Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from .
IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/earlygreekphilosOOburnrich

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

AGENTS

America . The Macmillan Company

64 & 66 Fifth Avenue, New York

Australasia The Oxford University Press

205 Flinders Lane, Melbourne

Canada . . The Macmillan Company of Canada, Ltd.

St. Martin's House, 70 Bond Street, Toronto

India . . . Macmillan & Company, Ltd.

Macmillan Building, Bombay

309 Bow Bazaar Street, Calcutta

CONTENTS

PAGES

Introduction ........ 1-30

|MOTE ON THE SOURCES 31-38

I CHAPTER I

The Milesian School 39-79 ^

jl CHAPTER n

I Science and Religion 80-129

CHAPTER HI
Herakleitos of Ephesos* 130-168 ^

CHAPTER IV
Parmenides of Elea 169-196 ^

CHAPTER V

Empedokles of Akragas 197-250 ^

CHAPTER VI
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai . . . . . 251-275 V

CHAPTER VII

The Pythagoreans 276-309

vii

viii EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER VIII

PAGES

v/ The Younger Eleatics 310-329

CHAPTER IX
^ Leukippos of Miletos 330-34^

CHAPTER X

Eclecticism and Reaction 350-361

APPENDIX 363-364

INDEX 365-375

ABBREVIATIONS

Arch. Archiv fur Geschichte det Philosothie. Berlin, 1888-

1920.

Be ARE. Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition^ by John I.

Beare. Oxford, 1906.

DiELS Dox. Doxographi graeci. Hermannus Diels. Berlin, 1879.

DiELS Vors. Die Fragntente der Vorsokratiker, von Hermann Diels,
Dritte Auflage. 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, Fiinfte Auflage. Leipzig, 1892.

EARLY G^EK PHILOSOPHY

INTRODUCTION

I. It was not till the traditional view of the world and the The cos-
customary rules of life had broken down, that the Greeks ^°i^a^cter
""' began to feel the needs which philosophies of nature and q^.^^'^
of conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were those needs felt ptuo-
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 earHest 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 Hght 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 pre-
judices of the unscientific. Later still, the prevaiUng
interest in logical matters raised the question of the origin
and vahdity of knowledge ; while, about the same time,
the break-down of traditional moraUty 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 .^

^ It will be observed that Demokritos falls outside the period thus
defined. The common practice of treating this younger contemporary of
Sokrates along with the " Pre-Socratics " obscures the historical develop-
ment altogether. Demokritos comes after Protagoras, and he has to face
the problems of knowledge and conduct far more seriously than his pre-
decessors had done (see Brochard, " Protagoras et Democrite," Arch. ii.
p. 368).

2 ^^^.^ EARLY. GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The IL J^ .Hi\js,t,. .however; \be remembered that the world

vtewoP^ was aheady Very'' old ^'\\^eri science and philosophy began,
the world. In particular, the Aegean Sea had been the seat of a high
civiUsation from the NeoUthic age onwards, a civiUsation
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 civiUsed 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 dehberately set itself to resist
the process. At any rate, it is to th^ older race we owe
Greek Art and Greek Science. ^ \lVis a remarkable fact

1 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 un-
important 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 b.c. The popular distinction between centum
^ and satem languages is wholly misleading and based on a secondary
^y'"'"^^ 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

.dll

INTRODUCTION 3

that every one of the men whose work we are about to
study was an Ionian, except Empedokles of Akragas, and,
this exception is perhaps more apparent than real. Akragas
was founded from the Rhodian colony of Gela, its olKL(TTrj%.
was himself a Rhodian, and Rhodes, thougH otticially
Dorian, had been a centre of the early Aegean civilisation.
We may fairly assume that the emigrants belonged mainly
to the older population rather than to the new Dorian
aristocracy. Pythagoras founded his society in the Achaian
city of Kroton, but he himself was an Ionian from
Samos.

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.
I^The ceremony represented on the sarcophagus of Hagia
7 Triada implies some quite definite view as to the state of
iHhe 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 Hke the fragments of Pherekydes of Syros are in-
expHcable except as survivals of some such speculation.
There is no ground for supposing that this was borrowed
from Egypt, though no doubt these early civiUsations all
influenced one another. The Egyptians may have borrowed
from Crete as readily as the Cretans from Egypt, and there
was a seed of Ufe in the sea civiUsation which was somehow
lacking in that of the great rivers.

On the other hand, it is clear that the northern invaders
must have assisted the free development of the Greek

sonant n in the word for "hundred" {eKaT6v=satam, satem) by a, and to
classify it with them as a satem language on that ground.

4 • EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

genius by breaking up the powerful monarchies of earlier
days and, above all, by checking the growth of a super-
stition Uke that which ultimately stifled Egypt and Babylon.
That there was once a real danger of this is suggested by
certain features in the Aegean remains. On the other hand,
the worship of Apollo seems to have been brought from
the North by the Achaians,^ and indeed what has been called
the Olympian reUgion was, so far as we can see, derived
mainly from that source. Still, the artistic form it assumed
bears the stamp of the Mediterranean peoples, and it was
chiefly in that form it appealed to them. It could not
become oppressive to them as the old Aegean rehgion
might very possibly have done. It was probably due to
the Achaians that the Greeks never had a priestly class,
and that may well have had something to do with the rise
of free science among them.

HI. We see the working of these influences clearly in
Homer. Though he doubtless belonged to the older race
himself and used its language, ^ it is for the courts of Achaian
princes he sings, and the gods and heroes he celebrates are
mostly Achaian. 3 That is why we find so few traces of the
traditional view of the world in the epic. The gods have
become frankly human, and everything primitive is kept
out of sight. There are, of course, vestiges of the early

^ See Farnell, CuUs of the Greek States, vol. iv. pp. 98 sqq.

^ 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 "0/j.r]pos,
" 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.

INTRODUCTION 5 ^

beliefs and practices, but they are exceptional.^ It has i

often been noted that Homer never speaks of the primitive ]

custom of purification for homicide. The dead heroes are ^ 1

'/burned, not buried, as the kings of the older race were. \

I Ghosts play hardly any part. In the Iliad we have, to be \

i|sure, the ghost of Patroklos, in close connexion with the j

'solitary instance of human sacrifice in Homer. There is I

Jalso the Nekyia in the Eleventh Book of the Odyssey.^ ;

ISuch things, however, are rare, and we may fairly infer that, ;

at least in a certain society, that of the Achaian princes for i

whom Homer sang, the traditional view of the world was ;

already discredited at a comparatively early date,^ though j

it naturally emerges here and there. \
IV. When we come to Hesiod, we seem to be in another 2. Hesiod. -

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 Uke the truth ; but we know too, when
we will, to utter what is true." * This means that he was

conscious of the difference between the Homeric spirit and j

his own. The old light-heartedness isgone, and it is \

important to tell the truth about tEe^ds.^ Hesiod knows, ]

too, that he belongs to a later and a sadder time than 1

Homer. In describing the Ages of the World, he inserts a \

fifth age between those of Bronze and Iron. That is the ^
Age of the Heroes, the age Homer sang of. It was better

than the Bronze Age which came before it, and far better ;

than that which followed it, the Age of Iron, in which Hesiod j

* There are traces of cosmogonical ideas in the Ai6s airdTtj (II. xiv.). 1

2 Od. xi. has been referred to a late date because it is supposed to i
contain Orphic ideas. In the light of our present knowledge, such a !
hypothesis is quite unnecessary. The ideas in question are primitive, i
and were probably generally accepted in the Aegean. Orphicism was i
essentially a revival of primitive beliefs.

3 On all this, see especially Rohde, Psyche^, i. pp. 37 sqq. (=Ps.^ I
T?P-3i sqq.). ;

* Hes. Theog. 27 (the words are borrowed from Od. xix. 203). The !■<
Muses are the same as those who inspired Homer, which means that Hesiod 1
wrote in hexameters and used the Epic dialect. X

6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

lives. ^ He also feels that he is singing for another class.
It is to shepherds and husbandmen of the older race he
addresses himself, and the Achaian princes for whom Home:
sang have become remote persons who give " crooke
dooms.'* The romance and splendour of the Achaia
Middle Ages meant nothing to the common people. The'
primitive view of the world had never really died out among;
them ; so it was natural for their first spokesman to assume '
it in his poems. That is why we find in Hesiod these olc
savage tales, which Homer disdained.

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 histor v 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 ofiices and arts,^ and it
is perfectly true. The Olympian pantheon took the place
of the older gods in men's minds, and this was quite as
much the doing of Hesiod as of Homer. The ordinary man
would hardly recognise his gods in the humanised figures,
detached from all local associations, which poetry had
substituted for the older objects of worship. Such gods
were incapable of satisfying the needs of the people, and

1 There is great historical insight here. It was Hesiod, not our
i modern historians, who first pointed out that the " Greek Middle Ages "
/ were a break in the normal development.
/ 2 Herod, ii. 53.

gony.

INTRODUCTION 7

that is the secret of the rehgious revival we shall have to
consider later.

K V. Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows himself Cosmo-
^ child of his time. His Theogony is at the same time a
tosmogony, though it would seem that here he was following
the older tradition rather than working out a thought of his
own. At any rate, he only mentions the two great cosmo-
gonical figures, Chaos and Eros, and does not really bring
them into connexion with his system. They seem to belong,
in fact, to an older stratum of speculation. 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 may be sure that this is not primitive.
Primitive man does not feel called on to form an idea of
the very beginning of all things ; he takes for granted that
there was something to begin with. The other figure, that
of Eros, was doubtless intended to explain the impulse to
production which gave rise to the whole process. These are
clearly speculative ideas, but in Hesiod they are blurred and
confused.

We have records of great activity in the production of
cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century B.C.,
and we know something of the systems of Epimenides,
jPhergli^ides^l^d Akousilaos. If there were speculations ol
this kind eveno^^e" Hesiod, we need have no hesitation
in beheving that the earHest Orphic cosmogony goes back
to that century too.^ The feature common to all these
systems is the attempt to get behind the Gap, and to put
Kronos or Zeus in the first place. That is what Aristotle
has in view when he distinguishes the " theologians " from

^ The word x«ios certainly means the " gape " or " yawn," the x^<^f^
ireXdbpLov of the Rhapsodic Theogony (fr. 52). Grimm compared it with
the Scandinavian Ginnunga-Gap.

2 For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels, Vorsokratiker, 71 b, 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.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

those who were half theologians and half philosophers, and

who put what was best in the beginning.^ It is obvious,

owever, that this process is the very reverse of scientific,

and might be carried on indefinitely ; so we have nothing

to do with the cosmogonists in our present inquiry, except

so far as they can be shown to have influenced the course of

more sober investigations.

General VI. The louiaus, as we can see from their literature,

rstks^of^^' ^^^^ deeply impressed by the transitoriness of things.*

Greek cos-. There is, in fact, a fundamental pessimism in their outlook

mology.

on Hfe, 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 owning
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. ^ Now
this sentiment always finds its best illustrations in the
changes of the seasons, and the cycle of growth and decay
is a far more striking phenomenon in Aegean lands than in*
the North, and takes still more clearly the form of a war'
of opposites, hot and cold, wet and dry. It is, accordingly,
from that point of view the early cosmologists regard the
world. The opposition of day and night, summer and

./winter, with their suggestive parallelism in sleep and
waking, birth and death, are the outstanding features of
the world as they saw it.^

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 Arist. Met. N, 4. 1091 b 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 " reUgious 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.

INTRODUCTION 9

their turn encroach on the other pair. This process was
naturally described in terms borrowed from human society ;
for in early days the regularity and constancy of human
life was far more clearly reaHsed than the uniformity of
nature. Man lived in a charmed circle of social law and
custom, but the world around him at first seemed lawless.
That is why the encroachment of one opposite on another
was spoken of as injustice {aSLKLo} and the due observ-
ance of a balance between them as justice (BUtj). The
later word Koo-fMo^ is based on this notion too. It meant
originally the discipline of an army, and next the ordered
constitution of a state.

That, however, was not enough. The earhest cosmo-
logists 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." ^ If, as is sometimes held,
their real interest had been in the process of growth and
becoming, they would hardly have applied epithets so
charged with poetical emotion and association to what is
alone permanent in a world of change and decay. That
is the true meaning of Ionian " Monism." ^

♦^ Ar. Phys. T, 4. 203 b 14 addvarov yap Kal dvuikedpov (sc. t6 &Trei.pov), ws
<f>tl<Ti.v 'Ava^ifiafSpos Kal ol TrXeicrToi tuv <pva-L6\6yu}v, Hipp, Ref. i. 6, I (p^aiv
Tiva ToO direipov . . . rathrju S' diSiov elvai Kal dyqpw. The epithets come from
the Epic, where dddvaTos Kal dy-fiptas 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 dpxv s-^d those who postulated more than one
{Phys. A, 2. 184 b 15 sqq.), and -is not therefore strictly historical, it will
be well to quote a pre-Aristotehan testimony for it. In the Hippokratean
Uepl (pijatoi dvOpwirov (Littre, vi. 32) we read 0a(rf re yap iv tl elvai 6Ti'JaTi,

10 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

4>{,<Tii. vn. 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.^ It is,
therefore, significant that, in a fragment which portrays
the blessedness of a hfe devoted to scientific research
(lo-Topia),^ he uses the very epithets " ageless and deathless "
which Anaximander had applied to the one primary sub-
stance, and that he associates them with the term <f)vo-i,<;.
The passage is so important for our present purpose that
I quote it in full :

oA/3tOS OCTTtS T^S ICTTOpiaS

€ar\€. ixdOr)(riv, fii^Te ttoAitwv
€7rt 7rr]fiocrvva<s firjT els dStKOVs
rrpa^eis opjxiov,

dX)C dOavoLTOv KaOopdv ^vcrews
Koa-piov dyyjpo), rts re (rvvearriq

KoX OTTY) Koi OTTCDS*

TOIS TOLOvrOfS OvSeTTOT alcT^piiiV

epyctiv fxeXeTrjfxa it poa-t^ei.^

This fragment is clear evidence that, in the fifth century B.C.,
the name ^vai^ was given to the e verlasting som ething 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

Kal rovT elvai t6 iu Kal rb irav, Kara 5k to. 6v6fj.aTa ovk 6/xoXoyeovai ' X^^ei 5' aiiTuu
6 fih Tis <t>6.aK03v aipa eluai tovto rb iy Kal rb Trap, 6 8k ttO/?, 6 dk f/5a)/), 6 5^ yrjv, Kal
iiri\4yei ^Kacrros t^ eojvrov Xdycf) fiapr^^pid re Kal re/c/xij/aia, & ye iariv oi54v.

1 See below, § 123.

^ Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 96 a 7 rairrj^ ttjs crocpias ^v drj KaXovcri irepl 0iJ(rcwj
laroplav. 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 Uepl
(puaeoos, as such titles are probably of later date.

3 Eur. fr. inc. 910. The word k6<t/jlos here means, of course, " order-
ing," " arrangement," and dyripw is genitive. The object of research is
firstly what is " the ordering of immortal ageless (pvais," 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. i) that not only Anaximander, but most of the (pvaio\6yoi,
applied epithets like this to the Boundless.

INTRODUCTION ii

anything is made, a meaning which easily passes into that
of its " make-up," its general character or constitution.
Those early cosmologists who were seeking for an " undying
and ageless " something, would naturally express the idea
by sa5dng there was " one (pvat^ " ^ of all things. When
that was given up, under the influence of Eleatic criticism,
the old word was still used. Empedokles held there were
four such primitive stuffs, each with a (pvcrt^ of its own,
while the Atomists beUeved in an infinite number, to which
they also appHed the term.^ /

The term ap'^rj, which is often used in our authorities, is
in this sense ^ purely Aristotelian. It is very natural that
it should have been adopted by Theophrastos and later
writers ; for they all start from the well-known passage
of the Physics in which Aristotle classifies his predecessors
according as they postulated one or more apyai!^ But Plato
never uses the term in this connexion, and it does not occur
once in the genuine fragments of the early philosophers,
which would be very strange on the assumption that they
employed it.

Now, if this is so, we can understand at once why the
lonians called science Ilept (^uo-6a)9jaT2^2i2?.----We shall see

1 Arist. Phys. A, 6. 189 b 2 ol fiLav rtva <f>vaiv elvai X^yovres rd irdv, oloy
v8o)p 1} irvp ij t6 fiera^ij to&twv, B, I. 193 a 21 ol fi^u irvp, ol dk yfjv, ol 5' aipa
(paalv, ol 8^ vSwp, ol 8' ^utaTodruv (Parmenides), ol 8^ TrcLvra raOra (Empedokles)
TTjv (pvaiv chat ttjv twu 6vto}v.

2 For the history of the term 0i;<rts, see Appendix I.

3 Professor W. A. Heidel has shown that the cosmologists might have
used apxn 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 wilUng 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, «. 2).
Moreover, Diels has shown that the first book of Theophrastos's great
work dealt with the apx-q ^'^ ^^^ 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.

* 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.

12 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

that the growing thought which may be traced through the
successive representatives of any school is always that

. which concerns the primary substance/ whereas the astro-
nomical and other theories are, in the main, peculiar to the
individual thinkers. The chief interest of all is the quest

i for what is abiding in the flux of things.^

"^ Vni. According to Aristotle and his followers, the early
cosmologists beUeved also in an " eternal motion ** (aLBLo<;
Kiv7]ai<;), but that is probably their own way of putting the
thing. It is not at all likely that the lonians 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 unUkely that the origin of motion was discussed
till its possibiHty 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 " {irpCJTov vwoKelfiepov), but it is hard to find a better.
The German Urstojf 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
plausibihty 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 " {aroix^lov) in cosmology, where it is always an
irreducible something with a (piatt 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

INTRODUCTION 13

A more important question is the nature of this motion.
It is clear that it must have existed before the beginning
of the world, since it is what brought the world into being.
It cannot, therefore, be identified with the diurnal revolu-
tion of the heavens, as it has been by many writers, or
with any other purely mundane motion.^ The Pythagorean
doctrine, as expounded in Plato's Timaeus,^ is that the
original motion was irregular and disorderly, and we shall
see reason for beheving that the Atomists ascribed a motion
of that kind to the atoms. It is safer, then, not to attribute
any regular or well-defined motion to the primary substance
of the early cosmologists at this stage. ^

IX. In all this, there is no trace of theological speculation. The
We have seen that there had been a complete break with cha'rl^ter
the early Aegean religion, and that the Olympian poly- of. Ionian

SC 16I1C6 •

theism 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

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.

1 It was Aristotle who first took the fateful step of identifying the
" eternal motion " with the diurnal revolution of the heavens.

2 Plato, Tim. 30 a.

3 As I understand him. Prof. W. A. Heidel regards the " eternal
motion " as a rotary or vortex motion {8lv7]), on the ground that it is
hazardous to assume that an early thinker, such as Anaximenes, " dis-
tinguished between the primordial motion of the infinite Air and the
original motion in the cosmos " (see his article, " The dipr) 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
earhest 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 Slyrj.

14 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

those parts of Greece which had not come under the rule
of the Northerners, and we shall see presently how they
reasserted themselves in the Orphic and other mysteries,
but the case of Ionia was different. It was only after the
coming of the Achaians that the Greeks were able to estabhsh
their settlements on the coast of Asia Minor, which had
been closed to them by the Hittites,^^ and there was no
traditional background there at all. In the islands of the
Aegean it was otherwise, but Ionia proper was a country
j without a past. That explains the secular character of the
earliest Ionian philosophy.

We must not be misled by the use of the word ^eo9.in
the remains that have come down to us. It is quite true
that the lonians appHed 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. ^ This
non-rehgious use of the word " god " is characteristic of
the whole period we are deaUng with, and it is of the first
importance to reahse it. No one who does so will fall into
the error of deriving science from mythology.^

We see this, above all, from the fact that, while primitivj

1 See Hogarth, Ionia and the East, pp. 68 sqq.

2 No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos, and si
less can Phobos and Deimos be regarded as gods in the reUgious sense.

3 This is, I venture to think, the fundamental error of Mr. Cornford's
interesting book. From Religion to Philosophy (19 12). He fails to reaUse
how completely the old " collective representations " had lost their hold
in Ionia. We shall see that his method is more appHcable when he comes
to deal with the western regions, but even there he does not recogi
sufficiently the contrast between Ionian science and the old tradition.

INTRODUCTION 15

religion regards the heavenly bodies and the heavens
themselves as divine, and therefore •of a wholly different '
nature from anything on this earth, the lonians from the
very first set their faces against any such distinction, though
it must have been perfectly familiar to them from popular
beliefs. Aristotle revived the distinction at a later date,
but Greek science began by rejecting it.^

X. We have also to face the question of the nature and Alleged
extent of the influence exercised by what we call Eastern orTgin of
wisdom on the Greek mind. It is a common idea even p^^1°"

sopny.

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 beUef in the Egyptian origin
of Greek rehgion and civilisation. 2 Plato, who had a great
respect for the Egyptians on other grounds, classes them as
a business-like rather than a philosophical people.^ Aristotle
speaks only of the origin of mathematics in Egypt* (a point

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 t6 dv/ioeid^s is characteristic of the
Thracians and Scythians, and t6 (piKofiad^s of the Hellenes, he refers us to
Phoenicia and Egypt for to tpCKoxp'ntJ-a.TQv. In the Laws he says (747 b 6)
that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove all dveXevdepla
and (piXoxpvi^o^Tia from the souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce
iravovpyia instead of aocpia, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians,
and many other peoples do.

* Arist. Met. A, i. 981 b 23.

(

i6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to which we shall return), though, if he had known of an
Egyptian philosophy,- it would have suited his argument
better to mention that. It is not till later, when Egyptian
priests and Alexandrian Jews began to vie with one another
in discovering the source? of Greek philosophy in their
own past, that we have definite statements to the effect
that it came from Phoenicia or Egypt. But the so-called
Egyptian philosophy was only arrived at by a process of
turning primitive myths into allegories. ' We are still able
to judge Philo's Old Testament interpretation for ourselves,

(and we may be sure that the Egyptian allegorists were even
more arbitrary ; for they had far less promising material
to work on. The myth of Isis and Osiris, for instance, is first
interpreted according to the ideas of later Greek philosophy,
and /hen declared to be the source of that philosophy.
V,/1rhis method of interpretation culminated with the
Neopythagorean Noumenios, from whom it passed to the
^^^jQiristian Apologists. It is Noumenios who asks, " What is
/plato but Moses speaking Attic ? " ^ Clement and Eusebios
' give the remark a still wider appHcation.^ At the Renais-
sance, this farrago was revived along with everything else,
and certain ideas derived from the Praeparatio Evangelica
continued for long to colour accepted views. ^ Cudworth
speaks of the ancient " Moschical or Mosaical philosophy '*
taught by Thales and Pythagoras.* It is important to
realise the true origin of this prejudice against the originahty
of the Greeks. It does not come from modern researches

1 Noumenios, fr. 13 (R. P. 624), Tf ydp iari UXdrup ij Mcovarjs arriKL^wv ;

2 Clement {Strom, i. p. 8, 5, Stahlin) calls Plato 6 i^ 'EjBpaicov <pL\6(ro<pos.

3 Exaggerated notions of Oriental wisdom were popularised by the
Encyclopedie, which accounts for their diffusion and persistence. Bailly
(Lettres sur I'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 !

* 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. ,

INTRODUCTION 17

into the beliefs of ancient peoples ; for these have disclosed
nothing in the way of evidence for a Phoenician or Eg5^tian
philosophy. It is a mere residuum of the Alexandrian
passion for allegory.

Of course no one nowadays would rest the case for
the Oriental origin of Greek philosophy on the evidence
0/ Clement or Eusebios ; the favourite argument in recent
times has been the analogy of the arts. We are seeing more
land more, it is said, that the Greeks derived their art from
the East ; and it is urged that the same will in all proba-
bihty 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 civiHsation 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 they
must have made use of interpreters, and it is impossible to
conceive of philosophical ideas being communicated through
an uneducated dragoman. ^

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 Herod, 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). <ioes not convince me
either. She would probably teach her maids the rites of strange goddesses ;
but she would not be hkely to talk theology with her husband, and still
less philosophy or science.

i8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

peoples had a philosophy to communicate. No such
evidence has yet been discovered, and, so far as we know,
the Indians were the only ancient people besides the Greeks
who ever had anything that deserves the name. No one
now will suggest that Greek philosophy came from India,
and indeed everything points to the conclusion that Indian
philosophy arose under Greek influence. The chronology
of Sanskrit hterature is an extremely difficult subject ; but,
so far as we can see, the great Indian systems are later in
date than the Greek philosophies they most nearly resemble.
/Of course the mysticism of the Upanishads and of Buddhism
/ was of native growth ; but, though these influenced philo-
V sophy in the strict sense profoundly, they were related to
it only as Hesiod and the Orphics were related to Greek
scientific thought.
Egyptian XL It would, howcver, be another thing to say that

matics. Greek philosophy originated quite independently of Oriental
influences. The Greeks themselves believed their mathe-
matical 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 froni^ Egypt is also regarded as the first
philosopher. It thus~becbrneslinportant 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 ^ gives us a
glimpse of arithmetic and geometry as they were understood
on the banks of the Nile. It is the work of one Aahmes,

1 I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor's
Vorlesungen iiber 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 SociHe Mathematique, vol. vi., which in some important respects
supplements the interpretation of Eisenlohr, on which the earlier accounts
depend.

INTRODUCTION

and contains rules for calculations both of an arithmetical
and a geometrical character. The arithmetical problems
mostly concern measures of corn and fruit, and deal parti-
cularly with such questions as the division of a number of
measures among a given number of persons, the number of
loaves or jars of beer that certain measures will yield, and
the wages due to the workmen for a certain piece of work.
It corresponds exactly, in fact, to the description of Egyptian
arithmetic Plato gives us in the Laws, where he tells us that
children learnt along with their letters to solve problems in
the distribution of apples and wreaths to greater or smaller
numbers of people, the pairing of boxers and wrestlers, and
so forth. ^ This is clearly the origin of the art which the
Greeks called X oY^g-T^/cy/ and they probably borrowed that'
from Egypt, where it was highly developed ; but there is
no trace of what the Greeks called dpLdfirjrtKTj, the scientific
study of numbers.

The geometry of the Rhind papyrus is of a similar
character, and Herodotos, who tells us that Egyptian
geometry arose fronPthe necessity of measuring the land
afresh after^iheJmmdatiefit&r'is clearly far nearer the mark
than Aristotle, who says it grew out of the leisure enjoyed
by the priestly caste. ^ The rules given for calculating areas
are only exact when these are rectangular. As fields are
usually more or less rectangular, this would be sufficient for
practical purposes. It is even assumed that a right-angled
triangle can be equilateral. The rule for finding what is
called the seqt of a pyramid is, however, on a rather higher
level, as we should expect. It comes to this. Given the
" length across the sole of the foot," that is, the diagonal
of the base, and that of the piremus or " ridge," to find a
number which represents the ratio between them. This is

1 Plato, Laws, 81954 fx-fiXojv t4 tlvuv diavofxal Kal aT€<f>dpuv TXeioaiv dfia
Kal iXdrrocrtv apixoTT6vTwv dpidfiQp tCjv avrdv, koX itvktCov Kal iraKaKjTQiv iipeSpelai
re Kal avWrj^ecoi iv fjApei Kal i<pe^ris Kal cos 7re0i5/ca(n yiyveadai. Kal 8r] Kal
iraLi^ovres, (pidXas d/xa xP^<^ou Kal x<^^i(o^ f<*^ dpy^pov Kal TOLoiriav rcvQy dXXwv
Kepavvivre^, ol bk Kal 6\as ttws 8ia8L86vT€S.

2 Herod, ii. 109 ; Arist. Met. A, i. 981 b 23.

20 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

done by dividing half the diagonal of the base by the
" ridge/' and it is obvious that such a method might quite
well be discovered empirically. It seems an anachronism
to speak of elementary trigonometry in connexion with
a rule Hke this, and there is nothing to suggest that the
Egyptians went any further.^ That the Greeks learnt as
much from them is highly probable, though we shall see
also that, from the very first, they generahsed it so as to
make it of use in measuring the distances of inaccessible
objects, such as ships at sea. It was probably this generali-
sation that suggested the idea of a science of geometry,
which was really the creation of the Pythagoreans, and we
can see how far the Greeks soon surpassed their teachers
from a remark attributed to Demokritos. It runs (fr. 299) :
" I have listened to many learned men, but no one has yet
surpassed me in the construction of figures out of Hues
accompanied by demonstration, not even the Egyptian arpe-
donapts, as they call them." ^ Now the word apTreSovdTrrrjf;
is not Egyptian but Greek. It means " cord-fastener," ^
and it is a striking coincidence that the oldest Indian
geometrical treatise is called the ^ulvasutras or " rules of
the cord." These things point to the use of the triangle
of which the sides are as 3, 4, 5, and which has always a
right angle. We know that this was used from an early
date among the Chinese and the Hindus, who doubtless got
it from Babylon, and we shall see that Thales probably
learnt the use of it in Egypt.* There is no reason for

^ 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 frag-
ment spurious {Vors.^ 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 dpiredovdiTTai is no doubt a real one, and the inference drawn from
it in the text is justified.

* The real meaning of dpireSovdTrTTjs was first pointed out by Cantor.
The gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of
the " arpedonapts."

* See Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 103.

INTRODUCTION 21

supposing that any of these peoples had troubled themselves
to give a theoretical demonstration of its properties, though
Demokritos would certainly have been able to do so. As
we shall see, however, there is no real evidence that Thales
had any mathematical knowledge which went beyond the
Rhind papyrus, and we must conclude that mathematics
in the strict sense arose in Greece after his time. It is
significant in this connexion that all mathematical terms
are purely Greek in their origin.^

XII. The other source from which the lonians were Baby-
supposed to have derived their science is Babylonian astro-
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. ^ That is useful for purposes of
observational astronomy, but in itself it belongs rather to
mythology or folklore. They had distinguished and named
the planets and noted their apparent motions. They were
well aware of their stations and retrograde movements, i
and they were famiUar with the solstices and equinoxes. /

1 Cf. e.g. kvkXos, Kij\iv8pos. Very often these terms are derived from
the names of tools, e.g. yptb/xuv, which is the carpenter's square, and rofxe^s,
" sector," which is a cobbler's knife. The word irvpafiis 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. Uupafxb (or wvpa/xovs) means a " wheat-
cake," and is formed from irvpoL on the analogy of a-rja-a/xis (or a-rjaa/xoOs).
The Greeks had a tendency to give jocular names to things Egyptian. I
Cf. KpoKdSeiXos, o^eXla-Kos, (Trpovdds, KarapaKTrj^ (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
B.C. 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 PhiHstia were in close contact.
There is a clue here which has been obscured by the theory of " astral
mythology."

22 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

They had also noted the occurrence of eclipses with a view
to predicting their return for purposes of divination. But
we must not exaggerate the antiquity or accuracy of these
observations. It was long before the Babylonians had a
satisfactory calendar, and they kept the year right only by
intercalating a thirteenth month when it seemed desirable.
That made a trustworthy chronology impossible, and

V therefore there were not and could not be any data avail-
able for astronomical purposes before the so-called era of

\Nabonassar (747 B.C.). The oldest astronomical document
of ~a really scientific character which had come to Hght up
to 1907 is dated 523 B.C., in the reign of Kambyses, when
Pythagoras had already founded his school at Kroton.
Moreover, the golden age of Babylonian observational
astronomy is now assigned to the period after Alexander the
Great, when Babylon was a Hellenistic city. Even then,
though great accuracy of observation was attained, and
data were accumulated which were of service to the Alexan-
drian astronomers, there is no evidence that Babylonian
astronomy had passed beyond the empirical stage.^

We shall see that Thales probably knew the cycle by
means of which the Babylonians tried to predict ecUpses
(§ 3) ; but it would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers
of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of Babylonian

* All this has been placed beyond doubt by the researches of Father
Kugler {Siernkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, 1907), There is a most in-
teresting 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 o/craerT/pts or the eweaKaLdeKaTrjpi^
was known to them till the close of the sixth century b.c. They are
purely Greek inventions.

INTRODUCTION 23

observations. The Babylonian names of the planets do
not occur earUer than the writings of Plato's old age.^ We
shall find, indeed, that the earliest cosmologists paid no ;
attention to the planets, and it is hard to say what they
thought about the fixed stars. That, in itself, shows that
they started for themselves, and were quite independent •
of Babylonian observations, and the recorded observations
were only made fully available in Alexandrian times. ^ But,
even if the lonians had known them, their originaUty would
. remain. The Babylonians recorded celestial phenomena
KioT astrological purposes, not from any scientific interest.
There is no evidence that they attempted to account for
what they saw in any but the crudest way. The Greeks,
on the other hand, made at least three discoveries of capital /
importance in the course of two or three generations. In
the first place, they discovered, that the earth is a sphere
and does not rest on anything.^ In the second place, they
discovered the true theory of lunar and solar ecUpses ;
and, in close connexion with that, they came to see, in
the third place, that the earth is not the centre of our \
system, but revolves round the centre Hke the planets.,^
Not much later, certain Greeks took, at least tentatively,
the final step of identifying the centre round which the
earth and planets revolve with the sun. These dis-
coveries will be discussed in their proper place ; they are
only mentioned here to show the gulf between Greek
astronomy and everything that had preceded it. On the

1 In classical Greek literature, no planets but "Eo-Trepos and 'Eoxr^Apos 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. 38 e, and the other divine names are given in Epin. 987 b sq.,
where they are said to be " Syrian." The Greek names ^aipuy, ^a^dwv,
Uvpoeis, ^u}a-(p6pos, I:,tI\^u}u, are no doubt older, though they do not happen
to occur earlier.

2 The earhest reference to them is in Plato's Epinomis, 987 a. 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.

24 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

other hand, the Greeks rejected astrology, and it was not till
the third century B.C. that it was introduced among them.^
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 geo-
metry ; 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.^
The XI n. It is necessary to insist on the scientific character

character of the phUoSOphx^ W^^^^ SCen

LJw^ that the Eastern peoples were considerably richer than the

Greek COS- Qrccks in armrrm]afprl i^rU thoUgh these factS had UOt
mology. -~--.:-*'v».>,.w,..,.v, ,..vjfc,..«<p;srr7Ti77r^ y,.«^,v . .. ^>.j, ..■,.. .^.„

been observed for any scientific purpose, and never suggested
a revision of the primitive view of the world. The Greeks,
however, saw in theni someCMrig tfia!' bMlc!^ turned to
account, and they were never as a people slow to act on
the maxim, Chacun prend son hien partout ou il le trouve. I
The visit of Solon to Croesus which Herodotos describes,
however unhistonc^^^^ be, gives us a good idea of tins J

^ The earliest reference to astrology among the Greeks appears to be
Plato, Tim. 40 c 9 (of conjunctions, oppositions, occultations, etc.),
(f)6^ovs Kai arjfieia tG)v ixera ravra yevri<To^ivu:v roh ov dvva/x^uoLS Xoyi^eadai
Tri/MTTovaiv. That is quite general, but Theophrastos was more definite.
Cf. the commentary of Proclus on the passage : dav/xaa-noTdTriv elvai (prja-iv iv
TOLS KUT avrbv xP^f'OLS ttjv tQv XaXSaiuv dewplav rd re dXXa irpoKeyovcav Kal roi>s
/Stoi's €Kd<TT(ov /cat Toi)s davdrovs Kal ov rd KOLvd fibvov. 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 elfiapjuivri. See the verj
important article by Boll in Neue Jahrb. xxi. (1908), p. 108.

2 The Platonic account of this matter is to be found in the Epinomisi
986 e 9 sqq., and is summed \fjp by the words Xd/Sw/iey 8k ws drnrep fti
"EWrjves ^ap^dpcov irapaXd^ucn, KdWiou tovto ei's tAos direpyd^ovrai (987 d 9)
The point is well put by Theon (Adrastos), Exp. p; 177, 20 Hiller, whc
speaks of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians as Avev <pv(noKoyia$ dreXe^s troio^fieva
rcLs fxedodovs, diov dfia Kal (pvcriKCis irepl toIjtup eincKoiTetv ' birep ol vapd rot
"EXXrjaiv daTpoXoyifi(ravT€S eireipQvTO Troietv, rds irapd rovnav Xa^dvres dpxds Kal rwi
<f)aLvo/j,hiav TTjprja-ets. This gives the view taken at Alexandria, where th|
facts were accurately known.

INTRODUCTION 25

spirit. Croesus tells Solon that he has heard much of " his
wisdom and his wanderings," and how, from love of know-
ledge {(fnXocrocpecov) , he has travelled over much land for
the purpose of seeing what was to be se^n {Oecopiri^ eXveKev),
The words Oeaypiij, <f>LXo(To<^i7] , and l<TToplrj are, in fact, the
catchwords of the time, though they had, no doubt, a
somewhat differ.ent meaning from that they were afterwards
made to bear at Athens.^ The idea that underHes them all
may, perhaps, be rendered in EngHsh by the wor4 Curiosity ;
and it was just this great gift of curiosity, and the desire to f
see all the wonderful things — pyramids, inundations, and I
so forth — that were to be seen, which enabled the lonians
to pick up and turn to their own use such scraps of know-/
ledge as they could come by among the barbarians. No
sooner did an Ionian philosopher learn half-a-dozen geo-
metrical propositions, and hear that the phenomena of the
heavens recur in cycles, than he set to work to look for
law everywhere in nature, and, with an audacity almost

We may smile at the medley of childish fancy and
scientific insight which these efforts display, and. sometimes
w|i*feel disposed to sympathise with the sages of the day
who warned their more daring contemporaries " to think
the thoughts befitting man's estate " (avOpcoinva (j^povelv).
But we shall do well to remember that even now it is just
such hg.rdy anticipations of experience that make scientific *
progress possible, and that nearly every one of these early ^
inquirers made some permanent addition to positive know-
ledge, besides opening up new views of the world in every
direction.

There is no justification either for the idea that Greek
science was bjiilt up by more or less lucky guesswork, \
instead of by observation and experiment. The nature \

1 still, the word Oeiopia never lost its early associations, and the Greeks
alway^ felt that the dewpriTiKdi ^lot i meant literally " the life of the
spectator." ' Its special use and the ^ whole theory of the " three lives "
seem to be Pythagorean. (See § 45.)

26 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of^our tradition, which mostly consists of Placita — that is,
ot.Vi{b^l.3Y^ c,^lLl!uXg§Jil,ts

impression. We are seldom told why any early philosopher

held the views he did, and_j:Ji9,,,.appej.ranpe^q^^^

of **jop inions " suggests dogmatism. There are, however,

certain exce*ptioffi''t'o''fe'^enTra!' character of the tradition ;

and we may reasonably suppose that, if the later Greeks

had been interested in the matter, there would have been

many more. We shall see that Anaximander made some

rgtnarkable^discoveries in marine biology, which the re-

/feearch^'on^e^mn^^^^ (§ 22),

/ and even XenQDhanes supported one of his theories by

i referring to the fossils and petrifactions of such widely

. separated places as MalSrKro"^'ana'§yftgi!f^1^ This

is enough to show that the theory, so commonly Tield by

the earlier philosophers, that the earth had been originally

in a moist state, was not purely mythological in origin, but

based on biological and palaeontological observations^^. It

would surely be absurd to imagine that the men who could

make these observations had not the curiosity or the ability

^ . io make many others of which the memory is lost.'V Indeed,

; .the idea that th^ observers is ludicrously

i sciij£^^|^;^}iicjti bears witness to trained habits of observa-

^'tion, while the Hippokrategin corpus contains models of

I scientific observation at its bestT* 'We know, then, that the

j Greeks could observe well, and we know that they were

curious about the world. Is it conceivable that they did not

use their powers of observation to gratify that curiosity ?

It is true that they had not our instruments of precision ;

but a great deal can be discovered by the help of very simple

apparatus. It is not to be supposed that Anaximander

erected his gnomon merely that the Spartans might know

the seasons.^

^ As we saw, the word yudjfxuiv properly me9,ns a carpenter's square
(p. 21, n. i), and we learn from Proclus {in End. I. p. 283, 7) that Oinopides
of Chios used it in the sense of a perpendicular {KaSeTo^). The instrument

INTRODUCTION 27

Nor is it true that the Greeks made no use of experiment/^
The rise of the experimental method dates from the time 1
when the medical schools began to influence the develop- \
ment of philosophy, and accordingly we find that the first
recorded experiment of a modern type is that of Empedokles
^i\h.thit»hki^y([^^^ ^^ have his own account of this (fr. ibo),
and we can see how it brought him to the verge of anticipating
Harvey and TorricelU. It is inconceivable that an inquisitive
people should have applied the experimental method in a
single case without extending it to other problems.

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 ^t
home in this point of view, and indeed we have no suitable
word to express what the Greeks at first called an ovpavo^.
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 **_#
(ra jjLeriaypa), and these include such things as clouds, rain-
bows, and lightning, as well as the heavenly bodies.^^ That
is how the latter came sometimes to be explained^^f^gnited

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, «. i.

^ The restricted sense of /xereajpoKoyia only arose when Aristotle intro-
duced for the first time the fateful distinction between the ovpav6s 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.

28 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

clouds, an idea which seems astonishing to us.^ But even
that is bgy.g^^Jtjia|>^.j^;Miiegar4v4he sun, moon, and stars as
having a different nature from the earth, ahd*%c1ence* in-
evitably and rightly began with the most obvious hypothesis,
and it was only the thorough working out of this that could
show its inadequacy. It is just because the Greeks were

/the first people to take the geocentric hypothesis seriously

I that they were able to go beyond it. Of course the pioneers

of Greek thought had no clear idea of the nature of scientific

.hypothesis, and supposed themselves to be deahng with
ultimate reaUty, but a sure instinct guided them to the right
method, and we can see how it was the effort to " save _
appearances " ^ that really operated from the first. It is
to those men we owe the conception of an exact science which

.^should ultimately take in the whole world as its object.

They fancied they could work out this science at once. We

sometimes make the same mistake nowadays, and forget

fthat all scientific progress consists in the advance from a

^ 1 less to a more adequate hypothesis. The Greeks were the

first to follow this method, and that is their title to be

Lxegarded as the originators of science.

/ XIV. Theophrastps^,the,first writer to treat the history

bi Greek philosophy in a systematLc wav^^ reprg^Sfewecrthe

•early cosmologists as standing to one another m the relation

lof master and schpla^and a Jmembej;§^of regular societiegu,^
This has been regarded as an anachronism, and some have
even denied the existence of " schools " of philosophy
altogether. But the statements of Theophrastos on such a
subject are not to be lightly set aside. As this point is of

1 It is well, however, to remember that Galileo himself regarded comets •
as meteorological pheaomena.

2 This phrase originated in the school of Plato. The method o£i
research in use there was for the leader to " propound " {TrpoTeiveivA
TTpoBdWead.^.it as a " problem " (ir^SB^^imeX. to find the simplest' ^"BypU- j
thes'is**' (TLvojyJnroTedtvTuv) on whicnit is possible to account for and doj
justice to anthe o^if^Pt^ facts i^^^l^^^gjA^^^^^"-) • ^^- Milton, Paradise\
Lost, viii. 8i, " how build, unbuild7con^^7'g'*pPtf^ve appearances."

3 See Note^^on Sources, § 7.

INTRODUCTION 29

great importance, it will be necessary to elucidate it before
we^enter on our story.

C"*^'"^ 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,
sucS^s^fnsTlfs'an^^^u^^^l!^^^^ 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,

/ W^s^s^th^^p^^^^

distinguished ,tJie,^G^^e^^^^ -

\ earty'Sate these crafts came^under, ^e,,inflvien^^
V^'StS^fiffing'^inffvi&ais, 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 discipl^^^Jsss^^v^^ - ^
the place of., the c^pprentiQe.. ^Tnat is a vital change. A
close gmld with none but olficial heads is essentially conser-
vative, while a band of disciples attached to a master they
revere is the greatest progressive force the world know^

It is certain that the later Athenian schools were legally
recognised corporations,|the^^9^^^^^

maintained its existence as such for somefc nine hundred
^jg^rs,|and the only question we have to deciSe*ts^w^tfief
this was an innovation made in the fourth century B.C., 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,^ and the stranger of the Sophist
and the Statesman speaks of his school as sl^U in existence at
Elea.2 We also hear of I* Anaxagoreans/f.^ and no one, of

^ Theaet. 179 e 4, aurots . . . rots xepl tt)v "E^cctoi'. The humorous
denial that the Herakleiteans had any disciples (180 b 8, Iloiots fiadrrrais,
u)' 8aifM6vL€ ;) implies that this was the normal and recognised relation.

2 Soph. 242 d 4, t6 . . . Tap ijfjuy 'EXearLKby idvos. Cf. ib. 216 a 3,
eraipov 5e tQv dfKpl Ilapfi€vi8r}v Kal Z-qvojva [iralpojp] (where iraipoip is probably-
interpolated, but gives the right sense) ; 217 a i, oZ irepl t6v CKeT rdiroy.

' Crat. 409 b 6, etirep aX-ndrj ol 'Ava^aySpeioL X^yovaiv. Cf. also the Ai<rcroi

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

bourse, can doubt that the [Pythagoreans wem a society.
/In fact, there is hardly any school but that of Miletos for

/ which we have not external evidence of the strongest kind ;

/ and even as regards it, we have the significant fact that
Theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a later date as
having been " associates of the philosophy of Anaximenes." ^
We shall see too in the first chapter that the internal evidence
in favour of the existence of a Milesian school is very strong
indeed. It is from this point of view, then, that we shall
now proceed to consider the nlen who created Greek science.

\6yoi (Diels, Vors.^ ii. p'.' 343) ri 5^ 'Ava^aySpeioi Kal Ilvdaydpeioi Tjev
independent of Plato.
1 Cf. Ghap. VI. § 122.

This is

NOTE ON THE SOURCES
^.—PHILOSOPHERS

I. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell on piato.
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. As a rule, Aristotle's statements about early philoso- Aristotle.
phers 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 accompUshes what all
previous philosophers had aimed at, and their systems are
♦therefore regarded as " Usping " attempts to formulate it
(Met. 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

32 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

instance, and in general, wherever mathematical considera-
tions come into play, he is an untrustworthy guide.

It is often forgotten that Aristotle derived much of his
information from Plato, and we must specially observe that
he more than once takes Plato's humorous remarks too
hterally.

stoics. 3. 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 awocKecovv, which
Cicero renders by accommodare, was used by Philodemos
to denote this method of interpretation,^ which has had
serious results upon our tradition, especially in the case of
Herakleitos.

Skeptics. 4. 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.

Neo- 5. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the

piatomsts. commentators on Aristotle in so far as they are independent
of the Theophrastean tradition. Their chief characteristic
is what Simplicius calls evyvcofioa-vvrj , that is, a Uberal 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 SimpUcius

^ Cf. Cic. De nat. ti. i. 15, 41 : " Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primqB
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. jr. c. 13, iv Zh
Tip bevT^pip rd re els 'Op(p4a Kal Movaalov dvacpepS/Jieva /cat to. irap 'Oix-qpip koI
'H<ri65y Kal 'EvpirLdj] /cai Troiijrats dWois, ws /cai KXedvdTji, wcipdraL avvoiKeiovjf rais
56|ais avTuv.

NOTE ON THE SOURCES 33

more than any one else that we owe the preservation of the
fragments. He had, of course, the library of the Academy
at his disposal, at any rate up to a.d. 529.

B.— DOXOGRAPHERS

6. The Doxographi Graeci of Professor Hermann Diels The do^po-
(1879) threw an entirely new Ught upon the filiation of the GrLci.
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. By the term doxographers we understand all those The
writers who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, ofmo*-^^
and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the P^^^tos.
great work of Theophrastos, '^vacKcbv Bo^mv ct}' (Diog. v. 46).

Of this work, one considerable chapter, that entitled Uepl
aladrjaecov, 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, a.d.) on the First Book of
Aristotle's ^vo-ikt) aKpoaau^ (Usener, Analecta Theophrastea,
pp. 25 sqq.). These extracts SimpHcius seems to have
borrowed in turn from Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. a.d. 200) ;
cf. Dox. p. 112 sqq. We thus possess a very considerable
portion of the First Book, which dealt with the ap'^^ai, 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

34 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in it the order was that of the successive schools, and short
historical and chronological notices were inserted.
Doxo- 8. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the

graphers. 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 jiatural
transition between the doxographers proper and the bio-
graphers, so I have ventured to distinguish them by the
name of biographical doxographers.

I. Doxographers Proper

The 9. These are now mainly represented by two works, viz.

^^"^* the Placita Philosophorum, included among the writings

stobaios. ascribed to Plutarch, and the Eclogae Physicae of John
Stobaios (c. a.d. 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 earher ; for it was
used by Athenagoras for his defence of the Christians in
A.D. 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 ElaaycoyT] 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 a.d. (Dox. p. 18).

Actios. 10. What, then, was the common source of the Placita

NOTE ON THE SOURCES 35

and the Eclogue ? Diels has shown that Theodoret [c.
A.D. 445) had access to it ; for in some cases he gives a fuller
form of statements made in these two works. Not only
so, but he also names that source ; for he refers us [Gr. aff.
cur. iv. 31) to 'Aertov rr^v irepl dpea/covTcov (TVvajQyyrjv. Diels
has accordingly printed the Placita in parallel columns with
the relevant parts of the Eclogae, under the title of Aetii
Placita. The quotations from " Plutarch " by later writers,
and the extracts of Theodoret from Actios, are also given
at the foot of each page.

11. Diels has shown further, however, that Actios did The

Vetusta

not draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an inter- piadta.
mediate 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 'ApiaKovra [tJher das
phys. System des Straton, p. 2). There are also traces of
them in the " Homeric AUegorists."

It is quite possible, by discounting the somewhat unin-
telligent additions which Actios made from Epicurean and
other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents
of the Vetusta Placita [Box. pp. 181 sqq.), and this gives us
a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by
Theophrastos.

12. So far as what he tells us of the earhest Greek Cicero,
philosophy goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxo-
graphers, 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, " LucuUus " (Acad, ii.),
118, and De natura deorum, i. 25-41.

(a) Doxography of the " LucuUus." — This contains a
meagre and inaccurately-rendered summary of the various
opinions held by philosophers with regard to the apxv (Dox.
pp. 119 sqq,), and would be quite useless if it did not in one

36 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

case enable us to verify the exact words of Theophrastos
(Chap. I. p. 50, n. 4). The doxography has come through
the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in
the headship of the Academy (129 B.C.).

(6) Doxography of the " De natura deorum." — A fresh
hght was thrown upon this important passage by the dis-
covery 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, ^Cko^fxov irepl evcrelBeia^, 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, liepl Oecov) 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

Hippoiytos. 13. Of the " biographical doxographies," the most
important is Book I. of the Refutation of all Heresies by
Hippoiytos. This had long been known as the Philosophou-
mena of Origen ; but the discovery of the remaining books,
which were first pubUshed 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
deahng with Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empe-
dokles come from an inferior source, some merely bio-
graphical compendium full of apocryphal anecdotes and
doubtful statements.
The 14. The fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean Stromateis,

stromatets. ^^^^^^ ^y E^sebios in his Praeparatio Ev angelica, come from

NOTE ON THE SOURCES 37

a source similar to that of the best portions of the Philo-
sophoumena. So far as we can judge, they differ chiefly in
({wo points> In the first place, they are mostly taken from
the earliest sections of the work, and therefore most of them
deal with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and
the earth. In the second place, the language is a much less
faithful transcript of the original.

15. The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes "Diogenes
Laertios, or Laertios Diogenes (cf. Usener, Epicurea, pp. i
sqq.), contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies.
One is of the merely biographical, anecdotic, and apophtheg-
matic kind used by Hippolytos in his first four chapters ;
the other is of a better class, more Hke the source of Hippo-
lytos' remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise
this " contamination " by referring to the first doxography
as a " summary " {Ke^a\aLa)hr)^) account, while the second is
called " particular " (eVl fiepov^).

16. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in Patristic
Eusebios (P. E. x., xiv., xv.), Theodoret (Gr, aff. cur. ii. 9-11), ^^phies.
Irenaeus (C. haer. ii. 14), 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. The first to write a work entitled Successions of the succes-
Philosophers was Sotion (Diog. ii. 12 ; R. P. 4 a), about ^^°''''-
200 B.C. The arrangement of his work is explained in
Dox. p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos.
Other writers of AcaSoxau 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. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as Her-
KaXKLfidxeio^; (c 200 B.C.), wrote several biographical works °"pp*^^-

38 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

which are frequently quoted. The biographical details are
very untrustworthy ; but sometimes bibliographical infor-
mation is added, which doubtless rests upon the Il/i/a/ce? of
Kallimachos.

Satyros. 19. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos,

wrote {c. 160 B.C.) Lives of Famous Men. The same remarks
apply to him as to Hermippos. His work was epitomised
by Herakleides Lembos.

"Diogenes 20. 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.

Z).— CHRONOLOGISTS

Eratos- 21. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes

anT^^ of Kyrene (275-194 B.C.) ; but his work was soon supplanted
doros°" ^y ^^^ metrical version of Apollodoros (c. 140 B.C.), from
which most of our information as to the dates of early
philosophers is derived. See Diels' paper on the XpoviKci 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 [olkixt)), and he is assumed to have been forty
years old at tjjat date. In default of this, some historical
era is taken as the floruit. Of these the chief are the eclipse
of Thales 586/5 B.C., the taking of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., the
accession of Polykrates in 532/1 B.C., and the foundation of
Thourioi in 444/3 B.C. 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

I. It was at Miletqs^tli^t the earliest school of scientific MUetos
cosmology had its home, and it is not, perhaps, without
significance that Miletos is iust the place where the con-

^ . lesiana..

once with the Lydians, whose rulers were bent on extending

their, dominion to the coast ; but, towards the end of the

seventh century B.c^.^.the tyrant Thrasyboulos succeeded

*^^1[naEng terms with King Alyat&^anS^^^lSiance was

concluded which secured Miletos against molestation for
the future. Even half a century later^\yhen , Cipe^j^

^£?.^SHi&i.i.^.^.Si ^^^^^^3^^^^^^^^^P^^^^ made war upon and
conquereoEphesos, Miletos was able to maintain the old
treaty-relation, and never, strictly speaking, became subject
. to the Lydians at all. The ^ l^ ^ j j ^iiaj^

N?,SS;ife-^'»^^-^**^ What

wVs called at a later date Hellenismu .§gems to have been

traditional in the dynasty of tfe Mermnadai. and Herodotos

says that all the " sophists " of the time nocked to the court

of Sardeis.2 The tradition which represents Croesus as

I v^ 1 Se# Introd. § II. Ephoros said that Old Miletos was colonised from

I l^ilatps In Crete at an eSiS1S^''9ate than the fortification of the new city

ty Nel'eus (Strabo, xiv. p. 634), and recent excavation has shown that

the Aegean civilisation passed here by gradual transition into the early

Ionic. I The dwellings of the old lonians stand on and among, the debris,

^''W*fil6"'*TVI;ycenean " periodi |There is no " gepmg|^j^J!J^te^^ '-

"i^*^-

^•i:

^^ilefod.

:nean " periodi iThere is no " geomgtxur^.lJ!J.nterlude. >

Mermnades (Paris, 1893).

40 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the *' patron *' of Greek wisdom was fully developed in the
I fifth centurj^; and, however unhistorical its details may
^erit**MS¥^clearly have some foundation in fact. Particu-
larly noteworthy is " the common tale among the Greeks/*
that Thales accompanied Croesus on, his luckless campaign
against Pteri|^p.^apparently m the capacity of miutary
engineei^^^Herodotos disbelieves the story that h^'Wr^fted

the course of the Halys, but only because he knew there
were bridges there already. It is clear that the lonians
were erreat engineers, and that they were employed as such
by the eastern kings. ^

|It should be added that the., ^Lydian alhance would
facifffate iiuef?8SSe'witli^^ and Egypt. Lydia was

an advanced post of Babyloman 'trnture, and Croesus
was on friendly terms with the kings of Egypt and
Babylon. ,^^^|i9^9|,,,£|-^^.^^ HeUenic^sym-

P^.^!^5^^#^-^^?'^^^vnd the Milesians possessed j^/temple
of their own at Naukratis,««^ ..««M«««**a^^'A=^'^^ '

I. Thales

Origin. 2. The foundci of the Milesian school, and therefore the

mn^^^ first man of science, was Tliales ; ^ but all we can really

DC said to know of him comes from Herodotos, and the Tale

1 Herod, i. 75. It is important for a right estimate of Ionian science
to remember the high development of engineering in these days, Man-
drokles 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, Ahh. 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 unc
Technik bei den Hellenen " {Neue Jahrb. xxxiii. pp. 3, 4). Here, as ii
other things, the lonians carried on " Minoan " traditions.

2 Simplicius quotes Theophrastos as saying that Thales had raan^
predecessors {Dox. p. 475, 11). This need not trouble us ; for the scholias
on ApoUonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells us that he made Prometheus tl
first philosopher, which is merely an application of Peripatetic literalisi
to a phrase of Plato's {Phileb. 16 c 6). Cf. Note on Sources, § 2.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 41

of the Seven Wise Men was already in existence when he
wrote. He says that Thales was of Phoenician, descmjl^y.
a statement which other writers explained by saying he
belonged to a noble house descended from Kadmos axidr^^iat
Agenor.-^ Herodotos probably mentions the supposed
ofesceniof Thales simply because he was beheved to have
introduced certain improvements in navigation from
Phoenicia. 2 At any rate, his father's name, Examyes, leriofe
no si^^onr to the view that he was a Semite. Tt is Karia^^
and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated
by the lonians. On the monuments we find Greek
and Karian names alternating in the same famihes, while
the name Thales is otherwise known as Cretan. There
IS therefore no reason to doubt that Thales was of pure
Milesian descent, though he probably had Karian blood in
his veins. 3

3. The most remarkable statement Herodotos makes The
about Thales is that he foretold the ecHpse oTS^^smTwhich fo^So^d
put an end to the war between the Lydians and the Medes.^ by Thaies.
Now, he was quite ignorant of the caus^-^f echpses. Anaxi-
mander and his successors certainly were so,^ and it is
incredible that the explanation should have been given
and forgotten so soon. Even supposing Thales had known
the cause of echpses, such scraps of elementary geometry

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, KaXXi/xaxos 5' avrbv olSev evperriv rrjs dpKTOV rrji fxiKpds Xiyup iP
rots 'Idfi^ois ourws —

Kai T7]s a/Jid^rjs iXiyero arad/j.-riaaa'dac
Tovs dareplaKovs, 77 irXiovcn ^olpikcs.

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

* Herod, i. 74.

5 For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see infra,
§§ 19. 71.

42 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

as he picked up in Egypt would never have enabled him to
calculate one. Yet the evidence for the prediction is too
strong to be rejected off-hand. The testimony of Herodotos
is said to have been confirmed by Xenophan es^ and
according to Theophrastos Xenophanes' was'^aoiscipie of
^g^mand^ In any case, he*^Mtt^P*hl*% known scores
of people who were able to remember what happened.
The prediction of the eclipse is therefore better attested
than any other fact about Thales whatsoever.

Now it is possible to predict echpses of the moon
approximately without knowing their true cause, and there
is no doubt that the Babylonians actually did so. It is
generally stated, furth^^ffiaftHeylMlM^^^^P^ cycle
of 223 lunar months, Ivithin which eclipses of the sun and
moon recurred at equal mtervals of time.^f This, however,
would not have enabled them to predict echpses of the sun
^^^ &&^^^%^J^%P^ ^^^ earth's surface ; for these pheno-
mena are not visible at all places where the sun is above the
horizon at the time. We do not occupy a position at the
centre of the earth, and the geocentric parallax has to be
taken into account. It would only, therefore, be possible
to tell by means of the cycle that an ecUpse of the sun
would be visible somewhere, and that it might be worth
while to look out for it, though an observer at a given place

^ Diog. i. 23, 5o/cet 5^ Kara rivas irpCoTos daTpoXoyrjaat Kal ijXtaKas e/cXe/^ets
Kal TpoTTCLs Trpoenreiv, ibs (pyjcnv 'Etiibriixos iv rrj irepl rOiv dcTpoXoyovfMivojv laTopig.,
6dev adrbv Kal fi!,€uo(f>(iv7]s Kal 'HpoSoros davfid^ei. 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 {yvibij.(x}p), 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 Derky Hides (ap. Theon. p. 198,
17 Hiller), that Thales discovered ttjp /card rds Tpoirds avrov (roO^Xioi') wepioSov,
ws ovK ta-r] del av/m^aiuei. 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.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 43

might be disappointed five times out of six. Now, if we
may judge from reports by Chaldaean astronomers which
have been preserved, this was iust the position of the

I Babylonians in thet(SSKtn|century b.g. They watched for
echpses at the proper dates ; and, if they did not occur,
they announced the fact as a good omen.^ To explain
what we are told about Thales no more is required. He
said there would be an echpse by a certain date ; and
luckily it was visible in Asia Minor, and on a striking

V)ccasion.l

''****^**¥fi^ prediction of the echpse does not, then, throw Date of
' 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 echpse of the sun, probably visible in Asia
Minor, on May 28 (O.S.), 585 B.C., while Pliny gives the date
of the eSB^o?afgmTl^S!g?m\)l. XLYlll.^^^S^^^^j^^^,.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This does not exactly tally ; for May 585 belongs to the
year 586/5 B.C. It ia^^near enough, however, to justify us in

^ See George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875), p. 409. The inscrip-
tion which follows was found at Kouyunjik : —
" To the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.

" Concerning the echpse of the moon of, which the king my lord sent
to me ; in the cities of Akkad, Borsippa, arid 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 "
{Scieniia, 1908, p. 247). His conclusion is that "the law which regulates
the circumstances of the visibihty 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 assumptioi^
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 B.C.

44 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

identifying the eclipse as that of Thales,^ and this is
confirmed by Apollodoros, who fixed his floruit in the same
year. 2 The further statement in Diogenes that, according
to Demetrios Phalereus,ij,-Thales ' received the name of

wisT^'^'irtfie^^M^W^ Athens,|eally refers

to the Tale of theSev^ Wise Men, as is JSo^^ Dy the words
which follow, and is doubtless based on the story of the
Delphic tripod ; for the archonship of Damasias is the era
of the restoration of thelPythian Gam^^^

5. The introduction oFEgyptian geometry into Hellas
is ascribed to Thales,* and it is probable that he did visit
Egypt i for he had a theory of the inundations of the Nile^L
Herodotos ^ gives three explanations of the fact that this
alone of all riverl^ rises ig^umm^ falls in winterAbut,

as his custom is, he does not name tS^S^'^^ESSfs. The
first, hAvever, which attributes the rise of the Nile to the
EtesianWinds, is ascribed to Thales in the Placita,^ and by

* The words of Herodotos (i. 74), oSpop irpod^fievos iviavrbv tovtov ev t(^
drj Kal iyhero, mean at first sight that he only said the ecHpse would
occur before the end of a certain year, but Diels suggests {Neue Jahrb.
xxxiii, p. 2) that ivtavrSs 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 B.C. 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 B.C., which is one of the regular eras of Apollo-
doros. 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 B.C. for the birth of Thales, and this gives us 585/4
B.C. for his fortieth year. That is Pliny's date for the eclipse, and Pliny's
dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.

3 Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9), especially the words Kad' 8v kuI ol eTrra ao<pol^
iKK7]d7]<rap. The story of the tripod was told in many versions (cf. Diog.)
i. 28-33 ' Vors. i. p. 2, 26 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.^ 0f'''M%leron dated this in the archonship ofj
Damasias at ^ '''"'"'gi?.^ ij;5^ij, ,T^'%^ ^.nd the Marmor Parium dates thel
restoration of th^yw''v''aT€^aviTr)s^t Delphoi in the same year, and alsr
identifies it with thaTorTJ^I'^as (cf. Jacoby, p. 170, n. 12).

* Proclus, in Eucl. /. p. 65, Friedlein (from Eudemos).

5 Herod, ii. 20. « Aet. iv. i. i {Dox. p. 384).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 45

many later writers. Now, this comes from a treatise on
the Rise of the Nile attributed to Aristotle and known to
the Greek commentators, but extant only in a Latin epitome
of the thirteenth century.^ In this the first of the theories
mentioned bv Herodotos is ascribed to Thales, the second
to Euthymenes of Massaha, and the thiroto Anaxagora§^^^
V7f;^lm*m^omfS^'^oeveT wrote the booSf fSlhese '
names ? We think naturally of Hekataios ; and this
conjecture is strengthened when wennd that Hekataios
mentioned Euthymenes. ^ We may conclude that Thales
really was in'"*Egypt ; and, perhaps, that Hekataios, in
describing the Nile, took account, as was natural, of his
fellow-citizen's views.

6. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical Thaies
knowledge brought back by Thales from Egypt, it must be geometry.
pointed out that most writers have seriously misunderstood
the character of the tradition.^ In his commentary on the.....
First Book of Euchd, Proclus enumeratgL„dn the authority
ofmidemos, certam propositions which he says were known

to T£ales,^%ne of which is that two triangles are ec ^

when they have one side and the two adjacent angles equaL, .,.
'-'^'^^''^-^'--^--^^--i^^^^ otherwise he could not have

measured the distances of ships at sea in the way he was
said to have done.^ Here we see how all these statements
arose. Certain feats in the way of measurement were
traditionally ascribed to Thales, and Eudemos assumed]
that he must have known all the propositions these impl^

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).
' See Cantor, Vorlesungen uber Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp.

12 sqq. ; Allman, " Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid " {Hermathena,
iii. pp. 164-174).

* Proclus, in Eucl. pp. 65, 7 ; 157, 10 ; 250, 20 ; 299, i ; 352, 14
(Friedlein). Eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and mathe-
matics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of philosophy.

^ Proclus, p. 352, 14, ^Odrjfios 8^ iv rats yeuifxerpiKals laropiais ds QaXrju tovto
dvdyet, t6 dedip-qtia {Eucl. i. 26)' tt)v yap rdv iv daXdrrTj ttXoluji' diroaTaaLv 5C o5
rpoirov (paffiv avrbv deiKuOvai Toimp Trpocrxpw^^-^ <pT}(nv dvayKaiou.

46 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

But this is quite illusory. Both the measurement of the
distance of ships at sea, and that of the height of t he nvra-
mids, which is also ascribed ,tp,. him/ are easy applkations
orire'Vule giWn|bx^^^^^

the tradition really points to is that Thales applied this

empirical rule to practical problems which the Egyptians

^ad never faced, and thM' He was'tKus* the originator of

General methods. jThat is a sufficient title to fame.

Thales 7. Thalcs appears once more in Herodotos some time

politician, before the fall of [the Lydian monarchy. | He is said to have

. , urged the Ionian u^rf^tefo unite in a federal state with its

[capital at Teos.¥ We shall have occasion to notice more

^ than once that the early si:hools of philosophy by no m e gj )^,

|held aloof fprQpolit^ifg.^|. and there are many things, for

instance the part played b\f Hekataios in the Ionian revolt

which suggest that the scientific men of Miletostook up a

very decided position in the stirring times that followed the

J' death of Thales. It is this political action which has gained

the founder of the Milesian school his undisputed place

among the Seven Wise Men ; and it is owing to his inclusion

among those worthies that the numerous anecdotes told

of him in later days attached themselves to his name.*

Uncertain g. $0 far as we know, Thales wrote nothing, tnd no

character |^j,.^^j. taffier'^^an^^^g^tc^tie'r^i^no^ j^ a

'"^^'^°^- ^^i^Mific^J^a^a ^SS^^mr^ he

1 The oldest version of this story is gifen in Diog. i. 27, 6 5^ ' lepwi'w/Aos
KoX iKfi€Tp7]a-ai (prjatv avrbu rds irvpafjiidas, iK tt]S (tklols TrapaTrfpTjaai'Ta ore 7]fjui/
Iffoixe-y^drjs iariv. Gf. Pliny, H. Nat. xxxvi, 82, mensuram aUitudinis earum
deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius umbram metiendo qua hora par esse
corpori solet. (Hiero|nym(^S^<3.f ^,^li^94^,S was rnnfemporRrj wifh^^j^^.rnnc! ^
This need imply no more than the reflexion 'that me shadow's of all objects
will be equal to the objects at the same hour. Plutarch [Conv. sept. sap.
147 a) gives a more elaborate method, Ty]v ^aKTrjplav <TT7]aas iirl T(f Trepan ttjs
aKias i]v ij irvpafxls iiroiei, yevofiivuiv rfj iira(py ttjs clktTvos dvoiv rpLydovuv, ideL^as 8v
ij cTKict irpbs TTjv (xklolv \6yov elx^, ttjv irvpa/Jiida irpbs tt]u ^aKT-qplav ^xona-av.

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 aocpia ; the anecdote about the
"corner" in oil (Ar. Pol. A, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to inculcate the
opposite lesson*

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 47

N4«§iSi2lY ^^ engineer^ and ai\Jny,entor.j/ It is obvious,
however, tnat' tHe requirements of Milesian enterprise and
commerce would necessarily turn his attention to problems
which we should call astronomical. He was said, we saw,
to have introduced the practice of steering a ship's course
by Ursajmngr | ^ and there is a remarKaDTe persistence m
the tradition that he tried to do something for the calendar,
though the details are not sufficiently well atteste3To"'ffiy
a place here.^ No doubt he constructed a lirapaTriiryaaXlike
those of much later date which have been discovered at
Miletos.* The irapdirrjyfjba was the oldest form of almanac,
and gave, for a series of years, the equinoxes anffsoEtices,
the phases of the moon, the heliacal risings and settings of
certain stars, and also weather predictions.! Even Aristotle '
does not pretend to know how Thales arrivefi at the views he
ascribes to him or by what arguments they wera supported.
I 'this very reserve, however, makes it hard to doubt that

f he was correctly informed with regard ^"' t]]i4,|fii4)iMBni*wiii**i^'i" " fc'

about them he mentions, so we may venture on a conjec-
tural restoration of his cosmology. This, of course, must
be taken for just what it is worth.

9. The statements ofj^jistQtJp.,may be reduced to three : The cos-
(i^^ Jhe earth floats1)n We'water.^ °^°^°^ °^

l^^mm^

Thales.

^ Cf. Aristophanes, Clouds i8o (after a burlesque description of how
Sokrates provided himself with a cloak) tL 5i]t Ueipov rbv QaXiju eavfid^o/j-ep ;
Birds 1009 (of Meton's town-planning, HvdpuTros Qa\7js). Plato's way of
speaking is remarkable. Cf. Rep. 600 a dW ola drj els tcl ^pya co^ov dvdpbs
TToWal iirivoiai Kal evfj-rixafoi et's r^xvas ij rivas &Was Trpd^eis \4yovTaiy &<xirep aS
GdXew re iripL tov MiXtjaiov Kal ' Avaxdpaios tov 'Zk^Oov.

2 See p. 41, n. 2.

' If he tried to introduce the year of 360 days and the month of
30 days, he may have learnt that in Egypt.

* For the Milesian TrapainfjyiuiaTa see Rehm, Berl. Sitzungsber., 1893,
p. loi sqq., 752 sqq.

6 Ar. Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10) ; De caelo, B, 13. 294 a 28
(R. P. II).

6 Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10). We must translate dpxv here by
" material cause," for ttjs Toia^Ttis dpxvs (b 19) means rijs iv ijXrjs etdeL dpxv^
(b 7). The word, then, is used here in a strictly Aristotelian sense. Cf.
Introd. p. II, «. 3.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

11 things are full of gods. The magnet is alive ;

The Irsl of tirae sMl-TOfitr mii'g^ in

the Hght 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.
Water. ^0- Aristotlc and Theophrastos| followed by SimgUckj^

^d the doxographers,i5Suggest several explanations of this
doctrine. Aristotle gives them as conjectures ; it is only
later writers that repeat them as if they were quite certain.^
The most probable view seems to be that Aristotle ascribed
to Thales the arguments used at a later date by Hipppn of
Sambs^ in support of a similar thesis.^ That would account
for' iheir physiological character. The rise of sci ent.i£ c
medicine had made biological arguments popular in the
'fifth ''ceiiluryt butT in the d^ys of Thales, tHe "prevailing
interest was not physiological, but meteorological, and it is
from this point of view we must try^TOf^tiffSefstand the
theory.

Now it is not hard to see how meteorological considera-

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.

a Met. A, 3. 983 b 22 ; Aet. i. 3, i ; Simpl. Pkys. 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 (ot p^ovres) derived their philosophy
from Homer (11. 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 -n-aiinraXaiovs, 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
latrika. See § 185.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 49

tions may have led Thales to adopt the view he did. Of all„^,

sh|^R;^.vv. It is famihar to us in a soUd, a liquid, and a
vaporous form, and so Thales may well have thought he
saw the world-process from water and back to water again
eoine on before his eyes. The phenomenon of evaporation
naturally suggests that the fire of the heavenly bodies is
k^t^tifr b^rtM itiotStm lAiey draw fern the ^^ Even at
the present day people speak of " the sun drawing water.**
Water comes down again in rain; and lastty,''sd' tlie" early
cosmologists thought, it turns to earth. This may have
seemed natural enough to men familiar with the river of
Egypt which had formed the Delta, and the torrents of

■ At

tfef?^{raS7the(Gulfof'Latmospr^^^^
to stand, is filled up. Lastly, ^they thought, earth turns
once more to water — an idea derived from the observation
of dew, night-mists, and subterranean springs. ]| For these
last were not in early times supposed to have anything to
do -with the rain. The ** waters under the earth " were
regarded as an independent source of moisture. ^^*"**^

II. The third of the statements mentioned above is Theology,
supposed by Aristotle to imply that Thales believed in a
" soul of the worldJnvthough he is careful f 6 lA'afktMs^^^^^
no more tnah an inference. ^ The doctrine of the world-soul
is then attributed quite positively to Thales by A ctios, v^ho
gives it in the Stoic phraseology which he found in his
immediate source, and identifies the world-intellect with
God.^ Cicero found a similar statement in'^tKe'TEpiciifean
manual which he followed, but he goes a step further.
Ehminating the Stoic pantheism, he turns the world-
intellect into a Platonic demiourgos, and says that Thales

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.

