are between these.

And
stars.

all

the heavenly bodies

are ignited because of the swiftness of their motion; while

the sun

is

also ignited

by the
fire.

But the moon only

the
is

receives a small portion of

The sun and

moon

are

eclipsed

(And the
it

obliquity of the zodiac

produced)

by the earth being inclined towards the south;

northern parts of
frozen.
tinually,

and the

have constant snow and are cold and

is

And

the sun

eclipsed rarely,

and the moon con-

because their circles are unequal.

And

just as there
|

are comings into being of the world, so there are growths

and

decays and passings away in virtue of a certain necessity, of

the nature of which he gives

no

clear account.

As
passage

it

comes substantially from Theophrastos,

is

this

to

be regarded as good evidence

it

for
in

the

cosmology of Leukippos, and

interesting

is

confirmed
extracts
is

an

way by

certain

Epicurean

from

the Great Diakosmos}

give

These, however, as
turn
to

natural,

specially

Epicurean

some of the
caution.
Relation

doctrines,

and must therefore be used with

general

177.

The

impression
is

which we get from

the cosmology of Leukippos

^

that he either ignored cosmology.

;

These are
X.

Usener, Epicurea,
(Diog.

88

Von. p. 347 be found in Aet. i. 4 {Dox. p. 289 fr. Epicuri^ himself in the second epistle 308). Usener, p. 37, 7) quo^s the phrase a.xQ(To\k^v ^oiwo dd
to
,t

Tov ivelpov.

392
or

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in the general

had never heard of the great advance

view of the world which was due to the

goreans.

later

Pythacos-

He
as he

is

as

reactionary

in

his

detailed

mology

was daring

in his general physical theory.

We

seem

to be reading once

more of the speculations

too.

of Anaximenes or even of Anaximander, though there

are traces of

Empedokles and Anaxagoras

not hard to
see.

The

explanation
learn a

is

Leukippos would not

;

cosmology from
it

his Eleatic teachers

and, even

when he found
giving up the
necessarily
Ionia.

possible

to

construct one without

reality,

Parmenidean view of

he was

thrown back upon the older systems of

result

The

was unfortunate.

The astronomy
was
still

of Demokritos, so far as
childish character.

we know
is

it,

of this

There

no reason to doubt the

statement of Seneca that he did not venture to say

how many
This,
I

planets there were.^

take

it, is

what gives
"

plausibility to

Gomperz's

statement that

Atomism was

the ripe fruit on the tree

of the old Ionic doctrine of matter which had been

tended by the Ionian physiologists."

The
and

detailed
it

cosmology was certainly such

possibly over-ripe
;

fruit,

was

but the atomic theory proper, in

which the

real greatness of
in its origin.

Leukippos comes
Nevertheless,
;

out,

was

wholly Eleatic
us to

it

will

repay

examine the cosmology too

for

such an examina-

tion will serve better than anything else to bring out

the true nature of the historical development of which

it

was the outcome.

178. Leukippos represented

The

eternal

the

atoms as having

motion.

been always

in

motion.
^

Aristotle puts this in his

vii. 3,

own

Seneca, Q. Nat.

Gomperz, Greek Thinkers,

vol.

i.

p. 323.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
way.

393
left
it

The

atomists, he says, " indolently "

un-

explained what was the source of motion, and they

did not say what sort of motion
it
it

was.

In
"

other

words, they did not decide whether

was a

natural

motion

"

or one impressed on

them
far as

"

contrary to their
to say that they
rise

nature."^

He

even went so

made

it "

spontaneous," a remark which has given

to the erroneous view that

they held

it

was due
;

to

chance.^

Aristotle

does not say that, however

but

only that the atomists did not explain the motion of

the atoms in any of the ways in which

he himself
neither
circular

explained the motion of the elements.

ascribed
to

They
the

them a natural motion

like

motion of the heavens and the

rectilinear

motion of

the four elements in the sublunary region, nor did they

give

them a forced motion contrary

to their

own

nature,
to the

like the

upward motion which may be given

heavy elements and

given to the
light.

the downward which may be The only fragment of Leukippos

is

which has survived

"

an express denial of chance.

he saidT^utevery^

Naught happens
If

for nothing,"

thing from a ground and of necessity."

we put

the matter historically,

not, like

all this

means that

Leukippos did
find
it

Empedokles and Anaxagoras,

Strife or

necessary to assume a force to originate motion.

He

had no need of Love and

is clear.

Mind, and the

reason
1

Though Empedokles and Anaxagoras

i.

Arist. Phys. 0,
;

252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a)

^^ C<ulo, T,

2.

300 b 8

985 b 19 (R. P. ib.). 2 Arist. Phys. B, 4. 196 a 24 (R. P. 195 d). Cicero, de not. D. i. 66 (R. P. lb.). The latter passage is the source of the phrase "fortuitous concourse " {concurrere = avvrpix^iv). 3 Aet. i. iLvi.yici)v, r^ 5' 25, 4 {Dox. p. 321), Aei'KtTnroi irivra fcar' X^ct ydip iv rtp Ucpl vov' Ovikv XPV/*^ avT^v vwdpxfn' dimpfiivrfv.
(R. P. 195)

Met. A,

4.

fjLdrrjv

ylyperai,

dXXA irdvra

^k \6yov re Kal vt' avdymft.

394
had

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tried to explain

multiplicity

and motion, they had

not broken so radically as

Leukippos did with the

started with a con" roots " or "
"

Parmenidean One.
dition of matter in

Both of them
which the
" all

seeds

were

mixed so

as to be

together,"

and they therefore

Leukippos,

required something to break up this unity.

who
"

started with an infinite

number of Parmenidean
do was just the

Ones," so to speak, required no external agency to

separate them.
opposite.

What
to

he had to
give
there

He had
together,

an explanation of their

coming

and

was nothing so

far

to

prevent his return to the old and natural idea that

motion does not require any explanation

This,
criticisms

at

all.^

then,

is

what

seems

to

follow

from

the

of
it

Aristotle
will

and from the nature of the

it

case

but

be observed that

is

not consistent

with Zeller's opinion that the original motion of the

atoms

is

fall

through
Zeller's

infinite space, as in

the system

of Epicurus.

view depends, of course, on the

further belief that the

atoms have weight, and that

fall,

weight

is

the tendency of bodies to

in

so

we must

go on to consider whether and

is

what sense weight

that
fell

a property of the atoms.

The weight
the atoms.

of

179-

As

is

well

known, Epicurus held

the

atoms were naturally heavy, and therefore

tinually in the infinite void.

conis,

The

school tradition

however, that the

"

natural weight " of the atoms was

an addition made by Epicurus himself to the original atomic system.

properties
to

Demokritos, we are
atoms,

told,

assigned two

magnitude and form, to which

Epicurus added a
1

third, weight.^

On

the other hand,

crw/iacrL

Introd. VIII.

Act.

i.

3,

8 (of Epicurus), av/x^e^rjKevaL 8^ rots

^dpos.
ArjfidKpLTos
fikv

rpia ravra,
re
Kal

(TX^/ict,

fxiyedos,

yap eXeye

5vo,

fi^yedos

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS

395

Aristotle distinctly says in one place that Demokritos

held the atoms were heavier "in proportion to their

excess,"

and

this

seems to be explained by the

that,

state-

ment of Theophrastos
even
so, it is

according to him, weight

It

depended on magnitude.^
the atoms in the
It is

will

be observed that,

not represented as a primary property of

same sense

as magnitude.

impossible to solve this apparent contradiction

without referring briefly to the history of Greek ideas

about weight.

It

is

clear that lightness

first

and weight

would be among the very

be distinctly recognised
lifting

properties of

body

to

as

such.

The
have

necessity of
led

burdens

must

very

soon

men

to

distinguish them, though no doubt in

some

primitive

and more or
lightness
bodies.

less

animistic form.

Both weight and

in

would be thought of as things that were

Now
from

it is

a remarkable feature of early Greek

first
it

philosophy that from the

itself free

was able
is

to

shake

this idea.

Weight

never spoken of
cold are
;

as a " thing " as, for instance,

warmth and

and, so far as
ax^y^,
(f>'r}(ri,

we can

see,

not one of the thinkers

'

we

hh 'EwiKovpo^ tovtois Kal rpirov ^dpos TrpoaidrjKcv

dvdyKT] ydp,

KLViiadai
;

rk aibfiara
6,

rfj

toO ^dpovs

irXrjyr}'
(prjcri

iwel (" or else ") ov Kivijd^-

(rerai

tb.

12,

ArjfidKpLTO^'Td

irpdrd

aufmra,

ravra

5'

^v t4

vacrrd, ^dpos fikv oi)K ^X"''j Kiveladai bk Kar dXKTjXorrviriav 4v tQ direlpt^}. Cic. defato, 20, "vim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito impulsionis quam

plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis." These passages represent the Epicurean school tradition, which would hardly venture to
misrepresent Demokritos on so important a point.
accessible.
It is

His works were

i.

still

confirmed by the Academic tradition in de Fin.

17

Demokritos taught the atoms moved "in infinito inani, in quo nihil nee summum nee infimum nee medium nee extremum sit." This doctrine, we are told, was " depraved " by Epicurus.
that

326 a 9, ko-Itw. Pap0rp6y ye Karh r^y vxepox'^ cannot believe this I iKaarov tQv dStaip^ruv. means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on
^

Arist. de Gen. Corr.

(Prjaiy

dvai

ArnxdKpLTos

sensation, 61 (R.
Ar}/i6KpiT0i.

P.

199),

/3a/j/

/x^v

o^v Kal KoO<poy

ry

fieyidfi

Sicupti

396

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it

have studied hitherto thought

explanation of
it.^

necessary to give any

it

at

all,

or even to say anything about

resistances

The motions and

distinctly

which popular theory

ascribes to weight are all explained in

some other way.

his

Aristotle

declares

that

none of

pre-

decessors
lightness.
light

had said anything of absolute weight and

They had only

treated

of

the

relatively

and heavy.^

This

way

of regarding the popular notions of weight

is

and lightness
Plato's

clearly formulated for the

first

time

in

Timaeus?
"

There
"

is

no such thing
or " down."

in the world,

we

are told there, as

is

the world
there
is

The middle of down " but " just in the middle," and no reason why any point in the circumference
up
"

not

should be said to be
is

"

above

"

or " below " another.

It

really the tendency of bodies towards their kin that

call
'*

makes us
which
it

a falling body heavy and the place to

below."

falls

Here Plato
less

is

really giving the

view which was taken more or

predecessors, and
it
it is

consciously

by

his

not

till

the time of Aristotle that

is

questioned.^

For reasons which do not concern

of
"

us

here,

he definitely identified the circumference

the heavens with

^

up

"

and the middle of the world

given,
8,
is

i. 12, where the placita regarding the heavy and light are no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides (fr. I do not think that there 59) speaks of the dark element as ifx^pidis. any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the

In Aet.

early philosophers.
2 Arist.

de Caelo, 308 a 9,

irepl jxev odu tCjv dirXcDs

XeyopAvwv {^ap^uv

Kal Kotj^uiv)
2

ovdh

etpyp-ai Trapa tCov

irpbrepov.

Plato, Tif?i. 61 c 3 sqq.

Zeller says (p. 876) that in antiquity

no one ever understood by weight anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which they move downwards ; except that in such systems as represent all forms of matter
*

as contained in a sphere,

" above "

is

identified with the circumference

and

can only say that no such theory of weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato expressly denies it.
the centre.
to that, I

" below " with

As

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
with
"

397

down," and

equipped the four elements with

natural weight
their rectilinear

and lightness that they .might perform motions between them. As, however, was only one world, and
as he

Aristotle believed there

did not ascribe weight to the heavens proper, the effect

of this reactionary theory upon his cosmical system

was not great

combine
emerged.
it

it

was only when Epicurus

its

tried

to

with the infinite void that

It

true character

seems

to

me

that

the

nightmare

of

Epicurean atomism

can

only be

explained

on

the

assumption that an Aristotelian doctrine was violently

adapted to a theory which really excluded

totally unlike anything

it.^

It

is

we meet with

in earlier days.
it

This brief historical survey suggests at once that

is

only

in

the vortex that the atoms acquire weight

and

lightness,^

which

are, after all,

only popular names

for facts

which can be further analysed.

