- Via Christa
- » Library
- » John Burnet
- » Early Greek Philosophy
Early Greek Philosophy
By John Burnet
.
.
Note on the Fourth EditionThe present is a reprint of the third edition, but the opportunity has been taken to incorporate a couple of additional references and one correction which the author had noted in his own copy and to correct some misprints and trivial slips.
W. L. Lorimer
St. Andrews, March 1930
Preface to the Third Edition
As a third edition of this work has been called for, and as it has been translated into German,
My aim has been to show that a new thing came into the world with the early Ionian teachers—the thing we call science—and that they first pointed the way which Europe has followed ever since, so that, as I have said elsewhere, it is an adequate description of science to say that it is “thinking about the world in the Greek way.” That is why science has never existed except among peoples who have come under the influence of Greece.
When the first edition of Early Greek Philosophy was published, twenty-eight years ago, the subject was still generally treated in this country from a Hegelian point of view, and many of my conclusions were regarded as paradoxes. Some of these are now accepted by most people, but there are two which still provoke opposition. In the first place, I ventured to call Parmenides “the father of Materialism,” and it is still maintained in some quarters that he was an Idealist (a modern term, which is most
The other paradox which has still to win acceptance is my contention that the opposite view which finds reality not in matter, but in form, the Platonist view in short, goes back to the Pythagoreans, and was already familiar to Sokrates, though it was not formulated in a perfectly clear way till the days of the Platonic Academy. I am convinced that this can only be made good by a fresh interpretation in detail of the Platonic dialogues, and I am now engaged on that task. It is necessary to make it quite clear that the interpretation current in the nineteenth century was based on certain assumptions, for which no evidence has ever been offered, and which are most improbable in themselves. I cannot discuss this further here, but I hope to have an early opportunity of doing so.
J. B.
St. Andrews, July 1920
1 Die Anfänge der griechischen Philosophie, aus dem Englischen übersetzt von Else Schenkl (Berlin, Teubner, 1913).
2 L’Aurore de la Philosophie grecque, édition française, par Aug. Reymond (Paris, Payot, 1919).
3 W. T. Stace, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, London, 1920, pp. 46 sqq.
Early Greek Philosophy
Introduction
I. The Cosmological Character of Early Greek Philosophy. It was not till the traditional view of the world and the customary rules of life had broken down, that the Greeks began to feel the needs which philosophies of nature and of conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were those needs felt all at once. The ancestral maxims of conduct were not seriously questioned till the old view of nature had passed away; and, for this reason, the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly with speculations about the world around them. In due season, Logic was called into being to meet a fresh want. The pursuit of cosmological inquiry had brought to light a wide divergence between science and common sense, which was itself 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, the prevailing interest in logical matters raised the question of the origin and validity of knowledge; 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 thus a distinctive character of its own, and may fitly be treated apart.
1 It will be observed that Demokritos falls outside the period thus defined. The common practice of treating this younger contemporary of Socrates along with the “Pre-Socratics” obscures the historical development altogether. Demokritos comes after Protagoras, and he has to face the problems of knowledge and conduct far more seriously than his predecessors had done (see Brochard, “Protagoras et Démocrite,” Arch. ii. p. 368).
II. The Traditional View of the World. It must, however, be remembered that the world was already very old when science and philosophy began. In particular, the Aegean Sea had been the seat of a high civilisation from the Neolithic age onwards, a civilisation as ancient as that of Egypt or of Babylon, and superior to either in most things that matter. It is becoming clearer every day that the Greek civilisation of later days was mainly the revival and continuation of this, though it no doubt received certain new and important elements from the less civilised northern peoples who for a time arrested its development. The original Mediterranean population must have far outnumbered the intruders, and must have assimilated and absorbed them in a few generations, except in a state like Sparta, which deliberately set itself to resist the process. At any rate, it is to the older race we owe Greek Art and Greek Science.
2 See Sir Arthur Evans, “The Minoan and Mycenean Element in Hellenic Life” (J.H.S. xxxii. 277 sqq.), where it is contended (p. 278) that “The people whom we discern in the new dawn are not the pale-skinned northerners—the ‘yellow-haired Achaeans’ and the rest—but essentially the dark-haired, brown-complexioned race…of whom we find the earlier portraiture in the Minoan and Mycenean wall-paintings.” But, if the Greeks of historical times were the same people as the “Minoans,” why should Sir Arthur Evans hesitate to call the “Minoans” Greeks? The Achaians and Dorians have no special claim to the name; for the Graes of Boiotia, who brought it to Cumae, were of the older race. I can attach no intelligible meaning either to the term “pre-Hellenic.” If it means that the Aegean race was there before the somewhat unimportant Achaian tribe which accidentally gave its name later to the whole nation, that is true, but irrelevant. If, on the other hand, it implies that there was a real change in the population of the Aegean at any time since the end of the Neolithic age, that is untrue, as Sir Arthur Evans himself maintains. If it means (as it probably does) that the Greek language was introduced into the Aegean by the northerners, there is no evidence of that, and it is contrary to analogy. The Greek language, as we know it, is in its vocabulary a mixed speech, like our own, but its essential structure is far liker that of the Indo-Iranian languages than that of any northern branch of Indo-European speech. For instance, the augment is common and peculiar to Sanskrit, Old Persian, and Greek. The Greek language cannot have differed very much from the Persian in the second millennium BC The popular distinction between centum and satem languages is wholly misleading and based on a secondary phenomenon, as is shown by the fact that the Romance languages have become satem languages in historical times. It would be more to the point to note that Greek, like Old Indian and Old Persian, represents the sonant n in the word for “hundred” (ἑκατόν=satam, satem) by a, and to classify it with them as a satem language on that ground.
It is a remarkable fact
This being so, we must be prepared to find that the Greeks of historical times who first tried to understand the world were not at all in the position of men setting out on a hitherto untrodden path. The remains of Aegean art prove that there must have been a tolerably consistent view of the world in existence already, though we cannot hope to recover it in detail till the records are deciphered. The ceremony represented on the sarcophagus of Hagia Triada implies some quite definite view as to the state of the dead, and we may be sure that the Aegean people were as capable of developing theological speculation as were the Egyptians and Babylonians. We shall expect to find traces of this in later days, and it may be said at once that things like the fragments of Pherekydes of Syros are inexplicable except as survivals of some such speculation. There is no ground for supposing that this was borrowed from Egypt, though no doubt these early civilisations all influenced one another. The Egyptians may have borrowed from Crete as readily as the Cretans from Egypt, and there was a seed of life in the sea civilisation which was somehow lacking in that of the great rivers.
On the other hand, it is clear that the northern invaders have assisted the free development of the Greek
III. Homer. We see the working of these influences clearly in Homer. Though he doubtless belonged to the older race himself and used its language,
1 See Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, vol. iv. pp. 98 sqq.
2 This is surely a simpler hypothesis than that of Sir Arthur Evans, who postulates (loc. cit. p. 288) “an earlier Minoan epic taken over into Greek.” The epic dialect has most points of contact with Arcadian and Cypriote, and it is wholly improbable that the Arcadians came from the North. There are sufficient parallels for the prowess of the conqueror being celebrated by a bard of the conquered race (Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, vol. i. p. 664). Does this explain the name Ὅμηρος “hostage”?
3 Professor Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, i. p. 674) points out that the specifically Achaian names, such as Achilles, Odysseus, Aiakos, Aias, Laertes and Peleus cannot be explained from the Greek language, while the names of the older race, such as Herakles, Erichthonios, Erysichthon, etc., can. No doubt Agamemnon and Menelaos have Greek names, but that is because Atreus owed his kingship to the marriage of Pelops with a princess of the older race. It is an instance of the process of assimilation which was going on everywhere.
There are, of course, vestiges of the early
IV. Hesiod. 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 are told quite seriously. Hesiod makes the Muses say: “We know how to tell many false things that are like the truth; but we know too, when we will, to utter what is true.”
1 There are traces of cosmogonical ideas in the Διὸς ἀπάτη (Iliad xiv.).
2 Od. xi. has been referred to a late date because it is supposed to contain Orphic ideas. In the light of our present knowledge, such a hypothesis is quite unnecessary. The ideas in question are primitive, and were probably generally accepted in the Aegean. Orphicism was essentially a revival of primitive beliefs.
3 On all this, see especially Rohde, Psyche3, i. pp. 37 sqq. (= Ps.1 pp. 34 sqq.).
4 Hesiod Theog. 27 (the words are borrowed from Od. xix. 203). The Muses are the same as those who inspired Homer, which means that Hesiod wrote in hexameters and used the Epic dialect.
Yet it would be wrong to see in the Theogony a mere revival of the old superstition. Hesiod could not help being affected by the new spirit, and he became a pioneer in spite 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. The Theogony is an attempt to reduce all the stories about the gods into a single system, and system is fatal to so wayward a thing as mythology. Moreover, though the spirit in which Hesiod treats his theme is that of the older race, the gods of whom he sings are for the most part those of the Achaians. This introduces an element of contradiction into the system from first to last. Herodotos tells us that it was Homer and Hesiod who made a theogony for the Hellenes, who gave the gods their names, and distributed among them their offices and arts,
1 There is great historical insight here. It was Hesiod, not our modern historians, who first pointed out that the “Greek Middle Ages” were a break in the normal development.
2 Herodotus ii. 53.
Such gods were incapable of satisfying the needs of the people, and
V. Cosmogony. Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows himself a child of his time. His Theogony is 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. At any rate, he only mentions the two great cosmogonical figures. Chaos and Eros, and does not really bring them into connexion with his system. The conception of Chaos represents a distinct effort to picture the beginning of things. It is not a formless mixture, but rather, as its etymology indicates, the yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as yet.
We have records of great activity in the production of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century BC, and we know something of the systems of Epimenides, Pherekydes,
1 The word χάος certainly means the “gape” or “yawn,” the Orphic χάσμα πελώριον. Grimm compared it with the Scandinavian Ginnunga Gap.
2 For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels. Vorsokratiker, pp. 506 sqq. (1st ed.), and the interesting account in Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol. i. pp. 85 sqq.
3 This was the view of Lobeck with regard to the so-called “Rhapsodic Theogony” described by Damaskios.
VI. General Characteristics of Early Greek Cosmology. The Ionians, as we can see from their literature, were deeply impressed by the transitoriness of things. There is, in fact, a fundamental pessimism in their outlook on life, such as is natural to an over-civilised age with no very definite religious convictions. We find Mimnermos of Kolophon preoccupied with the sadness of the coming of old age, while at a later date the lament of Simonides, that the generations of men fall like the leaves of the forest, touches a chord that Homer had already struck.
The changes of the seasons are plainly brought about by the encroachments of one pair of opposites, the cold and the wet, on the other pair, the hot and the dry, which in
1 Aristotle Metaphysics N, 4. 1091b 8.
2 See Butcher, “The Melancholy of the Greeks,” in Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, pp. 130 sqq.
3 This is well brought out by Prof. J. L. Myres in a paper entitled “The Background of Greek Science” (University of Chicago Chronicle, vol. xvi. No. 4). There is no need to derive the doctrine of the “opposites” from a “religious representation” as Mr. Cornford does in the first chapter of From Religion to Philosophy. In Greece these force themselves upon our attention quite apart from anything of the sort. Of course they are also important in agrarian magic for practical reasons.
That, however, was not enough. The earliest cosmologists could find no satisfaction in the view of the world as a perpetual contest between opposites. They felt that these must somehow have a common ground, from which they had issued and to which they must return once more. They were in search of something more primary than the opposites, something which persisted through all change, and ceased to exist in one form only to reappear in another. That this was really the spirit in which they entered on their quest is shown by the fact that they spoke of this something as “ageless” and “deathless.”
1 Ar. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 b 14 ἀθάνατον γὰρ καὶ ἀνώλεθρον (sc. τὸ ἄπειρον), ὥς φησιν Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν φυσιολόγων Hipp. Ref. i. 6, 1 φύσιν τινὰ τοῦ ἀπείρου … ταύτην δ’ ἀίδιον εἶναι καὶ ἀγήρω. The epithets come from the Epic, where ἀθάνατος καὶ ἀγήρως is a standing phrase to mark the difference between gods and men.
2 As it has been suggested that the Monism ascribed by later writers to the early cosmologists is only based on Aristotle’s distinction between those who postulated one ἀρχή and those who postulated more than one (Physics A, 2. 184 b 15 sqq.), and is not therefore strictly historical, it will be well to quote a pre-Aristotelian testimony for it. In the Hippokratean Περὶ φύσιος ἀνθρώπου (Littré, vi. 32) we read φασί τε γὰρ ἕν τι εἶναι ὅτι ἔστι, καὶ τοῦτ’ εἶναι τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ πᾶν, κατὰ δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα οὐκ ὁμολογέουσι· λέγει δ’ αὐτῶν ὁ μέν τις φάσκων ἀέρα εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ πᾶν, ὁ δὲ πῦρ, ὁ δὲ ὕδωρ, ὁ δὲ γῆν, καὶ ἐπιλέγει ἕκαστος τῷ ἑωυτοῦ λόγῳ μαρτύριά τε καὶ τεκμήρια ἅ γε ἔστιν οὐδέν.
VII. Φύσις {Physis}. Now, Ionian science was introduced into Athens by Anaxagoras about the time Euripides was born, and there are sufficient traces of its influence on him.
ὄλβιος ὅστις τῆς ἱστορίας
ἔσχε μάθησιν, μήτε πολιτῶν
ἐπὶ πημοσύνας μήτ’ εἰς ἀδίκους
πράξεις ὁρμῶν,
ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτου καθορῶν φύσεως
κόσμον ἀγήρω, τίς τε συνέστη
καὶ ὅπη καὶ ὅπως·
τοῖς τοιούτοις οὐδέποτ’ αἰσχρῶν
ἔργων μελέτημα προσίζει.
This fragment is clear evidence that, in the fifth century BC, the name φύσις was given to the everlasting something of which the world was made. That is quite in accordance with the history of the word, so far as we can make it out. Its original meaning appears to be the “stuff” of which
1 See below, § 123.
2 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 96 a 7 ταύτης τῆς σοφίας ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν This is the oldest and most trustworthy statement as to the name originally given to science. I lay no stress on the fact that the books of the early cosmologists are generally quoted under the title Περὶ φύσεως, as such titles are probably of later date.
3 Eur. fr. inc. 910. The word κόσμος here means, of course, “ordering,” “arrangement,” and ἀγήρω is genitive. The object of research is firstly what is “the ordering of immortal ageless φύσις,” and secondly, how it arose. Anaxagoras, who introduced Ionian science to Athens, had belonged to the school of Anaximenes (§ 122). We know from Aristotle (loc. cit. p. 9 n. 1) that not only Anaximander, but most of the φυσιολόγοι, applied epithets like this to the Boundless.
The term ἀρχή, which is often used in our authorities, is in this sense purely Aristotelian.
Now, if this is so, we can understand at once why the Ionians called science Περὶ
1 Aristotle Physics A, 6. οἱ μίαν τινὰ φύσιν εἶναι λέγοντες τὸ πᾶν, οἷον ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ ἢ τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων, B, I. 193 a 21 οἱ μὲν πῦρ, οἱ δὲ γῆν, οἱ δ’ ἀέρα φασίν, οἱ δὲ ὕδωρ, οἱ δ’ ἔνια τούτων, (Parmenides), of οἱ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα (Empedokles) τὴν φύσιν εἶναι τὴν τῶν ὄντων.
2 For the history of the term φύσις, see Appendix I.
3 Professor W. A. Heidel has shown that the cosmologists might have used ἀρχή in a sense different from Aristotle’s, that, namely, of “source,” “store,” or “collective mass,” from which particular things are derived (Class. Phil. vii. pp. 217 sqq.). I should be quite willing to accept this account of the matter if I could find any evidence that they used the term at all. It is only in the case of Anaximander that there is even a semblance of such evidence, and I believe that to be illusory (p. 54, n. 2). Moreover, Diels has shown that the first book of Theophrastos’s great work dealt with the ἀρχή in the Aristotelian sense, and it is very unlikely that the word should have been used in one sense of Anaximander and in another of the rest.
4 Phys. A, 2. 184 b 15 sqq. It is of great importance to remember that Theophrastos and his followers simply adopted the classification of this chapter, which has no claim to be regarded as historical.
VIII. Motion and Rest. According to Aristotle and his followers, the early cosmologists believed also in an “eternal motion” (ἀίδιος κίνησις) but that is probably their own way of putting the thing. It is not at all likely that the Ionians said anything about the eternity of motion in their writings. In early times, it is not movement but rest that has to be accounted for, and it is unlikely that the origin of motion was discussed till its possibility had been denied. As we shall see, that was done by Parmenides; and accordingly his successors, accepting the fact of motion, were bound to show how it originated. I understand Aristotle’s statement, then, as meaning no more than that the early thinkers did not feel the need of assigning an origin for motion. The eternity of motion is an inference, which is substantially correct, but is misleading in so far as it suggests deliberate rejection of a doctrine not yet formulated.
1 I am conscious of the unsatisfactory character of the phrase “primary substance” (πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον), but it is hard to find a better. The German Urstoff is less misleading in its associations, but the English “stuff” is not very satisfactory.
2 The view of O. Gilbert (Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums, Leipzig, 1907) that the early cosmologists started from the traditional and popular theory of “the four elements” derives all its plausibility from the ambiguity of the term “element.” If we only mean the great aggregates of Fire, Air, Water and Earth, there is no doubt that these were distinguished from an early date. But that is not what is meant by an “element” (στοιχεῖον) in cosmology, where it is always an irreducible something with a φύσις of its own. The remarkable thing really is that the early cosmologists went behind the theory of “elements” in the popular sense, and it was only the accident that Empedokles, the first to maintain a plurality of elements, selected the four that have become traditional that has led to the loose use of the word “element” for the great aggregates referred to.
3 This way of thinking is often called Hylozoism, but that is still more misleading. No doubt the early cosmologists said things about the world and the primary substance which, from our point of view, imply that they are alive; but that is a very different thing from ascribing a “plastic power” to “matter.” The concept of “matter” did not yet exist and the underlying assumption is simply that everything, life included, can be explained mechanically, as we say, that is, by body in motion. Even that is not stated explicitly, but taken for granted.
IX. The Secular Character of Ionian Science. In all this, there is no trace of theological speculation. We have seen that there had been a complete break with the early Aegean religion, and that the Olympian polytheism never had a firm hold on the Ionian mind. It is therefore quite wrong to look for the origins of Ionian science in mythological ideas of any kind. No doubt there were many vestiges of the older beliefs and practices in
1 It was Aristotle who first took the fateful step of identifying the “eternal motion” with the diurnal revolution of the heavens.
2 Plato Timaeus 30 a.
3 As I understand him, Prof. W. A. Heidel regards the “eternal motion” as a rotary or vortex motion (δίνη), on the ground that it is hazardous to assume that an early thinker, such as Anaximenes, “distinguished between the primordial motion of the infinite Air and the original motion in the cosmos” (see his article, “The δίνη in Anaximenes and Anaximander,” Classical Philology, i. p. 279). It seems to me, on the other hand, that any one who held the world had come into being must have made such a distinction, especially if he also held the doctrine of innumerable worlds. As will be seen later, I adopt Prof. Heidel’s view that the “original motion of the cosmos” was a rotary one in the earliest cosmological systems, but it was certainly not “eternal,” and I do not think we can infer anything from it as to the pre-mundane motion, except that it must have been of such a nature that it could give rise to the δίνη.
We must not be misled by the use of the word θεός in the remains that have come down to us. It is quite true that the Ionians applied it to the “primary substance” and to the world or worlds, but that means no more and no less than the use of the divine epithets “ageless” and “deathless” to which we have referred already. In its religious sense the word “god” always means first and foremost an object of worship, but already in Homer that has ceased to be its only signification. Hesiod’s Theogony is the best evidence of the change. It is clear that many of the gods mentioned there were never worshipped by any one, and some of them are mere personifications of natural phenomena, or even of human passions.
We see this, above all, from the fact that, while primitive
1 See Hogarth, Ionia and the East, pp. 68 sqq.
2 No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos, and still less can Phobos and Deimos be regarded as gods in the religious sense.
3 This is, I venture to think, the fundamental error of Mr. Cornford’s interesting book, From Religion to Philosophy (1912). He fails to realise how completely the old “collective representations” had lost their hold in Ionia. We shall see that his method is more applicable when he comes to deal with the western regions, but even there he does not recognise sufficiently the contrast between Ionian science and the old tradition.
X. Alleged Oriental Origin of Philosophy. We have also to face the question of the nature and extent of the influence exercised by what we call Eastern wisdom on the Greek mind. It is a common idea even now that the Greeks in some way derived their philosophy from Egypt and Babylon, and we must therefore try to understand as clearly as possible what such a statement really means. To begin with, we must observe that the question wears a very different aspect now that we know the great antiquity of the Aegean civilisation. Much that has been regarded as Oriental may just as well be native. As for later influences, we must insist that no writer of the period during which Greek philosophy flourished knows anything of its having come from the East. Herodotos would not have omitted to say so, had he heard of it; for it would have confirmed his own belief in the Egyptian origin of Greek religion and civilisation.
1 The importance of this point can hardly be exaggerated. See Prof. A. E. Taylor, Aristotle, p. 58.
2 All he can say is that the worship of Dionysos and the doctrine of transmigration came from Egypt (ii. 49, 123). We shall see that both these statements are incorrect, and in any case they do not imply anything directly as to philosophy.
3 In Rep. 435 e, after saying that τὸ θυμοειδές is characteristic of the Thracians and Scythians, and τὸ φιλομαθές of the Hellenes, he refers us to Phoenicia and Egypt for τὸ φιλοχρήματον. In the Laws he says (747 b 6) that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove all ἀνελευθερία and φιλοχρηματία from the souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce πανουργία instead of σοφία, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, and many other peoples do.
4 Aristotle Met. A, 1. 981 b 23.
This method of interpretation culminated with the Neopythagorean Noumenios, from whom it passed to the Christian Apologists. It is Noumenios {Numenius} who asks, “What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic?”
1 Noumenios, fr. 13 R. P. 624 Τί γὰρ ἐστι Πλάτων ῆ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων:
2 Clement (Strom. i. p. 8, 5, Stählin) calls Plato ὁ ἐξ Ἑβραίων φιλόσοφος.
3 Exaggerated notions of Oriental wisdom were popularised by the Encyclopédie, which accounts for their diffusion and persistence. Bailly (Lettres sur l’origine des sciences) assumed that the Orientals had received fragments of highly advanced science from a people which had disappeared, but which he identified with the inhabitants of Plato’s Atlantis!
4 We learn from Strabo (xvi. p. 757) that it was Poseidonios who introduced Mochos of Sidon into the history of philosophy. He attributes the atomic theory to him. His identification with Moses, however, is a later tour de force due to Philon of Byblos, who published a translation of an ancient Phoenician history by Sanchuniathon, which was used by Porphyry and afterwards by Eusebios.
Of course no one nowadays would rest the case for the Oriental origin of Greek philosophy on the evidence of Clement or Eusebios; the favourite argument in recent times has been the analogy of the arts. We are seeing more and more, it is said, that the Greeks derived their art from the East; and it is urged that the same will in all probability prove true of their philosophy. That is a specious argument, but not at all conclusive. It ignores the difference in the way these things are transmitted from people to people. Material civilisation and the arts may pass easily from one people to another, though they have not a common language, but philosophy can only be expressed in abstract language, and can only be transmitted by educated men, whether by means of books or oral teaching. Now we know of no Greek, in the times we are dealing with, who could read an Egyptian book or even listen to the discourse of an Egyptian priest, and we never hear till a late date of Oriental teachers who wrote or spoke in Greek. The Greek traveller in Egypt would no doubt pick up a few words of Egyptian, and it is taken for granted that the priests could make themselves understood by the Greeks.
But really it is not worth while to ask whether the communication of philosophical ideas was possible or not, till some evidence has been produced that any of these
1 Herodotus ii. 143 (where they boast to Hekataios of their superior antiquity); Plato, Tim. 22 b 3 (where they do the same to Solon).
2 Gomperz’s “native bride,” who discusses the wisdom of her people with her Greek lord (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 95), does not convince me either. 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 less philosophy or science.
XI. Egyptian Mathematics. It would, however, be another thing to say that Greek philosophy originated quite independently of Oriental influences. The Greeks themselves believed their mathematical science to be of Egyptian origin, and they must have known something of Babylonian astronomy. It cannot be an accident that philosophy originated just at the time when communication with these two countries was easiest, and that the very man who was said to have introduced geometry from Egypt is also regarded as the first philosopher. It thus becomes important for us to discover what Egyptian mathematics meant. We shall see that even here, the Greeks were really original.
The Rhind papyrus in the British Museum
1 I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor’s Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp. 46-63. See also Gow’s Short History of Greek Mathematics, §§ 73-80; and Milhaud, La Science grecque, pp. 91 sqq. The discussion in the last-named work is of special value because it is based on M. Rodet’s paper in the Bulletin de la Société Mathématique, vol. vi., which in some important respects supplements the interpretation of Eisenlohr, on which the earlier accounts depend.
The geometry of the Rhind papyrus is of a similarly utilitarian character, and Herodotos, who tells us that Egyptian geometry arose from the necessity of measuring the land afresh after the inundations, is obviously far nearer the mark than Aristotle, who says that it grew out of the leisure enjoyed by the priestly caste.
1 Plato, Laws, 819b 4 μήλων τέ τινων διανομαὶ καὶ στεφάνων πλείοσιν ἅμα καὶ ἐλάττοσιν ἁρμοττόντων ἀριθμῶν τῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ πυκτῶν καὶ παλαιστῶν ἐφεδρείας τε καὶ συλλήξεως ἐν μέρει καὶ ἐφεξῆς καὶ ὡς πεφύκασι γίγνεσθαι. καὶ δὴ καὶ παίζοντες, φιάλας ἅμα χρυσοῦ καὶ χαλκοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου καὶ τοιούτων τινῶν ἄλλων κεραννύντες, οἱ δὲ καὶ ὅλας πως διαδιδόντες.
2 Herodotus ii. 109; Aristotle Met. A, 1. 981b 23.
1 For a fuller account of this method see Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, pp. 127 sqq.; and Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 99.
2 R. P. 188. It should be stated that Diels now considers this fragment spurious (Vors. 3 ii. p. 124). He regards it, in fact, as from an Alexandrian forgery intended to show the derivative character of Greek science, while insisting on its superiority. However that may be the word ἀρπεδονάπται is no doubt a real one, and the inference drawn from it in the text is justified.
3 The real meaning of ἀρπεδονάτης was first pointed out by Cantor. The gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of the “arpedonapts.”
4 See Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 103.
XII. Babylonian Astronomy. The other source from which the Ionians were supposed to have derived their science is Babylonian astronomy. It is certain, of course, that the Babylonians had observed the heavens from an early date. They had planned out the fixed stars, and especially those of the zodiac, in constellations.
1 Cf. e.g. κύκλος, κύλινδρος. Very often these terms are derived from the names of tools, e.g. γνώμων, which is the carpenter’s square, and τομεύς, “sector,” which is a cobbler’s knife. The word πυραμίς is sometimes supposed to be an exception and has been derived from the term piremus used in the Rhind papyrus, which, however, does not mean “pyramid” (p. 19); but it too is Greek. Πυραμίς (or πυραμοῦς) means a “wheat-cake,” and is formed from πυροί on the analogy of σησαμίς (or σησαμοῦς). The Greeks had a tendency to give jocular names to things Egyptian. Cf. κροκόδειλος, ὀβελίσκος, στρουθός, καταράκτης (lit. “sluice”). We seem to hear an echo of the slang of the mercenaries who cut their names on the colossus at Abu-Simbel.
2 That is not quite the same thing as dividing the zodiac into twelve signs of 30° each. There is no evidence of this before the sixth century BC It is also to be noted that, while a certain number of names for constellations appear to have reached the Greeks from Babylon, most of them are derived from Greek mythology, and from its oldest stratum, which became localised in Crete, Arkadia, and Boiotia. That points to the conclusion that the constellations were already named in “Minoan” times. The disproportionate space occupied by Andromeda and her relatives points to the time when Crete and Philistia were in close contact. There is a clue here which has been obscured by the theory of “astral mythology.”
We shall see that Thales probably knew the cycle by means of which the Babylonians tried to predict eclipses (§ 3); but it would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of Babylonian
1 All this has been placed beyond doubt by the researches of Father Kugler (Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, 1907). There is a most interesting account and discussion of his results by Schiaparelli in Scientia, vol. iii. pp. 213 sqq., and vol. iv. pp. 24 sqq., the last work of the great astronomer. These discussions were not available when I published my second edition, and I made some quite unnecessary concessions as to Babylonian astronomy there. In particular, I was led by some remarks of Ginzel (Klio, i. p. 205) to admit that the Babylonians might have observed the precession of the equinoxes, but this is practically impossible in the light of our present knowledge. There is a good note on the subject in Schiaparelli’s second article (Scientia, iv. p. 34). The chief reason why the Babylonians could have no records of astronomical records from an early date is that they had no method of keeping the lunar and the solar year together, nor was there any control such as is furnished by the Egyptian Sothis period. Neither the ὀκταετηρίς or the ἐννεακαιδεκατηρίς was known to them till the close of the sixth century BCThey are purely Greek inventions.
1 In classical Greek literature, no planets but Ἕσπερος and Ἑωσφόρος are mentioned by name at all. Parmenides (or Pythagoras) first identified these as a single planet (§ 94). Mercury appears for the first time by name in Tim. 38e, and the other divine names are given in Epin. 987b sq., where they are said to be “Syrian.” The Greek names Φαίνων, Φαέθων, Πυρόεις, Φωσφόρος, Στίλβων, are no doubt older, though they do not happen to occur earlier.
2 The earliest reference to them is in Plato’s Epinomis, 987a. They are also referred to by Aristotle, De caelo, B, 12. 292 a 8.
3 The view of Berger (Erdkunde, pp. 171 sqq.) that the sphericity of the earth was known in Egypt and Babylon is flatly contradicted by all the evidence known to me.
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 certain rules of mensuration which, when generalised, gave birth to geometry; while from Babylon they learnt that the phenomena of the heavens recur in cycles. This piece of knowledge doubtless had a great deal to do with the rise of science; for to the Greek it suggested further questions such as no Babylonian ever dreamt of.
XIII. The Scientific Character of the Early Greek Cosmology. It is necessary to insist on the scientific character of the philosophy we are about to study. We have seen that the Eastern peoples were considerably richer than the Greeks in accumulated facts, though these facts had not been observed for any scientific purpose, and never suggested a revision of the primitive view of the world. The Greeks, however, saw in them something that could be turned to account, and they were never as a people slow to act on the maxim, Chacun prend son bien partout où il le trouve. The visit of Solon to Croesus which Herodotos describes, however unhistorical it may be, gives us a good idea of this spirit.
1 The earliest reference to astrology among the Greeks appears to be Plato, Tim. 40c 9 (of conjunctions, oppositions, occultations, etc.), φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι πέμπουσιν. That is quite general, but Theophrastos was more definite. Cf. the commentary of Proclus on the passage: θαυμασιωτάτην εἶναι φησιν ἐν τοῖς κατ’ αὐτὸν χρόνοις τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων θεωρίαν τά τε ἄλλα προλέγουσαν καὶ τοὺς βίους ἑκάστων καὶ τοὺς θανάτους καὶ οὐ τὰ κοινὰ μόνον. The Stoics, and especially Poseidonios, were responsible for the introduction of astrology into Greece, and it has recently been shown that the fully developed system known in later days was based on the Stoic doctrine of εἱμαρμένη. See the very important article by Boll in Neue Jahrb. xxi. (1908), p. 108.
2 The Platonic account of this matter is to be found in the Epinomis, 986e 9 sqq., and is summed up by the words λάβωμεν δὲ ὡς ὅτιπερ ἂν Ἕλληνες βαρβάρων παραλάβωσι, κάλλιον τοῦτο εἰς τέλος ἀπεργάζονται (987d 9). The point is well put by Theon (Adrastos), Exp. p. 177, 20 Hiller, who speaks of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians as ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀτελεῖς ποιούμενοι τὰς μεθόδους, δέον ἅμα καὶ φυσικῶς περὶ τούτων ἐπισκοπεῖν· ὅπερ οἱ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἀστρολογήσαντες ἐπειρῶντο ποιεῖν, τὰς παρὰ τούτων λαβόντες ἀρχὰς καὶ τῶν φαινομένων τηρήσεις. This gives the view taken at Alexandria, where the facts were accurately known.
There is no justification either for the idea that Greek science was built up by more or less lucky guesswork, instead of by observation and experiment. The nature
1 Still, the word θεωρία never lost its early associations, and the Greeks always felt that the θεωρητικὸς βίος meant literally “the life of the spectator.” Its special use and the whole theory of the “three lives” seem to be Pythagorean. (See § 45.)
1 As we saw, the word γνώμων properly means a carpenter’s square (p. 21, n. 1), and we learn from Proclus (in Eucl. I. p. 283, 7) that Oinopides of Chios used it in the sense of a perpendicular (κάθετος) The instrument so called was simply an upright erected on a flat surface, and its chief use was to indicate the solstices and the equinoxes by means of its shadow. It was not a sundial; for it afforded no means of dividing the day into equal hours, though the time of day would be approximately inferred from the length of the shadow cast by it. For the geometrical use of the term, see below, p. 103, n. 1.
Of course the great difficulty for us is the geocentric hypothesis from which science inevitably started, though only to outgrow it in a surprisingly short time. So long as the earth 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 in this point of view, and indeed we have no suitable word to express what the Greeks at first called an οὐρανός. It will be convenient to use the term “world” for it; but then we must remember that it does not refer solely, or even chiefly, to the earth, though it includes that along with the heavenly bodies.
The science of the sixth century was mainly concerned, therefore, with those parts of the world that are “aloft” (τὰ μετέωρα) and these include such things as clouds, rainbows, and lightning, as well as the heavenly bodies.
1 The restricted sense of μετεωρολογία only arose when Aristotle introduced for the first time the fateful distinction between the οὐρανός and the “sublunary” region, to which it was now confined. In so far as they make no such distinction, the early cosmologists were more scientific than Aristotle. Their views admitted of correction and development; Aristotle’s theory arrested the growth of science.
XIV. Schools of Philosophy. Theophrastos, the first writer to treat the history of Greek philosophy in a systematic way,
1 It is well, however, to remember that Galileo himself regarded comets as meteorological phenomena.
2 This phrase originated in the school of Plato. The method of research in use there was for the leader to “propound” (προτείνειν, προβάλλεσθαι) it as a “problem” (πρόβλημα) to find the simplest “hypothesis” (τίνων ὑποτεθέντων) on which it is possible to account for and do justice to all the observed facts (σῴζειν τὰ φαινόμενα). Cf. Milton, Paradise Lost, viii. 81, “how build, unbuild, contrive | To save appearances.”
3 see Note on Sources, § 7.
In almost every department of life, the corporation at first is everything and the individual nothing. The peoples of the East hardly got beyond this stage; their science, such as it is, is anonymous, the inherited property of a caste or guild, and we still see clearly in some cases that it was once the same among the Greeks. Medicine, for instance, was originally the “mystery” of the Asklepiads. What distinguished the Greeks from other peoples was that at an early date these crafts came under the influence of outstanding individuals, who gave them a fresh direction and new impulse. But this does not destroy the corporate character of the craft; it rather intensifies it. The guild becomes what we call a “school,” and the disciple takes the place of the apprentice. That is a vital change. A close guild with none but official heads is essentially conservative, while a band of disciples attached to a master they revere is the greatest progressive force the world knows.
It is certain that the later Athenian schools were legally recognised corporations, the oldst of which, the Academy, maintained its existence as such for some nine hundred years, and the only question we have to decide is whether this was an innovation made in the fourth century BC, or rather the continuance of an old tradition. Now we have the authority of Plato for speaking of the chief early systems as handed down in schools. He makes Sokrates speak of “the men of Ephesos,” the Herakleiteans, as forming a strong body in his own day,
1 Theaet. 179e 4, αὐτοῖς … τοῖς περὶ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The humorous denial that the Herakleiteans had any disciples (180 b 8, Ποίοις μαθηταῖς, ὦ δαιμόνιε;) implies that this was the normal and recognised relation.
2 Soph. 242d 4, τὸ … παρ’ ἡμῖν Ἐλεατικὸν ἔθνος. Cf. ib. 216a 3, ἑταῖρον δὲ τῶν ἀμφὶ Παρμενίδην καὶ Ζήνωνα [ἑταίρων], (where ἑταίρων is probably interpolated, but gives the right sense); 217a 1, οἱ περὶ τὸν ἐκεῖ τόπον.
3 Crat. 409b 6, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ οἱ Ἀναξαγόρειοι λέγουσιν. Cf. also the Δισσοὶ λόγοι (Diels, Vors. 3 ii. p. 343) τί δὲ Ἀναξαγορειοι καὶ Πυθαγόρειοι ἦεν; This is independent of Plato.
1 Cf. Chap. VI. § 122.
Note on the Sources
A. Philosophers.
1. Plato. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell on the history of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical and epistemological inquiry; but when he does, he is always illuminating. His artistic gift and his power of entering into the thoughts of other men enabled him to describe the views of early philosophers in a sympathetic manner, and he never, except in a playful and ironical way, sought to read unthought of meanings into the words of his predecessors. He has, in fact, a historical sense, which was a rare thing in antiquity.
The passage of the Phaedo (96 a sqq.) where he describes the state of scientific opinion at Athens in the middle of the fifth century is invaluable for our purposes.
2. Aristotle. As a rule, Aristotle’s statements about early philosophers are far less historical than Plato’s. He nearly always discusses the facts from the point of view of his own system, and that system, resting as it does on the deification of the apparent diurnal revolution of the heavens, made it very hard for him to appreciate more scientific views. He is convinced that his own philosophy accomplishes what all previous philosophers had aimed at, and their systems are therefore regarded as “lisping” attempts to formulate it (Metaphysics A, 10, 993 a 15). It is also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in a much more sympathetic way than others. He is distinctly unfair to the Eleatics, for
3. Stoics. The Stoics, and especially Chrysippos, paid great attention to early philosophy, but their way of regarding it was simply an exaggeration of Aristotle’s. They did not content themselves with criticising their predecessors from their own point of view; they seem really to have believed that the early poets and thinkers taught doctrines hardly distinguishable from their own. The word συνοικειοῦν, which Cicero renders by accommodare, was used by Philodemos to denote this method of interpretation,
4. Skeptics. The same remarks apply mutatis mutandis to the Skeptics. The interest of such a writer as Sextus Empiricus in early philosophy is mainly to exhibit its contradictions. But what he tells us is often of value; for he frequently quotes early views as to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis.
5. Neoplatonists. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators on Aristotle in so far as they are independent of the Theophrastean tradition. Their chief characteristic is what Simplicius calls εὐγνωμοσύνη, that is, a liberal spirit of interpretation, which makes all early philosophers agree with one another in upholding the doctrine of a Sensible and an Intelligible World. It is, however, to Simplicius
1 Cf. Cic. De nat. d. i. 15, 41: “Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo libro 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 quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.” Cf. Philod. De piet. fr. c. 13, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ τά τε εἰς Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον ἀναφερόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ καὶ ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς καὶ Κλεάνθης, πειρᾶται συνοικειοῦν ταῖς δόξαις αὐτῶν.
B. Doxographers.
6. The Doxographi Graeci. The Doxographi Graeci of Professor Hermann Diels (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 if we bear constantly in mind the results of his investigation. Here it will only be possible to give an outline which may help the reader to find his way in the Doxographi Graeci itself.
7. The “Opinions” of Theophrastos. By the term doxographers we understand all those writers who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the great work of Theophrastos, (Φυσικῶν δοξῶν ιή (Diog. v. 46). Of this work, one considerable chapter, that entitled Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, has been preserved (Dox. pp. 499-527). And Usener, following Brandis, further showed that there were important fragments of it contained in the commentary of Simplicius (sixth cent. AD) on the First Book of Aristotle’s Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις (Usener, Analecta Theophrastea, pp. 25 sqq.). These extracts Simplicius seems to have borrowed in turn from Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. AD 200); cf. Dox. p. 112 sqq. We thus possess a very considerable portion of the First Book, which dealt with the ἀρχαί, as well as practically the whole of the last Book.
From these remains it clearly appears that the method of Theophrastos was to discuss in separate books the leading topics which had engaged the attention of philosophers from Thales to Plato. 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 carefully noted. The First Book, however, was in some degree exceptional; for
8. Doxographers. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the epitomators and compilers of handbooks, who flourished more and more as the Greek genius declined. These either 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 they applied. This latter class form the natural transition between the doxographers proper and the biographers, so I have ventured to distinguish them by the name of biographical doxographers.
I. Doxographers Proper.
9. The Placita and Stobaios. These are now mainly represented by two works, viz. the Placita Philosophorum, included among the writings ascribed to Plutarch, and the Eclogae Physicae of John Stobaios (c. AD 470). The latter originally formed one work with the Florilegium of the same author, and includes a transcript of some epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-Plutarchean Placita. It is, however, demonstrable that neither the Placita nor the doxography of the Eclogae is the original of the other. The latter is usually the fuller of the two, and yet the former must be earlier; for it was used by Athenagoras for his defence of the Christians in AD 177 (Dox. p. 4). It was also the source of the notices in Eusebios and Cyril, and of the History of Philosophy ascribed to Galen. From these writers many important corrections of the text have been derived (Dox. pp. 5 sqq.).
Another writer who made use of the Placita is Achilles (not Achilles Tatius). For his Εἰσαγωγή to the Phaenomena of Aratos see Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, pp. 25–75. His date is uncertain, but probably he belongs to the third century AD (Dox. p. 18).
10. Aetios. What, then, was the common source of the Placita
11. The Vetusta Placita. Diels has shown further, however, that Aetios did not draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an intermediate epitome which he calls the Vetusta Placita, traces of which may be found in Cicero (infra, § 12), and in Censorinus (De die natali), who follows Varro. The Vetusta Placita were composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels now calls them the Poseidonian Ἀρέσκοντα (Über 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 unintelligent additions which Aetios made from Epicurean and other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents of the Vetusta Placita (Dox. pp. 181 sqq.), and this gives us a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by Theophrastos.
12. Cicero. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxographers, and not with the philosophers; for he gives us nothing but extracts at second or third hand from the work of Theophrastos. Two passages in his writings fall to be considered under this head, namely, “Lucullus” (Acad. ii.), 118, and De natura deorum, i. 25-41.
(a) Doxography of the “Lucullus.”—This contains a meagre and inaccurately rendered summary of the various opinions held by philosophers with regard to the ἀρχή (Dox. pp. 119 sqq.), and would be quite useless if it did not in one
(b) Doxography of the “De natura deorum.”—A fresh light was thrown upon this important passage by the discovery at Herculaneum of a roll containing fragments of an Epicurean treatise, so like it as to be at once regarded as its original. This treatise was at first ascribed to Phaidros, on the ground of the reference in Epp. ad Att. xiii. 39. 2; but the real title, Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, was afterwards restored (Dox. p. 530). Diels, however, has shown (Dox. pp. 122 sqq.) that there is much to be said for the view that Cicero did not copy Philodemos, but that both drew from a common source (no doubt Phaidros, Περὶ θεῶν) which itself went back to a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos. The passage of Cicero and the relevant fragments of Philodemos are edited in parallel columns by Diels (Dox. pp. 531 sqq.).
II. Biographical Doxographers
13. Hippolytos. Of the “biographical doxographies,” the most: important is 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 first published at Oxford in 1854, showed finally that it could not belong to him. It is 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, 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. The Stromateis. The fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean Stromateis, quoted by Eusebios in his Praeparatio Evangelica, come from
15. “Diogenes Laertios.” The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes Laertios, or Laertios Diogenes (cf. Usener, Epicurea, pp. 1 sqq.), contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies. One is of the merely biographical, anecdotic, and apophthegmatic kind used by Hippolytos in his first four chapters; the other is of a better class, more like the source of Hippolytos’ remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise this “contamination” by referring to the first doxography as a “summary” (κεφαλαιώδης) account, while the second is called “particular” (ἐπὶ μέρους).
16. Patristic Doxographies. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in Eusebios (P. E. x., xiv., xv.), Theodoret ( Graecorum affectionum curatio ii. 9-11), Irenaeus (C. haer. ii. 24), Arnobius (Adv. nat. ii. 9), Augustine (Civ. Dei, viii. 2). These depend mainly upon the writers of “Successions,” whom we shall have to consider in the next section.
C. Biographers
17. Successions. The first to write a work entitled Successions of the Philosophers was Sotion (Diog. ii. 12; R.P. 4 a), about 200 BC The arrangement of his work is explained in Dox. p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos. Other writers of Διαδοχαί were Antisthenes, Sosikrates, and Alexander. All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre doxography, and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.
18. Hermippos. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as Καλλιμάχειος (c. 200 BC), wrote several biographical works |38| which are frequently quoted. The biographical details are very untrustworthy; but sometimes bibliographical information is added, which doubtless rests upon the Πίνακες of Kallimachos.
19. Satyros. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, wrote (c. 160 BC) Lives of Famous Men. The same remarks apply to him as to Hermippos. His work was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos.
20. “Diogenes Laertios.” The work which goes by the name of Laertios Diogenes is, in its biographical parts, a mere patchwork of all earlier learning. It has not been digested or composed by any single mind at all, but is little more than a collection of extracts made at haphazard. But, of course, it contains much that is of the greatest value.
D. Chronologists
21. Eratosthenes and Apollodoros. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes of Kyrene (275-194 BC); but his work was soon supplanted by the metrical version of Apollodoros (c. 140 BC), from which most of our information as to the dates of early philosophers is derived. See Diels’ paper on the Χρονικά of Apollodoros in Rhein. Mus. xxxi.; and Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik (1902).
The method adopted is as follows:—If the date of some striking event in a philosopher’s life is known, that is taken as his floruit (ἀκμή), and he is assumed to have been forty years old at that date. In default of this, some historical era is taken as the floruit. Of these the chief are the eclipse of Thales 586/5 BC, the taking of Sardeis in 546/5 BC, the accession of Polykrates in 532/1 BC, and the foundation of Thourioi in 444/3 BC It is usual to attach far too much weight to these combinations, and we can often show that Apollodoros is wrong from our other evidence. His dates can only be accepted as a makeshift, when nothing better is available.
Chapter I. The Milesian School
1. Miletos and Lydia. It was at Miletos that the earliest school of scientific cosmology had its home, and it is not, perhaps, without significance that Miletos is just the place where the continuity of Aegean and Ionian civilisation is most clearly marked.
1 See Introd. § II. Ephoros said that Old Miletos was colonised from Milatos in Crete at an earlier date than the fortification of the new city by Neleus (Strabo, xiv. p. 634), and recent excavation has shown that the Aegean civilisation passed here by gradual transition into the early Ionic. The dwellings of the old Ionians stand on and among the débris of the “Mycenean” period. There is no “geometrical” interlude.
2 Herodotus i. 29. See Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (Paris, 1893).
It should be added that the Lydian alliance would facilitate intercourse with Babylon and Egypt. Lydia was an advanced post of Babylonian culture, and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of Egypt and Babylon. Amasis of Egypt had the same Hellenic sympathies as Croesus, and the Milesians possessed a temple of their own at Naukratis.
I. Thales
2. Origin. The founder of the Milesian school, and therefore the first man of science, was Thales;
1 Herod. i. 75. It is important for a right estimate of Ionian science to remember the high development of engineering in these days. Mandrokles of Samos built the bridge over the Bosporos for King Dareios (Herod. iv. 88), and Harpalos of Tenedos bridged the Hellespont for Xerxes when the Egyptians and Phoenicians had failed in the attempt (Diels, Abh. der Berl. Akad., 1904, p. 8). The tunnel through the hill above Samos described by Herodotos (iii. 60) has been discovered by German excavators. It is about a kilometre long, but the levels are almost accurate. On the whole subject see Diels, “Wissenschaft und Technik bei den Hellenen” (Neue Jahrb. xxxiii. pp. 3, 4). Here, as in other things, the Ionians carried on “Minoan” traditions.
2 Simplicius quotes Theophrastos as saying that Thales had many predecessors (Dox. p. 475, 11). This need not trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells us that he made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is merely an application of Peripatetic literalism to a phrase of Plato’s (Phileb. 16 c 6). Cf. Note on Sources, § 2.
3. The Eclipse Foretold by Thales. The most remarkable statement Herodotos makes about Thales is that he foretold the eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between the Lydians and the Medes.
1 Herod. i. 170 (R.P. 9 d); Diog. i. 22 (R.P. 9). This is no doubt connected with the fact mentioned by Herodotos (i. 146) that there were Kadmeians from Boiotia among the original Ionian colonists. Cf. also Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. These, however, were not Semites.
2 Diog. i. 23, Καλλίμαχος δ’ αὐτὸν οἶδεν εὑρετὴν τῆς ἄρκτου τῆς μικρᾶς λέγων ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις οὕτως—τῆς ἁμάξης ἐλέγετο σταθμήσασθαι | τοὺς ἀστερίσκους, ᾗ πλέουσι Φοίνικες.
3 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.
4 Herodotus i. 74.
5 For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see infra, §§ 19, 71.
Now it is possible to predict eclipses of the moon approximately without knowing their true cause, and there is no doubt that the Babylonians actually did so. It is generally stated, further, that they had made out a cycle of 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun and moon recurred at equal intervals of time.
1 Diog. i. 23, δοκεῖ δὲ κατά τινας πρῶτος ἀστρολογῆσαι καὶ ἡλιακὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος ἐν τῇ Περὶ τῶν ἀστρολογουμένων ἱστορίᾳ, ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Ἡρόδοτος θαυμάζει. The statement that Thales “predicted” solstices as well as eclipses is not so absurd as has been thought. Eudemos may very well have meant that he fixed the dates of the solstices and equinoxes more accurately than had been done before. That he would do by observing the length of the shadow cast by an upright (γνώμων), and we shall see (p. 47) that popular tradition ascribed observations of the kind to him. This interpretation is favoured by another remark of Eudemos, preserved by Derkyllides (ap. Theon. p. 198, 17 Hiller), that Thales discovered τὴν κατὰ τὰς τροπὰς αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ἡλίου) περίοδον, ὡς οὐκ ἴση ἀεὶ συμβαίνει. In other words, he discovered the inequality of the four seasons which is due to the solar anomaly.
2 It is wrong to call this the Saros with Souidas; for sar on the monuments always means 60²=3600, the number of the Great Year. The period of 223 lunations is, of course, that of the retrograde movement of the nodes.
4. Date of Thales. The prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw any light on the scientific attainments of Thales; but, if we can fix its date, it will give us an indication of the time at which he lived. Astronomers have calculated that there was an eclipse of the sun, probably visible in Asia Minor, on May 28 (O.S.), 585 BC, while Pliny gives the date of the eclipse foretold by Thales as Ol. XLVIII. 4 (585/4 BC).
1 See George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875), p. 409. The inscription which follows was found at Kouyunjik:—“To the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.…
“Concerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to me; in the cities of Akkad Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they made, and then in the city of Akkad, we saw part.…The observation was made, and the eclipse took place.…
“And when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation, the observation was made and it did not take place. That which I saw with my eyes to the king my lord I send.” See further R. C. Thomson, Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon (1900).
2 Cf. Schiaparelli, “I primordi dell’ Astronomia presso i Babilonesi” (Scientia, 1908, p. 247). His conclusion is that “the law which regulates the circumstances of the visibility of solar eclipses is too complex to be discovered by simple observation,” and that the Babylonians were not in a position to formulate it. “Such a triumph was reserved to the geometrical genius of the Greeks.”
3 Pliny, N.H. ii. 53. It should be noted that this date is inconsistent with the chronology of Herodotos, but that is vitiated by the assumption that the fall of the Median kingdom synchronised with the accession of Cyrus to the throne of Persia. If we make the necessary correction, Cyaxares was still reigning in 585 BC
5. Thales in Egypt. The introduction of Egyptian geometry into Hellas is ascribed to Thales,
1 The words of Herodotos (i. 74), οὖρον προθέμενος ἐνιαυτὸν τοῦτον ἐν τῷ δὴ καὶ ἐγένετο, mean at first sight that he only said the eclipse would occur before the end of a certain year, but Diels suggests (Neue Jahrb. xxxiii. p. 2) that ἐνιαυτός has here its original sense of “summer solstice” (cf. Brugmann, Idg. Forsch. xv. p. 87). In that case Thales would have fixed the date within a month. He may have observed the eclipse of May 18, 603 BC in Egypt, and predicted another in eighteen years and some days, not later than the solstice.
2 For Apollodoros, see Note on Sources, §21. 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 BC, which is one of the regular eras of 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 624/3 BC for the birth of Thales, and this gives us 585/4 BC for his fortieth year. That is Pliny’s date for the eclipse, and Pliny’s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.
3 Diog. i. 22 (R.P. 9), especially the words καθ’ ὃν καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ σοφοὶ ἐκλήθησαν. The story of the tripod was told in many versions (cf. Diog. i. 28-33; Vors. i. p. 226 sqq.). It clearly belongs to the Delphian Tale of the Seven Wise Men, which is already alluded to by Plato (Prot. 343 a, b). Now Demetrios of Phaleron dated this in the archonship of Damasias at Athens (582/1 BC), and the Marmor Parium dates the restoration of the ἀγὼν στεφανίτης at Delphoi in the same year, and also identifies it with that of Damasias (cf. Jacoby, p. 170, n. 12).
4 Proclus, in Eucl. I. p. 65, Friedlein (from Eudemos).
5 Herod. ii. 20.
6 Aet. iv. 1.1 (Dox. p. 384).
6. Thales and Geometry. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical knowledge brought back by Thales from Egypt, it must be pointed out that most writers have seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition.
1 Dox. pp. 226-229. The Latin epitome will be found in Rose’s edition of the Aristotelian fragments.
2 Hekataios, fr. 278 (F.H.G. i. p. 19)
3 Cantor, Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp. 12 sqq.; Allman, “Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid” (Hermathena, iii. pp. 164-174).
4 Proclus, in Eucl. pp. 65, 7; 157, 10; 250, 20; 299, 1; 352, 14 (Friedlein). Eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and mathematics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of philosophy.
5 Proclus, p. 352, 14, Εὔδημος δὲ ἐν ταῖς γεωμετρικαῖς ἱστορίαις εἰς Θαλῆν τοῦτο ἀνάγει τὸ θεώρημα (Eucl. 1.26) τὴν γὰρ τῶν ἐν θαλάττῃ πλοίων ἀπόστασιν δι’ οὗ τρόπου φασὶν αὐτὸν δεικνύναι τούτῳ προσχρῆσθαί φησιν ἀναγκαῖον.