* Arist. De an. A, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13).

» Aet. i. 7, ii=Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred
to, see Note on Sources, §§ 11, 12.

50 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

I held there was a.^ivip^m^d, which formed, all thine-s out
mys[00^: All this is denved from Aristotle's cautious state-

^ -"ment, and can have no greater authority than its source.
We need not enter, then, on the old controversy whether
Thales was an atheist or not. If we may judge from his
successors, he may very possibly have called water a "_god '' ;
but that would not imply any definite rehgtgttS '!yt di l!!f f! ^ - -

Nor must we make too much of the sa3dng that " all
things are full of gods.'^'| It is not safe to regard an apo-
phthegm as evidence, a'iid 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.^ pn the other hand, it is probable
that Thales did say the magneV'^id^ffimrlfaff '^^J'' That
is no apophthegm, but more on the level of the statement
that the earth floats on the water. It is just the sort of

i thing we should expect Hekataios to record about Thales. I
It would be wrong, however, to draw any inference fromTt
as to his view of the world ; for to say the magnet and amber *
are aHve is to imply, if anything, that other things are not. /

II. Anaximander

Life. tz. Anaximander, son^of Praxiades^jA^as also a citizen

of Mnetos, and Theophrastos described him as an ** asso-
ciate of Thales.^ We have seen how that expression is to
be understood (§ XIV.).

1 Cicero, De nat. d. i. 25 (R. P. 13 b). On Cicero's soijrce, 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 iravra wXripTj deCjv 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.

* R. P. 15 d. That the words ttoXLttjs Kal eratpos, 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.

. MILESIAN SCHOOL 51

tt.a^jr^f!^'^

According to Apollodor^§,j^naximander was sixty-four
years old in 01. LVftl. 2 (547/6 b.c.| ; and this is confirmed
by Higgol^tcis^who says'W^^l^^ofn in 01. XLII. 3 (6io/§^,^^.^
B.C.), and by Pliny, who assigns his great discovery '^tne
oWiouit^ of ^^^q^iii^^^^p^ 01. LVIII.^ We seem to have
something more here than a combination of the ordinary
type ; for, according to all the rules, Anaximander should
have "flourished" in 565 B.C., half-way between Thales,^
and Anaximenes, and this would make him sixty, not sixty-
four, in 546. Now ApoUodoros appears to have said that
he had met with the work of Anaximander ; and the only
reason he can have had for mentioning this must be that
he found in it some indication which enabled him to fix
its date. Now 547/6 ^. just the year before the fall of
^ardds^and we may perhaps conjecture that Anaximander
mentioned what his age had been at the time of that
event. I We know from Xenophanes that the question,
^owold.were you when the Mede appear|d ? " was con-
sidered an interesting one in those days-.^H^At all events,
Anaximander was apparently a generation youjig^ji^-thaiii
Thales . ^ ^

jp^^tical inventions. Some writers credited him with that of

%f.i^mBy^'^^^'''^'^ ^^^^^y ^^ correct. Herodg|p^«^.. .
us this instrument came from ,Bab^lQIi«^and Thales must
have usea it to determine the^i solstices and equinoxes.* \

^AgaLXimander was also the first to construct a m^ and^
Eratosthenes said this was the map elabor^1T1!^Hekataios.\
No doubt it was intended to be of service to Mil^'M^Mter-
prise in the Black Sea.| Anaximander himself conducted

1 Diog. ii. 2 (R. P. i5)4/f*ipp. Rej. i. 6 {Box. p. 560); Plin. N.H. ii. 31.

* Xenophanes, fr. 22 (= fr. 17 Karsten; R. P. 95 a).

» The statement that he " died soon after " (Diog. ii. 2 ; R. P. 15)
seems to mean that ApoUodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis
(546/5), one of his regular epochs.

* For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 26, n. i ; and cf. Diog. ii. i (R. P.
15) ; Herod, ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). PUny, on the other hand, ascribes the
invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes {N.H. ii. 187).

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Theo-
phrastos
on Anaxi-
mander's
theory of
the

primary
substance.

a colony to Apollonia,^ and his fellow-citizens erected a
statue to him.'^'^*-*'***-*^^'"" '

13. Near]^.«.-aH'^^<w©^riq3l)QW of Anaximander's system is
intfee'iast^^l'^gjrt froni '1ffiet5^
knew his book.^ He seems once' at tesf' to have quoted
Anaximander's own words, and he criticised his style.
Here are the remains of what he said of him in the First
Book:

Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen
and associate of Thales,* said that the material cause and first
element of things was the Infinite^Jje being the first to introduce
Jthis j^jpe. of the material ca!!§^' He says it is neither water nor
any other of the so-called ^ elements, but a substance difjerent
Hrom thera^wl^ch^is^n^jj^^ which^tse^afftfie neavens and

Sif '#8rfis within'them.— ^/i^/s^ Op. fr. 2 (Dox. |). 476 ; R. P. 16).

He says that this is 'V^eternal and ageless^ 'J and that it " en-
compasses all the ^oMs^^^ P. 17 a). ""^
f An3nLnTo*'tft^tf om which things take their rise they pass
away once more,!" as is meet ; for they make reparation and
satisfaction to qse another for their injustice according to the
ordering of time," as he says ^ in these somewhat poetical terms.
—Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 16).

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 Pontes is meant

The lower part of a contemporary statue has been discovered at

iletos (Wiegand, Milet, ii. 88), with the inscription ANJAHlMANAPO.

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.

^ Simplicius says " successor and disciple " (5td5oxos koI fxadrfr-qs) in his
Commentary on the Physics ; but see above, p. 50, n. 4.

5 For the expression to. Kokov/xeva aroLx^la, see Diels, Elementum,
p. 25. n. 4.

6 Diels ( Vors. 2, 9) begins the actual quotation with the words ^^ dv U
r} yive<n$ . . . The Greek practice of blending quotations with the text
tells against this.. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the terms yiveat^ and
<f)dopa. in their technical Platonic sense to Anaximander, and it is not
likely that Anaximander said anything about to. 6vTa.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 53

I He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in
matter, but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which
^3iS a boundless body, were separated out. — Simpl. Phys.
|. 150, 20 (R. P. 18).

i4.^A naximander t aught, then, that there was an etoiialA The
indestructible something out of which e very th i n g^rll^S^| subSce

ajiymto^ which' ever ytliing returns 1 a boundless stock fromQ^°^°^®
which the waste of existence is^xontinually made goodj/'eiem^s.
That is only the natural dey^logrnent of the tnought we

have ascribed to Thal^§^.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 Aristoiy^^;.5y]5Q has the following passage in his
discussion of the Infinite I

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 quaUfication. For

there are some who make this (i.e. a body distinct from the

elements)fthe infinite, and not^air , or water, in order that the

I other things may not be destroyed by their infinity. 'They 'are

'l^r^^ and fire

hot — and therefore, if any one of them were infinite, the rest would

{have ceased to he hy this time. Accordingly they say that what is

^infinite is something other than the elements, and from it the

Wments arise. — Arist. Phys. F, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b).

It is clear that A.naximandeMs herc contracted ...witll,
Thales and with Anaximenes. Nor is there any reason to
doubt that the account given of nis reasoning is substantially
correct, though the form is Aristotle's own, and in particular
the "elements" are an anachronism.! Anaximander started, f
'--tt-'WQul4^eem,-.f rem .4ke 'stiffs between the opposites which}

1 See p. 12, n. 2.

54 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

go to make up the world ; the warm was opposed to the
cold, the dry to the wet. These were at war, and any
predominance, of , one over thT^gf wag^^F^^^ ^
for which they must mai:'e*^re^arati6h to t^e anotl!'i!""S.T L'lie
appointed time.^ If Thales had been right in saying that
water was the fundamental reality, it would not be easy to
see how anything else could ever have existed. One side of
the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had its way
I unchecked, ^aad the warm and~4ry would have been driven
f from the^ld long-ago. fWe must, then, have something
''''fibtH*®ei^r.c«a^..e4vAe«'>^r^ opposites, something more
^mitive, out of which they arise, and into \^it*lf*fK?y'o'nce
more pass' away.| Thaf Xnaxifn^fiO^f^SlSled this something
by the name of 6v(tc^ is the natural interpretation of what
Theophrastos says ; the current statement that the term
ap'x^v was introduced by him appears to be due to a mis-
understanding. ^ We have seen that, when Aristotle used

1 The important word dXXTjXois 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 {6vTa) was somehow a wrong
(dSifc/a) for which they must be punished. With dXXTjXois 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 SLkti is regularly used of the observance of an equal
balajiLtJ^wfeetween tW5*!3ppi3Sites hot and cold, dry and wet, the d^^^.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 nigTit/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 5^.)-

* The words of Theophrastos, as given by Simplicius {Phys. p. 24, 15 :
R. P. 16), are dpxw t^ k'^i- croixe'cov etprjKe tQv 6vtwv r6 B-ireipov, irpuros tovto
Towofia Ko/jLiaas rrjs dpxvs, the natural meaning of which is " he being the
first to introduce this name {to direipov) of the material cause." Hippo-
lytos, however, says {Ref. i. 6, 2) irpQiros Toxjvoixa KaXeaas ttjs dpxvs, and this
has led most writers to take the words in the sense^fBSf^^]SL§ximander intro-
l>i»'§^'S4-'^,'0^.^,,'iP^ 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, /^gA^o-os^ ,,,is a corruption of the characteristically Peripatetic
KOfxicq,s^ and the omission of Todro is much more likely than its inter-

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 55

the term in discussing Thales, he meant what is called the
" material cause," ^ and it is hard to believe that it means
anything else here.

15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this theory Aristotle's
as an anticipation or pres#itiment of his own doctrine of of the
^**indeterminate matter/ #^ and that he should sometimes *^^o^y- /
^^?«^^f^^^^^k^*^>m^ in terms of the later

theory of " elements."/ He knew that the Bounj^l^ap^ was
a body,^ though in his/ own system there was no room for
anything: corporeal prior to the elementsj so he had to
Speak of it as a boimdless body " alongside of " or " distinct
from " the elements (^^a^a^Tjf,^.o^^ So far as I know

no one has doubted that, when he uses this phrase, he is
referring to Anaximander.

In a number of other places Aristotle speaks of some one
who held the primary substance to be something *' inter-
mediate between /j'^tjj^je elements or between two of them.*

polation by Alexander or Simplicius. But, if tovto is genuine, the 6vona
referred to must be rb Etreipov, and this interpretation is confirmed by
Simpl. De caelo 615, 15, direipov 5k TrpQros viridero. In another place (p. 150,
23) Simplicius says -jrpQTos aiirbs dpxw dvo/xdaas rb v-rroKelfievov, 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 direLpou and viroKel/xevov were important
enough to be noted. Of course he does not mean that Anaximander used
the word vTroKeLixevov. He only infers that he had the idea from the doctrine
that the opposites which are " in " the Aireipov are " separated out."
Lastly, the whole book from which these extracts were taken was Uepl tCjv
dpx^v, and the thing to note was who first applied various predicates to
the dpxn or dpxaL

^ See p. 47 n. 6 and Introd. p. 11 «. 3.

2 Arist. Met. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c).

3 This is taken for granted in Phys. r, 4. 203 a 16 ; 204 b 22 (R. P.
16 b), and stated in r, 8. 208 a 8 {R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 150,
20 (R. P. 18).

* Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire
and Air {Gen. Corr. B, i. 328 b 35 ; ib. 5, 332 a 21 ; Phys. A, 4. 187 a 14 ;
Met. A, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something intermediate"^
between Water and Air (Met. A, 7. 988 a 13 ; Gen. Corr. B, 5. 332 a 21 ;
Phys. r, 4. 203 a i8 ; ib. 5. 205 a 27 ; De caelo, T, 5. 303 b 12). Once
(Phys. A, 6. 189 b i) we hear of something between Water and Fire. This
variation shows at once that he is not speaking historically. If any one

(

56 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Nearly all the Greek commentators referred this to Anaxi-
mander also, but most modern writers refuse to follow them.
It is, no doubt, easy to show that Anaximander himself
cannot have said anything of the sort, but that is no real
objection. Aristotle puts things in his own way regardless
of historical considerations, and it is difficult to see that it is_
more of an anachronism to call the Boundless " intermedSate
Eelween tKe^eiements """"flian to say that it is^**'15iftinet
fi^rft^"1ii:^''^^gSiBnt^.'' Indeed, if once we introduce the
elements at all, the former description is the more adequate
of the two. At any rate, if we refuse to understand these
passages as referring to Anaximander, we shall have to say
that Aristotle paid a great deal of attention to some one
whose very name has been lost, and who not only agreed
with some of Anaximander's views, but also used some of
his most characteristic expressions.^ We may add that in
one or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the
" intermediate " with the something " distinct from " the
elements. 2

There is even one passage in which he speaks of Anaxi-
mander's Boundless as a " mixture," though his words may
perhaps admit of another interpretation.^ But this is '^of
no consequence for our interpretation of Anaximander.
It is certain that he cannot have said anything about
elements, which no one thought of before Empeuokles,

ever held the doctrine of rh fxera^ij, he must have known which " ele-
ments " he meant. »»«•«#=»'•

^ Arist. De caelo, V, 5. 303 b 12, vbaros fih XeirTitrepov, aipo$ 5^ irvKybrepov,
6 irepL^x^'-^ (pacrl irdpras roi)s oi/pavods Aireipov 6v.

2 Cf. Phys. r, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers rb
trapdi. TO, (xroLxeta to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the whole
passage is summarised thus : Kal dtb. tovt oiidsls to iv kol direipov irvp iirolirjaev
ov5k yrjv TU)v (pvcioXdyoiv, dXX' •^ vdtop 7) d^pa ij to fjAaov avrCiv. In Cren. Cory.
B, I. 328 b 35 we have first tl jxeTa^i/ to6tuv cCoixd re bv Kal x'^/5to'7'6v, and a
little further on (329 a 9) /xiav vXrjv irapd to. elprj/uLiva. In B, 5. 332 a 20 we
have ou ixrqv ov5' &X\o tL ye irapd TavTa, olov jxiaov rt d^pos Kal vdaTOS r} depos Kal
irvp6s.

3 Met. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. 1) assumes an
" easy zeugma."

•I

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 57

and no one could think of before Parmenides. 1 The question
has only been mentioned because it has ^vgsmse to a lengthy
controversy, and because it throws light on the historical
value of Aristotle's statements. From the point of view
of his own system, these may be justified ; but we shall
have to remember in other cases that, when he seems to
attribute an idea to some earher thinker, we are not bound
to take what he says in an historical sense. ^

i6. Anaximander's reason for conceiving the primarytxhe
substance as boundless was, no doubt, as indicated byigy^jg^^Jj^g
Aristotle, " that becoming might not fail." ^ It is not clear, |s infinite.
however, t^^Tl^rwoix^^^Sf^^^^S^n^Th^ the doxo- 1-
graphers speak as if they were. It is enough for us that

iTheophrastos, who had seen his book, attributed the thought
to him. JAnd certainly his view of the world would bring

f home to him the need of a boundless stock of matter. The
" opposites " are, we have seen, at war with one another,
and their strife is marked by " unjust " encroachments on

"either side. The warm commits " injustice " in summer,

* For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. 15. Professor
Heidel has shown in his " Quahtative 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 dXXoiwtns.
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 aWoiwcns.
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 ivovaas yap ras ivavTibras iv t(? viroKeLix^vt^
. . . iKKpiveadai. I do not believe these words are even a paraphrase of
anything Anaximander said. They are merely an attempt to " accommo-
date " his views to Peripatetic ideas, and ivo6(yas is as unhistorical as
the VTTOKelfxevov.

2 Phys. V, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Aet. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The
same argument is given in Phys. V, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaxi-
mander has just been named, ry ourws div fioi^ov fir] viroXelireiv yiveaip Kal
(pdopdv, €1 dweipop elt] SOev d0atpeirat rb yLyvofievov. 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.'^ *-'''*-''s->'»^*.^i.v»*j!Vi««^*««jftiiv«jfc'^^

58 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the cold in winter, and this would lead in the long run to
the destruction of everything but the Boundless itself, if
there were not an inexhaustible supply ol^^'iFTrom which
opposites might continually be separated out afresh. We
must picture, then, an endless mass, which is not any one of
the opposites we know, stretching out without Hmit on every
side of the world we live in.^ This mass is a body, out of
which our world once emerged, and into which it will one
day^.be absorbed again.

' '; 17. We are told that Anaximander believed there were
" innumerable worlds in the Boundless," ^ and we have to
ecide between the interpretation that, though all the
orlds are perishable, there are an unhmited number of
hem in existence at the same time, and Zeller's view that
^a new world never comes into existence till the old
^one has passed away, so that there is never more than
§one world at a time. As this point is of fundamental
4' importance, it will be necessary to examine the evidence
■ carefully.

In the first place, the doxographical tradition proves
that Theophrastos^ discussed the views of all the early
philosopBSs 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^e meant
coexistent and not successge_pj^|^|^,. Now, une nad
cM-^^eaT'^fWe^M^^^ifferent views 'under one head, he would

1 I have assumed that the word &Treipov means spatially infinite, not
qualitatively indeterminate, as maintained by Teichmiiller and Tannery.
The decisive reasons for holding that the sense of the word is ' boundless
in extent " are as follows : (i) Theophrastos said the primary substance
of Anaximander was direipov and contained all the worlds, and the word
wepiex^iv everywhere means " to encompass," not, as has been suggested,
" to contain potentially." (2) Aristotle says {Phys. V, 4. 203 b 23) 5td
yap TO iv TTJ voTjaei fxr] vnoXeiireiv ,/caJ 6 dpid/ibs 5ok€i diretpos ehaL /cat to. /xadrj/xariK^
/xey^Orj Kai ra ?|w rod ovpavov ' atreipov 8' 6vtos tov ^^cj, Kal cQjfxa 6.irei.pov elvat. 5ok€i
K-al K6(TfxoL. The mention of <xCo/xa shows that this does not refer to the
Atomists. (3) Anaximander's theory of the dweipov was adopted by
Anaximenes, and he identified it with Air, which is not quahtatively
indeterminate.

2 Cf. [Plut.] Strom, fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 59

have been careful to point out in what respect they differed,
and there is no trace of any such distinction. On the
contrary, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaos, Xeno-
)hanes, Dioe^enes, Leukippos, Deniokritos7"aM Epicurus aire
^^ mentioned together as holding the doctrine oiJ^J^^^
lumerable worlds " on every side of this one/ and the only
listmction is^^lJhat, while Epicurus made the distances
between these worlds unequal, Anaximander said aU the
^orlds were equidistant. ^ Zeller rejected this evidence ^
dpi the ground that we can have no confidence in a writer
who attributes " innumerable worlds " to Anaximenes,
Archelaos, and Xenophanes. With regard to the first two,
I hope to show that the statement is correct, and that it is
at least intelligible in the case of the last.* In any case, the
passage comes from Actios,^ and there is no reason for
doubting that it is derived from Theophrastos, though the
name of Epicurus has been added later. This is confirmed
by what Simplicius says :

Those who assumed innumerable worlds, e.g. Anaximander,
.eukippos, Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held that
|they came into being and passed away ad infinitum, some always
tpming into being and others passing away.^

It is practically certain that this too comes from Theo-
phrastos through Alexander.

^ Aet. ii. I, 3 {Dox. p. 327). Zeller seems to be wrong in understanding
Kara iraaav irepLaywy-qv here of revolution. It must mean " in every
direction we turn," as is shown by the alternative phrase Kara irdaai'
TrepiaTaa-iv. The six irepiaTdaeL^ are Trp^crw, ott^cto;, Aucj, koltw, Se^cd, dpia-repd
(Nicom. Introd. p. 85, 11, Hoche).

' Aet. ii. I, 8 [Dox. p. 329), tu)v direlpovs dirocfyquajxhujv roiis Koajiovs
'Apa^ifiavSpos to Ictov avroi/i dir^X'^'-^ dWrjXuv, 'EiriKovpos dviaop elvat. t6 fxera^u
rdv Kbaixwv 5tdcrT?7/xa.

3 He supposed it to be only that of Stobaios. The filiation of the
sources had not been traced when he wrote.

* 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.

« Simpl. Phys. p. 11 21, 5 (R. P. 21 b). Cf. Simpl. De caelo, p. 202, 14,
ol 5e Kol ry irXrjdet. aTrelpovs KocTfiovs, ws ' Aua^ifji.av5pos . . . direipou t(^ fieyidei. ttjv
dpyjr]v di/xevos dirdpovs i^ avrov TifijirX-qdei K6<T/xovs^iroi,eTp 8oK€i.

6o / EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

We come next to a very important statement which
Cicero has copied from Philodemos, the author of the
Epicurean treatise on ReHgion found at Herculaneum, or
perhaps from the immediate source of that work. " Anaxi-
mander's opinion was," he makes Velleius say, " that there
were gods )^p came into being, rising and passing away
anSng* intervals, and that these were the innumerable
worlds '* ; ^. .and this must clearly be taken along with the
^^i^Miii of Actios that, according to Anaximande r^^ the
" innumerable heavens " were gods.^ Now it is much
more natural to understand tne*****iong intervals " as

that is right, we have a perfect agreement among our
authorities.

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
:his view there is at a given time only one world to " en-
compass." ,? 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.* Lastly, we happen to know
that Petro i^v'One of the earhest Pytbagoreaiis^ *held
there were iust one hundred and eimh^ ^Siree worlds

1 Cicero, De nat. d. i. 25 (R. P. 21).

2 Aet. i. 7, 12 (R. P. 21 a). The reading of Stob., d-rrdpovs ovpavo^s,
is guaranteed by the direlpovs Koa/j-ovs of Cyril, and the direipovs vovs
{i.e. ovyovs) of the pseudo-Galen. See Dox. p. 11.

3 It is natural to suppose that Cicero found diacrTri/xacriv in his Epicurean
source, and that is a technical term for the intermundia.

* Arist. Phys. T, 4. 203 b 25, dwelpov 5' 6Vros rod ?^w (sc. rod ovpavov),
Kal (rdfia. direipov elvai doKcT Kal K6<xfioc (sc. direLpoL). The next words — ri ydp
fidXXov Tov Kepov ivravda i) ivravda ; — show that this refers to the Atomists
as well ; but the direipov a-Q^a will not apply to them. The meaning is
that both those who made the Boundless a body and those who made
it a Kevov held the doctrine of dveLpoi Kbaixoi in the same sense.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 6i

arranged in a triangle,^ ^which shows at least that the
doctrine of a ptMLE^'y*of worlds was much older than the
Atomists.

i8. The doxographers say it was the *' eternal motion " "Eternal
that brought into being " all the heavens and all the worlds ^Vthe
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 *' (diroKpia-is:) rather
suggests some process of shaking and sifting as in a riddle
or sieve. That is given in Plato's Timaeus as the Pytha-
gorean doctrine, 2 and the Pythagoreans followed Snaxi-
mander pretty closely in their cosmology' t^-'*3?)?'^^^
school' of 'A'bdeVa', las ^m (§ 179), attributed a

motion of the same kind to their atoms, and they too were
mainly dependent on the Milesians for the details of their
system. This, however, must remain a conjecture in the
absence of express testimony.

When, however, we come to the motion of the world
once it has been " separated off," we are on safer groun(
It i^ 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 (Sti^^ (or ^Ivo^),^ and there seems to be little

^ 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 ndrivT]), 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)
A2pos j8acriXei;et t6v At' e^'eXnXaKw^-. awWeb is nearer the truth than the
modern theory of its religious origin.

62 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

h^oubt that we are entitled to regard this as the doctrine
S.Qf ^ Anaxiniander and ^, Am It would arise very

naturally in the minds of thinkers who started with water
as the primary substance and ended with " air," and it
would account admirably for the position of earth and water
in the centre and fire at the circumference, with " air "
between them. Heavy things tend to the centre of a vortex
and Ught things are forced out to the periphery. It is to be
observed that there is no question of a sphere in revolution
at this date ; what we have to picture is rotary motion in a
plane or planes more or less incHned to the earth's surface. ^
It is in favour of the conjecture given above as to the nature
of the primordial motion that it provides a satisfactory
dynamical explanation of the formation of the Blvt), and
we shall find once more (§ i8o) that the Atomists held
precisely this view of its origin.
Origin / iQ- The doxographers also give us some indications
of the if ^Yie process by which the different parts of the world

heavenly ¥

bodies. ^rose 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 dlvr) 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 Pytha-
goreanism, 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, ol 5^ rpoxoO 51kt)u trepL-
diveiadai rbv Kda/xou, which is referred to Anaximander by Diels {Dox.
p. 46). Zeller's objections to the ascription of thte divT] to Anaximander
are mainly based on an inadmissible rendering of the word rpoiral
(p. 63 n. 2). Of course, the rotations are not all in the same plane;
the ecUptic, for instance, is incHned to the equator, and the Milky Way
to both.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 63

moon and stars came into existence. — Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2
(R. P. i9).i

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 thecoIH'f 'mVcbld," a^^
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, |h^%;fi^. 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,^ while the portion left behind was the seav So

, L^

1 This passage has been discussed by Heidel {Proceedings of the A merican
Academy, xlviii. 686). I agree that ctTro rod aireipov must be supplied with
diroKpcdijvai, and I formerly thought that ck toO aldiov might be equivalent
to that, and might have been displaced if the order of words was
too harsh. ,1 cannot believe that it means " from eternity," as Heidel
thinks. On the other hand, he is clearly right in his interpretation of
ir€pi(f>vT]vai and diroppayelarjs. 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.

-* Zeller (p. 223, n. 5) asks what can be meant by rpoiral rrjs a-eXrjvrjs,
but his difficulty is an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a move-
ment in decUnation and therefore rpoirai. 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, «. 3), though he
has unfortunately followed Zeller in supposing that Tpowai here means
" revolutions." This seems to me impossible ; for rpeweadai. means " to
turn back " or " to turn aside," never " to turn round," which is arpi^eadai.
It is conceivable, indeed, that rpoTal ijeXioLo 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 rpoirai rieXioLo of the winter and summer
solstices {O.D. 479, 564, 663). Zeller's statement (repeated by Heath)
that Aristotle speaks of Tpowai 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 TrdpoSot (movements in latitude) and rpoirai 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. i, and p. 76, n. 3.

64 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

'they think the sea is becoming smaller by being dried up, and
that at last it will all be dry. — Meteor, B, i. 353 b 5.

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.^ — Ih. 2. 355 a 21
(R. P. 20 a).

In his commentary on the passage, Alexander says
this was the view of Anaximander and Diogenes7"and cites
Theophrastos as his aufli6nty'for*tiie'«tatertl^t^ 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 hivrj, the heat
SftKe 'li^e liJrriSa^^l^^ 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.
Earth / 20. The Origin of earth and sea from the moist, cold

and sea. / " , • 1

matter which was " separated off " m 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, i (R. P. 20 a).

/^^ He says that the earth is cyUndrical in form, and that its depth
^ as a third part of its breadth.— Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2 (R. P. ih.).

The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It stays
where it is because of its equal distance from ^verjihmg. Its

1 From the whole context it is plain that ras rpowas avrov means
rhs Tov i]\iov rpoirds, and not rds tov ovpavov, as Zeller and Heath say.
The " air " in this passage answers to " the portion that evaporated "
{to diaT/xlaav) in that previously quoted, and toCtov must therefore refer
to it. Cf. the paraphrase of Alexander (p. 67, 3 from Theophrastos,
Dox. p. 494), t6 flip Ti T^s vypoTTjros virb tov i]\Lov e^aTfil^eadai, Kal yiveadai,
irvevfiaTo. re i^ avTov Kal Tpoiras rjkiov re koL a-eXrjprjs (see last note). In this
chapter of the Meteorology, Aristctle is discussing the doctrine that the
sun is " fed " by moisture and the relation of that doctrine to its
Tpowai at the solstices, and we must interpret accordingly.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 65

shape is hollow and round, and like a stone piUar./ We are on
one of the surfaces, and the other is on the opposite side.^ — Hipp.
Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 20).

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 sp<^J)^.„g|fr^
the Boundless as intermediate between fire and wate^ 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. ^ ^r»> ->

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 differ-
entiated 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."
f Thales had said that the earth floated on the water,
/but Anaximander reahsed that it was freely suspended in
If space (fjL6Tecopo(;) 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 vypbv trrpoyy^Xop, and so has Cedrenus,
a writer of the eleventh century who made extracts from him. Roeper
read yvpov [<TTpoyyv\ov], 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
yvpov means convex. The lonians down to Archelaos (§ 192) and Demo-
kritos (Aet. iii. 10, 5, KoiXriv rep /M^acf) regularly regarded the surface of
the earth as concave, and yvp6s can just as well mean that. The next
words are also of doubtful meaning. The MSS. of Hippolytos have x^<»'t
Xidcp, while Actios (iii. 10, 2) has Xidtp k'lovl. Diels doubtfully conjectures
\id(^ kIopl, which he suggests might represent an original Xidirj kIovi
{Dox. p. 219). In any case the pillar seems genuine, and the general
sense is guaranteed by the Plutarchean Stromateis {loc, cit.), vTrapxcv . . .
Ttj? jxev (Txrif^oLTi rrju yijv Kv\Lv5poei.5rj.

' See above, p. 55, n. 4.

66 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

or sideways.^ The doctrine of innumerable worlds was
inconsistent with the existence of an absolute up and down
in the universe, so the argument is quite sound. The central
position of the earth is due to the Blvt) ; for the greater
masses tend to the centre of an eddy.^ There is good
evidence that Anaximander made the earth share in the
<7 rotary movement.^ It is not, however, a sphere, so we
must not speak of an axial revolution. The shape given
to the earth by Anaximander is easily explained if we
adopt the view that the world is a system of rotating
rings. It is just a sohd ring in the middle of the
vortex.

21. 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 Actios as to
the formation of the heavenly bodies from these rings.

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 cash, B, 13. 295 b 10 elal di rives ot 5ia rV bixoibT-qra <paaiv
avTTjv {t7]V yrjv) fiiveiv, wcnrep tCjv dpxaicov 'Ava^lfiavdpos' fiaWov fxev yap oidh
8.v(i3 t) Kdroj t) els to. irXdyia (pepeadai it poa-riKeiv t6 iirl rod fj^aov idpvfxevov Kal ofioius
TTpbs TO. ^axo-To- ^x^v- One point of the blvrf is no more " down " than
another. Apparently, the Pythagoreans adopted this reasoning ; for
Plato makes Sokrates in the Phaedo say (108 e) laoppowov yap irpdyixa o/xolov
TLvbs ev fi^acp redev ovx ?^ei fidWov ov5^ ^ttov ov5afi6ae KKidijvaL. From this it
appears that ofioLOTrjs 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 (17 7^) (xvvrjXeev eirl to jxeaov (f>epofxivr] diii
T^u dLvrjaiV TatJTTjv yap tt]v ahlav irdures Xiyovaiv iK tQp iu tols vypoLS Koi irepl
Tov d4pa (TVjx^aLvbvTiav ' ev toijtols ydp del (piperai rd jmel^u Kal rd ^apirepa irpos t3|
fiiaov TTJs divTjs. 5l6 drj Kal ttju yrjv irdvTes 6(rot rbv ovpavbv yevvCJciP iirl rb fiiaolk
(TweXdetv (paaLv.

' This was expressly stated by Eudemos {ap. Theon. Smyrn. p. igSl
18), 'Apa^ifxavdpos d^ oti iarlv ij yrj fieriiopos Kal KiPeLTai Trepl rb ^x^aovi
Anaxagoras held the same view (§ 133).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 67

the passages. The wheel of the sun is 27 times the size oir>^J^ 7'
(the earth, while that of) the moon is 18 times as large.| ^The
sun is the highest of all, and lowest are the wheels of the ^ars.
—Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 20).

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, i.

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.] ^ — Aet. ii. 25, i.

The moon was eclipsed when the orifice of the wheel was
stopped. — Aet. ii. 29, i.

(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, i.

Wind was a current of air (i.e. vapour), which arose when its
finest and moist est particles were stirred or melted by the
sun. — Aet. iii. 7, i.

^ 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.

^ 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, i) have
iiriaTpocpas, SO the Tpoirds of Stob. may be neglected, especially as the
codex Sambuci had arpocpas. It looks as if this were a stray reference to
the theory of Herakleitos that eclipses were due to a arpoipri or iTn(XTpo(f>ri of
the (r/cd077 (§71). In any case, the passage cannot be relied on in sup-
port of the meaning given to Tpoirai by Zeller and Heath (p. 63, n. 2).

68 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

There is a curious variation in the figures given for the
size of the wheels of the heavenly bodies, and it seems most
likely that

refer to their

that ttie wheels of the " stars " were nine times the size of
the earth ; for the numbers ,2^8, 27 play a considerable
part in primitive co^sjHiQgftjsies^^ We '&d not see the wheels
of fire as complete circles ; for the vapour or mist which
formed them encloses the fire, and forms an outer ring except
at one point of their circumference, through which the fire
escapes, and that is the heavenly body we actually see.^
It is possible that the theory of " wheels " was suggested
by the Milky Way. If we ask how it is that the wheels
of air can make the fire invisible to us without becoming
visible themselves, the answer is that such is the property
of what the Greeks at this date called " air/' For instance,
when a Homeric hero is made invisible by being clothed in
^v;.v " air," we can see right through both the " air *' and the
{ *hero.^ It should be added that lightning is explained in
eft the same way as the heavenly bodies. It, too, was
fire breaking through condensed air, in this case storm-
clouds. It seems probable that this was really the origin
of the theory, and that Anaximander explained the heavenly
bodies on the analogy of lightning, not vice versa. It must
be remembered that meteorology and astronomy were
still undifferentiated,* and that the theory of " wheels "

^ See Tannery, Science helUne, p. 91 ; Diels, " Ueber Anaximanders
Kosmos " {Arch. x. pp. 231 sqq.).

* 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 wpTja-TTjpos aiXos, to which these are com-
pared, is simply the mouthpiece of the smith's bellows, a sense the word
TrprjcTTrip has in ApoUonios 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 ofl&ng may disappear completely when shrouded in mist (di^p), and
we seem to see the sky beyond it. * See above, p. 27.

THE MILESIAN SbHOOL 69

or rings is a natural inference from the idea of the
vortex.

So far we seem to be justified, by the authority of Theo-
phrastos, 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^., f There is nothing to prevent us from
seeing right out into the Boundless, and it is hard to think
that Anaximander did not beheve he did. The traditiai;^,,
cosmos has ^^nkyIjJa£^.,to a much grancto. scheme, that of
innumerable vortices in a boundless ^p^^^J^hich 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 BlvT}^ That gets rid of one difficulty, the wheel of
the *^ slars," 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 ami the
evening stars, which, we have seen (p. 23, n. i), 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.^y-^No
doubt this involves us in a difficulty regardi»g''*tne rota-
tion 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

70 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

than the centre. That, however, is a difficulty which all
the Ionian cosmologists down to Demokritos had to face.
Holding, as they did, that the whole rotation was in the
same diTection,^^^,ihe^'^^t^ri^'''^m "=we- call the

""greatest velocities were the leasj J'' The moon, for instance,
did not rotate so rapidly as the sun, since the sun more nearly
keeps up with the fixed stars. ^ That Anaximander failed
to observe this difficulty is not surprising, if we remember
that he was the first to attack the problem. Tit is not
immediately obvious that the centre of the ySrt'S'x must
have a slower niotion than the circumference, j This serves
to explain the origin of the theory that the heavenly bodies
have a rotation of their own in the opposite direction to
the diurnal revolution which we shall see reason for
attributing to Pythagoras (§ 54).
^^j^wM**-^' 22. We have, in any case, seen enough to show us that
the speculations of Anaximander .^Q^j^fe. tb^^w^si^-mj^e of

^3^.v>^.^tfg;S,^ly jlari^^^ charactej^ We.j?p^Oi^,,Uft55U.to the
crowning. ,aii3^d® ^i^f^JJC S iheory -ol thB ' ari^ qf Hving
creatures. The Theophrastean accoi^it ol^hi^.te^^
well preserved by the doxographers :

y'^^'^lliving creatures ai»se from the moist' element as it was
/ evaporated by the sun.J Man was like another animal, namely,
Va 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,^ they survived
for a short time.^ — Aet. v. 19, 4 (R. P. 22).

Further, he says that originally man was born from animals
of another species. His reason is that while other animals

^ Lucretius, v. 619 sqq.

2 This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about yaXeoi
below. Cf. Arist. Hist. An. Z, 10. 565 a 25, rots /xey oZv ffKvXlois, oOs KoXovffl
TLves ve^pias yaXeovs, orap irepippay^ koL iKir^arj rb tarpaKov, flvovTat oi veorrol.

3 The true reading is ^tt' dXiyov xp^^o^ ixera^wvaL, the omission of
Xpovov by Diels in Vors.^ and Vors.^ being apparently a slip. In the
Index to Dox., Diels s.v. /xera^Lovv says " mutare vitam [cf. /ieraStaiTai/],"
and I followed him in my first edition. Heidel well compares Archelaos,
ap. Hipp. Ref. i. 9, 5 (of the first animals) 9jv 5e oXtyoxp^via.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 71

quickly find food by themselves, man alone requires a lengthy
period of suckling. Hence, had he been originally as" he is npW^"'*^,
he would never have survived. — Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2 (R. P. iBTf."*'
y He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of
/ fishes, and after having been reared like sharks,^ and become
^capable of protecting themselves, they were finally cast ashore
and took to land. — Plut. Symp. Quaest. 730 f (R. P. ih).

/ The importance of these statements has sometimes
Dfeen overrated and still more often underestimated.
Anaximander has. been called a precursor of Darwin by
some, while others hav^^^te^ed the whole thing as a mytho-
logical 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 base A It is clear from tEE"tliat AnaximanaerlEiad" an
-id^^'oi what is meant by adaptation to ^^331 WQiUuent and
survival of the fittest , %nd tEat he saw _th£_highpr marhmals
could not retJfesent the o riginal t ype of animal. For this
he looked to the sea, and he naturally fixed upon those
fishes which present the closest analogy to the mammq}i(i,^i:.:
The statements of Aristotle about the galeus levis were
shown by Johannes Miiller 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. ^

^ Reading Cjairep ol yaXeoi for Cbairep ol TaXaLoi with Doehner, who
compares Plut. De soil. anim. 982 a, where the (pCKbaropyov of the shark is
described.

2 On Aristotle and the galeus levis, see Johannes Miiller, " 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 rpecpofxcpoi Sjo-irep ol yaXeoL appears from Arist,
Hist. An. Z, 10. 565 b I, ot 5^ Ka\ovp.€voi. \etoL rdv yaXewv tcl p.kv i^a taxovai
fiera^ii tCjv varepuiv ofMoius rois aKvXLoLS, irepLdTavTa ok ravra ets cKar^pav Tr,v biKpbav
TTis vcTT^pas KarajSalvei, Kal to. ^ipa yiveraL tov ofKpaXov ^x^^t^'- '"'P^^ '''V ^crrepq,, Cbare
avaXLaKOfieuwv tCjv i^dv ofxoiojs boKelv ^x^"' "^^ efi^pvov tois TeTpdvocnu. It IS not
necessary to suppose that Anaximander referred to the further phenomenon
" described by Aristotle, who more than once says that all the 7aXeot except
the dKav6Las " send out their young and take them back again " {e^a<pLdai

72 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

HI. Anaximenes

Life. 23. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystjatos, was,

according to Theophrastos, an ** .assaciate ""of Anaximander.^
Apollodoros said, it appears, that he "'36iifisTie3"'''"alDout
the time of the fall of Sardeis (546/5 B.C.), and died in
01. LXIII. (528/525' B.c.).2 In other words, he was born
when Thales^'iioTirished," and "flourished" when Thales
died, and this means that Apollodoros had no definite
information about his date. ^'He perhaps made him die in

\ "\ the sixty-third Olympiad because tjiat gives just three
generations for the Milesian school.^ |j We cannot therefore
say anything positive as to his datd, except that he must
have been younger than Anaximander. "I

s book. 24. Anaximenes wrote a book which survived until the

age of literary criticism ;^ for we are told that he used a

. simple^ j.H(i. iiiapr«t€«tiou's ftmioj.^,.. very diffejzqjgijt;^^ we J3ciay

; suppose,, from, the. poetical ..prose of Anaxipa^dei:^,?,,,! The

, speculations of Anaximander were distinguished for their

f hardihood a^d breast Ji./-' those of Anaximenes are marked

by 'the opposite quality. He appears to have thought

out his system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious

theories of his predecessor. The result is that, while his

view of the world is less like the truth than Anaximander's,

Kal dexovrai els eavTods roi/s vcottovs, ib. 565 b 23), for which compare also
Ael. i. 17 ; Plut. De amore prolis 494 c ; De soil. anim. 982 a. The
placenta and umbilical cord described by Johannes Miiller will account
sufficiently for all he says.

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
Tpirou for irpuiTov with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros
mentioned the Olympiad without giving the number of the year is in-
adequate ; for Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian
archons.

3 Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date into connexion with the floruit
Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable.

4 Diog. ii. 3 (R. P. 23).

5 Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, § 13.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 73

«
it is perhaps more fruitful in ideas that were destined to

hold their ground.

25. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whomjheory.

Theophrastos_^ja^^ote a special monograph ; ^ and this gives primary

,11s an" additional guarantee for the trustworthiness of the ^^^^.^^°^®*

i tradition. The following ^ are the passages which contain

I the fullest account of the central feature of his system :

"'kj^' Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an
■'associate of Anaximander, said, Uke hiip.,. that the underlying

:substance was one aM i.nfrmte.'./He did not, However, say it

was indet^rpiiiiai^eriike Anaximander, but determinate ; for he
'•^ said it wa^^^^J-Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

From itT'Ke said, the things that are, and have been, and shall

be, the gods an4 things divine,^ took their ris^ while other things

come from its offspring.— Hipp. Ref.i.y{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

And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most.eve»j •'«'^'^.^;|^'** ^ \
it is invisible to our sie^ht^; but cold and heat, moisture and /If ^
motion, make it visible. J It is always in mojti(5in;,v4pr, if it were
not, it would not change ^o "much as it does.-J-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 'i
winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed l
from Air by felting ; ^ and this, still furth*er 'Condensed, becomes '^
water. \ Water, condensed still more, turns to earth ; and when
condensed as much as it can be, to stones. — Hipp,,.R^. i. 7
(R. P. 28). ,.,.,.....-..-^^--- ' '

2:6rvAt first, this looks like a falling off from the more^Rarefac-
reiined doctrine of Anaximander to a cruder view\ but this ^i^-^j'^^^l'
is not really the case. On the contrary, the introauction oli^^-
rarefaction and condensation into the theory is a notable

^ On these monographs, see Dox. p. 103.

2 See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in Dox. p. 135.
^ " Felting " [iriXTjaL^) is the regular term for this process with all the
early cosmologistsTiySmVhom Plato has taken it (Tim. 58 b 4 ; 76 c 3).

74 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

advance.^ In fact, it makes the Milesian cosmology con-

,.' iistent for the first time/ since a theory which explains

:' /everything as a form of a'Singk.5JljOtista»6^ts'~"CteaFly.,bound

,' 4. to regard all differences as guantitative.^^^he only way to

'];. sa ve the uni ty ol the_priinary siiBstance is to say theiLall

,,>*'^ J' di versities are due to the presence of more or less of it in

/ j5 ! ^T^en^space. !|^nd when once this step has been taken,

I I I It is no longer necessary to make the primary substance

I .| I Something " distinct from the elements," to use Aristotle's

I ;' / inaccurate but convenient phrase ; it may just as well be

t bne^glthem.
Air. y' 27. The air Anaximenes speaks of includes a good deal
/ that we should not call by the name. In its normal con-
dition, 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 irvevfia^
On the other hand, the old idea that mist or vapour is
I condensed air, is still accepted without question. It was
f^Empedokles,|we shall see, \yho first discovered that what
we "call' air was a distinct corporeaf stflManceV ^nd not
identical either with vapour or with empty space. / In the
earher cosmologists " air " is alwa5^s a form of vapour, and
even darkness is a form of " air.' j It wa^^Emp^^^okleswho
cleared up, this point too by showing that darkness is a
shadow. 2 I

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
imply that Anaximander too had spoken of rarefaction and condenss
tion, especially if 6 eVn irvpbs fikv irvKvbTepov d^pos 8k XeirTOTepov is referred
him. On the other hand, at 20, ol 8' 4k rod evbs ivovaas ras epavrtoTrjTd
iKKpiveadai, ibairep 'Ava^i/xapSpos (f)rjat seems to be opposed to a 12, oi fxkv kt^
As I have indicated already, it looks as if we were dealing here wit
Aristotle's own inferences and interpretations, which are far from clej
They are outweighed by the definite statement quoted by SimpUcius froi
Theophrastos, though Simplicius himself adds 8ri\op 8k tbs /cai ol &\\ol t^
fmpoTTiTL Kal TTVKPOTTjTi ixP'^^To. That, howcvcr, is only his own inference^
from Aristotle's somewhat confused statement.

2 For the meaning of d??p in Homer, cf, e.g. Od. viii. i, 7j4pi Kai p(
K€Ka\vfji,fA4pai ; and for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates,

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 75

It was natural for Anaximenes to fix upon " air " as the
primary substance ; for, in the system of Anaximander, it
f occupied an intermediate place between the two fun'Sa- *

mental opposites, the ring of flame and the cold, moist J\qO^^^
mass within it. .(§ 19). We know from Plutarch that he - ^j t^^^"'^
fancie3 air became warmer when rarefied, and colder when
condensed, '{jOf this he satisfied himself by a curious --
experimental proof. When we breathe with our mouthsTT"*/ ■
open, the air is warm ; when our lips are closed, it is cold.V^?*^:

28. This argument brings us to an important point m The world
the theory, which is attested by the single fragment that ^£^.^*^^^*
has come down to us.^ " Just as our soul, being air, holds
us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole\^
The primary substance bears the same relation

to the hfe of the world as to that of man. \ Now this was the
Pythagorean viaw >^ and it is al^o ah early instance of
the argument from the microcosm to the macrocosm, and
SO marks the beginning of an interest in physiological
matters.

29. We turn now to the doxographical tradition con- The parts
cerning the formation of the world and its parts : world.

He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came into
being. It is very broad and is accordingly supported by tbe^,..,.
air.— Ps.-Plut. StronLlr.'s (R. P. 25).

In the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly
bodies, which are of ^ fiery nature, are supported by the air

d^ptav, vSdroov, Tbiriav, 15, ai^p re ■7roXi>s /car^xei tt]v x^PV^ *^^^ '^^'^ vSariov.
Plato is still conscious of the old meaning ; for he makes Timaios say
d^pos {y^vTf) rb fikv evayia-raTov iwiKk-qv aldT]p KaXoOfxevos, 6 5k doXepdoraros
ofiixXrj Kal <tk6tos {Tim. 58 d). For the identification of 0,17^ with darkness,
of. Plut. De prim. frig. 948 e, 6tl 5' aTjp to Trpwrws aKOTeivbv ianu ovde
Toits iroi7}Tct,s XiXrjdev • dlpa ydp rb cTKbros KoXovaiu. My view has been
criticised by Tannery, " Une nouvelle hypothese 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.

^ Plut. De prim. frig. 947 f (R. P. 27), where we are told that he used
the term rb xo-^o.pov for the rarefied air.

2 Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24). 3 See Chap. II. § 53.

76 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

{.^because of their breadtfc^ The heavenly bodies were produced

from tifieeaftli 15^1^^^ rising from it.) When this is rarefied,

fire comes into being, and the stars are'^tomposed of the fire thus

raised aloft. There were also bodies of earthy su|Dstance in the

region of the stars, revolving along with them| f And he says

that the heavenly bodies do not move under the earth, as others

suppose, but round it, as a cap turns round our head.t f The sun

is hidden from sight, not because it goes under the earth, but

because it is concealed by the higher parts of the earth, and

k because its distance from us becomes greater|\ The,,„»fe«FS give

|| no heat because of the greatness of their distance.^Hipp. Ref. i.

i 7, 4-6 (R. P. 28). -■''^>s...J

/'*' Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes along

( under propulsion ; but when it is concentrated and thickened

I still more, clouds are generated ; and, lastly, it turns to water. ^
"'v— Hipp. Ref. i. 7, 7 {Dox. p. 561). ^.^^,^^^<^-^^^^^'^^'^—--

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. — lb. 16, 6

(Dox. p. 34S). n:— . .,.,

\ The sun is fiery .--^/&. 20, 2 [Dox. p. 348).

It-isbrbad Uke a leaf. 4-/6. 22, i {Dox. p. 352).

The heavenly bodies turn back in their courses ^ owing to the
resistance of compressed air. — lb. 23, i {Dox. p. 352).

The moon is of fire^.,^/6. 25, 2 {Dox. p. 356).

Anaximenes explaine4... lightning like Anaximander, adding
las' an illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which
flashes when divided by the oars. — lb. iii. 3, 2 {Dox. p. 368).

Hail is produced when water freezes in falling ; snow, when
tjbere is some air imprisoned in the water. — Aet. iii. 4, i {Dox.

A 370).

f^ Jhe rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on
thick condensed aiiJ Hence the anterior part of it seems rafi,
being burnt by the sun's rays, while the other part is dark,

^ The text is very corrupt here. I retain eKireirvKvufi^os, because|\ve
are told above that winds are condensed air.

^ See below, p. 77, n. 4.

3 This can only refer to the Tpowai of the sun, though it is loosely
stated of rd aarpa generally. It occurs in the chapter Ilepl rpoiruv r,\lovj
and we cannot interpret it as if it were a detached statement.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 77

'owing to the predominance of moisture. And he says that a

rainbow is produced at night by the moon, but not often, because

there is not constantly a full moon, and because the moon's light

is weaker than that of the sun. — Schol. Arat} (Dox. p. 231).

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, j

—lb. 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 unfor-
tunate. / The earth is once more imagined as a table-like
disc fioatm'g on tlie air. ) The sun, moon, and stars are also
fiery discs which float 'on the air " Hke leaves *' ; an idea
naturally suggested by the " eddy*' (8ivv)/ It follows that
the heavenly bodies cannot go under the earth at night, as
U.naximander must have held, but only round it laterally
life a' cap" or a millstone.^ This view is also mentioned in
Aristotle's Meteorology y^ where the elevation of the northern
parts of the earth, which makes it possible for the heavenly
bodies to be hidden from sight, is referred to. This is only
meant to explain why the stars outside the Arctic circle
appear to rise and set, and the explanation is fairly adequate
if we remember that the world is regarded as rotating in a
plane. It is quite inconsistent with the theory of a celestial
sphere.*

1 The source of this is Poseidonios, who used Theophrastos. Dox.
p. 231.

2 Theodoret (iv. i6) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like that
of a miUstone, 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 Actios (Note on Sources, § lo), though they
are given neither by Stobaios nor in the Placita.

* B. I. 354 a 28 (R. P. 28 c).

* For this reason, I now reject the statement of Actios, ii. 14, 3 (p. 76),
' Xvaiiifxhr^s -ffkiav 5iK-qv KaTaireir-qyivai t<^ KpvaraWoeidel. That there is some
confusion of names here is strongly suggested by the words which
immediately follow, ivLOi 8k Tr^raXa ehai irvpiva ibairep to. ^a>7/)a077/xaTa,
which is surely the genuine doctrine of Anaximenes. I understand

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Innumelp

Influence
of Anaxi-
menes.

^- v., ^^^ earthy bodies, which circulate among the planets,
are doubtless intended to account for eclipses and the phases
of the moon.^

30. 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, l Cicero says
that Anaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds that
it came into being. ^ That cannot be right. Air, as the
primary substance, is certainly eternal, and it is quite hkely
that Anaximenes called it " divine," as Anaximander did
the Boundless ; but it is certain that he also spoke of gods
who came into being and passed awayr' These arose, he
said, from the air. This is expressly stated by Hippotytos,^
and also by St. Augustine.* These gods are probably to
be explained like Anaximander's. Simplicius, indeed, takes
another view ; but he may have been misled by a Stoic
authority.^

31. It is not easy for us to reaUse 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,)

^ojypaip-fifxaTa of the constellations (cf. Plato, Tim. 55 c). 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.

1 See Tannery, Science hellene, 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 Hipp. Ref. i. 7, i (R. P. 28).

* Aug. De civ. D. viii. 2 : " Anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinite
aeri dedit : nee deos negavit aut tacuit ; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum,
sed ipsos ex aere ortos credidit " (R. P. 28 b).

6 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 kolI varepov ol dirb r^y Sroas.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

was far more indebted to Anaximenes for his general theory
of the world (§ 53). We shall see further that when, at a
later date, science revivCT'lSft'Ce inorie" in Ionia, it was " thev
philosophy of Anaximenes " to which it attached^,, itself >4
(§ 122). Anaxagoras adopted many of his most character-
istic views 1(5'T35), and so did the Atomists.^ Diogenes of
Apollonia went back to the central doctrine of Anaximenes,
and made Air the primary substance, though he also tried
to combine it with the theories of Anaxagoras (§ 188). We
shall come to all this later ; but it seemed desirable to point
out at once that Anaximenes marks the culminating point
of the line of thought which started with Thales, and to
show how the_.';,^hiJospp]^yjDf Anaxime« nieari

the Milesian doctrine as a whole. \ This it can only have
done because it was really the Work of a school, of which
Anaximenes was the last distinguished representative, and
because his contribution to it was one that completed the
system he had inherited from his predecessors. That the
theory of rarefaction and condensation was really such a
completion of the Milesian system, we have seen^(l 26), and
it need only be added that a clear realisation of this fact will
be the best clue at once to the understanding of the Milesian
cosmology itself and to that of the systems which followed
it. In the main, it is from Anaximenes they all start.

»iH>vf««--'^»>ifgf <

^ In particular, both Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory
of a flat earth. Cf. Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 {Uepl cxvI^tos yijs), ' kva^Lfiivq^ rpaire-
^0€i8rj {ttjv yijv). Aei^/ftTTTTOs TVfjLTrapoeidrj. Arj/j^KpiTOi SiaKoeiSij /xh t($ TrXdret,
kolXtju d^ tQi /x^(r(f}. And yet the spherical form of the earth was already a
commonplace in circles affected by Pythagoreanism.

CHAPTER II

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Ionia an/ 32. The Spirit of the lonians in Asia was, as we have
the werft. gggjj^ thoroughly secular J and, so far as we can judge, the
Milesians wholly ignored traditional behefs.f Their use of
the term " god " for the primary substance aijd,jyh.e inliumer-
ableworids had no religious significance.^ It was different
m-4h;eu|AegeaLnL M the home of the

lonians iong"l)ef6re '^the AnatoUan coasts were open to
colonisation, and where there were many memories of a
remote past. These seem to have centred round the
Isanctuary of Delos,|and the fragments(of Pherekyd^, who
iBelonge3"'to the neighbouring island /of' Syros^fead like
belated utterances of an earUer a^e^J. ^c) SouSt'^it was also
different in the Chalkidian and Ionian colonies of the West,
which were founded at a time when Hesiod and his followers
sti^l held unchallenged authority.

^.Now .PxtU^9^^^-^^^i?^^^^P^^^ ^^^ most striking
figures of the generation that saw tne Greek cities in Asia
become subject to PersiaJ^wei;§^both Ipni^^ but both spent
rthe greater part of their lives in the West. There it was no
longer possible to ignore rehgion, especially when reinforced
by the revival that now swept over the Greek world.
Henceforth the leaders of enUghtenment must either seek
to reform and deepen traditional religion, Hke Pytha^Qras,
or oppose it openly, Hke Xenophanes. {

1 See p. 14. /' ^ See p. 3.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION Si

33 The revival was not, however, a mere recrudescence The
of the old Aegean religion, but was profoundly influenced rrn^m.
by the diffusion of certain ideas originating in what was then ' '"
the far North. The temple legend of Delos is certainly
ancient, and it connects the worship of Apollo witji..,l;he
HyperboreajC^S5viKho were thought of as living on ttie banfe... .
oTlfKe Danube.^; The "holy things wrapped in straw,"-
which were p'kssed on from people to people till they reached
Delos by way of the head of th4^ Adriatic, Dodona^ and the
\Malian Gulf; ^ bear witness to a rearcb'Mieifo'n' between the
DanuBiah and Aegean civilisations at an early date, and it
is natural to associate this with the coming of the Achaians.
The stories of t Abaris the HyperbQreai^ .'^= and Aristeas of
Prokonnes9§,i,i>€long to the same religious movement and
prove that it was based on a view of the soul which was
new, so far as we can see, in the Aegean. , Now the connexion
of Pythagoras with Delos is well attested, and it is certain
that he founded his society in cities which gloried in the
Achaian name. If the Delian religion was rean;y^,Achd
we have a clue to certain things in the life of Pythagoras
which are otherwise puzzUng. We shall come back to these
later.5

34. It was not, ho.wever, in its Dehan form that the orphicism.
northern rehgion had most influence. ^ Thr^jgf/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" (|«:o-Taor(j§^_ " 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 I
of the self, as in Homer, but a fallen god, which might be/

^ Pindar, 01. iii. 14-16.

2 Herod, iv. 33. Cf. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. pp. 99 sqq.

' . Herod, iv. 36.

* Ibid. iv. 13-15.

5 I have discussed the origin of the Pythagorist religion in the Ency-
clopaedia of Religion and Ethics {s.v. Pythagoras) rather more fully than
would be appropriate here.

,z EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

restored to its high estate by a system of " purifications "
(/ca^a^^ot)^^nd sacraments (opq^faj. ,. In this form, the new
religion made an immediate appeal to all sorts and condi-
tions of men who could not find satisfaction in the worship
^oi the secularised anthropomorphic gods of the poets and
t^ state reUgions.

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 initi^tj^^^w -Most of

the Orphic hterature 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 Thoi^ioi

\^and Petelia;take us back to a time when Orphicism was still

a living creed. ^ From them we learn that it had some

striking resemblances to the beliefs prevalent in India

about the same time, though it is really impossible to

assume any Indian influence in Greece at this date.^ In

I any case, the main purpose of the Orphic observances and

^ rites was to release the soul from the " wheel of birth," that

Iis, from reincarnation in animal or vegetable forms. The
soul so released became once more a god and enjoyed
'*^iB¥€rlasting bliss,
phiio- 35. The chief reason for taking account of the Orphic

Tway of communities here is that their organisation seems to have

life.

^ For these gold plates, see the Appendix to Miss Harrison's Prolego-
mena 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 Ency-
clopaedia 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, this suggestion is strongly confirmed. The theories of
L. von Schroeder {Pythagoras und die Inder, 1884) are based on a mis-
taken 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,).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 83

suggested the idea that philosophy is a}5pye,,a4Lv^,-'i^ .

hfe." In Ionia, as we have seenV^tX^j^oc^/a nieant some- ,
thing hke '* curiosity,'* and from that use of it the common
Athenian sense of " culture," as we find it in Isokrates,
seems to have been derived. On the other hand, wherever
we can trace the influence of Pythagoras, the word has a
far deeper meaning. Philosophy is itself a " purification "
and a way of escape from the " wheel." That j,^.^tfeevidaa.....
so nobly expressed in the Phaedo, which is manifestly S
inspired by Pythagorean doctrine^J This way of regarding
philosophy is henceforth characteristic of the best Greek
thought. I Aristotle is as much influenced by it as any one,
as we ma^ see from the Tenth Book of the Ethics, and as we
should see still more clearly if we possessed hisIl^a^f^ew^iK^H''''
in its entirety. 2 There was a danger that this attitude
should degenerate into mere quietism and " otherworldli-
ness," a danger Plato saw and sought to avert. It was he
TIiaF Insisted on philosophers taking their turn to descend
once more into the Cave to help their former fellow-
prisoners. ^ If the other view ultimately prevailed, that
was hardly the fault of the philosophers.

/^36. Science, then, became a reUgion, and to that extent Relation
jti is true that philosophy was influenced by religion. It andVhiio"
Vdtild be wrong, however, to suppose that even now philo- ^^P^y-
sophy took over any particular doctrines from religion.
The rehgious 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 656s tls ^lov. Cf. the arpa-jros of Phaed. 66 b.

2 For the UpoTpeTrrcKos, see Bywater in /. Phil. ii. p. 35. It was the
original of Cicero's Hortensius, which had such an effect on Augustine.

3 Plato, Rep. 520 c i, KaralSareov odv iv fj.4pei. The Allegory of the
Cave seems clearly to be of Orphic origin (Stewart, Myths of Plato, p. 252,
n. 2).

84 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

religious movement themselves, held views about the soul
which flatly contradicted the beliefs impHed in their religious
practices.^V There is no room for an immortal soul in any
philosophy of this period, as we shall see^ Sokrates was the
irst philosopher to assert the doctrine on rational grounds,^
md it is significant that Plato represents him as only half
ierious in appealing to the Orphics for confirmation of his
diwn teaching.^

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." * That is why
the religious revival could inspire philosophy with a new
spirit, but could not at first graft new doctrines on it.

I. Pythagoras of Samos

37. 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.4 From this we know that he taught the

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).

* Plato, Phaed. 69 c 3, Kal KivdweOovcri Kal oi ras reXerdj ij/iiv oProt
K9LTa(TT-f}<TavT€$ ov (paOXoL Tives etvai, dXXd r^J 6vti iraXai alvlrreadaL kt\. The
irony of this and similar passages should be unmistakable.

* Arist. fr. 45 (1483 a 19), tovs reXov/xiuovs ov fiadeiv tl deiv, dXXd iradeTv
/cat diaTedrjpau

5 Xenophanes, fr. 7.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 85

doctrine of transmigration .^ Herakleitos, in the next
gmefatfon;^speal£s"^of h^ having carried scientific:, Jnvesti-
gation (fo-TopLT)) further than any one, though h^ made use
of it for purposes of imposture.^ Later, though still within
the century, Herodotos ^ speaks of him as " not the weakest,
scientific man (arocj^io-rri^;) among the Hellenesy' and he says
he had been told by the Greeks of the Hellespont that the
legendary Scythian SalmQ^^is had been a slave of Pythagoras
at Samos. He does not believe that ; for he knew Salmoxis
Hved many years before Pythagoras. The story, however,
is evidence that Pythagoras was well known in the fifth
century, both as a scientific man and as a preacher of
immortality. That takes us some way.

Plato was^'deeply interested in P;^thagor^9J|^i^n|^.,^]b^^^^
is curiously reseTveS lBoS""l*ythagbras,| 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 [hLa(^ep6vT(o^ r^^airrjOrj) by teaching them a ** way
of fife," which was still called Pythagorean.^ Even the
Pythagoreans are only once mentioned by name, in the
passage where Sokrates is made to say that they regard
music and astronomy as sister sciences.* On the other
hand, Plato tells us a good deal about men whom we know
from other sources to have been Pythagoreans, but he
avoids the name. For all he says, we should only have been
able to guess that EchekraX^,,|Lnd Philolaos belonged to
the school. Usually "Pythagorean views" aife given anony-
mously, as those of " ingenious persons " {/co/jLyjroL Tive<;) or
the like, and we are not even told expressly that Timaios the
Lokrian, into whose mouth Plato has placed an unmistak-
^isfy 'Pythagorean cosmology, belonged to the society. We
are left to infer it from the fact that he comes from Italy.
Aristotle imitates his master's reserve in this matter. The

1 Herakleitos, fr. 17. For the meaning given to KaKOTexvirj, see note
in loc.

2 Herod, iv. 95.

3 Plato, Rep. X. 600 b. * Ibid. vii. 530 d.

86 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

name of Pythagoras occurs only twice in the genuine works
that have come down to us. In one place we are told
that ^Alkmaion was a young man in the old age of Pytha-
goras/ ana tHe'^bther is a quotation from AJIgd^ja3aft4o the
effect that " the men of Italy honoured Pythagoras." ^
Aristotle is not so shy of the word " Pythagorean " as
Plato, but he uses it in a curious way. He says such things
as " the men of Italy who are called Pythagoreans," ^ and
he usually refers to particular doctrines as those of " some
of the Pythagoreans." It looks as if there was some doubt
in the fourth century as to who the genuine Pythagoreans
were. We shall see why as we go on.

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 oi,Tara%-Dikaiarchos of Messene, and Timaios
of Taliromenion, who all had special opportunities of
knowing something about him. The account of the Pytha-
gorean Order in the Life of Pythagoras by lamblichos is
based mainly on Timaios,^ who was no doubt an uncritical
historian, but who had access to information about Italy
and Sicily which makes his testimony very valuable when
it can be recovered. Aristoxenos had been personally
acquainted with the last generation of the Pythagorean
society at Phleious/ It is evident, however, that he wished
to represent Pytliagoras simply as a man of science, and
was anxious to refute the idea that he was a religious teacher.
In the same way, Dikaiarchos tried to make out that
Pythagoras was simply a statesman and reformer.^

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.

* See Rostagni, " Pitagora e i Pitagorici in Timeo " {Atti della R.
Academia delle Scienze di Torino, vol. 49 (1913-14), pp. 373 sqq.

6 See E. Rohde's papers, " Die Quellen des lamblichos in seiner Bio-
graphie des Pythagoras," in Rh. Mus. xxvi. and xxvii.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 87

When we come to the Lives of Pythagoras, by Porphyry,
lambHchos, and Diogenes Laertios/ we find ourselves once
more in the region of the miraculous. They are based on
authorities of a very suspicious character, ^ and the result
is a mass of incredible fiction. It would be quite wrong,
however, to ignore the miraculous elements in the legend of
Pythagoras ; for some of the most striking miracles are
quoted from Aristotle's work on the Pythagoreans ^ and
from the Tripod of Andron of Ephesos,* both of which
belong to the fourth century B.C., and cannot have been
influenced by Neopythagorean fancies. The fact is that
the oldest and the latest accounts agree in representing
Pythagoras as a wonder-worker ; but, for some reason, an
attempt was made in the fourth century to save his memory
from that imputation. This helps to account for the
cautious references of Plato and Aristotle, but its full
significance will only appear later.

38. We may be said to know for certain t^Q^, JJ^j^thagoras Life of
passed his early manhood at Samos, and was the son of gjras!
Mnesarchos ; ^ andTi'e ^"ffounsKed,** we are told, in the reign

"^•^ Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras is the only considerable extract from
his History of Philosophy that has survived. The Life by lamblichos has
been edited by Nauck (1884).

2 lamblichos 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 Kro-
toniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios, and that the
Pythagoreans had a division of the XoyiKou ^<$ov into rb fih . . . 6e6s, to di
dudpojiros, TO 5e oToi^ 1X1/^076^0$. 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.

* Andron wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, and the title refers
to the well-known story (p. 44, n. 3).

6 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 Hving at Samos. Aristoxenos said his family came from one of

88 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

pi Polykrates J532 b.c.).^ This date cannot be far wrong ;
orTSS^aHTeifos already speaks of him in the past tense. ^

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
^d Am^^5j§^j:ests on no sufficient authority.^ Herodotos,
it is true, observes that the Egyptians agreed in certain
practices with the rules called Orphic and Bacchic, which
are really Egyptian, and with the Pythagoreans ; * but this
does not imply that the Pythagoreans derived these directly
from Egypt. He says also that the beUef in transmigration
came from Egypt, though certain Greeks, both at an earlier
and a later date, had passed it off as their own. He refuses,
however, to give their names, so he can hardly be referring
to Pythagoras.^ Nor does it matter ; for the Egyptians

the islands which the Athenians occupied after expeUing the Tyrrhenians
(Diog. viii. i). This suggests Lemnos or Imbros, from which the Tyr-
rhenian " 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 in-
vention of the society which flourished there at the beginning of the
fourth century B.C. Pausanias (ii. 13, i) gives it as a Phleiasian tradition
that Hippasos, the great-grandfather of Pythagoras, had emigrated from
Phleious to Samos.

1 Eratosthenes wrongly identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor
of 01. XLVIII. I (588/7 B.C.), 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 AlyvirTioLai 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 wor-
shippers 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.

SCIENCE AND RELIGIC^T 89

'? /

didjaot^believe in transmigration at^a^U'^nd Herodotos was

deceived by'ffiFpries1Ps7)?tRe*'^r^ of the monuments.

Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras left Samos in order to ,,,
escape from the tyranny of PolykratggJ:^ It was at Kroton,
a city which had long been in friendly relations with Samos
and was famed for its athletes and its doctors,^ that he
founded his society. Timaios appears to have said that he
came to Italy in 529 B.C. and remained at Kroton for twenty
years. He died at Metapontion, whither he had retired when
the Krotoniates rose in revolt against his authority.^

39. The Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, The Order.
a religious fr^i^t^tTi!? yjr and not, as has been maintained, a
poBticaT "league .* Nor had it anything whatever to do
with the " Dorian aristocratic ideal." Pythagoras was an
Ionian, and the Order was originally confined to Achaian
states.^ Moreover the " Dorian aristocratic ideal " is a

1 Porph. V. Pyth. g (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 i
Pythagoras. The series of Olympian victories won by Krotoniates in the w
sixth century B.C. is remarkable. jrf**''**'**^

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 B.C.), 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. Iambi. V. Pyth. 249) referred to the same thing (R. P. 57 c). Cf.
also Andron, fr. 6 {F.H.G. ii. 347).

* Plato, Rep. X. 600 a 9, clearly imphes that Pythagoras held no public
ofi&ce. The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, main-
tained 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.

s The idea that the Pythagoreans represented the " Dorian ideal " dies
very hard. In his Kulturhistorische Beitrdge (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 IIi'^a76pas is the Attic form of Hvdaybp-ris, and is no more " Doric "
than 'kva^aybpa^. Even in the reign of Trajan, the Samians still knew that
'n.vea.ybpi)^ was the correct speUing. Cf . the title vignette in Diels, Vors.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Downfall
of the
Order.

fiction based on the Sokratic idealisation of Sparta and
Crete. Corinth, Argos, and Syracuse are quite forgotten.
Nor is there any evidence that the Pythagoreans favoured
the aristocratic party. ^ The main purpose of the Order was
/ the cultivation of holiness. In this respect it resembled
an Orphic society, though Apolla,^^d not Dionysos^
the chief Pythagorean god. '^TTnat is doubtlessmieto the
connexion of Pythagoras 'with Delos, and explains why the
Krotoniates identified him with Apollo Hj^jjerboreios.^

40. 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

^ The only statement which might suggest that Pythagoras took the
aristocratic side is the remark in Diogenes (viii. 3) (bare ax^dby ehai
dpLCTTOKpariav ttjv iroXirelau. That may come from Timaios, but (as the
adverb crx^SSv shows) it is not to be taken Hterally. The Pythagorean
rule was no doubt an dpLaTOKparia 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 (Iambi. V. Pyth. 248) as -yhei koL do^y kuI irXovrcp irpoiTevoiv
rCov 'KoKirOiv. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans, was a
democracy. (Cf. Strabo, vi. p. 280, iax^a-av 8^ ttotc ol Tapavrivoi Kad' virep-
^oXtju TToKiTevdfievoL drjfioKparLKCos . . . dired^^avro 5^ Kal ttjv TLvdaydpeLov
(f)i\o(TO(f)lav ktK.) 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. 15 10 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 DeHan,
we see that the religion taught by Pythagoras was genuinely Ionian in
its origin, and had nothing to do with Dionysos.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 91

the events which led to the destruction of Sybaris (510 B.C.).
We gather that in some way Pythagoras had shown sympathy
with the Sybarites, and had urged the people of Kroton
to receive certain refugees who had been expelled by the
tyrant Telys. There is no ground for the assertion that
he sympathised with these refugees because they were
" aristocrats " ; they were victims of a tyrant and supphants,
and it is not hard to understand that the Ionian Pytha-
goras should have felt a certain kindness for the men of the
great but unfortunate Ionian city. Kylon, who is expressly
stated by Aristoxenos to have been one of the first men
of Kroton in wealth and birth/ was able to bring about
the retirement of Pythagoras to Metapontion, another
Achaian city, and it was there that he passed his remaining
years.

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
3^oung 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
fti«,,teacher of Epameinondas.^ It is impossible to date
these events "accurately, but the mention' of Lysis proves
that they were spread over more than one generation. The
coup d'Etat of Kroton can hardly have occurred before
450 B.C., if the teacher of Epameinondas escaped from it,
nor can it have been much later or we should have heard
of it in connexion with the foundation of Thourioi in
444 B.C. In a valuable passage, doubtless derived from
Timaios, Polybios tells us of the burning of the Pythagorean

^ See p. 90, n. I. I do not know why modern historians call him a
democratic leader.