We

are told

that Leukippos held that one effect of the vortex was that like atoms were brought together with their likes.*

In this

way
It
is

of speaking

we seem

to see the influence

is

of Empedokles, though the

kind.

" likeness "

of another

the finer atoms that are forced to the

circumference, while the larger tend to the centre.

^

We

The

Aristotelian criticisms

which may have

affected

Epicurus are

such as we find in de Caelo, 275 b 29 sqq.

as Leukippos

Aristotle there argues that,

and Demokritos made the 0t/<rts of the atoms one, they were them a single motion. That is just what Epicurus did, but Aristotle's argument implies that Leukippos and Demokritos did not. Though he gave the atoms weight, Epicurus could not accept Aristotle's view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of lightness is due to (Kd\i\pis, the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger. 2 In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this distinction. Cf. flfe Caelo, B, 13, especially 295 a 32 sqq., where he points out that Empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies on the earth (ov -yd^

bound

to give

ii

ye
3

Sivri

rrX-qind^ei
{irplv

rpdi

vfidi),

nor for the weight of bodies before the

vortex arose

yeviadai

riju dttnjv).

Diog.,

/oc. cit. (p.

390).

398

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

express that by saying that the larger are heavy
light,

may

and the smaller

and

this will

amply account
;

for

everything Aristotle and Theophrastos say

is

for there

no passage where the atoms outside the vortex are

heavy or
light.^

distinctly said to be

There

is

a striking confirmation

of the view just

given in the atomist cosmology quoted above.^

are told there that the separation of the
larger

We
and
"

smaller atoms was due to the fact that they were

no

longer able to revolve in equilibrium

owing

to their

number," which implies that they had previously been

in

a state of

"

equilibrium

"

or

"

equipoise."

Now

the

word
in

lo-oppoTTca

has no necessary implication of weight

a mere leaning or inclination in

Greek.

A
else.

poirrj is

a certain direction, which

may be

caused by weight or
is

anything

The

state

of la-oppoiria

therefore
is

that in which the tendency in one direction

exactly

equal to the tendency in any other, and such a state

is

more naturally described

as the absence of weight

than as the presence of opposite weights neutralising

one another.

That way of looking

at

it

may

be useful
not safe

from the point of view of

to attribute
If
it

later science, but

it is

to the thinkers of the fifth century B.c

we no

longer regard the " eternal motion " of the

as due to their
it

premundane and extramundane atoms

weight, there
is

no reason

for describing

as a

fall.

None
it,

of our authorities do as a matter of fact so describe

tell

nor do they

us in any
it

way what

it

was.

It

is

safest to say that

1

is

simply a confused motion

this

This seems to be in the main the view of Dyroff, Demokritstudien

(1899), pp. 31 sqq., though I should not say that lightness and weight only If we substitute arose in connexion with the atoms of the earth (p. 35).

" world "

2

for

" earth," we
p.

shall

be nearer the truth.

See above,

390.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
way and
motes
in
that.^

399

It

is

possible that the comparison of

the motion of the atoms of the soul Xo that of the

a sunbeam coming through a window, which

is

Aristotle attributes to Demokritos,^

really intended

as an illustration of the original motion of the atoms

still

surviving in the soul.

in

The
there

fact that
tells

it

is

also a

Pythagorean comparison ^
for

no way
is

against this

we have seen

that

real

connexion
It is

between the Pythagorean monads and the atoms.

to have been the fact that the

also significant that the point of the comparison appears

motes

in the
it

sunbeam
would be
in

move even when

there

is

no wind, so that

a very apt illustration indeed of the motion inherent

the atoms apart from the secondary motions produced by

impact and
it

collision.

That, however,

is

problematical
it

only serves to suggest the sort of motion which

natural to suppose that Leukippos gave his atoms.
1

is

80.

But what are we to say of the vortex

effects
?

itself The vortex,

which produces these

they seem to be
"

Gomperz observes
"
;

that

the precise contrary of what they

for, "

should have been by the laws of physics every centrifugal machine would show,
it is

as

the heaviest

^ This view was independently advocated by Briber (Dig Urbewegung der Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Letuipp und Demokrit, 1884) and

both

Liepmann {Die Mechanik der Leucipp- Demokritschen Atome^ 1885), of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting
is

that weight

an original property of the atoms.

is

On

the other hand,

Brieger denies that the weight of the atoms

the cause of their original

is

motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there

only a latent weight, a Pseudoschwere, which only comes into operation in the world. It is surely simpler to say that this weight, since it produces

no
can

effect,

does not yet

that, if the

exist.

Zeller rightly argues against Brieger

fall
;

and
it.

Liepmann
see,

atoms have weight, they must

tells

but, so far as I

nothing he says

against their theory as I have restated

Gomperz adopts

the Brieger- Liepmann explanation.

See also Lortzing,

Jahresber., 1903, pp. 136 sqq. 2 Arist. de An. A, 2. 403 b 28 sqq. (R. P. 200).
3

Ibid.

A,

2.

404 a 17 (R. P. 86

a).

400

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

^

substances which are hurled to the greatest distance."

Are we
fact,
is

to suppose that

Leukippos was ignorant of

this

which was known to Anaxagoras, though Gomperz

in

wrong

supposing there

is

any reason

to

beHeve

that Anaximander took account of it?^

Now we
for

know from

Aristotle that

all

those

who accounted

the earth being in the centre of the world by

means

of a vortex appealed to the analogy of eddies in wind

or water,^ and

Gomperz supposes

that the whole theory

we look

was an erroneous generalisation of this observation. If at the matter more closely, we can see, I think,
is

that there

no error

at

all.

We

must remember that

all

the parts of the vortex

are in contact,

and that

it is

just this contact (eVtilrauo-t?)

by which the motion of the outermost

municated to those within them.
are

parts

is

com-

The

larger bodies

more able

to resist this

communicated motion than

their

the smaller, and in this

way they make

is

way

to

the centre where the motion

least,
is

and force the

surely just the
in

smaller bodies out.

avTpeL(rt<;

This resistance

rod

fiecrov

which

is

mentioned
it

the doxo-

graphy of Leukippos,^ and

is

quite in accordance

with this that, on the atomist theory, the nearer a

heavenly

body

is

to
is

the

centre,

the

slower

is

its

revolution.^
^

There

no question

of " centrifugal

p.

Gomperz, Greek T/imkers, i. p. 339. For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p. 274 ; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. 312 and for Anaximander, Chap. I. p. 69, n. i. ^ Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 a 10, ravrrju yap ttjv airiav (sc. ttjv
2
;

8ivT}<xi.v)

irdvTes

X^yovaip

eic

tQv

ev tois

vypois Kal
ixei^oi

irepi

rbv 6.ipa avfifiatirpbs

vbvT(j)v

iv roiTOi.%

yap
Cf.

ael

(p^perac

rk

Kal

rd ^aplhepa
Kara
ttjv
/car'

to

/xiaov TTJs diprjs.

^

Diog.

ix.

32.

especially

the phrases
del
tCjv
iirl

Sjv

toO fiicov
itri\pavcnv

dPT^peicriv
T7JS
5

irepidivovfxivwv,

(Tviifievbvrwv

crvvx(*}v
/x^cxov.

Slvrjs,

and

av/MfxevdvTCjv

tQv ivexOivTuv

t6

Cf. Lucr. V.

621 sqq.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
force" at
all,

401
in
air

and the analogy of eddies

and

water

is

quite satisfactory.

181.

When we come

to

details,

the
is

reactionary The eanh and

character of the atomist cosmology

very manifest, txii^^^'^^

The

earth was shaped like a tambourine, and floated

air.^

on the

It

was inclined towards the south because

the heat of that region

ice

and cold of the

support
the

made the air north made it

earth.^

thinner, while the

denser and more

able to

This accounts for the

(

obliquity of the zodiac.

Like Anaximander

19),

Leukippos held that the sun was further away than the
stars,

though he also held

that

these were further

away than the moon.^ This certainly suggests that he made no clear distinction between the planets and the
fixed stars.

He
of

does, however, appear to have

eclipses

known

the

theory

as

given

by Anaxagoras."*

Such other pieces of information

as have

come down
some

to us are mainly of interest as showing that, in

important respects, the doctrine of Leukippos was not

the

same

as that taught afterwards

by Demokritos.^
Perception.

182. Aetios expressly attributes to Leukippos the

^

Aet. Hi. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 83, n. 2.

^
ix4pr)

Aet.
Old.

iii.

12,
iv

l,

Aei5/7r7ros

irapeKireaeiv

t^v yiju
&t

et's

tA

neayifi^pivb.

Tr}v

roh

/xea-rjfM^ptvois

dpaidTTp-a,

dij

ireirtfybToiv

tup
rris

fiopeluip dik
^

rb KaTexl/vxOat toTs Kpvfwis, tu)v d^ dvridiruiv vetrvpwu^vcjp.

rbv
5i

Diog.

(Te\'fivT}s

etvai 5^ rbv toO ijXiov kijkXov i^urraroy, ix. 33, irpoayeibTaTOVf <ro>s 5^> tuv d.\\ojv /xera^i/ toijtwv.

* From Diog., loc. cit. {supra, p. 391), it appears that he dealt with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses.

It

seems to have been

**

this

which led him to make the

circle of the

moon

smaller than that of the stars.

ivairo\ij(pd^vTos
dTro(l>aLvTai,

Diels pointed out that Leukippos's explanation of thunder (irvpdt v^ipeai iraxvri.TOi.s iKimaaiv l<rxvp6.v Ppoprijp dToreXetr
Aet.
.

iii.

3,

lo)

is

quite different from that of Demokritos

dvufjidXov rb repiei\r)<f>bs airrb piifxn vpbt

{^povTT)v
rrjp
is

iK

(XvyKplfjuiTos

Kdroj <f>opdv iK^ia^ofjAvov, ib. ii).

The

explanation given by Leukippos

is

derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35 PkiloL-Vers. 97, 7.

influenced by

'

36

402

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

"

doctrine that the objects of sense-perception exist

b>

law" and not by

Theophrastos
quote
;

nature.^

This

must come
proof
of

fronr

for,

as

we have

seen, all later writen

Demokritos
of
the
to
tells

only.

further
is

the
fine
a^

correctness
it

statement

that

we

also

attributed

Diogenes
us,

of

Apollonia,

who,

Theophrastos
Leukippos.

derived some of his views fronr

There

is

nothing

surprising

in

this

Parmenides had
deceitful,
"

already

declared

the senses to ht
like

and
^

said that colour

and the

were only

names,"

and Empedokles had also spoken of coming

into being
is

and passing away as only

"

names."

II

not likely that Leukippos went

It

much

further than

this.

would probably be wrong to

clear

credit

him

with

Demokritos's
"

distinction

between

genuine and

bastard " knowledge, or that between what are now

called the

primary and secondary qualities of matter.-

These distinctions imply a conscious epistemologica]

theory,

and

all

we

are entitled to say

is

that the germs

oi

of this were already to be

found in the writings

Leukippos and
not

his predecessors.

Of

course, these do

make Leukippos
2 1 a)

a sceptic any more than

Em-

pedokles or Anaxagoras, whose remark on this subject

(fr.

Demokritos

is

said

to

have

quoted with

approval.^

There appear to be
^

sufficient

grounds for

ascribing;

Aet.

iv. 9, 8, ol
v6fi(f.

fikv

&Woi

(p^aei to, aladrp-a, Aei^/ciTTTros 5^ Arjfi6KpiT0\

v. p. 444,

Kal 'ATToWdivios
2

See Zeller, Arck.