7. Thales as a Politician. Thales appears once more in Herodotos some time before the fall of the Lydian monarchy. He is said to have urged the Ionian Greeks to unite in a federal state with its capital at Teos.
8. Uncertain Character of the Tradition. So far as we know, Thales wrote nothing, and no writer earlier than Aristotle knows anything of him as a scientific man and a philosopher; in the older tradition he
1 The oldest version of this story is given in Diog. i. 27, ὁ δὲ Ἱερώνυμος καὶ ἐκμετρῆσαί φησιν αὐτὸν τὰς πυραμίδας, ἐκ τῆς σκιᾶς παρατηρήσαντα ὅτε ἡμῖν ἰσομεγέθης ἐστίν. Cf. Pliny, H. Nat. xxxvi. 82, mensuram altitudinis earum deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius umbram metiendo qua hora par esse corpori solet. (Hieronymos of Rhodes was contemporary with Eudemos.) This need imply no more than the reflexion that the shadows of all objects will be equal to the objects at the same hour. Plutarch (Conv. sept. sap. 147 a) gives a more elaborate method, τὴν βακτηρίαν στήσας ἐπὶ τῷ πέρατι τῆς σκιᾶς ἣν ἡ πυραμὶς ἐποίει γενομένων τῇ ἐπαφῇ τῆς ἀκτῖνος δυοῖν τριγώνων, ἔδειξας ὃν ἡ σκιὰ πρὸς τὴν σκιὰν λόγον εἶχε, τὴν πυραμίδα πρὸς τὴν βακτηρίαν ἔχουσαν.
2 See Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, § 84.
3 Herod. i. 170 (R.P. 9 d).
4 The story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, Theaet. 174 a) is nothing but a fable teaching the uselessness of σοφία; the anecdote about the “corner” in oil (Ar. Pol. A, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to inculcate the opposite lesson.
9. The Cosmology of Thales. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to three:
(1) The earth floats on the water.
(2) Water is the material cause
1 Cf. Aristophanes, Clouds 180 (after a burlesque description of how Sokrates provided himself with a cloak) τί δῆτ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Θαλῆν θαυμάζομεν; Birds 1009 (of Meton’s town-planning, ἅνθρωπος Θαλῆς). Plato’s way of speaking is remarkable. Cf. Rep. 600a ἀλλ’ οἷα δὴ εἰς τὰ ἔργα σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς πολλαὶ ἐπίνοιαι καὶ εὐμήχανοι εἰς τέχνας ἤ τινας ἄλλας πράξεις λέγονται, ὥσπερ αὖ Θάλεώ τε πέρι τοῦ Μιλησίου καὶ Ἀναχάρσιος τοῦ Σκύθου.
2 See p. 41, n. 2.
3 If he tried to introduce the year of 360 days and the month of 30 days, he may have learnt that in Egypt.
4 For the Milesian παραπήγματα see Rehm, Berl. Sitzungsber, 1893, p. 101 sqq., 752 sqq.
5 Ar. Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R.P. 10); De caelo, B, 13. 294 a 28 (R.P. 11).
6 Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R.P. 10). We must translate ἀρχή here by “material cause,” for τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς means τῆς ἐν ὕλης εἴδει ἀρχῆς (b 7). The word, then, is used here in a strictly Aristotelian sense. Cf. Introd. p. ii, n. 3.
The first of these statements must be understood in the light of the second, which is expressed in Aristotelian terminology, but would undoubtedly mean that Thales had said water was the stuff of which all other things were transient forms. We have seen that this was the great question of the day.
10. Water. Aristotle and Theophrastos, followed by Simplicius and the doxographers, suggest several explanations of this doctrine. Aristotle gives them as conjectures; it is only later writers that repeat them as if they were quite certain.
Now it is not hard to see how meteorological considerations
1 Arist. De an. A, 5. 411 a 7 (R.P. 13); ib. 2. 405 a 19 (R.P. 13 a). Diog. i. 24 (R.P. ib.) adds amber.
2 Met. A, 3. 983 b 22; Aet. i. 3, 1; Simpl. Phys. p. 36, 10 (R.P. 10, 12, 12 a). The last of Aristotle’s explanations, that Thales was influenced by cosmogonical theories about Okeanos and Tethys, has strangely been supposed to be more historical than the rest, whereas it is merely a fancy of Plato’s taken literally. Plato says (Theaet. 180 d 2; Crat. 402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors (οἱ ῥέοντες) derived their philosophy from Homer (Il. xiv. 201), and even earlier sources (Orph. frag. 2, Diels, Vors. 66 B 2). In quoting this suggestion, Aristotle refers it to “some”—a word which often means Plato—and he calls the originators of the theory παμπαλαίους, as Plato had done (Met. A, 3. 983 b 28; cf. Theaet. 181 b 3). This is how Aristotle gets history out of Plato. See Note on Sources, § 2.
3 Compare Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 b 2 (R.P. 220) with the passages referred to in the last note. 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 Peripatetic history of medicine known as Menon’s Iatrika. See §185.
11. Theology. The third of the statements mentioned above is supposed by Aristotle to imply that Thales believed in a “soul of the world,” though he is careful to mark this as no more than an inference.
1 The view here taken most resembles that of the “Homeric allegorist” Herakleitos (R.P. 12 a). That, however, is also a conjecture, probably of Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.
2 Arist. De an. A, 5. 411 a 7 (R.P. 13).
3 Aet. i. 7, 11=Stob. i. 56 (R.P. 14). On the sources here referred to, see Note on Sources, §§ 11, 12.
Nor must we make too much of the saying that “all things are full of gods.” It is not safe to regard an apophthegm as evidence, and the chances are that it belongs to Thales as one of the Seven Wise Men, rather than as founder of the Milesian school. Further, such sayings are, as a rule, anonymous to begin with, and are attributed now to one sage and now to another.
II. Anaximander.
12. Life. Anaximander, son of Praxiades, was also a citizen of Miletos, and Theophrastos described him as an “associate” of Thales.
1 Cicero, De nat. d. 1. 25 (R.P. 13 b). On Cicero’s source, see Dox. pp. 125, 128. The Herculanean papyrus of Philodemos is defective at this point, but it is not likely that he anticipated Cicero’s mistake.
2 See Introd. § IX.
3 Plato refers to the saying πάντα πλήρη θεῶν in Laws, 899 b 9 (R.P. 14 b), without mentioning Thales. That ascribed to Herakleitos in the De part. an. A, 5. 645 a 7 seems to be a mere variation on it. In any case it means only that nothing is more divine than anything else.
4 R.P. 15 d. That the words πολίτης καὶ ἑταῖρος, given by Simplicius, De caelo, p. 615, 13, are from Theophrastos is shown by the agreement of Cic. Acad. ii. 118, popularis et sodalis. The two passages represent independent branches of the tradition. See Note on Sources, §§ 7, 12.
Like his predecessor, he distinguished himself by certain practical inventions. Some writers credited him with that of the gnomon; but that can hardly be correct. Herodotos tells us this instrument came from Babylon, and Thales must have used it to determine the solstices and equinoxes.
1 Diog. ii. 2 (R.P. 15); Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (Dox. p. 560); Plin. N.H. ii. 31.
2 Xenophanes, fr. 22 (= fr. 17 Karsten; R.P. 95 a).
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.
4 For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 26, n. 1; and cf. Diog. ii. 1 (R.P. 15); Herod. ii. 109 (R.P. 15 a). Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes the invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes (N.H. ii. 187).
13. Theophrastus on Anaximander’s Theory of the Primary Substance. Nearly all we know of Anaximander’s system is derived in the last resort from Theophrastos, who certainly knew his book.
“Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen and associate of Thales,
He says that this is “eternal and ageless,” and that it “encompasses all the worlds.”—Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R.P. 17 a).
And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, “as is meet; for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to the ordering of time,” as he says
And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in which was brought about the origin of the worlds.—Hipp. Ref. i. 6 . (R.P. 17 a).
1 Aelian, V.H. iii. 17. Presumably Apollonia on the Pontos is meant.
2 The lower part of a contemporary statue has been discovered at Miletos (Wiegand, Milet, ii. 88), with the inscription ΑΝΑΞΙΜΑΝΔΡΟ. It was not, we may be sure, for his theories of the Boundless that Anaximander received this honour; he was a statesman and an inventor, like Thales and Hekataios.
3 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 Note on Sources, §§ 9 sqq.
4 Simplicius says “successor and disciple” (διάδοχος καὶ μαθητής) in his Commentary on the Physics; but see above, p. 50, n. 4.
5 For the expression τὰ καλούμενα στοιχεῖα, see Diels, Elementum, p. 25, n. 4.
6 Diels (Vors. 2, 9) begins the actual quotation with the words ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσις… The Greek practice of blending quotations with the text tells against this. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the terms γένεσις and φθορά in their technical Platonic sense to Anaximander, and it is not likely that Anaximander said anything about τὰ ὄντα.
14. The Primary Substance is not One of the “Elements.” Anaximander taught, then, that there was an eternal, indestructible something out of which everything arises, and into which everything returns; a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is continually made good. That is only the natural development of the thought we have ascribed to Thales, and there can be no doubt that Anaximander at least formulated it distinctly. Indeed, we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which led him to do so. Thales had regarded water as the most likely thing to be that of which all others are forms; Anaximander appears to have asked how the primary substance could be one of these particular things. His argument seems to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following passage in his discussion of the Infinite:
Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is infinite, either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements, which they then derive from it, or without this qualification. For there are some who make this (i.e. a body distinct from the elements) the infinite, and not air or water, in order that the other things may not be destroyed by their infinity. They are in opposition one to another—air is cold, water moist, and fire hot—and therefore, if any one of them were infinite, the rest would have ceased to be by this time. Accordingly they say that what is infinite is something other than the elements, and from it the elements arise.—Arist. Phys. Γ. 204 b 22 (R.P. 16 b).
It is clear that Anaximander is here contrasted with Thales and with Anaximenes. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the account given of his reasoning is substantially correct, though the form is Aristotle’s own, and in particular the “elements” are an anachronism. (See p. 12, n. 2.) Anaximander started, it would seem, from the strife between the opposites which
1 The important word ἀλλήλοις is in all the MSS. of Simplicius, though omitted in the Aldine. This omission made the sentence appear to mean that the existence of individual things (ὄντα) was somehow a wrong (ἀδικία) for which they must be punished. With ἀλλήλοις restored, this fanciful interpretation disappears. It is to one another that whatever the subject of the verb may be make reparation and give satisfaction, and therefore the injustice must be a wrong which they commit against one another. Now, as δίκη is regularly used of the observance of an equal balance between the opposites hot and cold, dry and wet, the ἀδικία here referred to must be the undue encroachment of one opposite on another, such as we see, for example, in the alternation of day and night, winter and summer, which have to be made good by an equal encroachment of the other. I stated this view in my first edition (1892), pp. 60-62, and am glad to find it confirmed by Professor Heidel (Class. Phil. vii., 1912, p. 233 sq.).
2 The words of Theophrastos, as given by Simplicius (Phys. p. 24, 15: R.P. 16), are ἀρχήν τε καὶ στοιχεῖον εἴρηκε τῶν ὄντων τὸ ἄπειρον, πρῶτος τοῦτο τοὔνομα κομίσας τῆς ἀρχῆς, the natural meaning of which is “he being the first to introduce this name (τὸ ἄπειρον) of the material cause.” Hippolytos, however, says (Ref. i. 6, 2) πρῶτος τοὔνομα καλέσας τῆς ἀρχῆς, and this has led most writers to take the words in the sense that Anaximander introduced the term ἀρχή. Hippolytos, however, is not an independent authority (see Note on Sources, § 13), and the only question is what Theophrastos wrote. Now Simplicius quotes Theophrastos from Alexander, who used the original, while Hippolytos represents a much more indirect tradition. Obviously, καλέσας is a corruption of the characteristically Peripatetic κομίσας, and the omission of τοῦτο is much more likely than its interpolation by Alexander or Simplicius. But, if τοῦτο is genuine, the ὄνομα referred to must be τὸ ἄπειρον, and this interpretation is confirmed by Simpl. De caelo 615, 15, ἄπειρον δὲ πρῶτος ὑπέθετο. In another place (p. 150, 23) Simplicius says πρῶτος αὐτὸς ἀρχὴν ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον, which must mean, as the context shows, “being the first to name the substratum of the opposites as the material cause,” which is another point altogether. Theophrastos is always interested in noting who it was that “first” introduced a concept, and both ἄπειρον and ὑποκείμενον were important enough to be noted. Of course he does not mean that Anaximander used the word ὑποκείμενον. He only infers that he had the idea from the doctrine that the opposites which are “in” the ἄπειρον are “separated out.” Lastly, the whole book from which these extracts were taken was Περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, and the thing to note was who first applied various predicates to the ἀρχή or ἀρχαί.
15. Aristotle’s Account of the Theory. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own doctrine of “indeterminate matter,”
In a number of other places Aristotle speaks of some one who held the primary substance to be something “intermediate between” the elements or between two of them.
1 See p. 47 n. 6 and Introd. p. 11 n. 3.
2 Arist. Met. Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R.P. 16 c).
3 This is taken for granted in Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 16; 204 b 22 (R.P. 16 b), and stated in Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R.P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 150, 20 (R.P. 18).
4 Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire and Air (Gen. Corr. B, 1. 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. Γ, 4. 203 a 18; ib. 5. 205 a 27; De caelo, Γ, 5. 303 b 12). Once (Phys. A, 6. 189 b 1) we hear 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 τὸ μεταξύ, he must have known which “elements” he meant.
<
There is even one passage in which he speaks of Anaximander’s Boundless as a “mixture,” though his words may perhaps admit of another interpretation.
1 Arist. De caelo, Γ, 5. 303 b 12, ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον, ἀέρος δὲ πυκνότερον, ὃ περιέχειν φασὶ πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἄπειρον ὄν.
2 Cf. Phys. Γ, 5. 204 b 22 (R.P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers τὸ παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the whole passage is summarised thus: καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ οὐθεὶς τὸ ἓν καὶ ἄπειρον πῦρ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ γῆν τῶν φυσιολόγων, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ ἀέρα ἢ τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν. In Gen. Corr. B, 1. 328 b 35 we have first τι μεταξὺ τούτων σῶμά τε ὂν καὶ χωριστόν, and a little further on (329 a 9) μίαν ὕλην παρὰ τὰ εἰρημένα. In B, 5. 332 a 20 we have οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλο τί γε παρὰ ταῦτα, οἷον μέσον τι ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός.
3 Met. Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R.P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. 1) assumes an “easy zeugma.”
16. The Primary Substance is Infinite. Anaximander’s reason for conceiving the primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, as indicated by Aristotle, “that becoming might not fail.”
1 For the literature of this controversy, see R.P. 15. Professor Heidel has shown in his “Qualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy” (Arch., xix. p. 333) that Aristotle misunderstood the Milesians because he could only think of their doctrine in terms of his own theory of ἀλλοίωσις. That is quite true, but it is equally true that they had no definite theory of their own with regard to the transformations of substance. The theory of an original “mixture” is quite as unhistorical as that of ἀλλοίωσις. Qualities were not yet distinguished from “things,” and Thales doubtless said that water turned into vapour or ice without dreaming of any further questions. They all believed that in the long run there was only one “thing,” and at last they came to the conclusion that all apparent differences were due to rarefaction and condensation. Theophrastos (ap. Simpl. Phys. 150, 22) says ἐνούσας γὰρ τὰς ἐναντιότας ἐν τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ …ἐκκρίνεσθαι. I do not believe these words are even a paraphrase of anything Anaximander said. They are merely an attempt to “accommodate” his views to Peripatetic ideas, and ἐνούσας is as unhistorical as the ὑποκείμενον.
2 Phys. Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R.P. 16 a). Cf. Aet. i. 3, 3 (R.P. 16 a). The same argument is given in Phys. Γ, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaximander has just been named, τῷ οὕτως ἂν μόνον μὴ ὑπολείπειν γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν, εἰ ἄπειρον εἴη ὅθεν ἀφαιρεῖται τὸ γιγνόμενον. I cannot, however, believe that the arguments at the beginning of this chapter (203 b 7; R.P. 17) are Anaximander’s. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic dialectic, and are, in fact, those of Melissos.
17. The Innumerable Worlds. We are told that Anaximander believed there were “innumerable worlds in the Boundless,”
In the first place, the doxographical tradition proves that Theophrastos discussed the views of all the early philosophers as to whether there was one world or an infinite number, and there can be no doubt that, when he ascribed “innumerable worlds” to the Atomists, he meant coexistent and not successive worlds. Now, if he had classed two such different views under one head, he would
1 I have assumed that the word ἄπειρον means spatially infinite, not qualitatively indeterminate, as maintained by Teichmüller and Tannery. The decisive reasons for holding that the sense of the word is “boundless in extent” are as follows: (1) Theophrastos said the primary substance of Anaximander was ἄπειρον and contained all the worlds, and the word περιέχειν everywhere means “to encompass,” not, as has been suggested, “to contain potentially.” (2) Aristotle says (Phys. Γ, 4. 203 b 23) διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τῇ νοήσει μὴ ὑπολείπειν καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς δοκεῖ ἄπειρος εἶναι καὶ τὰ μαθηματικὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· ἀπείρου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω, καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι. The mention of σῶμα shows that this does not refer to the Atomists. (3) Anaximander’s theory of the ἄπειρον was adopted by Anaximenes, and he identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate.
2 Cf. [Plut.] Strom. fr. 2 (R.P. 21 b).
“Those who assumed innumerable worlds, e.g. Anaximander, Leukippos, Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held that they came into being and passed away ad infinitum, some always coming into being and others passing away.”
It is practically certain that this too comes from Theophrastos through Alexander.
1 Aet. ii. 1, 3 (Dox. p. 327). Zeller seems to be wrong in understanding κατὰ πᾶσαν περιαγωγήν here of revolution. It must mean “in every direction we turn,” as is shown by the alternative phrase κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. The six περιστάσεις are πρόσω, ὀπίσω, ἄνω, κάτω, δεξιά, ἀριστερά (Nicom. Introd. p. 85, 11, Hoche).
2 Aet. ii. 1, 8 (Dox. p. 329), τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα.
3 He supposed it to be only that of Stobaios. The filiation of the sources had not been traced when he wrote.
4 For Anaximenes see § 30; Xenophanes, § 59; Archelaos, § 192.
5 This is proved by the fact that the list of names is given also by Theodoret. See Note on Sources, § 10.
6 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 5 (R.P. 21 b). Cf. Simpl. De caelo, p. 202, 14, οἱ δὲ καὶ τῷ πλήθει ἀπείρους κόσμους, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος…ἄπειρον τῳ μεγέθει τὴν ἀρχὴν θέμενος ἀπείρους ἐξ αὐτοῦ τῷ πλήθει κόσμους ποιεῖν δοκεῖ.
It may be added that it is very unnatural to understand 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.” Moreover, the argument mentioned by Aristotle that, if what is outside the heavens is infinite, body must be infinite, and there must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood in one 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 outside the heavens.
1 Cicero, De nat. d. i. 25 (R.P. 21).
2 Aet. i. 7, 12 (R.P. 21 a). The reading of S tob., ἀπείρους οὐρανούς, is guaranteed by the ἀπείρους κόσμους of Cyril, and the ἀπείρους νοῦς (i.e. ουνους) of the pseudo-Galen. See Dox. p. 11.
3 It is natural to suppose that Cicero found διαστήμασιν in his Epicurean source, and that is a technical term for the intermundia.
4 Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 b 25, ἀπείρου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω (sc. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι (ἄπειροι). The next words—τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦ κενοῦ ἐνταῦθα ἢ ἐνταῦθα—show that this refers to the Atomists as well; but the ἄπειρον σῶμα will not apply to them. The meaning is that both those who made the Boundless a body and those who made it a κενόν held the doctrine of ἄπειροι κόσμοι in the same sense.
18. “Eternal Motion” and the Δίνη. The doxographers say it was the “eternal motion” that brought into being “all the heavens and all the worlds within them.” We have seen (§ VIII.) that this is probably only the Aristotelian way of putting the thing, and that we must not identify the primordial motion of the Boundless with any purely mundane movement such as the diurnal revolution. That would be quite inconsistent, moreover, with the doctrine of innumerable worlds, each of which has, presumably, its own centre and its own diurnal revolution. As to the true nature of this motion, we have no definite statement, but the term “separating off” (ἀπόκρισις) rather suggests some process of shaking and sifting as in a riddle or sieve. That is given in Plato’s Timaeus as the Pythagorean doctrine,
When, however, we come to the motion of the world once it has been “separated off,” we are on safer ground. It is certain that one of the chief features of early cosmology is the part. played in it by the analogy of an eddy in water or in wind, a δίνη (or δῖνος),
1 See below, § 53. Cf. Diels, Elementum, pp. 63 sqq.
2 Plato, Tim. 52 e. There the elemental figures (which have taken the place of the “opposites”) “being thus stirred (by the irregular motion of the τιθήνη), are carried in different directions and separated, just as by sieves and instruments for winnowing corn the grain is shaken and sifted; and the dense and heavy parts go one way, while the rare and light are carried to a different place and settle there.”
3 Aristophanes, referring to the Ionian cosmology, says (Clouds, 828) Δῖνος βασιλεύει τὸν Δι’ ἐξεληλακώς, which is nearer the truth than the modern theory of its religious origin.
19. Origin of the Heavenly Bodies. The doxographers also give us some indications of the process by which the different parts of the world arose from the Boundless. The following statement comes ultimately from Theophrastos:
“He says that something capable of begetting hot and cold out of the eternal was separated off at the origin of this world. From this arose a sphere of flame which fitted close round the air surrounding the earth as the bark round a tree. When this had been torn off and shut up in certain rings, the sun,
1 I gratefully accept the view propounded by Prof. W. A. Heidel (”The δίνη in Anaximenes and Anaximander,” Class. Phil. i. 279), so far as the cosmical motion goes, though I cannot identify that with the “eternal motion.” I had already done what I could to show that the “spheres” of Eudoxos and Aristotle must not be imported into Pythagoreanism, and it strengthens the position considerably if we ascribe a rotary motion in a plane to Anaximander’s world.
2 This is the plain meaning of Aet. ii. 2, 4, οἱ δὲ τροχοῦ δίκην περιδινεῖσθαι τὸν κόσμον, which is referred to Anaximander by Diels (Dox. p. 46). Zeller’s objections to the ascription of the δίνη to Anaximander are mainly based on an inadmissible rendering of the word τροπαί (p. 63 n. 2). Of course, the rotations are not all in the same plane; the ecliptic, for instance, is inclined to the equator, and the Milky Way to both.
We see from this that, when a portion of the Boundless was separated off from the rest to form a world, it first differentiated itself into the two opposites, hot and cold. The hot appears as flame surrounding the cold; the cold, as earth with air surrounding it. We are not told here how the cold was differentiated into earth, water and air, but there is a passage in Aristotle’s Meteorology which throws some light on the question. After discussing the views of the “theologians” regarding the sea, he says:
“But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an origin for the sea. At first, they say, all the terrestrial region was moist; and, as it was dried up by the sun, the portion of it that evaporated produced the winds and the turnings back of the sun and moon,
1 This passage has been discussed by Heidel (Proceedings of the American Academy, xlviii. 686). I agree that ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου must be supplied with ἀποκριθῆναι, and I formerly thought that ἐκ τοῦ αἰδίου might be equivalent to that, and might have been displaced if the order of words was too harsh. I cannot believe that it means “from eternity,” as Heidel thinks. On the other hand, he is clearly right in his interpretation of περιφυῆναι and ἀπορραγείσης. He also points out correctly that “the sphere of flame” is an inaccuracy. The comparison to the bark of a tree distinctly suggests something annular.
2 Zeller (p. 223, n. 5) asks what can be meant by τροπαὶ τῆς σελήνης, but his difficulty is an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a movement in declination and therefore τροπαί. In other words, the moon does not always rise at the same point of the horizon any more than the sun. This is admitted by Sir T. L. Heath (Aristarchus, p. 33, n. 3), though he has unfortunately followed Zeller in supposing that τροπαί here means “revolutions.” This seems to me impossible; for τρέπεσθαι means “to turn back” or “to turn aside,” never “to turn round,” which is στρέφεσθαι. It is conceivable, indeed, that τροπαὶ ἠελίοιο in Od. xv. 404 means the place where the sun sets and turns back from west to east, though it is not very likely, as Hesiod already uses τροπαὶ ἠελίοιο of the winter and summer solstices (O.D. 479, 564, 663). Zeller’s statement (repeated by Heath) that Aristotle speaks of τροπαί of the fixed stars in De caelo, B, 14. 296 b 4, is erroneous. What Aristotle does say is that, if the earth is in motion, there ought to be πάροδοι (movements in latitude) and τροπαί of the fixed stars, which there are not. The passage is correctly rendered by Sir T. L. Heath himself in a subsequent chapter (p. 241). For the other passages referred to, see p. 64, n. 1, and p. 76, n. 3.
So
“And the same absurdity arises for those who say the earth too was at first moist, and that, when the region of the world about the earth was heated by the sun, air was produced and the whole heavens were increased, and that it (the air) produced winds and caused its (the sun’s) turnings back.”
In his commentary on the passage, Alexander says this was the view of Anaximander and Diogenes, and cites Theophrastos as his authority for the statement. This is confirmed by Anaximander’s theory of the sea as given by the doxographers (§ 20). We conclude, then, that after the first separation of the hot and the cold by the δίνη, the heat of the flame turned part of the moist, cold interior of the world into air or vapour—it is all one at this date—and that the expansion of this mist broke up the flame itself into rings. We shall come back to these rings presently, but we must look first at what we are told of the earth.
20. Earth and Sea. The origin of earth and sea from the moist, cold matter which was “separated off” in the beginning is thus described:
“The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire has dried up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching it.”—Aet. iii. 16, 1 (R.P. 20 a).
“He says that the earth is cylindrical in form, and that its depth is as a third part of its breadth.—Ps.-Plut. Strom. fr. 2 (R.P. ib.).
1 From the whole context it is plain that τὰς τροπὰς αὐτοῦ means τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου τροπάς, and not τὰς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, as Zeller and Heath say. The “air” in this passage answers to “the portion that evaporated” (τὸ διατμίσαν) in that previously quoted, and τοῦτον must therefore refer to it. Cf. the paraphrase of Alexander (p. 67, 3 from Theophrastos, Dox. p. 494). τὸ μέν τι τῆς ὑγρότητος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐξατμίζεσθαι καὶ γίνεσθαι πνεύματά τε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ τροπὰς ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης (see last note). In this chapter of the Meteorology, Aristotle is discussing the doctrine that the sun is “fed” by moisture and the relation of that doctrine to its τροπαί at the solstices, and we must interpret accordingly.
“The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It
Adopting for a moment the popular theory of “elements,” we see that Anaximander put fire on one side as the hot and dry, and all the rest on the other as the cold, which is also moist. This may explain how Aristotle came to speak of the Boundless as intermediate between fire and water. And we have seen also that the moist element was partly turned into “air” or vapour by the fire, which explains how Aristotle could say the Boundless was something between fire and air, or between air and water.
The moist, cold interior of the world is not, in fact, water. It is always called “the moist” or “the moist state.” That is because it has to be still further differentiated under the influence of heat into earth, water, and vapour. The gradual drying up of the water by the fire is a good example of what Anaximander meant by “injustice.”
Thales had said that the earth floated on the water, but Anaximander realised that it was freely suspended in space (μετέωρος) and did not require any support. Aristotle has preserved the argument he used. The earth is equally distant from the circumference of the vortex in every direction, and there is no reason for it to move up or down
1 The MSS. of Hippolytos have ὑγρὸν στρογγύλον, and so has Cedrenus, a writer of the eleventh century who made extracts from him. Roeper read γυρὸν [στρογγύλον], supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first. Diels (Dox. p. 218) holds that the first applies to the surface of the earth; while the second refers to its circuit. Professor A. E. Taylor has pointed out to me, however, the great improbability of the view that γυρόν means convex. The Ionians down to Archelaos (§ 192) and Demokritos (Aet. iii. 10, 5, κοίλην τῷ μέσῳ) regularly regarded the surface of the earth as concave, and γυρός can just as well mean that. The next words are also of doubtful meaning. The MSS. of Hippolytos have χίονι λίθῳ, while Aetios (iii. 10, 2) has λίθῳ κίονι. Diels doubtfully conjectures λίθῳ κίονι, which he suggests might represent an original λιθέῃ κίονι (Dox. p. 219). In any case the pillar seems genuine, and the general sense is guaranteed by the Plutarchean Stromateis (loc. cit.), ὑπάρχειν…τῷ μὲν σχήματι τὴν γῆν κυλινδροειδῆ.
2 See above, p. 55, n. 4.
21. The Heavenly Bodies. We have seen that the flame which had been forced to the circumference of the vortex was broken up into rings by the pressure of expanding vapour produced by its own heat. I give the statements of Hippolytos and Aetios as to the formation of the heavenly bodies from these rings.
“The heavenly bodies are a wheel of fire, separated off from the fire of the world, and surrounded by air. And there are breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages, at which the heavenly bodies show themselves. That is why, when the breathing-holes are stopped, eclipses take place. And the moon appears now to wax and now to wane because of the stopping and opening of
1 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 295 b 10 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά φασιν αὐτὴν (τὴν γῆν) μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξίμανδρος· μᾶλλον μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ εἰς τὰ πλάγια φέρεσθαι προσήκειν τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου ἱδρυμένον καὶ ὁμοίως πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχον. One point of the δίνη is no more “down” than another. Apparently, the Pythagoreans adopted this reasoning; for Plato makes Sokrates in the Phaedo say (108 e) [Perseus 109a] ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδὲ ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι. From this it appears that ὁμοιότης means something like “indifference.” There is nothing to differentiate one radius of a circle from another.
2 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 295 a 9 (ἡ γῆ) συνῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον φερομένη διὰ τὴν δίνησιν· ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν πάντες λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑγροῖς καὶ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συμβαινόντων· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀεὶ φέρεται τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ βαρύτερα πρὸς τὸ μέσον τῆς δίνης. διὸ δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συνελθεῖν φασιν.
3 This was expressly stated by Eudemos (ap. Theon. Smyrn. p. 198, Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ μετέωρος καὶ κινεῖται περὶ τὸ μέσον. Anaxagoras held the same view (§ 133).
“The heavenly bodies were hoop-like compressions of air, full of fire, breathing out flames at a certain point through orifices.”—Aet. ii. 13, 7 (R.P. 19 a).
“The sun was a wheel 28 times the size of the earth, like a chariot-wheel with the felloe hollow, full of fire, showing the fire at a certain point through an orifice, as through the nozzle of a pair of bellows.”—Aet. ii. 20, i (R.P. 19 a).
“The sun was equal to the earth, but the wheel from which it breathes out and by which it is carried round was 27 times the size of the earth.”—Aet. ii. 21, 1.
“The sun was eclipsed when the orifice of the fire’s breathing-hole was stopped.”—Aet. ii. 24, 2.
“The moon was a wheel 19 times the size of the earth, like a chariot-wheel with its felloe hollow and full of fire like that of the sun, lying oblique also like it, with one breathing-hole like the nozzle of a pair of bellows.” [It is eclipsed because of the turnings of the wheel.]
“The moon was eclipsed when the orifice of the wheel was stopped.”—Aet. ii. 29, 1.
“(Thunder and lightning, etc.) were all caused by the blast of the wind. When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts forth with violence, then the tearing of the cloud makes the noise, and the rift gives the appearance of a flash in contrast with the blackness of the cloud.”—Aet. iii. 3, 1.
“Wind was a current of air (i.e. vapour), which arose when its finest and moistest particles were stirred or melted by the sun.”—Aet. iii. 7, 1.
1 I assume with Diels (Dox. p. 560) that something has fallen out of the text, but I have made the moon’s circle 18 and not 19 times as large, as agreeing better with the other figure, 27. See p. 68, n. 1.
2 There is clearly some confusion here, as Anaximander’s real account of lunar eclipses is given in the next extract. There is also some doubt about the reading. Both Plutarch and Eusebios (P.E. xv. 26, 1) have ἐπιστροφάς, so the τροπάς of Stob. may be neglected, especially as the codex Sambuci had στροφάς. It looks as if this were a stray reference to the theory of Herakleitos that eclipses were due to a στροφή or ἐπιστροφή of the σκάφη (§ 71). In any case, the passage cannot be relied on in support of the meaning given to τροπαί by Zeller and Heath (p. 63, n. 2).
1 See Tannery, Science hellène, p. 91; Diels, “Ueber Anaximanders Kosmos” (Arch. x. pp. 231 sqq.).
2 The true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by Diels (Dox. pp. 25 sqq.). The flames issue per magni circum spiracula mundi, as Lucretius has it (vi. 493). The πρηστῆρος αὐλός, to which these are compared, is simply the mouthpiece of the smith’s bellows, a sense the word πρηστήρ has in Apollonios of Rhodes (iv. 776), and has nothing to do with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name (see Chap: III. § 71), except that the Greek sailors very likely named the fiery waterspout after the familiar instrument. It is not necessary now to discuss the earlier interpretations of the phrase.
3 This is not so strange a view as might appear. An island or a rock in the offing may disappear completely when shrouded in mist (ἀήρ), and we seem to see the sky beyond it.
So far we seem to be justified, by the authority of Theophrastos, in going; and, if that is so, certain further inferences seem to be inevitable. In the first place, Anaximander had shaken himself free of the old idea that the heavens are a solid vault. There is nothing to prevent us from seeing right out into the Boundless, and it is hard to think that Anaximander did not believe he did. The traditional cosmos has given place to a much grander scheme, that of innumerable vortices in a boundless mass, which is neither water nor air. In that case, it is difficult to resist the belief that what we call the fixed stars were identified with the “innumerable worlds” which were also “gods.” It would follow that the diurnal revolution is only apparent; for the stars are at unequal distances from us, and can have no rotation in common. It must, then, be due to the rotation of the cylindrical earth in twenty-four hours. We have seen that the earth certainly shared in the rotation of the δίνη. That gets rid of one difficulty, the wheel of the “stars,” which is between the earth and the moon; for the fixed stars could not be explained by a “wheel” at all; a sphere would be required. What, then, are the “stars” which are accounted for by this inner wheel? I venture to suggest that they are the morning and the evening stars, which, we have seen (p. 23, n. 1), were not recognised yet as a single luminary. In other words, I believe that Anaximander regarded the fixed stars as stationary, each rotating in its own vortex. No doubt this involves us in a difficulty regarding the rotation of the sun and the moon. It follows from the nature of the vortex that they must rotate in the same direction as the earth, and, on the assumption just made, that must be from west to east, and it must be a slower rotation than that of the earth, which is inconsistent with the fact that the circumference of a vortex rotates more rapidly
22. Animals. We have, in any case, 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 all, his theory of the origin of living creatures. The Theophrastean account of this has been well preserved by the doxographers:
“Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely, a fish, in the beginning.”—Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R.P. 22 a).
“The first animals were produced in the moisture, each enclosed in a prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came out upon the drier part. When the bark broke off,
“Further, he says that originally man was born from animals of another species. His reason is that while other animals
1 Lucretius, v. 619 sqq.
2 This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about γαλεοί below. Cf. Arist. Hist. An. Z, l0. 565 a 25, τοῖς μὲν οὖν σκυλίοις, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες νεβρίας γαλεούς, ὅταν περιρραγῇ καὶ ἐκπέσῃ τὸ ὄστρακον, γίνονται οἱ νεοττοί.
3 The true reading is ἐπ’ ὀλίγον χρόνον μεταβιῶναι, the omission of χρόνον by Diels in Vors. 1 and Vors. 2 being apparently a slip. In the Index to Dox., Diels s.v. μεταβιοῦν says “mutare vitam [cf. μεταδιαιτᾶν],” and I followed him in my first edition. Heidel well compares Archelaos, ap. Hipp. Ref. i. 9, 5 (of the first animals) ἦν δὲ ὀλιγοχρόνια.
“He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of fishes, and after having been reared like sharks,
The importance of these statements has sometimes been overrated and still more often underestimated. Anaximander has been called a precursor of Darwin by some, while others have treated the whole thing as a mythological survival. It is therefore important to notice that this is one of the rare cases where we have not merely a placitum, but an indication of the observations on which it was based. It is clear from this that Anaximander had an idea of what is meant by adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest, and that he saw the higher mammals could not represent the original type of animal. For this he looked to the sea, and he naturally fixed upon those fishes which present the closest analogy to the mammalia. The statements of Aristotle about the galeus levis were shown by Johannes Müller to be more accurate than those of later naturalists, and we now see that these observations were already made by Anaximander. The way in which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with the very thing he required to explain the survival of the earliest animals.
1 Reading ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί for ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοί with Doehner, who compares Plut. De soll. anim. 982 a, where the φιλόστοργον of the shark is described.
2 On Aristotle and the galeus levis, see Johannes Müller, “Ueber den glatten Hai des Aristoteles” (K. Preuss. Akad., 1842), to which my attention was directed by my colleague, Professor D’Arcy Thompson. The precise point of the words τρεφόμενοι ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί appears from Arist. Hist. An. Z, l0. 565 b 1, οἱ δὲ καλούμενοι λεῖοι τῶν γαλεῶν τὰ μὲν ᾠὰ ἴσχουσι μεταξὺ τῶν ὑστερῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς σκυλίοις, περιστάντα δὲ ταῦτα εἰς ἑκατέραν τὴν δικρόαν τῆς ὑστέρας καταβαίνει, καὶ τὰ ζῷα γίνεται τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἔχοντα πρὸς τῇ ὑστέρᾳ, ὥστε ἀναλισκομένων τῶν ᾠ ῶν ὁμοίως δοκεῖν ἔχειν τὸ ἔμβρυον τοῖς τετράποσιν. It is not necessary to suppose that Anaximander referred to the further phenomenon described by Aristotle, who more than once says that all the γαλεοί except the ἀκανθίας “send out their young and take them back again” (ἐξαφιᾶσι καὶ δέχονται εἰς ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς νεοττούς, ib. 565 b 23), for which compare also Ael. i. 17; Plut. De amore prolis 494 c; De soll. anim. 982 a. The placenta and umbilical cord described by Johannes Müller will account sufficiently for all he says.
23. Life. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was, according to Theophrastos, an “associate” of Anaximander.
24. His Book. Anaximenes wrote a book which survived until the age of literary criticism; for we are told that he used a simple and unpretentious Ionic (Diog. ii. 3; R.P. 23), very different, we may suppose, from the poetical prose of Anaximander.
1 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R.P. 26).
2 This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3 with Hipp. Ref. i. 7 (R.P. 23) and Souidas (s.v.). In Hippolytos we must, however, read τρίτον for πρῶτον with Diels. The suggestion in R.P. 23 a that Apollodoros mentioned the Olympiad without giving the number of the year is inadequate; for Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian archons.
3 Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date into connexion with the floruit of Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable.
4 Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, § 13.
25. Theory of the Primary Substance. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom Theophrastos wrote a special monograph;
“Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an associate of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying substance was one and infinite. He did not, however, say it was indeterminate, like Anaximander, but determinate; for he said it was Air.”—Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R.P. 26).
“From it, he said, the things that are, and have been, and shall be, the gods and things divine, took their rise, while other things come from its offspring.”—Hipp. Ref. i. 7 (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 air is as follows. Where it is most even, it is invisible to our sight; but cold and heat, moisture and motion, make it visible. It is always in motion; for, if it were not, it would not change so much as it does.”—Hipp. Ref. i. 7 (R.P. 28).
“It differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction and condensation.”—Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R.P. 26).
“When it is dilated so as to be rarer, it becomes fire; while winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed from Air by felting;
26. Rarefaction and Condensation. At first, this looks like a falling off from the more refined doctrine of Anaximander to a cruder view; but this is not really the case. On the contrary, the introduction of rarefaction and condensation into the theory is a notable
1 On these monographs, see Dox. p. 103.
2 See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in Dox. p. 135.
3 “Felting” (πίλησις) is the regular term for this process with all the early cosmologists, from whom Plato has taken it (Tim. 58b 4; 76c 3).
27. Air. The air Anaximenes speaks of includes a good deal that we should not call by the name. In its normal condition, when most evenly distributed, it is invisible, and it then corresponds to our “air”; it is the breath we inhale and the wind that blows. That is why he called it πνεῦμα. On the other hand, the old idea that mist or vapour is condensed air, is still accepted without question. It was Empedokles, we shall see, who first discovered that what we call air was a distinct corporeal substance, and not identical either with vapour or with empty space. In the earlier cosmologists “air” is always a form of vapour, and even darkness is a form of “air.” It was Empedokles who cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is a shadow.
1 Simplicius, Phys. p. 149, 32 (R.P. 26 b), says that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the case of Anaximenes alone. It should be noted, however, that Aristotle, Phys. A, 4. 187 a 12, seems to imply that Anaximander too had spoken of rarefaction and condensation, especially if ὅ ἐστι πυρὸς μὲν πυκνότερον ἀέρος δὲ λεπτότερον is referred to him. On the other hand, at 20, οἱ δ’ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐνούσας τὰς ἐναντιότητας ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ Ἀναξίμανδρός φησι seems to be opposed to a 12, οἱ μὲν κτλ. As I have indicated already, it looks as if we were dealing here with Aristotle’s own inferences and interpretations, which are far from clear. They are outweighed by the definite statement quoted by Simplicius from Theophrastos, though Simplicius himself adds δῆλον δὲ ὡς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι τῇ μανότητι καὶ πυκνότητι ἐχρῶντο. That, however, is only his own inference from Aristotle’s somewhat confused statement.
2 For the meaning of ἀήρ in Homer, cf. e.g. Od. viii. 1, ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ κεκαλυμμέναι; and for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων, τόπων, 15, ἀήρ τε πολὺς κατέχει τὴν χώρην ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων. Plato is still conscious of the old meaning; for he makes Timaios say ἀέρος (γένη) τὸ μὲν εὐαγέστατον ἐπίκλην αἰθὴρ καλούμενος, ὁ δὲ θολερώτατος ὁμίχλη καὶ σκότος (Tim. 58d). For the identification of ἀήρ with darkness, cf. Plut. De prim. frig. 948 e, ὅτι δ’ ἀὴρ τὸ πρώτως σκοτεινόν ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ποιητὰς λέληθεν· ἀέρα γὰρ τὸ σκότος καλοῦσιν. My view has been criticised by Tannery, “Une nouvelle hypothèse sur Anaximandre” (Arch. viii. pp. 443 sqq.), and I have slightly altered my expression of it to meet these criticisms. The point is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of Pythagoreanism.
28. The World Breathes. This argument brings us to an important point in the theory, which is attested by the single fragment that has come down to us.
29. The Parts of the World. We turn now to the doxographical tradition concerning the formation of the world and its parts:
“He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came into being. It is very broad and is accordingly supported by the air.”—Ps.-Plut. Strom. fr. 3 (R.P. 25).
“In the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are of a fiery nature, are supported by the air
1 Plut. De prim. frig. 947 f; R.P. 27, where we are told that he used the term τὸ χαλαρόν for the rarefied air.
2 (Aet. i. 3, 4; R.P. 24.)
3 See Chapter 2 § 53
“Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes along under propulsion; but when it is concentrated and thickened still more, clouds are generated; and, lastly, it turns to water.”
“The stars [are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the heavens, but some say they] are fiery leaves, like paintings.”—Aet. ii. 14, 3 (Dox. p. 344).
“They do not go under the earth, but turn round it.”—Ib. 16, 6 (Dox. p. 348).
“The sun is fiery.” —Ib. 20, 2 (Dox. p. 348).
(See Chap. II. § 53.
“It is broad like a leaf.”—Ib. 22, 1 Dox. p. 352).
“The heavenly bodies turn back in their courses
“The moon is of fire.”—Ib. 25, 2 (Dox. p. 356).
“Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding as an illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which flashes when divided by the oars.”—Ib. iii. 3, 2 (Dox. p. 368).
“Hail is produced when water freezes in falling; snow, when there is some air imprisoned in the water.”—Aet. iii. 4, 1 (Dox. p. 370).
“The rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on thick condensed air. Hence the anterior part of it seems red, being burnt by the sun’s rays, while the other part is dark,
1 The text is very corrupt here. I retain ἐκπεπυκνωμένος, because we are told above that winds are condensed air.
2 (See below, p. 77, n. 4.)
3 This can only refer to the τροπαί of the sun, though it is loosely stated of τὰ ἄστρα generally. It occurs in the chapter Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου, and we cannot interpret it as if it were a detached statement.
“The earth was like a table in shape.”—Aet. iii. 10, 3 (Dox. p. 377).
“The cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of the earth, occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.” —Ib. 15, 3 (Dox. p. 379).
We have seen that Anaximenes was justified in going back to Thales in regard to the nature of primary substance; but the effect upon the details of his cosmology was unfortunate. The earth is once more imagined as a table-like disc floating on the air. The sun, moon, and stars are also fiery discs which float on the air “like leaves”; an idea naturally suggested by the “eddy” (δίνη). It follows that the heavenly bodies cannot go under the earth at night, as Anaximander must have held, but only round it laterally like a cap or a millstone.
1 The source of this is Poseidonios, who used Theophrastos. Dox. p. 231.
2 Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like that of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel. Diels (Dox. p. 46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively. They come, of course, from Aetios (Note on Sources, § 10), though they are given neither by Stobaios nor in the Placita.
3 B, 1. 354 a 28; R.P. 28 c.
4 For this reason, I now reject the statement of Aetios, ii. 14, 3 (p. 76), Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. That there is some confusion of names here is strongly suggested by the words which immediately follow, ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα ὥσπερ τὰ ζωγραφήματα, which is surely the genuine doctrine of Anaximenes. I understand ζωγραφήματα of the constellations (cf. Plato, Tim. 55c). To regard the stars as fixed to a crystalline sphere is quite inconsistent with the far better attested doctrine that they do not go under the earth.
30. Innumerable Worlds. As might be expected, there is much the same difficulty about the “innumerable worlds” ascribed to Anaximenes as there is about those of Anaximander. The evidence, however, is far less satisfactory. Cicero says that Anaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds that it came into being.
31. Influence of Anaximenes. It is not easy for us to realise that, in the eyes of his contemporaries, and for long after, Anaximenes was a much more important figure than Anaximander. And yet the fact is certain. We shall see that Pythagoras, though he followed Anaximander in his account of the heavenly bodies,
1 See Tannery, Science hellène, p. 153. For the precisely similar bodies assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. § 135. See further Chap. VII. § 151.
2 Cic. De nat. d. i. 26; R.P. 28 b.
3 Hippolytos Ref. i. 7, 1; R.P. 28.
4 De civ. d. viii. 2; R.P. 28 b.)
5 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12; R.P. 28 a. The passage from the Placita is of higher authority than this from Simplicius. It is only to Anaximenes, Herakleitos, and Diogenes that successive worlds are ascribed even here. For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see Chap. III. § 78; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. §188. That Simplicius is following a Stoic authority is suggested by the words καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς.
1 In particular, both Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a flat earth. Cf. Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 (Περὶ σχήματος γῆς), Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ (τὴν γῆν). Λεύκιππος τυμπανοειδῆ. Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ τῷ μέσῳ. And yet the spherical form of the earth was already a commonplace in circles affected by Pythagoreanism.
Top ↑
Chapter II. Science and Religion
32. Ionia and the West. The spirit of the Ionians in Asia was, as we have seen, thoroughly secular; and, so far as we can judge, the Milesians wholly ignored traditional beliefs. Their use of the term “god” for the primary substance and the innumerable worlds had no religious significance (see p. 14). It was different in the Aegean islands, which had been the home of the Ionians long before the Anatolian coasts were open to colonisation, and where there were many memories of a remote past. These seem to have centred round the sanctuary of Delos, and the fragments of Pherekydes, who belonged to the neighbouring island of Syros, read like belated utterances of an earlier age (see p. 3). No doubt it was also different in the Chalkidian and Ionian colonies of the West, which were founded at a time when Hesiod and his followers still held unchallenged authority.
Now Pythagoras and Xenophanes, the most striking figures of the generation that saw the Greek cities in Asia become subject to Persia, were both Ionians, but both spent the greater part of their lives in the West. There it was no longer possible to ignore religion, especially when reinforced by the revival that now swept over the Greek world. Henceforth the leaders of enlightenment must either seek to reform and deepen traditional religion, like Pythagoras, or oppose it openly, like Xenophanes.
34. Orphicism It was not, however, in its Delian form that the northern religion had most influence. In Thrace it had attached itself to the wild worship of Dionysos, and was associated with the name of Orpheus. In this religion the new beliefs were mainly based on the phenomenon of “ecstasy” (ἔκστασις, “stepping out”). It was supposed that it was only when “out of the body” that the soul revealed its true nature. It was not merely a feeble double of the self, as in Homer, but a fallen god, which might be
1 Pindar, Ol. iii. 14-16.
2 Herod. iv. 33. Cf. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. pp. 99 sqq.
3 Herod. iv. 36.
4 Herod. iv. 13-15.
5 I have discussed the origin of the Pythagorist religion in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (sv. Pythagoras) rather more fully than would be appropriate here.
The Orphic religion had two features which were new in Greece. It looked to a written revelation as the source of religious authority, and its adherents were organised in communities, based, not on any real or supposed tie of blood, but on voluntary adhesion and initiation. Most of the Orphic literature that has come down to us is of late date and uncertain origin, but the thin gold plates, with Orphic verses inscribed on them, discovered at Thourioi and Petelia take us back to a time when Orphicism was still a living creed.
35. Philosophy as a way of life. The chief reason for taking account of the Orphic communities here is that their organisation seems to have
1 For these gold plates, see the Appendix to Miss Harrison’s Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, where the texts are discussed and translated by Professor Gilbert Murray. 2 The earliest attested case of a Greek coming under Indian influence is that of Pyrrho of Elis (see my article “Scepticism” in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics). I venture to suggest that the religious ideas referred to may have reached India from the same northern source as they reached Greece, a source which we may vaguely call “Scythian.” If, as Caesar tells us (B.G. vi. 14, 5), the Gallic Druids taught the doctrine of transmigration {metempsychosis = reincarnation}, this suggestion is strongly confirmed. The theories of L. von Schroeder (Pythagoras und die Inder, 1884) are based on a mistaken view of Pythagoreanism, and appear also to involve chronological impossibilities. See A. Berriedale Keith, “Pythagoras and the Doctrine of Transmigration” (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, pp. 569 sqq.).
36. Relation of Religion and Philosophy. Science, then, became a religion, and to that extent it is true that philosophy was influenced by religion. It would be wrong, however, to suppose that even now philosophy took over any particular doctrines from religion. The religious revival implied, we have seen, a new view of the soul, and we might expect to find that it profoundly influenced the teaching of philosophers on that subject. The remarkable thing is that this did not happen. Even the Pythagoreans and Empedokles, who took part in the
1 The Phaedo is dedicated, as it were, to the Pythagorean community at Phleious. Plato speaks in Rep. x. 600 b of Pythagoras as the originator of a private ὁδός τις βίου. Cf. the ἄτραπος of Phaed. 66b.
2 For the Προτρεπτικός, see Bywater in J. Phil. ii. p. 35. It was the original of Cicero’s Hortensius, which had such an effect on Augustine.
3 Plato, Rep. 520c 1, καταβατέον οὖν ἐν μέρει. The Allegory of the Cave seems clearly to be of Orphic origin (Stewart, Myths of Plato, p. 252, n. 2).
The reason is that ancient religion was not a body of doctrine. Nothing was required but that the ritual should be performed correctly and in a proper frame of mind; the worshipper was free to give any explanation of it he pleased. It might be as exalted as that of Pindar and Sophokles or as debased as that of the itinerant mystery-mongers described in Plato’s Republic. “The initiated,” said Aristotle, “are not supposed to learn anything, but to be affected in a certain way and put into a certain frame of mind.”
I. Pythagoras of Samos
37. Character of the Tradition. It is not easy to give any account of Pythagoras that can claim to be regarded as historical. The earliest reference to him, indeed, is practically a contemporary one. Some verses are quoted from Xenophanes in which we are told that Pythagoras once heard a dog howling and appealed to its master not to beat it, as he recognised the voice of a departed friend.
1 For Empedokles, see § 117; for the Pythagoreans, see § 149.
2 I have discussed this point fully in “The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 1915-16, p. 235.
3 Plato, Phaed. 69c 3, καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι κτλ. The irony of this and similar passages should be unmistakable.
4 Arist. fr. 45 (1483 a 19), τοὺς τελουμένους οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν, ἀλλὰ παθεῖν καὶ διατεθῆναι.
5 Xenophanes, fr. 7.
Plato was deeply interested in Pythagoreanism, but he is curiously reserved about Pythagoras. He only mentions him once by name in all his writings, and all we are told then is that he won the affections of his followers in an unusual degree (διαφερόντως ἠγαπήθη) by teaching them a “way of life,” which was still called Pythagorean.
1 Herakleitos, fr. 17. For the meaning given to κακοτεχνίη, see note in loc.
2 Herod. iv. 95.
3 Plato, Rep. x. 600b.
4 Plato, Rep. vii. 530d.
The
Aristotle also wrote a special treatise on the Pythagoreans which has not come down to us, but from which quotations are found in later writers. These are of great value, as they have to do with the religious side of Pythagoreanism.
The only other ancient authorities on Pythagoras were Aristoxenos of Taras, Dikaiarchos of Messene, and Timaios of Tauromenion, who all had special opportunities of knowing something about him. The account of the Pythagorean Order in the Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichos is based mainly on Timaios,
1 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 29.
2 Arist. Rhet. B, 23. 1398 b 14.
3 Cf. e.g. Met. A, 5. 985 b 23; De caelo, B, 13. 293 a 20.
4 See Rostagni, “Pitagora e i Pitagorici in Timeo” (Atti della R. Academia delle Scienze di Torino, vol. 49 (1913-14), pp. 373 sqq.
5 See E. Rohde’s papers, “Die Quellen des Iamblichos in seiner Biographie des Pythagoras,” in Rh. Mus. xxvi. and xxvii.
38. Life of Pythagoras. We may be said to know for certain that Pythagoras passed his early manhood at Samos, and was the son of Mnesarchos;
1 Porphyry’s Life of Pythagoras is the only considerable extract from his History of Philosophy that has survived. The Life by Iamblichos has been edited by Nauck (1884).
2 Iamblichos made a compilation from the arithmetician Nikomachos of Gerasa and the romance of Apollonios of Tyana. Porphyry used Nikomachos and Antonius Diogenes, who wrote a work called Marvels from beyond Thule, which is parodied in Lucian’s Vera Historia.