2 Rohde, Rhein. Mus. xxxvi. p. 565, n. i. 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.

Want of

92 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

I k

" lodges " ((rvv6Bpia)un all the Achaian cities, and the way in

\Al^h^ TO^igpg^a*^'^^^ that this went on for a consider-

able time, till at last peace and order were restored by the
Achaians of Peloponnesos.^ We shall see that at a later
date some of the Pythagoreans were able to return to Italy,
and once more acquired great influence there.
* 41. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even less
evidence fthan of his Hfc. Plato and Aristotle clearly knew nothing
teaching )^^^ Certain of ethical or physical doctrines going back to
°or^r^^'l^^^ founder himself.^ Aristoxenos gave a string of moral
I precepts.^ Dikaiarchos said hardly anything of what
I Pythagoras taught his disciples was known except the doc-
I trine of transmigration, the periodic cycle, and the kinship
I of all living creatures.* Pythagoras apparently preferred
^ oral instruction to the dissemination of his opinions by
writing, and it was not till Alexandrian times that any one
ventured to forge books in his name. The writings ascribed
to the first Pythagoreans were also forgeries of the same
period.^ The early history of Pj^hagoreanism is, therefore,
wholly conjectural ; but we may still make an attempt to
understand, in a very general way, what the position of
Pythagoras in the history of Greek thought must have been.

^ Polyb. ii. 39, Aca0' oOs yap Kaipoiis iv rots Karb. t^v 'IraXiav rdiroit /card
TT]v fi€ydL\7]v''E\\d5a t6t€ irpoaayopevofihriv iviirp-qcav to. avvidpia rdv Jlvdayopeiuv,
fjL€Ta ravTa yivoixevov KivrjfjLaros oXoo-x^povs -rrepl tcls TroXiTeLas (owep eUds, m Av
Twv irpujTOiv dvdpQy i^ eKaaTTji TroXews oijT(t} irapaXoyoiS diacpdapePTUiv) (xvvi^rj
ras Kar iKeivovs roiis rdirovs 'EXXtjvikcls irdXcLS dvairX-qadrjvaL (pSvov Kai (XTaaews
/cat iraPTodaTT^s rapaxTJi. if oh xatpots, dirb tCov irXdffTiov jxepQiv ttj^ 'EXXdSos
irpecr^evbvTuv itrl rds diaXvaeis, 'Amatols Kal ry roOrioy wlaTet (tvv€XPV(^o.vto
Tpbs Tr)v tQv irapbvTiav KaKwv i^aywyqy.

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 mention-
ing these, he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as " contemporary
with and earlier than them " {iv 8^ tovtols Kai irpb tovtwv, Met. A, 5.
985 b 23).

3 The fragments of the HvdayopiKai axocpdcreis of Aristoxenos are given
by Diels, Vors. 45 d.

4 Porphyry, V. Pyth. 19 (R. P. 55).

6 See Diels, Dox. p. 150, and " Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbucl
{Arch. iii. pp. 451 sqq.) ; Bernays, Die heraklitischen Brief e, n. i.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 93

42. In the first place, as we have seen/ he taught the Trans-
doctrine^'rraft^^^

ex^^s^ea as' a developnii^ of the primitive behef in the
kinship of men and beasts, a view which Dikaiarchos said
Pythagoras held. Further, this beUef is commonly associ-
ated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of food, and
the Pythagorean rule is best known for its prescription of
similar forms of abstinence. It seems bertain that Pytha-
goras brought this with him from Ionia. / Timaios told how
at Delos he refused to sacrifice on any "^ut the oldest altar,
that of Apollo the Father, where only bloodless sacrifices
were allowed.^

43. It has indeed been doubted whether we can accept Abstinence,
what we are told by such late writers as Porphyry on the
subject of Pythagorean abstinence. Aristoxenos undoubt-
edly said Pythagoras did not abstain from animal flesh in
general, but only from that of the ploughing ox and the

ram.* He also said that Pythagoras preferred beans to
every other vegetable, as being the most laxative, and
that he was partial to sucking-pigs and tender kids.^ The
palpable exaggeration of these statements shows, however,
that he is endeavouring to combat a behef which existed in

1 See above, p. 84.

2 The proper Greek for this is iraXiyyepeala, and the inaccurate term
fieTeixxpitxitXTL^ only occurs in late writers. Some of the Neoplatonists and
Christian apologists say fieTeva(afj.a.TU}ai.%, which is accurate but cumbrous.
Cf. Olympiodoros in Phaed. p. 54, 25 (Norvin), ttjj/ fi€Te/j.\l/uxoj<yi.f, iJToi ttjv
lxeTev(7(aiM6LT(i}(rLV, 5i6ti ov iroWaX \pvxoX ^v o-Qfia eiSoiroiovaiv, iirel aOrr] fMerefi-
yp{>X(^<Ti.^ ^v, dXXct fiia ^vxv Sid(f)opa awfiara fi€Tafnri(rx^Tai. See Rohde,
Psyche, p. 428, n. 2.

^ See Diog. viii. 13.

* Aristoxenos ap. Diog. viii. 20, wdyra fikv ra &\\a <Tvyx(^peTv avrhv
iadUiu ^/xxj/vxo; fibvov 5' dir^x^^^'^'- /3o^s dpoTijpos Kal KpioO.

6 Aristoxenos ap. Gell. iv. 11, 5, Uvdaydpas 5^ tQiv oairpLwv fidXKrra rhv
Kvafiop edoKifiaaev ' \eiavTiK6v re yap eXvai Kal diax'^P'rjTLKbv ' 5ib Kal
fidXiara k^xpvtoh aiiTi^ ', ib. 6, " porculis quoque minuscuUs et haedis tene-
rioribus 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.

94 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

his own day, so we can show, out of his own mouth, that
the tradition which made the Pythagoreans abstain from
animal flesh and beans goes back to a time long before the
Neopythagoreans. The explanation is that Aristoxenos
had been the friend of the last of the Pythagoreans ; and,
in their time, the strict observance had been relaxed, except
by some zealots whom the heads of the Society refused to
acknowledge.^ The " Pythagorists " who clung to the old
practices were now regarded as heretics, and it was said
that the Akousmatics, as they were" called, were really
followers of Hippasos, who had been excommunicated for
reveahng secret doctrines. The genuine followers of
Pythagoras were the Mathematicians. ^ The satire of the
poets of the Middle Comedy proves, however, that, even
though the friends of Aristoxenos did not practise abstinence,
there were. plenty of people in the fourth century, calHng
themselves followers of Pythagoras, who did.^ We know
also from Isokrates that they still observed the rule of

^ Yet even Aristoxenos recorded that, when Pherekydes died, he was
buried by Pythagoras at Delos (Diog. i. ii8). It was, perhaps, too
notorious to be denied,

2 Hippasos of Kroton or Metapontion (in the catalogue of lamblichos
he is a Sybarite) is, we shall see, the regular scapegoat of the Pythagoreans,
lamblichos, who here follows Nikomachos, says {V. Pyth. 8i ; R. P. 56)
that the /j.adijfiaTLKoi were admitted to be Pythagoreans by the d/couc/za-
TiKoi, but did not recognise them in return. We are told (Diog. viii. 7)
that the fivariKos X670S ascribed to Pythagoras was really by Hippasos,
who wrote it iwl dia^oXy Uvdayopov, i.e. to throw discredit on him by
representing him as a purely religious teacher. The term UveayopKrHjs
seems to have been used specially of the Akousmatics, while the
scientific Pythagoreans were called HvdaybpeLoi in the same way as the
followers of other schools were called ' kva^aybpeioi, 'HpaKXeLreioi, and the
Uke.

3 For the fragments, see Diels, Vors. 45 e. The most striking are
Antiphanes, fr. 135, Kock, ioairep Uvdayopi^oiv eadUi \ ^ix\pvxov oidep ; Alexis,
fr. 220, ot 'n.vdayopLi;'ovTes yap, ws aKouo/xev, \ out 6\pov iadlovaLv oijr' &XK' ov8^
iv \ l/x\pvxov ; fr. 196 (from the Hvdayopi^^ova-a), 17 5' eaTiaais tVxdSes Kal
aT€fi(pv\a 1 /cat rvpos iarai ' ravra yap dveiv vofios \ roh UvdayopeioLS ; Aristophon,
fr. 9 (from the l\vdayopi<JTr]s) , irpbs rdv deCov oiojxeOa toi)s TrdXai irore, \ Toiis
UvdayopLCTTas yevo/x^fovs turois pvirdv \ eKOvras ij (popelv rpi^uvas Tjdius; Mnesi-
machos, fr. I, ws nvOayopLari dvo/xep ry Ao^iq, \ ^fj-xpvxov ovdev eadiovres
iravTekCj^. See also Theokritos xiv. 5, tolovto^ Kal irpav tis d<piK€To Ilvdayo-
piKTas, I u}xpi>s KawTTodriTos ' 'Adrjyaios 5' icpar' fjfiev.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 95

silence.^ History has not been kind to the Akousmatics,
but they never wholly died out. The names of Diodoros
of Aspendos and Nigidius Figulus help .^ to bridge the gulf
between them and Apollonios of Jf^^^swasbiX:

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 J? This is strikingly confirmed by a statement
in Porphyr5^'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.^
Now, among primitive peoples, we often find that the sacred
animal is slain and eaten on certain solemn occasions,
though in ordinary circumstances this would be the greatest
of all impieties. Here, again, we have a primitive behef ;
and we need not attach any weight to the denials of
Aristoxenos.^

44. We shall now know what to think of the Pythagorean ^,*owswa/a.
rules and precepts that have come down to us. These are

1 Bousiris, § 28, ^n yap Kal pvv roOs TrpoaTroiov/xivovs iKeiuov fiadrjras
elvaL fxaWov aiyQvras davjxd^ovcnv fj toOs iirl ry X^7eiJ' fxeyi<TTr}v 56^av ^xoyras.
The Pythagorean silence was called ix^fivdia or ix^ppr^ixoavv-q, 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 iiber Frommigkeit. Porphyry's
tract, Tlepl airoxn^ eixxpyx^^v, 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, iaropouat 8i rives Kal
avTovs aimadaL tCov ijx^pvx'Jiv rods Jlvdayopeiovs, ore ddoiev deois. 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 (ot JlvdayopLKol) iyeiovro twp lepodiruv
airap^dixevoi rots deocs.

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). lamblichos {V. Pyih. 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 en-
deavoured to go back to the original form of the Pythagorean legend, and
to explain away the fourth-century reconstruction.

■lftW)««l'itVi.?

96 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of two kinds, and have different sources. Some of them,
derived from Affstoxeiiqs, and for the most part preserved
by lambhchos, are mere precepts of morahty. They do
not pretend to go back to Pythagoras himself ; they are
only the sayings which the last generation of " Mathe-
maticians " heard from their predecessors. ^ The second
class is of a different nature, and consists of rules called
^^^A^pusmatai which points to their being the property of the
sect which had faithfully preserved the old customs. Later
writers interpret them as " symbols " of moral truth ; but it
does not require a practised eye to see that they are genuine
taboos. I give a few examples to show what the Pytha-
gorean rule was really like.

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 con-
nexion between Pythagoreanism and primitive modes of
thought, but what has been said is sufficient for our
purpose.

^ For the HvdayopLKal dTro<pd(r€Ls of Aristoxenos, see Diels, Vors.
2 There is a collection of 'AKova-/.!.ara kuI av/ji.j3o\a in Diels, Vors.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 97

45. Now, were this all, we should be tempted to delete Pytha-
the name of Pythagoras from the history of philosophy, ^^0? ^
and relegate him to the class of " medicine-men " i^^TS^)-"^^^^^^'
along with Epimenides and Onomakritos. That, however,
would be quite wrong. The Pythagorean Society became
the chief scientific school of Greece, and it is certain that
Pythagorean science goes back to the early years of the
fifth century, and therefore to the founder. Herakleitos,
who is not partial to him, says that Pythagoras had
pursued scientific investigation further than other men.^
Herodotos called Pythagoras "by no means the weakest
sophist of the Hellenes," a title which at this date does not
imply the sHghtest disparagement, but does imply scientific
studies. 2 Aristotle said that Pythagoras at first busied
himself with mathematics and numbers, though he adds
that later he did not renounce the miracle-mongering of
Pherekydes.^ Can we trace any connexion between these
two sides of his activity ?

We have seen that the aim of the Orphic and other
Orgia was to obtain release from the " wheel of birth "
by means of " purifications " of a primitive type. The
new thing in the society founded by Pythagoras seems
to have been that, while it admitted all these old prac-
tices, it at the same time suggested a deeper idea of what
" purification " really is. Aristoxenos said that the Pytha-i
goreans employed music to purge the soul as thew
used medicine to purge the body.* Such methods op
purifying the soul were famiUar in the Orgia of the Kory-

1 Herakl. fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). The word iaroplr) is in itself quite general.
What it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by
lamblichos, V. Pyth. 89, iKaXeiro 5^ i] yeufxeTpia irpos UvOaydpov Icropia.

2 Herod, iv. 95.

' Arist. Uepi tCov Uvdayopeiuv, fr. 186, 1 510 a 39, livdaySpas Mvrjadpxov
vlb^ rb ixev irpwrov dieiroveLTO irepl rot. fjiadrmara Kal roi/s dpidfiovs, varepov di
irore Kal ttjs ^epeKvSov reparoxoitas oiiK dv^aTr].

^ See Cramer, An. Par. i. 172, 6tl ol UvOayopiKoi, (bs ?07? ' ApiarS^euos,
Kaddpaei ixpCUvro tov fjih adifiaTOS did tijs laTpiKTJs, ttjs S^ ^vxv^ SiA t^s
/ioi;(riK^s.

98 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

f bantes/ and will serve to explain the Pythagorean interest
in*''ffi:rmonics. But there is more than this. If we can
trust Herakleides, it was Pythagoras who first distinguished
the " three Hves," the Theq|;^ti«'/^the Pmcti^^^^nd the
Apolaustic, which Aristotle made use of in the Ethics, The
doctrine is" to this effect. We are strangers in this world,
and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet we must not
seek to escape by self-murder ; for we are the chattels of
God who is- our herdsman, and without his command we
have no right to make our escape. ^ In this life there are
three kinds of men, just as there are three sorts of people
who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest class is made
up of those who come to buy and selL and next above them
are those who come to com^^I^^est of all, however, are
those who come to look o!r^g^g^4*^ The greatest purifica-
tion of all is, therefore, science, and it is the man who
devotes himself to that, the true philosopher, who has most
effectually released himself from the '' wheel of birth." It
would be rash to say that Pythagoras expressed himself
exactly in this manner ; but all these ideas are genuinely
Pythagorean, and it is only in some such way that we can
bridge the gulf which separates Pythagoras the man of
science from Pythagoras the reUgious teacher. ^ It is easy
to understand that most of his followers would rest content
with the humbler kinds of purification, and this will account
for the sect of the Akousmatics. A few would rise to the
higher doctrine, and we have now to ask how much of the

1 These are mentioned in Plato, Laws, 790 d, a passage which is the
origin of Aristotle's doctrine of Kddapais. For a full account see Rohde,
Psyche, ii. 48, n. i.

2 Plato gives this as the Pythagorean view in Phaed. 62 b. The
passage distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of Philolaos,
but something older.

3 See Doring in Arch. v. pp. 505 sqq. There seems to be a reference
to the theory of the "three lives" in Herakleitos, fr. iii. 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).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

later Pythagorean science may be ascribed to Pythagoras
himself.
v-^,46. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said that Arithmetic.
Pythagoras was the first to carry that study beyond the
needs of commerced and his statement is confirmed by
everySKng'^we^^Eerwise know. By the end of the fifth
century B.C. we find that there is a widespread interest in
such subjects and that these are studied for their own sake.
Now this new interest cannot have been wholly the work
of a school ; it must have originated with some great man,
and there is no one but Pythagoras to whom we can refer it.
As, however, he wrote nothing, we have no sure means of
distinguishing his own teaching from that of his followers
in the next generation or two. All we can safely say is
that, the more primitive any Pythagorean doctrine appears,
the more hkely it is to be that of Pythagoras himself, and
all the more so if it can be shown to have points of con-
tact with views which we know to have been held in his
own time or shortly before it. In particular, when we find
the later Pythagoreans teaching things that were already
something of an anachronism in their own day, we may be
pretty sure we are deaUng with survivals which only the
authority of the master's name could have preserved.
Some of these must be mentioned at once, though the
developed system belongs to a later part of our story. It
is only by separating its earliest form from its later that
the place of Pythagoreanism in Greek thought can be
made clear, though we must remember that no one can
now pretend to draw the line*between its successive stages
with any certainty.

47. One of the most remarkable statements we have*^fe©^>,
about Pythagoreanism is what we are told of Eurytos on ^***^
the unimpeachable authority of Archytas. Eurytos,, was

1 Stob. i. p. 20, I, iK tCjv ' Apta-To^^pov irepl dpiOfnjTtKrjs, Ttjj' 5^ irepl toijs
dpidfJLOvi Trpay/j-aTeiap fidXtcxTa irdvTiav TifirjaaL doKei Uvdaydpas /cat wpoayayeij/
eirl rb irpbadev dirayayiav dirh t^s tCjv e/j-iropcov x/oe/as.

100 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the disciple of . I^]3Lik)l€^o^;"''«bnd Aristoxenos mentioned him
along with Philolaos as having taught the last of the Pytha-
goreans, the men with whom he himself was acquainted.
He therefore belongs to the beginning of the fourth century
B.C., by which time the Pythagorean system was fully
developed, and he was no eccentric enthusiast, but one of
the foremost men in the school.^ We are told of him, then,
that he used to give the number of alV sorts of things, such
as horses and men, and that he demonstrated these by
arranging pebbles in a certain way. Moreover, Aristotle
compares his procedure to that of those who bring numbers
into figures {a-x^rj/jLaTo) like the triangle and the square.^

Now these statements, and especially the remark of
Aristotle last quoted, seem to imply the existence at this
date, and earher, of a numerical symboHsm quite distinct
from the alphabetical notation on the one hand and from
the EucUdean representation of numbers by lines on the
other. The former was inconvenient for arithmetical
purposes, because the zero was not yet invented.^ The
representation of numbers by Unes was adopted to avoid

^ Apart from the story in lamblichos {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).

* 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), tovto yap (sc. rb fii]
jx^xP'- '"Of TrpoeXddyra iraieadai) reK^ov Kol (ppovovpro^, Sirep 'Apx^Tas ttot' icjyrj
TTOietp EiipvTou diaridiura rivas \pifj(povs ' X^yeiv yap cos ode fiev dvdpdiirov 6
dpLOfids, Sde 5^ tirirov, 6de 8' &X\ov TLvbs rvyxdvec.

3 The notation used in Greek arithmetical treatises must have origin-
ated at a date and in a region where the Van 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 B.C. 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 a.d.) 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 oidiv.

SCIENCE AND RELIGI^^N /. : loi

the difficulties raised by the discovBrvqf ipj^tion^lqu^j^tj:ties,
and is of much later date. It seems" rather 'thkt liiimbers
were originally represented by dots arranged in S5niimetrical
and easily recognised patterns, of which the marking of
dice or dominoes gives us the best idea. And these markings
are, in fact, the best proof that this is a genuinely primitive
method of indicating numbers ; for they are of unknown
antiquity, and go back to the time when men could only
count by arranging numbers in such patterns, each of which
became, as it were, a fresh unit.

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 hnear
symboUsm 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.^ The natural thing would be to
represent linear or prime numbers by a row of units, poly-
gonal numbers by units arranged so as to mark out the
various plane figures, and solid numbers by units disposed
in pyramids and so forth. ^ We therefore find figures like
this:

a a

aaa

a a

aaa

a a

1 Nikomachos of Gerasa, Inirod. Arithm. p. 83, 12, Hoche, Upbrepov S^
iiriyvwaT^ov 6tl ^Kaarov ypd/xij,a (^ arjfxeiov/neda^ aptdixov, olov rb i, (^ t6 8iKa, t6
K, (^ rd etKoai, t6 w, ip rb. 6KraK6<na, vdfKp Kal avv6rj/j,aTt dvOpitiirivq}, dXX* 0^
(t>v(r€L aT]fiavTLK6v ian rod dpLd/xov kt\. Cf. also Iambi, in Nicom. p. 56, 27,
Pistelli, iffriov yap wj rb irakaibv (ftvaiKibrepov ol irpoadev iarffiaivovTo rds rod
dpidfiov irocr6T7)Tas, dXX' ovx ioairep oi vvv avfi^oXiKuis.

2 For the prime or rectilinear numbers, cf. Iambi, in Nicom. p. 26, 25,
Pistelli, TTpQiTos ixkv odv Kal davvderos dpidfids iari irepKrabs 8s virb ^iMvtjs
fMOPadoi irXripovvTOii fierpelrai, ovk^tl bk Kal vir dXkov TLvbs fxipov$, Kal iirl filay

102 : .. Ex\RLy. GREEK PHILOSOPHY

No\7 it^oaght^to^be obvious that this is no innovation. Of
course t^he^eiiiplaynient of^ the letter alpha to represent the
units is derived from the conventional notation ; but other-
wise we are clearly in presence of something which belongs
to the very earhest stage of the science. We also gather
that the dots were supposed to represent pebbles {\fr7j(j)ot) ,
and this throws light on early methods of what we still call
calculation.
Triangular, 48. That Aristotlc rcfcrs to this seems clear, and is
ISd^biong confirmed by the tradition that the great revelation made
numbers. \yy Pythagoras to mankind was precisely a figure of this
kind, the 'J^ta^tys, by which the Pythagoreans used to
swear, 1 and we ha*^ the authority of Speusippos for holding
that the whole theory >vas Pythagorean. ^ In later days
there were many kinds of tetraktys,^ but the original one,
that by which the Pythagoreans swore, was the " tetraktys
of the dekad." It was a figure like this :

• • •

• • • •

and represented the number ten as the triangle of four.

5^ didaraatu Trpo^rjaeTai 6 toloutos, 8ia touto d^ airhv Kal evdvjxerpLKbv rives
KoXovcn, Qvfiapidas d^ Kal evdvypafiixLKbv drXarT/s yap iv tt} eKdiffei ecf) ^v
fibvov dua-Tdfievos. It is generally recognised now that Thymaridas was
an early Pythagorean (Tannery, Mem. 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.

* Cf. the formula Ov fxd rbv afxer^pa yeveq, TrapaSbvra rerpaKTiJU,
which is all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of
Pythagoras by the forger of the Xpvaa itrri, 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 hellene, pp. 374 sqq,

3 See Theon, Expositio, pp. 93 sqq.^ Hiller. The rerpaKHs used in the
Timaeus is the second described by Theon {Exp. p. 94, 10 sqq.

I SCIENCE AND RELIGION 103

I It showed at a glance, that i +2 +3 +4=10. Speusippos
I tells us of several properties which the Pythagoreans dis-
^6vered in the dekad/ It is, for instance, the first number
that has in it an equal number of prime and composite
numbers. How much of this goes back to Pythagoras
himself, we cannot tell ; but we are probably justified in
referring to him the conclusion that it is " according to
nature " that all Hellenes and barbarians count up to ten
and then begin over again.

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,^ the result is always a similar
figure, namely a square, while, if even numbers are added,
we get a series of rectangles,^ as shown by the figure :

Square Numbers. Oblong Numbers.

• • •

1 In accordance with analogy (p. 21, n. i), the" original meaning of
the word yvwixwv must have been that of the carpenter's square. From
that are derived its use (i) 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 ypco/xuv is
defined by Heron (ed. Heiberg, vol. iv, def. 58) thus : Kad6\ov 8k yvdofiiav
iarlv irav, 8 trpoaXa^bv otlouv, dpid/xbs rj axrj/J-O', Trote? to 6\ov 8/jloiov ip irpoael-
\-q(pev. These, however, are later developments ; for the use of yvdjficou
in the sense of "perpendicular" by Oinopides of Chios shows that, in
the fifth century B.C., it only applied to rectangular figures.

2 Cf. Milhaud, Philosophes gSometres, pp. 1155^^. Aristotle puts the
matter thus {Phys. V, 4. 203 a 13) : irepLnde/xipiov yap rdv yvwfibvwv -rrepl
rb iu Kal X'^P'J or^ jmeu dWo del ylyveadat to elSoj, ot^ bk 'iv. This is more
clearly stated by Ps.-Plut. (Stob. i. p. 22, 16), ert 5^ t^ ixovabt tQv icpe^r/S
ireptaaCJu TrepiTtde/x^vcAjv 6 ytv6/ji€vos del TeTpdyuivos icm ' tCjv dk dpriuv bfioius

104 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It is clear, then, that we are entitled to refer the study of
sums of series to Pythagoras himself ; but whether he went
beyond the oblong, and studied pyramidal or cubic numbers,
we cannot say.^
Geometry 49. It is casy to 866 how this way of representing numbers
harmonics, would suggcst problems of a geometrical nature. The dots
which stand for the pebbles are regularly called " boundary-
stones " (opoL, termini, " terms "), and the area they mark
out is the " field " (xcopa).^ This is evidently an early
way of speaking, and may be referred to Pythagoras himself.
Now it must have struck him that " fields " could be com-
pared as well as numbers,^ and it is likely that he knew the
rough methods of doing this traditional in Egypt, though
certainly these would fail to satisfy him. Once more the
tradition is helpful in suggesting the direction his thoughts
must have taken. He knew, of course, the use of the
triangle 3, 4, 5 in constructing right angles. We have seen
(p. 20) that it was familiar in the East from a very early
date, and that Thales introduced it to the Hellenes, if they
did not know it already. In later writers it is actually
called the " Pythagorean triangle." Now the Pythagorean
proposition par excellence is just that, in a right-angled

irepiTideixhojv eTepofj.rjKeis Kal Avlctol Trdvres aTro^aivovaiv, tcrojs S^ ladKis ov8ds.
It will be observed that Aristotle here uses elSos in the sense of "figure."
The words /cat x^p's apparently mean x't'pis toO ivos, i.e. starting from 2,
not from i.

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, ^ari 8^ rb 6vofxa (sc. 6pos) oUeTou ry i^
dpxv^ yeu}/uL€Tpiq., Kad' ^v to, x^P^^ ejxiTpovv Kal tovs 8povs avrdv icpiuXarrov
da-vyxvTovs. We have 8poi of a series {^Kdeais), then of a proportion,
and in later times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, and .-. seem to be
derived from this. The term xoipa is often used by the later Pytha-
goreans, though Attic usage required x^P'-o'^ for a rectangle. The spaces
between the ypa/xixai of the abacus and the chess-board were also called

* In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority
of Eudemos that the irapa^oXif}, ^XXeti^tr, and vwep^oK-q of x^P^^ werc^
Pythagorean inventions. For these and the later application of th^
terms in Conic Sections, see Milhaud, Philosophes geometres, pp. 81 sqq.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 105

triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the
squares on the other two sides, and the so-called Pythagorean
triangle is the application of its converse to a particular
case. The very name " hypotenuse " (viroreLvovaa) affords
strong confirmation of the intimate connexion between the
two things. It means literally " the cord stretching over
against," and this is surely just the rope of the " arpe-
donapt." It is, therefore, quite possible that this proposi-
tion was really discovered by Pythagoras, though we cannot
be sure of that, and though the demonstration of it which
Euclid gives is certainly not his.^

50. One great disappointment, however, awaited him. incom-

. . mensur-

It follows at once from the Pythagorean proposition that ability,
the square on the diagonal of a square is double the square
on its side, and this ought surety 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 commen-
surable, we should have to say that an even number was
equal to an odd number, is distinctly Pythagorean in
character.^ However that may be, it is certain that Pytha-
goras did not care to pursue the subject any further. He
may have stumbled on the fact that the square root of two
is a surd, but we know that it was left for Plato's friends,
Theodoros of Kyrene and Theaitetos, to give a complete
Uheory of irrationals.^ For the present, the incommensura-
|bility of the diagonal and the square remained, as has been

;^aid, a " scandalous exception." Our tradition says that

^ See Proclus's commentary on Euclid i. 47.

2 Arist. An, Pr. A, 23. 41 a 26, 8tl davjufierpos rj bLajxerpo^ 8ia rb
yiyveadai to, irepLTTa taa tocs dprioLS crvfipi^Tpov redei<X'rfS. The proofs given
at the end of EucHd'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 geometres, p. 94.

3 Plato, Theaet. 147 d 3 sqq. \

io6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Hippasos of Metapontion was drowned at sea for revealing
this skeleton in the cupboard.^
Proportion 51. These last considerations show that, while it is
harmony, quite Safe to attribute the substance of the early books
of EucHd 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 EucHd 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 '*
(fjb€o-6T7]T€^) 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,^ we find that 12 : 6 is
the octave, 12 : 8 the fifth, and 8 : 6 the fourth, and it can
hardly be doubted that Pythagoras himself discovered these
intervals. The stories about his observing the harmonic
intervals in a smithy, and then weighing the hammers that
produced them, or suspending weights corresponding to those
of the hammxcrs to equal strings, are, indeed, impossible and
absurd ; but it is sheer waste of time to rationaUse them.^

1 This version of the tradition is mentioned in lamblichos, V. Pyth.
247, and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later (§ 148).
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) d d^
virevavrla {fieadTas), &.v KaXovfiep apfioucKdv, 6KKa icovri <Toiot (sc. oi 6poi) ' v>
6 irpQros Spos UTrep^xei rod devripov avravrov fi^pei, rwdrcp 6 jx^cros rod rplrov
virep^X^L rod Tpirov fx^pei. Cf. Plato, Tim. 36 a 3, rrjv . . . ravrip fx^pcL tQv
&Kp(j}v avrCou vTrep^x^^'^^" 'f'*^ inrepexofiivTjv. The harmonic mean of 12 and 6
is, therefore, 8 ; for 8 = 12 -V- =6 + f.

s The smith's hammers belong to the region of Mdrchen, and it is not
true that the notes would correspond to the weight of the hammers, or

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 107

For our purpose their absurdity is their chief merit. They
are not stories which any Greek mathematician could pos-
sibly have invented, but popular tales bearing witness to
the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was the
author of this momentous discovery. On the other hand,
the statement that he discovered the " consonances *' by
measuring the lengths corresponding to them on the mono-
chord is quite credible and involves no error in acoustics.

./'^2. It was this, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to say all ^i^i^gs ar
pings were numbers. We shall see that, at a later date, the numbers,
rythagoreans 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 th^? original
sense of the doctrine. It is enough to suppose thA Pytha-
goras reasoned somewhat as follows. |If musical sclinds can
be reduced to numbers, why not everything else! There
are many Hkenesses to number in things, and it may well
be that a lucky experiment, Uke 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 earUest 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 dis-
tinctly that the Pythagoreans explained only a few things
by means of numbers,^ which means that Pythagoras him-
self left no developed doctrine on the subject, while the
Pythagoreans of the fifth century did not care to add any-
thing of the sort to the tradition. Aristotle does imply,
however, that according to them the '* right time " (/catpo?)

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,
Etudes sur le Timee, i. p. 391).

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).

ro8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

was seven, justice was four, and marriage three J These
identifications, with a few others hke them, we miy safely
refer to Pythagoras or his immediate successors/ but we

1; must not attach too much importance to them. We
must start, not from them, but from any statements we
can find that present points of contact with the teaching of
the Milesian school. These, we may, fairly infer, belong to
the system in its most primitive form.
Cosmology. 53. Now the most striking statement of this kind is
one of Aristotle's. The Pythagoreai^ held, he tells us,
that there was " boundless breath "/Outside the heavens,
and that it was inhateti^^''ti!e^orld.^ In substance, that
is the doctrine of Anaximenes, and it becomes practically
certain that it was taught by Pythagoras, when we find
that Xenophanes denied it.^ We may infer that the further
development of the idea is also due to Pythagoras. We
are told that, after the first unit had been formed — however
that may have taken place — the nearest part of the Bound-
less was first draw^n in and limited ; ^ and that it is the

J Boundless thus inhaled that keeps the units separate from

I each other.* It represents the interval between them.

I This is a primitive way of describing discrete quantity.

..,-,-i-Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 b 22 (R. P. 75).

2 Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c), Hikov 5' bpav /cat 6\ov aKo^eiv, fir] /ul^ptol
Avairveiv {(prja-t. fi:,evo(pdpr]s). So in [Plut.] Strom, fr. 4 we read that
Xenophanes held fiij Kara ttolv fxipos irepi^x^'^^^'- ^'^^ d4pos [ttjv yrjv). We
may therefore ascribe the statement to Theophrastos without hesitation,
in spite of the fact that Diogenes is here drawing on an inferior (bio-
graphical) source, as shown by Diels {Dox. p. 168). Cf. also Hipp. Ref.
i, 14, 2, T7)v 5^ yT]u dTreipop elvai Kal fii^re vv' d^pos fxi^TC xiirb rod oipavov irepii-
Xeadat {'fi!,€vo(f>dvT]s \eyei).

3 Arist. Mei. N, 3. 1091 a 13 (R. P. 74).

4 Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 b 23 (R. P. 75 a). The words diopi^ei rds
(pvaeis have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been supposed
to attribute the function of limiting to the dveipov. Aristotle makes it
quite clear that his meaning is that stated in the text. Cf. especially
the words x^P'-^P-^^ nvos tQu e<pe^ri$ /cat diopiaews. The term dioopia-pLipop,
" discrete," is the proper antithesis to avpex^s, " continuous." In his
work on the Pythagorean philosophy, Aristotle used instead the phrase
diopi^cL rds xwpas (Stob. i. p. 1 56, 8 ; R. P. 75), which is also quite in-
telligible if we remember what the Pythagoreans meant by x'^'P^ (cf- P-
104, n. 2).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

109

In these passages of Aristotle, the " breath " is also
spoken of as the void or empty. This is a confusion we
have already met with in Anaximenes, and it need not
surprise us to find it here.^ We find also clear traces of the
other confusion, that of air and vapour. It seems certain,
in fact, that Pythagoras identified the Limit with fire, and
the Boundless with darkness. We are told by Aristotle
that Hippasos made Fire the first principle,^ and we shall
see that Parmenides, in discussing the opinions of his con-
temporaries, attributes to them the view that there were
two primary " forms,*' Fire and Night. ^ We also find that
Light and Darkness appear in the Pythagorean table of
opposites under the heads of the Limit and the Unlimited
respectively.* The identification of breath with darkness
Jiere implied is a strong proof of the primitive character of
I'the doctrine ; for in the sixth century darkness was supposed
^. to be a sort of vapour, while in the fifth its-..t£ue..uature was
I known. Plato, with his usual historical tact, makes the
* Pythagorean Timaios describe mist and darkness as con-
densed air.^ We must think, then, of a " field " of darkness
or breath marked out by luminous units, an imagination
the starry heavens would naturally suggest. It is even
probable that we should ascribe to Pythagoras the Milesian
view of a pluraHty of worlds, though it would not have been
natural for him to speak of an infinite number. We know,
at least, that P^on, one of the early Pythagoreans, said

there were just a huMred and eighty-three worlds arranged
in a triangle.^ 1

^ Cf. Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 a 27, ol 5' ApOpooiroi . . . <paatv iv cp 5Xws
fji.r)d4v iaTi, tovt^ elvai Kevdv, 5i6 t6 xX^pes dipos Kevbv elvat ', De part. an. B,
10. 656 b 15, t6 ybip Kevbv Kokodfievov d^pos irXripis iari ; De an. B, lo. 419
b 34, doKeX yap etvai Kevbv 6 drip.

2 Arist. Mei. 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). & Plato, Tim. 58 d 2.

* 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 Pytha-
goreans took refuge), this is a very valuable piece of evidence.

no EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The 54. Anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies as

bodii^^ wheels of "air" filled with fire which escapes through
certain orifices (§ 21), and there is evidence that Pythagoras
adopted the same view.^ We have seen that Anaximander
only assumed the existence of three such wheels, and it is
extremely probable that Pythagoras identified the intervals
between these with the three musicalr intervals he had dis-
covered, the fourth, the fifth, and the octave. That w^ould be
the most natural beginning for the doctrine of the " harmony
of the spheres," though the expression would be doubly
misleading if applied to any theory we can properly
ascribe to Pythagoras himself. The word dp/jbovla does
not mean harmony, but octave, and the " spheres " are an
anachronism. We are still at the stage when wheels or rings
were considered sufficient to account for the heavenly
bodies.

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. ^ It obviously involves a complete
break with the theory of a vortex, and suggests that the
heavens are spherical. That, however, was the only way
to get out of the difficulties of Anaximander' s system. If
it is to be taken seriously, we must suppose that the motions
of the sun, moon, and planets are composite. On the one

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 Actios (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.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION iii

hand, they have their own revolutions with varying angular
velocities from west to east, but they are also carried along
by the diurnal revolution from east to west. Apparently
this was expressed by saying that the motions of the
planetary orbits, which are oblique to the celestial equator,
are mastered {Kparelrai) by the diurnal revolution. The
lonians, down to the Demokritos, never accepted this view.
They clung to the theory of the vortex, which made it
necessary to hold that all the heavenly bodies revolved in
the same direction, so that those which, on the P^^thagorean
system, have the greatest angular velocity have the least
on theirs. On the Pythagorean view, Saturn, for instance,
takes about thirty years to complete its revolution ; on the
Ionian view it is '* left behind " far less than any other
planet, that is, it more nearly keeps pace with the signs of
the Zodiac.^

For reasons which will appear later, we may confi-
dently attribute to Pythagoras himself the discovery of
the sphericity of the earth, which the lonians, 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. ^

^ See the account of the theory of Demokritos in Lucretius, v. 621 sqq.,
and cf. above, p. 70. The technical term is u7r6Xeti/'ts. 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.

112 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It is clear at any rate that the great contribution of Pytha-
goras to science was his discovery that the concordant
intervals could be expressed by simple numerical ratios.
In principle, at least, that suggests an entirely new view of
the relation between the traditional " opposites." If a
perfect attunement [apixovia) of the high and the low can
be attained by observing these ration, it is clear that other
opposites may be similarly harmonised. The hot and the
cold, the wet and the dry, may be united in a just blend
{Kpaa-i^), an idea to which our word " temperature " still
bears witness. ^ The medical doctrine of the " tempera-
ments " is derived from the same source. Moreover, the
famous doctrine of the Mean is only an apphcation of
the same idea to the problem of conduct. ^ It is not too
much to say that Greek philosophy was henceforward to be
dominated by the notion of the perfectly tuned string.

II. Xenoppianes of Kolophon

Life. 55. We have seen how Pythagoras gave a deeper

meaning to the reUgious 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
famiUar. Xenophanes denied the anthropomorphic gods
altogether, but was quite unaffected by the revival of
reUgion going on all round him. We still have a fragment
of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the doctrine
of transmigration.^ We are also told that he opposed the
views of Thales and Pythagoras, and attacked Epimenides,

1 It is impossible not to be struck by the resemblance between this
doctrine and Dalton's theory of chemical combination. A formula like
HgO is a beautiful example of a fiea&rrfs. The diagrams of modern stereo-
chemistry 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.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 113

which is hkely enough, though no fragments of the kind
have come down to us.^

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 anec-
dotical 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. ^ As Hieron reigned from
478 to 467 B.C., that would make it impossible to date the
birth of Xenophanes earlier than 570 B.C., even if we suppose
him to have Hved till the age of a hundred. On the other
hand, Clement says that Apollodoros gave 01. XL. (620-
616 B.c ) as the date of his birth, and adds that his days
were prolonged till the time of Dareios and Cyrus.^ Again,
Diogenes, whose information on such matters mostly comes
from Apollodoros, says he flourished in 01. LX. (540-537 B.C.),
and Diels holds that Apollodoros really said so.* However
that may be, it is evident that the date 540 B.C. is based
on the assumption that he went to Elea in the year of its
foundation, and is, therefore, a mere combination, which
need not be taken into account.^

1 Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). We know that Xenophanes referred to the
prediction of an edipse by Thales (Chap. I. p. 42, n. i).

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. V. 5. 1 010 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, lac 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 &xpi- t^^ Aapeiov Kal
Kijpov xpovcov can mean " during the times of Dareios and Cyrus."

4 Rh. Mus. xxxi. p. 22. He adopts the suggestion of Ritter to read
TrevTrjKdaTTiv for TeaaapaKdarrjv in Clem. loc. cit. (N for M). But Apollodoros
gave Athenian archons, not Olympiads.

6 As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left
Phokaia_ (Herod, i. 164 sqq.) its date is just 540-39 B.C. Cf. the way in
which Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi (§ 98).

114 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

What we do know for certain is that Xenophanes had
led a wandering hfe from the age of twenty-five, and that
he was still alive and making poetry at the age of ninety-two.
He says himself (fr. 8 = 24 Karst. ; R. P. 97) :

There are by this time threescore years and seven that have
tossed my careworn soul ^ up and down the land of Hellas ; and
there were then five-and-twenty years from my birth, if I can
say aught truly about these matters.

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 2 (fr. 22 = 17 Karst. ; R. P. 95 a) :

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 B.C., 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,* and we shall see that he was acquainted
with the Ionian cosmology. When driven from his native
city, he Uved in Sicily, chiefly, we are told, at Zankle and
Katana.^ Like Archilochos before him, he unburdened his
soul in elegies and satires, which he recited at the banquets
where, we may suppose, the refugees tried to keep up the

1 Bergk {Litter aturgesch. ii. p. 418, n. 23) took cppovris 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.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 115

usages of good Ionian society. The statement that he was
a rhapsode has no foundation at all.^ The singer of elegies
was no professional Uke the rhapsode, but the social equal
of his listeners. In his ninety-second year he was still, we
have seen, leading a wandering Ufe, which is hardly consist-
ent with the statement that he settled at Elea and founded
a school there, especially if we are to think of him as
spending his last days at Hieron's court. ^ It is very
remarkable that no ancient writer expressly says he ever
was at Elea,^ and all the evidence we have seems inconsistent
with his having settled there at all.

56. According to Diogenes, Xenophanes wrote in hexa- Poems,
meters and also composed elegies and iambics against
Homer and Hesiod.* No good authority says anything
of his having written a philosophical poem.^ SimpHcius
tells us he had never met with the verses about the earth

1 Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97) says avrbs ippaxpifiSeL ra iavroO, which is a very
different thing. Nothing is said anywhere of his reciting Homer. Gom-
perz'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 emigres. 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.

' 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 " (RheL 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 iiriKdxTcav is a reminiscence of
Timon, fr. 60 (Diels), 'S!iei.uo(pdvT]S VTrdTV<pos 'OfirjpaTrdTrjs iirLKOTTTris.

5 The oldest reference to a poem Ilepl cpvaeus is in the Geneva scholium
on //. 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
Uepl (pvaews to some poem of Xenophanes.

ii6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

stretching infinitely downwards (fr. 28),^ and this means that
the Academy possessed no copy of such a poem, which would
be very strange if it had ever existed. Simplicius was able
to find the complete works of much smaller men. Nor does
internal evidence lend any support to the view that Xeno-
phanes wrote a philosophical poem. Diels refers about
twenty-eight lines to it, but they would all come in quite
as naturally in his attacks on Homer and Hesiod, as I have
endeavoured to show. It is also significant that a number
of them are derived from commentators on Homer.^ It
is more probable, then, that Xenophanes expressed such
scientific opinions as he had incidentally in his satires. That
would be in the manner of the time, as we can see from the
remains of Epicharmos.

The satires are called Silloi by late writers, and this
name may go back to Xenophanes himself. It may, how-
ever, originate in the fact that Timon of Phleious, the
' sillographer " (c. 259 B.C.), put much of his satire upon
philosophers into the mouth of Xenophanes. Only one
iambic Une has been preserved, and that is immediately
followed by a hexameter (fr. 14). This suggests that Xeno-
phanes inserted iambic hues among his hexameters in the
manner of the Margites.
The 57. I give the fragments according to the text and

arrangement of Diels.

Elegies

(I)
Now is the floor clean, and the hands and cups of all ; one
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.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 117

gladness, and there is more wine at hand that promises never to
leave us in the lurch, soft and smelling of flowers in the jars. In
the midst the frankincense sends up its holy scent, and there is
cold water, sweet and clean. Brown loaves are set before us
and a lordly table laden with cheese and rich honey. The altar
in the midst is clustered round with flowers ; song and revel fill
the halls.

But first it is meet that men should hymn the god with joy,
with holy tales and pure words ; then after Ubation 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, ^ as memory and
strength will serve him. Let him not sing of Titans and Giants
— those fictions of the men of old — nor of turbulent civil broils
in which is no good thing at all ; but to give heedful reverence
to the gods is ever good.

(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 wresthng, — 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 aU at the games,
his food at the pubUc cost from the State, and a gift to be an heir-
loom 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.2 Even if there arise a mighty boxer among a people,
or one great in the pentathlon or at wrestling, or one excelling in
swiftness of foot — and that stands in honour before all tasks of
men at the games — the city would be none the better governed
for that. It is but Httle joy a city gets of it if a man conquer
at the games by Pisa's banks ; it is not this that makes fat the
store-houses of a city.

1 So I understand afx4> dpeTrjs. The rofos is " strength of lungs."
The next verses are directed against Hesiod and Alkaios (Diels).

2 At this date " art " is the natural translation of <xo(plT] in such a writer
as Xenophanes.

ii8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(3)

They learnt dainty and unprofitable ways from the Lydians,
so long as they were free from hateful tyranny ; they went to the
market-place with cloaks of purple dye, not less than a thousand
of them all told, vainglorious and proud of their comely tresses,
reeking with fragrance from cunning. salves.

(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." 2

(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 iv iXeyeli^., ^s dpxv Nuv
adr dXXov ^ireiiu \6yov kt\.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 119

(II)
Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things
that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and
adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.

(12)

Since they have uttered many lawless deeds of the gods,
steahngs and adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. ih.

(14)

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

(15)

Yes, and if oxen and horses or Uons 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
Uke oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several
kinds. R. P. ih.

(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 begin-
ning, 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
Uke unto mortals nor in thought. . . . R. P. 100.

(24)

He sees all over, thinks aU over, and hears all over. R. P.
102.

(25)

I But without toil he swayeth aU things by the thought of his
mind. R. P. 108 b.

120 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(26)

And he abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at
all ; nor doth it befit him to go about now hither now thither.
R. P. no a.

(27) .
All things come from the earth, and in earth all things end.
R. P. 103 a.

(28)

This Umit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with
the air ; ^ below it reaches down without a limit. R. P. 103.

(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. ^ R. P. 103.

(31)

The sun swinging over ^ the earth and warming it. . . .

(32)

She that fhey 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 rj^pi for Kai pel with Diels.

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 iVepi^/zej/os. This is quoted from the Allegories as an
explanation of the name Hyperion, and doubtless Xenophanes so meant it.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 121

(34)

There never was nor will be a man who has certain knowledge
about the gods and about all the things I speak of. Even if he
should chance to say the complete truth, yet he himself knows
not that it is so. But all may have their fancy.^ R. P. 104.

(35)

Let these be taken as fancies ^ something like the truth.
R. P. 104 a.

(36)
All of them ^ that are visible for mortals to behold.

(37)

And in some caves water drips. ...

(38)

If god had not made brown honey, men would think figs far
sweeter than they do.

^S. Most of these fragments are not in any way philo- The
sophical, and those that appear to be so are easily accounted bodies! ^
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 doxo-
graphers tell us that these were all explained as " clouds
ignited by motion." * To the same context clearly belongs
the explanation of the St. Elmo's fire which Actios has
preserved. " The things like stars that appear on ships," we

^ It is more natural to take iraai as masculine than as neuter, and
iirl iracn can mean " in the power of all."

2 Reading SeSo^dadcj 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."

\
\

122 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

are told, "which some call the Dioskouroi, are Uttle clouds
made luminous by motion." ^ In the doxographers the
same explanation is repeated with trifling variations
under the head of moon, stars, comets, lightning,
shooting stars, and so forth, which gives the appearance
of a systematic cosmology. ^ But the system is due to
the arrangement of the work of Theophrastos, and not
to Xenophanes ; for it is obvious that a very few
additional hexameters would amply account for the whole
doxography.

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.^ That, however, matters Httle, if the chief
aim of Xenophanes was to discredit the anthropo-
morphic gods, rather than to give a scientific theory of
the heavenly bodies. The important thing is that Helios
too is a temporary phenomenon. The sun does not go
round the earth, as Anaximander taught, but straight
on, and the appearance of a circular path is solely due to
its increasing distance. So it is not the same sun that
rises next morning, but a new one altogether ; while
eclipses occur because the sun " tumbles into a hole "
when it comes to certain uninhabited regions of the earth.
An echpse may last a month. Besides that, there are

^ Aet. ii. 1 8, I {Dox. p. 347) > ^ePO(pdvr}i Toi)% iiri tCov ttXoiwv (paivo/xhovs
olov daripas, ods Kol AioaKOvpovs KaXoval Tcves, v€(p^\ia ehaL Kara ry]v ttololv ^
KLvrjcrLv TrapaXdfMTTOVTa.

2 The passages from Actios are collected in Diels, Vors. ii a 38 sqq.

3 Aet. ii. 20, 3 {Dox. p. 348), 'iEi.epocpdvrjs €k vetpwv ireirvpwixivwv etvai
rbv ■¥j\lov. QedippacTTOs iv roh ^vffiKois y4ypa<p€v iK Trvpibioiv fxkv twv
<Tvva6poi^oixivo}v iK TT]s vypds dvadv/iiidaecos, avvadpoL^bvrwv 5k rbv ijXioy.
It seems likely from these words that Theophrastos pointed out the co:
tradiction, as his manner was.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 123

many suns and moons, one of each for every region of the
earth.i

The vigorous expression " tumbHng into a hole " ^ seems
clearly to come from the verses of Xenophanes himself,
and there are others of a similar kind, which we must'
suppose were quoted by Theophrastos. The stars go out
in the daytime, but glow again at night " like charcoal
embers." ^ The sun is of some use in producing the world
and the Uving creatures in it, but the moon " does no work
in the boat." * Such expressions can only be meant to
make the heavenly bodies appear ridiculous, and it will
therefore be well to ask whether the other supposed cosmo-
logical fragments can be interpreted on the same principle.

59. In fr. 29 Xenophanes says that " all things are earth Earth and
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), ttoWovs elvat ijXiovs Kal o-eXiyi/as Karci
KXi/xara rijs 777s Kal dTroroyttds /cai fwi'as, Kara 84 riva Kaiphv ifMiriirreiv rbv
8l(tkov ets Tiva airoTOfiriv Trjs yrjs ovk oiKovfxhr]P v(f> TifxCov Kal ovtcjs (acirep Kevefi-
^arovvra ^KXei^j/iv virocpalveiv ' 6 5' airbs t6v ijXiov els Aireipop fikv irpoUvai, doKetv
5^ KVKXeiadaL dia t7)u airixTraaLv.

2 That this is the meaning of Keve/x^ar^u} appears sufficiently from
the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott, and it describes a total
eclipse very well.

^ Aet. ii. 13, 14 {Dox. p. 343), dva^wirvpe^v viKTiap Kaddirep roiis EvdpaKas.

* Aet. ii. 30, 8 {Dox. p. 362), rbv fih tjXlov xP'h'^'-l^^^ ^^'"^' "^P^^ "^^^
rod Kbafiov Kal t^v tQv iv avT(^ (^'(fojv y^vealv re Kal di.oiKT](nv, ttjv 8^ aeXijpyjv
TrapeXKCLv. The verb 7ra/)A«:eti' means "to cork." (Cf. Aristophanes,
Pax, 1306.) In Hellenistic Greek the metaphor is no longer felt, and
wapiXKei means " is redundant," " is superfluous."

124 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

are destroyed when the earth has been carried down into the
sea and turned to mud. This change takes place for all the
worlds. — Hipp. Ref. i. 14 (R. P. 103 a).

This is, of course, the theory of Anaximander, and we
may perhaps credit him rather than Xenophanes with the
observations of fossils.^ Most remarkable of all, however,
is the statement that this change appHes to " all the worlds."

^^It seems impossible to doubt that Theophrastos attributed
a beUef in " innumerable worlds " to Xenophanes., As we
have seen, Actios includes him in his list of those who held
this doctrine, and Diogenes ascribes it to him also,^ while
Hippolytos seems to take it for granted. We shall find,
however, that in another connexion he said the World
or God was one. If our interpretation of him is correct,
there is no great difficulty here. The point is that, so far
from being " a sure seat for all things ever," Gaia too is a
passing appearance. That belongs to the attack on Hesiod,
and if in this connexion Xenophanes spoke, with Anaxi-
mander, of " innumerable worlds," while elsewhere he said
that God or the World was one, that may be connected with
a still better attested contradiction which we have now to
examine.

>r 60. 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.^ Theophrastos, on tlie other hand,

1 There is an interesting note on these in Gomperz's Ch'eek Thinkers
(Eng. trans, i. p. 551). I have translated his conjecture cf>vKQ}v instead of
the MS. (j)(i}kCov, as this is said to involve a palaeontological impossibiUty,
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 8d(pv7js need not be changed to ac/iijrjs 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. I, 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 Actios, Hippolytos, and Diogenes.

3 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 b 23 (R. P. loi), ovdh di€aa(p'rii'ia€P.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 125

decided that he regarded it as spherical and finite, because
he said it was *' equal every way." ^ It really appears that
Xenophanes did not feel the contradiction involved in calHng
the world " equal every way " and infinite. We have seen
that he said the sim went right on to infinity, and that agrees
with his view of the earth as an infinitely extended plain.
He also held (fr. 28) that, while the earth has an upper limit
which we see, it has no limit below. This is attested by
Aristotle, who speaks of the earth being " infinitely rooted,"
and adds that Empedokles criticised Xenophanes for holding
this view. 2 It further appears from the fragment of Empe-
dokles quoted by Aristotle that Xenophanes said the vast
Air extended infinitely upwards.^ We are therefore bound
to try to find room for an infinite earth and an infinite air
in a spherical finite world ! That comes of trying to find
science in satire. If, on the other hand, we regard these
statements from the same point of view as those about the
heavenly bodies, we shall see what they probably mean.
The story of Ouranos and Gaia was always the chief scandal
of the Theogony, and the infinite air gets rid of Ouranos
altogether. As to the earth stretching infinitely downwards,
that gets rid of Tartaros, which Homer described as situated
at the bottommost Umit of earth and sea, as far beneath
Hades as heaven is above the earth.* This is pure con-
jecture, of course ; but, if it is even possible, we are
entitled to disbeUeve that it was in a cosmological poem
such startUng contradictions occurred.

1 This is given as an inference by Simpl. Phys. p. 23, 18 (R. P. 108 b),
dicL rb Travrax^dev bfxoLov. It does not merely come from M.X.G.
(R. P. 108), TrdvTy 5' bfioiov tpra (x<paipo€L8r] eivai. 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 laov airavr-y (fr. 60, Diels ; R. P. 102 a).

2 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21 (R. P. 103 b).

3 I take daxffiXds as an attribute and airelpova as predicate to both
subjects.

* //. viii. 13-16, 478-481, especially the words ovB' et k€ to, veiara ireipad'
U-nac I yairji Kal irbvTOLo kt\. Iliad viii. must have seemed a particularly
bad book to Xenophanes.

126 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

A more subtle explanation of the difficulty commended
itself to the late Peripatetic who wrote an account of the
Eleatic school, part of which is still extant in the AristoteHan
corpus, and is generally known now as the treatise on
Melissos, Xenophanes, and Gorgias.^ He said that Xeno-
phanes declared the world to be neither finite nor infinite,
and composed a series of arguments in support of this thesis,
to which he added another like it, namely, that the world
is neither in motion nor at rest. This has introduced endless
confusion into our sources. Alexander used this treatise
as well as the work of Theophrastos, and Simphcius supposed
the quotations from it to be from Theophrastos too. Having
no copy of the poems he was completely baffled, and until
recently all accounts of Xenophanes were vitiated by the
same confusion. It may be suggested that, but for this, we
should never have heard of the " philosophy of Xenophanes,"
a way of speaking which is really a survival from the days
before this scholastic exercise was recognised as having no
authority. ■

God and 6i. In the passage of the Metaphysics just referred to, ^

Aristotle speaks of Xenophanes as ''the first partisan of.
the One," ^ and the context shows he means to suggest he I
was the first of the Eleatics. We have seen already that]

1 In Bekker's edition this treatise bears the title Ilepi fi!,evo(pdvovs,
trtpl Ti-^vcopos, irepl Topyiov, but the best MS. gives as the titles of its
three sections : (i) TJepl Z-Zipuvos, (2) Ilepl '^evocpavovs, (3) VLepl Topyiov.
The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so the whole treatise
is now entitled De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia {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. 11 a 28. He has now withdrawn the view main-
tained in Dox. p. 108 that the work belongs to the third century B.C.,
and holds that it was a Peripatetico eclectico (i.e. sceptica, platonica, sioica ,
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. 1 01), TrpwTos tovtwv €vLaa$. The verb evL^eiv
occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of ixriU^eiv,
(f>L\Linri^etv, and the like.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 127

the certain facts of his life make it very unhkely that he
settled at Elea and founded a school there, and it is probable
that, as usual in such cases, Aristotle is simply reproducing
certain statements of Plato. At any rate, Plato had spoken
of the Eleatics as the " partisans of the Whole," ^ and he
had also spoken of the school as " starting with Xenophanes
and even earher." ^ xhe last words, however, show clearly
what he meant. Just as he called the Her akleit cans
" followers of Homer and still more ancient teachers," ^
so he attached the Eleatics to Xenophanes and still earlier
authorities. We have seen before how these playful and
ironical remarks of Plato were taken seriously by his suc-
cessors, and we must not make too much of this fresh
instance of Aristotehan Hteralness.

Aristotle goes on to tell us that Xenophanes, " referring
to the whole world,* said the One was god." This
clearly alludes to frs. 23-26, where all human attributes
are denied of a god who is said to be one and " the
greatest among gods and men." It may be added that
these verses gain much in point if we think of them
as closely connected with frs. 11-16, instead of referring
the one set of verses to the Satires and the other to a

^ Theaet. i8i a 6, rod okov araaiuTai. The noun a-Taanbrrjs has no other
meaning than " partisan," and the context shows that this is what it
means here. The derivation aracnuyras . . . dyrb Tijs ardaeus appears first
in Sext. Math. x. 46, where the term (rraa-twTat is incorrectly ascribed to
Aristotle and supposed to mean those who made the universe stationary,
an impossible interpretation.

2 Soph. 242 d 5 (R. P. loi 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.

^ Theaet. 179 e 3, tQu 'Hpa/cXetretwj/ ij, wawep aii X^yeis, 'Ofirjpeicov Kai ?ti
TToXaLOTepuv. 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 p^ovres [Theaet. 152 e).

* 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 Hinhlicke auf den ganzen Himmel) and Zeller [im Hinblick auf
das Weltganze). The word diro^XiireLv had become too colourless to mean
more, and ovpavbs means what was later called K6<r/j.oi.

128

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Mono-
theism or
poly-
theism.

cosmological poem. It was probably in the same context
that Xenophanes called the world or god " equal every
way " ^ and denied that it breathed. ^ The statement
that there is no mastership among the gods ^ also goes
very well with fr. 26. A god has no wants, nor is it
fitting for one god to be the servant of others, like Iris
and Hermes in Homer.

62. That this " god " is just the world, Aristotle tells
us, and the use of the word ^eo? 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 con-
I cerned 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.^ That he
should use the language of polytheism in his elegies is only
what we should expect, and the other references to " gods *'
can be best explained as incidental to his attack on the
anthropomorphic gods of Homer and Hesiod. In one case,
Freudenthal has pressed a proverbial way of speaking too

1 See above, p. 125, n. i.

2 Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c), 8\ov 8' opav Kal 6\ov aKOveiv, fxrj fxivroi dvairpetv.
See above, p. io8, n. 2.

^ [Plut.] Strom, fr. 4, airocpalveTat 5k koI irepl deQjv ws ovdefiias TT/e/xovlas
iv aiiToXs oii<xr]s ' ov yap oaiov decnrS^eadal rcva tCcv 6eQv, iTideLadai re
/j,r]5€vbs avrdv [x-qMva firjd' 6Xu}$, 6.Koveiu dk Kal opau KadbXov Kal fii] Kara /xipos.

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 ^cpov.

6 Freudenthal, Die Theologie des Xenophanes (Breslau, 1886).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 129

hard.^ Least of all can we admit that Xenophanes allowed
the existence of subordinate or departmental gods ; for it
was just the existence of such that he was chiefly concerned
to deny. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that
Freudenthal was more nearly right than Wilamowitz, who
says that Xenophanes " upheld the only real monotheism
that has ever existed upon earth." ^ Diels, I fancy, comes
nearer the mark when he calls it a '* somewhat narrow
pantheism." ^ But all these views would have surprised
Xenophanes himself about equally. He was really Goethe's
Weltkind, with prophets to right and left of him, and he
would have smiled if he had known that one day he was
to be regarded as a theologian.

^ 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 Liter atur, p. 38.

3 Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 9.

CHAPTER III

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS

Life of 63. Herakleitos of Ephesos, son of Bloson, is said to

Hera.-

kieitos. have " flourished " in 01. LXIX. (504/3-501/0 B.C.) ; ^ that
is to say, just in the middle of the reign of Dareios, with
whom several traditions connected him.^ It is more
important, however, for our purpose to notice that, while
Herakleitos refers to Pythagoras and Xenophanes by name
and in the past tense (fr. 16), he is in turn alluded to by
Parmenides (fr. 6). These references mark his place in the
history of philosophy. Zeller held, indeed, that he could
not have pubHshed his work till after 478 B.C., on the ground
that the expulsion of Hermodoros, alluded to in fr. 114,
could not have taken place before the downfall of Persian
rule. If that were so, it might be hard to see how Par-
menides could have known the views of Herakleitos at
the time he wrote his poem ; ^ but there is no difficulty
in supposing that the Ephesians may have sent one
of their citizens into banishment when they were still
paying tribute to the Great King. The spurious Letters
of Herakleitos show that the expulsion of Hermodoros
was believed to have taken place during the reign of

1 Diog. ix. I (R. P. 29), no doubt from Apollodoros through some
intermediate authority. The name Bloson is better attested than Blyson
(see Diels, Vors. 12 a i, n.), and is known from inscriptions as an Ionic
name.

2 Bernays, Die heraklitischen Brief e, pp. 13 sqq.

3 For the date of Parmenides, see p. 169.

130

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 131

Dareios/ and it seems probable that the party led by
him had enjoyed the confidence of the Persian govern-
ment. His expulsion would mark the beginnings of the
movement against Persian rule, rather than its successful
issue.

Sotion quotes a statement that Herakleitos was a disciple
of Xenophanes,2 which is not probable ; for Xenophanes
left Ionia before Herakleitos was born. More Hkely he^
was not a disciple of any one„ ; but it is clear tnat newas
acquainted both with the Milesian cosmology and with the
poems of Xenophanes. He also knew something of the
theories taught by Pythagoras (fr. 17). Of his hfe we really
know nothing, except, perhaps, that he belonged to the
ancient royal house and resigned the nominal position of
Basileus in favour of his brother.^ The origin of the other
statements bearing on it is quite transparent.*

64. We do not know the title of the work of Herakleitos ^ His book,
^-if, indeed, it had one — and it is not easy to form a clear
idea of its contents. We are told that it was divided into
three discourses : one dealing with the universe, one poHtical,

^ 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. i, 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).

* 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. 114)
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-

* 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).

132 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and one theological.^ It is not to be supposed that this
division is due to Herakleitos himself ; all we can infer is
that the work fell naturally into ;these three parts when the
Stoic commentators took their editions of it in hand.

The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, and, at
a later date, got him the nickname of " the Dark." ^ Now
the fragments about the Delphic god and the Sibyl (frs. ii
and 12) seem to show that he was conscious of writing an
oracular style, and we have to ask why he did so. In the
first place, it was the manner of the time.^ The stirring
events of the age, and the influence of the rehgious revival,
gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders of
thought. Pindar and Aischylos have it too. It was also
an age of great individualities, and these are apt to be
solitary and disdainful. Herakleitos at least was so. If
men cared to dig for the gold they might find it (fr. 8) ; if
not, they must be content with straw (fr. 51). This seems
to have been the view taken by Theophrastos, who said the
headstrong temperament of Herakleitos sometimes led him
into incompleteness and inconsistencies of statement.*

The ^ 65. I give a version of the fragments according to the

arrangement of By water's exemplary edition : ^

(i) 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). By water 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 6 <rK0Teiv6s is of later date, but Timon of
Phleious already called him alviKTrjs (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).
6 In his edition, Diels has given up all attempt to arrange the fragments

according to subject, and this makes his text unsuitable for our purpose.
I think, too, that he overestimates the difficulty of an approximate arrange-
ment, and makes too much of the view that the style of Herakleitos was
" aphoristic." That it was so, is an important and valuable remark ; but
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.

8 Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk's \6yov for dSyfiaros and
Miller's ehai for dbhai. Cf. Philo, Leg. all. iii. c 3, quoted in Bywater's note.

fragments.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 133

(2) Though this Word ^ is true evermore, yet men are as
unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as
before they have heard it at all. \Fov, though all things come to
pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they had no
experience of them, when they make trial of words and deeds
such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its kind and
showing how it truly is. But other men know not what they
are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep7\
R. P. 32.

(3) Fools when they do he^r are like the deaf : of them does
the sa5dng bear witness that they are absent when present.
R. P. 31 a.

r (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 Ups uttering things mirthless,

1 The X670S 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,
w. I ; Eng. trans, ii. p. 7, n. 2.) A difficulty has been raised about the
words eovTos aid. How could Herakleitos say that his discourse had
always existed ? The answer is that in Ionic iiiiv means " true " when
coupled with words like X670S. Cf. Herod, i. 30, rip idvri xpV(^°-l^^'^os
X^7et ; and even Aristoph. Frogs, 1052, ovk 6vra \6yov. It is only by taking
the words in this way that we can understand Aristotle's hesitation as to
the proper punctuation {Rhet. F, 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 X670S 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).

134 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand years
with her voice, thanks to the god in her. R. P. 30 a.
; f (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.^
R. P. 42 c.

(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 knowledgeg^
of many things and an imposture. 2 R. P. 31 a. ^P

(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 aU things. R. P.
40.

(20) This world, 3 which is the same for all, no one of gods or
men has made ; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an
ever-Kving Fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures
going out. R. P. 35.4

1 Cf. Herod, i, 8.

^ The best attested reading is iiroL-qaaTo, not eToirjaev, and iiroi-qaaTo
eavTov means " claimed as his own." The words iKXe^dfievos rairas ras
(rvyypa(f>ds have deen 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 avyypa<pds 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 iiroL-qaaro for iiroi-qaev. For the rendering given
for KaKorexviv, compare its legal sense of " falsified evidence."

3 The word Koafj-os 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.

* It is important to notice that fi^rpa is internal accusative with
airrdfjLepov, " with its measures kindhng and its measures going out."
This interpretation, which I gave in the first edition, is now adopted
Diels {Vors.^ 12 b 30 n.).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 135

(21) The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea ; and
half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind.^ ... R. P. 35 b.

(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,^ and air lives the death of
fire ; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water. R. P. 37.

(26) Fire in its advance will judge and convict * all things.
R, P. 36 a.

{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 irprjaTrip, see below, p. 149, n. i.

2 The subject of fr. 23 is yrj, as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 36),
TrdXtJ/ re aC Trjv yrjv x"0'^at .' and Aet. i. 3, II {Dox. p. 284 a I ; b 5),
^Tretra dvaxaXw/i^i'T;?' tt]v yrjv virb tov irvpbs x^^^^ (Diibner : <p6a€i, libri)
ijScjp oLTTOTeXeicrdai. Herakleitos may have said 777 daXaaaa Siax^erat, and
Clement (Strom, v. p. 712) seems to imply this. The phrase fierpierai
eh rbv avTov \6yov can only mean that the proportion of the measures
remains constant. So Zeller (p. 690, n. i), zu derselben Grosse. 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.

* I understand iireKdbv of the irvpbs ^<f>odos, for which see p. 151, n. i.
Diels has pointed out that KaraXa/ipdvetp is the old word for " to convict."

5 Here it is clear that odpos=T4pfiaTa, and therefore means "boundary,"
not "hill." Strabo, who quotes the fragment (i. 6, p. 3), is probably
right in taking rjovs Kal iair^pas as equivalent to dvaroXiis /cat Stycreos and
making the words refer to the " arctic " circle. As aWpios Zei^s means
the bright blue sky, it is impossible for its odpos 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.

136 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(33) (Thales foretold an eclipse.)

(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, 2 when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the
savour of each. R. P. 39 b.

(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.^ . . .
R. P. 34 d. .

(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,* like that of
the bow and the lyre. R. P. 34.

(46) It is the opposite which is good for us.^

.. (47) The hidden attunement is better than the open. R. P. 34.
1^ (48) Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest
things.

* Hesiod said Day was the child of Night {Theog. 124).

2 Reading SKcoa-Trep irvp for bKoja-rrep with Diels.

3 //. xviii. 107. I add oixna^crdaL yAp irdvTa from Simpl. in Cat.
412, 26. It must represent something that was in the original.

* I cannot believe Herakleitos said both iraXLuTouos and iraXipTpoiros.
apfioAT], and I prefer Plutarch's iraXivrovos (R. P. 34 b) to the TraXlvrpoiros oi
Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of Parmenides favours xaXlv
Tpoiros, but see below, p. 164, n. i, and Chap. IV. p. 174, n. 3.

6 This refers to the medical rule al 8' larpeiat Std ruv ivavrliav, e.g.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 137

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

(50) The straight and the crooked path of the fuller's comb
is one and the same.

(51) Asses would rather have straw than gold. R. P. 31 a.
(5i«) 1 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.
47C.3

(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. 42 c.^

1 See Bywater in Journ. Phil. ix. p. 230.

2 On fr. 55 see Diels in Berl. Sitzh., 1901, p. 188.

3 I now read eiraiT^ovrai with Bernays and Diels,

^ On fr. 59 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb., 1901, p. 188. The reading
(xvv6.\pie$ seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. The
alternative reading a-vWdrj/ies is preferred by HofiEmann, Gr. Dial. iii.
240.

6 By " these things " he probably meant all kinds of injustice.

8 Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on oKSa-a 5^ redvTjKdres ^wt}. " Life,
Sleep, Death is the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics Fire,
Water, Earth."

138 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(65) The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to be
called by the name of Zeus. R. P. 40.

(66) The bow (/5ios) is called life (/Slos), 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' Hfe. 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 ovtco ^adiiv \6yov ix^i present no difficulty if we remember
that \6yos means " measurement," as in fr. 23.

^ This fragment is interesting because of the antiquity of the corrup-
tions it has suffered. According to Stephanus, who is followed by By water,
we should read : AUr) rj/vxv aocpwrdrTj koI dpiaTrj, ^rjpri being a mere gloss
upon adr]. When once ^rjpr} got into the text, aifrj became avyn, 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 avy-f} 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 avyy) ^rjpT] x/yvx^
<T0(p(x)TdT7] Kal dpia-TTj is the genuine reading.) Lastly, though Plutarch must
have written au7?7, the MSS. vary between aiirr] and avrri (cf. De def. or.
432 f. dvTT} yap ^Tjpd \pvxri in the MSS.). The next stage is the corruption of
the avyi^ into o5 7^. This yields the sentiment that " where the earth is
dry, the soul is wisest," and is as old as Philo (see By water's notes).

' 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). 1
think, however, that we must take dirrerai in the same sense aU through
the fragment, so I do not translate "is in contact with," as Diels does.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 139

(yS) And it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead,
awake and asleep, young and old ; the former are shifted ^ and
become the latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and become
the former. R. P. 47.

(79) Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a
child's. R. P. 40 a.

(80) I have sought for myself. R. P. 48.

(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 iji 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).

(91^) Thought is common to all.

(gib) Those who speak with understanding must hold fast
to what is common to aU 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 foUow the common,^ yet though my Word is
common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.
R. P. 44.

(93) They are estranged from that with which they have
most constant intercourse.^ R. P. 32 b.

(94) It is not meet to act and speak Hke men asleep.

* I understand /ieTa7re(r6j'Ta here as meaning "moved" from one 7/30/^/^77
or division of the draught-board to another.

2 Sext. Math. vii. 133, dib del Headai tQ kolu(^ (so the MSS. : ^vv(^
Schleiermacher), ^wbs y^p 6 kolv6s. Bywater omits the words, but I
think they must belong to Herakleitos, Diels adopts Bekker's suggestion
to read 8l6 del 'iirecrdai rtp <^vv(^, TovT^art r<p> koivc^. I now think also that,
if we understand the term \6yos in the sense explained above (p. 133, n. i),
there is no reason to doubt the words which follow.

8 The words \6y<^ ry rd S\a Sioikovvti belong to Marcus AureHus and
not to Herakleitos.

140 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

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

(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.

(lOo) The people must fight for its law as for its walls.
R. P. 43 b.

(loi) 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,^ good ; hunger,
plenty ; weariness, rest. R. P. 48 b.

{105-107) It is hard to fight with one's heart's desire. ^
Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul.
R. P. 49 a.

(108, 109) It is best to hide folly ; but it is hard in times of
relaxation, over our cups.

(no) And it is law, too, to obey the counsel of one. R. P. 49 a.

(in) 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.^ R. P. 31 a.