Chap. IV. p. 200, n. 3. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gompei! (p. 321) from Galilei, to the effect that tastes, smells, and colours non sieve altro che puri nomi should, therefore, have been cited to illustrate Parmenides rather than Demokritos.

^H

3 ^

See

p. 240, fr. 8.

.^1
Math. vii. 135 (R. P. 204). yap abijkwv ra 0ai'6/iej'a," ws
iiraivei.
<pT]<rLv

For these see

Sext.
vii.

Sext.

140, "6^is

'Ava^aydpa-,

8v

iirl TOijTij} ATjfJLdKpLTos

a,

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS
the
etB(o\ay

403
1

theory of perception by means of simulacra or

which played such a part

in the

systems of
It is

Demokritos and Epicurus, to Leukippos.^

natural development
" effluences " ( 11 8).

a very

of the
It

Empedoklean theory of
likely,

hardly seems

however,
it

that he went into great detail on the subject, and

is

safer to credit

Demokritos with the elaboration of the

a wide

theory.

183.

We

have seen incidentally that there

is

divergence of opinion
place of
issue
is

among

recent writers as to the

Atomism
really

in

Greek thought.

The

question at
his theory
is,

whether Leukippos reached

on what are called "metaphysical grounds," that

from a consideration of the Eleatic theory of
whether, on the contrary,
it

reality, or

was a pure development of

general theory of the
is

Ionian science.
the true answer.

The So

foregoing exposition will suggest

far as his

physical constitution of the world

concerned,

it

has

been shown,
Eleatic

think, that

it

was derived

entirely from

and Pythagorean
in the

sources, while

the detailed

cosmology was
attempt to

main a more or
In

less successful
fit

make

the older Ionian beliefs

into this

new

physical

theory.

any

case,

his

greatness

consisted in his having been the

first

to see

how body

must be regarded

if

we take

it

to be ultimate reality.
its

The

old Milesian theory

had found

most adequate
(

expression in the system of Anaximenes

31), but of

course rarefaction and condensation cannot be clearly

represented except on the hypothesis of molecules or

atoms coming closer together or going further apart

1

in
is

attributed to

See Zeller, " Zu Leukippus" (ArcA. xv. him in Aet. iv. 13, i {Dox. p. 403)
his

p.
;

138).

The

doctrine

and Alexander, de
it.

Senstit

pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions must come from Theophrastos.

name

in connexion with

This

404

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Parmenides had seen that very clearly
(fr.

space.

2),

and

it

was the Eleatic

criticism

which forced Leukippos

did.

to formulate his

system as he

Even Anaxagoras

took account of Zeno's arguments about divisibility

(

" 128), but his system of qualitatively different " seeds

was lacking

in that simplicity

which has always been

the chief attraction of atomism.

CHAPTER X
ECLECTICISM
1

AND REACTION
"bankruptcy
of science."

84.

With
end;
1

Leukippos our story should properly come The

for
r
1

to an
first

he had really answered the question

11

asked by Thales.
his theory of

We
not

have seen, however,

that,

though

matter was of a most original and

equally
successful
this
in

daring kind,

he

was

his

attempt to construct a cosmology, and

seems to

have stood

in the

way
it

of the recognition of the atomic

was.

theory for what

really

We
and

have noted the

the

growing influence

of medicine,

consequent

substitution of an interest in detailed investigation for

the

larger

cosmological

views

of
in

an
the

earlier

time,

and there are several

treatises

Hippokratean

corpus which give us a clear idea of the interest which

now

prevailed.^

Leukippos

had

shown
to

that

'*

the
all

doctrine

of

Melissos,"^ which

seemed

make

science impossible,

was not the only conclusion

that

could be drawn from the Eleatic premisses, and he had

gone on to give a cosmology which was substantially

of the old Ionic type.
that
all

The

result at first

was simply

the old schools revived and had a short period

of renewed activity, while at the

^

same time some new

what is said in Chap. IV. p. 167, n. 2, of the ITfpi hioiryti. The dvdpuTov 4>{Knos and the TLepl dpxalv^ laTpudjs are invaluable documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at this
Cf.
Ilepi

date.

a Cf.

Chap. VIII.

p.

379. n. 2.

40s

406

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

sought to accommodate the older

schools arose which

views to those of Leukippos, or to

available for scientific purposes

make them more

in

by combining them

an

eclectic fashion.

None
is

of these attempts had any-

lasting importance or influence,

and what we have to

one of the periodical

consider in this chapter

" 1'

really

bankruptcies of
its

science "

which mark the close of one

chapter in

history

and announce the beginning of a

new

one.

L HiPPON OF Samos
185.
Italian

Hippon of Samos or Kroton belonged

school

to the
little

of medicine.^

We

know very
^

indeed of him except that he was a contemporary of

Perikles.

From

a scholiast on Aristophanes

we

learn

that Kratinos satirised

him

in his

Panoptai; and Aristotle

mentions him

in the

enumeration of early philosophers

given in the First

Book of the Metaphysics^ though

only to say that the inferiority of his intellect deprives

him of
Moisture.
is

all

claim to be reckoned
to his views, the

among them.
most precise statement
follows

With regard
that of
phrastos.

Alexander,
It is to

who

doubtless

Theo-

the effect that he held the primary

it

substance to be Moisture, without deciding whether

was Water or
totle
^

Air.*

We

have the authority of Arisfor

and Theophrastos, represented by Hippolytos,^

he

is

Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R. P. 219 a). In Menon's latrika called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion or Meta-

This probably means that he was affiliated to the Pythagorean The evidence of Aristoxenos is, in that case, all the more Hippon is mentioned along with Melissos in lamblichos's valuable. Catalogue of Pythagoreans ( V. Pyth. 267). ^ Schol. on Clouds, 94 sqq. 3 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a), ^ Alexander in Met. p. 26, 21 (R. P. 219). Arist. de An. A, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220). 6 Hipp. Ref. i. 16 (R. P. 221).
pontion.

medical school.

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

arguments of the kind

407

saying that this theory was supported by physiological

common

at the time.

His other

views belong to the histoj-y of Medicine.

Till quite recently

no fragment of Hippon was known

to exist, but a single one has

now been

recovered from

It is directed against " the old assumption that the " waters under the earth

the

Geneva Scholia on Homer.^

are an independent source of moisture, and runs thus

The
sea that
sea,

waters

we drink
sea,

are all from the sea

it

for if wells

were

deeper than the

then

would

not, doubtless,

be from the
the sea

we

drink, for then the water

would not be from the

it
is,

but from some other source.

all

But as

is

deeper than the waters, so

sea

the waters that are above the

b.

come from

it.

R. P. 219

We

observe

here

the

universal

assumption

that
it

water tends to

rise

from the earth, not to sink into

Idaios of

Along with Hippon,

mentioned.

Himera ^ may

just be

We

really

know nothing
is,

of him except

that he held air to be the primary substance.

fact that

The

he was of Sicilian origin

however, suggestive.

II.

Diogenes of Apollonia

^
Date,
:

186. After discussing the three great representatives

of the Milesian school, Theophrastos went on to say

And
of those

Diogenes of Apollonia,

too,

who was almost

some

the latest

who gave

themselves up to these studies, wrote most

points with

of his work in an eclectic fashion, agreeing in

Anaxagoras and

in others with

Leukippos.
is

He,

too, says that

the primary substance of the universe

Air infinite and eternal,

Schol. Genav. p. 197, 19.

'O/irjpiKd

Cf. Diels in Arch. iv. p. 653.

The

extract

comes from the

2 Sext.

of Krates of MaUos.
360.

adv. Math.

ix.

r
408

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

rarefaction,

from which by condensation,

and change of
a.^

state,

the form of everything else arises.

R. P. 206

This passage shows that the Apolloniate was some-

what

later
^

in

date

than

the statement in Laertios

Diogenes

that he was contemporary with

fact

Anaxagoras
that

would lead us to suppose, and the

satirised in the

he

is

Clouds of Aristophanes points in the

same

direction.^

Of

his life

we know next
and

to nothing.

He was
Apollonia wrote
is

the
in

son of Apollothemis,
Crete.*

came from
dialect

The
this

Ionic dialect in which he

;

no objection to

it

was the regular

in the
;

for cosmological works.^

The

fact that

Diogenes was parodied

Clouds

suggests that he had found his

way

to

Athens

and we
^

have the excellent authority of Demetrios Phalereus

for

saying that the Athenians treated him in the usual

way.
his
Writings.
life.

He

excited so great dislike as nearly to imperil

187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several

works, though he allows that only one survived
till

his
is

own
^

day, namely, the

Mus.

Ile/jl ipvaeco^J

This statement

On

this passage see Diels,

xlii.

" Leukippos und Diogenes von Apollonia "

Natorp's view that the words are merely

{^Rhein.

pp.

sqq. ).

those of Simplicius

pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be maintained. 2 Diog. ix. The statement of Antisthenes, the writer 57 (R. P. 206), of Successions, that he had "heard" Anaximenes is due to the usual
{ib. xli.

confusion.

He was

doubtless, like Anaxagoras,

Cf.

"an

associate of the

philosophy of Anaximenes."

Chap. VI. 122. 3 Aristoph. Clouds, 227 sqq., where Sokrates speaks of "mixing his subtle thought with the kindred air," and especially the words 7? 777 ^Iq.
\

'i\KCL

Trpbs

avTTjp ttjv iK/xdda

ttjs

(ppovridos.

For the

Ufjids,

see Beare,

p. 259.
*
^

Cf. also Eur. Tro. 884,

ix.

Diog.
Diog.

& yijs 6xvi^^ f^Tri yijs 'idpav ^x^^ k.t.\. 5 Cf. Chap. VII. pp. 327 sqq. 57 (R. P. 206). ix. 57, Tovrbv ^rjaiv 6 ^aXrjpeiis Arj/j.-i^TpLOS iv -rg ZuKpdrovi
cpdbvov
/xiKpov

airoKoylq,

did fi^yav

KLPdvveOaaL 'M-qv-qaLv.

Diels follows

Volkmann

in holding that this is a note

inserted in the

wrong
p.

place.

on Anaxagoras which has been do not think this is necessary, though it is

certainly possible.
^

Simpl. Fhys.

151, 24 (R. P. 207 a).

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

based upon references
is

409
and
very

in the surviving

work

itself,
it

not to be lightly rejected.

In particular,

is

credible that he wrote a tract Against the Sophistsy that

is

to say, the pluralist cosmologists of the day.^

Tlie

That
Nature

he wrote a Meteorology and a book called

of

Man

is

also

quite

probable.
treatise,

This would be a

physiological

or

medical

and

perhaps
it.^

the

famous fragment about the veins comes from

188.

The work of Diogenes seems to have been preserved in the Academy practically all the fairly extensive fragments which we still have are derived
;

The
Fragments.

from Simplicius.
Diels

give

them

as they are arranged

by

:
any discourse,
it

(i) In beginning

seems to

me

that

should

make

one's starting-point something indisputable,

one and

one's expression simple

(2)

and

dignified.
it

R. P. 207.
up,
that
all

My
this

view

is,

to

sum
for,

all

things are

differentiations

of the same thing, and are the same thing.

if

And
in

is

obvious;

the things

which

are

now

and the if any other things which we see existing in this world, one of these things, I say, were different from any other,
this

world

earth,

and

water,

and

air

and

fire,

different,

that

is,

and

if it

were not the same thing that

by having a substance peculiar to itself; is often changed and

differentiated,

then things could not in any way mix with one another, nor could they do one another good or harm. Neither could a plant grow out of the earth, nor any animal nor anything else come into being unless things were com-

posed
arise

in

such a way as to be the same.