3 It is Aristotle who told how Pythagoras killed a deadly snake by biting it, how he was seen at Kroton and Metapontion at the same time, how he exhibited his golden thigh at Olympia, ⌘ and how he was addressed by a voice from heaven when crossing the river Kasas. It was also Aristotle who preserved the valuable piece of information that the Krotoniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios, and that the Pythagoreans had a division of the λογικὸν ζῷον into τὸ μὲν…θεός, τὸ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, τὸ δὲ οἷον Πυθαγόρας. For these and other statements of the same kind, see Diels, Vors. 4, 7. It looks as if Aristotle took special pains to emphasise this aspect of Pythagoras out of opposition to the later Pythagoreans who tried to ignore it.
⌘ Ed. Note: These are no silly myths but the remnants of mysteries the explanations of which are now lost. For the “golden thigh,” see Genesis 32:24-32 in which Jacob, while wrestling with an angel who could not prevail, wounded him in the hollow of the thigh. Jacob asked for a blessing; the angel changed his name to Israel. Genesis 32:32 is near impossible to comprehend unless you are a qabalist and understand that 32 is the gematria of heart. We have no permission to enlighten the reader further. }
4 Andron wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, and the title refers to the well-known story (p. 44, n. 3).
5 Cf. Herod. iv. 95, and Herakleitos, fr. 17; R.P. 31 a. Timaios, however, gave his father’s name as Demaratos. Herodotos represents him as living at Samos. Aristoxenos said his family came from one of the islands which the Athenians occupied after expelling the Tyrrhenians (Diog. viii. 1). This suggests Lemnos or Imbros, from which the Tyrrhenian “Pelasgians” were expelled by Miltiades (Herod. vi. 140). That explains the story that he was an Etrurian or a Tyrian. Other accounts bring him into connexion with Phleious, but that may be a pious invention of the society which flourished there at the beginning of the fourth century BC Pausanias (ii. 13, 1) gives it as a Phleiasian tradition that Hippasos, the great-grandfather of Pythagoras, had emigrated from Phleious to Samos.
The extensive travels attributed to Pythagoras by late writers are, of course, apocryphal. Even the statement that he visited Egypt, though far from improbable if we consider the close relations between Polykrates of Samos and Amasis, rests on no sufficient authority.
1 Eratosthenes wrongly identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor of Ol. XLVIII 1 (588/7 BC), but Apollodoros gave his floruit as 532/1, the era of Polykrates. He doubtless based this on the statement of Aristoxenos quoted by Porphyry (V. Pyth. 9), that Pythagoras left Samos from dislike to the tyranny of Polykrates; R.P. 53 a.
2 Herakl. fr. 16, 17; R.P. 31, 31 a.
3 It occurs first in the Bousiris of Isokrates, § 28; R.P. 52.
4 Herod. ii. 81; R.P. 52 a. The comma at Αἰγυπτίοισι is clearly right. Herodotos believed that the cult of Dionysos was introduced by Melampous (ii. 49), and he means that the Orphics got these practices from the worshippers of Bakchos, while the Pythagoreans got them from the Orphics.
5 Herod. ii. 123; R.P. ib.). The words “whose names I know, but do not write ” cannot refer to Pythagoras; for it is only of contemporaries Herodotos speaks in this way (Cf. i. 51, iv. 48). Stein’s suggestion that he meant Empedokles seems convincing. Herodotos must have met him at Thourioi. 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.
Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras left Samos in order to escape from the tyranny of Polykrates.
39. The Order. The Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, a religious fraternity, and not, as has been maintained, a political league.
1 Porph. V. Pyth. 9; R.P. 53 a.
2 From what Herodotos tells us of Demokedes (iii. 131) we may infer that the medical school of Kroton was founded before the time of Pythagoras. The series of Olympian victories won by Krotoniates in the sixth century BC is remarkable.
3 For a full discussion of the chronological problem, see Rostagni, op. cit. pp. 376 sqq. It seems clear that Timaios made the rising of Kylon take place just after the destruction of Sybaris (510 BC), with which he connected it. The statement that Pythagoras then retired to Metapontion is confirmed by Cicero, who speaks (De fin. v. 4) of the honours still paid to his memory in that city; R.P. 57 c). Aristoxenos (ap. Iambl. V. Pyth. 249) referred to the same thing; R.P. 57 c. Cf. also Andron, fr. 6 (F.H.G. ii. 347).
4 Plato, Rep. x. 600 a 9, clearly 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, the champion of the “Practical Life,” just as the view that it was primarily a scientific society goes back to the mathematician and musician Aristoxenos.
5 The idea that the Pythagoreans represented the “Dorian ideal” dies very hard. In his Kulturhistorische Beiträge (Heft i. p. 59), Max 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 he had become “a Dorian of the Dorians.” The fact is simply that Πυθαγόρας is the Attic form of Πυθαγόρης, and is no more “Doric” than Ἀναξαγόρας. Even in the reign of Trajan, the Samians still knew that Πυθαγόρης was the correct spelling. Cf. the title vignette in Diels, Vors.
40. Downfall of the Order. For a time the new Order succeeded in securing supreme power in the Achaian cities, but reaction soon came. Our accounts of these events are much confused by failure to distinguish between the revolt of Kylon in the lifetime of Pythagoras himself, and the later risings which led to the expulsion of the Pythagoreans from Italy. It is only if we keep these apart that we begin to see our way. Timaios appears to have connected the rising of Kylon closely with
1 The only statement which might suggest that Pythagoras took the aristocratic side is the remark in Diogenes (viii. 3) ὥστε σχεδὸν εἶναι ἀριστοκρατίαν τὴν πολιτείαν. That may come from Timaios, but (as the adverb σχεδόν shows) it is not to be taken literally. The Pythagorean rule was no doubt an ἀριστοκρατία in the sense given to the word by Sokrates in Plato’s Republic, but it was not based either on birth or on wealth, so that it was not an aristocracy in the common Greek sense of the word, and still less an oligarchy. It was more like the “Rule of the Saints.” Kylon, the chief opponent of the Pythagoreans, is described by Aristoxenos (Iamb. V. Pyth. 248) as γένει καὶ δόξῃ καὶ πλούτῳ πρωτεύων τῶν πολιτῶν. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans, was a democracy. (Cf. Strabo, vi. p. 280, ἴσχυσαν δέ ποτε οἱ Ταραντῖνοι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν πολιτευόμενοι δημοκρατικῶς…ἀπεδέξαντο δὲ καὶ τὴν Πυθαγόρειον φιλοσοφίαν κτλ. The truth is that, at this time, the new religion appealed to the people rather than the aristocracies, which were apt to be “free-thinking.” Xenophanes, not Pythagoras, is their man.
2 We have the authority of Aristotle, fr. 186. 1510 b 20, for this identification. The names of Abaris and Aristeas stand for a mystical 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. iv. 13 sqq., and above all from the statement that Aristeas had a statue at Metapontion, where Pythagoras died. The connexion of Pythagoras with Salmoxis 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, and had nothing to do with Dionysos.
Disturbances still went on, however, at Kroton after the departure of Pythagoras for Metapontion and after his death. At last, we are told, the Kyloneans set fire to the house of the athlete Milo, where the Pythagoreans were assembled. Of those in the house only two, who were young and strong, Archippos and Lysis, escaped. Archippos retired to Taras, a democratic Dorian state; Lysis, first to Achaia and afterwards to Thebes, where he was later the teacher of Epameinondas.
1 See p. 90 n. 1. I do not know why modern historians call him a democratic leader.
2 Rohde, Rhein. Mus. xxxvi. p. 565, n. 1. The later accounts telescope these events into a single catastrophe. Some have it that Pythagoras himself was burned to death in the house of Milo.
41. Want of Evidence as to the Teaching of Pythagoras. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even less than of his life. Plato and Aristotle clearly knew nothing for certain of ethical or physical doctrines going back to the founder himself.
1 Polyb. n. 39, καθ’ οὓς γὰρ καιροὺς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν τόποις κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην Ἑλλάδα τότε προσαγορευομένην ἐνεπρήσαν τὰ συνέδρια τῶν Πυθαγορείων, μετὰ ταῦτα γενομένου κινήματος ὁλοσχεροῦς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, (ὅπερ εἰκός, ὡς ἂν τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως οὕτω παραλόγως διαφθαρέντων) συνέβη τὰς κατ’ ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους Ἑλληνικὰς πόλεις ἀναπλησθῆναι φόνου καὶ στάσεως καὶ παντοδαπῆς ταραχῆς. ἐν οἷς καιροῖς ἀπὸ τῶν πλείστων μερῶν τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρεσβευόντων ἐπὶ τὰς διαλύσεις, Ἀχαιοῖς καὶ τῇ τούτων πίστει συνεχρήσαντο πρὸς τὴν τῶν παρόντων κακῶν ἐξαγωγήν.
2 When discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers it to “the Pythagoreans,” not to Pythagoras himself. He is quite clear that what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos; for, after mentioning these, he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as “contemporary with and earlier than them” (ἐν δὲ τούτοις καὶ πρὸ τούτων, Met. A, 5. 985 b 23).
3 The fragments of the Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις of Aristoxenos are given by Diels, Vors. 45 D.
4 Porphyry, V. Pyth. 19; R.P. 55.
5 See Diels, Dox. p. 150, and “Ein gefälschtes Pythagorasbuch” (Arch. iii. pp. 451 sqq.); Bernays, Die heraklitischen Briefe, n. 1.
43. Abstinence. It has indeed been doubted whether we can accept what we are told by such late writers as Porphyry on the subject of Pythagorean abstinence. Aristoxenos undoubtedly said Pythagoras did not abstain from animal flesh in general, but only from that of the ploughing ox and the ram.
1 See above, p. 84.
2 The proper Greek for this is παλιγγενεσία {palingenesis, also palingenesia = a new birth, regeneration, renewal}, and the inaccurate term μετεμψύχωσις {metempsychosis = the soul changes bodies} only occurs in late writers. Some of the Neoplatonists and Christian apologists say μετενσωμάτωσις {metensomátosi = transfiguration = to change form, shape or appearance}, which is accurate but cumbrous. Cf. Olympiodoros in Phaed. p. 54, 25 (Norvin), τὴν μετεμψύχωσιν, ἤτοι τὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν, διότι οὐ πολλαὶ ψυχαὶ ἓν σῶμα εἰδοποιοῦσιν, ἐπεὶ αὕτη μετεμψύχωσις ἦν, ἀλλὰ μία ψυχὴ διάφορα σώματα μεταμπίσχεται. {“Transubstantiation, that is, transubstantiation, because not many souls are in one body, for this is transubstantiation, but one soul is transubstantiated into several bodies.” To transubstantiate is to change from one substance to another.} See Rohde, Psyche, p. 428, n. 2.
3 see Diog. viii. 13.
4 Aristoxenos ap. Diog. viii. 20, πάντα μὲν τὰ ἄλλα συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἐσθίειν ἔμψυχα, μόνον δ’ ἀπέχεσθαι βοὸς ἀροτῆρος καὶ κριοῦ.
5 Aristoxenos ap. Gell. iv. 11, 5, Πυθαγόρας δὲ τῶν ὀσπρίων μάλιστα τὸν κύαμον ἐδοκίμασεν· λειαντικόν τε γὰρ εἶναι καὶ διαχωρητικόν· διὸ καὶ μάλιστα κὲχρηται αὐτῷ; ib. 6, “porculis quoque minusculis et haedis tenerioribus victitasse, idem Aristoxenus refert.” It is just possible that Aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on beans. We know that it was Orphic, and it may have been transferred to the Pythagoreans by mistake. That, however, would not affect the general conclusion that at least some Pythagoreans practised abstinence from various kinds of animal food, which is all that is required.
1 Yet even Aristoxenos recorded that, when Pherekydes died, he was buried by Pythagoras at Delos (Diog. i. 118). It was, perhaps, too notorious to be denied.
2 Hippasos of Kroton or Metapontion (in the catalogue of Iamblichos he is a Sybarite) is, we shall see, the regular scapegoat of the Pythagoreans. Iamblichos, who here follows Nikomachos, says (V. Pyth. 81; R.P. 56) that the μαθηματικοί were admitted to be Pythagoreans by the ἀκουσματικοί but did not recognise them in return. We are told (Diog. viii. 7) that the μυστικὸς λόγος ascribed to Pythagoras was really by Hippasos, who wrote it ἐπὶ διαβολῇ Πυθαγόρου, i.e. to throw discredit on him by representing him as a purely religious teacher. The term Πυθαγοριστής seems to have been used specially of the Akousmatics, while the scientific Pythagoreans were called Πυθαγόρειοι in the same way as the followers of other schools were called Ἀναξαγόρειοι, Ἡρακλείτειοι, and the like.
3 For the fragments, see Diels, Vors. 45 E. The most striking are Antiphanes, fr. 135, Kock, ὥσπερ Πυθαγορίζων ἐσθίει | ἔμψυχον οὐδέν; Alexis, fr. 220, οἱ Πυθαγορίζοντες γάρ, ὡς ἀκούομεν, | οὔτ’ ὄψον ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ’ ἄλλ’ οὐδὲ ἓν | ἔμψυχον; fr. 196 (from the Πυθαγορίζουσα), ἡ δ’ ἑστίασις ἰσχάδες καὶ στέμφυλα | καὶ τυρὸς ἔσται· ταῦτα γὰρ θύειν νόμος | τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις; Aristophon, fr. 9 (from the Πυθαγοριστής, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν οἰόμεθα τοὺς πάλαι ποτέ, | τοὺς Πυθαγοριστὰς γενομένους ὄντως ῥυπᾶν | ἑκόντας ἢ φορεῖν τριβῶνας ἡδέως; Mnesimachos, fr. 1, ὡς Πυθαγοριστὶ θύομεν τῷ Λοχίᾳ | ἔμψυχον οὐδὲν ἐσθίοντες παντελῶς. See also Theokritos xiv. 5, τοιοῦτος καὶ πρᾶν τις ἀφίκετο Πυθαγορικτάς, | ὠχρὸς κἀνυποδητός· Ἀθηναῖος δ’ ἔφατ’ ἦμεν.
We have seen that Pythagoras taught the kinship of beasts and men, and we infer that his rule of abstinence from flesh was based, not on humanitarian or ascetic grounds but on taboo. This is strikingly confirmed by a statement in Porphyry’s Defence of Abstinence, to the effect that, though the Pythagoreans did as a rule abstain from flesh, they nevertheless ate it when they sacrificed to the gods.
44. Akousmata. We shall now know what to think of the Pythagorean rules and precepts that have come down to us. These are
1 Bousiris, § 29, ἔτι γὰρ καὶ νῦν τοὺς προσποιουμένους ἐκείνου μαθητὰς εἶναι μᾶλλον σιγῶντας θαυμάζουσιν ἢ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῷ λέγειν μεγίστην δόξαν ἔχοντας. The Pythagorean silence was called ἐχεμυθία or ἐχερρημοσύνη, both of which seem to be good Ionic words. It is probable that the silence was disciplinary rather than a means of keeping the doctrine secret.
2 See Bernays, Theophrastos’ Schrift über Frömmigkeit. Porphyry’s tract, Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων, is addressed to Castricius Firmus, who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the Pythagoreans. The passage referred to is De abst. p. 58, 25 Nauck, ἰστοροῦσι δέ τινες καὶ αὐτοὺς ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, ὅτε θύοιεν θεοῖς. This does not come, like most of Porphyry’s tract, from Theophrastos, but it is in all probability from Herakleides of Pontos. See Bernays, op. cit. p. 11. Cf. also Plutarch, Q. conv. 729 c (οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ) ἐγεύοντο τῶν ἱεροθύτων ἀπαρξάμενοι τοῖς θεοῖς.
3 Porphyry (V. 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). Iamblichos (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 how the Neoplatonists endeavoured to go back to the original form of the Pythagorean legend, and to explain away the fourth-century reconstruction.
1. To abstain from beans.
2. Not to pick up what has fallen.
3. Not to touch a white cock.
4. Not to break bread.
5. Not to step over a crossbar.
6. Not to stir the fire with iron.
7. Not to eat from a whole loaf.
8. Not to pluck a garland.
9. Not to sit on a quart measure.
10. Not to eat the heart.
11. Not to walk on highways.
12. Not to let swallows share one’s roof.
13. When the pot is taken off the fire, not to leave the mark of it in the ashes, but to stir them together.
14. Do not look in a mirror beside a light.
15. When you rise from the bedclothes, roll them together and smooth out the impress of the body.
It would be easy to multiply proofs of the close connexion between Pythagoreanism and primitive modes of thought, but what has been said is sufficient for our purpose.
1 For the Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις of Aristoxenos, see Diels, Vors. 45 D.
2 There is a collection of Ἀκούσματα καὶ σύμβολα in Diels, Vors. 45 C.
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” of a primitive type. The new thing in the society founded by Pythagoras seems to have been that, while it admitted all these old practices, it at the same time suggested a deeper idea of what “purification” really is. Aristoxenos said that the Pythagoreans employed music to purge the soul as they used medicine to purge the body.
1 Herakl. fr. 17; R.P. 31 a). The word ἱστορίη is in itself quite general. What it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by Iamblichos, V. Pyth. 89, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ἡ γεωμετρία πρὸς Πυθαγόρου ἱστορία.
2 Herod. iv. 95.
3 Arist. Περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, fr. 186, 1510 a 39, Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου υἱὸς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διεπονεῖτο περὶ τὰ μαθήματα καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμούς, ὕστερον δέ ποτε καὶ τῆς Φερεκύδου τερατοποιΐας οὐκ ἀπέστη.
4 See Cramer, An. Par. i. 172, ὅτι οἱ Πυθαγορικοί, ὡς ἔφη Ἀριστόξενος, καθάρσει ἐχρῶντο τοῦ μὲν σόματος διὰ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς διὰ τῆς μουσικῆς.
1 These are mentioned in Plato, Laws, 790 d, a passage which is the origin of Aristotle’s doctrine of κάθαρσις. For a full account see Rohde, Psyche, ii. 48, n. 1.
2 Plato gives this as the Pythagorean view in Phaed. 62b. The passage distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of Philolaos, but something older.
3 See Döring in Arch. v. pp. 505 sqq. There seems to be a reference to the theory of the “three lives” in Herakleitos, fr. 111. It was apparently taught in the Pythagorean Society of Phleious; for Herakleides made Pythagoras expound it in a conversation with the tyrant of Phleious (Cic. Tusc. v. 3; Diog. pr. 12, viii. 8), and Plato makes Sokrates argue from it in the Phaedo (see my note on 68 c 2).
46. Arithmetic. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras was the first to carry that study beyond the needs of commerce,
1 Stob. i. p. 20, 1, ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοξένου περὶ ἀριθμητικῆς, Τὴν δὲ περὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς πραγματείαν μάλιστα πάντων τιμῆσαι δοκεῖ Πυθαγόρας καὶ προαγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν ἀπαγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἐμπόρων χρείας.
47. The figures. One of the most remarkable statements we have about Pythagoreanism is what we are told of Eurytos on the unimpeachable authority of Archytas. Eurytos was
Now these statements, and especially the remark of Aristotle last quoted, seem to imply the existence at this date, 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, because the zero was not yet invented.
1 Apart from the story in Iamblichos (V. Pyth. 148) that Eurytos heard the voice of Philolaos from the grave after he had been many years dead it is to be noticed that he is mentioned after him in the statement of Aristoxenos referred to (Diog. viii. 46; R.P. 62).
2 Arist. Met. N, 5. 1092 b; 8 R.P. 76 a. Aristotle does not quote the authority of Archytas here, but the source of his statement is made quite clear by Theophr. Met. p. vi. a 19 (Usener), τοῦτο γὰρ (sc. τὸ μὴ μέχρι του προελθόντα παύεσθαι) τελέου καὶ φρονοῦντος, ὅπερ Ἀρχύτας ποτ’ ἔφη ποιεῖν Εὔρυτον διατιθέντα τινὰς ψήφους· λέγειν γὰρ ὡς ὅδε μὲν ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἀριθμός, ὅδε δὲ ἵππου, ὅδε δ’ ἄλλου τινὸς τυγχάνει.
3 The notation used in Greek arithmetical treatises must have originated at a date and in a region where the Vau and the Koppa were still recognised as letters of the alphabet and retained their original position in it. That points to a Dorian state (Taras or Syracuse?), and to a date not later than the early fourth century BC The so-called Arabic figures are usually credited to the Indians, but M. Carra de Vaux has shown (Scientia, xxi. pp. 273 sqq.) that this idea (which only makes its appearance in the tenth century AD) is due to a confusion between the Arabic hindi, “Indian,” and hindasi, “arithmetical.” He comes to the conclusion that the “Arabic” numerals were invented by the Neopythagoreans, and brought by the Neoplatonists to Persia, whence they reached the Indians and later the Arabs. The zero, on which the value of the whole system depends, appears to be the initial letter of οὐδέν {none or nothing}.
It is, therefore, significant that we do not find any clue to what Aristotle meant by “those who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and the square” till we come to certain late writers who called themselves Pythagoreans, and revived the study of arithmetic as a science independent of geometry. These men not only abandoned the linear symbolism of Euclid, but also regarded the alphabetical notation, which they did use, as inadequate to represent the true nature of number. Nikomachos of Gerasa says expressly that the letters used to represent numbers are purely conventional.
1 Nikomachos of Gerasa, Introd. Arithm. p. 83, 12, Hoche, Πρότερον δὲ ἐπιγνωστέον ὅτι ἕκαστον γράμμα ᾧ σημειούμεθα ἀριθμόν, οἷον τὸ ι, ᾧ τὸ δέκα, τὸ κ, ᾧ τὰ εἴκοσι, τὸ ω, ᾧ τα ὀκτακόσια, νόμῳ καὶ συνθήματι ἀνθρωπίνῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ φύσει σημαντικόν ἐστι τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ κτλ. Cf. also Iambl. in Nicom. p. 56, 27, Pistelli, ἰστέον γὰρ ὡς τὸ παλαιὸν φυσικώτερον οἱ πρόσθεν ἐσημαίνοντο τὰς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ποσότητας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν συμβολικῶς.
2 For the prime or rectilinear numbers, cf. Iambl. in Nicom. p. 26, 25, Pistelli, πρῶτος μὲν οὖν καὶ ἀσύνθετος ἀριθμός ἐστι περισσὸς ὃς ὑπὸ μόνης μονάδος πληρούντως μετρεῖται, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ ὑπ’ ἄλλου τινὸς μέρους, καὶ ἐπὶ μίαν δὲ διάστασιν προβήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος, διὰ τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ εὐθυμετρικόν τινες καλοῦσι, Θυμαρίδας δὲ καὶ εὐθυγραμμικόν· ἀπλατὴς γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐκθέσει ἐφ’ ἓν μόνον διιστάμενος. It is generally recognised now that Thymaridas was an early Pythagorean (Tannery, Mém. scient. vol. i. n. 9; G. Loria, Scienze esatte, p. 807); and, if that is so, we have a complete proof that this theory goes back to the early days of the school. For the triangular, oblong, and square numbers, etc., see Theon of Smyrna, pp. 27-37, Hiller, and Nicom. loc. cit.
48. Triangular, square and oblong numbers. That Aristotle refers to this seems clear, and is confirmed by the tradition that the great revelation made by Pythagoras to mankind was precisely a figure of this kind, the tetraktys, by which the Pythagoreans used to swear,
In later days there were many kinds of tetraktys,
1 Cf. the formula Οὐ μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ γενεᾷ παραδόντα τετρακτύν, which is all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of Pythagoras by the forger of the Χρυσᾶ ἔπη, thus making him swear by himself! See Diels, Arch. iii. p. 457.
2 Speusippos wrote a work on the Pythagorean numbers, based chiefly on Philolaos, and a considerable fragment of it is preserved in the Theologumena Arithmetica. It will be found in Diels, Vorsokratiker, 32 A 13, and is discussed by Tannery, Science hellène, pp. 374 sqq.
3 See Theon, Expositio, pp. 93 sqq., Hiller. The τετρακτύς used in the Timaeus is the second described by Theon (Exp. p. 94, 10 sqq.).
It is obvious that the tetraktys may be indefinitely extended so as to exhibit the sums of the series of successive integers in a graphic form, and these sums are accordingly called “triangular numbers.”
For similar reasons, the sums of the series of successive odd numbers are called “square numbers,” and those of successive even numbers “oblong.” If odd numbers are added in the form of gnomons,
Square Numbers and Oblong Numbers
1 In accordance with analogy (p. 21, n. 1), the original meaning of the word γνώμων must have been that of the carpenter’s square. From that are derived its use (1) for the instrument; (2) for the figure added to a square or rectangle to form another square or rectangle. In Euclid (ii. def. 2) this is extended to all parallelograms, and finally the γνώμων is defined by Heron (ed. Heiberg, vol. iv. def. 58) thus: καθόλου δὲ γνώμων ἐστὶν πᾶν, ὃ προσλαβὸν ὁτιοῦν, ἀριθμὸς ἢ σχῆμα, ποιεῖ τὸ ὅλον ὅμοιον ᾧ προσείληφεν These, however, are later developments; for the use of γνώμων in the sense of “perpendicular” by Oinopides of Chios shows that, in the fifth century BC, it only applied to rectangular figures.
2 Cf. Milhaud, Philosophes géomètres, pp. 115 sqq. Aristotle puts the matter thus (Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 13): περιτιθεμένων γὰρ τῶν γνωμόνων περὶ τὸ ἓν καὶ χωρὶς ὁτὲ μὲν ἄλλο ἀεὶ γίγνεσθαι τὸ εἶδος, ὁτὲ δὲ ἕν. This is more clearly stated by Ps.-Plut. (Stob. i. p. 22, 16, ἔτι δὲ τῇ μονάδι τῶν ἐφεξῆς περισσῶν περιτιθεμένων ὁ γινόμενος ἀεὶ τετράγωνός ἐστι· τῶν δὲ ἀρτίων ὁμοίως περιτιθεμένων ἑτερομήκεις καὶ ἄνισοι πάντες ἀποβαίνουσιν, ἴσως δὲ ἰσάκις οὐδείς. It will be observed that Aristotle here uses εἶδος in the sense of “figure.” The words καὶ χωρὶς apparently mean χωρὶς τοῦ ἑνός, i.e. starting from 2, not from 1.
49. Geometry and Harmonics. It is easy to see how this way of representing numbers would suggest problems of a geometrical nature. The dots which stand for the pebbles are regularly called “boundary-stones” (ὅροι, termini, “terms”), and the area they mark out is the “field” (χώρα).
1 Speusippos (cf. p. 102, n. 2) speaks of four as the first pyramidal number; but this is taken from Philolaos, so we cannot safely ascribe it to Pythagoras.
2 Proclus, in Eucl. I. p. 136, 8, ἔστι δὲ τὸ ὄνομα (sc. ὅρος) οἰκεῖον τῇ ἐξ ἀρχῆς γεωμετρίᾳ, καθ’ ἣν τὰ χωρία ἐμέτρουν καὶ τοὺς ὅρους αὐτῶν ἐφύλαττον ἀσυγχύτους. We have ὅροι of a series (ἔκθεσις), then of a proportion, and in later times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, ∴ seem to be derived from this. The term χώρα is often used by the later Pythagoreans, though Attic usage required χωρίον for a rectangle. The spaces between the γραμμαί of the abacus and the chess-board were also called χῶραι.
3 In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority of Eudemos that the παραβολή, ἔλλειψις and ὑπερβολή of χωρία were Pythagorean inventions. For these and the later application of the terms in Conic Sections, see Milhaud, Philosophes géomètres, pp. 81 sqq.
50. Incommensurability. One great disappointment, however, awaited him. 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 arithmetical expression. As a matter of fact, however, there is no square number which can be divided into two equal square numbers, and so the problem cannot be solved. In this sense, it may be 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 to an odd number, is distinctly Pythagorean in character.
1 See Proclus’s commentary on Euclid i. 47.
2 Arist. An. Pr. A, 23. 41 a 26, ὅτι ἀσύμμετρος ἡ διάμετρος διὰ τὸ γίγνεσθαι τὰ περιττὰ ἴσα τοῖς ἀρτίοις συμμέτρου τεθείσης. The proofs given at the end of Euclid’s Tenth Book (vol, iii. pp. 408 sqq., Heiberg) turn on this very point. They are not Euclidean, and may be substantially Pythagorean. Cf. Milhaud, Philosophes géomètres, p. 94.
3 Plato, Theaet. 147d 3 sqq.
51. Proportion and Harmony. These last considerations show that, while it is quite safe to attribute the substance of the early books of Euclid to the early Pythagoreans, his arithmetical method is certainly not theirs. It operates with lines instead of with units, and it can therefore be applied to relations which are not capable of being expressed as equations between rational numbers. That is doubtless why arithmetic is not treated in Euclid till after plane geometry, a complete inversion of the original order. For the same reason, the doctrine of proportion which we find in Euclid cannot be Pythagorean, and is indeed the work of Eudoxos. Yet it is clear that the early Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself, studied proportion in their own way, and that the three “medieties” (μεσότητες) in particular go back to the founder, especially as the most complicated of them, the “harmonic,” stands in close relation to his discovery of the octave. If we take the harmonic proportion 12 : 8 : 6,
1 This version of the tradition is mentioned in Iamblichos, V. Pyth. 247, and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later (§148). The excommunicated Hippasos is the enfant terrible of Pythagoreanism, and the traditions about him are full of instruction. See p. 94, n. 2.
2 The harmonic mean is thus defined by Archytas (fr. 2, Diels) ἁ δὲ ὑπεναντία (μεσότας), ἃν καλοῦμεν ἁρμονικάν, ὅκκα ἔωντι [τοῖοι (sc. οἱ ὅροι)· ᾧ] ὁ πρῶτος ὅρος ὑπερέχει τοῦ δευτέρου αὐταύτου μέρει, τωὐτῷ ὁ μέσος τοῦ τρίτου ὑπερέχει τοῦ τρίτου μέρει. Cf. Plato, Tim. 36 a 3, τὴν…ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην. The harmonic mean of 12 and 6 is, therefore, 8; for 8=12–12/3 = 6+6/3.
3 The smith’s hammers belong to the region of Märchen, and it is not true that the notes would correspond to the weight of the hammers, or that, if they did, the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes. The number of vibrations really varies with the square root of the weights. These inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, Études sur le Timée, i. p. 391).
52. Things are Numbers. It was this, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to say all things were numbers. We shall see that, at a later date, the Pythagoreans identified these numbers with geometrical figures; but the mere fact that they called them “numbers,” taken in connexion with what we are told about the method of Eurytos, is sufficient to show this was not the original sense of the doctrine. It is enough to suppose that Pythagoras reasoned somewhat as follows. If musical sounds can be reduced to numbers, why not everything else? There are many likenesses to number in things, and it may well be that a lucky experiment, like that by which the octave was discovered, will reveal their true numerical nature. 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 are fortunately dispensed from following them in these vagaries. Aristotle tells us distinctly that the Pythagoreans explained only a few things by means of numbers,
1 Arist. Met. M, 4. 1078 b 21; R.P. 78. The Theologumena Arithmetica is full of such fancies (R.P. 78 a). Alexander, in Met. p. 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old (R.P. 78 c).
53. Cosmology. Now the most striking statement of this kind is one of Aristotle’s. The Pythagoreans held, he tells us, that there was “boundless breath” outside the heavens, and that it was inhaled by the world.
1 Arist. Phys. Δ, 6. 213 b 22 (R.P. 75).
2 Diog. ix. 119 (R. P, 103 c), ὅλον δ’ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὅλον ἀκούειν, μὴ μέντοι ἀναπνεῖν (φησι Ξενοφάνης) So in [Plut.] Strom. fr. 4 we read that Xenophanes held μὴ κατὰ πᾶν μέρος περιέχεσθαι ὑπὸ ἀέρος (τὴν γῆν). We may therefore ascribe the statement to Theophrastos without hesitation, in spite of the fact that Diogenes is here drawing on an inferior (biographical) source, as shown by Diels (Dox. p. 168). Cf. also Hipp. Ref. i. 14, 2,τὴν δὲ γῆν ἄπειρον εἶναι καὶ μήτε ὑπ’ ἀέρος μήτε ὑπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ περιέχεσθαι (Ξενοφάνης λέγει).h5>
3 Arist. Met. N, 3. 1091 a 13 (R.P. 74)
4 Arist. Phys. Δ, 6. 213 b 23 (R.P. 75 a). The words διορίζει τὰς φύσεις have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been supposed to attribute the function of limiting to the ἄπειρον. Aristotle makes it quite clear that his meaning is that stated in the text. Cf. especially the words χωρισμοῦ τινος τῶν ἐφεξῆς καὶ διορίσεως. The term διωρισμένον, “discrete,” is the proper antithesis to συνεχές, “continuous.” In his work on the Pythagorean philosophy, Aristotle used instead the phrase διορίζει τὰς χώρας (Stob. i. p. 156, 8; R.P. 75), which is also quite intelligible if we remember what the Pythagoreans meant by χώρα (cf. p. 104, n. 2).
1 Cf. Arist. Phys. Δ, 6. 213 a 27, οἱ δ’ ἄνθρωποι…φασὶν ἐν ᾧ ὅλως μηδέν ἐστι, τοῦτ’ εἶναι κενόν, διὸ τὸ πλῆρες ἀέρος κενὸν εἶναι; De part. an. B, 10. 656 b 15, τὸ γὰρ κενὸν καλούμενον ἀέρος πλῆρές ἐστι; De an. B, 10. 419 b 34, δοκεῖ γὰρ εἶναι κενὸν ὁ ἀήρ.
2 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 7; R.P. 56 c.
3 See Chap. IV. § 91.
4 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 25; R.P. 66.
5 Plato, Tim. 58d 2.
6 This is quoted by Plutarch, De def. orac. 422 b, d, from Phanias of Eresos, who gave it on the authority of Hippys of Rhegion. If we may follow Wilamowitz (Hermes, xix. p. 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.
The distinction between the diurnal revolution of the heavens from east to west, and the slower revolutions of the sun, moon, and planets from west to east, may also be referred to the early days of the school, and probably to Pythagoras himself.
1 This will be found in Chap. IV. § 93.
2 I formerly doubted this on the ground that Plato appeared to represent the theory as a novelty in Laws, 822 a, but Professor Taylor has convinced me that I was wrong. What Plato is denying in that passage is this very doctrine, and the theory he is commending must be that of a simple motion in a new form. This was a discovery of Plato’s old age; in the Myth of Er in the Republic and in the Timaeus we still have the Pythagorean theory of a composite motion. It is true that no writer earlier than Theon of Smyrna (p. 150, 12) expressly ascribes this theory to Pythagoras, but Aetios (ii. 16, 2) says that Alkmaion, a younger contemporary of Pythagoras, agreed with the mathematicians in holding that the planets had an opposite motion to the fixed stars. His other astronomical views were so crude (§ 96) that he can hardly have invented this.
On the one
For reasons which will appear later, we may confidently attribute to Pythagoras himself the discovery of the sphericity of the earth which the Ionians, even Anaxagoras and Demokritos, refused to accept. It is probable, however, that he still adhered to the geocentric system, and that the discovery that the earth was a planet belongs to a later generation (§ 150).
The account just given of the views of Pythagoras is, no doubt, conjectural and incomplete. We have simply assigned to him those portions of the Pythagorean system which appear to be the oldest, and it has not even been possible at this stage to cite fully the evidence on which our discussion is based. It will only appear in its true light when we have examined the second part of the poem of Parmenides and the system of the later Pythagoreans.
1 See the account of the theory of Demokritos in Lucretius, v. 621 sqq., and cf. above, p. 70. The technical term is ὑπόλειψις. Strictly speaking, the Ionian view is only another way of describing the same phenomena, but it does not lend itself so easily to a consistent theory of the real planetary motions.
2 See Chap. IV. §§ 92-93, and Chap. VII. §§ 150-152.
II. Xenophanes of Kolophon
55. Life. We have seen how Pythagoras gave a deeper meaning to the religious movement of his time; we have now to consider a very different manifestation of the reaction against the view of the gods which the poets had made familiar. Xenophanes denied the anthropomorphic gods altogether, but was quite unaffected by the revival of religion going on all round him. We still have a fragment of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the doctrine of transmigration.
1 It is impossible not to be struck by the resemblance between this doctrine and Dalton’s theory of chemical combination. A formula like H₂O is a beautiful example of a μεσότης. The diagrams of modern stereochemistry have also a curiously Pythagorean appearance. We sometimes feel tempted to say that Pythagoras had really hit upon the secret of the world when he said, “Things are numbers.”
2 Aristotle derived his doctrine of the Mean from Plato’s Philebus, where it is clearly expounded as a Pythagorean doctrine.
3 See fr. 7, below.
We are also told that he opposed the views of Thales and Pythagoras, and attacked Epimenides,
It is not easy to determine the date of Xenophanes. Timaios, whose testimony in such matters carries weight, said he was a contemporary of Hieron and Epicharmos, and he certainly seems to have played a part in the anecdotical romance of Hieron’s court which amused the Greeks of the fourth century as that of Croesus and the Seven Wise Men amused those of the fifth.
1 Diog. ix. 18; R.P. 97. We know that Xenophanes referred to the prediction of an eclipse by Thales (Chap. I. p. 42, n. 1).
2 Timaios ap. Clem. Strom. i. p. 353 (R.P. 95). There is only one anecdote which actually represents Xenophanes in conversation with Hieron (Plut. Reg. apophth. 175 e), but it is natural to understand Arist. Met. Γ, 5. 1010 a 4 as an allusion to a remark made by Epicharmos to him. Aristotle’s anecdotes about Xenophanes probably come from the romance of which Xenophon’s Hieron is also an echo.
3 Clem. loc. cit. The mention of Cyrus is confirmed by Hipp. Ref. i. 94. Diels thinks 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. 204 sqq., who is certainly wrong in supposing that ἄχρι τῶν Δαρείου καὶ Κύρου χρόνων can mean “during the times of Dareios and Cyrus.”
4 Rh. Mus. xxxi. p. 22. He adopts the suggestion of Ritter to read πεντηκόστην for τεσσαρακόστην in Clem. loc. cit. (N for M). But Apollodoros gave Athenian archons, not Olympiads.
5 As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left Phokaia (Herod. i. 164 sqq.) its date is just 540–39 BC Cf. the way in which Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi (§ 98).
“There are by this time threescore years and seven that have tossed my careworn soul
It is tempting to suppose that in this passage Xenophanes was referring to the conquest of Ionia by Harpagos, and that he is, in fact, answering the question asked in another poem
“This is the sort of thing we should say by the fireside in the winter-time, as we lie on soft couches after a good meal, drinking sweet wine and crunching chickpeas: ‘Of what country are you, and how old are you, good sir? And how old were you when the Mede appeared?’”
In that case, his birth would fall in 565 BC, and his connexion with Hieron would be quite credible. We note also that he referred to Pythagoras in the past tense, and is in turn so referred to by Herakleitos.
Theophrastos said that Xenophanes had “heard” Anaximander,
1 Bergk (Litteraturgesch. ii. p. 418, n. 23) took φροντίς 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 poem; for it is in hexameters, while the preceding fragment is in elegiacs.
3 Xenophanes, fr. 7; Herakleitos, frs. 16, 17.
4 Diog. ix. 21; R.P. 96 a.
5 Diog. ix. 18; R.P. 96). 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.
56. Poems. According to Diogenes, Xenophanes wrote in hexameters and also composed elegies and iambics against Homer and Hesiod.
1 Diog. ix. 18 (R.P. 97) says αὐτὸς ἐρραψῴδει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, which is a very different thing. Nothing is said anywhere of his reciting Homer. Gomperz’s imaginative picture (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 155) has no further support than this single word.
2 Diog. ix. 20 (R.P. 97) says he wrote a poem in 2000 hexameters on the colonisation of Elea. Even if true, this would not prove he lived there; for the foundation of Elea would be a subject of interest to all the Ionian émigrés. Moreover, the statement is very suspicious. The stichometric notices of the Seven Wise Men, Epimenides, etc., in Diogenes come from the forger Lobon, and this seems to be from the same source.
3 The only passage which brings him into connexion with Elea is Aristotle’s anecdote about the answer he gave the Eleates when they asked him whether they should sacrifice to Leukothea. “If you think her a goddess,” he said, “do not lament her; if you do not, do not sacrifice to her” (Rhet. B, 26. 1400 b 5; R.P. 98 a). Even this does not necessarily imply that he settled at Elea, and in any case such anecdotes are really anonymous. Plutarch tells the story more than once, but he makes it a remark of Xenophanes to the Egyptians (Diels, Vors. II A 13), while others tell it of Herakleitos.
4 Diog. ix. 18 (R.P. 97) The word ἐπικόπτων is a reminiscence of Timon fr. 60 (Diels), Ξεινοφάνης ὑπάτυφος Ὁμηραπάτης ἐπικόπτης.
5 The oldest reference to a poem Περὶ φύσεως is in the Geneva scholium on Il. xxi. 196 (quoting fr. 30), and this goes back to Krates of Mallos. We must remember that such titles are of later date, and Xenophanes had been given a place among philosophers long before the time of Krates. All we can say, therefore, is that the Pergamene librarians gave the title Περὶ φύσεως to some poem of Xenophanes.
The satires are called Silloi by late writers, and this name may go back to Xenophanes himself. It may, however, originate in the fact that Timon of Phleious, the “sillographer” (c. 259 BC), 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 hexameter (fr. 14). This suggests that Xenophanes inserted iambic lines among his hexameters in the manner of the Margites.
57. The Fragments. I give the fragments according to the text and arrangement of Diels.
Elegies (1) Now is the floor clean, and the hands and cups of all; one sets twisted garlands on our heads, another hands us fragrant ointment on a salver. The mixing bowl stands ready, full of
1 Simpl. De caelo, p. 522, 7 (R.P. 97 b). It is true that two of our fragments (25 and 26) are preserved by Simplicius, but he got them from Alexander. Probably they were quoted by Theophrastos; for it is plain that Alexander had no first-hand knowledge of Xenophanes, or he would not have been taken in by M.X.G. (See p. 126.)
2 Three fragments (27, 31, 33) come from the Homeric Allegories, two (30, 32) are from Homeric scholia.
But first it is meet that men should hymn the god with joy, with holy tales and pure words; then after libation and prayer made that we may have strength to do right—for that is in truth the first thing to do—no sin is it to drink as much as a man can take and get home without an attendant, so he be not stricken in years. And of all men is he to be praised who after drinking gives goodly proof of himself in the trial of skill,
(2) What if a man win victory in swiftness of foot, or in the pentathlon, at Olympia, where is the precinct of Zeus by Pisa’s springs, or in wrestling,—what if by cruel boxing or that fearful sport men call pankration he become more glorious in the citizens’ eyes, and win a place of honour in the sight of all at the games, his food at the public cost from the State, and a gift to be an heirloom for him,—what if he conquer in the chariot-race,—he will not deserve all this for his portion so much as I do. Far better is our art than the strength of men and of horses! These are but thoughtless judgements, nor is it fitting to set strength before goodly art.
1 So I understand ἀμφ’ ἀρετῆς. The τόνος is “strength of lungs.” The next verses are directed against Hesiod and Alkaios (Diels).
2 At this date “art” is the natural translation of σοφίη in such a writer as Xenophanes.
(4) Nor would a man mix wine in a cup by pouring out the wine first, but water first and wine on the top of it.
(5) Thou didst send the thigh-bone of a kid and get for it the fat leg of a fatted bull, a worthy guerdon for a man to get, whose glory is to reach every part of Hellas and never to pass away, so long as Greek songs last.
(7) And now I will turn to another tale and point the way.…Once they say that he (Pythagoras) was passing by when a dog was being beaten and spoke this word: “Stop! don’t beat it! For it is the soul of a friend that I recognised when I heard its voice.”
(8) See p. 114.
(9) Much weaker than an aged man.
Satires
(10) Since all at first have learnt according to Homer.…
1 Diels suggests that this is an attack on a poet like Simonides, whose greed was proverbial.
2 The name of Pythagoras does not occur in the lines that have been preserved; but the source of Diogenes viii. 36 must have had the complete elegy before him; for he said the verses occurred ἐν ἐλεγείᾳ, ἧς ἀρχὴ Νῦν αὖτ’ ἄλλον ἔπειμι λόγον κτλ.
(12) Since they have uttered many lawless deeds of the gods, stealings and adulteries 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.
(15) 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 their bodies in the image of their several kinds. R.P. ib.
(16) The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R.P. 100 b.
(18) The gods have not revealed all things to men from the beginning, but by seeking they find in time what is better. R. P 104 b.
(23) One god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form like unto mortals nor in thought.…R.P. 100.
(24) He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over. R.P. 102.
(25) But without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his mind. R.P. 108 b.
(28) This limit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with the air;
(29) 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 blowing forth) from within without the mighty sea, nor rivers’ streams nor rain-water from the sky. The mighty sea is father of clouds and of winds and of rivers.
(31) The sun swinging over
(32) She that they call Iris is a cloud likewise, purple, scarlet and green to behold. R.P. 103.
(33) For we all are born of earth and water. R.P. ib.
1 Reading ἠέρι for καὶ ῥεῖ with Diel.
2 This fragment has been recovered from the Geneva scholia on Homer (see Arch. iv. p. 652). The words in brackets are added by Diels.
3 The word is ὑπεριέμενος. This is quoted from the Allegories as an explanation of the name Hyperion, and doubtless Xenophanes so meant it.
(35) Let these be taken as fancies
(36) All of them
(37) And in some caves water drips.…
(38) If god had not made brown honey, men would think figs far sweeter than they do.
58. The Heavenly Bodies. Most of these fragments are not in any way philosophical and those that appear to be so are easily accounted for otherwise. The intention of one of them (fr. 32) is clear. “Iris too” is a cloud, and we may infer that the same thing had been said of the sun, moon, and stars; for the doxographers tell us that these were all explained as “clouds ignited by motion.”
1 It is more natural to take πᾶσι as masculine than as neuter, and ἐπὶ πᾶσι can mean “in the power of all.”
2 Reading δεδοξάσθω with Wilamowitz.
3 As Diels suggests, this probably refers to the stars, which Xenophanes held to be clouds.
4 Cf. Diels ad loc. (P. Ph. Fr. p. 44), “ut Sol et cetera astra, quae cum in nebulas evanescerent, deorum simul opinio casura erat.”
What we hear of the sun presents some difficulties. We are told that it is an ignited cloud; but this is not very consistent with the statement that the evaporation of the sea from which clouds arise is due to the sun’s heat. Theophrastos stated that the sun, according to Xenophanes, was a collection of sparks from the moist exhalation; but even this leaves the exhalation itself unexplained.
1 Aet. ii. 18, 1 (Dox. p. 347), Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους οἷον ἀστέρας, οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες, νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν παραλάμποντα.
2 The passages from Aetios are collected in Diels, Vors. 11 A 38 sqq.
3 Aet. ii. 20, 3 (Dox. p. 348), Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν ἐκ πυριδίων μὲν τῶν συναθροιζομένων ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως, συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. It seems likely from these words that Theophrastos pointed out the contradiction, as his manner was.
The vigorous expression “tumbling into a hole”
59. Earth and Water. In fr. 29 Xenophanes says that “all things are earth and water," and Hippolytos has preserved the account given by Theophrastos of the context in which this occurred. It was as follows:
“Xenophanes said that a mixture of the earth with the sea is taking place, and that it is being gradually dissolved by the moisture. He says that he has the following proofs of this. Shells are found in midland districts 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 a bayleaf in the depth of the stone, and at Malta flat impressions of all marine animals. These, he says, were produced when all things were formerly mud, and the outlines were dried in the mud. All human beings
1 Aet. ii. 24, 9 (Dox. p. 355). πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας, κατὰ δέ τινα καιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν· ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν προιέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν.
2 That this is the meaning of κενεμβατέω appears sufficiently from the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott, and it describes a total eclipse very well.
3 Aet. ii. 13, 14 (Dox. p. 343), ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας.
4 Aet. ii. 30, 8 (Dox. p. 362), τὸν μὲν ἥλιον χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ζῴων γένεσίν τε καὶ διοίκησιν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην παρέλκειν. The verb παρέλκειν means “to cork.” (Cf. Aristophanes, Pax, 1306). In Hellenistic Greek the metaphor is no longer felt, and παρέλκει means “is redundant,” “is superfluous.”
This is, of course, the theory of Anaximander, and we may perhaps credit him rather than Xenophanes with the observations of fossils.
60. Finite or Infinite? Aristotle tried without success to discover from the poems of Xenophanes whether he regarded the world as finite or infinite. “He made no clear pronouncement on the subject,” he tells us.
1 There is an interesting note on these in Gomperz’s Greek Thinkers (Eng. trans. i. p. 551). I have translated his conjecture φυκῶν instead of the MS. φωκῶν, as this is said to involve a palaeontological impossibility, and impressions of fucoids are found, not indeed in the quarries of Syracuse, but near them. It is said also that there are no marine fossils in Paros, so the MS. reading δάφνης need not be changed to ἀφύης with Gronovius. The fact that the fossil was in the depth of the stone seemed to show that Parian marble was once mud. It was no doubt imaginary.
2 Aet. ii. 1, 2 (Dox. p. 327); Diog. ix. 19 (R.P. 103 c). It is true that this passage of Diogenes comes from the biographical compendium (Dox. p. 168); but it is difficult to doubt the Theophrastean origin of a statement found in Aetios, Hippolytos, and Diogenes.
3 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 b 23 (R.P. 101). οὐδὲν διεσαφήνισεν.
1 This is given as an inference by Simpl. Phys. p. 23, 18 (R.P. 108 b), διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ὅμοιον. It does not merely come from M.X.G. (R.P. 108), πάντῃ δ’ ὅμοιον ὄντα σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι. Hippolytos has it too (Ref. i. 14; R.P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos. Timon of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way; for he makes him call the One ἴσον ἁπάντῃ (fr. 60, Diels; R.P. 102 a).This is given as an inference by Simpl. Phys. p. 23, 18 (R.P. 108 b), διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ὅμοιον. It does not merely come from M.X.G. (R.P. 108), πάντῃ δ’ ὅμοιον ὄντα σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι. Hippolytos has it too (Ref. i. 14; R.P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos. Timon of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way; for he makes him call the One ἴσον ἁπάντῃ (fr. 60, Diels; R.P. 102 a).
2 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21 (R.P. 103 b.
3 I take δαψιλός as an attribute and ἀπείρονα as predicate to both subjects.
4 Il. viii. 13-16, 478-481, especially the words οὐδ’ εἴ κε τὰ νείατα πείραθ’ ἵκηαι | γαίης καὶ πόντοιο κτλ. Iliad viii. must have seemed a particularly bad book to Xenophanes.
61. God and the World. In the passage of the Metaphysics just referred to, Aristotle speaks of Xenophanes as “the first partisan of the One,”
1 In Bekker’s edition this treatise bears the title Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, περὶ Ζήνωνος, περὶ Γοργίου, but the best MS. gives as the titles of its three sections: (1) Περὶ Ζήνωνος, (2) Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, (3) Περὶ Γοργίου. The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so the whole treatise is now entitled De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgias (M.X.G.). It has been edited by Apelt in the Teubner Series, and more recently by Diels (Abh. der k. Preuss. Akad. 1900), who has also given the section dealing with Xenophanes in Vors. II A 28. He has now withdrawn the view maintained in Dox. p. 108 that the work belongs to the third century BC, and holds that it was a Peripatetico eclectico (i.e. sceptica, platonica, stoica admiscente) circa Christi natalem conscriptum. The writer would have no first-hand knowledge of his poems, and the order in which the philosophers are discussed is that of the passage in the Metaphysics which suggested the whole thing. It is possible that a section on Parmenides preceded what we now have.
2 Met. A, 5. 986 b 21 (R.P. 101), πρῶτος τούτων ἑνίσας. The verb ἑνίζειν occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of μηδίζειν, φιλιππίζειν and the like.
Aristotle goes on to tell us that Xenophanes, “referring to the whole world,
1 Theaet. 181 a 6, τοῦ ὅλου στασιῶται. The noun στασιώτης has no other meaning than “partisan,” and the context shows that this is what it means here. The derivation στασιώτας … ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως appears first in Sext. Math. x. 46, where the term στασιῶται is incorrectly ascribed to Aristotle and supposed to mean those who made the universe stationary, an impossible interpretation.
2 Soph. 242d 5; R.P. 101 b. If the passage implies that Xenophanes settled at Elea, it equally implies this of his imaginary predecessors. But Elea was not founded till Xenophanes was in the prime of life.
3 Theaet. 179a 3, τῶν Ἡρακλειτείων ἤ, ὥσπερ σὺ λέγεις, Ὁμηρείων καὶ ἔτι παλαιοτέρων. Here Homer stands to the Herakleiteans in just the same relation as Xenophanes does to the Eleatics in the Sophist. In just the same spirit, Epicharmos, the contemporary of Xenophanes, is mentioned, along with Homer, as a predecessor of the ῥέοντες (Theaet. 152 e).
4 Met. 986 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 (im Hinblicke auf den ganzen Himmel) and Zeller (im Hinblick auf das Weltganze). The word ἀποβλέπειν had become too colourless to mean more, and οὐρανός means what was later called κόσμος.
62. Monotheism or Polytheism. That this “god” is just the world, Aristotle tells us, and the use of the word θεός is quite in accordance with Ionian usage. Xenophanes regarded it as sentient, though without any special organs of sense, and it sways all things by the thought of its mind. He also calls it “one god,” and, if that is monotheism, then Xenophanes was a monotheist, though this is surely not how the word is generally understood. The fact is that the expression “one god” wakens all sorts of associations in our mind which did not exist for the Greeks of this time. What Xenophanes is really concerned to deny is the existence of any gods in the proper sense, and the words “One god” mean “No god but the world.”
It is certainly wrong, then, to say with Freudenthal that Xenophanes was in any sense a polytheist.
1 See above, p. 125, n. 1,
2 Diog. ix 19 (R.P. 103 c) ὅλον δὲ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὅλον ἀκούειν, μὴ μέντοι ἀναπνεῖν.
3 [Plut.] Strom. fr. 4, ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ περὶ θεῶν ὡς οὐδεμιᾶς ἡγεμονίας ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης· οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον δεσπόζεσθαί τινα τῶν θεῶν, ἐπιδεῖσθαί τε μηδενὸς αὐτῶν μηδένα μηδ’ ὅλως, ἀκούειν δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν καθόλου καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος.
4 The fact that he speaks of the world as living and sentient makes no difference. No Greek ever doubted that the world was in some sense a ζῷων.