(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 KaKbv for kuI with Diels,

2 The word 6vijl6s has its Homeric sense. The gratification of desire
impUes the exchange of dry soul-fire (fr, 74) for moisture (fr. 72). Aristotle
misunderstood 9vfjt,6s here as anger {Eth. Nic. B, 2. 1105 a 8).

* This seems to refer to the " three Uves," Chap. II. § 45, p. 98.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 141

sa5dng, " We will have none who is best among us ; if there be
any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others." ^ R. P. 29 b.

(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,^ and
holds fast to them, yet of a truth justice shall overtake the
artificers of lies and the false witnesses.

(119) Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped,
and Archilochos Hkewise. R. P. 31.

(120) One day is like any other. -^
(ji2i) Man's character is his fate.^^f

(122) There awaits men when they die such things as they
look not for nor dream of. R. P. 46 d.

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

(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 proces-
sion 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 them-
selves 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, w. i.

2 Reading boKiovra with Schleiermacher (or Sok^ovt S)v with Diels).
I also read yLvda-Ket, (pvXdaa-et with Diels, who quotes the combination
(pvXdacrovai Kal yiudocrKovaL from Hippokrates.

* On the meaning of dalfiuv here, see my edition of Aristotle's Ethics,
pp. I sq.

* I have not ventured to include the words ivda 5' idvri at the beginning,
as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels's note.

142 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Thedoxo- 66. Some of these fragments are far from clear, and
tradition, there are probably not a few of which the meaning will
never be recovered. We turn, then, to the doxographers
for a clue ; but unfortunately they are less instructive with
regard to Herakleitos than we have found them in other
cases. Hippolytos, on whom we can generally rely for a
fairly accurate accoimt of what Theophrastos said, derived
the material for his first four chapters, which treat of Thales,
Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not from the
excellent epitome he afterwards used, but from a bio-
graphical compendium, 1 mostly consisting of apocryphal
anecdotes and apophthegms. It was based, further, on
some writer of Successions who regarded Herakleitos as a
Pythagorean. The Hnk between him and the Pythagoreans
was Hippasos, in whose system fire played an important
part. Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had spoken of the
two in the same sentence, and that was enough for the
writers of Successions.^ We are forced, then, to look to the
more detailed of the two accoimts of the opinions of Hera-
kleitos given in Diogenes,^ which goes back to the Vetusta
Placita, and is, fortunately, pretty full and accurate.

Another difficulty we have to face is that most of the
commentators on Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were
Stoics.* Now, the Stoics held the Ephesian in peculiar
veneration, and sought to interpret him as far as possible
in accordance with their own system. Further, they were
fond of " accommodating " ^ the views of earlier thinkers!
to their own, and this has had serious consequences. In

1 See Diels, Dox. p, 145. We must distinguish Ref. i. and Ref. ix,
as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter book is ai
attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was derived fron
Heraldeitos, 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).

8 For these double accounts see Note on Sources, § 15.

* Diog. ix. 15 (R. P. 30 c). Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this

5 The word awoLKeLovv is used of the Stoic method of interpretation b]

Philodemos (cf. Dox. 547 b, n.), and Cicero {N.D. i. 41) renders it b]

accommodare.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 143

particular, the Stoic theories of the \0709 and the eKirvpaxTtf;
are cc»nstantly ascribed to Herakleitos, and the very frag-
ments, are adulterated with scraps of Stoic terminology.

67) Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass of men, The
but on all previous inquirers into nature. This must mean oJ^^Jra^
t|nat he believed himself to have attained insight into some kieitos.
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 con-
flicting 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 " (dpfiovLo). 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. Anaximander had taught that the opposites were The one
separated out from the Boundless, but passed away into it ^^y^^
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).

144 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

put in another way. The use of the word dpfioviTj su^ggests
that Herakleitos had come under the influence of hisij older
contemporary to some extent. ^

Plato clearly states that this was the central th^ought
of Herakleitos. In the Sophist (242 d), the Eleatic stri. 7ger,
after explaining how the Eleatics maintained that what vv^^e
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.^
The identity which Herakleitos explains as consisting in
difference is just that of the primary substance in all its
manifestations. This identity had been realised already
by the Milesians, but they had found a difficulty in the
difference. Anaximander had treated the strife of opposites
as an '* injustice," and what Herakleitos set himself to

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, how-
ever, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos, but to Leukippos or Demo-
kritos, 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. V, 3. 1005 b 24).
This is explained by K, 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.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 145

show was that, on the contrary, it was the highest justice
(fr. 62).l

69. All this made it necessary for him to seek out a new Fire,
primary substance. He wanted not merely something
from which opposites could be " separated out," but some-
thing 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. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of Flux.
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 down-

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 con-
text shows the passage will not bear this interpretation. Sokrates is dis-
cussing the derivation of St'/caiov from dta-Ldv, and certainly diKrj 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).

146 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

wards after having nourished the flame. It foUows that
the whole of reahty is like an ever-flowing stream, and that
nothing is ever at rest for a moment. The substance of the
things we see is in constant change. Even as we look at
them, some of the stuff of which they are composed has
already passed into something else, while fresh stuff has
come into them from another source. This is usually
summed up, appropriately enough, in the phrase *'A11
things are flowing" {irdvra pel), though this does not seem
to be a quotation from Herakleitos. Plato, however,
expresses the idea quite clearly. *' Nothing ever is, every-
thing is becoming " ; " All things are in motion like
streams " ; " All things are passing, and nothing abides " ;
" Herakleitos says somewhere that all things pass and
naught abides ; and, comparing things to the current of a
river, he says you cannot step twice into the same stream '*
(cf. fr. 41) — these are the terms in which he describes the
system. And Aristotle says the same thing, " All things are
in motion," " nothing steadfastly is." ^ Herakleitos held, in
fact, that any given thing, however stable in appearance, was
merely a section in the stream, and that the stuff composing
it was never the same in any two consecutive moments. We
shall see presently how he conceived the process to operate ;
meanwhile we remark that this is not the most original
feature of the system. The Milesians had held a similar view.
The up- 71. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the details

Down- with reference to the theories of Anaximenes. 2 Itisunhkely,
path. however, that he explained the transformations of matter
by means of rarefaction and condensation.^ Theophrastos,
it appears, suggested that he did ; but he allowed it was by
no means clear. The passage from Diogenes we are about
to quote has faithfully preserved this touch.* In the

1 Plato, Theaet. 152 e i ; Crat. 401 d 5, 402 a 8 ; Arist. Top. A, 11. 104
b 22 ; De caelo, V, i. 298 b 30 ; Phys. 0, 3. 253 b 2.

2 See above, Chap. I. § 29.

3 See, however, the remark of Diels {Dox. p. 165) quoted R. P. 36,
* Diog. ix. 8, (xacpQs 5' oi)$iv iKriderac.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 147

fragments we find nothing about rarefaction and condensa-
tion. The expression used is " exchange " (fr. 22), a very
good name for what happens when fire gives out smoke and
takes in fuel instead.
^ 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 aU 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 fight 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

148 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and at the same time was at just the right distance from us.
That is why it gives more heat and Hght. The ecUpses of the
sun and moon were due to the turning of the bowls upwards,
while the monthly phases of the moon were produced by a
gradual turning of its bowl.

Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and
winds, and things like these, were due to the 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 primarj^ substance, then the world,
then the heavenly bodies, and lastly, meteorological pheno-
mena. 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 Trprja-rrjp (fr. 21). What is
this '7rp7i<TTi]p ? So far as I know, no one has yet proposed

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 149

to take the word in the sense it usually bears elsewhere,
that, namely, of hurricane accompanied by a fiery water-
spout.^ Yet surely this is just what is wanted. It is amply
/attested that Herakleitos explained the rise of the sea to
Mire by means of the bright evaporations ; and we want a
similar meteorological explanation of the passing of fire
back into sea. We want, in fact, something which will
stand equally for the smoke produced by the burning of the
sun and for the immediate stage between fire and water.
What could serve the turn better than a fiery waterspout ?
It sufficiently resembles smoke to be accounted for as the
product of the sun's combustion, and it certainly comes
down in the form of water. And this interpretation becomes
practically certain when taken in connexion v^ith the report
of Actios as to the Herakleitean theory of irprja-Trjpef;. They
were due, w^e are told, " to the kindUng and extinction of
clouds." 2 In other words, the bright vapour, after kindhng
in the bowl of the sun and going out again, reappears as
the dark fiery storm-cloud, and so passes once more into sea.
At the next stage we find water continually passing into
earth. We are already familiar with this idea (§ 10).
Turning to the " upward path,'* we find that the earth is
Hquefied in the same proportion as the sea becomes earth,
so that the sea is still " measured by the same tale " (fr. 23).
Half of it is earth and half of it is TrpTjarijp (fr. 21). This
must mean that, at any given moment, half of the sea is
taking the downward path, and has just been fiery storm-
cloud, while half of it is going up, and has just been earth.
In proportion as the sea is increased by rain, water passes

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 Actios iii. 3.
The irprjaTTip of Anaximander (Chap. I. p. 68, w. 2) is a different thing.
Greek sailors probably named the meteorological phenomena after the
familiar bellows of the smith.

2 Aet. iii, 3. 9, irprja-Tijpas dk /caret vecpQv i/xirpiq<reis Kal (r^^aeis (sc.
'Hpa/cXetros diro(palv€Tai ylyveadat).

150 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

into earth ; in proportion as the sea is diminished by
evaporation, it is fed by the earth. Lastly, the ignition of
the bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun
completes the circle of the " upward and downward path.'*
Measure 7^. How is it that, in spite of this constant flux, things

measure ^-PP^ar 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-Hving fire " are always being kindled, while hke
"measures" are always going out (fr. 20). All things
are " exchanged " for fire and fire for all things (fr. 22),
and this impUes that for everything it takes, fire will give
as much. "The sun will not exceed his measures" (fr. 29).
x\nd 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 Hera-
kleitos as explaining all things by evaporation.^ In parti-
cular, the alternation of day and night, summer and winter,
were accounted for in this way. Now, in a passage of the
pseudo-Hippokratean treatise He pi BcalTTj^ which is almost
certainly of Herakleitean origin,^ we read of an " advance of

^ Arist. De an. B, 2. 405 a 26, ttjp avadvjxiaaiv i^ ijs rSXAa (rvvlaTrjatv.

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 Anaxa-
goras. 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. i). He is
certainly wrong in holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water
not to be Herakleitean, and there is no justification for separating the
remark quoted in the text from its context because it happens to agree
almost verbally with the beginning of c 3,

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 151

fire and water " in connexion with day and night and the
courses of the sun and moon.^ In fr. 26, again, we read of
fire " advancing," and all these things seem to be closely
connected. We must therefore try to see whether there is
anything in the remaining fragments that bears on the
subject.

73. In studjdng this alternate advance of fire and water, Man.
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
imphes that soul is identical with the dry exhalation, ^ and
this is confirmed by the fragments. Man is made up of
three things, fire, water, and earth. But, just as in the
macrocosm fire is identified with the one wisdom, so in the
microcosm the fire alone is conscious. When it has left the
body, the remainder, the mere earth and water, is altogether
worthless (fr. 85). Of course, the fire which animates man
is subject to the " upward and downward path," just as
much as the fire of the world. The Hepl hiairrj^; has pre-
served the obviously Herakleitean sentence : " All things
are passing, both human and divine, upwards and down-
wards by exchanges." ^ We are just as much in perpetual
flux as anjrthing else in the world. We are and are not the
same for two consecutive instants (fr. 81). The fire in us is
perpetually becoming water, and the water earth ; but, as

■•• Ylepl dialTTjs, i. 5- ■'■ read thus : ij/J^prj Kal e{><pp6vr) eirl rb fi'^Kiarov Kal
^\(i.X'-<^T^v ' ff^'os, ffeXrivT) iirl t6 fi-qKiarov Kal i\dxt(rTov ' wpbs ^0o5os Kal
uSaros. In any case, the sentence occurs between x^^P^"^ ^^ vdvra Kal de?d
Kal avBpdinva &vu3 Kal Karu) dfiei^dfieva and irdvTa raird Kal oi) rd avrd,
which are surely Herakleitean utterances.

2 Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 a 25 (R. P. 38). Diels attributes to Herakleitos
himself the words Kal ^vxo-1 5^ dirb tQv vypQy dvadvfiiQpTai, which are
found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42, I can hardly beheve, however,
that the word dvadv/jilaaLS is Herakleitean. He seems rather to have
called the two exhalations Kairvds and d^p (cf. fr. 37).

' Hepl diaLTrjs i. 5, X^^P" ^^ Trdvra Kal [^deia Kal dpOpdiriva dvia Kal Kdrcj
dfiei^dfjieva.

152 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the opposite process goes on simultaneously, we appear to

remain the same.^
(a) Sleep- 74. This, however, is not all. Man is subject to a certain

waking. osciUation in his " measures " of fire and water, which gives

rise to the alternations of sleeping and waking, Ufe and death.

The locus classiciis on this is a passage of Sextus Empiricus,

which reproduces the account given by Ainesidemos.^ It is

as follows (R. P. 41) :

The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds
us 3 is rational and endowed with consciousness. According to
Herakleitos, when we draw in this divine reason by means of
respiration, we become rational. In sleep we forget, but at our
waking we become conscious once more. For in sleep, when the
openings of the senses close, the mind which is in us is cut off
from contact with that which surrounds us, and only our con-
nexion with it by means of respiration is preserved as a sort of
root (from which the rest may spring again) ; and, when it is thus
separated, it loses the power of memory that it had before.
When we awake again, however, it looks out through the openings
of the senses, as if through windows, and coming together with
the surrounding mind, it assumes the power of reason. Just,
then, as embers, when they are brought near the fire, change
and become red-hot, and go out when they are taken away from
it again, so does the portion of the surrounding mind which
sojourns in our body become irrational when it is cut off, and so
does it become of like nature to the whole when contact is estab-
lished through the greatest number of openings.

^ 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 (/car A
<p{)aLv) 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 evert'
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." Natoi
holds {Forschungen, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine Heraklei-
teanism with Skepticism. Diels {Dox. pp. 210, 211), insists that he onl]
gave an account of the theories of Herakleitos. This controversy does
not affect the use we make of the passage.

2 T6 wepiixov w^^> opposed to but parallel with to irepUxov rbv Kdcrfxov.

ov. j

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 153

In this passage there is clearly a large admixture of later
ideas. In particular, the identification of '* that which
surrounds us " with the air cannot be Herakleitean ; for
Herakleitos knew nothing of air except as a form of water
(§ 27). The reference to the pores or openings of the senses
is probably foreign to him also ; for the theory of pores is
due to Alkmaion (§ 96). Lastly, the distinction between
mind and body is far too sharply drawn. On the other
hand, the important role assigned to respiration may very
well be Herakleitean ; for we have met with it already in
Anaximenes. And we can hardly doubt that the striking
simile of the embers which glow when brought near the fire
is genuine (cf. fr. 77). The true doctrine doubtless was, that
sleep was produced by the encroachment of moist, dark
exhalations from the water in the body, which cause the fire
to burn low. In sleep, we lose contact with the fire in the
world which is common to all, and retire to a world of
our own (fr. 95). In a soul where the fire and water
are evenly balanced, the equiUbrium is restored in the
morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation.

75. But in no soul are the fire and water thus evenly (^^ Ljfe
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 hfe, 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

154 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

death, however, and wins ** greater portions " for those
who die it (fr. loi).

Further, just as summer and winter are one, and neces-
sarily reproduce one another by their " opposite tension,"
so do Hfe 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 Uving 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 Hve each others' Hfe, and die
each others' death. Those mortals that die the fiery death
become immortal,^ they become the guardians of the quick
and the dead (fr. 123) ; ^ and those immortals become
mortal in their turn. Everything is the death of something
else (fr. 64). The Hving and the dead are always changing
places (fr. 78), like the pieces on a child's draught-board
(fr. 79), and this appUes not only to the souls that have
become water, but to those that have become fire and are
now guardian spirits. The real weariness is continuance in
the same state (fr. 82), and the real rest is change (fr. 83).
Rest in any other sense is tantamount to dissolution (fr. 84),^
So they too are born once more. Herakleitos estimated
the duration of the cycle which preserves the balance of Hfe

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. io2).1
Rohde, Psyche (II. 2 pp. 148 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos believedj
the soul survived death. Strictly speaking, it is no doubt an incon-
sistency ; but I believe, with Zeller and Diels, that it is one of a kind weJ
may well admit. The first argument which Plato uses to establish the]
doctrine of immortality in the Phaedo is just the Herakleitean paraUelisi
of life and death with sleeping and waking.

3 These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, lamblichos, and NoumeniosI
in this connexion (R. P. 46 c), and it does not seem possible to hold, withj
Rohde, that they had no grounds for so interpreting them. They knewj
the context and we do not.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 155

and death as thirty years, the shortest time in which a man
may become a grandfather (frs. 87-89). ^

76. Let us turn now to the world. Diogenes tells us The day
that fire was kept up by the bright vapours from land and year!^^
sea, and moisture by the dark.^ What are these " dark "
vapours which increase the moist element ? If we remember
the " Air " of Anaximenes, we shall be inclined to regard
them as darkness itself. We know that the idea of darkness
as privation of Ught is not primitive. (l suppose, then, that
Herakleitos beUeved night and winter to be produced by the
rise of darkness from earth and sea — he saw^ of course, that
the valleys were dark before the hill-tops — and that this
darkness, being moist, so increased the watery element as
to put out the sun's hghtT] This, however, destroys the
power of darkness itself. It can no longer rise upwards
unless the sun gives it motion, and so it becomes possible
for a fresh sun (fr. 32) to be kindled, and to nourish itself at
the expense of the moist element for a time. But it can
only be for a time. The sun, by burning up the bright
vapour, deprives himself of nourishment, and the dark
vapour once more gets the upper hand. It is in this sense
that " day and night are one " (fr. 35). Each impHes the
other ; they are merely two sides of one process, in which
alone their true ground of explanation is to be found (fr. 36).

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 da3^s, 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.

^ Plut. Def. orac. 415 d, ^rrj rpidKOPra iroioOcri rrju yeveav Kad' 'KpdKXecTov,
iv ip XP^^V y^vvdvTa Trap^xet rbv i^ avrov yeyevvrifiivov 6 yevv/jo-ai. Philo,
fr. Harris, p. 20, dvparbv iu rpiaKoari^ ^rei aS t6v EvOpwirov irainrov
yevia-dai ktX. Censorinus, De die nat. 17. 2, " hoc enim tempus (triaginta
annos) genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia orhis aetaiis in eo sit spatio :
orbem autem vocat aetatis, dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim
revertitur." The words orbis aetaiis seem to mean ai'tDvos k^kXos, " the circle \

of life." If so, we may compare the Orphic /ci//cXos yevicreus.

2 Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 39 b).

156 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

This, however, diminishes the power of the sun to cause
evaporation, and so it must return to the north that it may
supply itself with nourishment. Such was, at any rate, the
Stoic doctrine,^ and that it comes from Herakleitos seems to
be proved by its occurrence in the IJepl hiair'n^. The follow-
ing passage is clearly Herakleitean :

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, move-
ment 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 con-
sumed 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.^

The jy. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which is

Ye^. identified with the " Great Year," and is variously described

as lasting 18,000 and 10,800 years.^ We have no definite

statement, however, of what process Herakleitos supposed

1 Cf. Cic, N.D. iii. 37 : " Quid enim ? non eisdem vobis placet omnem
ignem pastus indigere nee permanere uUo 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 nee 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. i), and, as that
comes from Ilept dLairrjs, 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. 'Hp(i/cXeiTOS ^k /xvpiojv d/craKto-xiX^wv ivLavrCbv ifKiaKCiv
{t6p fxiyav iviavrbu elvai). Censorinus, De die nat. 11, Heraclitus et Linus,
Xdccc.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 157

to take place in the Great Year. The period of 36,000 years
was Babylonian, and 18,000 years is just half that period, a
fact which may be connected with Herakleitos's way of
dividing all cycles into an *' upward and downward path."
The Stoics, or some of them, held that the Great Year was
the period between one world-conflagration and the next.
They were careful, however, to make it a good deal longer
than Herakleitos did, and, in any case, we are not entitled
without more ado to credit him with the theory of a general
conflagration.^ We must try first to interpret the Great
Year on the analogy of the shorter periods discussed already.
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 imphes
that such a paralleUsm between the periods of man and the
world was recognised, ^ and this receives a curious confirma-
tion from a passage in Aristotle, which is usually supposed
to refer to the doctrine of a periodic conflagration. He is
discussing the question whether the " heavens," that is to
say, what he calls the " first heaven," is eternal or not, and
naturally enough, from his own point of view, he identifies
this with the Fire of Herakleitos. He quotes him along
with Empedokles as holding that the " heavens " are alter-
nately as they are now and in some other state, one of
passing away ; and he goes on to point out that this is not

1 For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, De nat. horn. 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 avdpuiTruov and the deiov yevviyrdv, however we may under-
stand the details. See Adam, Republic, vol. ii. pp. 288 sqq.

158

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Did Hera-
kleitos
teach a
general
conflagra-
tion ?

really to say they pass away, any more than it would be
to say that a man ceases to be, if we said that he turned
from boy to man and then from man to boy again. ^ It is
surely clear that this is a reference to the parallel between
the generation and the Great Year, and, if so, the ordinary
interpretation of the passage must be wrong. It is not,
indeed, quite consistent with the theory to suppose that a
** measure " of Fire could preserve its identity throughout
the whole of its upward and downward path ; but that is
exactly the inconsistency we have felt bound to recognise
with regard to the continuance of individual souls. Now,
it will be noted that, while 18,000 is half 36,000, 10,800 is
360 X 30, which would make each generation a day in the
Great Year, and this is in favour of the higher number. ^

78. Most writers ascribe to Herakleitos the doctrine of
a periodical conflagration or eKirvpcoai^, to use the Stoic
term.^ That this is inconsistent with his general view is
obvious, and is indeed admitted by Zeller, who adds to his?
paraphrase of the statement of Plato quoted above (p. 144)!
the words : *' Herakleitos did not intend to retract thisi
principle in the doctrine of a periodic change in the constitu-
tion of the world ; if the two doctrines are not compatible
it is a contradiction which he has not observed." Now, it]
is quite Hkely that there were contradictions in the discourse
of Herakleitos, but it is very unhkely that there was this
particular contradiction. In the first place, it is inconsistent
with the central idea of his system, the thought that pos-

1 Arist. De caelo. A, 10. 279 b 14, oi d' ivaWa^ 6t^ fih ourws ot^
8k AXXws ^x^iv <pdeip6/xevop, . . . &<nrep 'E/niredoKXrjs 6 'AKpayavriuos Kat
'KpdKXeiTos 6 'E0^o-tos. Aristotle points out that this really amounts only
to saying that it is eternal and changes its form, ibairep el ns ck iruLdbs
dvdpa yLyydfievoP koX i^ dvdpbs 7ra?5a ork jxkv (f)d€ipe<x6aL, ork 5' elvai oIolto (280 a
14). The point of the reference to Empedokles will appear from De Gen.
Corr. B, 6. 334 a i 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 Hellene, p. 168. Diels, accordingly, now reads
[ivpiwv dKTaKoaiup in Actios (Vors. 12 a 13).

3 Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels,
and Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos beUeved in the iKirOpwais.

_ 4

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 159

sessed his whole mind (§ 67), and we can only admit the
possibiUty of that, if the evidence for it should prove
irresistible. In the second place, such an interpretation
(destroys the whole point of Plato's contrast between Hera-
kleitos and Empedokles (§ 68), which is just that, while
Herakleitos said the One was always many, and the Many
always one, Empedokles said the All was many and one by
turnsTl Zeller's interpretation obhges us, then, to suppose
that Tlerakleitos flatly contradicted his own discovery
without noticing it, and that Plato, in discussing this very
discovery, was also blind to the contradiction. ^

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." ^ it is also
quite consistent with our interpretation when he says that
all things at one time or another become fire. This need
not mean that they all become fire at the same time, but
may be merely a statement of the undoubted Herakleitean
doctrine of the upward and downward path.^

The earUest statements to the effect that Herakleitos

1 In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to have felt this last diffi-
culty ; 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 del,
while Empedokles says iv fxipei. The Ionian Muses are called a-vpTovuTepai
and the Sicilian ^uaXa/ccirepai just because the latter " lowered the pitch "
{ixdXaa-af) of the doctrine that this is always so (t6 del ravra oijTios ^x^iv).

2 See above, p. 158, n. i.

3 Phys. r 5, 205 a 3 {Met. K, 10. 1067 a 4), &<nrep "H.pdK\eir6s (prjatv
diravTa ylvecrdal irore irvp. Zeller translates this as werde alles dereinst zu
Feuer warden ; but that would require yevqaeadat. Nor is there anything
in his suggestion that dirayra {" not merely irdvTa ") impHes that all things
become fire at once. In Aristotle's day, there was no distinction of
meaning between ras and c^Tras. Of course, as Diels says, the present
tense might be used of a " constant alternation of epochs " {Vors. 12 A
10 «.) ; but, for the purpose of Zeller's argument, we want something
which not only may but must mean that.

i6o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

taught the doctrine of a general conflagration are found in
Stoic writers. The Christian apologists too were interested
in the idea of a final conflagration, and reproduce the Stoic
view. The curious thing, however, is that there was a
difference of opinion on the subject even among the Stoics.
In one place, Marcus AureHus says : *' So that all these
things are taken up into the Reason of the universe, whether
by a periodical conflagration or a renovation effected by
eternal exchanges." ^ Indeed, there were some who said
there was no general conflagration at all in Herakleitos.
" I hear all that," Plutarch makes one of his personages say,
" from many people, and I see the Stoic conflagration
spreading over the poems of Hesiod, just as it does over the
writings of Herakleitos and the verses of Orpheus." ^ We
see from this that the question was debated, and we should
therefore expect any statement of Herakleitos which could
settle it to be quoted over and over again. It is highly
significant that not a single quotation of the kind can be
produced.^

On the contrary, the absence of anything to show that
Herakleitos spoke of a general conflagration only becomes
more patent when we turn to the few fragments which are
supposed to prove it. The favourite is fr. 24, where we are

^ Marcus Aurelius, X. 7, ibcre koI ravra di'a\7}(f>dr}vai els rbv toO 6\ov
\6yov, etre Kara irepiodov iKirvpovfxivov, elre didiois dfioi^ais dvaveovfiipov. The
dfjiOL^ai 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., koI KXed/x^poros, 'AkoOcj rauT, ^(prj, iroWuv
Kal bpQ} TT]v liToiLKTjv iKTnjpuaiv Cbcnrep rd 'HpaKXeirov Kal 'Optpiois iirivefxofihrjv ^irr}
ovTU Kal rd 'B.cri68ov Kal cvve^aTTTovaav. As Zeller admits (p. 693 w.), this ,
proves that some opponents of the Stoic iKirvpcacns 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 appHes to modern pro-
nouncements 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.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS i6i

told that Herakleitos said Fire was Want and Surfeit.
That is just in his manner, and it has a perfectly intelligible
meaning on our interpretation, which is further confirmed
by fr. 36. The next is fr. 26, where we read that fire in its
advance will judge and convict all things. There is nothing
in this, however, to suggest that fire will judge all things
at once rather than in turn, and, indeed, the phraseology
reminds us of the advance of fire and water which we have
seen reason for attributing to Herakleitos, but which is
expressly said to be Hmited to a certain maximum.^ These
appear to be the only passages which the Stoics and the
Christian apologists could discover, and, whether our inter-
pretation of them is right or wrong, it is surely clear that
they cannot bear the weight of their conclusion, and that
there was nothing more definite to be found.

It is much easier to find fragments which are incon-
sistent 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." ^ Secondly, the metaphor of " exchange,"
which is appUed to the transformations of fire in fr. 22,
points in the same direction. When gold is given in
exchange for wares and wares for gold, the sum or " measure "
of each remains constant, though they change owners. All
the wares and gold do not come into the same hands. In
the same way, when anything becomes fire, something of
equal amount must cease to be fire, if the " exchange " is
to be a just one ; and that it will be just, we are assured by
the watchfulness of the Erinyes (fr. 29), who sees to it that
the sun does not take more than he gives. Of course there
is a certain variation, as we saw ; but it is strictly confined

^ Ilepl diairri^, i. 3, iy fiipei 5^ eKarepov Kparei Kal Kpare'cTaL is rb fx-qKLCTOV
Kol iXdxi-O^TOv ws avvcrrov.

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 ApoUonia, fr. 3.

i62 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

within limits, and is compensated in the long run by a
variation in the other direction. Thirdly, fr. 43, in which
Herakleitos blames Homer for desiring the cessation of
strife, is very conclusive. The cessation of strife would
mean that all things should take the upward or downward
path at the same time, and cease to " run in opposite
directions." If they all took the upward path, we should
have a general conflagration. Now, if Herakleitos had
himself held this to be the appointment of fate, would he
have been Hkely to upbraid Homer for desiring so necessary
a consummation ? ^ Fourthly, we note that in fr. 20 it is
this world,^ and not merely the " ever-living fire," which is
said to be eternal ; and it appears also that its eternity
depends on the fact that it is always kindhng and always
going out in the same " measures," or that an encroachment
in one direction is compensated by a subsequent encroach-
ment in the other. Lastly, Lassalle^s argument from the
concluding sentence of the passage from the TiepX 8ca[rr]<;,
quoted above, is really untouched by Zeller's objection, that
it cannot be Herakleitean because it implies that all things
are fire and water. It does not imply this, but only that
man, like the heavenly bodies, oscillates between fire and
water ; and that is just what Herakleitos taught. Now,
in this passage we read that neither fire nor water can prevail
completely, and a very good reason is given for this, a reason
too which is in striking agreement with the other views of
Herakleitos.^ And, indeed, it is not easy to see how, in

^ This is just the argument which Plato uses in the Phaedo (72 c) to
prove the necessity of avTairbSoais, and the whole series of arguments in
that passage is distinctly Herakleitean in character.

2 However we understand Kocrfios 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 KoafMos survive
the eKirvpwa-Ls, and the Stoics accordingly said the Koa/Mos was (pdaprds,
though Herakleitos had declared it to be everlasting.

3 Uepl 8iaLT7)s, i. 3 (see above, p. 150, n. 2), ovS^repov ykp Kparijaai
TravreXQs d^parai 8lcl rdde ' t6 <Te> irvp eire^Lov iirl rb ^ax^'^'^^ "^o^ vdaros ^TrtXetTrei
7} rpo(f)-f) ' airoTpeireTai odv 6dev fxiWei rpitpeadai " to vdup re iire^ibv rod irvpbs
iirl rb ea-xo-TOv, tTrtXetTrei i} KLvr)ai% ' i<rrarat ody iv totliti^, Srav 8^ ar^, ovKiri

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 163

accordance with these views, the world could ever recover
from a general conflagration if such a thing were to take
place. The whole process depends on the fact that Surfeit
is also Want, or, in other words, that an advance of fire
increases the moist exhalation, while an advance of water
deprives the fire of its power to cause evaporation. The
conflagration, though it lasted but for a moment,^ would
destroy the opposite tension on which the rise of a new
world depends, and then motion would become impossible.

79. We are now in a position to understand more clearly strife and
the law of strife or opposition which manifests itself in the mony."
" upward and downward path." a 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 equiU-
brium 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

iyKparis iariv, dW -^St/ t{^ ifiiriirroPTi wvpl 4s t^v Tpo(f>T]u KaravaKiaKeTai. '
ovd^repov 8^ 5ioL ravra d^parai KparTJaaL TraureKws, el 34 irore KpaTrjdelrj Kal
btroTepoVy ovbkv hv et-q tQsv vvv ebvTwv ibcnrep Ixet vvp ' oijTb} 34 ixbvTUV del
icrrai ra avra Kal ov84T€pov ovda/x^ ^TriXei^et.

^ In his note on fr, 66 (=26 Byw.) Diels seeks to minimise the diffi-
culty of the iKirvpwffis by saying that it is only a Uttle one, and can last
but a moment ; but the contradiction remains. Diels holds that Hera-
kleitos 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.

i64 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the universe is the same." ^ War, then, is the father and
king of all things, in the world as in human society (fr. 44) ;
and Homer's wish that strife might cease was really a prayer
for the destruction of the world (fr. 43).

We know from Philo that Herakleitos supported his
theory by a multitude of examples ; and sonle of these can
still be recovered. There is a remarkable agreement between
a passage of this kind in the pseudo-AristoteHan TLepl Koa-fxov
and the Hippokratean Hepl hiairr}^. 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 aUke,
there would be no deUght 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 entgegen-
ziehen muss, damit sie klingt" (Lesebuch, ii, p. 129). Here we seem to feel
the influence of the Pythagorean " tuned string."

2 The sentence {Uepi dtalTTjs, i. 5), Kal ra fikv irp-qaaovcnv ovk oidaaiv, &,
8^ ov Trp'fi(xaov(TL doK^ova-ip eldivai ' Kal tcl ^fikv opiovaiv oi yLvtbaKovaiv, dW
6/xws avToTai irdura yiverai . . . Kal A ^o6\ovTat. Kal A /atj ^o^XovTai, 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 gro-
tesque 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.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 165

80. There are several Herakleitean fragments which correia-
form a class by themselves, and are among the most striking oppog^es.
of the utterances that have come down to us. These assert
in the most downright way the identity of various things
usually regarded as opposites. The clue to their meaning
is to be found in the account already given of the assertion
that day and night are one. We have seen that Herakleitos
meant, not that day was night or night was day, but that
they were two sides of the. same process, namely, the oscilla-
tion of the " measures " of fire and water, and that neither
would be possible without the other. Any Explanation
that can be given of night will also be an explanation of
day, and vice versa ; for it will be an account of what is
common to both, and manifests itself now as one and now
as the other. Now this is only a particular application of
the principle that the primary fire is one even in its division.
It itself is, even in its unity, both surfeit and want, war and
peace (fr. 36). In other words, the " satiety " which makes
fire pass into other forms, which makes it seek " rest
in change " (fr. 83), and " hide itself " (fr. 10) in the
" hidden attunement '* of opposition, is only one side of the
process. The other is the " want " which leads it to con-
sume the bright vapour as fuel. The upward path is nothing
without the downward (fr. 69). If either were to cease, the
other would cease too, and the world would disappear ;
for it takes both to make an apparently stable reahty.^

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 apphes to the opposi-
tion 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

i66 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

one against the other, and which must be expiated by a
reabsorption of both in their common ground.^

The most startHng of these sayings is that which affirms
\y 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
t]iey_9xe fl'^^^t}^- int;ppar ah1fi ha]ve? ^ 9f_9"^ 3.nd 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 every-
thing 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).
Tjust 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 restA

This leads to a theory of relativity which prepares the
way for the doctrine of Protagoras, that " Man is the
measure of all things." ^ Sea- water is good for fish and bad
for men (fr. 52), and so with many other things. At the
same time,' Herakleitos is not a believer in absolute relativity. ■
The process of the world is not merely a circle, but an
" upward and downward path." At the upper end, where
the two paths meet, we have the pure fire, in which, as there
is no separation, there is no relativity. We are told that,
while to man some things are evil and some things are good,
all things are good to God (fr. ^i). (Now by God, or the

1 Chap. I. § 16.

* Plato's exposition of tlie 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 i

this direction.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 167

*' one wise/* there is no doubt Herakleitos meant Fire.y
There can hardly be any question that what he meant to
say was that in it the opposition and relativity universal in
the world disappear. It is doubtless to this that frs. 96, 97,
and 98 refer.

81. Herakleitos speaks of " wisdom " or the *' wise " in The wise,
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
appHes 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)-

^2. With certain reservations, Herakleitos was prepared Theology,
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, lit is not, of course,
to be pictured in the form of a man. In saying this, Hera-
kleitos would only have been repeating what had already
been said by Xenophanes. He agrees further with Xeno-
phanes in holding that this " god," if it is to be called so,
is one ; but his polemic against popular rehgion was directed
rather against the rites and ceremonies themselves than
their mythological outgrowth. He gives a list (fr. 124) of
some of the rehgious 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 hcentious ceremonies, while Hades was pro-
pitiated by gloomy rites (fr. 127). According to the mystic

i68 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

doctrine itself, the two were really one ; and the one Wisdom
ought to be worshipped in its integrity.
Ethics of (83? The moral teaching of Herakleitos is summed up in
kieitos. 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. iii). It is, in fact, his
strongest objection to " the many,'' that they Hve each in
his own world (fr. 95), as if they had a private wisdom of
their own (fr. 92) ; and pubHc opinion is therefore just the
opposite of " the common." The rule is really to be inter-
preted 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. Parmenides, son of Pyres, was a citizen of Hyele, Elea, or Life.
Velia, a colony founded in Oinotria by refugees from Phokaia
in 540-39 B.c.i Diogenes tells us that he " flourished " in
01. LXIX. (504-500 B.C.), and this was doubtless the date
given by Apollodoros.^ On the other hand, Plato says that
Parmenides came to Athens in his sixty-fifth year, accom-
panied by Zeno, and conversed with Sokrates, who was then
quite young. Now Sokrates was just over seventy when
he was put to death in 399 B.C. ; and therefore, if we suppose
him to have been an ephehos, that is, from eighteen to twenty
years old, at the time of his interview with Parmenides, we
get 451-449 B.C. as the date of that event. It is quite
uncritical to prefer the estimate of ApoUodoros to Plato's
express statement,^ especially as Parmenides himself speaks
of visiting " all towns," * and we have independent evidence
of the visit of Zeno to Athens, where Perikles is said to have

1 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. III). 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. III). Of. Diels, Rhein. Mus. xxxi. p. 34; and
Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq.

'* Plato, Parm, 127 b (R. P. iii 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 ApoUodoros 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.

* Cf. p. 172, n. I.

169

170 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

'' heard " him.^ The date given by ApoUodoros depends
solely on that of the foundation of Elea (540 B.C.), which
he had adopted as the floruit of Xenophanes. Parmenides
is born in that year, just as Zeno is born in the year
when Parmenides " flourished." I do not understand how
any one can attach importance to such combinations.

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. ^ Xenophanes tells us himself that, in
his ninety-second year, he was still wandering up and down
(fr. 8). At that time Parmenides would be well advanced
in life. And we must not overlook the statement of Sotion,
preserved by Diogenes, that, though Parmenides " heard "
Xenophanes, he did not " follow " him. He was really
the " associate " of a Pythagorean, Ameinias, son of Dio-
chaitas, " a poor but noble man to whom he afterwards
built a shrine as to a hero." It was Ameinias and not
Xenophanes that " converted " Parmenides to the philo-
sophic Hfe.^ This does not read hke an invention. The
shrine erected by Parmenides would still be there in later
days, Hke the grave of Pythagoras at Metapontion, and
would have a dedicatory inscription. It should also be
mentioned that Strabo describes Parmenides and Zeno as
Pythagoreans, and that Kebes talks of a " Parmenidean and
Pythagorean w^ay of life." ^ It is certain, moreover, that

^ Plut. Per. 4, 3. See below, p. 311, n. i.

' See above, Chap. II. p. 127, n. 2.

' Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. Ill), reading 'A/ietj't^ ALoxalra with Diels {Hermes,
XXXV. p. 197). SotioD, 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), 'EXearat d' dfxcpu} (Parmenides
and Zeno) Kal oi toOto fibvov, dXXd Kal tov livdayopLKOv StSacr/caXeton fxera-
\a^6vT€, Kaddirep irov Kal NiKd/xaxos la-Tdpyjaev. Presumably this comes from
Timaios.

* Strabo, vi, i, p, 252 (p. 171, n. 2) ; Ceb, Tab. 2 (R. P. iii c). The
statements of Strabo are of the greatest value ; for they are based upon
historians (especially Timaios) now lost.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 171

the opening of the poem of Parmenides is an allegorical
description of his conversion from some form of error to
what he held to be the truth, and that it is thrown into the
form of an Orphic apocalypse.^ That would be quite natural
if he had been a Pythagorean in his early days, so we need
not hesitate to accept the tradition that he had. As regards
the relation of Parmenides to the Pythagorean system, we
shall have something to say later. At present we need
only note that, hke most of the older philosophers, he took
part in poHtics ; and Speusippos recorded that he legislated
for his native city. Others add that the magistrates of
Elea made the citizens swear every year to abide by the
laws Parmenides had given them.^

85. Parmenides was the first philosopher to expound The poem.
his system in metrical language. His predecessors, Anaxi-
mander, 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 Epi-
charmos. 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.^ I follow the arrangement of Diels.

^ We know too little of the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century
B.C. to be sure of the details. All we can say is that Parmenides has
taken the form of his poem from some such source. See Diels, " tJber
die poetischen Vorbilder des Parmenides " {Berl. Sitzh. 1896), and the
Introduction to his Parmenides Lehrgedichi, pp. 9 sqq.

2 Diog, ix. 23 (R. P. III). Plut. Adv. Col. 1226 a, Uap/JLepid-ns 5^ Tr}v
eavTov irarplda 5ie/f6(r/x77(r€ p6fiocs dpiaTOii^ (bare ras dpxas Kad' ^Kaarov ivLavrbv
i^opKovv Toi/s iroXiTas ^ixfieveiv tois Uapfxevldov vbfjLOLS. Strabo, vi. I, p.
252, ('EX^ai') ^^ •^s Hap/xevidTji Kal Zrjvcju iy^rouro dvdpes Hvdaydpeioi. 8oK€t 8i
fjLot Kal 81 eKeipovs Kal ^tl TrpSrepop evpo/xrjdrjpai. We can hardly doubt that •
this too comes from Timaios.

' Simpl. Phys. 144, 25 (R. P. 117). SimpUcius, of course, had the
library of the Academy at his command. Diels estimates that we have
about nine-tenths of the 'AXrjdeia and about one-tenth of the A6^a.

172 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(I)

The car that bears me carried me as far as ever my heart
desired, when it had brought me and set me on the renowned way
of the goddess, which leads the man who knows through all the
towns. 1 On that way was I borne along ; for on it did the wise
5 steeds carry me, drawing my car, and maidens showed the way.
And the axle, glowing in the socket — for it was urged round by
the whirling wheels at each end — gave forth a sound as of a pipe,
when the daughters of the Sun, hasting to convey me into the
light, threw back their veils from off their faces and left the

lo abode of Night.

There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day,^ fitted
above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone. They
themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, and
Avenging Justice keeps the keys that fit them. Her did the

15 maidens entreat with gentle words and cunningly persuade to
unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates. Then,
when the doors were thrown back, they disclosed a wide opening,
when their brazen posts fitted with rivets and nails swung back
one after the other. Straight through them, on the broad way,

^^ did the maidens guide the horses and the car, and the goddess

greeted me kindly, and took my right hand in hers, and spake

to me these words :

Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car that

bears thee tended by immortal charioteers ! It is no ill 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 behef at all. Yet none the less shalt thou learn these
30

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 /caret Trdvr
iarri. Parmenides, then, was srn itinerant philosopher, like the sophists
of the next generation, and this makes his visit to the Athens of Perikles
all the more natural.

* For these see Hesiod, Theog. 748.

3 I read SoKifxCja {i.e. SoKi/xuxrat) with Diels. I have left it ambiguous |
in my rendering whether elvai is to be taken with doKL/mCoffai or doKovvra.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 173

But do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry,
nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon this
way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue ; but judge by 35
argument ^ the much disputed proof uttered by me. There is
only one way left that can be spoken of. ... R. P. 113.

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 im-
possible — nor utter it ; for it is the same thing that can be
thought and that can be.^ R. P. 114.

1 This is the earliest instance of X670S 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 beUeve that ZeUer's is the only possible interpretation of rb
yap avrd voetv ^cftlv re Kal elvac {denn dasselhe kann gedacht warden und
sein, p. 558, n. i : Eng. trans, p. 584, «. i). It is impossible to separate
voeip i(TTLv here from fr. 4, el<yl vorjcrai, "can be thought." No rendering is
admissible which makes voeiu the subject of the sentence ; for a bare
infinitive is never so used. (Some grammars make Troielv the subject in
a sentence Uke dUaibv eo-ri tovto Troidv, but this is shown to be wrong by
5kat6s eiixL tovto iroieiv.) 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 {yoctv €<ttiv, " is for thinking,'^ ^' Q^p, Ij^ tl\ought,"
Uti.v dvai, " is for being," " can be ").

174 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(6)

It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is ;
for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is
nothing to be.^ This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee
back from this first way of inquiry, and from this other also,
5 upon which mortals knowing naught wander two-faced ; for help-
lessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that
they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind. Undis-
cerning crowds, who hold that it is and is not the same and not
the same,2 and all things travel in opposite directions ! ^ R. P. 115.

(7)

>>w 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 inde-
structible ; for it is complete,^ immovable, and without end. Nor
5 was it ever, nor wiU it be ; for now it is, all at once, a continuous

1 The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note.
The words rb X^yeLv re voeiv r i6v mean " that which it is possible
to speak of and think," and are correctly paraphrased by Simplicius
{Phys. p. 86, 29, Diels), el oZu Sirep &v rts t) etirrj ^ vorja-Q rb 6v taTL. Then
i<TTL yhp elvaL means " it can be," and the last phrase should be con-
strued ovk i<xTL firjdev (elvai), " there is no room for nothing to be."

^ I construe oh vevbixiaTaL rb iriXeiv re Koi oiiK elvaL raiurbv Kai ov
rairrbv. The subject of the infinitives TrAeiv koL ovk elvat is the it, which
has to be supphed also with ^ariv and ovk e^TLv. This way of taking the
words makes it unnecessary to believe that Parmenides said [to) ovk elvai
instead of (r6) fir} elvat for " not-being." There is no difference between
TT^Xecv and elvai except in rhythmical value.

3 I take TrdvTuv as neuter and understand irakivrpoiros KeXevdos as
equivalent to the bSbs dvai Kdrto of Herakleitos. I do not think it has
anything to do with the iraXivrovos (or TraXivrpoiros) dpfxoviij. See Chap.
III. p. 136, n. 4.

* I prefer to read ^(xtl yap ovXofieXh with Plutarch {Adv. Col. 11 14 c).
Proklos {in Farm. 1152, 24) also read ovXofxeXes. Simplicius, who has
fiovvoyev^s here, calls the One of Parmenides bXofieX^s elsewhere {Phys.
p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.] Strom. 5, fiodvov ixowoyev^s, helps to
explain the confusion. We have only to suppose that the letters fx, v, y
were written above the line in the Academy copy of Parmenides by some
one who had Tim. 31 b 3 in mind. Parmenides could not call- what is
" only-begotten," though the Pythagoreans might call the world so.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 175

one. For what kind of origin for it wiK thou look for ? In what
way and from what source could it have drawn its increase ? . . .
I shall not let thee say nor think that it came from what is not ;
for it can neither be thought nor uttered that anything is not.
And, if it came from nothing, what need could have made it 10
arise later rather than sooner ? Therefore must it either be
altogether or be not at all. Nor will the force of truth suffer
aught to arise besides itself from that which is not. Wherefore,
Justice doth not loose her fetters and let anything come into
being or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgment thereon 15
depends on this : "Is it or is it not ? " Surely it is adjudged, as
it needs must be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthink-
able and nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path
is real and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the
future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into 20
being, it is not ; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus
is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of.
R. P. 117.

Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more ^ of
it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding together,
nor less of it, but everything is full of what is. Wherefore it is 23
wholly continuous ; for what is, is in contact with what is.

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 ; 30
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.^ R. P. 118.

1 For the difi&culties which have been felt about fxaWov 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 ixt) ibv 8' hv Travrbs iSeiro, which is metrically
impossible. I have followed Bergk in deleting fi-q, and have interpreted
with Zeller. So too Diels.

176 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which

35 the thought exists is the same ; ^ for you cannot find thought

without something that is, as to which it is uttered. ^ And there

is not, and never shall be, anything besides what is, since fate

has chained it so as to be whole and immovable. Wherefore all

these things are but names which mortals have given, beUeving

40 them to be true — coming into being and passing away, being

and not being, change of place and alteration of bright colour.

R. P. 119.

C Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every

side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from the

45 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 inviolabJe. ^ For

the point from which it is equal in every direction tends equally

. to the limits. R. P. 120.

The Way of Belief

50 Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about

the truth. Henceforward learn the beUefs 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
55 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 Hght, 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
60 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.

(9)

Now that all things have been named Ught and night, and
the names which belong to the power of each have been assigned

1 For the construction of ia-TL poelv, see above, p. 173, n. 2.

2 As Diels rightly points out, the Ionic (pari^eiv is equivalent to
dvofxai^eiv. 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.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 177

to these things and to those, everything is full at once of light
and dark night, both equal, since neither has aught to do with
the other.

(10, II)

And thou shalt know the substance of the sky, and all tlie
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 Umits 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,^ wandering round the
earth.

(15)

Always looking to the beams of the sun.

(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

1 Note the curious echo of //. 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 Hght. Anaxagoras may-
have introduced this view to the Athenians (§ 135), but these verses prove
it was not originated by him.

178 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

is the same, namely, the substance of the limbs, in each and
every man ; for their thought is that of which there is more in
them.i R. P. 128.

(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.

« It is." 86. 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
beheved in none but a sensible reaUty.^ Parmenides does
not say a word about "Being" anywhere,* and it is remark-

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 hght 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 re-
translation of the Latin hexameters of Caelius Aurelianus quoted R. P. 127 a.

3 Arist. De caelo, V, i. 298 b 21, iKeXvoi 5^ {ol irepl M^Xiaaov re Kal
IIapfX€vi87]v) Sia to fxrjd^v fx^v SlWo irapb. tt)v tQv aiadrjTQu oiicriav viroXafi^dveiy
eZvat kt\. So too Eudemos, in the first book of his Physics {ap.
Simpl. Phys. p. 133, 25), said of Parmenides : rb fih o^v Koivbv ovk Slv X^yoi.
oUre yap i^rjTeiTb ttw to, rotavra, aXK' iiarepov iK rQ>v \byu3v irporjXdeu, ovre iiri-
8ixoi-TO hv d T(p 5vTt iiriXiyei.. ttQs yap ^arai toOto '' fi^aaodev iaoTraXes" Kal
TO, TOiavra ; T<p be ovpavi^ (the world) ax^bbv Trdvres i<papnbaov<XLV ol tolovtol
Xbyoi. The Neoplatonists, of course, saw in the One the vorjTbi Kbafxos,
and Simplicius calls the sphere a " mythical figment." See especially
Baumker, " Die Einheit des Parmenideischen Seiendes " {Jahrb. f. kl.
Phil., 1886, pp. 541 sqq.), and Das Problem der Materia, pp. 50 sqq.

* We must not render rb ibv by "Being," das Sein or I'etre. It is
"what is," das Seiende, ce qui est. As to (rd) eli/ai it does not occur, and
hardly could occur at this date.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 179

able that he avoids the term ** god," which was so freely
used by earlier and later thinkers. The assertion that it is
amounts just to this, that the universe is a plenum ; and
that there is no such thing as empty space, either inside
or outside the world. From this it follows that there can
be no such thing as motion. Instead of endowing the
One with an impulse to change, as Herakleitos had done,
and thus making it capable of explaining the world, Ppr-
menides dismissed change as an illusion. He showed once

for all thaf it you take the One seriously you are bound
to deny everything else. All previous solutions of the
question, therefore, had missed the point. Anaximenes,
who tfemight to save the unity of the primary substance
by his theory of rarefaction and condensation, did not
observe that, by assuming there was less of what is in
one place than another, he virtually affirmed the existence
of what is not (fr. 8, 45). ('The Pythagorean explanation
impHed that empty space or air exi^ted^outsi^^
and that it en ter ed into it to separate the units ($ ^^) ?)
It, too, assumes the existence of what is not. Nor is the
theory of Herakleitos any more satisfactory ; for it is based
on the contradiction that fire both is and is not (fr. 6).

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 refer-
ence 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.^ That is the natural

^ See above, fr. 6, n. 2.

i8o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

meaning of the words ; and it furnishes a very accurate
description of the theory of Herakleitos.
The 87. The great novelty in the poem of Parmenides is the

of Par- ' method of argument. He first asks what is the common
memdes. presuppositiou 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 some-
thing. 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 for ever, x If]
Parmenides had lacked courage to work out the prevaiUn^
views of his time to their logical conclusion, and to accepi
that conclusion, however paradoxical it might appear,
men might have gone on in the endless circle of opposi-
tion, rarefaction, and condensation, one and many, for
ever. 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 nol
cease to be corporeaHst ; for the incorporeal was still un-
known. It therefore, ceased to be monistic, and arrive(
ultimately at the atomic theory, which, so far as w(
know, is the last word of the view that the world is bodi
in motion.^

^ From the point of view we are now taking, it is doubtful if evei
Atomism can rightly be called Monism, since it impUes the real existence
of space. The most modern forms of Monism are not corporeahst, sine
they replace body by energy as the ultimate reahty.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA i8i

I'
88. Parmenides goes on to develop all the consequences The
of the admission that it is. It must be uncreated and inde- ^^^" ^*
structible. It cannot have arisen out of nothing ; for there
is no such thing as nothing. Nor can it have arisen from
something ; for there is no room for anything but itself.
What is cannot have beside it any empty space in which
something else might arise ; for empty space is nothing,
nothing cannot be thought, and therefore cannot exist.
What is never came into being, nor is anything going to
come into being in the future. " Is it or is it not ? " If it
is, then it is now, all at once.

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.'* ^ Aristotle is no less clear. ^
He lays down that Parmenides was driven to take up
the position that the One was immovable just because no
one had yet imagined there was any reality other than
the sensible. 2

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. i8o e 3, Aj ^j/ re trdvTa iarl koI ^(Ttt}K€v avrh iy ai/rcf
ovK ixov X^PO'^ ^v Tj Kiveirai. This is explicitly stated by Melissos (fr. 7,
p. 323), but Plato clearly meant to ascribe it to Parmenides as well.

* Arist. De caelo, V, i. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 178, «. 3, and the
other passages there quoted.

i82 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Par- 89. To sum Up. What is, is a finite, spherical, motion-

mem es 1^^^ corporeal plenum, and there is nothing beyond it. The
father of appearances of multipUcity and motion, empty space and
ism. time, are illusions. We see from this that the primary

substance of which the early cosmologists were in search
has now become a sort of " thing in itself." It never quite
lost this character again. What appears later as the
elements of Empedokles, the so-called " homoeomeries '* of
Anaxagoras and the atoms of Leukippos and Demokritos,
is just the Parmenidean " being." Parmenides is not, as
some have said, the " father of ideahsm " ; on the contrary,
all materialism depends on his view of reaUty.

90. It is commonly held that, in the Second Part of his
poem, Parmenides offered a duahstic 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." ^ Now it is true
that in one place Aristotle appears to countenance a view of
this sort, but nevertheless it is an anachronism. ^ Nor is it
really Aristotle's view. He was well aware that Parmenides
did not admit the existence of '* not-being " in any degree
whatever ; but it was a natural way of speaking to call the
cosmology of the Second Part of the poem that of Parmenides.
His hearers would understand in what sense this was meant.
At any rate, the Peripatetic tradition was that Parmenides,
in the Second Part of the poem, meant to give the belief of
" the many." This is how Theophrastos put the matter,

^ 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 to 6v and the other
with rb ixT) &v. Cf. De gen. corr. A, 3. 318 b 6, wairep Uap/xevid-qs \eyec 56o,
rb dy Kal to fir] du ehai (pda-Kojv. This last sentence shows clearly that
when Aristotle says Uapfj^vidrjs, he sometimes means what we should call
" Parmenides."

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 183

and Alexander seems to have spoken of the cosmology as
something which Parmenides himself regarded as wholly
false. ^ The other view comes from the Neoplatonists, and
especially SimpHcius, who regarded the Way of Truth as an
account of the intelligible world, and the Way of Opinion
as a description of the sensible. It need hardly be said
that this is almost as great an anachronism as the Kantian
paralleUsm suggested by Gomperz.^ Parmenides himself
tells us in the most unequivocal language that there is no
truth at all in the theory which he expounds, and that he
gives it merely as the belief of " mortals." It was this that
led Theophrastos to speak of it as the opinion of " the
many."

His explanation however, though preferable to that of
SimpHcius, is not convincing either. " The many " are as
far as possible from believing in an elaborate duaUsm 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
beUefs 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), Kark 86^av 8^ rCoy
TToWdv els rb yiveaiv dTroSovvai tQv (paivoixevojv 8vo iroiQv rdr dpxds. For
Alexander, cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 38, 24, ei 8e ^evSels irivTrj Toi>% \6yovs
oierat iKeivovs {'AXi^ap8pos) kt\.

2 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 10 (R. P. 121 b). Gomperz, Greek Thinkers,
vol. i. p. 180.

i84 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and it seems hard to discover any of sufficient importance
at this date except the Pythagorean. Now it is admitted
by every one that there are Pythagorean ideas in the Second
Part of the poem, and it is therefore to be presumed, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that the whole of its
cosmology comes from the same source. It does not appear
that Parmenides said any more about Herakleitos than the
words to which we have just referred, in which he forbids the
second way of inquiry. He impHes, indeed, that there are
really only two ways that can be thought of, and that the
attempt of Herakleitos to combine them was f utile. ^ In
any case, the Pythagoreans were far more serious opponents
at that date in Italy, and it is certainly to them that we
should expect Parmenides to define his attitude.

It is still not quite clear, however, why he should have
thought it worth while to put into hexameters a view he be-
lieved 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 beUefs. In the intro-
ductory verses, he tells us distinctly that he has passed from
darkness into the light. In such cases men commonly feel i
the necessity of showing where their old views were wrong. 1
The goddess tells him that he must learn of those beUefsj
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 behefs, " and so no
opinion of mortals will ever get the better of him " (fr. 8, 6i).
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 intelhgently without

* Cf. frs. 4 and 6, especially the words alVep 65ot ixovvat 8i^7i<ti6s e/trtj
voTjcraL. The third way, that of Herakleitos, is only added as an after-]
thought — avrap iireLT dirh tT]$ kt\.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 185

a knowledge of it, and this Parmenides had to supply
himself.^

91. The view that the Second Part of the poem of The dual-

ist cos-

Parmenides was a sketch of contemporary Pythagorean moiogy.
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 B.C. 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 Pytha-
goreans 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.^ In this he is so far justified by the fragments
that, since the Fire of which Parmenides speaks is, of course,
warm, the other " form," which has all the opposite quahties,
must of necessity be cold. Here, then, we have the tradi-
tional " opposites " of the Milesians. Aristotle's identifica-

1 I read XPW SoKi-fiQa-' eXvai in fr. i, 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, depfibv Kal ypvxp(>v', Phys. A, 5. 188 a 20; De gen.
corr. A, 3. 318 b 6 ; B, 3. 330 b 14.

i86 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tion of these with Fire and Earth is, however, misleading,
though Theophrastos followed him in it.^ SimpHcius, who
had the poem before him (§ 85), after mentioning Fire and
Earth, at once adds " or rather Light and Darkness " ; ^
and this is suggestive. Lastly, Aristotle's identification
of the dense element with " what is not," ^ the unreal of the
First Part of the poem, is not easy to reconcile with the view
that it is earth. On the other hand, if we suppose that the
second of the two '' forms," the one which should not have
been " named," is the Pythagorean Air or Void, we get a
very good explanation of Aristotle's identification of it
with " what is not." We seem, then, to be justified in
neglecting the identification of the dense element with earth
for the present. At a later stage, we shall be able to see
how it may have originated.* The further statement of
Theophrastos, that the Warm was the efficient cause and
the Cold the material or passive,^ is not, of course, to be
regarded as historical.

We have seen that SimpHcius, with the poem of Par-
menides 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 identi-
fied with the Pythagorean Limit and Unhmited. We have
seen good reason to believe (§ 58) that the idea of the world
breathing belonged to the earhest form of Pythagoreanism,
and there can be no difiiculty in identifying this " boundless
breath " with Darkness, which stands very well for the

* Phys. A, 5- 188 a 21, raOra be {depixbv /cat ypvxpov) Trpocayope^iei wvp /cat
yrjv ; Met. A, 5. 986 b 34, olov irvp Kal yijv X^ycop. Cf. Theophr. Phys.
Op. fr. 6 {Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a).

2 Phys. p. 25, 15, ojs Ilapfjievidijs ev rots Trpos db^av irvp Koi yrjv (7) fiaXKov
(pus Kal <tk6tos). So already Plut. Adv. Col. 11 14 b, to Xafiwpbv Kal cTKOTeivdv.

' Met. A, 5. 986 b 35, ToiT(j}v bk Kark fxh rb '6v rb depfibu rdrreL, ddrepoy
5i Kara rb /jlt] 6p. See above, p. 182, n. 2.

* See below. Chap. VII. § 147.

6 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 {Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a), followed by
the doxographers.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 187

Unlimited. '* Air '* or mist was always regarded as the
dark element.^ And that which gives definiteness to the
vague darkness is certainly light or fire, and this may
account for the prominence given to that element by
Hippasos.2 We may probably conclude, then, that the
Pythagorean distinction between the Limit and the Un-
limited, which we shall have to consider later (Chap. VII.),
made its first appearance in this crude form. If, on the
other hand, we identify darkness with the Limit, and Ught
with the UnUmited, as many critics do, we get into insuper-
able difficulties.

92. We must now look at the general cosmical view The
expounded in the Second Part of the poem. The fragments bodl^? ^
are scanty, and the doxographical tradition hard to in-
terpret ; but enough remains to show that here, too, we are

on Pythagorean ground. Actios says :

Parmenides held that there were bands crossing one another ^
and encircling one another, formed of the rare and the dense
element respectively, and that between these there were other
mixed bands made up of light and darkness. That which
surrounds them all was solid like a wall, and under it is a fiery
band. That which is in the middle of all the bands is also solid,
and surrounded in turn by a fiery band. The central circle
of the mixed bands is the cause of movement and becoming to
all the rest. He calls it " the goddess who directs their course,"
"the Holder of Lots," and "Necessity." — Aet. ii. 7. i (R. P. 126).

93. Now it is quite unjustifiable to regard these " bands " The

as spheres. The word arecpavaL can mean " rims " or '^'■^^"''"'•

1 Note the identification of the dense element with " air " in [Pint.]
Strom, fr. 5 {Dox. p. 581), \iyei 5^ tj]v 7^1' rod wvkvov Karappvivros dipos
yeyovivai. 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. 52 d).

* See above, p. 109.

' It seems most likely that iiraWrjXovi here means " crossing one
another." as the Milky Way crosses the Zodiac. The term iwdWrjXos is
opposed to irapdXKrjXos.

i88 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

" brims " or anything of that sort/ but it seems incredible
that it should be used of spheres. It does not appear,
either, that the solid circle which surrounds all the crowns is
to be regarded as spherical. The expression " Hke a wall "
would be highly inappropriate in that case.^ We seem, then,
to be face to face with something Hke the '* wheels " of
Anaximander, and it is highly probable that Pythagoras
adopted the theory from him. Nor is evidence lacking
that the Pythagoreans did regard the heavenly bodies in
this way. In Plato's Myth of Er, which is certainly Pytha-
gorean in its general character, we do not hear of spheres,
but of the " Ups " of concentric whorls fitted into one another
Hke a nest of boxes. ^ In the Timaeus there are no spheres
either, but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle.*
Lastly, in the Homeric Hymn to Ares, which seems to have
been composed under Pythagorean influence, the word
used for the orbit of the planet is avrv^, which must mean
'' rim.'' 5

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 " {aw^eiv ra (^aLvofxeva)

^ As Diels points out, crT€(f)dv7j in Homer is used of a golden band in
the hair (S 597) or the brim of a helmet (H 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 relxo^ is a city-wall or fortification,
and that Euripides uses <xTe<f>dvri for a city-waU [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.

^ Rep. X. 616 d 5, Kaddirep ol KaSoi ol els dWi^Xovs apfidrrovTes ', e I,
k\jk\ovs dviadev rd X^'-^V (paivoPTas {(rcpovdvXovs).

* Tim. 36 b 6, Tavrrjv oVu ttjv (TTuaraaLV Trdaav dnrXrjv Kard fiiJKOs (7x/o-as,
fi^aTjv Trpbs fx^o-rjv cKaripav dW-^Xais dtov x^' (the letter X) irpoa^aXuiv
KariKa/xxl/ev eh Iv kiukX({).

' Hymn to Ares, 6 : irvpavyia k^kXov^ eXlaawv

aWipot iirrairdpoLS eVi Telpeaiv, ^p6a ae TrtDXot
fa0Xc7^es TpirdTTjs vir^p dvTvyos aikv ^x^^'^'-

So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says t~
planet Venus (h. iv. 17) :

efre Koi eirrd kOkXuv virkp Hvrvyas aWipa valets.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 189

into real things.^ At this date, spheres would not have
served to explain anything that could not be explained
more simply without them.

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 Hght
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 con-
fusion 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 under-
stand 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,^ and we should
have a fairly exact description of the " wheels " of Anaxi-
mander.

94. " In the middle of those," says Parmenides, " is the The
goddess who steers the course of all things." Actios ^° ^^
explains this to mean in the middle of the " mixed bands,"
while SimpHcius declares that it means in the middle of all
the bands, that is to say, in the centre of the world. ^ It is
not Hkely that either of them had anything better to go
upon than the words of Parmenides himself, and these are
ambiguous. Simphcius, as is clear from the language he

1 On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Heath, pp. 193 sqq.

2 Such a repetition {Tra\i.v8poiJ.ia) 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
terat. 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 (TTepeSv.

* Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 b).

190 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

uses, identified this goddess with the Pythagorean Hestia
or central fire, while Theophrastos could not do that, because
he knew and stated that Parmenides described the earth as
round and in the centre of the world. ^ In this very passage
we are told that what is in the middle of all the bands is
sohd. The data furnished by Theophrastos, in fact, exclude
the identification of the goddess with the central fire alto-
gether. We cannot say that what is in the middle of all
the bands is solid, and that under it there is again a fiery
band. 2 Nor does it seem fitting to relegate a goddess to the
middle of a sohd spherical earth.

We are further told by Actios that this goddess was called
Ananke and the " Holder of Lots." ^ We know already
that she " steers the course of all things," that is, that she
regulates the motions of the celestial bands. Simplicius
adds, imfortunately without quoting the actual words, that
she sends souls at one time from the fight to the unseen
world, at another from the unseen world to the light .^ It
would be difficult to describe more exactly what the goddess
does in the Myth of Er, and so here once more we seem to
be on Pythagorean ground. It is to be noticed further that
in fr. 10 we read how Ananke took the heavens and com-

1 Diog. ix. 21, TrpCoTOS 5' ai/rbi rrjv yrji/ diricprjue acpaipoeidi] Kal iv
/A^o-y KeiadaL. Cf. viii. 48 (of Pythagoras), dXXa ij.t]v koL rbv oiipavbv
irpQ)Tov ovofida-at. Koaixov Kal t7]v yriv (XTpoyyvKrjv (cf. Plato, Phaed. 97 d), ws
dk QedcppaffTos, Uapfievidrfv. This appears to justify us in ascribing the
doctrine of a spherical earth to Pythagoras (cf. p. iii).

2 I do not discuss the interpretation of Trepl 8 irdXtv irvpthh-qs 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 koL t6 fxeaairaTov iracwv (sc. tQiv 0T€<pavQ)v)
arepebv, <,v<p' (^> TrdXt*' irvpibSrjs (sc. (XT€<pdvri). That is a fiat contradiction.

3 R. P, 126, where Fiilleborn's ingenious emendation kXtjSoOxov for
KK-qpovxov is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Actios (or
Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the
Proem (fr. i, 14). I now think that the KkripoL of tjie Myth of Er give
the true explanation.

* Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 19, koI tAs ^vxds irifxireiv Trork fxkv iK tov ifxcpayovs
eli rb deibis {i.e. did^i), voH 3^ dvdTrakiv (f)r)(nv. We should probably
connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22 (R. P. 127) that men arose
from the sun (reading ijXiov with the MSS. for the conjecture tXi/os).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 191

pelled them to hold fast the fixed courses of the stars, and
that in fr. 12 we are told that she is the beginner of all pairing
and birth. Lastly, in fr. 13 we hear that she created Eros
first of all the gods. So we shall find that in Empedokles it
is an ancient oracle or decree of Ananke that causes the gods
to fall and become incarnate in a cycle of births.^

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
beUeve in the " mixed bands " or not makes no difference in
this respect ; for the statement of Actios that she was in the
middle of the mixed bands undoubtedly impUes that she
was between earth and heaven. Now she is identified with
one of the bands in a somewhat confused passage of Cicero,^
and the whole theory of wheels or bands was probably
suggested by the Milky Way. It seems to me, therefore,
that we must think of the Milky Way as a band intermediate
between those of the Sun and the Moon, and this agrees very
well with the prominent way in which it is mentioned in
fr. II. It is better not to be too positive about the other
details, though it is interesting to notice that according to
some it was Pythagoras, and according to others Parmenides,
who discovered the identity of the evening and morning star.^

^ Empedokles, fr. 115.

* Cicero, De nat. <i. i. 11, 28 : " Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium
quiddam coronae simile efficit {crTecpdvrjP appellat), continente ardore lucis
orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum." We may connect with
this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, rbv ijXiov Kal ttjv cek-qv-riv iK toO
yaXa^iov kvkXov airoKpidrivai.

^ Diog. ix. 23, Kol SoKeT {TLap/iei/Ldris) TrpQro^ ir€(l)b}paK^vai rhv avrbv
€lvai. "EffTrepop Kai ^i>3(T<p6pov, cos <pT]cn ^a^ojpiuos iv ir^ixtrTi^ 'AirofivrjfMovev-
fidruv ol 8k Uvdayopav. Cf. viii. 14 (of Pythagoras), irpQrrbv re "Eawepov
Kal ^wa(f>bpov rbv avrbv e'nretv, c&i (firjai HapixevLbrj^. So Diels now
reads with all the MSS. (the vulgate oi 8i 0a<rt UapfxeviS-nv is due to Casau-
bon). It is not necessary to suppose that Parmenides made this state-
ment exphcitly in his poem ; there may have been an unmistakable
allusion, as in Empedokles, fr. 129. In that case, we should have a

192 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Besides all this, it is certain that Parmenides went on
to describe how the other gods were bom and how they fell,
an idea which we know to be Orphic, and which may well
have been Pythagorean. We shall come to it again in
Empedokles. In Plato's Symposium, Agathon couples
Parmenides with Hesiod as a narrator of ancient deeds
of violence committed by the gods.^ If Parmenides was
expounding the Pythagorean theology, this is just what we
should expect ; but it seems hopeless to explain it on any
of the other theories which have been advanced on the
purpose of the Way of Belief. ^ Such things belong to
theological speculation, and not to the beliefs of "the many."
Still less can we think it probable that Parmenides made up
these stories himself to show what the popular view of the
world really impHed if properly formulated. We must ask,
I think, that any theory shall account for what was evidently
no inconsiderable portion of the poem.
Physio- 95- 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 every-
thing 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.^
It is the proportion of the warm and cold in men that deter-

remarkable confirmation of the view that the A6^a of Parmenides was
Pythagorean, If, as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of Rhegion had
anticipated Parmenides in announcing this discovery, that is to be ex-
plained by the fact that Rhegion became for a time, as we shall see, the
chief seat of the Pythagorean school.

1 Plato, Symp. 195 c i. It is implied that these TraXata irpdyfiaTa were
troWk Koi ^iaia, including iKTo/xai and dea/xoL 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).

* For these theories, see § 90.

« For all this, see R. P. 127 a, with Arist. De part. an. B, 2. 648 a 28 ;
De gen. an. A, i. 765 b 19.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 193

mines the character of their thought, so that even corpses,
from which the warm has been removed, retain a perception
of what is cold and dark.^ These fragments of information
do not tell us much when taken by themselves ; but they
connect themselves in an interesting way with the history
of medicine, and point to the fact that one of its leading
schools stood in close relation with the Pythagorean Society.
Even before the days of Pythagoras, we know that Kroton
was famous for its doctors. ^ We also know the name of
a very distinguished medical writer who lived at Kroton
in the days between Pythagoras and Parmenides, and the
few facts we are told about him enable us to regard the
physiological views described by Parmenides not as isolated
curiosities, but as landmarks by which we can trace the
origin, and growth of one of the most influential of medical
theories, that which explains health as a balance of
opposites.

96. Aristotle tells us that Alkmaion of Kroton ^ was a Aikmaion
young man in the old age of Pythagoras. He does not
actually say, as later writers do, that he was a Pythagorean,
though he points out that he seems either to have derived
his theory of opposites from the Pythagoreans or they theirs
from him.^ In any case, he was intimately connected with
the society, as is proved by one of the scanty fragments of
his book. It began as follows : " Alkmaion of Kroton, son
of Peirithous, spoke these words to Brotinos and Leon and
Bathyllos. As to things invisible and things mortal, the
gods have certainty ; but, so far as men may infer . . ." ^

1 Theophr. Be sens. 3, 4 (R. P. 129). * See p. 89, n. 2.

' On Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniata
(Leipzig, 1896).

* Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66). In a 30 Diels reads, with
great probability, iyeuero ttjv ifKLKlav <j'eos> eirl yipovn. Uvday Spq.. Cf. Iambi.
V. Pyth. 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the (xvyxpoviaavTe? Kal
fxadrjreOaavTes rip Uvdayopa rrpea^vTri vioi.