;

But

all

these things

from the same thing

at different

they are differentiated and take

times,

different forms

and return again

to

the

same
^

thing.

R. P. 208.
0i;<rioXA7oi;j,

Simplicius says Ilpds

ffotpiaral,

them
2

which

is

the older word.

but he adds that Dic^enes called This is, so far, in fovour of the

genuineness of the work.

Diels gives this as
fir.

Fors. p. 350).

have omitted

it,

as

it

really

belongs to the history of Medicine.

4IO
(3)
is

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

For
it

would not be possible

for

it

to

be divided as
all

it

without intelligence, so as to keep the measures of

things,

of winter and summer, of day and night, of rains and winds

and

fair

weather.

And any one who

is

cares to reflect will find

that everything else

disposed in the best possible manner.

R. P. 210.
(4)

And,
all

further, there are

still

the following great proofs.

it,

Men and
this
is

other animals live upon air by breathing

soul

and
die,

their
this

and
;

their

intelligence,
this
2
1

as

will

be

clearly

shown in and their

(5)

work

while,
fails.
is,

when

is

taken away, they

intelligence

R. P.

o.
is

And my
call
it,

view
air,

that that which has intelligence

that
all

what men
steered by

and
it

things

have their course

things.

and that

has power over

all

For

this

very thing I hold to be a god,^ and to reach everywhere, and

to dispose everything,

and

to

be

in everything
it.

and there

is

not anything which does not partake in

thing partakes in
it

Yet no single

same way as another; but and of intelligence. For it undergoes many transformations, warmer and colder, drier and moister, more stable and in swifter motion, and it has many other differentiations in it, and an infinite number of And the soul of all living things is the colours and savours. same, namely, air warmer than that outside us and in which
just in the

there are many modes both of

air

we

are,

but
is

much

colder than that near the sun.

And

this

warmth

not alike in any two kinds of living creatures, nor,

for the matter of that, in

any two

men

but

it

does not
alike.

difier

much, only

so far as is
it

compatible with their being

At
all

the same time,

is

not possible for any of the things which

till

are differentiated to be exactly like one another

they

once more become the same.

(6) Since, then, differentiation
is

multiform, living creatures

like

are multiform

and many, and they are

one another neither.

The MSS.

of Simplicius have ?^os, not deb%

It is
is

but I adopt Usener's

certain correction.

confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos, that

the air within us

"a

Philodemos {Dox.
(cf.

p. 536),

small portion of the god " {de Sens. 42) ; and by where we read that Diogenes praises Homer,
<f>7iaiv,

rbv d^pa ycLp avrbv Ala vo/xl^eiv

Cic.

iTreLdrf

irdv eidivai rbv

ALa

\4yet.

NaL D.

i.

12, 29).

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

in

411

appearance nor

in intelligence,

because of the multitude of

At the same time, they all live, and see, and hear by the same thing, and they all have their intelligence from the same source. R. P. 211. (7) And this itself is an eternal and undying body, but of those things ^ some come into being and some pass away. (8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is both great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of
differentiations.

great knowledge.

R. P. 209.
interest of

That the chief

logical one,
is

Diogenes was a physio-

clear

from his elaborate account of the

Aristotle.^
It
is

veins, preserved

by

noticeable, too,

that one of his arguments for the underlying unity of

all

substances

is

that without this

it

would be impossible

to understand to another
(fr.

how one
2).

thing could do good or

harm
is

In

fact,

the writing of Diogenes

as a

essentially of the

same character

good deal of
is

the pseudo-Hippokratean literature, and there

much

to be said for the view that the writers of these curious

tracts

made

use of him

very

much

as they did of

Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.^

189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as Cosmology,
the primary substance
that he lived at
prevalent.

we see from his arguments a time when other views had become
;

but

He
(fr.

speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean

elements
^

2),

and he

is

careful
S^,

to attribute to Air
is

The MSS.

of Simplicius have

rtP

but surely the Aldine tCw S^

right.
2 Arist. Bt'st.
^

An. T,

2.

511 b 30.

See Weygoldt, " Zu Diogenes von Apollonia" {Arch. i. pp. 161 sqq.). Hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of those writers. His great achievement was the separation of medicine from This is philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i. pr.). why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the *' sophists "
are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged.
latter class

To

the

belong the

Ilcpi Sta/r^jj

and the

Ilepi 4>v<rQ)v

to the former,

especially the lUpL ipxo-^V^ larpiKrji.

412

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the attributes of

Nous as taught by Anaxagoras (fr. 4). The doxographical tradition as to his cosmological
is

views

fairly

preserved

Diogenes of Apollonia makes

that
all

air the

element, and holds

things are in motion,

and

that there are

innumerable

worlds.

And

he describes the origin of the world thus.

When

the All

moves and becomes

rare in

one place and dense

in another,

and then the other

parts
[Plut.] Strom,
fr.

it formed a mass, same way, the lightest occupying the highest position and producing the sun.

where the dense met together

things arose in the

12 (R. P. 215).

Nothing
is

arises

from what
is

is

not nor passes away into what

the middle, having

not.

The
its
its

earth

round, poised in

received

shape through the revolution proceeding from the

solidification

warm and

from

the

cold.

Diog.

ix.

57

(R. P. 215)-

The heavenly
red-hot.

bodies were like pumice-stone.

He

thinks

they are the breathing-holes of the world, and that they are
Aet.
ii.

13, 5

Stob.

i.

The sun was

the aether
fix

like pumice-stone,

508 (R. P. 215). and into it the rays from

20, 10.
25, 10.

themselves.

Aet.
lb.

ii.

The moon was a

pumice-like conflagration.

ii.

Along with the

stones,

visible

heavenly bodies revolve invisible

;

which

for

that

very reason are nameless

but they

often

fall

and are extinguished on the earth

like the stone star

lb.
ii.

which

fell

down

flaming at Aigospotamos.^

13, 9.

We

have here nothing more than the old Ionian

doctrine with a few additions from more recent sources.

Rarefaction and condensation

still

hold their place in

the explanation of the opposites,

and moist, stable and mobile

tions
into

opposites

warm and cold, dry The differentiawhich Air may undergo are, as
(fr.

5).

Anaxagoras had taught,

infinite

in

number

but

all

may

.nd be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and

^

See Chap. VI.

p. 292, n.

i.

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

dense.

413
^

We may

gather, too, from

Censorinus

that

Anaximenes, speak of earth and water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather
not, like

Diogenes did

of

blood,

flesh,

and
as

bones.
it

In

this

he

followed

Anaxagoras

( 1 30),

was natural that he should.

produced
the

That portion of
rarefied

Air,
fiery,

on the other hand, which was

became

and

sun

and
is

heavenly bodies.

The

circular

motion of the world

is

due to the intelligence of the

of
all

Air, as

also the division

things

into
"

different

forms of body and the

"

observance of the

measures
(

by these

forms.'^

Like Anaximander

20),

Diogenes regarded the

sea as the remainder of the original moist state, which

had been

partially

evaporated by the sun, so as to

separate out the remaining earth.^

The
for the

earth itself

is

round, that

is

to say,

it is

a disc

language of

the doxographers does not point to the spherical form."*

Its solidification
is

by the cold

is

due to the

fact that cold

a form of condensation.

Diogenes did not hold with the

that the heavenly bodies were

earlier cosmologists

made

of air or

fire,

nor

yet with

Anaxagoras, that they were stones.

They
earthy,,

were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which

trace the influence of Leukippos.

we may

They were
fire

indeed, but not solid, and the celestial

their pores.

permeated

And

this

explains

the dark bodies which, in

why we do not see common with Anaxagoras,

stars.

he held to revolve along with the

are solid
stones,
It

They
fell

really

and therefore cannot be penetrated

by the
^

fire.

was one of these that

i

into

the

Censorinus, de die natcUiy 6,

{Dox.

p.

190).

*
' *

see Chap. III. 72. Theophr. ap. Alex, in Meteor, p. 67, i {Dox. p. 494).

On

the

"measures"

Diog.

ix.

57 (R. P. 215).

414

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes
affirmed

Aigospotamos.

that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently

to the rise of animals.-^

We

are prepared

to find

that
;

Diogenes held the

for
it

doctrine of innumerable worlds

was the old

Milesian

belief,

and had and

just been revived

is

by Anaxarest

goras and Leukippos.

in

He
if

mentioned with the

classes

the Placita

Simplicius
as

him and
the
Stoic

Anaximenes with Herakleitos

holding

doctrine of successive formations and

destructions

of

a single world, he has probably been misled by the

"
.nimais

accommodators."
1

and
less

90. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubt-

under the influence of heat.

air,

Their souls, of course,

were

and

their differences
it

were due to the various condensed

(fr.

degrees in which

was

rarefied or

5).

No

special seat, such as the heart or the brain,

;

was
air

assigned to the soul

it

was simply the warm

circulating with the blood in the veins.

The views

of Diogenes as to generation, respiration,

^
;

and the blood, belong to the history of Medicine

theory of sensation too, as
phrastos,^ need only be
stated,
it it

his

is

described by Theoin

mentioned

passing.
is

Briefly

amounts

to this, that all sensation

due to

the action of air upon

the brain and

other organs,

while pleasure

is

aeration of the blood.

But the

details

of the theory can only be studied properly in connexion

with the Hippokratean writings

1

for

Diogenes does not

Aet.

ii.

8,

(R. P. 215).

2
2 ^

See Chap. I. p. 83, n. I. p. 1121, 12. See Censorinus, quoted in Dox. p. 191. Theophr. de Sens. 39 sqq. (R. P. 213, 214). For a
Simpl. Phys.

full

account, see

As Prof. Beare remarks, Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. " Diogenes " is one of the most interesting of the pre- Platonic psychologists
(p.

258).

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

fresh

415

really represent the old cosmological tradition, but a

development of reactionary philosophical views

entirely

combined with an
investigation

new enthusiasm
facts.

for detailed

and accumulation of

III.

Archelaos of Athens
of
the
early

191.

The

last

cosmologists

was Anax^orea

Archelaos of Athens,
goras.^

who was

a disciple of Anaxa-

He

is

also said to

have been the teacher of

so improbable as
to doubt

Sokrates, a statement
is

by no means
There
is

sometimes supposed.^

no reason
certainly

the tradition that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in the

school
at

Lampsakos.^

We
we

hear

of

Anaxagoreans,^ though their fame was soon obscured

by the

rise

of the Sophists, as

call

them.
Cosmology,

192.

On

the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos^

:

writes as follows

Archelaos was

by birth an Athenian, and the son of

spoke of the mixture of matter
in a similar

ApoUodoros.

He

way

to Anaxagoras,

and of the

first

principles likewise.

He

held, however, that

there was a certain mixture

immanent
efficient

even in Nous.
the

And he
the
cold.

held that there were two

causes which were separated off from one another, namely,

warm and

The former was

it

in
it

motion, the

latter at rest.

When

the water was liquefied

flowed to the
air,

centre,

and there being burnt up

position below.

turned to earth and

the latter of which was borne upwards, while the former took

up

its

These, then, are the reasons

it

why

the

earth
1

is

at rest,
ii.

and why

came

into being.

It

lies

in the

Diog.

16 (R. P. 216).
in
p.

2 3

See Chiapelli
Euseb. P. E.

Arch.

iv.

pp. 369 sqq.

504, c 3, 6 5^ 'Apx^Xaos iv Aafi^f/dxtp SitSi^aro t^p

(TXoXtji'
*

tou 'Ava^aydpov.

'Ava^ay6peioi are mentioned

by Plato {Crat. 409 b

6),

and often by the

Aristotelian commentators.
5

Hipp. Ref.

i.

9 (R. P. 218).

4i6

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

no appreciable part of the universe.
all

centre, being practically

(But the

air rules
fire,

over

things),^ being
its

produced by the
combustion comes
these the sun
is

burning of the

and from

original

the substance of the heavenly bodies.

the largest, and the
sizes.