5 Freudenthal, Die Theologie des Xenophanes (Breslau, 1886).
1 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 Wilamowitz’s note to Euripides’ Herakles, v. 1106 Cf. especially the statement of Herakleitos (fr. 20) that “no one of gods or men” made the world.
2 Griechische Literatur, p. 38.
3 Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 9.
Chapter III. Herakleitos of Ephesos
63. Life of Herakleitos. Herakleitos of Ephesos, son of Bloson, is said to have “flourished” in Ol. LXIX. (504/3–501/0 BC); |131|
Sotion quotes a statement that Herakleitos was a disciple of Xenophanes,
64. His Book. We do not know the title of the work of Herakleitos,
1 Bernays, op. cit. pp. 20 sqq. This is quite consistent with the Roman tradition that Hermodoros took part later in the legislation of the Twelve Tables at Rome (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 4; Strabo, xiv. p. 642). There was a statue of him in the Comitium (Pliny, H.N. xxxiv. 21). The Romans were well aware that the Twelve Tables were framed on a Greek model; and, as Bernays said (op. cit. p. 85), the fact is attested as few things are in the early history of Rome.
2 Sotion ap. Diog. ix. 5 (R.P. 29 c).
3 Diog. ix. 6; R.P. 31.
4 Herakleitos said (fr. 68) that it was death to souls to become water; and we are told accordingly that he died of dropsy. He said (fr. 14) that the Ephesians should leave their city to their children, and (fr. 79) that Time was a child playing draughts. We are therefore told that he refused to take any part in public life, and went to play with the children in the temple of Artemis. He said (fr. 85) that corpses were more fit to be cast out than dung; and we are told that he covered himself with dung when attacked with dropsy. Lastly, he is said to have argued at great length with his doctors because of fr. 58. For these tales see Diog. ix. 3-5.
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 by Stoic editors (Diog. ix. 15; R.P. 30 c).
The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, and, at a later date, got him the nickname of “the Dark.”
65. The Fragments. I give a version of the fragments according to the arrangement of Bywater’s exemplary edition:
(1) It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess that all things are one. R.P. 40.
1 Diog. ix. 5 (R.P. 30). Bywater followed this hint in his arrangement of the fragments. The three sections are 1-90., 91-97, 98-130.
2 R.P. 30 a. The epithet ὁ σκοτεινός is of later date, but Timon of Phleious already called him αἰνικτής (fr. 43, Diels).
3 See the valuable observations of Diels in the Introduction to his Herakleitos von Ephesos, pp. iv. sqq.
4 Cf. Diog. ix. 6; R.P. 31.
5 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 arrangement, 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 it does not follow that Herakleitos wrote like Nietzsche. For a Greek, however prophetic in his tone, there must always be a distinction between an aphoristic and an incoherent style.
6 Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk’s λόγου for δόγματος and Miller’s εἶναι for εἰδεναι Cf. Philo, Leg. all. iii. c 3, quoted in Bywater’s note.
(3) Fools when they do hear are like the deaf: of them does the saying bear witness that they are absent when present. R.P. 31 a.
(4) 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 they meet with, nor do they mark them when they are taught, though they think they do.
(6) Knowing not how to listen nor how to speak.
(7) If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it; for it is hard to be sought out and difficult.
(8) Those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a little. R.P. 44 b.
(10) Nature loves to hide. 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) And the Sibyl, with raving lips uttering things mirthless,
1 The λόγος is primarily the discourse of Herakleitos himself; though, as he is a prophet, we may call it his “Word.” It can neither mean a discourse addressed to Herakleitos nor yet “reason.” (Cf. Zeller, p. 630, n. 1; Eng. trans. ii. p. 7, n. 2.) A difficulty has been raised about the words ἐόντος αἰεί. How could Herakleitos say that his discourse had always existed? The answer is that in Ionic ἐών means “true” when coupled with words like λόγος Cf. Herod. 1. 30, τῷ ἐόντι χρησάμενος λέγει; and even Aristoph. Frogs, 1052, οὐκ ὄντα λόγον. It is only by taking the words in this way that we can understand Aristotle’s hesitation as to the proper punctuation (Rhet. Γ, 5. 1407 b 15; R.P. 30. a). The Stoic interpretation given by Marcus Aurelius, iv. 46 (R.P. 32 b), must be rejected. In any case, the Johannine doctrine of the λόγος has nothing to do with Herakleitos or with anything at all in Greek philosophy, but comes from the Hebrew Wisdom literature. See Rendel Harris, “The Origin of the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel,” in The Expositor, 1916, pp. 147 sqq.
2 I have departed from the punctuation of Bywater here, and supplied a fresh object to the verb as suggested by Gomperz, Arch. i. 100.
(13) The things that can be seen, heard, 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.
(16) The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hekataios. R.P. 31.
(17) Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised scientific inquiry beyond all other men, and making a selection of these writings, claimed for his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an imposture. R.P. 31 a.
(18) Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. R.P. 32 b.
(19) Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things. R.P. 40.
(20) This world,
1 Cf. Herod. 1. 8.
2 The best attested reading is ἐποιήσατο not ἐποίησεν, and ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ means “claimed as his own.” The words ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγρφάς have been doubted since the time of Schleiermacher, and Diels now regards the whole fragment as spurious. This is because it was used to prove that Pythagoras wrote books (cf. Diels, Arch. iii. p. 451). As Bywater pointed out, however, the fragment itself only says that he read books. I would further suggest that the old-fashioned συγγραφάς is too good for a forger, and that the omission of the very thing to be proved would be remarkable. The last suggestion of a book by Pythagoras disappears with the reading ἐποιήσατο for ἐποίησεν. For the rendering given for κακοτεχνίη, compare its legal sense of “falsified evidence.”
3 The word κόσμος must mean “world” here, not merely “order”; for only the world could be identified with fire. This use of the word is Pythagorean, and Herakleitos may quite well have known it.
4 It is important to notice that μέτρα is internal accusative with ἁπτόμενον, “with its measures kindling and its measures going out.” This interpretation, which I gave in the first edition, is now adopted by Diels, Vors. 3 12 B 30 n..
(22) All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for all things, even as wares for gold and gold for wares. R.P. 35.
(23) It becomes liquid sea, and is measured by the same tale as before it became earth. R.P. 39.
(24) Fire is want and surfeit. R.P. 36 a.
(25) Fire lives the death of air,
(26) Fire in its advance will judge and convict
(27) How can one hide from that which never sets?
(28) It is the thunderbolt that steers the course of all things. R.P. 35 b.
(29) The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice, will find him out. R.P. 39.
(30) The limit of dawn and evening is the Bear; and opposite the Bear is the boundary of bright Zeus.
(31) If there were no sun it would be night, for all the other stars could do.
(32) The sun is new every day.
1 On the word πρηστήρ, see below, p. 149, n. 1.
2 The subject of fr. 23 is γῆ as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R.P. 36), πάλιν τε αὖ τὴν γῆν χεῖσθαι; and Aet. i. 3, 11 (Dox. p. 284 a 1; b 5), ἔπειτα ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς χύσει (Dübner: φύσει, libri) ὕδωρ ἀποτελεῖσθαι. Herakleitos may have said γῆ θάλασσα διαχέεται, and Clement (Strom. v. p. 712) seems to imply this. The phrase μετρέεται εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον can only mean that the proportion of the measures remains constant. So Zeller (p. 690, n. 1), zu derselben Grösse. Diels (Vors. 12 B 31 n.) renders “nach demselben Wort (Gesetz),” but refers to Lucr. v. 257, which supports the other interpretation (pro parte sua).
3 It is doubtful whether this fragment is quoted textually. It seems to imply the four elements of Empedokles.
4 I understand ἐπελθόν of the πυρὸς ἔφοδος, for which see p. 151, n. 1. Diels has pointed out that καταλαμβάνειν is the old word for “to convict.”
5 Here it is clear that οὖρος = τέρματα, and therefore means “boundary,” not “hill.” Strabo, who quotes the fragment (i. 6, p. 3), is probably right in taking ἠοῦς καὶ ἑσπέρας as equivalent to ἀνατολῆς καὶ δύσεως and making the words refer to the “arctic” circle. As αἴθριος Ζεύς means the bright blue sky, it is impossible for its οὖρος to be the South Pole, as Diels suggests. It is more likely the horizon. I take the fragment as a protest against the Pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere.
6 We learn from Diog. ix. 10 (quoted below, p. 147) that Herakleitos explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon, and this is doubtless a fragment of that passage.
(34) …the seasons that bring all things.
(35) Hesiod is most men’s teacher. Men are sure he knew very many things, a man who did not know day or night! They are one. R.P. 39 b.
(36) God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire,
(37) If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would distinguish them.
(38) Souls smell in Hades. R.P. 46 d.
(39) Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet dries, and the parched is moistened.
(40) It scatters and it gathers; it advances and retires.
(41, 42) You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. R.P. 33.
(43) Homer was wrong in saying: “Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!” He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for, if his prayer were heard, all things would pass away.
(44) War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free. R.P. 34.
(45) Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tensions,
(46) It is the opposite which is good for us.
(47) The hidden attunement is better than the open. R.P. 34.
(48) Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest things.
1 Hesiod said Day was the child of Night (Theog. 124).
2 Reading ὅκωπερ πῦρ for ὅκωσπερ with Diels.
3 Il. xviii. 107. I add οἰχήσεσθαι γὰρ πάντα from Simpl. in Cat. 412, 26. It must represent something that was in the original.
4 I cannot believe Herakleitos said both παλίντονος and παλίντροπος ἁρμονίη, and I prefer Plutarch’s παλίντονος (R.P. 34 b) to the παλίντροπος of Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of Parmenides favours παλίντροπος, but see below, p. 164, n. 1, and Chap. IV. p. 174, n. 3.h5>
5 This refers to the medical rule αἱ δ’ ἰατρεῖαι διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων, e.g. βοηθεῖν τῷ θερμῷ ἐπὶ τὸ ψυχρόν.
(50) The straight and the crooked path of the fuller’s comb is one and the same.
(51)
(51a) Oxen are happy when they find bitter vetches to eat. R.P. 48 b.
(52) The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish can drink 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.
(54) …to delight in the mire.
(55) Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.
(56) Same as 45.
(57) Good and ill are one. R.P. 47 c.
(58) Physicians who cut, burn, stab, and rack the sick, demand a fee for it which they do not deserve to get. R.P. 47 c.
(59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one.
(60) Men would not have known the name of justice if these things were not.
(61) To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right. R.P. 45.
(62) We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away (?) through strife.
(64) All the things we see when awake are death, even as all we see in slumber are sleep. R.P. 42c.
1 See Bywater in Journ. Phil. ix. p. 230.
2 On fr. 55 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb., 1901, p. 188.
3 I now read ἐπαιτέονται with Bernays and Diels.
4 On fr. 59 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb., 1901, p. 188. The reading συνάψιες seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. The alternative reading συλλάψιες is preferred by Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. iii. 240.
5 By “these things” he probably meant all kinds of injustice.
6 Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on ὁκόσα δὲ τεθνηκότες ζωή. “Life, Sleep, Death is the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics Fire, Water, Earth.”
(66) The bow (βιός) is called life (βίος) but its work is death. R.P. 49 a.
(67) Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the one living the others’ death and dying the others’ life. R.P. 46.
(68) For it is death to souls to become water, and death to water to become earth. But water comes from earth; and from water, soul. R.P. 38.
(69) The way up and the way down is one and the same. R.P. 36 d.
(70) In the circumference of a circle the beginning and end are common.
(71) You will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling in any direction, so deep is the measure of it. R.P. 41 d.
(72) It is pleasure to souls to become moist. R.P. 46 c.
(73) A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul moist. R.P. 42.
(74-76) The dry soul is the wisest and best. R.P. 42.
(77) Man kindles a light for himself in the night-time, when he has died but is alive. The sleeper, whose vision has been put out, lights up from the dead; he that is awake lights up from the sleeping.
1 The words οὕτω βαθὺν λόγον ἔχει present no difficulty if we remember that λόγος means “measurement,” as in fr. 23.
2 This fragment is interesting because of the antiquity of the corruptions it has suffered. According to Stephanus, who is followed by Bywater, we should read: Αὔη ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη καὶ ἀρίστη, ξηρή being a mere gloss upon αὔη. When once ξηρή got into the text; αὔη became αὐγή, and we get the sentence, “the dry light is the wisest soul,” whence the siccum lumen of Bacon. Now this reading is as old as Plutarch, who, in his Life of Romulus (c. 28), takes αὐγή 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. (It should be added that Diels now holds that a αὐγή ξηρὴ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη καὶ αρίστη is the genuine reading.) Lastly, though Plutarch must have written αὐγή, the MSS. vary between αὕτη and αὐτή (cf. De def. or. 432 f. αὕτη γὰρ ξηρὰ ψυχὴ in the MSS.). The next stage is the corruption of the αὐγή into οὗ γῆ. This yields the sentiment that “where the earth is dry, the soul is wisest,” and is as old as Philo (see Bywater’s notes).
3 I adopt the fuller text of Diels here. It is clear that Death, Sleep, Waking correspond to Earth, Water, Air in Herakleitos (cf. fr. 68). I think, however, that we must take ἅπτεται in the same sense all through the fragment, so I do not translate “is in contact with,” as Diels does.
(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.
(81) We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and are not. R.P. 33 a.
(82) It is a weariness to labour for the same masters and be ruled by them.
(83) It rests by changing.>
(84) Even the posset separates if it is 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 leave children behind them to meet with their dooms in turn.
(87-89) A man may be a grandfather in thirty years.
(90) Those who are asleep are fellow-workers (in what goes on in the world).
(91a) Thought is common to all.
(91b) Those who speak with understanding must hold fast to what is common to all as a city holds fast to its law, and even more strongly. For all human laws are fed by the one divine law. It prevails as much as it will, and suffices for all things with something to spare. R.P. 43.
(92) So we must follow the common,
(93) They are estranged from that with which they have most constant intercourse.
(94) It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep.
1 I understand μεταπεσόντα here as meaning “moved” from one γραμμή or division of the draught-board to another.
2 Sext. Math. vii. 133, διὸ δεῖ ἕπεσθαι τῷ κοινῷ (so the MSS. ξυνῷ Schleiermacher). ξυνὸς γὰρ ὁ κοινός. Bywater omits the words, but I think they must belong to Herakleitos. Diels adopts Bekker’s suggestion to read διὸ δεῖ ἕπεσθαι τῷ [ξυνῷ, τουτέστι τῷ] κοινῳ. I now think also that, if we understand the term λόγος in the sense explained above (p. 133, n. 1), there is no reason to doubt the words which follow.
3 The words λόγῳ τῳ τὰ ὅλα διοικοῦντι belong to Marcus Aurelius and not to Herakleitos.
(96) 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 man. R.P. 45.
(98, 99) The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.
(100) The people must fight for its law as for its walls. R.P. 43 b.
(101) Greater deaths win greater portions. R.P. 49 a.
(102) Gods and men honour those who are slain in battle. R.P. 49 a.
(103) Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a house on fire. R.P. 49 a.
(104) It is not good for men to get all they wish to get. It is sickness that makes health pleasant; evil,
(105–107) It is hard to fight with one’s heart’s desire.
(108, 109) It is best to hide folly; but it is hard in times of relaxation, over our cups.
(110) And it is law, too, to obey the counsel of one. R.P. 49 a.
(111) For what thought or wisdom have they? They follow the poets and take the crowd as their teacher, knowing not that there are many bad and few good.
For even the best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like beasts.
(112) In Priene lived Bias, son of Teutamas, who is of more account than the rest. (He said, “Most men are bad.”)
(113) One is ten thousand to me, if he be the best. R.P. 31 a.
(114) The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every grown man of them, and leave the city to beardless lads; for they have cast out Hermodoros, the best man among them,
1 Adopting Heitz’s κακὸν for καὶ with Diels.
2 Desire: The word θυμός has its Homeric sense. The gratification of desire implies the exchange of dry soul-fire (fr. 74) for moisture (fr. 72). Aristotle misunderstood θυμός here as anger. (Eth. Nic. B, 2. 1105 a 8).)
3 This seems to refer to the “three lives,” Chap. II. § 45, p. 98.
(115) Dogs bark at every one they do not know. R.P. 31 a.
(116) …(The wise man) is not known because of men’s want of belief.
(117) The fool is fluttered at every word. R.P. 44 b.
(118) The most esteemed of them knows but fancies,
(119) Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped, and Archilochos likewise. R.P. 31.
(120) One day is like any other.
(121) Man’s character is his fate.
(122) There awaits men when they die such things as they look not for nor dream of. R.P. 46 d.
(123)
(124) Night-walkers, Magians, Bakchoi, Lenai, and the initiated…
(125) The mysteries practised among men are unholy mysteries. R.P. 48.
(126) And they pray to these images, as if one were to talk with a man’s house, knowing not what gods or heroes are. R.P. 49 a.
(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 in whose honour they go mad and rave. R.P. 49.
(129, 130) They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing thus, would deem him mad. R.P. 49 a.
1 He went to Italy and took part in framing the Twelve Tables at Rome. See p. 131 n. 1.
2 Reading δοκέοντα with Schleiermacher (or δοκέοντ’ ὦν with Diels). I also read γινώσκει, φυλάσσει with Diels, who quotes the combination φυλάσσουσι καὶ γινώσκουσι from Hippokrates.
3 On the meaning of δαίμων here, see my edition of Aristotle’s Ethics, pp. 1 sq.
4 I have not ventured to include the words ἔνθα δ’ ἐόντι at the beginning, as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels’s note.
Another difficulty we have to face is that most of the commentators on Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were Stoics.
1 See Diels, Dox. p. 145. We must 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, and is a rich mine of Herakleitean fragments.
2 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 7 (R.P. 56 c); Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. 23, 33 (R.P. 36 c).
3 For these double accounts see Note on Sources, § 15.
4 Diog. ix. 15; R.P. 30 c. Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this.
5 The word συνοικειοῦν is used of the Stoic method of interpretation by Philodemos (cf. Dox. 547 b, n.), and Cicero (N.D. 1. 41) renders it by accommodare.
67. The Discovery of Herakleitos. Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass of men, but on all previous inquirers into nature. This must mean that he believed himself to have attained insight into some truth not hitherto recognised, though it was staring men in the face (fr. 93). To get at the central thing in his teaching, we must try then to find out what he was thinking of when he launched into those denunciations of human dulness and ignorance. The answer seems to be given in two fragments, 18 and 45. From them we gather that the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently independent and conflicting things we know are really one, and that, on the other hand, this one is also many. The “strife of opposites” is really an “attunement” (ἁρμονία). From this it follows that wisdom is not a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the underlying unity of the warring opposites. That this really was the fundamental thought of Herakleitos is stated by Philo. He says: “For that which is made up of both the opposites is one; and, when the one is divided, the opposites are disclosed. Is not this just what the Greeks say their great and much belauded Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as summing it all up, and boasted of as a new discovery?”
68. The One and the Many. Anaximander had taught that the opposites were separated out from the Boundless, but passed away into it once more, so paying the penalty to one another for their unjust encroachments. It is here implied that there is something wrong in the war of opposites, and that the existence of the opposites is a breach in the unity of the One. The truth Herakleitos proclaimed was that the world is at once one and many, and that it is just the “opposite tension” of the opposites that constitutes the unity of the One. It is the same conclusion as that of Pythagoras, though it is
1 Philo, Rer. div. her. 43; R.P. 34 e.
Plato clearly states that this was the central thought of Herakleitos. In the Sophist (242 d), the Eleatic stranger, after explaining how the Eleatics maintained that what we call many is 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 together by Hate and Love. “For,” say the more severe Muses, “in its division it is always being brought together” (cf. fr. 59); while the softer Muses relaxed the requirement that this should always be so, and said that the All was alternately one and at peace through the power of Aphrodite, and many and at war with itself because of something they called Strife.
In this passage the Ionian Muses stand, of course, for Herakleitos, and the Sicilian for Empedokles. According to Plato, then, Herakleitos taught that reality was at once many and one. This was not meant as a logical principle.
1 This was the mistake of Lassalle’s book. The source of his error was Hegel’s 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. This, however, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos, but to Leukippos or Demokritos, with whom it meant that space was as real as body (§ 175). Aristotle does, indeed, tell us in the Metaphysics that “some” 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 (Met. Γ, 3.1005 b 24). This is explained by B, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by 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 said. In other words, he was unconscious of its logical bearing.
69. Fire. All this made it necessary for him to seek out a new primary substance. He wanted not merely something from which opposites could be “separated out,” but something which of its own nature would pass into everything else, while everything else would pass in turn into it. This he found in Fire, and it is easy to see why, if we consider the phenomenon of combustion. The quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears to remain the same, the flame seems to be what we call a “thing.” And yet the substance of it is continually changing. It is always passing away in smoke, and its place is always being taken by fresh matter from the fuel that feeds it. This is just what we want. If we regard the world as an “ever-living fire” (fr. 20), we can understand how it is always becoming all things, while all things are always returning to it.
70. Flux. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of looking at the change and movement of the world. Fire burns continuously and without interruption. It is always consuming fuel and always liberating smoke. Everything is either mounting upwards to serve as fuel, or sinking downwards
1 That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the “Air” of Anaximenes is clearly implied in such passages as Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 5. In support of the view that something different from literal fire is meant, Plato, Crat. 413 b, is sometimes quoted; but the context shows the passage will not bear this interpretation. Sokrates is discussing the derivation of δίκαιον from δια-ιόν, and certainly δίκη was a prominent Herakleitean conception, and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the school. He goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which “goes through” everything, he gets inconsistent answers. One says it is the sun. Another asks if there is no justice after sunset, and says it is simply fire. A third says it is not fire itself, but the heat which is in fire. A fourth identifies it with Mind. Now all we are entitled to infer from this is that different accounts were given in the Herakleitean school at a later date. The view that it was not fire itself, but Heat, which “passed through” all things, is related to the theory of Herakleitos as Hippo’s Moisture is to the Water of Thales. It is quite likely, too, that some Herakleiteans attempted to fuse the system of Anaxagoras with their own, just as Diogenes of Apollonia tried to fuse it with that of Anaximenes. We shall see, indeed, that we still have a work in which this attempt is made (p. 150, n. 2).
71. The Upward and Downward Path. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the details with reference to the theories of Anaximenes.
1 Plato, Theaet. 152 e 1; Crat. 401 d 5, 402 a 8; Arist. Top. A, 11. 104 b 22 ; De caelo, Γ, 1. 298 b 30; Phys. Θ, 3. 253 b 2.
2 See above, Chap. I. § 29.
3 See, however, the remark of Diels (Dox. p. 165) quoted R.P. 36 c.
4 Diog. ix. 8, σαφῶς δ’ οὐθὲν ἐκτίθεται.
It 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 in Laertios Diogenes. It is as follows:
“His opinions on particular points are these: “He held that Fire was the element, and that all things were an exchange for fire, produced by condensation and rarefaction. But he explains nothing clearly. All things were produced in opposition, and all things were in flux like a river.
“The all is finite and the world is one. It arises from fire, and is consumed again by fire alternately through all eternity in certain cycles. This happens according to fate. Of the opposites, that which leads to the becoming of the world is called War and Strife; that which leads to the final conflagration is Concord and Peace.
“He called change the upward and the downward path, and held that the world comes into being in virtue of this. When fire is condensed it becomes moist, and when compressed it turns to water; water being congealed turns to earth, and this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards.” R.P. 36.
“He held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea and the land; some bright and pure, others dark. Fire was nourished by the bright ones, and moisture by the others.
“He does not make it clear what is the nature of that which surrounds the world. He held, however, that there were bowls in it 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. The sun moved in a bright and unmixed region
“Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and winds, and things like these, were due to the different 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.
“As to the earth, he makes no clear statement about its nature, any more than he does about that of the bowls.
“These, then, were his opinions.” R.P. 39 b.
Now, if we can trust this passage, it is of the greatest value; and that, upon the whole, we can trust it is shown by the fact that it follows the exact order of topics to which all the doxographies derived from the work of Theophrastos adhere. First we have the primary substance, then the world, then the heavenly bodies, and lastly, meteorological phenomena. We conclude, then, that it may be accepted with the exceptions, firstly, of the probably erroneous conjecture of Theophrastos as to rarefaction and condensation; and secondly, of some pieces of Stoical interpretation which come from the Vetusta Placita.
Let us look at the details. The pure fire, we are told, is to be found chiefly in the sun. This, like the other heavenly bodies, is a trough or bowl, with the concave side turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations from the sea collect and burn. How does the fire of the sun pass into other forms? If we look at the fragments which deal with the downward path, we find that the first transformation it undergoes is into sea, and we are further told that half of the sea is earth and half of it πρηστήρ (fr. 21). What is this πρηστήρ? So far as I know, no one has yet proposed
1 This was written in 1890. In his Herakleitos von Ephesos (1901) Diels takes it as I did, rendering Glutwind. Cf. Herod, vii. 42, and Lucretius vi. 424. Seneca (Q.N. ii. 56) calls it igneus turbo. The opinions of early philosophers on these phenomena are collected in Aetios iii. 3. The πρηστήρ of Anaximander (Chap. I. p. 68, n. 2) is a different thing. Greek sailors probably named the meteorological phenomena after the familiar bellows of the smith.
2 Aet. iii. 3. 9, πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις (sc. Ἡράκλειτος ἀποφαίνεται γίγνεσθαι).
72. Measure for Measure. How is it that, in spite of this constant flux, things appear relatively stable? The answer of Herakleitos was that it is owing to the observance of the “measures,” in virtue of which the aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run remains the same, though its substance is constantly changing. Certain “measures” of the “ever-living fire” are always being kindled, while like “measures” are always going out (fr. 20). All things are “exchanged” for fire and fire for all things (fr. 22), and this implies that for everything it takes, fire will give as much. “The sun will not exceed his measures” (fr. 29).
And yet the “measures” are not absolutely fixed. We gather from the passage of Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke of an alternate preponderance of the bright and dark exhalations, and Aristotle speaks of Herakleitos as explaining all things by evaporation.
1 Arist. De an. B, 2. 405 a 26, τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐξ ἧς τἆλλα συνίστησιν.
2 The 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 reconstructing the system. The older literature of the subject has been in the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs’ Hippokratische Untersuchungen (1899). He shows that (as I said already in the first edition) the work belongs to the period of eclecticism and reaction briefly characterised in § 184, and he points out that c 3, which was formerly supposed to be mainly Herakleitean, is 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 described by Plato in Crat. 413 c (see p. 145, n. 1). 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 beginning of c 3.
73. Man. In studying this alternate advance of fire and water, it will be convenient to start with the microcosm. We have more definite information about the two exhalations in man than about the analogous processes in the world at large, and it would seem that Herakleitos himself explained the world by man rather than man by the world. Aristotle implies that soul is identical with the dry exhalation,
1 Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5. I read thus: ἡμέρη καὶ εὐφρόνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον· ἥλιος, σελήνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον· πυρὸς ἔφοδος καὶ ὕδατος. In any case, the sentence occurs between χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖά καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ κάτω ἀμειβόμενα and πάντα ταὐτὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ αὐτά which are surely Herakleitean utterances.
2 Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 a 25 (R.P. 38). Diels attributes to Herakleitos himself the words καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται, which are found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe, however, that the word ἀναθυμίασις is Herakleitean. He seems rather to have called the two exhalations καπνός and ἀήρ (cf. fr. 37).
3 Περὶ διαίτης i. 5, χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ κάτω ἀμειβόμενα.
74. (a) Sleeping and Waking. This, however, is not all. Man is subject to a certain oscillation in his “measures” of fire and water, which gives rise to the alternations of sleeping and waking, life and death. The locus classicus on this is a passage of Sextus Empiricus, which reproduces the account given by Ainesidemos.
The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds us
1 We seem to have a reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels (170 b, Kaibel): “Look now at men too. One grows and another passes away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance (κατὰ φύσιν) 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 even the same again, and so on in the same way.” This is said by a debtor who does not wish to pay.
2 Sextus quotes “Ainesidemos according to Herakleitos.” Natorp holds (Forschungen, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels (Dox. pp. 210, 211), insists that he only gave an account of the theories of Herakleitos. This controversy does not affect the use we make of the passage.
3 Τὸ περιέχον ἡμᾶς, opposed to but parallel with τὸ περιέχον τὸν κόσμον.
75. (b) Life and Death. But in no soul are the fire and water thus evenly balanced for long. One or the other acquires predominance, and the result in either case is death. Let us take each of these cases in turn. It is death, we know, to souls to become water (fr. 68); but that is what happens to souls which seek after pleasure. For pleasure is a moistening of the soul (fr. 72), as may be seen in the case of the drunken man, who has so moistened his soul that he does not know where he is going (fr. 73). Even in gentle relaxation over our cups, it is more difficult to hide folly than at other times (fr. 108). That is why we must quench wantonness (fr. 103); for whatever our heart’s desire insists on it purchases at the price of life, that is, of the fire within us (fr. 105). Take now the other case. The dry soul, that which has least moisture, is the best (fr. 74); but the preponderance of fire causes death as much as that of water. It is a very different
Further, just as summer and winter are one, and necessarily reproduce one another by their “opposite tension,” so do life and death. They, too, are one, we are told; and so are youth and age (fr. 78). It follows that the soul will be now living and now dead; that it will 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; but from the earth comes water, and from water is once more exhaled a soul (fr. 68). So, too, we are told (fr. 67) that gods and men are really one. They live each others’ life, and die each others’ death. Those mortals that die the fiery death become immortal,
1 The word is used for its paradoxical effect. Strictly speaking, they are all mortal from one point of view and immortal from another.
2 Those who fall in battle apparently share the same lot (fr. 102). Rohde, Psyche (II. pp. 148 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos believed the soul survived death. Strictly speaking, it is no doubt an inconsistency; but I believe, with Zeller and Diels, that it is one of a kind we may well admit. 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.
3 These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, Iamblichos, and Noumenios in this connexion (R.P. 46 c), and it does not seem possible to hold, with Rohde, that they had no grounds for so interpreting them. They knew the context and we do not.
So they too are born once more. Herakleitos estimated the duration of the cycle which preserves the balance of life
76. The Day and the Year. Let us turn now to the world. Diogenes tells us that fire was kept up by the bright vapours from land and and sea, and moisture by the dark.
Summer and winter were to be explained in the same way. We know that the “turnings back” of the sun were a subject of interest in those days, and it was natural for Herakleitos to see in its retreat to the south the advance of the moist element, caused by the heat of the sun itself.
1 Plut. Def. orac. 415 d, ἔτη τριάκοντα ποιοῦσι τὴν γενεὰν καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον, ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας Philo, fr. Harris, p. 20, δυνατὸν ἐν τριακοστῷ ἔτει αὖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πάππον γενέσθαι κτλ. Censorinus, De die nat. 17. 2, “hoc enim tempus (triaginta annos) genean vocari Herakleitos auctor est, quia orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio: orbem autem vocat aetatis, dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur.” The words orbis aetatis seem to mean αἰῶνος κύκλος, “the circle of life.” If so, we may compare the Orphic κύκλος γενέσεως.
2 Diog. ix. 9; R.P. 39 b.
And in turn each (fire and water) prevails and is prevailed over to the greatest and least degree that is possible. For neither can prevail altogether for the following reasons. If fire advances towards the utmost limit of the water, its nourishment fails it. It retires, then, to a place where it can get nourishment. And if water advances towards the utmost limit of the fire, movement fails it. At that point, then, it stands still; and, when it has come to a stand, it has no longer power to resist, 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. The Great Year. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which is identified with the “Great Year,” and is variously described as lasting 18,000 and 10,800 years.
1 Cf. Cic. N.D. iii. 37: “Quid enim? non eisdem vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo modo posse, nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus (from the earth), alia marinis? eamque causam Cleanthes (fr. 29 Pearson; I. 501 v. Arnim) adfert cur se sol referat nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat a cibo.”
2 For the Greek text see below, p. 162, n. 3. Fredrichs allows that it is from the same source as that quoted above (p. 151, n. 1), and, as that comes from Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3, he denies the Herakleitean origin of this passage too. He has not taken account of the fact that it gives the Stoic doctrine, which raises a presumption in favour of its 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 in the Herakleitean section. See p. 150, n. 2.
3 Aet. ii. 32. 3. Ἡράκλειτος ἐκ μυρίων ὀκτακισχιλίων ἐνιαυτῶν ἡλιακῶν (τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν εἶναι) Censorinus, De die nat. ii, Herakleitos et Linus, xdccc.
Now we have seen that a generation is the shortest time in which a man can become a grandfather, it 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 by a “measure” of the fire in the world to travel on the downward path to earth or return to fire once more by the upward path. Plato implies that such a parallelism between the periods of man and the world was recognised,
1 For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, De nat. hom. 38 (R.P. 503). Adam (Republic, vol. ii. p. 303) 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 absence of any evidence that he did so connect them.
2 This is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the periods of the ἀνθρώπειον and the θεῖον γεννητον, however we may understand the details. See Adam, Republic, vol. ii. pp. 288 sqq.
78. Did Herakleitos Teach a General Conflagration? Most writers ascribe to Herakleitos the doctrine of a periodical conflagration or ἐκπύρωσις, to use the Stoic term.
1 Arist. De caelo, A, 10. 279 b 14, οἱ δ’ ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλως ἔχειν φθειρόμενον, … ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ Ἀκραγαντῖνος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος Aristotle points out that this really amounts only to saying that it is eternal and changes its form, ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἐκ παιδὸς ἄνδρα γιγνόμενον καὶ ἐξ ἀνδρὸς παῖδα ὁτὲ μὲν φθείρεσθαι ὁτὲ δ’ εἶναι οἴοιτο. (280 a 14). The point of the reference to Empedokles will appear from De Gen. Corr. B, 6. 334 a 1 sqq. What Aristotle finds fault with in both theories is that they do not regard the substance of the heavens as something outside the upward and downward motion of the elements.
2 Cf. Tannery, Science hellène, p. 168. Diels, accordingly, now reads μυρίων ὀκτακοσίων in Aetios (Vors. 12 A 13).
3 Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels, and Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos believed in the ἐκπύρωσις.
Nor is there anything in Aristotle to set against Plato’s statement. We have seen that the passage in which he speaks of him along with Empedokles as holding that the heavens were alternately in one condition and in another refers not to the world, but to fire, which Aristotle identified with the substance of his own “first heaven.”
1 In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to have felt this last difficulty; for he said there: “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 ἀεί, while Empedokles says ἐν μέρει. The Ionian Muses are called συντονώτεραι and the Sicilian μαλακώτεραι just because the latter “lowered the pitch” (ἐχάλασαν) of the doctrine that this is always so (τὸ ἀεὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν).
2 See above, p. 158, n. 1.
3 Phys. Γ, 205 a 3 (Met. K, 10. 1067 a 4), ὥσπερ Ἡράκλειτός φησιν ἅπαντα γίνεσθαί ποτε πῦρ. Zeller translates this es werde alles dereinst zu Feuer werden; but that would require γενήσεσθαι. Nor is there anything in his suggestion that ἅπαντα (“not merely πάντα”) implies that all things become fire at once. In Aristotle’s day, there was no distinction of meaning between πᾶς and ἅπας. Of course, as Diels says, the present tense might be used of a “constant alternation of epochs” (Vors. 12 A 10 n.); but for the purpose of Zeller’s argument, we want something which not only may but must mean that.
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
1 Marcus Aurelius, x. 7, ὥστε καὶ ταῦτα ἀναληφθῆναι εἰς τὸν τοῦ ὅλου λόγον, εἴτε κατὰ περίοδον ἐκπυρουμένου, εἴτε ἀιδίοις ἀμοιβαῖς ἀνανεουμένου. The ἀμοιβαί are specifically Herakleitean, and the statement is the more remarkable as Marcus elsewhere follows the usual Stoic interpretation.
2 Plut. De def. orac. 415 f., καὶ ὁ Κλεόμβροτος, Ἀκούω ταῦτ’ ἔφη, πολλῶν καὶ ὁρῶ τὴν Στωικὴν ἐκπύρωσιν, ὥσπερ τὰ Ἡρακλείτου καὶ Ὀρφέως ἐπινεμομένην ἔπη οὕτω καὶ τὰ Ἡσιόδου καὶ συνεξάπτουσαν. As Zeller admits (p. 693 n.), this proves that some opponents of the Stoic ἐκπύρωσις tried to withdraw the support of Herakleitos from it.
3 This has been called a mere argumentum ex silentio; but, in such cases, the argumentum ex silentio is stronger than any other. Positive statements may be misinterpreted; but, when we know that a subject was keenly debated, and when we find that neither party can produce an unambiguous text in support of its view, the conclusion that none such existed becomes irresistible. The same remark applies to modern pronouncements on the subject. Diels briefly says that my view “is wrong” (ist irrig), but he does not adduce any fresh reason for saying so. The conclusion is that he knows of none.
It is much easier to find fragments which are inconsistent with a general conflagration. The “measures” of fr. 20 and fr. 29 must be the same thing, and they must be interpreted in the light of fr. 23. If this be so, fr. 20, and more especially fr. 29, directly contradict the idea of a general conflagration. “The sun will not overstep his measures.”
1 Περὶ διαίτης i.3 ἐν μέρει δὲ ἑκάτερον κρατεῖ καὶ κρατεῖται ἐς τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον ὡς ἀνυστόν.
2 If any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the “measures,” let him compare the use of the word by Diogenes of Apollonia, fr. 3.
1 This is just the argument which Plato uses in the Phaedo (72 c) to prove the necessity of ἀνταπόδοσις, and the whole series of arguments in that passage is distinctly Herakleitean in character.
2 However we understand κόσμος here, the meaning is the same. Indeed, if we suppose with Bernays that it means “order,” the argument will be all the stronger. In no sense of the word could a κόσμος survive the ἐκπύρωσις, and the Stoics accordingly said the κόσμος was φθαρτός, though Herakleitos had declared it to be everlasting.
3 Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3 (see above, p. 150, n. 2), οὐδέτερον γὰρ κρατῆσαι παντελῶς δύναται διὰ τάδε· τό (τε) πῦρ ἐπεξιὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ ὕδατος ἐπιλείπει ἡ τροφή· ἀποτρέπεται οὖν ὅθεν μέλλει τρέφεσθαι· τὸ ὕδωρ τε ἐπεξιὸν τοῦ πυρὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐπιλείπει ἡ κίνησις· ἵσταται οὖν ἐν τούτῳ, ὅταν δὲ στῇ, οὐκέτι ἐγκρατές ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἤδη τῷ ἐμπίπτοντι πυρὶ ἐς τὴν τροφὴν καταναλίσκεται· οὐδέτερον δὲ διὰ ταῦτα δύναται κρατῆσαι παντελῶς, εἰ δέ ποτε κρατηθείη καὶ ὁπότερον, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη τῶν νῦν ἐόντων ὥσπερ ἔχει νῦν· οὕτω δὲ ἐχόντων ἀεὶ ἔσται τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ οὐδέτερον οὐδαμὰ ἐπιλείψει.
1 In his note on fr. 66 (= 26 Byw.) Diels seeks to minimise the difficulty of the ἐκπύρωσις by saying that it is only a little one, and can last but a moment; but the contradiction remains. Diels holds that Herakleitos was “dark only in form,” and that “he himself was perfectly clear as to the sense and scope of his ideas” (Herakleitos, p. i.). To which I would add that he was probably called “the Dark” just because the Stoics sometimes found it hard to read their own ideas into his words.
79. Strife and “Harmony.” We are now in a position to understand more clearly the law of strife or opposition which manifests itself in the “upward and downward path.” At any given moment, each of the three aggregates, Fire, Water, and Earth, is 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 “drawn in opposite directions,” this “opposite tension,” that “keeps things together,” and maintains them in an equilibrium which can only be disturbed temporarily and within certain limits. It thus forms the “hidden attunement” of the universe (fr. 47), though, in another aspect of it, it is Strife. As to the “bow and the lyre” (fr. 45), I think that Campbell gave the best explanation of the simile. “As the arrow leaves the string,” he said, “the hands are pulling opposite ways to each other, and to the different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, Rep. iv. 439); and the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension and retention. The secret of
We know from Philo that Herakleitos supported his theory by a multitude of examples; and some of these can still be recovered. There is a remarkable agreement between a passage of this kind in the pseudo-Aristotelian Περὶ κόσμου and the Hippokratean Περὶ διαίτης. That the authors of both drew from the same source, namely, Herakleitos, is made practically certain by the fact 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. The argument was that men themselves act just in the same way as Nature, and it is therefore surprising that they do not recognise the laws by which she works. The painter produces his harmonious effects by the contrast of colours, the musician by that of high and low notes. “If one were to make all things alike, there would be no delight in them.” There are many similar examples, some of which must certainly come from Herakleitos; but it is not easy to separate them from the later additions.
1 Campbell’s Theaetetus (2nd ed.), 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 based on 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, ii. p. 129). Here we seem to feel the influence of the Pythagorean “tuned string.”
2 The sentence (Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5), καὶ τὰ µὲν πρήσσουσιν οὐκ οἴδασιν, ἃ δὲ οὐ πρήσσουσι δοκέουσιν εἰδέναι· καὶ τὰ µὲν ὁρέουσιν οὐ γινώσκουσιν, ἀλλ’ ὅµως αὐτοῖσι πάντα γίνεται…καὶ ἃ βούλονται καὶ ἃ µὴ βούλονται, has the true Herakleitean ring. This, too, can hardly have had another author: “They trust to their eyes rather than to their understanding, though their eyes are not fit to judge even of the things that are seen. But I speak these things from understanding.” These words are grotesque in the mouth of the medical compiler; but we are accustomed to hear such things from the Ephesian. Other examples which may be Herakleitean are the image of the two men sawing wood—“one pushes, the other pulls”—and the illustration from the art of writing.”
All other utterances of the kind are to be explained in the same way. If there were no cold, there would be no heat; for a thing can only grow warm if, and in so far as, it is already cold. And the same thing applies to the opposition of wet and dry (fr. 39). These, it will be observed, are just the two primary oppositions of Anaximander, and Herakleitos is showing that the war between them is really peace, for it is the common element in them (fr. 62) which appears as strife, and that very strife is justice, and not, as Anaximander had taught, an injustice which they commit
The most startling of these sayings is that which affirms that good and evil are the same (fr. 57). This does not mean that good is evil or that evil is good, but simply that they are the two inseparable halves of one and the same thing. A thing can become good only in so far as it is already evil, and evil only in so far as it is already good, and everything depends on the contrast. The illustration given in fr. 58 shows this clearly. Torture, one would say, was an evil, and yet it is made a good by the presence of another evil, namely, disease; as is shown by the fact that surgeons expect a fee for inflicting it on their patients. Justice, on the other hand, which is a good, would be unknown were it not for injustice, which is an evil (fr. 60). And that is why it is not good for men to get everything they wish (fr. 104). Just as the cessation of strife in the world would mean its destruction, so the disappearance of hunger, disease, and weariness would mean the disappearance of satisfaction, health, and rest.
This leads to a theory of relativity which prepares the way for the doctrine of Protagoras, that “Man is the measure of all things.”
1 Chap. I. § 16.
2 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 give rise to such a doctrine. If the soul is a stream and things are a stream, then of course knowledge is relative. Perhaps the later Herakleiteans had worked out the theory in this direction.
81. The Wise. Herakleitos speaks of “wisdom” or the “wise” in two senses. We have seen already that he said wisdom was “something apart from everything else” (fr. 18), 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.” This is synonymous with the pure fire which is not differentiated into two parts, one taking the upward and the other the downward path. That alone has wisdom; the partial things we see have not. We ourselves are only wise in so far as we are fiery (fr. 74).
82. Theology. With certain reservations, Herakleitos was prepared to call the one Wisdom by the name of Zeus. Such, at least, appears to be the meaning of fr. 65. What these reservations were, it is easy to guess. It is not, of course, to be pictured in the form of a man. In saying this, Herak1eitos would only have been repeating what had already been said by Xenophanes. He agrees further with Xenophanes in holding that this “god,” if it is to be called so, is one; but his polemic against popular religion was directed rather against the rites and ceremonies themselves than their mythological outgrowth. He gives a list (fr. 124) of some of the religious figures of his time, and the context in which the fragment is quoted shows that he in some way threatened them with the wrath to come. He comments on the absurdity of praying to images (fr. 126), and the strange idea that blood-guiltiness can be washed out by the shedding of blood (fr. 130). He seems also to have said that it was absurd to celebrate the worship of Dionysos by cheerful and licentious ceremonies, while Hades was propitiated by gloomy rites (fr. 127). According to the mystic
83. Ethics of Herakleitos. The moral teaching of Herakleitos is summed up in the rule “Follow the common.” The “common” upon which Herakleitos insists is, nevertheless, something very different from common sense, for which, indeed, he had the greatest possible contempt (fr. 111). It is, in fact, his strongest objection to “the many,” that they live each in his own world (fr. 95), as if they had a private wisdom of their own (fr. 92); and public opinion is therefore just the opposite of “the common.” The rule is really to be interpreted as a corollary of his anthropological and cosmological views. The first requirement is that we keep our souls dry, and thus assimilate them to the one Wisdom, which is fire. That is what is really “common,” and the greatest fault is to act like men asleep (fr. 94), that is, by letting our souls grow moist, to cut ourselves off from the fire in the world.
Herakleitos prepared the way for the Stoic world-state by comparing “the common” to the laws of a city. And these are even more than a type of the divine law: they are imperfect embodiments of it. They cannot, however, exhaust it altogether; for in all human affairs there is an element of relativity (fr. 91). “Man is a baby compared to God” (fr. 97). Such as they are, however, the city must fight for them as for its walls; and, if it has the good fortune to possess a citizen with a dry soul, he is worth ten thousand (fr. 113); for in him alone is “the common” embodied.
Chapter IV. Parmenides of Elea
84. Life. Parmenides, son of Pyres, was a citizen of Hyele, Elea, or Velia, a colony founded in Oinotria by refugees from Phokaia in 540-39 BC
1 Diog. ix. 21 (R.P. 111). For the foundation of Elea, see Herod. i. 165 sqq. It was on the coast of Lucania, south of Poseidonia (Paestum).
2 Diog. ix. 23 (R.P. 111). Cf. Diels, Rhein. Mus. xxxi. p. 34; and Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq.
3 Plato, Parm. 127 b (R.P. 111 d). Wilamowitz once said that there were no anachronisms in Plato, though he now (Platon, vol. i. p. 507) regards this statement as an “invention.” I cannot agree. In the first place, we have exact figures as to the ages of 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 (Theaet. 183 e 7 and Soph. 217 c 5), which do not seem to be mere references to the dialogue entitled Parmenides.
4 Cf. p. 172, n. 1.
We have seen (§ 55) that Aristotle mentions a statement which made Parmenides a disciple of Xenophanes; but it is practically certain that the statement referred to is only Plato’s humorous remark in the Sophist, which we have dealt with already.
1 Plut. Per. 4, 3. See below, p. 311, n. 1.
2 See above, Chap. II. p. 127, n. 2.
3 Diog. ix. 21 (R.P. 111), reading Ἀμεινίᾳ Διοχαίτα with Diels (Hermes, xxxv. p. 197). Sotion, in his Successions, separated Parmenides from Xenophanes and associated him with the Pythagoreans Dox. pp. 146, 148, 166). So Proclus in Parm. iv. 5 (Cousin), Ἐλεᾶται δ’ ἄμφω (Parmenides and Zeno) καὶ οὐ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορικοῦ διδασκαλείου μεταλαβόντε, καθάπερ που καὶ Νικόμαχος ἱστόρησεν. Presumably this comes from Timaios.
4 Strabo, vi. 1, p. 252 (p. 171, n. 2); Ceb. Tab. 2 (R.P. 111 c). The statements of Strabo are of the greatest value; for they are based upon historians (especially Timaios) now lost.
85. The Poem. Parmenides was the first philosopher to expound his system in metrical language. His predecessors, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Herakleitos, wrote in prose, and the only Greeks who ever wrote philosophy in verse at all were just these two, Parmenides and Empedokles; for Xenophanes was not a philosopher any more than Epicharmos. Empedokles copied Parmenides; and he, no doubt, was influenced by the Orphics. But the thing was an innovation, and one that did not maintain itself.
The fragments of Parmenides are preserved for the most part by Simplicius, who fortunately inserted them in his commentary, because in his time the original work was already rare.
1 We know too little of the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century BC to be sure of the details. All we can say is that Parmenides has taken the form of his poem from some such source. See Diels, “Über die poetischen Vorbilder des Parmenides” (Berl. Sitzb. 1896), and the Introduction to his Parmenides Lehrgedicht, pp. 9 sqq.
2 Diog. ix. 23; R.P. 111. Plut. Adv. Col. 1226 a, Παρμενίδης δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα διεκόσμησε νόμοις ἀρίστοις, ὥστε τὰς ἀρχὰς καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἐξορκοῦν τοὺς πολίτας ἐμμενεῖν τοῖς Παρμενίδου νόμοις. Strabo, vi. 1, p. 252, (Ἐλέαν) ἐξ ἧς Παρμενίδης καὶ Ζήνων ἐγένοντο ἄνδρες Πυθαγόρειοι. δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ δι’ ἐκείνους καὶ ἔτι πρότερον εὐνομηθῆναι. We can hardly doubt that this too comes from Timaios.
3 Simpl. Phys. 144, 25; R.P. 117. Simplicius, of course, had the library of the Academy at his command. Diels estimates that we have about nine-tenths of the Ἀλήθεια and about one-tenth of the Δόξα.
There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day,
Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers! It is no ill chance, but right and justice that has sent thee forth to travel on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of men! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth, as the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet none the less shalt thou learn these things also,—how passing right through all things one should judge the things that seem to be.
1 The best MS. of Sextus, who quotes this passage, reads κατὰ πάντ’ ἄστη Parmenides, then, was an itinerant philosopher, like the sophists of the next generation, and this makes his visit to the Athens of Perikles all the more natural.
2 For these see Hesiod, Theog. 748.
3 I read δοκιμῶσ’ (i.e. δοκιμῶσαι) with Diels. I have left it ambiguous in my rendering whether εἶναι is to be taken with δοκιμῶσαι or δοκοῦντα.
The Way of Truth
(2) Look steadfastly with thy mind at things though afar as if they were at hand. Thou canst not cut off what is from holding fast to what is, neither scattering itself abroad in order nor coming together. R.P. 118 a.
(3) It is all one to me where I begin; for I shall come back again there.
(4, 5) Come now, I will tell thee—and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away—the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be,—that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not—that is impossible—nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.
1 This is the earliest instance of λόγος in the sense of (dialectical) argument which Sokrates made familiar. He got it, of course, from the Eleatics. The Herakleitean use is quite different. (See p. 133, n. i.)
2 I still believe that Zeller’s is the only possible interpretation of τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἔστιν τε καὶ εἶναι (denn dasselbe kann gedacht werden und sein, p. 558, n. 1: Eng. trans. p. 584, n. 1). It is impossible to separate νοεῖν ἔστιν here from fr. 4, εἰσὶ νοῆσαι, “can be thought.” No rendering is admissible which makes νοεῖν the subject of the sentence; for a bare infinitive is never so used. (Some grammars make ποιεῖν the subject in a sentence like δίκαιόν ἐστι τοῦτο ποιεῖν, but this is shown to be wrong by δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο ποιεῖν.) The use of the infinitive as a subject only became possible when the articular infinitive was developed (cf. Monro, H. Gr. §§ 233, 234, 242). The original dative meaning of the infinitive at once explains the usage (νοεῖν ἔστιν, “is for thinking,” “can be thought,” ἔστιν εἶναι, “is for being,” “can be”).
(7) For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry. R.P. 116.
(8) One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is. In this path are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and indestructible; for it is complete,
1 The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note. The words τὸ λέγειν τε νοεῖν τ’ ἐόν mean “that which it is possible to speak of and think,” and are correctly paraphrased by Simplicius (Phys. p. 86, 29, Diels), εἰ οὖν ὅπερ ἄν τις ἢ εἴπῃ ἢ νοήσῃ τὸ ὄν ἔστι. Then ἔστι γὰρ εἶναι means “it can be,” and the last phrase should be construed οὐκ ἔστι μηδὲν (εἶναι), “there is no room for nothing to be.”
2 I construe οἷς νενόμισται τὸ πέλειν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶναι ταὐτὸν καὶ οὐ ταὐτόν. The subject of the infinitives πέλειν καὶ οὐκ εἶναι is the it, which has to be supplied also with ἔστιν and οὐκ ἔστιν. This way of taking the words makes it unnecessary to believe that Parmenides said instead of (τὸ) μὴ εἶναι for “not-being.” There is no difference between πέλειν and εἶναι except in rhythmical value.
3 I take πάντων as neuter and understand παλίντροπος κέλευθος as equivalent to the ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω of Herakleitos. I do not think it has anything to do with the παλίντονος (or παλίντροπος) ἁρμονίη. See Chap. III. p. 136, n. 4.
4 I prefer to read ἔστι γὰρ οὐλομελές with Plutarch (Adv. Col. 1114 c). Proklos (in Parm. 1152, 24) also read οὐλομελές. Simplicius, who has μουνογενές here, calls the One of Parmenides ὁλομελές elsewhere (Phys. p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.] Strom. 5, μοῦνον μουνογενές, helps to explain the confusion. We have only to suppose that the letters μ, ν, γ were written above the line in the Academy copy of Parmenides by some one who had Tim. 31b 3 in mind. Parmenides could not call what is “only-begotten,” though the Pythagoreans might call the world so.
Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more
Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without beginning and without end; since 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 place, abiding in itself. And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side. Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything.
1 For the difficulties which have been felt about μᾶλλον here, see Diels’s note. If the word is to be pressed, his interpretation is admissible; but it seems to me that this is simply an instance of “polar expression.” It is true that it is only the case of there being less of what is in one place than another that is important for the divisibility of the One; but if there is less in one place, there is more in another than in that place. In any case, the reference to the Pythagorean “air” or “void” which makes reality discontinuous is plain.
2 Simplicius certainly read μὴ ἐὸν δ’ ἂν παντὸς ἐδεῖτο, which is metrically impossible. I have followed Bergk in deleting μή, and have interpreted with Zeller. So too Diels.
Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from the centre in every direction; for it cannot be greater or smaller in one place than in another. For there is no nothing that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor can aught that is be more here and less there than what is, since it is all inviolable. For the point from which it is equal in every direction tends equally to the limits. R.P. 121.
The Way of Belief
Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth. Henceforward learn the beliefs of mortals, giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.
Mortals have made up their minds to name two forms, one of which they should not name, and that is where they go astray from the truth. They have distinguished them as opposite in form, and have assigned to them marks distinct from one another. To the one they allot the fire of heaven, gentle, very light, in every direction the same as itself, but not the same as the other. The other is just the opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these I tell thee the whole arrangement as it seems likely; for so no thought of mortals will ever outstrip thee. R.P. 121.