^ 'AXK/xaitav KporoovirjTrjs rdde fKe^e TieLpidov vlbs BpOTLVip Kal A4ovtl Kal BadvXXcp-
Trepl tCjv dcpaviwv, irepl tCjv Ovt^tCHv, aacprjueiav ixkv deol exovri, ds 5k dvdpdnroLS
reK/xaipeadai Kal to. i^ijs (fr. I, Diels, Vors. 14 b i). The fact that this is not
written in conventional Doric is a strong proof of its genuineness.

194 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The quotation unfortunately ends in this abrupt way,
but we learn two things from it. In the first place,
Alkmaion possessed that reserve which marks all the
best Greek medical writers ; and in the second place,
he dedicated his work to the heads of the Pythagorean
Society.^

Alkmaion's importance really lies in the fact that he is
the founder of empirical psychology. ^ He regarded the
brain as the common sensorium, a view which Hippokrates
and Plato adopted from him, though Empedokles, Aristotle,
and the Stoics reverted to the more primitive view that the
heart is the central organ of sense. There is no reason to
doubt that he made this discovery by anatomical means.
We have authority for saying that he practised dissection,
and, though the nerves were not yet recognised as such,
it was known that there were certain " passages " {iropot)
which might be prevented from communicating sensations
to the brain by lesions.^ He also distinguished between
sensation and understanding, though we have no means of
knowing where he drew the line between them. His theories
of the special senses are of great interest. We find in him
already, what is characteristic of Greek theories of vision
as a whole, the attempt to combine the view of vision as
a radiation proceeding from the eye with that which attri-
butes it to an image reflected in the eye. He knew the
importance of air for the sense of hearing, though he
called it the void, a thoroughly Pythagorean touch. With
regard to the other senses, our information is more

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 lamblichos (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. i). Our authority for the
dissections of Alkmaion is only Chalcidius, but he gets his information on
such matters from far older sources. The irbpoi and the inference from
lesions are vouched for by Theophrastos.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 195

scanty, but sufficient to show that he treated the subject
systematically.^

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. ^ If, however, we were right in
holding that the Second Part of the poem of Parmenides
represents the view of Pythagoras, we see that he had not
gone very far beyond the Milesians in such matters. His
theory of the heavenly bodies was still "meteorological."
It is all the more remarkable that ^Alkmaion is credited with
the view that the planets have an orbital motion in the
opposite direction to the diurnal revolution of the heavens.
This view, which he may have learnt from Pythagoras,
would naturally be suggested by the difficulties we noted
in the system of Anaximander.^ It doubtless stood in close
connexion with his saying that soul was immortal because
it resembled immortal things, and was always in motion hke
the heavenly bodies.* He seems, in fact, to be the author
of the curious view Plato put into the mouth of the Pytha-
gorean Timaios, that the soul has circles in it revolving just
as the heavens and the planets do. This too seems to be
the explanation of his further statement that man dies
because he cannot join the beginning to the end.^ The
orbits of the heavenly bodies always come full circle, but
the circles in the human head may fail to complete them-
selves.

Alkmaion's theory of health as " isonomy " is at once
that which most clearly connects him with earher inquirers

^ The details will be found in Beare, pp. ii sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq,
(hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq. (taste).

2 Aet. ii. 22, 4, TrXarvu elvat top ^\lov ', 29, 3, KaTa\TT]v tov^ aKa(pO€i8ovi
crTpo<pr]v Kal ras xepLKXlaeLS {iKXeiireiv ttjv aeKrjvrjv).

3 Aet. ii. 16, 2, {tQv /nadrjinaTLKCov rives) rods Tr\avf}Ta% tois airXdveaiv
airb bvcTfiCbv eir' dvaroXas avTi^epeaOat. rovTip 8^ avvofioXoyei /cai 'AX/c/xaiW.
For the difi&culties in Anaximander's system see p. 69 sq.

* Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 a 30 (R. P. 66 c).

° Arist. Probl. 17, 3. 916 a 33, tov% dudpibwovs (prjcrly 'AXKfialuv Sid tovto
dirdWvcrdai, 6ti ov 86vavTailTrjp dpx^v Ti^^riXei Trpo(rd\(/ai.

196

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

like Anaximander, and also that which had the greatest
influence on the subsequent development of philosophy.
He observed, to begin with, that " most things human were
two," and by this he meant that man was made up of the
hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, and the rest of the
opposites.i Disease was just the " monarchy " of any one
of these — the same thing that Anaximander had called
" injustice " — ^while health was the establishment in the
body of a free government with equal laws.^ This was the
leading doctrine of the SiciHan school of medicine, and we
shall have to consider in the sequel its influence on the
development of Pythagoreanism. Taken along with the
theory of " pores," it is of the greatest importance for later
science.

1 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66).

^ Aet. V. 30, I, 'A\K/j.ai(i}v ttjs fxkv vyteias elvai (Tvv€ktik7)v ttjv l(Tovofxlav
Twv dvydfxewv, vypov, ^rjpoO, \pvxpov, depfioO, wiKpov, yXvK^os, Kal tCiv Xonrwp,
TT)v 5' iv avTols fiouapxidv vbaov iroLriTLK-qv • (pdopovoibif yap cKaripov fiovapx^o-v-

CHAPTER V

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS

97. The belief that all things are one was common to the Pluralism,
early lonians ; but now Parmenides has shown that, if this
one thing really is, we must give up the idea that it can take
different forms. iThe 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
pluraUsts. The corporealist hypothesis had proved unable
to bear the weight of a monistic structure.

98. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in Sicily. He Date of
was the only native citizen of a Dorian state who plays an dokfel
important part in the history of philosophy. ^ His father's
name, according to the best accounts, was Meton.^ His
grandfather, also called Empedokles, had won a victory in
the horse-race at Olympia in 01. LXXI. (496-95 b.c.),^ and

^ See, however, Introd. § II (p. 3).

2 Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), ApoUodoros 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 p'or this we have the authority of ApoUodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52;
R. P. 162), who follows the Olympic Victors of Eratosthenes, who followed
Aristotle. Herakleides, in his Jlepl voawv (see below, p. 200, n. 5), spoke of

197

igS

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Empe-
dokles
as a
politician.

ApoUodoros fixed the floruit of Empedokles himself in 01.
LXXXIV. I (444-43 B.C.). That is the date of the foundation
of Thourioi ; and it appears from the quotation in Diogenes
that the fifth - century biographer, Glaukos of Rhegion/
said Empedokles visited the new city shortly after its
foundation. But we are not bound to beUeve that he was
just forty years old at the time. That is the usual assump-
tion of ApoUodoros ; but there are reasons for thinking that
his date is considerably too late.^ It is more hkely that
Empedokles did not go to Thourioi till after his banishment
from Akragas, and he may well have been more than forty
years old when that happened. All, therefore, we can be said
to know is, that his grandfather was still aUve in 496 B.C. ;
that he himself was active at Akragas after 472, the date of
Theron's death ; and that he died later than 444.

99. Empedokles certainly played an important part in
the pohtical events which followed the death of Theron.
The Sicihan 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 after-

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.

1 Glaukos wrote Ilept tCov dp%afaji' iroL-qTQv koI /xovo-lkCov, and is said to
have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). ApoUodoros 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 ere 8'
'RpaK\ei5T]s are Sturz's conjecture, the MSS. having ctl d' 'Hpd/cXetroi/, and
Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the
other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the TLepl ttoltjtQu, it is

The

was one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles
names are often confused.

2 See Diels, " Empedokles und Gorgias," 2 {Berl. Sitzb., 1884). Theo-
phrastos said {Dox. p. 477, 17) that Empedokles was born " not long after
Anaxagoras," i.e. not long after 500 B.C. (see below, J 120). As he was
certainly later than Parmenides, this is a fresh ground for following Plato
in making Parmenides some fifteen years older than ApoUodoros does
(see above, § 84). In general it should be noted that the epoch of Thourioi
has misled ApoUodoros in many cases. Almost every one who had any-
thing to do with Thourioi [e.g. Herodotos, Protagoras) is said to have
been born in 484 b.c.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 199

wards. Like all popular traditions, however, they are a
little confused. The picturesque incidents are remembered,
but the essential parts of the story are dropped. Still, we
may be thankful that the " collector of old wives' tales," ^ as
his critics called him, has enabled us to measure the historical
importance of Empedokles for ourselves by showing us how
he was pictured by the great-grandchildren of his contem-
poraries. ^ All the tales are intended to show the strength
of his democratic convictions, and we are told, in particular,
that he broke up the assembly of the Thousand — perhaps
some oligarchical association or club.^ It may have been for
this that he was offered the kingship, which Aristotle tells us
he refused.* At any rate, we see that Empedokles was the
great democratic leader at Akragas in those days, though we
have no clear knowledge of what he did.

100. But there is another side to his public character Empe-
which Timaios found it hard to reconcile with his political ^s a^^
views. He claimed to be a god, and to receive the homage religious
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 ypaoavWiKxpia 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, iiarepoif 8' 6 'EiuLire8oK\i]s Kal to tQv x'^^''"' AOpoifffia
Kar^Xvae (Tvv€<rTu)s iirl ^ttj Tpia.- The word dLdpoia/xa hardly suggests a
legal council, and ffwiaracrOaL suggests a conspiracy.

4 Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his Sophist.
Cf. Diog. viii. 57.

6 Diog. viii. 59 (R. P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas.
Diels suggests {Emp. u. Gorg. p. 358) that the c()v<xiKbs of Alkidamas was
a dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker.

200 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Gorgias affirmed that he had been present when his
master was performing sorceries. We can see what this
means from the fragments of the Purifications. Empe-
dokles was a preacher of the new reUgion which sought
to secure release from the " wheel of birth " by purity
and abstinence. Orphicism seems to have been strong
at Akragas in the days of Theron, and there are even
some verbal coincidences between the poems of Empedokles
and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar addressed to that
prince. 1 \ On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt
the statement of Ammonios that fr. 134 refers to Apollo ; ^
and, if that is so, it points to his having been an adherent
of the Ionic form of the mystic doctrine, as we have seen
(§ 39) Pythagoras was. Further, Timaios already knew
the story that Empedokles had been expelled from the
Pythagorean Order for " steaHng discourses," ^ and it is
probable on the whole that fr. 129 refers to Pythagoras.*
It seems most Hkely, then, that Empedokles preached a
form of Pythagoreanism which was not considered orthodox
by the heads of the Society. The actual marvels related
of him seem to be mere developments of hints in his
poems.^

loi. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the inventor of
Rhetoric Rhctoric ; ^ and Galen made him the founder of the Italian
medicine, school of Medicine, which he puts on a level with those of

1 See Bidez, p. 115, n. i.

2 See below, note in loc.

3 Diog. viii. 54 (R. P. 162). * 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. iii he says that knowledge of science as taught]
by him will enable his disciples to control the winds. We are also tolc
how he brought back to life a woman who had been breathless anc
pulseless for thirty days. In fr. 11 1 he tells Pausanias that his teaching]
will enable him to bring the dead back from Hades.' The story of the]
dirvovs was given at length in the Hepl vbawv of Herakleides of Pontos»
and Diogenes says that it was related to Pausanias by Empedokles. Thai
gives us a hint of the way in which these stories were worked up. Cf.
the very similar anecdotes about Herakleitos, p. 131, w. 4.
« Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 g).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 201

Kos and Knidos.^ Both these statements must be considered
in connexion with his poHtical and scientific activity. It is
probable that Gorgias was his disciple, and also that the
speeches, of which he must have made many, were marked
by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced to Athens at a
later date, and which gave rise to the idea of an artistic
prose. 2 His influence on the development of medicine
was, however, far more important, as it affected not only
medicine itself, but, through it, the whole tendency of
scientific thinking. It has been said that Empedokles
had no successors,^ and the remark is true if we confine
ourselves strictly to philosophy ; but the medical school he
founded was still hving in the days of Plato, and had con-
siderable influence on him, and still more on Aristotle.* Its
fundamental doctrine was the identification of the four
elements with the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry.
It also held that we breathe through all the pores of the
body, and that the act of respiration is closely connected
with the motion of the blood. The heart, not the brain,
was regarded as the organ of consciousness. ^ A more

1 Galen, Meth. Med. i. i, ijpi^ov 5' airois (the schools of Kos and Knidos)
. . . Kal ol iK TTJs 'IraXias iarpoi, ^lXl(ttLci}v re Kal 'EfiiredoKXTJs Kal UavaauLai
Kal ol TovTUP eraipoi. Philistion was the contemporary and friend of Plato ;
Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles addressed his poem.

2 See Diels, " Empedokles und Gorgias " {Berl. SiUb., 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
Gk)rgias himself. In Plato's Meno (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean theory
of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.

3 Diels {Berl. Sitzb., 1884, p. 343).

* See M. Wellmann, Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Artzte, 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.

6 For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon's lairika),
^iXccTLbJv 5' oterai 4k d' I'SecDv avvecTTdvat ijfMas, tout' ^(Xtiv e'/c 5' ffToix^luiV
irvpos, d^poi, CSaros, 7^s. elvai de Kal €Kd<jTOV dvvd/xeis, tov /jl^v Trvpbs rb
depfxbv, TOV 5^ d^pos Tb \pvxpbv, tov d^ vdaros Tb vypov, tt]S Sk yrjs t6 ^rjpbv.
For the theory of respiration, see Wellmann, pp. 82 sqq. ; and for the
heart as the seat of consciousness, ih. pp. 15 sqq.

202

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Relation
to pre-
decessors.

Death.

external characteristic of the medicine taught by the fol-
lowers of Empedokles is that they still clung to ideas of
a magical nature. A protest against this by a member of
the Koan school has been preserved. He refers to them as
" magicians and purifiers and charlatans and quacks, who
profess to be very reUgious." ^

102. 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." 2

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.^ We know,
however, that Alkmaion (§ 96) spoke of " pores " in con-
nexion with sensation, and it was more probably from him
that Empedokles got the theory. Moreover, this is more
in accordance with the history of certain other physiological
views which are common to Alkmaion and the later Ionian
philosophers. We can generally see that those reached
Ionia through the medical school which Empedokles founded.^

103. We are told that Empedokles leapt into the crater
of Etna that he might be deemed a god. This appears to
be a maUcious version ^ of a tale set on foot by his adherents

'^ Hippokr. Uepl ieprjs vbaov, c l, fxayoi re
aka^bves. The whole passage should be read.

Kol Kaddprac Kal dyijpTaL ko
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 b^
proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope to sho-st
that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean doctrine (Chad
IX. § 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles (Chap. VII. § 147)11

* For irhpoL 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 vi
were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian physicists,
Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen, pp. 126 sqq.

^ R. P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 203

that he had been snatched up to heaven in the night. ^
Both stories would easily get accepted ; for there was no
local tradition. Empedokles did not die in Sicily, but in
the Peloponnese, or, perhaps, at Thourioi. It is not at all
unUkely that he visited Athens. 2 Plato represents Sokrates
as famiUar with his views in early life, and the elder Kritias
adopted one of his characteristic theories.^

104. Empedokles was the second philosopher to expound writings,
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. We have more abundant remains of Empedokles The
than of any other early Greek philosopher. If we may
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. ih. This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the
end of his romance about the Slttvovs.

2 Timaios refuted the common stories at some length (Diog. viii.
71 sqq. ; R. P. ih.). 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, 96 b 4 w., 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 re-
members the events of his boyhood quite well, but forgets what happened
the other day {Tim. 26 b). He also tells us that the poems of Solon were
a novelty when he was a boy {ib. 21 b). 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 com-
pliments with Anakreon (Diels, Vors.^ ii. p. 81 B i). Kritias of the Thirty
did not live to be an old man.

204 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

2000 belonged to the former work.^ Diels gives about
350 verses and parts of verses from the cosmological poem,
or not a fifth of the whole. It is important to remember
that, even in this favourable instance, so much has been
lost. The other poems ascribed to Empedokles by the
Alexandrian scholars were probably not his.^

I give the remains as they are arranged by Diels :

(I)

And do thou give ear, Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise !

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,^ and, doomed to swift death,
are borne up and fly off like smoke. Each is convinced of that
5 alone which he had dianced upon as he is hurried every way,
and idly boasts he has found the whole. So hardly can these
things be seen by the eyes or heard by the ears of men, so hardly
grasped by their mind ! Howbeit, thou, since thou hast found
thy way hither, shalt learn no more than mortal mind hath
power. R. P. 163.

(3)

... to keep within thy dumb heart.

1 Diog. viii. 77 (R. P. 162) ; Souidas s.v. 'E/uLTredoKXijs- Kal iypaipe 5i'
eirdv Hepl ^tjo-ecos rdv 6vto3v ^L^Xia j3\ Kal ^cttlv ^rrr] u)5 SttrxtXta- It
hardly seems likely, however, that the KadapfioL extended to 3000 verses,
so Diels proposes to read irdvTa rpiaxl-Xta for Trevra/ctcrx^Xta, in Diogenes.
See Diels, " tjber die Gedichte des Empedokles " {Berl. Sitzh., 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 poeni
on the Persian Wars, which he also refers to (Diog. viii. 57), seems tO
have arisen from a corruption in the text of Arist. Prohl. 929 b 16, wher^
Bekker reads ev roh UepaLKois. The same passage, however, is said
occur ip Toh (pvcriKois, in Meteor. A> 4. 382 a i, though there too E hz
JlepaLKoh.

3 The MSS. of Sextus have ^ujrjaL ^iov. Diels reads ^urjs Idiov. I stij
prefer Scaliger's j^urjs &^iov. Cf. fr. 15, to 5t) §Lotov KoKiovai.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 205

(4)

But, O ye gods, turn aside from my tongue the madness of
those men. Hallow my Hps and make a pure stream flow from
them ! And thee, much-wooed, white-armed Virgin Muse, do
I beseech that I may hear what is lawful for the children of a
day ! Speed me on my way from the abode of Holiness and drive 5
my ^\illing car ! Thee shall no garlands of glory and honour at
the hands of mortals constrain to Uft them from the ground, on
condition of speaking in thy pride beyond that which is lawful
and right, and so to gain a seat upon the heights of wisdom.

Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each
thing is clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as compared lo
with thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear above the clear
instructions of thy tongue ; ^ and do not withhold thy confidence
in any of thy other bodily parts by which there is an opening for
understanding, but consider everything in the way it is clear.
R. P. 163.

(5)

But it is all too much the way of low minds to disbelieve
their betters. Dp thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse
bid thee, when my words have been divided ^ in thy heart.

(6)
Hear first the four roots of all things : shining Zeus, life-
bringing Hera, Aidoneus and Nestis whose tear-drops are a
well-spring to mortals. R. P. 164.^

(7)

. . . uncreated.

(8)

And I shall tell thee another thing. There is no substance * of

1 The sense of taste, not speech.

2 Clement's reading diaT/xTjeipros may perhaps stand if we take \6yoLo
as " discourse," " argument " (cf. diaipeiv). Diels conjectures 8ia(rcrr]0^vTos
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. 2.

4 Plutarch {Adv. Col. 11 12 a) says that ^vaLs here means "birth," as is
shown b}'- its opposition to death, and all interpreters (including myself)
have hitherto followed him. On the other hand, the fragment clearly
deals with durjTd, and Empedokles cannot have said that there was no
death of mortal things. The dvrjrd are just perishable combinations of

2o6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

any of all the things that perish, nor any cessation for them of
baneful death. They are only a mingUng and interchange of
what has been mingled. Substance is but a name given to these
things by men. R. P. 165.

(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.

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
davdroLO reXevri^ as equivalent to Odvaros here, and it may equally well mean
"end of death." Now Aristotle, in a passage where he is carefully dis-
tinguishing the various senses of <p6(ns {Met. A, 4. 1015 a i), quotes this very
verse as an illustration of the meaning ^ tQv Byrcop ova-la (see further in
the Appendix) . I understand the words iirt roTaS' as equivalent to iTrl rots
Ov-qToh, and I take the meaning of the fragment to be that temporary
compounds or combinations like flesh, bone, etc., have no (f>v(ns of their
own. Only the four " immortal " elements have a 0i5(rts which does not
pass away. This interpretation is confirmed by the way Diogenes of
ApoUonia speaks in denying the ultimate reality of the "elements." He
says (fr. 2) el toijtuv tl ^v ^repov rod er^pov, '^repov di' t^ Idlq. (pvaei, i.e. he says
the elements are dvyyrd.

1 I understand this fragment to deal with the " elements," of which
0a)s and aidr^p (Fire and Air) are taken as examples. These are not
subject to birth and death, like the dv7]Td of fr. 8, and the application of
the terms to them is as much a matter of convention as the application
of the term 0i;<rts 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 :

06 5', 6're jxkv Kara (pQra fiiyev cpQis aWepi K^K^opa-gy^

^ Kard drjpQv dyporepuv yivos 7j Kara ddfivwv

rjk KOLT olwvCbVy t6t€ fikv rb v<.4/iovaO> yev^ffdai-

e5re 5' diroKpivdCJaL rdd' ad, dvadalfiova irbrfiov

Xi 64/ji.is <oi)> KoKeovai, vo/xcp 5' eiricf)r}ix(. Kal avrSs.

I understand rdde 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.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 207

(II, 12)

Fools ! — for they have no far-reaching thoughts — who deem
that what before was not comes into being, br that aught can
perish and be utterly destroyed. For it cannot be that aught
can arise from what in no way is, and it is impossible and unheard
of that what is should perish ; for it will always be, wherever
one may keep putting it. R. P. 165 a.

(13)

And in the All there is naught empty and naught too fuU.

(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 Hve what they call their Ufe, 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

2o8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

their places continually, so far they are ever immovable as they

go round the circle of existence.

^. ....... .

w. But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that

15 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

20 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

25 her by the names of Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet
marked moving round among them,i but do thou attend to the
undeceitful ordering of my discourse.

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

30 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 B There

35 are these alone ; but, running through one another, they become
now this, now that,^ and Uke things evermore. R. P. 166.

(18)

Love. ^

(19)

CHnging Love.

(20)

This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the mass

of mortal limbs. At one time all the Hmbs that are the body's

portion are brought together by Love in blooming life's kigh

5 season ; at another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander each

alone by the breakers of Hfe's sea. It is the same with plants

1 Reading /Ltera roiaiv. I still think, however, that Knatz's palaeo-
graphically admirable conjuncture fiera deolaiv {i.e. among the elements)
deserves consideration. * Keeping dWore with Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 209

and the fish that make their homes in the waters, with the beasts
that have their lairs on the hills and the seabirds that sail on
wings. R. P. 173 d.

(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 Hst. Behold the sun, everywhere bright and
warm, and all the immortal things that are bathed in heat and
bright radiance.^ Behold the rain, everywhere dark and cold ; 5
and from the earth issue forth things close-pressed and soUd.
When they are in strife all these are different in form and
separated ; but they come together in love, and are desired by
one another.

For out of these have sprung all things that were and are
and shall be — trees and men and women, beasts and birds and ^o
the fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that live
long Uves 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 Uke to one another and united in love by Aphrodite. 5
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 Afx^pora 5' 6(t<t tdei with Diels. For the word Uos, cf. frs.
62, 5 ; 73, 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of
soHdified Air, and receive their Hght from the fiery hemisphere. See
below, § 113.

210 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

5 from them produce shapes like unto all things, making trees and
men and women, beasts and birds and fishes that dwell in the
waters, yea, and gods, that live long Uves, and are exalted in
honour,— so let not the error prevail over thy mind,^ that there
is any other source of all the perishable creatures that appear in

10 countless numbers. Know this for sure, for thou hast heard the
tale from a goddess.^

(24)

Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one
path 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.
l66c.

There are these alone ; but, running through one another,
they become men and the tribes of beasts. At one time they
5 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,
10 and again divided become more than one, so far they come
into being and their Ufe is not lasting ; but in so far as
they never cease changing continually, so far are they ever-
more, 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.^ R. P. 167.

1 Reading with Blass (Jahrb. f. kl. Phil., 1883, p. 19) and Diels :

ovTii) /J.7) <r' diraTT} (ppha KatvijTuj kt\.
Cf . Hesychios : kulvilitu • vlk6.tw. 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.

» The word ixovl-y, if it is right, cannot mean " rest," but only solitude.
There is no reason for altering irepLrjyii, though Simplicius has Trepiyrjeet.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 211

(27 a)
There is no discord and no unseemly strife in his Hmbs. /

(28)

But he was equal on every side and quite without end,
spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular soUtude.

(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 Umbs 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 ^ meal with water. . . .

(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 sa57ing.
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 5
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 KoWriaas shows that the subject cannot have been
<i>iX6r775 ; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles
introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take illus-
trations from human arts.

212 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

being mixed, namely, all that Strife not fallen yet retained ; for

lo it had not yet altogether retired perfectly from them to the

. outermost boundaries of the circle. Some of it still remained

within, and some had passed out from the limbs of the All. But

in proportion as it kept rushing out, a soft, immortal stream of

blameless Love kept running in, and straightway those things

became mortal which had been immortal before, those things

15 were mixed that had before been unmixed, each changing its

path. And, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures

were scattered abroad endowed with all manner of forms, a

wonder to behold.^ R. P. 169.

(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,2 and the sources from which have sprung all the things we
now behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the damp vapour
and the Titan air that binds his circle fast round all things.
R. P. 170 a.

(39)
If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a
foolish saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of
many mortals, though they have seen but a Uttle of the All. . . .^
R. P. 103 b.

(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 addvara (the elements)
are identified, with the " unmixed," and the dvrjTa (the perishable com-
binations) with the " mixed."

"^ The MSS. of Clement have rfKiov dpxw> ^^^ the reading ijXiov dpx^y
is a mere makeshift. Diels reads i^XiKd r' dpxw> " the first (elements)
equal in age."

* 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.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 213

(42)
And she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a
shadow on as much of the earth as is the breadth of the pale-faced
moon.i

(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 Ught, 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 Ughts.

(49)
... of soUtary, bUnd-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 dTrea-Tiyaaev . . . iar Slv tri.
' See p. 177, n. i.

214 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(54)
But the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots.
R. P. 171 a.

(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)

4. 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

5 mingled, furnished with sterile ^ parts. R. P. 173 b.

(62)

Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused the
night-bom 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 areipoLs with Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 215

fire.i These did the fire, desirous of reaching its like, send up, 5
showing as yet neither the charming form of the limbs, nor yet
the voice and parts that are proper to men. R. P. 173 c.

(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.^

Double bearing.^
Sheepskin.*

(69)
(70)

(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 efSeos {i.e. fSeos), which is read in the MSS. of Simplicius.
Cf. above, p. 209, n. i.

2 That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by
Aristotle {De gen. an. A, 8. 777 a 7). The word irvov means pus. There
may be a pun on irv6s, " beestings," but that has its vowel long.

3 Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth
months.

* Of the membrane round the foetus.

2i6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

together, arose the forms and colours of all those mortal things
that have been fitted together by Aphrodite, and so are now
come into being. . . .

(72)

How tall trees and the fishes in the sea . . .

(73)

And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth,^ after
she had moistened the Earth in water, gave it to swift fire to
harden it. . . . R. P. 171.

(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 upper-
most surface of the skin.

(77-78)

It is moisture ^ that makes evergreen trees flourish with
abundance of fruit the whole year round.

(79)

And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs. . . .

cule:^"

(80)
Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succule:

(81)

Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.

1 Reading idea ironrvvovaa with Diels.

* This seems clearly to be the meaning of -f^-fip here. Cf. fr. 100, v. 13,
and p. 228, n. 2.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 217

(82)
Hair and leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the scales
that grow on mighty limbs, are the same thing.

(83)
But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles on
their backs.

(84)

L 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 Hght leaping
out through them, shines across the threshold with unfaiUng 5
beams, as much of it as is finer ; ^ even so did she (Love) then
entrap the elemental fire, the round pupil, confined within
membranes and delicate tissues, which are pierced through and
through with wondrous passages. They keep out the deep
water that surrounds the pupil, but they let through the fire, as 10
much of it as is finer. R. P. 177 b.'

(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, «. i, where Plato, Tim. 45 b 4 (toO ttv/j^s 6<tov to y^kv
Kaeiv ovK ^ax^v, rb 5^ irapix^tv (puts ij/x^pov), is aptly quoted.

2i8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(90)
So sweet lays hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter ;
acid comes to acid, and warm couples with warm.

(91)

Water fits better 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 Hnen.^

(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).

(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 Uttle more of it, or less

^ On this fragment see Clara E. Millard, On the Interpretation oj
Empedocles, p. 38, «. 3.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 219

of them and more of it. From these did blood arise and the
manifold forms of flesh. R. P. 175 c.

(99)
The bell ... the fleshy sprout (of the ear).i

(100)

Thus 2 do all things draw breath and breathe it out again.
All have bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of
their bodies ; and at the mouths of these the outermost surface
of the sldn is perforated all over with pores closely packed
together, so as to keep in the blood while a free passage is cut 5
for the air to pass through. Then, when the thin blood recedes
from these, the bubbUng air rushes in with an impetuous surge ;
and when the blood runs back it is breathed out again. Just as
when a girl, playing with a water-clock of shining brass, puts the 10
orifice of the pipe upon her comely hand, and dips the water-
clock into the jdelding mass of silvery water — the stream does not
then flow into the vessel, but the bulk of the air ^ inside, pressing
upon the close-packed perforations, keeps it out till she uncovers
the compressed stream ; but then air escapes and an equal 15
volume of water runs in, — just in the same way, when water
occupies the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and
passage is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving
to get in, holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding
neck, pressing upon its surface, till she lets go with her hand. 20
Then, on the contrary, just in the opposite way to what happened
before, the wind rushes in and an equal volume of water runs out

^ On fr. 99, see Beare, p. 96, n. i.

* This passage is quoted by Aristotle {De respir, 473 b 9), who makes
the curious mistake of taking pLvQv for the genitive of pLs instead of pivds.
The locus classicus on the klepsydra is Probl. 914 b 9 sqq.- (where read
aiXou for dXkov, b 12). It was a metal vessel with a narrow neck (au\6s)
at the top and with a sort of strainer {-qdfios) pierced with holes {rprifiaTa,
Tpvirrj/xaTo) 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 d^pos here, though the air is called alO-^p
in four other verses of the fragment (vv, 5, 7, 18, 24), It is easier to
suppose that Aristotle made a shp in this one verse than that Empedokles
should use dr)p in a sense he elsewhere avoids (p. 228, n. 2), and this
suspicion is confirmed by the form d^pos instead of ij^pos. I think,
therefore, that Stein was right in reading aid^pos.

220 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to make room.^ Even so, when the thin blood that surges
through the limbs rushes backwards to the interior, straightway
25 the stream of air comes in with a rushing swell ; but when the
blood runs back the air breathes out again in equal quantity.

(lOl)

(The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the
beast's limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave in
the soft grass.2

(102)

Thus all things have their share of breath and smell.

,^ (i03> 104)

\ Thus have all things thought by fortune's will. . . . And
inasmuch as the rarest things came together in their fall.

(105)
(The heart), dwelKng 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, ihp
yap TLi aiiTTJs [rrjs K\e\}/6dpas) avTT]v tt}v Kcadiav ifi-rrX-qaas vdaros, iiriXa^wv
Toy a{>\6v^ KaTa(XTp^\}^ig iirl rbv aiXbv, ov (piperai rb v8ojp dioL rod aiXov iirl
arSfxa. dvoixdhro^ de rod ardfiaros, q-ukI evdiis iKpec Kara rbv ai>\6f, dXXA
fiiKpoT^p(^ iiarepov, wj ovk '6v iirl T<p crrbixari tov av\ov, dXX' varepov Sia to^tov
<f)ep6fi€vov dvoixdivros. The epithet dvcrrjx^os is best explained as a reference
to the ipvyfios 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 rjdfxoio for iad/xo7o, and that is actually the
reading of a few MSS.

2 On fr. loi, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 221

(108)

And just so far as they grow to be different, so far do different
thoughts ever present themselves to their minds (in dreams).^
R. P. 177 a.

(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 contem-
plate these things with good intent and faultless care, then shalt
thou have all these things in abundance throughout thy Ufe,
and thou shalt gain many others from them. For these things
grow of themselves into thy heart, where is each man's true 5
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 ^ 10
thought.

(Ill)

And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence against
ills and old age ; since for thee alone will I accompUsh 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 5
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 Ufe of a dead man.

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,

1 That this refers to dreams, we learn from Simpl. De an. p. 202, 30.

222 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

all hail. I go about among you an immortal god, no mortal
5 now, honoured among aU as is meet, crowned with fillets and
flowery garlands. Straightway, whenever I enter with these in
my train, both men and» women, into the flourishing towns, is
reverence done me ; they go after me in countless throngs,
10 asking of me what is the way to gain ; some desiring oracles,
while some, who for many a weary day have been pierced by the
grievous pangs of aU manner of sickness, beg to hear from me
the word of heahng. R. P. 162 f.

(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.

("5)

There is an oracle of Necessity, an ancient ordinance of the

gods,^ eternal and sealed fast by broad oaths, that whenever one

of the daemons, whose portion is lengjin of days, has sinfully

polluted his hands with blood,^ or follo/wed strife and forsworn

5 himself, he must wander thrice ten ;tliousand seasons from the

abodes of the blessed, being born throughout the time in all

manners of mortal forms, changing one toilsome path of Hfe for

another. For the mighty Air drives him into the Sea, and the

10 Sea spews him forth on the dry Earth ; Earth tosses him into

the beams of the blazing Sun, and he flings him back to the eddies

of Air. One takes him from the other, and all reject him. One

of these I now am, an exile and a wanderer from the gods, for

that I put my trust in insensate strife. R. P. 181.

(116)

Charis loathes intolerable Necessity.

1 Necessity is an Orphic personage, and Gorgias, the disciple of
Empedokles, says dewv povXev/xaaiv /cat dydyKrjt xf/rjcfiia-fiaaiv {Hel. 6).

2 I retain ^oj/y in v. 3 (so too Diels). The first word of v. 4 has been
lost. Diels suggests IseUe'C, which may well be right, and takes dfiapT-rjaas
as equivalent to bixaprijcai. I have translated accordingly.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 223

("7)
For I have been ere now a boy and a girl, a bush and a bird
and a dumb fish in the sea. R. P. 182.

(118)

1 wept and I wailed when I saw the unfamiUar 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 ^ Chthonie and far - sighted HeHope, bloody
Discord and gentle -visaged Harmony, KalUsto and Aischre,
Speed and Tarrying, lovely Truth and dark-haired Uncertainty,
Birth and Decay, Sleep and Waking, Movement and Immobility,
crowned Majesty and Meanness, Silence and Voice. R. P. 182 a.

(124)

Alas, O wretched race of mortals, sore unblessed : such are
the strifes and groanings from which ye have been born !

(125)

From Uving creatures he made them dead, changing their
)rms.

According to Porphyry {De antro Nymph. 8), these words were
spoken by the " powers " who conduct the soul into the world {\l/vxoTrofivol
dvvdfieis). The " cave " is not originally Platonic but Orphic.

2 This passage is closely modelled on the Catalogue of Nymphs in Iliad
tviii. 39 sqq. Chthonie is found already in Pherekydes (Diog. i. 119).

224 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(126)

(The goddess) clothing them with a strange garment of
flesh.i

(127)

Among beasts they ^ become lions that make their lair on the
hills and their couch on the ground ; and laurels among trees
with goodly foUage. R. P. 181 b.

(128)

Nor had they ^ any Ares for a god nor Kydoimos, no nor
King Zeus nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Kypris the Queen.
. . . Her did they propitiate with holy gifts, with painted
figures * and perfumes of cunning fragrancy, with offerings of
5 pure mjnrh and sweet-smelling frankincense, casting on the
ground libations of brown honey. And the altar did not
reek with pure bull's blood, but this was held in the greatest
abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing
out the Ufe. R. P. 184.

(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

5 ten, yea, twenty hfetimes of men.^

1 I have retained dWSyvioTL, though it is a Httle 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 fieroUTja-is (Ael. Nat. an. xii. 7).
' The dwellers in the Golden Age.

* The MSS. of Porphyry have ypairroli re fwoio-t. The emendation
of Bernays (adopted in R. P.) does not convince me. I venture to
suggest fiaKToXs, on the strength of the story related by Favorinus
{ap. Diog. viii. 53) as to the bloodless sacrifice offered by Empedokles
at Olympia.

* These Hnes 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.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 225

(130)
For all things were tame and gentle to man, both beasts and
birds, and friendly feelings were kindled ever5rwhere. R. P. 184 a.

(131)
If ever, as regards the things of a day, immortal Muse, thou
didst deign to take thought for my endeavour, then stand by
me once more as I pray to thee, O Kalliopeia, as I utter a pure
discourse concerning the blessed gods. R. P. 179.

(132)
Blessed is the man who has gained the riches of divine
wisdom ; wretched he who has a dim opinion of the gods in 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 unutter-
able mind flashing through the whole world with rapid thoughts.
R. P. 180.

^35)

(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 Hght of heaven. R. P. 183.

(136)
WiU 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

226 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

5 like manner does the son seize his father, and children their
mother, tear out their Hfe and eat the kindred flesh. R. P. 184 b.

(138)
Draining their Ufe with bronze.^

(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 Hps !
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,

5 and incapable of hurt. R. P. 181 c.

(148)

Earth that envelops the man.

* On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. PoeU 21. 1457 b 13, and
Diels in Hermes, xv. p. 173.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS \^227

1 06. At the very outset of his poem, Empedokles speaks Em-
angrily of those who professed to have found the whole and°pi^
(fr. 2) ; he even calls this " madness " (fr. 4). No doubt ^enides.
he is thinking of Parmenides. -^His own position is not,
however, sceptical. ^ He only deprecates the attempt to
construct a theory of the universe off-hand instead of trying
to understand each thing we come across " in the way in
which it is clear" (fr. 4). And this means that we must
not, hke Parmenides, reject the assistance of the senses.
We soon discover, however, that Empedokles too sets up a
system which is to explain everything, though that system
is no longer a monistic one.

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
reaUty and indestructibiUty of " what is " (frs. 11-15) ;
and his idea of the " Sphere " seems to be derived from the
Parmenidean description of reaUty.^ Parmenides had held
that what underlies the illusory world of the senses was a
corporeal, spherical, continuous, eternal, and immovable
plenum, and it is from this Empedokles starts. Given the
sphere of Parmenides, he seems to have said, how are we
to get from it to the world we know ? How are we to
introduce motion into the immovable plenum ? Now Par-
menides need not have denied the possibiUty of motion
within the Sphere, though he was bound to deny all motion
of the Sphere itself ; but such an admission would not have
served to explain anything. If any part of the Sphere were
to move, the room of the displaced body must at once be
taken by other body, for there is no empty space. This,
however, would be of precisely the same kind as the body
it had displaced ; for all " that is " is one. The result of

1 Cf. Emp. frs. 27, 28, with Farm. fr. 8.

228 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the motion would be precisely the same as that of rest ;
it could account for no change. But is this assumption of
perfect homogeneity in the Sphere really necessary ? Evi-
dently not ; it is simply the old unreasoned feeling that
existence must be one. Nevertheless, we cannot regard the
numberless forms of being the senses present us with as
ultimate reahties. They have no ^uo-i? of their own, and
are always passing away (fr. 8), so the only solution is to
assume a limited number of ultimate forms of reaUty. We
may then apply all that Parmenides says of What is to each
one of these, and the transitory forms of existence we know
may be explained by their minghng and separation. The
conception of " elements " (o-roLx^La), to use a later term,^
was found, and the required formula follows at once. So
far as concerns particular things, it is true, as our senses tell
us, that they come into being and pass away ; but, if we
have regard to the ultimate elements of which they are
composed, we shall say with Parmenides that " what is " is
uncreated and indestructible (fr. 17). The elements are
immortal, just as the single <^uo-t9 of the Milesians was
" ageless and deathless."
The "four 107. The " four roots " of all things (fr. 6) which Empe-
roots." dokles 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 caD Air a'^p,
but aWrjp,^ and this must be because he wished to avoid

^ For the history of the term aToix^lov see Diels, Elementum. 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 ixoptp-q or
IMa.

2 In fr. 17, V. 18 Diels reads ^^pos dirXerov ijypo^ with Sextus and
Simplicius. Plutarch, however, has aidipot, and it is obvious that this
was more likely to be corrupted into ^epos than vice versa in an enumera-
tion of the elements. In frag. 38, v. 3, which is not an enumeration of
elements, vypbs drjp [i.e. the misty lower air) is distinguished from Tlt^v
aid'f)p {i.e. the bright blue sky) in the traditional way. In fr. 78 the re-
ference is clearly to moisture. On fr. 100, 13, see p. 219, «. 3. These

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 229

confusion with what had hitherto been meant by the former
word. He had, in fact, nmde the discovery that atmospheric
air is a distinct corporeal siibstance, and is not to be identified
with empty space on the one hand or rarefied mist on the
other. Water is not Uquid air, but something quite dif-
ferent.^ This truth Empedokles demonstrated by means
of the klepsydra, and we still possess the verses in which he
apphed his discovery to the explanation of respiration and
the motion of the blood (fr. 100). Aristotle laughs at those
who try to show there is no empty space by shutting up
air in water-clocks and torturing wineskins. They only
prove, he says, that air is a thing. 2 That, however, is
exactly what Empedokles intended to prove, and it was
one of the most important discoveries in the history of
science. It will be convenient for us to translate the
aWrjp of Empedokles by " air " ; but we must be careful
in that case not to render the word arjp in the same way.
Anaxagoras seems to have been the first to use it of atmo-
spheric 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 Sicihan 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.^ We are

are the only passages in which Empedokles seems to speak of drjp in the
sense of atmospheric air. ^ Cf. Chap, I. § 27.

2 Arist. Phys. A, 6, 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). Aristotle only mentions
Anaxagoras by name in this passage ; but he speaks in the plural, and we
know from fr. 100 that the klepsydra experiment was used by Empedokles.

3 In antiquity the Homeric Allegorists made Hera Earth and Aidoneus
Air, a view which has found its way into Actios from Poseidonios. It
arose as follows. The Homeric Allegorists were not interested in the
science of Empedokles, and did not see that his aiOrjp was quite a different
thing from Homer's drjp. Now this is the dark element, and night is a
form of it, so it would naturally be identified with Aidoneus. Again,
Empedokles calls Hera <pep^(Tj3ios, and that is an epithet of Earth in

230 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

already prepared to find that Empedokles called the elements
gods ; for all the early thinkers had spoken in this way of
whatever they regarded as the primary substance. We
must only remember that the word is not used in its religious
sense. Empedokles did not pray or sacrifice to the elements.
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.^
This Empedokles expressed by saying that *' they are
always aUke." Again, the four elements are all " equal,"
a statement which seemed strange to Aristotle,^ but was
quite intelUgible in the days of Empedokles. Above all,
the four elements are ultimate. All other bodies might be
divided till you came to the elements ; but Empedokles
could give no further account of these without saying (as
he did not) that there is an element of which Fire and the
rest are in turn composed.^

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 AUegorists further identified Zeus with Fire, a view to which they
were doubtless led by the use of the word aid-qp. Now aid-qp 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 ohlatae, 1891,
pp. I 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 AUegorists that Hera is Earth ; and surely
(pep^ff^ios "Upa can be none other than " Mother Earth." The epithet
seems only to be used of earth and corn.

^ Arist. De gen. corr. B, i. 329 b i. * Ibid. B, 6. 333 a 16.

* Ibid. A, 8. 325 b 19 (R. P. 164 e). This was so completely mis-
understood by later writers that they attribute to Empedokles the doctrine
of crroix"ct -rrpb rCbv (XTovxeiwv (Aet. i. 13, i ; 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 (Tiw. 48 b 8), they were "not even syllables," let alone "letters"
{<noix<ua). That is why Aristotle calls them rd KoXo^iiMeva aroLx^ta (Diels,
Elementum, p. 25).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 231

The " four roots '* are given as an exhaustive enumera-
tion of the elements (fr. 23 sub fin.) ; for they account for
all the quaUties presented by the world to the senses. When
we find, as we do, that the school of medicine which regarded
Empedokles as its founder identified the four elements with
the " opposites," the hot and the cold, the moist and the
dry, which formed the theoretical foundation of its system,^
we see at once how the theory is related to previous views
of reaHty. We must remember that the conception of
quahty had not "yet been formed. Anaximander had no
doubt regarded his " opposites " as things ; though, before
the time of Parmenides, no one had fully reahsed how much
was implied in saying that anything is a thing. That is
the stage we have now reached. There is still no conception
of quality, but there is a clear apprehension of what is
involved in saying a thing is.

Aristotle twice ^ makes the statement .that, though
Empedokles assumes four elements, he treats them as two,
opposing Fire to all the rest. This, he says, we can see
for ourselves from his poem. So far as the general theory
goes, it is impossible to see anything of the sort ; but, when
we come to the origin of the world (§ 112), we shall find that
Fire plays a leading part, and this may be what Aristotle
meant. It is also true that in the biology (§§ 114-116) Fire
fulfils a unique function, while the other three act more or
less in the same way. But we must remember that it has
no pre-eminence over the rest : all are equal.

108. The Eleatic criticism had made it necessary to strife and
explain motion.^ Empedokles starts, we have seen, from
an original state of the " four roots," which only differs from
the Sphere of Parmenides in so far as it is a mixture, not a
homogeneous and continuous mass. It is this that makes
change and motion possible ; but, were there nothing outside
the Sphere which could enter in, like the Pjrthagorean " Air,"

1 Philistion put the matter in this way. See p. 201, n. 5.

2 Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 a 31 ; Z)e gen. corr. B, 3. 330 b 19 (R- P- 164 e).

3 Cf. Introd. § VIII.

232 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to separate the elements, nothing could ever arise from it.
Empedokles accordingly assumed the existence of such a
substance, and he gave it the name of Strife. But the
effect of this would be to separate all the elements in the
Sphere completely, and then nothing more could possibly
happen ; something else was needed to bring the elements
together again. This Empedokles found in Love, which he
regarded as the same impulse to union that is implanted in
human bodies (fr. 17, 22 sqq.). He looks at it, in fact, from
a physiological point of view, as was natural for the founder
of a medical school. No mortal had yet marked, he says,
that the very same Love men know in their bodies had a
place among the elements.

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,^ " is both an efficient
cause, for it brings things together, and a material cause,
for it is a part of the mixture." And Theophrastos expressed
the same idea by saying 2 that Empedokles sometimes gave
an efficient power to Love and Strife, and sometimes put
them on a level with the other four. The fragments leave
no room for doubt that they were thought of as spatial and
corporeal. All the six are called " equal." Love is said to
be " equal in length and breadth " to the others, and Strife
is described as equal to each of them in weight (fr. 17).

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, lo. 1075 b 3.
Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 3 {Dox. p. 477; R. P. 166 b).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 233

elements are brought together once more by Love, the mass
of each is divided. In another place, he says that, while
Strife is assumed as the cause of destruction, and does, in
fact, destroy the Sphere, it really gives birth to everything
else in so doing. ^ It follows that we must carefully distin-
guish between the Love of Empedokles and that " attraction
of like for Hke " to which he also attributed an important
part in the formation of the world. The latter is not an
element distinct from the others ; it depends on the proper
nature of each element, and is only able to take effect when
Strife divides the Sphere. Love, on the contrary, produces
V, an attraction of unlikes.

log. But, when Strife has separated the elements, what Mixture
determines the direction of their motion ? Empedokles separation,
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,^ on the ground that no
room is thus left for design. Aristotle also blames him for
giving no account of the Chance to which he ascribed so
much importance. Nor is the Necessity, of which he also
spoke, further explained.^ Strife enters into the Sphere at
a certain time in virtue of Necessity, or " the mighty oath "
(fr. 30) ; but we are told no more about.that.

The expression used by Empedokles to describe the
movement of the elements is that they " run through each
other" (fr. 17, 34). Aristotle tells us* that he explained
mixture in general by " the symmetry of pores." And
this is the true explanation of the " attraction of Uke for
Hke." The " pores " of Uke bodies are, of course, much the
same size, and these bodies can therefore mingle easily.
On the other hand, a finer body will " run through " a coarse
one without becoming mixed, and a coarse body will not be

1 Met. A, 4. 985 a 21 ; r, 4. 1000 a 24 ; b 9 (R. P. 166 i).

2 Plato, Laws, x. 889 b. The reference is not to Empedokles ex-
clusively, but the language shows that Plato is thinking mainly of him.

3 Arist. De gen. corr. B, 6. 334 a i ; Phys. O, i. 252 a 5 (R. P. 166 k).
* Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 324 b 34 (R. P. 166 h).

234 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

able to enter the pores of a finer one at all. As Aristotle says,
this really implies something Hke the atomic theory ; but
there is no evidence that Empedokles himself was conscious
of that. Another question raised by Aristotle is even more
instructive. Are the pores, he asks, empty or full ? If
empty, what becomes of the denial of the void ? If full,
why need we assume pores at all ? ^ These questions
Empedokles would have found it hard to answer.
The four 1 10. It will be clear from what has been said that we must

perio s. 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 Hke 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 ; ^
I hope to show that we are in the second, that when Strife
is gaining the upper hand.
Our world III. That a world of perishable things [Ovtjto) arises both
of ^strife. ^^ ^^^ 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

1 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 326 b 6.

2 This is the view of Zeller (pp. 785 sqg.), but he admits that the
external testimony, especially that of Aristotle, is wholly in favour of the
other. His difficulty is \vith the fragments, and if it can be shown thai
these can be interpreted in accordance with Aristotle's statements, th«
question is settled.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 235

as formerly in that of Love." ^ In another, he tells us that
Empedokles omits the generation of things in the period of
Love, just because it is unnatural to represent this world,
in which the elements are separate, as arising from things
in a state of separation.^ This remark can only mean that
Empedokles assumed the increase of Strife, or, in other
words, that he represented the course of evolution as the
disintegration of the Sphere, not as the coming together of
things from a state of separation.^ That is what we should
expect, if we are right in supposing that the problem he set
himself to solve was the origin of this world from the Sphere
of Parmenides, and it is also in harmony with the tendency
of such speculations to represent the world as getting worse
rather than better. We have only to consider, then, whether
the details of the system bear out this general view.

112. To begin with the Sphere, in which the '* four roots Formation
of all things " are mixed together, we note that it is called a ^orldby
god in the fragments just as the elements are, and that Aris- ^t^i^^-
totle more than once refers to it in the same way.* We

^ Arist. De gen. corr. B, 6. 334 a 6, rbv Kdafxov oyuo/ws ^xetv (firjalv iiri
re Tov veUovs vvv Kal irpbrepov iirl ttJs <pi\ias. Miss Millerd {Interpretation of
Empedocles, p. 45) adds Theophrastos, De sensu § 20, avfi^aivet 5^ Kal iwl rijs
^iKtas SXws ^7; ehai atcrd7i<nv i) tjttov Slol rb avyKpiveadaL rbre Kal [xr] duroppeTv.
Here iirl rrjs ^iXias and t6t€ imply the antithesis iirl tov Nekous and vvv.

^ Arist. De caelo, V, 2. 301 a 14, eV bieaTibruv 5k Kal kivovix^vuv qvk
eUXoyov iroietv tt]v yeveaiv. 8ib Kal 'EfiiredoKXrjs irapaXeiireL rr]v iirl rijs
<Pi\6n}Tos • oi yap B.v rjdOvaTO ffvaTTjaai rbv ovpavbv iK Kexf^pt^o^f^^vuiv fikv
KaracTKevd^wv, dyKpiaiv 8k iroiuiv did ttjj/ (piXSrrjTa' iK 8i.aK€Kpifj.4vu}v ydp
(TvvicTTrjKev 6 Kba/xos tQv (ttolx^Lwv (" our world consists of the elements
in a state of separation "), wo-r' dvayKalov yev^adai i^ ivbs Kal crvyKeKpifx^vov.

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.

* 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, i (R. P. 167 b). In other places
Aristotle speaks of it as " the One." Cf. De gen. corr. A, i. 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

236 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

must remember that Love itself is a part of this mixture/
while \^trife surrounds or encompasses it on every side
just as the Boundless encompasses the world in earlier
systems. Strife, however, is not boundless, but equal in
bulk to each of the four roots and to Love.^

At the appointed time. Strife begins to enter into the
Sphere and Love to go out of it (frs. 30, 31). The fragments
by themselves throw little Hght on this ; but Actios 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.^ There
were two hemispheres, revolving round the earth, the one alto-
gether composed of fire, the other of a mixture of air and a little
fire. The latter he supposed to be the Night. The origin of
their motion he derived from the fact of fire preponderating in
one hemisphere owing to its accumulation there. Ps.-Plut.
Strom, fr. 10 {Dox. p. 582 ; R. P. 170 a).

(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.

1 This accounts for Aristotle's statement, which he makes once posi-
tively {Met. B, I. 996 a 7) and once very doubtful!}' {Met. B, 4. looi 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 rov irepl rbv &4pa Trdyov cf. Ilepi 8ialT7]s, i. 10, i,
7rp6s Tov Trept^xoj'Ta irdyov. Et. M. s.V. firjXds . . . t6v dvorrdrii) irdyov Kal

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 237

The first of the elements to be separated out by Strife
then, was Air, which took the outermost position surround-
ing the world (cf. fr. 38). We must not, however, take the
statement that it surrounded the world " in a circle " too
strictly. It appears that Empedokles regarded the heavens
as shaped hke an egg.^ Here, probably, we have a trace of
Orphic ideas. At any rate, the outer circle of the Air became
soUdified or frozen, and we thus get a crystaUine vault as
the boundary of the world. We note that it was Fire which
soHdified the Air and turned it to ice. Fire in general had
a solidifying power. 2

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 Uttle fire.

The accumulation of Fire in the upper hemisphere
disturbs the equihbrium of the heavens and causes them to
revolve ; and this revolution not only produces the alterna-
tion 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.^ This experimental illustration is much in
the manner of Empedokles. It has nothing to do with
" centrifugal force," but is intended to show that rapid
motion juay counteract a tendency to fall.

113. It will be observed that day and night have been The sun,
explained without reference to the sun. Day is the Hght ^^s^'and

earth.

1 Act. ii. 31, 4 {Dox. p. 363). 2 Act. ii. ii, 2 (R. P. 170 c).

3 Arist. De caelo, B, i. 284 a 24 ; 13. 295 a 16 (R, P. 170 b). Plato,
Phaed. 99 b 6, 5i6 6 [xh tis divrju TrepiTidels ry yy virb tov ovpavoO fxiveiv
8r} TToiei Ti]v yijv. The experiment with rb iv rois Kvddots liSup which
KtjKKtf TOV Kvddov (pepofiivov iroWdKLS Kdru tov x^^'^oO yivd/xevov 8fJ,us ov
<f)4p€Tai KdTU), reminds us of that with the klepsydra in fr. 100,
The point is that the <f)6pa of the Uvt) overcomes the oiKeia. poir-f} by its
velocity.

238 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of the fiery diurnal hemisphere, while night is the shadow
thrown by the earth when the fiery hemisphere is on the
other side of it (fr. 48). What, then, is the sun ? The
Plutarchean Stromateis ^ again give us the answer : " The
sun is not fire in substance, but a reflexion of fire like
that which comes from water." Plutarch himself makes
one of his personages say : " You laugh at Empedokles for
saying that the sun is a product of the earth, arising from
the reflexion of the light of heaven, and once more ' flashes
back to Olympos with untroubled countenance/ " 2 Aetios
says : 3 " 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 crystalHne 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.* The reflexion we call the sun cannot be in the
hemisphere opposite the fiery one ; for that is the nocturnal
hemisphere. We must say rather that the light of the fiery
hemisphere is reflected by the earth on to the fiery hemisphere
itself in one concentrated flash. It follows that the appear-
ance which we call the sun is the same size as the earth.
We may perhaps explain the origin of this vi^ as follows.

1 [Plut.] Strom, fr. 10 {Dox. p. 582, 11 ; R. P. 170 c).

a Plut. De Pyth. or. 400 b (R. P. 170 c). I keep the MS. reading
ire pi yrjy with Diels.

8 Aet. ii. 20, 13 {Dox. p. 350), 'Efnre8oK\r}s dvo ijXiovs- rhv /j^v
dpx^TVTTOv, TTvp dv iv t4> iripcf} 'r]fiLa<paLpic{) tov KbajMov, ireirXrjpwKbs rb 7}jui.i<x(palpiov,
alet Kar avriKpb tt? avravyelg. iavrov Terayfiivou • rbv d^ tpaivb/jLcvov, dvra&yeiav
iv T(f> er^py i}/j,i.(r^acpl(fi t(^ tov dipos rod dep/xofiiyovs TreTrXTjpcofJi^vip, dirb KVKXorepovs
TT]i 777s Kar dvdKKacTLV yiyv ofiivrjv els rbv ijXiov rbv KpvaTaXXoeidij, (rvfnrepieX-
Kopiivrjv 5k ry KLvqaei tov irvplvov. ws 5k /S/oaxews elpTjadai (XwrefJibvTa, dpraOyeiap
etvai TOV Trepl ttjv yrjv wvpbi Tbv ■?jXiov.

* I strongly suspect that the confusion is due to a somewhat captious
criticism by Theophrastos (see below, p. 298, n. i). It would be like him
to point out that the theory implied " two suns."

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS

239

It had just been discovered that the moon shone by reflected
Ught, and there is always a tendency to give any novel
theory a wider apphcation than it really admits of. In the
early part of the fifth century B.C., men saw reflected light
everywhere ; some of the Pythagoreans held a similar
view (§ 150).

It was probably in this connexion that Lpmpedokles
announced that Hght takes some time to travel, though its
speed is so great as to escape our p erceptio n.^]

" The moon was composed of air cut off by the fire ; it
was frozen just Hke hail, and had its hght from the sun."
It is, in other words, a disc of frozen air, of the same sub-
stance as the sohd sky which surrounds the heavens.
Diogenes says that Empedokles taught it was smaller than
the sun, and Actios tells us it was only half as distant from
the earth. 2

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 Hght,
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 com-
pression 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, I (cf. Dox. p. 63). * Aet. ii. 13, 2 and 11 {Dox. pp. 341 sqq.).

* Aet. iii. 3, 7 ; Arist. Meteor. B, 9. 369 b 12, with Alexander's com-
mentary.

240 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The earth was at first mixed with water, but the in-
creasing compression caused by the velocity of its revolu-
tion made the water gush forth, so that the sea is " the
sweat of the earth," a phrase to which ^jVristotle objects
as a mere poetical metaphor:^, The saltness of the sea was
explained by this analogy.^ It is taken for granted that the
earth shares in the rotation of the vortex [Uvrj).
Organic 114. Empcdoklcs wcut on to show how the four elements,

combina-
tions, mingled in different proportions, gave rise to perishable

things, such as bones, flesh, and the Hke. 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 wiU 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 (\0709) here is no doubt due to

i^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. ^ His

similes are nearly all drawn from human inventions and

manufactures.

Plants. 115. 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 AristoteUan 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, i. 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 circum-
datas, ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat spatii
quantum efiiciendo calori sat est. frigida itaque intrat, efiEluit calida.
idem sub terra Empedocles existimat fieri."

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 241

fully what the theory was. The text of Actios is very
corrupt here ; but it may, perhaps, be rendered as follows :

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 oHve,
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).

Lristotle 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.^ For " natural motions " we must, of course,
substitute the attraction of Uke for like (§ 109). Theo-
phrastos says much the same thing. 2 The growth of plants,
then, is to be regarded as an incident in the separation of
the elements by Strife. Some of the fire still beneath the
earth (fr. 52) meeting in its upward course with earth, still
moist with water and " running " down so as to " reach its
own kind," unites with it, under the influence of the Love
still left in the world, to form a temporary combination,
which we call a tree or a plant.

At the beginning of the pseudo-AristoteHan Treatise on
Plants,^ we are told that Empedokles attributed desire,
sensation, and the capacity for pleasure and pain to plants,
and he rightly saw that the two sexes are combined in them.

(jArist. De an. B, 4. 415 b 28.
* Theophr. De causis planiarum, i. 12, 5.
3 [Arist.] De plantis, A, i. 8i5ai5.

of animals.

242 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

This is mentioned by Aetios, and discussed in the pseudo-
AristoteHan treatise. If we may so far trust that Byzantine
translation from a Latin version of the Arabic/ we get a
hint as to the reason. Plants, we are there told, came into
being "in an imperfect state of the world," ^ in fact, at a
time when Strife had not so far prevailed as to differentiate
the sexes. We shaU see that the same thing appHes to the
original race of animals. It is strange that Empedokles
never observed the actual process of generation in plants,
but simply said they spontaneously " bore eggs " (fr. 79),
that is to say, fruit.
Evolution 116. The fragments which deal with the evolution of
animals (57-62) must be understood in the Hght 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 Actios,^
and we shall see that there is evidence for referring two of
them to the second period of the world's history and two to
the fourth.

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.* It is in
accordance with this that he also says these scattered
members were subsequently put together by Love.^

1 Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in
the reign ojE Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek
at the Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy.

2 A, 2. 817 b 35, " mundo . . . diminuto et non perfecto in com-
plemento suo " (Alfred). » Aet. v. 19, 5 (R. P. 173).

* Arist. De caelo, T, 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 Kaddwep 'E/xTredoKXrjs
yevvq, iirl ttJs ^iXdrrfTos: So Simplicius, De caelo, p. 587, 18, says fiovvo-
/leXr} ^Tt. rh yvia dirb rijs tov 'NcLkovs StuKpiaews 6vTa iirXavaTO.

6 Arist. De an. T, 6. 430 a 30 (R. P. 173 a).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 243

The second stage is that in which the scattered limbs
are united. At first, they were combined in all possible
ways (fr. 59). There were oxen with human heads,
creatures with double faces and double breasts, and all
manner of monsters (fr. 61). Those of them that were
fitted to survive did so, while the rest perished. That is
how the evolution of animals took place in the period of
Love.^

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 distinc-
tion of sex or species. ^ They are composed of earth and
water, and are produced by the upward motion of fire
seeking to reach its Hke.

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." 3 ' This, according to Aristotle, leaves too much to
chance. One curious instance has been preserved. Verte-
bration was explained by saying that an early invertebrate
animal tried to turn round and broke its back in so

1 This is well put by Simplicius, De caelo, p. 587, 20, It is 5re rod
'NeiKOVs iweKparei Xoittoj' i] ^iXdTrjs . . . ^Tri r^s ^i\6t7]to$ o^v 6 'EyttTreSo/cX'^s
€K€iva elxev, ovx ws iiriKparo^arjs ijSr) rrjs ^iXdrrfTos, dXX' (is /4eXXoiv<r7/j
iTTiKpareTv. In Phys. p. 371, 33, he says the oxen with human heads
were Karh tt]v ttjs ^iKias apxfiv.

2 Cf. Plato, Symp. 189 e.

3 Arist. Phys. B, 8. 198 b 29 (R. P. 173 a).

logy.

244 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

doing. This was a favourable variation and so survived. ^
It should be noted that it clearly belongs to the period of
Strife, and not, hke the oxen with human heads, to that
of Love. The survival of the fittest was the law of
evolution in both periods^)
Physio 117. The distinction of the sexes was a result of the
differentiation brought about by Strife. Empedokles dif-
fered 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 S5nnmetry 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. 2

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, i. 640 a 19.

2 Aet. V. 10, I ; II, I ; 12, 2 ; 14, 2. Cf. Fredrich, Hippokratische
Untersuchungen, pp. 126 sqq.

8 Aet. V. 15, 3 ; 21, I {Dox. p. 190).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 245

earth in the body, each of which had all along been striving
to '* reach its own kind." Sleep was a temporary separation
to a certain extent of the fiery element.^ At death the
animal is resolved into its elements, which either enter into
fresh combinations, or are permanently united with " their
own kind.** ^here can be no question here of an immortal
soul.3.

Even in life, we may see the attraction of like to Hke
operating in animals just as it did in the upward and down-
ward 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 shell-
fish (fr. 76), where the earthy part is above. These excep-
tions 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.^ Aquatic animals are those
in which water predominates. This does not, however,
apply to fishes, which are very fiery, and take to the water
to cool themselves.^

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).

» Aet. V. 19, 5 {Dox. p. 431). Cf. Eth. Eud. H, i. 1235 a 11.

3 Arist. De respir. 14. 477 a 32 ; Theophr. De causis plant, i. 21.

tion.

246 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of the body has pores into which the appropriate food will
fit. Pleasure and pain were derived from the absence or
presence of like elements, that is, of nourishment which
would fit the pores. Tears and sweat arose from a disturb- *
ance which curdled the blood ; they were, so to say, the
whey of the blood. ^
Percep- 118. For the theory of perception held by Empedokles
we have the original words of Theophrastos :

Empedokles speaks in the same way of aU 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 themyire too
wide and those of others too narrow for the sensible p^'ect, so
that the latter either hold their course right through without
touching or cannot enter at aU. 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,2 through which its rarity enab^ the fire to pass like the
light in lanterns (fr. 84). The passage?^ the fire and water are
arranged alternately ; through those of tne fire we perceive light
objects, through those of the water, dark ; each class of objects
fits into each class of passages, and the colours are carried to
the sight by effluence. R. P. ih.

But eyes are not aU 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 ^^keen-sighted in the daytime, for the fire
within is brought up -Hln 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 wiU
behave in the opposite manner. Those eyes in which fire pre-
dominates vy^iU 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 v^^U, he says, suffer;

1 Nutrition, Aet. v. 27, i ; pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15 ; v. 28, i f
tears and sweat, v. 22, i. ^

2 That is, watery vapour, not the elemental air or aid-qp (§ 107). It
identical with the " water" mentioned below. It is unnecessary, there^
fore, to insert /cat ijbojp after irvp with Karsten and Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 247

the same at night, for the fire will be obstructed by the water.
And this goes on till the water is separated off by the air, for in
each case it is the opposite which is a remedy. The best tempered
and the most excellent vision is one composed of both in
equal proportions. This is practically what he says about
sight.

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. ^ Smell, he holds, arises
from respiration, and that is why those smell most keenly whose
breath has the most violent motion, and why most smell comes
from sAtle and Hght bodies.^ As to touch and taste, he does
not lay Clown how nor by means of what they arise, except that
he gives us an explanation applicable to all, that sensation is
produced by adaptation to the pores. Pleasure is produced by
what is Uke in its elements and their mixture ; pain, by what is
opposite. R. P. ib.

And heaves a pi^sely similar account of thought and
ignorance. [Thought ^ses 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 aU parts
of the body all the elements are most completely mingled.
R. P. 178.

All, then, in whom the mixture is eo^l or nearly so, and in
whom the elements are neither at too^eat intervals nor too
small or too large, are the wisest and have the most exact per-
ceptions ; and those who come next to them are wise in propor-
tion. 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

^ Beare, p. 96, w. i. 2 Ibid. p. 133.

248 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

mixture in some one part of their bodies will be clever in that
respect. That is why some are good orators and some good
artificers. The latter have a good mixture in their hands,
and the former in their tongues, and so with all other special
capacities. R. P. ih.

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,^ who cannot smell, just
because they have a difficulty in breathing. We also see
from fr. loi that the scent of dogs was referred to in support
of the theory. Empedokles seems to have given no detailed
account of smell, and did not refer to touch at all. 2 Hearing
was explained by the motion of the air which struck upon the
cartilage inside the ear and made it swing and soimd like
a bell.3

The theory of vision * is more complicated ; and, as
Plato makes his Timaios adopt most of it, it is of great
importance in the history of philosophy. The eye was con-
ceived, as by Alkmaion (§ 96) ,5 to be composed of fire and
water. Just as in a lantern the flame is protected from the
wind by horn (fr. 84), so the fire in the iris is protected from
the water which surrounds it in the pupil by membranes
with very fine pores, so that, while the fire can pass out,
the water cannot get in. Sight is produced by the fire inside
the eye going forth to meet the object. J

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. ^ md. pp. 95 sqq.
* Ibid. pp. 14 sqq. ^ Theophr. De sens. 26.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 249

fitting into the pores and perceived." ^ It is not quite
clear how these two accounts of vision were reconciled, or
how far we are entitled to credit Empedokles with the
theory of Plato's Timaeus. The statements quoted seem
to imply something very like it. 2

Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no dis-
tinction between thought and perception, a remark already
made by Aristotle. ^ The chief seat of perception was the
blood, in which the four elements are most evenly mixed,
and especially the blood near the heart (fr. 105).* This
does not, however, exclude the idea that other parts of the
body may perceive also ; indeed, Empedokles held that all
things have their share of thought (fr. 103). But the blood
was specially sensitive because of its finer mixture.^ From
this it naturally follows that Empedokles adopted the view,
already maintained in the Second Part of the poem of Par-
menides (fr. 16), that our knowledge varies with the varjdng
constitution of our bodies (fr. 106).

119. The theoretical theology of Empedokles reminds Theology
us of Xenophanes, his practical religious teaching of Pytha- reUgion.
goras and the Orphics. ( We are told in the earlier part of
the poem that certain " gods " are composed of the ele-
ments ; and that therefore though they " Hve 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.i

If we turn to the religious teaching of the Purifications,

1 The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, Men. 76 d 4. All
our MSS. have drroppoal o-x'»7/tiara}»', but Yen. T has in the margin yp.
XPV/^<^T<av, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for " things "
is xpiJ/^ciTa. See Diels, Empedokles und Gorgias^ p. 439.

2 See Beare, Elementary Cognition, p. 18.

3 Arist, De an. V, 3. 427 a 21.

* 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 xJ/vxi-Kdu wvevfia ("animal
spirits ") which circulated along with the blood. * Beare, p. 253.

250 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

we find that everything turns on the doctrine of trans-
migration. On the general significance of this enough has
been said above (§ 42) ; the details given by Empedokles are
peculiar. According to a decree of Necessity, " daemons'*
who have sinned are forced to wander from their home in
heaven for three times ten thousand seasons (fr. 115). He
himself is such an exiled divinity, and has fallen from his
high estate because he put his trust in raving Strife. The
four elements toss him from one to the other with loathing ;
and so he has not only been a human being and a plant,
but even a fish. The only way to purify oneself from the
taint of original sin is by the cultivation of ceremonial
holiness, by purifications, and abstinence from animal
flesh. For the animals are our kinsmen (fr. 137), and it is
parricide to lay hands on them. ' In all this there are certain
points of contact with the cosmology. We have the
" mighty oath '* (fr. 115 ; cf. fr. 30), the four elements,
Hate as the source of original sin, and Kypris as queen in
the Golden Age (fr. 128). [But these points are not funda-
mental, and the cosmological system of Empedokles leaves
no room for an immortal soul, which is presupposed by the
Purifications. All through this period, there seems to have
been a gulf between men's religious beliefs, if they had any,
and their cosmological views. The few points of contact
we have mentioned may have been enough to hide this from
Empedokles himself. ~7

CHAPTER VI

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI

120. All that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the date Date,
of Anaxagoras seems to rest on the authority of Demetrios
Phalereus, who said of him, in his Register o/Archons, that he
" began to be a philosopher " at Athens at the age of twenty,
in the archonship of KalHas or KalHades (480-79 B.c.).^
This date was probably derived from a calculation based on
the philosopher's age at the time of his trial, which Demetrios
had every opportunity of learning from sources no longer
extant. Apollodoros inferred that Anaxagoras was bom
in 01. LXX. (500-496 B.C.), and he adds that he died at the
age of seventy-two in 01. LXXXVIII. i (428-27 B.c.).2
He doubtless thought it natural that he should not
survive Perikles, and that he should die the year Plato
was born.3 We have a further statement, of doubtful
origin, but probably due also to Demetrios, that Anaxagoras
lived at Athens for thirty years. If it is correct, we
get from about 480 to 450 B.C. as the time he lived there.

There can be no doubt that these dates are very nearly
ri^ht. Aristotle tells us * that Anaxagoras was older than
Empedokles, who was probably bom before 490 B.C. (§ 98) ;

^ 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 con-
vincing.

2 We must read dySorjKoaTrjs with Scahger to make the figures come
right. ^ On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq,

* Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).

251

252 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and Theophrastos said ^ that Empedokles was born " not
long after Anaxagoras/' Demokritos, too, said that he
himself was a young man in the old age of Anaxagoras, and
he must have been born about 460 B.C. 2
Early life. 121. Anaxagoras was from Klazomenai, and Theophras-
tos tells us that his father's name was Hegesiboulos.^ The
tradition was that he neglected his possessions to follow
science.* It is certain, at any rate, that already in the
fourth century he was regarded as the type of the man who
leads the " theoretic life." ^ Of course the story of his
contempt for worldly goods was seized on later by the
historical noveHst and tricked out with the usual apoph-
thegms. These do not concern us here.

One incident belonging to the early manhood of Anaxa-
goras is recorded, namely, the fall of a huge meteoric stone
into the Aigospotamos in 468-67 b.c.^ Our authorities tell
us he predicted this phenomenon, which is plainly absurd.
But we shall see reason to believe that it may have occa-
sioned one of his most striking departures from the earlier
cosmology, and led to his adoption of the very view for
which he was condemned at Athens. At all events, the fall
of the stone made a profound impression at the time, and
it was still shown to tourists in the days of Pliny and
Plutarch-7

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.