Of

moon second;
upon the
earth,

the rest are of various

He

says that the heavens were inclined,

light
;

and

that then

the sun

made

made

the air transparent,

and the earth dry

for

it

was

originally a pond, being high at

the circumference and hollow in the centre.

He

adduces as
the earth

a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not rise and set
at the

were
first

level.

same time As

for all peoples, as

it

ought to do

if

to animals,

he says that when the earth was

where the warm and the

being

warmed

in the lower part

cold were mingled together,

many

living creatures appeared,

life,

and
long,

especially

men,

all

having the same manner of

;

and

deriving their sustenance from the slime

they did not live

and
and
is

later

on generation from one another began.

rest,

And
and

men were
laws,

distinguished from the

arts,

and

set

up

leaders,

and
as

cities,
all

and so

forth.
;

And
for

he says that
each
of the

Nous

implanted in
well

animals alike

animals, as

man, makes use of Nous, but some

quicker and some slower.

It is

not necessary to say

much with

regard to this

theory, vi^hich in

many

respects contrasts unfavourably

It is clear that, just as

with

its

predecessors.

Diogenes
into

had

tried to introduce certain

Anaxagorean ideas

the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to

bring Anaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views

by supplementing
cold, rare

it

with the opposition of

warm and

and dense, and by stripping Nous of that

which had marked
it

simplicity

off
It

from the other

for

" things " in his master's

system.

was probably

this

reason, too, that

Nous was no longer regarded

as

the
^

maker of the
Inserting t6v
'-^

world.^

Leukippos had made such a

8'

aipa Kparetv rod iravrbs, as suggested by Roeper.

i.

Aet.

7,

4 = Stob.

i.

56 (R. P. 217

a).

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

force unnecessary.
It

417

may

be added that

this twofold
it

relation of Archelaos to his predecessors

makes

very
in-

credible that, as Actios

tells

us,^

he believed

in

numerable worlds

both Anaxagoras and the

older

lonians upheld that doctrine.

193.

The cosmology
all

of Archelaos,

like

that

of

Conclusion.

Diogenes, has

the characteristics of the age to

which

it

belonged

an

age of reaction, eclecticism,

and investigation of
Idaios
feeling

detail.^

Hippon of Samos and

into

of

Himera represent nothing more than the

had run
only
a blind
alley,

that philosophy
it

from

which

could
at
in

escape

by trying back.
but

The Herakleiteans
up as they were
exaggerate
side.^
its

Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped

their

own
for

system, did
its

little

paradoxes and develop

more

fanciful

It

was not enough

(fr.

Kratylos to say with

Herakleitos
the

84) that you cannot step twice into

;

same
in

river

you could not do so even

in the

once.*

But

nothing was the total bankruptcy of the early

cosmology so clearly shown as

entitled

work of Gorgias,
an

Substance or the Non-existent^ in which

absolute nihilism was set forth

Eleatic dialectic.^
as
it

and based upon the

The

fact is that philosophy, so long

clung to

its

old presuppositions, had nothing

more

to say; for the answer of

Aet.

Leukippos to the que stion of

ii.

I, 3.

Windelband,

25.

The

period

is

well
It

described by Fredrich,

Hippokratische Untersuchungetiy pp. 130 sqq. in connexion with the Sophists.

^

can only be treated

fully

The new
life,

For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, Tht. 179 e. interest in language, which the study of rhetoric had called into took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary etymol<^sing, such
satirised in Plato's Cratylus.

as

is
*

Arist. Met. F, 5.

loio a
vii.

12.

He

refused even to speak,

we

are told,

and only moved

his finger.

Sext. adv.

Math.

6$ (R. P. 235)

iV.Xa

979 a 13 (R-

P- 236).

27

41

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

final.

Thales was really

Fresh

life

must be given to

the speculative impulse by the raising of

new problems,

those of knowledge and conduct, before any further

progress was
"

possible

and

this

was done by the

in

Sophists "

and

Sokrates.

Then,

the

hands of

Demokritos and

Plato, philosophy took a

new

form,

and started on a

fresh course.

APPENDIX
THE SOURCES
^.PHILOSOPHERS
I.

It

is

not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell upon ^^^^^
it

the history of philosophy as

was before the

rise

of ethical

and epistemological inquiry

is

but when he does, his guidance

simply invaluable.

His

artistic gift

and

his

power of

enter-

ing into the thoughts of other

men

enabled him to describe

a thoroughly objective

the views of early philosophers

in

manner, and he never, except

predecessors.
trast

in a playful

and

ironical way,

sought to read unthought-of meanings into the words of his

Of

special value for our purpose are his con-

between Empedokles and Herakleitos {Soph. 242 d), and his account of the relation between Zeno and Parmenides {Farm. 128 a).
See
zeitige
Zeller, " Plato's

Mittheilungen iiber friihere und gleichv.

Philosophen" {Arch.

pp. 165 sqq.)

and Index,

s.v.

Plato.

2.

As

a rule, Aristotle's statements about early philosophers

Aristotle

are less historical than Plato's.

Not

that he failed to under-

stand the

facts,

but he nearly always discusses them from the

is

own system. He own philosophy accomplishes what all

point of view of his

convinced that his

regarded as

previous philosophers

had aimed
It is

at,

and

their systems are therefore

it

"lisping" attempts to formulate

{Met. A, 10. 993 a 15). also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in a 27a 419

420

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

sympathetic way than others.

much more
It
is

He

is

distinctly

unfair to the Eleatics, for instance.

often forgotten that Aristotle derived

much

of his

information from Plato, and

we must

specially observe that

he more than once takes

Plato's irony too literally.

See Emminger, Die Vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den

Berichten des Aristoteles^ 1878.

Index,

s.v. Aristotle.

Stoics.

3.

The

Stoics,

and

especially

Chrysippos,

paid

great

attention to early philosophy, but their

was simply an exaggeration of

Aristotle's.

way of regarding it They did not con-

tent themselves with criticising their predecessors from their

own
early

point of view

they seem really to have believed that the

poets and thinkers held views hardly distinguishable

theirs.

from

The word

(twoikhovv, which Cicero renders by

accommodare, was used by Philodemos to denote this method

of interpretation, 1 which

has

had

serious results

upon our

tradition, especially in the case of Herakleitos (p. 157).

Skeptics.

4.

Skeptics.

The same remarks apply The interest of such a

is

mutatis

mutandis to the

writer as Sextus Empiricus

in early philosophy early date

to

show

that skepticism
in fact.

as far as
;

Xenophanes,
for

went back to an But what he tells

us
to

is

often of value

he frequently quotes early views as

in support of his thesis.

knowledge and sensation

5.

Neoplatonists.

Under

this

head we have

chiefly to consider the

comwhat

mentators on Aristotle in so

far as

they are independent of the

is

Theophrastean
Simplicius calls
pretation,

tradition.

Their chief characteristic

that
is,

vyviofxo(rvvrj,
all

a liberal spirit of inter-

which makes
in

early philosophers agree with

another
1

upholding the

doctrine

of a

Sensible

one and an

libro

Be nat. D. i. 15, 41 " Et baec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati
Cf. Cic.
:

quidem
Tip
'OfXT]p(p

sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur."

TCL

Cf. Philod. de piet.fr.

c.

13, ev
to.

hk

devT^pcp

els

'Op0^a

/cat

Movaaiov
TronjToii

dpatpepo/xeva

Kal

Trap'

Kal "H.<n6d({) Kal

'EvpLTriSy Kai

&\\ois, us Kal

K\edp6r]s,

ireipdrai. cvvolk^lovv

rah

So^ais avrCjv.

THE SOURCES
Intelligible

421
Simplicius

World.

It

is,

however,

to

more
frag-

than any one else that we owe the preservation of the

ments.

He

had, of course, the library of the

Academy

at

his disposal.

i?. DOXOGRAPHERS
6.

The Doxographi

graeci of

Professor

Hermann

Diels

'^^^ Doxo^'^^^

(1879) threw an entirely new light upon the filiation of the later sources ; and we can only estimate justly the value of
statements derived from these
the results of his investigation.
to give an outline
in the

^'^^^'

we bear constantly in mind Here it will only be possible which may help the reader to find his way
if
itself.

Doxographi graeci

By the term doxographers we understand all those who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the
7.

The
Theophrasto

writers

great

Of

this

work of Theophrastos, ^yxriKdv So^ojv irj (Diog. v. work, one considerable chapter, that entitled
has tf^en preserved

46).
Ilc/oi

aio-^^Jo-ewv,

{Dox. pp. 499-527).

And

Brand is, further showed that there were important fragments of it contained in the commentary of Simplicius (sixth cent. a.d.) on the First Book of Aristotle's
Usener,
following
4>ixriK^ aKpoaxris

These
sqq.
First

extracts Simplicius

(Usener, Analecta Theophrastea^ pp. 25 sqq.). seems to have borrowed in turn

{c.

from Alexander of Aphrodisias

200 a.d.);
o.pya.i,

cf.

Dox.

p.

112

We

thus possess a very considerable portion of the

as well as practically

Book, which dealt with the

last

the whole of the

Book.
it

From

these remains

clearly appears that the

in

method of

Theophrastos was to discuss

topics which

separate

books the leading

Thales to Plato.

had engaged the attention of philosophers from The chronological order was not observed the philosophers were grouped according to the affinity of their doctrine, the differences between those who appeared to agree
most closely being
was
in

carefully noted.
;

The

First

Book, however,

some degree exceptional for in it the order was that of the successive schools, and short historical and chronological
notices were inserted.

422
8.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

A
work of
as
this

kind was, of course, a godsend to the

epitomators and compilers of handbooks,

who

flourished

more
either

and more

the

Greek

genius

declined.

These

followed Theophrastos in arranging the subject-matter under

heads, or else they broke

up

his work,

and rearranged

his

statements under the names of the various philosophers to

whom
so
I

they

applied.

This

latter

class

form the natural

transition

between the doxographers proper and the biographers,

have ventured to distinguish them by the name of

biographical doxographe7's.

I.

Doxographers Proper
viz.

9.

These are now represented by two works,

the

Placita Philosophoriim^ included

to Plutarch,
A.D.).

among

the writings ascribed

and the Eclogae Physicae of John Stobaios {c. 470 latter originally formed one work with the Florilegium of the same author, and includes a transcript of some

The

epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-Plutarchean

Placita.
It
is,

however, demonstrable that neither the Placita

is

nor the doxography of the Eclogae

other.

the original of the the two, and yet

The

latter is usually the fuller of

;

the former must be earlier

for

it

was used by Athenagoras

in

for his defence of the Christians in

was also the source of the notices

writers

177 a.d. {Dox. Eusebios and

of the text

p. 4).

It

Cyril,

and

of the History of Philosophy ascribed to Galen.

From

these

many

important

corrections

have been
Achilles

derived {Dox. pp. 5 sqq.).

Another writer who made use of the Placita

{not Achilles
Tatius).

is

Extracts from his EiVaywy^ to the

Phaenomefia of Aratos are included in the

Petavius, pp. 121- 164.

Uranologion of

His date
a.d.

is

uncertain, but probably

p.

he belongs to the third century

10.

{Dox.

18).

common source of the Placita and shown that Theodoret {c. 445 a.d.) had access to it ; for in some cases he gives a fuller form of Not only so, but he statements made in these two works. also names that source; for he refers us {Gr. aff. cur. iv. 31)
What, then, was the
Diels has

the Eclogae!

THE SOURCES
to 'AcTLOV Ttjv
TTcpl dpeQ-KovTOiv arvvayioy'/jv.

423
Diels has accord-

ingly printed the Placita in parallel

columns with the relevant

parts of the Eclogae^ under the title of Aetii Placita, The quotations from " Plutarch " by later writers, and the extracts

of Theodoret from Aetios, are also given at the foot of each

page.
11.