1 For the construction of ἔστι νοεῖν, see above, p. 173, n. 2.
2 As Diels rightly points out, the Ionic φατίζειν is equivalent to ὀνομάζειν. The meaning, I think, is this. We may name things as we choose, but there can be no thought corresponding to a name that is not the name of something real.
(9) Now that all things have been named light and night, and the names which belong to the power of each have been assigned
(10, 11) And thou shalt know the substance of the sky, and all the signs in the sky, and the resplendent works of the glowing sun’s pure torch, and whence they arose. And thou shalt learn likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced moon, and of her substance. Thou shalt know, too, the heavens that surround us, whence they arose, and how Necessity took them and bound them to keep the limits of the stars…how the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is common to all, and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos, and the burning might of the stars arose. R.P. 123, 124.
(12) The narrower bands were 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 is the divinity that directs the course of all things; for she is the beginner of all painful birth and all begetting, driving the female to the embrace of the male, and the male to that of the female. R.P. 125.
(13) First of all the gods she contrived Eros. R.P. 125.
(14) Shining by night with borrowed light,
(15) Always looking to the beams of the sun.
1 Note the curious echo of Il. v. 214. Empedokles has it too (fr. 45). It appears to be a joke, made in the spirit of Xenophanes, when it was first discovered that the moon shone by reflected light. Anaxagoras may have introduced this view to the Athenians (§ 135), but these verses prove it was not originated by him.
(16) For just as thought stands at any time to the mixture of its erring organs, so does it come to men; for that which thinks
(17) 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.
86. “It is.” In the First Part of his poem, we find Parmenides chiefly interested to prove that it is; but it is not quite obvious at first sight what it is precisely that is. He says simply, What is, is. There can be no real doubt that this is what we call body. It is certainly regarded as spatially extended; for it is quite seriously spoken of as a sphere (fr. 8, 43). Moreover, Aristotle tells us that Parmenides believed in none but a sensible reality.
1 This fragment of the theory of knowledge which was expounded in the second part of the poem of Parmenides must be taken in connexion with what we are told by Theophrastos in the “Fragment on Sensation” (Dox. p. 499; cf. p. 193). 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.
2 This is a fragment of Parmenides’s embryology. Diels’s fr. 18 is a retranslation of the Latin hexameters of Caelius Aurelianus quoted R.P. 127 a.
3 Arist. De caelo. Γ, 1. 298 b 21, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ (οἱ περὶ Μέλισσόν τε καὶ Παρμενίδην) διὰ τὸ μηθὲν μὲν ἄλλο παρὰ τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐσίαν ὑπολαμβάνειν εἶναι κτλ. So too Eudemos, in the first book of his Physics (ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 133, 25), said of Parmenides: τὸ μὲν οὖν κοινὸν οὐκ ἂν λέγοι. οὔτε γὰρ ἐζητεῖτό πω τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον ἐκ τῶν λόγων προῆλθεν, οὔτε ἐπιδέχοιτο ἂν ἃ τῷ ὄντι ἐπιλέγει. πῶς γὰρ ἔσται τοῦτο “μέσσοθεν ἰσοπαλὲς” καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα; τῷ δὲ οὐρανῷ (the world) σχεδὸν πάντες ἐφαρμόσουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι. The Neoplatonists, of course, saw in the One the νοητὸς κόσμος, and Simplicius calls the sphere a “mythical figment.” See especially Bäumker, “Die Einheit des Parmenideischen Seiendes” (Jahrb. f. kl. Phil., 1886, pp. 541 sqq.), and Das Problem der Materie, pp. 50 sqq.
4 We must not render τὸ ἐόν by “Being,” das Sein or l’être. It is “what is,” das Seiende, ce qui est. As to (τὸ) εἶναι it does not occur, and hardly could occur at this date.
The allusion to Herakleitos in the verses last referred to has been doubted, though upon insufficient grounds. Zeller points out quite rightly that Herakleitos never says Being and not-Being are the same (the old translation of fr. 6, 8); and, were there nothing more 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 downward path” of Herakleitos (§ 71). And, as we have seen, Parmenides does not attribute the view that Being and not-Being are the same to the philosopher whom he is attacking; he only says that it is and is not the same and not the same.
1 See above, fr. 6, n. 2.
87. The Method of Parmenides. The great novelty in the poem of Parmenides is the method of argument. He first asks what is the common presupposition of all the views he has to deal with, and he finds that this is the existence of what is not. The next question is whether this can be thought, and the answer is that it cannot. If you think at all, you must think of something. Therefore there is no nothing. Only that can be which can be thought (fr. 5); for thought exists for the sake of what is (fr. 8, 34).
This method Parmenides carries out with the utmost rigour. He will not have us pretend that we think what we must admit to be unthinkable. It is true that if we resolve to allow nothing but what we can understand, we come into direct conflict with our senses, which present us with a world of change and decay. So much the worse for the senses, says Parmenides. That is the inevitable outcome of a corporeal monism, and this bold declaration of it ought to have destroyed that theory forever. If Parmenides had lacked courage to work out the prevailing views of his time to their logical conclusion, and to accept that conclusion, however paradoxical it might appear, men might have gone on in the endless circle of opposition, rarefaction, and condensation, one and many, forever. It was the thorough-going dialectic of Parmenides that made progress possible. Philosophy must now cease to be monistic or cease to be corporealist. It could not cease to be corporealist; for the incorporeal was still unknown. It therefore ceased to be monistic, and arrived ultimately at the atomic theory, which, so far as we know, is the last word of the view that the world is body in motion.
1 From the point of view we are now taking, it is doubtful if even Atomism can rightly be called Monism, since it implies the real existence of space. The most modern forms of Monism are not corporealist, since they replace body by energy as the ultimate reality.
That this is a denial of the existence of empty space was well known to Plato. He says Parmenides held “all things were one, and that the one remains at rest in itself, having no place in which to move.”
That which is, is; and it cannot be more or less. There is, therefore, as much of it in one place as in another, and the world is a continuous, indivisible plenum. From this it follows at once that it must be immovable. If it moved, it must move into an empty space, and there is no empty space. It is hemmed in by what is, by the real, on every side. For the same reason, it must be finite, and can have nothing beyond it. It is complete in itself, and has no need to stretch out indefinitely into an empty space that does not exist. Hence, too, it is spherical. It is equally real in every direction, and the sphere is the only form that meets this condition. Any other would be in one direction more than in another.
1 Plato, Theaet. 180e 3, ὣς ἕν τε πάντα ἐστὶ καὶ ἕστηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν αὑτῷ οὐκ ἔχον χώραν ἐν ᾗ κινεῖται. This is explicitly stated by Melissos (fr. 7, p. 323). but Plato clearly meant to ascribe it to Parmenides as well.
2 Arist. De caelo, Γ, 1. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 178, n. 3, and the other passages there quoted.
90. The Beliefs of “Mortals.” It is commonly held that, in the Second Part of his 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 he offered were the Opinions of Mortals; and this 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 apparent philosophical necessity.”
1 Greek Thinkers, vol. i. pp. 180 sqq.
2 Met. A, 5. 986 b 31 (R.P. 121 a). Aristotle’s way of putting the matter is due to his interpretation of fr. 8, 54, which he took to mean that one of the two “forms” was to be identified with τὸ ὄν and the other with τὸ μὴ ὄν. Cf. De gen. corr. A, 3. 318 b 6, ὥσπερ Παρμενίδης λέγει δύο, τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν εἶναι φάσκων. This last sentence shows clearly that when Aristotle says Παρμενίδης, he sometimes means what we should call “Parmenides.”
His explanation however, though preferable to that of Simplicius, is not convincing either. “The many” are as far as possible from believing in an elaborate dualism such as Parmenides expounded, and it is a highly artificial hypothesis to assume that he wished to show how the popular view of the world could best be systematised. “The many” would hardly be convinced of their error by having their beliefs presented to them in a form they would certainly fail to recognise them in. This, indeed, seems the most incredible interpretation of all. It still, however, finds adherents, so it is necessary to point out that the beliefs in question are only called “the opinions of mortals” for the very simple reason that the speaker is a goddess. Further, we have to note that Parmenides forbids two ways of research, and we have seen that the second of these, which is also expressly ascribed to “mortals,” must be the system of Herakleitos. We should expect, then, to find that the other way is also the system of some contemporary school,
1 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482 ; R.P. 121 a), κατὰ δόξαν δὲ τῶν πολλῶν εἰς τὸ γένεσιν ἀποδοῦναι τῶν φαινομένων δύο ποιῶν τὰς ἀρχάς . For Alexander, cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 38, 24, εἰ δὲ ψευδεῖς πάντῃ τοὺς λόγους οἴεται ἐκείνους (Ἀλέξανδρος) κτλ.
2 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 10 (R.P. 121 b). Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, Vol. i. p. 180.
It is still not quite clear, however, why he should have thought it worth while to put into hexameters a view he believed to be false. Here it becomes important to remember that he had been a Pythagorean himself, and that the poem is a renunciation of his former beliefs. In the introductory verses, he tells us distinctly that he has passed from darkness into the light. In such cases men commonly feel the necessity of showing where their old views were wrong. The goddess tells him that he must learn of those beliefs also “how one ought to pass right through all things and judge the things that seem to be.” We get a further hint in another place. He is to learn these beliefs, “and so no opinion of mortals will ever get the better of him” (fr. 8, 61). If we remember that the Pythagorean system at this time was handed down by oral tradition alone, we shall see what this may mean. Parmenides was founding a dissident school, and it was necessary for him to instruct his disciples in the system they might be called upon to oppose. In any case, they could not reject it intelligently without
1 Cf. frs. 4 and 6, especially the words αἵπερ ὁδοὶ μοῦναι διζήσιός εἰσι νοῆσαι. The third way, that of Herakleitos, is only added as an afterthought—αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ’ ἀπὸ τῆς κτλ.
91. The Dualist Cosmology. The view that the Second Part of the poem of Parmenides was a sketch of contemporary Pythagorean cosmology is, doubtless, incapable of rigorous demonstration, but it can be made extremely probable. The entire history of Pythagoreanism up to the end of the fifth century BC is certainly conjectural; but, if we find in Parmenides ideas wholly unconnected with his own view of the world, and if we find precisely the same ideas in later Pythagoreanism, the most natural inference will be that the later Pythagoreans derived these views from their predecessors, and that they formed part of the original stock-in-trade of the society. This will be confirmed if we find that they are developments of certain features in the old Ionian cosmology. Pythagoras came from Samos, and it was not, so far as we can see, in his cosmological views that he chiefly displayed originality. It has been pointed out (§ 53) that the idea of the world breathing came from Anaximenes, and we need not be surprised to find traces of Anaximander too. Now, if we were confined to what Aristotle tells us on this subject, it would be hard to make out a case; but his statements require, as usual, to be examined with care. He says, first of all, that the two elements of Parmenides were the Warm and the Cold.
1 I read χρῆν δοκιμῶσ’ εἶναι in fr. 1, 32 with Diels. The view that the opinions contained in the Second Part are those of others, and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever, is shared by Diels. The objections of Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxxiv. pp. 203 sqq.) do not appear to me cogent. If we interpret him rightly, Parmenides never says that “this hypothetical explanation is…better than that of any one else.” What he does say is that it is untrue altogether.
2 Met. A, 5. 986 b 34, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν; Phys. A, 5. 188 a 20; De gen. corr. A, 3. 318 b 6; B, 3. 330 b 14.
We have seen that Simplicius, with the poem of Parmenides before him, corrects Aristotle by substituting Light and Darkness for Fire and Earth, and he is amply borne out by the fragments he quotes. Parmenides himself calls one “form” Light, Flame, and Fire, and the other Night, and we have now to consider whether these can be identified with the Pythagorean Limit and Unlimited. We have seen good reason to believe (§ 58) that the idea of the world breathing belonged to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism, and there can be no difficulty in identifying this “boundless breath” with Darkness, which stands very well for the
1 Phys. A, 5. 188 a 21,ταῦτα δὲ (θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν) προσαγορεύει πῦρ καὶ γῆν; Met. A, 5. 986 b 34, οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων. Cf. Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482; R.P. 121 a).
2 Phys. p. 25, 15, ὡς Παρμενίδης ἐν τοῖς πρὸς δόξαν πῦρ καὶ γῆν (ἢ μᾶλλον φῶς καὶ σκότος). So already Plut. Adv. Col. 1114 b, τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ σκοτεινόν.
3 Met. A, 5. 986 b 35, τούτων δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὸ ὂν τὸ θερμὸν τάττει, θάτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν. See above, p. 182, n. 2.
4 See below, Chap. VII. § 147.
5 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482; R.P. 121 a), followed by the doxographers.
92. The Heavenly Bodies. We must now look at the general cosmical view expounded in the Second Part of the poem. The fragments are scanty, and the doxographical tradition hard to interpret; but enough remains to show that here, too, we are on Pythagorean ground. Aetios says:
Parmenides held that there were bands crossing one another
93. The Στέφαναι. Now it is quite unjustifiable to regard these “bands” as spheres. The word στέφαναι can mean “rims” or
1 Note the identification of the dense element with “air” in [Plut.] Strom. fr. 5 (Dox. p. 581), λέγει δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος ἀέρος γεγονέναι. This is pure Anaximenes. For the identification of this “air” with “mist and darkness,” cf. Chap. I. § 27, and Chap. V. § 107. It is to be observed further that Plato puts this last identification into the mouth of a Pythagorean (Tim. 52d).
2 See above, p. 109.
3 It seems most likely that ἐπαλλήλους here means “crossing one another,” as the Milky Way crosses the Zodiac. The term ἐπάλληλος is opposed to παράλληλος.
1 As Diels points out, στεφάνη in Homer is used of a golden band in the hair (Σ 597) or the brim of a helmet (Η 12). It may be added that it was used technically of the figure contained between two concentric circles (Proclus, in Eucl. I. p. 163, 12). It always means something annular.
2 It must be remembered that τεῖχος is a city-wall or fortification, and that Euripides uses στεφάνη for a city-wall (Hec. 910). Heath’s remark (p. 69) that “certainly Parmenides’ All was spherical” is irrelevant. We have nothing to do with his own views here.
3 Rep. x. 616 d 5, καθάπερ οἱ κάδοι οἱ εἰς ἀλλήλους ἁρμόττοντες; e 1, κύκλους ἄνωθεν τὰ χείλη φαίνοντας (σφονδύλους).
4 Tim. 36 b 6, ταύτην οὖν τὴν σύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν κατὰ μῆκος σκίσας, μέσην πρὸς μέσην ἑκατέραν ἀλλήλαις οἷον χεῖ (the letter Χ) προσβαλὼν κατέκαμπψεν εἰς ἓν κύκλῳ.
5 Hymn to Ares, 6: πυραυγέα κύκλον ἑλίσσων | αἰθέρος ἑπταπόροις ἐνὶ τείρεσιν, ἔνθα σε πῶλοι | ζαφλεγέες τριτάτης ὑπὲρ ἄντυγος αἰὲν ἔχουσι. So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says to the planet Venus (h. iv. 17): εἴτε καὶ ἑπτὰ κύκλων ὑπὲρ ἄντυγας αἰθερα ναίεις.
The fact is, there is no evidence that any one ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres, till Aristotle turned the geometrical construction which Eudoxos had set up as a hypothesis “to save appearances” (σῴζειν τὰ φαινόμενα)
We are next told that these “bands” encircle one another or are folded over one another, and that they are made of the rare and the dense element. We also learn that between them are “mixed bands” made up of light and darkness. Now it is to be observed, in the first 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 here. It may be doubted whether these statements are based on anything else than fr. 12, which might certainly be interpreted to mean that between the bands of fire there were bands of night with a portion of fire in them. That may be right; but I think it rather more natural to understand the passage as saying that the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of night, and that each has its portion of fire rushing in the midst of it. These last words would then be a simple repetition of the statement that the narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire,
94. The Goddess. “In the middle of those,” says Parmenides, “is the goddess who steers the course of all things.” Aetios explains this to mean in the middle of the “mixed bands,” while Simplicius declares that it means in the middle of all the bands, that is to say, in the centre of the world.
1 On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Heath, pp. 193 sqq.
2 Such a repetition (παλινδρομία) 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 ἵεται. I do not press this interpretation, but it seems to me much simpler than that of Diels, who has to take “night” as equivalent to “earth,” since he identifies it with the στερεόν.
3 Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 14 (R.P. 125 b).
We are further told by Aetios that this goddess was called Ananke and the “Holder of Lots.”
1 Diog. ix. 21, πρῶτος δ’ αὐτὸς τὴν γῆν ἀπέφηνε σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι. Cf. viii, 48 (of Pythagoras), ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρῶτον ὀνομάσαι κόσμον καὶ τὴν γῆν στρογγύλην. (cf. Plato, Phaed. 97d), ὡς δὲ Θεόφραστος, Παρμενίδην. This appears to justify us in ascribing the doctrine of a spherical earth to Pythagoras (cf. p. 111).
2 I do not discuss the interpretation of περὶ ὃ πάλιν πυρώδης which Diels gave in Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 104, and which is adopted in R.P. 162 a, as it is now virtually retracted. In the later editions of his Vorsokratiker (18 A 37) he reads καὶ τὸ μεσαίτατον πασῶν (sc. τῶν στεφανῶν) στερεόν, (ὑφ’ ᾧ) πάλιν πυρώδης (sc. στεφάνη). That is a flat contradiction.
3 R.P. 126, where Fülleborn’s ingenious emendation κλῃδοῦχον for κληροῦχον is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Aetios (or Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the Proem (fr. 1, 14). I now think that the κλῆροι of the Myth of Er give the true explanation.
4 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 19, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πέμπειν ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανοῦς εἰς τὸ ἀειδές (i.e. ἀιδές), ποτὲ δὲ ἀνάπαλίν φησιν. We should probably connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22; R.P. 127 that men arose from the sun (reading ἡλίου with the MSS. for the conjecture ἰλύος).
We should be more certain of the place this goddess occupies in the universe if we could be sure where Ananke is in the Myth of Er. Without, however, raising that vexed question, we may lay down with some confidence that, according to Theophrastos, she occupied a position midway between the earth and the heavens. Whether we believe in the “mixed bands” or not makes no difference in this respect; for the statement of Aetios that she was in the middle of the mixed bands undoubtedly implies that she was between earth and heaven. Now she is identified with one of the bands in a somewhat confused passage of Cicero,
1 Empedokles, fr. 115.
2 Cicero, De nat. d. i. II, 28: “Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium quiddam coronae simile efficit (στεφάνην appellat), continente ardore lucis orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum.” We may connect with this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι.
3 Diog. ix. 23, καὶ δοκεῖ Παρμενίδης πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβωρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων· οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν. Cf. viii. 14 (of Pythagoras), πρῶτόν τε Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον τὸν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὥς φησι Παρμενίδης. So Diels now reads with all the MSS. (the vulgate οἱ δέ φασι Παρμενίδην is due to Casaubon). It is not necessary to suppose that Parmenides made this statement explicitly in his poem; there may have been an unmistakable allusion, as in Empedokles, fr. 129. In that case, we should have a remarkable confirmation of the view that the Δόξα of Parmenides was Pythagorean. If, as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of Rhegion had anticipated Parmenides in announcing this discovery, that is to be explained by the fact that Rhegion became for a time, as we shall see, the chief seat of the Pythagorean school.
95. Physiology. In describing the views of his contemporaries, Parmenides was obliged, as we see from the fragments, to say a good deal about physiological matters. Like everything else, 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 had more of the warm and men of the cold, a view we shall find Empedokles contradicting.
1 Plato, Symp. 195 c 1. It is implied that these παλαιὰ πράγματα were πολλὰ καὶ βίαια, including ἐκτομαί and δεσμοί. The Epicurean criticism of this is partially preserved in Philodemos, De pietate, p. 68, Gomperz; and Cicero, De nat. d. i. 28 (Dox. p. 534; R.P. 126 b).
2 For these theories, see § 90.
3 For all this, see R.P. 127 a, with Arist. De part. an. B, 2. 648 a 28; De gen. an. Δ, I. 765 b 19.
96. Alkmaion of Kroton. Aristotle tells us that Alkmaion of Kroton
1 Theophr. De sens. 3, 4 (R.P.129).
2 See p. 89, n. 2.
3 On Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniata (Leipzig, 1896).
4 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27 (R.P. 66). In a 30 Diels reads, with great probability, ἐγένετο τὴν ἡλικίαν <νέος> ἐπὶ γέροντι Πυθαγόρα. Cf. Iambl. V. Pyth. 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the συγχρονίσαντες καὶ μαθητεύσαντες τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ πρεσβύτῃ νέοι.
5 Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων, περὶ τῶν θνητῶν, σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς (fr. 1, Diels, Vors. 14 b 1). The fact that this is not written in conventional Doric is a strong proof of its genuineness.
Alkmaion’s importance really lies in the fact that he is the founder of empirical psychology.
1 Brotinos (or 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 Iamblichos (Diels, Vors. 45 A), and Bathyllos is presumably the Poseidoniate Bathylaos also mentioned there.
2 Everything bearing on the early history of this subject is brought together and discussed in Prof. Beare’s Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition, to which I must refer the reader for all details.
3 Theophr. De sens. 26 (Beare, p. 252, n. 1). Our authority for the dissections of Alkmaion is only Chalcidius, but he gets his information on such matters from far older sources. The πόροι and the inference from lesions are vouched for by Theophrastos.
His astronomy seems very crude for one who stood in close relations with the Pythagoreans. We are told that he adopted Anaximenes’ theory of the sun and Herakleitos’s explanation of eclipses.
Alkmaion’s theory of health as “isonomy” is at once that which most clearly connects him with earlier inquirers
1 The details will be found in Beare, pp. 11 sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq. (hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq. (taste).
2 Aet. ii. 22, 4, πλατὺν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον; 29, 3, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφὴν καὶ τὰς περικλίσεις (ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην).
3 Aet. ii. 16, 2, (τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες) τοὺς πλανήτας τοῖς ἀπλάνεσιν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ’ ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι. τούτῳ δὲ συνομολογεῖ καὶ Ἀλκμαίων. For the difficulties in Anaximander’s system see p. 69 sq.
4 Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 a 30; R.P. 66 c.
5 Arist. Probl. 17, 3. 916 a 33, τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φησὶν Ἀλκμαίων διὰ τοῦτο ἀπόλλυσθαι, ὅτι οὐ δύνανται τὴν ἀρχὴν τῷ τέλει προσάψαι.
1 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27; R.P. 66.
2 Aet. v. 30, I, Ἀλκμαίων τῆς μὲν ὑγιείας εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων, ὑγροῦ, ξηροῦ, ψυχροῦ, θερμοῦ, πικροῦ, γλυκέος, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, τὴν δ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς μοναρχίαν νόσου ποιητικήν· φθοροποιὸν γὰρ ἑκατέρου μοναρχίαν.
Chapter V. Empedokles of Akragas
97. Pluralism. The belief that all things are one was common to the early Ionians; 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. There seemed to be no escape from his arguments, and so we find that from this time onwards all the thinkers in whose hands philosophy made progress abandoned the monistic hypothesis. Those who still held by it adopted a critical attitude, and confined themselves to a defence of the theory of Parmenides against the new views. Others taught the doctrine of Herakleitos in an exaggerated form; some continued to expound the systems of the early Milesians; but the leading men are all pluralists. The corporealist hypothesis had proved unable to bear the weight of a monistic structure.
98. Date of Empedokles. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in Sicily. He was the only native citizen of a Dorian state who plays an important part in the history of philosophy.
1 (See, however, Introd. § II, p. 3.)
2 Aet. i. 3, 20 (R.P. 164), Apollodoros ap. Diog. viii. 52 (R.P. 162). The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a careful criticism of the sources, by Bidez, La Biographie d’Empedocle (Gand, 1894).
3 For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; R.P. 162), who follows the Olympic Victors of Eratosthenes, who followed Aristotle. Herakleides, in his Περὶ νόσων (see below, p. 200, n. 5), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a “breeder of horses” (R.P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him in his Fifteenth Book. Satyros confused him with his grandson.
99. Empedokles as a Politician. Empedokles certainly played an important part in the political events which followed the death of Theron. The Sicilian historian Timaios seems to have treated these fully, and tells some stories which are obviously genuine traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years afterwards.
1 Glaukos wrote Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν καὶ μουσικῶν, 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 at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however, that the words ἔτι δ’ Ἡρακλείδης are Sturz’s conjecture, the MSS. having ἔτι δ’ Ἡράκλείτον, and Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the Περὶ ποιητῶν, it is not obvious why he should mention Herakleitos at all; and Herakleides was one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles. The names are often confused.
2 See Diels, “Empedokles and Gorgias,” 2 (Berl. Sitzb., 1884). Theophrastos said (Dox. p. 477, 17) that Empedokles was born “not long after Anaxagoras,” i.e. not long after 500 BC (see below, §120). As he was certainly later than Parmenides, this is a fresh ground for following Plato in making Parmenides some fifteen years older than Apollodoros does (see above, §84). In general it should be noted that the epoch of Thourioi has misled Apollodoros in many cases. Almost every one who had anything to do with Thourioi (e.g. Herodotos, Protagoras) is said to have been born in 484 BC
100. Empedokles as a Religious Teacher. But there is another side to his public character which Timaios found it hard to reconcile with his political views. He claimed to be a god, and to receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity. The truth is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman; he had a good deal of the “medicine-man” about him. According to Satyros,
1 He is called γραοσυλλέκτρια in Souidas, s.v.
2 For instance Timaios (ap. Diog. viii. 64) said that once he was invited to sup with one of the magistrates. Supper was well advanced, but no wine was brought in. The rest of the company said nothing, but Empedokles was indignant, and insisted on its being served. The host, however, said he was waiting for the Sergeant of the Council. When that official arrived, he was appointed ruler of the feast. The host, of course, appointed him. Thereupon he began to give signs of an incipient tyranny. He ordered the company either to drink or have the wine poured over their heads. Empedokles said nothing, but next day he brought both of them before the court and had them put to death—both the man who asked him to supper and the ruler of the feast! The story reminds us of an accusation of incivisme under the Terror.
3 Diog. viii. 66, ὕστερον δ’ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ τὸ τῶν χιλίων ἄθροισμα κατέλυσε συνεστὼς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία. The word ἄθροισμα hardly suggests a legal council, and συνίστασθαι suggests a conspiracy.
4 Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his Sophist. Cf. Diog. viii. 57.
5 Diog. viii. 59 (R.P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas. Diels suggests (Emp. u. Gorg. p. 358) that the φυσικός of Alkidamas was a dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker.
101. Rhetoric and Medicine. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the inventor of Rhetoric;
1 See Bidez, p. 115, n. 1.
2 See below, note in loc.
3 Diog. viii. 54; R.P. 162.
4 See below, note in loc.
5 Timaios told, for instance (ap. Diog. viii. 60), how he weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging bags of asses’ skins on the trees to catch them. In fr. 111 he says that knowledge of science as taught by him will enable his disciples to control the winds. We are also told how he brought back to life a woman who had been breathless and pulseless for thirty days. In fr. 111 he tells Pausanias that his teaching will enable him to bring the dead back from Hades. The story of the ἄπνους was given at length in the Περὶ νόσων of Herakleides of Pontos, and Diogenes says that it was related to Pausanias by Empedokles. That gives us a hint of the way in which these stories were worked up. Cf. the very similar anecdotes about Herakleitos, p. 131, n. 4.
6 Diog. viii. 57; R.P. 162 g.
1 Galen, Meth. Med. i. 1, ἤριζον δ’ αὐτοῖς (the schools of Kos and Knidos)…καὶ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἰατροί Φιλιστίων τε καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Παυσανίας καὶ οἱ τούτων ἑταῖροι. Philistion was the contemporary and friend of Plato; Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles addressed his poem.
2 See Diels, “Empedokles and Gorgias” (Berl. Sitzb., 1884, pp. 343 sqq.). The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple 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 (76c 4-8) the Empedoklean theory of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.
3 Diels (Berl. Sitzb., 1884, p. 343).
4 See M. Wellmann, Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Ärizte, vol. i. (Berlin, 1901). According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the Timaeus) 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.
5 For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon’s Iatrika), Φιλιστίων δ’ οἴεται ἐκ δ’ ἰδεῶν συνεστάναι ἡμᾶς, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐκ δ’ στοιχείων· πυρός, ἀέρος, ὕδατος, γῆς. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἑκάστου δυνάμεις, τοῦ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ θερμόν, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος τὸ ψυχρόν, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν, τῆς δὲ γῆς τὸ ξηρόν. For the theory of respiration, see Wellmann, pp, 82 sqq.; and for the heart as the seat of consciousness, ib. pp. 15 sqq.
102. Relation to Predecessors. In the biography of Empedokles, we hear nothing of his theory of nature. The only hints we get are some statements about his teachers. Alkidamas, who had good opportunities of knowing, made him a fellow-student of Zeno under Parmenides. Theophrastos too made him a follower and imitator of Parmenides. But the further statement that he had “heard” Pythagoras cannot be right. No doubt Alkidamas said “Pythagoreans.”
Some writers hold that certain parts of the system of Empedokles, in particular the theory of pores and effluvia (§ 118), were due to the influence of Leukippos.
103. Death. We are told that Empedokles leapt into the crater of Etna that he might be deemed a god. This appears to be a malicious version
1 Hippokr. Περὶ ἱερῆς νόσου, C 1, μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ ἀλαζόνες. The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.
2 Diog. viii. 54-56; R.P. 162.
3 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 proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope to show that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean doctrine (Chap. IX. § 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles (Chap. VII. §147).
4 For πόροι 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.
5 R.P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.
104. Writings. Empedokles was the second philosopher to expound his system in verse, if we leave the satirist Xenophanes out of account. He was also the last among the Greeks; for the forged Pythagorean poems may be neglected. Lucretius imitates Empedokles in this, just as Empedokles imitated Parmenides. Of course, the poetical imagery creates a difficulty for the interpreter; but it cannot be said that it is harder to extract the philosophical kernel from the verses of Empedokles than from the prose of Herakleitos.
105. The Remains. We have more abundant remains of Empedokles than of any other early Greek philosopher. If we trust our manuscripts of Diogenes and of Souidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the Poem on Nature and the Purifications together as 5000 verses, of which about
1 R.P. ib. This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the end of his romance about the ἄπνους.
2 Timaios refuted the common stories at some length (Diog. viii. 71 sqq.; R.P. ib.). He was quite positive that Empedokles never returned to Sicily after he went to Olympia to have his poem recited to the Hellenes. The plan for the colonisation of Thourioi would, of course; be discussed at Olympia, and we know that Greeks from the Peloponnese and elsewhere joined it. He may very well have gone to Athens in connexion with this.
3 See my edition of the Phaedo, 96b 4 n., and, for Kritias, Arist. De anima, 405 b 6. This is the Kritias who appears in Plato’s Timaeus, and he is certainly not the Kritias who was one of the Thirty, but his grandfather. The Kritias of the Timaeus is a very old man, who remembers the events of his boyhood quite well, but forgets what happened the other day (Tim. 26b). He also tells us that the poems of Solon were a novelty when he was a boy (ib. 21b). It is hard to understand how he was ever supposed to be the oligarch, though Diels, Wilamowitz, and E. Meyer seem to have felt no difficulty in the identification. It is clear too that it must have been the grandfather who exchanged poetical compliments with Anakreon (Diels, Vors.3 ii. p. 81 B 1). Kritias of the Thirty did not live to be an old man.
I give the remains as they are arranged by Diels: (1) 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 blunt the edge of their careful thoughts! They behold but a brief span of a life that is no life,
(3) …to keep within thy dumb heart.
1 Diog. viii. 77 (R.P. 162); Souidas s.v. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς· καὶ ἔγραψε δι’ ἐπῶν Περὶ φύσεως τῶν ὄντων βιβλία β´, καὶ ἔστιν ἔπη ὡς δισχίλια. It hardly seems likely, however, that the Katharmoi extended to 3000 verses, so Diels proposes to read πάντα τρισχίλια for πεντακισχίλια in Diogenes. See Diels, “Über die Gedichte des Empedokles” (Berl. Sitzb. 1898, pp. 396 sqq.).
2 Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog. viii. 58) that he had met with forty-three tragedies by Empedokles; but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on the Persian wars, which he also refers to (Diog. viii. 57), seems to have arisen from a corruption in the text of Arist. Probl. 929 b 16, where Bekker reads ἐν τοῖς Περσικοῖς. The same passage, however, is said to occur ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, in Meteor. Δ, 4. 382 a 1, though there too E has Περσικοῖς.
3 The MSS. of Sextus have ζωῆσι βίου. Diels reads ζωῆς ἰδίου. I still prefer Scaliger’s ζωῆς ἀβίου. Cf. fr. 15, τὸ δὴ βίοτον καλέουσι.
Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each thing is clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as compared with thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear above the clear instructions of thy tongue;
(5) But it is all too much the way of low minds to disbelieve their betters. Do thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse bid thee, when my words have been divided
(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 I shall tell thee another thing. There is no substance
1 The sense of taste, not speech.
2 Clement’s reading διατμηθέντος may perhaps stand if we take λόγοιο as “discourse,” “argument” (cf. διαιρεῖν). Diels conjectures διασσηθέντος and renders “when their speech has penetrated the sieve of thy mind.”
3 The four “elements” are introduced under mythological names, for which see below, p. 229, n. 3.
4 Plutarch (Adv. Col. 1112 a) says that φύσις here means “birth,” as is shown by its opposition to death, and all interpreters (including myself) have hitherto followed him. On the other hand, the fragment clearly deals with θνητά, and Empedokles cannot have said that there was no death of mortal things. The θνητά are just perishable combinations of the four elements (cf. fr. 35, 11), and the point is that they are constantly coming into being and passing away. It is, therefore, impossible, as pointed out by Prof. Lovejoy (Philosophical Review, xviii. 371 sqq.), to take θανάτοιο τελευτή as equivalent to θάνατος here, and it may equally well mean “end of death.” Now Aristotle, in a passage where he is carefully distinguishing the various senses of φύσις (Met. Δ, 4. 1015 a 1), quotes this very verse as an illustration of the meaning ἡ τῶν ὄντων οὐσία (see further in the Appendix). I understand the words ἐπὶ τοῖσδ’ as equivalent to ἐπὶ τοῖς θνητοῖς, and I take the meaning of the fragment to be that temporary compounds or combinations like flesh, bone, etc., have no φύσις of their own. Only the four “immortal” elements have a φύσις which does not pass away. This interpretation is confirmed by the way Diogenes of Apollonia speaks in denying the ultimate reality of the “elements.” He says (fr. 2) εἰ τούτων τι ἦν ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου, ἕτερον ὂν τῇ ἰδίᾳ φύσει, i.e. he says the elements are θνητά.
(9) But they (hold?) that when Light and Air (chance?) to have been mingled in the fashion of a man, or in the fashion of the race of wild beasts or of plants or birds, that that is to be born, and when these things have been separated once more, they call it (wrongly?) woeful death. I follow the custom and call it so myself.
(10) Avenging death.
1 I understand this fragment to deal with the “elements,” of which φῶς and αἰθήρ (Fire and Air) are taken as examples. These are not subject to birth and death, like the θνητά of fr. 8, and the application of the terms to them is as much a matter of convention as the application of the term φύσις to the perishable combinations which are subject to birth and death. The text is corrupt in Plutarch, and has two or three lacunae, but the usual reconstructions depart too far from the tradition. I suggest the following, which has at least the merit of not requiring the alteration of a single letter:
οἱ δ’ ὅτε μὲν κατὰ φῶτα μιγὲν φῶς αἰθέρι (κύρσῃ), | ἢ κατὰ θηρῶν ἀγροτέρων γένος ἢ κατὰ θάμνων | ἠὲ κατ’ οἰωνῶν, τότε μὲν τὸ ν<έμουσι> γενέσθαι· | εὖτε δ’ ἀποκρινθῶσι, τάδ’ αὖ δυσδαίμονα πότμον | ᾗ θέμις [οὐ] καλέουσι, νόμῳ δ’ ἐπίφημι καὶ αὐτός.
I understand τάδε in the fourth verse as referring to the “elements” (e.g. Fire and Air), which cannot properly be said to be born or to die as their combinations do. I take it that Fire and Air are specially mentioned because the life of animate creatures depends on them. The earth and water would never of themselves produce a living being.
(13) And in the All there is naught empty and naught too full.
(14) In the All there is naught empty. Whence, then, could aught come to increase it?
(15) A man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in his heart that as long as mortals live what they call their life, so long they are, and suffer good and ill; while before they were formed and after they have been dissolved they are just nothing at all. R.P. 165 a.
(16) For even as they (Strife and Love) were aforetime, so too they shall be; nor ever, methinks, will boundless time be emptied of that pair. R.P. 166 c.
(17) I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be one only out of many; at another, it divided up to be many instead of one. There 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 divided. And these things never cease continually changing places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at another each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife. Thus, as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many, and to become many once more when the one is parted asunder, so far they come into being and their life abides not. But, inasmuch as they never cease changing
But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that increaseth wisdom. As I said before, when I declared the heads of my discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew together to be one only out of many, at another it parted asunder so as to be many instead of one;—Fire and Water and Earth and the mighty height of Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to each, and Love in their midst, 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 of mortals. It is she that makes them have thoughts of love and work the works of peace. They call her by the names of Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet marked moving round among them,
For all these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a different prerogative and its own peculiar nature, but they gain the upper hand in turn when the time comes round. And nothing comes into being besides these, nor 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 these things? There are these alone; but, running through one another, they become now this, now that,
(18) Love.
(19) Clinging Love.
(20) This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the mass of mortal limbs. At one time all the limbs that are the body’s portion are brought together by Love in blooming life’s high season; at another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander each alone by the breakers of life’s sea. It is the same with plants
1 Reading μετὰ τοῖσιν. I still think, however, that Knatz’s palaeographically admirable conjuncture μετὰ θεοῖσιν (i.e. among the elements) deserves consideration.
2 Keeping ἄλλοτε with Diels.
(21) Come now, look at the things that bear witness to my earlier discourse, if so be that there was any shortcoming as to their form in the earlier list. Behold the sun, everywhere bright and warm, and all the immortal things that are bathed in heat and bright radiance.
For out of these have sprung all things that were and are and shall be—trees and men and women, beasts and birds and the fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that live long lives and are exalted in honour. R.P. 166 i.
For there are these alone; but, running through one another, they take different shapes—so much does mixture change them. R.P. 166 g.
(22) For all of these—sun, earth, sky, and sea—are at one with all their parts that are cast far 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 the bidding of Strife, since it hath wrought their birth.
(23) Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men whom wisdom hath well taught their art,—they, when they have taken pigments of many colours with their hands, mix them in due proportion, more of some and less of others, and
1 Reading ἄμβροτα δ’ ὅσσ’ ἴδει with Diels. For the word ἶδος, cf. frs. 62, 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.
(24) Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one path of words to the end.…
(25) 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. 166 c.
There are these alone; but, running through one another, they become men and 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 of Strife, till they grow once more into one and are wholly subdued. Thus in so far as they are wont to grow into one out of many, and again divided become more than one, so far they come into being and their life is not lasting; but in so far as they never cease changing continually, so far are they evermore, immovable in the circle.
(27) There (in the sphere) are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun, no, nor the shaggy earth in its might, nor the sea,—so fast was the god bound in the close covering of Harmony, spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.
1 Reading with Blass (Jahrb. f. kl. Phil., 1883, p. 19) and Diels: οὕτω μή σ’ ἀπάτη φρένα καινύτω κτλ. Cf. Hesychios: καινύτω· νικάτω. This is practically what the MSS. of Simplicius give, and Hesychios has many Empedoklean glosses.
2 The “goddess” is, of course, the Muse. Cf. fr. 5.
3 The word μονίῃ, if it is right, cannot mean “rest,” but only solitude. There is no reason for altering περιηγέι, though Simplicius has περιγηθέι.
(28) But he was equal on every side and quite without end, spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.
(29) Two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet, no swift knees, no fruitful parts; but he was spherical and equal on every side.
(30, 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,…for all the limbs of the god in turn quaked. R.P. 167.
(32) The joint binds two things.
(33) Even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk. …
(34) Cementing
(35, 36) But now I shall retrace my steps over the paths of song that I have travelled before, drawing from my saying a new saying. When Strife was fallen to the lowest depth of the vortex, and Love had reached to the centre of the whirl, in it do all things come together so as to be one only; not all at once, but coming together at their will each from different quarters; and, as they mingled, strife began to pass out to the furthest limit. Yet many things remained unmixed, alternating with the things that were
1 The masculine κολλήσας shows that the subject cannot have been Φιλότης; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take illustrations from human arts.
(37) Earth increases its own mass, and Air swells the bulk of Air.
(38) Come, I shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of the sun,
(39) If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a foolish saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of many mortals, though they have seen but a little of the … All.
(40) The sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon.
(41)< But (the sunlight) is gathered together and circles round the mighty heavens.
1 We see clearly from this fragment how the ἀθάνατα (the elements) are identified with the “unmixed,” and the θνητά (the perishable combinations) with the “mixed.”
2 The MSS. of Clement have ἥλιον ἀρχήν, and the reading ἡλίου ἀρχήν is a mere makeshift. Diels reads ἥλικά τ’ ἀρχήν, “the first (elements) equal in age.”
3 The lines are referred to Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them De caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21. See above, Chap. II. p. 125, n. 3.
(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 lights.
(49) …of solitary, blind-eyed night.
(50) And Iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.
(51) (Fire) swiftly rushing upwards…
(52) And many fires burn beneath the earth. R.P. 171 a.
(53) For so it (the air) chanced to be running at that time, though often otherwise. R.P. 171 a.
1 I translate Diels’s conjecture ἀπεστέγασεν…ἔστ’ ἃν ἴῃ.
2 See p. 177, n. 1.
(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 arms wandered bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes strayed up and down in want of foreheads. R.P. 173 a.
(58) Solitary limbs wandered seeking for union.
(59) But, as divinity was mingled still further with divinity, these things joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides them continually arose.
(60) Shambling 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 men with the heads of oxen, and creatures in whom the nature of women and men was mingled, furnished with sterile* parts.
(62) Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused the night-born shoots of men and tearful women to arise; for my tale is not off the point nor uninformed. Whole-natured forms first arose from the earth, having a portion both of water and
1 Reading στείροις with Diels.
(63) …But the substance of (the child’s) limbs is divided between them, part of it 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 purified parts; and when it met with cold women arose from it.
(66) The divided meadows of Aphrodite.
(67) For in its warmer part the womb brings forth males, and that is why men are dark and more manly and shaggy.
(68) On the tenth day of the eighth month it turns to a white putrefaction.
(69) Double bearing.
(70) Sheepskin.
(71) But if thy assurance of these things was in any way deficient as to how, out of Water and Earth and Air and Fire mingled
1 Retaining εἴδεος (i.e. ἴδεος), which is read in the MSS. of Simplicius. Cf. above, p. 209, n. 1.
2 That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by Aristotle (De gen. an. Δ, 8. 777 a 7). The word πύον means pus. There may be a pun on πυός “beestings,” but that has its vowel long.
3 Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth months.
4 Of the membrane round the foetus.
(72) How tall trees and the fishes in the sea…
(73) And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth,
(74) Leading the songless tribe of fertile fish.
(75) All of those which are dense within and rare without, having received a flaccidity of this kind at the hands of Kypris.…
(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 of the skin.
(77–78) It is moisture
(79) And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs. …
(80) Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.
(81) Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.
1 Reading ἴδεα ποιπνύουσα with Diels.round.
2 This seems clearly to be the meaning of ἠήρ here. Cf. fr. 100, v. 13, and p. 228, n. 2.
(83) But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles on their backs.
(84) And even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a stormy night, gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing fire, 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;
(85) But the gentle flame (of the eye) has but a scanty portion of earth.
(86) Out of these divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.
(87) Aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love.
(88) One vision is produced by both the eyes.
(89) Know that effluences flow from all things that have come into being. R.P. 166 h.
1 See Beare, p. 16, n. 1, where Plato, Tim. 45 b 4 (τοῦ πυρὸς ὅσον τὸ μὲν κάειν οὐκ ἔσχεν, τὸ δὲ παρέχειν φῶς ἥμερον) is aptly quoted.
(91) Water fits better into wine, but it will not (mingle) with oil. R.P. 166 h.
(92) Copper mixed with tin.
(93) The bloom of scarlet dye mingles with the grey linen.
(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) first grew together in the hands of Kypris.
(96) The kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of gleaming Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaistos. So arose white bones divinely fitted together by the cement of proportion. R.P. 175.
(97) The spine (was broken).
1 On this fragment see Clara E. Millerd, On the Interpretation of Empedocles, p. 38, n. 3.
(98) And the earth, anchoring in the perfect harbours of Aphrodite, meets with these in nearly equal proportions, with Hephaistos and Water and gleaming Air—either a little more of it, or less
(99) The bell…the fleshy sprout (of the ear).
(100) Thus
1 On fr. 99, see Beare, p. 96, n. 1.
2 This passage is quoted by Aristotle (De respir, 473 b 9), who makes the curious mistake of taking ῥινῶν for the genitive of ῥίς instead of ῥινός The locus classicus on the klepsydra is Probl. 914 b 9 sqq. (where read αὐλοῦ for ἄλλου b 12). It was a metal vessel with a narrow neck αὐλός at the top and with a sort of strainer ἠθμός pierced with holes (τρήματα, τρυπήματα) at the bottom. The passage in the Problems just referred to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to Anaxagoras, and we shall see that he also made use of the experiment (§ 131).
3 The MSS. of Aristotle have ἀέρος here, though the air is called αἰθήρ in four other verses of the fragment (vv. 5, 7, 18, 24.). It is easier to suppose that Aristotle made a slip in this one verse than that Empedokles should use ἀήρ in a sense he elsewhere avoids (p. 228, n. 2), and this suspicion is confirmed by the form ἀέρος instead of ἠέρος. I think, therefore, that Stein was right in reading αἰθέρος.
(101) (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 heart), dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in opposite directions, where chiefly is what men call thought; for the blood round the heart is the thought of men. R.P. 178 a.
(106) For the wisdom of men grows according to what is before them. R.P. 177.
(107) For out of these are all things formed and fitted together, and by these do men think and feel pleasure and pain. R.P. 178.
1 This seems to be the experiment described in Probl. 914 b 26, ἐὰν γάρ τις αὐτῆς (τῆς κλεψύδρας) αὐτὴν τὴν κωδίαν ἐμπλήσας ὕδατος, ἐπιλαβὼν τὸν αὐλόν, καταστρέψῃ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐλόν, οὐ φέρεται τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τοῦ αὐλοῦ ἐπὶ στόμα. ἀνοιχθέντος δὲ τοῦ στόματος, οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐκρεῖ κατὰ τὸν αὐλόν, ἀλλὰ μικροτέρῳ ὕστερον, ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ αὐλοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον διὰ τούτου φερόμενον ἀνοιχθέντος. The epithet δυσηχέος is best explained as a reference to the ἐρυγμός or “belching” referred to at 915 a 7. Any one can produce this effect with a water-bottle. If it were not for this epithet, it would be tempting to read ἠθμοῖο for ἰσθμοῖο, and that is actually the reading of a few MSS.
2 On fr. 101, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.
(109) For it is with earth that we see Earth, and Water with water; by air we see bright Air, by fire destroying Fire. By love do we see Love, and Hate by grievous hate. R.P. 176.
(110) For if, supported on thy steadfast mind, thou wilt contemplate these things with good intent and faultless care, then shalt thou have all these things in abundance throughout thy life, 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 it is the way with men that ten thousand sorry matters blunt their careful thoughts, soon will these things desert 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.
(111) And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence against ills and old age; since for thee alone will I accomplish all this. Thou shalt arrest the violence of the weariless winds that arise to sweep the earth and waste the fields; and again, when thou so desirest, thou shalt bring back their blasts in return. Thou shalt cause for men a seasonable drought after the dark rains, and again thou shalt change the summer drought for streams that feed the trees as they pour down from the sky. Thou shalt bring back from Hades the life of a dead man.
1 That this refers to dreams, we learn from Simpl. De an. p. 202, 30.
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, men unskilled in meanness,
(113) But why do I harp on these things, as if it were any great matter that I should surpass mortal, perishable men?
(114) Friends, I know indeed that truth is in the words I shall utter, but it is hard for men, and jealous are they of the assault of belief on their souls.
(115) There is an oracle of Necessity, an ancient ordinance of the gods,
(116) Charis loathes intolerable Necessity.
1 Necessity is an Orphic personage, and Gorgias, the disciple of Empedokles, says θεῶν βουλεύμασιν καὶ ἀνάγκης ψηφίσμασιν (Hel. 6).
2 I retain φόνῳ v. 3 (so too Diels). The first word of v. 4 has been lost. Diels suggests Νείκεϊ, which may well be right and takes ἁμαρτήσας as equivalent to ὁμαρτήσας. I have translated accordingly.
(118) I wept and I wailed when I saw the unfamiliar land. R.P. 182.
(119) From what honour, from what a height of bliss have I fallen to go about among mortals here on earth.
(120) We have come under this roofed-in cave.
(121) …the joyless land, where are Death and Wrath and troops of Dooms besides; and parching Plagues and Rottennesses and Floods roam in darkness over the meadow of Ate.
(122, 123) There were
(124) Alas, O wretched race of mortals, sore unblessed: such are the strifes and groanings from which ye have been born!
(125) From living creatures he made them dead, changing their forms.
1 According to Porphyry (De antro Nymph. 8), these words were spoken by the “powers” who conduct the soul into the world (ψυχοπομποὶ δυνάμεις). The “cave” is not originally Platonic but Orphic.
2 This passage is closely modelled on the Catalogue of Nymphs in Iliad xviii. 39 sqq. Chthonie is found already in Pherekydes (Diog. i. 119).
(127) Among beasts they
(128) Nor had they
(129) And there was among them a man of rare knowledge, most skilled in all manner of wise works, a man who had won the utmost wealth of wisdom; for whensoever he strained with all his mind, he easily saw everything of all the things that are, in ten, yea, twenty lifetimes of men.
1 I have retained ἀλλόγνωτι though it is a little hard to interpret. On the 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. Cf. also Shakespeare’s “muddy vesture of decay.”
2 This is the best μετοίκησις (Ael. Nat. an. xii. 7).
3 The dwellers in the Golden Age.
4 The MSS. of Porphyry have γραπτοῖς τε ζώοισι The emendation of Bernays (adopted in R.P.) does not convince me. I venture to suggest μακτοῖς on the strength of the story related by Favorinus (ap. Diog. viii. 53) as to the bloodless sacrifice offered by Empedokles at Olympia.
5 These lines were already referred to Pythagoras by Timaios (Diog. viii. 54). As we are told (Diog. ib.) that some referred the verses to Parmenides, it is clear that no name was given.
(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 his heart. R.P. 179.
(133) It is not possible for us to set God before our eyes, or to lay hold of him with our hands, which is the broadest way of persuasion that leads into the heart of man.
(134) For he is not furnished with a 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 rapid thoughts. R.P. 180.
(135) (This is not lawful for some and unlawful for others;) but the law for all extends everywhere, through the wide-ruling air and the infinite light of heaven. R.P. 183.
(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 the father lifts up his own son in a changed form and slays him with a prayer. Infatuated fool! And they run up to the sacrificers, begging mercy, while he, deaf to their cries, slaughters them in his halls and gets ready the evil feast. In
(138) Draining their life with bronze.
1 On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. Poet. 21. 1457 b 13, and Diels in Hermes, xv. p. 173.
(139) Ah, woe is me that the pitiless day of death did not destroy me ere ever I wrought evil deeds of devouring with my lips! R.P. 184 b.
(140) Abstain wholly from laurel leaves.
(141) Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans!
(142) Him will the roofed palace of aigis-bearing Zeus never rejoice, nor yet the house of…
(143) Wash your hands, cutting the water from the five springs in the unyielding bronze. R.P. 184 c.
(144) Fast from wickedness! R.P. 184 c.
(145) 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, song-writers, physicians, and princes; and thence they rise up as gods exalted in honour, sharing the hearth of the other gods and the same table, free from human woes, safe from destiny, and incapable of hurt. R.P. 181 c.
(148) …Earth that envelops the man.
1 On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. Poet. 21. 1457 b 13, and Diels in Hermes, xv. p. 173.
* {Bay Laurel (Laurus nobilis) is the only variety of laurel that is considered relatively safe for humans and animals.}
It is often said that this system was an attempt to mediate between Parmenides and Herakleitos. It is not easy, however, to find any trace of Herakleitean doctrine in it, and it would be truer to say that it aimed at mediating between Eleaticism and the senses. Empedokles repeats, almost in the same words, the Eleatic argument for the sole reality and indestructibility of “what is” (frs. 11–15); and his idea of the “Sphere” seems to be derived from the Parmenidean description of reality.
1 Cf. Emp. frs. 27, 28, with Parm. fr. 8.
107. The “Four Roots”. The “four roots” of all things (fr. 6) which Empedokles assumed—Fire, Air, Earth, and Water—seem to have been arrived at by making each of the traditional “opposites”—hot and cold, wet and dry—into a thing which is real in the full Parmenidean sense of the word. It is to be noticed, however, that he does not call Air ἀήρ but αἰθήρ,
1 For the history of the term στοιχεῖον see Diels, Elementium. Eudemos said (ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 7, 13) that Plato was the first to use it, but he probably got it from the Pythagoreans. The original term was μορφή or ἰδέα.
2 In fr. 17, Diels reads ἠέρος ἄπλετον ὕψος with Sextus and Simplicius. Plutarch, however, has αἰθέρος, and it is obvious that this was more likely to be corrupted into ἠέρος than vice versa in an enumeration of the elements. In fr. 38. v. 3, which is not an enumeration of elements, ὑγρὸς ἀήρ (i.e. the misty lower air) is distinguished from Τιτὰν αἰθήρ (i.e. the bright blue sky) in the traditional way. In fr. 78 the reference is clearly to moisture. On fr. 100, 13, see p. 219, n. 3. These are the only passages in which Empedocles seems to speak of ἀήρ in the sense of atmospheric air.
Empedokles also called the “four roots” by the names of certain divinities—“shining Zeus, life-bringing Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis” (fr. 6)—though there is some doubt as to how these names are to be apportioned among the elements. Nestis is said to have been a Sicilian water-goddess, and the description of her shows that she stands for Water; but there is a conflict of opinion as to the other three. This, however, need not detain us.