* Plato, Hipp. ma. 283 a, rovvavrlov yhp 'Ava^aydpg. (paa-l (ru/xjS^vai
■^ Vfuv KaTa\ei(f)d^PTi>)v yhp aur^J iroWQu XPVI^<^'''<^'^ KarafxeXTja-aL Kal diroX^aai
iravra' ovto}S airrbv dvbrjTa <T0(p[^ecr6ai. Cf. Plut. Per. i6.

6 Arist. Eth. Nic. K, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf, Eth. Eud^ A, 4. 1215 b 6 and
15, 1216 a 10.

« Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny, N.H. ii. 149, gives the date as Ol.
LXXVIII. 2 ; and Eusebios gives it under 01. LXXVIII. 3. But cf,
Marm. Par. 57, d0' o5 iv Aiybs iroTa/noTs 6 Xidos iireae . . . h-rj HHII,
&PXOVTOS 'AdrjVTjcri Qeayeyldov, which is 468-67 B.C. The text of Diog
ii. II is corrupt. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2;
and Diels, Vors. 46 a i,

' Pliny, loc. cit., " qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehi||
colore adusto," Cf. Plut. Lys. 12, koX deUvvrai . . . ^rt vvv.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 253

122. The doxographers speak of Anaxagoras as the pupil Relation
of Anaximenes.i This can hardly be correct ; Anaximenes *°^^®
most probably died before Anaxagoras was born. But it is school.
not enough to say that the statement arose from the fact
that the name of Anaxagoras followed that of Anaximenes
in the Successions. We have its original source in a fragment
of Theophrastos himself, which states that Anaxagoras had
been "an associate of the philosophy of Anaximenes." ^
Now this expression has a very distinct meaning if we accept
the view as to " schools " of science set forth in the Intro-
duction (§ XIV.). It means that the old Ionic school sur-
vived the destruction of Miletos in 494 B.C., and continued
to flourish in the other cities of Asia. It means, further,
that it produced no man of distinction after its third great
representative, and that " the philosophy of Anaximenes "
was still taught by whoever was now at the head of the
society.

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 B.C. 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 hke Diogenes to champion
the orthodox system, while third-rate minds like Hippon

^ Cicero, De nat. d. i. 26 (after Philodemos), " Anaxagoras qui accepit
ab Anaximene disciplinam {i.e. di'/jKovae) ; Diog, i, 13 (R. P. 4) and ii. 6;
Strabo, xiv. p. 645, KXa^o/n^uios 8' ^v avT)p iin<pavr]i 'Ava^ayopas 6 <pv<rcK6s,
'Ava^i/x^vovs o/iiXTjTT^s ; Euseb. P.E. p. 504 ; [Galen] Hist. Phil. 3 ;
Augustine, De civ. Dei, viii. 2.

2 Phys. Op. fr. 4 [Dox. p. 478), 'Ava^ayopas /nh ykp "B.yri<n^oi\ov
KXaJi'ofjLivios Koipuvrjaas ttjs 'Ava^ifx^vovs (pikoa-ocplas ktX. In his fifth edition
(p- 973. w. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and confirms it
by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos, Koii/uv/ja-as
UapfievLdri ttjs <pL\oao<f>las. See below. Chap. IX. § 172.

254 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of Samos went back to the cruder theory of Thales. The
details of this anticipatory sketch will become clearer as we
go on ; for the present, it is only necessary to call the
reader's attention to the fact that the old Ionic Philosophy
now forms a sort of background to our story, just as Orphic
and Pythagorean religious ideas have done in the preceding
chapters.
Anaxa- 123. Auaxagoras was the first philosopher to take up

Ath?ns* ^^s 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 2 he makes Sokrates
say : " For all arts that are great, there is need of talk and
discussion on the parts of natural science that deal with
things on high ; for that seems to be the source which in-
spires high-mindedness and effectiveness in every direction.
Perikles added this very acquirement to his original gifts.
He fell in, it seems, with Anaxagoras, who was a scientific
man ; and, satiating himself with the theory of things on
high, and having attained to a knowledge of the true nature
of mind and intellect, which was just what the discourses
of Anaxagoras were mainly about, he drew from that source
whatever was of a nature to further him in the art of speech.*'
This clearly means that Perikles associated with Anaxagoras
before he became a prominent poHtician. So too Isokrates
says that Perikles was the pupil of two ** sophists," Anaxa-

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 Kara tt]v S^/j^ou did^aacv, 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.

2 270 a (R. P. 148 c).

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 255

goras and Damon. ^ There can be no doubt that the teaching
of Damon belongs to the youth of Perikles,^ and it is to be
inferred that the same is true of that of Anaxagoras.

A more difficult question is the alleged relation of
Euripides to Anaxagoras. The oldest authority for it is
Alexander of Aitolia, poet and hbrarian, who Hved at the
court of Ptolemy Philadelphos [c. 280 B.C.). He referred to
Euripides as the " nursling of brave Anaxagoras." ^ The
famous fragment on the blessedness of the scientific life
might just as well refer to any other cosmologist as to Anaxa-
goras, and indeed suggests more naturally a thinker of a
more primitive type.* On the other hand, it is likely enough
that Anaxagoras did not develop his system all at once,
and he doubtless began by teaching that of Anaximenes.
Besides there is one fragment which distinctly expounds the
central thought of Anaxagoras, and could hardly be referred
to any one else.^

124. It is clear that, if we adopt the chronology of The trial.
Demetrios of Phaleron, the trial of Anaxagoras must be
placed early in the political career of Perikles.^ That is
the tradition preserved by Satyros, who says that the

* Isokrates, Hepl avriddaeios, 235, UepiKXijs 8^ dvoiu {aocpiaraiu) iyhero
fiadrjT'/jS, ' Ava^ayopov re toD KXa^o/xeulov Kal Adfiuvos.

2 Damon (or Damonides) must have been politically active about
460 B.C. (Meyer, Gesch. des Altert. iii. 567 ; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und
Athen, i. 134), so that he must have been born about 500 B.C. He was
ostracised before 443 B.C. according to Meyer, and an ostrakon with
the name of Damon son of Damonides has been found (Bruckner, Arch.
Anz., 191 4, p. 95). If we suppose that he was ostracised in 445 and re-
turned 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 " ; 6 5' ' Ava^ay 6pov Tpb(f>L^os Xtt'oO (so Valckenaer for apxO'^ov)
kt\. * See Introd, p. 10, n. 3. 6 r. p. j^q 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 (F. Per. 32). The pragmatic character of the chronology of
Ephoros is, however, sufficiently estabUshed, and we cannot infer any-
thing from it. Sotion, who made Kleon the accuser, must also have
assumed a late date for the trial.

256 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

accuser was Thoukydides, son of Melesias, and that the
charge was impiety and Medism.^ As Thoukydides was
ostracised in 443 B.C., that would make it probable that the
trial of Anaxagoras took place about 450 B.C., and would
bring it into connexion with the ostracism of the other
teacher of Perikles, Damon. 2 If that is so, we understand
at once why Plato never makes Sokrates meet with
Anaxagoras. He^ had handed his school over to Archelaos
before Sokrates was old enough to take an interest in
scientific theories. ^ We do learn from Plato, however,
what the charge of impiety was based on. It was that
Anaxagoras taught the sun was a red-hot stone, and
the moon earth,* and we shall see that he certainly did
hold these views (§ 133). For the rest, the most Hkely
account is that he was got out of prison and sent away
by Perikles. 5 We know that such things were possible at
Athens.

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. ^ The Lampsakenes erected an
altar to his memory in their market-place, dedicated to

^ Diog. ii. 12, SdiTvpoj 5' iu tols "BIols virb QovKvdidov tprjalv ela-axdTJpaL ttjp
8lKr]Vy ayTiTToXirevofiivov ry Ile/Dt/cXet' Kai oif jxbvov da-e^eias dWd Kai firidiafiov'
KoX dirSpTa KaTadLKaadrjvai davdrip.

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.

5 The well-known passage of the Phaedo (97 b 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 Anaxa-
goras 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 Anaxa-
goras is clearly significant. * Apol. 26 d.

6 Plut. Nic. 23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf. Per. 32 (R. P. 148).
« See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. § 191.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 257

Mind and Truth ; and the anniversary of his death was long
kept as a hoHday for school-children, it was said at his own
request. 1

125. Diogenes includes Anaxagoras in his Hst of philo- writings.
sophers 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.'* 2 There is no evidence of any
weight to set against this testimony, which comes ultimately
from the librarians of Alexandria.^ The story that Anaxa-
goras wrote a treatise on perspective as applied to scene-
painting is most improbable ; * and the statement that he
composed a work dealing with the quadrature of the circle
is a misunderstanding of an expression in Plutarch.^ We
learn from the passage in the Apology, referred to above,
that the works of Anaxagoras could be bought at Athens
for a drachma ; and that the book was of some length may
be gathered from the way in which Plato makes Sokrates
go on to speak of it.^ In the sixth century a.d. Simplicius
had access to a copy, doubtless in the library of the Academy;
and it is to him we owe the preservation of all our fragments,
with one or two very doubtful exceptions. Unfortunately
his quotations seem to be confined to the First Book, that
dealing with general principles, so that we are left somewhat
in the dark as to the treatment of details.

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).

* Schaubach {An. Claz. Fragm. p. 57) fabricated a work entitled rh
irpbs Kexi-veov 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.

* Vitruvius, vii. pr. 11. 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.

6 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 ^i^Xia perhaps implies that it filled
more than one roll.

258 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The Frag- 1 26. I givc the fragments according to the text and

ments. . r t\' ^

arrangement of Diels :

(i) 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. 2 But there is also always something greater than what is
great, and it is equal to the small in amount, and, compared with
itself, each thing is both great and small. R. P. 159 a.

(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 hfe, 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 fight and the dark, and of
much earth that was in it, and of a multitude of innumerable
seeds in no way Hke each other. For none of the other things

^ 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 TrdpTa pel ascribed to Herakleitos (Chap. III.
p. 146).

* Zeller's topl^ still seems to me a convincing correction of the
rd ii-q, which Diels retains.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 259

either is like any other. And these things being so, we must
hold that all things are in the whole. R. P. 151.^

(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 every-
thing ; 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 them-
selves ; but they must be now, just as they were in the beginning,
ail 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 Hke 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. i.

(11) In everything there is a portion of everything except
Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also.
R. P. 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 every-
thing, 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

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.

26o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

knowledge about everything and the greatest strength ; and
Nous has power over all things, both greater and smaller, that
have life. And Nous had power over the whole revolution, so
that it began to revolve in the beginning. And it began to
revolve first from a small beginning ; but the revolution now
extends over a larger space, and will extend over a larger still.
And all the things that are mingled together and separated off
and distinguished are all known by Nous. And Nous set in
order all things that were to be, and all things that were and are
not now and that are, and this revolution in which now revolve
the stars and the sun and the moon, and the air and the aether
that are separated off. And this revolution caused the separat-
ing off, and the rare is separated off from the dense, the warm
from the cold, the light from the dark, and the dry from the
moist. And there are many portions in many things. But no
thing is altogether separated off nor distinguished from anything
else except Nous. And all Nous is alike, both the greater and
the smaller ; while nothing else is Hke anything else, but each
single thing is and was most manifestly those things of which it
has most in it. R. P. 155.

(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 all 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 every-
thing 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.2 R. P. 156.

(16) From these as they are separated off earth is soUdified ;
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) : 6 8^ povs 6<xa iarl re Kapra
Kai vvv iariv. Diels now reads 6 8k vovs, 8s d<e^> eaTL, rb Kdpra Kal vvv eariv.
The correspondence of ael . . . /cat vvv is strongly in favour of this.

2 On the text of fr. 15, see R. P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in
adding /cat to Xafiirpov from Hippolytos.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 261

into being and passing away ; for nothing comes into being or
passes away, but there is mingHng and separation of things
that are. So they would be right to call coming into being
mixture, and passing away separation. R. P. 150.

(18) It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.

(19) We caU 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 (?) 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.
(216) (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. The system of Anaxagoras, like that of Empedokles, Anaxa-
aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine that corporeal his^p^r^^
substance is unchangeable with the existence of a world ^^cessors.
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.^
In any case, we have seen that the opinions of the latter
were known at Athens before the middle of the fifth century.
We have seen how Empedokles sought to save the world of

1 I do not now think, however, that this is the meaning of the words
TOis ^pyois varepos 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 Toi^rots iTnyevbixevos JIXAtwv
TTj fx^v do^y Kal Ty dvpdfxet irporepos, rots 8k xP^^ols vcrrepos. It seems that he
understood the Aristotehan formula as "inferior in his achievements."

262 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

appearance by maintaining that the opposites — hot and
cold, moist and dry — were things, each one of which was
real in the Parmenidean sense. Anaxagoras regarded this
as inadequate. Everything changes into everything else,^
the things of which the world is made are not " cut off with
a hatchet " (fr. 8) in this way. On the contrary, the true
formula must be : There is a portion of everything in every-
thing (fr. ii).
"Every- 128. A part of the argument by which Anaxagoras

in^every- sought to provc this poiut has been preserved in a corrupt
thing." iorm by x\etios, and Diels has recovered some of the original
words from the schoUast 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. lo).^
That is just the sort of question the early Milesians must
have asked, only the physiological interest has now definitely
replaced the meteorological. We shall find a similar train
of reasoning in Diogenes of ApoUonia (f r. 2) .

The statement 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. i). 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.
129. What are these " things " of which everything

1 Arist. Phys. A, 4. 187 b i (R. P. 155 a).

2 Aet, i. 3, 5 {Dox. p. 279). See R. P. 155 f and «. i. I read Kapirbv
with Usener.

The
portions.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 263

contains a portion ? It once was usual to represent the
theory of Anaxagoras as if he had said that wheat, for
instance, contained small particles of flesh, blood, bones,
and the like ; but we have just seen that matter is infinitely
divisible (fr. 3), and that there are as many " portions " in
the smallest particle as in the greatest (fr. 6). That is fatal
to the old view. However far we carry division, we can
never reach anything " unmixed," so there can be no such
thing as a particle of simple nature, however minute.

This difficulty can only be solved in one way.^ In fr. 8
the examples given of things which are not " cut off from
one another with a hatchet '* are the hot and the cold ; and
elsewhere (frs. 4, 15), mention is made of the other traditional
" opposites." Aristotle says that, if we suppose the first
principles to be infinite, they may either be one in kind, as
with Demokritos, or opposite. 2 Simplicius, following Por-
phyry and Themistios, refers the latter view to Anaxagoras ; ^
and Aristotle himself implies that the opposites of Anaxa-
goras had as much right to be called first principles as the
" homoeomeries." *

It is of those opposites, then, and not of the different
forms of matter, that everything contains a portion. Every

^ See Tannery, Science hellene, 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 " (xpT^/xara) ; but we must remember
that, even when the notion of quahty (7rot6Tijs) had been defined, this
way of thinking survived. Galen {De nat. Jac. i. 2, 4) is still quite clear
on the point that it is the qualities which are eternal. He says ol 8^
Tives elv0,L fikv iv ai/ry {ry VTroKeLfiivri ovaig) ^ovKovrai ret? iroLbrriTas,
d/J.€Ta^\7)T0Vi 8^ Kal arpiirTovi i^ aluivos, kuI ras (paivofi^vas ravras dXXotwtreis tt/
SiaKpLcrei re Kal crvyKpiaeL yiyveadai (paaiu ws 'Ava^ayopas.

2 Arist. Phys. A, 2. 184 b 21, ij oihus Ibairep Atj/xSkpltos, t6 yho% ev,
crx'>?/^aTt 5^ ij e'tdei 8ia(p€po}jcra$, fj Kal ivaprlas.

3 Phys. p. 44, I. He goes on to refer to depfjtdTrrras . . . Kal
\pvxpOTT)Tas ^TjpdTTjTOLS T€ Kal vypoTrjTOLS fMaudrriTds re Kal TrvKvSrTjTas Kal tols
dXXas Kara TrocoTTjTa ipauTiorrjTas. He observes, however, that Alexander
rejected this interpretation and took SLa<pepo6<ras ^ Kal evavHas closely
together as both referring to Demokritos.

* Phys. A, 4. 187 a 25, rbv ixh {' kva^aybpav) direcpa iroieLV to, re o/xoLOfiepij
Kal rdvavTia. Aristotle's own theory only differs from this in so far as
he makes vXt) prior to the evavrla.

264 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

particle, however large or however small, contains every
one of those opposite qualities. That which is hot is also
to a certain extent cold. Even snow, Anaxagoras affirmed,
was black ; ^ that is, even the white contains a certain
portion of the opposite quality. It is enough to indicate
the connexion of this with the views of Herakleitos (§ 80). 2
Seeds. 130. The difference, then, between the theory of Anaxa-

goras 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 hke, far enough, you come to the four
'* roots " or elements, which are, accordingly, the ultimate
reahty. 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 ofjuoLo/jueprj as o-roLx^la.^ We have seen that
the term arroi'xelov is of later date than Anaxagoras, and it

1 Sext. Pyrrh. i. 33 (R. P. 161 b).

2 The connexion was already noted by the eclectic Herakleitean to
whom I attribute Hepl dLairris, i. 3-4 (see above. Chap. III. p. 150, «. 2).
Cf. the words e'x^t 5^ dir' a,\\'r}Xo}v to ixkv irvp dirb tov {/Saros t6 vyp6f ^vi
yap iv irvpl vypdrrjs ' rb 5e iiSwp (Xtto tov irvpos to ^rjpou ' ivi yap Kal
iidaTL ^Tjpov.

« Arist. De gen. corr. A, x, 314 a 18, 6 ij^v yhp (Anaxagoras) tH
OfJLOLOixeprj <rroiXf'a Ti6r}(nv, olov Scttovp Kal adpKa /cat fx-veXSv, Kal tQv &\\wv <5lf
^Kao-Tip avvfbvvfxov Tb /xepos i<xTip. 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 ai^
entirely wrong meaning. He says that the dfioiofiepeiaL were so called
from the likeness of the particles of the Tpo<f)ri to those of the body {Dox\
279 a 21 ; R. P. 155 f). Lucretius, i. 830 sqq. (R. P. 150 a) has a similai^
account of the matter, derived from Epicurean sources. Obviously, it
cannot be reconciled with what Aristotle says.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 265

is natural to suppose that the word o/jLoto/jueprj is also only
Aristotle's name for the " seeds." In his own system, the
oixoiofieprj are intermediate between the elements [a-roix^la),
of which they are composed, and the organs {opyava), which
are composed of them. The heart cannot be divided into
hearts, but the parts of flesh are flesh. That being so,
Aristotle's statement is quite intelligible from his own point
of view, but there is no reason for supposing that Anaxa-
goras expressed himself in that particular way. All we
are entitled to infer is that he said the " seeds," which he
substituted for the " roots " of Empedokles, were not the
opposites in a state of separation, but each contained a
portion of them all. If Anaxagoras had used the term
" homoeomeries " himself, it would be very strange that
SimpUcius should quote no fragment containing it.

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,
especiaUy in the case of earth. He explained them in quite
another way. Though everything has a portion of every-
thing 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.i The great masses which Empedokles had taken for
elements are really vast collections of all manner of " seeds."
Each of them is, in fact, a irava-irepfiia.'^

1 Cf. above, p. 263.

2 Arist. De gen. corr. A, i. 314 a 29. The word iravinrepfjt.ia was used
by Demokritos (Arist. De an. A, 2. 404 a 8 ; R. P. 200), and it occurs in the
Uepi diair-qs [loc. cit.). It seems natural to suppose that it was used by
Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term (nr^pfiara. Much difdculty has
been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire among the
ofioiofxepi] in Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a). Bonitz under-
stands the words Kaddirep vdwp ^ irvp to mean " as we have just seen that
Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles." In any case, Kaddirep
goes closely with ovtcj, and the general sense is that Anaxagoras appHes

266 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

"AU 131. From all this it follows that, when " all things

together." Were together/' and when the different seeds of things were
mixed together in infinitely small particles (fr. i), the
appearance presented would be that of one of what had
hitherto been regarded as the primary substances. As a
matter of fact, they did present the appearance of " air and
aether " ; for the quahties (things) which belong to these
— i.e. the hot and the cold, prevail in quantity over all other
things in the universe, and everything is most obviously
that of which it has most in it (fr. 12 suh fin.). Here, then,
Anaxagoras attaches himself to Anaximenes. The primary
condition of things, before the formation of the worlds, is
much the same in both ; only, with Anaxagoras, the original
mass is no longer the primary substance, but a mixture of
innumerable seeds divided into infinitely small parts.

This mass is infinite, like the air of Anaximenes, and it
supports itself, since there is nothing surrounding it.^
Further, the " seeds " of all things which it contains are
infinite in number (fr. i). But, as the innumerable seeds
may be divided into those in which the portions of cold,
moist, dense, and dark prevail, and those which have most
of the warm, dry, rare, and light in them, we may say
that the original mass was a mixture of infinite Air and
of infinite Fire. The seeds of Air, of course, contain
" portions " of the " things " that predominate in Fire, and
vice versa ; but we regard everything as being that of which
it has most in it. Lastly, there is no void in this mixture,
an addition to the theory made necessary by the arguments
of Parmenides. It is, however, worthy of note that Anaxa-
goras added an experimental proof of this to the purely
dialectical one of the Eleatics. He used the klepsydra

to the o/jLoiofxeprj what is really true of the a-roixeia. It would be better to
delete the comma after irvp and add one after ^rjai, for (TvyKpLa-ei Kal 8iaKpi<x€i
jxbvov is explanatory of oiirw . . . Kaddwep. In the next sentence, I read
dTrXcDs for dWus with Zeller {Arch. ii. 261). See also Arist. De caelo,
r, 3. 302 b I (R. P. 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put.
1 Arist. Phys. T, 5- 205 b i (R. P. 154 a).

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 267

experiment as Empedokles had done (fr. 100), and also
showed the corporeal nature of air by means of inflated
skins. 1

132. Like Empedokles, Anaxagoras required some Nous,
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," 2 and he has often
been credited with the introduction of the spiritual into
philosophy. The disappointment expressed by Sokrates
in the Phaedo as to the way in which Anaxagoras worked out
the theory should, however, make us pause to reflect before
accepting too exalted a view of it. Plato ^ makes Sokrates
say : "I once heard a man reading a book, as he said, of
Anaxagoras, and sajdng it was Mind that ordered the world
and was the cause of all things. I was delighted to hear
of this cause, and I thought he really was right. . . . But
my extravagant expectations were all dashed to the ground
when I went on and found that the man made no use of
Mind at all. He ascribed no causal power whatever to it
in the ordering of things, but to airs, and aethers, and waters,
and a host of other strange things.*' Aristotle, of course
with this passage in mind, says : * " Anaxagoras uses Mind
as a deus ex machina to account for the formation of the
world ; and whenever he is at a loss to explain why anything
necessarily is, he drags it in. But in other cases he makes
anything rather than Mind the cause." These utterances
may well suggest that the Nous of Anaxagoras was some-
thing on the same level as the Love and Strife of Empedokles,

^ Phys. Z, 6. 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). We have a full discussion of the
experiments with the klepsydra in Prohl. 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 Plato, Phaed. 97 b 8 (R. P. 155 d).

4 Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 a 18 (R. P. 155 d).

268 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

and this will be confirmed when we look at what he has to
say about it.

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.i Herakleitos had said as much of Fire, and Empe-
dokles of Strife. Further, it is the " thinnest " of all things,
so that it can penetrate everywhere, and it would be mean-
ingless to say that the immaterial is " thinner " than the
material. It is true that Nous also " knows all things " ;
but so, perhaps, did the Fire of Herakleitos, 2 and certainly
the Air of Diogenes. ^ Zeller holds, indeed, that Anaxagoras
meant to speak of something incorporeal ; but he admits
that he did not succeed in doing so,* and that is historically
the important point. Nous is certainly imagined as occupy-
ing space ; for we hear of greater and smaller parts of it
(fr. 12).

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. 6, 5. 256 b 24, did /cat 'Ava^ayopas opdws X^yeL, rbv vovv
airady] (pdaKoov /cat d/j-Lyrj elvai, eireidrfTrep Kiw^aeojs dpxw o-vrhv iroiet etvat * ovtoi}
yap Slu fxbvios Kivoirj aKivr}Tos Cbv /cai KparoLr} d/ucLyrjs il)v. This is only quoted for
the meaning of Kparelv. Of course, the words dKivrjTos Cbv are not meant
to be historical, and still less is the interpretation in De an. T, 4. 429 a
18. Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 5) couples virb tovtov iravra Kv^epvdadai
(the old Milesian word) vdth irdvrwv Kparelv.

2 If we retain the MS. elbivai in fr. i. In any case, the name rb ao^ou
imphes as much. ' See fr. 3, 5. * Zeller, p. 993.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 269

the latter does not. But, in any case, the originality of
Anaxagoras lies far more in the theory of substance than in
that of Nous.

133. The formation of a world starts with a rotatory Formation
motion which Nous imparts to a portion of the mixed mass worlds.
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. i).
Of these the Aether or Fire ^ took the outside while the Air
occupied the centre (fr. 15).

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. 2 Perhaps the fall of the
meteoric stone at Aigospotamoi had something to do with
the origin of this theory. It will also be observed that it
necessarily implies the rotation of the flat earth along with
the "eddy" [Uvn).

134. That Anaxagoras adopted the ordinary Ionian innumer-
theory of innumerable worlds is clear from fr. 4, which we worlds.
have no right to regard as other than continuous.^ The

^ Note that Anaxagoras says " air " where Empedokles said " aether,"
and that " aether " is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist. De caelo, V, 3.
302 b 4, t6 ykp TTvp Kal tov alOepa irpocrayopeveL ravTo and ib. A, 3. 270 b 24,
'Aua^ay6pa$ 5^ /caraxp^rai t^) 6p6/xaTL TO}jT(f ov /caXws" dvo/xd^ei yap aldipa dvrl

TTVpOS.

2 Aet. ii. 13, 3 {Dox. p. 341 ; R. P. 157 c).

3 See above, p. 259, n. i.

270 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

words " that it was not only with us that things were
separated off, but elsewhere too " can only mean that Nous
has caused a rotatory movement in more parts of the bound-
less mixture than one . Actios certainly includes Anaxagor as
among those who held there was only one world ^ ; but this
testimony cannot be considered of the same weight as that
of the fragments. Zeller's reference of the words to the
moon is very improbable. Is it likely that any one would
say that the inhabitants of the moon *' have a sun and
moon as with us " ? 2
Cos- 13^. Xhe cosmology of Anaxagoras is clearly based upon

that of Anaximenes, as will be seen from a comparison of
the following passage of Hippolytos ^ with the quotations
given in Chap. I. (§ 29) :

(3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended because
of its size and because there is no vacuum.'* For this reason the
air is very strong, and supports the earth which is borne up by it.

(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),^ and from the rivers which flow into it.

(5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the
waters in the earth ; for the earth is hollow and has waters in
its cavities. And the Nile rises in summer owing 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 ij^er dXiya t^j
dpxv^ ToO irpd)Tov Uepl (j>v(xi(jis, p. 1 56, I, /cat [xeT 6\iya (after fr. 2),
which itself occurred, fier oKiyov (after fr. i), 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).

* 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.

« The MS. reading is iv rots &pktols, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs'
iv TOLs dvTapnTLKots. I have thought it safer to translate the ev rri AldLOTrig.
of Actios (iv. I, 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.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 271

(6) The sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones
carried round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars
are the sun and moon, and also certain bodies which revolve
with them, but are invisible to us.

(7) We do not feel the beat of the stars because of the great-
ness 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 ecUpsed 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 ecUpses 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 Hght 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 pro-
duced by heat strildng 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 An-
aximenes. 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.

272 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

As to the moon's light and the cause of eclipses, it
was natural that Anaxagoras should be credited at Athens
with these discoveries. On the other hand, it seems
very unlikely that they were made by a believer in a
flat earth, and there is sufficient evidence that they are
really Pythagorean. ^
Biology. 136. " 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, aU things that have life, both the
greater and the smaller (f r. 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 stmcture of the
body. The Nous was the same, but it had more oppor-
tunities 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. ^ This is in accordance with the
previous development of thought upon the subject. Par-
menides, in his Second Part (fr. 16), had already made
the thought of men depend on the constitution of their
limbs.

As aU 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 ^ so far, Anaxa-
goras argued that they must feel pleasure and pain in
connexion with their growth and with the fall of their leaves.
Plutarch says * that he caUed plants " animals fixed in the
earth."

Both plants and animals originated in the first instancers
from the iravairepixia. Plants arose when the seeds of

1 See p. 177, n. i.

2 Arist. De part. an. A, 10. 687 a 7 (R. P. 160 b).

3 [Arist.] De plant. A, i. 815 a 15 (R. P. 160).

4 Plut. Q.N. I (R. P. 160), ^(^ou . . . eyyeiov.

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 273

them which the air contained were brought down by
the rain-water,^ and animals originated in a similar way. 2
Like Anaximander, Anaxagoras held that animals first arose
in the moist element.^

137. In these scanty notices we seem to see traces of a Percep-
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 percep-
tion is of contraries.* The account which Theophrastos
gives of this ^ is as follows :

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 aU these are in
us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the same manner ;
the former by means of the accompan5dng respiration, the latter
by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which sur-
rounds 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. i, 4 (R. P. 160).

2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a).

3 Hipp. Ref. i. 8, 12 {Dox. p. 563).

* Beare, p. 37. ^ Theophr. De sensu, 27 sqq. {Dox. p. 507).

6 Beare, p. 38. ' Beare, p. 208,

274 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

produce pain by their contact. And this pain is made percept-
ible by the long continuance or by the excess of a sensation.
Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot
dwell long on the same things. The larger animals are the more
sensitive, and, generally, sensation is proportionate to the size
of the organs of sense. Those animals which have large, pure,
and bright eyes, see large objects and from a great distance, and
contrariwise.^

And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear
great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived ;
small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.^
It is the same too with smell. Rarefied air has more smell ;
for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. A large animal
when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the
rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself ; so
the large one perceives more. For smeU is better perceived when
it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more con-
densed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly speaking,
large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor small animals
a condensed one.^

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 *
that " things are as we suppose them to he," has no value
at all as evidence. It comes from some collection of apoph-
thegms, not from the treatise of Anaxagoras himself ; and
it had, as likely as not, a moral application. He did say
(fr. 2i) that " the weakness of our senses prevents our
discerning the truth,*' but this meant simply that we do
not see the " portions " of everything which are in every-

1 Beare, p. 209. ^ Ibid. p. 103.

8 Ibid. p. 137. * Met. A, 5. 1009 b 25 (R. P. 161 a).

ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI

'2^1^

thing ; for instance, the portions of black which are in the
white. Our senses simply show us the portions that prevail.
He also said that the things which are seen give us the
power of seeing the invisible, which is the very opposite
of scepticism (fr. 21a).

CHAPTER VII

THE PYTHAGOREANS

The 138. After losing their supremacy in the Achaian cities,

Pytha-
gorean 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.^ We know from Plato that Philolaos was there
towards the close of the fifth century, and Lysis was after-
wards the teacher of Epameinondas.^ Some of the Pytha-
goreans, however, were able to return to Italy later. Philo-
laos certainly did so, and Plato implies that he had left
Thebes some time before 399 B.C., the year Sokrates was put
to death. In the fourth century, the chief seat of the school
is the Dorian city of Taras, and we find the Pythagoreans
heading the opposition to Dionysios of Syracuse. It is to
this period that the activity of Archytas belongs. He was
the friend of Plato, and almost realised the ideal of the
philosopher king. He ruled Taras for years, and Aristoxenos
tells us that he was never defeated in the field of battle.^

^ Iambi. V. Pyth. 251. The ultimate authority for all this is Timaios.
There is no need to alter the MS. reading 'Kpxvrov to 'ApxtTrirov (as Diels
does after Beckmann). W^e are dealing with a later generation, and the
sentence opens with ol 5^ \onroi tCov Uvd ay opeioov, i.e. those other than
Archippos and Lysis, who have been dealt with in the preceding section.

2 For Philolaos, see Plato, Phaed. 6i d 7 ; e 7 ; and for Lysis, Aristo-
xenos in Iambi. 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.

276

THE PYTHAGOREANS 277

He was also the inventor of mathematical mechanics. At
the same time, Pythagoreanism had taken root in the East.
Lysis remained at Thebes, where Simmias and Kebes had
heard Philolaos, while the remnant of the Pythagorean school
of Rhegion settled at Phleious. Aristoxenos was personally
acquainted with the last generation of this school, and
mentioned by name Xenophilos the Chalkidian from Thrace,
with Phanton, Echekrates, Diokles, and Polymnastos of
Phleious. They were all, he said, disciples of Philolaos and
Eurytos,^ and we learn from Plato that Simmias and Kebes
of Thebes and Echekrates of Phleious were also associates of
Sokrates.2 Xenophilos was the teacher of Aristoxenos, and
lived in perfect health at Athens to the age of a hundred
and five. 3

139. This generation of the school really belongs, how- pmc
ever, 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." * It seems natural to suppose,
however, that the Pjrthagorean elements of Plato's Phaedo
and Gorgias come mainly from Philolaos. Plato makes
Sokrates express surprise that Simmias and Kebes had not
learnt from him why it is unlawful for a man to take his
life,^ and it seems to be implied that the Pythagoreans at
Thebes used the word " philosopher " in the special sense of

1 Diog. viii. 46 (R. P. 62).

2 The whole mise en scene 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. n, 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.
* See below, §§ 150-152. s piato, Phaed. 61 d 6.

278 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

a man who is seeking to find a way of release from the burden
of this life.i It is probable that Philolaos spoke of the body
(o-cofjia) as the tomb {o-tj/jlo) of the soul. 2 We seem to be
justified, then, in holding that he taught the old Pytha-
gorean religious doctrine in some form, and that he laid
special stress on knowledge as a means of release. That
is the impression we get from Plato, who is far the best
authority we have.

We know further that Philolaos wrote on " numbers " ;
for Speusippos followed him in the account he gave of the
Pythagorean theories on that subject. ^ It is probable
that he busied himself mainly with arithmetic, and we can
hardly doubt that his geometry was of the primitive type
described in an earher chapter. Eurytos was his disciple,
and we have seen (§ 47) that his views were still very crude.

We also know now that Philolaos wrote on medicine,*
and that, while apparently influenced by the theories of the
Sicihan school, he opposed them from the Pythagorean
standpoint. In particular, he said that our bodies were
composed only of the warm, and did not participate in the

1 This appears to follow from the remark of Simmias in Phaed. 64 b.
The whole passage would be pointless if the words <pL\6(TO(f)os, 4)iXo(xo^€cv,
(f)i\oao(pia 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 18, Q-q^-rja-tv
dfia ol TT/Jocrrdrat (pi,\6ao(pot iy^vovro koI evdaifidvrjaev 17 7r6Xis.

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 Ukely that the fj,vdo\oyC^ KOfixj/bs dvrjp 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 rerp-qixhos ttLOos, which impHes the same general
view. Now he is called taojs StKcX6s ns fj 'ItoXikSs, which means he was
an Italian ; for the St/ceX6s ns is merely an allusion to the 2t/feX6s Koixxj/hs
av7]p -jtotI tclv /xar^p' ^<pa of Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian
from whom Sokrates could have learnt these views except Philolaos or one
of his associates.

^ See above. Chap. II. p. 102, w. 2.

* 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 latrika contained in the Anonymus Londinensis.
See Diels in Hermes, xxviii. pp. 417 sqq.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 279

cold. It was only after birth that the cold was introduced
by respiration. The connexion of this with the old Pytha-
gorean theory is clear. Just as the Fire in the macrocosm
draws in and Hmits the cold dark breath which surrounds
the world (§ 53), so do our bodies inhale cold breath from
outside. Philolaos made bile, blood, and phlegm the causes
of disease ; and, in accordance with this theory, he had to
deny that the phlegm was cold, as the Sicilian school held.
Its etymology proved it to be warm. We shall see that it
was probably this preoccupation with the medicine of the
SiciUan school that gave rise to some of the most striking
developments of later Pythagoreanism.

140. Such, so far as I can judge, was the historical Plato
Philolaos, though he is usually represented in a very different pytha-
light and has even been called a predecessor of Copernicus. 8°^®^°^*
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, ^ but these hardly suggest that he played
an important part in the development of Pythagorean
science. The most elaborate account we have of this is put
by Plato into the mouth of Timaios the Lokrian, of whom
we know no more than he has chosen to tell us. It is clear
at least that he is supposed to have visited Athens when
Sokrates was still in the prime of life, 2 and that he must
have been practically a contemporary of Philolaos. It
hardly seems likely that Plato should have given him the
credit of discoveries which were really due to his better-
known contemporary. However, Plato had many enemies
and detractors, and Aristoxenos was one of them. We know
he made the extraordinary statement that most of the
Republic was to be found in a work by Protagoras,^ and he

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.

8 Diog. iii. 37. For similar charges, cf. Zeller, Plato, p, 429, n. 7.

28o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

seems also to be the original source of the story that Plato
bought " three Pythagorean books " from Philolaos and
copied the Timaeus out of them. According to this, the
*' three books " had come into the possession of Philolaos ;
and, as he had fallen into great poverty, Dion was able to
buy them from him, or from his relatives, at Plato's request,
for a hundred minae.^ It is certain, at any rate, that this
story was already current in the third century ; for the
sillographer Timon of Phleious addresses Plato thus : " And
of thee too, Plato, did the desire of discipleship lay hold.
For many pieces of silver thou didst get in exchange a small
book, and starting from it didst learn to write Timaeus.'' ^
Hermippos, the pupil of Kallimachos, said that '' some
writer " said Plato himself bought the books from the
relatives of Philolaos for forty Alexandrian minae and
copied the Timaeus out of it ; while Satyros, the Arist-
archean, says he got it through Dion for a hundred minae.^
There is no suggestion in any of these accounts that the book
was by Philolaos himself ; they imply rather that what
Plato bought was either a book by Pythagoras, or at any
rate authentic notes of his teaching, which had come into
the hands of Philolaos. In later times, it was generally
supposed that the forgery entitled The Soul of the World,
which goes by the name of Timaios the Lokrian, was meant ; *
but it has now been proved that this cannot have existed
earlier than the first century a.d. Moreover, it is plain that
it is based on Plato's Timaeus itself, and that it was written
in order to bolster up the story of Plato's plagiarism. It
does not, however, fulfil the most important requirement,
that of being in three books, which is always an essential
feature of that story.^

1 Iambi. 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. o ; viii. 84, 85.

* So Iambi, in Nicom. p. 105, 11 ; Proclus, in Tim. p. i, Diehl.
5 They are tcl 6pv\ovixeva Tpia" jSi^Xia (Iambi. V. Pyth. 199), to, dLap6r)Tc.
rpla j8i/3\fa (Diog. viii. 15).

THE PYTHAGOREANS 281

Not one of the writers just mentioned professes to have
seen these famous " three books " ;^ but at a later date
there were at least two works which claimed to represent
them. Diels has shown how a treatise in three sections,
entitled HaiBevrcKov, itoXltikov, (^vo-lkov, was composed in
the Ionic dialect and attributed to Pythagoras. It was
largely based on the UvOayopiKoi a7ro(j)do-6i<; of Aristoxenos,
but its date is uncertain.^ In the first century B.C.,
Demetrios Magnes professes to quote the opening words
of the work published by Philolaos.^ These, however,
are in Doric. Demetrios does not actually say this
work was written by Philolaos himself, though it is
no doubt the same from which a number of extracts
are preserved under his name in Stobaios and later
writers. If it professed to be by Philolaos, that was
not quite in accordance with the original story ; but it
is easy to see how his name may have become attached
to it. We are told that the other book which passed under
the name of Pythagoras was really by Lysis.* Boeckh has
shown that the work ascribed to Philolaos probably con-
sisted of three books also, and Proclus referred to it as the
Bakchai,^ a fanciful Alexandrian title which recalls the
** Muses " of Herodotos. Two of the extracts in Stobaios
bear it. It must surely be confessed that the whole story
is very suspicious.

141. Boeckh argued that all the fragments preserved The
under the name of Philolaos were genuine ; but no one will mentfof
now go so far as that. The lengthy extract on the soul is P^i^Qi^os.'
given up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the

1 As Bywater said (/. Phil. i. p. 29), the history of this work "reads
Hke the history, not so much of a book, as of a Hterary ignis fatuus floating
before the minds of imaginative writers."

2 Diels, " Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch " {Arch, iii. pp. 451 sqq.).

3 Diog. viii. 85 (R. P. 63 b). Diels^ reads irpCorov} iKdovvai tQv Uvda-
yopiKUiv 0L^\ia Kai iirLypdypat Uepi^^oaeus.

* Diog. viii. 7.

6 Proclus, in Eucl. p. 22, i55(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.

282 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

rest.i It cannot be said that this position is plausible.
Boeckh saw there was no ground for supposing that there
ever was more than a single work, and he drew the conclu-
sion that we must accept all the remains as genuine or
reject all as spurious. 2 As, however, many scholars
still maintain the genuineness of most of the fragments,
we cannot ignore them altogether. Arguments based on
their doctrine would, it is true, present the appearance
of a vicious circle at this stage, but there are two serious
objections to the fragments, which may be mentioned at
once.

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 Pelo-
ponnesian War, and there is no reason to suppose the early
Pythagoreans used any other.^ Pythagoras was himself an
Ionian, and it is not likely that in his time the Achaian
states in which he founded his Order had adopted the Dorian
dialect.* Alkmaion of Kroton seems to have written in
Ionic.5 Diels says that Philolaos and then Archytas were
the first Pythagoreans to use the dialect of their homes ; ^
but Philolaos can hardly be said to have had a home, and it
is hard to see why an Achaian refugee at Thebes should

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 " (/. Phil, i, pp. 21 sqq.).

2 Boeckh, Philolaos, p. 38. Diels {Vors. p. 246) distinguishes the
Bakchai from the three books Uepl (pvatos {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 sgq.

* On the Achaian dialect, see O. Hoffmann in CoUitz and Bechtel, Didlekt-
Inschriften, vol. ii. p. 15 1 . 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 B.C.
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.

* The scanty fragments contain one Doric (or Achaian ?) form, ^x'"'^'
(fr. i), but Alkmaion calls himself KpoTuvirjTrjs, which is very significant; for
KpoTOJuidras is the Achaian as well as the Doric form. ^ Arch. iii. p. 460.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 283

write in Doric. ^ Nor did Archytas write in the Laconian
dialect of Taras, but in what may be called " common
Doric/' and he is a generation later than Philolaos, which
makes a great difference. In the time of Philolaos and
later, Ionic was still used even by the citizens of Dorian
states for scientific purposes. The Syracusan historian
Antiochos wrote in Ionic, and so did the medical writers of
Dorian Kos and Knidos. The forged work of Pythagoras,
which some ascribed to Lysis, was in Ionic ; and so was
the book on the Akousmata attributed to Androkydes,^
which shows that, even in Alexandrian times, it was
beheved that Ionic was the proper dialect for Pythagorean
writings.

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.^ Now
Plato tells us in the Republic that stereometry had not been
adequately investigated at the time that dialogue is supposed
to take place,* and we have express testimony that the five
*' Platonic figures," as they were called, were discovered in
the Academy. In the Scholia to EucHd we read that the
Pythagoreans only knew the cube, the pyramid (tetra-
hedron), and the dodecahedron, while the octahedron and

1 He is distinctly called a Krotoniate in the extracts from Menon's
'larpLKo. (cf. Diog. viii. 84). It id 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 Meta-
pontine (Iambi. V. Pyth. 148, 266). Cf. also p. 330, n. i on Leukippos,
and p. 351, w. I 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, koI to. eV
rq, (Tcpaipq. adofxara irivre ivH \tcl ev rq. <y(f)aipg.'], irvp, vdcjp /cat 7a Kal drjp,
Kal 6 ras a<palpas oXkcls irefiirTdv. In any case, we are not justified in
reading tA fi^v ras acpaipas cuj/xara with Diels. For the identification of
the four elements with four of the regular soHds, cf. § 147, and for the
description of the fifth, the dodecahedron, cf. § 148.

* Plato. Rep. 528 b.

284 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the icosahedron were discovered by Theaitetos.i This suffi-
ciently justifies us in regarding the " fragments of Philolaos "
with suspicion, and all the more so as Aristotle does not
appear to have seen the work from which these fragments
come. 2

The 142. 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 sympatheti-
cally. 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.

1 Heiberg's Euclid, vol. v. p. 654, i, ^v To&riiJ t(? ^L^Xlcp, Tovr^ari
T(^ ly', ypdcperaL to, \eybfieva HXdrwj'os ? (rxi^Atara, A a^roO fih ovk ^<jtlv^
rpla d^ tCov irpoeiprj/j.&coj/ e o-XT/iudro;?' tQv llvdayopelwv iarlv, 8 re kij^os
Kal i] irvpafils kuI t6 doiSeKdeSpou, Qeair-qrov 5k rb re dKrdedpov /cat rb
elKoadeSpov. 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
probabiUty. As a matter of fact, there are Celtic and Etruscan dodeca-
hedra 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. End,
B, 8. 1225 a 33 dXX' (ba-irep $tX6Xaos ecpri elvai TLvas Xbyovs KpeLrTovs i^fiCbv,
which looks like an apophthegm. His name is not even mentioned any-
where 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.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 285

Zeller has cleared the ground by eHminating the Platonic
elements which have crept into later accounts of the system.
These are of two kinds. First of all, we have genuine
Academic formulae, such as the identification of the Limit
and the UnUmited with the One and the Indeterminate
Dyad ; ^ and secondly, there is the Neoplatonic doctrine
which represents the opposition between them as one
between God and Matter. 2 It is not necessary to repeat
Zeller 's arguments here, as no one will now attribute the
doctrine in that form to the Pythagoreans.

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.^ We have seen
reason for believing that Pythagoras himself said Things
are numbers (§ 52), and there is no doubt as to what
his followers meant by the formula ; for Aristotle says
they used it in . a cosmological sense. The world, accord-
ing to them, was made of numbers in the same sense
as others had said it was made of " four roots " or
" innumerable seeds." It will not do to dismiss this
as mysticism. The Pythagoreans of the fifth century
were scientific men, and must have meant something quite
definite. We shall, no doubt, have to say that they
used the words Things are numbers in a somewhat non-
natural sense, but there is no difficulty in that. The
Pythagoreans had a great veneration for the actual words
of the Master {avro<; €<j>a) ; but such veneration is often

^ 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. i (R. P. 64) ; and for the un-
knowable iarw tCov irpayixaTo^v, see fr. 3 (R. P. 67). It has a suspicious
resemblance to the later uX?;, which Aristotle would hardly have failed to
note. He is always on the look-out for anticipations of vXtj.

286 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

accompanied by a singular licence of interpretation. We
shall start, then, from what Aristotle tells us about the
numbers.
Aristotle 143- In the first place, Aristotle is quite clear that

Numbers. 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." ^ They apply their first principles
entirely to these things, " agreeing apparently with the
other natural philosophers in holding that reality was just
what could be perceived by the senses, and is contained
within the compass of the heavens," ^ though " the
first principles and causes they made use of were really
adequate to explain reahties of a higher order than the
sensible." ^

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.* He is equally

' positive that these " things " are sensible things,^ and indeed

that they are bodies,^* the bodies of which the world is con-

1 Arist. Met. A, 8. 989 b 29 (R. P. 92 a).

2 Arist. Met. A, 8. 990 a 3, bfxoKoyovvTes rots AXXois <pvaio\6yois 6tl t6
-7' ov TOVT ecTTiu offov alffdrjTou icrri /cat ir€piei\r](f)€V 6 KaXodfiepos ovpavds.

* Met. ib. 990 a 5, ras 5' airias kul tcls dpxds, (bairep elirofxev, iKavas
Xiyovaiv eTrava^ijvai Kal iirl to. dvojTepu) tGjv 6vtu}v, /cat ixdWov 9) rots wepl
^uaeoiis \6yoLS dp/xoTTOiJcras.

* Met. A, 5. 986 a I, rd. tCjv dpidfiQiv (rrotxeia tQp 6vt(j)v (rrotxeia irdvTiOv
uwiXa^op elvai ', N, 3. IO90 a 22, elvai fxev dpidfioiis iirolTjaav to. tvra, ov
Xt^pi'O'Toiis 8i, dXX' e^ dpid/xQv rd 6vTa.

^ Met. M, 6. 1080 b 2, COS e/c rwu dpidfxQv ewirapxovTwv 6vTa rd ahdrp-d ;
ib. 1080 b 17, €K TovTov {tov fiadrjfiaTCKov dpLdfjLov) rds aiadrjrds ovcias crvuecrTdvai
(pao-iv.

* Met. M, 8. 1083 b II, rd (ribfiara i^ dpidfiQv elvai avyKcifJieva ; ib. b 17,
iKctvoL d^ Tov dpidjxbv rd 6vTa Xiyovaiv rd yovv dewp-qixara irpoadTTTOvaL rots
crt6/xacrtj' cos e^ eKeivcjv 6vtu3V tQu dpcdfxCov ; N, 3. 1090 a 32, /caret, fxhroi rb
TTOielv i^ dpidfxuiv rd (pvaiKd (ru)fj.aTa, iK fXT] exbvroiv ^dpos /jLrjde K0V(/)6Tr)Ta ^xoj'ra
KOV(f)6r7)Ta /cat ^dpos.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 287

structed.^ This construction of the world out of numbers
was a real process in time, which the Pythagoreans described
in detail. 2

Further, the numbers were intended to be mathematical
numbers, though they were not separated from the things
of sense.^ On the other hand, they were not mere predicates
of something else, but had an independent reality of their
own. " They did not hold that the limited and the un-
limited and the one were certain other substances, such as
lire, water, or anything else of that sort ; but that the
unlimited itself and the one itself were the reality of the
things of which they are predicated, and that is why they
said that number was the reality of everything." * Accord-
ingly the numbers are, in Aristotle's own language, not
only the formal, but also the material, cause of things.^

Lastly, Aristotle notes that the point in which the
Pythagoreans agreed with Plato was in giving numbers an
independent reahty of their own ; while Plato differed from
the Pythagoreans in holding that this reality was distin-
guishable from that of sensible things.^ Let us consider
these statements in detail.

144. Aristotle speaks of certain *' elements " {aroux'^la) The
of numbers, which were also the elements of things. That ^^^®°^®^*^
is clearly the key to the problem, if we can discover what it numbers,
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 cosmo-

^ Met. A, 5. 986 a 2, rbv 8\ou ovpavbv ap/xovlav elvai Kai dpLd/nbp ', A, 8.
990 a 21, t6u apidfibv tovtov e^ o5 (XvviarrjKev 6 Koafios; M, 6. 1080 b 18, rbv
yap 8X0P oi)p(xvbv KaraaKevd^ovaiv i^ dpidfiQu; De caelo, V, I. 300 a 15, roh i^
dpidfxQ}v (rvuL(TTacn rbv oipavbv ' ^vtoi yap Tr)v (pvaiv i^ dpLd[xG)v a-vuLaraaiP,
ibairep r(hv Ilvdayopelup TLves.

2 Met. N, 3. 1 09 1 a 18, Koa/xoTroiovcri Kal (pvaiKCos ^oOXovrai \iyeiv.

' Met. M, 6. 1080 b 16 ; N, 3. 1090 a 20.

* Arist. Met. A, 5. 987 a 15. 6 Met. ib. 986 a 15 (R. P. 66).

• Met. A, 6. 987 b 27, 6 ixkv (nXdroji/) tov% dpLd/xods irapd rd aiadTjTd,
oi 5' (ot ILvdayupeiot) dpidp-ovs elvai (paaiv avrd rd aladrfTd.

288 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

logy (§ 53). Aristotle tells us that it is the Even which gives
things their unlimited character when it is contained in
them and limited by the Odd,^ and the commentators are
at one in understanding this to mean that the Even is in
some way the cause of infinite divisibility. They get into
difficulties, however, when they try to show how this can
be. Simplicius has preserved an explanation, in all proba-
bility Alexander's, to the effect that they called the even
number unhmited " because every even is divided into
equal parts, and what is divided into equal parts is unlimited
in respect of bipartition ; for division into equals and halves
goes on ad infinitum. But, when the odd is added, it limits
it ; for it prevents its division into equal parts." ^ Now it
is plain that we must not impute to the Pythagoreans the
view that even numbers can be halved indefinitely. They
must have known that the even numbers 6 and 10 can only
be halved once. The explanation is rather to be found in a
fragment of Aristoxenos, where we read that " even numbers
are those which are divided into equal parts, while odd
numbers are divided into unequal parts and have a middle
term.'* ^ This is still further elucidated by a passage which is
quoted in Stobaios and ultimately goes back to Poseidonios.
It runs : " When the odd is divided into two equal parts,
a unit is left over in the middle ; but when the even is so
divided, an empty field is left, without a master and without
a number, showing that it is defective and incomplete." *

1 Met. A, 5. 986 a 17 (R. P. 66) ; Phys. V, 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, " Il^pas and A-n-eipov
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 17 70,^ els iaa Kai rjfiiixrj diaipetns
itr direipov as " an attempted elucidation added by Simplicius."

8 Aristoxenos, fr. 81, ap. Stob. i. p. 20, i, iK tCjv Wpiaro^hov IlepL
dptd/xrjTLKTjs. . . tQv 5^ dpLdfiQu dpTioL fxiv elacv ol els taa diaipovjj.€VOL, wepLcro-ol
8^ oi els dvLaa /cat /miaov ^xoi/Tes.

* [Plut.] ap. Stob. i. p. 22, 19, Kal /x^v els 5vo bLaipovixivuiv tcra tov fxkv
Trepiaaov fiovds iv fi^acp irepiicrTi, tov 8k dpriov Kev^ XetTrerat xwpa koL a.8iairoros
Kai dvdpi6/xos, ws dv ipSeovs Kai dreXovs 6vtos.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 289

Again, Plutarch says : "In the division of numbers, the
even, when parted in any direction, leaves as it were
within itself ... a field ; but, when the same thing is
done to the odd, there is always a middle left over from
the division." ^ It is clear that all these passages refer
to the same thing, and that can hardly be anything else
than the " terms " or dots with which we are already
familiar (§ 47). The division must fall between these;
for, if it meets with an indivisible unit, it is at once
arrested.

145. Now there can be no doubt that by his Unlimited The
Pythagoras meant something spatially extended ; for he spatial^
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 Unhmited is itself a reaUty, 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.^ The same
thing is implied in his statement that the Pythagorean
Unlimited was outside the heavens.^ Further than this, it
is not safe to go. Philolaos and his followers cannot have
regarded the Unlimited as Air ; for, as we shall see, they
adopted the theory of Empedokles as to that " element,''
and accounted for it otherwise. One of them, Xouthos,
argued that rarefaction and condensation implied the void ;
without it the universe would overflow.* We do not know,
however, whether he was earlier than the Atomists or not.

^ Plut. De E apud Delphos, 388 a, rats yap els taa rofxais tQv dpLOfiwv,
6 iJjkv dprios TTCLvrri bCCardixevos iTroXeiirei riva BeKTiKTjv dpx^v olov iv iavrip
Kal x'^P^^y ^^ ^^ '''V irepiTTCp ravrb iradbvTL (xicrov del veplecTTi rrjs vefii^aeus
ySvLfMOP. 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), ^an 8^ dpnov fxkv t oUv re ds 5{io
taa diaipedTJvaL fiovdSos p.i<Tov /xt] irapeixirnrTovar^s, irepiTTOv bk t6 /jlt) dxivd/xevov
ei's 5i5o i'ca ixeptadrivai 5ia rrfv Trpoeiprjfj^^vrju ttjs /xovddos fieaiTelav. He significantly
adds that this definition is iK ttjs drj/xdidovs uttoXtJ^cws.

2 Arist. Phys. T, 4. 204 a 20 sgq., especially a 26, dWd firjv (bairep dipos
drjp ix4pos, ovTU Kal Eireipov drrelpov, e'i ye ovaia earl Kal dpx'h-

3 See Chap. II. § 53. * Ar. Phys. A, 9- 216 b 25, Kvixavelrb 6\ov.

290 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It is enough to say that the Pythagoreans meant by the
UnUmited the res extensa.

As the UnUmited is spatial, the Limit must be spatial
too, and we should expect to find that the point, the Hne,
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 Un-
limited, and was identified with the arithmetical unit
instead of with zero. According to this view, then, the
point has one dimension, the Hne two, the surface three, and
the solid four.^ In other words, the Pythagorean points
have magnitude, their lines breadth, and their surfaces
thickness. The whole theory, in short, turns on the defini-
tion of the point as a unit " having position " (/Aom? deatv
exovaa).^ It was out of such elements that it seemed possible
to construct a world.
The 146. This way of regarding the point, the line, and the

as magni- surf acc is closely bound up with the practice of representing
tudes. 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 i 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 arith-
metica, p. 61 (Diels, Vors. 32 a 13), t6 fi7)v yap d cTLyix'T), tcl 5^ /3 ypa/xm^, to, 8^
y rplyiavov, to. 5k 8 wvpafiis. We know that Speusippos is following
Philolaos here. Arist. Met. Z, 11. 1036 b 12, Kal dvdyovcrt irdvra els
Tovs dpLdfioiJi, Kal ypa/xfiTJs t6v \6yov rbv rCJv Svo dvai (paaiv. The matter is
clearly put by Proclus in Eucl. I. p. 97, 19, rb fiku ffrifieiov dvd\oyov TidevTai
fiovd8t, T^v 8k ypa/xfXT]v 8vd8t, tt]v 8k ^TncpdveLav rri Tpid8i Kal rb crepebv tt?
TeTpd8i. Kairoi ye a?s 8La(jTaTd Xafi^dvovres fiova8iK7}v jxkv evp-f^aoixev tt]v ypap.fx'qv,
8va8LKT}v 8k T7]v kirKpaveiav, rpiaSiKOV 8k rb arepebv.

2 The identification of the point with the unit is referred to by Aristotle,
Phys. E, 3. 227 a 27.

■

THE PYTHAGOREANS 291

fact, and indeed makes the peculiarities of the whole system

depend on it. Aristotle is very decided as to the Pythagorean

points having magnitude. " They construct the whole world

out of numbers/' he tells us, " but they suppose the units

have magnitude. As to how the first unit with magnitude

arose, they appear to be at a loss." ^ Zeller holds that this

is only an inference of Aristotle's, 2 and he is probably right

in this sense, that the Pythagoreans never felt the need of

sajdng in so many words that points had magnitude. It

does seem probable, however, that they called them
" 3

QfyKOi.

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 Oppor-
tunity, which are said to be numbers, and which cannot be
regarded as constructed of points, lines, and surfaces.*
Now it appears to me that this is just the meaning of a pas-
sage in which Aristotle criticises the Pythagoreans. They
held, he says, that in one part of the world Opinion prevailed,
while a little above it or below it were to be found Injustice
or Separation or Mixture, each of which was, according to
them, a number. But in the very same regions of the
heavens were to be found things having magnitude which
were also numbers. How can this be, since Justice has no
magnitude ? ^ This means surely that the Pythagoreans

1 Arist. Met. M, 6. 1080 b 18 sqq., 1083 b 8 sqq. ; De caelo, V, i. 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 i-yKoi for points. Actios, 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
t^KOL in Plato, Parm. 164 d, and Galen, Hist. Phil. 18 {Dox. p. 610), 'Hpa-
KXeLSijs d^ 6 U.ovti.k6s Kai ' AaK\7]Trcddr]s 6 Bi.dvv6s dvap/JLOvs 6yKovs ras apxas viro-
TcdevTaL tQ}v 6\u3v. * 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 av/x^alprj with

292 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

had failed to give any clear account of the relation between
these more or less fanciful analogies and their geometrical
construction of the universe.
The 147. We seem to see further that what distinguished

and^hf the Pythagoreauism of this period from its earlier form was
elements, ^j^^^ ^^ sought to adapt it Self 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 pluraUsts.
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. ^ This gives us the clue to what
formerly seemed obscure. The tradition is that the Pytha-
goreans explained the elements as built up of geometrical
figures, a theory we can study for ourselves in the more
developed form it attained in Plato's Timaeus} If they
were to retain their position as the leaders of medical
study in Italy, they were bound to account for the
elements.

Bonitz) that there is already in that part of the world a number of com-
posite 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 {o-wiaTaTai) of the elements of number, the limited
and the unhmited, 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
(7r\?7^os) of those bodies that is in question, but their magnitude {fjjyedos).
For other views of the passage see Zeller, p. 391, w. i.

^ All this has been put in its true light by the publication of the extract
from Menon's 'larpt/cd, 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
ol Uvdaydpem, which doubtless represents Theophrastos better.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 293

We must not take it for granted, however, that the
Pythagorean construction of the elements was exactly
the same as that we find in Plato's Timaeus. As we
have seen, there is good reason for believing they
only knew three of the regular solids, the cube, the
pyramid (tetrahedron), and the dodecahedron.^ Now
Plato makes Timaios start from fire and earth,^ and
in the construction of the elements he proceeds in
such a way that the octahedron and the icosahedron
can easily be transformed into pyramids, while the cube
and the dodecahedron cannot. From this it follows
that, while air and water pass readily into fire, earth
cannot do so,^ and the dodecahedron is reserved for another
purpose, which we shall consider presently. This would
exactly suit the Pythagorean system ; for it would leave
room for a dualism of the kind outlined in the Second Part
of the poem of Parmenides. We know that Hippasos made
Fire the first principle, and we see from the Timaeus how
it would be possible to represent air and water as forms of
fire. The other element is, however, earth, not air, as we
have seen reason to believe that it was in early Pytha-
goreanism. That would be a natural result of the discovery
of atmospheric air by Empedokles and of his general theory
of the elements. It would also explain the puzzling fact,
which we had to leave unexplained above, that Aristotle
identifies the two " forms " spoken of by Parmenides with
Fire and Earth.*

148. The most interesting point in the theory is, however. The
the use made of the dodecahedron. It was identified, we hedron'
are told, with the " sphere of the universe," or, as it is put

1 See above, p. 283. 2 piato, 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 ovdeis ttw yiveaiv avrQu fjie/xrjvvKeu,
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 Pytha-
gorean doctrine on the lines of the discovery of Theaitetos.

* See above, Chap. lY. p. i86.

294 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in the Philolaic fragment, with the " hull of the sphere/* ^
Whatever we may think of the authenticity of the fragments,
there is no reason to doubt that this is a genuine Pythagorean
expression, and it must be taken in close connexion with
the word " keel " applied to the central fire.^ The structure
of the world was compared to the building of a ship, an idea
of which there are other traces.^ The key to what we are
told of the dodecahedron is also given by Plato. In the
Phaedo, which must have been written before the doctrine
of the regular solids was fully established, we read that the
" true earth," if looked at from above, is " many-coloured
like the balls that are made of twelve pieces of leather." ^
In the Timaeus the same thing is referred to in these words :
" Further, as there is still one construction left, the fifth,
God made use of it for the universe when he painted it." ^
The point is that the dodecahedron approaches more nearly
to the sphere than any other of the regular solids. The
twelve pieces of leather used to make a ball would all be
regular pentagons ; and, if the material were not flexible

1 Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80) ; " Philolaos," fr. 12 (=20 M. ; R. P. 79). On
the oX/cds, 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 Kv^epv'r)T7}s (272 e sqq.). The ttovtos ttjs dvofioLdrrp-os (273 d)
is just the dTreipof.

^ Aet. ii. 4, 15, Sirep rpd-n-eus biKrjv Trpovire^dXeTO ry rod ttuvtos <^a(paipq.y
6 drjfjiiovpybs deds.

^ Cf. the uTTo^w/iara of Plato. Rep. 616 c 3. As vXr) 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. 54 c i, yeviaem . . .
eveKa . . . irdaav vX-qv TraparWeadai irdaiv, which is part of the answer to the
question Trbrepa irXolwv vav7rr]yiap eVeKa 07^5 yiypeaOaL fxdXXop ■^ TrXoia evena
vavirrjylas ; [ib. b 2) ; Tim. 69 a 6, ola riKToaiv ijfuv vXt) irapaKeiTai.

* Plato, Phaed. no b 6, doarrep ol doideKdaKVToi acjiaipai, the meaning
of which phrase is quite correctly explained by Plutarch, Plat. q. 1003 b,
Koi yap fidXicTTa t(^ -rrX-qdei tuiv aroLxeioju dfi^X^TrjTL 8^ tQv yuuiQu tt]v
€vdvTT]Ta biacpvybv evKajxirh icrri [rd SuBeKdedpov'], Kal ry Trepirdaei (bcnrep ai
dudeKdcTKVTOt cr<pa7pai KVKXorepks yiyverai Kal TrepiXrjirTiKdv.

5 Plato, Tim. 55 c 4. Neither this passage nor the last can refer to the
Zodiac, which would be described by a dodecagon, not a dodecahedron.
What 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 PYTHAGOREANS 295

like leather, we should have a dodecahedron instead of a
sphere. That proves that the dodecahedron was well
known before Theaitetos, and we may infer that it was
regarded as forming the " timbers " on which the spherical
hulk of the heavens was built.

The tradition confirms in an interesting way the import-
ance of the dodecahedron in the Pythagorean system.
According to one account, Hippasos was drowned at sea for
reveaUng " the sphere formed out of the twelve pentagons." ^
The Pythagorean construction of the dodecahedron we
may partially infer from the fact that they adopted the
pentagram or pentalpha as their symbol. The use of this
figure in later magic is well known ; and Paracelsus still
employed it as a symbol of health, which is exactly what the
Pythagoreans called it.^

149. The view that the soul is a " harmony," or rather TheSoui
an attunement, is intimately connected with the theory of mony."
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." ^ On the other
hand, we are told in the Phaedo that it was accepted by
Simmias and Kebes, who had heard Philolaos at Thebes, and
by Echekrates of Phleious, who was the disciple of Philolaos
and Eurytos.* The account of the doctrine given by Plato
is quite in accordance with the view that it was of medical
origin. Simmias says : " Our body being, as it were, strung
and held together by the warm and the cold, the dry and the

1 Iambi. V. Pyth. 247. Cf. above, Chap. II. p. 106, n. i.

2 See Gow, Short History of Greek Mathematics, p. 151, and the
passages there referred to, adding Schol. Luc. p. 234, 21, Rabe, rb
irevTdypafMfj.ov'] fin rb iv ttj avvTfdelc}. Xeybfxevov xeurdXipa aO/x^o\ov ?ju wpbs dWriXovs
Ilvdayopeitov duayvupLarLKbv Kal tovtus iv rats iirKXToXaci ixp^vTO. The
Pythagoreans may quite well have known the method given by Euclid
iv. II 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).

* Plato, Phaed. 85 e sqq. ; and for Echekrates, ib. 88 d.

296 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

moist, and things of that sort, our soul is a sort of tempera-
ment and attunement of these, when they are mingled with
one another well and in due proportion. If, then, our soul
is an attunement, it is clear that, when the body has been
relaxed or strung up out of measure by diseases and other
ills, the soul must necessarily perish at once." ^ This is
clearly an application of the theory of Alkmaion (§ 96), and
is in accordance with the views of the Sicihan school. It
completes the evidence that the Pythagoreanism of the
end of the fifth century was an adaptation of the old doctrine
to the new principles introduced by Empedokles.

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.^
The 150- The planetary system which Aristotle attributes to

" the Pythagoreans " and Actios to Philolaos is sufficiently
remarkable.3 The earth is no longer in the middle of the
world ; its place is taken by a central fire, which is not to

1 Plato, Phaed. 86 b 7-c 5.

2 See J. L. Stocks, Plato and the Tripartite Soul {Mind N.S., No. 94,
I9i5» PP- 207 sqq.). Plato himself points to the connexion in Rep.
443 <i» 5 (Tvuapixba avra rpLa 6vTa, uxnrep 6povs rpeis ap/jLOuias arexvC^s, pedrrji
T€ Kai virdTr)s /cat fxiai^s, Kai ei &X\a Erra fiera^ii Tvyx'^^^'' ^vtol {i.e. the
movable notes). Now there is good ground for believing that the state-
ment of Aristides Quintihanus (ii. 2) that the dvfuKov is intermediate
between the \oyiKbv and the dXoyou 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, avTov fi^v toO llvdayopov avyypd/j.fMaTos oidepds
ei's ■fjfji.ds diaa ({j^ofM^uov, TtKfiatpbfievos de e^ S)v 'ivioi tCov fiadrjTwv avTov yey pd(pa<Ti.v.

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.

central
fire.

THE PYTHAGOREAISS 297

be identified with the sun. Round this fire revolve ten
bodies. First comes the Antichthon or Counter-earth, and
next the earth, which thus becomes one of the planets. After
the earth comes the moon, then the sun, the planets, and
the heaven of the fixed stars. We do not see the central
fire and the antichthon because the side of the earth on
which we five is always turned away from them. This is to
be explained by the analogy of the moon, which always
presents the same face to us, so that men hving on the other
side of it would never see the earth. This impHes, of course,
from our point of view, that these bodies rotate on their
axes in the same time as they revolve round the central
fire,i and that the antichthon revolves round the central fire
in the same time as the earth, so that it is always in opposi-
tion to it.^

It is not easy to accept the statement of Actios that this
system was taught by Philolaos. Aristotle nowhere men-
tions 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.^ It is undoubtedly
a Pythagorean theory, however, and marks a noticeable
advance on the Ionian views current at Athens. It is clear
too that Sokrates states it as something of a novelty that the
earth does not require the support of air or anything of the
sort to keep it in its place. Even Anaxagoras had not been
able to shake himself free of that idea, and Demokritos still

^ Piato makes Timaios attribute an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies,
which must be of this kind {Tim. 40 a 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 {ivbebefiiva) 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, tt]v oiKoufiivrju yrjv
i^ ivavrias Kei-^ihi^v /cat irepKpepofievrju ry duTLxdovi.

' Plato, Phaed. 108 e 4 sqq. Simmias assents to the geocentric theory
in the emphatic words xai 6pd(as ye.

298 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

held it along with the theory of a flat earth. The natural
inference from the Phaedo would certainly be that the theory
of a spherical earth, kept in the middle of the world by
its equilibrium, was that of Philolaos himself. If so, the
doctrine of the central fire would belong to a later generation.

It seems probable that the theory of the earth's revolu-
tion 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 Actios, who says that
Empedokles beUeved 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.i We saw that Empedokles gave two
inconsistent explanations of the alternation of day and
night (§ 113), and it may well have seemed that the solution
of the difficulty was to make the sun shine by reflected light
from a central fire. Such a theory would, in fact, be the
natural issue of recent discoveries as to the moon's light
and the cause of its ecUpses, if these were extended to the
sun, as they would almost inevitably be.

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." ^
That was in the manner of the school, but it must not blind

1 Aet. ii. 20, 13 (Chap. VI. p. 238, n. 3) compared with ib. 12
#iX6Xaos d IlvdaybpeLos vaXoeidrj rbv -fjXiov, Sexofievov fxkv rod iv T(^ K6<Tfi(fi
irvpbs Tr]v dvra&yeLav, dnjdovvra 8^ irpbs ^/tas rb 0ws, ibiXTe rpbirov tlvcl
diTToiis ijXiovs ylyveadai, t6 re iv ry ovpavi^ TrvpQdh /cat rb dw' avrov
irvpoeid^s Hard, rb ia-owTpoeidis' el fi-q tls kuI Tplrov \4^ei rrjv dirb toO
ivoTTTpov KUT dvdKXaffip btaa-Trei.pofjt.^vTiv Trpbs i]/iias aiyqv. 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 t6 iv ry
Kbapoj} irvp, if used by Theophrastos, must surely mean the central
fire, and rb iv ry ovpavip irvpQSes must be the same thing, as it very
well may, seeing that Actios tells us himself (ii. 7. 7, R. P. 81) that
" Philolaos " used the term ovpavos of the sublunary region. It is true that
Achilles says rb irvpQdes Kal Stairy^s Xafi^dvovra &vu6ev dirb tov depiov
irvpbs, but his authority is not sufiiciently great to outweigh the other
considerations.

2 Aet. i. 7, 7 (R. P. 81). Proclus in Tim. p. 106, 22 (R. P. 83 e).

THE PYTHAGOREANS 299

us to the fact that we are deaUng with a scientific hypothesis.
It was a great thing to see that the phenomena could best
be " saved " by a central luminary, and that the earth must
therefore be a revolving sphere like the other planets. ^
Indeed, we are tempted to say that the identification of the
central fire with the sun was a detail in comparison. It is
probable, at any rate, that this theory started the train of
thought which made it possible for Aristarchos of Samos to
reach the heliocentric hypothesis,^ and it was certainly
Aristotle's successful reassertion of the geocentric theory
which made it necessary for Copernicus to discover the truth
afresh. We have his own word for it that he started from
what he had read about the Pythagoreans. ^

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 ttju . . .
yiju iv tG}v darpcov odaav kvkXij} (pepofM^vrjv irepi rb ixi<xov vvKra re Kal 7]fiipav iroieiv
{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 tevvae
mobilitate cogitare.

* Cf. Ar. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 25 iirel yap ovk ^anv ij 777 Kivrpov, dW
dTT^X^' T"^ rmtcrcpaipLov avTrji 6\ov, ovdh KwXieiv otourai rk ^aivS/JLeva crvfx^alveiv
6/j.oio}s fXT} KUTOiKovaiu i]/xli/ iirl rod K^vrpov, wcrirep kB,v el iirl rod fi^crov ^v ij yi]'
ovdev yap oidk vvv iroielv eTrlSrjXov ttjv rjfjLiaeiav air^x^^'^^^ rjfids 8td/j.eTpov.
(Of course the words rb ij/xKTipaipiou avrrjs 6Xov refer to Aristotle's own
theory of celestial spheres ; he really means the radius of its orbit.)