Diels has

shown

further, however, that Aetios did not The Vetusta

^^'^*^'^-

draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an intermediate epitome which he calls the Vetusta Placita, traces of which
die

may be found in natalt), who

Cicero {infra, 12), and in Censorinus {De follows Varro. The Vetusta Placita were

composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels now calls them the Poseidonian 'A/oeo-Acovra ( t/ber das phys. System des Straton, p. 2). There are also traces of them in the " Homeric
Allegorists."
It is

quite

possible,

by discounting the somewhat unin-

telligent

additions which Aetios

made from Epicurean and

181
sqq.),

other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents

of the
Vetusta Placita {Dox. pp.

and

this gives

us a

fair

idea of the arrangement of the original work by

Theophrastos.
12. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxographers,
Cicero.

extracts at second or third

and not with the philosophers ; for he gives us nothing but hand from the work of Theophrastos.
passages in his writings
fall

Two

to

be considered under
ii.),

this

head, namely, "Lucullus" {Acad,

118, and

De

natura

Deorum, i. 25-41. ^^ Lucullus. This contains a meagre {cl) Doxography of the summary of the various opinions inaccurately-rendered and held by philosophers with regard to the a/>xv {Dox, pp. 119 sqq.), and would be quite useless if it did not in one case enable us to verify the exact words of Theophrastos The doxography has come through (Chap. I. p. 52, n. 2). the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in the
^^

headship of the
{b)

Academy (129

b.c).

Doxography of the ''-De natura Deorum." A fresh light upon this important passage by the discovery at thrown was

424

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

roll

Herculaneum of a
treatise,

containing fragments of an Epicurean

so like

it

as to
at first

be

at

once regarded as

its

original.

This

treatise

was

ascribed to Phaidros, on the ground

of the reference in Epp.

^ikoh]iiov
Trepl cvo-e/Jeta?,

ad

Att.

xiii.

39. 2

but the real

p.

title,

was afterwards restored (Z>ox.

(Z>ox. pp.

530).
is

Diels, however, has

shown
for

122 sqq.) that there

much

to

be said

the view that Cicero did

not copy

Philodemos, but that both drew from a

common

source (no

doubt Phaidros, Uepl OeQv) which

epitome of Theophrastos.
relevant

itself

went back to a Stoic

in
parallel

The

passage of Cicero and the

fragments

of

Philodemos are edited

sqq.).

columns by Diels (Dox. pp. 531

11.

Biographical Doxographers

is

" biographical doxographies," the most important 1 3. Of the Book I. of the Refutation of all Heresies by Hippolytos. This had long been known as the Philosophoumena of Origen
\

but the discovery of the remaining books, which were

published at Oxford in 1854, showed
finally that
it

first

could not

drawn mainly from some good epitome of Theophrastos, in which the matter was already rearranged under the names of the various philosophers. We must note,
belong to him.
It is

however, that the sections dealing with Thales, Pythagoras,

Herakleitos, and Empedokles come from an inferior source, some merely biographical compendium full of apocryphal anecdotes and doubtful statements.
14-

Th&strovtnteis.

The

fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean Stromateis,

quoted by Eusebios in his Praeparatio Evangelica^ come from

a source similar to that of the best portions of the Philoso-

phoumena.
points.

So

far as
first

we can

judge, they differ chiefly in two

fl

In the

place, they are mostly taken

from the

earliest sections of the

work, and therefore most of them deal

with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and the earth.

In the second place, the language

transcript of the original.

is

much

less faithful

"Diogenes
Laertjos."

15-

The

scrap-book which goes by the

name

of Diogenes
i

Laertios, or Laertios

Diogenes

(cf.

Usener, Epicurea^ pp.

sqq.),

THE SOURCES
contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies.
is

425 One
;

of the merely biographical, anecdotic,

and apophthegmatic
four chapters

kind
other

used
is

by Hippolytos

in

his

first

the

of a better class, more like the source of Hippolytos'

remaining chapters.

An

attempt
to

is

made
first

to disguise this

"contamination" by

referring

the

doxography as a
is

" summary " (K</)aAatw8iis) account, while the second " particular " (eVt /ac/oovs).
16.

called

Short doxographical summaries are to be found in

x., xiv., xv.),
ii.

patristic, dox<

Eusebios {F. E,
Irengeus

Theodoret {Gr.
nat.

aff. cur,
ii.

ii.

9-1 1), graphics.

(C

haer.
2).

14),

Arnobius (Adv.

9),

Augustine

(Civ. Dei^

These depend mainly upon the writers of " Successions," whom we shall have to consider in the next
viii.
^

section.

C BIOGRAPHERS
17.

The

first

to write a

work
ii.

entitled

Successions of the Successions.

P.

Philosophers was Sotion

(Diog.

12;
is

R.

a),

about

200
p.

B.C.

The arrangement
It

of his work

explained in Dox.

writers of AtaSoxat were Antisthenes, Sosikrates,

was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos. Other and Alexander. All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre
147.

doxography, and

made

interesting

by the addition of un-

authentic apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.

18.

The

peripatetic
(c.

Hermippos of

Smyrna,

known

as Hermippos.

KaXAi/Aaxtos

200

B.C.),

wrote several biographical works

which are frequently quoted.

very

The
but

biographical details are

untrustworthy
is

indeed

sometimes bibliographical

information

added, which doubtless rests upon the IltVaKcs

of Kallimachos.
19.

Another
(c.

peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, Saiyros.

wrote

160

B.C.)

Lives of Famous Men.

The same remarks

apply to him as to Hermippos.

His work was epitomised by

Herakleides Lembos.
20.

The work which

is,

goes

by

the

name

of

Laertios "Diogenes
all
***

Diogenes

in its biographical parts, a

mere patchwork of

426

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It

earlier learning.

has not been digested or composed by

all.

any single mind

of extracts

at
at

It is little

more than a

collection

made
is

haphazard, possibly by more than one

successive possessor of the

MS.

But, of course,

it

contains

much

that

of the greatest value.

Z?. CHRONOLOGISTS
Eratosthenes
2 1.

The founder

of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes

and Apollo-

of Kyrene (275-194 B.C.); but his work was soon supplanted

by the metrical version of Apollodoros

philosophers
derived.

{c. 140 B.C.), from which most of our information as to the dates of early

is

See Diels' paper on the Xpovt/ca of

xxxi.
;

Apollodoros in Rhein. Mus.

and Jacoby, Apollodors

Chronik (1902).

The method adopted

his floruit
{(XKfiri),

is

as follows
life is

If the date of
is

some

striking event in a philosopher's

known, that
to
this,

taken as

and he

is

assumed

have been forty

historical era

years old at that date.

is

In default of

some

taken as the floruit.

B.C.,

Of

these the chief are the eclipse of

B.C.,

Thales 586/5

the taking of Sardeis in 546/5

B.C.,

the

accession of Polykrates in 532/1

and the foundation of

Thourioi in 444/3

B.C.

Further details will easily be found

by reference

to the Index, s.v. Apollodoros.

INDEXES
I.

ENGLISH
Antonius Diogenes, 92 Apollo Hyperboreios, 93 n. 3, 232
.
i,

Aahmes,

22,

46

Abaris, 87, 97 n. 3 Abdera, school of, 381 Abstinence, Orphic and Pythagorean,

97

Apollodoros, App. 21, 43, 52, 75,

102 289

sq.

104

sq.

Empedoklean,

Achilles

Academy, 35 and the

Aether.

Tortoise, 367

See aldi^p Aetios, App. 10 Aigospotamos, meteoric stone 312, 413 sq.
Air, 77,
n. i, 120,

of,

292,

78, 79 173, 214, 224, 263, 309, 336, 341, 411 sq.

See

di^p
sq.
,

Akousmata, 105

328

Akousmatics, 96, 103 Akragas, 228 sqq. Akron, 231 Alexander Aetolus, 295 Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 139, 209 Alkidamas, 229 . i, 231 . 5, 235, 297 5- 321 n. 2, 360 Alkmaion, 123 n. i, 223 sq., 236,
327, 344, 350

94 n. 2, 125, 143, 192 sq., 228 sq., 290 sq., 358. 370 ApoUonios of Tyana, 90, 92 Apophthegms, 51, 127 Archelaos, 415 sqq. Archippos, 99, 319 Archytas, no, 319, 328, 346 Aristarchos of Samos, 349 Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 87, 97 n. 3 Aristophanes, 75, 296 n. 4, 381, 408 on Egypt, 18, Aristotle, App. 2 on Thales, 47 sqq. 50 on 23 Anaximander, 57 sqq. on Pythagoras, 93 n. I, 100, 107 . 3 on Xenophanes, 137 sq. 139 sq. on Herakleitos, 160 . i, 162, on Parmenides, 193, 177. 179 203, 207, 208, 213 on Alkmaion, on Empedokles, 177 . a, 223 228 . 3. 231 . 4, 234, 237, 253
;
;
,

. 2, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271,

Amasis, 39 Ameinias, 193 Anaxagoras, 290 sqq.

;

272, 274 n.
. 2
;
;

I,

278, 280, a8i, 397

on Anaxagoras,

263

n. 3,

and

Perikles,
;

and Euripides, 295 294 sqq. relation to Ionic school, 292 and
;

291. 303, 305, 306, 309. 310; on the Pythagoreans, 100 n. 1, no,

Zeno, 362

Anaxagoreans, 35 n. 3, 415 Anaximander, 52 sqq. Anaximenes, 75 sqq. School of, 83, 292, 408 n. 2 Androkydes, 328 Andron of Ephesos, 93 Animals, Anaximander, 72 sqq. Empedokles, 279 sqq. Anaxagoras, 315 sqq. Diogenes of Apollonia, 414 Antichthon, 344, 349 sqq.
;

III . I, 119. 331 sqq., 353 sqq. on Zeno, 361, 365 sqq. on Melissos, 374 sq.. 377. 378 OQ Leukippo*. on 387. 397 . I 380, 385 sq. Hippon, 49 H. 2. 406 on the galais life, theoretic on the Uxns, 74 . I on the mysteries, 91 90, 108 [Aristotle] <fc A/i<?. 185 [Aristotle] <U Plantis, 379 n. a. 398 n. a, 315 Aristoxenos on Pythagoras, 9a, 94 1.95. 96 . a, 3. 98sq.. loa, 109 on the Pythagoreans, 107. n. a;
;
;
:

427

428
(pdaeii,

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

;

UvdayopiKal dirolOO n. 2, 325 on Hippon, 406 . I on Plato, 323 sqq. Arithmetic, Egyptian, 22, iii n. 2 ; Pythagorean, 109 sq.
319. 334" 353
; ;

Arithmetical symbohsm,

in

Astronomy, 25 sqq.

Babylonian and Greek, See Heavenly bodies,

Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, Earth, Eclipses, Geocentric and Heliocentric hypothesis Atheism, 51, 75, 141 Athens, Parmenides and Zeno at, 192 Anaxagoras at, 294 Atomism. See Leukippos
;

on Egyptian mathematics, 24 primitive Anaxagoras, 291, 381 and astronomy of, 345, 392 Leukippos, 381 116 Diagonal and Square, Dialectic, 361 Dikaiarchos on Pythagoras, 92, 96 n. 3, 100 Diogenes of ApoUonia, 381, 407 sqq. Divisibility, 304, 306, 362, 365, 376 Dodecahedron, 341 sqq. Doric dialect, 325, 327 sq.
;
; ;

Earth, a sphere, 26

Atoms, 387 sqq.