1 Cf. Chap. I. § 27.
2 Arist. Phys. Δ.6, 213 a 22 (R.P. 159.
3 In antiquity the Homeric Allegorists made Hera Earth and Aidoneus Air, a view which has found its way into Aetios from Poseidonios. It arose as follows. The Homeric Allegorists were not interested in the science of Empedokles, and did not see that his αἰθήρ was quite a different thing from Homer’s ἀήρ. 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 φερέσβιος, and that is an epithet of Earth in Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns. Another view 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 αἰθήρ. Now αἰθήρ 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 (“Empedoclea” in Schedae Philologicae Hermanno Usenero oblatae, 1891, pp. 1 sqq.) in holding that the bright Air of Empedokles was Zeus. This leaves Aidoneus to stand for Fire; and nothing could have 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 the Earth himself (fr. 52). If that is so, we shall have to agree with the Homeric Allegorists that Hera is Earth; and surely φερέσβιος Ἥρα can be none other than “Mother Earth.” The epithet seems only to be used of earth and corn.
Empedokles regarded the “roots of all things” as eternal. Nothing can come from nothing or pass away into nothing (fr. 12); what is is, and there is no room for coming into being and passing away (fr. 8). Further, Aristotle tells us, he taught that they were unchangeable.
1 Arist. De gen. corr. B, 1. 329 b 1.
2 Arist. De gen. corr. B, 6. 333 a 16.
3 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 325 b 19 (R.P. 164 e.) This was so completely misunderstood by later writers that they attribute to Empedokles the doctrine of στοιχεῖα πρὸ τῶν στοιχείων (Aet. i. 13, 1; 17, 3). The criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato had made the hypothesis of elements almost unintelligible to Aristotle, and a fortiori to his successors. As Plato put it (Tim. 48b 8), they were “not even syllables,” let alone “letters” (στοιχεῖα). That is why Aristotle calls them καλούμενα στοιχεῖα (Diels, Elementum, p. 25).
Aristotle twice
108. Strife and Love. The Eleatic criticism had made it necessary to explain motion.
1 Philistion put the matter in this way. See p. 201, n. 5.
2 Arist. Met. A, q. 985 a 31; De gen. corr. B, 3. 330 b 19 (R.P. 164 e).
3 Cf. Introd. § VIII.
The Love and Strife of Empedokles are no incorporeal forces. They are active, indeed, but they are still corporeal. At the time, this was inevitable; nothing incorporeal had yet been dreamt of. Naturally, Aristotle is puzzled by this characteristic of what he regarded as efficient causes. “The Love of Empedokles,” he says,
The function of Love is to produce union; that of Strife, to break it up again. Aristotle, however, rightly points out that in another sense it is Love that divides and Strife that unites. When the Sphere is broken up by Strife, the result is that all the Fire, for instance, which was contained in it comes together and becomes one; and again, when the
1 Arist. Met. A, 10. 1075 b 3.
2 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 3 (Dox. p. 477; R.P. 166 b).
109. Mixture and Separation. But, when Strife has separated the elements, what determines the direction of their motion? Empedokles seems to have given no further explanation than that each was “running” in a certain direction (fr. 53). Plato severely condemns this in the Laws,
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
1 Met. A, 4. 985 a 21; Γ, 4. 1000 a 24; b 9 (R.P. 166 i).
2 x. 889 b. The reference is not to Empedokles exclusively, but the language shows that Plato is thinking mainly of him.
3 Arist. De gen. corr. B, 6. 334 a 1; Phys. Θ, 1. 252 a 5 (R.P. 166 k).
4 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 324 b 34 (R.P. 166 h).
110. The Four Periods. It will be clear from what has been said that we must distinguish four periods in the cycle. First we have the Sphere, in which all the elements are mixed together by Love. Secondly, there is the period when Love is passing out and Strife coming in, when, therefore, the elements are partially separated and partially combined. Thirdly comes the complete separation of the elements, when Love is outside the world, and Strife has given free play to the attraction of like for like. Lastly, we have the period when Love is bringing the elements together again, and Strife is passing out. This brings us back to the Sphere, and the cycle begins afresh. Now a world such as ours can exist only in the second and fourth of these periods. It seems to be generally supposed that we are in the fourth period;
1 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 326 b 6.
2 This is 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. 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 settled.
111. Our World the Work of Strife. That a world of perishable things (θνητά) arises both in the second and fourth period is distinctly stated by Empedokles (fr. 17), and it is inconceivable that he had not made up his mind which of these worlds is ours. Aristotle is clearly of opinion that in our world Strife is increasing. In one place, he says that Empedokles “holds that the world is in a similar condition now in the period of Strife
112. Formation of the World by Strife. To begin with the Sphere, in which the “four roots of all things” are mixed together, we note that it is called a god in the fragments just as the elements are, and that Aristotle more than once refers to it in the same way.
1 Arist. De gen. Corr. B, 6. 334 a 6, τὸν κόσμον ὁμοίως ἔχειν φησὶν ἐπί τε τοῦ νείκους νῦν καὶ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῆς φιλίας. Miss Millerd (Interpretation of Empedocles, p. 45) adds Theophrastos, De sensu §20, συμβαίνει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλίας ὅλως μὴ εἶναι αἴσθησιν ἢ ἧττον διὰ τὸ συγκρίνεσθαι τότε καὶ μὴ ἀπορρεῖν Here ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλίας and τότε imply the antithesis ἐπὶ τοῦ Νείκους and νῦν.
2 Arist. De caelo, Γ, 2. 301 a 14, ἐκ διεστώτων δὲ καὶ κινουμένων οὐκ εὔλογον ποιεῖν τὴν γένεσιν. διὸ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς παραλείπει τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς φιλότητος· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἠδύνατο συστῆσαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ κεχωρισμένων μὲν κατασκευάζων, σύγκρισιν δὲ ποιῶν διὰ τὴν φιλότητα· ἐκ διακεκριμένων γὰρ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος τῶν στοιχείων (”our world consists of the elements in a state of separation”), ὥστ’ ἀναγκαῖον γενέσθαι ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ συγκεκριμένου.
3 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.
4 Arist. De gen. corr. B, 6. 333 b 21 (R.P. 168 e); Met. B, 4. 1000 a 28 (R.P. 166 i). Cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 1124, 1 (R.P. 167 b). In other places Aristotle speaks of it as “the One.” Cf. De gen. corr. A, 1. 315 a 7 (R.P. 168 e); Met. B, 4. 1000 a 29 (R.P. 166 i); A, 4. 985 a 28 (R.P. ib.). This involves a slight Aristotelian “development.” It is not the same thing to say, as Empedokles does, that all things come together “into one,” and to say that they come together “into the One.” The latter expression suggests that they lose their identity in the Sphere, and thus become something like Aristotle’s “matter.” As has been pointed out (p. 230, n. 3), it is hard for Aristotle to grasp the conception of irreducible elements; but there can be no doubt that in the Sphere, as in their separation, the elements remain “what they are” for Empedokles. As Aristotle also knows quite well, the Sphere is a mixture. Compare the difficulties about the “One” of Anaximander discussed in Chap. 1. § 15.
At the appointed time, Strife begins to enter into the Sphere and Love to go out of it (frs. 30, 31). The fragments by themselves throw little light on this; but Aetios and the Plutarchean Stromateis have between them preserved a very fair tradition of what Theophrastos said on the point.
Empedokles held that Air was first separated out and secondly Fire. 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 evaporation. The heavens were formed out of the Air and the sun out of the Fire, while terrestrial things were condensed from the other elements. Aet. ii. 6. 3 (Dox. p. 334; R.P. 170).
Empedokles held that the Air when separated off 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.
1 This accounts for Aristotle’s statement, which he makes once positively (Met. B, 1. 996 a 7) and once very doubtfully (Met. B, 4. 1001 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 Water of Thales. He thinks that all the elements become merged in Love, and so lose their identity. In this case, it is in Love he recognises his own “matter.”
2 For the phrase τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα πάγου cf. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 10. 1, πρὸς τὸν περιέχοντα πάγον Et. M. s.v. βηλός…τὸν ἀνωτάτω πάγον καὶ περιέχοντα τὸν πάντα ἀέρα.
In its upward rush Fire displaced a portion of the Air in the upper half of the concave sphere formed by the frozen sky. This air then sunk downwards, carrying with it a small portion of the fire. In this way, two hemispheres were produced: one, consisting entirely of fire, the diurnal hemisphere; the other, the nocturnal, consisting of air with a little fire.
The accumulation of Fire in the upper hemisphere disturbs the equilibrium of the heavens and causes them to revolve; 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. This was illustrated, Aristotle tells us, by the simile of a cup of water whirled round at the end of a string.
113. The Sun, Moon, Stars, and Earth. It will be observed that day and night have been explained without reference to the sun. Day is the light
1 Aet. ii. 31, 4 (Dox. p. 363).
2 Aet. ii. 11, 2; R.P. 170 c.
3 Arist. De caelo, B, 1. 284 a 24; 13. 295 a 16 (R.P. 170 b). Plato, Phaed. 99 b 6, διὸ ὁ μέν τις δίνην περιτιθεὶς τῇ γῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μένειν δὴ ποιεῖ τὴν γὴν. The experiment with τὸ ἐν τοῖς κυάθοις ὕδωρ which κύκλῳ τοῦ κυάθου φερομένου πολλάκις κάτω τοῦ χαλκοῦ γινόμενον ὅμως οὐ φέρεται κάτω, reminds us of that with the klepsydra in fr. 100. The point is that the φόρα of the δίνη overcomes the οἰκεία ῥοπή by its velocity.
“Empedokles held that there were two suns: one, the archetype, the fire in one hemisphere of the world, filling the whole hemisphere always stationed opposite its own reflexion; 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, which is round, on the crystalline sun, and carried round by the motion of the fiery hemisphere. Or, to sum it up shortly, the sun is a reflexion of the terrestrial fire.”
These passages, and especially the last, are by no means clear.
1 Strom. fr. 10 (Dox. p. 582, 11; R.P. 170 c.
2 Plut. De Pyth. or. 400 b; R.P. 170c. I keep the MS. reading περὶ γῆν with Diels.
3 Aet. ii. 20, 13 (Dox. p. 350), Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους· τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ὂν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου, πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, αἰεὶ κατ’ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον, ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ’ ἀνάκλασιν γιγνομένην εἰς τὸν ἥλιον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ, συμπεριελκομένην δὲ τῇ κινήσει τοῦ πυρίνου. ὡς δὲ βραχέως εἰρῆσθαι συντεμόντα, ἀνταύγειαν εἶναι τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν πυρὸς τὸν ἥλιον.
4 I strongly suspect that the confusion is due to a somewhat captious criticism by Theophrastos; see below, p. 298, n. 1. It would be like him to point out that the theory implied “two suns.”
It was probably in this connexion that Empedokles announced that light takes some time to travel, though its speed is so great as to escape our perception.
>“The moon was composed of air cut off by the fire; it was frozen just like hail, and had its light from the sun.” It is, in other words, a disc of frozen air, of the same substance as the solid sky which surrounds the heavens. Diogenes says that Empedokles taught it was smaller than the sun, and Aetios tells us it was only half as distant from the earth.
Empedokles did not explain the fixed stars by reflected light, nor even the planets. They were made out of the fire which the air carried with it when forced beneath the earth by the upward rush of fire at the first separation. The fixed stars were attached to the frozen air; the planets moved freely.
Empedokles was acquainted (fr. 42) with the true theory of solar eclipses, which, along with that of the moon’s light, was the great discovery of this period. He also knew (fr. 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 the compression of the Air, which forced any water there might be in it out of its pores in the form of drops. Lightning was fire forced out from the clouds in much the same way.
1 Arist. De sensu, 6. 446 a 28; De an. B, 7. 418 b 20.
2 [Plut.] Strom. fr. 10, Dox. p. 582, 12; R.P. 170 c; Diog. viii. 77; Aet. ii. 31, 1 (cf. Dox. p. 63.
3 Aet. ii. 13, 2 and 11; Dox. pp. 341 sqq..
4 Aet. iii. 3, 7; Arist. Meteor. B, 9. 369 b 12, with Alexander’s commentary.
114. Organic Combinations. Empedokles went on to show how the four elements, mingled in different proportions, gave rise to perishable things, such as bones, flesh, and the like. These, of course, are the work of Love; but this in no way contradicts the view taken above as to the period to which this world belongs. Love is by no means banished from the world yet, though one day it will be. At present, it is still able to form combinations of elements; but, just because Strife is ever increasing, they are all perishable. The important part played by proportion (λόγος) here is no doubt due to Pythagorean influence.
The possibility of organic combinations depends on the fact that there is still water in the earth, and even fire (fr. 52). The warm springs of Sicily were a proof of this, not to speak of Etna. These springs Empedokles appears to have explained by one of his characteristic images, drawn this time from the heating of warm baths.
115. Plants. Plants and animals were formed from the four elements under the influence of Love and Strife. The fragments which deal with trees and plants are 77–81; and these, taken along with certain Aristotelian statements and the doxographical tradition, enable us to make out pretty
1 Arist. Meteor. B, 3. 357 a 24; Aet. iii. 16, 3; R.P. 170 b. Cf. the clear reference in Arist. Meteor. B, 1. 353 b 11.
2 Seneca, Q. Nat. iii. 24, “Facere solemus dracones et miliaria et complures formas in quibus aere tenui fistulas struimus per declive circumdatas, ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat spatii quantum efficiendo calori sat est. Frigida itaque intrat, effluit calida. Idem sub terra Empedocles existimat fieri.”
Empedokles says trees were the first living creatures to grow up out of the earth, before the sun was spread out, and before day and night were distinguished; from the symmetry of their mixture, they contain the proportion of male and female; they grow, rising up owing to the heat which is in the earth, so that they are parts of the earth just as embryos are parts of the uterus; fruits are excretions of the water and fire in plants, and those which have a deficiency of moisture shed their leaves when that is evaporated by the summer heat, while those which have more moisture remain evergreen, as in the case of the laurel, the olive, and the palm; the differences in taste are due to variations in the particles contained in the earth and to the plants drawing different particles from it, as in the case of vines; for it is not the difference of the vines that makes wine good, but that of the soil which nourishes them. Aet. v. 26, 4; R.P. 172.
Aristotle finds fault with Empedokles for explaining the double growth of plants, upwards and downwards, by the opposite natural motions of the earth and fire contained in them.
At the beginning of the pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise on Plants,
1 Arist. De an. B, 4. 415 b 28.
2 De causis plantarum, i. 12, 5.
3 [Arist.] De plantis, A, 1. 815 a 15.
116. Evolution of Animals. The fragments which deal with the evolution of animals (57-62) must be understood in the light of the statement (fr. 17) that there is a double coming into being and a double passing away of mortal things. The four stages are accurately distinguished in a passage of Aetios,
The first stage is that in which the various parts of animals arise separately. It is that of heads without necks, arms without shoulders, and eyes without foreheads (fr. 57). It is clear that this must be the first stage in what we have called the fourth period of the world’s history, that in which Love is coming in and Strife passing out. Aristotle distinctly refers it to the period of Love, by which, as we have seen, he means the period when Love is increasing.
1 Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in the reign of Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek at the Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy.
2 [Arist.] De plantis, A, 2. 817 b 35, “mundo…diminuto et non perfecto in complemento suo” (Alfred).
3 Aet. v. 19, 5; R.P. 173.
4 Arist. De caelo, Γ, 2. 300 b 29; R.P. 173 a. Cf. De gen. an. A, 18. 722 b 19, where fr. 57 is introduced by the words καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς γεννᾷ ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος. So Simplicius, De caelo, p. 587, 18, says μουνομελῆ ἔτι τὰ γυῖα ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Νείκους διακρίσεως ὄντα ἐπλανᾶτο.
5 Arist. De an. Γ, 6. 430 a 30; R.P. 173 a.
The third stage belongs to the period when the unity of the Sphere is being destroyed by Strife. It is, therefore, the first stage in the evolution of our world. It begins with “whole-natured forms" in which there is not any distinction of sex or species.
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.
In both these processes of evolution, Empedokles was guided by the idea of the survival of the fittest. Aristotle severely criticises this. “We may suppose," he says, “that all things have fallen out accidentally just as they would have done if they had been produced for some end. Certain things have been preserved because they had spontaneously acquired a fitting structure, while those which were not so put together have perished and are perishing, as Empedokles says of the oxen with human faces.”
1 This is well put by Simplicius, De caelo, p. 587, 20. It is ὅτε τοῦ Νείκους ἐπεκράτει λοιπὸν ἡ Φιλότης…ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος οὖν ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐκεῖνα εἶπεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐπικρατούσης ἤδη τῆς Φιλότητος, ἀλλ’ ὡς μελλούσης ἐπικρατεῖν In Phys. p. 371, 33, he says the oxen with human heads were κατὰ τὴν τῆς Φιλίας ἀρχήν.
2 Cf. Plato, Symp. 189e.
3 Arist. Phys. B, 8. 198 b 29; R.P. 173 a.
survived.
117. Physiology. The distinction of the sexes was a result of the differentiation brought about by Strife. Empedokles differed from the theory given by Parmenides in his Second Part (§ 95) in holding that the warm element preponderated in the male sex, and that males were conceived in the warmer part of the uterus (fr. 65). The foetus was formed partly from the male and partly from the female semen (fr. 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 certain symmetry of the pores in the male and female semen is necessary for procreation, and from its absence Empedokles explained the sterility of mules. The children resemble that parent who contributed most to their formation. The influence of statues and pictures was also noted, however, as modifying the appearance of the offspring. Twins and triplets were due to a superabundance and division of the semen.
Empedokles held that the foetus was enveloped in a membrane, and that its formation began on the thirty-sixth day and was complete on the forty-ninth. The heart was formed first, the nails and such things last. Respiration did not begin till the time of birth, when the fluids round the foetus were withdrawn. Birth took place in the ninth or seventh month, because the day had been originally nine months long, and afterwards seven. Milk arises on the tenth day of the eighth month (fr. 68).
Death was the final separation by Strife of the fire and
1 Arist. De part. an. A, 1. 640 a 19.
2 Aet. v. 10, 1; 11, 1; 12, 2; 14, 2. Cf. Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen, pp. 126 sqq.
3 Aet. v. 15, 3; 21, 1. Dox. p. 190.
Even in life, we may see the attraction of like to like operating in animals just as it did in the upward and downward growth of plants. Hair is the same thing as foliage (fr. 82); and, generally speaking, the fiery part of animals tends upwards and the earthy downwards, though there are exceptions, as may be seen in the case of certain shellfish (fr. 76), where the earthy part is above. These exceptions are only possible because there is still a great deal of Love in the world. We also see the attraction of like for like in the habits of different species of animals. Those that have most fire in them fly up into the air; those in which earth preponderates take to the earth, as did the dog which always sat upon a tile.
Empedokles paid great attention to respiration, and his explanation of it has been preserved in a continuous form (fr. 100). We breathe, he held, through all the pores of the skin, not merely through the organs of respiration. The cause of the alternate inspiration and expiration of 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 is, of course, to be explained from the attraction of like to like. Each part
1 Aet. v. 25, 4. Dox. p. 437.
2 Aet. v. 19, 5. (Dox. p. 431). Cf. Eth. Eud. H, 1. 1235 a 11.
3 Arist. De respir. 14. 477 a 32; Theophr. De causis plant. i. 21.
118. Perception. For the theory of perception held by Empedokles we have the original words of Theophrastos:
Empedokles speaks in the same way of all the senses, and says that perception is due to the “effluences” fitting into the passages of each sense. And that is why one cannot judge the objects of another; for the passages of some of them are too wide and those of others too narrow for the sensible object, so that the latter either hold their course right through without touching or cannot enter at all. R.P. 177 b.
He tries, too, to explain the nature of sight. He says that the interior of the eye consists of fire, while round about it is earth and air,
But eyes are not all composed in the same way; some are composed of like elements and some of opposite; some have the fire in the centre and some on the outside. That is why 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 without; those which have less of the opposite (i.e. water), by night, for then their deficiency is supplemented. But, in the opposite case, each will behave in the opposite manner. Those eyes in which fire predominates will be dazzled in the daytime, since the fire being still further increased will stop up and occupy the pores of the water. Those in which water predominates will, he says, suffer
1 Nutrition, Aet. v. 27, 1; pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15; v. 28, 1; tears and sweat, v. 22, 1.
2 That is watery vapour, not the elemental air or αἰθήρ (§ 107). It is identical with the “water” mentioned below. It is unnecessary, therefore, to insert καὶ ὕδωρ after πῦρ with Karsten and Diels.
Hearing, he holds, is produced by sound outside, when the air moved by the voice sounds inside the ear; for the sense of hearing is a sort of bell sounding inside the ear, which he calls a “fleshy sprout.” When the air is set in motion it strikes upon the solid parts and produces a sound.
And he gives a precisely similar account of thought and ignorance. Thought arises from what is like and ignorance from what is unlike, thus implying that thought is the same, or nearly the same, as perception. For after enumerating how we know each thing by means of itself, he adds, “for all things are fashioned and fitted together out of these, and it is by these men think and feel pleasure and pain" (fr. 107). And for this reason we think chiefly with our blood, for in it of all parts of the body all 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 perceptions; and those who come next to them are wise in proportion. 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
1 Beare, p. 96 n. 1.
2 Ibid. p. 133.
Perception, then, is due to the meeting of an element in us with the same element outside. This takes place when the pores of the organ of sense are neither too large nor too small for the “effluences" which all things are constantly giving off (fr. 89). Smell was explained by respiration. The breath drew in along with it the small particles which fit into the pores. Empedokles proved this by the example of people with a cold in their head,
The theory of vision
Empedokles was aware, too, that “effluences,” as he called them, came from things to the eyes as well; for he defined colours as “effluences from forms (or ‘things’)
1 Aet. iv. 17, 2 (Dox. p. 407). Beare, p. 133.
2 Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81.
3 Ibid. pp. 95 sqq.
4 Ibid. pp. 14 sqq.
5 Theophr. De sens. 26.
Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no distinction between thought and perception, a remark already made by Aristotle.
119. Theology and Religion. The theoretical theology of Empedokles reminds us of Xenophanes, his practical religious teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics. We are told in the earlier part of the poem that certain “gods" are composed of the elements; and that therefore though they “live long lives” they must pass away (fr. 21). The elements and the Sphere are also called gods, but that is in quite another sense of the word, and the elements do not pass away.
If, we turn to the religious teaching of the Purifications,
1 The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, Men. 76d 4. All our MSS. have ἀπορροαὶ σχημάτων, but Ven. T has in the margin γρ. χρημάτων, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for “things” is χρήματα. See Diels, Empedokles und Gorgias, p. 439.
2 See Beare, Elementary Cognition, p. 18.
3 Arist. De an. Γ, 3. 427 a 21.
4 R.P. 178 a. This was the characteristic doctrine of the Sicilian school, from whom it 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. At a later date, Philistion of Syracuse, Plato’s friend, substituted the ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα (“animal spirits”) which circulated along with the blood.
5 Beare, p. 253.
Chapter VI. Anaxagoras of Klazomenai
120. Date. All that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the date of Anaxagoras seems to rest on the authority of Demetrios Phalereus, who said of him, in his Register of Archons, that he “began to be a philosopher” at Athens at the age of twenty, in the archonship of Kallias or Kalliades (480–79 BC).
There can be no doubt that these dates are very nearly right. Aristotle tells us
1 Diog. ii. 7; R.P. 148.) For the variation in the archon’s name, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 1, and for the chronology generally, see A. E. Taylor in Classical Quarterly, xi. 81 sqq., whose arguments appear to me convincing.
2 We must read ὀγδοηκοστῆς with Scaliger to make the figures come right.
3 On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.
4 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11; R.P. 150 a.
121. Early Life. Anaxagoras was from Klazomenai, and Theophrastos tells us that his father’s name was Hegesiboulos.
One incident belonging to the early manhood of Anaxagoras is recorded, namely, the fall of a huge meteoric stone into the Aigospotamos in 468–67 BC
1 Phys. Op. fr. 3 (Dox. p. 477), ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 19; R.P. 162 e.
2 Diog. ix. 41; R.P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX. § 171.
3 Phys. Op. fr. 4 (Dox. p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.
4 Plato, Hipp. ma. 283a, τοὐναντίον γὰρ Ἀναξαγόρᾳ φασὶ συμβῆναι ἢ ὑμῖν· καταλειφθέντων γὰρ αὐτῷ πολλῶν χρημάτων καταμελῆσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι πάντα· οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνόητα σοφίζεσθαι. Cf. Plut. Per. 16.
5 Arist. Eth. Nic. K, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf. Eth. Eud. A, 4. 1215 b 6 and 15, 1216 a 10.
6 Diog. ii. 10 (R.P. 149 a). Pliny, n. H. ii. 149, gives the date as Ol. LXXVIII. 2; and Eusebios gives it under Ol. LXXVIII. 3. But cf. Marm. Par. 57, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ὁ λίθος ἔπεσε … ἔτη HHII, ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Θεαγενίδου, which is 468-67 BC The text of Diog. ii. 11 is corrupt. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2; and Diels, Vors. 46 A 1.
7 Pliny, loc. cit., “qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis colore adusto.” Cf. Plut. Lys. 12, καὶ δείκνυται … ἔτι νῦν.
1 Cicero, De nat. d. i. 26 (after Philodemos), “Anaxagoras qui accepit ab Anaximene disciplinam (i.e. διήκουσε); Diog. i. 13; R.P. 4, and ii. 6; Strabo, xiv. p. 645, Κλαζομένιος δ’ ἦν ἀνὴρ ἐπιφανὴς Ἀναχαγόρας ὁ φυσικός, Ἀναξιμένους ὁμιλητής; Euseb. P.E. p. 504; [Galen] Hist. Phil. 3; Augustine, De civ. Dei, viii. 2.
2 Phys. Op. fr. 4 (Dox. p. 478), Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν γὰρ Ἡγησιβούλου Κλαζομένιος κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας κτλ. 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, κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας. See below, Chap. IX. § 172.
At this point, then, it may be well to indicate briefly the conclusions we shall come to in the next few chapters with regard to the development of philosophy during the first half of the fifth century BC We shall find that, while the old Ionic school was still capable of training great men, it was now powerless to keep them. Anaxagoras went his own way; Melissos and Leukippos, though they still retained enough of the old views to bear witness to the source of their inspiration, were too strongly influenced by the Eleatic dialectic to remain content with the theories of Anaximenes. It was left to second-rate minds like Diogenes to champion the orthodox system, while third-rate minds like Hippon
123. Anaxagoras at Athens. Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to take up at his abode at Athens. We are not informed what brought him there in the year of Salamis. He was, however, a Persian subject; for Klazomenai had been reduced after the suppression of the Ionian Revolt, and it seems likely enough that he was in the Persian army.
Anaxagoras is said to have been the teacher of Perikles, and the fact is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the testimony of Plato. In the Phaedrus
1 That might explain the charge of “Medism” which was perhaps brought against him at his trial (§ 124). It is also perhaps, significant that Apollodoros (and probably Demetrios of Phaleron) spoke of him as twenty years old κατὰ τὴν Ξέρξου διάβασιν, which means, of course, the crossing of the Hellespont, and would hardly be relevant if Anaxagoras had not been with Xerxes then. It is certainly difficult to see what else could bring a young Klazomenian to Athens at that date.
2 270a; R.P. 148 c.
A more difficult question is the alleged relation of Euripides to Anaxagoras. The oldest authority for it is Alexander of Aitolia, poet and librarian, who lived at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphos (c. 280 BC). He referred to Euripides as the “nursling of brave Anaxagoras.”
124. The Trial. It is clear that, if we adopt the chronology of Demetrios of Phaleron, the trial of Anaxagoras must be placed early in the political career of Perikles.
1 Isokrates, Περὶ ἀντιδόσεως, 235. Περικλῆς δὲ δυοῖν (σοφισταῖν) ἐγένετο μαθητής, Ἀναξαγόρου τε τοῦ Κλαζομενίου καὶ Δάμωνος.
2 Damon (or Damonides) must have been politically active about 460 BC Meyer, Gesch. des Altert. iii. 567; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, i. 134) so that he must have been born about 500 BC He was ostracised before 443 BC according to Meyer, and an ostrakon with the name of Damon son of Damonides has been found (Brückner, Arch. Anz., 1914, P. 95). If we suppose that he was ostracised in 445 and returned in 435, his subsequent relations with Sokrates are quite natural. Plato can hardly have known him personally. On the whole subject, see Rosenberg in Neue Jahrb. xxxv. p. 205 sqq.
3 Gell. xv. 20, “Alexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus composuit”; ὁ δ’ Ἀναξαγόρου τρόφιμος χαιοῦ (so Valckenaer for ἀρχαίου) κτλ.
4 See Introd. p. 10, n. 3.
5 R.P. 150 b.
6 The trial of Anaxagoras is generally referred to the period just before the Peloponnesian War. That is how it was represented by Ephoros (reproduced by Diod. xii. 38), and the same account is followed by Plutarch (V. Per. 32). The pragmatic character of the chronology of Ephoros is, however, sufficiently established, and we cannot infer anything from it. Sotion, who made Kleon the accuser, must also have assumed a late date for the trial.
Driven from his adopted home, Anaxagoras naturally went back to Ionia, where at least he would be free to teach what he pleased. He settled at Lampsakos, a colony of Miletos, and we shall see reason to believe that he founded a school there. If so, he must have lived at Lampsakos for some time before his death.
1 Diog. ii. 12, Σάτυρος δ’ ἐν τοῖς Βίοις ὑπὸ Θουκυδίδου φησὶν εἰσαχθῆναι τὴν δίκην, ἀντιπολιτευομένου τῷ Περικλεῖ· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἀσεβείας ἀλλὰ καὶ μηδισμοῦ· καὶ ἀπόντα καταδικασθῆναι θανάτῳ.
2 This would be in complete agreement with the statement that Anaxagoras lived thirty years at Athens (p. 251). For the ostracism of Damon, see p. 255, n. 2.
3 The well-known passage of the Phaedo (97b 8 sqq.) distinctly implies that Anaxagoras had left Athens when Sokrates was still quite young. He hears of his doctrine only at second-hand (from Archelaos?) and he at once procures the book of Anaxagoras and reads it. If Anaxagoras had still been at Athens, it would have been a simple matter for Sokrates to seek him out and question him, and it would have made an excellent subject for a Platonic dialogue. The fact that Plato does make Sokrates meet Parmenides and Zeno and does not make him meet Anaxagoras is clearly significant.
4 Apol. 26d.
5 Plut. Nic. 23; R.P. 148 c. Cf. Per. 32; R.P. 148.
6 See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. § 191.
125. Writings. Diogenes includes Anaxagoras in his list of philosophers who left only a single book, and he has also preserved the accepted criticism of it, namely, that it was written “in a lofty and agreeable style.”
1 The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras is Alkidamas, the pupil of Gorgias, who said these were still kept up in his own time. Arist. Rhet. B, 23. 1398 b 15.
2 Diog. i. 16; ii. 6; R.P. 5; 153.
3 Schaubach An. Claz. Fragm. p. 57) fabricated a work entitled τὸ πρὸς Λεχίνεον 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 ideo dicit lechineon; and this seems to be due to failure to make out the Arabic text from which the Latin was derived. Cf. Meyer, Gesch. d. Bot. i. 60.
4 Vitruvius, vii. pr. ii. A forger, seeking to decorate his production with a great name, would think at once of the philosopher who was said to have taught Euripides.
5 Plut. De exilio, 607 f. The words merely mean that he used to draw figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the prison floor.
6 Apol. 26 d-e. The expression βιβλία perhaps implies that it filled more than one roll.
(1) All things were together, infinite both in number and in smallness; for the small too was infinite. And, when all things were together, none of them could be distinguished for their smallness. 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 that surrounds the world, and the surrounding mass is infinite in quantity. R.P. ib.
(3) Nor is there a least of what is small, but there is always a smaller; for it cannot be that what is should cease to be by being cut.
1 Simplicius tells us this was at the beginning of Book I. The sentence quoted by Diog. ii. 6 (R.P. 153) is not a fragment of Anaxagoras, but a summary, like the πάντα ῥεῖ ascribed to Herakleitos.” (Chap. III. p. 146).
2 Zeller’s τομῇ still seems to me a convincing correction of the MS. τὸ μή, which Diels retains.
(4) And since these things are so, we must suppose that there are contained many things and of all sorts in 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 with us; and that they have a sun and a moon and the rest as with us; and that their earth brings forth for them many things of all kinds of which they gather the best together into their dwellings, and use them (R.P. 160 b). Thus much have I said with regard to separating off, to show that it will not be only with us that things are separated off, but elsewhere too.
But before they were separated off, when all things were together, not even was any colour distinguishable; for the mixture of all things prevented it—of the moist and the dry; and the warm and the cold, 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 other things
1 I had already pointed out in the first edition that Simplicius quotes this three times as a continuous fragment, and that we are not entitled to break it up. Diels now prints it as a single passage.
(5) And those things having been thus decided, we must know that all of them are neither more nor less; for it is not possible for them to be more than all, and all are always equal. R.P. 151.
(6) And since the portions of the great and of the small are equal in amount, for this reason, too, all things will be in everything; nor is it possible for them to be apart, but all things have a portion of everything. Since it is impossible for there to be a least thing, they cannot be separated, nor come to be by themselves; but they must be now, just as they were in the beginning, all-together. And in all things many things are contained, and an equal number both in the greater and in the smaller of the things that are separated off.
(7) …So that we cannot know the number of the things that are separated off, either in word or deed.
(8) The things that are in one world are not divided nor cut off from one another with a hatchet, neither the warm from the cold nor the cold from the warm. R.P. 155 e.
(9) …as these things revolve and are separated off by the force and swiftness. And the swiftness makes the force. Their swiftness is not like the swiftness of any of the things that are now among men, but in every way many times as swift.
(10) How can hair come from what is not hair, or flesh from what is not flesh? R.P. 155, f, n. 1.
(11) In everything there is a portion of everything except Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also. R.P. 160 b.
(12) All other things partake in a portion of everything, while Nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone itself by itself. For if it were not by 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
(13) And when Nous began to move things, separating off took place from all that was moved, and so much as Nous set in motion was separated. And as things were set in motion and separated, the revolution caused them to be separated much more.
(14) And Nous, which ever is, is certainly there, where everything else is, 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 the dry (and the bright) went out towards the further part of the aether. R.P. 156
(16) From these as they are separated off earth is solidified; for from mists water is separated off, and from water earth. From the earth stones are solidified by the cold, and these rush outwards more than water. R.P. 156.
(17) The Hellenes follow a wrong usage in speaking of coming
1 Simplicius gives fr. 14 thus (p. 157, 5); ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὅσα ἐστί τε κάρτα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. Diels now reads ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὃς ἀ<εί> ἐστί τὸ κάρτα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. The correspondence of ἀεὶ…καὶ νῦν is strongly in favour of this.
2 On the text of fr. 15, see R.P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in adding καὶ τὸ λαμπρόν from Hippolytos.
(18) It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.
(19) We call rainbow the reflexion of the sun in the clouds. Now it is a sign of storm; for the water that flows round the cloud causes wind or pours down in rain.
(20) With the rise of the Dogstar (? {Sirius}) men begin the harvest; with its setting they begin to till the fields. It is hidden for forty days and nights.
(21) From the weakness of our senses we are not able to judge the truth.
(21a) What appears is a vision of the unseen.
(21b) (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.
127. Anaxagoras and his Predecessors. The system of Anaxagoras, like that of Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine that corporeal substance is unchangeable with the existence of a world which 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 things; for there cannot be more than all, and all is always equal (fr. 5). Nor can anything pass away. What men commonly call coming into being and passing away is really mixture and separation (fr. 17).
It is in every way probable that Anaxagoras derived his theory of mixture from his younger contemporary; whose poem may have been published before his own treatise.
1 I do not now think, however, that this is the meaning of the words τοῖς ἔργοις ὕστερος in Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 12 (R.P. 150 a). At any rate Theophrastos did not take them so; for he imitates the passage in speaking of Plato (Dox. 484, 19), of whom he says Τούτοις ἐπιγενόμενος Πλάτων τῇ μὲν δόξῃ καὶ τῇ δυνάμει πρότερος, τοῖς δὲ χρόνοις ὕστερος. It seems that he understood the Aristotelian formula as “inferior in his achievements."
128. “Everything in Everything.” A part of the argument by which Anaxagoras sought to prove this point has been preserved in a 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 water. But how can hair be made of what is not hair, or flesh of what is not flesh?” (fr. 10).
129. The Portions. What are these “things” of which everything
1 Arist. Phys. A, 4. 187 b 1; R.P. 155 a.
2 Aet. i. 3, 5 (Dox. p. 279). See R.P. 155 f and n. 1. I read καρπὸν with Usener.
The statewent that there is a portion of everything in everything, is not to be understood as referring simply to the original mixture of things before the formation of the worlds (fr. 1). On the contrary, even now “all things are together,” and everything, however small and however great, has an equal number of “portions” (fr. 6). A smaller particle of matter could only contain a smaller number of portions, if one of those portions ceased to be; but if anything is, in the full Parmenidean sense, it, is impossible that mere division should make it cease to be (fr. 3). Matter is infinitely divisible; for there is no least thing, any more than there is a greatest. But however great or small a body may be, it contains just the same number of “portions,” that is, a portion of everything.
This difficulty can only be solved in one way.
It is of those opposites, then, and not of the different forms of matter, that everything contains a portion. Every
1 See Tannery, Science hellène, pp. 283 sqq. I still think that Tannery’s interpretation is substantially right, though his statement of it requires some modification. It is, no doubt, difficult for us to think of the hot and cold, dry and wet as “things” (χρήματα); but we must remember that, even when the notion of quality (ποιότης) had been defined, this way of thinking survived. Galen (De nat. fac. i. 2, 4) is still quite clear on the point that it is the qualities which are eternal. He says οἱ δέ τινες εἶναι μὲν ἐν αὐτῇ (τῇ ὑποκειμένῃ οὐσίᾳ) βούλονται τὰς ποιότητας, ἀμεταβλήτους δὲ καὶ ἀτρέπτους ἐξ αἰῶνος, καὶ τὰς φαινομένας ταύτας ἀλλοιώσεις τῇ διακρίσει τε καὶ συγκρίσει γίγνεσθαί φασιν ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας.
2 Arist. Phys. A, 2. 184 b 21, ἢ οὕτως ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος, τὸ γένος ἕν, σχήματι δὲ ἢ εἴδει διαφερούσας, ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας.
3 Phys. p. 44, 1. He goes on to refer to θερμότητας…καὶ ψυχρότητας ξηρότητάς τε καὶ ὑγρότητάς μανότητάς τε καὶ πυκνότητας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας κατὰ ποιότητα ἐναντιότητας.. He observes, however, that Alexander rejected this interpretation and took διαφερούσας ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας closely together as both referring to Demokritos.
4 Phys. A, 4. 187 a 25, τὸν μὲν Ἀναξαγόραν ἄπειρα ποιεῖν τά τε ὁμοιομερῆ καὶ τἀναντία. Aristotle’s own theory only differs from this in so far as he makes ὕλη prior to the ἐναντία.
130. Seeds. The difference, then, between the theory of Anaxagoras and that of Empedokles is this. Empedokles had taught that, if you divide the various things which make up this world, and in particular the parts of the body, such as flesh, bones, and the like, far enough, you come to the four “roots” or elements, which are, accordingly, the ultimate reality. Anaxagoras held that, however far you may divide any of these things—and they are infinitely divisible—you never come to a part so small that it does not contain portions of all the opposites. On the other hand, everything can pass into everything else just because the “seeds,” as he called them, of each form of matter contain a portion of everything, that is, of all the opposites, though in different proportions. If we are to use the 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 ὁμοιομερῆ as στοιχεῖα.
1 Sext. Pyrrh. i. 33; R.P. 161 b.
2 The connexion was already noted by the eclectic Herakleitean to whom I attribute Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3-4 (see above, Chap. III. p. 150, n. 2). Cf. the words ἔχει δὲ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν· ἔνι γὰρ ἐν πυρὶ ὑγρότης· τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ ξηρόν· ἔνι γὰρ καὶ ἐν ὕδατι ξηρόν.
3 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 1, 34 a 18, 6 ὁ μὲν γὰρ (Anaxagoras) τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα τίθησιν, οἷον ὀστοῦν καὶ σάρκα καὶ μυελόν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἑκάστῳ συνώνυμον τὸ μέρος ἐστίν. This was, of course, repeated by Theophrastos and the doxographers; but it is to be noted that Aetios, supposing as he does that Anaxagoras himself used the term, gives it an entirely wrong meaning. He says that the ὁμοιομέρειαι were so called from the likeness of the particles of the τροφή to those of the body (Dox. 279 a 21; R.P. 155 f). Lucretius, i. 830 sqq. (R.P. 150 a) has a similar account of the matter, derived from Epicurean sources. Obviously, it cannot be reconciled with what Aristotle says.
The difference between the two systems may also be regarded from another point of view. Anaxagoras was not obliged by his theory to regard the elements of Empedokles as primary, a view to which there were obvious objections, especially in the case of earth. He explained them in quite another way. Though everything has a portion of everything in it, things appear to be that of which there is most in them (fr. 12 sub fin.). We may say, then, that Air is that in which there is most cold, Fire that in which there is most heat, and so on, without giving up the view that there is a portion of cold in the fire and a portion of heat in the air.
1 Cf. above, p. 263.
2 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 1. 314 a 29. The word πανσπερμία was used by Demokritos (Arist. De an. A, 2. 404 a 8; R.P. 200), and it occurs in the Περὶ διαίτης (loc. cit.). It seems natural to suppose that it was used by Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term σπέρματα. Much difficulty has been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire among the ὁμοιομερῆ in Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11 (R.P. 150 a). Bonitz understands the words καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ to mean “as we have just seen that Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles.” In any case, καθάπερ goes closely with οὕτω, and the general sense is that Anaxagoras applies to the ὁμοιομερῆ what is really true of the στοιχεῖα. It would be better to delete the comma after πῦρ and add one after φησι, for συγκρίσει καὶ διακρίσει μόνον is explanatory of οὕτω.…καθάπερ. In the next sentence, I read ἁπλῶς for ἄλλως with Zeller (Arch. ii. 261). See also Arist. De caelo, Γ, 3. 302 b 1 (R.P. 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put.
This mass is infinite, like the air of Anaximenes, and it supports itself, since there is nothing surrounding it.
1 Arist. Phys. Γ, 5. 205 b 1; R.P. 154 a.
132. Nous. Like Empedokles, Anaxagoras required some external cause to produce motion in the mixture. Body, Parmenides had shown, would never move itself, as the Milesians had assumed. Anaxagoras called the cause of motion by the name of Nous. It was this which made Aristotle say that he “stood out like a sober man from the random talkers that had preceded him,”
1 Phys. Z, 6. 213 a 22 (R.P. 159): We have a full discussion of the experiments with the klepsydra in Probl. 914 b 9 sqq., a passage which we have already used to illustrate Empedokles, fr. 100. See above, p. 219, n. 2.
2 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 b 15; R.P. 152.
3 Phaed. 97b 8; R.P. 155 d.
4 Met. A, 4. 985 a 18; R.P. 155 d.
In the first place, Nous is unmixed (fr. 12), and does not, like other things, contain a portion of everything. This would hardly be worth saying of an immaterial mind; no one would suppose that to be hot or cold. The result of its being unmixed is that it “has power over” everything, that is to say, in the language of Anaxagoras, it causes things to move.
The truth probably is that Anaxagoras substituted Nous for the Love and Strife of Empedokles, because he wished to retain the old Ionic doctrine of a substance that “knows” all things, and to identify that with the new theory of a substance that “moves” all things. Perhaps, too, it was his increased interest in physiological as distinguished from purely cosmological matters that led him to speak of Mind rather than Soul. The former word certainly suggests to the Greek an intimate connexion with the living body which
1 Arist. Phys. Θ, 5. 256 b 24, διὸ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας ὀρθῶς λέγει, τὸν νοῦν ἀπαθῆ φάσκων καὶ ἀμιγῆ εἰναι, ἐπειδήπερ κινήσεως ἀρχὴν αὐτὸν ποιεῖ εἰναι· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν μόνως κινοίη ἀκίνητος ὢν καὶ κρατοίη ἀμιγὴς ὤν. This is only quoted for the meaning of κρατεῖν. Of course, the words ἀκίνητος ὤν are not meant to be historical, and still less is the interpretation in De an. Γ, 4. 429 a 18. Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 5) couples ὑπὸ τούτου πάντα κυβερνᾶσθαι (the old Milesian word) with πάντων κρατεῖν.
2 If we retain the MS. εἰδέναι in fr. 1. In any case, the name τὸ σοφόν implies as much.
3 See fr. 3, 5.
4 Zeller, p. 993.
133. Formation of the Worlds. The formation of a world starts with a rotatory motion which Nous imparts to a portion of the mixed mass in which “all things are together” (fr. 13), and this rotatory motion gradually extends over a wider and wider space. Its 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 masses, the one consisting mostly of the rare, hot, light, and dry, called the “Aether”; the other, in which the opposite qualities predominate, called “Air” (fr. 1). Of these the Aether or Fire
The next stage is the separation of the air into clouds, water, earth, and stones (fr. 16). In this Anaxagoras follows Anaximenes closely. In his account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, however, he showed himself more original. We read at the end of fr. 16 that stones “rush outwards more than water,” and we learn from the doxographers that the heavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from the earth by the rapidity of its rotation and made red-hot by the speed of their own motion.
134. Innumerable Worlds. That Anaxagoras adopted the ordinary Ionian theory of innumerable worlds is clear from fr. 4, which we have no right to regard as other than continuous.
1 Note that Anaxagoras says “air” where Empedokles said “aether,” and that “aether” is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist. De caelo, Γ, 3. 302 b 4, τὸ γὰρ πῦρ καὶ τὸν αἰθέρα προσαγορεύει ταὐτό and ib. A, 3. 270 b 24, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καταχρῆται τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ οὐ καλῶς· ὀνομάζει γὰρ αἰθέρα ἀντὶ πυρός.
2 Aet. ii. 13, 3 (Dox. p. 341; R.P. 157 c).
3 See above, p. 259, n. 1.
135. Cosmology. The cosmology of Anaxagoras is clearly based upon that of Anaximenes, as will be seen from a comparison of the following passage of Hippolytos
(3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended because of its size and because there is no vacuum.
(4) Of the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea arose from the waters in the earth (for when these were evaporated the remainder turned salt),
(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 to the water that comes down from the snows in Ethiopia.
1 Aet. ii. 1, 3; Dox. p. 327.
2 Further, it can be proved that this passage (fr. 4) occurred quite near the beginning of the work. Cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 28 μετ’ ὀλίγα τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ πρώτου Περὶ φυσέως, p. 156, 1, καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα (after fr. 2), which itself occurred, μετ’ ὀλίγον (after fr. 1), which was the beginning of the book. A reference to other “worlds” would be quite in place here, but not a reference to the moon.
3 Ref. i. 8, 3; Dox. p. 562.
4 This is an addition to the older view occasioned by the Eleatic denial of the void.
5 The text is corrupt here, but the general sense can be got from Aet. iii. 16. 2.
6 The MS. reading is ἐν τοῖς ἄρκτοις, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs’ ἐν τοῖς ἀνταρκτικοῖς. I have thought it safer to translate the ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ of Aetios (iv. 1, 3). This view is mentioned by Herodotos (ii. 22). Seneca (N.Q. iv. 2, 17) points out that it was adopted by Aischylos (Suppl. 559, fr. 300, Nauck), Sophokles (fr. 797), and Euripides Hel. 3, fr. 228, who would naturally take their opinions from Anaxagoras.
(7) We do not feel the heat of the stars because of the greatness of their distance from the earth; and, further, they are not so warm as the sun, because they occupy a colder region. The moon is below the sun, and nearer us.
(8) The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size. The 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 back in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air. The moon turns back frequently, because it cannot prevail over the cold.
(10) Anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns the eclipses and the illumination of the sun and moon. And he said the moon was of earth, and had plains and ravines in it. The Milky Way was the reflexion of the light of the stars that were not illuminated by the sun. Shooting stars were sparks, as it were, which leapt out owing to the 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 the statement of Theophrastos, that Anaxagoras had belonged to the school of Anaximenes. The flat earth floating on the air, the dark bodies below the moon, the explanation of the solstices and the “turnings back” of the moon by the resistance of air, the explanations of wind and of thunder and lightning, are all derived from the Milesian.
136. Biology. “There is a portion of everything in everything except Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also” (fr. 11). In these words Anaxagoras laid down the distinction between animate and inanimate things. He tells us that it is the same Nous that “has power over,” that is, sets in motion, all things that have life, both the greater and the smaller (fr. 12). The Nous in living creatures is the same in all (fr. 12), and from this it followed that the different grades of intelligence 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 opportunities in one body than another. Man was the wisest of animals, not because he had a better sort of Nous, but because he had hands.
As all Nous is the same, we are not surprised to find that plants were regarded as living creatures. If we may trust the pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise on Plants
Both plants and animals originated in the first instance from the πανσπερμία. Plants arose when the seeds of
1 See p. 177, n. 1.
2 Arist. De part. an. Δ. 10. 687 a 7; R.P. 160 b.
3 [Arist.] De Plant. A, 1. 815 a 15; R.P. 160.
4 Plutarch Q.N. 1; R.P. 160, ζῷον…ἐγγεῖον.
137. Perception. In these scanty notices we seem to see traces of a polemical attitude towards Empedokles, and the same may be observed in what we are told of the theory of perception adopted by Anaxagoras, especially in the view that perception is of contraries.
But Anaxagoras says that perception is produced by opposites; for like things cannot be effected by like. He attempts to give a detailed enumeration of the particular senses. We see by means of the image in the pupil; but no image is cast 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 pupil by day, because light is a concomitant cause of the image, and because the prevailing colour casts an image more readily upon its opposite.
It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects. 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 manner; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the sound falls.
And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem to be the consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike things
1 Theophr. Hist. Plant. iii. 1, 4; R.P. 160.
2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ii. 14, 2 (R.P. 160 a).
3 Hipp. Ref. i. 8, 12 (Dox. p. 563).
4 Beare, p. 37.
5 Theophr. De sensu, 27 sqq. (Dox. p. 507).
6 Beare, p. 38.
7 Beare, p. 208.
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.
This theory marks in some respects an advance on that of Empedokles. It was a happy thought of Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon irritation by opposites, and to connect it with pain. Many modern theories are based upon a similar idea.
That Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable of reaching the truth of things is shown by the fragments preserved by Sextus. But we must not, for all that, turn him into a sceptic. The saying preserved by Aristotle
1 Beare, p. 209.
2 Ibid. p. 103.
3 Ibid. p. 137.
4 Met. Δ, 5. 1009 b 25; R.P. 161 a.
Chapter VII. The Pythagoreans
138. The Pythagorean School. After losing their supremacy in the Achaian cities, the Pythagoreans concentrated themselves at Rhegion; but the school founded there did not maintain itself for long, and only Archytas stayed behind in Italy. Philolaos and Lysis, the latter of whom had escaped as a young man from the massacre of Kroton, had already found their way to Thebes.
1 Iambl. V. Pyth. 251. The ultimate authority for all this is Timaios. There is no need to alter the MS. reading Ἀρχύτου to Ἀρχίππου (as Diels does after Beckmann). We are dealing with a later generation, and the sentence opens with of οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, i.e. those other than Archippos and Lysis, who have been dealt with in the preceding section.
2 For Philolaos, see Plato, Phaedo 61 d 7; e 7; and for Lysis, Aristoxenos in Iambl. V. Pyth. 250 (R.P. 59 b).
3 Diog. viii. 79-83 (R.P. 61). Aristoxenos himself came from Taras. The story of Damon and Phintias (told by Aristoxenos) belongs to this time.
139. Philolaos. This generation of the school really belongs, however, to a later period; it is with Philolaos we have now to deal. The facts we know about his teaching from external sources are few in number. The doxographers, indeed, ascribe to him an elaborate theory of the planetary system, but Aristotle never mentions his name in connexion with that. He gives it as the theory of “the Pythagoreans” or of “some Pythagoreans.”
1 Diog. viii, 46; R.P. 62.
2 The whole mise en scène of the Phaedo presupposes this, and it is quite incredible that Plato should have misrepresented the matter. Simmias and Kebes were a little younger than Plato and he could hardly have ventured to introduce them as disciples of Sokrates if they had not in fact been so. Xenophon too (Mem. i. 2. 48) includes Simmias and Kebes in his list of genuine disciples of Sokrates, and in another place (iii. 11, 7) he tells us that they had been attracted from Thebes by Sokrates and never left his side.
3 See Aristoxenos ap. Val. Max. viii. 13, ext. 3; and Souidas s.v.
4 See below, §§ 150-152.
5 Plato, Phaed. 61d 6.
We know further that Philolaos wrote on “numbers”; for Speusippos followed him in the account he gave of the Pythagorean theories on that subject.
We also know now that Philolaos wrote on medicine,
1 This appears to follow from the remark of Simmias in Phaed. 64 b. The whole passage would be pointless if the words φιλόσοφος, φιλοσοφεῖν, φιλοσοφία had not in some way become familiar to the ordinary Theban of the fifth century. Now Herakleides Pontikos made Pythagoras invent the word, and expound it in a conversation with Leon, tyrant of Sikyon or Phleious. Cf. Diog. i. 12 (R.P. 3), viii. 8; Cic. Tusc. v. 3. 8. Cf. also the remark of Alkidamas quoted by Arist. Rhet. B, 23. 1398 b i8, Θήβησιν ἅμα οἱ προστάται φιλόσοφοι ἐγένοντο καὶ εὐδαιμόνησεν ἡ πόλις.
2 For reasons which will appear, I do not attach importance in this connexion to Philolaos, fr. 14 Diels=23 Mullach (R.P. 89), but it does seem likely that the μυθολογῶν κομψὸς ἀνήρ 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 τετρημένος πίθος, which implies the same general view. Now he is called ἴσως Σικελός τις ἢ Ἰταλικός, which means he was an Italian; for the Σικελός τις is merely an allusion to the Σικελὸς κομψὸς ἀνὴρ ποτὶ τὰν ματέρ’ ἔφα of Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian from whom Socrates could have learnt these views except Philolaos or one of his associates.
3 See above, Chap. II. p. 102, n. 2.
4 It is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition (Introd. p. 26) that this was quite unknown till the publication of the extracts from Menon’s Iatrika contained in the Anonymus Londinensis. See Diels in Hermes, xxviii. pp. 417 sqq.
140. Plato and the Pythagoreans. Such, so far as I can judge, was the historical Philolaos, though he is usually represented in a very different light and has even been called a predecessor of Copernicus. To understand this, we must turn our attention to the story of a literary conspiracy.