300 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

A truer view of the earth's dimensions would naturally
suggest that the alternation of night and day was due to
the earth's rotation on its own axis, and in that case the
earth could once more be regarded as in the centre. It does
not appear that Aristotle knew of any one who had held this
view, but Theophrastos seems to have attributed it to
Hiketas and Ekphantos of Syracuse, of whom we know
very little otherwise.^ Apparently they regarded the
heaven of the fixed stars as stationary, a thing Aristotle
would almost have been bound to mention if he had ever
heard of it, since his own system turns entirely on the diurnal
revolution.

Both theories, that of the earth's revolution round a
central fire and that of its rotation on its own ajcis, 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

Now it is inconceivable that any one should have argued that, since
the geocentric parallax is negligible, parallax in general is negUgible.
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 Trdfifjieya (109 a 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.

^ Aet. iii. 13, 3 'Hpa/cXeiSTys 6 Hoptlkos Kai "Ex^avros 6 ni;^a76/3eios Kivovai
fxh T71V yrjv ov fi-Zju ye fiera^aTLKuis, dWa TpeirTLKQs [1. o-rpeTrri/cws] rpoxov diKTjv
iyr)^ovL(T/x€Pr)i^, dirb bvajxCiv eV dvaroKdi irepl t6 Idiov avTTJs KivTpov. 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 person-
ages 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 appHcation 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.)t and he may be quoting from Aristotle's lost work on the Pytha-
goreans. The point, however, is doubtful.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 301

revolution. 1 It was probably this that led to the abandon-
ment of the theory.

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.^ Now this motion can hardly be an axial
rotation, as was held by Grote ; ^ for the whole cosmology
of the Timaeus implies that the alternation of day and night
is due to the diurnal revolution of the heavens.* The fact
that the earth is referred to a little later as "the guardian and
artificer of night and day " ^ proves nothing to the contrary,
since night is in any case the conical shadow of the earth,
which is thus the cause of the alternation of day and night.
So far, Boeckh and his followers appear to be in the right.

1 The various possibilities are enumerated by Sir T. L. Heath (Arist-
archus, p. 103). Only two are worth noting. The universe as a whole
might share in the rotation of the dirXapis, while the sun, moon and planets
had independent revolutions in addition to that of the universe. Or the
rotation of the dirXap^s might be so slow as to be imperceptible, in which
case its motion, " though it is not the precession of the equinoxes, is some-
thing very like it" (Heath, loc. cit.).

2 Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 5, ^vioi 8k Kal Kctfiivrjv iirl rod Kivrpov \tt)v
77}!'] (paalu avT7)v iWecdaL /cat Kiveiadai irepl rbv 8ia iravrbs rerafiivov irdXov,
&cnrep iv t<^ Ttfiaiip yiypairrai. The text and interpretation of this
passage are guaranteed by the reference in the next chapter (296 a 25)
61 S' iirl Tov pAaov d^vres tWeadai Kal Kiveiadai (pacri irepl rbv irdXov jjAaov.
All attempts to show that this refers to something else are futile.
We cannot, therefore, with Alexander, regard Kal KLPeiadat as an inter-
polation in the first passage, even though it is omitted in some MSS.
there. The omission is probably due to Alexander's authority. More-
over, 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 {(f)opd), and not an axial rotation.

3 Plato's Doctrine respecting the Rotation of the Earth (i860).

* Plato, Tim. 39 c I, vii^ fiev oDp Tjfxipa re y^yovev oIjtus Kal dih
ravra, 17 rrjs fxids Kal (ppovifioiTdrTjs KVKXifjaeoos Trepiodos. This refers to
the revolution of the " circle of the Same," i.e. the equatorial circle, arid is
quite unambiguous.

5 Plato, Tim. 40 c l [yrjul (f>ij\aKa Kal Srjinovp'ybv vvktSs re Kal i]/x4pas
ip.7)X^vT](raTo. On this cf. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 178.

302 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

When, however, Boeckh goes on to argue that the word
tXkofiev7)v in the Timaeus does not refer to motion at all,
but that it means " globed '* or " packed " round, it is quite
impossible for me to follow him. Apart from all philo-
logical considerations, this interpretation makes nonsense of
Aristotle's line of argument. He says ^ that, if the earth
is in motion, whether " outside the centre " or " at the
centre," that cannot be a " natural motion " ; for, if it
were, it would be shared by every particle of earth, and we
see that the natural motion of every clod of earth is " down,"
i.e. towards the centre. He also says that, if the earth is
in motion, whether " outside the centre " or " at the centre,'*
it must have two motions hke everything else but the
" first sphere," and therefore there would be excursions in
latitude (TrdpoBot) and " turnings back " {rpoirai) of the
fixed stars, which there are not. It is clear, then, that
Aristotle regarded the second theory of the earth's move-
ment as involving a motion of translation equally with the
first, and that he supposed it to be the theory of Plato's
Timaeus. It is impossible to believe that he can have
been mistaken on such a point. ^

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 transla-
tion is involved,^ and that Boeckh's rendering is inadmissible

1 Arist. De caelo, B, 14. 296 a 29 sqq. The use of the word viroXenrbfxeva
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 dia-
logue was one of the chief occupations of the Academy after Plato's death.
If he had misrepresented the doctrine by introducing a motion of transla-
tion, 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.

« The best attested reading in Tim. is yrju 8^ rpo^bv fikv rnxeripav,
IWofihr^v 5^ TT]v irepl tov 5ia Travrbs irbXov TeTa/uihov. The article ttjv

THE PYTHAGOREANS 303

on grammatical and lexicological grounds. ^ We have there-
fore to ask what motion of translation is compatible with the
statement that the earth is " at the centre," and there seems
to be nothing left but a motion up and down (to speak loosely)
on the axis of the universe itself. Now the only clearly
attested meaning of the rare word tWofiat is just that of
motion to and fro, backwards and forwards.^ It may be
added that a motion of this kind was familiar to the Pytha-
goreans, if we may judge from the description of the waters
in the earth given by Sokrates in the Phaedo on the authority
of some unnamed cosmologist.^

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

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 tt^v iwl ddvaTov or Xenophon's irpoekrfKvdbTo^ . . . ttjv irpbs to,
(ppovpia, and imphes a path of some kind, and therefore a movement of
translation.

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, dedefi^vrj or dedea-fjiTj/uiivr). Sir T. L. Heath's " wound "
{Aristarchus, p. 177) ought also to be " winding." In the second place,
though Par. A has elWofiivrjv, the weight of authority distinctly favours
IWofjt^vTjv, the reading of Aristotle, Proclus and others. The verbs e'iXXw
{etXXu}), eiXQ and I'XXw are constantly confused in MSS. It is not, I think,
possible to regard I'XXw as etymologically connected with the other verbs.
It seems rather to go with iXX6s and IWaivu), which are both used in
Hippokrates. For its meaning, see below, n. 2.

2 Cf. Soph. Ant. 340 IWojxivwv apbrpojv ^tos els '4tos^ clearly of the
ploughs going backwards and forwards in the furrows, Simplicius
makes a point of the fact that ApoUonios Rhodios used iWdfievos in the
sense of "shut in," "bound," elpyo/xevos (cf. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 175,
n.6). That, however, cannot weigh against the probability that the scribes,
or even ApoUonios himself, merely fell into the common confusion. Unless
we can get rid of the article ttjv and the testimony of Aristotle, we must
have a verb of motion.

3 Cf . Plato, Phaed. 1 1 1 64, where we are told that there is an alibpa 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.

304 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

ecliptic or remain at an invariable distance from it, and this
is far from being the case. Some explanation is required of
their excursions in latitude, i.e, their alternate approaches
to the ecliptic and departures from it. We have seen (p. 63)
that Anaximander already busied himself with the " turnings
back " of the moon. Moreover, the direct and retrograde
movements of the planets are clearly referred to in the
Timaeus a few lines below. ^ We are not bound to show in
detail that a motion of the kind suggested would account for
these apparent irregularities ; it is enough if it can be made
probable that the fifth -century Pythagoreans thought it
could. It may have seemed worth while to them to explain
the phenomena by a regular motion of the earth rather than
by any waywardness in the planets ; and, if so, they were at
least on the right track.

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 Trpoxw^ceis and iirava-
Ku/cXiJcrets of Tim. 20 c as equivalent to trpoirobLcrfiol and viroTrodtafioL
In a corrigendum prefixed to his Aristarchus, Sir T. L. Heath disputes this
interpretation, and compares the application of the term ^wavaKVKKovixevov
to the planet Mars in Rep. 617 b, 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 /idXtcrra tCov EWiov after iTravaKVKKodixevov, which gives
excellent sense if retrogradation is meant. In fact Mars has a greater arc
of retrogradation than the other planets (Duhem, Systeme 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 pre-
served Plato's own words. In the first place he is apparently quoting from
DerkyUides, who first estabUshed the text of Plato from which ours is
derived. In the second place fidXiara tQv dWoov is exactly fifteen letters,
the normal length of omissions in the Platonic text.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 305

what he supposed to be in the centre of our system. ^ It
seems clear too from the Laws that he must have attributed
an axial rotation to the earth.^

151. The existence of the antichthon was also a hypothesis The
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 ; ^
but that is a mere sally, and Aristotle really knew better.
In his work on the Pythagoreans, he said that eclipses of the
moon were caused sometimes by the intervention of the earth
and sometimes by that of the antichthon ; and the same
statement was made by Phihp of Opous, a very competent
authority on the matter.* Indeed, Aristotle shows in another
passage how the theory originated. He tells us that some
thought there might be a considerable number of bodies
revolving round the centre, though invisible to us because of
the intervention of the earth, and that they accounted in
this way for there being more eclipses of the moon than of
the sun. 5 This is mentioned in close connexion with the
antichthon, so Aristotle clearly regarded the two hypotheses
as of the same nature. The history of the theory seems to
be this. Anaximenes had assumed the existence of dark

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).

* Aet. ii. 29, 4, tQv Hvdayopeidjv tlv^s KarcL Tr)u ' ApLaroriXeLov laToplav
Kctl T7]v ^iXIttttov toO 'OttowtLov oltt 6({>acr lv dPTavyeiq, Kal dvTi.(ppd^ei Tork
fj.h TTjs 777s, TOT^ d^ TTJs duTixOouos {eKXeLTTetv TTju (xeXrjvrjv).

^ Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 293 b 21, ivioLs 5k 5ok€i Kal irXeico aibixara
Toiavra evbix^adai (p^peadat irepl rb fi^crov rjfuu dd-qXa 8id rrju iirnrpdadijaiv
TTJS 777s. dib Kal ras ttjs aeXrjPtjs ^KXeixpeis TrXeiovs i) rds tov ijXiov ylyveadai
<pa<TLV ■ tCjv yap cj>€po(JL4vMU 'iKaarov dvTKppaTTetv avT'/jv, dXX' ov fidpov ttjv

3o6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

planets to account for lunar eclipses (§ 29), and Anaxagoras
had revived that view (§ 135). Certain Pythagoreans ^ had
placed these dark planets between the earth and the central
fire in order to account for their invisibility, and the next
stage was to reduce them to a single body. Here again we
see how the Pythagoreans tried to simplify the hypotheses of
their predecessors.

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 B.C.
We have the express testimony of Aristotle that the Pytha-
goreans 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.^ We are also told that the slower
bodies give out a deep note and the swifter a high note, and
the prevailing tradition gives the high note of the octave to

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) tuv yap awfidruv
rdv irepl to fxiaov (pepofi&wu iv avakoylq, ras dwoaTdaeLS ^x6j'rw»' . . .
iroioiJVTCov d^ Kal \f/6(pov iv ry Ktvecadai tCjv fih ^padvripiov ^apjjv, rOiv d^
raxvripojv 6^17. 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.

THE PYTHAGOREANS 307

the heaven of the fixed stars, which revolves in twenty-four
hours. Saturn, of course, comes next ; for, though it has a
slow motion of its own in a contrary direction, that is
" mastered " (KpareiraL) by the diurnal revolution. The
other view, which gives the highest note to the Moon and
the lowest to the fixed stars, is probably due to the theory
which substituted an axial rotation of the earth for the
diurnal revolution of the heavens.^

153. We have still to consider a view, which Aristotle Things
sometimes attributes to the Pythagoreans, that things were Jf ^^^^^^^
" like numbers." He does not appear to regard this as numbers,
inconsistent with the doctrine that things are numbers,
though it is hard to see how he could reconcile the two.^
There is no doubt, however, that Aristoxenos represented
the Pythagoreans as teaching that things were like numbers,^
and there are other traces of an attempt to make out that
this was the original doctrine. A letter was produced,

1 For the various systems, see Boeckh, Kleine Schriften, vol. iii. pp.
169 sqq., and Cari v. Jan, " Die Harmonic der Spharen " {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 utjtt] (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 ex-
pound 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
{apfiovia) 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 hkenesses in things to numbers. That refers to the
numerical analogies of Justice, Opportunity, etc.

3 Aristoxenos ap. Stob. i. pr, 6 (p. 20), Uvdayopas . . . irdura to.
irpdyiJ.aTa drreLKa^uv rots dpid/nols.

3o8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

purporting to be by Theano, the wife of Pythagoras, in
which she says that she hears many of the Hellenes think
Pythagoras said things were made of number, whereas he
really said they were made according to number. ^

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 ascrip-
tion 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,^ and he is finally convinced of the immortality of the
soul just because Sokrates makes him see that the theory of
forms implies it.

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 reahty " 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." ^ Whose theory is it ? It is usually
supposed to be Plato's own, though some call it his ** early
theory of ideas," and say that he modified it profoundly in
later Hfe. But there are serious difficulties in this view.

1 Stob. Ed. i. p. 125, 19 (R. P. 65 d).

2 Plato, Phaed. 74 a sqq.

3 Cf. especially the words 8 dpvKoviiev del (76 d 8). The phrases airb 8
ia-Tiv, a-uTo Kad' avrb, 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 {^s \6yov dido/xev rod elvai, 78 d I, where
\6yop . . . Tov elvai is equivalent to \6yov ttjs oiiaias) . When we have done
this, " we " set the seal or stamp of avrb 8 ^anv upon it (75 d 2). Tech-
nical terminology impUes 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."

■

THE PYTHAGOREANS

309

Plato is very careful to tell us that he was not present at the
conversation recorded in the Phaedo. Did any philosopher
ever propound a new theory of his own by representing it as
already familiar to a number of distinguished living con-
temporaries ? ^ It is not easy to believe that. It would be
rash, on the other hand, to ascribe the origin of the theory
to Sokrates, and there seems nothing for it but to suppose
that the doctrine of " forms " (etSrj, ISeat) originally took
shape in Pythagorean circles, though it was further developed
by Sokrates. There is nothing startling in this. It is a
historical fact that Simmias and Kebes were not only Pytha-
goreans but disciples of Sokrates, and there were, no doubt,
more " friends of the ideas " ^ than we generally recognise.
It is certain, in any case, that the use of the words clBt} and
IBeao to express ultimate realities is pre-Platonic, and it
seems most natural to regard it as of Pythagorean origin.

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.

^ 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)
^u fxeu yap Kal rrapa Toiis Ylvdayopelois ij irepl tQv eiSQu deupla, Kai drjXoi
Kol avrbs iv XocpiaT-Q tQu eldQv cpiXovs irpoaayopeiLxau toi>s iv ^iToklq. (ro(f)o6s,
dW 8 ye fxaKicrTa irpecr^eicras Kal Siappr)5r)v vwodifievos ra etdrj 'ZcaKpa.Trjs
ia-riv. 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

Relation 154. The systems we have just been studying were all funda-
decessors. mentally 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 multi-
pHcity, 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 reahty is infinite.

I. Zeno of Elea

Life. 155. According to Apollodoros,i Zeno flourished in

01. LXXIX. (464-460 B.C.). This date is arrived at by
making him forty years younger than Parmenides, which is

^ Diog, ix. 29 (R. P. 130 a), ApoUodoros 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.

310

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 311

in direct conflict with the testimony of Plato. We have
seen already (§ 84) that the meeting of Parmenides and Zeno
with the young Sokrates cannot well have occurred before
449 B.C., and Plato tells us that Zeno was at that time
'* nearly forty years old.'' ^ He must, then, have been bom
about 489 B.C., some twenty-five years after Parmenides.
He was the son of Teleutagoras, and the statement of
ApoUodoros that he had been adopted by Parmenides is
only a misunderstanding of an expression of Plato's Sophist.^
He was, Plato further tells us,^ tall and of a graceful
appearance.

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 Pytha-
gorean.* This statement can easily be explained. Par-
menides, we have seen, was originally a Pythagorean, and
the school of Elea was naturally regarded as a mere branch
of the larger society. We hear also that Zeno conspired
against a tyrant, whose name is differently given, and the
story of his courage under torture is often repeated, though
with varying details.^

156. Diogenes speaks of Zeno's " books," and Souidas writings,
gives some titles which probably come from the Alexandrian
librarians through Hesychios of Miletos.^ In the Parmenides
Plato makes Zeno say that the work by which he is best
known was written in his youth and pubhshed against his
will.' As he is supposed to be forty years old at the time of

1 Plato, Parm. 127 b (R. P. 11 1 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 Ale. I. 119 a,
where we are told that Pythodoros, son of Isolochos, and Kallias, son of
Kalliades, each paid him 100 minae for instruction.

2 Plato, Soph. 241 d (R. P. 130 a).

3 Plato, Parm., loc. cit. * Strabo, vi. p. 252 (R. P. iii 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. ^ Diog, ix. 26 (R. P. 130) ; Souidas s.v. (R. P. 130 d).

7 Plato, Parm. 128 d 6 (R. P. 130 d).

312 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the dialogue, this must mean that the book was written
before 460 B.C., and it is very possible that he wrote others
after it.^ If he wrote a work against the " philosophers," as
Souidas says, that must mean the Pythagoreans, who, as we
have seen, made use of the term in a sense of their own.^
The Disputations ('EptBes;) and the Treatise on Nature may,
or may not, be the same as the book described in Plato's
Parmenides.

It is not likely that Zeno wrote dialogues, though certain
references in Aristotle have been supposed to imply this. In
the Physics ^ we hear of an argument of Zeno's, that any
part of a heap of millet makes a sound, and Simplicius illus-
trates this by quoting a passage from a dialogue between
Zeno and Protagoras.* If our chronology is right, it is quite
possible that they may have met ; but it is most unlikely
that Zeno should have made himself a personage in a dialogue
of his own. That was a later fashion. In another place
Aristotle refers to a passage where " the answerer and Zeno
the questioner " occurred,^ a reference which is most easily
to be understood in the same way. Alkidamas seems to have
written a dialogue in which Gorgias figured,^ and the exposi-
tion of Zeno's arguments in dialogue form must always have
been a tempting exercise.

Plato gives us a clear idea of what Zeno's youthful work
I was like. It contained more than one " discourse," and

^ The most remarkable title given by Souidas is 'E^i^yria-ts rCjv 'E/xve-
doK\^ovs. Of course Zeno did not write a commentary on Empedokles,
but Diels points out {Berl. Sitzh., 1884, p. 359) that polemics against philo-
sophers were sometimes called i^-qyTjaeis. Cf. the 'RpaKXeirov i^riyrjaets of
Herakleides Pontikos and especially his TIpbs rbv ArjfidKpLTOp i^Tjynaeis (Diog.
V. 88).

2 See above, p. 278, n. i. It hardly seems likely that a later writer
would make Zeno argue 7rp6s rovs <pi\o<r6<povs, 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).

* Simpl. Phys. p. 1108, 18 (R. P. 131). If this is what Aristotle refers
to, it is hardly safe to attribute the Keyxplr-qs \6yos 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). « Chap. V. p. 199, n. 5.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 313

these discourses were subdivided into sections, each dealing
with some one j)resu£position of his adversaries.^ We owe
the preservation of Zeno's arguments on the one and many
to SimpHcius.^ Those relating to motion have been pre-
served by Aristotle ; ^ but he has restated them in his own
language. ^^

157. Aristotle in his Sophist * called Zeno the inventor Dialectic,
of dialectic, and that, no doubt, is substantially true, though
the beginnings at least of this method of arguing were con-
temporary with the foundation of the Eleatic school. Plato ^
gives us a spirited account of the style and purpose of Zeno's
book, which he puts into his own mouth :

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 be-
comes 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 L.-^
contradictory conclusions. ^ This is what Aristotle meant

1 Plato, Farm. 127 d. Plato speaks of the first virSdeais of the first
\670s, which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections.
Proclus {in loc.) says there were forty of these \6yoL altogether.

2 Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30 ; R. P. 133)
that he is quoting Kar^ X^^iv. 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 sqg. * Cf. Diog. ix. 25 (R. P. 130).

5 Plato, Farm. 128 c (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.

^ The technical terms used in Plato's Farmenides seem to be as old as
Zeno himself. The vTrodeais is the provisional assumption of the truth of
a certain statement, and takes the form el ttoXM 4<ttl 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

314 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

by calling him the inventor of dialectic, which is just the
art of arguing, not from true premisses, but from premisses
admitted by the other side. The theory of Parmenides had
led to conclusions which contradicted the evidence of the
senses, and Zeno's object was not to bring fresh proofs of
the theory itself, but simply to show that his opponents' view
led to contradictions of a precisely similar nature.
Zenoand 158. That Zeuo's dialectic was mainly directed against

goreanism. 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." ^ Zeller holds, indeed,
that it was merely the popular form of the behef that things
are many that Zeno set himself to confute ; ^ but it is surely
not true that ordinary people beUeve things to be " a many "
in the sense required. Plato tells us that the premisses of
Zeno's arguments were the behef s of the adversaries of
Parmenides, and the postulate from which all his contra-
dictions are derived is the view that space, and therefore
body, is made up of a number of discrete units, which is just
the Pythagorean doctrine. We know from Plato that Zeno's
book was the work of his youth.^ It follows that he must
have written it in Italy, and the Pythagoreans are the only
people who can have criticised the views of Parmenides there
and at that date.*

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. UVe^Jiave first Parmenides, then the

virodiadaL, Attic vpodiadat). If the conclusions (rd avfi^alvovra) which
necessarily follow from the virbdeais are impossible, the vwddeats is
"destroyed" (cf. Plato, Rep. 533 c 8, rds vvod^a-eLs dvaipouaa). The
author of the Ilepi dpxaiTjs larpLKijs (c i) knows the word virbdeai^ in a
similar sense.

^ The view that Zeno's arguments were directed against Pythagoreanism
has been maintained in recent times by Tannery {Science hellene, pp. 249 sqq.),
and Baumker {Das Problem der Materie, pp. 60 sqq.).

2 Zeller, p. 589 (Eng. trans, p. 612). 3 Parm., loc. cit.

* Empedokles has been suggested. He was about the same age as Zeno,
indeed (§ 98), and he seems to criticise Parmenides (§ 106), but the argu-
ments of Zeno have no special applicability to his theories. Anaxagoras
is still less likely.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 315

pluralists, and then the criticism of Zen(i; This, at any rate,
seems to have been the view Aristotle took of the historical
development.^

159. The polemic of Zeno is clearly directed in the first what is
instance against a certain view of the unit. Eudemos, in his *^^ ^"^* '
Physics,^ quoted from him the sa5dng that '* if any one could

tell him what the unit was, he would be able to say what
things are." The commentary of Alexander on this, pre-
served by Simplicius, is quite satisfactory. " As Eudemos
relates," he says, " Zeno the disciple of Parmenides tried to
show that it was impossible that things could be a many, -
seeing that there was no unit in things, whereas ' many '

means a number of units." ^ Here we have a clear reference

to_ the Pythagorean view that everything may be reduced to
a sum of units, which is what Zeno denied.

160. The fragments of Zeno himself also show that this The
was his line of argument. I give them according to the ^^^^^g^
arrangement of Diels.

(I) .

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.* It is all the
same to say this once and to say it always ; for no such part of it

1 Arist. Phys. A, 3. 187 a i (R. P. 134 b). See below, § 173.

2 Simpl. Phys. p. 138, 32 (R. P. 134 a).

3 Simpl. Phys. p. 99, 13, ws yap iaropei, (prjo-iv {'AX^^avSpos), Eiidrjimos,
Z-qvtjiv b Hapixevlbov yv(hpi.[xos iTreiparo deiKv{ivat 8ti fir) oXbv re to. 6vTa TroXXd
elvai Tip fjL7)8^p dvai iv rots odaiv 'iv, to, 8k TroXXot TrXijdoi elpai ivdSuv.
This is the meaning of the statement that Zeno dvypei t6 ^v 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 rV yap arLyfiriv ws t6 ^v Xe'7et (Simpl. Phys. p. 99, ii).

* 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 d^x"" refers to fi^yedos and irpoix^iv to irdxos. Zeno is
showing that the Pythagorean point must have three dimensions.

3i6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

will be the last, nor will one thing not be as compared with
another. 1 So, if things are a many, they must be both small
and great, so small as not to have any magnitude at all, and so
great as to be infinite. R. P. 134.

(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.^ But if, when this is taken away from
another thing, that thing is no less ; and again, if, when it is
added to another thing, that does not increase, it is plain that
what was added was nothing, and what was taken away was
nothing. R. P. 132.

(3)

If things are a 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.'

The unit. i6i. If WO hold that the unit has no magnitude — and
this is required by what Aristotle calls the argument from
dichotomy,* — then everything must be infinitely small.
Nothing made up of units without magnitude can itself have
any magnitude. On the other hand, if we insist that the
units of which things are built up are something and not
nothing, we must hold that everything is infinitely great.

1 Reading, with Diels and the MSS., oijre 'irepov irpbs ^repop oiiK ^trrat.
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 I ; 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. ' * * See last note.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 317

The line is infinitely divisible ; and, according to this view,
it will be made up of an infinite number of units, each of
which has some magnitude.

That this argument refers to points is proved by an
instructive passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics.'^ We read
there —

If the unit is indivisible, it will, according to the 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. Aristotle refers to an argument which seems to be Spacp.
directed against the Pythagorean doctrine of space, ^ and
SimpUcius quotes it in this form : ^

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.

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. looi b 7.

2 Arist. Phys. A, i. 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, a^Lot yap wav rb dv ttoO elvai • ei S^ 6
tSttos tCov 6vt(i}v, ttoO Av elrj ; oiKovp iu AXXy rdircf KUKeivos dij iv dXXy /cai
oCrwj els t6 irp6<xu}.

3i8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

everything must be " in " something, or must have something
beyond it, had been used against the Parmenidean theory of
a finite sphere with nothing outside it.
Motion. 163. Zeno's arguments on the subject of motion have

been preserved by Aristotle himself. The system of Par-
menides 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 :

(i) You cannot cross a race-course. ^ You cannot traverse
an infinite number of points in a finite time. You must traverse
the half of any given distance before you traverse the whole, and
the half of that again before you can traverse it. This goes on
ad infinitum, so that there are an infinite number of points in
any given space, and you cannot touch an infinite number one by
one in a finite time.^

(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 compHcated 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

^ Arist. Top. 0, 8. 160 b 8, Ti-qvoyvo^ (\670s), 6tl ovk ivd^x^T'^'- KiveiadaL
ovbk TO (rrddiov dLcXdeXv.

2 Arist. Phys. Z, g, 239 b 11 (R. P. 136). Cf. Z, 2. 233 an; a 21
(R. P. 136 a).

3 Arist. Phys. Z, 9- 239 b 14 (R. P. 137).

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 319

may move ; the second emphasises the fact that, however
slowly it moves, it will traverse an infinite distance. ^

(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 ^ number of
indivisibles.

(4) Half the time may be equal to double the time. Let
us suppose three rows of bodies,* one of which (A) is at
rest while the other two (B, C) are moving with equal
velocity in opposite directions (Fig. i). By the time they
are all in the same part of the course, B will have passed
twice as many of the bodies in C as in A (Fig. 2).

FIG. I. FIG. 2.

• ••• A««««

&••••-> B 9 m 9 •

^KC ■<- •••• C % m 9 9

^^ 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 : e^ ydp, (p-qaiv, ripeixei ttSj' brau ri Kark rb laov, iari 5'
ael t6 (l)€p6fJt.epov iv ry vvv Kara t6 taov, aKivrjTOP k.t.X. Of course del
means " at any time," not " always," and Kara rb iaov 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 Jourdain {loc. cit.).

4 The word is 67/fot ; cl Chap. VII. p. 291, n. 3. The name is very
appropriate for the Pythagorean units, which Zeno had shown to have

320 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to reach the position of A is the same. Therefore double the
time is equal to the half.^

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 magni-
\tude 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 hne 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
Hues 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 estabhsh the conception of continuous quantity by a
reductio ad absurdum of the other hypothesis. If we re-
member that Parmenides had asserted the one to be con-
tinuous (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

Life. 164. In his Life of Perikles, Plutarch teUs us, on the
authority of Aristotle, that the philosopher MeUssos, son of
Ithagenes, was the Samian general who defeated the Athenian

^ 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 67/coi by letters instead of dots. The conclusion is
plainly stated by Aristotle {loc. cit.), avix^aiveLv oterai laov elvai XP^^^^
ry dnrXaffiip rbv TJfjLiavv, 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."

ments.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 321

fleet in 441/0 B.C. ; ^ and it was no doubt for this reason that
ApoUodoros fixed his floruit in 01. LXXXIV. {444-41 B.C.). 2
Beyond this, we really know nothing about his life. He is
said to have been, like Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides ; ^ but,
as he was a Samian, it is possible that he was originally a
member of the Ionic school, and we shall see that certain
features of his doctrine tend to bear out this view. On
the other hand, he was certainly convinced by the Eleatic
dialectic, and renounced the Ionic doctrine in so far as it
was inconsistent with that. We note here the effect of
the increased facility of intercourse between East and
West, which was secured by the supremacy of Athens.

165. The fragments which we have come from Simplicius, TheFrag-
and are given, with the exception of the first, from the text
of Diels.4

{la) If nothing is, what can be said of it as of something
real ? ^

(i) What was was ever, and ever shall be. For, if it had
come into being, it needs must have been nothing before it came

^ Plut. Per. 26 (R. P. 141 b), from Aristotle's 'Laixlwv iroKiTeia.

2 Diog. ix. 24. (R. P. 141). It is possible, of course, that ApoUodoros
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 vavapxla would be
given with precision. See Jacoby, p. 270.

3 Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141).
* 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 la 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 beUeve it to
be genuine because Simplicius, who had access to the original, introduces
it by the words dpxeraL rod avyypdjj.fjLaTos ovtojs, 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. ,

322 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

into being. Now, if it were nothing, in no wise could anything
have arisen out of nothing. R. P. 142.

(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. 1 R. P. 144.

{6a) (And, since it is one, it is ahke 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
aU 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 (R. P. 144).
The insertion of the word " infinite " is justified by the paraphrase (R. P.

144 a) and by M.X.G. 974 a 11, ttS;/ 5k dwetpov dv <^j/> etvaL- el yap Si^o
■^ TrXetoj ei'77, irepar b-v elvai raOra irpbs dWriXa.

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).

■

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 323

thing have had its order changed ? For if anything became
different, that would amount to a change in its order.

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 any-
thing 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

324 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

rubbed away by contact with the finger ; ^ and so with gold and
stone and everything which we fancy to be strong, and that
earth and stone are made out of water ; so that it turns out that
we neither see nor know reaUties. Now these things do not agree
with one another. We said that there were many things that
were eternal and had forms and strength of their own, and yet we
fancy that they all suffer alteration, and that they change from
what we see each time. It is clear, then, that we did not see
aright after aU, nor are we right in beHeving that all these things
are many. They would not change if they were real, but each
thing would be just what we believed it to be ; for nothing is
• stronger than true reality. But if it has changed, what was has
passed away, and what was not is come into being. So then, if
there were many things, they would have to be just of the same
nature as the one. R. P. 147.

(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.^

Theory of i66. It has been pointed out that Melissos was not
reauty. 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 Par-
menidean " Nothing is not " (fr. id), and the arguments by
which he supported this view are those with which we are
already famihar (fr. i). ReaUty, 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 d/xovp^ojy with Bergk. Diels keeps the MS. ofjiov p^cou ; Zeller
(p. 613, n. i) conjectures vtt' loO p^wv.

2 I read ei [xh odv et-q with E F for the ei [xh ov elrj of D. The ibv
which still stands in R. P. is a piece of local colour due to the editors.
Diels also now reads ovv.

3 Diels now reads dXXd with E for the d/xa of F, and attaches the word
to the next sentence.

■

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 325

proposition ; 1 but, of course, his belief was not founded on

that. His whole conception of reality made it necessary for

him to regard it as eternal. ^ It would be more serious if

Aristotle were right in believing, as he seems to have done,

that Melissos inferred that what is must be infinite in space, ^

because it had neither beginning nor end in time.^ As,

however, we have the fragment which Aristotle interprets in

this way (fr. 2), we are quite entitled to understand it for

ourselves, and I cannot see anything to justify Aristotle's

assumption that the expression " without limit *' means

without Umit in space.*

167. Melissos did indeed differ from Parmenides in hold- Reality
ing that reahty was spatially as well as temporally infinite ; ^gnite.-^
but he gave an excellent reason for this behef, and had no
need to support it by such an extraordinary argument. What
he said was that, if it were Umited, it would be Umited by
empty space. This we know from Aristotle himself,^ and
it marks a real advance upon Parmenides. He had thought
it possible to regard reahty as a finite sphere, but it would
have been difficult for him to work out this view in detail.
He would have had to say there was nothing outside the
sphere ; but no one knew better than he that there is no

1 Arist. Phys. A, 3. 1 86 a 7 (R. P. 143 a). The false conversion is also
mentioned in Soph. El. 168 b 35 (R. P. ih.). So Eudemos ap. Simpl.
Phys. p. 105, 24, oil ydp, el rb yevojmepov dpxvf ^X^h t^ M yevofxevou dpxy)v
ovK ex^L, fJ.dX\ou 5e to fxr] ^x°^ ^PXW ow iyiveTO.

2 The real reason is given in the paraphrase in Simpl. Phys. p. 103, 21
(R. P. 142 a), avyx'^P^^'^^-'- 7'^P >^°-^ tovto vtto tQiv (pvaLKihv, though Melissos
himself would not have put it in that way. He regarded hiniself as a
(pva-LKds like the rest ; but, from the time of Aristotle, it was a common-
place that the Eleatics were not (pvcnKoi, since they denied motion.

2 Cf. especially Soph. El. 168 b 39, ws dixcpcj ravrd 6vTa t^j dpxh^ ^X"''} '''^'^^
yeyovbs kuI rb ireTrepaafi&ov. The same point is made in 167 b 13 and 181 a 27.

4 The words dX\' direipdv eari 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 Tb fxeyedos d-n-eipov (fr. 3).

5 Arist. Gen. Corr. A, 8. 325 a 14, iv Kai ddv-qTov rb trdv elvaL (paai Kal
diretpov iuLOL ' rb ydp iripas irepalveLV dv irpbs rb Kevbv. That this refers

[elissos has been shown by Zeller (p. 612, w. 2).

326 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

such thing as nothing. Melissos saw that you cannot imagine
a finite sphere without regarding it as surrounded by an
infinite empty space ; ^ and as, in common with the rest of
the school, he denied the void (fr. 7), he was forced to say
reahty was spatially infinite (fr. 3). It is possible that he was
influenced in this by his association with the Ionic school.

From the infinity of reality, it follows that it must be
one ; for, if it were not one, it would be bounded by some-
thing else (fr. 5). And, being one, it must be homogeneous
throughout (fr. 6a), for that is what we mean by one. Reahty,
then, is a single, homogeneous, corporeal plenum, stretching
out to infinity in space, and going backwards and forwards
to infinity in time,
opposi- ^^^' Eleaticism was always critical, and we are not
tionto without indications of the attitude taken up by Melissos

lonians. ^ ''

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 possibiUty 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.
ReaUty, 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 Anax-
agoras explained perception. 2

1 Note the disagreement with Zeno (§ 162).

2 See p. 273. It is clear that Anaxagoras made considerable use of
pain {jhvoi), and it is possible that his doctrine, summed up in the words
dei Trove? to ^cpov (Arist, Eth. Nic. H, 15. 1 1 54 b 7) had a wider application
than appears from his remains. Aristotle {De caelo, B, i. 284 a 15) makes
a point of the oiipav6s being dirovos.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 327

Motion in general ^ and rarefaction and condensation
in particular are impossible ; for both imply the existence \
of empty space. Divisibility is excluded for the same |
reason. These are the same arguments as Parmenides '
employed.

169. In nearly all accounts of the system of Melissos, we opposi-
find it stated that he denied the corporeaUty of what is real, p°tha°-
— an opinion which is supported by a reference to fr. 9, which goreans.
is certainly quoted by Simplicius to prove this very point. ^
If, however, our general view as to the character of early
Greek philosophy is correct, the statement must seem in-
credible. And it will seem even more surprising when we
find that in the Metaphysics Aristotle says that, while the
unity of Parmenides seemed to be ideal, that of Melissos was
material.3 Now the fragment, as it stands in the MSS. of
SimpHcius,* puts a purely hypothetical case, and would most
naturally be understood as a disproof of the existence of
something on the ground that, if it existed, it would have to
be both corporeal and one. This cannot refer to the Eleatic
One, in which MeHssos himself beUeved ; and, as the argu-
ment is almost verbally the same as one of Zeno's,^ it is
natural to suppose that it also was directed against the
Pythagorean assumption of ultimate units. The only
possible objection is that Simplicius, who twice quotes the

1 The view of Baumker that Melissos admitted dpTLirepla-Taan or motion
inpleno {Jahrb.f. kl. Phil, 1886, p. 541 ; Das Problem der Materie, p. 59)
depends upon some words of Simplicius {Phys. p. 104, 13), ovx Htl fxr] dwarbv
Sto. irXiQpovs Kivelffdai, (is iirl tQiv auimaTuv \4yofxev ktX. 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, Baumker, Das Problem der Materie, pp. 57 sqq., who
remarks that iSv (or 6v) 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 ei ixku bv dn) speaks for it,
and that the subject to et-q must be kKaarov tQp ttoXXcDv, as with Zeno.

3 Met. A, 5. 986 b 18 (R. P. loi).

* Brandis changed the ei-q to lorri, but there is no warrant for this.
5 Cf. Zeno, fr. i, especially the words ei 5^ ^o-tlv, dvdyKr) ^Kaarov
fjt.4y€d6s TL ^x^tv Kal Trdxos.

328 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fragment, certainly took it in the sense usually given to
it.i But it was very natural for him to make this mistake.
" The One " was an expression that had two senses in the
middle of the fifth century B.C. ; it meant either the whole
of reality or the point as a spatial unit. To maintain it in
the first sense, the Eleatics were obliged to disprove it in the
second ; and so it sometimes seemed that they were speaking
of their own " One " when they really meant the other. We
have seen that the very same difficulty was felt about Zeno's
denial of the " one.*' 2
opposi- 170. The most remarkable fragment of Mehssos is,
Anax- perhaps, the last (fr. 8). It seems to be directed against
agoras. 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. Mehssos, taking advantage of this
admission, urges that, if we give up the senses as the test
of reahty, 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
plurahsm is the atomic theory.

Mehssos 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 con-
version in the early part of the argument. Mehssos 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 plurahsts saw it themselves, the only
way in which the theory that things are a many could

1 Simpl. Phys. pp. 87, 6, and no, i.
2 See above, § 159, p. 315, n. 3.

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS

329

consistently worked out.^ It is significant that Polybos, the
nephew of Hippokrates, reproaches those " sophists " who
taught there was only one primary substance with " putting
the doctrine of Melissos on its feet." ^

1 Baumker, op. cit. p. 58, m. 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 Ilepi tpijaLos dvOpdowov, c, I, dW e/xoiye doKiovaiv oi toioutol dvdpcoiroL
avTol eojvTods Kara^dWeiv iv toZclv dvofiacn tQiv Xdyuv avrCov inrb da-vveairjs,
Thp 5k '},U\l(xaov Xoyov opOovv. The metaphors are taken from wrestling,
and were current at this date (cf. the KarafidWovTes of Protagoras). Plato
implies a more generous appreciation of Melissos than Aristotle's. In
Theaet. 180 e 2, he refers to the Eleatics as MAttro-ot re Kal Hap/ievidai,
and in 183 e 4 he almost apologises for giving the pre-eminence to
Parmenides.

CHAPTER IX

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS

Leukippos 171. We have seen (§§ 31, 122) that the school of Miletos
Demo- 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 . sked by Thales was a Milesian. ^ It is trme
that the very existence of Leukippos has been called im
question. Epicurus is reported to have said there never was
such a philosopher, and the same thing has been maintained
in quite recent times. ^ On the other hand, Aristotle and
Theophrastos certainly made him the originator of the atomic
theory, and they can hardly have been mistaken on such a
point. Aristotle was specially interested in Demokritos, and
his native Stageiros is not very far from Abdera, the seat of
the Atomist school.

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. i). Diogenes adds
that, according to others, Leukippos was a Melian, which is a common con-
fusion. Actios (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 Halikar-
nassian or a Thourian.

2 Diog. X. 13 (R. P. 185 b), d\V ovdk Ae^KLinrov riva yeyevrjadal (f>7)(Tt.
(f>CKb(TO(})ov o{}t€ avrbs (sc. 'EwiKovpos) oijTe"Epfj.apxos. This led E. Rohde to main-
tain 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 Hke AeOKL-n-rrov ov8' el yiyoveu oWa, which would be idiomatic
Greek for "I (purposely) ignore him," "I dechne to discuss him."
(Cf. e.g. Dem. De cor. § 70 ZeppLou 5k Kal AopiaKov Kal ttjv Ueirapifidov
irbpdt)aLv . . . 0^5' et yiyovev oT5a.) That would be just like Epicurus.

330

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 331

The question is intimately bound up with that of the
date of Demokritos, who said that he himself was a young
man in the old age of Anaxagoras, a statement which makes
it unhkely that he founded his school at Abdera much before
420 B.C., the date given by ApoUodoros for his floruit.'^ Now
Theophrastos stated that Diogenes of Apollonia borrowed
some of his views from Anaxagoras and some fromLeukippos,^
which must mean that there were traces of the atomic theory
in his work. Further, Diogenes is parodied in the Clouds of
Aristophanes, which was produced in 423 B.C., from which it
follows that the work of Leukippos must have become known
before that date. What that work was, Theophrastos also
tells us. It was the Great Diakosmos usually attributed to
Demokritos.3 This means further that what were known
later as the works of Demokritos were really the writings of
the school of Abdera, and included, as was natural, the works
of its founder. They formed, in fact, a corpus like that which
has come down to us under the name of Hippokrates, and
it was no more possible to distinguish the authors of the
different treatises in the one case than it is in the other.

Theophrastos found Leukippos described as an Eleate
in some authorities, and, if we may trust analogy, that means
he had settled at Elea.* It is possible that his emigration

^ 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 ApoUodoros 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 Mtfcpos biaKoaixo^ 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, i (R. P. 206 a).

3 This was stated by Thrasylos in his Ust of the tetralogies in which he
arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives
Tetr. iii, thus : (i) M^7as StdtKocr/ios {tv oi ire pi QeStppaarou AevKiirirov
(paaiv elvaL) ] (2) MiKpds 5l6.ko(tixo$ ; {3) Kocr/JLoypacpLr} ', (4) Uepl rG>v
irKav7)TU}v. The two SidKoafioi would only be distinguished as fxiya^ and
ixLKpbs when they came to be included in the same corpus. A quotation
from the Hepl vov of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. 160. The phrase
iv Toh AevKlirirov KoXovfiivoLi \670ts in M.X.G. 980 a 8 seems to refer
to Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 325 a 24, AevKnnros 8' ix^iv (^rjdrj \6yovs kt\.
Cf. Chap. II. p. 126, n. i.

* See above, p. 330, n. i.

332 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

was connected with the revolution at Miletos in 450-49 B.c.^
In any case, Theophrastos says distinctly that he had been
a member of the school of Parmenides, and his words suggest
that the founder of that school was then still at its head. 2
He may quite well have been so, if we accept Plato's
chronology.^ Theophrastos also appears to have said that
Leukippos ** heard " Zeno, which is very credible. We shall
see, at any rate, that the influence of Zeno on his thinking is
unmistakable.^

The relations of Leukippos to Empedokles and Anax-
agoras are more difficult to determine. It has become part
of the case for the historical reahty of Leukippos to say that
there are traces of atomism in the systems of these men ;
but the case is strong enough without that assmnption. 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.^ Nor is it at all probable that Anaxagoras
knew anything of the theory of Leukippos. It is true that
he denied the existence of the void ; but it does not follow
that any one had already maintained that doctrine in the
atomist sense. The early Pythagoreans had spoken of a
void too, though they had confused it with atmospheric air ;
and the experiments of Anaxagoras with the klepsydra and
the inflated skins would only have had any point if they were
directed against the Pythagorean theory.^ If he had really

1 Cf. [Xen.] 'A^. ttoX. 3, ii. The date is fixed by C.I. A. i. 22 a.

2 Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 28, 4 (R. P. 185). Note the differ-
ence of case in KOiviov-qaas Uapfiepidr} r^s 0t\ocro0tas and Koivujvrjcras rijs
'Ava^iju^vovs (f)c\o<xo(pias, which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of
Anaxagoras (p. 253, n. 2). The dative seems to imply a personal relation-
ship. It is quite inadmissible to render " was familiar with the doctrine of
Parmenides," as is done in Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 345.

' See § 84.

* Cf. Diog. ix. 30, odros iJKovae Zrjvwvos (R. P. 1 85 b) ; and Hipp.
Ref. i. 12, I, AevKLiriros . . . Z'/jvupos iraipos.
6 See above, Chap. V. p. 194, n. 3.
6 See above. Chap. VI. § 131 ; and Chap. VII. § 145.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 333

wished to refute Leukippos, he would have had to use
arguments of a very different kind.

172. Theophrastos wrote of Leukippos as follows in the Theo-
First Book of his Opinions : onThe°^

atomic

Leukippos of Elea or Miletos (for both accounts are given theory.
of him) had associated with Parmenides in philosophy. He did
not, however, foUow 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 fuU, 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. It will be observed that Theophrastos, while noting Leukippos
the affihation of Leukippos to the Eleatic school, points out Eieatics.
that his theory is, prima facie, '^ just the opposite of that
maintained by Parmenides. Some have been led by this to

deny the Eleaticism of Leukippos altogether ; but this denial
is really based on the view that the system of Parmenides
was " metaphysical," coupled with a great reluctance to
admit that so scientific a hypothesis as the atomic theory
can have had a " metaphysical " origin. This is merely a
prejudice, and we must not suppose Theophrastos himself
beheved the two theories to be so far apart as they

^ The words ws SoKet 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 Theo-
phrastos dissents from Aristotle's view as given in the passage about to
be quoted.

334 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

seem.i As this is really the most important point in the
history of early Greek philosophy, and as, rightly under-
stood, it furnishes the key to the whole development,
it is worth while to transcribe a passage of Aristotle ^
which explains the historical connexion in a way that
leaves nothing to be desired.

' Leukippos and Demokritos have decided about all things
practically by the same method and on the same theory, taking
as m^ 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 AH 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 (Z^wo); 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

1 This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz's Greek Thinkers, and
seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat imagina-
tive 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 Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 324 b 35 (R. P. 193).

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 335

appear right from habit, in which madness makes some people
see no difference.

Leukippos, however, thought he had a theory which was in
harmony with sense, 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 pUnvpm 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 reahty 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 Pytha-
goreanism, were unable to stand before the arguments from
infinite divisibihty which he adduced. MeHssos 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 Par-
menides had shown that if it is, it must have these predicates
somehow. The same view is implied in a passage of Aris-
totle's Physics.^ " Some," we are there told, " surrendered
both arguments, to the first, the argument that all things

1 Arist. Phys. A, 3. 187 a i (R. P. 134 b).

336 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

are one, if the word is is used in one sense only (Parmenides),
by affirming the reaUty of what is not ; to the second, that
based on dichotomy (Zeno), by introducing indivisible magni-
tudes." Finally, it is only by regarding the matter in this
way that we can attach any meaning to another statement
of Aristotle's that Leukippos and Demokritos, as well as the
Pythagoreans, virtually make all things out of numbers. ^
Leukippos, in fact, gave the Pythagorean monads the
character of the Parmenidean One.
Atoms. 174. We must observe that the atom is not mathe-

matically indivisible, for it has magnitude ; it is, however,
physically indivisible, because, Hke the One of Parmenides,
it contains no empty space. ^ Each atom has extension, and
all atoms are exactly ahke in substance.^ Therefore all
differences in things must be accounted for either by the
shape of the atoms or by their arrangement. It seems
probable that the three ways in which differences arise,
namely, shape, position, and arrangement, were already
distinguished by Leukippos ; for Aristotle mentions his name
in connexion with them.^ This explains, too, why the atoms
are called " forms " or " figures," a way of speaking which is
clearly of Pythagorean origin.^ That they are also called

^ Arist. De caelo, V, 4. 303 a 8, Tpbirov yap riva Kal oSroi (AeijKiTnros
Kal ArjfidKpiTos) Travra ra 6uTa Troiou<nv dpid/JLoiis Kal e^ dpidfiwu. This also
serves to explain the statement of Herakleides attributing the theory
of corporeal 6yK0(. 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).

' Arist. De caelo, A, 7. 275 b 32, tt)]/ dk <f)v<riv eXvai <paaiu avrQp fxlav.
Here (p^ais can only have one meaning. Cf. Phys. T, 4. 203 a 34, avT(f
{ArjfioKpiTq)) TO Koivbv crQ/xa iravTuv earlv dpx^'

* 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 Demo-
kritos. It shows, in any case, how the word cttoix^Tov came to be used for
" element." We must read, with Wilamowitz, to 8k Z tov H d^aet for
t6 5^ Z TOV N 64a€i, 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, Ilept idedv (Sext. Math. vii. 137 ; R. P.
204), which Diels identifies with the ITept tCjv diacpepoPTwv pva/j-Qv of
Thrasylos, Tetr. v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, iv tois trepl
Twv elduv [De sensibus, § 51). Plut. Adv. Col. mi a, elyai 8k rrdvTa rdi

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 337

<^u(7t9 ^ is quite intelligible if we remember what was said of
that word in the Introduction (§ VII.). The differences in
shape, order, and position just referred to account for the
" opposites,'* the *' elements " being regarded rather as
aggregates of these {Trava-irep/jbLac) , as by Anaxagoras.^

175. Leukippos affirmed the existence both of the Full The void.
and the Empty, terms which he may have borrowed from
MeUssos.3 He had to assume empty space, which the
Eleatics had denied, in order to make his explanation of the
nature of body possible. Here again he is developing a
Pythagorean view. The Pythagoreans had spoken of the

void, which kept the units apart ; but they had not dis-
tinguished it from atmospheric air (§ 53), which Empedokles
had shown to be a corporeal substance (§ 107). Parmenides,
indeed, had formed a clearer conception of space, but only to
deny its reality Leukippos started from this. He admitted,
indeed, that space was not real, that is to say, corporeal ;
but he maintained that it existed all the same. He hardly,
it is true, had words to express his discovery in ; for the verb
"to be " had hitherto been used by philosophers only of
body. But he did his best to make his meaning clear by
saying that " what is not '* (in the old corporeaHst sense)
" is " (in another sense) just as much as " what is." The
void is as real as body.

176. It might seem a hopeless task to disentangle the Cosmo-
cosmology of Leukippos from that of Demokritos, with °^'
which it is generally identified ; but that very fact affords

a valuable chie. No one later than Theophrastos was able
to distinguish their doctrines, and it follows that all definite

drSfiovs, lS4as vt avrov KoXovfihas (so the MSS. : ISius, Wyttenbach ; <-^>
tS^as, Diels). Herodian has i8ia . . . rb eXax^arov adfia (Diels, VofS.
55 B 141). So Arist. Phys. V, 4. 203 a 21, (A7?/i6«-/)tTOs) e/c tt)s iravairepixlat
tQv axvi^^T^'^ [aireipa iroiei to. aroLxeTa). Cf. De gen. corr. A, 2. 315 b 7
(R. P. 196).

1 Arist. Phys. 9, 9. 265 b 25 ; Simpl. Phys. p. 13 18, 33, radra yap
{to. &TO/xa (TibfJ-aTa) iKeivoi (pijffiv iK&Xovv.

2 Simpl. Phys. p. 36, i (Diels, Vors. 54 a 14), and R. P. 196 a.

13 Arist. Met. A, 4. 985 b 4 (R. P. 192). Cf. Melissos, fr. 7 sub fin.
22

338 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

statements about Leukippos in later writers must, in the long;
run, go back to him. If we follow this up, we shall be able
to give a fairly clear account of the system, and we shall even
come across some views which are peculiar to Leukippos and
were not adopted by Demokritos.i

The fuller of the doxographies in Diogenes, which comes
from an epitome of Theophrastos,^ is as follows :

He says that the All is infinite, and that it is part fuU, 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 aU
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 aU 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 surround-
ing 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.

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.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 339

Tke circle tf tke sun is tke •uterm^st, tkat •£ tke moon is nearest
to tke eartk, amd thtse of the •tkers are between these. And all
the keavemly bodies are ij^mited because of the swiftness of their
m«ti«m ; while the sun is als» ignited by the stars. But the
m##n tnly receives a small ptrtitn of fire. The sun and the
moon are ecUpsed . . . (And the obliquity of the zodiac is pro-
duced) by the earth being inclined towards the south ; and the
northern parts of it have constant snow and are cold and frozen.
And the sun is eclipsed rarely, and the moon continually, because
their circles are unequal. And just as there are comings into
being of the world, so there are growths and decays and passings
away in virtue of a certain necessity, of the nature of which he
gives no clear account.

As 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 Dia-

kosmos.^ These, however, give a specially Epicurean turn to

' some of the doctrines, and must therefore be used with caution.

177. The general impression we get from the cosmology Relation
of Leukippos is that he either ignored or had never heard of cosmo-^
the great advance in the general view of the world which was ^o^-
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 specula-
tions 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
reahty, 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 beheved the earth
was fiat and rested on the air.

This is what gives plausibihty 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 dTroro/xr^v '4xov(Ta dTo toO direipov.

eternal
motion.

340 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

doctrine of matter which had been tended by the Ionian
physiologists/' ^ The detailed cosmology was certainly such
a fruit, and it was possibly over-ripe ; but the atomic theory
proper, in which the real greatness of Leukippos comes out,
was wholly Eleatic in its origin. Nevertheless, it will repay
us to examine the cosmology too ; for such an examination
will serve to bring out the true nature of the historical
development of which it was the outcome.
The 178. 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.'' ^ He even said that they made it " spon-
taneous," a remark which has given rise to the erroneous
view that they held it was due to chance.^ Aristotle does
not say that, however ; but only that the atomists did not
explain the motion of the atoms in any of the ways in which
he himself explained the motion of the elements. They
neither ascribed to them a natural motion like the circular
motion of the heavens and the rectihnear motion of the four
elements in the sublunary region, nor did they give them a
forced motion contrary to their own nature, like the upward
motion that may be given to the heavy elements and the
downward that may be given to the Hght. The only frag-
ment of Leukippos which has survived is an express denial
of chance. " Naught happens for nothing,^' he said, " but
everything from a ground and of necessity." *

1 Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, vol, i. p. 323.

2 Arist. Phys. G, i. 252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a) ;' De caelo, V, 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=(rvvTpix^iv).

* Aet. i. 25, 4 {Dox. p. 321), AeiJKLTTTos irdvTa Kar dvdyKrjv, rrjv 5' avT7)v
iirdpx^iv eifMapfi^vrji'. X^7ei ydp iv t^j liepl vov • Ovbh XPW°- tJ^'i-Tflv yiyverac,
dXXa irdPTa iK \6yov re Kal vir dvdyKrjs.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 341

Speaking historically, all this means that Leukippos did
not, like Empedokles and Anaxagoras, find it necessary to
assume a force to originate motion. He had no need of
Love and Strife or Mind, and the reason is clear. Though
Empedokles and Anaxagoras had tried to explain multi-
pKcity and motion, they had not broken so radically as
Leukippos with the Parmenidean One. Both started with
a condition of matter in which the " roots " or " seeds "
were mixed so as to be " all together," and they therefore
required something to break up this unity. Leukippos,
who started with an infinite number of Parmenidean " Ones,"
so to speak, required no external agency to separate them.
What he had to do was just the opposite. He had to account
for their coming together, and there was nothing so far to
prevent his return to the old idea that motion does not
require any explanation at all.^

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. As is well known, Epicurus held that the atoms The
were naturally heavy, and therefore fell continually in the ttS^atoms.
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 tyvo properties to atoms, magnitude and
form, to which Epicurus added a third, weight.^ On the

1 Introd. § VIII.

2 Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), a-vfi^e^riKivai dk roT^ adfiaaL rpia ravra,
<rxvfj^, fJ^yedos, /3d/3os. ArjfidKpLTOs ixku ykp fKeye 5i5o, jiAyedbs re Kal
aX^a, 6 5^ 'EvlKovpos totjtols Kal rpirov ^apos -rrpocr^dTjKev • avdyK-q yap, (prjaL,
Kiveladai to. (rdbfiara ry rod ^dpovs irXrjy^ ' iird ("or else") ov Kivqd-qceTai',

342 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

other hand, Aristotle distinctly says that Demokritos held
the atoms were heavier " in proportion to their excess," and
this seems to be explained by the statement of Theophrastos
that, according to him, weight depended on magnitude.^
Even so, however, it is not represented as a primary property
of the atoms in the same sense as magnitude.

It is impossible to solve this apparent contradiction
without referring briefly to the history of Greek ideas about
weight. It is clear that Ughtness 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 Ughtness 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.^ The motions
and resistances which popular theory ascribes to weight are

ib. 12, 6, ArjfidKpLTOs tA, irpQTd (prjcn a-ibfiara, ravra 5' fiv ra vatxra, ^dpos
fxkv ovK ^x^"'> KLveiadai dk Kar' a.X\r]\oTVTriav iv T(p dirreipq}. Cic. De fato,
20, " vim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito impulsionis quam
plagam ille appellat, a te. Epicure, graidtatis 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 nee
summum nee infimum nee medium nee extremum sit." This doctrine,
we are quite rightly told, was " depraved " by Epicurus.

^ Arist. De gen. corr. A, 8. 326 a 9, Katroi ^apvrepbv ye Kara tt]v virepoxw
^rjatv elvai Atj/jlokpltos 'iKaarov tQv ddLaip^rcav. I cannot beUeve this
means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on
sensation, § 61 (R. P. 199), jSapi) fi^u odv Kal Kov(f>ov t^ /xey^dei diaipei

AtJjJ.bKpiTOS.

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 ep-lSptdes. Empedokles (fr. 17)
uses the word drdXavrou. I do not think that there is any other
place where weight is even mentioned in the |fragments of the early
philosophers.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 343

al 1 explained in some other way. Aristotle distinctly declares
that none of his predecessors had said anything of absolute
weight and lightness. They had only treated of the relatively
light and heavy. ^

This way of regarding the notions of weight and
lightness is clearly formulated for the first time in
Plato's Timaeus.^ There is no such thing in the world,
we are told there, as " up " or " down.'* The middle
of the world is not " down " but " just in the middle,"
and there is no reason why any point in the circum-
ference should be said to be " above " or " below "
another. It is really the tendency of bodies towards their
kin that makes us call a falling body heavy and the
place to which it falls " below." Here Plato is really
giving the view taken more or less consciously by his pre-
decessors, and it is not till the time of Aristotle that it is
questioned.^ For reasons which do not concern us here,
Aristotle identified the circumference of the heavens with
" up " and the middle of the world with " down," and
equipped the elements with natural weight and lightness
that they might perform their rectihnear motions between
them. As, however, Aristotle beUeved there was only one
world, and did not ascribe weight to the heavens proper, the
effect of this reactionary theory on his cosmical system was
not great ; it was only when Epicurus tried to combine it
with the infinite void that its true character emerged. It
seems to me that the nightmare of Epicurean atomism can
only be explained on the assumption that an Aristotelian
doctrine was violently adapted to a theory which really

1 Arist. De caelo. A, i. 308 a 9, Trepl ^ikv odv tCjv dTrXws \eyoixiv(x}v {^apiwv
KOI Kov<p(i}v) ovdh etprp-aL -rrapa tQv irpbrepov.

2 Plato, 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
oi weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is
anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato expressly denies it.

344 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

excluded it.^ It is totally unlike anything we meet with in
earlier days.

This suggests at once that it is only in the vortex that
the atoms acquire weight and lightness, ^ which are, after all,
only popular names for facts which can be further analysed.
We are told that Leukippos held one effect of the vortex to
be that like atoms were brought together with their likes. ^
Here we seem to see the influence of Empedokles, though the
*' likeness " is of another kind. It is the finer atoms that
are forced to the circumference, while the larger tend to the
centre. We may express that by saying that the larger are
heavy and the smaller light, and this will amply account for
everything Aristotle and Theophrastos say ; for there is no
passage where the atoms outside the vortex are distinctly
said to be heavy or light.*

There is a striking confirmation of this view in the
atomist cosmology quoted above. ^ We are told there that
the separation of the larger and smaller atoms was due to
the fact that they were '* no longer able to revolve in equi-
librium owing to their number," which implies that they had
previously been in a state of " equilibrium " or " equipoise.''
Now the word laoppoiria has no necessary implication of

^ 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 (pvcns 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 Aris-
totle's view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of
lightness is due to tKd\L\f/Ls, 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 (ou yap
Tj ye diurj TrXrjaid^eL irpbs i]fj.ds), nor for the weight of bodies before the
vortex arose {irpiu yevicdaL rrjv divrjv).

3 Diog. loc. cit. (p. 338).

* 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.

^ See above, p. 338.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 345

weight in Greek. A poirrj is a mere leaning or inclination in
a certain direction, which is the cause rather than the effect
of weight. The state of iaoppoiria is therefore that in which
the tendency in one direction is exactly equal to the tendency
in any other, and such a state is more naturally described as
the absence of weight than as the presence of opposite weights
neutralising one another.

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.^ It is possible
that the comparison of the motion of the atoms of the soul
to that of the motes in a sunbeam coming through a window,
which Aristotle attributes to Demokritos,^ is really intended
as an illustration of the original motion of the atoms still
surviving in the soul. The fact that it is also a Pythagorean
comparison ^ so far confirms this ; for we have seen that
there is a real connexion between the Pythagorean monads
and the atoms. It is also significant that the point of the
comparison appears to have been the fact that the motes in
the sunbeam move even when there is no wind, so that it
would be a very apt illustration indeed of the motion inherent

1 This view was independently advocated by Brieger [Die Urbewegung
der Atome und die Weltentstehung hei Leucipp und Demokrii, 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).

346 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in the atoms apart from the secondary motions produced by
impact and collision.
The i8o. 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." ^ Are we to suppose that Leu-
kippos was ignorant of this fact, which was known to Empe-
dokles and Anaxagoras ? ^ We know from Aristotle that all
those who accounted for the earth being in the centre of the
world by means of a vortex appealed to the analogy of eddies
in wind or water,^ and Gomperz supposes that the whole
theory was an erroneous generalisation of this observation.
If we look at the matter more closely, we can see, I think,
that there is no error at all.

We must remember that all the parts of the vortex are
in contact, and that it is just this contact (iTrlyfravo-Lf;) 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 avrepeLo-L^ rod fieaov which is mentioned in
the doxography of Leukippos,* and it is quite in accord-
ance with this that, on the atomist theory, the nearer a
heavenly body is to the centre, the slower is its revolution.^
That is just the point which, as we have seen,^ Anaxi-
mander would seem not to have observed. There is

^ Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, i. p. 339.

2 For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p. 237 ; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI.
p. 269.

* Arist. De caelo, B, 13. 295 a 10, raiJTrjv yap ttjj/ alrlav (sc. ttji^
div7j(nv) iravTes \iyov<nv ^k tG)v iv rots vypois Kal irepl rbv d^pa avix^aivbvTwv '
iv TOVTOLS ycLp del (p^peraL to, fiei^co Kal rd ^ap^repa irpbs to (x^aov ttj^ 5ivr}s.

* Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases Cbu Kara rrjv toO /jl^ctov
avripeiaLV TrepiSivovfxivcov, av/xfjt.evdvTwi' del tQjv avvex^v Kar iirixpavcip t7]S blvrjs,
and (rvfj-fievoPTUv tQu ivexd^vTWV errl rb fi^crov.

^ Cf. Lucr. V. 621 sqq, ^ See p. 69.

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 347

no question of " centrifugal force '' at all, and the analogy
of eddies in air and water is in reality quite satis-
factory.

181. When we come to details, the reactionary character The earth
of the atomist cosmology is very manifest. The earth was h^averdy
shaped Uke a tambourine, and floated on the air.^ It was ^o^^^s.
inclined towards the south because the heat of that region

made the air thinner, while the ice and cold of the north
made it denser and more able to support the earth. 2 This
accounts for the obhquity of the zodiac. Like Anaximander
(§ 19), Leukippos held that the sun was farther away than
the stars, though he also held that these were farther away
than the moon.^ By this time the occupation of the planets
by the moon must have been observed. There seems to
be no very clear distinction between the planets and
the fixed stars. Leukippos appears to have known the
theory of echpses as given by Anaxagoras.* Such other
pieces of information as have come down to us are mainly of
interest as showing that, in some important respects, the
doctrine of Leukippos was not the same as that taught
afterwards by Demokritos.^

182. Actios expressly attributes to Leukippos the Percep-
doctrine that the objects of sense-perception exist ''by

law " and not by nature.^ This must come from Theo-

* Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p, 79, n. i.

^ Aet. iii. 12, I, AeuKnnros TrapeKireaelp tt]v yrjv els rot fieaT^/x^piva ixiprj
dia TT]v iu ToTs fiearj/ji^pLvois dpaLOTTjra, are Stj TreTrrjyoTCJV tG)v ^opeiwv 8tcL t6
/carei/'Dx^ai rois Kpv/xois, tCov 5k dvTid^TUiv ireirvpiapL^vwv.

' Diog. ix. 33, eXvaL 5k rbv tov ifKLov kOkXov e^dirarov, rbv 5k rrjs (reXrjprjs
irpoayeidTaTov, <Tot>s 5e> rQy dWcou /xera^v tovtuiv.

* 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
(7ri;p6s ipav-o\7}<fod4i'Tos p4<f>€<ri TraxvrdTots ^kittuo-lv laxvpcLV ^povTTjv diroTeXeiv
diro<palviTai., Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of Demokritos
[PpovTT)v . . . iK avyKpifiaros dviofxdXov to TrepieiXrjcpos aiiTO v^(f)OS irpos tt)v
Kdru) (popdv iK^ia^o/j-epov, ib. ii). The explanation given by Leukippos
is derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos is influenced by
Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35 Philol.-Vers. 97, 7.

8 Aet. iv. 9, 8, ol fikp AXXoL (pv<reL rd alad-qra, KevKiiriros 5k ArmdKpiTOS

Aioyeprjs p6fjn{}. See Zeller, Arch. v. p. 444.

348 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

phrastos ; for, as we have seen, all later writers quote
Demokritos only. A further proof of the correctness of the
statement is that we also find it attributed to Diogenes of
Apollonia, who, as Theophrastos tells us, derived some of
his views from Leukippos. There is nothing surprising in
this. Parmenides had already declared the senses to be
deceitful, and said that colour and the like were only
" names," ^ and Empedokles had also spoken of coming into
being and passing away as only a name.^ It is not hkely
that Leukippos went much further than this. It would
probably be wrong to credit him with Demokritos's clear
distinction between " true-born " and ** bastard " know-
ledge, or that between the primary and secondary qualities
of matter.3 These distinctions imply a definite theory of
knowledge, and all we are entitled to say is that the germs
of it were already to be found in the writings of Leukippos
and his predecessors. Of course, these do not make Leu-
kippos a sceptic any more than Empedokles or Anaxagoras,
whose remark on this subject (fr. 21a) Demokritos is said to
have quoted with approval.*

There appear to be sufficient grounds for ascribing the
theory of perception by means of simulacra or el'SwXa, which
played such a part in the systems of Demokritos and
Epicurus, to Leukippos.^ It is a natural development of
the Empedoklean theory of " effluences " (§ 118). It hardly
seems likely, however, that he went into detail on the subject,
and it is safer to credit Demokritos with the elaboration of
the theory.

^ 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 Par-
menides rather than Demokritos.

2 See p. 206, fr. 9. » For these see Sext. Math. vii. 135 (R. P. 204).

* Sext. vii. 140, *' 6xl/LS yap dSriXoju ra (paivS/jLeva," &s (f>7](nv 'Ava^aydpas,
tv iirl TovTcp Arj/JLOKptTos eiraivet.

^ See Zeller, " Zu Leukippos " {Arch. xv. p. 138). The doctrine is
attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, i {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.

■

LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 349

183. We have seen incidentally that there is a wide import-
divergence of opinion among recent writers as to the place Leukippos.
of Atomism in Greek thought. The question at issue is
really whether Leukippos reached his theory on what are
called " metaphysical grounds," that is, from a considera-
tion of the Eleatic theory of reality, or whether, on the
contrary, it was a pure development of Ionian science. The
foregoing exposition will suggest the true answer. So far
as his general theory of the physical constitution of the world
is concerned, it has been shown, I think, that it was derived
entirely from Eleatic and Pythagorean sources, while the
detailed cosmology was in the main a more or less successful
attempt to make the older Ionian behefs fit into this new
physical theory. In any case, his greatness consisted in his
having been the first to see how body must be regarded if
we take it to be ultimate reality. The old Milesian theory
had found its most adequate 'expression in the system of
Anaximenes (§ 31), but of course rarefaction and condensa-
tion cannot be clearly represented except on the hypothesis
of molecules or atoms coming closer together or going farther
apart in space. Parmenides had seen that very clearly
(fr. 2), and it was the Eleatic criticism which forced Leu-
kippos to formulate his system as he did. Even Anaxagoras
took account of Zeno's arguments about divisibiUty (§ 128),
but his system of quaUtatively different " seeds," though
in some respects it goes deeper, lacks that simplicity which
had always been the chief attraction of atomism.

CHAPTER X

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

science.'

The 184. With Leukippos our story should come to an end ;

t( bank-

ruptcy of 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 Hippo-
kratean corpus which give us a clear idea of the interest
which now prevailed. ^ Leukippos had shown that " the
doctrine of MeUssos," ^ which seemed to make all science
impossible, was not the only conclusion that could be drawn
from the Eleatic premisses, and he had gone on to give a
cosmology which was substantially of the old Ionic type.
The result at first was simply that all the old schools revived
and had a short period of renewed activity, while at the same
time some new schools arose which sought to accommodate
the older views to those of Leukippos, or to make them more
available for scientific purposes by combining them in an
eclectic fashion. None of these attempts had any lasting
importance or influence, and what we have to consider in

^ Cf. what is said in Chap. IV. p. 150, n. 2, of the Ilepi ScaiTrjs.
The Ilept avOpihirov (pvatos and the Ilept dpxa.ir}s laTpLKrjs are invaluable
documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at
this date. 2 cf_ chap. VIII. p. 329, n. 2.

350

■

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 351

this chapter is really one of the periodical " bankraptcies of
• science " which mark the close of one chapter in its history
and announce the beginning of a new one.

I. HippoN OF Samos

185. Hippon of Samos or Kroton or Rhegion belonged to
the Italian school of medicine.^ We know very little indeed
of him except that he was a contemporary of Perikles. From
a schoHast on Aristophanes ^ we learn that Kratinos satirised
him in his Panoptai ; and Aristotle mentions him in the
enumeration of early philosophers given in the First Book of
the Metaphysics,^ though only to say that the inferiority of
his intellect deprives him of all claim to be reckoned among
them.

With regard to his views, the most precise statement is Moisture.
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.*
We have the authority of Aristotle ^ and Theophrastos,
represented by Hippolytos,^ for saying that this theory was
supported by physiological arguments of the kind common
at the time, and the arguments tentatively ascribed to
Thales by Aristotle are of this kind (§ 10). His other
views belong to the history of Medicine.
fcTill quite recently no fragment of Hippon was known
■exist, but a single one has now been recovered from the

^ Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R. P. 219 a). In Menon's latrika
le is called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion (Hipp, Ref. i.
c6) or Metapontion (Censorinus, De die nat. 5, 2). This variation implies
iiat he belonged originally to the Pythagorean school. The evidence of
.\ristoxenos is, in that case, all the more valuable. Hippon is mentioned
along with Mehssos as a Samian in lambUchos'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).
* Alexander in Met. p. 26, 21 (R, P. 219).
6 Arist. De an. A, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220).
« Hipp. Ref. i. 16 (R. P. 221).

352 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Geneva Scholia on Homer. ^ It is directed against the old
assumption that the " waters under the earth " are an
independent source of moisture, and runs thus :

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 men-
tioned. We know nothing of him except from Sextus,^ who
says he held air to be the primary substance. The fact that
he was a SiciUan is, however, suggestive.