Babylonian language, 21 n. i; astronomy, 25 sqq. eclipse cycle, 41 fxadTjfxaTiKol, 350 n. 3 Beans, 102 Biology. See Animals, Plants Blood, Empedokles, 288 286, Diogenes of ApoUonia, 414 Empedokles, Brain, Alkmaion, 224 Sicilian school of medicine, 235 288 n. 3 Breath of Breath. See Respiration. the World, 79, 120
;
;
;

Thales, 47 sqq. Anaximander, 70, 72 Anaximenes, Xenophanes, 136 ; 80, 81, 83 . 2 Pythagoreans, Anaxagoras, 313 DioLeukippos, 401 344 sqq. genes of ApoUonia, 413 Echekrates, 343 AnaxiEclipses, Thales, 40 sqq. Anaximenes, 82 mander, 67 Alkmaion, 224 Herakleitos, 164 Anaxagoras, Empedokles, 276 sq. ; Pythagoreans, 299 349 Leukippos, 401
;

Ecliptic.

Effluences.

See Obliquity See airoppoai

; ;

Cave, Orphic, 257 n. i Chaos, 8, 9 . I Chronos, 10 on Thales, 50 Cicero, App. 12 on Anaxion Anaximander, 64 on Parmenides, 220, menes, 82 221 n. 1 on Atomism, 393 n. 2,
;
;

394 2 Clement of Alexandria, 19 Comic poets on Pythagoreans,

n.

Thales in Egypt, 43 Egypt, 39 Pythagoras and Egypt, 94 sq. geoEgyptian arithmetic, 22 sq. metry, 23 sq. 44 sq. Ekphantos, 338 n. i, 387 n. 2 Elea, era of, 125 n. 4, 127, 192 Zeno, Parmenides, Eleatics {see Leukippos and, Melissos), 35 . 2 382 sqq. Elements {see aroix^ia, Roots, Seeds, idia, etSos, /xopiprj), 56 n. i, 57,
; , ;

103

Condensation.
Conflagration. Continuity, 369 Copernicus, 349

See Rarefaction See iKinupojcnt

59, 235, 263 sqq., sqq. Eleusinia, 86

265

n. 3,

339

Corporealism, 15 sq., 206, 227, 357, 377 Cosmogonies, 8 sqq. Croesus, 28, 37, 38
Culvasutras, 24

Damasias, 43 n. 2 Damaskios, 9 n. 4, 232 Darkness, 79, 121, 173, 214 Herakleitos, sqq. Death, 171 Parmenides, 222 Alkmaion, 225 Empedokles, 283 Dekad, 113 Demetrios Phalereus, 290, 408 Demokritos, 2 . i date, 381 on
;
; ;

Embryology, Parmenides, 203 n. i ; Empedokles, 282 relation to Empedokles, 227 sqq. on Leukippos, 236, 383, 392 on Xenophanes, 138, 246 n. 2 on Pythagoras, 232, 259 n. 1 Parmenides, 239, 261 Ephesos, 143 sqq. Epicurus and Leukippos, 380 sq., 388 n. I, 391 . I, 394 sq. Epimenides, 9, 87 Equinoxes, precession of, 25, 347
;

n. 2 Eratosthenes, App. 21, 228 n. 2 Eros, 9, 219 Euclid, 116, 117 Eudemos on Thales, 44 sq.
;

on

INDEX
Pythagoras, 115 n. 3, 116 . 2 on Parmenides, 203 n. 2 on Zeno, on the term 363, 366 n. 2 ffToixelov, 263 n. I Eudoxos, 118, 2i6, 342 Eukleides of Megara, 355
;
;
;

429

Herakleides of Pontos, on Pythagoras. 104, 105, 108, 321 n. 2, 387

Euripides (fr. inc. 910), 12 . i, 14 . 2 and Anaxagoras, 295 sq. Eurytos, iiosq. 320, 322 Eusebios, 19
;
,

Euthymenes, 44

Even and Odd, 333

Evolution,

sqq.
;

Anaximander, 73 sq. Empedokles, 281; Anaxagoras, 315 Examyes, 40 Experiment, 31 sq. 274
,

Figures, numerical, sq., 337 Fire, 121, 160 sq., 215 Fire, central, 218, 344 sqq. Forgeries, 46, 113 n. i, 185
Fossils,

no

on Empedokles, 228 . 2, 3. heliocentric 236 n. 5 hypothesis of, 349 Herakleiteans, 35 . i, 140, 417 Herakleitos, 143 sqq. on Homer. on Pythagoras, 94, 107, 182, 185 143 on Xenophanes, 143 Hermodoros, 143 Herodotos, on Homer and Hesiod, 8 on Egyptian influence, 17 on Orphicism, on geometry, 23 95 . I on Solon, 28 on Lydian influence, 38 on Thales, 38, 39. on Pythagoras, 40, 43 sq. 46 93, 94 n. I, 95 n. I, 2, 107
n. 2
;

233

n. 3.

Hesiod, 6 sqq. Hieron, 125 Hippasos, 103

n. i,

117,

121,

156,

215, 341. 343, 354

136

Hippokrates, 235 n. 3, 405 n. 2. 411 n. 3; Ilcpi aipwv vMtwv

rbiruiv,

Galen, 234

79

w.

GaUus

levis,

74

n. i

Geocentric hypothesis, 31, 123, 218 Geometry, Egyptian, 23 sq. of Thales, 45 sq. of Pythagoras,
; ;

[Hippokrates] Ilepi Siafn/y, 167 n. 2. 183 n. I, 305 . 6, 307 n. I, 405

n. I

115 sq. Glaukos of Rhegion, 228

n.

3
arith-

Hippokrates, lunules of, 343 Hippolytos. App. 13, 156 Hippon of Samos, 49. 58 .
sqq.

2.

406

Gnomon Gnomon

(the instrument), 31 n., 53

(in

geometry and
;

Hippys of Rhegion, 121

metic), 114 . I Gods, Thales, 50 Anaximander, 64, 74 Anaximenes, 82 Xenophanes, Herakleitos, 188 sq. 140 sq. Empedokles, 264, 272, 288 sq. Diogenes of Apollonia, 410 n. i Gorgias, 229 n. i, 231, 234, 256 n. I, 287 n. 5, 417 Great Year, 25, 175
;

Homer,

5 sqq.

Hylozoism, 15 Hypotenuse, 116

lamblichos, V. Pyth., 92 n. 2 Ibykos, 220 n. 3 Idaios of Himera, 58 n. 2, 407 Ideas, theory of, 354 sqq. Immortality, 91, 172 sq., 225 Incommensurability, 116 sq. See TransIndian philosophy. 21. migration
Infinity,

Harmonics, 118
of the Spheres," 122, See apfiovla and Soul Harpedonapts, 24, 116 Hearing, Empedokles, 285 Anaxa'

Harmony
351.

Ana.ximander. 59 sqq. Xenophanes, 137 sq. Parmenides. DivisiSee Melissos, 375. 207
;

goras. 317

bility,

Axeipov

Heart, 235, 288

;

3
;

Heavenly bodies. Anaximander, 66 Anaximenes, 80, 8i Pythasqq. Xenophanes, 133 goras, 122 sq.
;

Injustice, 56, 71, 160. Ionic dialect. 337 sq.,

226 408

Justice, 3a. 161 n. i

sqq. 165 Parmenides, 215 Emf>edokles, 274 Anaxagoras. 312; Leukippos. sq. Diogenes of Apollonia, 413 401 Hekataios, 20, 44, 46, 53

sqq.

Herakleitos,
;

Kebes and Simmlas, 320. 343. 354.

355 Kebes. mrof. 194
Kratinos, 406 Kratylos, 417
Kritias.

Heliocentric hypothesis, 27, 347 n. 3,

348

sq.

288

n. 3

430

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Necessity.

Kroton, 95 . 4, 222 Kylon, 97 . 2, 98

See 'AvdyKT]

Lampsakos, 297, 415 Leukippos, and the 380 sqq. Eleatics, and 382, 384 sqq. Empedokles, 236, 383, 392 and Anaxagoras, 383 sq., 392; and the Pythagoreans, 387, 389, 392 and Demokritos, 381, 389 sqq.,
;

Nikomachos, 92, 112 n. Nile, 43 sq., 313 Noumenios, 19 Nous, 309 sq. Numbers, Pythagorean, 331 sqq. triangular, square, and oblong, 114
;

Obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac), 52,

82, 401

401

n. 5

Light, Empedokles, 276.

See

Moon
70,

Lightning and 401 n. 5

Thunder,

68,

Limit, 121, 215, 333 sqq. Lives, the three, 108, 109 n.
n. 3 Love.

i,

154

Observation, 29 sq. 73 sq. Octave, 118 Opposites, 56, 186 sq. 225, 235, 266, 305 Oriental influences, 17 sqq. Orphicism, 5, 9 sqq., 87 sq. 95 n. I, 109 n. I, 194, 221, 232,
, , ,

See Eros,

Love and

Strife,

257

n. I,

258

n. I

266 sqq. Lucretius, on Empedokles,

Anaxagoras, 306 Lydia, 37 sqq. Lysis, 99, 319, 326
7t.

237

on

Man, Anaximander, 73

Herakleitos,

168 sqq. Maoris, 9 Map, Anaximander's, 53 Materialism, 208 Matter. See vhrt] Measures, 167 sq., 181, 410, 413 Medicine, history of, 222, 225, 226, 234, 236, 265 sq., 288 n. 3, 322, 344, 405, 411, 414 Megarians, 355
Melissos, 369 sqq.
Melissos,

on Herak192 sqq. leitos, 143, 198 n. 4, 204 sq., 210 and Pythagoreanism, 210 sqq. Pausanias, 234 n. 3, 238 Pentagram, 343 Perception, Parmenides, 202 n. 2, Empe222 Alkmaion, 223 sq. dokles, Anaxagoras, 284 sq. sq. Leukippos, 316 401 sq. Diogenes of Apollonia, 414 Perikles and Zeno, 193 and Anaxagoras, 294 sq. and Melissos, 369 Petron, 65, 121 Pherekydes of Syros, 9, 87 Phihstion, 234 n. 3, 235 n. i and 2, 266 n. I, 288 n. 3, 356 n. 2
Parmenides,
;

Xenophanes ajid Gorgias,

'lar/jt/cd,

138 sqq,

Menon,
322
n. I

49
n. 5,

n. i,

235
71.

. 2,

n. 2,

327

340

I,

406

Philo of Byblos, 19 n. 3 Philo Judaeus, 18, 158, 185 Philodemos, 50 n. 4, 64, 221 n. i Philolaos, 319, 320 sqq. PythaPhilosophy as KaOapcns, 89 gorean use of the word, 89 sqq.,
;

Metapontion, 95 n. 5, 97 n. 3 Metempsychosis. See Transmigration

Meteorological interest, 49, 70 Miletos, 37 sqq., 76, 380, 382 Milky Way, 69, 220, 314 Milo, 99, 222 Mochos of Sidon, 19 . 3 Monism, 206, 227 Monotheism, 141 sqq.

194,

321

n. 2,

359

synonymous
i,

with asceticism, 18
Phleious, 89 n. 2, 94 n.

109 n.

i,

320
Phoenician influence, 18, 19 n. 3, 39 Physiology, Parmenides, 221 sq. Alkmaion, 223 Empedokles, 282 Diogenes of Apollonia, 411 Pindar, 232
;
;

Moon, 68

light of,

202
;

n. i,

275,

276, 299, 314

Planets, names of, 26 . i, 220; distinguished from fixed stars, 26,

82,

Motion, eternal, 15, 61 denied by Parmenides, 207 explained by Anaxagoras, Empedokles, 267 Zeno, 366 criticised by 309 denied by Melissos, 376 reaffirmed by Leukippos, 392 sq. Mysteries, 90, 190
; ;
; ;

276,
sq.,

122
of,

motion of, 392, 401 225, 350, 353; system

;

344

sq.
;

Plants,

Empedokles, sq. 277 Anaxagoras, 315 sq. on Egyptians and Plato, App. I on Phoenicians, 17, 20, 27 n. i
;
;

INDEX
Egyptian arithmetic, 22 on schools of philosophy, 35 on Pythagoras,
; ;

43

Religion,

85 sqq., 189. 294. See Orphicism, Monotheism, Gods,

Sacrifice
.