We have seen that there are one or two references to Philolaos in Plato,
1 See p. 276, n. 2, and p. 278, n. 2.
2 This follows at once from the fact that he is represented as conversing with the elder Kritias (p. 203, n. 3), who is very aged, and with Hermokrates, who is quite young.
3 Diog. iii. 37. For similar charges, cf. Zeller, Plato, p. 429, n. 7.
and he
1 Iambl. V. Pyth. 199. Diels is clearly right in ascribing the story to Aristoxenos (Arch. iii. p. 461, n. 26).
2 Timon, fr. 54 (Diels), ap. Gell. iii. 17; R.P. 60 a.
3 For Hermippos and Satyros, see Diog. iii. 9; viii. 84, 85.
4 So Iambl. in Nicom. p. 105, 11; Proclus, in Tim. p. 1, Diehl.
5 They are τὰ θρυλούμενα τρία βιβλία (Iambl. V. Pyth. 199), τὰ διαβόητα τρία βιβλία (Diog. viii. 15).h5>
141.The “Fragments of Philolaos.” Boeckh argued that all the fragments preserved under the name of Philolaos were genuine; but no one will now go so far as that. The lengthy extract on the soul is given up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the
1 As Bywater said (J. Phil. i. p. 29), the history of this work “reads like the history, not so much of a book, as of a literary ignis fatuus floating before the minds of imaginative writers.”
2 Diels, “Ein gefälschtes Pythagorasbuch ”(Arch. iii. pp. 451 sqq.).
3 Diog. viii. 85; R.P. 63 b. Diels reads πρῶτον ἐκδοῦναι τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν (βιβλία καὶ ἐπιγράψαι Περὶ) Φύσεως.
4 Diog. viii. 7.
5 Proclus, in Eucl. p. 22, 15 (Friedlein). Cf. Boeckh, Philolaos, pp. 36 sqq. Boeckh refers to a sculptured group of three Bakchai, whom he supposes to be Ino, Agaue, and Autonoe.
In the first place, we must ask whether it is likely that Philolaos should have written in Doric? Ionic was the dialect of science and philosophy till the time of the Peloponnesian War, and there is no reason to suppose the early Pythagoreans used any other.
1 The passage is given in R.P. 68. For a full discussion of this and the other fragments, see Bywater, “On the Fragments attributed to Philolaus the Pythagorean” (J. Phil. i. pp. 21 sqq.).
2 Boeckh, Philolaos, p. 38. Diels (Vors. p. 246) distinguishes the Bakchai from the three books Περὶ φύσιος (ib. p. 239). As, however, he identifies the latter with the “three books” bought from Philolaos, and regards it as genuine, this does not seriously affect the argument.
3 See Diels in Arch. iii. pp. 460 sqq.
4 On the Achaian dialect, see O. Hoffmann in Collitz and Bechtel, Dialekt-Inschriften, vol. ii. p. 151. How slowly Doric penetrated into the Chalkidian states 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 BC There is no reason to suppose that the Achaian dialect of Kroton was less tenacious of life. We can see from Herodotos that there was a strong prejudice against the Dorians there.
5 The scanty fragments contain one Doric (or Achaian?) form, ἔχοντι (fr. 1), but Alkmaion calls himself Κροτωνιήτης, which is very significant; for Κροτωνιάτας is the Achaian as well as the Doric form.
6 Arch. iii. p. 460.
In the second place, there can be no doubt that one of the fragments refers to the five regular solids, four of which are identified with the elements of Empedokles.
1 He is distinctly called a Krotoniate in the extracts from Menon's Ἰατρικά (cf. Diog. viii. 84). It is true that Aristoxenos called him and 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 and a Metapontine (Iamb. V. Pyth. 148, 266). Cf. also p. 330, n. 1 on Leukippos, and p. 351, n. 1 on Hippon.
2 For Androkydes, see Diels, Vors. p. 281. As Diels points out (Arch. iii. p. 461), even Lucian has sufficient sense of style to make Pythagoras speak Ionic.
3 Cf. fr. 12=20 M. (R.P. 79), which I read as it stands in the MS. of Stobaios, but bracketing an obvious adscript or dittography, καὶ τὰ ἐν τᾷ σφαίρᾳ σώματα πέντε ἐντί [τὰ ἐν τᾷ σφαίρᾳ], πῦρ, ὕδωρ καὶ γᾶ καὶ ἀήρ, καὶ ὁ τᾶς σφαίρας ὁλκὰς πεμπτόν. In any case, we are not justified in reading τὰ μὲν τᾶς σφαίρας σώματα with Diels. For the identification of the four elements with four of the regular solids, cf. § 147, and for the description of the fifth, the dodecahedron, cf. § 148.
4 Plato, Rep.
1 Heiberg’s Euclid, vol. v. p. 654, 1, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ, τουτέστι τῷ ιγʹ, γράφεται τὰ λεγόμενα Πλάτωνος ε σχημάτων τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἐστίν, ὅ τε κύβος καὶ ἡ πυραμὶς καὶ τὸ δωδεκάεδρον, Θεαιτήτου δὲ τό τε ὀκτάεδρον καὶ τὸ εἰκοσάεδρον. It is no objection to this that, as Newbold points out (Arch. xix. p. 204), the inscription of the dodecahedron is more difficult than that of the octahedron and icosahedron. We have no right to reject the definite testimony quoted above (no doubt from Eudemos) on grounds of a priori probability. As a matter of fact, there are Celtic and Etruscan dodecahedra of considerable antiquity in the Louvre and elsewhere (G. Loria, Scienze esatte, p. 39), and the fact is significant in view of the connexion between Pythagoreanism and the North which has been suggested.
2 Philolaos is quoted only once in the Aristotelian corpus, in Eth. Eud. B, 8. 1225 a 33 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ Φιλόλαος ἔφη εἶναί τινας λόγους κρείττους ἡμῶν, which looks like an apophthegm. His name is not even mentioned anywhere else, and this would be inconceivable if Aristotle had ever seen a work of his which expounded the Pythagorean system. He must have known the importance of Philolaos from Plato’s Phaedo, and would certainly have got hold of his book if it had existed. It should be added that Tannery held the musical theory of our fragments to be too advanced for Philolaos. It must, he argued, be later than Plato and Archytas (Rev. de Phil. xxviii. pp. 233 sqq.). His opinion on such a point is naturally of the greatest weight.
142. The Problem. We must look, then, for other evidence. From what has been said, it will be clear that it is above all from Plato we can learn to regard Pythagoreanism sympathetically. Aristotle was out of sympathy with Pythagorean ways of thinking, but he took great pains to understand them. This was 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 we have to do, then, is to interpret what Aristotle tells us in the spirit of Plato, and then to consider how the doctrine we thus arrive at is related to the systems which preceded it. It is a delicate operation, no doubt, but it has been made much safer by recent discoveries in the early history of mathematics and medicine.
This simplifies the problem, but it is still very difficult. According to Aristotle, the Pythagoreans said Things are numbers, though that is not the doctrine of the fragments of “Philolaos.” According to them, things have number, which makes them knowable, while their real essence is something unknowable.
1 Aristotle says distinctly (Met. A, 6. 987 b 25) that “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.”
2 Zeller, p. 369 sqq. (Eng. trans. p. 397 sqq.
3 For the doctrine of “Philolaos,” cf. fr. 1 (R.P. 64); and for the unknowable ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων, see fr. 3 (R.P. 67). It has a suspicious resemblance to the later ὕλη, which Aristotle would hardly have failed to note. He is always on the look-out for anticipations of ὕλη.
143. Aristotle on the Numbers. In the first place, Aristotle is quite clear that Pythagoreanism was intended to be a cosmological system like the others. “Though the Pythagoreans,” he tells us, “made use of less obvious first principles and elements than the rest, seeing that they did not derive them from sensible objects, yet all their discussions and studies had reference to nature alone. They describe the origin of the heavens, and they observe the phenomena of its parts, all that happens to it and all it does.”
The doctrine is more precisely stated by Aristotle to be that the elements of numbers are the elements of things, and that therefore things are numbers.
1 Arist. Met. A, 8. 989 b 29; R.P. 92 a.
2 Arist. Met. A, 8. 990 a 3, ὁμολογοῦντες τοῖς ἄλλοις φυσιολόγοις ὅτι τό γ’ ὂν τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὅσον αἰσθητόν ἐστι καὶ περιείληφεν ὁ καλούμενος οὐρανός.
3 Arist. Met. ib., 8. 990 a 5, τὰς δ’ αἰτίας καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἰκανὰς λέγουσιν ἐπαναβῆναι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἀνωτέρω τῶν ὄντων, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς περὶ φύσεως λόγοις ἁρμοττούσας.
4 Met. A, 5. 986 a 1; τὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων στοιχεῖα πάντων ὑπέλαβον εἶναι; N, 3. 1090 a 22, εἶναι μὲν ἀριθμοὺς ἐποίησαν τὰ ὄντα, οὐ χωριστοὺς δέ, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ ὄντα.
5 Met. M, 6. 1080 b 2, ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐνυπαρχόντων ὄντα τὰ αἰσθητά; ib. 1080 b 17, ἐκ τούτου (τοῦ μαθηματικοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας συνεστάναι φασίν.
6 Met. M, 8. 1083 b 11, τὰ σώματα ἐξ ἀριθμῶν εἶναι συγκείμενα; ib. b 17, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὰ ὄντα λέγουσιν· τὰ γοῦν θεωρήματα προσάπτουσι τοῖς σώμασιν ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνων ὄντων τῶν ἀριθμῶν; N. 3. 1090 a 32, κατὰ μέντοι τὸ ποιεῖν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ φυσικὰ σώματα, ἐκ μὴ ἐχόντων βάρος μηδὲ κουφότητα ἔχοντα κουφότητα καὶ βάρος.
Further, the numbers were intended to be mathematical numbers, though they were not separated from the things of sense.
Lastly, Aristotle notes that the point in which the Pythagoreans agreed with Plato was in giving numbers an independent reality of their own; while Plato differed from the Pythagoreans in holding that this reality was distinguishable from that of sensible things.
144. The Elements of Numbers. Aristotle speaks of certain “elements” (στοιχεῖα) of numbers, which were also the elements of things. That is clearly the key to the problem, if we can discover what it means. Primarily, the “elements of number” are the Odd and the Even, but that does not seem to help us much. We find, however, that the Odd and Even were identified with the Limit and the Unlimited, which we have seen reason to regard as the original principles of the Pythagorean cosmology (§ 53).
1 Met. A, 5. 986 a 2, τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀριθμόν; A, 8. 990 a 21, τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦτον ἐξ οὗ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος; M. 6. 1080 b 18, τὸν γὰρ ὅλον οὐρανὸν κατασκευάζουσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν; De caelo, Γ. 1. 300 a 15, τοῖς ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συνιστᾶσι τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνιοι γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συνιστᾶσιν, ὥσπερ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινές.
2 Met. N, 3. 1091 a 18, κοσμοποιοῦσι καὶ φυσικῶς βούλονται λέγειν.
3 Met. M, 6. 1080 b 16; N, 3. 1090 a 20.
4 Arist. Met. A, 5. 987 a 15.) Accordingly the numbers are, in Aristotle’s own language, not only the formal, but also the material, cause of things. (Met. ib. 986 a 15; R.P. 66.
5 Met. A, 6. 987 b 27, ὁ μὲν (Πλάτων) τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς παρὰ τὰ αἰσθητά, οἱ δ’ (οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι) ἀριθμοὺς εἶναί φασιν αὐτὰ τὰ αἰσθητά.
6 Met. A, 5. 986 a 17 (R.P. 66); Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 10 (R.P. 66 a).
1 Met. A, 5. 986 a 17 (R. P. 66); Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 10 (R. P. 66 a).
2 Simpl. Phys. p. 455, 20 (R.P. 66 a). I owe the passages which I have used in illustration of this subject to W. A. Heidel, “Πέρας and ἄπειρον in the Pythagorean Philosophy” (Arch. xiv. pp. 384 sqq.). The general principle of my interpretation is the same as his, though I think that, by bringing the passage into connexion with the numerical figures, I have avoided the necessity of regarding the words ἡ γὰρ εἰς ἴσα καὶ ἡμίση διαίρεσις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον as “an attempted elucidation added by Simplicius."
3 Aristoxenos, fr. 81, ap. Stob. i. p. 20, ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοξένου Περὶ ἀριθμητικῆς…τῶν δὲ ἀριθμῶν ἄρτιοι μέν εἰσιν οἱ εἰς ἴσα διαιρούμενοι, περισσοὶ δὲ οἱ εἰς ἄνισα καὶ μέσον ἔχοντες.
4 [Plut.] ap. Stob. i. p. 22, 19, καὶ μὴν εἰς δύο διαιρουμένων ἴσα τοῦ μὲν περισσοῦ μονὰς ἐν μέσῳ περίεστι, τοῦ δὲ ἀρτίου κενὴ λείπεται χώρα καὶ ἀδέσποτος καὶ ἀνάριθμος, ὡς ἂν ἐνδεοῦς καὶ ἀτελοῦς ὄντος.
145. The numbers spatial. Now there can be no doubt that by his Unlimited Pythagoras meant something spatially extended; for he identified it with air, night, or the void. We are prepared, then, to find that his followers also thought of the Unlimited as extended. Aristotle certainly regarded it so. He argues that, if the Unlimited is itself a reality, and not merely the predicate of some other reality, then every part of it must be unlimited too, just as every part of air is air.
1 Plut. De E apud Delphos, 388 a, ταῖς γὰρ εἰς ἴσα τομαῖς τῶν ἀριθμῶν, ὁ μὲν ἄρτιος πάντῃ διϊστάμενος ὑπολείπει τινὰ δεκτικὴν ἀρχὴν οἶον ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ χώραν, ἐν δὲ τῷ περιττῷ ταὐτὸ παθόντι μέσον ἀεὶ περίεστι τῆς νεμήσεως γόνιμον. The words which I have omitted in translating refer to the further identification of Odd and Even with Male and Female. The passages quoted by Heidel might be added to. Cf., for instance, what Nikomachos says (p. 13, 10, Hoche), ἔστι δὲ ἄρτιον μὲν ὃ οἶόν τε εἰς δύο ἴσα διαιρεθῆναι μονάδος μέσον μὴ παρεμπιπτούσης, περιττὸν δὲ τὸ μὴ δυνάμενον εἰς δύο ἴσα μερισθῆναι διὰ τὴν προειρημένην τῆς μονάδος μεσιτείαν. He significantly adds that this definition is ἐκ τῆς δημώδους ὑπολήψεως.
2 Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 204 a 20 sqq., especially a 26, ἀλλὰ μὴν ὥσπερ ἀέρος ἀὴρ μέρος, οὕτω καὶ ἄπειρον ἀπείρου, εἴ γε οὐσία ἐστὶ καὶ ἀρχή.
3 See Chap. II. § 53.
4 Arist. Phys. Δ, 9. 216 b 25, κυμανεῖ τὸ ὅλον.
As the Unlimited is spatial, the Limit must be spatial too, and we should expect to find that the point, the line, and the surface were regarded as forms of the Limit. That was the later doctrine; but the characteristic feature of Pythagoreanism is just that the point was not regarded as a limit, but as the first product of the Limit and the Unlimited, and was identified with the arithmetical unit instead of with zero. According to this view, then, the point has one dimension, the line two, the surface three, and the solid four.
146. The numbers as magnitudes. This way of regarding the point, the line, and the surface is closely bound up with the practice of representing numbers by dots arranged in symmetrical patterns, which we have seen reason for attributing to the Pythagoreans (§ 47). Geometry had already made considerable advances, but the old view of quantity as a sum of units had not been revised, and so, the point was identified with 1 instead of with 0. That is the answer to Zeller’s contention that to regard the Pythagorean numbers as spatial is to ignore the fact that the doctrine was originally arithmetical rather than geometrical. Our interpretation takes full account of that
1 Cf. Speusippos in the extract preserved in the Theologumena arithmetica, p. 61 (Diels, Vors. 32 A 13), τὸ μὴν γὰρ [α] στιγμή, τὰ δὲ [β] γραμμή, τὰ δὲ [γ] τρίγωνον, τὰ δὲ [δ] πυραμίς. We know that Speusippos is following Philolaos here. Arist. Met. Z, 11. 1036 b 12, καὶ ἀνάγουσι πάντα εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμούς, καὶ γραμμῆς τὸν λόγον τὸν τῶν δύο εἶναι φασιν. The matter is clearly put by Proclus in Eucl. I. p. 97, 19, τὸ μὲν σημεῖον ἀνάλογον τίθενται μονάδι, τὴν δὲ γραμμήν δυάδι, τὴν δὲ ἐπιφάνειαν τῇ τριάδι καὶ τὸ στερεὸν τῇ τετράδι. καίτοι γε ὡς διαστατὰ λαμβάνοντες μοναδικὴν μὲν εὑρήσομεν τὴν γραμμὴν, δυαδικὴν δὲ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν, τριαδικὸν δὲ τὸ στερεόν.
2 The identification of the point with the unit is referred to by Aristotle, Phys. B. 227 a 27.
Zeller, moreover, allows, and indeed insists, that in the Pythagorean cosmology the numbers were spatial, but he raises difficulties about the other parts of the system. There are other things, such as the Soul and Justice and Opportunity, which are said to be numbers, and which cannot be regarded as constructed of points, lines, and surfaces.
1 Arist. Met. M, 6. 1080 b 18 sqq., 1083 b 8 sqq.; De caelo, Γ, 1. 300 a 16 (R.P. 76 a).
2 Zeller, p. 381.
3 Zeno in his fourth argument about motion, which, we shall see (§ 163), was directed against the Pythagoreans, used ὄγκοι for points. Aetios, i. 3, 19 (R.P. 76 b), says that Ekphantos of Syracuse was the first of the Pythagoreans to say that their units were corporeal. Cf. also the use of ὄγκοι in Plato, Parm. 164 d, and Galen, Hist. Phil. 18 (Dox. p. 610), Ἡρακλείδης δὲ ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ βιθυνὸς ἀνάρμους ὄγκους τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑποτίθενται τῶν ὅλων.
4 Zeller, p. 381.
5 Arist. Met. A, 8. 990 a 22 (R.P. 81 e). I read and interpret thus “For, seeing that, according to them, Opinion and Opportunity are in a given part of the world, and a little above or below them Injustice and Separation and Mixture,—in proof of which they allege that each of these is a number,—and seeing that it is also the case (reading συμβαίνῃ with Bonitz) that there is already in that part of the world a number of composite magnitudes (i.e. composed 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 (i.e. the cosmological number) or a different one.” I cannot doubt that these are the extended numbers which are composed (συνίσταται) 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 (πλῆθος) of those bodies that is in question, but their magnitude (μέγεθος). For other views of the passage see Zeller, p. 391, n. 1.
147. The Numbers and the Elements. We seem to see further that what distinguished the Pythagoreanism of this period from its earlier form was that it sought to adapt itself to the new theory of “elements.” This is what makes it necessary to take up the consideration of the system once more in connexion with the pluralists. When the Pythagoreans returned to Southern Italy, they would find views prevalent there which demanded a partial reconstruction of their own system. We do not know that Empedokles founded a philosophical society, but there can be no doubt of his influence on the medical school of these regions; and we also know now that Philolaos played a part in the history of medicine.
1 All this has been put in its true light by the publication of the extract from Menon’s Ἰατρικά on which see p. 278, n. 4.
2 In Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R.P. 80) the theory is ascribed to Pythagoras, which is an anachronism, as the mention of “elements” shows it must be later than Empedokles. In his extract from the same source, Achilles says οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι which doubtless represents Theophrastos better.
148. The Dodecahedron. The most interesting point in the theory is, however, the use made of the dodecahedron. It was identified, we are told, with the “sphere of the universe,” or, as it is put
1 See above p. 283.
2 Plato, Tim. 31 b 5.
3 Plato, Tim. 54 c 4. It is to be observed that in Tim. 48 b 5 Plato says of the construction of the elements οὐδείς πω γένεσιν αὐτῶν μεμήνυκεν, which implies that there is some novelty in the theory as Timaios states it. If we read the passage in the light of what has been said in § 141, we shall be inclined to believe that Plato is making Timaios work out the Pythagorean doctrine on the lines of the discovery of Theaitetos.
4 See above, Chap. IV. p. 186.
1 Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R.P. 80); “Philolaos,” fr. 12 (=20 M.; R.P. 79). On the ὁλκάς, see Gundermann in Rhein. Mus. 1904, pp. 145 sqq. In the Pythagorean myth of Plato’s Politicus, the world is regarded as a ship, of which God is the κυβερνήτης (272 a sqq.). The πόντος τῆς ἀνομοιότητος (273 d) is just the ἄπειρον.
2 Aet. ii. 4, 15, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προϋπεβάλετο τῇ τοῦ παντὸς |σφαίρᾳ| ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός.
3 Cf. the ὑποζώματα of Plato, Rep. 616c 3. As ὕλη generally means “timber” for shipbuilding (when it does not mean firewood), I suggest that we should look in this direction for an explanation of the technical use of the word in later philosophy. Cf. Plato, Phileb. 54c 1, γενέσεως … ἕνεκα … πᾶσαν ὕλην παρατίθεσθαι πᾶσιν, which is part of the answer to the question πότερα πλοίων ναυπηγίαν ἕνεκα φῂς γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ πλοῖα ἕνεκα ναυπηγίας; (ib. b 2); Tim. 69a 6, οἷα τέκτοσιν ἡμῖν ὕλη παράκειται.
4 Plato, Phaed. 110b 6, ὥσπερ οἱ δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖραι, the meaning of which phrase is quite correctly explained by Plutarch, Plat. q. 1003 b καὶ γὰρ μάλιστα τῷ πλήθει τῶν στοιχείων ἀμβλύτητι δὲ τῶν γωνιῶν τὴν εὐθύτητα διαφυγὸν εὐκαμπές ἐστι [τὸ δωδεκάεδρον], καὶ τῇ περιτάσει ὥσπερ αἱ δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖρα κυκλοτερὲς γίγνεται καὶ περιληπτικόν.
5 Plato, Tim. 55c 4. Neither this passage nor the last can refer to the Zodiac, which would be described by a dodecagon, not a dodecahedron. What is implied is the division of the heavens into twelve pentagonal fields, in which the constellations were placed. For the history of such methods see Newbold in Arch. xix. pp. 198 sqq.
The tradition confirms in an interesting way the importance of the dodecahedron in the Pythagorean system. According to one account, Hippasos was drowned at sea for revealing “the sphere formed out of the twelve pentagons.”
149. The Soul as “Harmony.” The view that the soul is a “harmony,” or rather an attunement, is intimately connected with the theory of the four elements. It cannot have belonged to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism; for, as shown in Plato’s Phaedo, it is quite inconsistent with the idea that the soul can exist independently of the body. It is the very opposite of the belief that “any soul can enter any body.”
1 Iambl. V. Pyth. 247. Cf. above, Chap. II. p.106, n. 1.
2 See Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, p. 151, and the passages there referred to, adding Schol. Luc. p. 234, 21, Rabe, τὸ πεντάγραμμον] ὅτι τὸ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ λεγόμενον πεντάλφα σύμβολον ἦν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Πυθαγορείων ἀναγνωριστικὸν καὶ τούτῳ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ἐχρῶντο. The Pythagoreans may quite well have known the method given by Euclid iv. 11 of dividing a line in extreme and mean ratio, the so-called “golden section.”
3 Arist. De an. A, 3. 407 b 20; R.P. 86 c.
4 Plato, Phaed. 85e sqq.; and for Echekrates, ib. 88d.
It is further to be observed that, if the soul is regarded as an attunement in the Pythagorean sense, we should expect it to contain the three intervals then recognised, the fourth, the fifth and the octave, and this makes it extremely probable that Poseidonios was right in saying that the doctrine of the tripartite soul, as we know it from the Republic of Plato, was really Pythagorean. It is quite inconsistent with Plato’s own view of the soul, but agrees admirably with that just explained.
150. The Central Fire. The planetary system which Aristotle attributes to “the Pythagoreans” and Aetios to Philolaos is sufficiently remarkable.
1 Plato, Phaed. 86b 7–c 5.
2 See J. L. Stocks, Plato and the Tripartite Soul (Mind N.S., No. 94, 1915, pp. 207 sqq.). Plato himself points to the connexion in Rep. 443 d, 5 συναρμόσαντα τρία ὄντα, ὥσπερ ὅρους τρεῖς ἁρμονίας ἀτεχνῶς, νεάτης τε καὶ ὑπάτης καὶ μέσης, καὶ εἰ ἄλλα ἄττα μεταξὺ τυγχάνει ὄντα (i.e. the movable notes). Now there is good ground for believing that the statement of Aristides Quintilianus (ii. 2) that the θυμικόν is intermediate between the λογικόν and the ἄλογον comes from the musician Damon (Deiters, De Aristidis Quint. fontibus, 1870), the teacher of Perikles (p. 255, n. 2), to whom the Platonic Sokrates refers as his authority on musical matters, but who must have died when Plato was quite young. Moreover, Poseidonios (ap. Galen, De Hipp. et Plat. pp. 425 and 478) attributed the doctrine of the tripartite soul to Pythagoras, αὐτοῦ μὲν τοῦ Πυθαγόρου συγγράμματος οὐδενὸς εἰς ἡμᾶς διασῳζομένου, τεκμαιρόμενος δὲ ἐξ ὧν ἔνιοι τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ γεγράφασιν.
3 For the authorities, see R. P. 81-83. The attribution of the theory to Philolaos is perhaps due to Poseidonios. The “three books” were doubtless in existence by his time.
It is not easy to accept the statement of Aetios that this system was taught by Philolaos. Aristotle nowhere mentions him in connexion with it, and in the Phaedo Sokrates gives a description of the earth and its position in the world which is entirely opposed to it, but is accepted without demur by Simmias the disciple of Philolaos.
1 Plato makes Timaios attribute an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies, which must be of this kind (Tim. 40a 7). The rotation of the moon upon its axis takes the same time as its revolution round the earth; but it comes to the same thing if we say that it does not rotate at all relatively to its orbit, and that is how the Greeks put it. It would be quite natural for the Pythagoreans to extend this to all the heavenly bodies. This led ultimately to Aristotle’s view that they were all fixed (ἐνδεδεμένα) in corporeal spheres.
2 This seems more natural than to suppose the earth and counter-earth to be always in conjunction. Cf. Aet. iii. 11, 3, τὴν οἰκουμένην γῆν ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένην καὶ περιφερομένην τῇ ἀντίχθονι.
3 Plato, Phaed. 108 e 4 sqq. Simmias assents to the geocentric theory in the emphatic words καὶ ὀρθῶς γε.
It seems probable that the theory of the earth’s revolution round the central fire really originated in the account of the sun’s light given by Empedokles. 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. His words are obscure, but they seem to justify us in holding that Theophrastos regarded the theories as akin.
The central fire received a number of mythological names, such as the “hearth of the world,” the “house,” or “watch-tower” of Zeus, and “the mother of the gods.”
1 Aet. ii. 20, 13 (Chap. VI. p. 238, n. 3) compared with ib. 12 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ τὸν ἥλιον, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς, ὤστε τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές· εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνόπτρου κατ’ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐγήν. This is not, of course, a statement of any doctrine held by “Philolaos,” but a rather captious criticism such as we often find in Theophrastos. Moreover, it is pretty clear that it is inaccurately reported. The phrase τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πῦρ, if used by Theophrastos, must surely mean the central fire and τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες must be the same thing, as it very well may, seeing that Aetios tells us himself (ii. 7. 7, R.P. 81) that “Philolaos” used the term οὐρανός of the sublunary region. It is true that Achilles says τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ διαυγὲς λαμβάνοντα ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀερίου πυρός, but his authority is not sufficiently great to outweigh the other considerations.
2 Aet. i. 7, 7 (R.P. 81). Proclus in Tim. p. 106, 22 (R.P. 83 e).
In the form in which it was now stated, however, the theory raised almost as many difficulties as it solved, and it did not maintain itself for long. It is clear from Aristotle that its critics raised the objection that it failed to “save the phenomena” inasmuch as the assumed revolution of the earth would produce parallaxes too great to be negligible and that the Pythagoreans gave some reason for the belief that they were negligible. Aristotle has no clear account of the arguments on either side, but it may be pointed out that the earth was probably supposed to be far smaller than it is, and there is no reason why its orbit should have been thought to have an appreciably greater diameter than we now know the earth itself to have.
1 Aristotle expresses this by saying that the Pythagoreans held τὴν…γῆν ἓν τῶν ἄστρων οὐσαν κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν (De caelo, B, 13. 293 a 23).
2 I do not discuss here the claims of Herakleides to be the real author of the heliocentric hypothesis.
3 In a letter to Pope Paul III., Copernicus quotes Plut. Plac. iii. 13, 2–3 (R.P. 83 a) and adds Inde igitur occasionem nactus, coepi et ego de terrae mobilitate cogitare.
4 Cf. Ar. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 25 ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ γῆ κέντρον, ἀλλ’ ἀπέχει τὸ ἡμισφαίριον αὐτης ὅλον, οὐθὲν κωλύειν οἴονται τὰ φαινόμενα συμβαίνειν ὁμοίως μὴ κατοικοῦσιν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ κέντρου, ὥσπερ κἂν εἰ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου ἧν ἡ γῆ· οὐθὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ νῦν ποιεῖν ἐπίδηλον τὴν ἡμισεῖαν ἀπέχοντας ἡμᾶς διάμετρον. (Of course the words τὸ ἡμισφαίριον αὐτης ὅλον refer to Aristotle’s own theory of celestial spheres; he really means the radius of its orbit.) Now it is inconceivable that any one should have argued that, since the geocentric parallax is negligible, parallax in general is negligible. On the other hand, the geocentric Pythagorean (the real Philolaos?), whose views are expounded by Sokrates in the Phaedo, appears to have made a special point of saying that the earth was πάμμεγα (109a 9), and that would make the theory of the central fire very difficult to defend. If Philolaos was one of the Pythagoreans who held that the radius of the moon’s orbit is only three times that of the earth’s (Plut. De an. procr. 1028 b), he cannot have used the argument quoted by Aristotle.
Both theories, that of the earth’s revolution round a central fire and that of its rotation on its own axis, had the effect of making the revolution of the fixed stars, to which the Pythagoreans certainly adhered, very difficult to account for. They must either be stationary or their motion must be something quite different from the diurnal
1 Aet. iii. 13, 3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν· οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς [1. στρεπτικῶς] τρόχου δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην, ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ’ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. Cicero attributes the same doctrine to Hiketas (Acad. pr. ii. 39), but makes nonsense of it by saying that he made the sun and moon stationary as well as the fixed stars. Tannery regarded Hiketas and Ekphantos as fictitious personages from a dialogue of Herakleides, but it seems clear that Theophrastos recognised their existence. It may be added that the idea of the earth’s rotation was no novelty. The Milesians probably (§ 21) and Anaxagoras certainly (p. 269) held this view of their flat earth. All that was new was the application of it to a sphere. If we could be sure that the geocentric Pythagoreans who made the earth rotate placed the central fire in the interior of the earth, that would prove them to be later in date than the system of “Philolaos.” Simplicius appears to say this (De caelo, p. 512 9 sqq.), and he may be quoting from Aristotle’s lost work on the Pythagoreans. The point, however, is doubtful.
In discussing the views of those who hold the earth to be in motion, Aristotle only mentions one theory as alternative to that of its revolution round the central fire, and he says that it is that of the Timaeus. According to this the earth is not one of the planets but “at the centre,” while at the same time it has some kind of motion relatively to the axis of the universe.
1 The various possibilities are enumerated by Sir T. L. Heath (Aristarchus, p. 103). Only two are worth noting. The universe as a whole might share in the rotation of the ἀπλανές, while the sun, moon and planets had independent revolutions in addition to that of the universe. Or the rotation of the ἀπλανές might be so slow as to be imperceptible, in which case its motion, “though it is not the precession of the equinoxes, is something very like it” (Heath, loc. cit.).
2 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 5, ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κειμένην ἐπὶ τοῦ κέντρου [τὴν γῆν] φασὶν αὐτὴν ἴλλεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμένον πόλον, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ γεγραπται. The text and interpretation of this passage are guaranteed by the reference in the next chapter (296 a 25) οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου θέντες ἴλλεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαί φασι περὶ τὸν πόλον μέσον. All attempts to show that this refers to something else are futile. We cannot, therefore, with Alexander, regard καὶ κινεῖσθαι as an interpolation in the first passage, even though it is omitted in some MSS. there. The omission is probably due to Alexander’s authority. Moreover, when read in its context, it is quite clear that the passage gives one of two alternative theories of the earth’s motion, and that this motion, like the revolution round the central fire, is a motion of translation (φορά), and not an axial rotation.
3 Plato’s Doctrine respecting the Rotation of the Earth (1860).
4 Plato, Tim. 39 c 1, νὺξ μὲν οὖν ἡμέρα τε γέγονεν οὕτως καὶ διὰ ταῦτα, ἡ τῆς μιᾶς καὶ φρονιμωτάτης κυκλήσεως περίοδος. This refers to the revolution of the “circle of the Same,” i.e. the equatorial circle, and is quite unambiguous.
5 Plato, Tim. 40 c 1, [γῆν] φύλακα καὶ δημιουργὸν νυκτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας ἐμηχανήσατο. On this cf. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 178.
When we turn to the passage in the Timaeus itself, we find that, when the text is correctly established, it completely corroborates Aristotle’s statement that a motion of translation is involved,
1 Arist. De caelo, B, 14. 296 a 29 sqq. The use of the word ὑπολειπόμενα of the apparent motion of the planets from west to east is an interesting survival of the old Ionian view (p. 70). The idea that the earth must have two motions, if it has any, is based on nothing more than the analogy of the planets (Heath, Aristarchus, p. 241).
2 Aristotle must have been a member of the Academy when the Timaeus was published, and we know that the interpretation of that dialogue was one of the chief occupations of the Academy after Plato’s death. If he had misrepresented the doctrine by introducing a motion of translation, Alexander and Simplicius would surely have been able to appeal to an authoritative protest by Krantor or another. The view which Boeckh finds in the Timaeus is precisely Aristotle’s own, and it is impossible to believe that he could have failed to recognise the fact or that he should have misrepresented it deliberately.
3 The best attested reading in Tim. is γῆν δὲ τροφὸν μὲν ἡμετέραν, ἰλλομένην δὲ τὴν περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς πόλον τεταμένον. The article τὴν is in Par. A and also in the Palatine excerpts, and it is difficult to suppose that any one would interpolate it. On the other hand, it might easily be dropped, as its meaning is not at once obvious. It is to be explained, of course, like τὴν ἐπὶ θάνατον or Xenophon’s προεληλυθότος…τὴν πρὸς τὰ φρούρια, and implies a path of some kind, and therefore a movement of translation.
What was this motion intended to explain? It is impossible to be certain, but it is clear that the motions of the circles of the Same and the Other, i.e. the equator and the ecliptic, are inadequate to “save the appearances.” So far as they go, all the planets should either move in the
1 In the first place, the meaning globatam, “packed,” “massed” would have to be expressed by a perfect participle and not a present, and we find accordingly that Simplicius is obliged to paraphrase it by the perfect participle, δεδεμένη or δεδεσμηνένη. Sir T. L. Heath’s “wound” (Aristarchus, p. 177) ought also to be “winding.” In the second place, though Par. A has εἰλλομένην, the weight of authority distinctly favours ἰλλομένην, the reading of Aristotle, Proclus and others. The verbs εἵλλω (εἴλλω), εἰλῶ and ἴλλω are constantly confused in MSS. It is not, I think, possible to regard ἴλλω as etymologically connected with the other verbs. It seems rather to go with ἰλλός and ἰλλαίνω, which are both used in Hippokrates. For its meaning, see below, n. 2.
2 Cf. Soph. Ant. 340 ἰλλομένων ἀρότρων ἔτος εἰς ἔτος, clearly of the ploughs going backwards and forwards in the furrows. Simplicius makes a point of the fact that Apollonios Rhodios used ἰλλόμενος in the sense of “shut in,” “bound,” εἰργόμενος (cf. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 175, n. 6). That, however, cannot weigh against the probability that the scribes, or even Apollonios himself, merely fell into the common confusion. Unless we can get rid of the article τὴν and the testimony of Aristotle, we must have a verb of motion.
3 Cf. Plato, Phaed. 111c 4, where we are told that there is an αἰώρα in the earth, which causes the waters to move up and down in Tartaros, which is a chasm extending from pole to pole. See my notes in loc.
To avoid misunderstanding, I would add that I do not suppose Plato himself was satisfied with the theory which he thought it appropriate for a Pythagorean of an earlier generation to propound. The idea that Plato expounded his own personal views in a dialogue obviously supposed to take place before he was born, is one which, to me at least, is quite incredible. We know, moreover, from the unimpeachable authority of Theophrastos, who was a member of the Academy in Plato’s later years, that he had then abandoned the geocentric hypothesis, though we have no information as to
1 Proclus, in his commentary, explains the προχωρἡσεις and ἐπανακυκλήσεις of Tim. 20 c as equivalent to προποδισμοί and ὑποποδισμοί. In a corrigendum prefixed to his Aristarchus, Sir T. L. Heath disputes this interpretation, and compares the application of the term ἐπανακυκλούμενον to the planet Mars in Rep. 617b, which he understands to refer merely to its “circular revolution in a sense contrary to that of the fixed stars.” It is to be observed, however, that Theon of Smyrna in quoting this passage has the words μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλον after ἐπανακυκλούμενον, which gives excellent sense if retrogradation is meant. In fact Mars has a greater arc of retrogradation than the other planets (Duhem, Système du monde, vol. i. p. 61). As I failed to note this in my text of the Republic, I should like to make amends by giving two reasons for believing that Theon has preserved Plato’s own words. In the first place he is apparently quoting from Derkyllides, who first established the text of Plato from which ours is derived. In the second place, μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων is exactly fifteen letters, the normal length of omissions in the Platonic text.
151. The Antichthon. The existence of the antichthon was also a hypothesis intended to account for the phenomena of eclipses. In one place, indeed, Aristotle says the Pythagoreans invented it in order to bring the number of revolving bodies up to ten;
1 Plut. Plat. Quaest, 1006 c (cf. V. Numae, c. 11). It is important to remember that Theophrastos was a member of the Academy in Plato’s last years.
2 In the passage referred to (822 a 4 sqq.) he maintains that the planets have a simple circular motion, and says that this is a view which he had not heard in his youth nor long before. That must imply the rotation of the earth on its axis in twenty-four hours, since it is a denial of the Pythagorean theory that the planetary motions are composite. It does not follow that we must find this view in the Timaeus, which only professes to give the opinions of a fifth-century Pythagorean.
3 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 3; R.P. 83 b.
4 Aet. ii. 29, 4, τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς κατὰ τὴν Ἀριστοτέλειον ἱστορίαν καὶ τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ Ὀπουντίου ἀπόφασιν ἀνταυγείᾳ καὶ ἀντιφράξει τοτὲ μὲν τῆς γῆς, τοτὲ δὲ τῆς ἀντίχθονος (ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην).
5 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 21, ἐνίοις δὲ δοκεῖ καὶ πλείω σώματα τοιαῦτα ἐνδέχεσθαι φέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ μέσον ἡμῖν ἄδηλα διὰ τὴν ἐπιπρόσθησιν τῆς γῆς. διὸ καὶ τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλειψεις πλείους ἢ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου γίγνεσθαί φασιν· τῶν γὰρ φερομένων ἕκαστον ἀντιφράττειν αὐτήν, ἀλλ’ οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν.
152. We have seen (§ 54) that the doctrine commonly, but incorrectly, known as the “harmony of the spheres” may have originated with Pythagoras, but its elaboration must belong to a later generation, and the extraordinary variations in our accounts of it must be due to the conflicting theories of the planetary motions which were rife at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries BC We have the express testimony of Aristotle that the Pythagoreans whose doctrine he knew believed that the heavenly bodies produced musical notes in their courses. Further, the pitch of the notes was determined by the velocities of these bodies, and these in turn by their distances, which were in the same ratios as the consonant intervals of the octave. Aristotle distinctly implies that the heaven of the fixed stars takes part in the celestial symphony; for he mentions “the sun, the moon, and the stars, so great in magnitude and in number as they are,” a phrase which cannot refer solely or chiefly to the five planets.
1 It is not expressly stated that they were Pythagoreans, but it is natural to suppose so. So, at least, Alexander thought (Simpl. De caelo, p. 515, 25).
2 Arist. De caelo, B, 9. 290 b, 12 sqq. (R.P. 82). Cf. Alexander, In met. p. 39, 24 (from Aristotle’s work on the Pythagoreans) τῶν γὰρ σωμάτων τῶν περὶ τὸ μέσον φερομένων ἐν ἀναλογίᾳ τὰς ἀποστάσεις ἐχόντων … ποιούντων δὲ καὶ ψόφον ἐν τῷ κινεῖσθαι τῶν μὲν βραδυτέρων βαρύν, τῶν δὲ ταχυτέρων ὀξύν. There are all sorts of difficulties in detail. We can hardly attribute the identification of the seven planets (including sun and moon) with the strings of the heptachord to the Pythagoreans of this date; for Mercury and Venus have the same mean angular velocity as the Sun, and we must take in the heaven of the fixed stars.
153. The Likenesses of Numbers. We have still to consider a view, which Aristotle sometimes attributes to the Pythagoreans, that things were “like numbers.” He does not appear to regard this as inconsistent with the doctrine that things are numbers, though it is hard to see how he could reconcile the two.
1 For the various systems, see Boeckh, Kleine Schriften, vol. iii. pp. 169 sqq., and Carl v. Jan, “Die Harmonie der Sphären” (Philol. 1893. pp. 13 sqq.). There is a sufficient account of them in Heath’s Aristarchus, pp. 107 sqq., where the distinction between absolute and relative velocity is clearly stated, a distinction which is not appreciated in Adam’s note on Rep. 617 b (vol. ii. p. 452), with the result that, while the heaven of the fixed stars is rightly regarded as the νήτη (the highest note), the Moon comes next instead of Saturn—an impossible arrangement. The later view is represented by the “bass of Heaven’s deep Organ” in the “ninefold harmony” of Milton’s Hymn on the Nativity (xiii.). At the beginning of the Fifth Act of the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare makes Lorenzo expound the doctrine in a truly Pythagorean fashion. According to him, the “harmony” in the soul ought to correspond with that of the heavenly bodies (“such harmony is in immortal souls”), but the “muddy vesture of decay” prevents their complete correspondence. The Timaeus states a similar view, and in the Book of Homage to Shakespeare (pp. 58 sqq.) I have tried to show how the theories of the Timaeus may have reached Shakespeare. There is no force in Martin’s observation that the sounding of all the notes of an octave at once would not produce a harmony. There is no question of harmony in the modern sense, but only of attunement (ἁρμονία) to a perfect scale.
2 Cf. especially Met. A, 6. 787, b 10 (R.P. 65 d). It is not quite the same thing when he says, as in A, 5. 985 b 23 sqq. (R.P. ib.), that they perceived many likenesses in things to numbers. That refers to the numerical analogies of Justice, Opportunity, etc.
3 Aristoxenos ap. Stob. i. pr. 6 (p. 20), Πυθαγόρας…πάντα τὰ πράγματα ἀπεικάζων τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς.
When this view is uppermost in his mind, Aristotle seems to find only a verbal difference between Plato and the Pythagoreans. The metaphor of “participation” was merely substituted for that of “imitation.” This is not the place to discuss the meaning of the so-called “theory of ideas”; but it must be pointed out that Aristotle’s ascription of the doctrine of “imitation” to the Pythagoreans is abundantly justified by the Phaedo. When Simmias is asked whether he accepts the doctrine, he asks for no explanation of it, but replies at once and emphatically that he does. The view that the equal itself is alone real, and that what we call equal things are imperfect imitations of it, is quite familiar to him,
It is also to be observed that Sokrates does not introduce the theory as a novelty. The reality of the “ideas” is the sort of reality “we are always talking about,” and they are explained in a peculiar vocabulary which is represented as that of a school. The technical terms are introduced by such formulas as “we say.”
1 Stob. Ecl. i. p. 125, 19; R.P. 65 d.
2 Plato, Phaed. 74a sqq.
3 Cf. especially the words ὃ θρυλοῦμεν ἀεί (76 d 8). The phrases αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν, αὐτὸ καθ’ αὑτό, and the like are 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 (ἧς λόγον δίδομεν τοῦ εἶναι, 78 d 1, where λόγον…τοῦ εἶναι is equivalent to λόγον τῆς οὐσίας). When we have done this, “we” set the seal or stamp of αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν 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.”
We have really exceeded the limits of this work by tracing the history of Pythagoreanism down to a point where it becomes practically indistinguishable from the theories which Plato puts into the mouth of Sokrates; 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 had known personally, and Aristotle’s statements must have had some foundation.
1 In the Parmenides Plato makes Sokrates expound the theory at a date which is carefully marked as at least twenty years before his own birth.
2 Plato, Soph. 248 a 4. Proclus says (In Parm. iv. p. 149, Cousin) ἦν μὲν γὰρ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις ἡ περὶ τῶν εἰδων θεωρία, καὶ δηλοῖ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν Σοφιστῇ τῶν εἰδων φίλους προσαγορεύων τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ σοφούς, ἀλλ’ ὅ γε μάλιστα πρεσβεύσας καὶ διαρρήδην ὑποθέμενος τὰ εἴδη Σωκράτης ἐστίν. This is not in itself authoritative; but it is the only statement on the subject that has come down to us, and Proclus (who had the tradition of the Academy at his command) does not appear to have heard of any other interpretation of the phrase. In a later passage (v. p. 4, Cousin) he says it was natural for Parmenides to ask Sokrates whether he had thought of the theory for himself, since he might have heard a report of it.
Chapter VIII. The Younger Eleatics
154. Relation to predecessors. The systems we have just been studying were all fundamentally pluralist, and they were so because Parmenides had shown that, if we take a corporeal monism seriously, we must ascribe to reality a number of predicates inconsistent with our experience of a world which everywhere displays multiplicity, motion, and change (§ 97). The four “roots” of Empedokles and the innumerable “seeds” of Anaxagoras were both of them conscious attempts to solve the problem Parmenides had raised (§§ 106, 127). There is no evidence, indeed, that the Pythagoreans were directly influenced by Parmenides, but it has been shown (§ 147) how the later form of their system was based on the theory of Empedokles. Now it was just this prevailing pluralism that Zeno criticised from the Eleatic standpoint; and his arguments were especially directed against Pythagoreanism. Melissos, too, criticises Pythagoreanism; but he tries to find a common ground with his adversaries by maintaining the old Ionian thesis that reality is infinite.
I. Zeno of Elea
155. Life. According to Apollodoros,
1 Diog. ix. 29 (R.P. 130 a). Apollodoros is not expressly referred to for Zeno’s date; 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 the floruit.
Like Parmenides, Zeno played a part in the politics of his native city. Strabo, no doubt on the authority of Timaios, ascribes to him some share of the credit for the good government of Elea, and says that he was a Pythagorean.
156. Writings. Diogenes speaks of Zeno’s “books,” and Souidas gives some titles which probably come from the Alexandrian librarians through Hesychios of Miletos.
1 Plato, Parm. 127b (R.P. iii d). The visit of Zeno to Athens is 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 Alc. 1. 119a, where we are told that Pythodoros, son of Isolochos, and Kallias, son of Kalliades, each paid him 100 minae for instruction.
2 Plato, Soph. 241d; R.P. 130 a.
3 Parm., loc. cit.
4 Strabo, vi. p. 252; R.P. 111 c.
5 Diog. ix. 26, 27, and the other passages referred to in R.P. 130 c. The original of the account given in the tenth book of Diodoros is doubtless Timaios.
6 Diog. ix. 26; R.P. 130; Souidas s.v. R.P. 130 d.
7 Plato, Parm. 128d 6; R.P. 130 d.
It is not likely that Zeno wrote dialogues, though certain references in Aristotle have been supposed to imply this. In the Physics
Plato gives us a clear idea of what Zeno’s youthful work was like. It contained more than one “discourse,” and
1 The most remarkable title given by Souidas is Ἐξήγησις τῶν Ἐμπεδοκλέους. Of course Zeno did not write a commentary on Empedokles, but Diels points out (Berl. Sitzb., 1884, p. 359) that polemics against philosophers were sometimes called ἐξηγήσεις. Cf. the Ἡρακλείτου ἐξηγήσεις of Herakleides Pontikos and especially his Πρὸς τὸν Δημόκριτον ἐξηγήσεις (Diog. v. 88).
2 See above, p. 278, n. 1. It hardly seems likely that a later writer would make Zeno argue πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους, and the title given to the book at Alexandria must be based on something contained in it.
3 Arist. Phys. H, 5. 250 a 20 (R.P. 131 a).
4 Simpl. Phys. p. 1108, 18; (R.P. 131). If this is what Aristotle refers to, it is hardly safe to attribute the κεγχρίτης λόγος to Zeno himself. The existence of this dialogue is another indication 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.
5 Arist. Soph. El. 170 b 22; R.P. 130 b.
6 Chap. V. p. 199, n. 5.
157. Dialectic. Aristotle in his Sophist
In 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 contradictions. This writing argues against those who uphold a Many, and gives 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.
The method of Zeno was, in fact, to take one of his adversaries’ fundamental postulates and deduce from it two contradictory conclusions.
1 Plato, Parm. 127 d. Plato speaks of the first ὑπόθεσις of the first λόγος, which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections. Proclus (in loc.) says there were forty of these λόγοι altogether.
2 Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30; R.P. 133) that he is quoting κατὰ λέξιν. I see no reason to doubt this, as the Academy would certainly have a copy of the work. In that case, the use of the Attic dialect by Zeno is significant.
3 Arist. Phys. Z, 9. 239 b 9 sqq.
4 Cf. Diog. ix. 25; R.P. 130.
5 Plato, Parm. 128c; R.P. 130 d. If historians of philosophy had started from this careful statement of Plato’s, instead of from Aristotle’s loose references, they would not have failed to understand his arguments, as they all did before Tannery.
6 The technical terms used in Plato’s Parmenides seem to be as old as Zeno himself. The ὑπόθεσις is the provisional assumption of the truth of a certain statement, and takes the form εἰ πολλά ἐστι or the like. The word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation, but the setting before one’s self of a statement as a problem to be solved (Ionic ὑποθέσθαι, Attic προθέσθαι). If the conclusions (τά συμβαίνοντα) which necessarily follow from the ὑπόθεσις are impossible, the ὑπόθεσις is “destroyed” (cf. Plato, Rep. 533c 8, τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀναιροῦσα). The author of the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς knows the word ὑπόθεσις in a similar sense.
158. Zeno and Pythagoreanism. That Zeno’s dialectic was mainly directed against the Pythagoreans is certainly suggested by Plato’s statement, that it was addressed to the adversaries of Parmenides, who held that things were “a many.”
It will be noted how much clearer the historical position of Zeno becomes if we follow Plato in assigning him to a later date than is usual. We have first Parmenides, then the
1 The view that Zeno’s arguments were directed against Pythagoreanism has been maintained in recent times by Tannery (Science hellène, pp. 249 sqq.), and Bäumker (Das Problem der Materie, pp. 60 sqq.).
2 Zeller. p. 589; Eng. trans. p. 612.
3 Parm., loc. cit.
4 Empedokles has been suggested. He was about the same age as Zeno, indeed (§ 98), and he seems to criticise Parmenides (§ 106), but the arguments of Zeno have no special applicability to his theories. Anaxagoras is still less likely.
159. What is the unit? The polemic of Zeno is clearly directed in the first instance against a certain view of the unit. Eudemos, in his Physics,
160. The Fragments. The fragments of Zeno himself also show that this was his line of argument. I give them according to the arrangement of Diels.
(1) If what is had no magnitude, it would not even be. … But, if it is, each one must have a certain magnitude and a certain thickness, and must be at a certain distance from another, and the same may be said of what is in front of it; for it, too, will have magnitude, and something will be in front of it.
1 Arist. Phys. A, 3. 187 a 1; R. P: 134 b. See below, § 173.
2 Simpl. Phys. p. 138, 32; R.P. 134 a.
3 Simpl. Phys. p. 99, 13, ὡς γὰρ ἱστορεῖ, φησίν (Ἀλέξανδρος), Εὔδημος, Ζήνων ὁ Παρμενίδου γνώριμος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι ὅτι μὴ οἷόν τε τὰ ὄντα πολλὰ εἶναι τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἕν, τὰ δὲ πολλὰ πλῆθος εἶναι ἑνάδων. This is the meaning of the statement that Zeno ἀνῄρει τὸ ἕν which is not Alexander’s (as implied in R.P. 134 a), but goes back to no less an authority than Eudemos. It must be read in connexion with the words τὴν γὰρ στιγμὴν ὡς τὸ ἓν λέγει (Simpl. Phys. p. 99. 11).
4 I formerly rendered “the same may be said of what surpasses it in smallness; for it too will have magnitude, and something will surpass it in smallness.” This is Tannery’s rendering, but I now agree with Diels in thinking that ἀπέχειν refers to μέγεθος and προέχειν to πάχος. Zeno is showing that the Pythagorean point must have three dimensions.
(2) For if it were added to any other thing it would not make it any larger; for nothing can gain in magnitude by the addition of what has no magnitude, and thus it follows at once that what was added was nothing.
(3) If things are a many, they must be just as many as they are, and neither more nor less. Now, if they are as many as they are, they will be finite in number.
If things are a many, they will be infinite in number; for there will always be other things between them, and others again between these. And so things are infinite in number. R.P. 133.
161. The unit. If we hold that the unit has no magnitude—and this is required by what Aristotle calls the argument from dichotomy,
1 Reading, with Diels and the MSS., οὔτε ἕτερον πρὸς ἕτερον οὐκ ἔσται. Gomperz’s conjecture (adopted in R.P.) seems to me arbitrary.
2 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.
3 This is what Aristotle calls “the argument from dichotomy” (Phys. A, 3. 187 a 2; R.P. 134 b). If a line is made up of points, we ought to 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 into two halves; so that, if a line is made up of points, there will always be more of them than any number you assign.
4 See last note.
That this argument refers to points is proved by an instructive passage from Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
If the unit is indivisible, it will, according to the proposition of Zeno, be nothing. That which neither makes anything larger by its addition to it, nor smaller by its subtraction from it, is not, he says, a real thing at all; for clearly what is real must be a magnitude. And, if it is a magnitude, it is corporeal; for that is corporeal which is in every dimension. The other things, i.e. the plane 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 things larger in any way.
From all this it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the “one” against which Zeno argued was the “one” of which a number constitute a “many,” and that is just the Pythagorean unit.
162. Space. Aristotle refers to an argument which seems to be directed against the Pythagorean doctrine of space,
What Zeno is really arguing against here is the attempt to distinguish space from the body that occupies it. If we insist that body must be in space, then we must go on to ask what space itself is in. This is a “reinforcement” of the Parmenidean denial of the void. Possibly the argument that
1 Arist. Met. (B, 4. 1001 b 7.
2 Arist. Phys. Δ, 1. 209 a 23; 3. 210 b 22; R.P. 135 a.
3 Simpl. Phys. p. 562, 3; R.P. 135. The version of Eudemos is given in Simpl. Phys. p. 563, 26, ἀξιοῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ὂν ποῦ εἶναι· εἰ δὲ ὁ τόπος τῶν ὄντων, ποῦ ἂν εἴη; οὐκοῦν ἐν ἄλλῳ τόπῳ κἀκεῖνος δὴ ἐν ἄλλῳ καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὸ πρόσω.
If there is space, it will be in something; for all that is is in something, and what is in something is in space. So space will be in space, and this goes on ad infinitum, therefore there is no space. R.P. 135.
163. Motion. Zeno’s arguments on the subject of motion have been preserved by Aristotle himself. The system of Parmenides made all motion impossible, and his successors had been driven to abandon the monistic hypothesis in order to avoid this very consequence. Zeno does not bring any fresh proofs of the impossibility of motion; all he does is to show that a pluralist theory, such as the Pythagorean, is just as unable to explain it as was that of Parmenides. Looked at in this way, Zeno’s arguments are no mere quibbles, but mark a great advance in the conception of quantity. They are as follows
(1) You cannot cross a race-course.
(2) Achilles will never overtake the tortoise. He must first reach the place from which the tortoise started. By that time the tortoise will have got some way ahead. Achilles must then make up that, and again the tortoise will be ahead. He is always coming nearer, but he never makes up to it.
The “hypothesis” of the second argument is the same as that of the first, namely, that the line is a series of points; but the reasoning is complicated by the introduction of another moving object. The difference, accordingly, is not a half every time, but diminishes in. a constant ratio. Again, the first argument shows that, on this hypothesis, no moving object can ever traverse any distance at all, however fast it
1 Arist. Top. Θ, 8. 160 b 8, Ζήνωνος (λόγος), ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται κινεῖσθαί οὐδὲ τὸ στάδιον διελθεῖν.
2 Arist. Phys. Z, 9, 239 b ii; R.P. 136. Cf. Z, 2. 233 a 11; a 21; R.P. 136 a.
3 Arist. Phys. Z, 9. 239 b 14; R.P. 137.
(3) The arrow in flight is at rest. For, if everything is at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is in flight at any given moment always occupies a space equal to itself, it cannot move.
Here a further complication is introduced. The moving object itself has length, and its successive positions are not points but lines. The first two arguments are intended to destroy the hypothesis that a line consists of an infinite number of indivisibles; this argument and the next deal with the hypothesis that it consists of a finite
(4) Half the time may be equal to double the time. Let us suppose three rows of bodies,
Therefore the time which it takes to pass C is twice as long as the time it takes to pass A. But the time which B and C take
1 As Mr. Jourdain puts it (Mind, 1916, p. 42), “the first argument shows that motion can never begin; the second argument shows that the slower moves as fast as the faster,” on the hypothesis that a line is infinitely divisible into its constituent points.
2 Phys. Z, 9, 239 b 30; R.P. 138; ib. 239 b 5; R.P. 138 a. The latter passage is corrupt, though the meaning is plain. I have translated Zeller’s version of it: εἰ γάρ, φησίν, ἠρεμεῖ πᾶν ὅταν ᾖ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, ἔστι δ’ ἀεὶ τὸ φερόμενον ἐν τῷ νῦν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, ἀκίνητον κ.τ.λ. Of course ἀεί means “at any time,” not “always,” and κατὰ τὸ ἴσον is, literally, “on a level with a space equal (to itself).” For other readings, see Zeller, p. 598 n. 3; and Diels, Vors. 19 A 27.
3 See in Jourdain (loc. cit.).
4 The word is ὄγκοι; cf. Chap. VII. p. 291, n. 3. The name is very appropriate for the Pythagorean units, which Zeno had shown to have length, breadth, and thickness (fr. 1).
1 Arist. Phys. Z, 9. 239 b 33 (R.P. 139). I have had to express the argument in my own way, as it is not fully given by any of the authorities. The figure is practically Alexander’s (Simpl. Phys. p. 1016, 14), except that he represents the ὄγκοι by letters instead of dots. The conclusion is plainly stated by Aristotle (loc. cit.), συμβαίνειν οἴεται ἴσον εἶναι χρόνον τῷ διπλασίῳ τὸν ἥμισυν, and, however we explain the reasoning, it must be so represented as to lead to the conclusion that, as Mr. Jourdain puts it (loc. cit.), “a body travels twice as fast as it does.”
According to Aristotle, the paralogism here depends on the assumption that an equal magnitude moving with equal velocity must move for an equal time, whether the magnitude with which it is equal is at rest or in motion. That is certainly so, but we are not to suppose that this assumption is Zeno’s own. The fourth argument is, in fact, related to the third just as the second is to the first. The Achilles adds a second moving point to the single moving point of the first argument; this argument adds a second moving line to the single moving line of the arrow in flight. The lines, however, are represented as a series of units, which is just how the Pythagoreans represented them; and it is quite true that, if lines are a sum of discrete units, and time is similarly a series of discrete moments, there is no other measure of motion possible than the number of units which each unit passes.
This argument, like the others, is intended to bring out the absurd conclusions which follow from the assumption that all quantity is discrete, and what Zeno has really done is to establish the conception of continuous quantity by a reductio 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.
II. Melissos of Samos
164. Life. In his Life of Perikles, Plutarch tells us, on the authority of Aristotle, that the philosopher Melissos, son of Ithagenes, was the Samian general who defeated the Athenian
165. The Fragments. The fragments which we have come from Simplicius, and are given, with the exception of the first, from the text of Diels.
(1a) If nothing is, what can be said of it as of something real?
(1) What was was ever, and ever shall be. For, if it had come into being, it needs must have been nothing before it came
1 Plut. Per. 26; R.P. 141 b), from Aristotle’s Σαμίων πολιτεία.
2 Diog. ix. 24; R.P. 141.) It is possible, of course, that Apollodoros meant the first 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 ναυαρχία would be given with precision. See Jacoby, p. 270.
3 Diog. ix. 24; R.P. 141.
4 It is no longer necessary to discuss the passages which used to appear as frs. 1–5 of Melissos, as it has been proved by A. Pabst that they are merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments (De Melissi Samii fragmentis, Bonn, 1889). Almost simultaneously I had independently come to the same conclusion (see the first edition, § 138). Zeller and Diels have both accepted Pabst’s demonstration, and the supposed fragments have been relegated to the notes in the last edition of R.P. I still believe, however, that the fragment which I have numbered 1a is genuine. See next note.
5 This fragment is from the beginning of the paraphrase which was so long mistaken for the words of Melissos (Simpl. Phys. p. 103, 18; R.P. 142 a), and Diels has removed it along with the rest. I believe it to be genuine because Simplicius, who had access to the original, introduces it by the words ἄρχεται τοῦ συγγράμματος οὕτως, and because it is thoroughly Eleatic in character. It is quite natural that the first words of the book should be prefixed to the paraphrase.
(2) Since, then, it has not come into being, and since it is, was ever, and ever shall be, it has no beginning or end, but is without limit. For, if it had come into being, it would have had a beginning (for it would have begun to come into being at some time or other) and an end (for it would have ceased to come into being at some time or other); but, if it neither began nor ended, and ever was and ever shall be, it has no beginning or end; for it is not possible for anything to be ever without all being. R.P. 143.
(3) Further, just as it ever is, so it must ever be infinite in magnitude. R.P. 143.
(4) But nothing which has a beginning or end is either eternal or infinite. R.P. 143.
(5) If it were not one, it would be bounded by something else. R.P. 144 a.
(6) For if it is (infinite), it must be one; for if it were two, it could not be infinite; for then they would be bounded by one another. R.P. 144.
(6a) (And, since it is one, it is alike throughout; for if it were unlike, it would be many and not one.)
(7) So then it is eternal and infinite and one and all alike. And it cannot perish nor become greater, nor does it suffer pain or grief. For, if any of these things happened to it, it would no longer be one. For if it is altered, then the real must needs not be all alike, but what was before must pass away, and what was not must come into being. Now, if it changed by so much as a single hair in ten thousand years, it would all perish in the whole of time.
Further, it is not possible either that its order should be changed; for the order which it had before does not perish, nor does that which was not come into being. But, since nothing is either added to it or passes away or is altered, how can any real
1 This fragment is quoted by Simpl. De caelo, p. 557, 16 The insertion of the word “infinite” is justified by the paraphrase (R.P. 144 a) and by M.X.G. 974 a 11, πᾶν δὲ ἄπειρον ὂν…ἓν…εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ δύο ἢ πλείω εἴη, πέρατ’ ἂν εἶναι ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα.
2 I have ventured to insert this, though the actual words are nowhere quoted, and it is not in Diels. It is represented in the paraphrase (R.P. 145 a) and in M.X.G. 974 a 13; R.P. 144 a.
Nor does it suffer pain; for a thing in pain could not all be. For a thing in pain could not be ever, nor has it the same power as what is whole. Nor would it be alike, if it were in pain; for it is only from the addition or subtraction of something that it could feel pain, and then it would no longer be alike. Nor could what is whole feel pain; for then what was whole and what was real would pass away, and what was not would come into being. And the same argument applies to grief as to pain.
Nor is anything empty: For what is empty is nothing. What is nothing cannot be.
Nor does it move; for it has nowhere to betake itself to, but is full. For if there were aught empty, it would betake itself to the empty. But, since there is naught empty, it has nowhere to betake itself to.
And it cannot be dense and rare; for it is not possible for what is rare to be as full as what is dense, but what is rare is at once emptier than what is dense.
This is the way in which we must distinguish between what is full and what is not full. If a thing has room for anything else, and takes it in, it is not full; but if it has no room for anything and does not take it in, it is full.
Now, it must needs be full if there is naught empty, and if it is full, it does not move. R.P. 145.
(8) This argument, then, is the greatest proof that it is one alone; but the following are proofs of it also. If there were a many, these would have to be of the same kind as I say that the one is. For if there is earth and water, and air and iron, and gold and fire, and if one thing is living and another dead, and if things are black and white and all that men say they really are,—if that is so, and if we see and hear aright, each one of these must be such as we first decided, and they cannot be changed or altered, but each must be just as it is. But, as it is, we say that we see and hear and understand aright, and yet we believe that what is warm becomes cold, and what is cold warm; that what is hard turns soft, and what is soft hard; that what is living dies, and that things are born from what lives not; 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
(9) Now, if it were to exist, it must needs be one; but if it is one, it cannot have body; for, if it had body it would have parts, and would no longer be one. R.P. 146.
(10) If what is real is divided, it moves; but if it moves, it cannot be. R.P. 144 a.
166. Theory of Reality. It has been pointed out that Melissos was not perhaps originally a member of the Eleatic school; but he certainly adopted all the views of Parmenides as to the true nature of reality with one remarkable exception. He appears to have opened his treatise with a reassertion of the Parmenidean “Nothing is not” (fr. 1a), and the arguments by which he supported this view are those with which we are already familiar (fr. 1). Reality, as with Parmenides, is eternal, a point which Melissos expressed in a way of his own. He argued that since everything that has come into being has a beginning and an end, everything that has not come into being has no beginning or end. Aristotle is very hard on him for this simple conversion of a universal affirmative
1 Reading ὁμουρέων with Bergk. Diels keeps the MS. ὁμοῦ ῥεων; Zeller (p. 613, n. 1) conjectures ὑπ’ ἰοῦ ῥέων.
2 I read εἰ μὲν οὖν εἴη with E F for the εἰ μὲν ὂν εἴη. The ἐὸν which still stands in R.P. is a piece of local colour due to the editors. Diels also now reads οὖν.
3 Diels now reads ἀλλὰ with E for the ἅμα of F, and attaches the word to the next sentence.
167. Reality Spatially Infinite. Melissos did indeed differ from Parmenides in holding that reality was spatially as well as temporally infinite; but he gave an excellent reason for this belief, and had no need to support it by such an extraordinary argument. What he said was that, if it were limited, it would be limited by empty space. This we know from Aristotle himself,
1 Arist. Phys. A, 3. 186 a 7 (R.P. 143 a). The false conversion is also mentioned in Soph. El. 168 b 35 (R.P. ib.). So Eudemos ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 105, 24, οὐ γάρ, εἰ τὸ γενόμενον ἀρχὴν ἔχει, τὸ μὴ γενόμενον ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχει, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ μὴ ἔχον ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἐγένετο.
2 The real reason is given in the paraphrase in Simpl. Phys. p. 103, 21 (R.P. 142 a), συγχωρεῖται γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν, though Melissos himself would not have put it in that way. He regarded himself as a φυσικός like the rest; but, from the time of Aristotle, it was a commonplace that the Eleatics were not φυσικοί, since they denied motion.
3 Cf. especially Soph. El. 168 b 39, ὡς ἄμφω ταὐτὰ ὄντα τῷ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, τότε γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ πεπαρασμένον. The same point is made in 167 b 13 and 181 a 27.
4 The words ἀλλ’ ἄπειρόν ἐστι mean simply “but it is without limit,” and this is simply a repetition of the statement that it has no beginning or end. The nature of the limit can only be determined by the context, and accordingly, when Melissos does introduce the subject of spatial infinity, he is careful to say τὸ μέγεθος ἄπειρον (fr. 3).
5 Arist. Gen. Corr. A, 8. 325 a 14, ἓν καὶ ἀκίνητον τὸ πᾶν εἶναί φασι καὶ ἄπειρον ἔνιοι· τὸ γὰρ πέρας περαίνειν ἂν πρὸς τὸ κενόν. That this refers to Mehssos has been shown by Zeller (p. 612, n. 2).
From the infinity of reality, it follows that it must be one; for, if it were not one, it would be bounded by something else (fr. 5). And, being one, it must be homogeneous throughout (fr. 6a), for that is what we mean by one. Reality, then, is a single, homogeneous, corporeal plenum, stretching out to infinity in space, and going backwards and forwards to infinity in time.
168. Opposition to Ionians. Eleaticism was always critical, and we are not without indications of the attitude taken up by Melissos towards contemporary systems. The flaw which he found in the Ionian theories was that they all assumed some want of homogeneity in the One, which was a real inconsistency. Further, they all allowed the possibility of change; but, if all things are one, change must be a form of coming into being and passing away. If you admit that a thing can change, you cannot maintain that it is eternal. Nor can the arrangement of the parts of reality alter, as Anaximander, for instance, had held; any such change necessarily involves a coming into being and passing away.
The next point made by Melissos is somewhat peculiar. Reality, he says, cannot feel sorrow or pain; for that is always due to the addition or subtraction of something, which is impossible. It is not easy to be sure what this refers to. Perhaps it is to the theory by which Anaxagoras explained perception.
1 Note the disagreement with Zeno (§ 162).
2 See p. 273. It is clear that Anaxagoras made considerable use of pain (πόνος), and it is possible that his doctrine, summed up in the words ἀεὶ πονεῖ τὸ ζῷον (Arist. Eth. Nic. H, 15. 1154b 7) had a wider application than appears from his remains. Aristotle (De caelo, B, 1. 284 a 15) makes a point of the οὐρανός being ἄπονος.
169. Opposition to Pythagoreans. In nearly all accounts of the system of Melissos, we find it stated that he denied the corporeality of what is real,—an opinion which is supported by a reference to fr. 9, which is certainly quoted by Simplicius to prove this very point.
1 The view of Bäumker that Melissos admitted ἀντιπερίστασις or motion in pleno (Jahrb. f. Kl. Phil., 1886, p. 541; Das Problem der Materie, p. 59) depends upon some words of Simplicius (Phys. p. 104, i3), οὐχ ὅτι μὴ δυνατὸν διὰ πλήρους κινεῖσθαι, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων λέγομεν κτλ. 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.
2 See, however, Bäumker, Das Problem der Materie, pp. 57 sqq., who remarks that ἐόν (or ὄν) in fr. 9 must be the predicate, as it has no article. In his fifth edition (p. 611, n. 2) Zeller adopted the view here taken. He rightly observes that the hypothetical form εἰ μὲν ὂν εἴη speaks for it, and that the subject to εἴη must be ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν, as with Zeno.
3 Met. A, 5. 986 b 18; R.P. 101.
4 Brandis changed the εἴη to ἔστι, but there is no warrant for this.
5 Cf. Zeno, fr. 1, especially the words εἰ δὲ ἔστιν, ἀνάγκη ἕκαστον μέγεθός τι ἔχειν καὶ πάχος.
1 Simpl. Phys. pp. 87, 6, and 110, 1.
2 See above, § 159, p. 315, n. 3.
170. Opposition to Anaxagoras. The most remarkable fragment of Melissos is, perhaps, the last (fr. 8). It seems to be directed against Anaxagoras; at least the language seems more applicable to him than any one else. Anaxagoras had admitted (§ 137, fin.) that, so far as our perceptions go, they do not agree with his theory, though he held this was due solely to their weakness. Melissos, taking advantage of this admission, urges that, if we give up the senses as the test of reality, we 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 are bound also to say that each one of them is such as the Eleatics declared the One to be. In other words, the only consistent pluralism is the atomic theory.
Melissos has 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. Melissos knew nothing about the rules of conversion; and he could easily have made his reasoning formally correct without modifying his system. His greatness consisted in this, that not only was he the real systematiser of Eleaticism, but he was also able to see, before the pluralists saw it themselves, the only way in which the theory that things are a many could be
1 Bäumker, 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.”
2 Περὶ φύσιος ἀνθρώπου, C. 1. ἀλλ’ ἔμοιγε δοκέουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἄνθρωποι αὐτοὶ ἑωυτοὺς καταβάλλειν ἐν τοῖσιν ὀνόμασι τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν ὑπὸ ἀσυνεσίης, τὸν δὲ Μελίσσου λόγον ὀρθοῦν. The metaphors are taken from wrestling, and were current at this date (cf. the καταβάλλοντες of Protagoras). Plato implies a more generous appreciation of Melissos than Aristotle’s. In Theaet. 180 e 2, he refers to the Eleatics as Μέλισσοί τε καὶ Παρμενίδαι, and in 183 e 4 he almost apologises for giving the pre-eminence to Parmenides.
Chapter IX. Leukippos of Miletos
117. Leukippos and Demokritos. We have seen (§§ 31, 122) that the school of Miletos did not come to an end with Anaximenes, and it is a striking fact that the man who gave the most complete answer to the question first asked by Thales was a Milesian.
1 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 just like the discrepancies about the native cities of Pythagoreans already noted (Chap. VII. p. 283, n. 1). Diogenes adds that, according to others, Leukippos was a Melian, which is a common confusion. Aetios (i. 7. i) calls Diagoras of Melos a Milesian (cf. Dox. p. 14). Demokritos was called by some a Milesian (Diog. ix. 34; R.P. 186) for the same reason that Leukippos is called an Eleate. We may also compare the doubt as to whether Herodotos called himself a Halikarnassian or a Thourian.
2 Diog. x. 13 (R.P. 185 b), ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Λεύκιππόν τινα γεγενῆσθαί φησι φιλόσοφον οὔτε αὐτὸς (SC. Ἐπίκουρος) οὔτε Ἕμαρχος. This led E. Rohde to maintain that Leukippos never existed (Kl. Schr. i. 205), but this is to make too much of a characteristic Epicurean sally. I suggest that Epicurus said something like Λεύκιππον οὐδ’ εἰ γέγονεν οἶδα, which would be idiomatic Greek for “I (purposely) ignore him,” “I decline to discuss him.” (Cf. e.g. Dem. De cor. § 70 Σέρριον δὲ καὶ Δορίσκον καὶ τὴν Πεπαρήθου πόρθησιν … οὐδ’ εἰ γέγονεν οἶδα.) That would be just like Epicurus.
Theophrastos found Leukippos described as an Eleate in some authorities, and, if we may trust analogy, that means he had settled at Elea.
1 Diog. ix. 41 (R.P. 187). As Diels says, the statement suggests that Anaxagoras was dead when Demokritos wrote. It is probable, too, that this is what made Apollodoros fix his floruit just forty years after that of Anaxagoras (Jacoby, p. 290). We cannot make much of the statement of Demokritos that he wrote the Μικρὸς διάκοσμος 750 years after the fall of Troy; for we cannot tell what era he used (Jacoby, p. 292).
2 Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 1 (R.P. 206 a).
3 This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives Tetr. iii. thus: (1) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον Λευκίππου φασὶν εἶναι); (2) Μικρὸς διάκοσμος; (3) Κοσμογραφίη; (4) Περὶ τῶν πλανήτων. The two διάκοσμοι would only be distinguished as μέγας and μικρός when they came to be included in the same corpus. A quotation from the περὶ νοῦ of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. 160. The phrase ἐν τοῖς Λευκίππου καλουμένοις λόγοις in M.X.G. 980 a 8 seems to refer to Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 325 a 24, Λεύκιππος δ’ ἔχειν ᾠήθη λόγους κτλ. Cf. Chap. II. p. 126, n. 1.
4 See above, p. 330, n. 1.
The relations of Leukippos to Empedokles and Anaxagoras are more difficult to determine. It has become part of the case for the historical reality of Leukippos to say that there are traces of atomism in the systems of these men; but the case is strong enough without that assumption. The chief argument for the view that Leukippos influenced Empedokles is that drawn from the doctrine of “pores”; but we have seen that this originated with Alkmaion, and it is therefore more probable that Leukippos derived it from Empedokles.
1 Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. 3, 11. The date is fixed by C.I.A. i. 22 a.
2 Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 28, 4 (R. P, 185). Note the difference of case in κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας and κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας, which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of Anaxagoras (p. 253, n. 2). 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.
3 See § 84.
4 Cf. Diog. ix. 30, οὗτος ἤκουσε Ζήνωνος (R.P. 185 b); and Hipp. Ref. i. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος…Ζήνωνος ἑταῖρος.
5 See above, Chap. V. p. 194, n. 3.
6 See above, Chap. VI. § 131; and Chap. VII. § 145.
172. Theophrastos on the Atomic Theory. Theophrastos wrote of Leukippos as follows in the First Book of his Opinions:
Leukippos of Elea or Miletos (for 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 did, but, to all appearance, the very opposite (R.P. 185). They made the All one, immovable, uncreated, and finite, and did not even permit us to search for 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 not, and that both are alike causes of the things that come into being; 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 to be just as real as what is. R.P. 194.
173. Leukippos and the Eleatics. It will be observed that Theophrastos, while noting the affiliation of Leukippos to the Eleatic school, points out that his theory is, prima facie,
1 The words ὡς δοκεῖ do not imply assent to the view introduced by them; indeed they are constantly used in reference to beliefs which the writer does not accept. The translation “methinks” in 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 about to be quoted.
1 This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz’s Greek Thinkers, and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat imaginative work. It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same point of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions (Hermes, xxxvi. p. 185).
2 De gen. corr. A, 8. 324 b 35; R.P. 193.
Leukippos and Demokritos have decided about all things practically by the same method and on the same theory, taking as their starting-point what naturally comes first. Some of the ancients had held that the real must necessarily be one and immovable; for, said they, empty space is not real, and motion would be impossible without empty space separated from matter; nor, further, could reality be a many, if there were nothing to separate things. And it makes no difference if any one holds that the All is not continuous, but discrete, with its part in contact (the Pythagorean view), instead of holding that reality is many, not one, and that there is empty space. For, if it is divisible at every point there is no one, and therefore no many, and the Whole is empty (Zeno); while, if we say it is divisible in one place and not in another, this looks like an arbitrary fiction; for 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 motion. 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 infinite (Melissos), for any limit would be bounded by empty space. This, then, is the opinion they expressed about the truth, and these are the reasons which led them to do so. Now, so far as arguments go, this conclusion does seem to follow; but, if we appeal to facts, to hold such a view looks like madness. No one who is mad is so far out of his senses that fire and ice appear to him to be one; it is only things that are right, and things that
Leukippos, however, thought he had a theory which was in harmony with sense, and did not do away with coming into being and passing away, nor motion, nor the multiplicity of things. He conceded this to experience, while he conceded, on the other hand, to those who invented the One that motion was impossible without the void, that the void was not real, and that nothing of what was real was not real. “For,” said he, “that which is strictly speaking real is an absolute plenum; but the plenum is not one. On the contrary, there are an infinite number of them, and they are invisible owing to the smallness of their bulk. They move in the void (for there is a void); and by their coming together they effect coming into being; by their separation, passing away.”
In this passage Zeno and Melissos are not named, but the reference to them is unmistakable. The argument of Zeno against the Pythagoreans is clearly given; and Melissos was the only Eleatic who made reality infinite, a point which is distinctly mentioned. We are therefore justified by Aristotle’s words in explaining the genesis of Atomism and its relation to Eleaticism as follows. Zeno had shown that all pluralist systems yet known, and especially Pythagoreanism, were unable to stand before the arguments from infinite divisibility which he adduced. Melissos had used the same argument against Anaxagoras, and had added, as a reductio ad absurdum, that, if there were many things, each one of them must be such as the Eleatics held the One to be. To this Leukippos answers, “Why not?” He admitted the force of Zeno’s arguments by setting a limit to divisibility, and to each of the “atoms” which he thus arrived at he ascribed all the predicates of the Eleatic One; for Parmenides had shown that if it is, it must have these predicates somehow. The same view is implied in a passage of Aristotle’s Physics.
1 Phys. A, 3. 187 a 1; R.P. 134 b.
174. Atoms. We must observe that the atom is not mathematically indivisible, for it has magnitude; it is, however, physically indivisible, because, like the One of Parmenides, it contains no empty space.
1 Arist. De caelo, Γ, 4. 303 a 8, τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ οὗτοι (Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος) πάντα τὰ ὄντα ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμοὺς καὶ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν. This also serves to explain the statement of Herakleides attributing the theory of corporeal ὄγκοι to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse (above, p. 291, n. 3).
2 The Epicureans misunderstood this point, or misrepresented it in order to magnify their own originality (see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3.
3 Arist. De caelo, A, 7. 275 b 32, τὴν δὲ φύσιν εἶναί φασιν αὐτῶν μίαν. Here φύσις can only have one meaning. Cf. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 34, αὐτῷ (Δημοκρίτῳ) τὸ κοινὸν σῶμα πάντων ἐστὶν ἀρχή.
4 Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 b 13 (R.P. 192); cf. De gen. corr. A, 2. 315 b 6. As Diels suggests, the illustration from letters is probably due to Demokritos. It shows, in any case, how the word στοιχεῖον came to be used for “element.” We must read, with Wilamowitz, τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Η θέσει for τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Ν θέσει, the older form of the letter Z being just an H laid upon its side (Diels, Elementum, p. 13, n. 1).
5 Demokritos wrote a work, Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Sext. Math. vii. 137 ; R.P. 204), which Diels identifies with the Περὶ τῶν διαφερόντων ῥυσμῶν of Thrasylos, Tetr. v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν εἰδῶν (De sensibus, § 51). Plut. Adv. Col. 1111 a, εἶναι δὲ πάντα τὰς ἀτόμους, ἰδέας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καλουμένας (so the MSS.: ἰδίως, Wyttenbach; <ἢ> ἰδέας Diels). Herodian has ἰδέα.…τὸ ἐλάχιστον σῶμα (Diels, Vors. 55 B 141). So Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 21, (Δεμόκριτος ) ἐκ τῆς πανσπερμίας τῶν σχημάτων (ἄπειρα ποιεῖ τὰ στοιχεῖα). Cf. De gen. corr. A, 2. 315 b (R.P. 196).
175. The Void. Leukippos affirmed the existence both of the Full and the Empty, terms which he may have borrowed from Melissos.
176. Cosmology. It might seem a hopeless task to disentangle the cosmology of Leukippos from that of Demokritos, with which it is generally identified; but that very fact affords a valuable clue. No one later than Theophrastos was able to distinguish their doctrines, and it follows that all definite
1 Arist. Phys. Θ, 9. 265 b 25; Simpl. Phys. p. 1318, 33, ταῦτα γὰρ (τὰ ἄτομα σώματα) ἐκεῖνοι φύσιν ἐκάλουν.
2 Simpl. Phys. p. 36, 1 (Diels, Vors. 54 A 14), and R.P. 196 a.
3 Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 b 4; R.P. 192. Cf. Melissos, fr. 7 sub fin.
The fuller of the doxographies in Diogenes, which comes from an epitome of Theophrastos,
1 Cf. Zeller, “Zu Leukippos”; Arch. xv. p. 138.
2 Diog. ix. 31 sqq. (R.P. 197, 197 c). This passage deals expressly with Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even “Leukippos and Demokritos.” For the distinction between the “summary” and “detailed” doxographies in Diogenes, see Note on Sources, § 15.
He says that the All is infinite, and that it is part full, and part empty. These (the full and the empty), he says, are the elements. From them arise innumerable worlds and are resolved into them. The worlds come into being thus. There were borne along by “abscission from the infinite” many bodies of all sorts of figures “into a mighty void,” and they being gathered together produce a single vortex. In it, as they came into collision with one another and were whirled round in all manner of ways, those which were alike were separated apart and came to their likes. But, as they were no longer able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their multitude, those of them that were fine went out to the external void, as if passed through a sieve; the rest stayed together, 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 all kinds of bodies. And, as these bodies were borne round in a vortex, in virtue of the resistance of the middle, the surrounding membrane became thin, as the contiguous bodies kept flowing together from contact with the vortex. And in this way the earth came into being, those things which had been borne towards the middle abiding there. Moreover, the containing membrane was increased by the further separating out of bodies from outside; and, being itself carried round in a vortex, it further got possession of all with which it had come in contact. Some of these becoming entangled, produce a structure, which was at first moist and muddy; but, 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.
As it comes substantially from Theophrastos, this passage is good evidence for the cosmology of Leukippos, and it is confirmed by certain Epicurean extracts from the Great Diakosmos.
177. Relation to Ionic Cosmology. The general impression we get from the cosmology of Leukippos is that he either ignored or had never heard of the great advance in the general view of the world which was due to the later Pythagoreans. He is as reactionary in his detailed cosmology as he was daring in his general physical theory. We seem to be reading once more of the speculations of Anaximenes or Anaximander, though there are traces of Empedokles and Anaxagoras too. The explanation is not hard to see. Leukippos would not learn a cosmology from his Eleatic teachers; and, even when he found it possible to construct one without giving up the Parmenidean view of reality, he was thrown back upon the older systems of Ionia. The result was unfortunate. The astronomy of Demokritos was still of this childish character. He believed the earth was flat and rested on the air.
This is what gives plausibility to Gomperz’s statement that Atomism was “the ripe fruit on the tree of the old Ionic
1 See Aet. i. 4 (Dox. p. 289; Vors. 54 A 24; Usener, Epicurea fr. 308). Epicurus himself in the second epistle (Diog. x. 88; Usener, p. 37, 7) quotes the phrase ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου.
178. The Eternal Motion. Leukippos represented the atoms as having been always in motion. Aristotle puts this in his own way. The atomists, he says, “indolently” left it unexplained what was the source of motion, and did not say what sort of motion it was. In other words, they did not decide whether it was a “natural motion” or impressed on them “contrary to their nature.”
1 Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, Vol. i. p. 323.
2 Arist. Phys. Θ, 1. 252 a 32; (;R.P. 195 a);; De caelo, Γ, 2. 300 b 8; R.P. 195; Met. A, 4. 985 b 19; R.P. ib..
3 (Arist. Phys. B, 4. 196 a 24; R.P. 195 d. Cicero, De nat. d. i. 66; R.P. ib.. The latter passage is the source of the phrase “fortuitous concourse” (concurrere=συντρέχειν.
4 Aet. i. 25, 4 (Dox. p. 321), Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ’ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ’ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην. λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· Οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης.
This, then, is what seems to follow from the criticisms of Aristotle and from the nature of the case; but it is not consistent with Zeller’s opinion that the original motion of the atoms is a fall through infinite space, as in the system of Epicurus. This view depends, of course, on the further belief that the atoms have weight, and that weight is the tendency of bodies to fall, so we must now consider whether and in what sense weight is a property of the atoms.
179. The Weight of the Atoms. As is well known, Epicurus held that the atoms were naturally heavy, and therefore fell continually in the infinite void. The school tradition is, however, that the “natural weight” of the atoms was an addition made by Epicurus himself to the original atomic system. Demokritos, we are told, assigned two properties to atoms, magnitude and form, to which Epicurus added a third, weight.
1 Introd. § VIII.
2 Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), συμβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς σώμασι τρία ταῦτα, σχῆμα, μέγεθος, βάρος. Δημόκριτος μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγε δύο, μέγεθός τε καὶ σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος τούτοις καὶ τρίτον βάρος προσέθηκεν· ἀνάγκη γάρ, φησί, κινεῖσθαι, τὰ σώματα τῇ τοῦ βάρους πληγῇ· ἐπεὶ ("or else") οὐ κινηθήσεται; ib. 12, 6, Δημόκριτος τὰ πρῶτά φησι σώματα, ταῦτα δ’ ἦν τὰ ναστά, βάρος μὲν οὐκ ἔχειν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατ’ ἀλληλοτυπίαν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. Cic. De fato, 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 misrepresent Demokritos on so important a point. His works were still accessible. It is confirmed by the Academic tradition in De fin. i. 17 that Demokritos taught the atoms moved “in infinito inani, in quo nihil nec summum nec infimum nec medium nec extremum sit.” This doctrine, we are quite rightly told, was “depraved” by Epicurus.
It is impossible to solve this apparent contradiction without referring briefly to the history of Greek ideas about weight. It is clear that lightness and weight would be among the very first properties of body to be distinctly recognised as such. The necessity of lifting burdens must very soon have led men to distinguish them, though no doubt in a crude form. Both weight and lightness would be thought of as things that were in bodies. Now it is a remarkable feature of early Greek philosophy that from the first it was able to shake itself free from this idea. Weight is never called a “thing” as, for instance, warmth and cold are; and, so far as we can see, not one of the thinkers we have studied hitherto thought it necessary to give any explanation of it at all, or even to say anything about it.
1 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 326 a 9, καίτοι βαρύτερόν γε κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν φησιν εἶναι Δημόκριτος ἕκαστον τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων. I cannot believe this means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on sensation, § 67 (R.P. 199), βαρὺ μὲν οὖν καὶ κοῦφον τῷ μεγέθει διαιρεῖ Δημόκριτος.
2 In Aet. i. 12, where the placita regarding the heavy and light are given, no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides (fr. 8, 59) speaks of the dark element as ἐμβριθές. Empedokles (fr. 17) uses the word ἀτάλαντον. I do not think that there is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the early philosophers.
The motions and resistances which popular theory ascribes to weight are
This way of regarding the notions of weight and lightness is clearly formulated for the first time in Plato’s Timaeus.
1 Arist. De caelo, Δ, I. 308 a 9, περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων (βαρέων καὶ κούφων) οὐδὲν εἴρηται παρὰ τῶν πρότερον.
2 Tim. 61 c 3 sqq.
3 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 “below” with the centre. As to that, I 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.
This suggests at once that it is only in the vortex that the atoms acquire weight and lightness,
There is a striking confirmation of this view in the atomist cosmology quoted above.
1 The Aristotelian criticisms which may have affected Epicurus are such as we find in De caelo, A, 7. 275 b 29 sqq. Aristotle there argues that, as Leukippos and Demokritos made the φύσις of the atoms one, they were bound to give 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, even Epicurus could not accept Aristotle’s view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of lightness is due to ἔκθλιψις the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger.
2 In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this distinction. Cf. De 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 (οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε δίνη πλησιάζει πρὸς ἡμᾶς), nor for the weight of bodies before the vortex arose (πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίνην).
3 Diog. loc. cit. (p. 338).
4 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 arose in connexion with the atoms of the earth (p. 35), If we substitute “world” for “earth,” we shall be nearer the truth.
5 See above, p. 338.
Now, if we no longer regard the “eternal motion” of the premundane and extramundane atoms as due to their weight, there is no reason for describing it as a fall. None of our authorities do as a matter of fact so describe it, nor do they tell us in any way what it was. It is safest to say that it is simply a confused motion this way and that.
1 This view was independently advocated by Brieger (Die Urbewegung der Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Leucipp and Demokrit, 1884) and Liepmann (Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome, 1885), both of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting that weight is an original property of the atoms. On the other hand, Brieger denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there is 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 effect, does not yet exist. Zeller rightly argues against Brieger and Liepmann that, if the atoms have weight, they must fall; but, so far as I can see, nothing he says tells against their theory as I have restated it. Gomperz adopts the Brieger-Liepmann explanation. See also Lortzing, Bursians 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).
180. The Vortex. But what are we to say of the vortex itself which produces these effects? Gomperz observes that they seem to be “the precise contrary of what they should have been by the laws of physics”; for, “as every centrifugal machine would show, it is the heaviest substances which are hurled to the greatest distance.”
We must remember that all the parts of the vortex are in contact, and that it is just this contact (ἐπίψαυσις) by which the motion of the outermost parts is communicated to those within them. The larger bodies are more able to resist this communicated motion than the smaller, and in this way they make their way to the centre where the motion is least, and force the smaller bodies out. This resistance is surely just the ἀντέρεισις τοῦ μέσου which is mentioned in the doxography of Leukippos,
1 Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, i. p. 339.
2 For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p. 237; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. p. 269.
3 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 295 a 10 ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν (sc. τὴν δίνησιν) πάντες λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑγροῖς καὶ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συμβαινόντων· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀεὶ φέρεται τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ βαρύτερα πρὸς τὸ μέσον τῆς δίνης.
4 Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων, συμμενόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ’ ἐπίψαυσιν τῆς δίνης, and συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον.) and it is quite in accordance with this that, on the atomist theory, the nearer a heavenly body is to the centre, the slower is its revolution. (Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.
5 Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.
6 See p. 69.
181. The Earth and the Heavenly Bodies. When we come to details, the reactionary character of the atomist cosmology is very manifest. The earth was heavenly shaped like a tambourine, and floated on the air.
182. Perception. Aetios expressly attributes to Leukippos the doctrine that the objects of sense-perception exist “by law” and not by nature.
1 Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 79, n. 1.
2 Aet. iii. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γὴν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δὲ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων.
3 Diog. ix. 33, εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς σελήνης προσγειότατον, <τοὺς δὲ> τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων.
4 From Diog. loc. cit. (supra, p. 339), it appears that he dealt with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses.
5 Diels pointed out that Leukippos’s explanation of thunder (πυρὸς ἐναποληφθέντος νέφεσι παχυτάτοις ἔκπτωσιν ἰσχυρὰν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖν ἀποφαίνεται, Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of Demokritos (βροντὴν…ἐκ συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου τὸ περιειληφὸς αὐτὸ νέφος πρὸς τὴν κάτω φορὰν ἐκβιαζομένου, ib. 11). The explanation given by Leukippos is derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos is influenced by Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35 Philol.-Vers. 97, 7.
6 Aet. iv. 9, 8, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰ αἰσθητά, Λεύκιππος δὲ Δημόκριτος καὶ Διογένης νόμῳ. See Zeller, Arch. v. p. 444.
There appear to be sufficient grounds for ascribing the theory of perception by means of simulacra or εἴδωλα which played such a part in the systems of Demokritos and Epicurus, to Leukippos.
1 Chap. IV. p. 176. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gomperz (p. 321) from Galileo, to the effect that tastes, smells, and colours non sieno altro che puri nomi should, therefore, have been cited to illustrate Parmenides rather than Demokritos.
2 See p. 206, fr. 9.
3 For these see Sext. Math. vii. 135; R.P. 204.
4 Sext. vii. 140, “ὄψις γὰρ ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα” ὥς φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας, ὃν ἐπὶ τούτῳ Δημόκριτος ἐπαινεῖ.
5 See Zeller, “Zu Leukippos” Arch. xv. p. 138). The doctrine is attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, 1 (Dox. p. 403); and Alexander, De sensu, pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions his name in connexion with it. This must come from Theophrastos.
Chapter X. Eclecticism and Reaction
184. The “Bankruptcy of Science.” With Leukippos our story should come to an end; for he had answered the question first asked by Thales. We have seen, however, that, though his theory of matter was of a most original and daring kind, he was not equally successful in his attempt to construct a cosmology, and this seems to have prevented the recognition of the atomic theory for what it really was. We have noted the growing influence of medicine, and the consequent substitution of an interest in detailed investigation for the larger cosmological views of an earlier time, and there are several treatises in the Hippokratean corpus which give us a clear idea of the interest which now prevailed.
1 Cf. what is said in Chap. IV. p. 150, n. 2, of the Περὶ διαίτης. The Περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσιος and the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς are invaluable documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at this date.
2 Cf. Chap. VIII. p. 329, n. 2.
I. Hippon of Samos
185. Hippon of Samos or Kroton or Rhegion belonged to the Italian school of medicine.
Moisture. With regard to his views, the most precise statement is that of Alexander, who doubtless follows Theophrastos. It is to the effect that he held the primary substance to be Moisture, without deciding whether it was Water or Air.
Till quite recently no fragment of Hippon was known to exist, but a single one has now been recovered from the
1 Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R.P. 219 a). In Menon’s Iatrika he is called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion (Hipp. Ref. i. 16) or Metapontion (Censorinus, De die nat. 5, 2). This variation implies that he belonged originally to the Pythagorean school. The evidence of Aristoxenos is, in that case, all the more valuable. Hippon is mentioned along with Melissos as a Samian in Iamblichos’s Catalogue of Pythagoreans (V. Pyth. 267).
2 Schol. on Clouds, 94 sqq.
3 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 3; R.P. 219 a.
4 Alexander in Met. p. 26, 21; R.P. 219.
5 Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 b 2; R.P. 220.
6 Hipp. Ref. i. 16; R.P. 221.
The waters we drink are all from the sea; for if wells were deeper than the sea, then it would not, doubtless, be from the sea that we drink, for then the water would not be from the sea, but from some other source. But as it is, the sea is deeper than the waters, so all the waters that are above the sea come from it. R.P. 219 b.
We observe here the universal assumption that water tends to rise from the earth, not to sink into it.
Along with Hippon, Idaios of Himera may just be mentioned. We know nothing of him except from Sextus, <
II. Diogenes of Apollonia
186. Date. After discussing the three great representatives of the Milesian school, Theophrastos went on to say:
And Diogenes of Apollonia, too, who was almost the latest of those who gave themselves up to these studies, wrote most of his work in an eclectic fashion, agreeing in some points with Anaxagoras and in others with Leukippos. He, too, says that the primary substance of the universe is Air infinite and eternal, from which by condensation, rarefaction, and change of state, the form of everything else arises. R.P. 206 a.
1 Schol. Genav. p. 197, 19. Cf. Diels in Arch. iv. p. 653. The extract comes from the Ὁμηρικά of Krates of Mallos.
2 Sext. Adv. Math. ix. 360.
3 Stephanos of Byzantion s.v. Ἀπολλωνία says this was Apollonia in Crete, but that seems improbable. Zeller doubted it on the ground that Diogenes wrote in Ionic, but Ionic was the regular dialect for scientific works, and we cannot found on that. On the other hand, it seems much more likely in itself that he came from Apollonia on the Pontos, a Milesian colony which regarded Anaximander as its founder (p. 52, n. 1). Aelian (V. H. ii. 31) calls him Διογένης ὁ Φρύξ, which shows that he took this view.
4 On this passage see Diels, “Leukippos and Diogenes von Apollonia” (Rhein. Mus. xlii. pp. 1 sqq.). Natorp’s view that the words are merely those of Simplicius (ib. pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be maintained.
187. Writings. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several works, though he allows that only one survived till his own day, namely, the Περὶ φύσεως.
188. The Fragments. The work of Diogenes seems to have been preserved in the Academy; practically all the fairly extensive fragments which we still have are derived from Simplicius. I give them as they are arranged by Diels:
(1) In the beginning any discourse, it seems to me that one should make one’s starting-point something indisputable, and one’s expression simple and dignified. R.P. 207.
(2) My view is, to sum it all up, that all things are differentiations of the same thing, and are the same thing. And this is obvious; for, if the things which are now in this world—earth, and water, and air and fire, and the other things which we see
1 Diog. ix. 57 (R.P. 206). The statement of Antisthenes, the writer of Successions, that he had “heard” Anaximenes is due to the usual confusion. He was doubtless, like Anaxagoras, “an associate of the philosophy of Anaximenes.” Cf. Chap. VI. § 122.
2 (Aristoph. Clouds, 227 sqq., where Sokrates speaks of “mixing his subtle thought with the kindred air,” and especially the words ἡ γῆ βίᾳ|ἕλκει πρὸς αὑτὴν τὴν ἰκμάδα τῆς φροντίδος. For the ἱκμάς, see Beare, p. 259.)
3 Simpl. Phys. p. 151, 24; R.P. 207 a.
4 Simplicius says Πρὸς φυσιολόγους, but he adds that Diogenes called them σοφισταί, which is the older word. This is, so far, in favour of the genuineness of the work.
5 Diels gives this as fr. 6, Vors. 51 s 6. I have omitted it, as it really belongs to the history of Medicine.
(3) For it would not be possible for it without intelligence to be so divided, as to keep the measures of all things, of winter and summer, of day and night, of rains and winds and fair weather. And any one who cares to reflect will find that everything else is disposed in the best possible manner. R.P. 210.
(4) And, further, there are still the following great proofs. Men and all other animals live upon air by breathing it, and this is their soul and their intelligence, as will be clearly shown in this work; while, when this is taken away, they die, and their intelligence fails. R.P. 210.
(5) And my view is, that that which has intelligence is what men call air, and that all things have their course steered by it, and that it has power over all things. For this very thing I hold to be a god,
1 The MSS. of Simplicius have ἔθος, not θεός; but I adopt Usener’s certain correction. It is confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos that Diogenes called the air within us “a small portion of the god “ (de. Sens. 42); and by Philodemos (Dox. p. 536), where we read that Diogenes praises Homer, τὸν ἀέρα γὰρ αὐτὸν Δία νομίζειν φησίν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν εἰδέναι τὸν Δία λέγει (cf. Cic. Nat. D. i. 12, 29).
(6) Since, then, differentiation is multiform, living creatures are multiform and many, and they are like one another neither in appearance nor in intelligence, because of the multitude of differentiations. 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
(8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is both great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of great knowledge. R.P. 209.
That the chief interest of Diogenes was a physiological one, is clear from his elaborate account of the veins, preserved by Aristotle.
189. Cosmology. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as the primary substance; but we see from his arguments that he lived at a time when other views had become prevalent.
1 The MSS. of Simplicius have τῷ δέ, but surely the Aldine τῶν δέ is right.
2 Arist. Hist. An. Γ, 2. 511 b 30.
3 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 philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i. pr.). This is why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the “sophists” are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged. To the latter class belong the Περὶ διαίτης and the Περὶ φυσῶν; to the former, especially the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς.
Diogenes of Apollonia makes air the element, and holds that all 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, where the dense met together it formed a mass, and then the other things arose in the same way, the lightest parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun. [Plut.] Strom. fr. 12 (R.P. 215).
Nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what is not. The earth is round, poised in the middle, having received its shape through the revolution proceeding from the warm and its solidification from the cold. Diog. ix. 57 (R.P. 215).
The heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone. He thinks they are the breathing-holes of the world, and that they are red-hot. Aet. ii. 13, 5 = Stob. i. 508 (R.P. 215).
The sun was like pumice-stone, and into it the rays from the aether fix themselves. Aet. ii. 20, 10. The moon was a pumicelike conflagration. Ib. ii. 25, 10.
Along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible stones, which for that very reason are nameless; but they often fall and are extinguished on the earth like the stone star which fell down flaming at Aigospotamos.
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, warm and cold, dry and moist, stable and mobile (fr. 5). The differentiations into opposites which Air may undergo are, as Anaxagoras had taught, infinite in number; but all may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and dense. We may gather, too, from Censorinus, that Diogenes did not, like Anaximenes, speak of earth and water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather of blood,
1 See Chap. VI. p. 252, n. 6.
2 Censorinus de die natati, 6, 1, Dox. p. 190.
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.
Diogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists that the heavenly bodies were made of air or fire, nor yet with Anaxagoras, that they were stones. They were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which we may trace the influence of Leukippos. They were earthy, indeed, but not solid, and the celestial fire permeated their pores. And this explains why we do not see the dark bodies which, in common with Anaxagoras, he held to revolve along with the stars. They really are solid stones, and therefore cannot be penetrated by the fire. It was one of these that fell into the Aigospotamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently to the rise of animals.
We are prepared to find that Diogenes held the doctrine of innumerable worlds; for it was the old Milesian belief, and had just been revived by Anaxagoras and Leukippos. He is mentioned with the rest in the Placita; and if Simplicius classes him and Anaximenes with Herakleitos as holding the Stoic doctrine of successive formations and destructions of
1 On the “measures” see Chap. III. § 72.
2 Theophr, ap Alex. in Meteor. p. 67, 1; Dox. p. 494.
3 Diog. ix. 57; R.P. 215.
4 Aet. ii. 8, 1; R.P. 215.
190. Animals and Plants. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubtless under the influence of heat. Their souls, of course, were air, and their differences were due to the various degrees in which it was rarefied or condensed (fr. 5). No special seat, such as the heart or the brain, was assigned to the soul; it was simply the warm air circulating with the blood in the veins.
The views of Diogenes as to generation, respiration, and the blood, belong to the history of Medicine:
III. Archelaos of Athens
191. Anaxagoreans. The last of the early cosmologists was Archelaos of Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxagoras.
1 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 59.
2 See Censorinus, quoted in Dox. p. 191 sq.
3 Theophrastos de Sens. 39 sqq. (R.P. 213, 214). For a full account, see Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. As Prof. Beare remarked, Diogenes “is one of the most interesting of the pre-Platonic psychologists” (p. 258).
4 Diog. ii. 16; R.P. 216.
5 See Chiapelli in Arch. iv. pp. 369 sqq. Ion of Chios said that Sokrates accompanied Archelaos to Samos (fr. 73 Köpke). If this refers to the siege of Samos, it is interesting to think of the youthful Sokrates serving against a force commanded by Melissos.
192. Cosmology. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos
Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of Apollodoros. He spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to Anaxagoras, and of the first principles likewise. He held, however, that there was a certain mixture immanent even in Nous. And he held that there were two efficient causes which were separated off from one another, namely, the warm and the cold. The former was in motion, the latter at rest. When the water was liquefied it flowed to the centre, and there being burnt up it turned to earth and air, the latter of which was borne upwards, while the former took up its position below. These, then, are the reasons why the earth is at rest, and why it came into being. It lies in the centre, being practically no appreciable part of the universe. (But the air rules over all things),
1 Euseb. P. E. p. 504, c 3, ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέλαος ἐν Λαμψάκῳ διεδέξατο τὴν σχολὴν τοῦ Ἀναξαγόρου.
2 Ἀναξαγόρειοι are mentioned by Plato (Crat. 409 b 6), and in the Δισσοὶ λόγοι (cf. p. 29, n. 3). It is also to be noted that Plato (Parm. 126 a, b) represents certain φιλόσοφοι from Klazomenai as coming to Athens after the death of Sokrates for the purpose of getting an accurate account of the famous conversation between Parmenides and the young Sokrates (§ 84).
3 (Hipp. Ref. i. 9; R.P. 218.)
4 Inserting τὸν δ’ ἀέρα κρατεῖν τοῦ παντός, as suggested by Roeper.
It is clear from this that, just as Diogenes had tried to introduce certain Anaxagorean ideas into the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to bring Anaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views by supplementing it with the opposition of warm and cold, rare and dense, and by stripping Nous of that simplicity which had marked it off from the other “things” in his master’s system. It was probably for this reason, too, that Nous was no longer regarded as the maker of the world.
193. Conclusion. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of Diogenes, has all the characteristics of the age to which it belonged—an age of reaction, eclecticism, and investigation of detail.
1 Aet. i. 7, 14=Stob. i. 56; R.P. 217 a.
2 Aet. ii. i, 3.
3 Windelband, § 25. The period is well described by Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen, pp. 130 sqq. It can only be treated fully in connexion with the Sophists.
4 For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, Theaet. 179e. The new interest in language, which the study of rhetoric had called into life, took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary etymologising, such as is satirised in Plato’s Cratylus.
It will be observed that all these warring systems found their way to Athens, and it was there, and there alone that the divergent theories of Ionia and the West came into contact. Such questions as whether the earth was round or flat, and whether “what we think with” was Air or Blood, must have been hotly debated at Athens about the middle of the fifth century BC, when Sokrates was young. On any view of him, it is surely incredible that he was not interested in these controversies at the time, however remote they may have seemed to him in later life. Now, in the Phaedo, Plato has put into his mouth an autobiographical statement in which he tells us that this was actually the case,
1 Arist. Met. Γ, 5.1010 a 12. He refused even to speak, we are told, and only moved his finger.
2 Plato, Phaedo, 96 a sqq.
3 I have tried to show this in detail in my notes on the passage in my edition of the Phaedo (Oxford, 1910). It is a remarkable proof of Plato’s historical sense that he should have been able to give an account of the state of scientific opinion at Athens some twenty-five years before his own birth, without, so far as I can see, a single anachronism.
.
John Burnet, M.A., LL.D.
1863–1928
Scottish classicist, Greek scholar, Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow at Merton College, Oxford; Professor of Latin, Edinburgh, Greek chair, University of St. Andrews. Burnet’s editions of Early Greek Philosophy have been considered authoritative for more than a century.
Abbreviations
Arch.—Archiv für Geschichte der Philosaphie, Berlin, 1888-1920.
Beare.—Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition, by John I. Beare. Oxford, 1906.
Diels Dox,—Doxographi graeci. Hermannus Diels. Berlin, 1879.
Diels Vors.—Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, von Hermann Diels, Dritte Auflage, Erster Band. Berlin, 1912.
Gomperz.—Greek Thinkers, by Theodor Gomperz, Authorised (English) Edition, vol. i. London, 1901.
Jacoby.—Apollodors Chronik, von Felix Jacoby (Philol. Unters, Heft xvi.). Berlin, 1902.
R.P.—Historia Philosophiae Graecae, H. Ritter et L. Preller. Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus Wellmann. Gotha, 1898.
Zeller.—Die Philosophie der Griechen, dargestellt von Dr. Eduard Zeller, Erster Theil, Fünfte Auflage. Leipzig, 1892.
References
Burnet, John. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
Burnet, John. Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd ed. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1920.