II. Diogenes of Apollonia^

Date. 186. 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.*

^ Schol. Genav. p. 197, 19. Cf. Diels in Arch. iv. p. 653. The extract
comes from the 'O/xripiKd of Krates of Mallos.

2 Sext. Adv. Math. ix. 360.

3 Stephanos of Byzantion s.v. 'ATroWcovLa 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. i). Aelian
{V. H. ii. 31) calls him Aioyhrjs 6 ^pv^, which shows that he took this view.

* On this passage see Diels, " Leukippos und Diogenes von Apollonia "
(Rhein. Mus. xlii. pp. i sqq.). Natorp's view that the words are merely
those of Simplicius {ib. pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be maintained.

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 353

This passage shows that the Apolloniate was somewhat
later in date than the statement in Laertios Diogenes ^ that
he was contemporary with Anaxagoras would lead us to
suppose, and the fact that his views are satirised in the Clouds
of Aristophanes points in the same direction. ^

187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several works, writings,
though he allows that only one survived till his own day,
namely, the liepl ^vo-eo)?.^ This statement is based upon
references in the surviving work itself, and is not to be Hghtly
rejected. In particular, it is very credible that he wrote a

tract Against the Sophists, that is to say, the pluralist cos-
mologists of the day.* That he wrote a Meteorology and a
book called The Nature of Man is also quite probable. This
would be a physiological or medical treatise, and perhaps the
famous fragment about the veins comes from it.^

188. The work of Diogenes seems to have been preserved The
in the Academy ; practically all the fairly extensive frag- nS^s.
ments which we still have are derived from Simplicius. I
give them as they are arranged by Diels :

(i) 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 differentia-
tions 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 ^ 7^
^iq. I ^\k€l Trpbs avrrjv tt]v tK/uLada T975 (ppovridos. For the iKfxds, see Beare,
p. 259.

3 Simpl. Phys. p. 151, 24 (R. P. 207 a).

* Simplicius says Upbs ^vaio\6yovs, but he adds that Diogenes called
them (Totpiarai, which is the older word. This is, so far, in favour of the
genuineness of the work.

6 Diels gives this as fr. 6 {Vers. 51 b 6). I have omitted it, as it really
belongs to the history of Medicine.

354 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

existing in this world — if any one of these things, I say, were
different from any other, different, that is, by having a substance
pecuhar to itself ; and if it were not the same thing that is often
changed and differentiated, then things could not in any way
mix with one another^ nor could they do one another good or
harm. Neither could a plant grow out of the earth, nor any
animal nor anything else come into being unless things were
composed in such a way as to be the same. But all these things
arise from the same thing ; they are differentiated and take
different forms at different times, and return again to the same
thing. R. P. 208.

(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 wiU find that every-
thing 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 intelli-
gence 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,i and to reach everywhere, and to dispose everything,
and to be in everything ; and there is not anything which does
not partake in it. Yet no single thing partakes in it just in the
same way as another ; but there are many modes both of air
and of intelligence. For it undergoes many transformations,
warmer and colder, drier and moister, more stable and in swifter
motion, and it has many other differentiations in it, and an
infinite number of colours and savours. And the soul of all
living things is the same, namely, air warmer than that outside
us and in which we are, but much colder than that near the sun.
And this warmth is not alike in any two kinds of living creatures,

^ The MSS. of Simplicius have ^dos, not deds; 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, rbv aipa yap avrbv Ai'a vofii^etv (pyjaiy, iweidT) irav eiSivai. rov ALa X^7ei
(cf. Cic. Nat. D. i. 12, 29)

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 355

nor, for the matter of that, in any two men ; but it does not
differ much, only so far as is compatible with their being alike.
At the same time, it is not possible for any of the things which
are differentiated to be exactly like one another till they aU once
more become the same.

(6) Since, then, differentiation is multiform, living creatures
are multiform and many, and they are like one another neither
in appearance nor in intelUgence, 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 ^ some come into being and some pass away.

(8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is both
great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of great
knowledge. R. P. 209.

That the chief interest of Diogenes was a physiological
one, is clear from his elaborate account of the veins, pre-
served by Aristotle. 2 It is noticeable, too, that one of his
arguments for the underlying unity of all substances is that
without this it would be impossible to understand how one
thing could do good or harm to another (fr. 2). In fact, the
writing of Diogenes is essentially of the same character as a
good deal of the pseudo-Hippokratean literature, and there
is much to be said for the view that the writers of these
curious tracts made use of him very much as they did of
Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.^

189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as the Cos-
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 rep Si, but surely the Aldine tQv 84 is
right. 2 Arist. Hist. An. T, 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 Ilepl dLairrjs and the Uepl <pv(x(av ; to the former,
especially the ILepl apxaiv^ iaTf^iKTjs.

356 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

He speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean elements (fr. 2),
and he is careful to attribute to Air the attributes of Nous
as taught by Anaxagoras (fr. 4). The doxographical tradi-
tion as to his cosmological views is fairly preserved :

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 pmnice-
Uke conflagration. lb. 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 Uke the stone star which
fell down flaming at Aigospotamos.^ lb. ii. 13, 9.

We have here nothing more than the old Ionian doctrine
with a few additions from more recent sources. Rarefaction
and condensation still hold their place in the explanation of
the opposites, 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 2
that Diogenes did not, like Anaximenes, speak of earth and
water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather of blood.

^ See Chap. VI. p. 252, n. 6.
2 Censorinus, de die natali, 6, i {Dox. p. 190).

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 357

flesh, and bones. In this he followed Anaxagoras (§ 130),
as it was natural that he should. That portion of Air, on
the other hand, which was rarefied became fiery, and pro-
duced the sun and heavenly bodies. The circular motion of
the world is due to the intelligence of the Air, as is also the
division of all things into different forms of body and the
observance of the " measures " by these forms. ^

Like Anaximander (§ 20), Diogenes regarded the sea as
the remainder of the original moist state, which had been
partially evaporated bj^ the sun, so as to separate out the
remaining earth. 2 The earth itself is round, that is to
say, it is a disc : for the language of the doxographers
does not point to the spherical form.^ Its solidification
by the cold is due to the fact that cold is a form of
condensation.

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-hke, 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 Aigos-
potamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed that the
incHnation 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 behef,
and had just been revived by Anaxagoras and Leukippos.
He is mentioned with the rest in the Placita; and if SimpHcius
classes him and Anaximenes with Herakleitos as holding the
Stoic doctrine of successive formations and destructions of

^ On the " measures " see Chap. III. § 72.

» Theophr. ap. Alex, in Meteor, p. 67, i {Dox. p. 494).

8 Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215). « Aet. ii. 8, i (R. P. 215).

358 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

a single world, he has probably been misled by the
" accommodators/' ^
Animals 190. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubtless
plants, 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 ; ^ his theory of
sensation too, as it is described by Theophrastos,^ need only
be mentioned in passing. Briefly stated, it amounts to this,
that all sensation is due to the action of air upon the brain
and other organs, while pleasure is aeration of the blood.
But the details of the theory can only be studied properly in
connexion with the Hippokratean writings ; for Diogenes
does not really represent the old cosmological tradition, but
a fresh development of reactionary philosophical views
combined with an entirely new enthusiasm for detailed
investigation and accumulation of facts.

III. Archelaos of Athens

Anaxa- IQI- The last of the early cosmologists was Archelaos of

goreans. Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxagoras.* He is also said,

by Aristoxenos and Theophrastos, to have been the teacher

of Sokrates, and there is not the slightest reason for

doubting it.^ There is no reason either to doubt the tradition

1 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 59.

2 See Censorinus, quoted in Dox. -p. igi sq.

3 Theophr. 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). « 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 Kopke). If this refers to the siege
of Samos, it is interesting to think of the youthful Sokrates serving against
a force commanded by Melissos.

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 359

that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in the school at Lamp-
sakos.i We certainly hear of Anaxagoreans,^ though their
fame was soon obscured by the rise of the Sophists, as we
call them.

102. On the cosmoloe:y of Archelaos, Hippolytos ^ Cos-
writes as follows :

Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of Apollo-
doros. He spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to
Anaxagoras, and of the first principles Ukewise. 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),* being
produced by the burning of the fire, and from its original com-
bustion comes the substance of the heavenly bodies. Of these the
sun is the largest, and the moon second ; the rest are of various
sizes. He says that the heavens were inclined, and that then
the sun made light upon the earth, made the air transparent,
and the earth dry ; for it was originally a pond, being high at
the circumference and hoUow in the centre. He adduces as a
proof of this hoUowness that the sun does not rise and set at the
same time for aU peoples, as it ought to do if the earth were level.
As to animals, he says that when the earth was first being warmed
in the lower part where the warm and the cold were mingled
together, many living creatures appeared, and especially men, all
having the same manner of life, and deriving their sustenance

1 Euseb. P. E. p. 504, c 3, 6 5^ 'Apx^^aos iv Aafi\pdK(^ diedi^aro rV
(TXoM]v Tov 'Ava^aySpov.

2 'Ava^ayopeLOL are mentioned by Plato {Crat. 409 b 6), and in the Aitro-oi
\6yot (cf. p. 29, n. 3). It is also to be noted that Plato {Parm. 126 a, b)
represents certain <pt\6<xo(l)OL 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).

* Inserting t6v 8' d4pa KpareXv tov iravrds, as suggested by Roeper.

36o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

from the slime ; they did not live long, and later on generation
from one another began. And men were distinguished from the
rest, and set up leaders, and laws, and arts, and cities, and so
forth. And he says that Nous is implanted in all animals alike ;
for each of the animals, as well as man, makes use of Nous, but
some quicker and some slower.

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. ^ Leukippos had made such a force
unnecessary. It may be added that this twofold relation
of Archelaos to his predecessors makes it very credible that,
as Actios tells us,^ he believed in innumerable worlds ; both
Anaxagoras and the older lonians upheld that doctrine.
Con- 103. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of Diogenes,

elusion.

has all the characteristics of the age to which it belonged —
an age of reaction, eclecticism, and investigation of detail.^
Hippon of Samos and Idaios of Himera represent nothing
more than the feeUng that philosophy had run into a bUnd
alley, from which it could only escape by trying back. The
Herakleiteans at Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped up as they
were in their own system, did little but exaggerate its para-
doxes and develop its more fanciful side.* It was not enough
for Kratylos to say with Herakleitos (fr. 84) that you cannot
step twice into the same river ; you could not do so even

1 Aet. i. 7, i4=Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 217 a). 2 Aet. ii. i, 3.

3 Windelband, § 25. The period is well described by Fredrich, Hippo-
kratische Untersuchungen, pp. 130 sqq. It can only be treated fully in
connexion with the Sophists.

* For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, Theaet. 179 e.
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.

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 361

once.i The fact is that philosophy, so long as it clung to
its old presuppositions, had nothing more to say ; for the
answer of Leukippos to the question of Thales was really
final.

It will be observed that aU 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 fiat, and whether "what we think with" was Air or Blood,
must have been hotly debated at Athens about the middle
of the fifth century B.C., 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 hfe. Now, in the Phaedo, Plato
has put into his mouth an autobiographical statement in
which he tells us that this was actually the case,^ and the
list of problems there given is one that can only have occupied
men's minds at Athens and at that date.^ All the scientific
schools end at Athens, and it was the Athenian Sokrates who
saw that the questions they had raised could only be met by
making a fresh start from another point of view.

^ Arist. Met. r, 5. ioioai2. 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.

APPENDIX

ON THE MEANING OF ^vac^;

The account which I have given (pp. lo s^^.) of the meaning of
the term c^wts in early Greek philosophy has been criticised by
Professor W. A. Heidel in a paper entitled Hepl <^vo-ea)s, A Study
of the Conception of Nature among the Pre-Socratics} It is an
exceedingly valuable paper, and I cannot find that it contains
anything inconsistent with my view, though the writer apparently
thinks it does. The only point at issue, so far as I can see, is
that Professor Heidel assumes that the original meaning of </)vo-ts
is "growth," which seems to me extremely doubtful. No doubt
the verb (fivofiai (i.e. ^vioixai) with a long vowel means " I grow,"
but the simple root ^v is the equivalent of the Latin fu and the
English be, and need not necessarily have this derivative meaning.

There is an interesting article in support of my view by
Professor Lovejoy in the Philosophical Review, vol. xviii. pp. 369
sqq., and Mr. Beardslee has recently examined the use of the word
^v<jLs in Greek writers of the fifth century B.C. in a Ph.D. disserta-
tion (University of Chicago Press, 19 18). Here again, while
acknowledging the value of the work, I can only say that I do not
find its results inconsistent with the account I have given. I have
never questioned the obvious fact that the word (^wts had a
history, and developed meanings quite different from that which
it may have had for an Ionian.

I should almost be willing to rest the case for this on the
fragment of Euripides quoted on p. 10, where the significant
epithet dOdvaros Kal dyrip(D<s is given to (f)V(TL?, but it may be well
to collect here some of the passages on which I also rely.

I. Plato, Laws 891 C l, KLvSwevec ydp 6 Aeywv ravTa irvp kol
vSoyp KOL yrjv kol dkpa irpQtTa rjyeia-Oai twv TravTWV eiVat, Kat rrjv
(f)V(TiV ovojU,a^€6v TavTa avrd. 892 c 2, ^vcrtv f^ovXovTat Aeyetv
yevecrtv rrjv Trepl to. rrpdra' et Se (^av/ycrerat ^VX"! ""pajTov, ov
TTvp ovSe d-qp, ^vx'>] S' ^v 7rpioToi<5 yeyevTjixhr], (rxe66v opOorara
XkyoLT dv etvai 8La(ji€p6vT(D<s ^Txret.

1 Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. xlv. No. 4.

363

364 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

In 891 c 7 the use of (f>v(rL<s here criticised is expressly said to
be that of ottoctol TrwTroTe riov Trepl <j)V(r€(x)s €(f)7J\l/avT0 ^rjTrjfjLOLTiov.

2. Ar. Phys, B, i. 193 a 9, hoK^l 8 y] (fivcns koI rj ovcria rdv

(fiV(T€L OVTOiV eVLOLS €tVat TO TTpoOTOV €VV7rdp)(0V eKOXTTO) dppvOfXL<TTOV

KaO eavTO, oTov kAiv^s (f)V(TLS to ^vXov, dvSpidvros 8' 6 x^^^'^^s.
crrjfietov 8e cf>7](TLv AvTLcfiioP oVt, et tls Karopv^ete kXlvtjv kol XdfSot
SvvafiLv 'q crrjTreSayv ^crre dveivai fSXacTTOv, ovk dv yevecrOat kXlvtjv
dXXd ^vXov.

Antiphon the Sophist was a contemporary of Sokrates.

3. Ar. Phys. A, 6. 18952, ot /^lav Ttvo, ^v<jiv etvai Xeyovres
rh Trav, otov v8(i)p t] irvp rj to fiera^v Tovrtuv. B, I. 193 a 21, ot
)U,ev TTvp, ol Se yrfv, 01 8 d^pa (ftaa-iv, ol 8e vSoyp, ot 8 eVta tovtidv,
ot 8k Trdvra ravra rrjv (jivcnv eivat rrjv riov ovtcov. P, 4. 203 a 16,
ot Se Trepl (f)V(T€ii)<s del TravTcs viroTiOeacnv krkpav nvd ^vcrw t(^
dTrelpi^ rdv Xeyofxevoiv (rroL^eioiv, otov v8o)p rj dkpa r) to fiera^v

TOVT(i)V.

4. Ar. Afe^. A, 4. 1014 b 16, <^w"ts Xeyerai eva fiev rpoirov 'q
Twv (fiVOfjicviDV y€ve(TLS, otov €t Tts eTTCKTeivas Aeyot to v.

There is no doubt that this means that, to Aristotle, <^i;o-is did
not immediately suggest the verb <^voixai. That has a long v and
4iva-Ls has a short v. We need not discuss the question whether
Aristotle's difficulty is a real one or not. All that concerns us is
that he felt it.

5. Aristotle, II/aoTpeTrTtKos, fr. 52 Rose {ap. Iambi. Protr. p. 38.
22 Pistelli), o/xofcws 8\ kol twv Trepl <^i;o-€0>s (ea-rt Tts eTTLfieXeta kol
Te^vrj)' TToXv yap Trporepov dvayKaiov r(av aiTtwv Acai twi/ (TTOt^j^etwv
etvat (fipovrjCTLV rj twv vcrrepov. ov ydp ravra twv aKpaiv ov8 l/c
TovTWv TO, TT/awTa 7r€cf)VK€v, dXX e^ eK€LV(i)v KOi 81' eK€iv(DV rdXXa
ytyvcTat /cat o-vvia-TaTai (jiavepcos. eiVe ydp irvp clt drjp etr dptO/xhs
ctVe aAAat Ttves <^Txrets atTiat kol TrpOtrai twv aAAwv, d8vvarov twv
cLAAwv Tt ytyi/wo-Kctv e/ceii/as dyvoovvTas* ttws yap av ti? '^7 Aoyoi/
yvoipl^OL a-vXXafSds dyvo(Ji)V, rj TavTas eTrtcrraiTO ixr]8€V tcov o^Tot^eiW
etSws ;

The importance of this passage. for our purpose is that it is
from a popular work, in which the phraseology is Academic (e.g.
the use of (^povrja-is for what Aristotle himself called aocfita).

The usage of Theophrastos is the same, but of course he simply
reproduces Aristotle.

INDEXES

I. ENGLISH

Aahmes, iS sq., 46

Abaris, 81, go n. 2

Abdera, school of, 61, 330 sq.

Abstinence, Orphic and Pythagorean,
93> 95 ; Empedoklean, 250

Academy, 29 ; library of, 33, 116, 171
w- 3, 353

Accommodation {avvoiKeluais) , 32, 142,
358

Achaians, 2 n. i, 4, 81 ; of Pelo-
ponnesos, 92 ; dialect, 282 n. 4

Achilles and the tortoise, 318

Achilles, Elaayuyr], Sources § g (p. 34),
191 n. 3, 292 n. 2, 298 n. 1

Adrastos, 24 n. 2

Aegean civilisation, survivals of, 2, 3,
15, 21 n. 2, 39, 80

Aether. See aW-qp

Aetios, Sources § 10 (p. 35)

Ages of the world, 5

Aigospotamof, meteoric stone of, 252,
269, 357

Ainesidem /S, 152

Air, idencified with mist or vapour,
62, 64, 68, 74 sq., 109, no, 153,
187 n. I, 216 n. 2, 219 n. 3, 228 n. 2,
246 n. 2 ; identified with the void,
109, 186, 194, 229 ; atmospheric,
109, 229, 266 sq., 269, 289, 293, 337

Akousmata, 96, 98, 283

Akousmatics, 94, 96, 98

Akragas, 3, 197 sqq.

Alexander, writer of Successions,
Sources § 17 (p. 37)

Alexander Aetolus, 255

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Sources § 7
(P- 33) \ oil Anaximander, 64 ; on
Xenophanes, 116 n. i, 126; on the
Pythagoreans, 107 n. i, 288, 306
nn. I and 2 ; on Parmenides, 183 ; on
Zeno, 320 n. I ; on Kippon, 351

Alkidamas, 86, 199 «. 5, 201 «. 2, 202,
257 n. I, 278 n. I, 312

Alkmaion of Kroton, 86, no n. 2, 153,
193-196, 202, 248, 282 n. 5, 296, 332

Allegorists, Homeric, 49 «. i, 116 », 2

Amasis, 40, 88

Amber, 48 n. i, 50

Ameinias, 170

Anakreon and Kritias, 203 n. 3

Anaxagoras, 251-275 ; and Euripides,
10, 255 ; and Sokrates, 256, 267 ;
and Per ikies, 254 sqq. ; and Zeno,
349 ; and Anaximenes, 253, 266,
269, 270, 271 ; and Herakleitos, 264,
268 ; and Empedokles, 261, 264, 265,
267, 268, 273 sq. ; and Leukippos,
331 ; relation to the Eleatics, 182,
261, 310 ; on the rise of the Nile,
45 ; on the moon's light, 177 n. i ;
on eclipses, 306 ; on irbvos, 326 n. 2 ;
primitive cosmology of, in, 297

Anaxagoreans, 29 n. 3, 359 n. 2

Anaximander, 50-71 ; as an observer
in marine biology, 26 ; and Xeno-

^^ phanes, 114

i;^" Anaximenes, 72-79, i79 ; school of,
""" 79. 253, 305, 330, 353 w. I

Androkydes, 283

Andron of Ephesos, 87

Anecdotes, of Thales, 46 n. 4 ; of
Xenophanes, 113 n. 2, 115 n. 3 ;
of Herakleitos, 115 n. 3, 131 n. 4 ;
of Empedokles, 200 n. 5

Animals, Anaximander, 26, 70 sqq. ;
Empedokles, 242 sqq. ; Anaxagoras,
272 sq. ; Diogenes of Apollonia, 358

Antichthon, 297, 305 sq.

Antisthenes, writer of Successions,
Sources § 17 (p. 37)

Antonius Diogenes, 87 «. 2

Apollo, an Achaian god, 4

ApoUo Hyperboreios, 4, 81, 87 n. 3,
90, 200

ApoUodoros, Sources § 21 (p. 38) ; on
Thales, 44 «. 2 ; on Anaximander,

365

366

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

51 ; on Anaximenes, 72 ; on Pytha-
goras, 88 n. 2 ; on Xenophanes,
113 ; on Herakleitos, 130 ; on
Parmenides, 169 ; on Empedokles,
197 nn. I and 2, 198 ; on Anaxagoras,
251, 254 ». I, 331 «. I ; on Zeno,
310 sq. ; on Melissos, 321 ; on
Leukippos, 331 ; on Demokritos,
331 w. I
Apollonia, 52, 352 n. 3
Apollonios of Tyana, 87 n. 2, 95
Apophthegms, of Thales, 50 w. 3 ; of
Herakleitos, 50 «. 3 ; of Anaxa-
goras, 252, 274 ; of Philolaos, 284
n. 2
Appearances, saving, 28, 188
Arcadian and Cypriote dialect, 4 n. 2
Archelaos, 256, 358-360 ; and Anaxa-
goras, 360
Archippos, 91, 276 w. i
Archytas, 276 ; on Eurytos, 100 n. 2 ;
definition of harmonic mean, 106
«. 2
Aristarchos of Samos, 299
Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 81, 90 n. 2
Aristophanes, on Thales, 47 w. i ; on
Alvos, 61 n. 3 ; on Diogenes of Apol-
lonia, 331, 353
Aristotle, Sources § 2 (p. 31) ; on the
rise of the Nile, 45 ; on Egyptian
mathematics, 15 n. 4, 19 ; on Baby-
lonian astronomy, 23 «. 2 ; on
" theologians," 7 ; on Ionian
monism, 9 «. 2 ; on Thales, 46
n. 4, 47-50 ; on Anaximander, 53,
55 sq., 57, 60 n. 4, 63 sq., 66 n. i ;
on Anaximenes (?), 77 ; on Pytha-
goras, 86, 87 «. 3, 90 ». 2, 97
n. 3 ; on Xenophanes, 113 n. 2,
115 n. 3, 124 sq., 126 sq. ; on
Hippasos, 109, 142 ; on Hera-
kleitos, 133 n. I, 140 n. 2, 142, 144
n. I, 146, 151, 157, 158, 159 ; on
Parmenides, 170, 178 n. 3, 181, 182,
185 sq. ; on Alkmaion, 193, 196 ;
on Empedokles, 158 n, i, 199, 200,
229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235,
236 n. 1, 237, 239 nn. 1 and 4, 240,
241, 242, 243, 244, 249 ; on Anaxa-
goras, 251, 252 n. 5, 257 n. I, 261
». I, 262 n. I, 263, 264 n. 3, 265,
267, 268 n. I, 269 n. I ; on the
Pythagoreans, 92 n. 2, 107, 277,
284 sqq., 289, 290 n. i, 291 sqq.,
305, 306, 307 ; on Eurytos, 100
«. 2 ; on Zeno, 312, 313, 317, 318 sqq. ;
on Melissos, 324 sq., 327, 328 ; on
Leukippos, 330, 334 sq., 335 sq.,
336 ; on Hippon, 351 ; on Diogenes
of ApoUonia, 355 ; on Demokritos,
342 ; on gravity, 340, 343 ; on
eternal motion, 12 ; on the diurnal

revolution, 13 n. i ; on the celestial
spheres, 188 ; on the substance of
the heavens, 15 n. 1, 27 n. 1 ; on
the motion of the earth, 299 sqq. ;
on the galeus levis, 70 n. 2, 71 «. 2 ;
on the theoretic life, 83, 98 ; on the
mysteries, 84 m. 4 ; misunder-
standings of Platonic humour,
Sources § 2 (p. 32), 48 n. 2, 127, 170 ;
nporpeTTTiKds, 83 «. 2 ; on triangular,
square, and oblong numbers, 100 sq.,
103 M. 2 ; on incommensurability,
105 n. 2 ; doctrine of the Mean,
112 n. 2

[Aristotle] de Mundo, 164

[Aristotle] de Plantis, 241, 242 «. i,
257 w. 3, 272

Aristoxenos, on Pythagoras, 86, 87
*»• 5, 89, 91, 93 nn. 4 and 5, 94 «. i,
99 n. I, 307 M. 3 ; on the Pytha-
goreans, 97 n. 4, 277, 288 n. 3, 309 ;
on Eurytos, 100 n. 1, 277 ; on
Archytas, 276 ; on Philolaos, 283
n. I ; YivdayopiKal diro(pd(r€LS, 92
n. 3, 96, 281 ; on Hippon, 351 n. i ;
on Plato, 279 sq.

Arithmetic, Egyptian, 19 ; Pytha-
gorean, 99 sqq. ; Euclidean, 106

Arnobius, Sources § 16 (p. 37)

Arpedonapts, 20, 105

Astrology, 24 n. 1

Astronomy, Babylonian and Greek,
21 sq. See Heavenly bodies, Sun,
Moon, Planets, Stars, Earth,
Eclipses, Geocentric and Helio-
centric hypotheses

Atheism, 50

Athenagoras, Sources § 9 (p. 34)

Athens, meeting-place of Ionian and
Italiote science, 321, 361 ; Par-
menides and Zeno at, 169, 311 n. 1 ;
Empedokles at, 203 ; Anaxagoras
at, 254 sqq.

Atomism, 180 n. i, 182, 336 sqq. See
Leukippos

Atoms, movement of, 13, 61, 340,
345 sq. ; weight of, 341 sq.

Augustine, Sources § 16 (p. 37)

Babylonian astronomy, 21 sqq., 157 ;

prediction of eclipses, 42 sq.
Beans, taboo on, 93 n. 5
Bias, 140

Biology. See Animals, Plants
Blood, Empedokles, 201, 229, 247 ;

Diogenes of ApoUonia, 355 ; Sicilian

school of medicine, 249 n. 4
Boundless. See d-jreipov
Brain, Alkmaion, 194 ; Empedokles,

201, 249 ; Plato and Hippokrates,

249 n. 4
Breath. See Respiration

INDEX

367

Breath of the world, 75, 108, 128, 185

sq., 231
Brotinos, 194

Calendar, Babylonian, 22 ; Thales, 47

Cave, Orphic, 83 n. 3, 223 n. i

Centum and satetn languages, 2 «. i

Chaos, 7 ». I

Cicero, Sources § 12 (p. 35) ; on Stoic
" accommodation," 32 n. 1 ; on
Thales, 49 sq. ; on Anaximander, 60 ;
on Anaximenes, 78; on Pythagoras,
89 n. 3 ; on Parmenides, 191 «. 2,
192 «. I ; on Anaxagoras, 253 m. i ;
on Atomism, 341 n. 2

Clement of Alexandria, 16

Comic poets on Pythagoreans, 94 n. 3

Condensation. See Rarefaction

Conflagration. See iKTrvpojais.

Constellations, names of, 21 ». 2

Continuity, 320 x

Copernicus, 299 n. 3

Cosmogonies 7 sq.

Croesus, Solon and, 24, 113; Milesians
and, 39 sqq.

Cjnril, Sources § 9 (p. 34)

Damasias, 44

Damaskios, 7 w. 3

Damon, 255 n. 2, 256, 296 n. 2

Darkness, 74, 109, 155, 186, 187, 237,

239

Death, Herakleitos, 137 n. 6, 138,
153 sq. ; Parmenides, 193 ; Alk-
maion, 195 ; Empedokles, 244 sq.

Dekad, 102

Delos, 80, 81, 90 n. 2

Demetrios Magnus, on Philolaos, 281

Demetrios Phalereus, on Thales, 44 ;
on Anaxagoras, 251

Demokritos, not a " pre-Socratic,"
I «. I ; date of, 252 n. 2, 331 ;
on Egyptian mathematics, 20 ; on
Anaxagoras, 252, 331, 348 ; and
Leukippos, 331 ; and Epicurus, 341
sq. ; primitive cosmology of, 79 n. i,
III, 297 sq., 339

Derkyllides, 42 n. i, 304 n. i

Diagonal and side of square, 105

Dialectic, Eleatic, 180, 313 sqq.

Diels, Doxographi graeci. Sources § 6
(p- 33) > on Apollodoros, Sources § 21
I (p. 38)
V Dikaiarchos, on Pythagoras, 86, 89 n. 4,

I 92

I Diodoros of Aspendos, 95

\ Diogenes of Apollonia, 352-358, 64, 79,

!• 145 n. I ; and Empedokles, 356 ;

and Anaxagoras, 356 sq. ; and

Leukippos, 357
Diogenes Laertios, Sources § 15 (p. 37),

§ 20 (p. 38) ; on Herakleitos, 147

sq.
Dionysos, 81
Distances, measurement of inaccessible,

46
Divisibility, 262, 264, 316 sq., 327, 335,

349
Dodecahedron, 284 n. i, 293 sqq.
Dorians, 2 «. i, 89 5^.
Doric dialect, 281, 282 sq.
Doxographers, Sources § 6 (p. 33

sqq.) \

Earth, shape of, 23 n. 3, 66, 79 n. i,
III, 190 n. 1, 298, 347; originally
moist, 26, 63 sqq., 65, 240 ; motion
of, 66 n. 3, 69, 299 sqq., 305, 307 ;
Thales, 47 ; Anaximander, 65 sq. ;
Anaximenes, 77 ; Pythagoras, 1 1 1 ;
Xenophanes, 125 ; Empedokles, 240 ;
Anaxagoras, 271 ; Pythagoreans,
300 sqq. ; Leukippos, 347 ; Dio-
genes of Apollonia, 357. See
Geocentric hypothesis

Echekrates, 85, 277, 295

Eclipses, 22 ; Babylonian predictions
of, 42 ; Thales, 41 sq., 113 n. i ;
Anaximander, 67 w. 2 ; Anaximenes,
78 ; Xenophanes, 122 ; Herakleitos,
67 n. 2, 148 ; Alkmaion, 195 ;
Empedokles, 239 ; Anaxagoras, 271,
272 ; Pythagoreans, 298, 305 ; Leu-
kippos, 347

Ecliptic. See Obliquity

Effluences. See airoppoal.

Egypt, 3, 15, 16 ; Thales and, 44 ;
Pythagoras and, 88

Egyptian mathematics, 15 ; arith-
metic, 18 ; geometry, 19

Ekphantos, 291 n. 3, 300 n. i, 336 n. i

Elea, 169 ; era of, 113, 170 ; Xeno-
phanes and, 113, 115, 127;
Parmenides and, 169 ; Zeno and,

311
Eleatics. See Parmenides, Zeno, "
Melissos ; Plato on, 29 n. 2, 127 ;
Leukippos and the, 331, 333 sqq.y

349

Elements, 12 n. 2, 53, 55 sq., 201 n. 5,
206 n. I, 228 sqq., 283, 292 sq.
See Roots, Seeds, eWos, I5ia, iJ.op<fyfi,
aroix^LOP

Embryology, Parmenides, 178 «. 2,
192 ; Empedokles, 244

Empedokles, 197-250 : was he a
Dorian ? 3 ; at Athens, 203 ; and
Orphicism, 200, 2495^. ; and medicine,
201 sq.; and Pythagoras, 200, 224
n. 5 ; and Xenophanes, 125, 212
n. 3 ; and Parmenides, 182, 202,
224 n. 5, 227 sqq., 249, 310; and
Zeno, 202 ; and Leukippos, 202,

368

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

332 ; and Gorgias, 201, 249 n. i ;
on " air " and darkness, 237

Engineering, Ionian, 40 w. i

Ephesos, 130 sqq.

Ephoros, on Anaxagoras, 255 n. 6

Epicharmos, 113 n. 2, 116, 127 n. 3,
152 n. I

Epicureans, Sources § 12 (p. 36)

Epicurus, on innumerable worlds, 59 ;
on Leukippos, 330 n. 2, 339 ; atomic
theory of, 341 sq., 343 sq.

Epimenides, 7, 97, 112 ; evaporation,
49. See duadvfxlaacs

Equinoxes, 21, 42 ». i, 51, 301 n. i ;
precession of the, 22 n. i

Er, myth of, 188, 190, 191

Eratosthenes, Sources § 21 (p. 38) ;
on Anaximander's map, 51 ; on
Pythagoras, 88 w. i

Eros, in Hesiod, 7 ; in Parmenides, 191

Ethics, origin of, i

Euclid, arithmetic, 106 ; i. 47, 105 ;
iv. II, 295 n. 2

Eudemos of Rhodes, on Thales, 42
n. I, 44 n. 4, 45 nn. 4 and 5 ; on
Anaximander, 66 «. 3 ; on Pytha-
goras, 104 M. 3 ; on Parmenides, 178
n. 3 ; on Zeno, 315 m. 3 ; on Melissos,
325 n. I ; on the term aroix^Tov,
228 n. I

Eudoxos, spheres of, 62 n. i, 188 ;
theory of proportion, 106

Euripides, on (pijais, 10 ; and Anaxa-
goras, 255

Eurytos, 99 sq., 100 n. i, 107, 277,
278, 283 n. I

Eusebios, Sources § 9 (p. 34), § 14
(p. 36), § 16 (p. 37) ; on Mosaic
origin of Greek philosophy, 16

Euthjonenes of Massalia, 45

Evans, Sir Arthur, 2 «. i, 4 w. 2

Even and Odd, 287 sqq.

Evolution, Anaximander, 71 ; Empe-
dokles, 242 sqq. ; Anaxagoras, 272 sq.

Examyes, 41

Experiment, 27. See Klepsydra

Figures, numerical, 100 ; " Arabic,"

100 n. 3
Fire, fed by moisture, 49, 64 m. i, 150,

156 n. I ; Hippasos, 109 ; Hera-

kleitos, 145
Fire, central, 190, 296 sqq.
Floruit. See aKfii)
Flux, Herakleitian, 145 sq.
Forgeries, Pythagorean, 92 n. 5,

280 sqq.
Fossils, Xenophanes on, 26, 123 sq.

Galen, Sources § 9 (p. 34)1 on

Empedokles, 200
Galeus levis, 70 n. 2, 71 n. 2

Geocentric hypothesis, 23, 27 sq., iii,
190, 297 n. 3, 299 sqq., 304 sq.

Geometry, Egyptian, 19 sq. ; of
Thales, 45 sq. ; of Pythagoras,
104 sq.

Glaukos of Rhegion, 198 n. i

Gnomon, the carpenter's tool, 21 w. i ;
the astronomical instrument, 26 n. i,
42 «. I, 51 n. 4 ; in geometry and
arithmetic, 21 n. i, 103

God, gods, in Homer, 4 ; in Hesiod,
5, 14 ; non-religious use of the word,
14, 80 ; fall of gods, 81 ; Thales,
48, 50 ; Anaximander, 60 ;
Anaximenes, 78 ; Xenophanes, 128
sq. ; Herakleitos, 167 ; Parmenides
(avoids the term), 179 ; Empedokles,
230, 235, 249 ; Diogenes of Apollonia,
354 n. I

Golden Section, 295 n. 2

Gorgias and Empedokles, 198 n. 2,

199 w. 5, 200, 201, 222 n. I, 249 n. I
Great Year, 156 sqq.

Greek, origin of the name, 2 m. i ;
Greek language, ib.

Harmonic mean, 106 n. 2

Harmonics, 98, 306 sq.

" Harmony of the Spheres," no, 306
^9-> 307 n. I. See Soul and dp/xovia.

Hearing, sense of, Alkmaion, 195 «. i ;
Empedokles, 247, 248 ; Anaxagoras,
273 sq.

Heart, Alkmaion, 194 ; Empedokles,
201

Heavenly bodies, Anaximander, 62
sqq., 66 sqq. ; Anaximenes, 75 sqq. ;
Pythagoras, no sq. ; Xenophanes,
121 sqq. ; Herakleitos, 148 sqq. ;
Parmenides, 187 sq. ; Alkmaion,
195 ; Empedokles, 237 sqq. ; Anaxa-
goras, 271 sq. ; Leukippos, 347 ;
Diogenes of Apollonia, 357

Hekataios, in Egypt, 17 n. i ; on
Thales (?), 45, 50 ; and Anaxi-
mander's map, 51 ; Herakleitos on,
134

Heliocentric hypothesis, 23, 299 sqq.

Herakleides of Pontos, on Pythagoras,
95 nn. 2 and 3, 98 n. 3, 278 n. i ; on
Empedokles, 197 n. 2, 198 n. i,

200 n. 5, 203 n. I, 312 «. I ; on
Ekphantos, 336 ». i ; on the earth's
motion, 300 n. i

Herakleides Lembos, Sources § 17

(P- 37)
Herakleiteans, 29 n. i, 145 n. i, 166

n. 2, 360 n. 4
Herakleitos, 130-168 : on Homer, 136,

141, 162, 164; on Hesiod, 134, 136;

on Archilochos, 141 ; on Hekataios,

134 ; and Anaximenes, 146 ; on

INDEX

369

Pythagoras, 85, 87 n. 5, 88, 97, 130,
131, 134, 135 «, 5 ; on Xenophanes,
114, 130, 134 ; and Protagoras, 166 ;
reference to the " three lives," 98
». 3, 140 n. 3 ; apophthegms, 50 n. 3

Herakleitos, the Homeric Allegorist,
on Thales, 49 n. i

Hermippos, Sources § 18 (p. 37), 280

Hermodoros of Ephesos, 130, 131 n. i,
140 sq.

Hermokrates, 279 «. 2

Herodotos, on Homer and Hesiod,
6 ; on Egyptian influences, 15 ;
on Egyptian geometry, 19; on
the rise of the Nile, 44 ; on the
gnomon, 51 n. 4 ; on Orphicism, 88 ;
on the Hyperboreans, 81 ; on
Abaris and Aristeas, 81 ; on Solon
and Croesus, 24 ; on Lydian in-
fluences, 39 ; on Thales, 40-44, 46 ;
on Pythagoras, 85, 87 n. 5, 88 ; on
the foundation of Elea, 113 n. 5 ;
on Empedokles (?), 88 «. 5 ; on
Anaxagoras, 270 «. 6

Hesiod, 5 sq., 14. See Xenophanes

Hieron, 113

Hiketas, 300 n. i

Hippasos, 94 n. 2, 106 n. 1, 109 n. 6,
142, r87, 293, 295

Hippokrates of Kos, on Ionian
monism, 9 n. 2, 26 ; on Empedokles,
202 ; on the brain, 249 n. 4 ; liepi
d4p(av v86.t<j3v rbiruiv, 74 n. 2 ; Hepl
dpxal7}s iaTpiKrjs, 355 w. 3

[Hippokrates] wepi Sta^xTjj, 150 n.
2, 151, 156, 162, 164, 264 n. 2, 265
n. 2, 350 M. I, 355 «. 3

Hippolytos, Sources § 13 (p. 36) ; on
Anaximander, 51, 54 m. 2 ; on Anaxi-
menes, 78 ; on Herakleitos, 142 ;
on Anaxagoras, 270 sq.

Hipponof Samos, 35r-352 ; and Thales,
48 n. 3, 351 ; and the Pythagoreans,
351 n. I

Hippys of Rhegion, 109 n. 6

Homer, 4 sqq. ; on the soul, 81. See
Xenophanes, Herakleitos

Homeric allegorists, 49 «. i, 229 n. 3

Hylozoism, 12 «. 3

Hyperboreans, 81, 90 n. *

Hypotenuse, 105

lamblichos, Life of Pythagoras, 86 sq.,
97 n. I, 100 M. I ; on numerical
symbolism, lor nn. i and 2

Ibykos, 191 n. 3

Idaios of Himera, 352

" Ideas," theory of, 308 sq.

Immortality, 84, r54, r95, 245, 250

Incommensurability, 105

Indian philosophy, 18, 82 n. 2. See
Transmigration

Infinity, Anaximander, 53 sqq. ; Xeno-
phanes, 124 sqq. ; Parmenides, 181 ;
Melissos, 325 sq. See Divisibility,
&Trei.pov

Injustice. See ddLKia,

Intermediate. See fiera^jj

Intervals, musical, 106 sq., 112. See
Octave

lonians, 3 ; pessimism of, 8 ; secu-
larism of, 13 5^., 80 ; as engineers,
40 M. I ; primitive cosmology of,
III

Ionic dialect, 72, 281, 282 sq., 352 n. 3

Irenaeus, Sources § 16 (p. 37)

Irrationals, loi, 105

Isokrates, (f)iXoao<pia in, 83 ; on
Pythagoras, 88, 95 n. 1 ; on
Anaxagoras and Damon, 254, 255
n. I

Italiote philosophy, 80

Justice. See 5iKrj

Kallimachos, on Thales, 41 «. 2
Kebes and Simmias, 277 n. 2, 295, 309
Kebes, Uiva^, on Pythagoras and

Parmenides, 170
Klepsydra, 27, 219 n. 2, 220 n. i, 229,

245, 267 n. I, 332
Korybantes, 97 sq.
Kratinos, 351
Kratylos, 360 sq.

Kritias the elder, 203 n. 3, 279 n. 2
Kritias of the Thirty, 203 n. 3
Kroton, 89, 193
Kylon, 90 M. I, 91

Laertios Diogenes. See Diogenes
Laertios

Lampsakos, school of, 256, 359

Leukippos, 330-349 ; and the lonians,
339 sg-> 349 ; and the Eleatics, 182^
331 sq., 333 sqq., 337, 341, 349 ; and
Empedokles, 202, 332 ; and Anaxa-
goras, 332, 347 ; and the Pytha-
goreans, 337, 339, 345 ; and Diogenes
of ApoUonia, 348 ; and Demokritos,
337 sq., 347 n. 5, 348

Light, 186, 239. See Sun, Moon

Lightning and Thimder, Anaximander,
68 ; Anaximenes, 76 ; Empedokles,
239

Limit. See Hpas

Lives, the three, 98, 140 n. 3

Logic, origin of, i

Love, in Hesiod, 7 ; in Parmenides,
191 ; in Empedokles, 231 sqq.

Lucretius, on Empedokles, 203 ; on
Anaxagoras, 264 «. 3 ; on Demo-
kritos, III n, I

Lydia, 39 sq., 118

Lysis, 91, 276, 277» 281, 283

370

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Magnet, Thales on the, 48, 50

Man, Anaximander, 70 sq. ; Hera-
kleitos, 151 sq.

Map, Anaximander's, 51

Marmor Parium, on Pythian era, 44
n. 3 ; on the meteoric stone of
Aigospotamos, 252 n. 6

Materialism, 182

Matter. See vXrj

Mean, Harmonic, 106 «. 2 ; Aristotle's
doctrine of the, 112

Measures, 134 n. 4, 135 n. 2, 150 sq.,
161, 357

Medicine, Pythagorean, 97, 193 ;
Alkmaion, 193 sqq.; Empedokles,
200 sq., 231 ; Philolaos, 278

Melissos, 320 - 329 ; and Parmeni-
des, 181, 321, 324 ; and the lonians,
321, 326 ; and the Pythagoreans,
327 ; and Anaxagoras, 326 n. 2,
328, 335

Melissos, Xenophanes, and Gorgias,
126 n. I, 322 nn. i and 2

Menon, 'larpLKd, 48 n. 3, 201 n. 5,
278 n. 4, 283 n. I, 292 n. i, 351 ». i

Metapontion, 89, 90 n. 2, 91

Metempsychosis. See Transmigration

Meteorology, at first confused with
astronomy, 27, 49, i95

Milesian school, 39-79

Miletos, 39, 49, 52 n. 2, 330, 332

Milky Way, 191, 271

Milo of Kroton, 91

Milton, on " saving appearances," 28
n. 2 ; on " harmony of the spheres,"
307 n. I

Mixture, Anaximander, 56 ; Empedo-
kles, 233 sq.

Mochos of Sidon, 16 «. 4

Monism, 9 n._ 2, 180, 1^ 7, 310

Monotheism, 128 sq.

Moon, Anaximander, 67 ; Anaximenes,
75 sq. ; Xenophanes, 123 ; Empedo-
kles, 239 ; Anaxagoras, 271 sq. ;
Leukippos, 347 ; liglit of the, 177
«. I, 239, 272, 298 ; rotation of the,
297

Motion, eternal, 12, 61 ; premundane,
61 ; denied by Parmenides, 179, 181 ;
explained by Empedokles, 227 sq. ;
and Anaxagoras, 267 ; criticised by
Zeno, 318 sqq. ; denied by Melissos,
327 ; reaffirmed by Leukippos,
340 sq.

Music, Pythagorean, 97

Mysteries, 84, 141

Nabonassar, era of, 22
Names, 176, 348 n. i
Navigation, Thales, 41, 47; Anaxi-
mander, 51 sq.
Necessity. See dvdyKr}

Neoplatonists, Sources § 5 (p. 32) ;
on Parmenides, 178 n. 3, 183

Neopythagoreans, 107

Nigidius Figulus, 95

Nikomachos of Gerasa, on Pythagoras,
87 «. 2 ; on numerical symbolism,
loi n. I, 289 n. I

Nile, rise of the, 44 sq., 270 n. 6

Nomnenios, 16

Nous, in Anaxagoras, 267 sqq.

Numljers, Pythagorean doctrine of,
107 sq., 278, 285 sqq., 307 sqq. ;
relation to Atomism, 336 ; triangu-
lar, square, and oblong, 102 sq.

Numerical symbolism, 100 sqq.

Obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac),

Anaximander, 51 ; Anaximenes, 77 ;

Leukippos, 347 ; Diogenes of Apol-

lonia, 357
Oblong numbers. See Numbers
Observation, 26
Octave, 106, no, 296, 306
Odd and Even, 287 s^.
Oinopides of Chios, 26 n. 1, 103 n. i
Olympiodoros on the term [xeTsixxpi-

Xwats, 93 n. 2
Onomakritos, 97
Opposites (hot-cold, dry-wet), 8 sq.,

53 sq., 57, 112, 143, 165, 185, 196,

201, 228, 231, 263, 356
Oriental influences, 15 sqq.
Origin, (piXoa-ocpoijfieva, Sources § 13

(p. 36)
Orphicism, 5 ». 2, 7 n. 3, 81 sqq., 192, 200

Pain, 273, 326

Parmenides, 169-193 ; and Xeno-
phanes, 170 ; and Anaximander,
189 ; and Herakleitos, 130, 179,
183 sq. ; and Pythagoreanism and
Empedokles, 109, 170, 179, 184 sqq.,
192, 202, 293, 310 ; at Athens, 169,
172 «. I, 311

Pausanias, 201 n. i

Pentagram, 295

Pebbles. See xf/rjtpot

Perception, sense, Parmenides, 178 ;
Alkmaion, 194 ; Empedokles, 246
sqq. ; Anaxagoras, 273 sq. ; Leu-
kippos, 347 sq. ; Diogenes of
ApoUonia, 358

Perikles, and Zeno, 169, 311 n. i ;
and Anaxagoras, 251, 254 sqq. ;
and Melissos, 320

Petron, 60, 109

Phaidros, Sources § 12 (p. 36)

Pherekydes of Syros, 3, 7 n. 2, 80, 94
n. I, 97

Philip of Opous, 305

Philistion, 201 nn. 1 and 4, 231 «. i, 249
n. 4

Philo of Byblos, 16 w. 4

■

INDEX

371

Philo Judaeus, 16 ; on Herakleitos,
143, 164

Philodemos, de pietate, Sources § 12
(p. 36) ; on " accommodation,"
32 «. I ; on Anaximander, 60 ; on
Parmenides, 192 m. i

Philolaos, 85, 100, 276, 277 sqq., 292,
297 sq. ; Speusippos and, 102 n. 2

Philosophy. See (pL\oao4)ia

Phleious, Pythagorean society of, 83
«. I, 98 n. 3, 277

Phoenician influence, 41. See Mochos

Physiological interest, 48, 232, 262,
268, 350

Physiology, Parmenides, 192 sq. ;
Alkmaion, 194 ; Empedokles, 244
sqq. ; Diogenes of ApoUonia, 355

Pindar, on the Hyperboreans, 81 ;
Orphic odes, 200

Piremus, 19, 21 n. 1

Placita, 26 ; of Aetios, Sources § 10
(P- 35) ; Vetusta (Poseidonian), ih. §
II (P- 35) J pseudo- Plutarch, ib. § 9
(P- 34)

Planets, names of, 23 «. i ; motion of,
21, 70, no, 195, 239 ; Pythagorean
system of, 277, 296 sqq.

Plants, Empedokles, 240 sq. ; Anaxa-
goras, 272 sqq.

Plato, Sources § i (p. 31) ; on Egyptian
science, 15M. 3,i9».i; on oriental
astronomy, 23 m. 2, 24 ». 2 ; on
astrology, 24 ». i ; on Orphicism,
84 ; on Kddapais, 98 n. i ; on
schools of philosophy, 29 sq. ; on
Seven Wise Men, 44 w. 3 ; definition of
harmonic mean, xo6 «. 2 ; on
stereometry, 283 ; on planetary
motions, no n. 2, 195 ; on the
earth's motion, 301 sq., 305 ; on
gravity, 343 ; on the doctrine of
the Mean, 112 n. 2 ; on the Great
Year, 157 ; on avTairoSocns, 162
M. I ; on " air," 187 n. i ; and Empe-
dokles, 248, 249 ; and Philistion,
201 n. 4 ; and the Pythagoreans,
308 {see Er, myth of) ; on Thales,
46 n. 4, 47 M. I ; on Pythagoras, 85,
89 «. 4 ; on Xenophanes, 127, 170 ;
on Epicharmos, 127 w. 3 ; on
Herakleitos, 131 n. 5, 144, 146, 158,
159 ; on Herakleiteans, 29 n. i,
145 n. I, 150 n. 2, 166 «. 2 ; on
Parmenides, 169, 170, 181, 192, 198
w. 2, 311 ; on the Eleatics, 29 n. 2,
127 ; on Empedokles, 144, 201 n. 2,
233, 237 ». 3 ; on Anaxagoras, 252 n. 4,
254, 256 n. 3, 257, 267 ; on Anaxa-
goreans, 29 ». 3 ; on Philolaos, 276 ;
on Pythagoreans, 13, 61, 66 n. i,
83, 85, 89 n. 4, 98 nn. 2 and 3, 109,
277 M. 2, 279 sqq., 292 sqq., 301 sqq..

304 sq. ; on Zeno, 169, 311, 312,
313, 314 ; on Melissos, 329 n. 2 ; on
Sokrates, 361

Pleasure and pain, Empedokles, 241,
246, 247 ; Anaxagoras, 274 ; Diogenes
of Apollonia, 358

Pliny, on Thales, 43, 44 n. 2 ; on
Anaximander, 51 ; on Anaximenes,
51 w. 4 ; on Hermodoros, 131 n. i ;
on the meteoric stone of Aigospota-
mos, 252

Pluralism, 197, 310

Plutarch, on Thales, 46 w. i ; on
Anaximenes, 75 ; on the Pytha-
goreans, 95 n. 2 ; on Herakleitos,
160 ; on Parmenides, 171 n. 2,
186 n. 2, 311 n. 1 ; on Zeno, 169 sq.,
31 X n. I ; on Melissos, 320 sq. ; on
Anaxagoras, 255 n. 6, 256 n. 5, 257
«. 5 ; on Demokritos, 336 «. 5 ; on
Plato, 304 sq. ; on the meteoric
stone of Aigospotamos, 252 ; on
Odd and Even, 289

[Plutarch] Placita, Sources § 9 (p. 34)

[Plutarch] Stromateis, Sources § 14
(p. 36) ; on Parmenides, 187 n. i ;
on Empedokles, 236, 238

Points, lines, and surfaces, 290, 315
sqq.

Political activity of philosophers :
Thales, 46 ; Anaximander, 52 ;
Pythagoras, 90 sqq. ; Parmenides,
171 ; Empedokles, 198 sqq. ; Zeno,
311

Polybios, on Pythagoreans, 92 n, i

Polybos, on Melissos, 329

Polykrates, era of, 38, 88

Pores. See -wopoL

Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, 87, 95

Poseidonios, and Mochos of Sidon, 16
n. 4 ; and astrology, 24 w. i ;' on the
tripartite soul, 296 n. 2. See Placita,
Vetusta

Precession. See Equinoxes

Primary substance, 9-11, 12 n. i

Proclus, Commentary on Euclid I., 26
n. I, 44 n. 4, 45 n. 4, 104 nn. 2 and
3, 188 n. I ; on Parmenides and
Zeno, 170 M. 3 ; on Philolaos, 281 ;
on Pythagoreans, 290 n. i, 309 n. 2 ;
on the " theory of ideas," 309 n. 2

Proportion, 106

Protagoras, and Herakleitos, 166 ; and
Zeno, 312 ; Kara^aXKovTes, 329 n. 2

Purification. See Kadapfioi, Kadaptris

Pyramids, height of, 46. See irvpafxLs

Pjrrrho, 82 n. 2

Pythagoras, 84-112 ; an Ionian, 3, 81 ;
Empedokles on, 200

Pythagoreans, 276-309 ; in the Aia-crol
X6701, 29 M, 3 ; on the premundane
motion, 61 ; on air or the void, 109,
24 A

372

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

179, 181, 231 ; Plato on, 13, 61,

66 n. I, 83, 85, 89 «. 4 ; comic poets

on, 94 n. 3
" Pythagorean theorem " (Eucl. i. 47),

104 sq.
Pythian era, 44
Pythodoros, 311 n. i

Rarefaction and condensation, 73 sqg.,

146, 179, 327, 356
Religion, Aegean, 3, 4, 80 ; Delian, 81.

See God, Monotheism, Orphicism,

Sacrifice
Respiration, 153, 201, 229, 245, 279
Rest. See Motion

Retrograde motion of planets, 21, 304
Revolution, diurnal, 13, 61, 110
Rhegion, 109 n. 4, 191 n. 3, 276
Rhetoric, Empedokles and, 200
Rhind papyrus, 18 sqq.
Rhodes, 3
Roots {=aTOLX€ia), Empedokles, 228

sqq.

Sacrifice, mystic, 95 ; bloodless, 93,
224 n. 4

Salmoxis, 85, 90 n. 2

Sanchuniathon, 16 «, 4

Sardeis, era of, 38, 44 n. 2, 51, 72. See
Lydia

Saros, 42 n. 2

Satjoros, Sources § 19 (p, 38) ; on
Empedokles, 199 n. 5, 201 «. 2 ; on
Anaxagoras,255 sq. ; on Philolaos, 280

Schools of philosophy, 28 sqq., 50 n.
4, 79

Sea, Anaximander, 64 sq. ; Herakleitos,
149 ; Empedokles, 240 ; Anaxagoras,
270 ; Diogenes of Apollonia, 357

Seeds, Anaxagoras, 264 sq.

Seqt, 19, 46

Seven Wise Men, 41, 44, 50, 113

Sextus Empiricus, Sources § 4 (p. 32) ;
on Herakleitos, 152 ; on Anaxa-
goras, 264 n. I

Shakespeare, on the " harmony of
the spheres," 307 n. i

Sight, Alkmaion, 194, 195 n. i ;
Empedokles, 246 sq., 248 ; Anaxa-
goras, 273 sq.

Silloi, 116

Simnias. See Kebes

Simplicius, Sources § 5 (p. 32) ; on
Thales, 48 ; on Anaximander, 54
n. 2 ; on innumerable worlds,
59; on Xenophanes, 115 sq., 116 n.
I, 126 ; on Parmenides, 171, 174 n.
I, 178 n. 3, 183, 186, 189 sq., 190
n. 4 ; on Empedokles, 243 n. i ;
on Anaxagoras, 257, 263 ; on
Pythagoreans, 288, 300 n. i ; on
Zeno, 313 ; on Melissos, 321, 327

». I ; on Diogenes of Apollonia, 353,
357

Sleep, Herakleitos, 137 n. 6, 138 «. 3,
152 sq. ; Empedokles, 245

Smell, Alkmaion, 195 n. i ; Empe-
dokles, 247, 248 ; Anaxagoras, 273
sq.

Sokrates, on the soul, 84 ; meeting
with Parmenides and Zeno, 169,
256 n. 3, 311 ; and the Pythagoreans,

277, 278 w. 2 ; and Anaxagoras, 256,
267 ; and Archelaos, 358 sq.; and
Damon, 296 n. 2 ; " theory of
ideas," 308 sq.

Solids, regular, 283 sqq., 284 n. i,

293 sqq.
Solon and Croesus, 24 sq.
Solstices, 21, 42 n. i, 51. See Tpoiral
Sosikrates, writer of Successions,

Sources § 17 (p. 37)
Sotion, Sources § 17 (p. 37) ; on

Parmenides, 170 ; on Anaxagoras,

255 n. 6
Soul, of the world ; Thales, 49 ;

Anaximenes, 75 ; of man, Orphic,

81 s^. ; Anaximenes, 75 ; Alkmaion,

195 ; a " harmony," 295 sqq. ;

tripartite, 296 n. 2 ; Sokrates on

the, 84
Space, 317
Speusippos, on Parmenides, 171 ; on

Pythagorean numbers, 102 n. 3,

278, 290 n. I

Sphere, planetary spheres, 62 «. i ;
Parmenides, 181, 227, 231 ; Empe-
dokles, 227. See Earth, Eudoxos,
Harmony

Square numbers. See Nmnber

Stars, fixed, 77 n. 4, 239, 271, 347

Stobaios, Sources § 9 (p. 34)

Stoics, Sources § 3 (p. 32) ; and
astrology, 24 m. i ; as interpreters of
Herakleitos, 131 n. 5, 132, 133 n. i ;
142, 148, 160 sq. ; on the Great
Year, 157

Strabo, on Mochos, 16 w. 4 ; on
Pythagoreans, 90 w. i ; on Her-
modoros, 131 m. i ; on Parmenides
and Zeno, 170, 171 n. 2, 311 ; on
Anaxagoras, 253 n. 1

Strife. See Opposites, ^pis, veiKos

Sublunary region, 27 «. i

Successions, Sources § 17 (p. 37)

^ulva-sUtras, 20

Sim, Thales, 49 ; Anaximander, 67
sq. ; Anaximenes, 76 sq. ; Xeno-
phanes, 122 ; Herakleitos, 148, 155 ;
Alkmaion, 195 ; Empedokles, 238
sq., 298 n. I ; Anaxagoras, 271 ;
Pythagoreans, 298 n. i ; Leukippos,
347

Sybaris, 89 n. 3, 91

■

INDEX

373

Taras, 90 n. i, 276

Taste, Alkmaion, 195 «. i ; Empe-
dokles, 247 ; Anaxagoras, 273 sq.

Temperaments, 112

Temperature, 112

Tetraktys, 102

Thales, 39-50, 104 ; era of, 38

Theaitetos, 105, 284

Theano, 308

Thebes, <pi\6ao(poi at, 91, 278 n. i ;
Lysis at, 91, 276 sq. ; Philolaos at,
276

Theodoret, Sources § 10 (p. 35), § 16
(p. 37)

Theodoros of Kyrene, 105

Theogony, Kesiod, 6 sqq. ; Rhapsodic,
7 w. 3

Theologians, 7 5^.

Theologumena arithmetica, 102 n. 2,
107 n. I, 290 n. I

Theology. See God

Theon of Smyrna, on oriental astro-
nomy, 24 n. 2 ; on planetary
motions, 304 n. 1

Theophrastos, Sources § 7 (p. 33) ; on
abstinence, 95 m. 2 ; on astrology, 24
n. I ; on innmnerable worlds, 58 sqq.;
on schools of philosophy, 28 sq., 50
». 4 ; on Prometheus, 40 n. 2 ; on
Thales, 40 m, 2 ; on Anaximander,
50 n. 4, 52 sqq., 54. n. 2 ; on Anaxi-
menes, 72 sqq. ; on Xenophanes,
114, 122, 123, 124; on Herakleitos,
132, 142, 146 ; on Parmenides, 178
n. I, 182 sq., 186, 190, 191 sq. ;
on Alkmaion, 194 ; on Empedokles,
198 n. 2, 202, 232, 235 n. I, 238 n. 4,
241, 246 sqq., 249 ; on Anaxagoras,
252, 253, 271, 273 sq. ; on " Philo-
laos," 298 M. I ; on Hiketas and
Ekphantos, 300 ; on Leukippos, 330,
332 n. 2, 333, 338 sqq. ; on Diogenes
of Apollonia, 352, 358 ; on Hippon
of Samos, 351 ; on Demokritos, 342 ;
on Plato, 304 sq.

Theoretic Hfe, 25 n. i, 98, 252

Thought, Parmenides, 178 ; Empe-
dokles, 247

Thourioi, era of, 38, 91, 198, 203 n. 2

Thracian influences, 81

Thymaridas, 10 1 n. 2

Timaeus Locrus, the, 280

Timaios the Lokrian, 85, 195, 279

Timaios of Tauromenion, on Pytha-
goras, 86, 89, 93 ; on Xenophanes,
1 1 3 ; on Parmenides and Zeno, 1 70 n. 3,

171 n. 2, 311 ; on Empedokles, 198,
199 n. 2, 200, 203 «. 2 ; on Pytha-
goreans, 276 n. I

Timon of Phleious, on Xenophanes,
115 n. 4, 116, 125 n. I ; on Hera-
kleitos, 132 w. 2 ; on Plato, 280

Touch, Alkmaion, 195 n. i ; Empe-
dokles, 247 ; Anaxagoras, 273 sq.

Transmigration, 82 n. 2, 85, 88, 93,
250

Triangle, Pythagorean (3, 4, 5), 20, 104

Triangular numbers. See Numbers

Unit, Pythagorean, 108, 316 sqq.

Void, Pythagorean, 109, 179, 186, 289 ;

Parmenides on the, 179, 186, 317 ;

Alkmaion, 194 ; Anaxagoras, 270 ;

Melissos, 326 ; Leukippos, 332, 337
Vortex. See 5Lvt]

Water, Thales, 47

Weight, 342 sq.

Wheel of birth, 97, 98

Wheels, Anaximander, 62 n. i,''68, no,
189; Pythagoras, no, 189; Par-
menides, 189

World. See ovpavds, Kdafios

Worlds, innumerable : Anaximander,
58 sqq., 69 ; Anaximenes, 78 ;
Pythagoras, 109 ; Xenophanes, 124 ;
Anaxagoras, 269 sq. ; Diogenes of
Apollonia, 357 ; Archelaos, 360

Xenophanes, 112-129; and Anaxi-
mander, 114; on Homer and
Hesiod, 115, 124, 125 ; on fossils, 26 ;
on Thales, 42, 112 ; on Pythagoras,
84, 108, 112, 114, 118 n. 2 ; and
Parmenides, 170

Xenophilos, 277

Xenophon on Sokrates and the Pytha-
goreans, 277 n. 2

Xouthos, 289

Year. See Great Year

Zamolxis. See Salmoxis

Zankle, 114 «. 5

Zeno, 310-320 ; at Athens, 169, 311

«. I, 312 w. 4 ; on Pythagoreans, 314

sqq. ; and Empedokles, 202, 312

». I, 314 n. 4
Zero, 100 n. 3
Zodiac, Babylonian, 21 n. 2. See

Obliquity

374

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

II. GREEK

dSiKla, 9, 54 n. i, 57, 65, 144, 165, 196

drip. See Air

dddvaTos Kot dyqpws, g n. i, zo n. 3,

52
aW-qp, 219 n. 3, 228 n. 2, 229, 269 n. i
dKfXT}, Sources § 21 (p. 38). See Apollo-

doros
dKo^a/nara, 96
dKova/naTLKol, 94 n. 2
dWdrpiou 0cDs, 177 «. i
'AvdyKT), 187, 190, 191, 222 «. I, 233,

250
dvadvfxiaaLS, 148 J^^. , 150 j^^., 151 «. 2,

155 j^^., 163
dvT^peiaLS, 346
dvTv^, 188 n. 5
direipov, TO, Anaximander, 54 «. 2, 57

j^$'. , 58 «. I ; Pythagorean, 109
dTTj'ous, 7), 200 /z. 5
dirdKpKTLS, 61

diroppoai, 202, 246, 248, 249 «. i, 348
diroTOix-q, 339 «. i
dpLdfiTjTiKr), dist. XoyiariK'Tj, 19
dpLcTTOKpaTia, 90 tz. I
dpixovla, no, 112, 143, 144, 163
dpiredovdiTTai, 20
d/)X'?7, Aristotelian term for the material

cause, II, 47 ;?. 6, 54
ai)Tb 5 ^(TTLv, 308 «. 3
auT6 /ca^' aL'r6, 308 n. 3

7aXeo/, 70 «. 2, 71 «. 2

yp(j!)/j.o)v, 21 «. I, 26 ;?. I, 103 «. I. 5e^

Gnomon
y6rp-€s, 97
yvpds, 65 «. I

daifxoiVf dalfioves, 250

dLadoxat, Sources § 16 (p. 37)

SiaarijixaTa, 60 w. 3

a^K?;, 9, 54 n. I, 145, 165

Uvq, 13 «. 3, 61 sq., 66 «. 2, 69, no,

III, 237 n. 3, 240, 269, 344 sq.,

346 sq.
diopL^u), 108 «. 4
5L(j}pi<Tix4vov, io8 ;z. 4
diodcKdaKVTOi cr^alpai, 294 «. 4

etSoj, of geometrical figures, 103 n. 2 ;

of atoms, 336 «. 5
eldQp (piXoL, 309 n. 2
efSwXa, 348
elj/at, t6 ^i**, 178 n. 4 ; ecjf, " true," 133

n. I
(KTr^pcoats, 143, 157, 158 J^^.
^Ko-Taaii, 81
^WeirpLS, 104 «. 3
^j*, t6, 126 ; Pythagorean, 108, 316 sqq.

ivavrla,, havrLbr-qres. See Opposites

evl^w^ 126 «. 2

^TrdXX 77X05, 187 n. 3

€TravaKVK\f]ffeL^, 304 ;«. i

iwLipava-LS, 346

^pis, 143, 163

"E(77re/)os and 'Ea>o-06/3os, regarded as
different, 23 n. i, 69 ; identified by
Pythagoras or Parmenides, 23 «. i,
191 n. 3

earia, 190

icTw, 285 n. 3

eTepofx-qKeLS dpidfiol, 103 «. 2

€vyv(aixo(x{iVT}, Sources § 5 (p. 32)

^Xe/ixv^ta, 95 «. I

iX^ppVf^Oixtrvr], 95 «. I

Beds. See God
deuprjTLKos ^ios, 25 «. i, 98
dewpla, 25, 98
dvfids, 140 «. 2

Z5^a ( = o-roixeiOJ'), 201 «. 5, 228 n. i ;

of atoms, 336 n. 5
Z5os, 209 n. I, 215 «. I, 216 n. i
t'XXoyU.at, 302 j^.
iaovo/iiia, 195, 196 ^z. 2
laoppoirla, 66 n. i, 344 J^,
IcTTopia, 10 «. 2, 25, 85, 97 ;^. I

Kadapfioi, Kddapats, 82, 97 n. 4, 98 «. i,

249 sq.
KaKorexvirj, 134 n. 2
Kara^dWo}, 329 ;^. 2
Keyxpi'Tr]^ X670S, 312 ;?. 4
Kevefi^aTeTv, 123 «. 2
KXeij/vdpa. See Klepsydra
KXrjpovxos 6e6s, 187, 190 «. 3
Kdafios, 9, 10 «. 3, 134 «. 3, 162 n. 2,

190 «. I
Kpdais, 112, 296
KpareXv, in, 268 w. i, 307

XoyiaTLKT), dist. dpidfirjriK'fi, 19

X670J, 133 «. I, 13s «. 2, 138 n. I

139 «. 3, 143, 173 n. 2, 240
X670J Tov eTvai, ttjs ovaias, 308 n. 3

/xadrj/xaTiKoi, 94 «. 2

lie<x6T7js, fieadrrjTes, 106, 112 «

fiera^ij, t6, Anaximander, 55 «. 4, 56 /?;?.

I and 2, 65
fX€T€ix\pTjx^(^'-^i 93 "• 2. "S"^^ Trans

migration
IJi€Tevcro}fidr(i}(ns, 93 «. 2
fieri (1} pa, rd, 27
fiereiapoXoyia, 27 «. i
^^pa. -S^^ Measures

INDEX

375

jxovas diffiv ^xoi'^'Oi 290

fiop^ ( = <rToi.xe?ov), 185, 228 n. i

veiKOSf Empedokles, 231 sgg'.
pdfMos, opp. (pOa-is, 347

6yK0i, 291 n. 3, 319 n. 4, 336 n. 1
oXKds, 294 n. I
oixQioixepri, 264 J^.
S/J-OLOS, 6/j.ol6t7]s, 66 «. I
3/57ai'a, 265
fipYia, 82, 97
5/)os, terjtiinus, 104

oypavos, ?.y. KdafjLos, 27, 56 w. i, 60 ;z. 2,
127 n. 4

7rd7os, 236 «. 2

7ra\i77ej'e(r/a, 93 «. 2. See Trans-
migration

TraXiuTOVos apfiovla, 136 n. 4, 174 ;«. 3

TraXiPTpoiros K^Xevdos, 174 n. 3, 179

Trava-rrep/Jt-ta, 265 «. 2, 337

trapa^oX-fj, 104 «. 3

TrapaTrriyfiara, 47

irdpodoL, 302

TT^pas, Pythagorean, 109, 2S7 sg.

irepLayoyy-f], 59 «. i

Trepi^X^) TfepUxof, 56 «. i, 58 «. i, 60,
152 «. 3

irepiffTaffLSy 59 /z. I

TrlXrja-cs, 73 «. 3

irvevfxa, Aireipov, 108

TTOLdrris, 263 «. i

irbpOL, 153, 194, 201, 202, 233 j^. , 246
j^., 248, 332

TT pTJCTT-qp, 68 «. 2, 148, 149 «. I

irpbfiXrjij.a (7rpo/3d\Xcu), 28 «. 2
TTporaaLi {vpoTelvu}), 28 n. 2
Trpoxwp'J^o'ets, 304 n. i
ni'^a7opio-Tai, dist. nu^a76petoi, 94 n. 2
TTvpafiis, etymology, 21 n. i

pai/'wSuj, 115 «. I
poTT??, 345

(TTJfia (Twfia, 98, 278

cro<f>ia, 117 «. 2

ao<piaTr}s, 85, 353 «. 4

(Trao-icDTat, 127 «. i

<TTi<pavaif 187 J^^. , 191 «. 2

(rrotx«oj', 12 «. 2, 52 ;z. 5, 201 n. 5,

228, 230 «. 3, 265, 336 n. 4
avvcx^s, 108 ;?. 4
crui'Oticeiu), accommodo , Sources § 3 (p.

32 n. i), 142 n. 5
a<p6v8vXoi, 188 «. 3
cXT^A^ara, 100

T€TpaKTTUS, 102 J^.

To^ei^s, sector, 21 n. i

Tpoirai, solstices, 62 «. 2, 63 «, 2,

64 n. I, 67 «. 2, 76 ft. 3, 15s j^. ,

271, 302, 304
rpoTTis, 294 n. 2
rpbxoSf 62 «, 2, 77 n. 2

{jXt), 47 «. 6, 55, 294 «. 3
■uirep^oXifi, 104 «, 3
virddecris, 28 «. 2, 313 «. 6
i/Tro^u)fj,aTa, 294 «. 3
VTr6X€i\f/i$, III «. I, 302 «. I
{firordvovaa, 105

<paip6/x€Pa, ffip^eiv rd, 28 «. 2
(piXoaocpia, 25, 83, 278 «. i
(f>iX6<TO(pos, 277, 278 «. I, 312 «, 2
(ppovris, 114 «. I
(f>(i(rLs, 9-1 1, 54, 205 ;?. 4, 228, 336 «. 3,

337 ; Ilepi (pOcreus, 115 n. 5 ; opp.

"6^05, 347

X^os, 7 n. I
Xi-T(Jov, 224 ;?. I
XpVf^O'Ta, 249 «. I, 263 «. I
X^PO; 104 ^- 2, 108 n. 4
Xidplov, 104. n. 2

\pri(pOL, 100, 102
\l/vxtKbv TTvevfia, 249 «. 4

THE END

Printed in Great Britain fry R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.

^^ii^

14 DAY USE

TO DESK FROM WHICH BOR^

SEP

HOLUONBUON

YC 3192

1927

RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library

or to the

NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

University of California

Richmond Field Station, BIdg. 400

1301 South 46th Street

Richmond, CA 94804-4698

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

To renew or recharge your library materials, you may

contact NRLF 4 days prior to due date at (510) 642-6233

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

MAY 09 2008

DD20 12M 7-06