96

on Xenophanes, 140

on

Herakleitos, 140, 159, 162, 176, on Herakleiteans, 161 n. i, 178

;

on Parmenides, 192, on Empedokles, 159, . I on Anaxagoras, 291 n. 6, 295, 297 sq., 309; on Philolaos, 319 on Pythagoreans, on incommensurables, 121, 124 117 . 2 on Zeno, 192, 358, 360, 361 on Melissos, 379 n. 2 Phaedo, 89 n. 2, 91 n. 2, 108 n. i, 109 n. I, 172 n. 2, 182 n. i, 320 sq., Cratylus, 417 342. 343, 345. 354 Theaetetus, 117 n. i, 263 n. 3 Sophist, n. I, 338 n. I, 417 n. 3 356 n. I, 358 n. 3 Politicus, 280 Parmenides, 358 n. 2, 359, n. I SymPhilebus, 360 sq, 323 posium, 221, 281 . I Phaedrus, Meno, Gorgias, 321 234 29s Republic, 25 . 2, 90 . 2, , 4 352: 177 . I, 216, 219 sq. Timaeus, 61 n. i, 79 n. i, 113
188
.
I
;

207, 178,

221 269

Respiration, 235, 253 n. 2, 284 Rest. See Motion Revolution, diurnal, 61, 274, 346 sq. Rhegion, 99, 220 . 3, 319 Rhetoric, 86, 234 Rhind papyrus, 22 sqq. Roots, 263
Sacrifice, mystic,

104

. 2

bloodless,

258

n.

Salmoxis, 93 Sanchuniathon, 19 . 3 Sardeis, era of, 43 . i, 53, 75 Schools, 33 sqq. 293

,

Sea, Anaximander, 66, 70 sq. Empedokles, 277 Anaxagoras, 313 Diogenes of ApoUonia, 413 Seeds, 306 Seqt, 23, 46
;
; ;

. 3,

118 n. I, 121, 287, 340, 342, 345 n.

122,
I,

225,
. 2,

346, 352,

396; 353

Laws, 107

. 4,

117

Pleasure and pain, Empedokles, 285

Anaxagoras, 317
Pliny, 42, 52

Pluralism, 227 sqq.

Political

357
;

activity
;

Thales, 46
;

of philosophers, Pythagoras, 96 sq.

;

Parmenides, 195 Zeno, 358 230 sq.

Empedokles,

Polybios, 99 . I Polybos, 379 Polykrates, era of, 53 n. 3, 94 See irbpoi Pores. Porph3n-y, 92 . 3, 104 n. i,
. I

Seven Wise Men, 39, 46, 51 Sight, Alkmaion, 224 Empedokles, Anaxagoras, 316 284, 287 sq. Silloi, 129 Sleep, Herakleitos, 169 sq. Empedokles, 283 Smell, Empedokles, 285 Anaxagoras, 316 Sokrates, Parmenides and Zeno, 192 sq-. 358 and Archelaos, 415 Solids, regular, 328 sq., 340 Solon. See Croesus Soul, 86, 91, 168, 225, 343, 414 Space, 204, 207, 366, 389 Speusippos, 113 . 2; on Parmenides. on Pythagorean numbers. 19s 321, 336 n. 3 Sphere, Parmenides. 207 sq. Empedokles, 262. See Earth, Eudoxos.
; ;

Harmony
257
Stars, fixed, 68,
Stoics,

80

Poseidonios, 19 . 3, 81 . i See Equinoxes Precession. Proclus, commentary on Euclid, 44.

157, 179 sq. Strabo, 19 n. 3, 194, 195 n. a Strife, Herakleitos, 184; Empedokles. 266 sqq.
3,

App.

115 . 3 Proportion, 117 sq. Protagoras, 188, 360 See Ka6apfi6i, KddapffH Purification. See Pyramids, measurement of, 45.
Tvpa/xli

Sun, Anaximander, 68 Anaximenes. 80 Xenophanes, 134 sq. Herakleitos, 165 sq. 174 Empedokles, 274 sq. 347 sq. Anaxagoras. 314
; ; : .

Pythagoras, 91 sqq.

forged writings.

Taras, 97 . a, 319 Taste, Empedokles, 28$

Anaxagoras.

325
Pythagoreans, aia sqq., 319 sqq.
Rarefaction and condensation, sqq., 163, 204, 403, 412

316
Tetraktys, 1x3 sqq. Thales, 39 sqq. Theaitetos. 117, 329

77

Theano, 353

432
at,

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

;

Philolaos at, 99, 320 99 Theodores of Kyrene, 117 RhapTheogony, Hesiodic, 6 sqq. sodic, 9 n. 4, 232
;

Thebes, Lysis

Transmigration, 95, loi sqq.,

124,

289

sq.

Triangle, Pythagorean, 24, 115 Unit, 337, 365

Theologians, 10 See Gods Theology.

Theon

Smyrna, 27 . i on schools, Theophrastos, App. 7 on Prometheus, 39 33. 35i 52 Anaxion Thales, 48 . 2 on Anaxiniander, 54 sqq. 66 on Xenophanes, menes, 76 sqq. on Herakleitos, 126, 136, 137 145, 156, 163 sqq. on Parmenides, on 209, 213, 214, 218, 220 n. i, Empedokles, 229 236, 267 sq., 272 sqq., 278, 284; on Anaxagoras, 291, 292, 293 n. i, on Leukippos, 313 sq., 316 sq. 380 sq., 382, 384 sqq., 390 sqq., on Diogenes of ApoUonia, 402 on Hippon of 381, 407 sq. 412 Samos, 406
of
;
;

Pythagorean, 120, 214, 224, Parmenides, 204, 207 336, 383 Alkmaion, 224 Atomist, 389 sq. Vortex, Empedokles, 274 Anaxagoras, 311 Leukippos, 399 sqq.
; ;

Void,

Water, 48 sqq., 407 Weight, 394 sqq. Wheels, Anaximander, sq. 67 Pythagoras, 122 Parmenides, 215 Worlds, innumerable, Anaximander, 62 sqq. Anaximenes, 82 sq. Pythagoras, 121 Xenophanes, Diogenes 136 Anaxagoras, 312 of ApoUonia, 414; Archelaos, 417
;
; ; ;

Theoretic life, 291 Theron of Akragas, 229, 232 Thourioi, era of, 228 Timaios Lokros, 323 sqq. Timaios of Tauromenion, 228

Xenophanes, 124 sqq. on Thales, on Pythagoras, 124 41

; ;

Year.
71.

See Great Year

2,

Timon
:

230, 233, 237 n. I of Phleious, 129, 324

Touch,

Empedokles,

285

Anaxa-

goras, 316

Zamolxis, 93 Zankle, izj n. i Zeno, 358 sqq. on Empedokles, 359 on Pythagoreans, 362
; ;

II.
ddiKia, 56, 60, 71
di^jO,

GREEK
7a\eoi, 73 sq.
.

79

n. I, 263,

264

n. I,

2847/

2.

yorjTes,

106
155
n. 2,

See Air aiO-^p, 263, 264 n. I, 312 aKOva-fxaTa, 105 sq. 328
,

n. i

daifjoov,

172
3

n. 2

8La(7T7jfj,aTa,
diKT],

65

n.

aKova-fiaTLKoi, 96,
dvadvfilacris,
dPTepeicris,
t.(>j

103 'AvdyKT], 219, 256 n.

n. i,

32, 161 n. I

i,

269 168 ti. 3

dii^T].

diopi^o),

See Vortex 120 n. 2

400
f?5os,
^>

dvTv^, 216 dweipov, S7 ^dirvovs,

Tj,

355, 388 n. 4

'^-

2
n. 5

et'SwXa,
elvaL,

403
ti.

233
391

n. 3,

236
. 5

198

t6 iov, 204 n

diroppoai, 236,
diroTOfXT},
dpid/xrjTLKi/}

287
n. i

iKd\L\pi.s,

397
61

n. I

cKKpicris,

dist.

XoyiaTiKTj,

23,

Ill

iKTnjptoais,
iv, TO,

178 sqq.

n. 2

dpfxovia, 122, 158,

184

140, 363 n. 4, 377 See Opposites ivavria.

evL^eiv,

dpTredovaTTTai,
o-PXV' 13. 57 avrb 8 ^cttlv,

24
n. i

139

. i

iiri'^avaLi,

400
n. 3

355

iffTii),

330

INDEX
&$, 74.
Oeojpla, 28,

433
273
. I

See Gods 108

n. 2,

7r(70j,

iraXiYyeveala, loi . 2

235 n. 2, 263 n. i, 355, 356 388 n. 4 rSoj, 243 n. I, 249 . 2 iaovofiia, 225 iaoppoiria, 398 iaropia, 14 . i, 28, 107 . i
I8^a,
KaOap/JiSi, Kddapaii, 88,
Keyxpi'Tfji X670S,

107
.

sq.

360
. 2,

. I

K\c\pv8pa,

253

254

I,

263,

150 , 2, 184 150 . 2, 198 n. 4 Travffirepfila, 307, 389 irepLayuryfi, 63 . 2 irepUx^' 60 n. 2, 170 n. I Treplaraaii, 63 . 2 7riX?7<j-ts, 77 . I irdpoi, 224, 226 . 3, 236, 269, 284 sq., 383 Trprja-T-qp, 69 . 2, 165 irvpa/jils, 25 . I
waXli'Tovos,
iraXlvrpoTTOs,
pa\p(p5C},

309. 384

219 k6(T/xos, 32, 148 Kpariw, 310

Kk-qpovxos,

. I,

182

. 2

pOTTlJ,

127 398

. 2

(T^/itt

aQfia, 321

\oyi(XTiKi^ dist. dpidfiTjTiK-^,

Xd-yos,

146
. I

. 3,

148
2,

. 4,

153
elvai,

and
. i

157

23 152 . I, X670S toC

(TTaorttSTat,
aTitfxxvoA.,

ffToix^Tou,

355

140 , I 215 54 . 3, 56
,

. I,

263

n. I,

265 ^

3.

306, 333, 388 . 3

fxeadrrj^,

fierdpaia,

5 /ieTe/i\i'uxw<riS, loi n. 2 piTVCU}p.6.T(j)<nt, loi . 2

fier^iapa,
fiopipT),

118 2g6

awoiKCiQ, 157
n.

TCTpaKTiJj,
Tpoiral,

113

sq.

67

. 2,

174 342 360

. 1 . 2
. 5,

32 263 .

I,

356
368

. 2

i'^'?.

57.

virddeffis,

330 33

3' . i,

361

^/cot,
6X*cds,

338 341

. I, .

. 2,

387

. 2

ufl"OTei'Oi'(ro,

116

2
<f>aiv6fiva, ffip^eiv t4,

dfiOLOfxeprj,

306
72
. i

33

n. i

Sfioioi, bpjOL&r-qt,

<piXo<ro<pla, <pi\6<T0<f>oi, <pi\oao<pCi, 28.

5(f*
0i/(r(T,

dpyia, 88 . 2 3poj, 115 . 2

ot/)ai'6s,

Philosophy 12 sq., 56, 388

n. 2

and

31,

140

Aristotle's
Xt^/xi,

irpurros ovpav6s,

177

114

. I,

lis

PrinUd

h R*

&

I^-

Clakk, Umiteo, Edudmrgh.

RETURN TO the circulation desk of any

University of California Library
or to the

NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

University of California

Richmond

Field Station, BIdg.

400

1301 South 46th Street

Richmond,

CA 94804-4698

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS To renew or recharge your library materials, you may
contact

NRLF 4 days

prior to

due date

at (510)

642-6233

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

]W

09

2008

DD20 12M 7-06

YB 23786

^ti<^>

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY