{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67097/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67097","id":"gutenberg_67097","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67097","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Philosophy, Ancient"],"text":"------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_. The single\ninstance of a superscript is given as \u2018Z^5\u2019.\n\nIn the original text, footnote references were numbered, beginning with\n\u20181\u2019 on each page. They have been renumbered consecutively for uniqueness\nand have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are\nreferenced. References to notes in the index and elsewhere have been\nchanged to reflect the revised numbers.\n\nMinor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please\nsee the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of this text for details regarding\nthe handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.\n\n\n\n\n EARLY\n GREEK PHILOSOPHY\n\n BY\n\n JOHN BURNET, M.A., LL.D.\n\n PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNITED COLLEGE OF ST. SALVATOR\n AND ST. LEONARD, ST. ANDREWS\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014ARISTOTLE.\n\n\n\n\n _SECOND EDITION_\n\n\n\n\n LONDON\n\n ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK\n\n 1908\n\n\n\n\n _First Edition published April 1892._\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n\n\nIt has been no easy task to revise this volume in such a way as to make\nit more worthy of the favour with which it has been received. Most of it\nhas had to be rewritten in the light of certain discoveries made since\nthe publication of the first edition, above all, that of the extracts\nfrom Menon\u2019s \u1f38\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, which have furnished, as I believe, a clue to the\nhistory of Pythagoreanism. I trust that all other obligations are duly\nacknowledged in the proper place.\n\nIt did not seem worth while to eliminate all traces of a certain\nyouthful assurance which marked the first edition. I should not write\nnow as I wrote at the age of twenty-five; but I still feel that the main\ncontentions of the book were sound, so I have not tried to amend the\nstyle. The references to Zeller and \u201cRitter and Preller\u201d are adapted\nthroughout to the latest editions. The Aristotelian commentators are\nreferred to by the pages and verses of the Berlin Academy edition, and\nStobaeus by those of Wachsmuth.\n\n J. B.\n\nST. ANDREWS, 1908.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION\n\n\nNo apology is needed for the appearance of a work dealing with Early\nGreek Philosophy. The want of one has long been felt; for there are few\nbranches of philology in which more progress has been made in the last\ntwenty years, and the results of that progress have not yet been made\naccessible to the English reader. My original intention was simply to\nreport these results; but I soon found that I was obliged to dissent\nfrom some of them, and it seemed best to say so distinctly. Very likely\nI am wrong in most of these cases, but my mistakes may be of use in\ncalling attention to unobserved points. In any case, I hope no one will\nthink I have been wanting in the respect due to the great authority of\nZeller, who was the first to recall the history of philosophy from the\nextravagances into which it had wandered earlier in the century. I am\nglad to find that all my divergences from his account have only led me a\nlittle further in the path that he struck out.\n\nI am very sensible of the imperfect execution of some parts of this\nwork; but the subject has become so large, and the number of authorities\nwhose testimony must be weighed is so great, that it is not easy for any\none writer to be equally at home in all parts of the field.\n\nI have consulted the student\u2019s convenience by giving references to the\nseventh edition of Ritter and Preller (ed. Schultess) throughout. The\nreferences to Zeller are to the fourth German edition, from which the\nEnglish translation was made. I have been able to make some use also of\nthe recently published fifth edition (1892), and all references to it\nare distinguished by the symbol Z^5. I can only wish that it had\nappeared in time for me to incorporate its results more thoroughly.\n\nI have to thank many friends for advice and suggestions, and, above all,\nMr. Harold H. Joachim, Fellow of Merton College, who read most of the\nwork before it went to press.\n\n J. B.\n\nOXFORD, 1892.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGES\n\n INTRODUCTION 1-35\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 37-84\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n SCIENCE AND RELIGION 85-142\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 143-191\n\n CHAPTER IV\n PARMENIDES OF ELEA 192-226\n\n CHAPTER V\n EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 227-289\n\n CHAPTER VI\n ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI 290-318\n\n CHAPTER VII\n THE PYTHAGOREANS 319-356\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 357-379\n\n CHAPTER IX\n LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 380-404\n\n CHAPTER X\n ECLECTICISM AND REACTION 405-418\n\n APPENDIX\n THE SOURCES 419-426\n\n INDEX 427-433\n\n\n\n\n ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\n _Arch._ _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie._ Berlin,\n 1888-1908.\n\n BEARE. _Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition_, by John\n I. Beare. Oxford, 1906.\n\n DIELS _Dox._ _Doxographi graeci._ Hermannus Diels. Berlin,\n 1879.\n\n DIELS _Vors._ _Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker_, von Hermann\n Diels, Zweite Auflage, Erster Band. Berlin,\n 1906.\n\n GOMPERZ. _Greek Thinkers_, by Theodor Gomperz, Authorised\n (English) Edition, vol. i. London, 1901.\n\n JACOBY. _Apollodors Chronik_, von Felix Jacoby (_Philol.\n Unters._ Heft xvi.). Berlin, 1902.\n\n R. P. _Historia Philosophiae Graecae_, H. Ritter et L.\n Preller. Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus\n Wellmann. Gotha, 1898.\n\n ZELLER. _Die Philosophie der Griechen, dargestellt von Dr.\n Eduard Zeller._ Erster Theil, F\u00fcnfte Auflage.\n Leipzig, 1892.\n\n\n\n\n EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n[Sidenote: The cosmological character of early Greek philosophy.]\n\nI. It was not till the primitive view of the world and the customary\nrules of life had broken down, that the Greeks, began to feel the needs\nwhich philosophies of nature and of conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were\nthose needs felt all at once. The traditional maxims of conduct were not\nseriously questioned till the old view of nature had passed away; and,\nfor this reason, the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly with\nspeculations about the world around them. In due season, Logic was\ncalled into being to meet a fresh want. The pursuit of cosmological\ninquiry beyond a certain point inevitably brought to light a wide\ndivergence between science and common sense, which was itself a problem\nthat demanded solution, and moreover constrained philosophers to study\nthe means of defending their paradoxes against the prejudices of the\nunscientific many. Later still, the prevailing interest in logical\nmatters raised the question of the origin and validity of knowledge;\nwhile, about the same time, the breakdown of traditional morality gave\nrise to Ethics. The period which precedes the rise of Logic and Ethics\nhas thus a distinctive character of its own, and may fitly be treated\napart.[1]\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n It will be observed that Demokritos falls outside the period thus\n limited. The common practice of treating this younger contemporary of\n Sokrates along with the \u201cpre-Socratic philosophers\u201d obscures the true\n course of historical development. Demokritos comes after Protagoras,\n and his theory is already conditioned by the epistemological problem.\n (See Brochard, \u201cProtagoras et D\u00e9mocrite,\u201d _Arch._ ii. p. 368.) He has\n also a regular theory of conduct (E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ iv.\n \u00a7 514 n.).\n\n[Sidenote: The primitive view of the world.]\n\nII. Even in the earliest times of which we have any record, the\nprimitive view of the world is fast passing away. We are left to gather\nwhat manner of thing it was from the stray glimpses we get of it here\nand there in the older literature, to which it forms a sort of sombre\nbackground, and from the many strange myths and stranger rites that\nlived on, as if to bear witness of it to later times, not only in\nout-of-the-way parts of Hellas, but even in the \u201cmysteries\u201d of the more\ncultivated states. So far as we can see, it must have been essentially a\nthing of shreds and patches, ready to fall in pieces as soon as stirred\nby the fresh breeze of a larger experience and a more fearless\ncuriosity. The only explanation of the world it could offer was a wild\ntale of the origin of things. Such a story as that of Ouranos, Gaia, and\nKronos belongs plainly, as Mr. Lang has shown in _Custom and Myth_, to\nthe same level of thought as the Maori tale of Papa and Rangi; while in\nits details the Greek myth is, if anything, the more savage of the two.\n\nWe must not allow ourselves to be misled by metaphors about \u201cthe\nchildhood of the race,\u201d though even these, if properly understood, are\nsuggestive enough. Our ideas of the true state of a child\u2019s mind are apt\nto be coloured by that theory of antenatal existence which has found,\nperhaps, its highest expression in Wordsworth\u2019s _Ode on the Intimations\nof Immortality_. We transfer these ideas to the race generally, and are\nthus led to think of the men who made and repeated myths as simple,\ninnocent creatures who were somehow nearer than we are to the beginning\nof things, and so, perhaps, saw with a clearer vision. A truer view of\nwhat a child\u2019s thoughts really are will help to put us on the right\ntrack. Left to themselves, children are often tormented by vague terrors\nof surrounding objects which they fear to confide to any one. Their\ngames are based upon an animistic theory of things, and they are great\nbelievers in luck and in the lot. They are devotees, too, of that \u201ccult\nof odds and ends\u201d which is fetishism; and the unsightly old dolls which\nthey often cherish more fondly than the choicest products of the\ntoy-shop, remind us forcibly of the ungainly stocks and stones which\nPausanias found in the Holy of Holies of many a stately Greek temple. At\nSparta the Tyndaridai were a couple of boards, while the old image of\nHera at Samos was a roughly-hewn log.[2]\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n See E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7 64; Menzies, _History of\n Religion_, pp. 272-276.\n\nOn the other hand, we must remember that, even in the earliest times of\nwhich we have any record, the world was already very old. Those Greeks\nwho first tried to understand nature were not at all in the position of\nmen setting out on a hitherto untrodden path. There was already in the\nfield a tolerably consistent view of the world, though no doubt it was\nrather implied and assumed in ritual and myth than distinctly realised\nas such. The early thinkers did a far greater thing than merely to make\na beginning. By turning their backs on the savage view of things, they\nrenewed their youth, and with it, as it proved, the youth of the world,\nat a time when the world seemed in its dotage.\n\nThe marvel is that they were able to do this so thoroughly as they did.\nA savage myth might be preserved here and there to the scandal of\nphilosophers; fetishes, totems, and magic rites might lurk in holes and\ncorners with the moles and with the bats, to be unearthed long\nafterwards by the curious in such matters. But the all-pervading\nsuperstition, which we call primitive because we know not how or whence\nit came, was gone for ever; and we find Herodotos noting with unfeigned\nsurprise the existence among \u201cbarbarians\u201d of beliefs and customs which,\nnot so long ago, his own forefathers had taught and practised quite as\nzealously as ever did Libyan or Scyth. Even then, he might have found\nmost of them surviving on the \u201chigh places\u201d of Hellas.\n\n[Sidenote: Traces of the primitive view in early literature.]\n\nIII. In one respect the way had been prepared already. Long before\nhistory begins, the colonisation of the islands and the coasts of Asia\nMinor had brought about a state of things that was not favourable to the\nrigid maintenance of traditional customs and ways of thought. A myth is\nessentially a local thing, and though the emigrants might give the names\nof ancestral sanctuaries to similar spots in their new homes, they could\nnot transfer with the names the old sentiment of awe. Besides, these\nwere, on the whole, stirring and joyful times. The spirit of adventure\nis not favourable to superstition, and men whose chief occupation is\nfighting are not apt to be oppressed by that \u201cfear of the world\u201d which\nsome tell us is the normal state of the savage mind. Even the savage\nbecomes in great measure free from it when he is really happy.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Homer.]\n\nThat is why we find so few traces of the primitive view of the world in\nHomer. The gods have become frankly human, and everything savage is, so\nfar as may be, kept out of sight. There are, of course, vestiges of\nearly beliefs and practices, but they are exceptional. In that strange\nepisode of the Fourteenth Book of the _Iliad_ known as _The Deceiving of\nZeus_ we find a number of theogonical ideas which are otherwise quite\nforeign to Homer, but they are treated with so little seriousness that\nthe whole thing has even been regarded as a parody or burlesque of some\nprimitive poem on the birth of the gods. That, however, is to mistake\nthe spirit of Homer. He finds the old myth ready to his hand, and sees\nin it matter for a \u201cjoyous tale,\u201d just as Demodokos did in the loves of\nAres and Aphrodite. There is no antagonism to traditional views, but\nrather a complete detachment from them.\n\nIt has often been noted that Homer never speaks of the primitive custom\nof purification for bloodshed. The dead heroes are burned, not buried,\nas the kings of continental Hellas were. Ghosts play hardly any part. In\nthe _Iliad_ we have, to be sure, the ghost of Patroklos, in close\nconnexion with the solitary instance of human sacrifice in Homer. All\nthat was part of the traditional story, and Homer says as little about\nit as he can. There is also the _Nekyia_ in the Eleventh Book of the\n_Odyssey_, which has been assigned to a late date on the ground that it\ncontains Orphic ideas. The reasoning does not appear cogent. As we shall\nsee, the Orphics did not so much invent new ideas as revive old ones,\nand if the legend took Odysseus to the abode of the dead, that had to be\ndescribed in accordance with the accepted views about it.\n\nIn fact, we are never entitled to infer from Homer\u2019s silence that the\nprimitive view was unknown to him. The absence of certain things from\nthe poems is due to reticence rather than ignorance; for, wherever\nanything to his purpose was to be got from an old story, he did not\nhesitate to use it. On the other hand, when the tradition necessarily\nbrought him into contact with savage ideas, he prefers to treat them\nwith reserve. We may infer, then, that at least in a certain society,\nthat of the princes for whom Homer sang, the primitive view of the world\nwas already discredited by a comparatively early date.[3]\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n On all this, see especially Rohde, _Psyche_, pp. 14 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Hesiod.]\n\nIV. When we come to Hesiod, we seem to be in another world. We hear\nstories of the gods which are not only irrational but repulsive, and\nthese stories are told quite seriously. Hesiod makes the Muses say: \u201cWe\nknow how to tell many false things that are like the truth; but we know\ntoo, when we will, to utter what is true.\u201d[4] This means that he was\nquite conscious of the difference between the Homeric spirit and his\nown. The old light-heartedness is gone, and it is important to tell the\ntruth about the gods. Hesiod knows, too, that he belongs to a later and\na sadder time than Homer. In describing the Ages of the World, he\ninserts a fifth age between those of Bronze and Iron. That is the Age of\nthe Heroes, the age Homer sang of. It was better than the Bronze Age\nwhich came before it, and far better than that which followed it, the\nAge of Iron, in which Hesiod lives.[5] He also feels that he is singing\nfor another class. It is to shepherds and husbandmen he addresses\nhimself, and the princes for whom Homer sang have become remote persons\nwho give \u201ccrooked dooms.\u201d For common men there is no hope but in hard,\nunceasing toil. It is the voice of the people we now hear for the first\ntime, and of a people for whom the romance and splendour of the Greek\nMiddle Ages meant nothing. The primitive view of the world had never\nreally died out among them; so it was natural for their first spokesman\nto assume it in his poems. That is why we find in Hesiod these old,\nsavage tales, which Homer disdained to speak of.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n Hes. _Theog._ 27. They are the same Muses who inspired Homer, which\n means, in our language, that Hesiod wrote in hexameters and used the\n Epic dialect. The new literary _genre_ has not yet found its\n appropriate vehicle, which is elegy.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n There is great historical insight here. It was Hesiod, not our modern\n historians, who first pointed out that the \u201cGreek Middle Ages\u201d were a\n break in the normal development.\n\nYet it would be wrong to see in the _Theogony_ a mere revival of the old\nsuperstition. Nothing can ever be revived just as it was; for in every\nreaction there is a polemical element which differentiates it completely\nfrom the earlier stage it vainly seeks to reproduce. Hesiod could not\nhelp being affected by the new spirit which trade and adventure had\nawakened over the sea, and he became a pioneer in spite of himself. The\nrudiments of what grew into Ionic science and history are to be found in\nhis poems, and he really did more than any one to hasten that decay of\nthe old ideas which he was seeking to arrest. The _Theogony_ is an\nattempt to reduce all the stories about the gods into a single system,\nand system is necessarily fatal to so wayward a thing as mythology.\nHesiod, no less than Homer, teaches a panhellenic polytheism; the only\ndifference is that with him this is more directly based on the legends\nattached to the local cults, which he thus sought to invest with a\nnational significance. The result is that the myth becomes primary and\nthe cult secondary, a complete inversion of the primitive relation.\nHerodotos tells us that it was Homer and Hesiod who made a theogony for\nthe Hellenes, who gave the gods their names, and distributed among them\ntheir offices and arts,[6] and it is perfectly true. The Olympian\npantheon took the place of the old local gods in men\u2019s minds, and this\nwas as much the doing of Hesiod as of Homer. The ordinary man had no\nties to this company of gods, but at most to one or two of them; and\neven these he would hardly recognise in the humanised figures, detached\nfrom all local associations, which poetry had substituted for the older\nobjects of worship. The gods of Greece had become a splendid subject for\nart; but they came between the Hellenes and their ancestral religions.\nThey were incapable of satisfying the needs of the people, and that is\nthe secret of the religious revival which we shall have to consider in\nthe sequel.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n Herod. ii. 53.\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmogony.]\n\nV. Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows himself a child of his\ntime. His _Theogony_ is at the same time a Cosmogony, though it would\nseem that here he was following others rather than working out a thought\nof his own. At any rate, he only mentions the two great cosmogonical\nfigures, Chaos and Eros, and does not really bring them into connexion\nwith his system. The conception of Chaos represents a distinct effort to\npicture the beginning of things. It is not a formless mixture, but\nrather, as its etymology indicates, the yawning gulf or gap where\nnothing is as yet.[7] We may be sure that this is not primitive. Savage\nman does not feel called upon to form an idea of the very beginning of\nall things; he takes for granted that there was something to begin with.\nThe other figure, that of Eros, was doubtless intended to explain the\nimpulse to production which gave rise to the whole process. That, at\nleast, is what the Maoris mean by it, as may be seen from the following\nremarkable passage[8]:\u2014\n\n From the conception the increase,\n From the increase the swelling,\n From the swelling the thought,\n From the thought the remembrance,\n From the remembrance the desire.\n The word became fruitful,\n It dwelt with the feeble glimmering,\n It brought forth the night.\n\nHesiod must have had some such primitive speculation to work on, but he\ndoes not tell us anything clearly on the subject.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n The word \u03c7\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 certainly means the \u201cgape\u201d or \u201cyawn,\u201d the Orphic \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Grimm compared it with the Scandinavian _Ginnunga-Gap_.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Quoted from Taylor\u2019s _New Zealand_, pp. 110-112, by Mr. Andrew Lang,\n in _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, vol. ii. p. 52 (2nd ed.).\n\nWe have records of great activity in the production of cosmogonies\nduring the whole of the sixth century B.C., and we know something of the\nsystems of Epimenides, Pherekydes,[9] and Akousilaos. As there were\nspeculations of this kind even before Hesiod, we need have no hesitation\nin believing that the earliest Orphic cosmogony goes back to that\ncentury too.[10] The feature which is common to all these systems is the\nattempt to get behind the gap, and to put Kronos or Zeus in the first\nplace. This is what Aristotle has in view when he distinguishes the\n\u201ctheologians\u201d from those who were half theologians and half\nphilosophers, and who put what was best in the beginning.[11] It is\nobvious, however, that this process is the very reverse of scientific,\nand might be carried on indefinitely; so we have nothing to do with the\ncosmogonists in our present inquiry, except so far as they can be shown\nto have influenced the course of more sober investigations. Indeed,\nthese speculations are still based on the primitive view of the world,\nand so fall outside the limits we have traced for ourselves.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels, _Vorsokratiker_, pp. 506\n sqq. (1st ed.), and the interesting account in Gomperz, _Greek\n Thinkers_, vol. i. pp. 85 sqq.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n This was the view of Lobeck with regard to the so-called \u201cRhapsodic\n Theogony\u201d described by Damaskios, and was revived by Otto Kern (_De\n Orphei Epimenidis Pherecydis Theogoniis_, 1888). Its savage character\n is the best proof of its antiquity. Cf. Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and\n Religion_, vol. i. chap. x.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039d, 4. 1091 b 8.\n\n[Sidenote: General characteristics of early Greek cosmology.]\n\nVI. What, then, was the step that placed the Ionian cosmologists once\nfor all above the level of the Maoris? Grote and Zeller make it consist\nin the substitution of impersonal causes acting according to law for\npersonal causes acting arbitrarily. But the distinction between personal\nand impersonal was not really felt in antiquity, and it is a mistake to\nlay much stress on it. It seems rather that the real advance made by the\nscientific men of Miletos was that they left off telling tales. They\ngave up the hopeless task of describing what was when as yet there was\nnothing, and asked instead what all things really are now.\n\n[Sidenote: _Ex nihilo nihil._]\n\nThe great principle which underlies all their thinking, though it is\nfirst put into words by Parmenides, is that _Nothing comes into being\nout of nothing, and nothing passes away into nothing_. They saw,\nhowever, that particular things were always coming into being and\npassing away again, and from this it followed that their existence was\nno true or stable one. The only things that were real and eternal were\nthe original matter which passed through all these changes and the\nmotion which gave rise to them, to which was soon added that law of\nproportion or compensation which, despite the continual becoming and\npassing away of things, secured the relative permanence and stability of\nthe various forms of existence that go to make up the world. That these\nwere, in fact, the leading ideas of the early cosmologists, cannot, of\ncourse, be proved till we have given a detailed exposition of their\nsystems; but we can show at once how natural it was for such thoughts to\ncome to them. It is always the problem of change and decay that first\nexcites the wonder which, as Plato says, is the starting-point of all\nphilosophy. Besides this, there was in the Ionic nature a vein of\nmelancholy which led it to brood upon the instability of things. Even\nbefore the time of Thales, Mimnermos of Kolophon sings the sadness of\nchange; and, at a later date, the lament of Simonides, that the\ngenerations of men fall like the leaves of the forest, touches a chord\nalready struck by the earliest singer of Ionia.[12] Now, so long as men\ncould believe everything they saw was alive like themselves, the\nspectacle of the unceasing death and new birth of nature would only\ntinge their thoughts with a certain mournfulness, which would find its\nexpression in such things as the Linos dirges which the Greeks borrowed\nfrom their Asiatic neighbours;[13] but when primitive animism, which had\nseen conscious life everywhere, was gone, and polytheistic mythology,\nwhich had personified at least the more striking natural phenomena, was\ngoing, it must have seemed that there was nowhere any abiding reality.\nNowadays we are accustomed, for good and for ill, to the notion of dead\nthings, obedient, not to inner impulses, but solely to mechanical laws.\nBut that is not the view of the natural man, and we may be sure that,\nwhen first it forced itself on him, it must have provoked a strong sense\nof dissatisfaction. Relief was only to be had from the reflexion that as\nnothing comes from nothing, nothing can pass away into nothing. There\nmust, then, be something which always is, something fundamental which\npersists throughout all change, and ceases to exist in one form only\nthat it may reappear in another. It is significant that this something\nis spoken of as \u201cdeathless\u201d and \u201cageless.\u201d[14]\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Simonides, fr. 85, 2 Bergk. _Il._ vi. 146.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n On Adonis-Thammuz, Lityerses, Linos, and Osiris, see Frazer, _Golden\n Bough_, vol. i. pp. 278 sqq.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n The Epic phrase \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 seems to have suggested this.\n Anaximander applied both epithets to the primary substance (R. P. 17\n and 17 a). Euripides, in describing the blessedness of the scientific\n life (fr. inc. 910), says \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9 (R. P. 148\n c fin.).\n\n[Sidenote: \u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2]\n\nVII. So far as I know, no historian of Greek philosophy has clearly laid\nit down that the word which was used by the early cosmologists to\nexpress this idea of a permanent and primary substance was none other\nthan \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; and that the title \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, so commonly given to\nphilosophical works of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.,[15] means\nsimply _Concerning the Primary Substance_. Both Plato and Aristotle use\nthe term in this sense when they are discussing the earlier\nphilosophy,[16] and its history shows clearly enough what its original\nmeaning must have been. In Greek philosophical language, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 always\nmeans that which is primary, fundamental, and persistent, as opposed to\nwhat is secondary, derivative, and transient; what is \u201cgiven,\u201d as\nopposed to that which is made or becomes. It is what is there to begin\nwith. It is true that Plato and his successors also identify \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 with\nthe best or most normal condition of a thing; but that is just because\nthey held the goal of any development to be prior to the process by\nwhich it is reached. Such an idea was wholly unknown to the pioneers of\nphilosophy. They sought the explanation of the incomplete world we know,\nnot in the end, but in the beginning. It seemed to them that, if only\nthey could strip off all the modifications which Art and Chance had\nintroduced, they would get at the ultimately real; and so the search\nafter \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, first in the world at large and afterwards in human\nsociety, became the chief interest of the age we have to deal with.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n I do not mean to imply that the philosophers used this title\n themselves; for early prose writings had no titles. The writer\n mentioned his name and the subject of his work in the first sentence,\n as Herodotos, for instance, does.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Plato, _Laws_, 892 c 2, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (_i.e._ \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03be\n \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 (_i.e._ \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd). Arist. _Phys._\n \u0392, 1. 193 a 21, \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f57\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThe word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, by which the early cosmologists are usually said to have\ndesignated the object of their search, is in this sense purely\nAristotelian. It is quite natural that it should be employed in the\nwell-known historical sketch of the First Book of the _Metaphysics_; for\nAristotle is there testing the theories of earlier thinkers by his own\ndoctrine of the four causes. But Plato never uses the term in this\nconnexion, and it does not occur once in the genuine fragments of the\nearly philosophers. It is confined to the Stoic and Peripatetic\nhandbooks from which most of our knowledge is derived, and these simply\nrepeat Aristotle. Zeller has pointed out in a footnote[17] that it would\nbe an anachronism to refer the subtle Aristotelian use of the word to\nthe beginnings of speculation. To Anaximander \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae could only have meant\n\u201cbeginning,\u201d and it was far more than a beginning that the early\ncosmologists were looking for: it was the _eternal_ ground of all\nthings.\n\nThere is one very important conclusion that follows at once from the\naccount just given of the meaning of \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and it is, that the search\nfor the primary substance really was the thing that interested the\nIonian philosophers. Had their main object been, as Teichm\u00fcller held it\nwas, the explanation of celestial and meteorological phenomena, their\nresearches would not have been called \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b7,[18] but\nrather \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 or \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. And this we shall find confirmed\nby a study of the way in which Greek cosmology developed. The growing\nthought which may be traced through the successive representatives of\nany school is always that which concerns the primary substance, while\nthe astronomical and other theories are, in the main, peculiar to the\nindividual thinkers. Teichm\u00fcller undoubtedly did good service by his\nprotest against the treatment of these theories as mere isolated\ncuriosities. They form, on the contrary, coherent systems which must be\nlooked at as wholes. But it is none the less true that Greek philosophy\nbegan, as it ended, with the search for what was abiding in the flux of\nthings.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n Zeller, p. 217, n. 2 (Eng. trans. p. 248, n. 2). See below, Chap. I.\n p. 57, _n._ 105.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n We have the authority of Plato for giving them this name. Cf. _Phd._\n 96 a 7, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. So, in\n the fragment of Euripides referred to on p. 12, _n._ 14, the man who\n discerns \u201cthe ageless order of immortal \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u201d is referred to as \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: Motion and rest.]\n\nVIII. But how could this give back to nature the life of which it had\nbeen robbed by advancing knowledge? Simply by making it possible for the\nlife that had hitherto been supposed to reside in each particular thing\nto be transferred to the one thing of which all others were passing\nforms. The very process of birth, growth, and decay might now be\nregarded as the unceasing activity of the one ultimate reality.\nAristotle and his followers expressed this by saying that the early\ncosmologists believed in an \u201ceternal motion,\u201d and in substance this is\ncorrect, though it is not probable that they said anything about the\neternal motion in their writings. It is more likely that they simply\ntook it for granted. In early times, it is not movement but rest that\nhas to be accounted for, and we may be sure that the eternity of motion\nwas not asserted till it had been denied. As we shall see, it was\nParmenides who first denied it. The idea of a single ultimate substance,\nwhen thoroughly worked out, seemed to leave no room for motion; and\nafter the time of Parmenides, we do find that philosophers were\nconcerned to show how it began. At first, this would not seem to require\nexplanation at all.\n\nModern writers sometimes give the name of Hylozoism to this way of\nthinking, but the term is apt to be misleading. It suggests theories\nwhich deny the separate reality of life and spirit, whereas, in the days\nof Thales, and even far later, the distinction between matter and spirit\nhad not been felt, still less formulated in such a way that it could be\ndenied. The uncreated, indestructible reality of which these early\nthinkers tell us was a body, or even matter, if we choose to call it so;\nbut it was not matter in the sense in which matter is opposed to spirit.\n\n[Sidenote: The downfall of the primitive view of the world.]\n\nIX. We have indicated the main characteristics of the primitive view of\nthe world, and we have sketched in outline the view which displaced it;\nwe must now consider the causes which led to the downfall of the one and\nthe rise of the other. Foremost among these was undoubtedly the widening\nof the Greek horizon occasioned by the great extension of maritime\nenterprise which followed the decay of the Phoenician naval supremacy.\nThe scene of the old stories had, as a rule, been laid just outside the\nboundaries of the world known to the men who believed them. Odysseus\ndoes not meet with Kirke or the Kyklops or the Sirens in the familiar\nAegean, but in regions which lay beyond the ken of the Greeks at the\ntime the _Odyssey_ was composed. Now, however, the West was beginning to\nbe familiar too, and the fancy of the Greek explorers led them to\nidentify the lands which they discovered with the places which the hero\nof the national fairy-tale had come to in his wanderings. It was soon\ndiscovered that the monstrous beings in question were no longer to be\nfound there, and the belief grew up that they had never been there at\nall. So, too, the Milesians had settled colonies all round the Euxine.\nThe colonists went out with \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 in their minds; and, at\nthe same time as they changed the name of the Inhospitable to the\nHospitable Sea, they localised the \u201cfar country\u201d (\u03b1\u1f36\u03b1) of the primitive\ntale, and made Jason fetch the Golden Fleece from Kolchis. Above all,\nthe Phokaians had explored the Mediterranean as far as the Pillars of\nHerakles,[19] and the new knowledge that the \u201cendless paths\u201d of the sea\nhad boundaries must have moved men\u2019s minds in much the same way as the\ndiscovery of America did in later days. A single example will illustrate\nthe process which was always going on. According to the primitive view,\nthe heavens were supported by a giant called Atlas. No one had ever seen\nhim, though he was supposed to live in Arkadia. The Phokaian explorers\nidentified him with a cloud-capped mountain in Africa, and once they had\ndone this, the old belief was doomed. It was impossible to go on\nbelieving in a god who was also a mountain, conveniently situated for\nthe trader to steer by, as he sailed to Tarshish in quest of silver.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Herod. i. 163.\n\n[Sidenote: Alleged Oriental origin of philosophy.]\n\nX. But by far the most important question we have to face is that of the\nnature and extent of the influence exercised by what we call Eastern\nwisdom on the Greek mind. It is a common idea even now that the Greeks\nin some way derived their philosophy from Egypt and Babylon, and we must\ntherefore try to understand as clearly as possible what such a statement\nreally means. To begin with, we must observe that no writer of the\nperiod during which Greek philosophy flourished knows anything at all of\nits having come from the East. Herodotos would not have omitted to say\nso, had he ever heard of it; for it would have confirmed his own belief\nin the Egyptian origin of Greek religion and civilisation.[20] Plato,\nwho had a very great respect for the Egyptians on other grounds,\ndistinctly implies that they were a businesslike rather than a\nphilosophical people.[21] Aristotle speaks only of the origin of\nmathematics in Egypt[22] (a point to which we shall return), though, if\nhe had known of an Egyptian philosophy, it would have suited his\nargument better to mention that. It is not till a far later date, when\nEgyptian priests and Alexandrian Jews began to vie with one another in\ndiscovering the sources of Greek philosophy in their own past, that we\nfirst have definite statements to the effect that it came from Phoenicia\nor Egypt. Here, however, we must carefully note two things. In the first\nplace, the word \u201cphilosophy\u201d had come by that time to include theology\nof a more or less mystical type, and was even applied to various forms\nof asceticism.[23] In the second place, the so-called Egyptian\nphilosophy was only arrived at by a process of turning primitive myths\ninto allegories. We are still able to judge Philo\u2019s Old Testament\ninterpretation for ourselves, and we may be sure that the Egyptian\nallegorists were even more arbitrary; for they had far less promising\nmaterial to work on. Nothing can be more savage than the myth of Isis\nand Osiris;[24] yet it is first interpreted according to the ideas of\nlater Greek philosophy, and then declared to be the original source of\nthat philosophy.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n All he can say is that the worship of Dionysos and the doctrine of\n transmigration came from Egypt (ii. 49, 123). We shall see that both\n these statements are incorrect, and in any case they do not imply\n anything directly as to philosophy.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n In _Rep._ 435 e, after saying that \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2 is characteristic of\n the Thracians and Scythians, and \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2 of the Hellenes, he\n refers us to Phoenicia and Egypt for \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. In the _Laws_,\n where the Egyptians are so strongly commended for their conservatism\n in matters of art, he says (747 b 6) that arithmetical studies are\n valuable only if we remove all \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 from the\n souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 instead of\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, and many\n other peoples do.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 1. 981 b 23.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n See Zeller, p. 3, n. 2. Philo applies the term \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 to\n the theology of the Essenes and Therapeutai.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n On this, see Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, vol. ii. p. 135.\n\nThis method of interpretation may be said to culminate with the\nNeopythagorean Noumenios, from whom it passed to the Christian\nApologists. It is Noumenios who asks, \u201cWhat is Plato, but Moses speaking\nAttic?\u201d[25] It seems likely, indeed, that he was thinking of certain\nmarked resemblances between Plato\u2019s _Laws_ and the Levitical Code when\nhe said this\u2014resemblances due to the fact that certain primitive legal\nideas are similarly modified in both; but in any case Clement and\nEusebios give the remark a far wider application.[26] At the\nRenaissance, this absurd farrago was revived along with everything else,\nand certain ideas derived from the _Praeparatio Evangelica_ continued\nfor long to colour accepted views on the subject. Even Cudworth speaks\ncomplacently of the ancient \u201cMoschical or Mosaical philosophy\u201d taught by\nThales and Pythagoras.[27] It is important to realise the true origin of\nthis deeply-rooted prejudice against the originality of the Greeks. It\ndoes not come from modern researches into the beliefs of ancient\npeoples; for these have disclosed absolutely nothing in the way of\nevidence for a Phoenician or Egyptian philosophy. It is a mere residuum\nof the Alexandrian passion for allegory.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n Noumenios, fr. 13 (R. P. 624), \u03a4\u03af \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd;\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n Clement (_Strom._ i. p. 8, 5, St\u00e4hlin) calls Plato \u1f41 \u1f10\u03be \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n We learn from Strabo (xvi. p. 757) that it was Poseidonios who\n introduced Mochos of Sidon into the history of philosophy. He\n attributes the atomic theory to him. His identification with Moses,\n however, is a later _tour de force_. Philon of Byblos published what\n purported to be a translation of an ancient Phoenician history by\n Sanchuniathon, which was used by Porphyry and afterwards by Eusebios.\n How familiar all this became, is shown by the speech of the stranger\n in the _Vicar of Wakefield_, chap. xiv.\n\nOf course no one nowadays would rest the case for the Oriental origin of\nGreek philosophy on the evidence of Clement or Eusebios; the favourite\nargument in recent times has been the analogy of the arts and religion.\nWe are seeing more and more, it is said, that the Greeks derived their\nart and many of their religious ideas from the East; and it is urged\nthat the same will in all probability prove true of their philosophy.\nThis is a specious argument, but not in the least conclusive. It ignores\naltogether the essential difference in the way these things are\ntransmitted from people to people. Material civilisation and the arts\nmay pass easily from one people to another, though they have not a\ncommon language, and certain simple religious ideas can be conveyed by\nritual better than in any other way. Philosophy, on the other hand, can\nonly be expressed in abstract language, and it can only be transmitted\nby educated men, whether by means of books or oral teaching. Now we know\nof no Greek, in the times we are dealing with, who knew enough of any\nOriental language to read an Egyptian book or even to listen to the\ndiscourse of an Egyptian priest, and we never hear till a late date of\nOriental teachers who wrote or spoke in Greek. The Greek traveller in\nEgypt would no doubt pick up a few words of Egyptian, and it is certain\nthat somehow or other the priests could make themselves understood by\nthe Greeks. They were able to rebuke Hekataios for his family pride, and\nPlato tells a story of the same sort at the beginning of the\n_Timaeus_.[28] But they must have made use of interpreters, and it is\nimpossible to conceive of philosophical ideas being communicated through\nan uneducated dragoman.[29]\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n Herod. ii. 143; Plato, _Tim._ 22 b 3.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n Gomperz\u2019s \u201cnative bride,\u201d who discusses the wisdom of her people with\n her Greek lord (_Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 95), does not convince me\n either. She would probably teach her maids the rites of strange\n goddesses; but she would not be likely to talk theology with her\n husband, and still less philosophy or science. The use of Babylonian\n as an international language will account for the fact that the\n Egyptians knew something of Babylonian astronomy; but it does not help\n us to explain how the Greeks could communicate with the Egyptians. It\n is plain that the Greeks did not even know of this international\n language; for it is just the sort of thing they would have recorded\n with interest if they had. In early days, they may have met with it in\n Cyprus, but that was apparently forgotten.\n\nBut really it is not worth while to ask whether the communication of\nphilosophical ideas was possible or not, till some evidence has been\nproduced that any of these peoples had a philosophy to communicate. No\nsuch evidence has yet been discovered, and, so far as we know, the\nIndians were the only people besides the Greeks who ever had anything\nthat deserves the name. No one now will suggest that Greek philosophy\ncame from India, and indeed everything points to the conclusion that\nIndian philosophy came from Greece. The chronology of Sanskrit\nliterature is an extremely difficult subject; but, so far as we can see,\nthe great Indian systems are later in date than the Greek philosophies\nwhich they most nearly resemble. Of course the mysticism of the\nUpanishads and of Buddhism were of native growth and profoundly\ninfluenced philosophy, but they were not themselves philosophy in any\ntrue sense of the word.[30]\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n For the possibility that Indian philosophy came from Greece, see\n Weber, _Die Griechen in Indien_ (Berl. Sitzb. 1890, pp. 901 sqq.), and\n Goblet d\u2019Alviella, _Ce que l\u2019Inde doit \u00e0 la Gr\u00e8ce_ (Paris, 1897).\n\n[Sidenote: Egyptian mathematics.]\n\nXI. It would, however, be another thing to say that Greek philosophy\noriginated quite independently of Oriental influences. The Greeks\nthemselves believed their mathematical science to be of Egyptian origin,\nand they must also have known something of Babylonian astronomy. It\ncannot be an accident that philosophy originated in Ionia just at the\ntime when communication with these two countries was easiest, and it is\nsignificant that the very man who was said to have introduced geometry\nfrom Egypt is also regarded as the first of the philosophers. It thus\nbecomes very important for us to discover, if we can, what Egyptian\nmathematics meant. We shall see that, even here, the Greeks were really\noriginal.\n\nThere is a papyrus in the Rhind collection at the British Museum[31]\nwhich gives us an instructive glimpse of arithmetic and geometry as\nthese sciences were understood on the banks of the Nile. It is the work\nof one Aahmes, and contains rules for calculations both of an\narithmetical and a geometrical character. The arithmetical problems\nmostly concern measures of corn and fruit, and deal particularly with\nsuch questions as the division of a number of measures among a given\nnumber of persons, the number of loaves or jars of beer that certain\nmeasures will yield, and the wages due to the workmen for a certain\npiece of work. It corresponds exactly, in fact, to the description of\nEgyptian arithmetic which Plato has given us in the _Laws_, where he\ntells us that the children learnt along with their letters to solve\nproblems in the distribution of apples and wreaths to greater or smaller\nnumbers of people, the pairing of boxers and wrestlers, and so\nforth.[32] This is clearly the origin of the art which the Greeks called\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, and they certainly borrowed that from Egypt; but there is not\nthe slightest trace of what the Greeks called \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, or the\nscientific study of numbers.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor\u2019s\n _Vorlesungen \u00fcber Geschichte der Mathematik_, vol. i. pp. 46-63. See\n also Gow\u2019s _Short History of Greek Mathematics_, \u00a7\u00a7 73-80; and\n Milhaud, _La science grecque_, pp. 91 sqq. The discussion in the\n last-named work is of special value because it is based on M. Rodet\u2019s\n paper in the _Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Math\u00e9matique_, vol. vi., which in\n some important respects supplements the interpretation of Eisenlohr,\n on which the earlier accounts depend.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Plato, _Laws_, 819 b 4, \u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. In its context, the passage implies that no more than\n this could be learnt in Egypt.\n\nThe geometry of the Rhind papyrus is of a similarly utilitarian\ncharacter, and Herodotos, who tells us that Egyptian geometry arose\nfrom the necessity of measuring the land afresh after the inundations,\nis obviously far nearer the mark than Aristotle, who says that it grew\nout of the leisure enjoyed by the priestly caste.[33] We find,\naccordingly, that the rules given for calculating areas are only exact\nwhen these are rectangular. As fields are usually more or less\nrectangular, this would be sufficient for practical purposes. The rule\nfor finding what is called the _seqt_ of a pyramid is, however, on a\nrather higher level, as we should expect; for the angles of the\nEgyptian pyramids really are equal, and there must have been some\nmethod for obtaining this result. It comes to this. Given the \u201clength\nacross the sole of the foot,\u201d that is, the diagonal of the base, and\nthat of the _piremus_ or \u201cridge,\u201d to find a number which represents\nthe ratio between them. This is done by dividing half the diagonal of\nthe base by the \u201cridge,\u201d and it is obvious that such a method might\nquite well be discovered empirically. It seems an anachronism to speak\nof elementary trigonometry in connexion with a rule like this, and\nthere is nothing to suggest that the Egyptians went any further.[34]\nThat the Greeks learnt as much from them, we shall see to be highly\nprobable, though we shall see also that, from a comparatively early\nperiod, they generalised it so as to make it of use in measuring the\ndistances of inaccessible objects, such as ships at sea. It was\nprobably this generalisation that suggested the idea of a science of\ngeometry, which was really the creation of the Pythagoreans, and we\ncan see how far the Greeks soon surpassed their teachers from a remark\nof Demokritos which has been preserved. He says (fr. 299): \u201cI have\nlistened to many learned men, but no one has yet surpassed me in the\nconstruction of figures out of lines accompanied by demonstration, not\neven the Egyptian _harpedonapts_, as they call them.\u201d[35] Now the word\n\u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is not Egyptian but Greek. It means \u201ccord-fastener,\u201d[36]\nand it is a striking coincidence that the oldest Indian geometrical\ntreatise is called the _\u00c7ulvasutras_ or \u201crules of the cord.\u201d These\nthings point to the use of the triangle of which the sides are 3, 4,\n5, and which has always a right angle. We know that this triangle was\nused from an early date among the Chinese and the Hindus, who\ndoubtless got it from Babylon, and we shall see that Thales probably\nlearnt the use of it in Egypt.[37] There is no reason whatever for\nsupposing that any of these peoples had in any degree troubled\nthemselves to give a theoretical demonstration of its properties,\nthough Demokritos would certainly have been able to do so. Finally, we\nmust note the highly significant fact that all mathematical terms are\nof purely Greek origin.[38]\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n Herod. ii. 109; Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 1. 981 b 23.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n For a fuller account of this method, see Gow, _Short History of Greek\n Mathematics_, pp. 127 sqq.; and Milhaud, _Science grecque_, p. 99.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n R. P. 188.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n The real meaning of \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 was first pointed out by Cantor. The\n gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of\n the \u201charpedonapts.\u201d\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n See Milhaud, _Science grecque_, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n The word \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2 is often supposed to be derived from the term\n _piremus_ used in the Rhind papyrus, which does not mean pyramid, but\n \u201cridge.\u201d It is really, however, a Greek word too, and is the name of a\n kind of cake. The Greeks called crocodiles lizards, ostriches\n sparrows, and obelisks meat-skewers, so they may very well have called\n the pyramids cakes. We seem to hear an echo of the slang of the\n mercenaries that carved their names on the colossus at Abu-Simbel.\n\n[Sidenote: Babylonian astronomy.]\n\nXII. The other source from which the Ionians directly or indirectly\nderived material for their cosmology was the Babylonian astronomy. There\nis no doubt that the Babylonians from a very early date had recorded all\ncelestial phenomena like eclipses. They had also studied the planetary\nmotions, and determined the signs of the zodiac. Further, they were able\nto predict the recurrence of the phenomena they had observed with\nconsiderable accuracy by means of cycles based on their recorded\nobservations. I can see no reason for doubting that they had observed\nthe phenomenon of precession. Indeed, they could hardly have failed to\nnotice it; for their observations went back over so many centuries, that\nit would be quite appreciable. We know that, at a later date, Ptolemy\nestimated the precession of the equinoxes at one degree in a hundred\nyears, and it is extremely probable that this is just the Babylonian\nvalue. At any rate, it agrees very well with their division of the\ncelestial circle into 360 degrees, and made it possible for a century to\nbe regarded as a day in the \u201cGreat Year,\u201d a conception we shall meet\nwith later on.[39]\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n Three different positions of the equinox are given in three different\n Babylonian tablets, namely, 10\u00b0, 8\u00b0 15\u2032, and 8\u00b0 0\u2032 30\u2033 of Aries.\n (Kugler, _Mondrechnung_, p. 103; Ginzel, _Klio_, i. p. 205.) Given\n knowledge of this kind, and the practice of formulating recurrences in\n cycles, it is scarcely conceivable that the Babylonians should not\n have invented a cycle for precession. It is equally intelligible that\n they should only have reached a rough approximation; for the\n precessional period is really about 27,600 years and not 36,000. It is\n to be observed that Plato\u2019s \u201cperfect year\u201d is also 36,000 solar years\n (Adam\u2019s _Republic_, vol. ii. p. 302), and that it is probably\n connected with the precession of the equinoxes. (Cf. _Tim._ 39 d, a\n passage which is most easily interpreted if referred to precession.)\n This suggestion as to the origin of the \u201cGreat Year\u201d was thrown out by\n Mr. Adam (_op. cit._ p. 305), and is now confirmed by Hilprecht, _The\n Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_\n (Philadelphia, 1906).\n\nWe shall see that Thales probably knew the cycle which the Babylonians\nused to predict eclipses (\u00a7 3); but it would be a mistake to suppose\nthat the pioneers of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of the\nBabylonian astronomy. It was not till the time of Plato that even the\nnames of the planets were known,[40] and the recorded observations were\nonly made available in Alexandrian times. But, even if they had known\nthese, their originality would remain. The Babylonians studied and\nrecorded celestial phenomena for what we call astrological purposes, not\nfrom any scientific interest. There is no evidence at all that their\naccumulated observations ever suggested to them the least\ndissatisfaction with the primitive view of the world, or that they\nattempted to account for what they saw in any but the crudest way. The\nGreeks, on the other hand, with far fewer data to go upon, made at least\nthree discoveries of capital importance in the course of two or three\ngenerations. In the first place, they discovered that the earth is a\nsphere and does not rest on anything. In the second place, they\ndiscovered the true theory of lunar and solar eclipses; and, in close\nconnexion with this, they came to see, in the third place, that the\nearth is not the centre of our system, but revolves round it like the\nother planets. Not very much later, certain Greeks even took, at least\ntentatively, the final step of identifying the centre round which the\nearth and the planets revolve with the sun. These discoveries will be\ndiscussed in their proper place; they are only mentioned here to show\nthe gulf between Greek astronomy and everything that had preceded it.\nThe Babylonians had as many thousand years as the Greeks had centuries\nto make these discoveries, and it does not appear that they ever thought\nof one of them. The originality of the Greeks cannot be successfully\nquestioned till it can be shown that the Babylonians had even an\nincorrect idea of what we call the solar system.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n In classical Greek literature, no planets but \u1f1d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f19\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 are\n mentioned by name at all. Parmenides (or Pythagoras) first identified\n these as a single planet (\u00a7 93). Mercury appears for the first time by\n name in _Tim._ 38 e, and the other divine names are given in _Epin._\n 987 b sq., where they are said to be \u201cSyrian.\u201d The Greek names \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03a6\u03b1\u03ad\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, \u03a0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a3\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, may be older, but this cannot be\n proved.\n\nWe may sum up all this by saying that the Greeks did not borrow either\ntheir philosophy or their science from the East. They did, however, get\nfrom Egypt certain rules of mensuration which, when generalised, gave\nbirth to geometry; while from Babylon they learnt that the phenomena of\nthe heavens recur in cycles with the greatest regularity. This piece of\nknowledge undoubtedly had a great deal to do with the rise of science;\nfor to the Greek it suggested further questions such as the Babylonian\ndid not dream of.[41]\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n The Platonic account of this matter is to be found in the _Epinomis_,\n 986 e 9 sqq., and is summed up by the words \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd\n \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (987\n d 9). The point is well put by Theon (Adrastos), _Exp._ p. 177, 20\n Hiller, who speaks of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians as \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n The importance of this last passage is that it represents the view\n taken at Alexandria, where the facts were accurately known.\n\n[Sidenote: The scientific character of the early Greek cosmology.]\n\nXIII. It is necessary to say something as to the scientific worth of the\nphilosophy we are about to study. We have just seen that the Eastern\npeoples were, at the time of which we write, considerably richer than\nthe Greeks in accumulated facts, though these facts had certainly not\nbeen observed for any scientific purpose, and their possession never\nsuggested a revision of the primitive view of the world. The Greeks,\nhowever, saw in them something that could be turned to account, and they\nwere never as a people slow to act on the maxim, _Chacun prend son bien\npartout o\u00f9 il le trouve_. The most striking monument of this spirit\nwhich has come down to us is the work of Herodotos; and the visit of\nSolon to Croesus which he describes, however unhistorical it may be,\ngives a very lively and faithful picture of it. Croesus tells Solon that\nhe has heard much of \u201chis wisdom and his wanderings,\u201d and how, from love\nof knowledge (\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd), he has travelled over much land for the\npurpose of seeing what was to be seen (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd). The words\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b7, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b7, and \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 are, in fact, the catchwords of the time,\nthough they had, we must remember, a somewhat different meaning from\nthat which they were afterwards made to bear at Athens.[42] The idea\nthat underlies them all may, perhaps, be best rendered in English by the\nword _Curiosity_; and it was just this great gift of curiosity, and the\ndesire to see all the wonderful things\u2014pyramids, inundations, and so\nforth\u2014that were to be seen, which enabled the Greeks to pick up and turn\nto their own use such scraps of knowledge as they could come by among\nthe barbarians. No sooner did a Greek philosopher learn half a dozen\ngeometrical propositions, and hear that the phenomena of the heavens\nrecur in cycles, than he set to work to look for law everywhere in\nnature, and, with a splendid audacity, almost amounting to \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, to\nconstruct a system of the universe. We may smile, if we please, at the\nstrange medley of childish fancy and true scientific insight which these\nTitanic efforts display, and sometimes we feel disposed to sympathise\nwith the sages of the day who warned their more daring contemporaries\n\u201cto think the thoughts befitting man\u2019s estate\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd). But\nwe shall do well to remember at the same time that even now it is just\nsuch hardy anticipations of experience that make scientific progress\npossible, and that nearly every one of the early inquirers whom we are\nabout to study made some permanent addition to the store of positive\nknowledge, besides opening up new views of the world in every direction.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Still, the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 never wholly lost its early associations, and\n the Greeks always felt that the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 meant literally \u201cthe\n life of the spectator.\u201d Its special use, and the whole theory of the\n \u201cthree lives,\u201d seem to be of Pythagorean origin. See my edition of\n Aristotle\u2019s _Ethics_, p. 19 n.\n\nThere is no justification either for the idea that Greek science was\nbuilt up solely by more or less lucky guesswork, instead of by\nobservation and experiment. The nature of our tradition, which mostly\nconsists of _Placita_\u2014that is, of what we call \u201cresults\u201d\u2014tends, no\ndoubt, to create this impression. We are seldom told why any early\nphilosopher held the views he did, and the appearance of a string of\n\u201copinions\u201d suggests dogmatism. There are, however, certain exceptions to\nthe general character of the tradition; and we may reasonably suppose\nthat, if the later Greeks had been interested in the matter, there would\nhave been many more. We shall see that Anaximander made some remarkable\ndiscoveries in marine biology, which the researches of the nineteenth\ncentury have fully confirmed (\u00a7 21), and even Xenophanes supported one\nof his theories by referring to the fossils and petrifactions of such\nwidely separated places as Malta, Paros, and Syracuse (\u00a7 59). This is\nenough to show that the theory, so commonly held by the earlier\nphilosophers, that the earth had been originally in a moist state, was\nnot mythological in origin, but was based on, or at any rate confirmed\nby, biological and palaeontological observations of a thoroughly modern\nand scientific type. It would surely be absurd to imagine that the men\nwho could make these observations had not the curiosity or the ability\nto make many others of which the memory is lost. Indeed, the idea that\nthe Greeks were not observers is almost ludicrously wrong, as is proved\nby two simple considerations. The anatomical accuracy of Greek sculpture\nbears witness to trained habits of observation, and those of the highest\norder, while the fixing of the seasons by the heliacal rising and\nsetting of the stars shows a familiarity with celestial phenomena which\nis by no means common at the present day.[43] We know, then, that the\nGreeks could observe well in matters affecting agriculture, navigation,\nand the arts, and we know that they were curious about the world. Is it\nconceivable that they did not use their powers of observation to gratify\nthat curiosity? It is true, of course, that they had not our instruments\nof precision; but a great deal can be discovered by the help of very\nsimple apparatus. It is not to be supposed that Anaximander erected his\n_gnomon_ merely that the Spartans might know the seasons.[44]\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n These two points are rightly emphasised by Staigm\u00fcller, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\n Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften im klassischen Altertume_ (Progr.\n Stuttgart, 1899, p. 8).\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n The gnomon was not a sundial, but an upright erected on a flat\n surface, in the centre of three concentric circles. These were drawn\n so that the end of the gnomon\u2019s shadow touched the innermost circle at\n midday on the summer solstice, the intermediate circle at the\n equinoxes, and the outermost circle at the winter solstice. See\n Bretschneider, _Die Geometrie vor Euklid_, p. 60.\n\nNor is it true that the Greeks made no use of experiment. The rise of\nthe experimental method dates from the time when the medical schools\nbegan to influence the development of philosophy, and accordingly we\nfind that the first recorded experiment of a modern type is that of\nEmpedokles with the _klepsydra_. We have his own account of this (fr.\n100), and we can see how it brought him to the verge of anticipating\nboth Harvey and Torricelli. It is once more inconceivable that an\ninquisitive people should have applied the experimental method in a\nsingle case without extending it to the elucidation of other problems.\n\nOf course the great difficulty for us is the geocentric hypothesis from\nwhich science inevitably started, though only to outgrow it in a\nsurprisingly short time. So long as the earth is supposed to be in the\ncentre of the world, meteorology, in the later sense of the word, is\nnecessarily identified with astronomy. It is difficult for us to feel at\nhome in this point of view, and indeed we have no suitable word to\nexpress what the Greeks at first called an \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. It will be\nconvenient to use the word \u201cworld\u201d for it; but then we must remember\nthat it does not refer solely, or even chiefly, to the earth. The later\nword \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 bears witness to the growth of scientific ideas. It meant at\nfirst the marshalling of an army, and next the ordered constitution of a\nstate. It was transferred from this to the world because in early days\nthe regularity and constancy of human life was far more clearly seen\nthan the uniformity of nature. Man lived in a charmed circle of law and\ncustom, but the world around him still seemed lawless. That, too, is\nwhy, when the regular course of nature was first realised, no better\nword for it could be found than \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7. It is the same metaphor which\nstill lives on in the expression \u201cnatural law.\u201d[45]\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n The term \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 seems to be Pythagorean in this sense. It was not\n familiar even at the beginning of the fourth century. Xenophon speaks\n of \u201cwhat the sophists call the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\u201d (Mem. i. 11). For \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, see\n below, \u00a7\u00a7 14, 72.\n\nThe science of the sixth century was mainly concerned, then, with those\nparts of the world that are \u201caloft\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1), and these include,\nalong with the heavenly bodies, such things as clouds, rainbows, and\nlightning. That is how the heavenly bodies came sometimes to be\nexplained as ignited clouds, an idea which seems astonishing to us. But\nwe must bear in mind that science inevitably and rightly began with the\nmost obvious hypothesis, and that it was only the thorough working out\nof this that could show its inadequacy. It is just because the Greeks\nwere the first people to take the geocentric hypothesis seriously that\nthey were able to go beyond it. Of course the pioneers of Greek thought\nhad no clear idea of the nature of scientific hypothesis, and supposed\nthemselves to be dealing with ultimate reality. That was inevitable\nbefore the rise of Logic. At the same time, a sure instinct guided them\nto the right method, and we can see how it was the effort to \u201csave\nappearances\u201d[46] that really operated from the first. It is, therefore,\nto those men that we owe the conception of an exact science which should\nultimately take in the whole world as its object. They fancied\u2014absurdly\nenough, no doubt\u2014that they could work out this science at once. We\nsometimes make the same mistake nowadays; and it can no more rob the\nGreeks of the honour of having been the first to see the true, though\nperhaps unattainable, end of all science than it can rob our own\nscientific men of the honour of having brought that end nearer than it\nwas. It is still knowledge of the kind foreseen and attempted by the\nGreeks that they are in search of.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n This phrase originated in the school of Plato. The method of research\n in use there was for the leader to \u201cpropound\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) it as a \u201cproblem\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1) to find the simplest\n \u201chypothesis\u201d (\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) on which it is possible to account\n for and do justice to all the observed facts (\u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1). It\n was in its French form, _sauver les apparences_, that the phrase\n acquired the meaning it usually has now.\n\n[Sidenote: Schools of philosophy.]\n\nXIV. Theophrastos, the first writer to treat the history of Greek\nphilosophy in a systematic way,[47] represented the early cosmologists\nas standing to one another in the relation of master and scholar, and as\nmembers of regular societies. This has been regarded by many modern\nwriters as an anachronism, and some have even denied the existence of\n\u201cschools\u201d of philosophy altogether. Such a reaction against the older\nview was quite justified in so far as it was directed against arbitrary\nclassifications like the \u201cIonic\u201d and \u201cItalian\u201d schools, which are\nderived through Laertios Diogenes from the Alexandrian writers of\n\u201cSuccessions.\u201d But the express statements of Theophrastos are not to be\nso lightly set aside. As this point is of great importance, it will be\nnecessary to elucidate it still further before we enter upon our story.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n See Appendix, \u00a7 7.\n\nThe modern view really rests upon a mistaken idea of the way in which\ncivilisation develops. In almost every department of life, we find that\nthe corporation at first is everything and the individual nothing. The\npeoples of the East hardly got beyond this stage at all; their science,\nsuch as it is, is anonymous, the inherited property of a caste or guild,\nand we still see clearly in some cases that it was once the same among\nthe Hellenes. Medicine, for instance, was originally the \u201cmystery\u201d of\nthe Asklepiads, and it is to be supposed that all craftsmen\n(\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af), amongst whom Homer classes the bards (\u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03af), were at\nfirst organised in a similar way. What distinguished the Hellenes from\nother peoples was that at a comparatively early date these crafts came\nunder the influence of outstanding individuals, who gave them a fresh\ndirection and a new impulse. It is doubtless in some such way that we\nshould understand the relation of Homer to the Homeridai. The Asklepiads\nat a later date produced Hippokrates, and if we knew more of such guilds\nas the Daidalids, it is likely we should find something of the same\nkind. But this does not destroy the corporate character of the craft;\nindeed, it rather intensifies it. The guild becomes what we call a\n\u201cschool,\u201d and the disciple takes the place of the apprentice. That is a\nvital change. A close guild with none but official heads is essentially\nconservative, while a band of disciples attached to a master they revere\nis the greatest progressive force the world knows.\n\nIt is certain that the later Athenian schools were organised\ncorporations, the oldest of which, the Academy, maintained its existence\nas such for some nine hundred years, and the only question we have to\ndecide is whether this was an innovation made in the fourth century\nB.C., or rather the continuance of an old tradition. As it happens, we\nhave the authority of Plato for speaking of the chief early systems as\nhanded down in schools. He makes Sokrates speak of \u201cthe men of Ephesos,\u201d\nthe Herakleiteans, as forming a strong body in his own day,[48] and the\nstranger of the _Sophist_ and the _Statesman_ speaks of his school as\nstill in existence at Elea.[49] We also hear of \u201cAnaxagoreans,\u201d[50] and\nno one, of course, can doubt that the Pythagoreans were a society. In\nfact, there is hardly any school but that of Miletos for which we have\nnot external evidence of the strongest kind; and even as regards it, we\nhave the significant fact that Theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a\nlater date as having been \u201cassociates of the philosophy of\nAnaximenes.\u201d[51] We shall see too in the first chapter that the internal\nevidence in favour of the existence of a Milesian school is very strong\nindeed. It is from this point of view, then, that we shall now proceed\nto consider the men who created Hellenic science.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n _Tht._ 179 e 4, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. The humorous denial\n that the Herakleiteans had any disciples (180 b 8, \u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f66\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5;) implies that this was the normal and recognised relation.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n _Soph._ 242 d 4, \u03c4\u1f78 ... \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Cf. ib. 216 a 3,\n \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 [\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd] (where \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd is\n probably interpolated, but gives the right sense); 217 a, 1, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n _Crat._ 409 b 6, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n Cf. Chap. VI. \u00a7 122; and, on the whole subject, see Diels, \u201c\u00dcber die\n \u00e4ltesten Philosophenschulen der Griechen\u201d in _Philosophische Aufs\u00e4tze\n Eduard Zeller gewidmet_ (Leipzig, 1887).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n THE MILESIAN SCHOOL\n\n\n[Sidenote: Miletos and Lydia.]\n\n1. It was at Miletos that the earliest school of scientific cosmology\nhad its home. At the time it arose, the Milesians were in an\nexceptionally favourable position for scientific as well as commercial\npursuits. They had, indeed, come into conflict more than once with the\nneighbouring Lydians, whose rulers were now bent upon extending their\ndominion to the coast; but, towards the end of the seventh century B.C.,\nThrasyboulos, tyrant of Miletos, had succeeded in making terms with King\nAlyattes, and an alliance was concluded between them, which not only\nsaved Miletos for the present from a disaster like that which befell\nSmyrna, but secured it against molestation for the future. Even half a\ncentury later, when Croesus, resuming his father\u2019s forward policy, made\nwar upon and conquered Ephesos, Miletos was still able to maintain the\nold treaty-relation, and never, strictly speaking, became subject to the\nLydians at all. We can hardly doubt that the sense of security which\nthis exceptional position would foster had something to do with the rise\nof scientific inquiry. Material prosperity is necessary as a foundation\nfor the highest intellectual effort; and at this time Miletos was in\npossession of all the refinements of life to a degree unknown in\ncontinental Hellas.\n\nNor was it only in this way that the Lydian connexion would favour the\ngrowth of science at Miletos. What was called Hellenism at a later date\nseems to have been traditional in the dynasty of the Mermnadai. There\nmay well be some truth in the statement of Herodotos, that all the\n\u201csophists\u201d of the time flocked to the court of Sardeis.[52] The\ntradition which represents Croesus as what we should call the \u201cpatron\u201d\nof Greek wisdom, was fully developed in the fifth century; and, however\nunhistorical its details may be, it must clearly have some sort of\nfoundation in fact. Particularly noteworthy is \u201cthe common tale among\nthe Greeks,\u201d that Thales accompanied him on his luckless campaign\nagainst Pteria, apparently in the capacity of military engineer.\nHerodotos, indeed, disbelieves the story that he diverted the course of\nthe Halys;[53] but he does not attack it on the ground of any antecedent\nimprobability, and it is quite clear that those who reported it found no\ndifficulty in accepting the relation which it presupposes between the\nphilosopher and the king.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n Herod. i. 29. Some other points may be noted in confirmation of what\n has been said as to the \u201cHellenism\u201d of the Mermnadai. Alyattes had two\n wives, one of whom, the mother of Croesus, was a Karian; the other was\n an Ionian, and by her he had a son called by the Greek name Pantaleon\n (_ib._ 92). The offerings of Gyges were pointed out in the treasury of\n Kypselos at Delphoi (_ib._ 14), and those of Alyattes were one of the\n \u201csights\u201d of the place (_ib._ 25). Croesus also showed great liberality\n to Delphoi (_ib._ 50), and to many other Greek shrines (_ib._ 92). He\n gave most of the pillars for the great temple at Ephesos. The stories\n of Miltiades (vi. 37) and Alkmeon (_ib._ 125) should also be mentioned\n in this connexion.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n Herod. i. 75. He disbelieves it because he had heard, probably from\n the Greeks of Sinope, of the great antiquity of the bridge on the\n royal road between Ankyra and Pteria (Ramsay, _Asia Minor_, p. 29).\n Xanthos recorded a tradition that it was Thales who induced Croesus to\n ascend his pyre when he knew a shower was coming (fr. 19).\n\nIt should be added that the Lydian alliance would greatly facilitate\nintercourse with Babylon and Egypt. Lydia was an advanced post of\nBabylonian culture, and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of\nboth Egypt and Babylon. It is noteworthy, too, that Amasis of Egypt had\nthe same Hellenic sympathies as Croesus, and that the Milesians\npossessed a temple of their own at Naukratis.[54]\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n Milesians at Naukratis, Herod. ii. 178, where Amasis is said to have\n been \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd. He subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at\n Delphoi after the great fire (_ib._ 180).\n\n\n I. THALES\n\n[Sidenote: Origin.]\n\n2. There can be no doubt that the founder of the Milesian school, and\ntherefore the first of the cosmologists, was Thales;[55] but all we can\nreally be said to know of him comes from Herodotos, and the romance of\nthe Seven Wise Men was already in existence when he wrote. He tells us,\nin the first place, that Thales was of Phoenician descent, a statement\nwhich other writers explained by saying he belonged to the Thelidai, a\nnoble house descended from Kadmos and Agenor.[56] This is clearly\nconnected with the view of Herodotos that there were \u201cKadmeians\u201d from\nBoiotia among the original Ionian colonists, and it is certain that\nthere really were people called Kadmeians in several Ionic cities.[57]\nWhether they were of Semitic origin is, of course, another matter.\nHerodotos probably mentions the supposed descent of Thales simply\nbecause he was believed to have introduced certain improvements in\nnavigation from Phoenicia.[58] At any rate, the name Examyes, which his\nfather bore, lends no support to the view that he was a Semite. It is a\nKarian name, and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated by\nthe Ionians. On the monuments, we find Greek and Karian names\nalternating in the same families, and there is therefore no reason to\nsuppose that Thales was anything else than an ordinary Milesian citizen,\nthough perhaps with Karian blood in his veins.[59]\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n Simplicius, indeed, quotes from Theophrastos the statement that Thales\n had many predecessors (_Dox._ p. 475, 11). This, however, need not\n trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells\n us that Theophrastos made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is\n merely an application of Peripatetic literalism to a remark of Plato\u2019s\n (_Phileb._ 16 c 6). Cf. Appendix, \u00a7 2.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d.); Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9).\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. Priene was called Kadme,\n and the oldest annalist of Miletos bore the name Kadmos. See E. Meyer,\n _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7 158.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Diog. i. 23, \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u2014\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f97 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n See Diels, \u201cThales ein Semite?\u201d (_Arch._ ii. 165 sqq.), and Immisch,\n \u201cZu Thales Abkunft\u201d (_ib._ p. 515). The name Examyes occurs also in\n Kolophon (Hermesianax, _Leontion_, fr. 2, 38 Bgk.), and may be\n compared with other Karian names such as Cheramyes and Panamyes.\n\n[Sidenote: The eclipse foretold by Thales.]\n\n3. By far the most remarkable statement that Herodotos makes about\nThales is that he foretold the eclipse of the sun which put an end to\nthe war between the Lydians and the Medes.[60] Now, we may be sure that\nhe was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses. Anaximander and his\nsuccessors certainly were so,[61] and it is incredible that the right\nexplanation should once have been given and then forgotten so soon. Even\nsupposing, however, Thales had known the cause of eclipses, no one can\nbelieve that such scraps of elementary geometry as he picked up in Egypt\nwould enable him to calculate one from the elements of the moon\u2019s path.\nYet the evidence for the prediction is too strong to be rejected\noff-hand. The testimony of Herodotos to an event which must have\nhappened about a hundred years before his own birth may, perhaps, be\ndeemed insufficient; but that of Xenophanes is a very different matter,\nand it is this we have really to deal with.[62] According to\nTheophrastos, Xenophanes was a disciple of Anaximander, and he may quite\nwell have seen and spoken with Thales. In any case, he must have known\nscores of people who were able to remember what happened, and he had no\nconceivable interest in misrepresenting it. The prediction of the\neclipse is really better attested than any other fact about Thales\nwhatsoever, and the evidence for it is about as strong as for anything\nthat happened in the early part of the sixth century B.C.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Herod. i. 74.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see _infra_, \u00a7\u00a7\n 19, 71.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Diog. i. 23, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nNow it is quite possible to predict eclipses without knowing their true\ncause, and there is no doubt that the Babylonians actually did so. On\nthe basis of their astronomical observations, they had made out a cycle\nof 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun and moon recurred\nat equal intervals of time.[63] This, it is true, would not enable them\nto predict eclipses of the sun for a given spot on the earth\u2019s surface;\nfor these phenomena are not visible at all places where the sun is above\nthe horizon at the time. We do not occupy a position at the centre of\nthe earth, and what astronomers call the geocentric parallax has to be\ntaken into account. It would only, therefore, be possible to tell by\nmeans of the cycle that an eclipse of the sun would be visible\nsomewhere, and that it might be worth while to look out for it. Now, if\nwe may judge from a report by a Chaldaean astronomer which has been\npreserved, this was just the position of the Babylonians. They watched\nfor eclipses at the proper dates; and, if they did not occur, they\nannounced the fact as a good omen.[64] To explain what we are told about\nThales no more than this is required. He simply said there would be an\neclipse; and, as good luck would have it, it was visible in Asia Minor,\nand on a striking occasion.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n The first to call attention to the Chaldaean cycle in this connexion\n seems to have been the Rev. George Costard, Fellow of Wadham College.\n See his _Dissertation on the Use of Astronomy in History_ (London,\n 1764), p. 17. It is inaccurate to call it the _Saros_; that was quite\n another thing (see Ginzel, _Klio_, i. p. 377).\n\n[Sidenote: Date of Thales.]\n\n4. The prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw much light upon\nthe scientific attainments of Thales; but, if we can fix its date, it\nwill give us a point from which to start in trying to determine the time\nat which he lived. Modern astronomers have calculated that there was an\neclipse of the sun, probably visible in Asia Minor, on May 28 (O.S.),\n585 B.C.,[65] while Pliny gives the date of the eclipse foretold by\nThales as Ol. XLVIII. 4 (585/4 B.C.).[66] This, it is true, does not\nexactly tally; for May 585 belongs to the year 586/5 B.C. It is\nsufficiently near, however, to justify us in identifying the eclipse as\nthat of Thales, and this is confirmed by Apollodoros, who fixed his\n_floruit_ in the same year.[67] The further statement that, according to\nDemetrios Phalereus, Thales \u201creceived the name of wise\u201d in the\narchonship of Damasias at Athens, agrees very well with this, and is\ndoubtless based on the story of the Delphic tripod; for the archonship\nof Damasias is the era of the restoration of the Pythian Games.[68]\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n See George Smith, _Assyrian Discoveries_ (1875), p. 409. The\n inscription which follows was found at Kouyunjik:\u2014\n\n \u201cTo the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cConcerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to\n me; in the cities of Akkad, Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they\n made, and then in the city of Akkad, we saw part.... The observation\n was made, and the eclipse took place.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cAnd when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation, the\n observation was made and it did not take place. That which I saw with\n my eyes to the king my lord I send.\u201d\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n For the literature of this subject, see R. P. 8 b, adding Ginzel,\n _Spezieller Kanon_, p. 171. See also Milhaud, _Science grecque_, p.\n 62.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 53.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n For Apollodoros, see Appendix, \u00a7 20. The dates in our text of Diogenes\n (i. 37; R. P. 8) cannot be reconciled with one another. That given for\n the death of Thales is probably right; for it is the year before the\n fall of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., which is one of the regular eras used\n by Apollodoros. It no doubt seemed natural to make Thales die the year\n before the \u201cruin of Ionia\u201d which he foresaw. Seventy-eight years\n before this brings us to 625/4 B.C. for the birth of Thales, and this\n gives us 585/4 B.C. for his fortieth year. That is Pliny\u2019s date for\n the eclipse, and Pliny\u2019s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.\n For a full discussion of the subject, see Jacoby, pp. 175 sqq.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9). I do not discuss the Pythian era and the date\n of Damasias here, though it appears to me that the last word has not\n yet been said upon the subject. Jacoby (pp. 170 sqq.) argues strongly\n for 582/1, the date now generally accepted. Others favour the Pythian\n year 586/5 B.C., which is the very year of the eclipse, and this would\n help to explain how those historians who used Apollodoros came to date\n it a year too late; for Damasias was archon for two years and two\n months. It is even possible that they misunderstood the words \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier\n archon of the same name, as meaning \u201cin the second year of Damasias.\u201d\n Apollodoros gave only Athenian archons, and the reduction to Olympiads\n is the work of later writers. Kirchner, adopting the year 582/1 for\n Damasias, brings the archonship of Solon down to 591/0 (_Rh. Mus._\n liii. pp. 242 sqq.). But the date of Solon\u2019s archonship can never have\n been doubtful. On Kirchner\u2019s reckoning, we come to 586/5 B.C., if we\n keep the traditional date of Solon. See also E. Meyer, _Forschungen_,\n ii. pp. 242 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Thales in Egypt.]\n\n5. The introduction of Egyptian geometry into Hellas is universally\nascribed to Thales, and it is extremely probable that he did visit\nEgypt; for he had a theory of the inundations of the Nile. In a\nwell-known passage,[69] Herodotos gives three explanations of the fact\nthat this alone of all rivers rises in summer and falls in winter; but,\nas his custom is in such cases, he does not name their authors. The\nfirst of them, however, that which attributes the floods to the Etesian\nwinds, is ascribed to Thales in the _Placita_,[70] and also by many\nlater writers. Now, those statements are derived from a treatise on the\nRise of the Nile attributed to Aristotle and known to the Greek\ncommentators, but now extant only in a Latin epitome of the thirteenth\ncentury.[71] In this work the first of the three theories mentioned by\nHerodotos is ascribed to Thales, the second to Euthymenes of Massalia,\nand the third to Anaxagoras. Where did Aristotle, or whoever wrote the\nbook, get these names? We think naturally once more of Hekataios, whom\nHerodotos so often reproduces without mentioning his name; and this\nconjecture is much strengthened when we find that Hekataios actually\nmentioned Euthymenes.[72] We may conclude, then, that Thales really was\nin Egypt; and, perhaps, that Hekataios, in describing the Nile, took\naccount, as was only natural, of his distinguished fellow-citizen\u2019s\nviews.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n Herod. ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n Aet. iv. I. 1 (_Dox._ p. 384).\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n _Dox._ pp. 226-229. The Latin epitome will be found in Rose\u2019s edition\n of the Aristotelian fragments.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Hekataios, fr. 278 (_F.H.G._ i. p. 19).\n\n[Sidenote: Thales and geometry.]\n\n6. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical knowledge brought\nback by Thales from Egypt, it seems desirable to point out that many\nwriters have seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition.[73]\nIn his commentary on the First Book of Euclid, Proclus enumerates, on\nthe authority of Eudemos, certain propositions which he says were known\nto Thales.[74] One of the theorems with which he credits him is that two\ntriangles are equal when they have one side and the two adjacent angles\nequal. This he must have known, said Eudemos, as otherwise he could not\nhave measured the distances of ships at sea from a watch-tower in the\nway he was said to have done.[75] Here we see how all these statements\narose. Certain remarkable feats in the way of measurement were\ntraditionally ascribed to Thales, and it was assumed that he must have\nknown all the propositions which these imply. But this is quite an\nillusory method of inference. Both the measurement of the distance of\nships at sea, and that of the height of the pyramids, which is also\nascribed to him,[76] are easy applications of what Aahmes calls the\n_seqt_. These rules of mensuration may well have been brought from Egypt\nby Thales, but we have no ground for supposing that he knew any more\nabout their _rationale_ than did the author of the Rhind papyrus.\nPerhaps, indeed, he gave them a wider application than the Egyptians had\ndone. Still, mathematics, properly so called, did not come into\nexistence till some time after Thales.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n See Cantor, _Vorlesungen \u00fcber Geschichte der Mathematik_, vol. i. pp.\n 112 sqq.; Allman, \u201cGreek Geometry from Thales to Euclid\u201d\n (_Hermathena_, iii. pp. 164-174).\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n Proclus, _in Eucl._ pp. 65, 7; 157, 10; 250, 20; 299, 1; 352, 14;\n (Friedlein). Eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and\n mathematics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of\n philosophy.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n Proclus, p. 352, 14, \u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u0398\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 (_Eucl._ i. 26)\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. For the method adopted by Thales, see Tannery,\n _G\u00e9om\u00e9trie grecque_, p. 90. I agree, however, with Dr. Gow (_Short\n History of Greek Mathematics_, \u00a7 84) that it is very unlikely Thales\n reproduced and measured on land the enormous triangle which he had\n constructed in a perpendicular plane over the sea. Such a method would\n be too cumbrous to be of use. It is much simpler to suppose that he\n made use of the Egyptian _seqt_.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n The oldest version of this story is given in Diog. i. 27, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd. Cf. Pliny, _H. Nat._ xxxvi.\n 82, _mensuram altitudinis earum deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius\n umbram metiendo qua hora par esse corpori solet_. (Hieronymos of\n Rhodes was contemporary with Eudemos.) This need imply no more than\n the simple reflexion that the shadows of all objects will probably be\n equal to the objects at the same hour. Plutarch (_Conv. sept. sap._\n 147 a) gives a more elaborate method, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. This, as Dr. Gow points out, is\n only another calculation of _seqt_, and may very well have been the\n method of Thales.\n\n[Sidenote: Thales as a politician.]\n\n7. Thales appears once more in the pages of Herodotos some time before\nthe fall of the Lydian empire. He is said to have urged the Ionian\nGreeks to unite in a federal state with its capital at Teos.[77] We\nshall have occasion to notice more than once in the sequel that the\nearly schools of philosophy were in the habit of trying to influence the\ncourse of political events; and there are many things, for instance the\npart played by Hekataios in the Ionian revolt, which point to the\nconclusion that the scientific men of Miletos took up a very decided\nposition in the stirring times that followed the death of Thales. It is\nthis political action which has gained the founder of the Milesian\nschool his undisputed place among the Seven Wise Men; and it is owing\nmainly to his inclusion among those worthies that the numerous anecdotes\nwhich were told of him in later days attached themselves to his\nname.[78]\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d).\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n The story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, _Tht._ 174 a) is\n nothing but a fable teaching the uselessness of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1; the anecdote\n about the \u201ccorner\u201d in oil (Ar. _Pol._ \u0391, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to\n inculcate the opposite lesson.\n\n[Sidenote: Uncertain character of the tradition.]\n\n8. If Thales ever wrote anything, it soon was lost, and the works which\nwere written in his name did not, as a rule, deceive even the\nancients.[79] Aristotle professes to know something about the views of\nThales; but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived at, nor\nthe arguments by which they were supported. He does, indeed, make\ncertain suggestions, which are repeated by later writers as statements\nof fact; but he himself simply gives them for what they are worth.[80]\nThere is another difficulty in connexion with the tradition. Many a\nprecise-looking statement in the _Placita_ has no other foundation than\nthe habit of ascribing any doctrine which was, roughly speaking,\ncharacteristic of the whole Ionic \u201cSuccession\u201d to \u201cThales and his\nfollowers,\u201d and so producing the appearance of a definite statement\nabout Thales. But, in spite of all this, we need not doubt that\nAristotle was correctly informed with regard to the leading points. We\nhave seen traces of reference to Thales in Hekataios, and nothing can be\nmore likely than that later writers of the school should have quoted the\nviews of its founder. We may venture, therefore, upon a conjectural\nrestoration of his cosmology, in which we shall be guided by what we\nknow for certain of the subsequent development of the Milesian school;\nfor we should naturally expect to find its characteristic doctrines at\nleast foreshadowed in the teaching of its earliest representative. But\nall this must be taken for just what it is worth; speaking strictly, we\ndo not know anything about the teaching of Thales at all.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n See R. P. 9 e.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n R. P. _ib._\n\n[Sidenote: Conjectural account of the cosmology of Thales.]\n\n9. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to three:\n\n (1) The earth floats on the water.[81]\n (2) Water is the material cause[82] of all things.\n (3) All things are full of gods. The magnet is alive; for it has\n the power of moving iron.[83]\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10); _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 294 a 28\n (R. P. 11). Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of\n earthquakes (so Aet. iii. 15, 1); but this is probably due to a\n \u201cHomeric allegorist\u201d (Appendix, \u00a7 11), who wished to explain the\n epithet \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Cf. Diels, _Dox._ p. 225.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 3. 983 b 20 (R. P. 10). I have said \u201cmaterial cause,\u201d\n because \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 (b 19) means \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 (b 7).\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13); _ib._ 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13\n a). Diog. i. 24 (R. P. _ib._) adds amber. This comes from Hesychios of\n Miletos; for it occurs in the scholium of Par. A on Plato, _Rep._ 600\n a.\n\nThe first of these statements must be understood in the light of the\nsecond, which is expressed in Aristotelian terminology, but would\nundoubtedly mean that Thales had said water was the fundamental or\nprimary thing, of which all other things were mere transient forms. It\nwas, we shall see, just such a primary substance that the Milesian\nschool as a whole was seeking, and it is unlikely that the earliest\nanswer to the great question of the day should have been the\ncomparatively subtle one given by Anaximander. We are, perhaps,\njustified in holding that the greatness of Thales consisted in this,\nthat he was the first to ask, not what _was_ the original thing, but\nwhat _is_ the primary thing now; or, more simply still, \u201cWhat is the\nworld made of?\u201d The answer he gave to this question was: _Water_.\n\n[Sidenote: Water.]\n\n10. Aristotle and Theophratos, followed by Simplicius and the\ndoxographers, suggest several explanations of this answer. By Aristotle\nthese explanations are given as conjectural; it is only later writers\nthat repeat them as if they were quite certain.[84] The most probable\nview of them seems to be that Aristotle simply ascribed to Thales the\narguments used at a later date by Hippon of Samos in support of a\nsimilar thesis.[85] This would account for their physiological\ncharacter. The rise of scientific medicine had made biological arguments\nvery popular in the fifth century; but, in the days of Thales, the\nprevailing interest was not physiological, but rather what we should\ncall meteorological, and it is therefore from this point of view we must\ntry to understand the theory.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 3. 983 b 22; Aet. i. 3, 1; Simpl. _Phys._ p. 36, 10 (R. P.\n 10, 12, 12 a). The last of the explanations given by Aristotle,\n namely, that Thales was influenced by early cosmogonical theories\n about Okeanos and Tethys, has strangely been supposed to be more\n historical than the rest, whereas it is merely a fancy of Plato\u2019s\n taken literally. Plato says more than once (_Tht._ 180 d 2; _Crat._\n 402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) derived\n their philosophy from Homer (_Il._ xiv. 201), and even earlier sources\n (Orph. frag. 2, Diels, _Vors._ 1st ed. p. 491). In quoting this\n suggestion, Aristotle refers it to \u201csome\u201d\u2014a word which often means\n Plato\u2014and he calls the originators of the theory \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, as Plato\n had done (_Met._ 983 b 28; cf. _Tht._ 181 b 3). This is a\n characteristic example of the way in which Aristotle gets history out\n of Plato. See Appendix, \u00a7 2.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Compare Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220) with the passages\n referred to in the last note. The same suggestion is made in Zeller\u2019s\n fifth edition (p. 188, n. 1), which I had not seen when the above was\n written. D\u00f6ring, \u201cThales\u201d (_Zschr. f. Philos._ 1896, pp. 179 sqq.),\n takes the same view. We now know that, though Aristotle declines to\n consider Hippon as a philosopher (_Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 3; R. P. 219 a),\n he was discussed in the history of medicine known as Menon\u2019s\n _Iatrika_. See Diels in _Hermes_, xxviii. p. 420.\n\nNow it is not very hard to see how considerations of a meteorological\nkind may have led Thales to adopt the view he did. Of all the things we\nknow, water seems to take the most various shapes. It is familiar to us\nin a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form, and so Thales may well have\nthought that he saw the world-process from water and back to water again\ngoing on before his very eyes. The phenomenon of evaporation naturally\nsuggests everywhere that the fire of the heavenly bodies is kept up by\nthe moisture which they draw from the sea. Even at the present day, the\ncountry people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as \u201cthe sun drawing\nwater.\u201d Water comes down again in the rain; and lastly, so the early\ncosmologists thought, it turns to earth. This seems strange to us, but\nit may have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar with the\nriver of Egypt which had formed the Delta, and with the torrents of Asia\nMinor, which bring down unusually large alluvial deposits. At the\npresent day the Gulf of Latmos, on which Miletos used to stand, is\ncompletely filled up. Lastly, they thought, earth turns once more to\nwater\u2014an idea derived from the observation of dew, night-mists, and\nsubterranean springs. For these last were not in early times supposed to\nhave anything at all to do with the rain. The \u201cwaters under the earth\u201d\nwere regarded as an entirely independent source of moisture.[86]\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n The view here taken most resembles that of the \u201cHomeric allegorist\u201d\n Herakleitos (R. P. 12 a). That, however, is also a conjecture,\n probably of Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.\n\n[Sidenote: Theology.]\n\n11. The third of the statements mentioned above is supposed by Aristotle\nhimself to imply that Thales believed in a \u201csoul of the world,\u201d though\nhe is careful to mark this as no more than an inference.[87] The\ndoctrine of the world-soul is then attributed quite positively to Thales\nby Aetios, who gives it in the Stoic phraseology which he found in his\nimmediate source, and identifies the world-intellect with God.[88]\nCicero found a similar account of the matter in the Epicurean manual\nwhich he followed, but he goes a step further. Eliminating the Stoic\npantheism, he turns the world-intellect into a Platonic _demiourgos_,\nand says that Thales held there was a divine mind which formed all\nthings out of water.[89] All this is derived from the cautious statement\nof Aristotle, and can have no greater authority than its source. We need\nnot enter, then, upon the old controversy whether Thales was an atheist\nor not. It is really irrelevant. If we may judge from his successors, he\nmay very possibly have called water divine; but, if he had any religious\nbeliefs at all, we may be sure they were quite unconnected with his\ncosmological theory.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13).\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Aet. i. 7, 11 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred\n to, see Appendix, \u00a7\u00a7 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n Cicero, _de Nat. D._ 1. 25 (R. P. 13 b). On Cicero\u2019s source, see\n _Dox._ pp. 125, 128. The Herculanean papyrus of Philodemos is,\n unfortunately, defective just at this point, but it is not likely that\n the Epicurean manual anticipated Cicero\u2019s mistake.\n\nNor must we make too much of the saying itself that \u201call things are full\nof gods.\u201d It is often supposed to mean that Thales attributed a \u201cplastic\nlife\u201d to matter, or that he was a \u201chylozoist.\u201d We have seen already how\nmisleading this way of speaking is apt to be,[90] and we shall do well\nto avoid it. It is not safe to regard such an apophthegm as evidence for\nanything; the chances are that it belongs to Thales as one of the Seven\nWise Men, rather than as founder of the Milesian school. Further, such\nsayings are, as a rule, anonymous to begin with, and are attributed now\nto one sage and now to another.[91] On the other hand, it is extremely\nprobable that Thales did say that the magnet and amber had souls. That\nis no apophthegm, but something more on the level of the statement that\nthe earth floats on the water. It is, in fact, just the sort of thing we\nshould expect Hekataios to record about Thales. It would be wrong,\nhowever, to draw any inferences from it as to his view of the world; for\nto say that the magnet and amber are alive is to imply, if anything,\nthat other things are not.[92]\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n See Introd. \u00a7 VIII.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Plato refers to the saying \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd in _Laws_, 899 b 9 (R. P.\n 14 b), without mentioning Thales. That ascribed to Herakleitos in the\n _de part. An._ \u0391, 5. 645 a 17 seems to be a mere variation on it. So\n in Diog. ix. 7 (R. P. 46 d) Herakleitos is credited with the saying\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n B\u00e4umker, _Das Problem der Materie_, p. 10, n. 1.\n\n\n II. ANAXIMANDER\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n12. The next name that has come down to us is that of Anaximander, son\nof Praxiades. He too was a citizen of Miletos, and Theophrastos\ndescribed him as an \u201cassociate\u201d of Thales.[93] We have seen how that\nexpression is to be understood (\u00a7 XIV.).\n\nAccording to Apollodoros, Anaximander was sixty-four years old in Ol.\nLVIII. 2 (547/6 B.C.); and this is confirmed by Hippolytos, who says he\nwas born in Ol. XLII. 3 (610/9 B.C.), and by Pliny, who assigns his\ndiscovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the same Olympiad.[94] We\nseem to have here something more than a mere combination of the ordinary\ntype; for, according to all the rules of Alexandrian chronology,\nAnaximander should have \u201cflourished\u201d in 565 B.C., that is, just half-way\nbetween Thales and Anaximenes, and this would make him sixty, not\nsixty-four, in 546. Now Apollodoros appears to have said that he had met\nwith the work of Anaximander; and his reason for mentioning this must be\nthat he found in it some indication which enabled him to fix its date\nwithout having recourse to conjecture. Diels suggests that Anaximander\nmay have given his age at the time of writing as sixty-four, and that\nthe book may have contained some other statement showing it to have been\npublished in 547/6 B.C.[95] Perhaps, however, this hardly does justice\nto the fact that the year given is just that which preceded the fall of\nSardeis and the subjugation of the Lydian empire by the Persians. It may\nbe a more plausible conjecture that Anaximander, writing some years\nlater, incidentally mentioned what his age had been at the time of that\ngreat crisis. We know from Xenophanes that the question, \u201cHow old were\nyou when the Mede appeared?\u201d was considered an interesting one in those\ndays.[96] At all events, we seem to be justified in believing that\nAnaximander was a generation younger than Thales. When he died we do not\nreally know.[97]\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n R. P. 15 d. That the words \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, given by Simplicius,\n _de Caelo_, p. 615, 13, are the original words of Theophrastos is\n shown by the agreement of Cic. _Acad._ ii. 118, _popularis et\n sodalis_. The two passages represent quite independent branches of the\n tradition. See Appendix, \u00a7\u00a7 7, 12.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n Diog. ii. 2 (R. P. 15); Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (_Dox._ p. 560); Plin.\n _N.H._ ii. 31. Pliny\u2019s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n _Rhein. Mus._ xxxi. p. 24.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n Xenophanes, fr. 22 (fr. 17, Karsten; R. P. 95 a). Jacoby (p. 190)\n thinks that Apollodoros fixed the _floruit_ of Anaximander forty years\n before that of Pythagoras, that is, in 572/1 B.C., and that the\n statement as to his age in 547/6 is a mere inference from this.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n The statement that he \u201cdied soon after\u201d (Diog. ii. 2; R. P. 15) seems\n to mean that Apollodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis (546/5),\n one of his regular epochs. If this is so, Apollodoros cannot have said\n also that he flourished in the days of Polykrates, and Diels is\n probably right in supposing that this notice refers to Pythagoras and\n has been inserted in the wrong place.\n\nLike his predecessor, Anaximander distinguished himself by certain\npractical inventions. Some writers credited him with that of the\n_gnomon_; but that can hardly be correct. Herodotos tells us this\ninstrument came from Babylon, so perhaps it was Anaximander who made it\nknown among the Greeks. He was also the first to construct a map, and\nEratosthenes said this was the map elaborated by Hekataios.[98]\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 31, _n._ 44; and cf. Diog. ii. 1 (R. P.\n 15); Herod. ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes\n the invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes (_N.H._ ii. 87). The truth\n seems to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally\n ascribed to certain philosophers. That of Delos was referred to\n Pherekydes. For the map see Agathemeros, i. 1, \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u0398\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019\n \u1f43\u03bd \u1f19\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1. This is from Eratosthenes. Cf. Strabo, i. p. 7.\n\n[Sidenote: Theophrastos on Anaximander\u2019s theory of the primary\n substance.]\n\n13. Nearly all we know of Anaximander\u2019s system is derived in the last\nresort from Theophrastos.[99] As to the credibility of what we are told\non his authority, it is enough to remark that the original work, which\nwas in the hands of Apollodoros, must certainly have existed in the time\nof Theophrastos. Moreover, he seems once at least to have quoted\nAnaximander\u2019s own words, and he criticised his style. Here are the\nremains of what he said of him in the First Book:\u2014\n\n Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen and\n associate of Thales,[100] said that the material cause and first\n element of things was the Infinite, he being the first to introduce\n this name for the material cause. He says it is neither water nor any\n other of the so-called[101] elements, but a substance different from\n them which is infinite, from which arise all the heavens and the\n worlds within them.\u2014_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (_Dox._ p. 476; R. P. 16).\n\n He says that this is eternal and ageless, and that it encompasses all\n the worlds.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 17 a).\n\n And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once\n more, \u201cas is ordained; for they make reparation and satisfaction to\n one another for their injustice according to the appointed time,\u201d as\n he says[102] in these somewhat poetical terms.\u2014_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R.\n P. 16).\n\n And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course of which\n was brought about the origin of the worlds.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P.\n 17 a).\n\n He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in matter,\n but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which was a boundless\n body, were separated out.\u2014Simpl. _Phys._ p. 150, 20 (R. P. 18).\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels,\n _Dox._ p. 133; _Vors._ pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the\n words of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given\n them alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, \u00a7 9 sqq.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n Simplicius says \u201csuccessor and disciple\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) in his\n Commentary on the _Physics_; but see above, p. 52, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n For the expression \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, see Diels, _Elementum_, p.\n 25, n. 4. In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, instead\n of writing \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03af with Usener.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n Diels (_Vors._ p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the words \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.... The Greek practice of blending quotations with the\n text tells against this. It is very rare for a Greek writer to open a\n verbal quotation abruptly. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the\n terms \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac in their technical Platonic sense to\n Anaximander.\n\n[Sidenote: The primary substance is not one of the \u201celements.\u201d]\n\n14. Anaximander taught, then, that there was one eternal, indestructible\nsubstance out of which everything arises, and into which everything once\nmore returns; a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is\ncontinually being made good. This is only the natural development of the\nthought we have ventured to ascribe to Thales, and there can be no doubt\nthat Anaximander at least distinctly formulated it. Indeed, we can still\nfollow to some extent the reasoning which led him to do so. Thales had\nregarded water as the most likely of all the things we know to be that\nof which all others are forms; Anaximander appears to have asked himself\nhow the primary substance could be one of these particular things. His\nargument seems to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following\npassage in his discussion of the Infinite:\u2014\n\n Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is infinite,\n either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements, which they then\n derive from it, nor without this qualification. For there are some who\n make this (_i.e._ a body distinct from the elements) the infinite, and\n not air or water, in order that the other things may not be destroyed\n by their infinity. _They are in opposition one to another_\u2014air is\n cold, water moist, and fire hot\u2014and therefore, _if any one of them\n were infinite, the rest would have ceased to be by this time_.\n Accordingly they say that what is infinite is something other than the\n elements, and from it the elements arise.\u2014Arist. _Phys._ \u0393, 5. 204 b\n 22 (R. P. 16 b).\n\nIt is clear that in this passage Anaximander is contrasted with Thales\nand with Anaximenes. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the account\ngiven of his reasoning is substantially correct, though the form is\nAristotle\u2019s own, and the mention of \u201celements\u201d is an anachronism.[103]\nAnaximander was struck, it would seem, by the opposition and strife\nbetween the things which go to make up the world; the warm fire was\nopposed to the cold air, the dry earth to the moist sea. These opposites\nwere at war, and any predominance of one over the other was an\n\u201cinjustice\u201d for which they must make reparation to one another.[104] We\nmay suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows. If Thales had\nbeen right in saying that water was the fundamental reality, it would\nnot be easy to see how anything else could ever have existed. One side\nof the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had its way unchecked,\ninjustice would have prevailed, and the warm and dry would have been\ndriven from the field long ago. We must, then, have something which is\nnot itself one of the warring opposites we know, something more\nprimitive, out of which they arise, and into which they once more pass\naway. That Anaximander called this something by the name of \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, is\nclear from the doxographers; the current statement that the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae in\nthe sense of a \u201cfirst principle\u201d was introduced by him, is probably due\nto a misunderstanding of what Theophrastos said.[105]\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles (\u00a7 106), and\n the _word_ \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, which is properly translated by _elementa_, was\n first used in this sense by Plato. For the history of the term, see\n Diels, _Elementum_ (1899).\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n The important word \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 was omitted in the Aldine Simplicius, but\n is in all the MSS. We shall see that in Herakleitos \u201cjustice\u201d means\n the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the\n elements (\u00a7 72). See also Introd. p. 32, _n._ 45.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n If the words quoted from Theophrastos by Simplicius, _Phys._ p. 24, 15\n (R. P. 16), stood by themselves, no one would ever have supposed them\n to mean that Anaximander called the Boundless \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae. They would\n naturally be rendered: \u201chaving been the first to introduce this name\n (_i.e._ \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) for the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u201d; but the words of Hippolytos (_Ref._\n i. 6, 2), \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, have led nearly all\n writers to take the passage in the less obvious sense. We now know,\n however, that Hippolytos is no independent authority, but rests\n altogether on Theophrastos; so the natural view to take is that either\n his immediate source, or he himself, or a copyist, has dropped out\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf before \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, and corrupted \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 into \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. It is not\n credible that Theophrastos made both statements. The other passage\n from Simplicius compared by Usener (p. 150, 23), \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, does not seem to me to have anything to do\n with the question. It means simply that Anaximander was the first to\n name the substratum as the \u201cmaterial cause,\u201d which is a different\n point altogether. This is how Neuh\u00e4user takes the passage\n (_Anaximander_, pp. 7 sqq.); but I cannot agree with him in holding\n that the _word_ \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is ascribed to the Milesian.\n\n[Sidenote: Aristotle\u2019s account of the theory.]\n\n15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this theory as an\nanticipation or presentiment of his own doctrine of \u201cindeterminate\nmatter.\u201d[106] He knew very well, of course, that he himself was the\nauthor of that; but it is in accordance with his method to represent his\nown theories as the distinct formulation of truths which earlier\nthinkers had only guessed at. It was to be expected, then, that he\nshould sometimes express the views of Anaximander in terms of the theory\nof \u201celements.\u201d He knew too that the Boundless was a body,[107] though in\nhis own system there was no room for anything corporeal prior to the\nelements; so he had to speak of it as a boundless body \u201calongside of\u201d or\n\u201cdistinct from\u201d the elements (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1). So far as I know, no\none has doubted that, when he uses this phrase, he is referring to\nAnaximander.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039b, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c).\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n This is taken for granted in _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 a 16; 204 b 22 (R. P.\n 16 b), and stated in \u0393, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. _Phys._ p.\n 150, 20 (R. P. 18).\n\nIn a number of other places Aristotle speaks of a thinker, whom he does\nnot happen to name, who held that the primary substance was something\n\u201cintermediate between\u201d the elements or between two of them.[108] Nearly\nall the Greek commentators referred this to Anaximander also, but most\nmodern writers refuse to follow them. It is, no doubt, easy to show that\nAnaximander can have never meant to describe the Boundless in this way,\nbut that is no real objection to the older interpretation. It is\ndifficult to see that it is more of an anachronism to call the Boundless\n\u201cintermediate between the elements\u201d than to say that it is \u201cdistinct\nfrom the elements\u201d; and indeed, if once we introduce the elements at\nall, the former description is in some ways the more adequate of the\ntwo. At any rate, if we refuse to understand these passages as referring\nto Anaximander, we shall have to say that Aristotle paid a great deal of\nattention to some early thinker, whose very name has been lost, and who\nnot only agreed with some of Anaximander\u2019s views, but also, as is shown\nby one passage, used some of his most characteristic expressions.[109]\nWe may add that in one or two places Aristotle certainly seems to\nidentify the \u201cintermediate\u201d with the something \u201cdistinct from\u201d the\nelements.[110]\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire and\n Air (_Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 1. 328 b 35; _ib._ 5. 332 a 21; _Phys._ \u0391, 4. 187\n a 14; _Met._ \u0391, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something\n intermediate between Water and Air (_Met._ \u0391, 7. 988 a 13; _Gen.\n Corr._ \u0392, 5. 332 a 21; _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 a 18; _ib._ 5. 205 a 27; _de\n Caelo_, \u0393, 5. 303 b 12). Once (_Phys._ \u0391, 6. 189 b 1) we hear of\n something between Water and Fire. This variation shows at once that he\n is not speaking historically. If any one ever held the doctrine of \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03cd, he must have known perfectly well which two elements he meant.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 5. 303 b 12, \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd. That\n this refers to Idaios of Himera, as suggested by Zeller (p. 258),\n seems very improbable. Aristotle nowhere mentions his name, and the\n tone of his reference to Hippon in _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a)\n shows that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n of the Milesian school.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n Cf. _Phys._ \u0393, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the\n whole passage is summarised thus: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f22 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f22 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. In _Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 1. 328 b 35 we have first \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f42\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, and a little further on (329 a 9) \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. In \u0392, 5. 332 a 20 we have \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c4\u03af\n \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThere is even one place in which he appears to speak of Anaximander\u2019s\nBoundless as a \u201cmixture,\u201d though his words may perhaps admit of another\ninterpretation.[111] But this is of no consequence for our\ninterpretation of Anaximander himself. It is certain that he cannot have\nsaid anything about \u201celements,\u201d which no one thought of before\nEmpedokles, and no one could think of before Parmenides. The question\nhas only been mentioned at all because it has been the subject of a\nlengthy controversy,[112] and because it throws great light on the\nhistorical value of Aristotle\u2019s statements. From the point of view of\nhis own system, these are abundantly justified; but we shall have to\nremember in other cases that, when he seems to attribute an idea to some\nearlier thinker, we are not in the least bound to believe what he says\nin a historical sense.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n _Met._ \u039b, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. 1) assumes an\n \u201ceasy zeugma.\u201d I should prefer to say that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1fd6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\n was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f13\u03bd\n ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 187 a 20 does not assign the\n \u201cmixture\u201d to Anaximander.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. 15. A good deal of\n light is thrown on this and similar questions by W. A. Heidel,\n \u201cQualitative Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy\u201d (_Arch._ xix. p. 333).\n\n[Sidenote: The primary substance is infinite.]\n\n16. Anaximander\u2019s reason for conceiving the primary substance as\nboundless was, no doubt, that indicated by Aristotle, namely, \u201cthat\nbecoming might not fail.\u201d[113] It is not likely, however, that these\nwords are his own, though the doxographers speak as if they were. It is\nenough for us to know that Theophrastos, who had seen his book,\nattributed the thought to him. And certainly the way in which he\nregarded the world would bring home to him with more than common force\nthe need of a boundless stock of matter. The \u201copposites\u201d of which our\nworld consists are, we have seen, at war with one another, and their\nstrife is marked by \u201cunjust\u201d encroachments on either side. The warm\ncommits \u201cinjustice\u201d in summer, the cold in winter. To redress the\nbalance, they must be absorbed once more in their common ground; and\nthis would lead in the long run to the destruction of everything but the\nBoundless itself, if there were not an inexhaustible supply of it from\nwhich opposites might continually be separated out afresh. We must\npicture to ourselves, then, an endless mass, which is not any one of the\nopposites we know, stretching out without limit on every side of the\nheavens which bound the world we live in.[114] This mass is a body, and\nout of it our world once emerged by the \u201cseparating out\u201d of the\nopposites, which one day will all be absorbed again in the Boundless,\nand our world will cease to be.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n _Phys._ \u0393, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). That this refers to Anaximander is\n shown by Aet. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The same argument is given in\n _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaximander has just been\n quoted by name, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. I cannot, however, believe\n that the arguments given at the beginning of this chapter (203 b 7; R.\n P. 17) are Anaximander\u2019s. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic\n dialectic, and are, in fact, those of Melissos.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n I have assumed that the word \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd means _spatially infinite_\n (though not in any precise mathematical sense), not _qualitatively\n indeterminate_, as maintained by Teichm\u00fcller and Tannery. The decisive\n reasons for holding that the sense of the word is \u201cboundless in\n extent\u201d are as follows: (1) Theophrastos said that the primary\n substance of Anaximander was \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd and contained all the worlds, and\n the word \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd everywhere means \u201cto encompass,\u201d not, as has been\n suggested, \u201cto contain potentially.\u201d (2) Aristotle says (_Phys._ \u0393, 4.\n 203 b 23) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9. (3)\n Anaximander\u2019s theory of the \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd was adopted by Anaximenes, and he\n identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate.\n\n[Sidenote: The eternal motion.]\n\n17. The doxographers say it was the \u201ceternal motion\u201d that brought into\nbeing \u201call the heavens and all the worlds within them.\u201d As we have seen\n(\u00a7 VIII), it is not likely that Anaximander himself used the phrase\n\u201ceternal motion.\u201d That is rather Aristotle\u2019s own version of what he\nfound stated about the \u201cseparating out\u201d of opposites. We are not told\nexpressly how Anaximander conceived this to operate, but the term\n\u201cseparating out\u201d suggests some process of shaking and sifting as in a\nsieve. Now it is just such a process that Plato makes the Pythagorean\nTimaios describe, and the most probable theory is certainly that here,\nas in many other cases, he has reproduced a genuinely early view. As we\nshall see, it is quite likely that the Pythagoreans should have followed\nAnaximander in this.[115] In any case, it is wrong to identify the\n\u201ceternal motion\u201d with the diurnal revolution of the heavens, as has\nsometimes been done. That motion cannot possibly be eternal, for the\nsimple reason that the heavens themselves are perishable. Aristotle\nsays, indeed, that all who believe the world has come into being\nrepresent the earth as having been forced into the centre by the\ncircular motion;[116] but, though this doubtless refers to Anaximander\namong others, it is quite irrelevant here. It has to do only with the\nformation of the world after it has been once for all separated off and\nenclosed in its own heaven, and we shall have to remember it when we\ncome to that part of the theory. At present, we have only to do with the\nmotion of the Boundless itself; and, if we wish to picture that, it is\nmuch safer to regard it as a sort of shaking up and down which sorts out\nthe opposites from the infinite mass.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 52 e, where the elements are separated by being shaken,\n stirred, and carried in different directions: \u201cjust as by sieves and\n instruments for winnowing corn, the grain is shaken and sifted, and\n the dense and heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are\n carried to a different place and settle there.\u201d For the relation of\n Pythagoreanism to Anaximander, see below, \u00a7 53.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 295 a 9. The identification of the eternal\n motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by Teichm\u00fcller and\n Tannery, and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation\n which they give to the word \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. It was obviously difficult to\n credit Anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in\n a circle. The whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite\n spherical \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 within the \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 and the infinite \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd outside\n it.\n\n[Sidenote: The innumerable worlds.]\n\n18. We are told more than once that Anaximander believed there were\n\u201cinnumerable worlds in the Boundless,\u201d[117] and it is now usual to\nregard these with Zeller as an infinite series succeeding one another in\ntime. It may be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea that the\nworlds are coexistent and eternal is decisive. To suppose that\nAnaximander regarded this or any other world as eternal, is a flat\ncontradiction of everything we otherwise know, and of the Theophrastean\ntradition that he taught the world was perishable. We have, then, to\ndecide between the view that, though all the worlds are perishable,\nthere may be an unlimited number of them in existence at the same time,\nand the view that a new world never comes into existence till the old\none has passed away. Now, Zeller allows[118] that there is nothing in\nthe first of these views that is inconsistent with what we know of\nAnaximander; but he thinks all the statements which have come down to us\npoint rather to the second. It seems to me that this is by no means the\ncase, and, as the matter is of fundamental importance, it will be\nnecessary to examine the evidence once more.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b). The words \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or cycle of \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac in each of a multitude of\n coexistent worlds. It would be a very strange phrase to use of a\n succession of single worlds.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n Zeller, pp. 234 sqq.\n\nIn the first place, the doxographical tradition proves that Theophrastos\ndiscussed the views of all the early philosophers as to whether there\nwas one world or an infinite number, and there can be no doubt that,\nwhen he ascribed \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d to the Atomists, he meant\ncoexistent and not successive worlds. Now, if he had really classed two\nsuch different views under one head, he would at least have been careful\nto point out in what respect they differed, and there is no trace of any\nsuch distinction in our tradition. On the contrary, Anaximander,\nAnaximenes, Archelaos, Xenophanes, Diogenes, Leukippos, Demokritos, and\nEpicurus are all mentioned together as holding the doctrine of\n\u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d on all sides of this one,[119] and the only\ndistinction drawn between their views is that, while Epicurus made the\ndistances between these worlds unequal, Anaximander said all the worlds\nwere equidistant.[120] Zeller rejected this evidence, which he supposed\nto be merely that of Stobaios, on the ground that we can have no\nconfidence in a writer who attributes \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d to\nAnaximenes, Archelaos, and Xenophanes. With regard to the first two, I\nhope to show that the statement is quite correct, and that it is not\neven incorrect in the case of the last.[121] In any case, it can be\nproved that the passage comes from Aetios,[122] and there is no reason\nfor doubting that, in the last resort, it is derived from Theophrastos,\nthough the name of Epicurus may have been added later. This is still\nfurther confirmed by what Simplicius says in his commentary on the\n_Physics_.[123]\n\n Those who assumed innumerable worlds, _e.g._ Anaximander, Leukippos,\n Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held that they came into\n being and passed away _ad infinitum_, some always coming into being\n and others passing away.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n Aet. ii. 1, 3 (_Dox._ p. 327). Zeller is wrong in understanding \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd here of the revolution of a cycle. It means simply\n \u201cin every direction we turn,\u201d and so does the alternative reading \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The six \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 are \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9, \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9, \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9, \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9,\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ac, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac (Nicom. _Introd._ p. 85, 11, Hoche), and Polybios uses\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of surrounding space.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Aet. ii. 1, 8 (_Dox._ p. 329), \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n For Anaximenes, see \u00a7 30; Xenophanes, \u00a7 59; Archelaos, Chap. X.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n This is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by\n Theodoret. See Appendix, \u00a7 10.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 5 (R. P. 21 b). Zeller says (p. 234, n. 4)\n that Simplicius elsewhere (_de Caelo_, p. 273 b 43) makes the same\n statement more doubtfully. But the words \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, on which he relies,\n are hardly an expression of doubt, and refer, in any case, to the\n derivation of the doctrine of \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d from that of the\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, not to the doctrine itself.\n\nIt is probable that this too comes from Theophrastos through Alexander.\nSimplicius does not invent such things.\n\nWe come lastly to a very important statement which Cicero has copied\nfrom Philodemos, the author of the Epicurean treatise on Religion found\nat Herculaneum, or perhaps from the immediate source of that work.\n\u201cAnaximander\u2019s opinion was,\u201d he makes Velleius say, \u201cthat there were\ngods who came into being, rising and passing away at long intervals, and\nthat these were the innumerable worlds\u201d;[124] and this must clearly be\ntaken along with the statement of Aetios to the effect that, according\nto Anaximander, the \u201cinnumerable heavens\u201d were gods.[125] Now it is very\nmuch more natural to understand the \u201clong intervals\u201d which Cicero\nmentions as intervals of space than as intervals of time;[126] and, if\nwe take the passage in this way, we have a perfect agreement among all\nour authorities.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n Cicero, _de Nat. D._ i. 25 (R. P. 21).\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Aet. i. 7, 12 (R. P. 21 a). The reading of Stob., \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2,\n is guaranteed by the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 of Cyril, and the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n (_i.e._ \u03bf\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) of the pseudo-Galen. See _Dox._ p. 11.\n\nIt may be added that it is very unnatural to understand the statement\nthat the Boundless \u201cencompasses all the worlds\u201d of worlds succeeding one\nanother in time; for on this view there is at a given time only one\nworld to \u201cencompass.\u201d Moreover, the argument mentioned by Aristotle\nthat, if what is outside the heavens is infinite, body must be infinite,\nand there must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood in this\nsense, and is certainly intended to represent the reasoning of the\nMilesians; for they were the only cosmologists who held there was a\nboundless body outside the heavens.[127] Lastly, we happen to know that\nPetron, one of the earliest Pythagoreans, held there were just one\nhundred and eighty-three worlds arranged in a triangle,[128] which shows\nthat views of this sort existed long before the Atomists, and looks like\nan attempt to introduce some order into Anaximander\u2019s universe.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n It is simplest to suppose that Cicero found \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd in his\n Epicurean source, and that is a technical term for the _intermundia_.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 b 25, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 (sc. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 (sc. \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9). It is\n to be observed that the next words\u2014\u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f22\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1;\u2014show clearly that this refers to the Atomists as well; but\n the \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 will not apply to them. The suggestion is rather that\n both those who made the Boundless a body and those who made it a \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\n held the doctrine of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 in the same sense.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n See below, \u00a7 53. Cf. Diels, _Elementum_, pp. 63 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Origin of the heavenly bodies.]\n\n19. The doxographers have not left us in the dark as to the process by\nwhich the different parts of the world arose from the Boundless. The\nfollowing statement comes ultimately from Theophrastos:\u2014\n\n He says that something capable of begetting hot and cold was separated\n off from the eternal at the origin of this world. From this arose a\n sphere of flame which grew round the air encircling the earth, as the\n bark grows round a tree. When this was torn off and enclosed in\n certain rings, the sun, moon, and stars came into existence.\u2014Ps.-Plut.\n _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. 19).\n\nWe see from this that when a portion of the Boundless had been separated\noff from the rest to form a world, it first of all differentiated itself\ninto the two opposites, hot and cold. The hot appears as a sphere of\nflame surrounding the cold; the cold, as earth with air surrounding it.\nWe are not told, however, in this extract how the cold came to be\ndifferentiated into earth, air, and water; but there is a passage in\nAristotle\u2019s _Meteorology_ which throws some light on the subject. We\nread there:\u2014\n\n But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an origin for the\n sea. At first, they say, all the terrestrial region was moist; and, as\n it was dried up by the sun, the portion of it that evaporated produced\n the winds and the turnings of the sun and moon, while the portion left\n behind was the sea. So they think the sea is becoming smaller by being\n dried up, and that at last it will all be dry.\u2014_Meteor._ \u0392, 1. 353 b\n 5.\n\n * * * * *\n\n And the same absurdity arises for those who say that the earth and the\n terrestrial part of the world at first were moist, but that air arose\n from the heat of the sun, and that the whole world was thus increased,\n and that this is the cause of winds and the turnings of the\n heavens.[129]\u2014_Ib._ 2. 355 a 21 (R. P. 20 a).\n\nIn his commentary on the passage, Alexander tells us that this was the\nview of Anaximander and Diogenes; and what he says is amply confirmed by\nAnaximander\u2019s theory of the sea as it is given by the doxographers (\u00a7\n20). We conclude, then, that after the first separation of the hot and\nthe cold, the heat of the sphere of flame turned part of the moist, cold\ninterior of the world into air or vapour\u2014it is all one at this date\u2014and\nthat the expansion of this mist broke up the sphere of flame itself into\nrings. I give the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of the\nheavenly bodies from these rings as it has been preserved by Hippolytos,\nwith some supplements from Aetios:\u2014\n\n The heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from the fire\n which encircles the world, and enclosed in air. And they have\n breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which the heavenly\n bodies are seen. For this reason, too, when the breathing-holes are\n stopped, eclipses occur. And the moon appears now to wax and now to\n wane because of the stopping and opening of the passages. The circle\n of the sun is twenty-seven times the size (of the earth, while that)\n of the moon is eighteen times as large.[130] The sun is highest of\n all, and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6\n (R. P. 20).\n\n Anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of air, full of\n fire, breathing out flames at a certain point from orifices. The sun\n was highest of all, after it came the moon, and below these the fixed\n stars and the planets.\u2014Aetios, ii. 13, 7; 15, 6 (R. P. 19 a).\n\n Anaximander said the sun was a ring twenty-eight times the size of the\n earth, like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow and full of fire,\n showing the fire at a certain point, as if through the nozzle of a\n pair of bellows.\u2014Aet. ii. 20, 1 (R. P. 19 a).\n\n Anaximander said the sun was equal to the earth, but the ring from\n which it breathes out and by which it is carried round was\n twenty-seven times as large as the earth.\u2014Aet. ii. 21, 1 (_Dox._ p.\n 351).\n\n Anaximander said the moon was a ring eighteen times the size of the\n earth....\u2014Aet. ii. 25, 1 (_Dox._ p. 355).[131]\n\n Anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused by the blast.\n When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts forth with violence,\n then the breakage of the cloud makes the noise, and the rift gives the\n appearance of a flash by contrast with the darkness of the cloud.\u2014Aet.\n iii. 3, 1 (_Dox._ p. 367).\n\n Anaximander held that wind was a current of air (_i.e._ vapour) which\n arose when its finest and moistest particles were set in motion or\n dissolved by the sun.\u2014Aet. iii. 6, 1 (_Dox._ p. 374).\n\n Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the earth by the\n sun.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6, 7 (_Dox._ p. 560).\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n Zeller\u2019s difficulty about the meaning of \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af here (p. 223, n. 2)\n seems to be an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a movement in\n declination and, therefore, \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af (Dreyer, _Planetary Systems_, p.\n 17, n. 1).\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n I assume with Diels (_Dox._ p. 560) that something has fallen out in\n our text of Hippolytos. I have, however, with Tannery, _Science\n hell\u00e8ne_, p. 91, supplied \u201ceighteen times\u201d rather than \u201cnineteen\n times.\u201d Zeller (p. 224, n. 2) prefers the text of our MS. of\n Hippolytos to the testimony of Aetios.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n Aetios goes on to say that the moon also is like a hollow cart-wheel\n full of fire with an \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae. The difference in the figures of\n Hippolytos and Aetios is due to the fact that one refers to the\n internal and the other to the external circumferences of the rings.\n Cf. Tannery, _Science hell\u00e8ne_, p. 91; and Diels, \u201cUeber Anaximanders\n Kosmos\u201d (_Arch._ x. pp. 231 sqq.).\n\nWe saw above that the sphere of flame was broken up into rings by the\nexpansion of the air or vapour that its own heat had drawn up from the\nmoist, cold interior. We must remember that Anaximander knew nothing of\nthe ring of Saturn. There are three of these rings, that of the sun,\nthat of the moon, and, lastly, nearest to the earth, the circle of the\nstars. The circle of the sun was twenty-seven times, and that of the\nmoon eighteen times as large as the earth, from which we may perhaps\ninfer that the circle of the stars was nine times as large. The numbers\nnine, eighteen, twenty-seven, play a considerable part in primitive\ncosmogonies.[132] We do not see the rings of fire as complete circles;\nfor the mist that formed them encloses the fire, and becomes an outer\nring of opaque vapour. These outer rings, however, have openings at one\npoint of their circumference, through which the fire escapes, and these\nare the heavenly bodies we actually see.[133]\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n As Diels points out (_Arch._ x. p. 229) the explanation given by\n Gomperz, p. 53, cannot be right. It implies the fifth century theory\n of \u03bc\u03cd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. Anaximander knew nothing of the \u201cgreat mass\u201d of the sun.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n The true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by Diels (_Dox._\n pp. 25 sqq.). The flames rush forth _per magni circum spiracula\n mundi_, as Lucretius has it (vi. 493). The \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, to which\n these are compared, is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows, a sense\n which the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 has in Apollonios Rhodios (iv. 776), and has\n nothing to do with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name, for\n which see Chap. III. \u00a7 71. It is not now necessary to refute the\n earlier interpretations.\n\nIt will be observed that we only hear of three circles, and that the\ncircle of the sun is the highest. The circle of the stars presents some\ndifficulty. It is, in all probability, the Milky Way, the appearance of\nwhich may well have suggested the whole theory.[134] It seems that\nAnaximander must have thought it had more \u201cbreathing-holes\u201d than one,\nthough the tradition is silent on this point. There is not the slightest\nreason for supposing that he regarded it as a sphere. He could not have\nfailed to see that a sphere so placed would make the sun and moon\npermanently invisible. What, then, are we to say of the fixed stars that\ndo not lie in the Milky Way? There seems to be no way of accounting for\nthem unless we assume that they are the \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d which we\nhave just discussed. As the fire and air which surrounded the world have\nbeen broken up into rings, we must be able to see right out into the\nBoundless, and the fixed stars must be just the worlds, each surrounded\nby its fiery envelope. It does not seem possible to explain all we are\ntold in any other way; and, if this is right, the statement of some\nauthors, that Anaximander regarded the stars of heaven as gods, may be\nmore than the mere mistake which it is now generally taken to be.[135]\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n It cannot be the Zodiac; for the planets were not separately studied\n yet.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n The _Placita_ and Eusebios both have \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 instead of\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 (see above, p. 65, n. 2), and it seems just\n possible that this is not a mere corruption of the text. The common\n source may have had both statements. I do not, however, rest the\n interpretation given above on this very insecure basis. Quite apart\n from it, it seems to be the only way out of the difficulty.\n\nThe explanation given of thunder and lightning was very similar. They\ntoo were caused by fire breaking through compressed air, that is to say,\nthrough the storm-clouds. It seems probable that this is really the\norigin of the theory, and that Anaximander explained the heavenly bodies\non the analogy of lightning, not _vice versa_. That would be in perfect\nagreement with the meteorological interest of the time.\n\n[Sidenote: Earth and sea.]\n\n20. We turn now to what we are told of the origin of earth and sea from\nthe moist, cold matter which was \u201cseparated off\u201d in the beginning, and\nwhich filled the inside of the sphere of flame:\u2014\n\n The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire has dried\n up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching it.\u2014Aet. iii. 16,\n 1 (R. P. 20 a).\n\n He says that the earth is cylindrical in form, and that its depth is\n as a third part of its. breadth.\u2014Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P.\n _ib._).\n\n The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It stays where it\n is because of its equal distance from everything. Its shape is convex\n and round, and like a stone pillar. We are on one of the surfaces, and\n the other is on the opposite side.[136]\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 20).\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n The MSS. of Hippolytos have \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. Roeper read \u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n [\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd], supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first;\n but Diels has shown (_Dox._ p. 218) that both are wanted. The first\n means \u201cconvex,\u201d and applies to the _surface_ of the earth; while the\n second means \u201cround,\u201d and refers to its circuit. As to \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3, it\n is not easy to say anything positive. It might, possibly, be a mere\n corruption of \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3 (cf. Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2; R. P. 20 a); but, if\n so, it is a very old one. Aetios (iii. 10, 2), who is quite\n independent of Hippolytos, has \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9; Roeper suggested \u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u1fc3\n \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3; Teichm\u00fcller, \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff7; while Diels doubtfully puts forward\n \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9, which he suggests might be a Theophrastean modernisation\n of an original \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 (_Dox._ p. 219).\n\nAdopting for a moment the later theory of \u201celements,\u201d we see that\nAnaximander put fire on one side as \u201cthe hot,\u201d and all the rest on the\nother as \u201cthe cold,\u201d which is also moist. This may explain how Aristotle\ncame to speak of the Boundless as intermediate between fire and water.\nAnd we have seen also that the moist element was partly turned into\n\u201cair\u201d or vapour by the fire, which explains how he could say the\nBoundless was something between fire and air, or between air and\nwater.[137]\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n See above, p. 58, _n._ 48.\n\nThe moist, cold interior of the world is not, it will be noticed, pure\nwater. It is always called \u201cthe moist\u201d or \u201cthe moist state.\u201d That is\nbecause it has to be still further differentiated under the influence of\nheat into earth, water, and vapour. The gradual drying up of the water\nby the fire is a good example of what Anaximander meant by \u201cinjustice.\u201d\nAnd we see how this injustice brings about the destruction of the world.\nThe fire will in time dry up and burn up the whole of the cold, moist\nelement. But then it will not be fire any longer; it will simply be the\n\u201cmixture,\u201d if we choose to call it so, of the hot and cold\u2014that is, it\nwill be the same as the Boundless which surrounds it, and will pass away\ninto it.\n\nThe view which Anaximander takes of the earth is a great advance upon\nanything we can reasonably attribute to Thales, and Aristotle has\npreserved the arguments by which he supported it. It is equally distant\nfrom the extremes in every direction, and there is no reason for it to\nmove up or down or sideways.[138] Still, he does not attain to the idea\nthat it is spherical. He believes that we live on a convex disc, and\nfrom this the cylindrical form follows as a matter of course. The really\nremarkable thing is that he should have seen, however dimly, that there\nis no absolute up and down in the world.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 295 b 10, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd) \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. That Aristotle is\n really reproducing Anaximander seems to be shown by the use of\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in the old sense of \u201cequality.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Animals.]\n\n21. We have seen enough to show us that the speculations of Anaximander\nabout the world were of an extremely daring character; we come now to\nthe crowning audacity of all, his theory of the origin of living\ncreatures. The Theophrastean account of this has been well preserved by\nthe doxographers:\u2014\n\n Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by\n the sun. Man was like another animal, namely, a fish, in the\n beginning.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 6 (R. P. 22 a).\n\n The first animals were produced in the moisture, each enclosed in a\n prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came out upon the drier\n part. When the bark broke off,[139] they survived for a short\n time.\u2014Aet. v. 19, 1 (R. P. 22).\n\n Further, he says that originally man was born from animals of another\n species. His reason is that while other animals quickly find food by\n themselves, man alone requires a lengthy period of suckling. Hence,\n had he been originally as he is now, he would never have\n survived.\u2014Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 2 (R. P. _ib._).\n\n He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of fishes,\n and after having been reared like sharks,[140] and become capable of\n protecting themselves, they were finally cast ashore and took to\n land.\u2014Plut. _Symp. Quaest._ 730 f (R. P. _ib._).\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af\n below. Cf. Arist. _Hist. An._ \u0396, 10. 565 a 25, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f44\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03af.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n Reading \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af for \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af with Doehner, who\n compares Plut. _de soll. anim._ 982 a, where the \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd of the\n shark is described. See p. 74, _n._ 141.\n\nThe importance of these statements has sometimes been overrated and\nstill more often underestimated. Anaximander has been called a precursor\nof Darwin by some, while others have treated the whole thing as a\nmythological survival. It is therefore important to notice that this is\none of the rare cases where we have not merely a _placitum_, but an\nindication, meagre though it be, of the observations on which it was\nbased, and the line of argument by which it was supported. It is clear\nfrom this that Anaximander had an idea of what is meant by adaptation to\nenvironment and survival of the fittest, and that he saw the higher\nmammals could not represent the original type of animal. For this he\nlooked to the sea, and he naturally fixed upon those fishes which\npresent the closest analogy to the _mammalia_. The statements of\nAristotle about the _galeus levis_ were shown long ago by Johannes\nM\u00fcller to be more accurate than those of later naturalists, and we now\nknow that these observations were already made by Anaximander. The\nmanner in which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with the\nvery thing he required to explain the survival of the earliest\nanimals.[141]\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n On Aristotle and the _galeus levis_, see Johannes M\u00fcller, \u201cUeber den\n glatten Hai des Aristoteles\u201d (_K. Preuss. Akad._, 1842), to which my\n attention has been directed by my colleague, Prof. D\u2019Arcy Thomson. The\n precise point of the words \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af appears from\n Arist. _Hist. An._ \u0396, 10. 565 b 1, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1fa0\u1f70 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b6\u1ff7\u03b1\n \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fa0\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. It is not necessary to\n suppose that Anaximander referred to the further phenomenon described\n by Aristotle, who more than once says that all the \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af except the\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u201csend out their young and take them back again\u201d (\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, _ib._ 565 b 23), for which compare\n also Ael. i. 17; Plut. _de soll. anim._ 982 a. The _placenta_ and\n umbilical cord described by Johannes M\u00fcller will account sufficiently\n for all he says. At the same time, I understand that deep-sea\n fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also,\n and two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they\n have seen the thing happen with their own eyes.\n\n[Sidenote: Theology.]\n\n22. In the course of our discussion of the \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d we saw\nthat Anaximander regarded these as gods. It is true, of course, as\nZeller says,[142] that to the Greeks the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 meant primarily an\nobject of worship, and he rightly adds that no one would think of\nworshipping innumerable worlds. This, however, is no real objection to\nour interpretation, though it serves to bring out an interesting point\nin the development of Greek theological ideas. The philosophers, in\nfact, departed altogether from the received usage of the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\nEmpedokles called the Sphere and the Elements gods, though it is not to\nbe supposed that he regarded them as objects of worship, and in the same\nway we shall find that Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of Air as a god.[143]\nAs we may learn from the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes, it was just this way\nof speaking that got philosophers the name of being \u1f04\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9. It is of\ngreat importance to bear this point in mind; for, when we come to\nXenophanes, we shall see that the god or gods he spoke of meant just the\nworld or worlds. It seems also that Anaximander called the Boundless\nitself divine,[144] which is quite in accordance with the language of\nEmpedokles and Diogenes referred to above.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Zeller, p. 230.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n For Empedokles, see Chap. V. \u00a7 119; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. \u00a7 188,\n fr. 5. The cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists in\n this. No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 b 13 (R. P. 17).\n\n\n III. ANAXIMENES\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n23. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was, according to\nTheophrastos, an \u201cassociate\u201d of Anaximander.[145] Apollodoros said, it\nappears, that he \u201cflourished\u201d about the time of the fall of Sardeis\n(546/5 B.C.), and died in Ol. LXIII. (528/524 B.C.).[146] In other\nwords, he was born when Thales \u201cflourished,\u201d and \u201cflourished\u201d when\nThales died, and this means that Apollodoros had no definite information\nabout his date at all. He most probably made him die in the sixty-third\nOlympiad because that gives just a hundred years, or three generations,\nfor the Milesian school from the birth of Thales. We cannot, therefore,\nsay anything positive as to his date, except that he must have been\nyounger than Anaximander, and must have flourished before 494 B.C., when\nthe school was, of course, broken up by the destruction of Miletos.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n Theophr. _Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R. P. 26).\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3. with Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7\n (R. P. 23). In the latter passage we must, however, read \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd for\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros\n mentioned the Olympiad without giving the number of the year is\n inadequate; for Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian\n archons. Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date of his death into connexion\n with the _floruit_ of Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable.\n Lortzing (_Jahresber._, 1898, p. 202) objects to my view on the ground\n that the period of a hundred years plays no part in Apollodoros\u2019s\n calculations. It will be seen, however, from Jacoby, pp. 39 sqq., that\n there is some reason for believing he made use of the generation of\n 33\u2153 years.\n\n[Sidenote: His book.]\n\n24. Anaximenes wrote a book which certainly survived until the age of\nliterary criticism; for we are told that he used a simple and\nunpretentious Ionic,[147] very different, we may suppose, from the\npoetical prose of Anaximander.[148] We may probably trust this\ncriticism, which comes ultimately from Theophrastos; and it furnishes a\ngood illustration of the truth that the character of a man\u2019s thoughts is\nsure to find expression in his style. We have seen that the speculations\nof Anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood and breadth; those\nof Anaximenes are marked by just the opposite quality. He appears to\nhave thought out his system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious\ntheories of his predecessor. The result is that, while his view of the\nworld is on the whole much less like the truth than Anaximander\u2019s, it is\nmore fruitful in ideas that were destined to hold their ground.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n Diog. ii. 3 (R. P. 23).\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, \u00a7 13.\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of the primary substance.]\n\n25. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom Theophrastos wrote a\nspecial monograph;[149] and this gives us an additional guarantee for\nthe trustworthiness of the tradition derived from his great work. The\nfollowing[150] are the passages which seem to contain the fullest and\nmost accurate account of what he had to say on the central feature of\nthe system:\u2014\n\n Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an associate\n of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying substance was one\n and infinite. He did not, however, say it was indeterminate, like\n Anaximander, but determinate; for he said it was Air.\u2014_Phys. Op._ fr.\n 2 (R. P. 26).\n\n From it, he said, the things that are, and have been, and shall be,\n the gods and things divine, took their rise, while other things come\n from its offspring.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).\n\n \u201cJust as,\u201d he said, \u201cour soul, being air, holds us together, so do\n breath and air encompass the whole world.\u201d\u2014Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24).\n\n And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most even, it is\n invisible to our sight; but cold and heat, moisture and motion, make\n it visible. It is always in motion; for, if it were not, it would not\n change so much as it does.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).\n\n It differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction and\n condensation.\u2014_Phys. Op._ fr. 2 (R. P. 26).\n\n When it is dilated so as to be rarer, it becomes fire; while winds, on\n the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed from Air by\n felting;[151] and this, still further condensed, becomes water. Water,\n condensed still more, turns to earth; and when condensed as much as it\n can be, to stones.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7 (R. P. 28).[152]\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n On these monographs see _Dox._ p. 103.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in _Dox._ p.\n 135.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n \u201cFelting\u201d (\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) is the regular term for this process with all the\n early cosmologists, from whom Plato has taken it (_Tim._ 58 b 4; 76 c\n 3).\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n A more condensed form of the same doxographical tradition is given by\n Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 3 (R. P. 25).\n\n[Sidenote: Rarefaction and condensation.]\n\n26. At the first glance, this undoubtedly looks like a falling off from\nthe more refined doctrine of Anaximander to a cruder view; but a\nmoment\u2019s reflexion will show that this is not altogether the case. On\nthe contrary, the introduction of rarefaction and condensation into the\ntheory is a notable advance.[153] In fact, it makes the Milesian\ncosmology thoroughly consistent for the first time; since it is clear\nthat a theory which explains everything by the transformations of a\nsingle substance is bound to regard all differences as purely\nquantitative. The infinite substance of Anaximander, from which the\nopposites \u201cin it\u201d are \u201cseparated out,\u201d cannot, strictly speaking, be\nthought of as homogeneous, and the only way to save the unity of the\nprimary substance is to say that all diversities are due to the presence\nof more or less of it in a given space. And when once this important\nstep has been taken, it is no longer necessary to make the primary\nsubstance something \u201cdistinct from the elements,\u201d to use Aristotle\u2019s\ninaccurate but convenient phrase; it may just as well be one of them.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Simplicius, _Phys._ p. 149, 32 (R. P. 26 b), says, according to the\n MSS., that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the\n case of Anaximenes _alone_. We must either suppose with Zeller (p.\n 193, n. 2) that this means \u201calone among the oldest Ionians\u201d or read\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 for \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 with Usener. The regular terms are \u03c0\u03cd\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Plutarch, _de prim. frig._ 947 f (R. P. 27), says\n that Anaximenes used the term \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd for the rarefied air.\n\n[Sidenote: Air.]\n\n27. The air that Anaximenes speaks of includes a good deal that we\nshould not call by that name. In its normal condition, when most evenly\ndistributed, it is invisible, and it then corresponds to our \u201cair\u201d; it\nis identical with the breath we inhale and the wind that blows. That is\nwhy he called it \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. On the other hand, the old idea, familiar to us\nin Homer, that mist or vapour is condensed air, is still accepted\nwithout question. In other words, we may say that Anaximenes supposed it\nto be a good deal easier to get liquid air than it has since proved to\nbe. It was Empedokles, we shall see, who first discovered that what we\ncall air was a distinct corporeal substance, and was not identical\neither with vapour or with empty space. In the earlier cosmologists\n\u201cair\u201d is always a form of vapour, and even darkness is a form of it. It\nwas Empedokles who cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is\na shadow.[154]\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n For the meaning of \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1 in Homer, see Schmidt, _Synonomik_, \u00a7 35; and\n for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, 15, \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Plato is\n still conscious of the old meaning of the word; for he makes Timaios\n say \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (_Tim._ 58 d). The view given in the\n text has been criticised by Tannery, \u201cUne nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se sur\n Anaximandre\u201d (_Arch._ viii. pp. 443 sqq.), and I have slightly altered\n my expression of it to meet these criticisms. The point is of\n fundamental importance, as we shall see, for the interpretation of\n Pythagoreanism.\n\nIt was natural for Anaximenes to fix upon Air in this sense as the\nprimary substance; for, in the system of Anaximander, it occupied an\nintermediate place between the two fundamental opposites, the sphere of\nflame and the cold, moist mass within it (\u00a7 19). We know from Plutarch\nthat he fancied air became warmer when rarefied, and colder when\ncondensed. Of this he satisfied himself by a curious experimental proof.\nWhen we breathe with our mouths open, the air is warm; when we breathe\nwith our lips closed, it is cold.[155]\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n Plut. _de prim. frig._ 947 f (R. P. 27).\n\n[Sidenote: The world breathes.]\n\n28. This argument from human breathing brings us to an important point\nin the theory of Anaximenes, which is attested by the single fragment\nthat has come down to us.[156] \u201cJust as our soul, being air, holds us\ntogether, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.\u201d The primary\nsubstance bears the same relation to the life of the world as to that of\nman. Now this, we shall see, was the Pythagorean view;[157] and it is\nalso an early instance of the argument from the microcosm to the\nmacrocosm, and so marks the first beginnings of an interest in\nphysiological matters.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24).\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n See Chap. II. \u00a7 53.\n\n[Sidenote: The parts of the world.]\n\n29. We turn now to the doxographical tradition concerning the formation\nof the world and its parts:\u2014\n\n He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came into being.\n It is very broad and is accordingly supported by the air.\u2014Ps.-Plut.\n _Strom._ fr. 3 (R. P. 25).\n\n In the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies,\n which are of a fiery nature, are supported by the air because of their\n breadth. The heavenly bodies were produced from the earth by moisture\n rising from it. When this is rarefied, fire comes into being, and the\n stars are composed of the fire thus raised aloft. There were also\n bodies of earthy substance in the region of the stars, revolving along\n with them. And he says that the heavenly bodies do not move under the\n earth, as others suppose, but round it, as a cap turns round our head.\n The sun is hidden from sight, not because it goes under the earth, but\n because it is concealed by the higher parts of the earth, and because\n its distance from us becomes greater. The stars give no heat because\n of the greatness of their distance.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7, 4-6 (R. P. 28).\n\n Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes along under\n propulsion; but when it is concentrated and thickened still more,\n clouds are generated; and, lastly, it turns to water.[158]\u2014Hipp.\n _Ref._ i. 7, 7 (Dox. p. 561).\n\n The stars are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the\n heavens.\u2014Aet. ii. 14, 3 (_Dox._ p. 344).\n\n They do not go under the earth, but turn round it.\u2014_Ib._ 16, 6 (_Dox._\n p. 346).\n\n The sun is fiery.\u2014_Ib._ 20, 2 (_Dox._ p. 348).\n\n It is broad like a leaf.\u2014_Ib._ 22, 1 (_Dox._ p. 352).\n\n The heavenly bodies are diverted from their courses by the resistance\n of compressed air.\u2014_Ib._ 23, 1 (_Dox._ p. 352).\n\n The moon is of fire.\u2014_Ib._ 25, 2 (_Dox._ p. 356).\n\n Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding as an\n illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which flashes when\n divided by the oars.\u2014_Ib._ iii. 3, 2 (_Dox._ p. 368).\n\n Hail is produced when water freezes in falling; snow, when there is\n some air imprisoned in the water.\u2014Aet. iii 4, 1 (_Dox._ p. 370).\n\n The rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on thick\n condensed air. Hence the anterior part of it seems red, being burnt by\n the sun\u2019s rays, while the other part is dark, owing to the\n predominance of moisture. And he says that a rainbow is produced at\n night by the moon, but not often, because there is not constantly a\n full moon, and because the moon\u2019s light is weaker than that of the\n sun.\u2014_Schol. Arat._[159] (_Dox._ p. 231).\n\n The earth was like a table in shape.\u2014Aet. iii. 10, 3 (_Dox._ p. 377).\n\n The cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of the earth,\n occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.\u2014_Ib._ 15, 3\n (_Dox._ p. 379).\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n The text is very corrupt here. I retain \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, because we are\n told above that winds are condensed air, and I adopt Zeller\u2019s \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (p. 246, _n._ 554).\n\nWe have seen that Anaximenes was quite justified in going back to Thales\nin regard to his general theory of the primary substance; but it cannot\nbe denied that the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was\nunfortunate. The earth is once more imagined as a table-like disc\nfloating upon the air. The sun, moon, and planets are also fiery discs\nwhich float on the air \u201clike leaves.\u201d It follows that the heavenly\nbodies cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night, but only\nas going round it laterally like a cap or a millstone.[160] This curious\nview is also mentioned in Aristotle\u2019s _Meteorology_,[161] where the\nelevation of the northern parts of the earth, which makes it possible\nfor the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight, is referred to. In\nfact, whereas Anaximander had regarded the orbits of the sun, moon, and\nstars as oblique with reference to the earth, Anaximenes regarded the\nearth itself as inclined. The only real advance is the distinction of\nthe planets, which float freely in the air, from the fixed stars, which\nare fastened to the \u201ccrystalline\u201d vault of the sky.[162]\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n The source of this is Poseidonios, who used Theophrastos. _Dox._ p.\n 231.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like\n that of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel.\n Diels (_Dox._ p. 46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and\n Anaximander respectively. They come, of course, from Aetios (Appendix,\n \u00a7 10), though they are given neither by Stobaios nor in the _Placita_.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n \u0392, 1. 354 a 28 (R. P. 28 c).\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n We do not know how Anaximenes imagined the \u201ccrystalline\u201d sky. It is\n probable that he used the word \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 as Empedokles did. Cf. Chap. V. \u00a7\n 112.\n\nThe earthy bodies, which circulate among the planets, are doubtless\nintended to account for eclipses and the phases of the moon.[163]\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n See Tannery, _Science hell\u00e8ne_, p. 153. For the precisely similar\n bodies assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. \u00a7 135. See further\n Chap. VII. \u00a7 151.\n\n[Sidenote: Innumerable worlds.]\n\n30. As might be expected, there is the same difficulty about the\n\u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d ascribed to Anaximenes as about those of\nAnaximander, and most of the arguments given above (\u00a7 18) apply here\nalso. The evidence, however, is far less satisfactory. Cicero says that\nAnaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds that it came into being.[164]\nThat there is some confusion here is obvious. Air, as the primary\nsubstance, is certainly eternal, and it is quite likely that Anaximenes\ncalled it \u201cdivine,\u201d as Anaximander did the Boundless; but it is certain\nthat he also spoke of gods who came into being and passed away. These\narose, he said, from the air. This is expressly stated by\nHippolytos,[165] and also by St. Augustine.[166] These gods are probably\nto be explained like Anaximander\u2019s. Simplicius, indeed, takes another\nview;[167] but he may have been misled by a Stoic authority.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n Cic. _de nat. D._ i. 26 (R. P. 28 b). On what follows see Krische,\n _Forschungen_, pp. 52 sqq.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Hipp. _Ref._ i. 7, 1 (R. P. 28).\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n Aug. _de civ. D._ viii. 2: \u201cAnaximenes omnes rerum causas infinito\n a\u00ebri dedit: nec deos negavit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis a\u00ebrem\n factum, sed ipsos ex a\u00ebre ortos credidit\u201d (R. P. 28 b).\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 12 (R. P. 28 a). The passage from the\n _Placita_ is of higher authority than this from Simplicius. Note,\n further, that it is only to Anaximenes, Herakleitos, and Diogenes that\n successive worlds are ascribed even here. With regard to Anaximander,\n Simplicius is quite clear. For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see\n Chap. III. \u00a7 78; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. \u00a7 188. That Simplicius is\n following a Stoic authority is suggested by the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c2. Cf. also Simpl. _de Caelo_, p. 202, 13.\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of Anaximenes.]\n\n31. It is not quite easy for us to realise that, in the eyes of his\ncontemporaries, and for long after, Anaximenes was a much more important\nfigure than Anaximander. And yet the fact is certain. We shall see that\nPythagoras, though he followed Anaximander in his account of the\nheavenly bodies, was far more indebted to Anaximenes for his general\ntheory of reality (\u00a7 53). We shall see further that when, at a later\ndate, science revived once more in Ionia, it was \u201cthe philosophy of\nAnaximenes\u201d to which it attached itself (\u00a7 122). Anaxagoras adopted many\nof his most characteristic views (\u00a7 135), and some of them even found\ntheir way into the cosmology of the Atomists.[168] Diogenes of Apollonia\nwent back to the central doctrine of Anaximenes, and once more made Air\nthe primary substance, though he also tried to combine it with the\ntheories of Anaxagoras (\u00a7 188). We shall come to all this later on; but\nit seemed desirable to point out at once that Anaximenes marks the\nculminating point of the line of thought which started with Thales, and\nto show how the \u201cphilosophy of Anaximenes\u201d came to mean the Milesian\ndoctrine as a whole. This it can only have done because it was really\nthe work of a school, of which Anaximenes was the last distinguished\nrepresentative, and because his contribution to it was one that\ncompleted the system he had inherited from his predecessors. That the\ntheory of rarefaction and condensation was really such a completion of\nthe Milesian system, we have seen already (\u00a7 26), and it need only be\nadded that a clear realisation of this fact will be the best clue at\nonce to the understanding of the Milesian cosmology itself and to that\nof the systems which followed it. In the main, it is from Anaximenes\nthat they all start.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n In particular, the authority of Anaximenes was so great that both\n Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth.\n Cf. Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2), \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd). \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6. \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3. This, in spite of the fact that the spherical form\n of the earth was already a commonplace in circles affected by\n Pythagoreanism.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n SCIENCE AND RELIGION\n\n\n[Sidenote: Migrations to the West.]\n\n32. So far we have not met with any trace of direct antagonism between\nscience and popular beliefs, though the views of the Milesian\ncosmologists were really as inconsistent with the religions of the\npeople as with the mythology of the anthropomorphic poets.[169] Two\nthings hastened the conflict\u2014the shifting of the scene to the West, and\nthe religious revival which swept over Hellas in the sixth century B.C.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n For the theological views of Anaximander and Anaximenes, see \u00a7 22 and\n 30.\n\nThe chief figures in the philosophical history of the period were\nPythagoras of Samos and Xenophanes of Kolophon. Both were Ionians by\nbirth, and yet both spent the greater part of their lives in the West.\nWe see from Herodotos how the Persian advance in Asia Minor occasioned a\nseries of migrations to Sicily and Southern Italy;[170] and this, of\ncourse, made a great difference to philosophy as well as to religion.\nThe new views had probably grown up so naturally and gradually in Ionia\nthat the shock of conflict and reaction was avoided; but that could no\nlonger be so, when they were transplanted to a region where men were\nwholly unprepared to receive them.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Cf. Herod. i. 170 (advice of Bias); vi. 22 sqq. (Kale Akte).\n\nAnother, though a somewhat later, effect of these migrations was to\nbring Science into contact with Rhetoric, one of the most characteristic\nproducts of Western Hellas. Already in Parmenides we may note the\npresence of that dialectical and controversial spirit which was destined\nto have so great an influence on Greek thought, and it was just this\nfusion of the art of arguing for victory with the search for truth that\nbefore long gave birth to Logic.\n\n[Sidenote: The religious revival.]\n\n33. Most important of all in its influence on philosophy was the\nreligious revival which culminated about this time. The religion of\ncontinental Hellas had developed in a very different way from that of\nIonia. In particular, the worship of Dionysos, which came from Thrace,\nand is barely mentioned in Homer, contained in germ a wholly new way of\nlooking at man\u2019s relation to the world. It would certainly be wrong to\ncredit the Thracians themselves with any very exalted views; but there\ncan be no doubt that, to the Greeks, the phenomenon of ecstasy suggested\nthat the soul was something more than a feeble double of the self, and\nthat it was only when \u201cout of the body\u201d it could show its true\nnature.[171] To a less extent, such ideas were also suggested by the\nworship of Demeter, whose mysteries were celebrated at Eleusis; though,\nin later days, these came to take the leading place in men\u2019s minds. That\nwas because they were incorporated in the public religion of Athens.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n On all this, see Rohde, _Psyche_, pp. 327 sqq. It is probable that he\n exaggerated the degree to which these ideas were already developed\n among the Thracians, but the essential connexion of the new view of\n the soul with Northern worships is confirmed by the tradition over and\n over again.\n\nBefore the time with which we are dealing, tradition shows us dimly an\nage of inspired prophets\u2014Bakides and Sibyls\u2014followed by one of strange\nmedicine-men like Abaris and Aristeas of Prokonnesos. With Epimenides of\nCrete, we touch the fringe of history, while Pherekydes of Syros is the\ncontemporary of the early cosmologists, and we still have some fragments\nof his discourse. It looked as if Greek religion were about to enter\nupon the same stage as that already reached by the religions of the\nEast; and, but for the rise of science, it is hard to see what could\nhave checked this tendency. It is usual to say that the Greeks were\nsaved from a religion of the Oriental type by their having no\npriesthood; but this is to mistake the effect for the cause. Priesthoods\ndo not make dogmas, though they preserve them once they are made; and in\nthe earlier stages of their development, the Oriental peoples had no\npriesthoods either in the sense intended.[172] It was not so much the\nabsence of a priesthood as the existence of the scientific schools that\nsaved Greece.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n See Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7 461. The exaggerated r\u00f4le often\n attributed to priesthoods is a survival of French eighteenth century\n thinking.\n\n[Sidenote: The Orphic religion.]\n\n34. The new religion\u2014for in one sense it was new, though in another as\nold as mankind\u2014reached its highest point of development with the\nfoundation of the Orphic communities. So far as we can see, the original\nhome of these was Attika; but they spread with extraordinary rapidity,\nespecially in Southern Italy and Sicily.[173] They were first of all\nassociations for the worship of Dionysos; but they were distinguished by\ntwo features which were new among the Hellenes. They looked to a\nrevelation as the source of religious authority, and they were organised\nas artificial communities. The poems which contained their theology were\nascribed to the Thracian Orpheus, who had himself descended into Hades,\nand was therefore a safe guide through the perils which beset the\ndisembodied soul in the next world. We have considerable remains of this\nliterature, but they are mostly of late date, and cannot safely be used\nas evidence for the beliefs of the sixth century. We do know, however,\nthat the leading ideas of Orphicism were quite early. A number of thin\ngold plates with Orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered in\nSouthern Italy;[174] and though these are somewhat later in date than\nthe period with which we are dealing, they belong to the time when\nOrphicism was a living creed and not a fantastic revival. What can be\nmade out from them as to the doctrine has a startling resemblance to the\nbeliefs which were prevalent in India about the same time, though it\nseems impossible that there should have been any actual contact between\nIndia and Greece at this date. The main purpose of the _Orgia_[175] was\nto \u201cpurify\u201d the believer\u2019s soul, and so enable it to escape from the\n\u201cwheel of birth,\u201d and it was for the better attainment of this end that\nthe Orphics were organised in communities. Religious associations must\nhave been known to the Greeks from a fairly early date;[176] but the\noldest of these were based, at least in theory, on the tie of kindred\nblood. What was new was the institution of communities to which any one\nmight be admitted by initiation.[177] This was, in fact, the\nestablishment of churches, though there is no evidence that these were\nconnected with each other in such a way that we could rightly speak of\nthem as a single church. The Pythagoreans came nearer to realising that.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n See E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7\u00a7 453-460, who rightly\n emphasises the fact that the Orphic theogony is the continuation of\n Hesiod\u2019s work. As we have seen, some of it is even older than Hesiod.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n For the gold plates of Thourioi and Petelia, see the Appendix to Miss\n Harrison\u2019s _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, where the\n text of them is discussed and a translation given by Professor Gilbert\n Murray.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n This was the oldest name for these \u201cmysteries,\u201d and it simply means\n \u201csacraments\u201d (cf. \u1f14\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1). _Orgia_ are not necessarily \u201corgiastic.\u201d\n That association of ideas merely comes from the fact that they\n belonged to the worship of Dionysos.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n Herodotos mentions that Isagoras and those of his \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 worshipped the\n Karian Zeus (v. 66), and it is probable that the _Orgeones_ attached\n by Kleisthenes to the Attic _phratriai_ were associations of this\n kind. See Foucart, _Les associations religieuses chez les Grecs_.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n A striking parallel is afforded to all this by what we are told in\n Robertson Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 339. \u201cThe leading\n feature that distinguished them\u201d (the Semitic mysteries of the seventh\n century B.C.) \u201cfrom the old public cults with which they came into\n competition, is that they were not based on the principle of\n nationality, but sought recruits from men of every race who were\n willing to accept initiation through the mystic sacraments.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Philosophy as a Way of Life.]\n\n35. We have to take account of the religious revival here, chiefly\nbecause it suggested the view that philosophy was above all a \u201cway of\nlife.\u201d Science too was a \u201cpurification,\u201d a means of escape from the\n\u201cwheel.\u201d This is the view expressed so strongly in Plato\u2019s _Phaedo_,\nwhich was written under the influence of Pythagorean ideas.[178]\nSokrates became to his followers the ideal \u201cwise man,\u201d and it was to\nthis side of his personality the Cynics mainly attached themselves. From\nthem proceeded the Stoic sage and the Christian saint, and also the\nwhole brood of impostors whom Lucian has pilloried for our\nedification.[179] Saints and sages are apt to appear in questionable\nshapes, and Apollonios of Tyana showed in the end where this view may\nlead. It was not wholly absent from any Greek philosophy after the days\nof Pythagoras. Aristotle is as much possessed by it as any one, as we\nmay see from the Tenth Book of the _Ethics_, and as we should see still\nmore distinctly if we possessed such works as the _Protreptikos_ in\ntheir entirety.[180] Plato, indeed, tried to make the ideal wise man of\nservice to the state and mankind by his doctrine of the philosopher\nking. It was he alone, so far as we know, that insisted on philosophers\ndescending by turns into the cave from which they had been released and\ncoming to the help of their former fellow-prisoners.[181] That was not,\nhowever, the view that prevailed, and the \u201cwise man\u201d became more and\nmore detached from the world. Apollonios of Tyana was quite entitled to\nregard himself as the spiritual heir of Pythagoras; for the theurgy and\nthaumaturgy of the late Greek schools was but the fruit of the seed sown\nin the generation before the Persian Wars.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n The _Phaedo_ is dedicated, as it were, to Echekrates and the\n Pythagorean society at Phleious, and it is evident that Plato in his\n youth was impressed by the religious side of Pythagoreanism, though\n the influence of Pythagorean science is not clearly marked till a\n later period. Note specially the \u1f04\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of _Phd._ 66 b 4. In _Rep._\n x. 600 b 1, Plato speaks of Pythagoras as the originator of a private\n \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Cf. especially the point of view of the _Auction of Lives_ (\u0392\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n For the \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 of Aristotle, see Bywater in _J. Phil._ ii. p.\n 55; Diels in _Arch._ i. p. 477; and the notes on _Ethics_, i. 5, in my\n edition.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n Plato, _Rep._ 520 c 1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. The allegory of the\n Cave seems to be Orphic, and I believe Professor Stewart\u2019s suggestion\n (_Myths of Plato_, p. 252, n. 2), that Plato had the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u1f0d\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 in mind, to be quite justified. The idea of rescuing the\n \u201cspirits in prison\u201d is thoroughly Orphic.\n\n[Sidenote: No doctrine in the \u201cMysteries.\u201d]\n\n36. On the other hand, it would be wrong to suppose that Orphicism or\nthe Mysteries suggested any definite doctrines to philosophers, at least\nduring the period which we are about to consider. We have admitted that\nthey really implied a new view of the soul, and we might therefore have\nexpected to find that they profoundly modified men\u2019s theory of the world\nand their relation to it. The striking thing is that this did not\nhappen. Even those philosophers who were most closely in touch with the\nreligious movement, like Empedokles and the Pythagoreans, held views\nabout the soul which really contradicted the theory implied by their\nreligious practices.[182] There is no room for an immortal soul in any\nphilosophy of this period. Up to Plato\u2019s time immortality was never\ntreated in a scientific way, but merely assumed in the Orphic rites, to\nwhich Plato half seriously turns for confirmation of his own\nteaching.[183]\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n For Empedokles, see \u00a7 119; for the Pythagoreans, see \u00a7 149.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n Cf. _Phd._ 69 c 2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The gentle irony of this and similar passages ought to be\n unmistakable.\n\nAll this is easily accounted for. With us a religious revival generally\nmeans the vivid realisation of a new or forgotten doctrine, while\nancient religion has properly no doctrine at all. \u201cThe initiated,\u201d\nAristotle said, \u201cwere not expected to learn anything, but merely to be\naffected in a certain way and put into a certain frame of mind.\u201d[184]\nNothing was required but that the ritual should be correctly performed,\nand the worshipper was free to give any explanation of it he pleased. It\nmight be as exalted as that of Pindar and Sophokles, or as material as\nthat of the itinerant mystery-mongers described by Plato in the\n_Republic_. The essential thing was that he should duly sacrifice his\npig.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n Arist. fr. 45, 1483 a 19, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n\n I. PYTHAGORAS OF SAMOS\n\n[Sidenote: Character of the tradition.]\n\n37. It is no easy task to give an account of Pythagoras that can claim\nto be regarded as history. Our principal sources of information[185] are\nthe Lives composed by Iamblichos, Porphyry, and Laertios Diogenes. That\nof Iamblichos is a wretched compilation, based chiefly on the work of\nthe arithmetician Nikomachos of Gerasa in Judaea, and the romance of\nApollonios of Tyana, who regarded himself as a second Pythagoras, and\naccordingly took great liberties with his materials.[186] Porphyry\nstands, as a writer, on a far higher level than Iamblichos; but his\nauthorities do not inspire us with more confidence. He, too, made use of\nNikomachos, and of a certain novelist called Antonius Diogenes, author\nof a work entitled _Marvels from beyond Thule_.[187] Diogenes quotes, as\nusual, a considerable number of authorities, and the statements he makes\nmust be estimated according to the nature of the sources from which they\nwere drawn.[188] So far, it must be confessed, our material does not\nseem promising. Further examination shows, however, that a good many\nfragments of two much older authorities, Aristoxenos and Dikaiarchos,\nare embedded in the mass. These writers were both disciples of\nAristotle; they were natives of Southern Italy, and contemporary with\nthe last generation of the Pythagorean school. Both wrote accounts of\nPythagoras; and Aristoxenos, who was personally intimate with the last\nrepresentatives of scientific Pythagoreanism, also made a collection of\nthe sayings of his friends. Now the Neopythagorean story, as we have it\nin Iamblichos, is a tissue of incredible and fantastic myths; but, if we\nsift out the statements which go back to Aristoxenos and Dikaiarchos, we\ncan easily construct a rational narrative, in which Pythagoras appears\nnot as a miracle-monger and religious innovator, but simply as a\nmoralist and statesman. We might then be tempted to suppose that this is\nthe genuine tradition; but that would be altogether a mistake. There is,\nin fact, a third and still earlier stratum in the Lives, and this agrees\nwith the latest accounts in representing Pythagoras as a wonder-worker\nand a religious reformer.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n See E. Rohde\u2019s admirable papers, \u201cDie Quellen des Iamblichus in seiner\n Biographie des Pythagoras\u201d (_Rh. Mus._ xxvi., xxvii.).\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n Iamblichos was a disciple of Porphyry, and contemporary with\n Constantine. The _Life of Pythagoras_ has been edited by Nauck (1884).\n Nikomachos belongs to the beginning of the second century A.D. There\n is no evidence that he added anything to the authorities he followed,\n but these were already vitiated by Neopythagorean fables. Still, it is\n to him we chiefly owe the preservation of the valuable evidence of\n Aristoxenos.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n Porphyry\u2019s _Life of Pythagoras_ is the only considerable extract from\n his _History of Philosophy_, in four books, that has survived. The\n romance of Antonius is the original parodied by Lucian in his _Vera\n Historia_.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n The importance of the life in Laertios Diogenes lies in the fact that\n it gives us the story current at Alexandria before the rise of\n Neopythagoreanism and the promulgation of the gospel according to\n Apollonios of Tyana.\n\nSome of the most striking miracles of Pythagoras are related on the\nauthority of Andron\u2019s _Tripod_, and of Aristotle\u2019s work on the\nPythagoreans.[189] Both these treatises belong to the fourth century\nB.C., and are therefore untouched by Neopythagorean fancies. Further, it\nis only by assuming the still earlier existence of this view that we can\nexplain the allusions of Herodotos. The Hellespontine Greeks told him\nthat Salmoxis or Zamolxis had been a slave of Pythagoras,[190] and\nSalmoxis is a figure of the same class as Abaris and Aristeas.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n Andron of Ephesos wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, called _The\n Tripod_, in allusion to the well-known story. The feats ascribed to\n Pythagoras in the Aristotelian treatise remind us of an ecclesiastical\n legend. For example, he kills a deadly snake by biting it; he was seen\n at Kroton and Metapontion at the same time; he exhibited his golden\n thigh at Olympia, and was addressed by a voice from heaven when\n crossing the river Kasas. The same authority stated that he was\n identified by the Krotoniates with Apollo Hyperboreios (Arist. fr.\n 186).\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n Herod. iv. 95.\n\nIt seems, then, that both the oldest and the latest accounts agree in\nrepresenting Pythagoras as a man of the class to which Epimenides and\nOnomakritos belonged\u2014in fact, as a sort of \u201cmedicine-man\u201d; but, for some\nreason, there was an attempt to save his memory from this imputation,\nand that attempt belonged to the fourth century B.C. The significance of\nthis will appear in the sequel.\n\n[Sidenote: Life of Pythagoras.]\n\n38. We may be said to know for certain that Pythagoras passed his early\nmanhood at Samos, and was the son of Mnesarchos;[191] and he\n\u201cflourished,\u201d we are told, in the reign of Polykrates.[192] This date\ncannot be far wrong; for Herakleitos already speaks of him in the past\ntense.[193]\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n Cf. Herod. iv. 95, and Herakleitos, fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). Herodotos\n represents him as living at Samos. On the other hand, Aristoxenos said\n that he came from one of the islands which the Athenians occupied\n after expelling the Tyrrhenians (Diog. viii. 1). This suggests Lemnos,\n from which the Tyrrhenian \u201cPelasgians\u201d were expelled by Miltiades\n (Herod. vi. 140), or possibly some other island which was occupied at\n the same time. There were also Tyrrhenians at Imbros. This explains\n the story that he was an Etrurian or a Tyrian. Other accounts bring\n him into connexion with Phleious, but that is perhaps a pious\n invention of the Pythagorean society which flourished there at the\n beginning of the fourth century B.C. Pausanias (ii. 13, 1) gives it as\n a Phleiasian tradition that Hippasos, the great-grandfather of\n Pythagoras, had emigrated from Phleious to Samos.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n Eratosthenes identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor of Ol.\n XLVIII. 1 (588/7 B.C.), but Apollodoros gave his _floruit_ as 532/1,\n the era of Polykrates. He doubtless based this on the statement of\n Aristoxenos quoted by Porphyry (_V. Pyth._ 9), that Pythagoras left\n Samos from dislike to the tyranny of Polykrates (R. P. 53 a). For a\n full discussion, see Jacoby, pp. 215 sqq.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n Herakl. fr. 16, 17 (R. P. 31, 31 a).\n\nThe extensive travels attributed to Pythagoras by late writers are, of\ncourse, apocryphal. Even the statement that he visited Egypt, though far\nfrom improbable if we consider the close relations between Polykrates of\nSamos and Amasis, rests on no sufficient authority.[194] Herodotos, it\nis true, observes that the Egyptians agreed in certain practices with\nthe rules called Orphic and Bacchic, which are really Egyptian, and with\nthe Pythagoreans;[195] but this does not imply that the Pythagoreans\nderived these directly from Egypt. He says also in another place that\nthe belief in transmigration came from Egypt, though certain Greeks,\nboth at an earlier and a later date, had passed it off as their own. He\nrefuses, however, to give their names, so he can hardly be referring to\nPythagoras.[196] Nor does it matter; for the Egyptians did not believe\nin transmigration at all, and Herodotos was simply deceived by the\npriests or the symbolism of the monuments.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n It occurs first in the _Bousiris_ of Isokrates, \u00a7 28 (R. P. 52).\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n Herod. ii. 81 (R. P. 52 a). The comma at \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 is clearly right.\n Herodotos believed that the worship of Dionysos was introduced from\n Egypt by Melampous (ii. 49), and he means to suggest that the Orphics\n got these practices from the worshippers of Bakchos, while the\n Pythagoreans got them from the Orphics.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n Herod. ii. 123 (R. P. _ib._). The words \u201cwhose names I know, but do\n not write\u201d cannot refer to Pythagoras; for it is only of\n contemporaries that Herodotos speaks in this way (cf. i. 51; iv. 48).\n Stein\u2019s suggestion that he meant Empedokles seems to me convincing.\n Herodotos may have met him at Thourioi. Nor is there any reason to\n suppose that \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd refers specially to the Pythagoreans. If\n Herodotos had ever heard of Pythagoras visiting Egypt, he would surely\n have said so in one or other of these passages. There was no occasion\n for reserve, as Pythagoras must have died before Herodotos was born.\n\nAristoxenos said that Pythagoras left Samos in order to escape from the\ntyranny of Polykrates.[197] It was at Kroton, a city already famous for\nits medical school,[198] that he founded his society. How long he\nremained there we do not know; he died at Metapontion, whither he had\nretired on the first signal of revolt against his influence.[199]\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n Porph. _V. Pyth._ 9 (R. P. 53 a).\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n From what Herodotos tells us of Demokedes (iii. 131) we can see that\n the medical school of Kroton was founded before the time of\n Pythagoras. Cf. Wachtler, _De Alcmaeone Crotoniata_, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n It may be taken as certain that Pythagoras spent his last days at\n Metapontion; Aristoxenos said so (_ap._ Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 249), and\n Cicero (_De Fin._ v. 4) speaks of the honours which continued to be\n paid to his memory in that city (R. P. 57 c). Cf. also Andron, fr. 6\n (_F.H.G._ ii. 347).\n\n[Sidenote: The Order.]\n\n39. There is no reason to believe that the detailed statements which\nhave been handed down with regard to the organisation of the Pythagorean\nOrder rest upon any historical basis, and in the case of many of them we\ncan still see how they came to be made. The distinction of grades within\nthe Order, variously called _Mathematicians_ and _Akousmatics_,\n_Esoterics_ and _Exoterics_, _Pythagoreans_ and _Pythagorists_,[200] is\nan invention designed to explain how there came to be two widely\ndifferent sets of people, each calling themselves disciples of\nPythagoras, in the fourth century B.C. So, too, the statement that the\nPythagoreans were bound to inviolable secrecy, which goes back to\nAristoxenos,[201] is intended to explain why there is no trace of the\nPythagorean philosophy proper before Philolaos.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n For these distinctions, see Porphyry (_V. Pyth._ 37) and Iamblichos\n (_V. Pyth._ 80), quoted R. P. 56 and 56 b. The name \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af is\n clearly related to the \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, with which we shall have to deal\n shortly (\u00a7 44).\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n For the \u201cmystic silence,\u201d see Aristoxenos, _ap._ Diog. viii. 15 (R. P.\n 55 a). Tannery, \u201cSur le secret dans l\u2019\u00e9cole de Pythagore\u201d (_Arch._ i.\n pp. 28 sqq.), thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets\n of the school, and that these were divulged by Hippasos; but the most\n reasonable view is that there were no secrets at all except of a\n ritual kind.\n\nThe Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, a religious fraternity\nof the type described above, and not, as has sometimes been maintained,\na political league.[202] Nor had it anything to do with the \u201cDorian\naristocratic ideal.\u201d Pythagoras was an Ionian, and the Order was\noriginally confined to Achaian states.[203] Nor is there the slightest\nevidence that the Pythagoreans favoured the aristocratic rather than the\ndemocratic party.[204] The main purpose of the Order was to secure for\nits own members a more adequate satisfaction of the religious instinct\nthan that supplied by the State religion. It was, in fact, an\ninstitution for the cultivation of holiness. In this respect it\nresembled an Orphic society, though it seems that Apollo, rather than\nDionysos, was the chief Pythagorean god. That is doubtless why the\nKrotoniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios.[205] From\nthe nature of the case, however, an independent society within a Greek\nstate was apt to be brought into conflict with the larger body. The only\nway in which it could then assert its right to exist was by identifying\nthe State with itself, that is, by securing the control of the sovereign\npower. The history of the Pythagorean Order, so far as it can be traced,\nis, accordingly, the history of an attempt to supersede the State; and\nits political action is to be explained as a mere incident of that\nattempt.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n Plato, _Rep._ x. 600 a, implies that Pythagoras held no public office.\n The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, maintained\n in modern times by Krische (_De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo\n politico_, 1830), goes back, as Rohde has shown (_loc. cit._), to\n Dikaiarchos, the champion of the \u201cPractical Life,\u201d just as the view\n that it was primarily a scientific society goes back to the\n mathematician and musician Aristoxenos. The former antedated Archytas,\n just as the latter antedated Philolaos (see Chap. VII. \u00a7 138). Grote\u2019s\n good sense enabled him to see this quite clearly (vol. iv. pp. 329\n sqq.).\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7 502, Anm. It is still necessary to\n insist upon this, as the idea that the Pythagoreans represented the\n \u201cDorian ideal\u201d dies very hard. In his _Kulturhistorische Beitr\u00e4ge_\n (Heft i. p. 59), Max C. P. Schmidt imagines that later writers call\n the founder of the sect Pythagoras instead of Pythagores, as he is\n called by Herakleitos and Demokritos, because he had become \u201ca Dorian\n of the Dorians.\u201d The fact is simply that \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 is the Attic form\n of \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, and that the writers in question wrote Attic. Similarly,\n Plato calls Archytas, who did belong to a Dorian state, Archytes,\n though Aristoxenos and others retained the Dorian form of his name.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n Kylon, the chief opponent of the Pythagoreans, is described by\n Aristoxenos (Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 248) as \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans,\n was a democracy. The truth is that, at this time, the new religion\n appealed to the people rather than the aristocracies, which were apt\n to be \u201cfree-thinking\u201d (Meyer, _Gesch. des Alt._ iii. \u00a7 252).\n Xenophanes, not Pythagoras, is their man.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n We have the authority of Aristotle, fr. 186, 1510 b 20, for the\n identification of Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios. The names of\n Abaris and Aristeas stand for a mystical movement parallel to the\n Orphic, but based on the worship of Apollo. The later tradition makes\n them predecessors of Pythagoras; and that this has some historical\n basis, appears from Herod. iv. 13 sqq., and above all from the\n statement that Aristeas had a statue at Metapontion, where Pythagoras\n died. The connexion of Pythagoras with Zamolxis belongs to the same\n order of ideas. As the legend of the Hyperboreans is Delian, we see\n that the religion taught by Pythagoras was genuinely Ionian in its\n origin.\n\n[Sidenote: Downfall of the Order.]\n\n40. For a time the new Order seems actually to have succeeded in\nsecuring the supreme power, but reaction came at last. Under the\nleadership of Kylon, a wealthy noble, Kroton was able to assert itself\nvictoriously against the Pythagorean domination. This, we may well\nbelieve, had been galling enough. The \u201crule of the saints\u201d would be\nnothing to it; and we can still imagine and sympathise with the\nirritation felt by the plain man of those days at having his legislation\ndone for him by a set of incomprehensible pedants, who made a point of\nabstaining from beans, and would not let him beat his own dog because\nthey recognised in its howls the voice of a departed friend (Xenophanes,\nfr. 7). This feeling would be aggravated by the private religious\nworship of the Society. Greek states could never pardon the introduction\nof new gods. Their objection to this was not, however, that the gods in\nquestion were false gods. If they had been, it would not have mattered\nso much. What they could not tolerate was that any one should establish\na private means of communication between himself and the unseen powers.\nThat introduced an unknown and incalculable element into the\narrangements of the State, which might very likely be hostile to those\ncitizens who had no means of propitiating the intruding divinity.\n\nAristoxenos\u2019s version of the events which led to the downfall of the\nPythagorean Order is given at length by Iamblichos. According to this,\nPythagoras had refused to receive Kylon into his Society, and he\ntherefore became a bitter foe of the Order. From this cause Pythagoras\nremoved from Kroton to Metapontion, where he died. The Pythagoreans,\nhowever, still retained possession of the government of Kroton, till at\nlast the partisans of Kylon set fire to Milo\u2019s house, where they were\nassembled. Of those in the house only two, Archippos and Lysis, escaped.\nArchippos retired to Taras; Lysis, first to Achaia and then to Thebes,\nwhere he became later on the teacher of Epameinondas. The Pythagoreans\nwho remained concentrated themselves at Rhegion; but, as things went\nfrom bad to worse, they all left Italy except Archippos.[206]\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n See Rohde, _Rh. Mus._ xxvi. p. 565, n. 1. The narrative in the text\n (Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 250; R. P. 59 b) goes back to Aristoxenos and\n Dikaiarchos (R. P. 59 a). There is no reason to suppose that their\n view of Pythagoras has vitiated their account of what must have been a\n perfectly well-known piece of history. According to the later story,\n Pythagoras himself was burned to death in the house of Milo, along\n with his disciples. This is merely a dramatic compression of the whole\n series of events into a single scene; we have seen that Pythagoras\n died at Metapontion before the final catastrophe. The valuable\n reference in Polybios ii. 39 (R. P. 59) to the burning of Pythagorean\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 certainly implies that the disturbances went on for a very\n considerable time.\n\nThis account has all the air of being historical. The mention of Lysis\nproves, however, that those events were spread over more than one\ngeneration. The _coup d\u2019\u00e9tat_ of Kroton can hardly have occurred before\n450 B.C., if the teacher of Epameinondas escaped from it, and it may\nwell have been even later. But it must have been before 410 B.C. that\nthe Pythagoreans left Rhegion for Hellas; Philolaos was certainly at\nThebes about that time.[207]\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 61 d 7, e 7.\n\nThe political power of the Pythagoreans as an Order was now gone for\never, though we shall see that some of them returned to Italy at a later\ndate. In exile they seem to have dropped the merely magical and\nsuperstitious parts of their system, and this enabled them to take their\nplace as one of the scientific schools of Hellas.\n\n[Sidenote: Want of evidence as to the teaching of Pythagoras.]\n\n41. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even less than of his life.\nAristotle clearly knew nothing for certain of ethical or physical\ndoctrines going back to the founder of the Society himself.[208]\nAristoxenos only gave a string of moral precepts.[209] Dikaiarchos is\nquoted by Porphyry as asserting that hardly anything of what Pythagoras\ntaught his disciples was known except the doctrine of transmigration,\nthe periodic cycle, and the kinship of all living creatures.[210] The\nfact is, that, like all teachers who introduce a new way of living\nrather than a new view of the world, Pythagoras preferred oral\ninstruction to the dissemination of his opinions by writing, and it was\nnot till Alexandrian times that any one ventured to forge books in his\nname. The writings ascribed to the earliest Pythagoreans were also\nforgeries of the same period.[211] The early history of Pythagoreanism\nis, therefore, wholly conjectural; but we may still make an attempt to\nunderstand, in a very general way, what the position of Pythagoras in\nthe history of Greek thought must have been.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n When discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers it to\n \u201cthe Pythagoreans,\u201d not to Pythagoras himself. That this was\n intentional seems to be proved by the phrase \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, which occurs more than once (_e.g._ _Met._ \u0391, 5. 985 b\n 23; _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 293 a 20). Pythagoras himself is only thrice\n mentioned in the whole Aristotelian corpus, and in only one of these\n places (_M. Mor._ 1182 a 11) is any philosophical doctrine ascribed to\n him. We are told there that he was the first to discuss the subject of\n goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its various\n forms with numbers. But this is just one of the things which prove the\n late date of the _Magna Moralia_. Aristotle himself is quite clear\n that what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to\n the days of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos; for, after\n mentioning these, he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as\n \u201ccontemporary with and earlier than them\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _Met._ \u0391, 5. 985 b 23).\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n The fragments of the \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of Aristoxenos are given by\n Diels, _Vors._ pp. 282 sqq.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n _V. Pyth._ 19 (R. P. 55).\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n See Diels, _Dox._ p. 150; and \u201cEin gef\u00e4lschtes Pythagorasbuch\u201d\n (_Arch._ iii. pp. 451 sqq.). Cf. also Bernays, _Die Heraklitischen\n Briefe_, n. 1.\n\n[Sidenote: Transmigration.]\n\n42. In the first place, then, there can be no doubt that he really\ntaught the doctrine of transmigration.[212] The story told by the Greeks\nof the Hellespont and Pontos as to his relations with Salmoxis could\nnever have gained currency by the time of Herodotos if he had not been\nknown as a man who taught strange views of the life after death.[213]\nNow the doctrine of transmigration is most easily to be explained as a\ndevelopment of the savage belief in the kinship of men and beasts, as\nall alike children of the Earth,[214] a view which Dikaiarchos said\nPythagoras certainly held. Further, among savages, this belief is\ncommonly associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of food,\nand the Pythagorean rule is best known for its prescription of similar\nforms of abstinence. This in itself goes far to show that it originated\nin the same ideas, and we have seen that the revival of these would be\nquite natural in connexion with the foundation of a new religious\nsociety. There is a further consideration which tells strongly in the\nsame direction. In India we have a precisely similar doctrine, and yet\nit is not possible to assume any actual borrowing of Indian ideas at\nthis date. The only explanation which will account for the facts is that\nthe two systems were independently evolved from the same primitive\nideas. These are found in many parts of the world; but it seems to have\nbeen only in India and in Greece that they were developed into an\nelaborate doctrine.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n The proper Greek term for this is \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and the inaccurate\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 only occurs in late writers. Hippolytos and Clement of\n Alexandria say \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which is accurate but cumbrous. See\n Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 428, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n On the significance of this, see above, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n Dieterich, \u201cMutter Erde\u201d (_Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, viii.\n pp. 29 and 47).\n\n[Sidenote: Abstinence.]\n\n43. It has indeed been doubted whether we have a right to accept what\nwe are told by such late writers as Porphyry on the subject of\nPythagorean abstinence. Aristoxenos, whom we have admitted to be one\nof our earliest witnesses, may be cited to prove that the original\nPythagoreans knew nothing of these restrictions on the use of animal\nflesh and beans. He undoubtedly said that Pythagoras did not abstain\nfrom animal flesh in general, but only from that of the ploughing ox\nand the ram.[215] He also said that Pythagoras preferred beans to\nevery other vegetable, as being the most laxative, and that he was\npartial to sucking-pigs and tender kids.[216] Aristoxenos, however, is\na witness who very often breaks down under cross-examination, and the\npalpable exaggeration of these statements shows that he is\nendeavouring to combat a belief which existed in his own day. We are\ntherefore able to show, out of his own mouth, that the tradition which\nmade the Pythagoreans abstain from animal flesh and beans goes back to\na time long before there were any Neopythagoreans interested in\nupholding it. Still, it may be asked what motive Aristoxenos could\nhave had for denying the common belief? The answer is simple and\ninstructive. He had been the friend of the last of the Pythagoreans;\nand, in their time, the merely superstitious part of Pythagoreanism\nhad been dropped, except by some zealots whom the heads of the Society\nrefused to acknowledge. That is why he represents Pythagoras himself\nin so different a light from both the older and the later traditions;\nit is because he gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the\nOrder. Those who clung faithfully to the old practices were now\nregarded as heretics, and all manner of theories were set on foot to\naccount for their existence. It was related, for instance, that they\ndescended from one of the \u201cAkousmatics,\u201d who had never been initiated\ninto the deeper mysteries of the \u201cMathematicians.\u201d[217] All this,\nhowever, is pure invention. The satire of the poets of the Middle\nComedy proves clearly enough that, even though the friends of\nAristoxenos did not practise abstinence, there were plenty of people\nin the fourth century, calling themselves followers of Pythagoras, who\ndid.[218] History has not been kind to the Akousmatics, but they never\nwholly died out. The names of Diodoros of Aspendos and Nigidius\nFigulus help to bridge the gulf between them and Apollonios of Tyana.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n Aristoxenos _ap._ Diog. viii. 20, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1, \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n Aristoxenos _ap._ Gell. iv. 11, 5, \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; _ib._ 6, \u201cporculis quoque minusculis et\n haedis tenerioribus victitasse, idem Aristoxenus refert.\u201d It is, of\n course, possible that Aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on\n beans. We know that it was Orphic, and it may have been transferred to\n the Pythagoreans by mistake. That, however, would not affect the\n general conclusion that at least some Pythagoreans practised\n abstinence from various kinds of food, which is all that is required.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n The sect of the \u201cAkousmatics\u201d was said to descend from Hippasos\n (Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 81; R. P. 56). Now Hippasos was the author of a\n \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (Diog. viii. 7; R. P. 56 c), that is to say, of a\n superstitious ceremonial or ritual handbook, probably containing\n Akousmata like those we are about to consider; for we are told that it\n was written \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n Diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form (_Vors._ pp.\n 291 sqq.). For our purpose the most important passages are Antiphanes,\n fr. 135, Kock, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 | \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd; Alexis, fr.\n 220, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, | \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f13\u03bd | \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd; fr. 196 (from the \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1), \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019\n \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1 | \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n | \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2; Aristophon, fr. 9 (from the \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, | \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd | \u1f11\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2; Mnesimachos, fr. 1, \u1f61\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039b\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u1fb3 | \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2. See\n also Theokritos, xiv. 5, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, |\n \u1f60\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nWe know, then, that Pythagoras taught the kinship of beasts and men, and\nwe infer that his rule of abstinence from flesh was based, not upon\nhumanitarian or ascetic grounds, but on taboo. This is strikingly\nconfirmed by a fact which we are told in Porphyry\u2019s _Defence of\nAbstinence_. The statement in question does not indeed go back to\nTheophrastos, as so much of Porphyry\u2019s tract certainly does;[219] but it\nis, in all probability, due to Herakleides of Pontos, and is to the\neffect that, though the Pythagoreans did as a rule abstain from flesh,\nthey nevertheless ate it when they sacrificed to the gods.[220] Now,\namong savage peoples, we often find that the sacred animal is slain and\neaten sacramentally by its kinsmen on certain solemn occasions, though\nin ordinary circumstances this would be the greatest of all impieties.\nHere, again, we have to do with a very primitive belief; and we need not\ntherefore attach any weight to the denials of Aristoxenos.[221]\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n See Bernays, _Theophrastos\u2019 Schrift \u00fcber Fr\u00f6mmigkeit_. Porphyry\u2019s\n tract, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, was doubtless saved from the general\n destruction of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic\n tendencies of the age. Even St. Jerome made constant use of it in his\n polemic against Iovianus, though he is careful not to mention\n Porphyry\u2019s name (_Theophr. Schr._ n. 2). The tract is addressed to\n Castricius Firmus, the disciple and friend of Plotinos, who had fallen\n away from the strict vegetarianism of the Pythagoreans.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n The passage occurs _De Abst._ p. 58, 25 Nauck: \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. The\n part of the work from which this is taken comes from one Clodius, on\n whom see Bernay, _Theophr. Schr._ p. 11. He was probably the\n rhetorician Sextus Clodius, and a contemporary of Cicero. Bernays has\n shown that he made use of the work of Herakleides of Pontos (_ib._ n.\n 19). On \u201cmystic sacrifice\u201d generally, see Robertson Smith, _Rel. Sem._\n i. p. 276.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n Porphyry (_V. Pyth._ c 15) has preserved a tradition to the effect\n that Pythagoras recommended a flesh diet for athletes (Milo?). This\n story must have originated at the same time as those related by\n Aristoxenos, and in a similar way. In fact, Bernays has shown that it\n comes from Herakleides of Pontos (_Theophr. Schr._ n. 8). Iamblichos\n (_V. Pyth._ 5. 25) and others (Diog. viii. 13, 47) got out of this by\n supposing it referred to a gymnast of the same name. We see here very\n distinctly how the Neoplatonists for their own ends endeavoured to go\n back to the original form of the Pythagorean legend, and to explain\n away the fourth century reconstruction.\n\n[Sidenote: _Akousmata._]\n\n44. We shall now know what to think of the various Pythagorean rules and\nprecepts which have come down to us. These are of two kinds, and have\nvery different sources. Some of them, derived from the collection of\nAristoxenos, and for the most part preserved by Iamblichos, are mere\nprecepts of morality. They do not pretend to go back to Pythagoras\nhimself; they are only the sayings which the last generation of\n\u201cMathematicians\u201d heard from their predecessors.[222] The second class is\nof a very different nature, and the sayings which belong to it are\ncalled _Akousmata_,[223] which points to their being the property of\nthat sect of Pythagoreans which had faithfully preserved the old\ncustoms. Later writers interpret them as \u201csymbols\u201d of moral truth; but\ntheir interpretations are extremely far-fetched, and it does not require\na very practised eye to see that they are genuine taboos of a thoroughly\nprimitive type. I give a few examples in order that the reader may judge\nwhat the famous Pythagorean rule of life was really like.\n\n 1. To abstain from beans.\n 2. Not to pick up what has fallen.\n 3. Not to touch a white cock.\n 4. Not to break bread.\n 5. Not to step over a crossbar.\n 6. Not to stir the fire with iron.\n 7. Not to eat from a whole loaf.\n 8. Not to pluck a garland.\n 9. Not to sit on a quart measure.\n 10. Not to eat the heart.\n 11. Not to walk on highways.\n 12. Not to let swallows share one\u2019s roof.\n 13. When the pot is taken off the fire, not to leave the mark of it in\n the ashes, but to stir them together.\n 14. Do not look in a mirror beside a light.\n 15. When you rise from the bedclothes, roll them together and smooth\n out the impress of the body.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n For these see Diels, _Vors._ pp. 282 sqq.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n There is an excellent collection of \u1f08\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 in Diels,\n _Vors._ pp. 279 sqq., where the authorities will be found. It is\n impossible to discuss these in detail here, but students of folklore\n will see at once to what order of ideas they belong.\n\nIt would be easy to multiply proofs of the close connexion between\nPythagoreanism and primitive modes of thought, but what has been said is\nreally sufficient for our purpose. The kinship of men and beasts, the\nabstinence from flesh, and the doctrine of transmigration all hang\ntogether and form a perfectly intelligible whole from the point of view\nwhich has been indicated.\n\n[Sidenote: Pythagoras as a man of science.]\n\n45. Were this all, we should be tempted to delete the name of Pythagoras\nfrom the history of philosophy altogether, and relegate him to the class\nof \u201cmedicine-men\u201d (\u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) along with Epimenides and Onomakritos. This,\nhowever, would be quite wrong. As we shall see, the Pythagorean Society\nbecame one of the chief scientific schools of Hellas, and it is certain\nthat Pythagorean science as well as Pythagorean religion originated with\nthe master himself. Herakleitos, who is not partial to him, says that\nPythagoras had pursued scientific investigation further than other men,\nthough he also says that he turned his much learning into an art of\nmischief.[224] Herodotos called Pythagoras \u201cby no means the weakest\nsophist of the Hellenes,\u201d a title which at this date does not imply the\nslightest disparagement.[225] Aristotle even said that Pythagoras first\nbusied himself with mathematics and numbers, and that it was later on he\nattached himself to the miracle-mongering of Pherekydes.[226] Is it\npossible for us to trace any connexion between these two sides of his\nactivity?\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n Herakl. fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). The word \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 is in itself quite\n general. What it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice\n preserved by Iamblichos, _V. Pyth._ 89, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. Tannery\u2019s interpretation of this statement is based\n on a misunderstanding, and need not be discussed here.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n Herod. iv. 95.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n Arist. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, fr. 186, 1510 a 39, \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2,\n \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7.\n\nWe have seen that the aim of the Orphic and other _Orgia_ was to obtain\nrelease from the \u201cwheel of birth\u201d by means of \u201cpurifications,\u201d which\nwere generally of a very primitive type. The new thing in the Society\nfounded by Pythagoras seems to have been that, while it admitted all\nthese half-savage customs, it at the same time suggested a more exalted\nidea of what \u201cpurification\u201d really was. Aristoxenos tells us that the\nPythagoreans employed music to purge the soul as they used medicine to\npurge the body, and it is abundantly clear that Aristotle\u2019s famous\ntheory of \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is derived from Pythagorean sources.[227] Such\nmethods of purifying the soul were familiar in the _Orgia_ of the\nKorybantes, and will serve to explain the Pythagorean interest in\nHarmonics. But there is more than this. If we can trust Herakleides so\nfar, it was Pythagoras who first distinguished the \u201cthree lives,\u201d the\nTheoretic, the Practical, and the Apolaustic, which Aristotle made use\nof in the _Ethics_. The general theory of these lives is clear, and it\nis impossible to doubt that in substance it belongs to the very\nbeginning of the school. It is to this effect. We are strangers in this\nworld, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet we must not seek to\nescape by self-murder; for we are the chattels of God who is our\nherdsman, and without his command we have no right to make our\nescape.[228] In this life, there are three kinds of men, just as there\nare three sorts of people who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest\nclass is made up of those who come to buy and sell, and next above them\nare those who come to compete. Best of all, however, are those who come\nsimply to look on (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd). The greatest purification of all is,\ntherefore, disinterested science, and it is the man who devotes himself\nto that, the true philosopher, who has most effectually released himself\nfrom the \u201cwheel of birth.\u201d It would be rash to say that Pythagoras\nexpressed himself exactly in this manner; but all these ideas are\ngenuinely Pythagorean, and it is only in some such way that we can\nbridge the gulf which separates Pythagoras the man of science from\nPythagoras the religious teacher.[229] We must now endeavour to discover\nhow much of the later Pythagorean science may reasonably be ascribed to\nPythagoras himself.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n Its immediate source is to be found in Plato, _Laws_, 790 d 2 sqq.,\n where the Korybantic rites are adduced as an instance. For a full\n account see Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 336, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n Plato gives this as the Pythagorean view in _Phd._ 62 b, for the\n interpretation of which cf. Espinas in _Arch._ viii. pp. 449 sqq.\n Plato distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of\n Philolaos, but something older.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n See D\u00f6ring in _Arch._ v. pp. 505 sqq. There seems to be a reference to\n the theory of the \u201cthree lives\u201d in Herakleitos, fr. 111. It was\n apparently taught in the Pythagorean Society of Phleious; for\n Herakleides made Pythagoras expound it in a conversation with the\n tyrant of Phleious (Cic. _Tusc._ v. 3; Diog. pr. 12, viii. 8), and it\n is developed by Plato in a dialogue which is, as it were, dedicated to\n Echekrates. If it should be thought that this is interpreting\n Pythagoras too much in the light of Schopenhauer, it may be answered\n that even the Orphics came very near such a theory. The soul must not\n drink of Lethe, but go past it and drink of the water of Memory,\n before it can claim to become one of the heroes. This has obvious\n points of contact with Plato\u2019s \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and the only question is how\n much of the _Phaedo_ we are to ascribe to Pythagorean sources. A great\n deal, I suspect. See Prof. Stewart\u2019s _Myths of Plato_, pp. 152 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Arithmetic.]\n\n46. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras was\nthe first to carry that study beyond the needs of commerce,[230] and his\nstatement is confirmed by everything we otherwise know. By the end of\nthe fifth century B.C., we find that there is a widespread interest in\nsuch subjects and that these are studied for their own sake. Now this\nnew interest cannot have been wholly the work of a school; it must have\noriginated with some great man, and there is no one but Pythagoras to\nwhom we can refer it. As, however, he wrote nothing, we have no sure\nmeans of distinguishing his own teaching from that of his followers in\nthe next generation or two. All we can safely say is that, the more\nprimitive any Pythagorean doctrine appears, the more likely it is to be\nthat of Pythagoras himself, and all the more so if it can be shown to\nhave points of contact with views which we know to have been held in his\nown time or shortly before it. In particular, when we find the later\nPythagoreans teaching things that were already something of an\nanachronism in their own day, we may be reasonably sure that we are\ndealing with survivals which only the authority of the master\u2019s name\ncould have preserved. Some of these must be mentioned at once, though\nthe developed system belongs to a later part of our story. It is only by\nseparating its earliest form from its later that the true place of\nPythagoreanism in Greek thought can be made clear, though we must always\nremember that no one can now pretend to draw the line between its\nsuccessive stages with any certainty.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Stob. i. p. 20, 1, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: The figures.]\n\n47. Now one of the most remarkable statements that we have about\nPythagoreanism is what we are told of Eurytos on the unimpeachable\nauthority of Archytas. Eurytos was the disciple of Philolaos, and\nAristoxenos expressly mentioned him along with Philolaos as having\ntaught the last of the Pythagoreans, the men with whom he himself was\npersonally acquainted. He therefore belongs to the beginning of the\nfourth century B.C., by which time the Pythagorean system was fully\ndeveloped, and he was no eccentric enthusiast, but one of the foremost\nmen in the school.[231] We are told of him, then, that he used to give\nthe number of all sorts of things, such as horses and men, and that he\ndemonstrated these by arranging pebbles in a certain way. It is to be\nnoted further that Aristotle compares his procedure to that of those who\nbring numbers into figures like the triangle and the square.[232]\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n Apart from the story in Iamblichos (_V. Pyth._ 148) that Eurytos heard\n the voice of Philolaos from the grave after he had been many years\n dead, it is to be noticed that he is mentioned after him in the\n statement of Aristoxenos referred to (Diog. viii. 46; R. P. 62).\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039d, 5. 1092 b 8 (R. P. 76 a). Aristotle does not quote\n the authority of Archytas here, but the source of his statement is\n made quite clear by Theophr. _Met._ p. vi. a 19 (Usener), \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n (sc. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u0395\u1f54\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f61\u03c2\n \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nNow these statements, and especially the remark of Aristotle last\nquoted, seem to imply the existence at this date, and earlier, of a\nnumerical symbolism quite distinct from the alphabetical notation on the\none hand and from the Euclidean representation of numbers by lines on\nthe other. The former was inconvenient for arithmetical purposes, just\nbecause the zero was one of the few things the Greeks did not invent,\nand they were therefore unable to develop a really serviceable numerical\nsymbolism based on position. The latter, as will appear shortly, is\nintimately bound up with that absorption of arithmetic by geometry,\nwhich is at least as old as Plato, but cannot be primitive.[233] It\nseems rather that numbers were represented by dots arranged in\nsymmetrical and easily recognised patterns, of which the marking of dice\nor dominoes gives us the best idea. And these markings are, in fact, the\nbest proof that this is a genuinely primitive method of indicating\nnumbers; for they are of unknown antiquity, and go back to the time when\nmen could only count by arranging numbers in such patterns, each of\nwhich became, as it were, a fresh unit. This way of counting may well be\nas old as reckoning with the fingers, or even older.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Arithmetic is older than geometry, and was much more advanced in\n Egypt, though still in the form which the Greeks called \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\n rather than as \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae proper. Even Plato puts Arithmetic before\n Geometry in the _Republic_ in deference to the tradition. His own\n theory of number, however, suggested the inversion of this order which\n we find carried out in Euclid.\n\nIt is, therefore, very significant that we do not find any adequate\naccount of what Aristotle can have meant by \u201cthose who bring numbers\ninto figures like the triangle and the square\u201d till we come to certain\nlate writers who called themselves Pythagoreans, and revived the study\nof arithmetic as a science independent of geometry. These men not only\nabandoned the linear symbolism of Euclid, but also regarded the\nalphabetical notation, which they did use, as something conventional,\nand inadequate to represent the true nature of number. Nikomachos of\nGerasa says expressly that the letters used to represent numbers are\nonly significant by human usage and convention. The most natural way\nwould be to represent linear or prime numbers by a row of units,\npolygonal numbers by units arranged so as to mark out the various plane\nfigures, and solid numbers by units disposed in pyramids and so\nforth.[234] He therefore gives us figures like this:\u2014\n\n \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1\n \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1\n \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1\n \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1\n \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1 \u03b1\n\nNow it ought to be obvious that this is no innovation, but, like so many\nthings in Neopythagoreanism, a reversion to primitive usage. Of course\nthe employment of the letter _alpha_ to represent the units is derived\nfrom the conventional notation; but otherwise we are clearly in presence\nof something which belongs to the very earliest stage of the\nscience\u2014something, in fact, which gives the only possible clue to the\nmeaning of Aristotle\u2019s remark, and to what we are told of the method of\nEurytos.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n Nikomachos of Gerasa, _Introd. Arithm._ p. 83, 12, Hoche, \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u1fa7 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b9, \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba, \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c9, \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The same\n symbolism is used by Theo, _Expositio_, pp. 31 sqq. Cf. also Iambl.\n _Introd._ p. 56, 27, Pistelli, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Triangular, square, and oblong numbers.]\n\n48. This is still further confirmed by the tradition which represents\nthe great revelation made by Pythagoras to mankind as having been\nprecisely a figure of this kind, namely the _tetraktys_, by which the\nPythagoreans used to swear,[235] and we have no less an authority than\nSpeusippos for holding that the whole theory which it implies was\ngenuinely Pythagorean.[236] In later days there were many kinds of\n_tetraktys_,[237] but the original one, that by which the Pythagoreans\nswore, was the \u201ctetraktys of the dekad.\u201d It was a figure like this\u2014\n\n \u2022\n \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\n \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\n \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2022\n\nand represented the number ten as the triangle of four. In other words,\nit showed at a glance that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10. Speusippos tells us of\nseveral properties which the Pythagoreans discovered in the dekad. It\nis, for instance, the first number that has in it an equal number of\nprime and composite numbers. How much of this goes back to Pythagoras\nhimself, we cannot tell; but we are probably justified in referring to\nhim the conclusion that it is \u201caccording to nature\u201d that all Hellenes\nand barbarians count up to ten and then begin over again.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n Cf. the formula \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bd, which is\n all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of\n Pythagoras by the forger of the \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1fb6 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7, thus making him swear by\n himself! See Diels, _Arch._ iii. p. 457. The Doric dialect shows,\n however, that it belongs to the later generations of the school.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n Speusippos wrote a work on the Pythagorean numbers, based chiefly on\n Philolaos, and a considerable fragment of it is preserved in the\n _Theologumena Arithmetica_. It will be found in Diels,\n _Vorsokratiker_, p. 235, 15, and is discussed by Tannery, _Science\n hell\u00e8ne_, pp. 374 sqq.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n For these see Theon, _Expositio_, pp. 93 sqq. Hiller. The \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2\n used by Plato in the _Timaeus_ is the second described by Theon\n (_Exp._ p. 94, 10 sqq.). It is no doubt Pythagorean, but hardly as old\n as Pythagoras.\n\nIt is obvious that the _tetraktys_ may be indefinitely extended so as to\nexhibit the sums of the series of successive numbers in a graphic form,\nand these sums are accordingly called \u201ctriangular numbers.\u201d\n\nFor similar reasons, the sums of the series of successive odd numbers\nare called \u201csquare numbers,\u201d and those of successive even numbers\n\u201coblong.\u201d If odd numbers are added to the unit in the form of _gnomons_,\nthe result is always a similar figure, namely a square, while, if even\nnumbers are added, we get a series of rectangles,[238] as shown by the\nfigure:\u2014\n\n Square Numbers. Oblong Numbers.\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2002\u2502 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510 \u2502\n \u2022 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2510 \u2502 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022 \u2502 \u2022\u2002\u2502\n\nIt is clear, then, that we are entitled to refer the study of sums of\nseries to Pythagoras himself; but whether he went beyond the oblong, and\nstudied pyramidal or cubic numbers, we cannot say.[239]\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n Cf. Milhaud, _Philosophes g\u00e9om\u00e8tres_, pp. 115 sqq. Aristotle puts the\n matter thus (_Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 a 13): \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03bd.\n This is more clearly stated by Ps.-Plut. (Stob. i. p. 22, 16), \u1f1c\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. I cannot feel satisfied with any\n of the explanations which have been given of the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 in\n the Aristotelian passage (see Zeller, p. 351, n. 2), and I would\n therefore suggest \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 comparing Boutheros (Stob. i. p. 19, 9),\n who says, according to the MS. reading, \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2), \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (sc. \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2).\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n In the fragment referred to above (p. 113, _n._ 236), Speusippos\n speaks of four as the first pyramidal number; but this is taken from\n Philolaos, so we cannot safely ascribe it to Pythagoras.\n\n[Sidenote: Geometry and harmonics.]\n\n49. It is easy to see how this way of representing numbers would suggest\nproblems of a geometrical nature. The dots which stand for the pebbles\nare regularly called \u201cboundary-stones\u201d (\u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, _termini_, \u201cterms\u201d), and\nthe area which they occupy, or rather mark out, is the \u201cfield\u201d\n(\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1).[240] This is evidently a very early way of speaking, and may\ntherefore be referred to Pythagoras himself. Now it must have struck him\nthat \u201cfields\u201d could be compared as well as numbers,[241] and it is even\nlikely that he knew the rough methods of doing this which were\ntraditional in Egypt, though certainly these would fail to satisfy him.\nOnce more the tradition is singularly helpful in suggesting the\ndirection that his thoughts must have taken. He knew, of course, the use\nof the triangle 3, 4, 5 in constructing right angles. We have seen (p.\n24) that it was familiar in the East from a very early date, and that\nThales introduced it to the Hellenes, if they did not know it already.\nIn later writers it is actually called the \u201cPythagorean triangle.\u201d Now\nthe Pythagorean proposition _par excellence_ is just that, in a\nright-angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the\nsquares on the other two sides, and the so-called Pythagorean triangle\nis the application of its converse to a particular case. The very name\n\u201chypotenuse\u201d affords strong confirmation of the intimate connexion\nbetween the two things. It means literally \u201cthe cord stretching over\nagainst,\u201d and this is surely just the rope of the \u201charpedonapt.\u201d[242] An\nearly tradition says that Pythagoras sacrificed an ox when he discovered\nthe proof of this proposition, and indeed it was the real foundation of\nscientific mathematics.[243]\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n We have \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 of a series (\u1f14\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), then of a proportion, and in later\n times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, and \u2234 are a survival of the\n original use. The term \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 is often used by the later Pythagoreans,\n though Attic usage required \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd for a rectangle. The spaces between\n the \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03af of the _abacus_ and the chess-board were also called\n \u03c7\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority\n of Eudemos that the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, \u1f14\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, and \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae of \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 were\n Pythagorean inventions. For an account of these and the subsequent\n application of the terms in Conic Sections, see Milhaud, _Philosophes\n g\u00e9om\u00e8tres_, pp. 81 sqq.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n The verb \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is, of course, used intransitively. The\n explanation suggested in the text seems to me much simpler than that\n of Max C. P. Schmidt (_Kulturhistorische Beitr\u00e4ge_, Heft i. pp. 64\n sqq.). He explains the hypotenuse as the longest string in a\n triangular harp; but my view seems more in accordance with analogy. So\n \u1f21 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is, literally, a plumb-line.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n The statement comes from Eudemos; for it is found in Proclus\u2019s\n commentary on Euclid i. 47. Whether historical or not, it is no\n Neopythagorean fancy.\n\n[Sidenote: Incommensurability.]\n\n50. One great disappointment, however, awaited Pythagoras. It follows at\nonce from the Pythagorean proposition that the square on the diagonal of\na square is double the square on its side, and this ought surely to be\ncapable of numerical expression. As a matter of fact, however, there is\nno square number which can be divided into two equal square numbers, and\nso the problem cannot be solved. In this sense, it is doubtless true\nthat Pythagoras discovered the incommensurability of the diagonal and\nthe side of a square, and the proof mentioned by Aristotle, namely,\nthat, if they were commensurable, we should have to say that an even\nnumber was equal to an odd number, is distinctly Pythagorean in\ncharacter.[244] However that may be, it is certain that Pythagoras did\nnot care to pursue the subject any further. He had, as it were, stumbled\non the fact that the square root of two is a surd, but we know that it\nwas left for Plato\u2019s friends, Theodoros of Kyrene and Theaitetos, to\ngive a complete theory of the matter.[245] The fact is that the\ndiscovery of the Pythagorean proposition, by giving birth to geometry,\nhad really superseded the old view of quantity as a sum of units; but it\nwas not till Plato\u2019s time that the full consequences of this were\nseen.[246] For the present, the incommensurability of the diagonal and\nthe square remained, as has been said, a \u201cscandalous exception.\u201d Our\ntradition says that Hippasos of Metapontion was drowned at sea for\nrevealing this skeleton in the cupboard.[247]\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n Arist. _An. Pr._ \u0391, 23. 41 a 26, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2. The proofs\n given at the end of Euclid\u2019s Tenth Book (vol. iii. pp. 408 sqq.,\n Heiberg) turn on this very point. They are not Euclidean, and may be\n substantially Pythagorean. Cf. Milhaud, _Philosophes g\u00e9om\u00e8tres_, p.\n 94.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n Plato, _Theaet._ 147 d 3 sqq.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n How novel these consequences were, is shown by the fact that in\n _Laws_, 819 d 5, the Athenian Stranger says that he had only realised\n them late in life.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n This version of the tradition is mentioned in Iamblichos, _V. Pyth._\n 247, and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later (\u00a7\n 148). Hippasos is the _enfant terrible_ of Pythagoreanism, and the\n traditions about him are full of instruction.\n\n[Sidenote: Proportion and harmony.]\n\n51. These last considerations show that, while it is quite safe to\nattribute the substance of the First Book of Euclid to Pythagoras, the\narithmetic of Books VII.-IX., and the \u201cgeometrical algebra\u201d of Book II.\nare certainly not his. They operate with lines or with areas instead of\nwith units, and the relations which they establish therefore hold good\nwhether they are capable of numerical expression or not. That is\ndoubtless why arithmetic is not treated in Euclid till after plane\ngeometry, a complete inversion of the original order. For the same\nreason, the doctrine of proportion which we find in Euclid cannot be\nPythagorean, and is indeed the work of Eudoxos. Yet it is clear that the\nearly Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself, studied proportion\nin their own way, and that the three \u201cmedieties\u201d in particular go back\nto the founder, especially as the most complicated of them, the\n\u201charmonic,\u201d stands in close relation to his discovery of the octave. If\nwe take the harmonic proportion 12 : 8 : 6,[248] we find that 12 : 6 is\nthe octave, 12 : 8 the fifth, and 8 : 6 the fourth, and it can hardly be\ndoubted that it was Pythagoras himself who discovered these intervals.\nThe stories which have come down to us about his observing the harmonic\nintervals in a smithy, and then weighing the hammers that produced them,\nor of his suspending weights corresponding to those of the hammers to\nequal strings, are, indeed, impossible and absurd; but it is sheer waste\nof time to rationalise them.[249] For our purpose their absurdity is\ntheir chief merit. They are not stories which any Greek mathematician or\nmusician could possibly have invented, but genuine popular tales bearing\nwitness to the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was the\nauthor of this momentous discovery.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Plato (_Tim._ 36 a 3) defines the harmonic mean as \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd ... \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. The harmonic mean of 12\n and 6 is therefore 8; for 8 = 12 - 12/3 = 6 + 6/3.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n For these stories and a criticism of them, see Max C. P. Schmidt,\n _Kulturhistorische Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. pp. 78 sqq. The smith\u2019s hammers\n belong to the region of _M\u00e4rchen_, and it is not true either that the\n notes would be determined by the weight of the hammers, or that, if\n they were, the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes.\n These inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, _\u00c9tudes sur\n le Tim\u00e9e_, i. p. 391).\n\n[Sidenote: Things are numbers.]\n\n52. It was this too, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to say all things\nwere numbers. We shall see that, at a later date, the Pythagoreans\nidentified these numbers with geometrical figures; but the mere fact\nthat they called them \u201cnumbers,\u201d when taken in connexion with what we\nare told about the method of Eurytos, is sufficient to show this was not\nthe original sense of the doctrine. It is enough to suppose that\nPythagoras reasoned somewhat as follows. If musical sounds can be\nreduced to numbers, why should not everything else? There are many\nlikenesses to number in things, and it may well be that a lucky\nexperiment, like that by which the octave was discovered, will reveal\ntheir true numerical nature. The Neopythagorean writers, going back in\nthis as in other matters to the earliest tradition of the school,\nindulge their fancy in tracing out analogies between things and numbers\nin endless variety; but we are fortunately dispensed from following them\nin these vagaries. Aristotle tells us distinctly that the Pythagoreans\nexplained only a few things by means of numbers,[250] which means that\nPythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the subject, while the\nPythagoreans of the fifth century did not care to add anything of the\nsort to the school tradition. Aristotle does imply, however, that,\naccording to them the \u201cright time\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) was seven, justice was four,\nand marriage three. These identifications, with a few others like them,\nwe may safely refer to Pythagoras or his immediate successors; but we\nmust not attach much importance to them. They are mere sports of the\nanalogical fancy. If we wish to understand the cosmology of Pythagoras,\nwe must start, not from them, but from any statements we can find that\npresent points of contact with the teaching of the Milesian school.\nThese, we may fairly infer, belong to the system in its most primitive\nform.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039c, 4. 1078 b 21 (R. P. 78); Zeller, p. 390, n. 2. The\n _Theologumena Arithmetica_, wrongly attributed to Nikomachos of\n Gerasa, is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject (R. P. 78 a).\n Alexander _in Met._ p. 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old\n (R. P. 78 c).\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmology.]\n\n53. Now the most striking statement of this kind is one of Aristotle\u2019s.\nThe Pythagoreans held, he tells us, that there was \u201cboundless breath\u201d\noutside the heavens, and that it was inhaled by the world.[251] In\nsubstance, this is the doctrine of Anaximenes, and it becomes\npractically certain that it was that of Pythagoras, when we find that\nXenophanes denied it.[252] We may infer, then, that the further\ndevelopment of the idea is also due to Pythagoras himself. We are told\nthat, after the first unit had been formed\u2014however that may have taken\nplace\u2014the nearest part of the Boundless was first drawn in and\nlimited;[253] and further, that it is just the Boundless thus inhaled\nthat keeps the units separate from each other.[254] It represents the\ninterval between them. This is a very primitive way of describing the\nnature of discrete quantity.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0394, 6. 213 b 22 (R. P. 75).\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true that Diogenes is here drawing\n from a biographical rather than a doxographical source (_Dox._ p.\n 168), but this touch can hardly be an invention.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039c, 3. 1091 a 13 (R. P. 74).\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0394, 6. 213 b 23 (R. P. 75 a). The words \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been\n supposed to attribute the function of limiting to the \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n Aristotle makes it quite clear that his meaning is that stated in the\n text. Cf. especially the words \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The term \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is the proper antithesis to \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ad\u03c2.\n In his work on the Pythagorean philosophy, Aristotle used instead the\n phrase \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 (Stob. i. p. 156, 8; R. P. 75), which is\n also quite intelligible if we remember what the Pythagoreans meant by\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 (cf. p. 115, _n._ 240).\n\nIn the passages of Aristotle just referred to, the Boundless is also\nspoken of as the void or empty. This identification of air and the void\nis a confusion which we have already met with in Anaximenes, and it need\nnot surprise us to find it here too.[255] We find also, as we might\nexpect, distinct traces of the other confusion, that of air and vapour.\nIt seems certain, in fact, that Pythagoras identified the Limit with\nfire, and the Boundless with darkness. We are told by Aristotle that\nHippasos made Fire the first principle,[256] and we shall see that\nParmenides, in discussing the opinions of his contemporaries, attributes\nto them the view that there were two primary \u201cforms,\u201d Fire and\nNight.[257] We also find that Light and Darkness appear in the\nPythagorean table of opposites under the heads of the Limit and the\nUnlimited respectively.[258] The identification of breath with darkness\nhere implied is a strong proof of the primitive character of the\ndoctrine; for in the sixth century darkness was supposed to be a sort of\nvapour, while in the fifth, its true nature was well known. Plato, with\nhis usual historical tact, makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe mist\nand darkness as condensed air.[259] We must think, then, of a \u201cfield\u201d of\ndarkness or breath marked out by luminous units, an imagination which\nthe starry heavens would naturally suggest. It is even probable that we\nshould ascribe to Pythagoras the Milesian view of a plurality of worlds,\nthough it would not have been natural for him to speak of an infinite\nnumber. We know, at least, that Petron, one of the early Pythagoreans,\nsaid there were just a hundred and eighty-three worlds arranged in a\ntriangle;[260] and Plato makes Timaios admit, when laying down that\nthere is only one world, that something might be urged in favour of the\nview that there are five, as there are five regular solids.[261]\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Cf. Arist. _Phys._ \u0394, 6. 213 a 27, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa6 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; _de\n Part. An._ \u0392, 10. 656 b 15, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03ad\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9;\n _de An._ \u0392, 10 419 b 34, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c).\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n See Chap. IV. \u00a7 91.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 25 (R. P. 66).\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 58 d 2.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n This is quoted by Plutarch, _de def. orac._ 422 b, d, from Phanias of\n Eresos, who gave it on the authority of Hippys of Rhegion. If we may\n follow Wilamowitz (_Hermes_, xix. p. 444) in supposing that this\n really means Hippasos of Metapontion (and it was in Rhegion that the\n Pythagoreans took refuge), this is a very valuable piece of evidence.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 55 c 7 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: The heavenly bodies.]\n\n54. Anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies as wheels of \u201cair\u201d\nfilled with fire which escapes through certain openings (\u00a7 19), and\nthere is evidence that Pythagoras adopted the same view.[262] We have\nseen that Anaximander only assumed the existence of three such wheels,\nand held that the wheel of the sun was the lowest. It is extremely\nprobable that Pythagoras identified the intervals between these rings\nwith the three musical intervals which he had discovered, the fourth,\nthe fifth, and the octave. That would be the most natural beginning for\nthe later doctrine of the \u201charmony of the spheres,\u201d though that\nexpression would be doubly misleading if applied to any theory we can\nproperly ascribe to Pythagoras himself. The word \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 does not mean\nharmony, and the \u201cspheres\u201d are an anachronism. We are still at the stage\nwhen wheels or rings were considered sufficient to account for the\nmotions of the heavenly bodies. It is also to be observed that sun,\nmoon, planets, and fixed stars must all be regarded as moving in the\nsame direction from east to west. Pythagoras certainly did not ascribe\nto the planets an orbital motion of their own from west to east. The old\nidea was rather that they were left behind more or less every day. As\ncompared with the fixed stars, Saturn is left behind least of all, and\nthe Moon most; so, instead of saying that the Moon took a shorter time\nthan Saturn to complete its path through the signs of the Zodiac, men\nsaid Saturn travelled quicker than the Moon, because it more nearly\nsucceeds in keeping up with the signs. Instead of holding that Saturn\ntakes thirty years to complete its revolution, they said it took the\nfixed stars thirty years to pass Saturn, and only twenty-nine days and a\nhalf to pass the Moon. This is one of the most important points to bear\nin mind regarding the planetary systems of the Greeks, and we shall\nreturn to it again.[263]\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n This will be found in Chap. IV. \u00a7 93.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n For a clear statement of this view (which was still that of\n Demokritos), see Lucretius, v. 621 sqq. The view that the planets had\n an orbital motion from west to east is attributed by Aetios, ii. 16,\n 3, to Alkmaion (\u00a7 96), which certainly implies that Pythagoras did not\n hold it. As we shall see (\u00a7 152), it is far from clear that any of the\n Pythagoreans did. It seems rather to be Plato\u2019s discovery.\n\nThe account just given of the views of Pythagoras is, no doubt,\nconjectural and incomplete. We have simply assigned to him those\nportions of the Pythagorean system which appear to be the oldest, and it\nhas not even been possible at this stage to cite fully the evidence on\nwhich our discussion is based. It will only appear in its true light\nwhen we have examined the second part of the poem of Parmenides and the\nsystem of the later Pythagoreans.[264] For reasons which will then be\napparent, I do not venture to ascribe to Pythagoras himself the theory\nof the earth\u2019s revolution round the central fire. It seems safest to\nsuppose that he still adhered to the geocentric hypothesis of\nAnaximander. In spite of this, however, it will be clear that he opened\na new period in the development of Greek science, and it was certainly\nto his school that its greatest discoveries were directly or indirectly\ndue. When Plato deliberately attributes some of his own most important\ndiscoveries to the Pythagoreans, he was acknowledging in a\ncharacteristic way the debt he owed them.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n See Chap. IV. \u00a7\u00a7 92-93, and Chap. VII. \u00a7\u00a7 150-152.\n\n\n II. XENOPHANES OF KOLOPHON\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n55. We have seen how Pythagoras identified himself with the religious\nmovement of his time; we have now to consider a very different\nmanifestation of the reaction against that view of the gods which the\npoets had made familiar to every one. Xenophanes denied the\nanthropomorphic gods altogether, but was quite unaffected by the revival\nof more primitive ideas that was going on all round him. We still have a\nfragment of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the doctrine\nof transmigration. \u201cOnce, they say, he was passing by when a dog was\nbeing ill-treated. \u2018Stop!\u2019 he said, \u2018don\u2019t hit it! It is the soul of a\nfriend! I knew it when I heard its voice.\u2019\u201d[265] We are also told that\nhe opposed the views of Thales and Pythagoras, and attacked Epimenides,\nwhich is likely enough, though no fragments of the kind have come down\nto us.[266] His chief importance lies in the fact that he was the author\nof the quarrel between philosophy and poetry which culminated in Plato\u2019s\n_Republic_.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n See fr. 7 (= 18 Karst.), _ap._ Diog. viii. 36 (R. P. 88).\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). We know that Xenophanes referred to the\n prediction of an eclipse by Thales (Chap. I. p. 41, _n._ 62). We shall\n see that his own view of the sun was hardly consistent with the\n possibility of such a prediction, so it may have been in connexion\n with this that he opposed him.\n\nIt is not easy to determine the date of Xenophanes. Timaios said he was\na contemporary of Hieron and Epicharmos, and he certainly seems to have\nplayed a part in the anecdotical romance of Hieron\u2019s court which amused\nthe Greeks of the fourth century much as that of Croesus and the Seven\nWise Men amused those of the fifth.[267] As Hieron reigned from 478 to\n467 B.C., that would make it impossible to date the birth of Xenophanes\nmuch earlier than 570 B.C., even if we suppose him to have lived till\nthe age of a hundred. On the other hand, both Sextus and Clement say\nthat Apollodoros gave Ol. XL. (620-616 B.C.) as the date of his birth,\nand the former adds that his days were prolonged till the time of\nDareios and Cyrus.[268] Again, Diogenes, whose information on such\nmatters mostly comes from Apollodoros, says that he flourished in Ol.\nLX. (540-537 B.C.), and Diels holds that Apollodoros really said\nso.[269] However that may be, it is evident that the date 540 B.C. is\nbased on the assumption that he went to Elea in the year of its\nfoundation, and is, therefore, a mere combination.[270]\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n Timaios _ap._ Clem. _Strom._ i. p. 533 (R. P. 95). There is only one\n anecdote which actually represents Xenophanes in conversation with\n Hieron (Plut. _Reg. apophth._ 175 e), but it is natural to understand\n Arist. _Met._ \u0393, 5. 1010 a 4 as an allusion to a remark made by\n Epicharmos to him. Aristotle has more than one anecdote about\n Xenophanes, and it seems most likely that he derived them from the\n romance of which Xenophon\u2019s _Strom._ is an echo.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n Clem., _loc. cit._; Sext. _Strom._ i. 257. The mention of Cyrus is\n confirmed by Hipp. _Strom._ i. 94. Diels thinks that Dareios was\n mentioned first for metrical reasons; but no one has satisfactorily\n explained why Cyrus should be mentioned at all, unless the early date\n was intended. On the whole subject, see Jacoby, pp. 204 sqq., who is\n certainly wrong in supposing that \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n can mean \u201cduring the times of Dareios and Cyrus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n _Strom._ xxxi. p. 22. He assumes an early corruption of N into M. As\n Apollodoros gave the Athenian archon, and not the Olympiad, we might\n with more probability suppose a confusion due to two archons having\n the same name.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left Phokaia\n (Herod. i. 164 sqq.) its date is just 540-39 B.C. Cf. the way in which\n Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi (\u00a7 98).\n\nWhat we do know for certain is that Xenophanes had led a wandering life\nfrom the age of twenty-five, and that he was still alive and making\npoetry at the age of ninety-two. He says himself (fr. 8 = 24 Karst.; R.\nP. 97):\u2014\n\n There are by this time threescore years and seven that have tossed my\n careworn soul[271] up and down the land of Hellas; and there were then\n five-and-twenty years from my birth, if I can say aught truly about\n these matters.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Bergk (_Litteraturgesch._ ii. p. 418, n. 23) took \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 here to mean\n the literary work of Xenophanes, but it is surely an anachronism to\n suppose that at this date it could be used like the Latin _cura_.\n\nIt is tempting to suppose that in this passage Xenophanes was referring\nto the conquest of Ionia by Harpagos, and that he is, in fact, answering\nthe question asked in another poem[272] (fr. 22 = 17 Karst.; R. P. 95\na):\u2014\n\n This is the sort of thing we should say by the fireside in the\n winter-time, as we lie on soft couches after a good meal, drinking\n sweet wine and crunching chickpeas: \u201cOf what country are you, and how\n old are you, good sir? And how old were you when the Mede appeared?\u201d\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n It was certainly another poem; for it is in hexameters while the\n preceding fragment is in elegiacs.\n\nWe cannot, however, be sure of this, and we must be content with what\nis, after all, for our purpose the main fact, namely, that he refers to\nPythagoras in the past tense, and is in turn so referred to by\nHerakleitos.[273]\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n Xenophanes, fr. 7 (above, p. 124, _n._ 265); Herakleitos, frs. 16, 17\n (below, p. 147).\n\nTheophrastos said that Xenophanes had \u201cheard\u201d Anaximander,[274] and we\nshall see that he was certainly acquainted with the Ionian cosmology.\nWhen driven from his native city, he lived in Sicily, chiefly, we are\ntold, at Zankle and Katana.[275] Like Archilochos before him, he\nunburdened his soul in elegies and satires, which he recited at the\nbanquets where, we may suppose, the refugees tried to keep up the usages\nof good Ionian society. The statement that he was a rhapsode has no\nfoundation at all.[276] The singer of elegies was no professional like\nthe rhapsode, but the social equal of his listeners. In his\nninety-second year he was still, we have seen, leading a wandering life,\nwhich is hardly consistent with the statement that he settled at Elea\nand founded a school there, especially if we are to think of him as\nspending his last days at Hieron\u2019s court. It is quite probable that he\nvisited Elea, and it is just possible that he wrote a poem of two\nthousand hexameters on the foundation of that city, which was naturally\na subject of interest to all the Ionic _\u00e9migr\u00e9s_.[277] But it is very\nremarkable that no ancient writer expressly says that he ever was at\nElea, and the only thing besides the doubtful poem referred to which\nconnects him with it is a single anecdote of Aristotle\u2019s as to the\nanswer he gave the Eleates when they asked whether they should sacrifice\nto Leukothea and lament her or not. \u201cIf you think her a goddess,\u201d he\nsaid, \u201cdo not lament her; if not, do not sacrifice to her.\u201d That is\nabsolutely all, and it is only an apophthegm.[278] It is strange there\nshould be no more if Xenophanes had really found a home at last in the\nPhokaian colony.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 96 a).\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 96). The use of the old name Zankle, instead of\n the later Messene, points to an early source for this\n statement\u2014probably the elegies of Xenophanes himself.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97) says \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, which is a\n very different thing. Nothing is said anywhere of his reciting Homer,\n and the word \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is used quite loosely for \u201cto recite.\u201d Gomperz\u2019s\n imaginative picture (_Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 155) has no further\n support than this single word. Nor is there any trace of Homeric\n influence in the fragments. They are in the usual elegiac style.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n The statement is justly suspected by Hiller (_Rh. Mus._ xxxiii. p.\n 529) to come from Lobon of Argos, who provided the Seven Wise Men,\n Epimenides, etc., with stichometric notices, all duly recorded in\n Diogenes. Even if true, however, it proves nothing.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n Arist. _Rhet._ \u0392, 26. 1400 b 5 (R. P. 98 a). Anecdotes like this are\n really anonymous. Plutarch transfers the story to Egypt (_P. Ph. Fr._\n p. 22, \u00a7 13), and others tell it of Herakleitos. It is hardly safe to\n build on such a foundation.\n\n[Sidenote: Poems.]\n\n56. According to a notice preserved in Diogenes, Xenophanes wrote in\nhexameters and also composed elegies and iambics against Homer and\nHesiod.[279] No good authority says anything about his having written a\nphilosophical poem.[280] Simplicius tells us he had never met with the\nverses about the earth stretching infinitely downwards (fr. 28),[281]\nand this means that the Academy possessed no copy of such a poem, which\nwould be very strange if it had ever existed. Simplicius was able to\nfind the complete works of much smaller men. Nor does internal evidence\nlend any support to the view that he wrote a philosophical poem. Diels\nrefers about twenty-eight lines to it, but they would all come in quite\nas naturally in his attacks on Homer and Hesiod, as I have endeavoured\nto show. It is also significant that a considerable number of them are\nderived from commentators on Homer.[282] It seems probable, then, that\nXenophanes expressed his theological and philosophical views\nincidentally in his satires. That would be quite in the manner of the\ntime, as we can see from the remains of Epicharmos.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). The word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is a reminiscence of\n Timon, fr. 60; Diels, \u039e\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n The oldest reference to a poem \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 is in the Geneva scholium\n on _Il._ xxi. 196 (quoting fr. 30), and this goes back to Krates of\n Mallos. We must remember, however, that such titles are of later date\n than Xenophanes, and he had been given a place among philosophers long\n before the time of Krates. All we can say, therefore, is that the\n Pergamene librarians gave the title \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 to some poem of\n Xenophanes.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n Simpl. _de Caelo_, p. 522, 7 (R. P. 97 b). It is true that two of our\n fragments (25 and 26) are preserved by Simplicius, but he got them\n from Alexander. Probably they were quoted by Theophrastos; for it is\n plain that Alexander had no first-hand knowledge of Xenophanes either.\n If he had, he would not have been taken in by _M.X.G._ (See p. 138,\n _n._ 305.)\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n Three fragments (27, 31, 33) come from the _Homeric Allegories_, two\n (30, 32) are from Homeric scholia.\n\nThe satires themselves are called _Silloi_ by late writers, and this\nname may go back to Xenophanes himself. It is also possible, however,\nthat it originates in the fact that Timon of Phleious, the\n\u201csillographer\u201d (_c._ 259 B.C.), put much of his satire upon philosophers\ninto the mouth of Xenophanes. Only one iambic line has been preserved,\nand that is immediately followed by a hexameter (fr. 14 = 5 Karst.).\nThis suggests that Xenophanes inserted iambic lines among his hexameters\nin the manner of the _Margites_, which would be a very natural thing for\nhim to do.[283]\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n Cf. Wilamowitz, Progr. Gryphiswald. 1880.\n\n[Sidenote: The fragments.]\n\n57. I give all the fragments of any importance according to the text and\narrangement of Diels.\n\n ELEGIES\n\n (1)\n\n Now is the floor clean, and the hands and cups of all; one sets\n twisted garlands on our heads, another hands us fragrant ointment on a\n salver. The mixing bowls stand ready, full of gladness, and there is\n more wine at hand that promises never to leave us in the lurch, soft\n and smelling of flowers in the jars. In the midst the frankincense\n sends up its holy smoke, and there is cold water, sweet and clean.\n Brown loaves are set before us and a lordly table laden with cheese\n and rich honey. The altar in the midst is clustered round with\n flowers; song and revel fill the halls.\n\n But first it is meet that men should hymn the god with joyful song,\n with holy tales and pure words; then after libation and prayer made\n that we may have strength to do right\u2014for that is in truth the better\n way\u2014no sin is it to drink as much as a man can take and get home\n without an attendant, so he be not stricken in years. And above all\n men is he to be praised who after drinking gives goodly proof of\n himself in the trial of skill, as memory and voice will serve him. Let\n him not sing of Titans and Giants\u2014those fictions of the men of old\u2014nor\n of turbulent civil broils in which is no good thing at all; but ever\n give heedful reverence to the gods.\n\n (2)\n\n What if a man win victory in swiftness of foot, or in the\n _pentathlon_, at Olympia, where is the precinct of Zeus by Pisa\u2019s\n springs, or in wrestling,\u2014what if by cruel boxing or that fearful\n sport men call _pankration_ he become more glorious in the citizens\u2019\n eyes, and win a place of honour in the sight of all at the games, his\n food at the public cost from the State, and a gift to be an heirloom\n for him,\u2014what if he conquer in the chariot-race,\u2014he will not deserve\n all this for his portion so much as I do. Far better is our art than\n the strength of men and of horses! These are but thoughtless\n judgments, nor is it fitting to set strength before our art. Even if\n there arise a mighty boxer among a people, or one great in the\n _pentathlon_ or at wrestling, or one excelling in swiftness of\n foot\u2014and that stands in honour before all tasks of men at the\n games\u2014the city would be none the better governed for that. It is but\n little joy a city gets of it if a man conquer at the games by Pisa\u2019s\n banks; it is not this that makes fat the store-houses of a city.\n\n (3)\n\n They learnt dainty and unprofitable ways from the Lydians, so long as\n they were free from hateful tyranny; they went to the market-place\n with cloaks of purple dye, not less than a thousand of them all told,\n vainglorious and proud of their comely tresses, reeking with fragrance\n from cunning salves.\n\n\n SATIRES\n\n (10)\n\n Since all at first have learnt according to Homer....\n\n (11)\n\n Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame\n and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings\n of one another. R. P. 99.\n\n (12)\n\n They have uttered many, many lawless deeds of the gods, stealings and\n adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. _ib._\n\n (14)\n\n But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have\n clothes[284] like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.\n\n (15)\n\n Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with\n their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint\n the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their\n bodies in the image of their several kinds. R. P. _ib._\n\n (16)\n\n The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say\n theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. 100 b.\n\n (18)\n\n The gods have not revealed all things to men from the beginning, but\n by seeking they find in time what is better. R. P. 104 b.\n\n (23)\n\n One god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form like unto\n mortals nor in thought.... R. P. 100.\n\n (24)\n\n He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over. R. P. 102.\n\n (25)\n\n But without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his mind. R.\n P. 108 b.\n\n (26)\n\n And he abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at all; nor doth\n it befit him to go about now hither now thither. R. P. 110 a.\n\n (27)\n\n All things come from the earth, and in earth all things end. R. P. 103\n a.\n\n (28)\n\n This limit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with the\n air;[285] below it reaches down without a limit. R. P. 103.\n\n (29)\n\n All things are earth and water that come into being and grow. R. P.\n 103.\n\n (30)\n\n The sea is the source of water and the source of wind; for neither in\n the clouds (would there be any blasts of wind blowing forth) from\n within without the mighty sea, nor rivers\u2019 streams nor rain-water from\n the sky. The mighty sea is father of clouds and of winds and of\n rivers.[286] R. P. 103.\n\n (31)\n\n The sun swinging over[287] the earth and warming it....\n\n (32)\n\n She that they call Iris is a cloud likewise, purple, scarlet and green\n to behold. R. P. 103.\n\n (33)\n\n For we all are born of earth and water. R. P. _ib._\n\n (34)\n\n There never was nor will be a man who has certain knowledge about the\n gods and about all the things I speak of. Even if he should chance to\n say the complete truth, yet he himself knows not that it is so. But\n all may have their fancy. R. P. 104.\n\n (35)\n\n Let these be taken as fancies[288] something like the truth. R. P. 104\n a.\n\n (36)\n\n All of them[289] that are visible for mortals to behold.\n\n (37)\n\n And in some caves water drips....\n\n (38)\n\n If god had not made brown honey, men would think figs far sweeter than\n they do.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n I formerly, with Zeller, preferred Theodoret\u2019s reading \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, but\n both Clement and Eusebios have \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1, and Theodoret is entirely\n dependent on them.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Reading \u1f20\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6 with Diels.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n This fragment has been recovered in its entirety from the Geneva\n scholia on Homer (see _Arch._ iv. p. 652). The words in brackets are\n added by Diels. See also Praechter, \u201cZu Xenophanes\u201d (_Philol._ xviii.\n p. 308).\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n The word is \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. This is quoted from the _Allegories_ as an\n explanation of the name Hyperion, and doubtless Xenophanes so meant\n it.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Reading \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 with Wilamowitz.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n As Diels suggests, this probably refers to the stars, which Xenophanes\n held to be clouds.\n\n[Sidenote: The heavenly bodies.]\n\n58. The intention of one of these fragments (fr. 32) is perfectly clear.\n\u201cIris too\u201d is a cloud, and we may infer that the same thing had just\nbeen said of the sun, moon, and stars; for the doxographers tell us that\nthese were all explained as \u201cclouds ignited by motion.\u201d[290] To the same\ncontext clearly belongs the explanation of the St. Elmo\u2019s fire which\nAetios has preserved. \u201cThe things like stars which appear on ships,\u201d we\nare told, \u201cwhich some call the Dioskouroi, are little clouds made\nluminous by motion.\u201d[291] In the doxographers this explanation is\nrepeated with trifling variations under the head of moon, stars, comets,\nlightning, shooting stars, and so forth, which gives the appearance of a\nsystematic cosmology.[292] But the system is due to the arrangement of\nthe work of Theophrastos, and not to Xenophanes; for it is obvious that\na very few hexameters added to those we possess would amply account for\nthe whole doxography.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n Cf. Diels _ad loc._ (_P. Ph. Fr._ p. 44), \u201cut Sol et cetera astra,\n quae cum in nebulas evanescerent, deorum simul opinio casura erat.\u201d\n Cf. _Arch._ x. p. 533.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Aet. ii. 18, 1 (_Dox._ p. 347), \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nWhat we hear of the sun presents some difficulties. We are told, on the\none hand, that it too was an ignited cloud; but this can hardly be\nright. The evaporation of the sea from which clouds arise is distinctly\nsaid to be due to the sun\u2019s heat. Theophrastos stated that the sun,\naccording to Xenophanes, was a collection of sparks from the moist\nexhalation; but even this leaves the exhalation itself unexplained.[293]\nThat, however, matters little, if the chief aim of Xenophanes was to\ndiscredit the anthropomorphic gods, rather than to give a scientific\ntheory of the heavenly bodies. The important thing is that Helios too is\na temporary phenomenon. The sun does not go round the earth, as\nAnaximander taught, but straight on, and the appearance of a circular\npath is solely due to its increasing distance. So it is not the same sun\nthat rises next morning, but a new one altogether; while the old one\n\u201ctumbles into a hole\u201d when it comes to certain uninhabited regions of\nthe earth. Besides that, there are many suns and moons, one of each for\nevery region of the earth.[294] It is obvious that things of that kind\ncannot be gods.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n The passages from Aetios are collected in _P. Ph. Fr._ pp. 32 sqq.\n (_Vors._ p. 42).\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Aet. ii. 20, 3 (_Dox._ p. 348), \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Aet. ii. 24, 9 (_Dox._ p. 355). \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. It is\n clear that in this notice \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f15\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd has been erroneously\n substituted for \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, as it has also in Aet. ii. 24, 4 (_Dox._ p.\n 354).\n\nThe vigorous expression \u201ctumbling into a hole\u201d[295] seems clearly to\ncome from the verses of Xenophanes himself, and there are others of a\nsimilar kind, which we must suppose were quoted by Theophrastos. The\nstars go out in the daytime, but glow again at night \u201clike charcoal\nembers.\u201d[296] The sun is of some use in producing the world and the\nliving creatures in it, but the moon \u201cdoes no work in the boat.\u201d[297]\nSuch expressions can only be meant to make the heavenly bodies appear\nridiculous, and it will therefore be well to ask whether the other\nsupposed cosmological fragments can be interpreted on the same\nprinciple.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n That this is the meaning of \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 appears sufficiently\n from the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n Aet. ii. 13, 14 (_Dox._ p. 343), \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Aet. ii. 30, 8 (_Dox._ p. 362), \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, The verb \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd means \u201cto cork.\u201d Cf.\n Aristophanes, _Pax_, 1306.\n\n[Sidenote: Earth and water.]\n\n59. In fr. 29 Xenophanes says that \u201call things are earth and water,\u201d and\nHippolytos has preserved the account given by Theophrastos of the\ncontext in which this occurred. It was as follows:\u2014\n\n Xenophanes said that a mixture of the earth with the sea is taking\n place, and that it is being gradually dissolved by the moisture. He\n says that he has the following proofs of this. Shells are found in\n midland districts and on hills, and he says that in the quarries at\n Syracuse has been found the imprint of a fish and of seaweed, at Paros\n the form of an anchovy in the depth of the stone, and at Malta flat\n impressions of all marine animals. These, he says, were produced when\n all things were formerly mud, and the outlines were dried in the mud.\n All human beings are destroyed when the earth has been carried down\n into the sea and turned to mud. This change takes place for all the\n worlds.\u2014Hipp. _Ref._ i. 14 (R. P. 103 a).\n\nThis is, of course, the theory of Anaximander, and we may perhaps credit\nhim rather than Xenophanes with the observations of fossils.[298] Most\nremarkable of all, however, is the statement that this change applies to\n\u201call the worlds.\u201d It really seems impossible to doubt that Theophrastos\nattributed a belief in \u201cinnumerable worlds\u201d to Xenophanes. As we have\nseen already, Aetios includes him in his list of those who held this\ndoctrine, and Diogenes ascribes it to him also.[299] In this place,\nHippolytos seems to take it for granted. We shall also find, however,\nthat in another connexion he said the World or God was one. If our\ninterpretation of him is correct, there is no difficulty here. The main\npoint is that, so far from being a primeval goddess, and \u201ca sure seat\nfor all things ever,\u201d Gaia too is a passing appearance. That belongs to\nthe attack upon Hesiod, and, if in this connexion Xenophanes spoke, with\nAnaximander, of \u201cinnumerable worlds,\u201d while elsewhere he said that God\nor the World was one, that is probably connected with a still better\nattested contradiction which we have now to examine.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n There is an interesting note on these in Gomperz\u2019s _Greek Thinkers_\n (Eng. trans. i. p. 551). I have translated his conjecture \u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n instead of the MS. \u03c6\u03c9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, as this is said to involve a pal\u00e6ontological\n impossibility, and impressions of fucoids are found, not indeed in the\n quarries of Syracuse, but near them. It is said also that there are no\n fossils in Paros, so the anchovy must have been an imaginary one.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n Aet. ii. 1, 2 (_Dox._, p. 327); Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is\n true, of course, that this passage of Diogenes comes from the\n biographical compendium (_Dox._ p. 168); but, for all that, it is a\n serious matter to deny the Theophrastean origin of a statement found\n in Aetios, Hippolytos, and Diogenes.\n\n[Sidenote: Finite or infinite?]\n\n60. Aristotle tried without success to discover from the poems of\nXenophanes whether he regarded the world as finite or infinite. \u201cHe made\nno clear pronouncement on the subject,\u201d he tells us.[300] Theophrastos,\non the other hand, decided that he regarded it as spherical and finite\nbecause he said it was \u201cequal every way.\u201d[301] This, however, leads to\nvery serious difficulties. We have seen already that Xenophanes said the\nsun went right on to infinity, and this agrees with his view of the\nearth as an infinitely extended plain. Still more difficult to reconcile\nwith the idea of a spherical and finite world is the statement of fr. 28\nthat, while the earth has an upper limit which we see, it has no limit\nbelow. This is attested by Aristotle, who speaks of the earth being\n\u201cinfinitely rooted,\u201d and adds that Empedokles criticised Xenophanes for\nholding this view.[302] It further appears from the fragment of\nEmpedokles quoted by Aristotle that Xenophanes said the vast Air\nextended infinitely upwards.[303] We are therefore bound to try to find\nroom for an infinite earth and an infinite air in a spherical and finite\nworld! That comes of trying to find science in satire. If, on the other\nhand, we regard these statements from the same point of view as those\nabout the heavenly bodies, we shall at once see what they most probably\nmean. The story of Ouranos and Gaia was always the chief scandal of the\n_Theogony_, and the infinite air gets rid of Ouranos altogether. As to\nthe earth stretching infinitely downwards, that gets rid of Tartaros,\nwhich Homer described as situated at the bottommost limit of earth and\nsea, as far beneath Hades as heaven is above the earth.[304] This is\npure conjecture, of course; but, if it is even possible, we are entitled\nto disbelieve that such startling contradictions occurred in a\ncosmological poem.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 23 (R. P. 101), \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n This is given as an inference by Simpl. _Phys._ p. 23, 18 (R. P. 108\n b), \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. It does not merely come from _M.X.G._\n (R. P. 108), \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Hippolytos has it\n too (_Ref._ i. 14; R. P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos.\n Timon of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way; for he makes\n him call the One \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 (fr. 60, Diels = 40 Wachsm.; R. P. 102\n a).\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 294 a 21 (R. P. 103 b).\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n I take \u03b4\u03b1\u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 as an attribute and \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 as predicate to both\n subjects.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n _Il._ viii. 13-16, 478-481, especially the words \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f35\u03ba\u03b7\u03b1\u03b9 | \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _Iliad_ viii. must have\n seemed a particularly bad book to Xenophanes.\n\nA more subtle explanation of the difficulty commended itself to the late\nPeripatetic who wrote an account of the Eleatic school, part of which is\nstill extant in the Aristotelian corpus, and is generally known now as\nthe treatise on _Melissos, Xenophanes, and Gorgias_.[305] He said that\nXenophanes declared the world to be neither finite nor infinite, and he\ncomposed a series of arguments in support of this thesis, to which he\nadded another like it, namely, that the world is neither in motion nor\nat rest. This has introduced endless confusion into our sources.\nAlexander used this treatise as well as the great work of Theophrastos,\nand Simplicius supposed the quotations from it to be from Theophrastos\ntoo. Having no copy of the poems he was completely baffled, and until\nrecently all accounts of Xenophanes were vitiated by the same confusion.\nIt may even be suggested that, but for this, we should have heard very\nlittle of the \u201cphilosophy of Xenophanes,\u201d a way of speaking which is in\nthe main a survival from the days before this scholastic exercise was\nrecognised as having no authority.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n In Bekker\u2019s edition this treatise bears the title \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0393\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, but the best MS. gives as the titles of\n its three sections: (1) \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, (2) \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, (3) \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u0393\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so\n the whole treatise is now entitled _De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia_\n (_M.X.G._). It has been edited by Apelt in the Teubner Series, and\n more recently by Diels (_Abh. der k. Preuss. Akad._ 1900), who has\n also given the section dealing with Xenophanes in _P. Ph. Fr._ pp.\n 24-29 (_Vors._ pp. 36 sqq.). He has now withdrawn the view maintained\n in _Dox._ p. 108 that the work belongs to the third century B.C., and\n holds that it was _a Peripatetico eclectico (i.e. sceptica, platonica,\n stoica admiscente) circa Christi natalem conscriptum_. If that is so,\n there is no reason to doubt, as I formerly did, that the second\n section is really meant to deal with Xenophanes. The writer would have\n no first-hand knowledge of his poems, and the order in which the\n philosophers are discussed is that of the passage in the _Metaphysics_\n which suggested the whole thing. It is possible that a section on\n Parmenides preceded what we now have.\n\n[Sidenote: God and the world.]\n\n61. In the passage of the _Metaphysics_ just referred to, Aristotle\nspeaks of Xenophanes as \u201cthe first partisan of the One,\u201d[306] and the\ncontext shows that he means to suggest he was the first of the Eleatics.\nWe have seen already that the certain facts of his life make it very\nunlikely that he settled at Elea and founded a school there, and it is\nprobable that, as usual in such cases, Aristotle is simply reproducing\ncertain statements of Plato. At any rate, Plato had spoken of the\nEleatics as the \u201cpartisans of the Whole,\u201d[307] and he had also spoken of\nthe school as \u201cstarting with Xenophanes and even earlier.\u201d[308] The last\nwords, however, show clearly enough what he meant. Just as he called the\nHerakleiteans \u201cfollowers of Homer and still more ancient teachers,\u201d[309]\nso he attached the Eleatic school to Xenophanes and still earlier\nauthorities. We have seen in other instances how these playful and\nironical remarks of Plato were taken seriously by his successors, and we\nneed not let this fresh instance of the same thing influence our general\nview of Xenophanes unduly.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 21 (R. P. 101), \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. The verb\n \u1f11\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and the like. It is not likely that it means\n \u201cto unify.\u201d Aristotle could easily have said \u1f11\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 if he had meant\n that.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n _Tht._ 181 a 6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The noun \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 has no other\n meaning than \u201cpartisan.\u201d There is no verb \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u201cto make\n stationary,\u201d and such a formation would be against all analogy. The\n derivation \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 appears first in Sext.\n _Math._ x. 46, from which passage we may infer that Aristotle used the\n word, not that he gave the derivation.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n _Soph._ 242 d 5 (R. P. 101 b). If the passage implies that Xenophanes\n settled at Elea, it equally implies this of his predecessors. But Elea\n was not founded till Xenophanes was in the prime of life.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n _Tht._ 179 e 3, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f24, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. In this passage, Homer stands to the Herakleiteans in\n exactly the same relation as Xenophanes does to the Eleatics in the\n _Sophist._\n\nAristotle goes on to tell us that Xenophanes, \u201creferring to the whole\nworld,[310] said the One was god.\u201d This clearly alludes to frs. 23-26,\nwhere all human attributes are denied of a god who is said to be one and\n\u201cthe greatest among gods and men.\u201d It may be added that these verses\ngain very much in point if we may think of them as closely connected\nwith frs. 11-16, instead of referring the one set of verses to the\nSatires and the other to a cosmological poem. It was probably in the\nsame context that Xenophanes called the world or god \u201cequal every\nway\u201d[311] and denied that it breathed.[312] The statement that, there is\nno mastership among the gods[313] also goes very well with fr. 26. A god\nhas no wants, nor is it fitting for one god to be the servant of others,\nlike Iris and Hermes in Homer.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n _Met._ 981 b 24. The words cannot mean \u201cgazing up at the whole\n heavens,\u201d or anything of that sort. They are taken as I take them by\n Bonitz (_im Hinblicke auf den ganzen Himmel_) and Zeller (_im Hinblick\n auf das Weltganze_). The word \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd had become much too\n colourless to bear the other meaning, and \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, as we know, means\n what was later called \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n See above, p. 137, _n._ 301.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c), \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. See above, p. 120, _n._ 252.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 4, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2\n \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Monotheism or polytheism.]\n\n62. That this \u201cgod\u201d is just the world, Aristotle tells us, and the use\nof the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is quite in accordance with Anaximander\u2019s. Xenophanes\nregarded it as sentient, though without any special organs of sense, and\nit sways all things by the thought of its mind. He also calls it \u201cone\ngod,\u201d and, if that is monotheism, then Xenophanes was a monotheist,\nthough this is surely not how the word is generally understood. The fact\nis that the expression \u201cone god\u201d wakens all sorts of associations in our\nmind which did not exist at all for the Greeks of this time. His\ncontemporaries would have been more likely to call Xenophanes an atheist\nthan anything else. As Eduard Meyer excellently says: \u201cIn Greece the\nquestion of one god or gods many hardly plays any part. Whether the\ndivine power is thought of as a unity or a plurality, is irrelevant in\ncomparison with the question whether it exists at all, and how its\nnature and its relation to the world is to be understood.\u201d[314]\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. \u00a7 466.\n\nOn the other hand, it is wrong to say with Freudenthal that Xenophanes\nwas in any sense a polytheist.[315] That he should use the language of\npolytheism in his elegies is only what we should expect, and the other\nreferences to \u201cgods\u201d can be best explained as incidental to his attack\non the anthropomorphic gods of Homer and Hesiod. In one case,\nFreudenthal has pressed a proverbial way of speaking too hard.[316]\nLeast of all can we admit that Xenophanes allowed the existence of\nsubordinate or departmental gods; for it was just the existence of such\nthat he was chiefly concerned to deny. At the same time, I cannot help\nthinking that Freudenthal was more nearly right than Wilamowitz, who\nsays that Xenophanes \u201cupheld the only real monotheism that has ever\nexisted upon earth.\u201d[317] Diels, I fancy, comes nearer the mark, when he\ncalls it a \u201csomewhat narrow pantheism.\u201d[318] But all these views would\nhave surprised Xenophanes himself about equally. He was really Goethe\u2019s\n_Weltkind_, with prophets to right and left of him, and he would have\nsmiled if he had known that one day he was to be regarded as a\ntheologian.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n Freudenthal, _Die Theologie des Xenophanes_.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n Xenophanes calls his god \u201cgreatest among gods and men,\u201d but this is\n simply a case of \u201cpolar expression,\u201d to which parallels will be found\n in Wilamowitz\u2019s note to the _Herakles_, v. 1106. Cf. especially the\n statement of Herakleitos (fr. 20) that \u201cno one of gods or men\u201d made\n the world.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n _Griechische Literatur_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n _Parmenides Lehrgedicht_, p. 9.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS\n\n\n[Sidenote: Life of Herakleitos.]\n\n63. Herakleitos of Ephesos, son of Blyson, is said to have \u201cflourished\u201d\nin Ol. LXIX. (504/3-501/0 B.C.);[319] that is to say, just in the middle\nof the reign of Dareios, with whom several traditions connected\nhim.[320] We shall see that Parmenides was assigned to the same\nOlympiad, though for another reason (\u00a7 84). It is more important,\nhowever, for our purpose to notice that, while Herakleitos refers to\nPythagoras and Xenophanes by name and in the past tense (fr. 16), he is\nin turn referred to by Parmenides (fr. 6). These references are\nsufficient to mark his proper place in the history of philosophy. Zeller\nholds, indeed, that he cannot have published his work till after 478\nB.C., on the ground that the expulsion of his friend Hermodoros, alluded\nto in fr. 114, could not have taken place before the downfall of Persian\nrule. If that were so, it might be hard to see how Parmenides could have\nknown the views of Herakleitos; but there is surely no difficulty in\nsupposing that the Ephesians may have sent one of their foremost\ncitizens into banishment at a time when they were still paying tribute\nto the Great King. The Persians never took their internal\nself-government from the Ionian cities, and the spurious _Letters_ of\nHerakleitos show the accepted view was that the expulsion of Hermodoros\ntook place during the reign of Dareios.[321]\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n Diog. ix. 1 (R. P. 29), no doubt from Apollodoros through some\n intermediate authority. Jacoby, pp. 227 sqq.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Bernays, _Die Heraklitischen Briefe_, pp. 13 sqq.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n Bernays, _op. cit._ pp. 20 sqq.\n\nSotion said that Herakleitos was a disciple of Xenophanes,[322] which is\nnot probable; for Xenophanes seems to have left Ionia for ever before\nHerakleitos was born. More likely he was not a disciple of any one; but\nit is clear, at the same time, that he was acquainted both with the\nMilesian cosmology and with the poems of Xenophanes. He also knew\nsomething of the theories taught by Pythagoras (fr. 17).\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n Sotion _ap._ Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 29 c).\n\nOf the life of Herakleitos we really know nothing, except, perhaps, that\nhe belonged to the ancient royal house and resigned the nominal position\nof Basileus in favour of his brother.[323] The origin of the other\nstatements bearing on it is quite transparent.[324]\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n See Patin, _Heraklits Einheitslehre_, pp. 3 sqq. Herakleitos said (fr.\n 68) that it was death to souls to become water; and we are told\n accordingly that he died of dropsy. He said (fr. 114) that the\n Ephesians should leave their city to their children, and (fr. 79) that\n Time was a child playing draughts. We are therefore told that he\n refused to take any part in public life, and went to play with the\n children in the temple of Artemis. He said (fr. 85) that corpses were\n more fit to be cast out than dung; and we are told that he covered\n himself with dung when attacked with dropsy. Lastly, he is said to\n have argued at great length with his doctors because of fr. 58. For\n these tales see Diog. ix. 3-5, and compare the stories about\n Empedokles discussed in Chap. V. \u00a7 100.\n\n[Sidenote: His book.]\n\n64. We do not know the title of the work of Herakleitos[325]\u2014if, indeed,\nit had one at all\u2014and it is not very easy to form a clear idea of its\ncontents. We are told that it was divided into three discourses: one\ndealing with the universe, one political, and one theological.[326] It\nis not likely that this division is due to Herakleitos himself; all we\ncan infer from the statement is that the work fell naturally into these\nthree parts when the Stoic commentators took their editions of it in\nhand.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n The variety of titles enumerated in Diog. ix. 12 (R. P. 30 b) seems to\n show that none was authentically known. That of \u201cMuses\u201d comes from\n Plato, _Soph._ 242 d 7. The others are mere \u201cmottoes\u201d (Schuster)\n prefixed by Stoic editors, and intended to emphasise their view that\n the subject of the work was ethical or political (Diog. ix. 15; R. P.\n 30 c).\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 30). Bywater has followed this hint in his\n arrangement of the fragments. The three sections are 1-90, 91-97,\n 98-130.\n\nThe style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, and, at a later date,\ngot him the nickname of \u201cthe Dark.\u201d[327] Now the fragments about the\nDelphic god and the Sibyl (frs. 11 and 12) seem to show that he was\nquite conscious of writing an oracular style, and we have to ask why he\ndid so. In the first place, it was the manner of the time.[328] The\nstirring events of the age, and the influence of the religious revival,\ngave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders of thought. Pindar\nand Aischylos have it too. They all feel that they are in some measure\ninspired. It is also the age of great individualities, who are apt to be\nsolitary and disdainful. Herakleitos at least was so. If men cared to\ndig for the gold they might find it (fr. 8); if not, they must be\ncontent with straw (fr. 51). This seems to have been the view taken by\nTheophrastos, who said that the headstrong temperament of Herakleitos\nsometimes led him into incompleteness and inconsistencies of\nstatement.[329] But that is a very different thing from studied\nobscurity and the _disciplina arcani_ sometimes attributed to him; if\nHerakleitos does not go out of his way to make his meaning clear,\nneither does he hide it (fr. 11).\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n R. P. 30 a. The epithet \u1f41 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 is of late date, but Timon of\n Phleious already called him \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 (fr. 43, Diels).\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n See the valuable observations of Diels in the Introduction to his\n _Herakleitos von Ephesos_, pp. iv. sqq.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Cf. Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).\n\n[Sidenote: The fragments.]\n\n65. I give a version of the fragments according to the arrangement of\nMr. Bywater\u2019s exemplary edition.[330]\n\n (1) It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess\n that all things are one.[331] R. P. 40.\n\n (2) Though this Word[332] is true evermore, yet men are as unable to\n understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have\n heard it at all. For, though all things come to pass in accordance\n with this Word, men seem as if they had no experience of them, when\n they make trial of words and deeds such as I set forth, dividing each\n thing according to its nature and showing how it truly is. But other\n men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what\n they do in sleep. R. P. 32.\n\n (3) Fools when they do hear are like the deaf: of them does the saying\n bear witness that they are absent when present. R. P. 31 a.\n\n (4) Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if they have souls that\n understand not their language. R. P. 42.\n\n (5) The many do not take heed of such things as those they meet with,\n nor do they mark them when they are taught, though they think they do.\n\n (6) Knowing not how to listen nor how to speak.\n\n (7) If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it; for it\n is hard to be sought out and difficult.[333]\n\n (8) Those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a little. R. P.\n 44 b.\n\n (10) Nature loves to hide. R. P. 34 f.\n\n (11) The lord whose is the oracle at Delphoi neither utters nor hides\n his meaning, but shows it by a sign. R. P. 30 a.\n\n (12) And the Sibyl, with raving lips uttering things mirthless,\n unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand years with her\n voice, thanks to the god in her. R. P. 30 a.\n\n (13) The things that can be seen, heard, and learned are what I prize\n the most. R. P. 42.\n\n (14) ... bringing untrustworthy witnesses in support of disputed\n points.\n\n (15) The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.[334] R. P. 42 c.\n\n (16) The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else\n would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and\n Hekataios. R. P. 31.\n\n (17) Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised inquiry beyond all other\n men, and choosing out these writings, claimed for his own wisdom what\n was but a knowledge of many things and an art of mischief.[335] R. P.\n 31 a.\n\n (18) Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who\n attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. R. P. 32 b.\n\n (19) Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all\n things are steered through all things. R. P. 40.\n\n (20) This world,[336] which is the same for all, no one of gods or men\n has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living\n Fire, with measures kindling, and measures going out. R. P. 35.[337]\n\n (21) The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea; and half of\n the sea is earth, half whirlwind.[338] ... R. P. 35 b.\n\n (22) All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for all things,\n even as wares for gold and gold for wares. R. P. 35.\n\n (23) It becomes liquid sea, and is measured by the same tale as before\n it became earth.[339] R. P. 39.\n\n (24) Fire is want and surfeit. R. P. 36 a.\n\n (25) Fire lives the death of air,[340] and air lives the death of\n fire; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water. R. P. 37.\n\n (26) Fire in its advance will judge and convict[341] all things. R. P.\n 36 a.\n\n (27) How can one hide from that which never sets?\n\n (28) It is the thunderbolt that steers the course of all things. R. P.\n 35 b.\n\n (29) The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, the Erinyes,\n the handmaids of Justice, will find him out. R. P. 39.\n\n (30) The limit of East and West is the Bear; and opposite the Bear is\n the boundary of bright Zeus.[342]\n\n (31) If there were no sun it would be night, for all the other stars\n could do.[343]\n\n (32) The sun is new every day.\n\n (33) See above, Chap. I. p. 41, _n._ 62.\n\n (34) ... the seasons that bring all things.\n\n (35) Hesiod is most men\u2019s teacher. Men think he knew very many things,\n a man who did not know day or night! They are one.[344] R. P. 39 b.\n\n (36) God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit\n and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire,[345] when it is\n mingled with spices, is named according to the savour of each. R. P.\n 39 b.\n\n (37) If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would\n distinguish them.\n\n (38) Souls smell in Hades. R. P. 46 d.\n\n (39) Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet\n dries, and the parched is moisted.\n\n (40) It scatters and it gathers; it advances and retires.\n\n (41, 42) You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters\n are ever flowing in upon you. R. P. 33.\n\n (43) Homer was wrong in saying: \u201cWould that strife might perish from\n among gods and men!\u201d He did not see that he was praying for the\n destruction of the universe; for, if his prayer were heard, all things\n would pass away.[346]... R. P. 34 d.\n\n (44) War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has\n made gods and some men, some bond and some free. R. P. 34.\n\n (45) Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is\n an attunement of opposite tensions,[347] like that of the bow and the\n lyre. R. P. 34.\n\n (46) It is the opposite which is good for us.[348]\n\n (47) The hidden attunement is better than the open. R. P. 34.\n\n (48) Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest things.\n\n (49) Men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very many things\n indeed.\n\n (50) The straight and the crooked path of the fuller\u2019s comb is one and\n the same.\n\n (51) Asses would rather have straw than gold. R. P. 31 a.\n\n (51_a_) Oxen are happy when they find bitter vetches to eat.[349] R.\n P. 48 b.\n\n (52) The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish can drink it,\n and it is good for them; to men it is undrinkable and destructive. R.\n P. 47 c.\n\n (53) Swine wash in the mire, and barnyard fowls in dust.\n\n (54) ... to delight in the mire.\n\n (55) Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.[350]\n\n (56) Same as 45.\n\n (57) Good and ill are one. R. P. 47 c.\n\n (58) Physicians who cut, burn, stab, and rack the sick, demand a fee\n for it which they do not deserve to get. R. P. 47 c.[351]\n\n (59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is drawn\n together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant.\n The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the\n one.[352]\n\n (60) Men would not have known the name of justice if these things were\n not.[353]\n\n (61) To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some\n things wrong and some right. R. P. 45.\n\n (62) We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and\n that all things come into being and pass away (?) through strife.\n\n (64) All the things we see when awake are death, even as all we see in\n slumber are sleep. R. P. 42 c.[354]\n\n (65) The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to be called by\n the name of Zeus. R. P. 40.\n\n (66) The bow (\u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2) is called life (\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2), but its work is death. R.\n P. 49 a.\n\n (67) Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the one living\n the others\u2019 death and dying the others\u2019 life. R. P. 46.\n\n (68) For it is death to souls to become water, and death to water to\n become earth. But water comes from earth; and from water, soul. R. P.\n 38.\n\n (69) The way up and the way down is one and the same. R. P. 36 d.\n\n (70) In the circumference of a circle the beginning and end are\n common.\n\n (71) You will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling in any\n direction, so deep is the measure of it.[355] R. P. 41 d.\n\n (72) It is pleasure to souls to become moist. R. P. 46 c.\n\n (73) A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless lad, tripping,\n knowing not where he steps, having his soul moist. R. P. 42.\n\n (74-76) The dry soul is the wisest and best.[356] R. P. 42.\n\n (77) Man is kindled and put out like a light in the night-time.\n\n (78) And it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead, awake and\n asleep, young and old; the former are shifted[357] and become the\n latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and become the former. R.\n P. 47.\n\n (79) Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a child\u2019s.\n R. P. 40 a.\n\n (80) I have sought for myself. R. P. 48.\n\n (81) We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and are not.\n R. P. 33 a.\n\n (82) It is a weariness to labour for the same masters and be ruled by\n them.\n\n (83) It rests by changing.\n\n (84) Even the posset separates if it is not stirred.\n\n (85) Corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung.\n\n (86) When they are born, they wish to live and to meet with their\n dooms\u2014or rather to rest\u2014and they leave children behind them to meet\n with their dooms in turn.\n\n (87-89) A man may be a grandfather in thirty years.\n\n (90) Those who are asleep are fellow-workers....\n\n (91_a_) Thought is common to all.\n\n (91_b_) Those who speak with understanding must hold fast to what is\n common to all as a city holds fast to its law, and even more strongly.\n For all human laws are fed by the one divine law. It prevails as much\n as it will, and suffices for all things with something to spare. R. P.\n 43.\n\n (92) So we must follow the common,[358] yet the many live as if they\n had a wisdom of their own. R. P. 44.\n\n (93) They are estranged from that with which they have most constant\n intercourse.[359] R. P. 32 b.\n\n (94) It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep.\n\n (95) The waking have one common world, but the sleeping turn aside\n each into a world of his own.\n\n (96) The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has. R. P. 45.\n\n (97) Man is called a baby by God, even as a child by a man. R. P. 45.\n\n (98, 99) The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most\n beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.\n\n (100) The people must fight for its law as for its walls. R. P. 43 b.\n\n (101) Greater deaths win greater portions. R. P. 49 a.\n\n (102) Gods and men honour those who are slain in battle. R. P. 49 a.\n\n (103) Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a house on fire. R.\n P. 49 a.\n\n (104) It is not good for men to get all they wish to get. It is\n sickness that makes health pleasant; evil,[360] good; hunger, plenty;\n weariness, rest. R. P. 48 b.\n\n (105-107) It is hard to fight with one\u2019s heart\u2019s desire.[361] Whatever\n it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul. R. P. 49 a.\n\n (108, 109) It is best to hide folly; but it is hard in times of\n relaxation, over our cups.\n\n (110) And it is law, too, to obey the counsel of one. R. P. 49 a.\n\n (111) For what thought or wisdom have they? They follow the poets and\n take the crowd as their teacher, knowing not that there are many bad\n and few good. For even the best of them choose one thing above all\n others, immortal glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted\n like beasts.[362] R. P. 31 a.\n\n (112) In Priene lived Bias, son of Teutamas, who is of more account\n than the rest. (He said, \u201cMost men are bad.\u201d)\n\n (113) One is ten thousand to me, if he be the best. R. P. 31 a.\n\n (114) The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every grown man\n of them, and leave the city to beardless lads; for they have cast out\n Hermodoros, the best man among them, saying, \u201cWe will have none who is\n best among us; if there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among\n others.\u201d R. P. 29 b.\n\n (115) Dogs bark at every one they do not know. R. P. 31 a.\n\n (116) ... (The wise man) is not known because of men\u2019s want of belief.\n\n (117) The fool is fluttered at every word. R. P. 44 b.\n\n (118) The most esteemed of them knows but fancies;[363] yet of a truth\n justice shall overtake the artificers of lies and the false witnesses.\n\n (119) Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped, and\n Archilochos likewise. R. P. 31.\n\n (120) One day is like any other.\n\n (121) Man\u2019s character is his fate.[364]\n\n (122) There awaits men when they die such things as they look not for\n nor dream of. R. P. 46 d.\n\n (123) ... [365]that they rise up and become the wakeful guardians of\n the quick and dead. R. P. 46 d.\n\n (124) Night-walkers, Magians, priests of Bakchos and priestesses of\n the wine-vat, mystery-mongers....\n\n (125) The mysteries practised among men are unholy mysteries. R. P.\n 48.\n\n (126) And they pray to these images, as if one were to talk with a\n man\u2019s house, knowing not what gods or heroes are. R. P. 49 a.\n\n (127) For if it were not to Dionysos that they made a procession and\n sang the shameful phallic hymn, they would be acting most shamelessly.\n But Hades is the same as Dionysos in whose honour they go mad and keep\n the feast of the wine-vat. R. P. 49.\n\n (129, 130) They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with\n blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his\n feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing thus, would deem him mad. R.\n P. 49 a.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n In his edition, Diels has given up all attempt to arrange the\n fragments according to subject, and this makes his text unsuitable for\n our purpose. I think, too, that he overestimates the difficulty of an\n approximate arrangement, and makes too much of the view that the style\n of Herakleitos was \u201caphoristic.\u201d That it was so, is an important and\n valuable remark; but it does not follow that Herakleitos wrote like\n Nietzsche. For a Greek, however prophetic in his tone, there must\n always be a distinction between an aphoristic and an incoherent style.\n See the excellent remarks of Lortzing in _Berl. Phil. Wochenschr._\n 1896, pp. 1 sqq.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk\u2019s \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 for \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and Miller\u2019s\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 for \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Cf. Philo, _leg. all._ iii. c, quoted in Bywater\u2019s\n note.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n The \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is simply the discourse of Herakleitos himself; though, as\n he is a prophet, we may call it \u201cthe Word.\u201d It can neither mean a\n discourse addressed to Herakleitos nor yet \u201creason.\u201d (Cf. Zeller, p.\n 630, n. 1; Eng. trans. ii. p. 7, n. 2.) A difficulty has been raised\n about the words \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03af. How could Herakleitos say that his\n discourse had always existed? The answer is that in Ionic \u1f10\u03ce\u03bd means\n \u201ctrue\u201d when coupled with words like \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Cf. Herod. i. 30, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9; and even Aristoph. _Frogs_, 1052, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. It\n is only by taking the words in this way that we can understand\n Aristotle\u2019s hesitation as to the proper punctuation of the fragment\n (_Rhet._ \u0393 5. 1407 b 15; R. P. 30 a). The Stoic interpretation given\n by Marcus Aurelius, iv. 46 (R. P. 32 b), must be rejected altogether.\n The word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 was never used like that till post-Aristotelian times.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n I have departed from the punctuation of Bywater here, and supplied a\n fresh object to the verb as suggested by Gomperz (_Arch._ i. 100).\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Cf. Herod, i. 8. The application is, no doubt, the same as that of the\n last two fragments. Personal inquiry is better than tradition.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n See Chap. II. p. 107, _n._ 224. The best attested reading is\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, not \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 means \u201cclaimed as his\n own.\u201d The words \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2 have been doubted\n since the time of Schleiermacher, and Diels has now come to regard the\n whole fragment as spurious. This is because it was used to prove that\n Pythagoras wrote books (cf. Diels, _Arch._ iii. p. 451). As Mr.\n Bywater has pointed out, however, the fragment itself makes no such\n statement; it only says that he read books, which we may presume he\n did. I would further suggest that the old-fashioned \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2 is\n rather too good for a forger, and that the omission of the very thing\n to be proved is remarkable. The last suggestion of a book by\n Pythagoras disappears with the reading \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf for \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Of\n course a late writer who read of Pythagoras making extracts from books\n would assume that he put them into a book of his own, just as people\n did in his own days. For the rest, I understand \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 of science,\n which is contrasted with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03b7 which Pythagoras derived from\n the \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af of men like Pherekydes of Syros.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n The word \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 must mean \u201cworld\u201d here, not merely \u201corder;\u201d for only\n the world could be identified with fire. This use of the word is\n Pythagorean, and there is no reason to doubt that Herakleitos may have\n known it.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n It is important to notice that \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 is internal accusative with\n \u1f01\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cwith its measures kindling and its measures going out.\u201d\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n On the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, see below, p. 165, _n._ 380.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n The subject of fr. 23 is \u03b3\u1fc6, as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 36),\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; and Aet. i. 3, 11 (_Dox._ p. 284 a 1; b\n 5), \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (D\u00fcbner: \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n libri) \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Herakleitos might quite well say \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and the context in Clement (_Strom._ v. p. 712) seems to\n imply this. The phrase \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd can only mean\n that the proportion of the measures remains constant. So practically\n Zeller (p. 690, n. 1), _zu derselben Gr\u00f6sse_.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n With Diels I adopt the transposition (proposed by Tocco) of \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and\n \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n I understand \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd of the \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, for which see below, p. 168.\n Diels has pointed out that \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is the old word for \u201cto\n convict.\u201d It is, literally, \u201cto overtake,\u201d just as \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is \u201cto\n catch.\u201d\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n In this fragment it is clear that \u03bf\u1f56\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 = \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, and therefore means\n \u201cboundary,\u201d not \u201chill.\u201d As \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 means the bright blue sky, I\n do not think its \u03bf\u1f56\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 can be the South Pole, as Diels says. It is\n more likely the horizon. I am inclined to take the fragment as a\n protest against the Pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n We learn from Diog. ix. 10 (quoted below, p. 164) that Herakleitos\n explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon, and this\n is doubtless a fragment of that passage. I now think the words \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd are from Herakleitos. So Diels.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n Hesiod said Day was the child of Night (_Theog._ 124).\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n Reading \u1f45\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 for \u1f45\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 with Diels.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n _Il._ xviii. 107. I add the words \u03bf\u1f30\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 from Simpl. _in\n Cat._ (88 b 30 schol. Br.). They seem to me at least to represent\n something that was in the original.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n I cannot think it likely that Herakleitos said both \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7, and I prefer Plutarch\u2019s \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (R. P. 34 b)\n to the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of\n Parmenides decides the question in favour of \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2; but see\n below, p. 184, _n._ 415, and Chap. IV. p. 198, _n._ 438.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n This, I now think, is the medical rule \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n _e.g._ \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd (Stewart on Arist. _Eth._ 1104 b\n 16).\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n Fr. 51_a_ was recovered by Bywater from Albertus Magnus. See _Journ.\n Phil._ ix. p. 230.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n On fr. 55 see Diels in _Berl. Sitzb._ 1901, p. 188.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n I now read \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 with Bernays and Diels.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n On fr. 59 see Diels in _Berl. Sitzb._ 1901, p. 188. The reading\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. It is\n not, however, correct to say that the optative could not be used in an\n imperative sense.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n By \u201cthese things,\u201d he probably meant all kinds of injustice.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on \u1f41\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae. \u201cLife,\n Sleep, Death is the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics\n Fire, Water, Earth.\u201d\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n I think now with Diels that the words \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7a\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 are\n probably genuine. They present no difficulty if we remember that \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n means \u201cmeasurement,\u201d as in fr. 23.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n This fragment is interesting because of the great antiquity of the\n corruptions which it has suffered. According to Stephanus, who is\n followed by Bywater and Diels, we should read: \u0391\u1f54\u03b7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae (or rather \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u2014the Ionic form would only appear when the\n word got into the text) being a mere gloss upon the somewhat unusual\n \u03b1\u1f54\u03b7. When once \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae got into the text, \u03b1\u1f54\u03b7 became \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, and we get the\n sentence: \u201cthe dry light is the wisest soul,\u201d whence the _siccum\n lumen_ of Bacon. Now this reading is certainly as old as Plutarch,\n who, in his Life of Romulus (c. 28), takes \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae to mean lightning, as\n it sometimes does, and supposes the idea to be that the wise soul\n bursts through the prison of the body like dry lightning (whatever\n that may be) through a cloud. I do not think that Clement\u2019s making the\n same mistake proves anything at all (Zeller, p. 705, n. 3; Eng. trans.\n i. p. 80, n. 2), except that he had read his Plutarch. Lastly, it is\n worth noticing that, though Plutarch must have written \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, the MSS.\n vary between \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 and \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae. The next stage is the corruption of the\n corrupt \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae into \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b3\u1fc6. This yields the sentiment that \u201cwhere the\n earth is dry, the soul is wisest,\u201d and is as old as Philo (see Mr.\n Bywater\u2019s notes).\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n I understand \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 here as meaning \u201cmoved\u201d from one \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae or\n division of the draught-board to another.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n Sext. _Math._ vii. 133, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f15\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff7. It seems to me that\n these words must belong to Herakleitos, though Bywater omits them. On\n the other hand, the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 (so, not \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n the best MSS.) seem clearly to belong to the Stoic interpreter whom\n Sextus is following, and who was anxious to connect this fragment with\n fr. 2 (\u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9) in order to get the doctrine of the\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. The whole context in Sextus should be read.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n The words \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, which Diels prints as part of\n this fragment, seem to me to belong to Marcus Aurelius and not to\n Herakleitos.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n Adopting Heitz\u2019s \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 with Diels.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n The word \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 has its Homeric sense. The gratification of desire\n implies the exchange of dry soul-fire (fr. 74) for moisture (fr. 72).\n Aristotle understood \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 here as anger (_Eth. Nic._ \u0392 2, 1105 a 8).\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n This seems to be a clear reference to the \u201cthree lives.\u201d See Chap. II.\n \u00a7 45, p. 108.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n Reading \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 with Schleiermacher (or \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd with Diels). I\n have omitted \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, as I do not know what it means, and none of\n the conjectures commends itself.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n On the meaning of \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd here, see my edition of Aristotle\u2019s _Ethics_,\n pp. 1 sq. As Professor Gildersleeve puts it, the \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is the\n individual form of \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7, as \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1 is of \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n I have not ventured to include the words \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 at the\n beginning, as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however,\n Diels\u2019s interesting note.\n\n[Sidenote: The doxographical tradition.]\n\n66. It will be seen that some of these fragments are far from clear, and\nthere are probably not a few of which the meaning will never be\nrecovered. We naturally turn, then, to the doxographers for a clue; but,\nas ill-luck will have it, they are far less instructive with regard to\nHerakleitos than we have found them in other cases. We have, in fact,\ntwo great difficulties to contend with. The first is the unusual\nweakness of the doxographical tradition itself. Hippolytos, upon whom we\ncan generally rely for a fairly accurate account of what Theophrastos\nreally said, derived the material for his first four chapters, which\ntreat of Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not from the\nexcellent epitome which he afterwards used, but from a biographical\ncompendium,[366] which consisted for the most part of apocryphal\nanecdotes and apophthegms. It was based, further, on some writer of\n_Successions_ who regarded Herakleitos and Empedokles as Pythagoreans.\nThey are therefore placed side by side, and their doctrines are\nhopelessly mixed up together. The link between Herakleitos and the\nPythagoreans was Hippasos of Metapontion, in whose system, as we know,\nfire played an important part. Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had\nspoken of the two in the same sentence, and this was enough to put the\nwriters of _Successions_ off the track.[367] We are forced, then, to\nlook to the more detailed of the two accounts of the opinions of\nHerakleitos given in Diogenes,[368] which goes back to the _Vetusta\nPlacita_, and is, fortunately, pretty full and accurate. All our other\nsources are more or less tainted.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n On the source used by Hippolytos in the first four chapters of _Ref._\n i. see Diels, _Dox._ p. 145. We must carefully distinguish _Ref._ i.\n and _Ref._ ix. as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter\n book is an attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was\n derived from Herakleitos instead of from the Gospel, and is a rich\n mine of Herakleitean fragments.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c): Theophr. _ap._ Simpl.\n _Phys._ 23, 33 (R. P. 36 c).\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n For these double accounts see _Dox._ pp. 163 sqq. and Appendix, \u00a7 15.\n\nThe second difficulty which we have to face is even more serious. Most\nof the commentators on Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were\nStoics,[369] and it is certain that their paraphrases were sometimes\ntaken for the original. Now, the Stoics held the Ephesian in peculiar\nveneration, and sought to interpret him as far as possible in accordance\nwith their own system. Further, they were fond of \u201caccommodating\u201d[370]\nthe views of earlier thinkers to their own, and this has had serious\nconsequences. In particular, the Stoic theories of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and the\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 are constantly ascribed to Herakleitos by our authorities, and\nthe very fragments are adulterated with scraps of Stoic terminology.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n Diog. ix. 15 (R. P. 30 c). Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n The word \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd is used of the Stoic method of interpretation by\n Philodemos (cf. _Dox._ 547 b, n.), and Cicero (_N.D._ i. 41) renders\n it by _accommodare_. Chrysippos in particular gave a great impulse to\n this sort of thing, as we may best learn from Galen, _de Plac.\n Hippocr. et Plat._ Book iii. Good examples are Aet. i. 13, 2; 28, 1;\n iv. 3, 12,\u2014where distinctively Stoic doctrines are ascribed to\n Herakleitos. What the Stoics were capable of, we see from Kleanthes,\n fr. 55, Pearson. He proposed to read \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b5 in _Il._ xvi.\n 233, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[Sidenote: The discovery of Herakleitos.]\n\n67. Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass of men, but on all\nprevious inquirers into nature. This must mean that he believed himself\nto have attained insight into some truth which had not hitherto been\nrecognised, though it was, as it were, staring men in the face (fr. 93).\nClearly, then, if we wish to get at the central thing in his teaching,\nwe must try to find out what he was thinking of when he launched into\nthose denunciations of human dulness and ignorance.[371] The answer\nseems to be given in two fragments, 18 and 45. From them we gather that\nthe truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently independent and\nconflicting things we know are really one, and that, on the other hand,\nthis one is also many. The \u201cstrife of opposites\u201d is really an\n\u201cattunement\u201d (\u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1). From this it follows that wisdom is not a\nknowledge of many things, but the perception of the underlying unity of\nthe warring opposites. That this really was the fundamental thought of\nHerakleitos is stated by Philo. He says: \u201cFor that which is made up of\nboth the opposites is one; and, when the one is divided, the opposites\nare disclosed. Is not this just what the Greeks say their great and much\nbelauded Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as summing\nit all up, and boasted of as a new discovery?\u201d[372] We shall take the\nelements of this theory one by one, and see how they are to be\nunderstood.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n See Patin, _Heraklits Einheitslehre_ (1886). To Patin undoubtedly\n belongs the credit of showing clearly that the unity of opposites was\n the central doctrine of Herakleitos. It is not always easy, however,\n to follow him when he comes to details.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n Philo, _Rer. Div. Her._ 43 (R. P. 34 c).\n\n[Sidenote: The One and the Many.]\n\n68. Anaximander had taught already that the opposites were separated out\nfrom the Boundless, but passed away into it once more, so paying the\npenalty for their unjust encroachments on one another. It is here\nimplied that there is something wrong in the war of opposites, and that\nthe existence of the Many is a breach in the unity of the One. The truth\nwhich Herakleitos proclaimed was that there is no One without the Many,\nand no Many without the One. The world is at once one and many, and it\nis just the \u201copposite tension\u201d of the Many that constitutes the unity of\nthe One.\n\nThe credit of having been the first to see this is expressly assigned to\nHerakleitos by Plato. In the _Sophist_ (242 d), the Eleatic stranger,\nafter explaining how the Eleatics maintained that what we call many is\nreally one, proceeds:\u2014\n\n But certain Ionian and (at a later date) certain Sicilian Muses\n remarked that it was safest to unite these two things, and to say that\n reality is both many and one, and is kept together by Hate and Love.\n \u201cFor,\u201d say the more severe Muses, \u201cin its division it is always being\n brought together\u201d (cf. fr. 59); while the softer Muses relaxed the\n requirement that this should always be so, and said that the All was\n alternately one and at peace through the power of Aphrodite, and many\n and at war with itself because of something they called Strife.\n\nIn this passage the Ionian Muses stand, of course, for Herakleitos, and\nthe Sicilian for Empedokles. We remark also that the differentiation of\nthe one into many, and the integration of the many into one, are both\neternal and simultaneous, and that this is the ground upon which the\nsystem of Herakleitos is contrasted with that of Empedokles. We shall\ncome back to that point again. Meanwhile we confine ourselves to this,\nthat, according to Plato, Herakleitos taught that reality was at once\nmany and one.\n\nWe must be careful, however, not to imagine that what Herakleitos thus\ndiscovered was a logical principle. This was the mistake of Lassalle\u2019s\nbook.[373] The identity in and through difference which he proclaimed\nwas purely physical; logic did not yet exist, and as the principle of\nidentity had not been formulated, it would have been impossible to\nprotest against an abstract application of it. The identity which he\nexplains as consisting in difference is simply that of the primary\nsubstance in all its manifestations. This identity had been realised\nalready by the Milesians, but they had found a difficulty in the\ndifference. Anaximander had treated the strife of opposites as an\n\u201cinjustice,\u201d and what Herakleitos set himself to show was that, on the\ncontrary, it was the highest justice (fr. 62).\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n The source of his error was Hegel\u2019s remarkable statement that there\n was no proposition of Herakleitos that he had not taken up into his\n own logic (_Gesch. d. Phil._ i. 328). The example which he cites is\n the statement that Being does not exist any more than not-Being, for\n which he refers to Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. This, however, is not there\n ascribed to Herakleitos at all, but to Leukippos or Demokritos, with\n whom it meant that space was as real as matter (\u00a7 175). Aristotle\n does, indeed, tell us in the _Metaphysics_ that \u201csome\u201d think\n Herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not be; but he adds\n that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says (_Met._ \u0393 3.\n 1005 b 24). I take this to mean that, though Herakleitos did make this\n assertion in words, he did not mean by it what the same assertion\n would naturally have meant at a later date. Herakleitos was speaking\n only of nature; the logical meaning of the words never occurred to\n him. This is confirmed by \u039a, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by\n being questioned in a certain manner Herakleitos could be made to\n admit the principle of contradiction; as it was, he did not understand\n what he said. In other words, he was unconscious of its logical\n bearing.\n\n Aristotle was aware, then, that the theories of Herakleitos were not\n to be understood in a logical sense. On the other hand, this does not\n prevent him from saying that according to the view of Herakleitos,\n everything would be true (_Met._ \u0394, 7. 1012 a 24). If we remember his\n constant attitude to earlier thinkers, this will not lead us to\n suspect either his good faith or his intelligence. (See Appendix, \u00a7\n 2.)\n\n[Sidenote: Fire.]\n\n69. All this made it necessary for him to seek out a new primary\nsubstance. He wanted not merely something out of which the diversified\nworld we know might conceivably be made, or from which opposites could\nbe \u201cseparated out,\u201d but something which of its own nature would pass\ninto everything else, while everything else would pass in turn into it.\nThis he found in Fire, and it is easy to see why, if we consider the\nphenomenon of combustion, even as it appears to the plain man. The\nquantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears to remain the same,\nthe flame seems to be what we call a \u201cthing.\u201d And yet the substance of\nit is continually changing. It is always passing away in smoke, and its\nplace is always being taken by fresh matter from the fuel that feeds it.\nThis is just what we want. If we regard the world as an \u201cever-living\nfire\u201d (fr. 20), we can understand how it is always becoming all things,\nwhile all things are always returning to it.[374]\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the\n \u201cAir\u201d of Anaximenes and not a \u201csymbol,\u201d is clearly implied in such\n passages as Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 5. In support of the view that\n something different from common fire is meant, Plato, _Crat._ 413 b,\n is sometimes quoted; but a consideration of the context shows that the\n passage will not bear this interpretation. Plato is discussing the\n derivation of \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd from \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1-\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, and certainly \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7 was a prominent\n Herakleitean conception, and a good deal that is here said may be the\n authentic doctrine of the school. Sokrates goes on to complain that\n when he asks what this is which \u201cgoes through\u201d everything, he gets\n very inconsistent answers. One says it is the sun. Another asks if\n there is no justice after sunset, and says it is simply fire. A third\n says it is not fire itself, but the heat which is in fire. A fourth\n identifies it with Mind. Now all we are entitled to infer from this is\n that different accounts were given in the Herakleitean school. These\n were a little less crude than the original doctrine of the master, but\n for all that not one of them implies anything immaterial or\n symbolical. The view that it was not fire itself, but Heat, which\n \u201cpassed through\u201d all things, is related to the theory of Herakleitos\n as Hippo\u2019s Moisture is related to the Water of Thales. It is quite\n likely, too, that some Herakleiteans attempted to fuse the system of\n Anaxagoras with their own, just as Diogenes of Apollonia tried to fuse\n it with that of Anaximenes. We shall see, indeed, that we still have a\n work in which this attempt is made (p. 167, _n._ 383).\n\n[Sidenote: Flux.]\n\n70. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of looking at the\nchange and movement of the world. Fire burns continuously and without\ninterruption. It is therefore always consuming fuel and always\nliberating smoke. Everything is either mounting upwards to serve as\nfuel, or sinking downwards after having nourished the flame. It follows\nthat the whole of reality is like an ever-flowing stream, and that\nnothing is ever at rest for a moment. The substance of the things we see\nis in constant change. Even as we look at them, some of the matter of\nwhich they are composed has already passed into something else, while\nfresh matter has come into them from another source. This theory is\nusually summed up, appropriately enough, in the phrase \u201cAll things are\nflowing\u201d (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6), though, as it happens, it cannot be proved that\nthis is a quotation from Herakleitos. Plato, however, expresses the idea\nquite clearly. \u201cNothing ever is, everything is becoming\u201d; \u201cAll things\nare in motion like streams\u201d; \u201cAll things are passing, and nothing\nabides\u201d; \u201cHerakleitos says somewhere that all things pass and naught\nabides; and, comparing things to the current of a river, he says that\nyou cannot step twice into the same stream\u201d (cf. fr. 41)\u2014these are the\nterms in which he describes the system. And Aristotle says the same\nthing, \u201cAll things are in motion,\u201d \u201cnothing steadfastly is.\u201d[375]\nHerakleitos held, in fact, that any given thing, however stable in\nappearance, was merely a section in the stream, and that the matter\ncomposing it was never the same in any two consecutive moments of time.\nWe shall see presently how he conceived this process to operate;\nmeanwhile we remark that the idea was not altogether novel, and that it\nis hardly the central point in the system of Herakleitos. The Milesians\nheld a similar view. The flux of Herakleitos was at most more unceasing\nand universal.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n Plato, _Tht._ 152 e 1; _Crat._ 401 d 5, 402 a 8; Arist. _Top._ \u0391, 11.\n 104 b 22; _de Caelo_, \u0393, 1. 298 b 30; _Phys._ \u0398, 3. 253 b 2.\n\n[Sidenote: The Upward and Downward path.]\n\n71. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the details of the perpetual\nflux with reference to the theories of Anaximenes.[376] It is unlikely,\nhowever, that he explained the transformations of matter by means of\nrarefaction and condensation.[377] Theophrastos, it appears, suggested\nthat he did; but he allowed it was by no means clear. The passage from\nDiogenes which we are about to quote has faithfully preserved this\ntouch.[378] In the fragments, at any rate, we find nothing about\nrarefaction and condensation. The expression used is \u201cexchange\u201d (fr.\n22); and this is certainly a very good name for what happens when fire\ngives out smoke and takes in fuel instead.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n See above, Chap. I. \u00a7 29.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n See, however, the remark of Diels quoted R. P. 36 c.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n Diog. ix. 8, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nIt has been pointed out that, in default of Hippolytos, our best account\nof the Theophrastean doxography of Herakleitos is the fuller of the two\naccounts given in Laertios Diogenes. It is as follows:\u2014\n\n His opinions on particular points are these:\u2014\n\n He held that Fire was the element, and that all things were an\n exchange for fire, produced by condensation and rarefaction. But he\n explains nothing clearly. All things were produced in opposition, and\n all things were in flux like a river.\n\n The all is finite and the world is one. It arises from fire, and is\n consumed again by fire alternately through all eternity in certain\n cycles. This happens according to fate. That which leads to the\n becoming of the opposites is called War and Strife; that which leads\n to the final conflagration is Concord and Peace.\n\n He called change the upward and the downward path, and held that the\n world comes into being in virtue of this. When fire is condensed it\n becomes moist, and when compressed it turns to water; water being\n congealed turns to earth, and this he calls the downward path. And,\n again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and\n from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the\n evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards. R. P. 36.\n\n He held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea and the land;\n some bright and pure, others dark. Fire was nourished by the bright\n ones, and moisture by the others.\n\n He does not make it clear what is the nature of that which surrounds\n the world. He held, however, that there were bowls in it with the\n concave sides turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations were\n collected and produced flames. These were the heavenly bodies.\n\n The flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest; for the other\n heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth; and for that reason\n gave less light and heat. The moon, on the other hand, was nearer the\n earth; but it moved through an impure region. The sun moved in a\n bright and unmixed region, and at the same time was at just the right\n distance from us. That is why it gives more heat and light. The\n eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the bowls\n upwards, while the monthly phases of the moon were produced by a\n gradual turning of its bowl.\n\n Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and winds, and\n things like these, were due to the different exhalations. The bright\n exhalation, when ignited in the circle of the sun, produced day, and\n the preponderance of the opposite exhalations produced night. The\n increase of warmth proceeding from the bright exhalation produced\n summer, and the preponderance of moisture from the dark exhalation\n produced winter. He assigns the causes of other things in conformity\n with this.\n\n As to the earth, he makes no clear statement about its nature, any\n more than he does about that of the bowls.\n\n These, then, were his opinions. R. P. 39 b.\n\nIt is obvious that, if we can trust this passage, it is of the greatest\npossible value; and that, upon the whole, we can trust it is shown by\nthe fact that it follows the exact order of topics to which all the\ndoxographies derived from the great work of Theophrastos adhere. First\nwe have the primary substance, then the world, then the heavenly bodies,\nand lastly, meteorological phenomena. We conclude, then, that it may be\naccepted with the exceptions, firstly, of the probably erroneous\nconjecture of Theophrastos as to rarefaction and condensation mentioned\nabove; and secondly, of some pieces of Stoical interpretation which come\nfrom the _Vetusta Placita_.\n\nLet us look at the details of the theory. The pure fire, we are told, is\nto be found chiefly in the sun. This, like the other heavenly bodies, is\na trough or bowl, or perhaps a sort of boat, with the concave side\nturned towards us, in which the bright exhalations from the sea collect\nand burn. How does the fire of the sun pass into other forms? If we look\nat the fragments which deal with the downward path, we find that the\nfirst transformation that it undergoes is into sea, and we are further\ntold that half of the sea is earth and half of it \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 (fr. 21). The\nfull meaning of this we shall see presently, but we must settle at once\nwhat \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 is. Many theories have been advanced upon the subject; but,\nso far as I know, no one[379] has yet proposed to take the word in the\nsense which it always bears elsewhere, that, namely, of hurricane\naccompanied by a fiery waterspout.[380] Yet surely this is just what is\nwanted. It is amply attested that Herakleitos explained the rise of the\nsea to fire by means of the bright evaporations; and we want a similar\nmeteorological explanation of the passing of the fire back into sea. We\nwant, in fact, something which will stand equally for the smoke produced\nby the burning of the sun and for the immediate stage between fire and\nwater. What could serve the turn better than a fiery waterspout? It\nsufficiently resembles smoke to be accounted for as the product of the\nsun\u2019s combustion, and it certainly comes down in the form of water. And\nthis interpretation becomes practically certain when taken in connexion\nwith the report of Aetios as to the Herakleitean theory of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2.\nThey were due, we are told, \u201cto the kindling and extinction of\nclouds.\u201d[381] In other words, the bright vapour, after kindling in the\nbowl of the sun and going out again, reappears as the dark fiery\nstorm-cloud, and so passes once more into sea. At the next stage we find\nwater continually passing into earth. We are already familiar with this\nidea (\u00a7 10), and no more need be said about it. Turning to the \u201cupward\npath,\u201d we find that the earth is liquefied in the same proportion as the\nsea becomes earth, so that the sea is still \u201cmeasured by the same tale\u201d\n(fr. 23). Half of it is earth and half of it is \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 (fr. 21). This\nmust mean that, at any given moment, half of the sea is taking the\ndownward path, and has just been fiery storm-cloud, while half of it is\ngoing up, and has just been earth. In proportion as the sea is increased\nby rain, water passes into earth; in proportion as the sea is diminished\nby evaporation, it is fed by the earth. Lastly, the ignition of the\nbright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun completes the circle\nof the \u201cupward and downward path.\u201d\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n This was written in 1890. In his _Herakleitos von Ephesos_ (1901)\n Diels takes it as I did, rendering _Glutwind_.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n Cf. Herod. vii. 42, and Lucretius, vi. 424. Seneca (_Quaest. Nat._ ii.\n 56) calls it _igneus turbo_. The opinions of early philosophers on\n these phenomena are collected in Aetios, iii. 3. The \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 of\n Anaximander (Chap. I. p. 69, _n._ 133) is a different thing\n altogether, but it is quite likely that Greek sailors named the\n meteorological phenomenon after the familiar bellows of the smith.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n Aet. iii. 3, 9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (sc.\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). Diels (_Herakleitos_, p. v.) seems\n to regard the \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 as the form in which water ascends to heaven.\n But the Greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and come down.\n\n[Sidenote: Measure for measure.]\n\n72. The question now arises, How is it that, in spite of this constant\nflux, things appear relatively stable? The answer of Herakleitos was\nthat it is owing to the observance of the \u201cmeasures,\u201d in virtue of which\nthe aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run remains the\nsame, though its substance is constantly changing. Certain \u201cmeasures\u201d of\nthe \u201cever-living fire\u201d are always being kindled, while like \u201cmeasures\u201d\nare always going out (fr. 20); and these measures the sun will not\nexceed. All things are \u201cexchanged\u201d for fire and fire for all things (fr.\n22), and this implies that for everything it takes, fire will give as\nmuch. \u201cThe sun will not exceed his measures\u201d (fr. 29).\n\nAnd yet the \u201cmeasures\u201d are not to be regarded as absolutely fixed. We\ngather from the passage of Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke\nof an alternate preponderance of the bright and dark exhalations, and\nAristotle speaks of Herakleitos as explaining all things by\nevaporation.[382] In particular, the alternation of day and night,\nsummer and winter, were accounted for in this way. Now, in a passage of\nthe pseudo-Hippokratean treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 which is almost certainly\nof Herakleitean origin,[383] we read of an \u201cadvance of fire and water\u201d\nin connexion with day and night and the courses of the sun and\nmoon.[384] In fr. 26, again, we read of fire \u201cadvancing,\u201d and all these\nthings seem to be intimately connected. We must therefore try to see\nwhether there is anything in the remaining fragments that bears upon the\nsubject.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0392, 2. 405 a 26, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f06\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n The presence of Herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out\n by Gesner, but Bernays was the first to make any considerable use of\n it in reconstructing the system. The older literature of the subject\n has been in the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs\u2019 _Hippokratische\n Untersuchungen_ (1899), where also a satisfactory text of the sections\n which concern us is given for the first time. Fredrichs shows that (as\n I said already in the first edition) the work belongs to the period of\n eclecticism and reaction which I have briefly characterised in \u00a7 184,\n and he points out that c 3, which was formerly supposed to be mainly\n Herakleitean, is really from some work which was strongly influenced\n by Empedokles and Anaxagoras. I think, however, that he goes wrong in\n attributing the section to a nameless \u201cPhysiker\u201d of the school of\n Archelaos, or even to Archelaos himself; it is far more like what we\n should expect from the eclectic Herakleiteans whom Plato describes in\n _Crat._ 413 c (see p. 161, _n._ 374). He is certainly wrong in holding\n the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be Herakleitean,\n and there is no justification for separating the remark quoted in the\n text from its context because it happens to agree almost verbally with\n the beginning of c. 3. As we shall see, that passage too is of\n Herakleitean origin.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 5. I should read thus: \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. In any case, the meaning is the same, and the\n sentence occurs between \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac, which are surely\n Herakleitean utterances.\n\n[Sidenote: Man]\n\n73. In studying this alternate advance of fire and water, it will be\nconvenient to start with the microcosm. We have more definite\ninformation about the two exhalations in man than about the analogous\nprocesses in the world at large, and it would seem that Herakleitos\nhimself explained the world by man rather than man by the world. In a\nwell-known passage, Aristotle implies that soul is identical with the\ndry exhalation,[385] and this is fully confirmed by the fragments. Man\nis made up of three things, fire, water, and earth. But, just as in the\nmacrocosm fire is identified with the one wisdom, so in the microcosm\nthe fire alone is conscious. When it has left the body, the remainder,\nthe mere earth and water, is altogether worthless (fr. 85). Of course,\nthe fire which animates man is subject to the \u201cupward and downward\npath,\u201d just as much as the fire of the world. The \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 has\npreserved the obviously Herakleitean sentence: \u201cAll things are passing,\nboth human and divine, upwards and downwards by exchanges.\u201d[386] We are\njust as much in perpetual flux as anything else in the world. We are and\nare not the same for two consecutive instants (fr. 81). The fire in us\nis perpetually becoming water, and the water earth; but, as the opposite\nprocess goes on simultaneously, we appear to remain the same.[387]\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 2. 405 a 25 (R. P. 38). Diels attributes to\n Herakleitos himself the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n which are found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe,\n however, that the _word_ \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is Herakleitean. He seems rather\n to have called the two exhalations \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1 (cf. fr. 37).\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 5, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n We seem to have a clear reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels\n (170 b, Kaibel): \u201cLook now at men too. One grows and another passes\n away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance\n (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) and never abides in the same spot, will already be\n something different from what has passed away. So thou and I were\n different yesterday, and are now quite other people, and again we\n shall become others and never the same again, and so on in the same\n way.\u201d This is put into the mouth of a debtor who does not wish to pay.\n See Bernays on the \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (_Ges. Abh._ i. pp. 109 sqq.).\n\n[Sidenote: (_a_) Sleeping and waking.]\n\n74. This, however, is not all. Man is subject to a certain oscillation\nin his \u201cmeasures\u201d of fire and water, and this gives rise to the\nalternations of sleeping and waking, life and death. The _locus\nclassicus_ on this subject is a passage of Sextus Empiricus, which\nreproduces the account of the Herakleitean psychology given by\nAinesidemos (Skeptic, _c._ 80-50 B.C.).[388] It is as follows (R. P.\n41):\u2014\n\n The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds us[389] is\n rational and endowed with consciousness. According to Herakleitos,\n when we draw in this divine reason by means of respiration, we become\n rational. In sleep we forget, but at our waking we become conscious\n once more. For in sleep, when the openings of the senses close, the\n mind which is in us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds\n us, and only our connexion with it by means of respiration is\n preserved as a sort of root (from which the rest may spring again);\n and, when it is thus separated, it loses the power of memory that it\n had before. When we awake again, however, it looks out through the\n openings of the senses, as if through windows, and coming together\n with the surrounding mind, it assumes the power of reason. Just, then,\n as embers, when they are brought near the the fire, change and become\n red-hot, and go out when they are taken away from it again, so does\n the portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body become\n irrational when it is cut off, and so does it become of like nature to\n the whole when contact is established through the greatest number of\n openings.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n Sextus quotes \u201cAinesidemos according to Herakleitos.\u201d Natorp holds\n (_Forschungen_, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine\n Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels, on the other hand (_Dox._ pp.\n 210, 211), insists that Ainesidemos only gave an account of the\n theories of Herakleitos. This controversy does not affect the use we\n make of the passage.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, opposed to but parallel with \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nIn this passage there is obviously a very large admixture of later\nphraseology and of later ideas. In particular, the identification of\n\u201cthat which surrounds us\u201d with the air cannot be Herakleitean; for\nHerakleitos can have known nothing of air, which in his day was regarded\nas a form of water (\u00a7 27). The reference to the pores or openings of the\nsenses is probably foreign to him also; for the theory of pores is due\nto Alkmaion (\u00a7 96). Lastly, the distinction between mind and body is far\ntoo sharply drawn. On the other hand, the important r\u00f4le assigned to\nrespiration may very well be Herakleitean; for we have met with it\nalready in Anaximenes. And we can hardly doubt that the striking simile\nof the embers which glow when they are brought near the fire is genuine\n(cf. fr. 77). The true Herakleitean doctrine doubtless was, that sleep\nwas produced by the encroachment of moist, dark exhalations from the\nwater in the body, which cause the fire to burn low. In sleep, we lose\ncontact with the fire in the world which is common to all, and retire to\na world of our own (fr. 95). In a soul where the fire and water are\nevenly balanced, the equilibrium is restored in the morning by an equal\nadvance of the bright exhalation.\n\n[Sidenote: (_b_) Life and death.]\n\n75. But in no soul are the fire and water thus evenly balanced for long.\nOne or the other acquires predominance, and the result in either case is\ndeath. Let us take each of these cases in turn. It is death, we know, to\nsouls to become water (fr. 68); but that is just what happens to souls\nwhich seek after pleasure. For pleasure is a moistening of the soul (fr.\n72), as may be seen in the case of the drunken man, who, in pursuit of\nit, has moistened his soul to such an extent that he does not know where\nhe is going (fr. 73). Even in gentle relaxation over our cups, it is\nmore difficult to hide folly than at other times (fr. 108). That is why\nit is so necessary for us to quench wantonness (fr. 103); for whatever\nour heart\u2019s desire insists on it purchases at the price of life, that\nis, of the fire within us (fr. 105). Take now the other case. The dry\nsoul, that which has least moisture, is the best (fr. 74); but the\npreponderance of fire causes death as much as that of water. It is a\nvery different death, however, and wins \u201cgreater portions\u201d for those who\ndie it (fr. 101). Apparently those who fall in battle share their lot\n(fr. 102). We have no fragment which tells us directly what it is, but\nthe class of utterances we are about to look at next leaves little doubt\non the subject. Those who die the fiery and not the watery death,\nbecome, in fact, gods, though in a different sense from that in which\nthe one Wisdom is god. It is probable that the corrupt fragment 123\nrefers to this unexpected fate (fr. 122) that awaits men when they die.\n\nFurther, just as summer and winter are one, and necessarily reproduce\none another by their \u201copposite tension,\u201d so do life and death. They,\ntoo, are one, we are told; and so are youth and age (fr. 78). It follows\nthat the soul will be now living and now dead; that it will only turn to\nfire or water, as the case may be, to recommence once more its unceasing\nupward and downward path. The soul that has died from excess of moisture\nsinks down to earth; but from the earth comes water, and from water is\nonce more exhaled a soul (fr. 68). So, too, we are told (fr. 67) that\ngods and men are really one. They live each others\u2019 life, and die each\nothers\u2019 death. Those mortals that die the fiery death become\nimmortal,[390] they become the guardians of the quick and the dead (fr.\n123);[391] and those immortals become mortal in their turn. Everything\nis really the death of something else (fr. 64). The living and the dead\nare always changing places (fr. 78), like the pieces on a child\u2019s\ndraught-board (fr. 79), and this applies not only to the souls that have\nbecome water, but to those that have become fire and are now guardian\nspirits. The real weariness is continuance in the same state (fr. 82),\nand the real rest is change (fr. 83). Rest in any other sense is\ntantamount to dissolution (fr. 84).[392] So they too are born once more.\nHerakleitos estimated the duration of the cycle which preserves the\nbalance of life and death as thirty years, the shortest time in which a\nman may become a grandfather (frs. 87-89).[393]\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n The popular word is used for the sake of its paradoxical effect.\n Strictly speaking, they are all mortal from one point of view and\n immortal from another.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n We need not hesitate to ascribe to Herakleitos the view that the dead\n become guardian demons of the living; it appears already in Hesiod,\n _Works and Days_, 121, and the Orphic communities had popularised it.\n Rohde, _Psyche_ (pp. 442 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos\n believed the soul survived after death. Strictly speaking, it is no\n doubt an inconsistency; but I believe, with Zeller and Diels, that it\n is one of a kind we may well admit. Many thinkers have spoken of a\n personal immortality, though there was really no room for it in their\n systems. It is worthy of note in this connexion that the first\n argument which Plato uses to establish the doctrine of immortality in\n the _Phaedo_ is just the Herakleitean parallelism of life and death\n with sleeping and waking.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, Iamblichos, and Noumenios in\n this very connexion (see R. P. 46 c), and it does not seem to me\n possible to hold, with Rohde, that they had no grounds for so\n interpreting them. They knew the context and we do not.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n Plut. _def. orac._ 415 d, \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. Philo, fr. Harris, p. 20, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Censorinus, _de die nat._ 17, 2, \u201choc\n enim tempus (triaginta annos) _genean_ vocari Heraclitus auctor est,\n quia _orbis aetatis_ in eo sit spatio: orbem autem vocat aetatis, dum\n natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur.\u201d The words _orbis\n aetatis_ seem to mean \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe circle of life.\u201d If so, we\n may compare the Orphic \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: The day and the year.]\n\n76. Let us turn now to the world. Diogenes tells us that fire was kept\nup by the bright vapours from land and sea, and moisture by the\ndark.[394] What are these \u201cdark\u201d vapours which increase the moist\nelement? If we remember the \u201cAir\u201d of Anaximenes, we shall be inclined to\nregard them as darkness itself. We know that the idea of darkness as\nprivation of light is not natural to the unsophisticated mind. We\nsometimes hear even now of darkness \u201cthick enough to cut with a knife.\u201d\nI suppose, then, that Herakleitos believed night and winter to be\nproduced by the rise of darkness from earth and sea\u2014he saw, of course,\nthat the valleys were dark before the hill-tops,\u2014and that this darkness,\nbeing moist, so increased the watery element as to put out the sun\u2019s\nlight. This, however, destroys the power of darkness itself. It can no\nlonger rise upwards unless the sun gives it motion, and so it becomes\npossible for a fresh sun (fr. 32) to be kindled, and to nourish itself\nat the expense of the moist element for a time. But it can only be for a\ntime. The sun, by burning up the bright vapour, deprives himself of\nnourishment, and the dark vapour once more gets the upper hand. It is in\nthis sense that \u201cday and night are one\u201d (fr. 35). Each implies the\nother, and they are therefore to be regarded as merely two sides of the\none, in which alone their true ground of explanation is to be found (fr.\n36).\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 39 b).\n\nSummer and winter were easily to be explained in the same way. We know\nthat the \u201cturnings\u201d of the sun were a subject of interest in those days,\nand it was natural for Herakleitos to see in its retreat further to the\nsouth the gradual advance of the moist element, caused by the heat of\nthe sun itself. This, however, diminishes the power of the sun to cause\nevaporation, and so it must return to the north once more that it may\nsupply itself with nourishment. Such was, at any rate, the Stoic\ndoctrine on the subject,[395] and that it comes from Herakleitos seems\nto be proved by its occurrence in the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. It seems impossible\nto refer the following sentence to any other source:\u2014\n\n And in turn each (fire and water) prevails and is prevailed over to\n the greatest and least degree that is possible. For neither can\n prevail altogether for the following reasons. If fire advances towards\n the utmost limit of the water, its nourishment fails it. It retires,\n then, to a place where it can get nourishment. And if water advances\n towards the utmost limit of the fire, movement fails it. At that\n point, then, it stands still; and, when it has come to a stand, it has\n no longer power to resist, but is consumed as nourishment for the fire\n that falls upon it. For these reasons neither can prevail altogether.\n But if at any time either should be in any way overcome, then none of\n the things that exist would be as they are now. So long as things are\n as they are, fire and water will always be too, and neither will ever\n fail.[396]\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n See Kleanthes, fr. 29, Pearson, \u1f60\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 <\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6> \u1f27\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (\u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). Cf. Cic. _N.D._ iii. 37: \u201cQuid enim?\n non eisdem vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo\n modo posse, nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis,\n alia dulcibus (from the earth), alia marinis? eamque causam Cleanthes\n adfert cur se sol referat nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi\n itemque brumali, ne longius discedat a cibo.\u201d\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n For the Greek text of this passage, see below, p. 183, _n._ 413.\n Fredrichs allows that it is from the same source as that quoted above\n (p. 169), and, as that comes from \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 3, he denies the\n Herakleitean origin of this too. He has not taken account of the fact\n that it gives the Stoic doctrine, which raises a presumption in favour\n of that being Herakleitean. If I could agree with Fredrichs\u2019 theory, I\n should still say that the present passage was a Herakleitean\n interpolation in the _Physiker_ rather than that the other was an\n interpolation from the _Physiker_ in the Herakleitean section. As it\n is, I find no difficulty in believing that both passages give the\n Herakleitean doctrine, though it becomes mixed up with other theories\n in the sequel. See p. 167, _n._ 383.\n\n[Sidenote: The Great Year.]\n\n77. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which is identified with\nthe \u201cGreat Year,\u201d and is variously described as lasting 18,000 and\n10,800 years.[397] We have no definite statement, however, of what\nprocess Herakleitos supposed to take place in the Great Year. We have\nseen that the period of 36,000 years was, in all probability,\nBabylonian, and was that of the revolution which produces the precession\nof the equinoxes.[398] Now 18,000 years is just half that period, a fact\nwhich may be connected with Herakleitos\u2019s way of dividing all cycles\ninto an \u201cupward and downward path\u201d It is not at all likely, however,\nthat Herakleitos, who held with Xenophanes that the sun was \u201cnew every\nday,\u201d would trouble himself about the precession of the equinoxes, and\nwe seem forced to assume that he gave some new application to the\ntraditional period. The Stoics, or some of them, held that the Great\nYear was the period between one world-conflagration and the next. They\nwere careful, however, to make it a good deal longer than Herakleitos\ndid, and, in any case, we are not entitled without more ado to credit\nhim with the theory of a general conflagration.[399] We must try first,\nif possible, to interpret the Great Year on the analogy of the shorter\nperiods discussed already.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n Aet. ii. 32, 3, \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). Censorinus, _de die nat._ 11, Heraclitus\n et Linus, XDCCC.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n See Introd. \u00a7 XII. p. 25, _n._ 39.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, _de nat. hom._ 38 (R. P. 503).\n Mr. Adam allowed that no destruction of the world or conflagration\n marked the end of Plato\u2019s year, but he declined to draw what seems to\n me the natural inference that the connexion between the two things\n belongs to a later age, and should not, therefore, be ascribed to\n Herakleitos in the absence of any evidence that he did so connect\n them. Nevertheless, his treatment of these questions in the second\n volume of his edition of the _Republic_, pp. 302 sqq., must form the\n basis of all further discussion on the subject. It has certainly\n helped me to put the view which he rejects (p. 303, n. 9) in what I\n hope will be found a more convincing form.\n\nNow we have seen that a generation is the shortest time in which a man\ncan become a grandfather, it is the period of the upward or downward\npath of the soul, and the most natural interpretation of the longer\nperiod would surely be that it represents the time taken by a \u201cmeasure\u201d\nof the fire in the world to travel on the downward path to earth or\nreturn to fire once more by the upward path. Plato certainly implies\nthat such a parallelism between the periods of man and the world was\nrecognised,[400] and this receives a curious confirmation from a passage\nin Aristotle, which is usually supposed to refer to the doctrine of a\nperiodic conflagration. He is discussing the question whether the\n\u201cheavens,\u201d that is to say, what he calls the \u201cfirst heaven,\u201d is eternal\nor not, and he naturally enough, from his own point of view, identifies\nthis with the Fire of Herakleitos. He quotes him along with Empedokles\nas holding that the \u201cheavens\u201d are alternately as they are now and in\nsome other state, one of passing away; and he goes on to point out that\nthis is not really to say they pass away, any more than it would be to\nsay that a man ceases to be, if we said that he turned from boy to man\nand then from man to boy again.[401] It is surely clear that this is a\nreference to the parallel between the generation and the Great Year,\nand, if so, the ordinary interpretation of the passage must be wrong. It\nis true that it is not quite consistent with the theory to suppose that\na \u201cmeasure\u201d of Fire could preserve its identity throughout the whole of\nits upward and downward path; but it is exactly the same inconsistency\nthat we have felt bound to recognise with regard to the continuance of\nindividual souls, a fact which is really in favour of our\ninterpretation. It should be added that, while 18,000 is half 36,000,\n10,800 is 360 \u00d7 30, which would make each generation a day in the Great\nYear.[402]\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n This is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the\n periods of the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and the \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, however we may\n understand the details. See Adam, _Republic_, vol. ii. pp. 288 sqq.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0391, 10. 279 b 14, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03be \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, ... \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Aristotle points out that this really amounts\n only to saying that it is eternal and changes its form, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72\n \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf (280 a 14). The point of the reference to Empedokles\n will appear from _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 6. 334 a 1 sqq. What Aristotle\n finds fault with in both theories is that they do not regard the\n substance of the heavens as something outside the upward and downward\n motion of the elements.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n This is practically Lassalle\u2019s view of the Great Year, except that he\n commits the anachronism of speaking of \u201catoms\u201d of fire instead of\n \u201cmeasures.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Did Herakleitos teach a general conflagration?]\n\n78. Most modern writers, however, ascribe to Herakleitos the doctrine of\na periodical conflagration or \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, to use the Stoic term.[403]\nThat this is inconsistent with the theory, as we have interpreted it, is\nobvious, and is indeed admitted by Zeller. To his paraphrase of the\nstatement of Plato quoted above (p. 159) he adds the words: \u201cHerakleitos\ndid not intend to retract this principle in the doctrine of a periodic\nchange in the constitution of the world; if the two doctrines are not\ncompatible, it is a contradiction which he has not observed.\u201d Now, it is\nin itself quite likely that there were contradictions in the discourse\nof Herakleitos, but it is very unlikely that there was this particular\none. In the first place, it is a contradiction of the central idea of\nhis system, the thought that possessed his whole mind (\u00a7 67), and we can\nonly admit the possibility of that, if the evidence for it should prove\nirresistible. In the second place, such an interpretation destroys the\nwhole point of Plato\u2019s contrast between Herakleitos and Empedokles (\u00a7\n68), which is just that, while Herakleitos said the One was always many,\nand the Many always one, Empedokles said the All was many and one by\nturns. Zeller\u2019s interpretation obliges us, then, to suppose that\nHerakleitos flatly contradicted his own discovery without noticing it,\nand that Plato, in discussing this very discovery, was also blind to the\ncontradiction.[404]\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels, and\n Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos believed in the \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to feel this last\n difficulty; for he now says: \u201cIt is a contradiction which he, _and\n which probably Plato too_ (_und den wahrscheinlich auch Plato_) has\n not observed.\u201d This seems to me still less arguable. Plato may or may\n not be mistaken; but he makes the perfectly definite statement that\n Herakleitos says \u1f00\u03b5\u03af, while Empedokles says \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. The Ionian Muses\n are called \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 and the Sicilian \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 just because the\n latter \u201clowered the pitch\u201d (\u1f10\u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd) of the doctrine that this is\n always so (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd).\n\nNor is there anything in Aristotle to set against Plato\u2019s emphatic\nstatement. We have seen that the passage in which he speaks of him along\nwith Empedokles as holding that the heavens were alternately in one\ncondition and in another refers not to the world in general, but to\nfire, which Aristotle identified with the substance of his own \u201cfirst\nheaven.\u201d[405] It is also quite consistent with our interpretation when\nhe says that all things at one time or another become fire. This does\nnot necessarily mean that they all become fire at the same time, but is\nmerely a statement of the undoubted Herakleitean doctrine of the upward\nand downward path.[406]\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n See above, p. 177, _n._ 401.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n _Phys._ \u0393 5, 205 a 3 (_Met._ \u039a, 10. 1067 a 4), \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1. Even in his fifth edition (p. 691) Zeller\n translates this _es werde alles dereinst zu Feuer werden_; but that\n would require \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Nor is there anything in his suggestion that\n \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (\u201cnot merely \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u201d) implies that all things become fire at\n once. In Aristotle\u2019s day, there was no distinction of meaning between\n \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 and \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2. Even if he had said \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, we could not press it.\n What is really noticeable is the present infinitive \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 which\n surely suggests a continuous process, not a series of conflagrations.\n\nThe only clear statements to the effect that Herakleitos taught the\ndoctrine of a general conflagration are posterior to the rise of\nStoicism. It is unnecessary to enumerate them, as there is no doubt\nabout their meaning. The Christian apologists too were interested in the\nidea of a final conflagration, and reproduce the Stoic view. The curious\nthing, however, is that there was a difference of opinion on the subject\neven among the Stoics. In one place, Marcus Aurelius says: \u201cSo that all\nthese things are taken up into the Reason of the universe, whether by a\nperiodical conflagration or a renovation effected by external\nexchanges.\u201d[407] Indeed, there were some who said there was no general\nconflagration at all in Herakleitos. \u201cI hear all that,\u201d Plutarch makes\none of his personages say, \u201cfrom many people, and I see the Stoic\nconflagration spreading over the poems of Hesiod, just as it does over\nthe writings of Herakleitos and the verses of Orpheus.\u201d[408] We see from\nthis that the question was debated, and we should therefore expect that\nany statement of Herakleitos which could settle it would be quoted over\nand over again. It is highly significant that not a single quotation of\nthe kind can be produced.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n Marcus Aurelius, x. 7, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. The \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af are specifically Herakleitean, and the\n statement is the more remarkable as Marcus elsewhere follows the usual\n Stoic interpretation.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n Plut. _de def. orac._ 415 f, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7,\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a3\u03c4\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f29\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. As Zeller\n admits (p. 693 n.), this proves that some opponents of the Stoic\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 tried to withdraw the support of Herakleitos from it. Could\n they have done so if Herakleitos had said anything about it, or would\n not some one have produced a decisive quotation? We may be sure that,\n if any one had, it would have been reiterated _ad nauseam_, for the\n indestructibility of the world was one of the great questions of the\n day.\n\nOn the contrary, the absence of anything to show that Herakleitos spoke\nof a general conflagration only becomes more patent when we turn to the\nfew fragments which are supposed to prove it. The favourite is fr. 24,\nwhere we are told that Herakleitos said Fire was Want and Surfeit. That\nis just in his manner, and it has a perfectly intelligible meaning on\nour interpretation, which is further confirmed by fr. 36. On the other\nhand, it seems distinctly artificial to understand the Surfeit as\nreferring to the fact that fire has burnt everything else up, and still\nmore so to interpret Want as meaning that fire, or most of it, has\nturned into a world. The next is fr. 26, where we read that fire in its\nadvance will judge and convict all things. There is nothing in this,\nhowever, to suggest that fire will judge all things at once rather than\nin turn, and, indeed, the phraseology reminds us of the advance of fire\nand water which we have seen reason for attributing to Herakleitos, but\nwhich is expressly said to be limited to a certain maximum.[409] These\nappear to be the only passages which the Stoics and the Christian\napologists could discover, and, whether our interpretation of them is\nright or wrong, it is surely obvious that they cannot bear the weight of\ntheir conclusion, and that there was certainly nothing more definite to\nbe found.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 3, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nIt is much easier to find fragments which are on the face of them\ninconsistent with a general conflagration. The \u201cmeasures\u201d of fr. 20 and\nfr. 29 must be the same thing, and they must surely be interpreted in\nthe light of fr. 23. If this be so, fr. 20, and more especially fr. 29,\ndirectly contradict the idea of a general conflagration. \u201cThe sun will\nnot overstep his measures.\u201d[410] Secondly, the metaphor of \u201cexchange,\u201d\nwhich is applied to the transformations of fire in fr. 22, points in the\nsame direction. When gold is given in exchange for wares and wares for\ngold, the sum or \u201cmeasure\u201d of each remains constant, though they change\nowners. All the wares and gold do not come into the same hands. In the\nsame way, when anything becomes fire, something of equal amount must\ncease to be fire, if the \u201cexchange\u201d is to be a just one; and that it\nwill be just, we are assured by the watchfulness of the Erinyes (fr.\n29), who see to it that the sun does not take more than he gives. Of\ncourse there is, as we have seen, a certain variation; but this is\nstrictly confined within limits, and is compensated in the long run by a\nvariation in the other direction. Thirdly, fr. 43, in which Herakleitos\nblames Homer for desiring the cessation of strife, is very conclusive.\nThe cessation of strife would mean that all things should take the\nupward or downward path at the same time, and cease to \u201crun in opposite\ndirections.\u201d If they all took the upward path, we should have a general\nconflagration. Now, if Herakleitos had himself held that this was the\nappointment of fate, would he have been likely to upbraid Homer for\ndesiring so necessary a consummation?[411] Fourthly, we note that in fr.\n20 it is _this_ world,[412] and not merely the \u201cever-living fire,\u201d which\nis said to be eternal; and it appears also that its eternity depends\nupon the fact that it is always kindling and always going out in the\nsame \u201cmeasures,\u201d or that an encroachment in one direction is compensated\nby a subsequent encroachment in the other. Lastly, Lassalle\u2019s argument\nfrom the concluding sentence of the passage from the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\nquoted above, is really untouched by Zeller\u2019s objection, that it cannot\nbe Herakleitean because it implies that all things are fire and water.\nIt does not imply this, but only that _man_, like the heavenly bodies,\noscillates between fire and water; and that is just what Herakleitos\ntaught. It does not appear either that the measures of earth varied at\nall. Now, in this passage we read that neither fire nor water can\nprevail completely, and a very good reason is given for this, a reason\ntoo which is in striking agreement with the other views of\nHerakleitos.[413] And, indeed, it is not easy to see how, in accordance\nwith these views, the world could ever recover from a general\nconflagration if such a thing were to take place. The whole process\ndepends, so far as we can see, on the fact that Surfeit is also Want,\nor, in other words, that an advance of fire increases the moist\nexhalation, while an advance of water deprives the fire of the power to\ncause evaporation. The conflagration, though it lasted but for a\nmoment,[414] would destroy the opposite tension on which the rise of a\nnew world depends, and then motion would become impossible.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n If any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the \u201cmeasures,\u201d\n let him compare the use of the word by Diogenes of Apollonia, fr. 3.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n This is just the argument which Plato uses in the _Phaedo_ (72 c) to\n prove the necessity of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and the whole series of arguments\n in that passage is distinctly Herakleitean in character.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n However we understand the term \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 here, the meaning is the same.\n Indeed, if we suppose with Bernays that it means \u201corder,\u201d the argument\n in the text will be all the stronger. In no sense of the word could a\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 survive the \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and the Stoics accordingly said the\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 was \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 3 (see above, p. 167, _n._ 383, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c4\u03cc <\u03c4\u03b5> \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f35\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc7, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n In his note on fr. 66 (= 26 Byw.), Diels seeks to minimise the\n difficulty of the \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 by saying that it is only a little one,\n and can last but a moment; but the contradiction noted above remains\n all the same. Diels holds that Herakleitos was \u201cdark only in form,\u201d\n and that \u201che himself was perfectly clear as to the sense and scope of\n his ideas\u201d (_Herakleitos_, p. i.). To which I would add that he was\n probably called \u201cthe Dark\u201d just because the Stoics sometimes found it\n hard to read their own ideas into his words.\n\n[Sidenote: Strife and \u201charmony.\u201d]\n\n79. We are now in a position to understand more clearly the law of\nstrife or opposition which manifests itself in the \u201cupward and downward\npath.\u201d At any given moment, each of the three forms of matter, Fire,\nWater, and Earth, is made up of two equal portions,\u2014subject, of course,\nto the oscillation described above,\u2014one of which is taking the upward\nand the other the downward path. Now, it is just the fact that the two\nhalves of everything are being \u201cdrawn in opposite directions,\u201d this\n\u201copposite tension,\u201d that \u201ckeeps things together,\u201d and maintains them in\nan equilibrium which can only be disturbed temporarily and within\ncertain limits. It thus forms the \u201chidden attunement\u201d of the universe\n(fr. 47), though, in another aspect of it, it is Strife. Bernays has\npointed out that the word \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 meant originally \u201cstructure,\u201d and the\nillustration of the bow and the lyre shows that this idea was present.\nOn the other hand, that taken from the concord of high and low notes\nshows that the musical sense of the word, namely, an octave, was not\nwholly absent. As to the \u201cbow and the lyre\u201d (fr. 45), I think that\nProfessor Campbell has best brought out the point of the simile. \u201cAs the\narrow leaves the string,\u201d he says, \u201cthe hands are pulling opposite ways\nto each other, and to the different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, _Rep._\n4. 439); and the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension and\nretention. The secret of the universe is the same.\u201d[415] War, then, is\nthe father and king of all things, in the world as in human society (fr.\n44); and Homer\u2019s wish that strife might cease was really a prayer for\nthe destruction of the world (fr. 43).\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n Campbell\u2019s _Theaetetus_ (2nd ed.), p. 244. See above, p. 150, _n._\n 347. Bernays explained the phrase as referring to the _shape_ of the\n bow and lyre, but this is much less likely. Wilamowitz\u2019s\n interpretation is substantially the same as Campbell\u2019s. \u201cEs ist mit\n der Welt wie mit dem Bogen, den man auseinanderzieht, damit er\n zusammenschnellt, wie mit der Saite, die man ihrer Spannung\n entgegenziehen muss, damit sie klingt\u201d (_Lesebuch_, ii. p. 129).\n\nWe know from Philo that Herakleitos supported his theory of the\nattainment of harmony through strife by a multitude of examples; and, as\nit happens, some of these can be recovered. There is a remarkable\nagreement between a passage of this kind in the pseudo-Aristotelian\ntreatise, entitled _The Kosmos_, and the Hippokratean work to which we\nhave already referred. That the authors of both drew from the same\nsource, namely, Herakleitos, is probable in itself, and is made\npractically certain by the fact that this agreement extends in part to\nthe _Letters of Herakleitos_, which, though spurious, were certainly\ncomposed by some one who had access to the original work. The argument\nwas that men themselves act just in the same way as Nature, and it is\ntherefore surprising that they do not recognise the laws by which she\nworks. The painter produces his harmonious effects by the contrast of\ncolours, the musician by that of high and low notes. \u201cIf one were to\nmake all things alike, there would be no delight in them.\u201d There are\nmany similar examples in the Hippokratean tract, some of which must\ncertainly come from Herakleitos; but it is not easy to separate them\nfrom the later additions.[416]\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n See on all this Patin\u2019s _Quellenstudien zu Heraklit_ (1881). The\n sentence (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 5): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f03 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f03 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f74\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, has the true Herakleitean ring. This, too, can hardly have\n had another author: \u201cThey trust to their eyes rather than to their\n understanding, though their eyes are not fit to judge even of the\n things that are seen. But I speak these things from understanding.\u201d\n These words are positively grotesque in the mouth of the medical\n compiler; but we are accustomed to hear such things from the Ephesian.\n Other examples which may be Herakleitean are the image of the two men\n sawing wood\u2014\u201cone pushes, the other pulls\u201d\u2014and the illustration from\n the art of writing.\n\n[Sidenote: Correlation of opposites.]\n\n80. There are a number of Herakleitean fragments which form a class by\nthemselves, and are among the most striking of all the utterances that\nhave come down to us. Their common characteristic is, that they assert\nin the most downright way the identity of various things which are\nusually regarded as opposites. The clue to their meaning is to be found\nin the account already given of the assertion that day and night are\none. We have seen that Herakleitos meant to say, not that day was night\nor that night was day, but that they were two sides of the same process,\nnamely, the oscillation of the \u201cmeasures\u201d of fire and water, and that\nneither would be possible without the other. Any explanation that can be\ngiven of night will also be an explanation of day, and _vice versa_; for\nit will be an account of that which is common to both, and manifests\nitself now as one and now as the other. Moreover, it is just because it\nhas manifested itself in the one form that it must next appear in the\nother; for this is required by the law of compensation or Justice.\n\nThis is only a particular application of the universal principle that\nthe primary fire is one even in its division. It itself is, even in its\nunity, both surfeit and want, war and peace (fr. 36). In other words,\nthe \u201csatiety\u201d which makes fire pass into other forms, which makes it\nseek \u201crest in change\u201d (frs. 82, 83), and \u201chide itself\u201d (fr. 10) in the\n\u201chidden attunement\u201d of opposition, is only one side of the process. The\nother is the \u201cwant\u201d which leads it to consume the bright vapour as fuel.\nThe upward path is nothing without the downward (fr. 69). If either were\nto cease, the other would cease too, and the world would disappear; for\nit takes both to make an apparently stable reality.\n\nAll other utterances of the kind are to be explained in the same way. If\nthere were no cold, there would be no heat; for a thing can only grow\nwarm if, and in so far as, it is already cold. And the same thing\napplies to the opposition of wet and dry (fr. 39). These, it will be\nobserved, are just the two primary oppositions of Anaximander, and\nHerakleitos is showing that the war between them is really peace, for it\nis the common element in them (fr. 62) which appears as strife, and that\nvery strife is justice, and not, as Anaximander had taught, an injustice\nwhich they commit one against the other, and which must be expiated by a\nreabsorption of both in their common ground.[417] The strife itself is\nthe common ground (fr. 62), and is eternal.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n Chap. I. \u00a7 16.\n\nThe most startling of these sayings is that which affirms that good and\nevil are the same (fr. 57). This does not mean in the least, however,\nthat good is evil or that evil is good, but simply that they are the two\ninseparable halves of one and the same thing. A thing can become good\nonly in so far as it is already evil, and evil only in so far as it is\nalready good, and everything depends on the contrast. The illustration\ngiven in fr. 58 shows this clearly. Torture, one would say, was an evil,\nand yet it is made a good by the presence of another evil, namely,\ndisease; as is shown by the fact that surgeons expect a fee for\ninflicting it upon their patients. Justice, on the other hand, which is\na good, would be altogether unknown were it not for the existence of\ninjustice, which is an evil (fr. 60). And that is why it is not good for\nmen to get everything they wish (fr. 104). Just as the cessation of\nstrife in the world would mean its destruction, so the disappearance of\nhunger, disease, and weariness would mean the disappearance of\nsatisfaction, health, and rest.\n\nThis leads to a theory of relativity which prepares the way for the\ndoctrine of Protagoras, that \u201cMan is the measure of all things.\u201d[418]\nSea-water is good for fish and bad for men (fr. 52), and so with many\nother things. At the same time, Herakleitos is not a believer in\nabsolute relativity. The process of the world is not merely a circle,\nbut an \u201cupward and downward path.\u201d At the upper end, where the two paths\nmeet, we have the pure fire, in which, as there is no separation, there\nis no relativity. We are told expressly that, while to man some things\nare evil and some things are good, all things are good to God (fr. 61).\nNow by God there is no doubt that Herakleitos meant Fire. He also calls\nit the \u201cone wise,\u201d and perhaps said that it \u201cknows all things.\u201d There\ncan hardly be any question that what he meant to say was that in it the\nopposition and relativity which are universal in the world disappear. It\nis doubtless to this that frs. 96, 97, and 98 refer.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n Plato\u2019s exposition of the relativity of knowledge in the _Theaetetus_\n (152 d sqq.) can hardly go back to Herakleitos himself, but is meant\n to show how Herakleiteanism might naturally give rise to such a\n doctrine. If the soul is a stream and things are a stream, then of\n course knowledge is relative. Very possibly the later Herakleiteans\n had worked out the theory in this direction, but in the days of\n Herakleitos himself the problem of knowledge had not yet arisen.\n\n[Sidenote: The Wise.]\n\n81. Herakleitos speaks of \u201cwisdom\u201d or the \u201cwise\u201d in two senses. We have\nseen already that he said wisdom was \u201csomething apart from everything\nelse\u201d (fr. 18), meaning by it the perception of the unity of the many;\nand he also applies the term to that unity itself regarded as the\n\u201cthought that directs the course of all things.\u201d This is synonymous with\nthe pure fire which is not differentiated into two parts, one taking the\nupward and the other the downward path. That alone has wisdom; the\npartial things we see have not. We ourselves are only wise in so far as\nwe are fiery (fr. 74).\n\n[Sidenote: Theology.]\n\n82. With certain reservations, Herakleitos was prepared to call the one\nWisdom by the name of Zeus. Such, at least, appears to be the meaning of\nfr. 65. What these reservations were, it is easy to guess. It is not, of\ncourse, to be pictured in the form of a man. In saying this, Herakleitos\nwould only have been repeating what had already been laid down by\nAnaximander and Xenophanes. He agrees further with Xenophanes in holding\nthat this \u201cgod,\u201d if it is to be called so, is one; but his polemic\nagainst popular religion was directed rather against the rites and\nceremonies themselves than their mere mythological outgrowth. He gives a\nlist (fr. 124) of some of the most characteristic religious figures of\nhis time, and the context in which the fragment is quoted shows that he\nin some way threatened them with the wrath to come. He comments upon the\nabsurdity of praying to images (fr. 126), and the strange idea that\nblood-guiltiness can be washed out by the shedding of blood (fr. 130).\nHe seems also to have said that it was absurd to celebrate the worship\nof Dionysos by cheerful and licentious ceremonies, while Hades was\npropitiated by gloomy rites (fr. 127). According to the mystic doctrine\nitself, the two were really one; and the one Wisdom ought to be\nworshipped in its integrity.\n\nThe few fragments which deal with theology and religion hardly suggest\nto us that Herakleitos was in sympathy with the religious revival of the\ntime, and yet we have been asked to consider his system \u201cin the light of\nthe idea of the mysteries.\u201d[419] Our attention is called to the fact\nthat he was \u201cking\u201d of Ephesos, that is, priest of the branch of the\nEleusinian mysteries established in that city, which was also connected\nin some way with the worship of Artemis or the Great Mother.[420] These\nstatements may be true; but, even if they are, what follows? We ought\nsurely to have learnt from Lobeck by this time that there was no \u201cidea\u201d\nin the mysteries at all; and on this point the results of recent\nanthropological research have abundantly confirmed those of philological\nand historical inquiry.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n E. Pfleiderer, _Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der\n Mysterienidee_ (1886).\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n Antisthenes (the writer of _Successions_) _ap._ Diog. ix. 6 (R. P.\n 31). Cf. Strabo, xiv. p. 633 (R. P. 31 b).\n\n[Sidenote: Ethics of Herakleitos.]\n\n83. The moral teaching of Herakleitos has sometimes been regarded as an\nanticipation of the \u201ccommon-sense\u201d theory of Ethics.[421] The \u201ccommon\u201d\nupon which Herakleitos insists is, nevertheless, something very\ndifferent from common sense, for which, indeed, he had the greatest\npossible contempt (fr. 111). It is, in fact, his strongest objection to\n\u201cthe many,\u201d that they live each in his own world (fr. 95), as if they\nhad a private wisdom of their own (fr. 92); and public opinion is\ntherefore just the opposite of \u201cthe common.\u201d\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n K\u00f6stlin, _Gesch. d. Ethik_, i. pp. 160 sqq.\n\nThe Ethics of Herakleitos are to be regarded as a corollary of his\nanthropological and cosmological views. Their chief requirement is that\nwe keep our souls dry, and thus assimilate them to the one Wisdom, which\nis fire. That is what is really \u201ccommon,\u201d and the greatest fault is to\nact like men asleep (fr. 94), that is, by letting our souls grow moist,\nto cut ourselves off from the fire in the world. We do not know what\nwere the consequences which Herakleitos deduced from his rule that we\nmust hold fast to what is common, but it is easy to see what their\nnature must have been. The wise man would not try to secure good without\nits correlative evil. He would not seek for rest without exertion, nor\nexpect to enjoy contentment without first suffering discontent. He would\nnot complain that he had to take the bad with the good, but would\nconsistently look at things as a whole.\n\nHerakleitos prepared the way for the Stoic world-state by comparing \u201cthe\ncommon\u201d to the laws of a city. And these are even more than a type of\nthe divine law: they are imperfect embodiments of it. They cannot,\nhowever, exhaust it altogether; for in all human affairs there is an\nelement of relativity (fr. 91). \u201cMan is a baby compared to God\u201d (fr.\n97). Such as they are, however, the city must fight for them as for its\nwalls; and, if it has the good fortune to possess a citizen with a dry\nsoul, he is worth ten thousand (fr. 113); for in him alone is \u201cthe\ncommon\u201d embodied.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n PARMENIDES OF ELEA\n\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n84. Parmenides, son of Pyres, was a citizen of Hyele, Elea, or Velia, a\ncolony founded in Oinotria by refugees from Phokaia in 540-39 B.C.[422]\nDiogenes tells us that he \u201cflourished\u201d in Ol. LXIX. (504-500 B.C.), and\nthis was doubtless the date given by Apollodoros.[423] On the other\nhand, Plato says that Parmenides came to Athens in his sixty-fifth year,\naccompanied by Zeno, and conversed with Sokrates, who was then quite\nyoung. Now Sokrates was just over seventy when he was put to death in\n399 B.C.; and therefore, if we suppose him to have been an _ephebos_,\nthat is, from eighteen to twenty years old, at the time of his interview\nwith Parmenides, we get 451-449 B.C. as the date of that event. I do not\nhesitate to accept Plato\u2019s statement,[424] especially as we have\nindependent evidence of the visit of Zeno to Athens, where Perikles is\nsaid to have \u201cheard\u201d him.[425] The date given by Apollodoros, on the\nother hand, depends solely on that of the foundation of Elea, which he\nhad adopted as the _floruit_ of Xenophanes. Parmenides is born in that\nyear, just as Zeno is born in the year when Parmenides \u201cflourished.\u201d Why\nany one should prefer these transparent combinations to the testimony of\nPlato, I am at a loss to understand, though it is equally a mystery why\nApollodoros himself should have overlooked such precise data.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 111). For the foundation of Elea, see Herod. i.\n 165 sqq. It was on the coast of Lucania, south of Poseidonia\n (Paestum).\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n Diog. ix. 23 (R. P. 111). Cf. Diels, _Rhein. Mus._ xxxi. p. 34; and\n Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n Plato, _Parm._ 127 b (R. P. 111 d). There are, as Zeller has shown, a\n certain number of anachronisms in Plato, but there is not one of this\n character. In the first place, we have exact figures as to the ages of\n Parmenides and Zeno, which imply that the latter was twenty-five years\n younger than the former, not forty as Apollodoros said. In the second\n place, Plato refers to this meeting in two other places (_Tht._ 183 e\n 7 and _Soph._ 217 c 5), which do not seem to be mere references to the\n dialogue entitled _Parmenides_. No parallel can be quoted for an\n anachronism so glaring and deliberate as this would be. E. Meyer\n (_Gesch. des Alterth._ iv. \u00a7 509, _Anm._) also regards the meeting of\n Sokrates and Parmenides as historical.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Plut. _Per._ 4, 3. See below, p. 358, _n._ 852.\n\nWe have seen already (\u00a7 55) that Aristotle mentions a statement which\nmade Parmenides the disciple of Xenophanes; but the value of this\ntestimony is diminished by the doubtful way in which he speaks, and it\nis more than likely that he is only referring to what Plato says in the\n_Sophist_.[426] It is, we also saw, very improbable that Xenophanes\nfounded the school of Elea, though it is quite possible he visited that\ncity. He tells us himself that, in his ninety-second year, he was still\nwandering up and down (fr. 8). At that time Parmenides would be well\nadvanced in life. And we must not overlook the statement of Sotion,\npreserved to us by Diogenes, that, though Parmenides \u201cheard\u201d Xenophanes,\nhe did not \u201cfollow\u201d him. According to this account, our philosopher was\nthe \u201cassociate\u201d of a Pythagorean, Ameinias, son of Diochaitas, \u201ca poor\nbut noble man to whom he afterwards built a shrine as to a hero.\u201d It was\nAmeinias and not Xenophanes that \u201cconverted\u201d Parmenides to the\nphilosophic life.[427] This does not read like an invention, and we must\nremember that the Alexandrians had information about the history of\nSouthern Italy which we have not. The shrine erected by Parmenides would\nstill be there in later days, like the grave of Pythagoras at\nMetapontion. It should also be mentioned that Strabo describes\nParmenides and Zeno as Pythagoreans, and that Kebes talks of a\n\u201cParmenidean and Pythagorean way of life.\u201d[428] Zeller explains all this\nby supposing that, like Empedokles, Parmenides approved of and followed\nthe Pythagorean mode of life without adopting the Pythagorean system. It\nis possibly true that Parmenides believed in a \u201cphilosophic life\u201d (\u00a7\n35), and that he got the idea from the Pythagoreans; but there is very\nlittle trace, either in his writings or in what we are told about him,\nof his having been in any way affected by the religious side of\nPythagoreanism. The writing of Empedokles is obviously modelled upon\nthat of Parmenides, and yet there is an impassable gulf between the two.\nThe touch of charlatanism, which is so strange a feature in the copy, is\naltogether absent from the model. It is true, no doubt, that there are\ntraces of Orphic ideas in the poem of Parmenides;[429] but they are all\nto be found either in the allegorical introduction or in the second part\nof the poem, and we need not therefore take them very seriously. Now\nParmenides was a western Hellene, and he had probably been a\nPythagorean, so it is not a little remarkable that he should be so free\nfrom the common tendency of his age and country. It is here, if\nanywhere, that we may trace the influence of Xenophanes. As regards his\nrelation to the Pythagorean system, we shall have something to say later\non. At present we need only note further that, like most of the older\nphilosophers, he took part in politics; and Speusippos recorded that he\nlegislated for his native city. Others add that the magistrates of Elea\nmade the citizens swear every year to abide by the laws which Parmenides\nhad given them.[430]\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n See above, Chap. II. p. 140, _n._ 308.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. III), reading \u1f08\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1 with Diels\n (_Hermes_, xxxv. p. 197). Sotion, in his _Successions_, separated\n Parmenides from Xenophanes and associated him with the Pythagoreans\n (_Dox._ pp. 146, 148, 166).\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n Strabo, vi. 1, p. 252 (p. 195, _n._ 430); Ceb. _Tab._ 2 (R. P. 111 c).\n This Kebes is not the Kebes of the _Phaedo_; but he certainly lived\n some time before Lucian, who speaks of him as a well-known writer. A\n Cynic of the name is mentioned by Athenaios (156 d). The statements of\n Strabo are of the greatest value; for they are based upon historians\n now lost.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n O. Kern in _Arch._ iii. pp. 173 sqq. We know too little, however, of\n the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century B.C. to be sure of the\n details. All we can say is that Parmenides has taken the form of his\n poem from some such source. See Diels, \u201cUeber die poetischen Vorbilder\n des Parmenides\u201d (_Berl. Sitzb._ 1896), and the Introduction to his\n _Parmenides Lehrgedicht_, pp. 9 sqq.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n Diog. ix. 23 (R. P. 111). Plut. _adv. Col._ 1226 a, \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n Strabo, vi. 1. p. 252, (\u1f18\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd) \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: The poem.]\n\n85. Parmenides was really the first philosopher to expound his system in\nmetrical language. As there is some confusion on this subject, it\ndeserves a few words of explanation. In writing of Empedokles, Mr. J. A.\nSymonds said: \u201cThe age in which he lived had not yet thrown off the form\nof poetry in philosophical composition. Even Parmenides had committed\nhis austere theories to hexameter verse.\u201d Now this is wrongly put. The\nearliest philosophers, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Herakleitos, all\nwrote in prose, and the only Greeks who ever wrote philosophy in verse\nat all were just these two, Parmenides and Empedokles; for Xenophanes\nwas not primarily a philosopher any more than Epicharmos. Empedokles\ncopied Parmenides; and he, no doubt, was influenced by Xenophanes and\nthe Orphics. But the thing was an innovation, and one that did not\nmaintain itself.\n\nThe fragments of Parmenides are preserved for the most part by\nSimplicius, who fortunately inserted them in his commentary, because in\nhis time the original work was already rare.[431] I follow the\narrangement of Diels.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ 144, 25 (R. P. 117). Simplicius, of course, had the\n library of the Academy at his command. Diels notes, however, that\n Proclus seems to have used a different MS.\n\n\n (1)\n\n The car that bears me carried me as far as ever my heart desired,\n since it brought me and set me on the renowned way of the goddess,\n which alone leads the man who knows through all things. On that way\n was I borne along; for on it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my\n car, and maidens <<5>> showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the\n socket\u2014for it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each end\u2014gave\n forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the Sun, hasting to\n convey me into the light, threw back their veils from off their faces\n and left the abode of Night. <<10>>\n\n There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day,[432] fitted above\n with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone. They themselves,\n high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, and Avenging Justice\n keeps the keys that fit them. Her did the maidens entreat with gentle\n words and cunningly persuade <<15>> to unfasten without demur the\n bolted bars from the gates. Then, when the doors were thrown back,\n they disclosed a wide opening, when their brazen posts fitted with\n rivets and nails swung back one after the other. Straight through\n them, on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the\n <<20>> car, and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand\n in hers, and spake to me these words:\n\n Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car that bears thee\n tended by immortal charioteers! It is no ill <<25>> chance, but right\n and justice that has sent thee forth to travel on this way. Far,\n indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of men! Meet it is that thou\n shouldst learn all things, as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded\n truth, as the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all.\n Yet <<30>> none the less shalt thou learn these things also,\u2014how they\n should have judged that the things which seem to them are,\u2014as thou\n goest through all things in thy journey.[433]\n\n * * * * *\n\n But do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry, nor let\n habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon this way a\n wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue; but <<35>> judge by argument\n the much disputed proof uttered by me. There is only one way left that\n can be spoken of.[434]... R. P. 113.\n\n THE WAY OF TRUTH\n\n (2)\n\n Look steadfastly with thy mind at things though afar as if they were\n at hand. Thou canst not cut off what is from holding fast to what is,\n neither scattering itself abroad in order nor coming together. R. P.\n 118 a.\n\n (3)\n\n It is all one to me where I begin; for I shall come back again there.\n\n (4, 5)\n\n Come now, I will tell thee\u2014and do thou hearken to my saying and carry\n it away\u2014the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first,\n namely, that _It is_, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is\n the way of belief, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that\n _It is not_, and that <<5>> it must needs not be,\u2014that, I tell thee,\n is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what\n is not\u2014that is impossible\u2014nor utter it; for it is the same thing that\n can be thought and that can be.[435] R. P. 114.\n\n (6)\n\n It needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of is; for it is\n possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to\n be.[436] This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee back from this\n first way of inquiry, and from this other also, upon which mortals\n knowing naught wander <<5>> two-faced; for helplessness guides the\n wandering thought in their breasts, so that they are borne along\n stupefied like men deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes\n it is, and is not, the same and not the same,[437] and all things\n travel in opposite directions![438] R. P. 115.\n\n (7)\n\n For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not are; and\n do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry. R. P. 116.\n\n (8)\n\n One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that _It is_. In it\n are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and indestructible; for\n it is complete,[439] immovable, and without end. Nor was it ever, nor\n will it be; for now _it is_, all at once, a continuous one. For what\n kind of origin for it wilt <<5>> thou look for? In what way and from\n what source could it have drawn its increase? I shall not let thee say\n nor think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be thought\n nor uttered that anything is not. And, if it came from nothing, what\n need could have made it arise later rather than sooner? <<10>>\n Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all. Nor will the\n force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from that which is\n not.[440] Wherefore, Justice doth not loose her fetters and let\n anything come into being or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgment\n thereon depends on this: \u201c_Is it_ <<15>> or _is it not_?\u201d Surely it is\n adjudged, as it needs must be, that we are to set aside the one way as\n unthinkable and nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other\n path is real and true. How, then, can what _is_ be going to be in the\n future? Or how could it come into being? If it came into <<20>> being,\n it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is\n becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of. R. P. 117.\n\n Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more[441]\n of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding\n together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is. Wherefore\n it is wholly continuous; for what is, is in contact <<25>> with what\n is.\n\n Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without\n beginning and without end; since coming into being and passing away\n have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away. It is the\n same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself. And thus\n it remaineth constant in <<30>> its place; for hard necessity keeps it\n in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side. Wherefore\n it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of\n nothing; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of\n everything.[442] R. P. 118.\n\n The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the\n thought exists is the same;[443] for you cannot find <<35>> thought\n without something that is, as to which it is uttered.[444] And there\n is not, and never shall be, anything besides what is, since fate has\n chained it so as to be whole and immovable. Wherefore all these things\n are but names which mortals have given, believing them to be\n true\u2014coming into being and <<40>> passing away, being and not being,\n change of place and alteration of bright colour. R. P. 119.\n\n Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every side,\n like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from the centre in\n every direction; for it cannot be greater or <<45>> smaller in one\n place than in another. For there is no nothing that could keep it from\n reaching out equally, nor can aught that is be more here and less\n there than what is, since it is all inviolable. For the point from\n which it is equal in every direction tends equally to the limits. R.\n P. 120.\n\n\n THE WAY OF OPINION\n\n Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought <<50>> about the\n truth. Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals, giving ear to the\n deceptive ordering of my words.\n\n Mortals have made up their minds to name two forms, one of which they\n should not name,[445] and that is where they go astray from the truth.\n They have distinguished them as <<55>> opposite in form, and have\n assigned to them marks distinct from one another. To the one they\n allot the fire of heaven, gentle, very light, in every direction the\n same as itself, but not the same as the other. The other is just the\n opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these I tell\n thee <<60>> the whole arrangement as it seems likely; for so no\n thought of mortals will ever outstrip thee. R. P. 121.\n\n (9)\n\n Now that all things have been named light and night, and the names\n which belong to the power of each have been assigned to these things\n and to those, everything is full at once of light and dark night, both\n equal, since neither has aught to do with the other.\n\n (10, 11)\n\n And thou shalt know the substance of the sky, and all the signs in the\n sky, and the resplendent works of the glowing sun\u2019s pure torch, and\n whence they arose. And thou shalt learn likewise of the wandering\n deeds of the round-faced moon, and of her substance. Thou shalt know,\n too, the heavens that surround <<5>> us, whence they arose, and how\n Necessity took them and bound them to keep the limits of the stars ...\n how the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is common\n to all, and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos, and the burning\n might of the stars arose. <<10>> R. P. 123, 124.\n\n (12)\n\n The narrower rings are filled with unmixed fire, and those next them\n with night, and in the midst of these rushes their portion of fire. In\n the midst of these circles is the divinity that directs the course of\n all things; for she is the beginner of all painful birth and all\n begetting, driving the female to the <<5>> embrace of the male, and\n the male to that of the female. R. P. 125.\n\n (13)\n\n First of all the gods she contrived Eros. R. P. 125.\n\n (14)\n\n Shining by night with borrowed light,[446] wandering round the earth.\n\n (15)\n\n Always looking to the beams of the sun.\n\n (16)\n\n For just as thought finds at any time the mixture of its erring\n organs, so does it come to men; for that which thinks is the same,\n namely, the substance of the limbs, in each and every man; for their\n thought is that of which there is more in them.[447] R. P. 128.\n\n (17)\n\n On the right boys; on the left girls.[448]\n\n (19)\n\n Thus, according to men\u2019s opinions, did things come into being, and\n thus they are now. In time they will grow up and pass away. To each of\n these things men have assigned a fixed name. R. P. 129 b.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n For these see Hesiod, _Theog._ 748.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n See below, p. 211, _n._ 459.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n I read \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 as in the parallel passage fr. 8 _ad init._ Diels\u2019s\n interpretation of \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf (the MS. reading here) as _ein\n lebendiger Weg_ does not convince me, and the confusion of the two\n words is fairly common.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n I read with Zeller (p. 558 n. 1, Eng. trans. p. 584, n. 1) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Apart from the philosophical anachronism of\n making Parmenides say that \u201cthought and being are the same,\u201d it is a\n grammatical anachronism to make him use the infinitive (with or\n without the article) as the subject of a sentence. On the other hand,\n he does use the active infinitive after \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in the construction\n where we usually use a passive infinitive (Monro, _H. Gr._ \u00a7 231 _sub\n fin._). Cf. fr. 4, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u201care for thinking,\u201d _i.e._ \u201ccan be\n thought.\u201d\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note.\n It is surprising that good scholars should acquiesce in the\n translation of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 as \u201cto say and think this.\u201d Then\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 means \u201cit can be,\u201d not \u201cbeing is,\u201d and the last phrase\n should be construed \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd (\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9).\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n I construe \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. The subject of the infinitives \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is the\n _it_, which has to be supplied also with \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd and \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. This way\n of taking the words makes it unnecessary to believe that Parmenides\n said (\u03c4\u1f78) \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 instead of (\u03c4\u1f78) \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 for \u201cnot-being.\u201d There is\n no difference between \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 except in rhythmical value.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n I take \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd as neuter and understand \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 as\n equivalent to the \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 of Herakleitos. I do not think it has\n anything to do with the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (or \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7. See Chap.\n III. p. 150, _n._ 347.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n I still prefer to read \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c2 with Plutarch (_adv. Col._\n 1114 c). Proklos (_in Parm._ 1152, 24) also read \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c2.\n Simplicius, who has \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 here, calls the One of Parmenides\n \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c2 elsewhere (_Phys._ p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.]\n _Strom._ 5, \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 helps to explain the confusion. We have\n only to suppose that the letters \u03bc, \u03bd, \u03b3 were written above the line\n in the Academy copy of Parmenides by some one who had _Tim._ 31 b 3 in\n mind.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n Diels formerly read \u1f14\u03ba \u03c0\u03b7 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cfrom that which in any way is\u201d; but\n he has now reverted to the reading \u1f14\u03ba \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, supposing that the\n other horn of the dilemma has dropped out. In any case, \u201cnothing but\n what is not can arise from what is not\u201d gives a perfectly good sense.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n For the difficulties which have been felt about \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd here, see\n Diels\u2019s note. If the word is to be pressed, his interpretation is\n admissible; but it seems to me that this is simply an instance of\n \u201cpolar expression.\u201d It is true that it is only the case of there being\n less of what is in one place than another that is important for the\n divisibility of the One; but if there is less in one place, there is\n more in another _than in that place_. The Greek language tends to\n express these implications. The position of the relative clause makes\n a difficulty for us, but hardly for a Greek.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n Simplicius certainly read \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf, which is\n metrically impossible. I followed Bergk in deleting \u03bc\u03ae, and have\n interpreted with Zeller. So too Diels.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n For the construction of \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, see above, p. 198, _n._ 435.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n As Diels rightly points out, the Ionic \u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is equivalent to\n \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The meaning, I think, is this. We may name things as we\n choose, but there can be no thought corresponding to a name that is\n not the name of something real.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n This is Zeller\u2019s way of taking the words, and still seems to me the\n best. Diels objects that \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd would be required, and renders _nur\n eine derselben, das sei unerlaubt_, giving the words to the \u201cmortals.\u201d\n This seems to me to involve more serious grammatical difficulties than\n the use of \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd for \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, which is quite legitimate when there\n is an emphasis on the number. Aristotle must have taken it so; for he\n infers that one of the \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af is to be identified with \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n Note the curious echo of _Il._ v. 214. Empedokles has it too (v. 154).\n It appears to be a joke, made in the spirit of Xenophanes, when it was\n first discovered that the moon shone by reflected light.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n This fragment of the theory of knowledge which was expounded in the\n second part of the poem of Parmenides must be taken in connexion with\n what we are told by Theophrastos in the \u201cFragment on Sensation\u201d\n (_Dox._ p. 499; cf. p. 222). It appears from this that he said the\n character of men\u2019s thought depended upon the preponderance of the\n light or the dark element in their bodies. They are wise when the\n light element predominates, and foolish when the dark gets the upper\n hand.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n This is a fragment of Parmenides\u2019s embryology. Diels\u2019s fr. 18 is a\n retranslation of the Latin hexameters of Caelius Aurelianus quoted R.\n P. 127 a.\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cIt is.\u201d]\n\n86. In the First Part of his poem, we find Parmenides chiefly interested\nto prove that _it is_; but it is not quite obvious at first sight what\nit is precisely that _is_. He says simply, _What is, is_. To us this\ndoes not seem very clear, and that for two reasons. In the first place,\nwe should never think of doubting it, and we cannot, therefore,\nunderstand why it should be asserted with such iteration and vigour. In\nthe second place, we are accustomed to all sorts of distinctions between\ndifferent kinds and degrees of reality, and we do not see which of these\nis meant. Such distinctions, however, were quite unknown in those days.\n\u201cThat which is,\u201d with Parmenides, is primarily what, in popular\nlanguage, we call matter or body; only it is not matter as distinguished\nfrom anything else. It is certainly regarded as spatially extended; for\nit is quite seriously spoken of as a sphere (fr. 8, 40). Moreover,\nAristotle tells us that Parmenides believed in none but a sensible\nreality, which does not necessarily mean with him a reality that is\nactually perceived by the senses, but includes any which might be so\nperceived if the senses were more perfect than they are.[449] Parmenides\ndoes not say a word about \u201cBeing\u201d anywhere.[450] The assertion that _it\nis_ amounts just to this, that the universe is a _plenum_; and that\nthere is no such thing as empty space, either inside or outside the\nworld. From this it follows that there can be no such thing as motion.\nInstead of endowing the One with an impulse to change, as Herakleitos\nhad done, and thus making it capable of explaining the world, Parmenides\ndismissed change as an illusion. He showed once for all that if you take\nthe One seriously you are bound to deny everything else. All previous\nsolutions of the question, therefore, had missed the point. Anaximenes,\nwho thought to save the unity of the primary substance by his theory of\nrarefaction and condensation, did not observe that, by assuming there\nwas less of what is in one place than another, he virtually affirmed the\nexistence of what is not (fr. 8, 42). The Pythagorean explanation\nimplied that empty space or air existed outside the world, and that it\nentered into it to separate the units (\u00a7 53). It, too, assumes the\nexistence of what is not. Nor is the theory of Herakleitos any more\nsatisfactory; for it is based upon the contradiction that fire both is\nand is not (fr. 6).\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 1. 298 b 21, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. So too Eudemos, in the first book of his\n Physics (_ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p. 133, 25), said of Parmenides: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9. \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03cc \u03c0\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u1f02\u03bd \u1f02 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f45\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u201c\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u1f72\u03c2\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1; \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 (the\n world) \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 The Neoplatonists,\n of course, saw in the One the \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and Simplicius calls the\n sphere a \u201cmythical figment.\u201d See especially Ba\u00fcmker, \u201cDie Einheit des\n Parmenideischen Seiendes\u201d (_Jahrb. f. kl. Phil._ 1886, pp. 541 sqq.),\n and _Das Problem der Materie_, pp. 50 sqq.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n We must not render \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd by \u201cBeing,\u201d _das Sein_ or _l\u2019\u00eatre_. It is\n \u201cwhat is,\u201d _das Seiende, ce qui est_. As to (\u03c4\u1f78) \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 it does not,\n and could not, occur. Cf. p. 198, _n._ 435, above.\n\nThe allusion to Herakleitos in the verses last referred to has been\ndoubted, though upon insufficient grounds. Zeller points out quite\nrightly that Herakleitos never says Being and not-Being are the same\n(the common translation of fr. 6, 8); and, were there nothing more than\nthis, the reference might well seem doubtful. The statement, however,\nthat, according to the view in question, \u201call things travel in opposite\ndirections,\u201d can hardly be understood of anything but the \u201cupward and\ndownward path\u201d of Herakleitos (\u00a7 71). And, as we have seen, Parmenides\ndoes not attribute the view that Being and not-Being are the same to the\nphilosopher whom he is attacking; he only says that _it_ is and is not,\nthe same and not the same.[451] That is the natural meaning of the\nwords; and it furnishes a very accurate description of the theory of\nHerakleitos.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n See above, p. 198, _n._ 437.\n\n[Sidenote: The method of Parmenides.]\n\n87. The great novelty in the poem of Parmenides is the method of\nargument. He first asks what is the common presupposition of all the\nviews with which he has to deal, and he finds that this is the existence\nof what is not. The next question is whether this can be thought, and\nthe answer is that it cannot. If you think at all, you must think of\nsomething. Therefore there is no nothing. Philosophy had not yet learned\nto make the admission that a thing might be unthinkable and nevertheless\nexist. Only that can be which can be thought (fr. 5); for thought exists\nfor the sake of what is (fr. 8, 34).\n\nThis method Parmenides carries out with the utmost rigour. He will not\nhave us pretend that we think what we must admit to be unthinkable. It\nis true that if we resolve to allow nothing but what we can understand,\nwe come into direct conflict with the evidence of our senses, which\npresent us with a world of change and decay. So much the worse for the\nsenses, says Parmenides. To many this will doubtless seem a mistake on\nhis part, but let us see what history has to say on the point. The\ntheory of Parmenides is the inevitable outcome of a corporeal monism,\nand his bold declaration of it ought to have destroyed that theory for\never. If he had lacked courage to work out the prevailing views of his\ntime to their logical conclusion, and to accept that conclusion, however\nparadoxical it might seem to be, men might have gone on in the endless\ncircle of opposition, rarefaction and condensation, one and many, for\never. It was the thorough-going dialectic of Parmenides that made\nprogress possible. Philosophy must now cease to be monistic or cease to\nbe corporealist. It could not cease to be corporealist; for the\nincorporeal was still unknown. It therefore ceased to be monistic, and\narrived at the atomic theory, which, so far as we know, is the last word\nof the view that the world is matter in motion. Having worked out its\nproblems on those conditions, philosophy next attacked them on the other\nside. It ceased to be corporealist, and found it possible to be monistic\nonce more, at least for a time. This progress would have been impossible\nbut for that faith in reason which gave Parmenides the courage to reject\nas untrue what was to him unthinkable, however strange the result might\nbe.\n\n[Sidenote: The results.]\n\n88. He goes on to develop all the consequences of the admission that _it\nis_. It must be uncreated and indestructible. It cannot have arisen out\nof nothing; for there is no such thing as nothing. Nor can it have\narisen from something; for there is no room for anything but itself.\nWhat is cannot have beside it any empty space in which something else\nmight arise; for empty space is nothing, nothing cannot be thought, and\ntherefore cannot exist. What is, never came into being, nor is anything\ngoing to come into being in the future. \u201cIs it or is it not?\u201d If it is,\nthen it is now, all at once.\n\nThat Parmenides was really denying the existence of empty space was\nquite well known to Plato. He says that Parmenides held \u201call things were\none, and that the one remains at rest in itself, _having no place in\nwhich to move_.\u201d[452] Aristotle is no less clear. In the _de Caelo_ he\nlays it down that Parmenides was driven to take up the position that the\nOne was immovable just because no one had yet imagined that there was\nany reality other than sensible reality.[453]\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n Plato, _Tht._ 180 e 3, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 1. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 203, _n._ 449.\n\nThat which is, is; and it cannot be more or less. There is, therefore,\nas much of it in one place as in another, and the world is a continuous,\nindivisible _plenum_. From this it follows at once that it must be\nimmovable. If it moved, it must move into an empty space, and there is\nno empty space. It is hemmed in by _what is_, by the real, on every\nside. For the same reason, it must be finite, and can have nothing\nbeyond it. It is complete in itself, and has no need to stretch out\nindefinitely into an empty space that does not exist. Hence, too, it is\nspherical. It is equally real in every direction, and the sphere is the\nonly form which meets this condition. Any other would _be_ in one\ndirection more than in another. And this sphere cannot even move round\nits own axis; for there is nothing outside of it with reference to which\nit could be said to move.\n\n[Sidenote: Parmenides the father of materialism.]\n\n89. To sum up. What _is_, is a finite, spherical, motionless corporeal\n_plenum_, and there is nothing beyond it. The appearances of\nmultiplicity and motion, empty space and time, are illusions. We see\nfrom this that the primary substance of which the early cosmologists\nwere in search has now become a sort of \u201cthing in itself.\u201d It never\nquite lost this character again. What appears later as the elements of\nEmpedokles, the so-called \u201chomoeomeries\u201d of Anaxagoras and the atoms of\nLeukippos and Demokritos, is just the Parmenidean \u201cbeing.\u201d Parmenides is\nnot, as some have said, the \u201cfather of idealism\u201d; on the contrary, all\nmaterialism depends on his view of reality.\n\n[Sidenote: The beliefs of \u201cmortals.\u201d]\n\n90. It is commonly said that, in the Second Part of his poem, Parmenides\noffered a dualistic theory of the origin of things as his own\nconjectural explanation of the sensible world, or that, as Gomperz says,\n\u201cWhat he offered were the Opinions of Mortals; and this description did\nnot merely cover other people\u2019s opinions. It included his own as well,\nas far as they were not confined to the unassailable ground of an\napparent philosophical necessity.\u201d[454] Now it is true that in one place\nAristotle appears to countenance a view of this sort, but nevertheless\nit is an anachronism.[455] Nor is it really Aristotle\u2019s view. He was\nperfectly well aware that Parmenides did not admit the existence of\n\u201cnot-being\u201d in any degree whatever; but it was a natural way speaking to\ncall the cosmology of the Second Part of the poem that of Parmenides.\nHis hearers would understand at once in what sense this was meant. At\nany rate, the Peripatetic tradition was that Parmenides, in the Second\nPart of the poem, meant to give the belief of \u201cthe many.\u201d This is how\nTheophrastos put the matter, and Alexander seems to have spoken of the\ncosmology as something which Parmenides himself regarded as wholly\nfalse.[456] The other view comes from the Neoplatonists, and especially\nSimplicius, who very naturally regarded the Way of Truth as an account\nof the intelligible world, and the Way of Opinion as a description of\nthe sensible. It need hardly be said that this is almost as great an\nanachronism as the Kantian parallelism suggested by Gomperz.[457]\nParmenides himself tells us in the most unequivocal language that there\nis no truth at all in the theory which he expounds, and he gives it\nmerely as the belief of \u201cmortals.\u201d It was this that led Theophrastos to\nspeak of it as the opinion of \u201cthe many.\u201d\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n _Greek Thinkers_, pp. 180 sqq.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 31 (R. P. 121 a). Aristotle\u2019s way of putting the\n matter is due to his interpretation of fr. 8, 54, which he took to\n mean that one of the two \u201cforms\u201d was to be identified with \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd and\n the other with \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd. Cf. _Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 3. 318 b 6, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f42\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f42\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd. This last\n sentence shows clearly that when Aristotle says \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, he means\n what we should call \u201cParmenides.\u201d He cannot have supposed that\n Parmenides admitted the being of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd in any sense whatever (cf.\n Plato, _Soph._ 241 d 5).\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Theophr. _Phys. Op._ fr. 6 (_Dox._ p. 482; R. P. 121 a), \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2. For Alexander cf. Simpl. _Phys._ p. 38, 24.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 39, 10 (R. P. 121 b). Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, p.\n 180. E. Meyer says (_Gesch. des Alterth._ iv. \u00a7 510, _Anm._): \u201cHow too\n can we think that a teacher of wisdom taught his disciples nothing as\n to the way in which they must take the existing sensible world, even\n if only as a deception?\u201d This implies (1) that the distinction between\n Appearance and Reality had been clearly grasped; and (2) that a\n certain hypothetical and relative truth was allowed to Appearance.\n These are palpable anachronisms. Both views are Platonic, and they\n were not held even by Plato in his earlier writings.\n\nHis explanation however, though preferable to that of Simplicius, is not\nconvincing either. \u201cThe many\u201d are as far as possible from believing in\nan elaborate dualism such as Parmenides expounded, and it is a highly\nartificial hypothesis to assume that he wished to show how the popular\nview of the world could best be systematised. \u201cThe many\u201d would hardly be\nconvinced of their error by having their beliefs presented to them in a\nform which they would certainly fail to recognise. This, indeed, seems\nthe most incredible interpretation of all. It still, however, finds\nadherents, so it is necessary to point out that the beliefs in question\nare called \u201cthe opinions of mortals\u201d simply because the speaker is a\ngoddess. Further, we have to note that Parmenides forbids two ways of\nresearch, and we have seen that the second of these, which is also\nexpressly ascribed to \u201cmortals,\u201d must be the system of Herakleitos. We\nshould surely expect, then, to find that the other way too is the system\nof some contemporary school, and it seems hard to discover any of\nsufficient importance except the Pythagorean. Now it is admitted by\nevery one that there are Pythagorean ideas in the Second Part of the\npoem, and it is therefore to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to\nthe contrary, that the whole system comes from the same source. It does\nnot appear that Parmenides said any more about Herakleitos than the\nwords to which we have just referred, in which he forbids the second way\nof inquiry. He implies, indeed, that there are really only two ways that\ncan be thought of, and that the attempt of Herakleitos to combine them\nwas futile.[458] In any case, the Pythagoreans were far more serious\nopponents at that date in Italy, and it is certainly to them that we\nshould expect Parmenides to define his attitude.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n Cf. frs. 4 and 6, especially the words \u03b1\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. The third way, that of Herakleitos, is only added as an\n afterthought\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nIt is still not quite clear, however, why he should have thought it\nworth while to put into hexameters a view which he believed to be false.\nHere it becomes important to remember that he had been a Pythagorean\nhimself, and that the poem is a renunciation of his former beliefs. In\nsuch cases men commonly feel the necessity of showing where their old\nviews were wrong. The goddess tells him that he must learn of those\nbeliefs also \u201chow men ought to have judged that the things which seem to\nthem really are.\u201d[459] That is clear so far; but it does not explain the\nmatter fully. We get a further hint in another place. He is to learn\nthese beliefs \u201cin order that no opinion of mortals may ever get the\nbetter of him\u201d (fr. 8, 61). If we remember that the Pythagorean system\nat this time was handed down by oral tradition alone, we shall perhaps\nsee what this means. Parmenides was founding a dissident school, and it\nwas quite necessary for him to instruct his disciples in the system they\nmight be called upon to oppose. In any case, they could not reject it\nintelligently without a knowledge of it, and this Parmenides had to\nsupply himself.[460]\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n I read \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in fr. 1, 32 with Diels, but I do not feel\n able to accept his rendering _wie man bei gr\u00fcndlicher Durchforschung\n annehmen m\u00fcsste, dass sich jenes Scheinwesen verhalte_. We must, I\n think, take \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (_i.e._ \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) quite strictly, and \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\n with the infinitive means \u201cought to have.\u201d The most natural subject\n for the infinitive in that case is \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, while \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 will be\n dependent on \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, and have \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 for its subject. This way\n of taking the words is confirmed by fr. 8, 54, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, if taken as I have taken it with Zeller. See above, p. 201,\n _n._ 445.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n The view that the opinions contained in the Second Part are those of\n others, and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever, is that of\n Diels. The objections of Wilamowitz (_Hermes_, xxxiv. pp. 203 sqq.) do\n not appear to me cogent. If we interpret him rightly, Parmenides never\n says that \u201cthis hypothetical explanation is ... better than that of\n any one else\u201d (E. Meyer, iv. \u00a7 510, _Anm._). What he does say is that\n it is untrue altogether. It seems to me, however, that Diels has\n weakened his case by refusing to identify the theory here expounded\n with Pythagoreanism, and referring it mainly to Herakleitos.\n Herakleitos was emphatically _not_ a dualist, and I cannot see that to\n represent him as one is even what Diels calls a \u201ccaricature\u201d of his\n theory. Caricatures must have some point of likeness. It is still more\n surprising to me that Patin, who makes \u1f13\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 the corner-stone\n of Herakleiteanism, should adopt this view (_Parmenides im Kampfe\n gegen Heraklit_, 1899). E. Meyer (_loc. cit._) seems to think that the\n fact of Zeno\u2019s having modified the \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 of Parmenides in an\n Empedoklean sense (Diog. ix. 29; R. P. 140) proves that it was\n supposed to have some sort of truth. On the contrary, it would only\n show, if true, that Zeno had other opponents to face than Parmenides\n had.\n\n[Sidenote: The dualist cosmology.]\n\n91. The view that the Second Part of the poem of Parmenides was a sketch\nof contemporary Pythagorean cosmology is, doubtless, incapable of\nrigorous demonstration, but it can, I think, be made extremely probable.\nThe entire history of Pythagoreanism up to the end of the fifth century\nB.C. is certainly conjectural; but, if we find in Parmenides ideas which\nare wholly unconnected with his own view of the world, and if we find\nprecisely the same ideas in later Pythagoreanism, the most natural\ninference will surely be that the later Pythagoreans derived these views\nfrom their predecessors, and that they formed part of the original\nstock-in-trade of the society to which they belonged. This will only be\nconfirmed if we find that they are developments of certain features in\nthe old Ionian cosmology. Pythagoras came from Samos, which always stood\nin the closest relations with Miletos; and it was not, so far as we can\nsee, in his cosmological views that he chiefly displayed his\noriginality. It has been pointed out above (\u00a7 53) that the idea of the\nworld breathing came from Anaximenes, and we need not be surprised to\nfind traces of Anaximander as well. Now, if we were confined to what\nAristotle tells us on this subject, it would be almost impossible to\nmake out a case; but his statements require, as usual, to be examined\nwith a certain amount of care. He says, first of all, that the two\nelements of Parmenides were the Warm and the Cold.[461] In this he is so\nfar justified by the fragments that, since the Fire of which Parmenides\nspeaks is, of course, warm, the other \u201cform,\u201d which has all the opposite\nqualities, must of necessity be cold. But, nevertheless, the habitual\nuse of the terms \u201c_the_ warm\u201d and \u201c_the_ cold\u201d is an accommodation to\nAristotle\u2019s own system. In Parmenides himself they were simply one pair\nof attributes amongst others.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 34, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd; _Phys._ \u0391, 5. 188 a 20;\n _Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 3. 318 b 6; \u0392, 3. 330 b 14.\n\nStill more misleading is Aristotle\u2019s identification of these with Fire\nand Earth. It is not quite certain that he meant to say Parmenides\nhimself made this identification; but, on the whole, it is most likely\nthat he did, and Theophrastos certainly followed him in this.[462] It is\nanother question whether it is accurate. Simplicius, who had the poem\nbefore him (\u00a7 85), after mentioning Fire and Earth, at once adds \u201cor\nrather Light and Darkness\u201d;[463] and this is suggestive enough. Lastly,\nAristotle\u2019s identification of the dense element with \u201cwhat is not,\u201d[464]\nthe unreal of the First Part of the poem, is not very easy to reconcile\nwith the view that it is earth. On the other hand, if we suppose that\nthe second of the two \u201cforms,\u201d the one which should not have been\n\u201cnamed,\u201d is the Pythagorean Air or Void, we get a very good explanation\nof Aristotle\u2019s identification of it with \u201cwhat is not.\u201d We seem, then,\nto be justified in neglecting the identification of the dense element\nwith earth for the present. At a later stage, we shall be able to see\nhow it may have originated.[465] The further statement of Theophrastos,\nthat the Warm was the efficient cause and the Cold the material or\npassive,[466] is intelligible enough if we identify them with the Limit\nand the Unlimited respectively; but is not, of course, to be regarded as\nhistorical.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n _Phys._ \u0391, 5. 188 a 21, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd; _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 34, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd. Cf. Theophr.\n _Phys. Op._ fr. 6 (_Dox._ p. 482; R. P. 121 a). [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 5\n (_Dox._ p. 581), \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Zeller, p. 568, n. 1 (Eng. trans. p. 593, n. 2).\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n _Phys._ p. 25, 15, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd (\u1f22\n \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2).\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 35, \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f42\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u03b8\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd. See above, p. 208, _n._ 457.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n See below, Chap. VII. \u00a7 147.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n Theophr. _Phys. Op._ fr. 6 (_Dox._ p. 482; R. P. 121 a), followed by\n the doxographers.\n\nWe have seen that Simplicius, with the poem of Parmenides before him,\ncorrects Aristotle by substituting Light and Darkness for Fire and\nEarth, and in this he is amply borne out by the fragments which he\nquotes. Parmenides himself calls one \u201cform\u201d Light, Flame, and Fire, and\nthe other Night, and we have now to consider whether these can be\nidentified with the Pythagorean Limit and Unlimited. We have seen good\nreason to believe (\u00a7 58) that the idea of the world breathing belonged\nto the earliest form of Pythagoreanism, and there can be no difficulty\nin identifying this \u201cboundless breath\u201d with Darkness, which stands very\nwell for the Unlimited. \u201cAir\u201d or mist was always regarded as the dark\nelement.[467] And that which gives definiteness to the vague darkness is\ncertainly light or fire, and this may account for the prominence given\nto that element by Hippasos.[468] We may probably conclude, then, that\nthe Pythagorean distinction between the Limit and the Unlimited, which\nwe shall have to consider later (Chap. VII.), made its first appearance\nin this crude form. If, on the other hand, we identify darkness with the\nLimit, and light with the Unlimited, as most critics do, we get into\ninsuperable difficulties.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n Note the identification of the dense element with \u201cair\u201d in [Plut.]\n _Strom._, quoted p. 213, _n._ 462; and for the identification of this\n \u201cair\u201d with \u201cmist and darkness,\u201d cf. Chap. I. \u00a7 27, and Chap. V. \u00a7 107.\n It is to be observed further that Plato puts this last identification\n into the mouth of a Pythagorean (_Tim._ 52 d).\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n See above, p. 121.\n\n[Sidenote: The heavenly bodies.]\n\n92. We must now look at the general cosmical view expounded in the\nSecond Part of the poem. The fragments are scanty, and the doxographical\ntradition hard to interpret; but enough remains to show that here, too,\nwe are on Pythagorean ground. All discussion of the subject must start\nfrom the following important passage of Aetios:\u2014\n\n Parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one another[469] and\n encircling one another, formed of the rare and the dense element\n respectively, and that between these there were other mixed crowns\n made up of light and darkness. That which surrounds them all was solid\n like a wall, and under it is a fiery crown. That which is in the\n middle of all the crowns is also solid, and surrounded in turn by a\n fiery circle. The central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause of\n movement and becoming to all the rest. He calls it \u201cthe goddess who\n directs their course,\u201d \u201cthe Holder of Lots,\u201d and \u201cNecessity.\u201d Aet. ii.\n 7. 1 (R. P. 126).\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n It seems most likely that \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 here means \u201ccrossing one\n another,\u201d as the Milky Way crosses the Zodiac. The term \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is\n opposed to \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: The \u201ccrowns.\u201d]\n\n93. The first thing we have to observe is that it is quite unjustifiable\nto regard these \u201ccrowns\u201d as spheres. The word \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 can mean \u201crims\u201d\nor \u201cbrims\u201d or anything of that sort, but it seems incredible that it\nshould be used of spheres. It does not appear, either, that the solid\ncircle which surrounds all the crowns is to be regarded as spherical.\nThe expression \u201clike a wall\u201d would be highly inappropriate in that case.\nWe seem, then, to be face to face with something of the same kind as the\n\u201cwheels\u201d of Anaximander, and it is obviously quite likely that\nPythagoras should have taken this theory from him. Nor is evidence\naltogether lacking that the Pythagoreans did regard the heavenly bodies\nin this way. In Plato\u2019s Myth of Er, which is certainly Pythagorean in\nits general character, we do not hear of spheres, but of the \u201clips\u201d of\nconcentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of boxes.[470]\nEven in the _Timaeus_ there are no spheres, but bands or strips crossing\neach other at an angle.[471] Lastly, in the Homeric _Hymn to Ares_,\nwhich seems to have been composed under Pythagorean influence, the word\nused for the orbit of the planet is \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03be, which must mean \u201crim.\u201d[472]\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n _Rep._ x. 616 d 5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; e 1,\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n _Tim._ 36 b 6, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6 (the letter \u03a7) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n _Hymn to Ares_, 6:\n\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03b6\u03b1\u03c6\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says to\n the planet Venus (h. iv. 17):\n\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nThe fact is, there is really no evidence that any one ever adopted the\ntheory of celestial spheres at all, till Aristotle turned the\ngeometrical construction which Eudoxos had set up as a hypothesis \u201cto\nsave appearances\u201d (\u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 ) into real things.[473] From\nthat time forward we hear a great deal about spheres, and it was natural\nthat later writers should attribute them to the Pythagoreans; but there\nis no occasion to do violence to the language of Parmenides by turning\nhis \u201ccrowns\u201d into anything of the sort. At this date, spheres would not\nhave served to explain anything that could not be explained more simply\nwithout them.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Dreyer, _Planetary Systems_,\n chap. iv. It is unfortunate that the account of Plato\u2019s astronomy\n given in this work is wholly inadequate, owing to the writer\u2019s\n excessive reliance on Boeckh, who was led by evidence now generally\n regarded as untrustworthy to attribute all the astronomy of the\n Academy to their predecessors, and especially to Philolaos.\n\nWe are next told that these \u201ccrowns\u201d encircle one another or are folded\nover one another, and that they are made of the rare and the dense\nelement. We also learn that between them are \u201cmixed crowns\u201d made up of\nlight and darkness. Now it is to be observed, in the first place, that\nlight and darkness are exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense,\nand it looks as if there was some confusion here. It may be doubted\nwhether these statements are based on anything else than fr. 12, which\nmight certainly be interpreted to mean that between the crowns of fire\nthere were crowns of night with a portion of fire in them. That may be\nright; but I think it is rather more natural to understand the passage\nas saying that the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of\nnight, each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst of it. These\nlast words would then be a simple repetition of the statement that the\nnarrower circles are filled with unmixed fire,[474] and we should have a\nfairly exact reproduction of the planetary system of Anaximander. It is,\nhowever, possible, though I think less likely, that Parmenides\nrepresented the space between the circles as occupied by similar rings\nin which the fire and darkness were mixed instead of having the fire\nenclosed in the darkness.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n Such a repetition (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) is characteristic of all Greek style,\n but the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch\n to the statement at the opening. The new touch is here given in the\n word \u1f35\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. I do not press this interpretation, but it seems to me\n much the simplest.\n\n[Sidenote: The goddess.]\n\n94. \u201cIn the middle of those,\u201d says Parmenides, \u201cis the goddess who\nsteers the course of all things.\u201d Aetios, that is, Theophrastos,\nexplains this to mean in the middle of the mixed crowns, while\nSimplicius declares that it means in the middle of all the crowns, that\nis to say, in the centre of the world.[475] It is not very likely that\neither of them had anything better to go upon than the words of\nParmenides just quoted, and these are ambiguous. Simplicius, as is clear\nfrom the language he uses, identified this goddess with the Pythagorean\nHestia or central fire, while Theophrastos could not do this, because he\nknew and stated that Parmenides held the earth to be round and in the\ncentre of the world.[476] In this very passage we are told that what is\nin the middle of all the crowns is solid. The data furnished by\nTheophrastos, in fact, exclude the identification of the goddess with\nthe central fire altogether. We cannot say that what is in the middle of\n_all_ the crowns is solid, and that under it there is again a fiery\ncrown.[477] Nor does it seem fitting to relegate a goddess to the middle\nof a solid spherical earth. We must try to find a place for her\nelsewhere.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 b).\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 126 a).\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n I do not discuss the interpretation of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f43 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 which\n Diels gave in _Parmenides Lehrgedicht_, p. 104, and which is adopted\n in R. P. 162 a, as it is now virtually retracted. In the second\n edition of his _Vorsokratiker_ (p. 111) he reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, <\u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1fa7> \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 [sc. \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7]. That is a flat\n contradiction. It is of interest to observe that Mr. Adam also gets\n into the interior of the earth in his interpretation of the Myth of\n Er. It is instructive, too, because it shows that we are really\n dealing with the same order of ideas. The most heroic attempt to save\n the central fire for Pythagoras was my own hypothesis of an annular\n earth (1st ed. p. 203). This has met with well-deserved ridicule; but\n all the same it is the only possible solution on these lines. We shall\n see in Chap. VII. that the central fire belongs to the later\n development of Pythagoreanism.\n\nWe are further told by Aetios that this goddess was called Ananke and\nthe \u201cHolder of Lots.\u201d[478] We know already that she steers the course of\nall things, that is, that she regulates the motions of the celestial\ncrowns. Simplicius adds, unfortunately without quoting the actual words,\nthat she sends souls at one time from the light to the unseen world, at\nanother from the unseen world to the light.[479] It would be difficult\nto describe more exactly what the goddess does in the Myth of Er, and so\nhere once more we seem to be on Pythagorean ground. It is to be noticed\nfurther that in fr. 10 we read how Ananke took the heavens and compelled\nthem to hold fast the fixed courses of the stars, and that in fr. 12 we\nare told that she is the beginner of all pairing and birth. Lastly, in\nfr. 13 we hear that she created Eros first of all the gods. Modern\nparallels are dangerous, but it is not really going much beyond what is\nwritten to say that this Eros is the Will to Live, which leads to\nsuccessive rebirths of the soul. So we shall find that in Empedokles it\nis an ancient oracle or decree of Ananke that causes the gods to fall\nand become incarnate in a cycle of births.[480]\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n R. P. 126, where F\u00fclleborn\u2019s ingenious emendation \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd for\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Aetios\n (or Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in\n the Proem (fr. 1, 14). I now think that the \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 of the Myth of Er\n are the true explanation of the name. Philo uses the term \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 39, 19, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2 (_i.e._ \u1f00\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2), \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. We\n should probably connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22 (R. P.\n 127) that men arose from the sun (reading \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 with the MSS. for the\n conjecture \u1f30\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2 in the Basel edition).\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n Empedokles, fr. 115.\n\nWe should, then, be more certain of the place which this goddess\noccupies in the universe if we could be quite sure where Ananke is in\nthe Myth of Er. Without, however, raising that vexed question, we may\nlay down with some confidence that, according to Theophrastos, she\noccupied a position midway between the earth and the heavens. Whether we\nbelieve in the \u201cmixed crowns\u201d or not makes no difference in this\nrespect; for the statement of Aetios that she was in the middle of the\nmixed crowns undoubtedly implies that she was in that region. Now she is\nidentified with one of the crowns in a somewhat confused passage of\nCicero,[481] and we have seen above (p. 69) that the whole theory of\nwheels or crowns was probably suggested by the Milky Way. It seems to\nme, therefore, that we must think of the Milky Way as a crown\nintermediate between the crowns of the Sun and the Moon, and this agrees\nvery well with the prominent way in which it is mentioned in fr. 11. It\nis better not to be too positive about the other details of the system,\nthough it is interesting to notice that according to some it was\nPythagoras, and according to others Parmenides, who discovered the\nidentity of the evening and morning star. That fits in exactly with our\ngeneral view.[482]\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n Cicero, _de nat. D._ i. 11, 28: \u201cNam Parmenides quidem commenticium\n quiddam coronae simile efficit (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd appellat), continente ardore\n lucis orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum.\u201d We may connect\n with this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n Diog. ix. 23, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2) \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f1d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a6\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. If, as Achilles says, the poet\n Ibykos of Rhegion had anticipated Parmenides in announcing this\n discovery, that is to be explained by the fact that Rhegion had become\n the chief seat of the Pythagorean school.\n\nBesides all this, it is quite certain that Parmenides went on to\ndescribe how the other gods were born and how they fell, an idea which\nwe know to be Orphic, and which may well have been Pythagorean. We shall\ncome to it again in Empedokles. In Plato\u2019s _Symposium_, Agathon couples\nParmenides with Hesiod as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence\ncommitted by the gods.[483] If Parmenides was expounding the Pythagorean\ntheology, all this is just what we should expect; but it seems hopeless\nto explain it on any of the other theories which have been advanced on\nthe purpose of the Way of Belief. Such things do not follow naturally\nfrom the ordinary view of the world, and we have no reason to suppose\nthat Herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and downward path of\nthe soul in this form. He certainly did hold that the guardian spirits\nentered into human bodies; but the whole point of his theory was that he\ngave a naturalistic rather than a theological account of the process.\nStill less can we think it probable that Parmenides made up these\nstories himself in order to show what the popular view of the world\nreally implied if properly formulated. We must ask, I think, that any\ntheory on the subject shall account for what was evidently no\ninconsiderable portion of the poem.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n Plato, _Symp._ 195 c 1. It is implied that these \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 were\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1, including such things as \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af and \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af. The\n Epicurean criticism of all this is partially preserved in Philodemos,\n _de pietate_, p. 68, Gomperz; and Cicero, _de nat. D._ i. 28 (_Dox._\n p. 534; R. P. 126 b).\n\n[Sidenote: Physiology.]\n\n95. In describing the views of his contemporaries, Parmenides was\nobliged, as we see from the fragments, to say a good deal about\nphysiological matters. Like everything else, man was composed of the\nwarm and the cold, and death was caused by the removal of the warm. Some\ncurious views with regard to generation were also stated. In the first\nplace, males came from the right side and females from the left. Women\nhad more of the warm and men of the cold, a view which we shall find\nEmpedokles contradicting.[484] It is just the proportion of the warm and\ncold in men that determines the character of their thought, so that even\ncorpses, from which the warm has been removed, retain a perception of\nwhat is cold and dark.[485] These fragments of information do not tell\nus much when taken by themselves; but they connect themselves in a most\ninteresting way with the history of medicine, and point to the fact that\none of its leading schools stood in close relation with the Pythagorean\nSociety. Even before the days of Pythagoras, we know that Kroton was\nfamous for its doctors. A Krotoniate, Demokedes, was court physician to\nthe Persian king, and married Milo the Pythagorean\u2019s daughter.[486] We\nalso know the name of a very distinguished medical writer who lived at\nKroton in the days between Pythagoras and Parmenides, and the few facts\nwe are told about him enable us to regard the physiological views\ndescribed by Parmenides not as isolated curiosities, but as landmarks by\nmeans of which we can trace the origin and growth of one of the most\ninfluential of medical theories, that which explains health as a balance\nof opposites.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n For all this, see R. P. 127 a, with Arist. _de Part. An._ \u0392, 2. 648 a\n 28; _de Gen. An._ \u0394, 1. 765 b 19.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n Theophr. _de sens._ 3, 4 (R. P. 129).\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n Herod. iii. 131, 137.\n\n[Sidenote: Alkmaion of Kroton.]\n\n96. Aristotle tells us that Alkmaion of Kroton[487] was a young man in\nthe old age of Pythagoras. He does not actually say, as later writers\ndo, that he was a Pythagorean, though he points out that he seems either\nto have derived his theory of opposites from the Pythagoreans or they\ntheirs from him.[488] In any case, he was intimately connected with the\nsociety, as is proved by one of the scanty fragments of his book. It\nbegan as follows: \u201cAlkmaion of Kroton, son of Peirithous, spoke these\nwords to Brotinos and Leon and Bathyllos. As to things invisible and\nthings mortal, the gods have certainty; but, so far as men may infer\n...\u201d[489] The quotation unfortunately ends in this abrupt way, but we\nlearn two things from it. In the first place, Alkmaion possessed that\nreserve which marks all the best Greek medical writers; and in the\nsecond place, he dedicated his work to the heads of the Pythagorean\nSociety.[490]\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n On Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, _De Alcmaeone Crotoniata_\n (Leipzig, 1896).\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66). In a 30 Diels reads, with\n great probability, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd <\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2> \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u1fb3.\n Cf. Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b5 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u0392\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u0392\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2. The fact that this is not\n written in conventional Doric, like the forged Pythagorean books, is a\n strong proof of genuineness.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n Brotinos (not Brontinos) is variously described as the son-in-law or\n father-in-law of Pythagoras. Leon is one of the Metapontines in the\n catalogue of Iamblichos (Diels, _Vors._ p. 268), and Bathyllos is\n presumably the Poseidoniate Bathylaos also mentioned there.\n\nAlkmaion\u2019s chief importance in the history of philosophy really lies in\nthe fact that he is the founder of empirical psychology.[491] It is\ncertain that he regarded the brain as the common sensorium, an important\ndiscovery which Hippokrates and Plato adopted from him, though\nEmpedokles, Aristotle, and the Stoics reverted to the more primitive\nview that the heart performs this function. There is no reason to doubt\nthat he made this discovery by anatomical means. We have some authority\nfor saying that he practised dissection, and, though the nerves were not\nyet recognised as such, it was known that there were certain \u201cpassages\u201d\nwhich might be prevented from communicating sensations to the brain by\nlesions.[492] He also distinguished between sensation and understanding,\nthough we have no means of knowing exactly where he drew the line\nbetween them. His theories of the special senses are of great interest.\nWe find in him already, what is characteristic of Greek theories of\nvision as a whole, the attempt to combine the view of vision as an act\nproceeding from the eye with that which attributes it to an image\nreflected in the eye. He knew the importance of air for the sense of\nhearing, though he called it the void, a thoroughly Pythagorean touch.\nWith regard to the other senses, our information is more scanty, but\nsufficient to show that he treated the subject systematically.[493]\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n Everything bearing on the early history of this subject is brought\n together and discussed in Prof. Beare\u2019s _Greek Theories of Elementary\n Cognition_, to which I must refer the reader for all details.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n Theophr. _de sens._ 26 (Beare, p. 252, n. 1). Our authority for the\n dissections of Alkmaion is only Chalcidius, but he gets his\n information on such matters from far older sources. The \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 and the\n inference from lesions are vouched for by Theophrastos.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n The details will be found in Beare, pp. 11 sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq.\n (hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq.\n (taste).\n\nHis astronomy seems surprisingly crude for one who stood in close\nrelations with the Pythagoreans. We are told that he adopted Anaximenes\u2019\ntheory of the sun and Herakleitos\u2019s explanation of eclipses.[494] It is\nall the more remarkable that he is credited with originating the idea,\nwhich it required all Plato\u2019s authority to get accepted later, that the\nplanets have an orbital motion in the opposite direction to the diurnal\nrevolution of the heavens.[495] This, if true, probably stood in close\nconnexion with his saying that soul was immortal because it resembled\nimmortal things, and was always in motion like the heavenly bodies.[496]\nHe seems, in fact, to be the real author of the curious view which Plato\nput into the mouth of the Pythagorean Timaios, that the soul has circles\nrevolving just as the heavens and the planets do. This too seems to be\nthe explanation of his further statement that man dies because he cannot\njoin the beginning to the end.[497] The orbits of the heavenly bodies\nalways come full circle, but the circles in the head may fail to\ncomplete themselves. This new version of the parallelism between the\nmicrocosm and the macrocosm would be perfectly natural for Alkmaion,\nthough it is, of course, no more than a playful fancy to Plato.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n Aet. ii. 22, 4, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; 29, 3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n Aet. ii. 16, 2, (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2) \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 2. 405 a 30 (R. P. 66 c).\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n Arist. _Probl._ 17, 3. 916 a 33, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nAlkmaion\u2019s theory of health as \u201cisonomy\u201d is at once that which most\nclearly connects him with earlier inquirers like Anaximander, and also\nthat which had the greatest influence on the subsequent development of\nphilosophy. He observed, to begin with, that \u201cmost things human were\ntwo,\u201d and by this he meant that man was made up of the hot and the cold,\nthe moist and the dry, and the rest of the opposites.[498] Disease was\njust the \u201cmonarchy\u201d of any one of these\u2014the same thing that Anaximander\nhad called \u201cinjustice\u201d\u2014while health was the establishment in the body of\na free government with equal laws.[499] This was the leading doctrine of\nthe Sicilian school of medicine which came into existence not long\nafter, and we shall have to consider in the sequel its influence on the\ndevelopment of Pythagoreanism. Taken along with the theory of\n\u201cpores,\u201d[500] it is of the greatest importance for later science.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66).\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Aet. v. 30, 1, \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n My colleague, Dr. Fraser Harris, points out to me that Alkmaion\u2019s\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 may have been a better guess than he knew. The nerve-fibres,\n when magnified 1000 diameters, \u201csometimes appear to have a clear\n centre, as if the fibrils were tubular.\u201d\u2014Sch\u00e4fer, _Essentials of\n Physiology_ (7th edition), p. 132.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS\n\n\n[Sidenote: Pluralism.]\n\n97. The belief that all things are one was common to the philosophers we\nhave hitherto studied; but now Parmenides has shown that, if this one\nthing really _is_, we must give up the idea that it can take different\nforms. The senses, which present to us a world of change and\nmultiplicity, are deceitful. From this there was no escape; the time was\nstill to come when men would seek the unity of the world in something\nwhich, from its very nature, the senses could never perceive.\n\nWe find, accordingly, that from the time of Parmenides to that of Plato,\nall thinkers in whose hands philosophy made real progress abandoned the\nmonistic hypothesis. Those who still held by it adopted a critical\nattitude, and confined themselves to a defence of the theory of\nParmenides against the new views. Others taught the doctrine of\nHerakleitos in an exaggerated form; some continued to expound the\nsystems of the early Milesians. This, of course, showed want of insight;\nbut even those thinkers who saw that Parmenides could not be left\nunanswered, were by no means equal to their predecessors in power and\nthoroughness. The corporealist hypothesis had proved itself unable to\nbear the weight of a monistic structure; but a thorough-going pluralism\nsuch as the atomic theory might have some value, if not as a final\nexplanation of the world, yet at least as an intelligible view of a part\nof it. Any pluralism, on the other hand, which, like that of Empedokles\nand Anaxagoras, stops short of the atoms, will achieve no permanent\nresult, however many may be the brilliant _aper\u00e7us_ which it embodies.\nIt will remain an attempt to reconcile two things that cannot be\nreconciled, and may always, therefore, be developed into contradictions\nand paradoxes.\n\n[Sidenote: Date of Empedokles.]\n\n98. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in Sicily, and his father\u2019s\nname, according to the best accounts, was Meton.[501] His grandfather,\nalso called Empedokles, had won a victory in the horse-race at Olympia\nin Ol. LXXI. (496-95 B.C.),[502] and Apollodoros fixed the _floruit_ of\nEmpedokles himself in Ol. LXXXIV. 1 (444-43 B.C.). This is the date of\nthe foundation of Thourioi; and it appears from the quotation in\nDiogenes that the almost contemporary biographer, Glaukos of\nRhegion,[503] said Empedokles visited the new city shortly after its\nfoundation. But we are in no way bound to believe that he was just forty\nyears old at the time of the event in his life which can most easily be\ndated. That is the assumption made by Apollodoros; but there are reasons\nfor thinking that his date is too late by some eight or ten years.[504]\nIt is, indeed, most likely that Empedokles did not go to Thourioi till\nafter his banishment from Akragas, and he may well have been more than\nforty years old when that happened. All, therefore, we can be said to\nknow of his date is, that his grandfather was still alive in 496 B.C.;\nthat he himself was active at Akragas after 472, the date of Theron\u2019s\ndeath; and that he died later than 444.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), Apollodoros _ap._ Diog. viii. 52 (R. P.\n 162). The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a\n careful criticism of the sources, by Bidez, _La biographie\n d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle_ (Gand, 1894).\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; R.\n P. 162), who follows the _Olympic Victors_ of Eratosthenes, who in\n turn appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\n (see below, p. 233, _n._ 520), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a\n \u201cbreeder of horses\u201d (R. P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him as a\n distinguished man in his Fifteenth Book.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n Glaukos wrote \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, and is said to\n have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros\n adds (R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides,\n Empedokles died at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however,\n that the words \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 are Sturz\u2019s conjecture, the MSS.\n having \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that\n Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the other hand, if the statement of\n Aristotle comes from the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, it is not obvious why he should\n mention Herakleitos at all; and Herakleides was one of the chief\n sources for the biography of Empedokles.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n See Diels, \u201cEmpedokles und Gorgias,\u201d 2 (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884).\n Theophrastos said that Empedokles was born \u201cnot long after Anaxagoras\u201d\n (_Dox._ p. 477, 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno\n under Parmenides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, n.\n 5). Now Gorgias was a little older than Antiphon (_b._ Ol. LXX.), so\n it is clear we must go back _at least_ to 490 B.C. for the birth of\n Empedokles.\n\nEven these indications are enough to show that he must have been a boy\nin the reign of Theron, the tyrant who co-operated with Gelon of\nSyracuse in the repulse of the Carthaginians from Himera. His son and\nsuccessor, Thrasydaios, was a man of another stamp. Before his accession\nto the throne of Akragas, he had ruled in his father\u2019s name at Himera,\nand completely estranged the affections of its inhabitants. Theron died\nin 472 B.C., and Thrasydaios at once displayed all the vices and follies\nusual in the second holder of a usurped dominion. After a disastrous war\nwith Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven out; and Akragas enjoyed a free\ngovernment till it fell before the Carthaginians more than half a\ncentury later.[505]\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. p. 508.\n\n[Sidenote: Empedokles as a politician.]\n\n99. In the political events of the next few years, Empedokles certainly\nplayed an important part; but our information on the subject is of a\nvery curious kind. The Sicilian historian Timaios told one or two\nstories about him, which are obviously genuine traditions picked up\nabout a hundred and fifty years afterwards; but, like all popular\ntraditions, they are a little confused. The picturesque incidents are\nremembered, but the essential parts of the story are dropped. Still, we\nmay be thankful that the \u201ccollector of old wives\u2019 tales,\u201d[506] as\nsneering critics called him, has enabled us to measure the historical\nimportance of Empedokles for ourselves by showing us how he was pictured\nby the great-grandchildren of his contemporaries.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n He is called \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 in Souidas, _s.v._ The view taken in the\n text as to the value of his evidence is that of Holm.\n\nWe read, then,[507] that once he was invited to sup with one of the\n\u201crulers.\u201d Tradition delights in such vague titles. \u201cSupper was well\nadvanced, but no wine was brought in. The rest of the company said\nnothing, but Empedokles was righteously indignant, and insisted on wine\nbeing served. The host, however, said he was waiting for the serjeant of\nthe Council. When that official arrived, he was appointed ruler of the\nfeast. The host, of course, appointed him. Thereupon he began to give\nhints of an incipient tyranny. He ordered the company either to drink or\nhave the wine poured over their heads. At the time, Empedokles said\nnothing; but next day he led both of them before the court, and had them\ncondemned and put to death\u2014both the man who asked him to supper, and the\nruler of the feast.[508] This was the beginning of his political\ncareer.\u201d The next tale is that Empedokles prevented the Council from\ngranting his friend Akron a piece of land for a family sepulchre on the\nground of his eminence in medicine, and supported his objection by a\npunning epigram.[509] Lastly, he broke up the assembly of the\nThousand\u2014perhaps some oligarchical association or club.[510] It may have\nbeen for this that he was offered the kingship, which Aristotle tells us\nhe refused.[511] At any rate, we see that Empedokles was the great\ndemocratic leader at Akragas in those days, though we have no clear\nknowledge of what he did.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n Timaios _ap._ Diog. viii. 64 (_F.H.G._ i. p. 214, fr. 88 a).\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n In the first edition, I suggested the analogy of accusations for\n _incivisme_. Bidez says (p. 127), \u201cJ\u2019imagine qu\u2019un Jacobin aurait\n mieux jug\u00e9 l\u2019histoire\u201d (than Karsten and Holm); \u201csous la Terreur, on\n \u00e9tait suspect pour de moindres v\u00e9tilles.\u201d\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n Diog. viii. 65. The epigram runs thus:\n\n \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n\n On Akron, see M. Wellmann, _op. cit._ p. 235, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n Diog. viii. 66, \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. The word \u1f04\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 hardly suggests a\n legal council, and \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 suggests a conspiracy.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his _Sophist._\n Cf. Diog. viii. 57.\n\n[Sidenote: Empedokles as a religious teacher.]\n\n100. But there is another side to his public character which Timaios\nfound it hard to reconcile with his political views. He claimed to be a\ngod, and to receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity.\nThe truth is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman; he had a good deal of\nthe \u201cmedicine-man\u201d about him. According to Satyros,[512] Gorgias\naffirmed that he had been present when his master was performing\nsorceries. We can see what this means from the fragments of the\n_Purifications_. Empedokles was a preacher of the new religion which\nsought to secure release from the \u201cwheel of birth\u201d by purity and\nabstinence; but it is not quite certain to which form of it he adhered.\nOn the one hand, Orphicism seems to have been strong at Akragas in the\ndays of Theron, and there are even some verbal coincidences between the\npoems of Empedokles and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar addressed to\nthat prince.[513] There are also some points of similarity between the\n_Rhapsodic Theogony_, as we know it from Damaskios, and certain\nfragments of Empedokles, though the importance of these has been\nexaggerated.[514] On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt the\nstatement of Ammonios that fr. 134 refers to Apollo;[515] and, if that\nis so, it would point to his having been an adherent of the Ionic form\nof the mystic doctrine, as we have seen (\u00a7 39) that Pythagoras was.\nFurther, Timaios already knew the story that he had been expelled from\nthe Pythagorean Order for \u201cstealing discourses,\u201d[516] and it is probable\non the whole that fr. 129 refers to Pythagoras.[517] It would be very\nhazardous to dogmatise on this subject; but it seems most likely that\nEmpedokles had been influenced by Orphic ideas in his youth, and that,\nin later life, he preached a form of Pythagoreanism which was not\nconsidered orthodox by the heads of the Society. In any case, it seems\nfar more probable that his political and scientific activity belong to\nthe same period of his life, and that he only became a wandering prophet\nafter his banishment, than that his scientific work belonged to his\nlater days when he was a solitary exile.[518]\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n Diog. viii. 59 (R. P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas. Diels\n suggests (_Emp. u. Gorg._ p. 358) that the \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 of Alkidamas was a\n dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker. In that case, the\n statement would have little historical value.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n See Bidez, p. 115, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n O. Kern, \u201cEmpedokles und die Orphiker\u201d (_Arch._ i. pp. 489 sqq.). For\n the _Rhapsodic Theogony_, see Introd. p. 9, _n._ 10.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n See below, note _in loc._\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n Diog. viii. 54 (R. P. 162).\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n See below, note _in loc._\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n The latter view is that of Bidez (pp. 161 sqq.); but Diels has shown\n (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1898, pp. 406 sqq.) that the former is\n psychologically more probable.\n\nWe hear of a number of marvels performed by Empedokles, which are for\nthe most part nothing but inferences from his writings. Timaios told how\nhe weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging bags of asses\u2019\nskins on the trees to catch them. He had certainly said, in his\nexaggerated way, that the knowledge of science as taught by him would\nenable his disciples to control the winds (fr. 111); and this, along\nwith the fabled windbags of Aiolos, is enough to account for the\ntale.[519] We are also told how he brought back to life a woman who had\nbeen breathless and pulseless for thirty days. The verse where he\nasserts that his teaching will enable Pausanias to bring the dead back\nfrom Hades (fr. 111) shows how this story may have arisen.[520] Again,\nwe hear that he sweetened the pestilent marsh between Selinous and the\nsea by diverting the rivers Hypsas and Selinos into it. We know from\ncoins that this purification of the marshes actually took place, but we\nmay doubt whether it was attributed to Empedokles till a later\ntime.[521]\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n I follow the wilder form of the story given by Diog. viii. 60, and not\n the rationalised version of Plutarch (_adv. Col._ 1126 b). The\n epithets \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 were perhaps bestowed by some\n sillographer in mockery; cf. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n The \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd of Herakleides, from which it is derived, seems to have\n been a sort of medico-philosophical romance. The words are (Diog.\n viii. 60): \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3\n \u1f51\u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd. It was a case of hysterical\n suffocation.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n For these coins see Head, _Historia Numorum_, pp. 147 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Rhetoric and medicine.]\n\n101. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the inventor of Rhetoric;[522]\nand Galen made him the founder of the Italian school of Medicine, which\nhe puts on a level with those of Kos and Knidos.[523] Both these\nstatements must be considered in connexion with his political and\nscientific activity. It seems to be certain that Gorgias was his\ndisciple in physics and medicine, and some of the peculiarities which\nmarked his style are to be found in the poems of Empedokles.[524] It is\nnot to be supposed, of course, that Empedokles wrote a formal treatise\non Rhetoric; but it is in every way probable, and in accordance with his\ncharacter, that the speeches, of which he must have made many, were\nmarked by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced to Athens at a later\ndate, and which gave rise to the idea of an artistic prose. The\ninfluence of Empedokles on the development of medicine was, however, far\nmore important, as it affected not only medicine itself, but through it,\nthe whole tendency of scientific and philosophical thinking. It has been\nsaid that Empedokles had no successors,[525] and the remark is true if\nwe confine ourselves strictly to philosophy. On the other hand, the\nmedical school which he founded was still living in the days of Plato,\nand it had considerable influence on him, and still more on\nAristotle.[526] Its fundamental doctrine was the identification of the\nfour elements with the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry. It also\nheld that we breathe through all the pores of the body, and that the act\nof respiration is closely connected with the motion of the blood. The\nheart, not the brain, was regarded as the organ of consciousness.[527] A\nmore external characteristic of the medicine taught by the followers of\nEmpedokles is that they still clung to ideas of a magical nature. A\nprotest against this by a member of the Koan school has been preserved.\nHe refers to them as \u201cmagicians and purifiers and charlatans and quacks,\nwho profess to be very religious.\u201d[528] Though there is some truth in\nthis, it hardly does justice to the great advances in physiology that\nwere due to the Sicilian school.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 g).\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n Galen, x. 5, \u1f24\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (the schools of Kos and Knidos) ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Philistion was the contemporary and\n friend of Plato; Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles\n addressed his poem.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n See Diels, \u201cEmpedokles und Gorgias\u201d (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884, pp. 343\n sqq.). The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple of\n Empedokles is Satyros _ap._ Diog. viii. 58 (R. P. 162); but he seems\n to have derived his information from Alkidamas, who was the disciple\n of Gorgias himself. In Plato\u2019s _Meno_ (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean\n theory of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n Diels (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884, p. 343).\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n See M. Wellmann, _Fragmentsammlung der griechischen \u00c4rtzte_, vol. i.\n (Berlin, 1901). According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the _Timaeus_)\n and Diokles of Karystos depend upon Philistion. It is impossible to\n understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without\n keeping the history of medicine constantly in view.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon\u2019s _Iatrika_),\n \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u02b9 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u02b9\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. For the theory of respiration, see\n Wellmann, pp. 82 sqq.; and for the heart as the seat of consciousness,\n _ib._ pp. 15 sqq.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n Hippokr. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, c 1, \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.\n\n[Sidenote: Relation to predecessors.]\n\n102. In the biography of Empedokles, we hear very little of his theory\nof nature. The only hints we get are some statements about his teachers.\nAlkidamas, who had good opportunities of knowing, made him a\nfellow-student of Zeno under Parmenides. That is both possible and\nlikely. Theophrastos too made him a follower and imitator of Parmenides.\nBut the further statement that he had \u201cheard\u201d Pythagoras cannot be\nright. Probably Alkidamas said \u201cPythagoreans.\u201d[529]\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n Diog. viii. 54-56 (R. P. 162).\n\nSome writers hold that certain parts of the system of Empedokles, in\nparticular the theory of pores and effluvia (\u00a7 118), which do not seem\nto follow very naturally from his own principles, were due to the\ninfluence of Leukippos.[530] This, however, is not necessarily the case.\nWe know that Alkmaion (\u00a7 96) spoke of \u201cpores\u201d in connexion with\nsensation, and it may equally well be from him that Empedokles got the\ntheory. It may be added that this is more in accordance with the history\nof certain other physiological views which are common to Alkmaion and\nthe later Ionian philosophers. We can generally see that those reached\nIonia through the medical school which Empedokles founded.[531]\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n Diels, _Verhandl. d. 35 Philologenversamml._ pp. 104 sqq., Zeller, p.\n 767. It would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if\n it could be proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope\n to show that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean\n doctrine (Chap. IX. \u00a7 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles\n (Chap. VII. \u00a7 147).\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n For \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 in Alkmaion, cf. Arist. _de Gen. An._ \u0392, 6. 744 a 8;\n Theophr. _de sens._ 26; and for the way in which his embryological and\n other views were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian\n physicists, cf. Fredrich, _Hippokratische Untersuchungen_, pp. 126\n sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Death.]\n\n103. We are told that Empedokles leapt into the crater of Etna that he\nmight be deemed a god. This appears to be a malicious version[532] of a\ntale set on foot by his adherents that he had been snatched up to heaven\nin the night.[533] Both stories would easily get accepted; for there was\nno local tradition. Empedokles did not die in Sicily, but in the\nPeloponnese, or, perhaps, at Thourioi. He had gone to Olympia to have\nhis religious poem recited to the Hellenes; his enemies were able to\nprevent his return, and he was seen in Sicily no more.[534]\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n R. P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n R. P. _ib._ This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the\n end of his romance about the \u1f04\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n Timaios took the trouble to refute the common stories at some length\n (Diog. viii. 71 sqq.; R. P. _ib._). He was quite positive that\n Empedokles never returned to Sicily. Nothing can be more likely than\n that, when wandering as an exile in the Peloponnese, he should have\n seized the opportunity of joining the colony at Thourioi, which was a\n harbour for many of the \u201csophists\u201d of this time.\n\n[Sidenote: Writings.]\n\n104. Empedokles was the second philosopher to expound his system in\nverse, if we leave the satirist Xenophanes out of account. He was also\nthe last among the Greeks; for the forged Pythagorean poems may be\nneglected.[535] Lucretius imitates Empedokles in this, just as\nEmpedokles imitated Parmenides. Of course, the poetical imagery creates\na difficulty for the interpreter; but it would be wrong to make too much\nof it. It cannot be said that it is harder to extract the philosophical\nkernel from the verses of Empedokles than from the prose of Herakleitos.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n See Chap. IV. \u00a7 85.\n\nThere is some divergence of opinion as to the poetical merit of\nEmpedokles. The panegyric of Lucretius is well known.[536] Aristotle\nsays in one place that Empedokles and Homer have nothing in common but\nthe metre; in another, that Empedokles was \u201cmost Homeric.\u201d[537] To my\nmind, there can be no question that he was a genuine poet, far more so\nthan Parmenides. No one doubts nowadays that Lucretius was one, and\nEmpedokles really resembles him very closely.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n Lucr. i. 716 sqq.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n _Poet._ 1. 1447 b 18; cf. Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 i).\n\n[Sidenote: The remains.]\n\n105. We have more abundant remains of Empedokles than of any other early\nGreek philosopher. If we may trust our manuscripts of Diogenes and of\nSouidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the _Poem on Nature_ and\nthe _Purifications_ together as 5000 verses, of which about 2000\nbelonged to the former work.[538] Diels gives about 350 verses and parts\nof verses from the cosmological poem, or not a fifth of the whole. It is\nimportant to remember that, even in this favourable instance, so much\nhas been lost. Besides the two poems, the Alexandrian scholars possessed\na prose work of 600 lines on medicine ascribed to Empedokles. The\ntragedies and other poems which were sometimes attributed to him seem\nreally to belong to a younger writer of the same name, who is said by\nSouidas to have been his grandson.[539]\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n Diog. viii. 77 (R. P. 162); Souidas _s.v._ \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03b2\u02b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. It\n hardly seems likely, however, that the \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af extended to 3000\n verses, so Diels proposes to read \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 for \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 in\n Diogenes. It is to be observed that there is no better authority than\n Tzetzes for dividing the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 into three books. See Diels,\n \u201c\u00dcber die Gedichte des Empedokles\u201d (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1898, pp. 396\n sqq.).\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog. viii. 58) that he had met with\n forty-three of these tragedies; but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on\n the Persian Wars, which Hieronymos also refers to (Diog. viii. 57),\n seems to have arisen from an old corruption in the text of Arist.\n _Probl._ 929 b 16, where Bekker still reads \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. The\n same passage, however, is said to occur \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, in _Meteor._\n \u0394, 4. 382 a 1, though there too E reads \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nI give the remains as they are arranged by Diels:\u2014\n\n (1)\n\n And do thou give ear, Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise!\n\n (2)\n\n For straitened are the powers that are spread over their bodily parts,\n and many are the woes that burst in on them and blunt the edge of\n their careful thoughts! They behold but a brief span of a life that is\n no life,[540] and, doomed to swift death, are borne up and fly off\n like smoke. Each is convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon\n as he is <<5>> hurried to and fro, and idly boasts he has found the\n whole. So hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by the\n ears of men, so hardly grasped by their mind! Thou,[541] then, since\n thou hast found thy way hither, shalt learn no more than mortal mind\n hath power. R. P. 163.\n\n (3)\n\n ... to keep within thy dumb heart.\n\n (4)\n\n But, O ye gods, turn aside from my tongue the madness of those\n men.[542] Hallow my lips and make a pure stream flow from them! And\n thee, much-wooed, white-armed Virgin Muse, do I beseech that I may\n hear what is lawful for the children of a day! Speed me on my way from\n the abode of <<5>> Holiness and drive my willing car! Thee shall no\n garlands of glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift\n them from the ground, on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond\n that which is lawful and right, and so to gain a seat upon the heights\n of wisdom.\n\n Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each thing is\n clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as <<10>> compared with\n thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear above the clear\n instructions of thy tongue;[543] and do not withhold thy confidence\n in any of thy other bodily parts by which there is an opening for\n understanding,[544] but consider everything in the way it is clear.\n R. P. 163.\n\n (5)\n\n But it is ever the way of low minds to disbelieve their betters. Do\n thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse bid thee, dividing the\n argument in thy heart.[545]\n\n (6)\n\n Hear first the four roots of all things: shining Zeus, life-bringing\n Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis whose tear-drops are a well-spring to\n mortals. R. P. 164.[546]\n\n (7)\n\n ... uncreated.\n\n (8)\n\n And I shall tell thee another thing. There is no coming into being of\n aught that perishes, nor any end for it in baneful death; but only\n mingling and change of what has been mingled. Coming into being is but\n a name given to these by men. R. P. 165.\n\n (9)\n\n But, when the elements have been mingled in the fashion of a man and\n come to the light of day, or in the fashion of the race of wild beasts\n or plants or birds, then men say that these come into being; and when\n they are separated, they call that woeful death. They call it not\n aright; but I too follow <<5>> the custom, and call it so myself.\n\n (10)\n\n Avenging death.\n\n (11, 12)\n\n Fools!\u2014for they have no far-reaching thoughts\u2014who deem that what\n before was not comes into being, or that aught can perish and be\n utterly destroyed. For it cannot be that aught can arise from what in\n no way is, and it is impossible and unheard of that what _is_ should\n perish; for it <<5>> will always _be_, wherever one may keep putting\n it. R. P. 165 a.\n\n (13)\n\n And in the All there is naught empty and naught too full.\n\n (14)\n\n In the All there is naught empty. Whence, then, could aught come to\n increase it?\n\n (15)\n\n A man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in his heart\n that as long as mortals live what they call their life, so long they\n are, and suffer good and ill; while before they were formed and after\n they have been dissolved they are just nothing at all. R. P. 165 a.\n\n (16)\n\n For of a truth they (Strife and Love) were aforetime and shall be; nor\n ever, methinks, will boundless time be emptied of that pair. R. P. 166\n c.\n\n (17)\n\n I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be one only\n out of many; at another, it divided up to be many instead of one.\n There is a double becoming of perishable things and a double passing\n away. The coming together of all things brings one generation into\n being and destroys it; the other grows up and is scattered as things\n become <<5>> divided. And these things never cease continually\n changing places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at\n another each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife.\n Thus, as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many, and\n to become many once more when the one is parted <<10>> asunder, so far\n they come into being and their life abides not. But, inasmuch as they\n never cease changing their places continually, so far they are ever\n immovable as they go round the circle of existence.\n\n * * * * *\n\n But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that increaseth\n wisdom. As I said before, when I declared the <<15>> heads of my\n discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew\n together to be one only out of many, at another it parted asunder so\n as to be many instead of one;\u2014Fire and Water and Earth and the mighty\n height of Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to\n each, and Love among them, equal in length and breadth. <<20>> Her do\n thou contemplate with thy mind, nor sit with dazed eyes. It is she\n that is known as being implanted in the frame of mortals. It is she\n that makes them have thoughts of love and work the works of peace.\n They call her by the names of Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet\n marked moving <<25>> round among them,[547] but do thou attend to the\n undeceitful ordering of my discourse.\n\n For all these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a different\n prerogative and its own peculiar nature. And nothing <<30>> comes into\n being besides these, nor do they pass away; for, if they had been\n passing away continually, they would not be now, and what could\n increase this All and whence could it come? How, too, could it perish,\n since no place is empty of these things? They are what they are; but,\n running through one another, they become now this, now that,[548] and\n like things <<35>> evermore. R. P. 166.\n\n (18)\n\n Love.\n\n (19)\n\n Clinging Love.\n\n (20)\n\n This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the mass of\n mortal limbs. At one time all the limbs that are the body\u2019s portion\n are brought together by Love in blooming life\u2019s high season; at\n another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander <<5>> each alone by the\n breakers of life\u2019s sea. It is the same with plants and the fish that\n make their homes in the waters, with the beasts that have their lairs\n on the hills and the seabirds that sail on wings. R. P. 173 d.\n\n (21)\n\n Come now, look at the things that bear witness to my earlier\n discourse, if so be that there was any shortcoming as to their form in\n the earlier list. Behold the sun, everywhere bright and warm, and all\n the immortal things that are bathed in heat and bright radiance.[549]\n Behold the rain, everywhere dark <<5>> and cold; and from the earth\n issue forth things close-pressed and solid. When they are in strife\n all these are different in form and separated; but they come together\n in love, and are desired by one another.\n\n For out of these have sprung all things that were and are and shall\n be\u2014trees and men and women, beasts and birds <<10>> and the fishes\n that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that live long lives and\n are exalted in honour. R. P. 166 i.\n\n For these things are what they are; but, running through one another,\n they take different shapes\u2014so much does mixture change them. R. P. 166\n g.\n\n (22)\n\n For all of these\u2014sun, earth, sky, and sea\u2014are at one with all their\n parts that are cast far and wide from them in mortal things. And even\n so all things that are more adapted for mixture are like to one\n another and united in love by Aphrodite. Those things, again, that\n differ most in origin, <<5>> mixture and the forms imprinted on each,\n are most hostile, being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very\n sorry by the bidding of Strife, since it hath wrought their birth.\n\n (23)\n\n Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men whom\n wisdom hath well taught their art,\u2014they, when they have taken pigments\n of many colours with their hands, mix them in due proportion, more of\n some and less of others, and from them produce shapes like unto all\n things, making trees <<5>> and men and women, beasts and birds and\n fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and gods, that live long lives,\n and are exalted in honour,\u2014so let not the error prevail over thy\n mind,[550] that there is any other source of all the perishable\n creatures that appear in countless numbers. Know this for sure, for\n thou <<10>> hast heard the tale from a goddess.[551]\n\n (24)\n\n Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one path to the\n end....\n\n (25)\n\n What is right may well be said even twice.\n\n (26)\n\n For they prevail in turn as the circle comes round, and pass into one\n another, and grow great in their appointed turn. R. P. 166 c.\n\n They are what they are; but, running through one another, they become\n men and the tribes of beasts. At one time they are all brought\n together into one order by Love; at another, <<5>> they are carried\n each in different directions by the repulsion of Strife, till they\n grow once more into one and are wholly subdued. Thus in so far as they\n are wont to grow into one out of many, and again divided become more\n than one, so far they come into being, and their life is not lasting;\n but in <<10>> so far as they never cease changing continually, so far\n are they evermore, immovable in the circle.\n\n (27)\n\n There are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun, no, nor\n the shaggy earth in its might, nor the sea,\u2014so fast was the god bound\n in the close covering of Harmony, spherical and round, rejoicing in\n his circular solitude.[552] R. P. 167.\n\n (27_a_)\n\n There is no discord and no unseemly strife in his limbs.\n\n (28)\n\n But he was equal on every side and quite without end, spherical and\n round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.\n\n (29)\n\n Two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet, no swift\n knees, no fruitful parts; but he was spherical and equal on every\n side.\n\n (30, 31)\n\n But, when Strife was grown great in the limbs of the god and sprang\n forth to claim his prerogatives, in the fulness of the alternate time\n set for them by the mighty oath, ... for all the limbs of the god in\n turn quaked. R. P. 167.\n\n (32)\n\n The joint binds two things.\n\n (33)\n\n Even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk....\n\n (34)\n\n Cementing[553] meal with water....\n\n (35, 36)\n\n But now I shall retrace my steps over the paths of song that I have\n travelled before, drawing from my saying a new saying. When Strife was\n fallen to the lowest depth of the vortex, and Love had reached to the\n centre of the whirl, in it do all things come together so as to be one\n only; not all at once, <<5>> but coming together at their will each\n from different quarters; and, as they mingled, countless tribes of\n mortal creatures were scattered abroad. Yet many things remained\n unmixed, alternating with the things that were being mixed, namely,\n all that Strife not fallen yet retained; for it had not yet altogether\n retired <<10>> perfectly from them to the outermost boundaries of the\n circle. Some of it still remained within, and some had passed out from\n the limbs of the All. But in proportion as it kept rushing out, a\n soft, immortal stream of blameless Love kept running in, and\n straightway those things became mortal which had been immortal before,\n those things were mixed that had been <<15>> unmixed, each changing\n its path. And, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures\n were scattered abroad endowed with all manner of forms, a wonder to\n behold. R. P. 169.\n\n * * * * *\n\n (37)\n\n Earth increases its own mass, and Air swells the bulk of Air.\n\n (38)\n\n Come, I shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of the\n sun,[554] and the sources from which have sprung all the things we now\n behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the damp vapour and the Titan\n air that binds his circle fast round all things. R. P. 170 a.\n\n (39)\n\n If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a foolish\n saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of many mortals,\n though they have seen but a little of the All....[555] R. P. 103 b.\n\n (40)\n\n The sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon.\n\n (41)\n\n But (the sunlight) is gathered together and circles round the mighty\n heavens.\n\n (42)\n\n And she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a shadow on\n as much of the earth as is the breadth of the pale-faced moon.[556]\n\n (43)\n\n Even so the sunbeam, having struck the broad and mighty circle of the\n moon, returns at once, running so as to reach the sky.\n\n (44)\n\n It flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance. R. P. 170 c.\n\n (45, 46)\n\n There circles round the earth a round borrowed light, as the nave of\n the wheel circles round the furthest (goal).\n\n (47)\n\n For she gazes at the sacred circle of the lordly sun opposite.\n\n (48)\n\n It is the earth that makes night by coming before the lights.\n\n (49)\n\n ... of solitary, blind-eyed night.\n\n (50)\n\n And Iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.\n\n (51)\n\n (Fire) swiftly rushing upwards....\n\n (52)\n\n And many fires burn beneath the earth. R. P. 171 a.\n\n (53)\n\n For so as it ran, it met them at that time, though often otherwise. R.\n P. 171 a.\n\n (54)\n\n But the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots. R. P. 171 a.\n\n (55)\n\n Sea the sweat of the earth. R. P. 170 b.\n\n (56)\n\n Salt was solidified by the impact of the sun\u2019s beams.\n\n (57)\n\n On it (the earth) many heads sprung up without necks and arms wandered\n bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes strayed up and down in want of\n foreheads. R. P. 173 a.\n\n (58)\n\n Solitary limbs wandered seeking for union.\n\n (59)\n\n But, as divinity was mingled still further with divinity, these things\n joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides\n them continually arose.\n\n (60)\n\n Shambling creatures with countless hands.\n\n (61)\n\n Many creatures with faces and breasts looking in different directions\n were born; some, offspring of oxen with faces of men, while others,\n again, arose as offspring of men with the heads of oxen, and creatures\n in whom the nature of women and men was mingled, furnished with\n sterile[557] parts. <<5>> R. P. 173 b.\n\n (62)\n\n Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused the night-born\n shoots of men and tearful women to arise; for my tale is not off the\n point nor uninformed. Whole-natured forms first arose from the earth,\n having a portion both of water and fire.[558] These did the fire,\n desirous of <<5>> reaching its like, send up, showing as yet neither\n the charming form of women\u2019s limbs, nor yet the voice and parts that\n are proper to men. R. P. 173 c.\n\n (63)\n\n ... But the substance of (the child\u2019s) limbs is divided between them,\n part of it in men\u2019s and part in women\u2019s (body).\n\n (64)\n\n And upon him came desire reminding him through sight.\n\n (65)\n\n ... And it was poured out in the pure parts; and when it met with cold\n women arose from it.\n\n (66)\n\n The divided meadows of Aphrodite.\n\n (67)\n\n For in its warmer part the womb brings forth males, and that is why\n men are dark and more manly and shaggy.\n\n (68)\n\n On the tenth day of the eighth month the white putrefaction\n arises.[559]\n\n (69)\n\n Double bearing.[560]\n\n (70)\n\n Sheepskin.[561]\n\n (71)\n\n But if thy assurance of these things was in any way deficient as to\n how, out of Water and Earth and Air and Fire mingled together, arose\n the forms and colours of all those mortal things that have been fitted\n together by Aphrodite, and so are now come into being.... <<5>>\n\n (72)\n\n How tall trees and the fishes in the sea....\n\n (73)\n\n And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth,[562] after she had\n moistened the Earth in water, gave it to swift fire to harden it....\n R. P. 171.\n\n (74)\n\n Leading the songless tribe of fertile fish.\n\n (75)\n\n All of those which are dense within and rare without, having received\n a moisture of this kind at the hands of Kypris....\n\n (76)\n\n This thou mayest see in the heavy-backed shell-fish that dwell in the\n sea, in sea-snails and the stony-skinned turtles. In them thou mayest\n see that the earthy part dwells on the uppermost surface.\n\n (77-78)\n\n It is the air that makes evergreen trees flourish with abundance of\n fruit the whole year round.\n\n (79)\n\n And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs....\n\n (80)\n\n Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.\n\n (81)\n\n Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.\n\n (82)\n\n Hair and leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the scales that grow\n on mighty limbs, are the same thing.\n\n (83)\n\n But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles on their\n backs.\n\n (84)\n\n And even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a stormy night,\n gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing fire, fastening to it\n horn plates to keep out all manner of winds, and they scatter the\n blast of the winds that blow, but the light leaping out through them,\n shines across the threshold <<5>> with unfailing beams, as much of it\n as is finer;[563] even so did she (Love) then entrap the elemental\n fire, the round pupil, confined within membranes and delicate tissues,\n which are pierced through and through with wondrous passages. They\n keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil, but they <<10>> let\n through the fire, as much of it as is finer. R. P. 177 b.\n\n (85)\n\n But the gentle flame (of the eye) has but a scanty portion of earth.\n\n (86)\n\n Out of these divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.\n\n (87)\n\n Aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love.\n\n (88)\n\n One vision is produced by both the eyes.\n\n (89)\n\n Know that effluences flow from all things that have come into being.\n R. P. 166 h.\n\n (90)\n\n So sweet lays hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter; acid comes\n to acid, and warm couples with warm.\n\n (91)\n\n Water fits better into wine, but it will not (mingle) with oil. R. P.\n 166 h.\n\n (92)\n\n Brass mixed with tin.\n\n (93)\n\n The berry of the blue elder is mingled with scarlet.\n\n (94)\n\n And the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from the shadow.\n The same is seen in hollow caves.\n\n (95)\n\n Since they (the eyes) first grew together in the hands of Kypris.\n\n (96)\n\n The kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of gleaming\n Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaistos. So arose white bones\n divinely fitted together by the cement of proportion. R. P. 175.\n\n (97)\n\n The spine (was broken).\n\n (98)\n\n And the earth, anchoring in the perfect harbours of Aphrodite, meets\n with these in nearly equal proportions, with Hephaistos and Water and\n gleaming Air\u2014either a little more of it, or less of them and more of\n it. From these did blood arise and the manifold forms of flesh. R. P.\n 175 c.\n\n (99)\n\n The bell ... the fleshy sprout (of the ear).[564]\n\n (100)\n\n Thus[565] do all things draw breath and breathe it out again. All have\n bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of their bodies;\n and at the mouths of these the outermost surface of the skin is\n perforated all over with pores closely packed together, so as to keep\n in the blood while a free <<5>> passage is cut for the air to pass\n through. Then, when the thin blood recedes from these, the bubbling\n air rushes in with an impetuous surge; and when the blood runs back it\n is breathed out again. Just as when a girl, playing with a water-clock\n of shining brass, puts the orifice of the pipe upon <<10>> her comely\n hand, and dips the water-clock into the yielding mass of silvery\n water,\u2014the stream does not then flow into the vessel, but the bulk of\n the air inside, pressing upon the close-packed perforations, keeps it\n out till she uncovers the compressed stream; but then air escapes and\n an equal volume <<15>> of water runs in,\u2014just in the same way, when\n water occupies the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and\n passage is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving to\n get in, holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding neck,\n pressing upon its surface, till she lets go with her hand. <<20>>\n Then, on the contrary, just in the opposite way to what happened\n before, the wind rushes in and an equal volume of water runs out to\n make room.[566] Even so, when the thin blood that surges through the\n limbs rushes backwards to the interior, straightway the stream of air\n comes in with a rushing swell; <<25>> but when the blood returns the\n air breathes out again in equal quantity.\n\n (101)\n\n (The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the beast\u2019s\n limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave in the soft\n grass.[567]\n\n (102)\n\n Thus all things have their share of breath and smell.\n\n (103, 104)\n\n Thus have all things thought by fortune\u2019s will.... And inasmuch as the\n rarest things came together in their fall.\n\n (105)\n\n (The heart), dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in opposite\n directions, where chiefly is what men call thought; for the blood\n round the heart is the thought of men. R. P. 178 a.\n\n (106)\n\n For the wisdom of men grows according to what is before them. R. P.\n 177.\n\n (107)\n\n For out of these are all things formed and fitted together, and by\n these do men think and feel pleasure and pain. R. P. 178.\n\n (108)\n\n And just so far as they grow to be different, so far do different\n thoughts ever present themselves to their minds (in dreams).[568] R.\n P. 177 a.\n\n (109)\n\n For it is with earth that we see Earth, and Water with water; by air\n we see bright Air, by fire destroying Fire. By love do we see Love,\n and Hate by grievous hate. R. P. 176.\n\n (110)\n\n For if, supported on thy steadfast mind, thou wilt contemplate these\n things with good intent and faultless care, then shalt thou have all\n these things in abundance throughout thy life, and thou shalt gain\n many others from them. For these things grow of themselves into thy\n heart, where is each <<5>> man\u2019s true nature. But if thou strivest\n after things of another kind, as is the way with men, ten thousand\n woes await thee to blunt thy careful thoughts. Soon will these things\n desert thee when the time comes round; for they long to return once\n more to their own kind; for know that all things have <<10>> wisdom\n and a share of thought.\n\n (111)\n\n And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence against ills and\n old age; since for thee alone will I accomplish all this. Thou shalt\n arrest the violence of the weariless winds that arise and sweep the\n earth; and again, when thou so desirest, thou shalt bring back their\n blasts with a rush. Thou <<5>> shalt cause for men a seasonable\n drought after the dark rains, and again thou shalt change the summer\n drought for streams that feed the trees as they pour down from the\n sky. Thou shalt bring back from Hades the life of a dead man.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n The MSS. of Sextus have \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Diels reads \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. I still\n prefer Scaliger\u2019s \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Cf. fr. 15, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n The person here addressed is still Pausanias, and the speaker\n Empedokles. Cf. fr. 111.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n No doubt mainly Parmenides.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n The sense of taste, not speech.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n Zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n thus getting almost the opposite sense: \u201cWithhold all confidence in\n thy bodily senses\u201d; but he admits in his fifth edition (p. 804, n. 2)\n that the context is in favour of Stein, who put only a comma at \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n and took \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd closely with \u03b3\u03c5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. So too Diels. The paraphrase given\n by Sextus (R. P. _ib._) is substantially right.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n There is no difficulty in the MS. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 if we take \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf as\n \u201cdiscourse,\u201d \u201cargument\u201d (cf. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd). Diels conjectures\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, rendering \u201cwhen their words have passed through the\n sieve of thy mind.\u201d Nor does it seem to me necessary to read \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac for\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 in the first line.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n The four elements are introduced under mythological names, for which\n see below, p. 264, _n._ 583. Diels is clearly right in removing the\n comma after \u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, and rendering _Nestis quae lacrimis suis laticem\n fundit mortalibus destinatum_.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n Reading \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. I still think, however, that Knatz\u2019s\n palaeographically admirable conjuncture \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (_i.e._ among the\n elements) deserves consideration.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n Keeping \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 with Diels.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n Reading \u1f04\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u2019 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 with Diels. For the word \u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, cf. frs.\n 62, 5; 73, 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of\n solidified Air, and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere. See\n below, \u00a7 113.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n Reading with Blass (_Jahrb. f. kl. Phil._, 1883, p. 19):\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n Cf. Hesychios: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u00b7 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9. This is practically what the MSS. of\n Simplicius give, and Hesychios has many Empedoklean glosses.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n The \u201cgoddess\u201d is, of course, the Muse. Cf. fr. 5.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n The word \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3, if it is right, cannot mean \u201crest,\u201d but only solitude.\n There is no reason for altering \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03b9, though Simplicius has\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n The masculine \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 shows that the subject cannot have been\n \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles\n introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take\n illustrations from human arts.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n The MSS. of Clement have \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd and the reading \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd is a\n mere makeshift. Diels reads \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u201cthe first (elements)\n equal in age.\u201d\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n The lines are referred to Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them _de\n Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 294 a 21. See above, Chap. II. p. 137.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n I have translated Diels\u2019s conjecture \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ac\u03c2, | \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019\n \u1f02\u03bd \u1f34\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. The MSS. have \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f36\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n Reading \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 with Diels, _Hermes_, xv. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n Retaining \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 (_i.e._ \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2), which is read in the MSS. of\n Simplicius. Cf. above, p. 243, _n._ 549.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by\n Aristotle (_de Gen. An._ \u0394, 8. 777 a 7). The word \u03c0\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd means _pus_.\n There may be a punning allusion to \u03c0\u03c5\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cbeestings,\u201d but that has its\n vowel long.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth months.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Of the membrane round the f\u0153tus.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n Reading \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 with Diels.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n See Beare, p. 16, n. 1, where Plato, _Tim._ 45 b 4 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd), is aptly quoted.\n Alexander _ad loc._ understands \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd to mean \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, which\n seems improbable.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n On fr. 99, see Beare, p. 96, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n This passage is quoted by Aristotle (_de Respir_, 473 b 9), who makes\n the curious mistake of taking \u1fe5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd for the genitive of \u1fe5\u03af\u03c2 instead of\n \u1fe5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. The _locus classicus_ on the subject of the klepsydra is\n _Probl._ 914 b 9 sqq. (where read \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 for \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, b 12). The\n klepsydra was a metal vessel with a narrow neck (\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2) at the top and\n with a sort of strainer (\u1f20\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) pierced with holes (\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) at the bottom. The passage in the _Problems_ just referred\n to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to Anaxagoras, and we\n shall see later that he also made use of a similar experiment (\u00a7 131).\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n This seems to be the experiment described in _Probl._ 914 b 26, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03cd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1. \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f42\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The epithet \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n applied to \u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf is best explained as a reference to the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 or\n \u201cbelching\u201d referred to at 915 a 7 as accompanying the discharge of\n water through the \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2. Any one can produce this effect with a\n water-bottle. If it were not for this epithet, it would be tempting to\n read \u1f20\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf for \u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf. Sturz conjectured this, and it is actually\n the reading of a few MSS.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n On fr. 101, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n That the reference is to dreams, we learn from Simpl. _de An._ p. 202,\n 30.\n\n PURIFICATIONS\n\n (112)\n\n Friends, that inhabit the great town looking down on the yellow rock\n of Akragas, up by the citadel, busy in goodly works, harbours of\n honour for the stranger, men unskilled in meanness, all hail. I go\n about among you an immortal god, no mortal now, honoured among all as\n is meet, crowned with fillets and <<5>> flowery garlands. Straightway,\n whenever I enter with these in my train, both men and women, into the\n flourishing towns, is reverence done me; they go after me in countless\n throngs, asking of me what is the way to gain; some desiring oracles,\n while some, who for many a weary day have been pierced <<10>> by the\n grievous pangs of all manner of sickness, beg to hear from me the word\n of healing. R. P. 162 f.\n\n (113)\n\n But why do I harp on these things, as if it were any great matter that\n I should surpass mortal, perishable men?\n\n (114)\n\n Friends, I know indeed that truth is in the words I shall utter, but\n it is hard for men, and jealous are they of the assault of belief on\n their souls.\n\n (115)\n\n There is an oracle of Necessity,[569] an ancient ordinance of the\n gods, eternal and sealed fast by broad oaths, that whenever one of the\n d\u00e6mons, whose portion is length of days, has sinfully polluted his\n hands with blood,[570] or followed strife and <<5>> forsworn himself,\n he must wander thrice ten thousand years from the abodes of the\n blessed, being born throughout the time in all manners of mortal\n forms, changing one toilsome path of life for another. For the mighty\n Air drives him into the Sea, and the Sea spews him forth on the dry\n Earth; Earth tosses him into the beams of the blazing Sun, and he\n <<10>> flings him back to the eddies of Air. One takes him from the\n other, and all reject him. One of these I now am, an exile and a\n wanderer from the gods, for that I put my trust in insensate strife.\n R. P. 181.\n\n (116)\n\n Charis loathes intolerable Necessity.\n\n (117)\n\n For I have been ere now a boy and a girl, a bush and a bird and a dumb\n fish in the sea. R. P. 182.\n\n (118)\n\n I wept and I wailed when I saw the unfamiliar land. R. P. 182.\n\n (119)\n\n From what honour, from what a height of bliss have I fallen to go\n about among mortals here on earth.\n\n (120)\n\n We have come under this roofed-in cave.[571]\n\n (121)\n\n ... the joyless land, where are Death and Wrath and troops of Dooms\n besides; and parching Plagues and Rottennesses and Floods roam in\n darkness over the meadow of Ate.\n\n (122, 123)\n\n There were[572] Chthonie and far-sighted Heliope, bloody Discord and\n gentle-visaged Harmony, Kallisto and Aischre, Speed and Tarrying,\n lovely Truth and dark-haired Uncertainty, Birth and Decay, Sleep and\n Waking, Movement and Immobility, crowned Majesty and Meanness, Silence\n and Voice. <<5>> R. P. 182 a.\n\n (124)\n\n Alas, O wretched race of mortals, twice unblessed: such are the\n strifes and groanings from which ye have been born!\n\n (125)\n\n From living creatures he made them dead, changing their forms.\n\n (126)\n\n (The goddess) clothing them with a strange garment of flesh.[573]\n\n (127)\n\n Among beasts they[574] become lions that make their lair on the hills\n and their couch on the ground; and laurels among trees with goodly\n foliage. R. P. 181 b.\n\n (128)\n\n Nor had they[575] any Ares for a god nor Kydoimos, no nor King Zeus\n nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Kypris the Queen.... Her did they\n propitiate with holy gifts, with painted figures[576] and perfumes of\n cunning fragrancy, with offerings of pure myrrh and sweet-smelling\n frankincense, casting on the <<5>> ground libations of brown honey.\n And the altar did not reek with pure bull\u2019s blood, but this was held\n in the greatest abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after\n tearing out the life. R. P. 184.\n\n (129)\n\n And there was among them a man of rare knowledge, most skilled in all\n manner of wise works, a man who had won the utmost wealth of wisdom;\n for whensoever he strained with all his mind, he easily saw everything\n of all the things that are, in ten, yea, twenty lifetimes of men.[577]\n <<5>>\n\n (130)\n\n For all things were tame and gentle to man, both beasts and birds, and\n friendly feelings were kindled everywhere. R. P. 184 a.\n\n (131)\n\n If ever, as regards the things of a day, immortal Muse, thou didst\n deign to take thought for my endeavour, then stand by me once more as\n I pray to thee, O Kalliopeia, as I utter a pure discourse concerning\n the blessed gods. R. P. 179.\n\n (132)\n\n Blessed is the man who has gained the riches of divine wisdom;\n wretched he who has a dim opinion of the gods in his heart. R. P. 179.\n\n (133)\n\n It is not possible for us to set God before our eyes, or to lay hold\n of him with our hands, which is the broadest way of persuasion that\n leads into the heart of man.\n\n (134)\n\n For he is not furnished with a human head on his body, two branches do\n not sprout from his shoulders, he has no feet, no swift knees, nor\n hairy parts; but he is only a sacred and unutterable mind flashing\n through the whole world with rapid thoughts. R. P. 180.\n\n (135)\n\n This is not lawful for some and unlawful for others; but the law for\n all extends everywhere, through the wide-ruling air and the infinite\n light of heaven. R. P. 183.\n\n (136)\n\n Will ye not cease from this ill-sounding slaughter? See ye not that ye\n are devouring one another in the thoughtlessness of your hearts? R. P.\n 184 b.\n\n (137)\n\n And the father lifts up his own son in a changed form and slays him\n with a prayer. Infatuated fool! And they run up to the sacrifices,\n begging mercy, while he, deaf to their cries, slaughters them in his\n halls and gets ready the evil feast. In like manner does the son seize\n his father, and children their <<5>> mother, tear out their life and\n eat the kindred flesh. R. P. 184 b.\n\n (138)\n\n Draining their life with bronze.\n\n (139)\n\n Ah, woe is me that the pitiless day of death did not destroy me ere\n ever I wrought evil deeds of devouring with my lips! R. P. 184 b.\n\n (140)\n\n Abstain wholly from laurel leaves.\n\n (141)\n\n Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans!\n\n (142)\n\n Him will the roofed palace of aigis-bearing Zeus never rejoice, nor\n yet the house of....\n\n (143)\n\n Wash your hands, cutting the water from the five springs in the\n unyielding bronze.[578] R. P. 184 c.\n\n (144)\n\n Fast from wickedness! R. P. 184 c.\n\n (145)\n\n Therefore are ye distraught by grievous wickednesses, and will not\n unburden your souls of wretched sorrows.\n\n (146, 147)\n\n But, at the last, they appear among mortal men as prophets,\n song-writers, physicians, and princes; and thence they rise up as gods\n exalted in honour, sharing the hearth of the other gods and the same\n table, free from human woes, safe from destiny, and incapable of hurt.\n <<5>> R. P. 181 c.\n\n (148)\n\n ... Earth that envelops the man.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n Bernays conjectured \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, \u201cdecree,\u201d for \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, but this is not\n necessary. Necessity is an Orphic personage, and Gorgias, the disciple\n of Empedokles, says \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (_Hel._\n 6).\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n I retain \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 in v. 3 (so too Diels). The first word of v. 4 has been\n lost. Diels suggests \u039d\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03ca, which may well be right, and takes\n \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 as equivalent to \u1f41\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. I have translated accordingly.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n According to Porphyry, who quotes this line (_de Antro Nymph._ 8),\n these words were spoken by the \u201cpowers\u201d who conduct the soul into the\n world (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2). The \u201ccave\u201d is not originally Platonic but\n Orphic.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n This passage is closely modelled on the Catalogue of Nymphs in _Iliad_\n xviii. 39 sqq. Chthonie is found already in Pherekydes (Diog. i. 119).\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n I have retained \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9 as nearer the MSS., though a little hard to\n interpret. On the subsequent history of the Orphic _chiton_ in gnostic\n imagery see Bernays, _Theophr. Schr._ n. 9. It was identified with the\n coat of skins made by God for Adam.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n This is the best \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Ael. _Nat. an._ xii. 7).\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n The dwellers in the Golden Age.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n The MSS. of Porphyry have \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, which is accepted by\n Zeller and Diels. The emendation of Bernays (adopted in R. P.) does\n not convince me. I venture to suggest \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, on the strength of the\n story related by Favorinus (_ap._ Diog. viii. 53) as to the bloodless\n sacrifice offered by Empedokles at Olympia.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n These lines were already referred to Pythagoras by Timaios (Diog.\n viii. 54). As we are told (Diog. _ib._) that some referred the verses\n to Parmenides, it is clear that no name was given.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. _Poet._ 21. 1547 b 13, and\n Diels in _Hermes_, xv. p. 173.\n\n[Sidenote: Empedokles and Parmenides.]\n\n106. At the very outset of his poem, Empedokles is careful to mark the\ndifference between himself and previous inquirers. He speaks angrily of\nthose who, though their experience was only partial, professed to have\nfound the whole (fr. 2); he even calls this \u201cmadness\u201d (fr. 4). No doubt\nhe is thinking of Parmenides. His own position is not, however,\nsceptical. He only deprecates the attempt to construct a theory of the\nuniverse off-hand instead of trying to understand each thing we come\nacross \u201cin the way in which it is clear\u201d (fr. 4). And this means that we\nmust not, like Parmenides, reject the assistance of the senses. Weak\nthough they are (fr. 2), they are the only channels through which\nknowledge can enter our minds at all. We soon discover, however, that\nEmpedokles is not very mindful of his own warnings. He too sets up a\nsystem which is to explain everything, though that system is no longer a\nmonistic one.\n\nIt is often said that this system was an attempt to mediate between\nParmenides and Herakleitos. It is not easy, however, to find any trace\nof specially Herakleitean doctrine in it, and it would be truer to say\nthat it aimed at mediating between Eleaticism and the senses. He\nrepeats, almost in the same words, the Eleatic argument for the sole\nreality and indestructibility of \u201cwhat _is_\u201d (frs. 11-15); and his idea\nof the \u201cSphere\u201d seems to be derived from the Parmenidean description of\nthe universe as it truly is.[579] Parmenides had held that the reality\nwhich underlies the illusory world presented to us by the senses was a\ncorporeal, spherical, continuous, eternal, and immovable _plenum_, and\nit is from this that Empedokles starts. Given the sphere of Parmenides,\nhe seems to have said, How are we to get from it to the world we know?\nHow are we to introduce motion into the immovable _plenum_? Now\nParmenides need not have denied the possibility of motion within the\nSphere, though he was bound to deny all motion of the Sphere itself; but\nsuch an admission on his part, had he made it, would not have served to\nexplain anything. If any part of the Sphere were to move, the room of\nthe displaced matter must at once be taken by other matter, for there is\nno empty space. This, however, would be of precisely the same kind as\nthe matter it had displaced; for all \u201cthat _is_\u201d is one. The result of\nthe motion would be precisely the same as that of rest; it could account\nfor no change. But, Empedokles must have asked, is this assumption of\nperfect homogeneity in the Sphere really necessary? Evidently not; it is\nsimply the old unreasoned feeling that existence must be one. If,\ninstead of this, we were to assume a number of existent things, it would\nbe quite possible to apply all that Parmenides says of reality to each\nof them, and the forms of existence we know might be explained by the\nmingling and separation of those realities. The conception of \u201celements\u201d\n(\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1), to use a later term,[580] was found, and the required\nformula follows at once. So far as concerns particular things, it is\ntrue, as our senses tell us, that they come into being and pass away;\nbut, if we have regard to the ultimate elements of which they are\ncomposed, we shall say with Parmenides that \u201cwhat _is_\u201d is uncreated and\nindestructible (fr. 17).\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n Cf. Emp. frs. 27, 28, with Parm. fr. 8.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n For the history of the term \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd see Diels, _Elementum_. Eudemos\n said (_ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p. 7, 13) that Plato was the first to use\n it, and this is confirmed by the way the word is introduced in _Tht._\n 201 e. The original term was \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ae or \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1.\n\n[Sidenote: The \u201cfour roots.\u201d]\n\n107. The \u201cfour roots\u201d of all things (fr. 6) which Empedokles assumed\nwere those that have become traditional\u2014Fire, Air, Earth, and Water. It\nis to be noticed, however, that he does not call Air \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1, but \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1, and\nthis must be because he wished to avoid any confusion with what had\nhitherto been meant by the former word. He had, in fact, made the great\ndiscovery that atmospheric air is a distinct corporeal substance, and is\nnot to be identified with empty space on the one hand or rarefied mist\non the other. Water is not liquid air, but something quite\ndifferent.[581] This truth Empedokles demonstrated by means of the\napparatus known as the _klepsydra_, and we still possess the verses in\nwhich he applied his discovery to the explanation of respiration and the\nmotion of the blood (fr. 100). Aristotle laughs at those who try to show\nthere is no empty space by shutting up air in water-clocks and torturing\nwineskins. They only prove, he says, that air is a thing.[582] That,\nhowever, is exactly what Empedokles intended to prove, and it was one of\nthe most important discoveries in the early history of science. It will\nbe convenient for us to translate the \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 of Empedokles by \u201cair\u201d; but\nwe must be careful in that case not to render the word \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1 in the same\nway. Anaxagoras seems to have been the first to use it of atmospheric\nair.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n Cf. Chap. I. \u00a7 27.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0394, 6, 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). Aristotle only mentions\n Anaxagoras by name in this passage; but he speaks in the plural, and\n we know from fr. 100 that the _klepsydra_ experiment was used by\n Empedokles.\n\nEmpedokles also called the \u201cfour roots\u201d by the names of certain\ndivinities\u2014\u201cshining Zeus, life-bringing Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis\u201d (fr.\n6)\u2014though there is some doubt as to how these names are to be\napportioned among the elements. Nestis is said to have been a Sicilian\nwater-goddess, and the description of her shows that she stands for\nWater; but there is a conflict of opinion as to the other three. This,\nhowever, need not detain us.[583] We are already prepared to find that\nEmpedokles called the elements gods; for all the early thinkers had\nspoken in this way of whatever they regarded as the primary substance.\nWe must only remember that the word is not used in its religious sense.\nEmpedokles did not pray or sacrifice to the elements, and the use of\ndivine names is in the main an accident of the poetical form in which he\ncast his system.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n In antiquity the Homeric Allegorists made Hera Earth and Aidoneus Air,\n a view which has found its way into Aetios from Poseidonios. It arose\n as follows. The Homeric Allegorists were not interested in the science\n of Empedokles, and did not see that his \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 was quite a different\n thing from Homer\u2019s \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1. Now this is the dark element, and night is a\n form of it, so it would naturally be identified with Aidoneus. Again,\n Empedokles calls Hera \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and that is an old epithet of Earth\n in Homer. Another view current in antiquity identified Hera with Air,\n which is the theory of Plato\u2019s _Cratylus_, and Aidoneus with Earth.\n The Homeric Allegorists further identified Zeus with Fire, a view to\n which they were doubtless led by the use of the word \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1. Now \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\n certainly means Fire in Anaxagoras, as we shall see, but there is no\n doubt that in Empedokles it meant Air. It seems likely, then, that\n Knatz is right (\u201cEmpedoclea\u201d in _Schedae Philologicae Hermanno Usenero\n oblatae_, 1891, pp. 1 sqq.) in holding that the bright Air of\n Empedokles was Zeus. This leaves Aidoneus to stand for Fire; and\n nothing could have been more natural for a Sicilian poet, with the\n volcanoes and hot springs of his native island in mind, than this\n identification. He refers to the fires that burn beneath the Earth\n himself (fr. 52). If that is so, we shall have to agree with the\n Homeric Allegorists that Hera is Earth; and there is certainly no\n improbability in that.\n\nEmpedokles regarded the \u201croots of all things\u201d as eternal. Nothing can\ncome from nothing or pass away into nothing (fr. 12); what is _is_, and\nthere is no room for coming into being and passing away (fr. 8).\nFurther, Aristotle tells us, he taught that they were unchangeable.[584]\nThis Empedokles expressed by saying that \u201cthey are what they are\u201d (frs.\n17, 34; 21, 13), and are \u201calways alike.\u201d Again, they are all \u201cequal,\u201d a\nstatement which seemed strange to Aristotle,[585] but was quite\nintelligible in the days of Empedokles. Above all, the elements are\nultimate. All other bodies, as Aristotle puts it, might be divided till\nyou came to the elements; but Empedokles could give no further account\nof these without saying (as he did not) that there is an element of\nwhich Fire and the rest are in turn composed.[586]\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 1. 329 b 1.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n _Ibid._ \u0392, 6. 333 a 16.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n _Ibid._ \u0391, 8. 325 b 19 (R. P. 164 e). This was so completely\n misunderstood by later writers that they actually attribute to\n Empedokles the doctrine of \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (Aet. 1. 13, 1;\n 17, 3). The criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato had made the\n hypothesis of elements almost unintelligible to Aristotle, and _a\n fortiori_ to his successors. As Plato put it (_Tim._ 48 b 8), they\n were \u201cnot even syllables,\u201d let alone \u201cletters\u201d (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1). That is why\n Aristotle, who derived them from something more primary, calls them \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 (Diels, _Elementum_, p. 25).\n\nThe \u201cfour roots\u201d are given as an exhaustive enumeration of the elements\n(fr. 23 _sub fin._); for they account for all the qualities presented by\nthe world to the senses. When we find, as we do, that the school of\nmedicine which regarded Empedokles as its founder identified the four\nelements with the \u201copposites,\u201d the hot and the cold, the moist and the\ndry, which formed the theoretical foundation of its system, we see at\nonce how the theory is related to previous views of reality.[587] To put\nit shortly, what Empedokles did was to take the opposites of Anaximander\nand to declare that they were \u201cthings,\u201d each of which was real in the\nParmenidean sense. We must remember that the conception of quality had\nnot yet been formed. Anaximander had no doubt regarded his \u201copposites\u201d\nas things; though, before the time of Parmenides, no one had fully\nrealised how much was implied in saying that anything is a thing. That\nis the stage we have now reached. There is still no conception of\nquality, but there is a clear apprehension of what is involved in saying\nthat a thing _is_.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n We know from Menon that Philistion put the matter in this way. See p.\n 235, _n._ 527.\n\nAristotle twice[588] makes the statement that, though Empedokles assumes\nfour elements, he treats them as two, opposing Fire to all the rest.\nThis, he says, we can see for ourselves from his poem. So far as the\ngeneral theory of the elements goes, it is impossible to see anything of\nthe sort; but, when we come to the origin of the world (\u00a7 112), we shall\nfind that Fire certainly plays a leading part, and this may be what\nAristotle meant. It is also true that in the biology (\u00a7 114\u2013116) Fire\nfulfils a unique function, while the other three act more or less in the\nsame way. But we must remember that it has no pre-eminence over the\nrest: all are equal.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 a 31; _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 3. 330 b 19 (R. P.\n 164 e).\n\n[Sidenote: Strife and Love.]\n\n108. The Eleatic criticism had made it necessary for subsequent thinkers\nto explain motion.[589] Empedokles starts, as we have seen, from an\noriginal state of the \u201cfour roots,\u201d which only differs from the Sphere\nof Parmenides in so far as it is a mixture, not a homogeneous and\ncontinuous mass. The fact that it is a mixture makes change and motion\npossible; but, were there nothing outside the Sphere which could enter\nin, like the Pythagorean \u201cAir,\u201d to separate the four elements, nothing\ncould ever arise from it. Empedokles accordingly assumed the existence\nof such a substance, and he gave it the name of Strife. But the effect\nof this would be to separate all the elements in the Sphere completely,\nand then nothing more could possibly happen; something else was needed\nto bring the elements together again. This Empedokles found in Love,\nwhich he regarded as the same impulse to union that is implanted in\nhuman bodies (fr. 17, 22 sqq.). He looks at it, in fact, from a purely\nphysiological point of view, as was natural for the founder of a medical\nschool. No mortal had yet marked, he says, that the very same Love which\nmen know in their bodies had a place among the elements.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n Cf. Introd. \u00a7 VIII.\n\nIt is important to observe that the Love and Strife of Empedokles are no\nincorporeal forces, but corporeal elements like the other four. At the\ntime, this was inevitable; nothing incorporeal had yet been dreamt of.\nNaturally, Aristotle is puzzled by this characteristic of what he\nregarded as efficient causes. \u201cThe Love of Empedokles,\u201d he says[590] \u201cis\nboth an efficient cause, for it brings things together, and a material\ncause, for it is a part of the mixture.\u201d And Theophrastos expressed the\nsame idea by saying[591] that Empedokles sometimes gave an efficient\npower to Love and Strife, and sometimes put them on a level with the\nother four. The verses of Empedokles himself leave no room for doubt\nthat the two were thought of as spatial and corporeal. All the six are\ncalled \u201cequal.\u201d Love is said to be \u201cequal in length and breadth\u201d to the\nothers, and Strife is described as equal to each of them in weight (fr.\n17).\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 10. 1075 b 3.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n Theophr. _Phys. Op._ fr. 3 (_Dox._ p. 477); _ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p.\n 25, 21 (R. P. 166 b).\n\nThe function of Love is to produce union; that of Strife, to break it up\nagain. Aristotle, however, rightly points out that in another sense it\nis Love that divides and Strife that unites. When the Sphere is broken\nup by Strife, the result is that all the Fire, for instance, which was\ncontained in it comes together and becomes one; and again, when the\nelements are brought together once more by Love, the mass of each is\ndivided. In another place, he says that, while Strife is assumed as the\ncause of destruction, and does, in fact, destroy the Sphere, it really\ngives birth to everything else in so doing.[592] It follows that we must\ncarefully distinguish between the Love of Empedokles and that\n\u201cattraction of like for like\u201d to which he also attributed an important\npart in the formation of the world. The latter is not an element\ndistinct from the others; it depends, we shall see, on the proper nature\nof each element, and is only able to take effect when Strife divides the\nSphere. Love, on the contrary, is something that comes from outside and\nproduces an attraction of _unlikes_.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 a 21; \u0393, 4. 1000 a 24; b 9 (R. P. 166 i).\n\n[Sidenote: Mixture and separation.]\n\n109. But, when Strife has once separated the elements, what is it that\ndetermines the direction of their motion? Empedokles seems to have given\nno further explanation than that each was \u201crunning\u201d in a certain\ndirection (fr. 53). Plato severely condemns this in the _Laws_,[593] on\nthe ground that no room is thus left for design. Aristotle also blames\nhim for giving no account of the Chance to which he ascribed so much\nimportance. Nor is the Necessity, of which he also spoke, further\nexplained.[594] Strife enters into the Sphere at a certain time in\nvirtue of Necessity, or \u201cthe mighty oath\u201d (fr. 30); but we are left in\nthe dark as to the origin of this.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n Plato, _Laws_, x. 889 b. The reference is not to Empedokles\n exclusively, but the language shows that Plato is thinking mainly of\n him.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 6. 334 a 1; _Phys._ \u0398, 1. 252 a 5 (R. P. 166\n k).\n\nThe expression used by Empedokles to describe the movement of the\nelements is that they \u201crun through each other\u201d (fr. 17, 34). Aristotle\ntells us[595] that he explained mixture in general by \u201cthe symmetry of\npores.\u201d And this is the true explanation of the \u201cattraction of like for\nlike.\u201d The \u201cpores\u201d of like bodies are, of course, much the same size,\nand these bodies can therefore mingle easily. On the other hand, a finer\nbody will \u201crun through\u201d a coarse one without becoming mixed, and a\ncoarse body will not be able to enter into the pores of a finer one at\nall. It will be observed that, as Aristotle says, this really implies\nsomething like the atomic theory; but there is no evidence that\nEmpedokles himself was conscious of that. Another question raised by\nAristotle is even more instructive. Are the pores, he asks, empty or\nfull? If empty, what becomes of the denial of the void? If full, why\nneed we assume pores at all?[596] These questions Empedokles would have\nfound it hard to answer. They point to a real want of thoroughness in\nhis system, and mark it as a mere stage in the transition from Monism to\nAtomism.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n _Ibid._ \u0391, 8. 324 b 34 (R. P. 166 h).\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ 326 b 6.\n\n[Sidenote: The four periods.]\n\n110. It will be clear from all this that we must distinguish four\nperiods in the cycle. First we have the Sphere, in which all the\nelements are mixed together by Love. Secondly, there is the period when\nLove is passing out and Strife coming in, when, therefore, the elements\nare partially separated and partially combined. Thirdly, comes the\ncomplete separation of the elements, when Love is outside the world, and\nStrife has given free play to the attraction of like for like. Lastly,\nwe have the period when Love is bringing the elements together again,\nand Strife is passing out. This brings us back in time to the Sphere,\nand the cycle begins afresh. Now a world such as ours can exist only in\nthe second and fourth of these periods; and it is clear that, if we are\nto understand Empedokles, we must discover in which of these we now are.\nIt seems to be generally supposed that we are in the fourth period;[597]\nI hope to show that we are really in the second, that when Strife is\ngaining the upper hand.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n This is the view of Zeller (pp. 785 sqq.), but he admits that the\n external testimony, especially that of Aristotle, is wholly in favour\n of the other. His difficulty is with the fragments, and if it can be\n shown that these can be interpreted in accordance with Aristotle\u2019s\n statements, the question is settled. Aristotle was specially\n interested in Empedokles, and was not likely to misrepresent him on\n such a point.\n\n[Sidenote: Our world the work of Strife.]\n\n111. That a world of perishable things arises both in the second and\nfourth period is distinctly stated by Empedokles (fr. 17), and it is\ninconceivable that he himself had not made up his mind which of these\nworlds is ours. Aristotle is clearly of opinion that it is the world\nwhich arises when Strife is increasing. In one place, he says that\nEmpedokles \u201cholds that the world is in a similar condition now in the\nperiod of Strife as formerly in that of Love.\u201d[598] In another, he tell\nus that Empedokles omits the generation of things in the period of Love,\njust because it is unnatural to represent this world, in which the\nelements are separate, as arising from things in a state of\nseparation.[599] This remark can only mean that the scientific theories\ncontained in the poem of Empedokles assumed the increase of Strife, or,\nin other words, that they represented the course of evolution as the\ndisintegration of the Sphere, not as the gradual coming together of\nthings from a state of separation.[600] That is only what we should\nexpect, if we are right in supposing that the problem he set himself to\nsolve was the origin of this world from the Sphere of Parmenides, and it\nis also in harmony with the universal tendency of such speculations to\nrepresent the world as getting worse rather than better. We have only to\nconsider, then, whether the details of the system bear out this general\nview.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n Arist _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 6. 334 a 6: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\n \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 2. 301 a 14: \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u03b5\u1f54\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (\u201cour world consists of the\n elements in a state of separation\u201d), \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n It need not mean that Empedokles said nothing about the world of Love\n at all; for he obviously says something of both worlds in fr. 17. It\n is enough to suppose that, having described both in general terms, he\n went on to treat the world of Strife in detail.\n\n[Sidenote: Formation of the world by Strife.]\n\n112. To begin with the Sphere, in which the \u201cfour roots of all things\u201d\nare mixed together, we note in the first place that it is called a god\nin the fragments just as the elements are, and that Aristotle more than\nonce refers to it in the same way.[601] We must remember that Love\nitself is a part of this mixture,[602] while Strife surrounds or\nencompasses it on every side just as the Boundless encompasses the world\nin earlier systems. Strife, however, is not boundless, but equal in bulk\nto each of the four roots and to Love.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 6. 333 b 21 (R. P. 168 e); _Met._ \u0392, 4. 1000\n a 29 (R. P. 166 i). Cf. Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1124, 1 (R. P. 167 b). In\n other places Aristotle speaks of it as \u201cthe One.\u201d Cf. _de Gen. Corr._\n \u0391, 1. 315 a 7 (R. P. 168 e); _Met._ \u0392, 4. 1000 a 29 (R. P. 166 i); \u0391,\n 4. 985 a 28 (R. P. _ib._). This, however, involves a slight\n Aristotelian \u201cdevelopment.\u201d It is not quite the same thing to say, as\n Empedokles does, that all things come together \u201cinto one,\u201d and to say\n that they come together \u201cinto the One.\u201d The latter expression suggests\n that they lose their distinct and proper character in the Sphere, and\n thus become something like Aristotle\u2019s own \u201cmatter.\u201d As has been\n pointed out (p. 265, _n._ 586), it is hard for Aristotle to grasp the\n conception of irreducible elements; but there can be no doubt that in\n the Sphere, as in their separation, the elements remain \u201cwhat they\n are\u201d for Empedokles. As Aristotle also knows quite well, the Sphere is\n a mixture. Compare the difficulties about the \u201cOne\u201d of Anaximander\n discussed in Chap. I. \u00a7 15.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n This accounts for Aristotle\u2019s statement, which he makes once\n positively (_Met._ \u0392, 1. 996 a 7) and once very doubtfully (_Met._ \u0393,\n 4. 1001 a 12), that Love was the substratum of the One in just the\n same sense as the Fire of Herakleitos, the Air of Anaximenes, or the\n Water of Thales. He thinks that all the elements become merged in\n Love, and so lose their identity. In this case, it is in Love he\n recognises his own \u201cmatter.\u201d\n\nAt the appointed time, Strife begins to enter into the Sphere and Love\nto go out of it (frs. 30, 31). The fragments by themselves throw little\nlight on this; but Aetios and the Plutarchean _Stromateis_ have between\nthem preserved a very fair tradition of what Theophrastos said on the\npoint.\n\n Empedokles held that Air was first separated out and secondly Fire.\n Next came Earth, from which, highly compressed as it was by the\n impetus of its revolution, Water gushed forth. From the water Mist was\n produced by evaporation. The heavens were formed out of the Air and\n the sun out of the Fire, while terrestrial things were condensed from\n the other elements. Aet. ii. 6. 3 (_Dox._ p. 334; R. P. 170).\n\n Empedokles held that the Air when separated off from the original\n mixture of the elements was spread round in a circle. After the Air,\n Fire running outwards, and not finding any other place, ran up under\n the solid that surrounded the Air.[603] There were two hemispheres\n revolving round the earth, the one altogether composed of fire, the\n other of a mixture of air and a little fire. The latter he supposed to\n be the Night. The origin of their motion he derived from the fact of\n fire preponderating in one hemisphere owing to its accumulation there.\n Ps.-Plut. _Strom._ fr. 10 (_Dox._ p. 582; R. P. 170 a).\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n For the phrase \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 cf. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 10, 1,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. _Et. M. s.v._ \u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. This probably comes ultimately from\n Anaximenes. Cf. Chap. I. p. 82, _n._ 162.\n\nThe first of the elements to be separated out by Strife, then, was Air,\nwhich took the outermost position surrounding the world (cf. fr. 38). We\nmust not, however, take the statement that it surrounded the world \u201cin a\ncircle\u201d too strictly. It appears that Empedokles regarded the heavens as\nshaped like an egg.[604] Here, probably, we have a trace of Orphic\nideas. At any rate, the outer circle of the Air became solidified or\nfrozen, and we thus get a crystalline vault as the boundary of the\nworld. We note that it was Fire which solidified the Air and turned it\nto ice. Fire in general had a solidifying power.[605]\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n Aet. ii. 31, 4 (_Dox._ p. 363).\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n Aet. ii. 11, 2 (R. P. 170 c).\n\nIn its upward rush Fire displaced a portion of the Air in the upper half\nof the concave sphere formed by the frozen sky. This air then sunk\ndownwards, carrying with it a small portion of the fire. In this way,\ntwo hemispheres were produced: one, consisting entirely of fire, the\ndiurnal hemisphere; the other, the nocturnal, consisting of air with a\nlittle fire.\n\nThe accumulation of Fire in the upper hemisphere disturbs the\nequilibrium of the heavens and causes them to revolve; and this\nrevolution not only produces the alternation of day and night, but by\nits rapidity keeps the heavens and the earth in their places. This was\nillustrated, Aristotle tells us, by the simile of a cup of water whirled\nround at the end of a string.[606] The verses which contained this\nremarkable account of so-called \u201ccentrifugal force\u201d have been lost; but\nthe experimental illustration is in the manner of Empedokles.\n\n[Sidenote: The sun, moon, stars, and earth.]\n\n113. It will be observed that day and night have been explained without\nreference to the sun. Day is produced by the light of the fiery diurnal\nhemisphere, while night is the shadow thrown by the earth when the fiery\nhemisphere is on the other side of it (fr. 48). What, then, is the sun?\nThe Plutarchean _Stromateis_[607] again give us the answer: \u201cThe sun is\nnot fire in substance, but a reflexion of fire like that which comes\nfrom water.\u201d Plutarch himself makes one of his personages say: \u201cYou\nlaugh at Empedokles for saying that the sun is a product of the earth,\narising from the reflexion of the light of heaven, and once more\n\u2018flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance.\u2019\u201d[608] Aetios\nsays:[609] \u201cEmpedokles held that there were two suns: one, the\narchetype, the fire in one hemisphere of the world, filling the whole\nhemisphere always stationed opposite its own reflexion; the other, the\nvisible sun, its reflexion in the other hemisphere, that which is filled\nwith air mingled with fire, produced by the reflexion of the earth,\nwhich is round, on the crystalline sun, and carried round by the motion\nof the fiery hemisphere. Or, to sum it up shortly, the sun is a\nreflexion of the terrestrial fire.\u201d\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 295 a 16 (R. P. 170 b). The experiment with\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, which \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, reminds us of the\n experiment with the _klepsydra_ in fr. 100.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 10 (_Dox._ p. 582, 11; R. P. 170 c).\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n Plut. _de Pyth. Or._ 400 b (R. P. 170 c). We must keep the MS. reading\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd with Bernardakis and Diels. The reading \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u1fc6 in R. P. is\n a conjecture of Wyttenbach\u2019s; but cf. Aet. ii. 20, 13, quoted in the\n next note.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n Aet. ii. 20, 13 (_Dox._ p. 350), \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f42\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThese passages, and especially the last, are by no means clear. The\nreflexion which we call the sun cannot be in the hemisphere opposite to\nthe fiery one; for that is the nocturnal hemisphere. We must say rather\nthat the light of the fiery hemisphere is reflected by the earth on to\nthe fiery hemisphere itself in one concentrated flash. From this it\nfollows that the appearance which we call the sun is the same size as\nthe earth. We may explain the origin of this view as follows. It had\njust been discovered that the moon shone by reflected light, and there\nis always a tendency to give any novel theory a wider application than\nit really admits of. In the early part of the fifth century B.C., men\nsaw reflected light everywhere; the Pythagoreans held a very similar\nview, and when we come to them, we shall see why Aetios, or rather his\nsource, expresses it by speaking of \u201ctwo suns.\u201d\n\nIt was probably in this connexion that Empedokles announced that light\ntakes some time to travel, though its speed is so great as to escape our\nperception.[610]\n\n\u201cThe moon,\u201d we are told, \u201cwas composed of air cut off by the fire; it\nwas frozen just like hail, and had its light from the sun.\u201d It is, in\nother words, a disc of frozen air, of the same substance as the solid\nsky which surrounds the heavens. Diogenes says that Empedokles taught it\nwas smaller than the sun, and Aetios tells us it was only half as\ndistant from the earth.[611]\n\nEmpedokles did not attempt to explain the fixed stars by reflected\nlight, nor even the planets. They were fiery, made out of the fire which\nthe air carried with it when forced beneath the earth by the upward rush\nof fire at the first separation, as we saw above. The fixed stars were\nattached to the frozen air; the planets moved freely.[612]\n\nEmpedokles was acquainted (fr. 42) with the true theory of solar\neclipses, which, along with that of the moon\u2019s light, was the great\ndiscovery of this period. He also knew (fr. 48) that night is the\nconical shadow of the earth, and not a sort of exhalation.\n\nWind was explained from the opposite motions of the fiery and airy\nhemispheres. Rain was caused by the compression of the Air, which forced\nany water there might be in it out of its pores in the form of drops.\nLightning was fire forced out from the clouds in much the same way.[613]\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n Arist. _de Sensu_, 6. 446 a 28; _de An._ \u0392, 7. 418 b 20.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 10 (_Dox._ p. 582, 12; R. P. 170 c); Diog. viii.\n 77; Aet. ii. 31, 1 (cf. _Dox._ p. 63).\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n Aet. ii. 13, 2 and 11 (_Dox._ pp. 341 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n Aet. iii. 3, 7; Arist. _Meteor._ \u0392, 9. 369 b 12, with Alexander\u2019s\n commentary.\n\nThe earth was at first mixed with water, but the increasing compression\ncaused by the velocity of the world\u2019s revolution made the water gush\nforth, so that the sea is called \u201cthe sweat of the earth,\u201d a phrase to\nwhich Aristotle objects as a mere poetical metaphor. The saltness of the\nsea was explained by the help of this analogy.[614]\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n Arist. _Meteor._ \u0392, 3. 357 a 24; Aet. iii. 16, 3 (R. P. 170 b). Cf.\n the clear reference in Arist. _Meteor._ \u0392, 1. 353 b 11.\n\n[Sidenote: Organic combinations.]\n\n114. Empedokles went on to show how the four elements, mingled in\ndifferent proportions, gave rise to perishable things, such as bones,\nflesh, and the like. These, of course, are the work of Love; but this in\nno way contradicts the view taken above as to the period of evolution to\nwhich this world belongs. Love is by no means banished from the world\nyet, though one day it will be. At present, it is still able to form\ncombinations of elements; but, just because Strife is ever increasing,\nthey are all perishable.\n\nThe possibility of organic combinations depends upon the fact that there\nis still water in the earth, and even fire (fr. 52). The warm springs of\nSicily were a proof of this, not to speak of Etna. These springs\nEmpedokles appears to have explained by one of his characteristic\nimages, drawn this time from the heating of warm baths.[615] It will be\nnoted that his similes are nearly all drawn from human inventions and\nmanufactures.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n Seneca, _Q. Nat._ iii. 24: \u201cfacere solemus dracones et miliaria et\n complures formas in quibus aere tenui fistulas struimus per declive\n circumdatas, ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat\n spatii quantum efficiendo calori sat est. frigida itaque intrat,\n effluit calida. idem sub terra Empedocles existimat fieri.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Plants.]\n\n115. Plants and animals were formed from the four elements under the\ninfluence of Love and Strife. The fragments which deal with trees and\nplants are 77-81; and these, taken along with certain Aristotelian\nstatements and the doxographical tradition, enable us to make out pretty\nfully what the theory was. The text of Aetios is very corrupt here; but\nit may, perhaps, be rendered as follows:\u2014\n\n Empedokles says that trees were the first living creatures to grow up\n out of the earth, before the sun was spread out, and before day and\n night were distinguished; that, from the symmetry of their mixture,\n they contain the proportion of male and female; that they grow, rising\n up owing to the heat which is in the earth, so that they are parts of\n the earth just as embryos are parts of the uterus; that fruits are\n excretions of the water and fire in plants, and that those which have\n a deficiency of moisture shed their leaves when that is evaporated by\n the summer heat, while those which have more moisture remain\n evergreen, as in the case of the laurel, the olive, and the palm; that\n the differences in taste are due to variations in the particles\n contained in the earth and to the plants drawing different particles\n from it, as in the case of vines; for it is not the difference of the\n vines that makes wine good, but that of the soil which nourishes them.\n Aet. v. 26, 4 (R. P. 172).\n\nAristotle finds fault with Empedokles for explaining the double growth\nof plants, upwards and downwards, by the opposite natural motions of the\nearth and fire contained in them.[616] For \u201cnatural motions\u201d we must, of\ncourse, substitute the attraction of like for like (\u00a7 109). Theophrastos\nsays much the same thing.[617] The growth of plants, then, is to be\nregarded as an incident in that separation of the elements which Strife\nis bringing about. Some of the fire which is still beneath the earth\n(fr. 52) meeting in its upward course with earth, still moist with water\nand \u201crunning\u201d down so as to \u201creach its own kind,\u201d unites with it, under\nthe influence of the Love still left in the world, to form a temporary\ncombination, which we call a tree or a plant.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0392, 4. 415 b 28.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n Theophr. _de causis plantarum_, i. 12, 5.\n\nAt the beginning of the pseudo-Aristotelian _Treatise on Plants_,[618]\nwe are told that Empedokles attributed desire, sensation, and the\ncapacity for pleasure and pain to plants, and he rightly saw that the\ntwo sexes are combined in them. This is mentioned by Aetios, and\ndiscussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. If we may so far trust\nthat Byzantine translation from a Latin version of the Arabic,[619] we\nget a most valuable hint as to the reason. Plants, we are there told,\ncame into being \u201cin an imperfect state of the world,\u201d[620] in fact, at a\ntime when Strife had not so far prevailed as to differentiate the sexes.\nWe shall see that the same thing applies to the original race of animals\nin this world. It is strange that Empedokles never observed the actual\nprocess of generation in plants, but confined himself to the statement\nthat they spontaneously \u201cbore eggs\u201d (fr. 79), that is to say, fruit.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n [Arist.] _de plantis_, \u0391, 1. 815 a 15.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in the\n reign of Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek\n at the Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n \u0391, 2. 817 b 35, \u201cmundo ... diminuto et non perfecto in complemento\n suo\u201d (Alfred).\n\n[Sidenote: Evolution of animals.]\n\n116. The fragments which deal with the evolution of animals (57-62) must\nbe understood in the light of the statement (fr. 17) that there is a\ndouble coming into being and a double passing away of mortal things.\nEmpedokles describes two processes of evolution, which take exactly\nopposite courses, one of them belonging to the period of Love and the\nother to that of Strife. The four stages of this double evolution are\naccurately distinguished in a passage of Aetios,[621] and we shall see\nthat there is evidence for referring two of them to the second period of\nthe world\u2019s history and two to the fourth.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n Aet. v. 19, 5 (R. P. 173). Plato has made use of the idea of reversed\n evolution in the _Politicus_ myth.\n\nThe first stage is that in which the various parts of animals arise\nseparately. It is that of heads without necks, arms without shoulders,\nand eyes without foreheads (fr. 57). It is clear that this must be the\nfirst stage in what we have called the fourth period of the world\u2019s\nhistory, that in which Love is coming in and Strife passing out.\nAristotle distinctly refers it to the period of Love, by which, as we\nhave seen, he means the period when Love is increasing.[622] It is in\naccordance with this that he also says these scattered members were\nsubsequently put together by Love.[623]\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 2. 300 b 29 (R. P. 173 a). Cf. _de Gen. An._ \u0391,\n 17. 722 b 17, where fr. 57 is introduced by the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Simplicius, _de Caelo_, p. 587,\n 18, expresses the same thing by saying \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039d\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0393, 6. 430 a 30 (R. P. 173 a).\n\nThe second stage is that in which the scattered limbs are united. At\nfirst, they were combined in all possible ways (fr. 59). There were oxen\nwith human heads, creatures with double faces and double breasts, and\nall manner of monsters (fr. 61). Those of them that were fitted to\nsurvive did so, while the rest perished. That is how the evolution of\nanimals took place in the period of Love.[624]\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n This is well put by Simplicius, _de Caelo_, p. 587, 20. It is \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u039d\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41\n \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. In _Phys._ p. 371, 33, he says the oxen with\n human heads were \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nThe third stage belongs to the period when the unity of the Sphere is\nbeing destroyed by Strife. It is, therefore, the first stage in the\nevolution of our present world. It begins with \u201cwhole-natured forms\u201d in\nwhich there is not as yet any distinction of sex or species.[625] They\nare composed of earth and water, and are produced by the upward motion\nof fire which is seeking to reach its like.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n Cf. Plato, _Symp._ 189 e.\n\nIn the fourth stage, the sexes and species have been separated, and new\nanimals no longer arise from the elements, but are produced by\ngeneration. We shall see presently how Empedokles conceived this to\noperate.\n\nIn both these processes of evolution, Empedokles was guided by the idea\nof the survival of the fittest. Aristotle severely criticises this. \u201cWe\nmay suppose,\u201d he says, \u201cthat all things have fallen out accidentally\njust as they would have done if they had been produced for some end.\nCertain things have been preserved because they had spontaneously\nacquired a fitting structure, while those which were not so put together\nhave perished and are perishing, as Empedokles says of the oxen with\nhuman faces.\u201d[626] This, according to Aristotle, leaves too much to\nchance. One curious instance has been preserved. Vertebration was\nexplained by saying that an early invertebrate animal tried to turn\nround and broke its back in so doing. This was a favourable variation\nand so survived.[627] It should be noted that it clearly belongs to the\nperiod of Strife, and not, like the oxen with human heads, to that of\nLove. The survival of the fittest was the law of both processes of\nevolution.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0392, 8. 198 b 29 (R. P. 173 a).\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n Arist. _de Part. An._ \u0391, 1. 640 a 19.\n\n117. The distinction of the sexes was an important result of the gradual\ndifferentiation brought about by the entrance of Strife into the world.\nEmpedokles differed from the theory given by Parmenides in his Second\nPart (\u00a7 95) in holding that the warm element preponderated in the male\nsex, and that males were conceived in the warmer part of the uterus (fr.\n65). The f\u0153tus was formed partly from the male and partly from the\nfemale semen (fr. 63); and it was just the fact that the substance of a\nnew being\u2019s body was divided between the male and the female that\nproduced desire when the two were brought together by sight (fr. 64). A\ncertain symmetry of the pores in the male and female semen is, of\ncourse, necessary for procreation, and from its absence Empedokles\nexplained the sterility of mules. The children most resemble that parent\nwho contributed most to their formation. The influence of statues and\npictures was also noted, however, as modifying the appearance of the\noffspring. Twins and triplets were due to a superabundance and division\nof the semen.[628]\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n Aet. v. 10, 1; 11, 1; 12, 2; 14, 2. Cf. Fredrich, _Hippokratische\n Untersuchungen_, pp. 126 sqq.\n\nAs to the growth of the f\u0153tus in the uterus, Empedokles held that it was\nenveloped in a membrane, and that its formation began on the\nthirty-sixth day and was completed on the forty-ninth. The heart was\nformed first, the nails and such things last. Respiration did not begin\ntill the time of birth, when the fluids round the f\u0153tus were withdrawn.\nBirth took place in the ninth or seventh month, because the day had been\noriginally nine months long, and afterwards seven. Milk arises on the\ntenth day of the eighth month (fr. 68).[629]\n\nDeath was the final separation by Strife of the fire and earth in the\nbody, each of which had all along been striving to \u201creach its own kind.\u201d\nSleep was a temporary separation to a certain extent of the fiery\nelement.[630] At death the animal is resolved into its elements, which\nperhaps enter into fresh combinations, perhaps become permanently united\nwith \u201ctheir own kind.\u201d There can be no question here of an immortal\nsoul.\n\nEven in life, we may see the attraction of like to like operating in\nanimals just as it did in the upward and downward growth of plants. Hair\nis the same thing as foliage (fr. 82); and, generally speaking, the\nfiery part of animals tends upwards and the earthy part downwards,\nthough there are exceptions, as may be seen in the case of certain\nshell-fish (fr. 76), where the earthy part is above. These exceptions\nare only possible because there is still a great deal of Love in the\nworld. We also see the attraction of like for like in the different\nhabits of the various species of animals. Those that have most fire in\nthem fly up into the air; those in which earth preponderates take to the\nearth, as did the dog which always sat upon a tile.[631] Aquatic animals\nare those in which water predominates. This does not, however, apply to\nfishes, which are very fiery, and take to the water to cool\nthemselves.[632]\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n Aet. v. 15, 3; 21, 1 (_Dox._ p. 190).\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n Aet. v. 25, 4 (_Dox._ p. 437).\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n Aet. v. 19, 5 (_Dox._ p. 431). Cf. _Eth. Eud._ \u0397, 1. 1235 a 11.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n Arist. _de Respir._ 14. 477 a 32; Theophr. _de causis plant._ i. 21.\n\nEmpedokles paid great attention to the subject of respiration, and his\nvery ingenious explanation of it has been preserved in a continuous form\n(fr. 100). We breathe, he held, through all the pores of the skin, not\nmerely through the organs of respiration. The cause of the alternate\ninspiration and expiration of the breath was the movement of the blood\nfrom the heart to the surface of the body and back again, which was\nexplained by the _klepsydra_.\n\nThe nutrition and growth of animals is, of course, to be explained from\nthe attraction of like to like. Each part of the body has pores into\nwhich the appropriate food will fit. Pleasure and pain were derived from\nthe absence or presence of like elements, that is, of nourishment which\nwould fit the pores. Tears and sweat arose from a disturbance which\ncurdled the blood; they were, so to say, the whey of the blood.[633]\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n Nutrition, Aet. v. 27, 1; pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15; v. 28, 1;\n tears and sweat, v. 22, 1.\n\n[Sidenote: Perception.]\n\n118. For the theory of perception held by Empedokles we have the\noriginal words of Theophrastos:\u2014\n\n Empedokles speaks in the same way of all the senses, and says that\n perception is due to the \u201ceffluences\u201d fitting into the passages of\n each sense. And that is why one cannot judge the objects of another;\n for the passages of some of them are too wide and those of others too\n narrow for the sensible object, so that the latter either goes through\n without touching or cannot enter at all. R. P. 177 b.\n\n He tries, too, to explain the nature of sight. He says that the\n interior of the eye consists of fire, while round about it is earth\n and air,[634] through which its rarity enables the fire to pass like\n the light in lanterns (fr. 84). The passages of the fire and water are\n arranged alternately; through those of the fire we perceive light\n objects, through those of the water, dark; each class of objects fits\n into each class of passages, and the colours are carried to the sight\n by effluence. R. P. _ib._\n\n But eyes are not all composed in the same way; some are composed of\n like elements and some of opposite; some have the fire in the centre\n and some on the outside. That is why some animals are keen-sighted by\n day and others by night. Those which have less fire are keen-sighted\n in the daytime, for the fire within is brought up to an equality by\n that without; those which have less of the opposite (_i.e._ water), by\n night, for then their deficiency is supplemented. But, in the opposite\n case, each will behave in the opposite manner. Those eyes in which\n fire predominates will be dazzled in the daytime, since the fire being\n still further increased will stop up and occupy the pores of the\n water. Those in which water predominates will, he says, suffer the\n same at night, for the fire will be obstructed by the water. And this\n goes on till the water is separated off by the air, for in each case\n it is the opposite which is a remedy. The best tempered and the most\n excellent vision is one composed of both in equal proportions. This is\n practically what he says about sight.\n\n Hearing, he holds, is produced by sound outside, when the air moved by\n the voice sounds inside the ear; for the sense of hearing is a sort of\n bell sounding inside the ear, which he calls a \u201cfleshy sprout.\u201d When\n the air is set in motion it strikes upon the solid parts and produces\n a sound.[635] Smell, he holds, arises from respiration, and that is\n why those smell most keenly whose breath has the most violent motion,\n and why most smell comes from subtle and light bodies.[636] As to\n touch and taste, he does not lay down how nor by means of what they\n arise, except that he gives us an explanation applicable to all, that\n sensation is produced by adaptation to the pores. Pleasure is produced\n by what is like in its elements and their mixture; pain, by what is\n opposite. R. P. _ib._\n\n And he gives a precisely similar account of thought and ignorance.\n Thought arises from what is like and ignorance from what is unlike,\n thus implying that thought is the same, or nearly the same, as\n perception. For after enumerating how we know each thing by means of\n itself, he adds, \u201cfor all things are fashioned and fitted together out\n of these, and it is by these men think and feel pleasure and pain\u201d\n (fr. 107). And for this reason we think chiefly with our blood, for in\n it of all parts of the body all the elements are most completely\n mingled. R. P. 178.\n\n All, then, in whom the mixture is equal or nearly so, and in whom the\n elements are neither at too great intervals nor too small or too\n large, are the wisest and have the most exact perceptions; and those\n who come next to them are wise in proportion. Those who are in the\n opposite condition are the most foolish. Those whose elements are\n separated by intervals and rare are dull and laborious; those in whom\n they are closely packed and broken into minute particles are\n impulsive, they attempt many things and finish few because of the\n rapidity with which their blood moves. Those who have a\n well-proportioned mixture in some one part of their bodies will be\n clever in that respect. That is why some are good orators and some\n good artificers. The latter have a good mixture in their hands, and\n the former in their tongues, and so with all other special capacities.\n R. P. _ib._\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n That is, watery vapour, not the elemental air or \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 (\u00a7 107). It is\n identical with the \u201cwater\u201d mentioned below. It is unnecessary,\n therefore, to insert \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 after \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 with Karsten and Diels.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n Beare, p. 96, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 133.\n\nPerception, then, is due to the meeting of an element in us with the\nsame element outside. This takes place when the pores of the organ of\nsense are neither too large nor too small for the \u201ceffluences\u201d which all\nthings are constantly giving off (fr. 89). Smell was explained by\nrespiration. The breath drew in along with it the small particles which\nfit into the pores. From Aetios[637] we learn that Empedokles proved\nthis by the example of people with a cold in their head, who cannot\nsmell, just because they have a difficulty in breathing. We also see\nfrom fr. 101 that the scent of dogs was referred to in support of the\ntheory. Empedokles seems to have given no detailed account of smell, and\ndid not refer to touch at all.[638] Hearing was explained by the motion\nof the air which struck upon the cartilage inside the ear and made it\nswing and sound like a bell.[639]\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n Aet. iv. 17, 2 (_Dox._ p. 407). Beare, p. 133.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n _Ibid._ pp. 95 sqq.\n\nThe theory of vision[640] is more complicated; and, as Plato adopted\nmost of it, it is of great importance in the history of philosophy. The\neye was conceived, as by Alkmaion (\u00a7 96),[641] to be composed of fire\nand water. Just as in a lantern the flame is protected from the wind by\nhorn (fr. 84), so the fire in the iris is protected from the water which\nsurrounds it in the pupil by membranes with very fine pores, so that,\nwhile the fire can pass out, the water cannot get in. Sight is produced\nby the fire inside the eye going forth to meet the object. This seems\nstrange to us, because we are accustomed to the idea of images being\nimpressed upon the retina. But _looking_ at a thing no doubt seemed much\nmore like an action proceeding from the eye than a mere passive state.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n _Ibid._ pp. 14 sqq.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n Theophr. _de sens._ 26.\n\nHe was quite aware, too, that \u201ceffluences,\u201d as he called them, came from\nthings to the eyes as well; for he defined colours as \u201ceffluences from\nforms (or \u2018things\u2019) fitting into the pores and perceived.\u201d[642] It is\nnot quite clear how these two accounts of vision were reconciled, or how\nfar we are entitled to credit Empedokles with the Platonic theory. The\nstatements which have been quoted seem to imply something very like\nit.[643]\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, _Men._ 76 d 4. All our\n MSS. have \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, but Ven. T has in the margin \u03b3\u03c1.\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for \u201cthings\u201d\n is \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. See Diels, _Empedokles und Gorgias_, p. 439.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n See Beare, _Elementary Cognition_, p. 18.\n\nTheophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no distinction between\nthought and perception, a remark already made by Aristotle.[644] The\nchief seat of perception was the blood, in which the four elements are\nmost evenly mixed, and especially the blood near the heart (fr.\n105).[645] This does not, however, exclude the idea that other parts of\nthe body may perceive also; indeed, Empedokles held that all things have\ntheir share of thought (fr. 103). But the blood was specially sensitive\nbecause of its finer mixture.[646] From this it naturally follows that\nEmpedokles adopted the view, already maintained in the Second Part of\nthe poem of Parmenides (fr. 16), that our knowledge varies with the\nvarying constitution of our bodies (fr. 106). This consideration became\nvery important later on as one of the foundations of scepticism; but\nEmpedokles himself only drew from it the conclusion that we must make\nthe best use we can of our senses, and check one by the other (fr. 4).\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0393, 3. 427 a 21.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n R. P. 178 a. This was the characteristic doctrine of the Sicilian\n school, from whom it passed to Aristotle and the Stoics. Plato and\n Hippokrates, on the other hand, adopted the view of Alkmaion (\u00a7 97)\n that the brain was the seat of consciousness. Kritias (Arist. _de An._\n \u0391, 2. 405 b 6) probably got the Sicilian doctrine from Gorgias. At a\n later date, Philistion of Syracuse, Plato\u2019s friend, substituted the\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (\u201canimal spirits\u201d) which circulated along with the\n blood.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n Beare, p. 253.\n\n[Sidenote: Theology and religion.]\n\n119. The theoretical theology of Empedokles reminds us of Xenophanes,\nhis practical religious teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics. We are\ntold in the earlier part of the poem that certain \u201cgods\u201d are composed of\nthe elements; and that therefore though they \u201clive long lives\u201d they must\npass away (fr. 21). We have seen that the elements and the Sphere are\nalso called gods, but that is in quite another sense of the word.\n\nIf we turn to the religious teaching of the _Purifications_, we find\nthat everything turns on the doctrine of transmigration. On the general\nsignificance of this enough has been said above (\u00a7 42); the details\ngiven by Empedokles are peculiar. According to a decree of Necessity,\n\u201cdaemons\u201d who have sinned are forced to wander from their home in heaven\nfor three times ten thousand seasons (fr. 115). He himself is such an\nexiled divinity, and has fallen from his high estate because he put his\ntrust in raving Strife. The four elements toss him from one to the other\nwith loathing; and so he has not only been a human being and a plant,\nbut even a fish. The only way to purify oneself from the taint of\noriginal sin was by the cultivation of ceremonial holiness, by\npurifications, and abstinence from animal flesh. For the animals are our\nkinsmen (fr. 137), and it is parricide to lay hands on them. In all this\nthere are, no doubt, certain points of contact with the cosmology. We\nhave the \u201cmighty oath\u201d (fr. 115; cf. fr. 30), the four elements, Hate as\nthe source of original sin, and Kypris as queen in the Golden Age (fr.\n128). But these points are neither fundamental nor of great importance.\nAnd it cannot be denied that there are really contradictions between the\ntwo poems. That, however, is just what we should expect to find. All\nthrough this period, there seems to have been a gulf between men\u2019s\nreligious beliefs, if they had any, and their cosmological views. The\nfew points of contact which we have mentioned may have been sufficient\nto hide this from Empedokles himself.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI\n\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\n120. All that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the date of Anaxagoras\nseems to rest upon the authority of Demetrios Phalereus, who said of\nhim, in the _Register of Archons_, that he began to study philosophy, at\nthe age of twenty, in the archonship of Kallias or Kalliades at Athens\n(480-79 B.C.).[647] This date was probably derived from a calculation\nbased upon the philosopher\u2019s age at the time of his trial, which\nDemetrios had every opportunity of learning from sources no longer\nextant. Apollodoros inferred that Anaxagoras was born in Ol. LXX.\n(500-496 B.C.), and he adds that he died at the age of seventy-two in\nOl. LXXXVIII. 1 (428-27 B.C.).[648] He doubtless thought it natural that\nhe should not survive Perikles, and still more natural that he should\ndie the year Plato was born.[649] We have a further statement, of\ndoubtful origin, but probably due to Demetrios also, that Anaxagoras\nlived at Athens for thirty years. This may be a genuine tradition;[650]\nand if so, we get from about 462 to 432 B.C. as the time he lived there.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n Diog. ii. 7 (R. P. 148), with the perfectly certain emendation\n referred to _ib._ 148 c. The Athens of 480 B.C. would hardly be a\n suitable place to \u201cbegin philosophising\u201d! For the variation in the\n archon\u2019s name, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n We must read \u1f40\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 with Meursius to make the figures come right.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n Diog., _loc. cit._ In any case, it is not a mere calculation of\n Apollodoros\u2019s; for he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years\n old at the date of his arrival in Athens, and this would give _at\n most_ twenty-eight years for his residence there. The trial cannot\n have been later than 432 B.C., and may have been earlier.\n\nThere can be no doubt that these dates are very nearly right. Aristotle\ntells us[651] that Anaxagoras was older than Empedokles, who was born\nabout 490 B.C. (\u00a7 98); and Theophrastos said[652] that Empedokles was\nborn \u201cnot long after Anaxagoras.\u201d Demokritos, too, said that he himself\nwas a young man in the old age of Anaxagoras, and he must have been born\nabout 460 B.C.[653]\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n Arist. Met. \u0391, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n _Phys. Op._ fr. 3 (_Dox._ p. 477), _ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p. 25, 19 (R.\n P. 162 e).\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX. \u00a7\n 171.\n\n[Sidenote: Early life.]\n\n121. Anaxagoras was born at Klazomenai, and Theophrastos tells us that\nhis father\u2019s name was Hegesiboulos.[654] The names of both father and\nson have an aristocratic sound, and we may assume they belonged to a\nfamily which had won distinction in the State. Nor need we reject the\ntradition that Anaxagoras neglected his possessions to follow\nscience.[655] It is certain, at any rate, that in the fourth century he\nwas already regarded as the type of the man who leads the \u201ctheoretic\nlife.\u201d[656] Of course the story of his contempt for worldly goods was\nseized on later by the historical novelist and tricked out with the\nusual apophthegms. These do not concern us here.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n _Phys. Op._ fr. 4 (_Dox._ p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n Plato, _Hipp. ma._ 283 a, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f50\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22\n \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Cf. Plut. _Per._ 16.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n Arist. _Eth. Nic._ \u039a, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf. _Eth. Eud._ \u0391, 4. 1215 b 6 and\n 15, 1216 a 10.\n\nOne incident belonging to the early manhood of Anaxagoras is recorded,\nnamely, his observation of the huge meteoric stone which fell into the\nAigospotamos in 468-67 B.C.[657] Our authorities tell us that he\npredicted this phenomenon, which is plainly absurd. But we shall see\nreason to believe that it may have occasioned one of his most striking\ndepartures from the earlier cosmology, and led to his adoption of the\nvery view for which he was condemned at Athens. At all events, the fall\nof the stone made a profound impression at the time, and it was still\nshown to tourists in the days of Pliny and Plutarch.[658]\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 149, gives the date as\n Ol. LXXVIII. 2; and Eusebios gives it under Ol. LXXVIII. 3. But cf.\n _Marm. Par. 57_, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 ... \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u0397\u0397\u03a0,\n \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5, which is 468-67 B.C. The text of Diog.\n ii. 11 is corrupt. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n.\n 2; and Diels, _Vors._ p. 294, 28.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n Pliny, _loc. cit._, \u201cqui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis\n colore adusto.\u201d Cf. Plut. _Lys._ 12, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: Relation to the Ionic school.]\n\n122. The doxographers speak of Anaxagoras as the pupil of\nAnaximenes.[659] This is, of course, out of the question; Anaximenes\nmost probably died before Anaxagoras was born. But it is not enough to\nsay that the statement arose from the fact that the name of Anaxagoras\nfollowed that of Anaximenes in the _Successions_. That is true, no\ndoubt; but it is not the whole truth. We have its original source in a\nfragment of Theophrastos himself, which states that Anaxagoras had been\n\u201can associate of the philosophy of Anaximenes.\u201d[660] Now this expression\nhas a very distinct meaning if we accept the view as to \u201cschools\u201d of\nscience set forth in the Introduction (\u00a7 XIV.). It means that the old\nIonic school survived the destruction of Miletos in 494 B.C., and\ncontinued to flourish in the other cities of Asia. It means, further,\nthat it produced no man of distinction after its third great\nrepresentative, and that \u201cthe philosophy of Anaximenes\u201d was still taught\nby whoever was now at the head of the society.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n Cicero, _de nat. D._ i. 26 (after Philodemos), \u201cAnaxagoras qui accepit\n ab Anaximene disciplinam (_i.e._ \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5)\u201d; Diog. i. 13 (R. P. 4) and\n ii. 6; Strabo, xiv. p. 645, \u039a\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f41 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2; Euseb. _P.E._ p. 504; [Galen] _Hist.\n Phil._ 3; Augustine, _de Civ. Dei_, viii. 2.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n _Phys. Op._ fr. 4 (_Dox._ p. 478), \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f29\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n \u039a\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. In his fifth\n edition (p. 973, n. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and\n confirms it by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos,\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. See below, Chap. IX. \u00a7 172.\n\nAt this point, it may be well to indicate briefly the conclusions to\nwhich we shall come in the next few chapters with regard to the\ndevelopment of philosophy during the first half of the fifth century\nB.C. We shall find that, while the old Ionic school was still capable of\ntraining great men, it was now powerless to keep them. Anaxagoras went\nhis own way; Melissos and Leukippos, though they still retained enough\nof the old views to bear witness to the source of their inspiration,\nwere too strongly influenced by the Eleatic dialectic to remain content\nwith the theories of Anaximenes. It was left to second-rate minds like\nDiogenes to champion the orthodox system, while third-rate minds like\nHippon of Samos even went back to the cruder theory of Thales. The\ndetails of this anticipatory sketch will become clearer as we go on; for\nthe present, it is only necessary to call the reader\u2019s attention to the\nfact that the old Ionic Philosophy now forms a sort of background to our\nstory, just as Orphic and Pythagorean religious ideas have done in the\npreceding chapters.\n\n[Sidenote: Anaxagoras at Athens.]\n\n123. Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to take up his abode at\nAthens. We are not to suppose, however, that he was attracted thither by\nanything in the character of the Athenians. No doubt Athens had now\nbecome the political centre of the Hellenic world; but it had not yet\nproduced a single scientific man. On the contrary, the temper of the\ncitizen body was and remained hostile to free inquiry of any kind.\nSokrates, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle fell victims in different degrees to\nthe bigotry of the democracy, though, of course, their offence was\npolitical rather than religious. They were condemned not as heretics,\nbut as innovators in the _state_ religion. Still, as a recent historian\nobserves, \u201cAthens in its flourishing period was far from being a place\nfor free inquiry to thrive unchecked.\u201d[661] It is this, no doubt, that\nhas been in the minds of those writers who have represented philosophy\nas something un-Greek. It was in reality thoroughly Greek, though it was\nthoroughly un-Athenian.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n Holm, _Gr. Gesch._ ii. 334. The whole chapter is well worth reading in\n this connexion.\n\nIt seems most reasonable to suppose that Perikles himself brought\nAnaxagoras to Athens, just as he brought everything else he could. Holm\nhas shown with much skill how the aim of that great statesman was, so to\nsay, to Ionise his fellow-citizens, to impart to them something of the\nflexibility and openness of mind which characterised their kinsmen\nacross the sea. It is possible that it was Aspasia of Miletos who\nintroduced the Ionian philosopher to the Periklean circle, of which he\nwas henceforth a chief ornament. The Athenians in derision gave him the\nnickname of Nous.[662]\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n Plut. _Per._ 4 (R. P. 148 c). I follow Zeller, p. 975, n. 1 (Eng.\n trans. ii. p. 327, n. 4), in regarding the sobriquet as derisive.\n\nThe close relation in which Anaxagoras stood to Perikles is placed\nbeyond the reach of doubt by the testimony of Plato. In the\n_Phaedrus_[663] he makes Sokrates say: \u201cFor all arts that are great,\nthere is need of talk and discussion on the parts of natural science\nthat deal with things on high; for that seems to be the source which\ninspires high-mindedness and effectiveness in every direction. Perikles\nadded this very acquirement to his original gifts. He fell in, it seems,\nwith Anaxagoras, who was a scientific man; and, satiating himself with\nthe theory of things on high, and having attained to a knowledge of the\ntrue nature of intellect and folly, which were just what the discourses\nof Anaxagoras were mainly about, he drew from that source whatever was\nof a nature to further him in the art of speech.\u201d\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n 270 a (R. P. 148 c).\n\nA more difficult question is the alleged relation of Euripides to\nAnaxagoras. The oldest authority for it is Alexander of Aitolia, poet\nand librarian, who lived at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphos (_c._ 280\nB.C.). He referred to Euripides as the \u201cnursling of brave\nAnaxagoras.\u201d[664] A great deal of ingenuity has been expended in trying\nto find the system of Anaxagoras in the choruses of Euripides; but, it\nmust now be admitted, without result.[665] The famous fragment on the\nblessedness of the scientific life might just as well refer to any other\ncosmologist as to Anaxagoras, and indeed suggests more naturally a\nthinker of a more primitive type.[666] On the other hand, there is one\nfragment which distinctly expounds the central thought of Anaxagoras,\nand could hardly be referred to any one else.[667] We may conclude,\nthen, that Euripides knew the philosopher and his views, but it is not\nsafe to go further.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n Gell. xv. 20, \u201cAlexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus\n composuit\u201d; \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 (so Valckenaer for \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5)\n \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n The question was first raised by Valckenaer (_Diatribe_, p. 26). Cf.\n also Wilamowitz, _Analecta Euripidea_, pp. 162 sqq.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n See Introd. p. 12, _n._ 14. The fragment is quoted R. P. 148 c. The\n words \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9 carry us back rather to the\n older Milesians.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n R. P. 150 b.\n\n[Sidenote: The trial.]\n\n124. Shortly before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, the enemies\nof Perikles began a series of attacks upon him through his friends.[668]\nPheidias was the first to suffer, and Anaxagoras was the next. That he\nwas an object of special hatred to the religious party need not surprise\nus, even though the charge made against him does not suggest that he\nwent out of his way to hurt their susceptibilities. The details of the\ntrial are somewhat obscure, but we can make out a few points. The first\nstep taken was the introduction of a psephism by Diopeithes\u2014the same\nwhom Aristophanes laughs at in _The Birds_[669]\u2014enacting that an\nimpeachment should be brought against those who did not practise\nreligion, and taught theories about \u201cthe things on high.\u201d[670] What\nhappened at the actual trial is very differently related. Our\nauthorities give hopelessly conflicting accounts.[671] It is no use\nattempting to reconcile these; it is enough to insist upon what is\ncertain. Now we know from Plato what the accusation was.[672] It was\nthat Anaxagoras taught the sun was a red-hot stone, and the moon earth;\nand we shall see that he certainly did hold these views (\u00a7 133). For the\nrest, the most plausible account is that he was got out of prison and\nsent away by Perikles.[673] We know that such things were possible at\nAthens.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n Both Ephoros (represented by Diod. xii. 38) and the source of Plut.\n _Per._ 32 made these attacks immediately precede the war. This may,\n however, be pragmatic; they perhaps occurred earlier.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n _Birds_, 988. Aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when combined\n with democratic opinions.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n Plut. _Per._ 32 (R. P. 148), where some of the original words have\n been preserved. The phrase \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 and the word \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 are archaisms\n from the \u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n These accounts are repeated by Diog. ii. 12-14. It is worth while to\n put the statements of Satyros and Sotion side by side in order to show\n the unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition:\u2014\n\n \u2502 _Sotion._ \u2502 _Satyros._\n _Accuser._ \u2502Kleon. \u2502Thoukydides s. of Melesias.\n _Charge._ \u2502Calling the sun a red-hot \u2502Impiety and Medism.\n \u2502mass. \u2502\n _Sentence._ \u2502Fined five talents. \u2502Sentenced to death in absence.\n\n Hermippos represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of\n death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly,\n Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him\n into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him\n out of compassion! The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from\n Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead\n of Perikles. This, too, explains the accuser\u2019s name (Busolt, _Gr.\n Gesch._ p. 306, n. 3).\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n _Apol._ 26 d.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n Plut. _Nic._ 23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf. _Per._ 32 (R. P. 148).\n\nDriven from his adopted home, Anaxagoras naturally went back to Ionia,\nwhere at least he would be free to teach what he pleased. He settled at\nLampsakos, and we shall see reason to believe that he founded a school\nthere.[674] Probably he did not live long after his exile. The\nLampsakenes erected an altar to his memory in their market-place,\ndedicated to Mind and Truth; and the anniversary of his death was long\nkept as a holiday for school-children, it was said at his own\nrequest.[675]\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. \u00a7 191.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras is Alkidamas,\n the pupil of Gorgias, who said these were still kept up in his own\n time. Arist. _Rhet._ \u0392, 23. 1398 b 15.\n\n[Sidenote: Writings.]\n\n125. Diogenes includes Anaxagoras in his list of philosophers who left\nonly a single book, and he has also preserved the accepted criticism of\nit, namely, that it was written \u201cin a lofty and agreeable style.\u201d[676]\nThere is no evidence of any weight to set against this testimony, which\ncomes ultimately from the librarians of Alexandria.[677] The story that\nAnaxagoras wrote a treatise on perspective as applied to scene-painting\nis most improbable;[678] and the statement that he composed a\nmathematical work dealing with the quadrature of the circle is due to\nmisunderstanding of an expression in Plutarch.[679] We learn from the\npassage in the _Apology_, referred to above, that the works of\nAnaxagoras could be bought at Athens for a single drachma; and that the\nbook was of some length may be gathered from the way in which Plato goes\non to speak of it.[680] In the sixth century A.D. Simplicius had access\nto a copy, doubtless in the library of the Academy;[681] and it is to\nhim we owe the preservation of all our fragments, with one or two very\ndoubtful exceptions. Unfortunately his quotations seem to be confined to\nthe First Book, that dealing with general principles, so that we are\nleft somewhat in the dark with regard to the treatment of details. This\nis the more unfortunate, as it was Anaxagoras who first gave the true\ntheory of the moon\u2019s light and, therefore, the true theory of eclipses.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n Diog. i. 16; ii. 6 (R. P. 5; 153).\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n Schaubach (_An. Claz. Fragm._ p. 57) fabricated a work entitled \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b5\u03c7\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd out of the pseudo-Aristotelian _de plantis_, 817 a 27.\n But the Latin version of Alfred, which is the original of the Greek,\n has simply _et ideo dicit lechineon_; and this appears to be due to a\n failure to make out the Arabic text from which the Latin version was\n derived. Cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Bot._ i. 60.\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n It comes from Vitruvius, vii. pr. 11. A forger, seeking to decorate\n his production with a great name, would think naturally of the\n philosopher who was said to have taught Euripides.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n Plut. _de Exilio_, 607 f. The words merely mean that he used to draw\n mathematical figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the\n prison floor.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n _Apol._ 26 d-e. The expression \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 perhaps implies that it filled\n more than one roll.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n Simplicius also speaks of \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[Sidenote: The Fragments.]\n\n126. I give the fragments according to the text and arrangement of\nDiels, who has made some of them completely intelligible for the first\ntime.\n\n (1) All things were together infinite both in number and in smallness;\n for the small too was infinite. And, when all things were together,\n none of them could be distinguished for their smallness. For air and\n aether prevailed over all things, being both of them infinite; for\n amongst all things these are the greatest both in quantity and\n size.[682] R. P. 151.\n\n (2) For air and aether are separated off from the mass that surrounds\n the world, and the surrounding mass is infinite in quantity. R. P.\n _ib._\n\n (3) Nor is there a least of what is small, but there is always a\n smaller; for it cannot be that what is should cease to be by being\n cut.[683] But there is also always something greater than what is\n great, and it is equal to the small in amount, and, compared with\n itself, each thing is both great and small. R. P. 159 a.\n\n (4) And since these things are so, we must suppose that there are\n contained many things and of all sorts in the things that are uniting,\n seeds of all things, with all sorts of shapes and colours and savours\n (R. P. _ib._), and that men have been formed in them, and the other\n animals that have life, and that these men have inhabited cities and\n cultivated fields as with us; and that they have a sun and a moon and\n the rest as with us; and that their earth brings forth for them many\n things of all kinds of which they gather the best together into their\n dwellings, and use them (R. P. 160 b). Thus much have I said with\n regard to separating off, to show that it will not be only with us\n that things are separated off, but elsewhere too.\n\n But before they were separated off, when all things were together, not\n even was any colour distinguishable; for the mixture of all things\n prevented it\u2014of the moist and the dry, and the warm and the cold, and\n the light and the dark, and of much earth that was in it, and of a\n multitude of innumerable seeds in no way like each other. For none of\n the other things either is like any other. And these things being so,\n we must hold that all things are in the whole. R. P. 151.[684]\n\n (5) And those things having been thus decided, we must know that all\n of them are neither more nor less; for it is not possible for them to\n be more than all, and all are always equal. R. P. 151.\n\n (6) And since the portions of the great and of the small are equal in\n amount, for this reason, too, all things will be in everything; nor is\n it possible for them to be apart, but all things have a portion of\n everything. Since it is impossible for there to be a least thing, they\n cannot be separated, nor come to be by themselves; but they must be\n now, just as they were in the beginning, all together. And in all\n things many things are contained, and an equal number both in the\n greater and in the smaller of the things that are separated off.\n\n (7) ... So that we cannot know the number of the things that are\n separated off, either in word or deed.\n\n (8) The things that are in one world are not divided nor cut off from\n one another with a hatchet, neither the warm from the cold nor the\n cold from the warm. R. P. 155 e.\n\n (9) ... as these things revolve and are separated out by the force and\n swiftness. And the swiftness makes the force. Their swiftness is not\n like the swiftness of any of the things that are now among men, but in\n every way many times as swift.\n\n (10) How can hair come from what is not hair, or flesh from what is\n not flesh? R. P. 155 f, n. 1.\n\n (11) In everything there is a portion of everything except Nous, and\n there are some things in which there is Nous also. R. P. 160 b.\n\n (12) All other things partake in a portion of everything, while Nous\n is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone,\n itself by itself. For if it were not by itself, but were mixed with\n anything else, it would partake in all things if it were mixed with\n any; for in everything there is a portion of everything, as has been\n said by me in what goes before, and the things mixed with it would\n hinder it, so that it would have power over nothing in the same way\n that it has now being alone by itself. For it is the thinnest of all\n things and the purest, and it has all knowledge about everything and\n the greatest strength; and Nous has power over all things, both\n greater and smaller, that have life. And Nous had power over the whole\n revolution, so that it began to revolve in the beginning. And it began\n to revolve first from a small beginning; but the revolution now\n extends over a larger space, and will extend over a larger still. And\n all the things that are mingled together and separated off and\n distinguished are all known by Nous. And Nous set in order all things\n that were to be, and all things that were and are not now and that\n are, and this revolution in which now revolve the stars and the sun\n and the moon, and the air and the aether that are separated off. And\n this revolution caused the separating off, and the rare is separated\n off from the dense, the warm from the cold, the light from the dark,\n and the dry from the moist. And there are many portions in many\n things. But no thing is altogether separated off nor distinguished\n from anything else except Nous. And all Nous is alike, both the\n greater and the smaller; while nothing else is like anything else, but\n each single thing is and was most manifestly those things of which it\n has most in it R. P. 155.\n\n (13) And when Nous began to move things, separating off took place\n from all that was moved, and so far as Nous set in motion all was\n separated. And as things were set in motion and separated, the\n revolution caused them to be separated much more.\n\n (14) And Nous, which ever is, is certainly there, where everything\n else is, in the surrounding mass, and in what has been united with it\n and separated off from it.[685]\n\n (15) The dense and the moist and the cold and the dark came together\n where the earth is now, while the rare and the warm and the dry (and\n the bright) went out towards the further part of the aether.[686] R.\n P. 156.\n\n (16) From these as they are separated off earth is solidified; for\n from mists water is separated off, and from water earth. From the\n earth stones are solidified by the cold, and these rush outwards more\n than water. R. P. 156.\n\n (17) The Hellenes follow a wrong usage in speaking of coming into\n being and passing away; for nothing comes into being or passes away,\n but there is mingling and separation of things that are. So they would\n be right to call coming into being mixture, and passing away\n separation. R. P. 150.\n\n (18) It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.\n\n (19) We call rainbow the reflexion of the sun in the clouds. Now it is\n a sign of storm; for the water that flows round the cloud causes wind\n or pours down in rain.\n\n (20) With the rise of the Dogstar men begin the harvest; with its\n setting they begin to till the fields. It is hidden for forty days and\n nights.\n\n (21) From the weakness of our senses we are not able to judge the\n truth.\n\n (21_a_) What appears is a vision of the unseen.\n\n (21_b_) (We can make use of the lower animals) because we use our own\n experience and memory and wisdom and art.\n\n (22) What is called \u201cbirds\u2019 milk\u201d is the white of the egg.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n Simplicius tells us that this fragment was at the beginning of Book I.\n The familiar sentence quoted by Diog. ii. 6 (R. P. 153) is not a\n fragment of Anaxagoras, but a summary, like the \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6 ascribed to\n Herakleitos (Chap. III. p. 162).\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n Zeller\u2019s \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 still seems to me a convincing correction of the MS. \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bc\u03ae, which Diels retains.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n I had already pointed out in the first edition that Simplicius quotes\n this three times as a continuous fragment, and that we are not\n entitled to break it up. Diels now prints it as a single passage.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n Simplicius gives fr. 14 thus (p. 157, 5): \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. Diels now reads \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f00<\u03b5\u03af> \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. The correspondence of \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd is strongly in favour\n of this.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n On the text of fr. 15, see R. P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in\n adding \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd from Hippolytos.\n\n[Sidenote: Anaxagoras and his predecessors.]\n\n127. The system of Anaxagoras, like that of Empedokles, aimed at\nreconciling the Eleatic doctrine that corporeal substance is\nunchangeable with the existence of a world which everywhere presents the\nappearance of coming into being and passing away. The conclusions of\nParmenides are frankly accepted and restated. Nothing can be added to\nall things; for there cannot be more than all, and all is always equal\n(fr. 5). Nor can anything pass away. What men commonly call coming into\nbeing and passing away is really mixture and separation (fr. 17).\n\nThis last fragment reads almost like a prose paraphrase of Empedokles\n(fr. 9); and it is in every way probable that Anaxagoras derived his\ntheory of mixture from his younger contemporary, whose poem was most\nlikely published before his own treatise.[687] We have seen how\nEmpedokles sought to save the world of appearance by maintaining that\nthe opposites\u2014hot and cold, moist and dry\u2014were _things_, each one of\nwhich was real in the Parmenidean sense. Anaxagoras regarded this as\ninadequate. Everything changes into everything else,[688] the things of\nwhich the world is made are not \u201ccut off with a hatchet\u201d (fr. 8) in this\nway. On the contrary, the true formula must be: _There is a portion of\neverything in everything_ (fr. 11).\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n This is doubtless the meaning of the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 12 (R. P. 150 a); though \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 certainly does\n not mean \u201cwritings\u201d or _opera omnia_, but simply \u201cachievements.\u201d The\n other possible interpretations are \u201cmore advanced in his views\u201d and\n \u201cinferior in his teaching\u201d (Zeller, p. 1023, n. 2).\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0391, 4. 187 b 1 (R. P. 155 a).\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cEverything in everything.\u201d]\n\n128. A part of the argument by which Anaxagoras sought to prove this\npoint has been preserved in a corrupt form by Aetios, and Diels has\nrecovered some of the original words from the scholiast on St. Gregory\nNazianzene. \u201cWe use a simple nourishment,\u201d he said, \u201cwhen we eat the\nfruit of Demeter or drink water. But how can hair be made of what is not\nhair, or flesh of what is not flesh?\u201d (fr. 10).[689] That is just the\nsort of question the early Milesians must have asked, only the\nphysiological interest has now definitely replaced the meteorological.\nWe shall find a similar train of reasoning in Diogenes of Apollonia (fr.\n2).\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n Aet. i. 3, 5 (_Dox._ p. 279). See R. P. 155 f and n. 1. I read \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd\n with Usener.\n\nThe statement that there is a portion of everything in everything, is\nnot to be understood as referring simply to the original mixture of\nthings before the formation of the worlds (fr. 1). On the contrary, even\nnow \u201call things are together,\u201d and everything, however small and however\ngreat, has an equal number of \u201cportions\u201d (fr. 6). A smaller particle of\nmatter could only contain a smaller number of portions, if one of those\nportions ceased to be; but if anything _is_, in the full Parmenidean\nsense, it is impossible that mere division should make it cease to be\n(fr. 3). Matter is infinitely divisible; for there is no least thing,\nany more than there is a greatest. But however great or small a body may\nbe, it contains just the same number of \u201cportions,\u201d that is, a portion\nof everything.\n\n[Sidenote: The portions.]\n\n129. What are these \u201cthings\u201d of which everything contains a portion? It\nonce was usual to represent the theory of Anaxagoras as if he had said\nthat wheat, for instance, contained small particles of flesh, blood,\nbones, and the like; but we have just seen that matter is infinitely\ndivisible (fr. 3), and that there are as many \u201cportions\u201d in the smallest\nparticle as in the greatest (fr. 6). This is fatal to the old view. If\neverything were made up of minute particles of everything else, we could\ncertainly arrive at a point where everything was \u201cunmixed,\u201d if only we\ncarried division far enough.\n\nThis difficulty can only be solved in one way.[690] In fr. 8 the\nexamples given of things which are not \u201ccut off from one another with a\nhatchet\u201d are the hot and the cold; and elsewhere (frs. 4, 15), mention\nis made of the other traditional \u201copposites.\u201d Aristotle says that, if we\nsuppose the first principles to be infinite, they may either be one in\nkind, as with Demokritos, or opposite.[691] Simplicius, following\nPorphyry and Themistios, refers the latter view to Anaxagoras;[692] and\nAristotle himself implies that the opposites of Anaxagoras had as much\nright to be called first principles as the \u201chomoeomeries.\u201d[693]\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n See Tannery, _Science hell\u00e8ne_, pp. 283 sqq. I still think that\n Tannery\u2019s interpretation is substantially right, though his statement\n of it requires some modification.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0391, 2. 184 b 21, \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd,\n \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n _Phys._ p. 44, 1. He goes on to refer to \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. He observes, however, that Alexander\n rejected this interpretation and took \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n closely together as both referring to Demokritos.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n _Phys._ \u0391, 4. 187 a 25, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd) \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1. Aristotle\u2019s own theory only differs from this\n in so far as he makes \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 prior to the \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1.\n\nIt is of those opposites, then, and not of the different forms of\nmatter, that everything contains a portion. Every particle, however\nlarge or however small, contains every one of those opposite qualities.\nThat which is hot is also to a certain extent cold. Even snow,\nAnaxagoras affirmed, was black;[694] that is, even the white contains a\ncertain portion of the opposite quality. It is enough to indicate the\nconnexion of this with the views of Herakleitos (\u00a7 80).[695]\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n Sext. _Pyrrh._ i. 33 (R. P. 161 b).\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n The connexion was already noted by the eclectic Herakleitean to whom I\n attribute \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 3-4 (see above, Chap. III. p. 167, _n._\n 383). Cf. the words \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: Seeds.]\n\n130. The difference, then, between the theory of Anaxagoras and that of\nEmpedokles is this. Empedokles had taught that, if you divide the\nvarious things which make up this world, and in particular the parts of\nthe body, such as flesh, bones, and the like, far enough, you come to\nthe four \u201croots\u201d or elements, which are, accordingly, the ultimate\nreality. Anaxagoras held that, however far you may divide any of these\nthings\u2014and they are infinitely divisible\u2014you never come to a part so\nsmall that it does not contain portions of all the opposites. The\nsmallest portion of bone is still bone. On the other hand, everything\ncan pass into everything else just because the \u201cseeds,\u201d as he called\nthem, of each form of matter contain a portion of everything, that is,\nof all the opposites, though in different proportions. If we are to use\nthe word \u201celement\u201d at all, it is these seeds that are the elements in\nthe system of Anaxagoras.\n\nAristotle expresses this by saying that Anaxagoras regards the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\nas \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1.[696] We have seen that the term \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd is of later date\nthan Anaxagoras, and it is natural to suppose that the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 is\nalso only Aristotle\u2019s name for the \u201cseeds.\u201d In his own system, the\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 are intermediate between the elements (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1), of which\nthey are composed, and the organs (\u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1), which are composed of them.\nThe heart cannot be divided into hearts, but the parts of flesh are\nflesh. That being so, Aristotle\u2019s statement is quite intelligible from\nhis own point of view, but there is no reason for supposing that\nAnaxagoras expressed himself in that particular way. All we are entitled\nto infer is that he said the \u201cseeds,\u201d which he had substituted for the\n\u201croots\u201d of Empedokles, were not the opposites in a state of separation,\nbut each contained a portion of them all. If Anaxagoras had used the\nterm \u201chomoeomeries\u201d[697] himself, it would be strange that Simplicius\nshould quote no fragment containing it.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 1, 314 a 18, \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (Anaxagoras) \u03c4\u1f70\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd. This was, of course,\n repeated by Theophrastos and the doxographers; but it is to be noted\n that Aetios, supposing as he does that Anaxagoras himself used the\n term, gives it an entirely wrong meaning. He says that the\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 were so called from the likeness of the particles of the\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae to those of the body (_Dox._ 279 a 21; R. P. 155 f). Lucretius,\n i. 830 sqq. (R. P. 150 a) has a similar account of the matter, derived\n from Epicurean sources. Obviously, it cannot be reconciled with what\n Aristotle says.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n It is more likely that we have a trace of the terminology of\n Anaxagoras himself in \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 3, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThe difference between the two systems may also be regarded from another\npoint of view. Anaxagoras was not obliged by his theory to regard the\nelements of Empedokles as primary, a view to which there were obvious\nobjections, especially in the case of earth. He explained them in quite\nanother way. Though everything has a portion of everything in it, things\nappear to be that of which there is most in them (fr. 12 _sub fin._). We\nmay say, then, that Air is that in which there is most cold, Fire that\nin which there is most heat, and so on, without giving up the view that\nthere is a portion of cold in the fire and a portion of heat in the\nair.[698] The great masses which Empedokles had taken for elements are\nreally vast collections of all manner of \u201cseeds.\u201d Each of them is, in\nfact, a \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1.[699]\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n Cf. above, p. 305.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 1. 314 a 29. The word \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 was used by\n Demokritos (Arist. _de An._ 404 a 8; R. P. 200), and it occurs in the\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (_loc. cit._). It seems natural to suppose that it was\n used by Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. Much\n difficulty has been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire\n among the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 in Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).\n Bonitz understands the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f22 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 to mean \u201cas we have\n just seen that Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles.\u201d In any\n case, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 goes closely with \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9, and the general sense is that\n Anaxagoras applies to the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6 what is really true of the\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. It would be better to delete the comma after \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 and add one\n after \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, for \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is explanatory of \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\n ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1. In the next sentence, I read \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 for \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 with Zeller\n (_Arch._ ii. p. 261). See also Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 3. 302 b 1 (R. P.\n 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put.\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cAll things together.\u201d]\n\n131. From all this it follows that, when \u201call things were together,\u201d and\nwhen the different seeds of things were mixed together in infinitely\nsmall particles (fr. 1), the appearance presented would be that of one\nof what had hitherto been regarded as the primary substances. As a\nmatter of fact, they did present the appearance of \u201cair and aether\u201d; for\nthe qualities (things) which belong to these prevail in quantity over\nall other things in the universe, and everything is most obviously that\nof which it has most in it (fr. 12 _sub fin._). Here, then, Anaxagoras\nattaches himself to Anaximenes. The primary condition of things, before\nthe formation of the worlds, is much the same in both; only, with\nAnaxagoras, the original mass is no longer the primary substance, but a\nmixture of innumerable seeds divided into infinitely small parts.\n\nThis mass is infinite, like the air of Anaximenes, and it supports\nitself, since there is nothing surrounding it.[700] Further, the \u201cseeds\u201d\nof all things which it contains are infinite in number (fr. 1). But, as\nthe innumerable seeds may be divided into those in which the portions of\ncold, moist, dense, and dark prevail, and those which have most of the\nwarm, dry, rare, and light in them, we may say that the original mass\nwas a mixture of infinite Air and of infinite Fire. The seeds of Air, of\ncourse, contain \u201cportions\u201d of the \u201cthings\u201d that predominate in Fire, and\n_vice versa_; but we regard everything as being that of which it has\nmost in it. Lastly, there is no void in this mixture, an addition to the\ntheory made necessary by the arguments of Parmenides. It is, however,\nworthy of note that Anaxagoras added an experimental proof of this to\nthe purely dialectical one of the Eleatics. He used the _klepsydra_\nexperiment as Empedokles had done (fr. 100), and also showed the\ncorporeal nature of air by means of inflated skins.[701]\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0393, 5. 205 b 1 (R. P. 154 a).\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n _Phys._ \u0396, 6. 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). We have a full discussion of the\n experiments with the _klepsydra_ in _Probl._ 914 b 9 sqq., a passage\n which we have already used to illustrate Empedokles, fr. 100. See\n above, p. 253, _n._ 565.\n\n[Sidenote: Nous.]\n\n132. Like Empedokles, Anaxagoras required some external cause to produce\nmotion in the mixture. Body, Parmenides had shown, would never move\nitself, as the Milesians had supposed. Anaxagoras called the cause of\nmotion by the name of Nous. It was this which made Aristotle say that he\n\u201cstood out like a sober man from the random talkers that had preceded\nhim,\u201d[702] and he has often been credited with the introduction of the\nspiritual into philosophy. The disappointment expressed both by Plato\nand Aristotle as to the way in which Anaxagoras worked out the theory\nshould, however, make us pause to reflect before accepting too exalted a\nview of it. Plato[703] makes Sokrates say: \u201cI once heard a man reading a\nbook, as he said, of Anaxagoras, and saying it was Mind that ordered the\nworld and was the cause of all things. I was delighted to hear of this\ncause, and I thought he really was right.... But my extravagant\nexpectations were all dashed to the ground when I went on and found that\nthe man made no use of Mind at all. He ascribed no causal power whatever\nto it in the ordering of things, but to airs, and aethers, and waters,\nand a host of other strange things.\u201d Aristotle, probably with this\npassage in mind, says:[704] \u201cAnaxagoras uses Mind as a _deus ex machina_\nto account for the formation of the world; and whenever he is at a loss\nto explain why anything necessarily is, he drags it in. But in other\ncases he makes anything rather than Mind the cause.\u201d These utterances\nmay well suggest that the Nous of Anaxagoras did not really stand on a\nhigher level than the Love and Strife of Empedokles, and this will only\nbe confirmed when we look at what he himself has to say about it.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 b 15 (R. P. 152).\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 97 b 8 (R. P. 155 d).\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 a 18 (R. P. 155 d).\n\nIn the first place, Nous is unmixed (fr. 12), and does not, like other\nthings, contain a portion of everything. This would hardly be worth\nsaying of an immaterial mind; no one would suppose that to be hot or\ncold. The result of its being unmixed is that it \u201chas power over\u201d\neverything, that is to say, in the language of Anaxagoras, it causes\nthings to move.[705] Herakleitos had said as much of Fire, and\nEmpedokles of Strife. Further, it is the \u201cthinnest\u201d of all things, so\nthat it can penetrate everywhere, and it would be meaningless to say\nthat the immaterial is \u201cthinner\u201d than the material. It is true that Nous\nalso \u201cknows all things\u201d; but so, perhaps, did the Fire of\nHerakleitos,[706] and certainly the Air of Diogenes.[707] Zeller holds,\nindeed, that Anaxagoras meant to speak of something incorporeal; but he\nadmits that he did not succeed in doing so,[708] and that is\nhistorically the important point. Nous is certainly imagined as\noccupying space; for we hear of greater and smaller parts of it (fr.\n12).\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0398, 5. 256 b 24, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f64\u03bd. This is only quoted for the meaning of \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Of course, the\n words \u1f00\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd are not meant to be historical, and still less is\n the interpretation in _de An._ \u0393, 4. 429 a 18. Diogenes of Apollonia\n (fr. 5) couples \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (the old Milesian word)\n with \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n If we retain the MS. \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in fr. 1. In any case, the name \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\n implies as much.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n See fr. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n Zeller, p. 993.\n\nThe truth probably is that Anaxagoras substituted Nous for the Love and\nStrife of Empedokles, because he wished to retain the old Ionic doctrine\nof a substance that \u201cknows\u201d all things, and to identify this with the\nnew theory of a substance that \u201cmoves\u201d all things. Perhaps, too, it was\nhis increased interest in physiological as distinguished from purely\ncosmological matters that led him to speak of Mind rather than Soul. The\nformer word certainly suggests design more clearly than the latter. But,\nin any case, the originality of Anaxagoras lies far more in the theory\nof matter than in that of Nous.\n\n[Sidenote: Formation of the worlds.]\n\n133. The formation of a world starts with a rotatory motion which Nous\nimparts to a portion of the mixed mass in which \u201call things are\ntogether\u201d (fr. 13), and this rotatory motion gradually extends over a\nwider and wider space. Its rapidity (fr. 9) produced a separation of the\nrare and the dense, the cold and the hot, the dark and the light, the\nmoist and the dry (fr. 15). This separation produces two great masses,\nthe one consisting of the rare, hot, light, and dry, called the\n\u201cAether\u201d; the other, in which the opposite qualities predominate, called\n\u201cAir\u201d (fr. 1). Of these the Aether or Fire[709] took the outside while\nthe Air occupied the centre (fr. 15).\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n Note that Anaxagoras says \u201cair\u201d where Empedokles usually said\n \u201caether,\u201d and that \u201caether\u201d is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist.\n _de Caelo_, \u0393, 3. 302 b 4, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc; and _ib._ \u0391, 3. 270 b 24, \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThe next stage is the separation of the air into clouds, water, earth,\nand stones (fr. 16). In this Anaxagoras follows Anaximenes closely. In\nhis account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, however, he showed\nhimself more original. We read at the end of fr. 16 that stones \u201crush\noutwards more than water,\u201d and we learn from the doxographers that the\nheavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from the earth by the\nrapidity of its revolution and made red-hot by the speed of their own\nmotion.[710] Perhaps the fall of the meteoric stone at Aigospotamoi had\nsomething to do with the origin of this theory. It may also be observed\nthat, while in the earlier stages of the world-formation we are guided\nchiefly by the analogy of water rotating with light and heavy bodies\nfloating in it, we are here reminded rather of a sling.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n Aet. ii. 13, 3 (_Dox._ p. 341; R. P. 157 c).\n\n[Sidenote: Innumerable worlds.]\n\n134. That Anaxagoras adopted the ordinary Ionian theory of innumerable\nworlds is perfectly clear from fr. 4, which we have no right to regard\nas other than continuous.[711] The words \u201cthat it was not only with us\nthat things were separated off, but elsewhere too\u201d can only mean that\nNous has caused a rotatory movement in more parts of the boundless\nmixture than one. Aetios certainly includes Anaxagoras among those who\nheld there was only one world; but this testimony cannot be considered\nof the same weight as that of the fragments.[712] Zeller\u2019s reference of\nthe words \u201celsewhere, as with us\u201d to the moon is very improbable. Is it\nlikely that any one would say that the inhabitants of the moon \u201chave a\nsun and moon as with us\u201d?[713]\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n See above, p. 300, _n._ 684.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n Aet. ii. 1, 3. See above, Chap. I. p. 63.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n Further, it can be proved that this passage (fr. 4) occurred quite\n near the beginning of the work. Cf. Simpl. _Phys._ p. 34, 28, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019\n \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, p. 156, 1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\n (after fr. 2), which itself occurred, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (after fr. 1), which\n was the beginning of the book. A reference to other \u201cworlds\u201d would be\n quite in place here, but not a reference to the moon.\n\n135. The cosmology of Anaxagoras is clearly based upon that of\nAnaximenes, as will be obvious from a comparison of the following\npassage of Hippolytos[714] with the quotations given in Chap. I. (\u00a7\n29):\u2014\n\n (3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended because of its\n size and because there is no vacuum.[715] For this reason the air is\n very strong, and supports the earth which is borne up by it.\n\n (4) Of the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea arose from\n the waters in the earth (for when these were evaporated the remainder\n turned salt),[716] and from the rivers which flow into it.\n\n (5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the waters in\n the earth; for the earth is hollow and has waters in its cavities. And\n the Nile rises in summer owing to the water that comes down from the\n snows in Ethiopia.[717]\n\n (6) The sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones carried\n round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars are the sun and\n moon, and also certain bodies which revolve with them, but are\n invisible to us.\n\n (7) We do not feel the heat of the stars because of the greatness of\n their distance from the earth; and, further, they are not so warm as\n the sun, because they occupy a colder region. The moon is below the\n sun, and nearer us.\n\n (8) The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size. The moon has not a\n light of her own, but gets it from the sun. The course of the stars\n goes under the earth.\n\n (9) The moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun\u2019s light from\n it, and sometimes, too, by the bodies below the moon coming before it.\n The sun is eclipsed at the new moon, when the moon screens it from us.\n Both the sun and the moon turn in their courses owing to the repulsion\n of the air. The moon turns frequently, because it cannot prevail over\n the cold.\n\n (10) Anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns the eclipses\n and the illumination of the sun and moon. And he said the moon was of\n earth, and had plains and ravines in it. The Milky Way was the\n reflexion of the light of the stars that were not illuminated by the\n sun. Shooting stars were sparks, as it were, which leapt out owing to\n the motion of the heavenly vault.\n\n (11) Winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun, and when things\n were burned and made their way to the vault of heaven and were carried\n off. Thunder and lightning were produced by heat striking upon clouds.\n\n (12) Earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on that beneath\n the earth; for the movement of the latter caused the earth which\n floats on it to rock.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n _Ref._ i. 8, 3 (_Dox._ p. 562).\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n This is an addition to the older view occasioned by the Eleatic denial\n of the void.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n The text here is very corrupt, but the general sense can be got from\n Aet. iii. 16. 2.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n The MS. reading is \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs\u2019\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. I have thought it safer to translate the \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u1fb3 which Aetios gives (iv. 1, 3). This view is mentioned and\n rejected by Herodotos (ii. 22). Seneca (_N. Q._ iv. 2, 17) points out\n that it was adopted by Aischylos (_Suppl._ 559, fr. 300, Nauck),\n Sophokles (fr. 797), and Euripides (_Hel._ 3, fr. 228).\n\nAll this confirms in the most striking way the statement of\nTheophrastos, that Anaxagoras had belonged to the school of Anaximenes.\nThe flat earth floating on the air, the dark bodies below the moon, the\nexplanation of the solstices and the \u201cturnings\u201d of the moon by the\nresistance of air, the explanations given of wind and of thunder and\nlightning, are all derived from the earlier inquirer.\n\n[Sidenote: Biology.]\n\n136. \u201cThere is a portion of everything in everything except Nous, and\nthere are some things in which there is Nous also\u201d (fr. 11). In these\nwords Anaxagoras laid down the distinction between animate and inanimate\nthings. He tells us that it is the same Nous that \u201chas power over,\u201d that\nis, sets in motion, all things that have life, both the greater and the\nsmaller (fr. 12). The Nous in living creatures is the same in all (fr.\n12), and from this it followed that the different grades of intelligence\nwhich we observe in the animal and vegetable worlds depend entirely on\nthe structure of the body. The Nous was the same, but it had more\nopportunities in one body than another. Man was the wisest of animals,\nnot because he had a better sort of Nous, but simply because he had\nhands.[718] This view is quite in accordance with the previous\ndevelopment of thought upon the subject. Parmenides, in the Second Part\nof his poem (fr. 16), had already made the thought of men depend upon\nthe constitution of their limbs.\n\nAs all Nous is the same, we are not surprised to find that plants were\nregarded as living creatures. If we may trust the pseudo-Aristotelian\n_Treatise on Plants_[719] so far, Anaxagoras argued that they must feel\npleasure and pain in connexion with their growth and with the fall of\ntheir leaves. Plutarch says[720] that he called plants \u201canimals fixed in\nthe earth.\u201d\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n Arist. _de Part. An._ \u0394, 10. 687 a 7 (R. P. 160 b).\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n [Arist.] _de plant._ \u0391, 1. 815 a 15 (R. P. 160).\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n Plut. _Q.N._ 1 (R. P. 160), \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBoth plants and animals originated in the first instance from the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1. Plants first arose when the seeds of them which the air\ncontained were brought down by the rain-water,[721] and animals\noriginated in a similar way.[722] Like Anaximander, Anaxagoras held that\nanimals first arose in the moist element.[723]\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n Theophr. _Hist. Plant._ iii. 1, 4 (R. P. 160).\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n Irenaeus, _adv. Haer._ ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a).\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n Hipp. _Ref._ i. 8, 12 (_Dox._ p. 563).\n\n137. In these scanty notices we seem to see traces of a polemical\nattitude towards Empedokles, and the same may be observed in what we are\ntold of the theory of perception adopted by Anaxagoras, especially in\nthe view that perception is of contraries.[724] The account which\nTheophrastos gives of this[725] is as follows:\u2014\n\n But Anaxagoras says that perception is produced by opposites; for like\n things cannot be affected by like. He attempts to give a detailed\n enumeration of the particular senses. We see by means of the image in\n the pupil; but no image is cast upon what is of the same colour, but\n only on what is different. With most living creatures things are of a\n different colour to the pupil by day, though with some this is so by\n night, and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that time. Speaking\n generally, however, night is more of the same colour with the eyes\n than day. And an image is cast on the pupil by day, because light is a\n concomitant cause of the image, and because the prevailing colour\n casts an image more readily upon its opposite.[726]\n\n It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects. That\n which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor\n cools us by its contact; and, in the same way, we do not apprehend the\n sweet and the sour by means of themselves. We know cold by warm, fresh\n by salt, and sweet by sour, in virtue of our deficiency in each; for\n all these are in us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the same\n manner; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, the\n latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone which\n surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the sound falls.[727]\n\n And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem to be the\n consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike things produce\n pain by their contact. And this pain is made perceptible by the long\n continuance or by the excess of a sensation. Brilliant colours and\n excessive noises produce pain, and we cannot dwell long on the same\n things. The larger animals are the more sensitive, and, generally,\n sensation is proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. Those\n animals which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and\n from a great distance, and contrariwise.[728]\n\n And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear great and\n distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived; small animals\n perceive small sounds and those near at hand.[729] It is the same too\n with smell. Rarefied air has more smell; for, when air is heated and\n rarefied, it smells. A large animal when it breathes draws in the\n condensed air along with the rarefied, while a small one draws in the\n rarefied by itself; so the large one perceives more. For smell is\n better perceived when it is near than when it is far by reason of its\n being more condensed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly\n speaking, large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor small\n animals a condensed one.[730]\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n Beare, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n Theophr. _de Sensu_, 27 sqq. (_Dox._ p. 507).\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n Beare, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n Beare, p. 208.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 209.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 103.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 137.\n\nThis theory marks in some respects an advance upon that of Empedokles.\nIt was a happy thought of Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon\nirritation by opposites, and to connect it with pain. Many modern\ntheories are based upon a similar idea.\n\nThat Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable of reaching the truth\nof things is shown by the fragments preserved by Sextus. But we must\nnot, for all that, turn him into a sceptic. The saying preserved by\nAristotle[731] that \u201cthings are as we suppose them to be,\u201d has no value\nat all as evidence. It comes from some collection of apophthegms, not\nfrom the treatise of Anaxagoras himself; and it had, as likely as not, a\nmoral application. He did say (fr. 21) that \u201cthe weakness of our senses\nprevents our discerning the truth,\u201d but this meant simply that we do not\nsee the \u201cportions\u201d of everything which are in everything; for instance,\nthe portions of black which are in the white. Our senses simply show us\nthe portions that prevail. He also said that the things which are seen\ngive us the power of seeing the invisible, which is the very opposite of\nscepticism (fr. 21_a_).\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n _Met._ \u0394, 5. 1009 b 25 (R. P. 161 a).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n THE PYTHAGOREANS\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Pythagorean school.]\n\n138. We have seen (\u00a7 40) how the Pythagoreans, after losing their\nsupremacy at Kroton, concentrated themselves at Rhegion; but the school\nfounded there was soon broken up. Archippos stayed behind in Italy; but\nPhilolaos and Lysis, the latter of whom had escaped as a young man from\nthe massacre of Kroton, betook themselves to continental Hellas,\nsettling finally at Thebes. We know from Plato that Philolaos was there\nsome time during the latter part of the fifth century, and Lysis was\nafterwards the teacher of Epameinondas.[732] Some of the Pythagoreans,\nhowever, were able to return to Italy later on. Philolaos certainly did\nso, and Plato implies that he had left Thebes some time before 399 B.C.,\nthe year in which Sokrates was put to death. In the fourth century, the\nchief seat of the school is at Taras, and we find the Pythagoreans\nheading the opposition to Dionysios of Syracuse. It is to this period\nthat Archytas belongs. He was the friend of Plato, and almost realised,\nif he did not suggest, the ideal of the philosopher king. He ruled Taras\nfor years, and Aristoxenos tells us that he was never defeated in the\nfield of battle.[733] He was also the inventor of mathematical\nmechanics. At the same time, Pythagoreanism had taken root in Hellas.\nLysis, we have seen, remained at Thebes, where Simmias and Kebes had\nheard Philolaos, and there was an important community of Pythagoreans at\nPhleious. Aristoxenos was personally acquainted with the last generation\nof the school, and mentioned by name Xenophilos the Chalkidian from\nThrace, with Phanton, Echekrates, Diokles, and Polymnestos of Phleious.\nThey were all, he said, disciples of Philolaos and Eurytos.[734] Plato\nwas on friendly terms with these men, and dedicated the _Phaedo_ to\nthem.[735] Xenophilos was the teacher of Aristoxenos, and lived in\nperfect health at Athens till the age of a hundred and five.[736]\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n For Philolaos, see Plato, _Phd._ 61 d 7; e 7; and for Lysis,\n Aristoxenos in Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 250 (R. P. 59 b).\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n Diog. viii. 79-83 (R. P. 61). Aristoxenos himself came from Taras. For\n the political activity of the Tarentine Pythagoreans, see Meyer,\n _Gesch. des Alterth._ v. \u00a7 824. The story of Damon and Phintias (told\n by Aristoxenos) belongs to this time.\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n Diog. viii. 46 (R. P. 62).\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n Compare the way in which the _Theaetetus_ is dedicated to the school\n of Megara.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n See Aristoxenos _ap._ Val. Max. viii. 13, ext. 3; and Souidas _s.v._\n\n[Sidenote: Philolaos.]\n\n139. This generation of the school really belongs, however, to a later\nperiod, and cannot be profitably studied apart from Plato; it is with\ntheir master Philolaos we have now to deal. The facts we know about his\nteaching from external sources are few in number. The doxographers,\nindeed, ascribe to him an elaborate theory of the planetary system, but\nAristotle never mentions his name in connexion with this. He gives it as\nthe theory of \u201cthe Pythagoreans\u201d or of \u201csome Pythagoreans.\u201d[737] It\nseems natural to suppose, however, that the Pythagorean elements of\nPlato\u2019s _Phaedo_ and _Gorgias_ come mainly from Philolaos. Plato makes\nSokrates express surprise that Simmias and Kebes had not learnt from him\nwhy it is unlawful for a man to take his life,[738] and it seems to be\nimplied that the Pythagoreans at Thebes used the word \u201cphilosopher\u201d in\nthe special sense of a man who is seeking to find a way of release from\nthe burden of this life.[739] It is extremely probable that Philolaos\nspoke of the body (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) as the tomb (\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1) of the soul.[740] In any\ncase, we seem to be justified in holding that he taught the old\nPythagorean religious doctrine in some form, and it is likely that he\nlaid special stress upon knowledge as a means of release. That is the\nimpression we get from Plato, and he is by far the best authority we\nhave on the subject.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n See below, \u00a7 150\u2013152.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 61 d 6.\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n This appears to follow at once from the remark of Simmias in _Phd._ 64\n b. The whole passage would be pointless if the words \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 had not in some way become familiar to the\n ordinary Theban of the fifth century. Now Herakleides Pontikos made\n Pythagoras invent the word, and expound it in a conversation with\n Leon, tyrant of Sikyon _or Phleious_. Cf. Diog. i. 12 (R. P. 3), viii.\n 8; Cic. _Tusc._ v. 3. 8; D\u00f6ring in _Arch._ v. pp. 505 sqq. It seems to\n me that the way in which the term is introduced in the _Phaedo_ is\n fatal to the view that this is a Sokratic idea transferred by\n Herakleides to the Pythagoreans. Cf. also the remark of Alkidamas\n quoted by Arist. _Rhet._ \u0392, 23. 1398 b 18, \u0398\u03ae\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n For reasons which will appear, I do not attach importance in this\n connexion to Philolaos, fr. 14 Diels = 23 Mullach (R. P. 89), but it\n does seem likely that the \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c8\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 of _Gorg._ 493 a 5 (R.\n P. 89 b) is responsible for the whole theory there given. He is\n certainly, in any case, the author of the \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, which\n implies the same general view. Now he is called \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22\n \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, which means he was an Italian; for the \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 is merely\n an allusion to the \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c8\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1 of\n Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian from whom Plato could have\n learnt these views except Philolaos or one of his disciples. They may,\n however, be originally Orphic for all that (cf. R. P. 89 a).\n\nWe know further that Philolaos wrote on \u201cnumbers\u201d; for Speusippos\nfollowed him in the account he gave of the Pythagorean theories on that\nsubject.[741] It is probable that he busied himself mainly with\narithmetic, and we can hardly doubt that his geometry was of the\nprimitive type described in an earlier chapter. Eurytos was his\ndisciple, and we have seen (\u00a7 47) that his views were still very crude.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n See above, Chap. II. p. 113, _n._ 236.\n\nWe also know now that Philolaos wrote on medicine,[742] and that, while\napparently influenced by the theories of the Sicilian school, he opposed\nthem from the Pythagorean standpoint. In particular, he said that our\nbodies were composed only of the warm, and did not participate in the\ncold. It was only after birth that the cold was introduced by\nrespiration. The connexion of this with the old Pythagorean theory is\nobvious. Just as the Fire in the macrocosm draws in and limits the cold\ndark breath which surrounds the world (\u00a7 53), so do our bodies inhale\ncold breath from outside. Philolaos made bile, blood, and phlegm the\ncauses of disease; and, in accordance with the theory just mentioned, he\nhad to deny that the phlegm was cold, as the Sicilian school held it\nwas. Its etymology proved that it was warm. As Diels says, Philolaos\nstrikes us as an \u201cuninteresting eclectic\u201d so far as his medical views\nare concerned.[743] We shall see, however, that it was just this\npreoccupation with the medicine of the Sicilian school that gave rise to\nsome of the most striking developments of later Pythagoreanism.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n It is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition\n (Introd. \u00a7 XIII.) that this was quite unknown till the publication of\n the extracts from Menon\u2019s _Iatrika_ contained in the Anonymus\n Londinensis. The extract referring to Philolaos is given and discussed\n by Diels in _Hermes_, xxviii. pp. 417 sqq.\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n _Hermes_, _loc. cit._\n\n[Sidenote: Plato and the Pythagoreans.]\n\n140. Such, so far as we can see, was the historical Philolaos, and he is\na sufficiently remarkable figure. He is usually, however, represented in\na different light, and has even been spoken of as a \u201cprecursor of\nCopernicus.\u201d To understand this, we shall have to consider for a little\nthe story of what can only be called a literary conspiracy. Not till\nthis has been exposed will it be possible to estimate the real\nimportance of Philolaos and his immediate disciples.\n\nAs we can see from the _Phaedo_ and the _Gorgias_, Plato was intimate\nwith these men and was deeply impressed by their religious teaching,\nthough it is plain too that he did not adopt it as his own faith. He was\nstill more attracted by the scientific side of Pythagoreanism, and to\nthe last this exercised a great influence on him. His own system in its\nfinal form had many points of contact with it, as he is careful to mark\nin the _Philebus_.[744] But, just because he stood so near it, he is apt\nto develop Pythagoreanism on lines of his own, which may or may not have\ncommended themselves to Archytas, but are no guide to the views of\nPhilolaos and Eurytos. He is not careful, however, to claim the\nauthorship of his own improvements in the system. He did not believe\nthat cosmology could be an exact science, and he is therefore quite\nwilling to credit Timaios the Lokrian, or \u201cancient sages\u201d generally,\nwith theories which certainly had their birth in the Academy.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n Plato, _Phileb._ 16 c sqq.\n\nNow Plato had many enemies and detractors, and this literary device\nenabled them to bring against him the charge of plagiarism. Aristoxenos\nwas one of these enemies, and we know he made the extraordinary\nstatement that most of the _Republic_ was to be found in a work by\nProtagoras.[745] He seems also to be the original source of the story\nthat Plato bought \u201cthree Pythagorean books\u201d from Philolaos and copied\nthe _Timaeus_ out of them. According to this, the \u201cthree books\u201d had come\ninto the possession of Philolaos; and, as he had fallen into great\npoverty, Dion was able to buy them from him, or from his relatives, at\nPlato\u2019s request, for a hundred _minae_.[746] It is certain, at any rate,\nthat this story was already current in the third century; for the\nsillographer Timon of Phleious addresses Plato thus: \u201cAnd of thee too,\nPlato, did the desire of discipleship lay hold. For many pieces of\nsilver thou didst get in exchange a small book, and starting from it\ndidst learn to write _Timaeus_.\u201d[747] Hermippos, the pupil of\nKallimachos, said that \u201csome writer\u201d said that Plato himself bought the\nbooks from the relatives of Philolaos for forty Alexandrian _minae_ and\ncopied the _Timaeus_ out of it; while Satyros, the Aristarchean, says he\ngot it through Dion for a hundred _minae_.[748] There is no suggestion\nin any of these accounts that the book was by Philolaos himself; they\nimply rather that what Plato bought was either a book by Pythagoras, or\nat any rate authentic notes of his teaching, which had come into the\nhands of Philolaos. In later times, it was generally supposed that the\nwork entitled _The Soul of the World_, by Timaios the Lokrian, was\nmeant;[749] but it has now been proved beyond a doubt that this cannot\nhave existed earlier than the first century A.D. We know nothing of\nTimaios except what Plato tells us himself, and he may even be a\nfictitious character like the Eleatic Stranger. His name does not occur\namong the Lokrians in the Catalogue of Pythagoreans preserved by\nIamblichos.[750] Besides this, the work does not fulfil the most\nimportant requirement, that of being in three books, which is always an\nessential feature of the story.[751]\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n Diog. iii. 37. For similar charges, cf. Zeller, _Plato_, p. 429, n. 7.\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 199. Diels is clearly right in ascribing the story\n to Aristoxenos (_Arch._ iii. p. 461, n. 26).\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n Timon _ap._ Gell. iii. 17 (R. P. 60 a).\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n For Hermippos and Satyros, see Diog. iii. 9; viii. 84, 85.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n So Iambl. _in Nicom._ p. 105, 11; Proclus, _in Tim._ p. 1, Diehl.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n Diels, _Vors._ p. 269.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n They are \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 (Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 199), \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 (Diog. viii. 15).\n\nNot one of the writers just mentioned professes to have seen the famous\n\u201cthree books\u201d;[752] but at a later date there were at least two works\nwhich claimed to represent them. Diels has shown how a treatise in three\nsections, entitled \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, was composed in the\nIonic dialect and attributed to Pythagoras. It was largely based on the\n\u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of Aristoxenos, but its date is uncertain.[753] In\nthe first century B.C., Demetrios Magnes was able to quote the opening\nwords of the work published by Philolaos.[754] That, however, was\nwritten in Doric. Demetrios does not actually say it was by Philolaos\nhimself, though it is no doubt the same work from which a number of\nextracts are preserved under his name in Stobaios and later writers. If\nit professed to be by Philolaos, that was not quite in accordance with\nthe original story; but it is easy to see how his name may have become\nattached to it. We are told that the other book which passed under the\nname of Pythagoras was really by Lysis.[755] Boeckh has shown that the\nwork ascribed to Philolaos probably consisted of three books also, and\nProclus referred to it as the _Bakchai_,[756] a fanciful title which\nrecalls the \u201cMuses\u201d of Herodotos. Two of the extracts in Stobaios bear\nit. It must be confessed that the whole story is very suspicious; but,\nas some of the best authorities still regard the fragments as partly\ngenuine, it is necessary to look at them more closely.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n As Mr. Bywater says (_J. Phil._ i. p. 29), the history of this work\n \u201creads like the history, not so much of a book, as of a literary\n _ignis fatuus_ floating before the minds of imaginative writers.\u201d\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n Diels, \u201cEin gef\u00e4lschtes Pythagorasbuch\u201d (_Arch._ iii. pp. 451 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n Diog. viii. 85 (R. P. 63 b). Diels reads \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd <\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76> \u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n Diog. viii. 7.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n Proclus, _in Eucl._ p. 22, 15 (Friedlein). Cf. Boeckh, _Philolaos_,\n pp. 36 sqq. Boeckh refers to a sculptured group of _three_ Bakchai,\n whom he supposes to be Ino, Agaue, and Autonoe.\n\n[Sidenote: The \u201cFragments of Philolaos.\u201d]\n\n141. Boeckh argued with great learning and skill that all the fragments\npreserved under the name of Philolaos were genuine; but no one will now\ngo so far as this. The lengthy extract on the soul is given up even by\nthose who maintain the genuineness of the rest.[757] It cannot be said\nthat this position is plausible on the face of it. Boeckh saw there was\nno ground for supposing that there ever was more than a single work, and\nhe drew the conclusion that we must accept all the remains as genuine or\nreject all as spurious.[758] As, however, Zeller and Diels still\nmaintain the genuineness of most of the fragments, we cannot ignore them\naltogether. Arguments based, on the doctrine contained in them would, it\nis true, present the appearance of a vicious circle at this stage. It is\nonly in connexion with our other evidence that these can be introduced.\nBut there are two serious objections to the fragments which may be\nmentioned at once. They are sufficiently strong to justify us in\nrefusing to use them till we have ascertained from other sources what\ndoctrines may fairly be attributed to the Pythagoreans of this date.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n The passage is given in R. P. 68. For a full discussion of this and\n the other fragments, see Bywater, \u201cOn the Fragments attributed to\n Philolaus the Pythagorean\u201d (_J. Phil._ i. pp. 21 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n Boeckh, _Philolaos_, p. 38. Diels (_Vors._ p. 246) distinguishes the\n _Bakchai_ from the three books \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_ib._ p. 239). As,\n however, he identifies the latter with the \u201cthree books\u201d bought from\n Philolaos, and regards it as genuine, this does not seriously affect\n the argument.\n\nIn the first place, we must ask a question which has not yet been faced.\nIs it likely that Philolaos should have written in Doric? Ionic was the\ndialect of all science and philosophy till the time of the Peloponnesian\nWar, and there is no reason to suppose that the early Pythagoreans used\nany other.[759] Pythagoras was himself an Ionian, and it is by no means\nclear that in his time the Achaian states in which he founded his Order\nhad already adopted the Dorian dialect.[760] Alkmaion of Kroton seems to\nhave written in Ionic.[761] Diels says, it is true, that Philolaos and\nthen Archytas were the first Pythagoreans to use the dialect of their\nhomes;[762] but Philolaos can hardly be said to have had a home,[763]\nand the fragments of Archytas are not written in the dialect of Taras,\nbut in what may be called \u201ccommon Doric.\u201d Archytas may have found it\nconvenient to use that dialect; but he is at least a generation later\nthan Philolaos, which makes a great difference. There is evidence that,\nin the time of Philolaos and later, Ionic was still used even by the\ncitizens of Dorian states for scientific purposes. Diogenes of Apollonia\nin Crete and the Syracusan historian Antiochos wrote in Ionic, while the\nmedical writers of Dorian, Kos and Knidos, continue to use the same\ndialect. The forged work of Pythagoras referred to above, which some\nascribed to Lysis, was in Ionic; and so was the work on the _Akousmata_\nattributed to Androkydes,[764] which shows that, even down to\nAlexandrian times, it was still believed that Ionic was the proper\ndialect for Pythagorean writings.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n See Diels in _Arch._ iii. pp. 460 sqq.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n On the Achaian dialect, see O. Hoffmann in Collitz and Bechtel,\n _Dialekt-Inschriften_, vol. ii. p. 151. How slowly Doric penetrated\n into the Chalkidian states may be seen from the mixed dialect of the\n inscription of Mikythos of Rhegion (_Dial.-Inschr._ iii. 2, p. 498),\n which is later than 468-67 B.C. There is no reason to suppose that the\n Achaian dialect of Kroton was less tenacious of life.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n The scanty fragments contain one Doric form, \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 (fr. 1), but\n Alkmaion calls himself \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which is very significant; for\n \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 is the Achaian as well as the Doric form. He did not,\n therefore, write a mixed dialect like that referred to in the last\n note. It seems safest to assume with Wachtler, _De Alcmaeone\n Crotoniata_, pp. 21 sqq., that he used Ionic.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n _Arch._ iii. p. 460.\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n He is distinctly called a Krotoniate in the extracts from Menon\u2019s\n \u1f38\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac (cf. Diog. viii. 84). It is true that Aristoxenos called him\n and Eurytos Tarentines (Diog. viii. 46), but this only means that he\n settled at Taras after leaving Thebes. These variations are common in\n the case of migratory philosophers. Eurytos is also called a\n Krotoniate and a Metapontine (Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 148, 266). Cf. also p.\n 380, _n._ 921 on Leukippos, and p. 406, _n._ 988 on Hippon.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n For Androkydes, see Diels, _Vors._ p. 281. As Diels points out\n (_Arch._ iii. p. 461), even Lucian has sufficient sense of style to\n make Pythagoras speak Ionic.\n\nIn the second place, there can be no doubt that one of the fragments\nrefers to the five regular solids, four of which are identified with the\nelements of Empedokles.[765] Now Plato gives us to understand, in a\nwell-known passage of the _Republic_, that stereometry had not been\nadequately investigated at the time he wrote,[766] and we have express\ntestimony that the five \u201cPlatonic figures,\u201d as they were called, were\ndiscovered in the Academy. In the Scholia to Euclid we read that the\nPythagoreans only knew the cube, the pyramid (tetrahedron), and the\ndodecahedron, while the octahedron and the icosahedron were discovered\nby Theaitetos.[767] This sufficiently justifies us in regarding the\n\u201cfragments of Philolaos\u201d with something more than suspicion. We shall\nfind more anachronisms as we go on.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n Cf. fr. 12 = 20 M. (R. P. 79), \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fb7 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03af.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n Plato, _Rep._ 528 b.\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n Heiberg\u2019s Euclid, vol. v. p. 654, 1, \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03b9\u03b3\u2019, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u0304 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f03 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u0304 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u0398\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. It is no objection to this that, as Newbold points out\n (_Arch._ xix. p. 204), the inscription of the dodecahedron is more\n difficult than that of the octahedron and icosahedron. The\n Pythagoreans were not confined to strict Euclidean methods. It may\n further be noted that Tannery comes to a similar conclusion with\n regard to the musical scale described in the fragment of Philolaos. He\n says: \u201cIl n\u2019y a jamais eu, pour la division du t\u00e9tracorde, une\n tradition pythagoricienne; on ne peut pas avec s\u00fbret\u00e9 remonter plus\n haut que Platon ou qu\u2019Archytas\u201d (_Rev. de Philologie_, 1904, p. 244).\n\n[Sidenote: The Problem.]\n\n142. We must look, then, for other evidence. From what has been said, it\nwill be clear that we cannot safely take Plato as our guide to the\noriginal meaning of the Pythagorean theory, though it is certainly from\nhim alone that we can learn to regard it sympathetically. Aristotle, on\nthe other hand, was quite out of sympathy with Pythagorean ways of\nthinking, but took a great deal of pains to understand them. This was\njust because they played so great a part in the philosophy of Plato and\nhis successors, and he had to make the relation of the two doctrines as\nclear as he could to himself and his disciples. What we have to do,\nthen, is to interpret what Aristotle tells us in the spirit of Plato,\nand then to consider how the doctrine we arrive at in this way is\nrelated to the systems which had preceded it. It is a delicate\noperation, no doubt, but it has been made much safer by recent\ndiscoveries in the early history of mathematics and medicine.\n\nZeller has cleared the ground by eliminating the purely Platonic\nelements which have crept into later accounts of the system. These are\nof two kinds. First of all, we have genuine Academic formulae, such as\nthe identification of the Limit and the Unlimited with the One and the\nIndeterminate Dyad;[768] and secondly, there is the Neoplatonic doctrine\nwhich represents it as an opposition between God and Matter.[769] It is\nnot necessary to repeat Zeller\u2019s arguments here, as no one will any\nlonger attribute these doctrines to the Pythagoreans of the fifth\ncentury.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n Aristotle says distinctly (_Met._ \u0391, 6. 987 b 25) that \u201cto set up a\n dyad instead of the unlimited regarded as one, and to make the\n unlimited consist of the great and small, is distinctive of Plato.\u201d\n Zeller seems to make an unnecessary concession with regard to this\n passage (p. 368, n. 2; Eng. trans. p. 396, n. 1).\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n Zeller, p. 369 sqq. (Eng. trans. p. 397 sqq.).\n\nThis simplifies the problem very considerably, but it is still extremely\ndifficult. According to Aristotle, the Pythagoreans said _Things are\nnumbers_, though that does not appear to be the doctrine of the\nfragments of \u201cPhilolaos.\u201d According to them, things _have_ number, which\nmake them knowable, while their real essence is something\nunknowable.[770] That would be intelligible enough, but the formula that\nthings _are_ numbers seems meaningless. We have seen reason for\nbelieving that it is due to Pythagoras himself (\u00a7 52), though we did not\nfeel able to say very clearly what he meant by it. There is no such\ndoubt as to his school. Aristotle says they used the formula in a\ncosmological sense. The world, according to them, was made of numbers in\nthe same sense as others had said it was made of \u201cfour roots\u201d or\n\u201cinnumerable seeds.\u201d It will not do to dismiss this as mysticism.\nWhatever we may think of Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans of the fifth\ncentury were scientific men, and they must have meant something quite\ndefinite. We shall, no doubt, have to say that they used the words\n_Things are numbers_ in a somewhat non-natural sense, but there is no\ndifficulty in such a supposition. We have seen already how the friends\nof Aristoxenos reinterpreted the old _Akousmata_ (\u00a7 44). The\nPythagoreans had certainly a great veneration for the actual words of\nthe Master (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1); but such veneration is often accompanied by a\nsingular licence of interpretation. We shall start, then, from what\nAristotle tells us about the numbers.\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n For the doctrine of \u201cPhilolaos,\u201d cf. fr. 1 = 2 Ch. (R. P. 64); and for\n the unknowable \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, see fr. 3 = 4 Ch. (R. P. 67). It\n has a suspicious resemblance to the later \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, which Aristotle would\n hardly have failed to note if he had ever seen the passage. He is\n always on the lookout for anticipations of \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7.\n\n[Sidenote: Aristotle on the Numbers.]\n\n143. In the first place, Aristotle is quite decided in his opinion that\nPythagoreanism was intended to be a cosmological system like the others.\n\u201cThough the Pythagoreans,\u201d he tells us, \u201cmade use of less obvious first\nprinciples and elements than the rest, seeing that they did not derive\nthem from sensible objects, yet all their discussions and studies had\nreference to nature alone. They describe the origin of the heavens, and\nthey observe the phenomena of its parts, all that happens to it and all\nit does.\u201d[771] They apply their first principles entirely to these\nthings, \u201cagreeing apparently with the other natural philosophers in\nholding that reality was just what could be perceived by the senses, and\nis contained within the compass of the heavens,\u201d[772] though \u201cthe first\nprinciples and causes of which they made use were really adequate to\nexplain realities of a higher order than the sensible.\u201d[773]\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 8. 989 b 29 (R. P. 92 a).\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 8. 990 a 3, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03cc \u03b3\u2019 \u1f42\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n _Met. ib._ 990 a 5, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThe doctrine is more precisely stated by Aristotle to be that the\nelements of numbers are the elements of things, and that therefore\nthings are numbers.[774] He is equally positive that these \u201cthings\u201d are\nsensible things,[775] and indeed that they are bodies,[776] the bodies\nof which the world is constructed.[777] This construction of the world\nout of numbers was a real process in time, which the Pythagoreans\ndescribed in detail.[778]\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 1, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; \u039d, 3. 1090 a 22, \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n _Met._ \u039c, 6. 1080 b 2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac;\n _ib._ 1080 b 17, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n _Met._ \u039c, 8. 1083 b 11, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1; _ib._ b\n 17, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd; \u039d, 3. 1090 a\n 32, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd; \u0391,\n 8. 990 a 21, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; \u039c, 6. 1080\n b 18, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd; _de Caelo_, \u0393,\n 1. 300 a 15, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n _Met._ \u039d, 3. 1091 a 18, \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFurther, the numbers were intended to be mathematical numbers, though\nthey were not separated from the things of sense.[779] On the other\nhand, they were not mere predicates of something else, but had an\nindependent reality of their own. \u201cThey did not hold that the limited\nand the unlimited and the one were certain other substances, such as\nfire, water, or anything else of that sort; but that the unlimited\nitself and the one itself were the reality of the things of which they\nare predicated, and that is why they said that number was the reality of\neverything.\u201d[780] Accordingly the numbers are, in Aristotle\u2019s own\nlanguage, not only the formal, but also the material, cause of\nthings.[781] According to the Pythagoreans, things are made of numbers\nin the same sense as they were made of fire, air, or water in the\ntheories of their predecessors.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n _Met._ \u039c, 6. 1080 b 16; \u039d, 3. 1090 a 20.\n\nLastly, Aristotle notes that the point in which the Pythagoreans agreed\nwith Plato was in giving numbers an independent reality of their own;\nwhile Plato differed from the Pythagoreans in holding that this reality\nwas distinguishable from that of sensible things.[782] Let us consider\nthese statements in detail.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 987 a 15.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n _Met. ib._ 986 a 15 (R. P. 66).\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 6. 987 b 27, \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac,\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac.\n\n[Sidenote: The elements of numbers.]\n\n144. Aristotle speaks of certain \u201celements\u201d (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1) of numbers, which\nwere also the elements of things. That, of course, is only his own way\nof putting the matter; but it is clearly the key to the problem, if we\ncan discover what it means. Primarily, the \u201celements of number\u201d are the\nOdd and the Even, but that does not seem to help us much. We find,\nhowever, that the Odd and Even were identified in a somewhat violent way\nwith the Limit and the Unlimited, which we have seen reason to regard as\nthe original principles of the Pythagorean cosmology. Aristotle tells us\nthat it is the Even which gives things their unlimited character when it\nis contained in them and limited by the Odd,[783] and the commentators\nare at one in understanding this to mean that the Even is in some way\nthe cause of infinite divisibility. They get into great difficulties,\nhowever, when they try to show how this can be. Simplicius has preserved\nan explanation, in all probability Alexander\u2019s, to the effect that they\ncalled the even number unlimited \u201cbecause every even is divided into\nequal parts, and what is divided into equal parts is unlimited in\nrespect of bipartition; for division into equals and halves goes on _ad\ninfinitum_. But, when the odd is added, it limits it; for it prevents\nits division into equal parts.\u201d[784] Now it is plain that we must not\nimpute to the Pythagoreans the view that even numbers can be halved\nindefinitely. They had carefully studied the properties of the decad,\nand they must have known that the even numbers 6 and 10 do not admit of\nthis. The explanation is really to be found in a fragment of\nAristoxenos, where we read that \u201ceven numbers are those which are\ndivided into equal parts, while odd numbers are divided into unequal\nparts and have a middle term.\u201d[785] This is still further elucidated by\na passage which is quoted in Stobaios and ultimately goes back to\nPoseidonios. It runs: \u201cWhen the odd is divided into two equal parts, a\nunit is left over in the middle; but when the even is so divided, an\nempty field is left, without a master and without a number, showing that\nit is defective and incomplete.\u201d[786] Again, Plutarch says: \u201cIn the\ndivision of numbers, the even, when parted in any direction, leaves as\nit were within itself ... a field; but, when the same thing is done to\nthe odd, there is always a middle left over from the division.\u201d[787] It\nis clear that all these passages refer to the same thing, and that can\nhardly be anything else than those arrangements of \u201cterms\u201d in patterns\nwith which we are already familiar (\u00a7 47). If we think of these, we\nshall see in what sense it is true that bipartition goes on _ad\ninfinitum_. However high the number may be, the number of ways in which\nit can be equally divided will also increase.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n __Met.__ \u0391, 5. 986 a 17 (R. P. 66); _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 a 10 (R. P. 66\n a).\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 455, 20 (R. P. 66 a). I owe the passages which I\n have used in illustration of this subject to W. A. Heidel, \u201c\u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 and\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd in the Pythagorean Philosophy\u201d (_Arch._ xiv. pp. 384 sqq.).\n The general principle of my interpretation is also the same as his,\n though I think that, by bringing the passage into connexion with the\n numerical figures, I have avoided the necessity of regarding the words\n \u1f21 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd as \u201can attempted\n elucidation added by Simplicius.\u201d\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n Aristoxenos, fr. 81, _ap._ Stob. i. p. 20, 1, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n [Plut.] _ap._ Stob. i. p. 22, 19, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n Plut. _de E apud Delphos_, 388 a, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. The words which I have omitted in translating refer\n to the further identification of Odd and Even with Male and Female.\n The passages quoted by Heidel might be added to. Cf., for instance,\n what Nikomachos says (p. 13, 10, Hoche), \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. He significantly adds that this definition is \u1f10\u03ba\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n145. In this way, then, the Odd and the Even were identified with the\nLimit and the Unlimited, and it is possible, though by no means certain,\nthat Pythagoras himself had taken this step. In any case, there can be\nno doubt that by his Unlimited he meant something spatially extended,\nand we have seen that he identified it with air, night, or the void, so\nwe are prepared to find that his followers also thought of the Unlimited\nas extended. Aristotle certainly regarded it so. He argues that, if the\nUnlimited is itself a reality, and not merely the predicate of some\nother reality, then every part of it must be unlimited too, just as\nevery part of air is air.[788] The same thing is implied in his\nstatement that the Pythagorean Unlimited was outside the heavens.[789]\nFurther than this, it is hardly safe to go. Philolaos and his followers\ncannot have regarded the Unlimited in the old Pythagorean way as Air;\nfor, as we shall see, they adopted the theory of Empedokles as to that\n\u201celement,\u201d and accounted for it otherwise. On the other hand, they can\nhardly have regarded it as an absolute void; for that conception was\nintroduced by the Atomists. It is enough to say that they meant by the\nUnlimited the _res extensa_, without analysing that conception any\nfurther.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 204 a 20 sqq., especially a 26, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u1f74\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae.\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n See Chap. II. \u00a7 53.\n\nAs the Unlimited is spatial, the Limit must be spatial too, and we\nshould naturally expect to find that the point, the line, and the\nsurface were regarded as all forms of the Limit. That was the later\ndoctrine; but the characteristic feature of Pythagoreanism is just that\nthe point was not regarded as a limit, but as the first product of the\nLimit and the Unlimited, and was identified with the arithmetical unit.\nAccording to this view, then, the point has one dimension, the line two,\nthe surface three, and the solid four.[790] In other words, the\nPythagorean points have magnitude, their lines breadth, and their\nsurfaces thickness. The whole theory, in short, turns on the definition\nof the point as a unit \u201chaving position.\u201d[791] It was out of such\nelements that it seemed possible to construct a world.\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n Cf. Speusippos in the extract preserved in the _Theologumena\n arithmetica_, p. 61 (Diels, _Vors._ p. 235), \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1fb1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ae, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u0304 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u0304 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2. We know that\n Speusippos is following Philolaos here. Arist. _Met._ \u0396, 11. 1036 b\n 12, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The matter is clearly put in the Scholia on\n Euclid (p. 78, 19, Heiberg), \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9, \u03b4\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n The identification of the point with the unit is referred to by\n Aristotle, _Phys._ \u0395, 3. 227 a 27.\n\n[Sidenote: The numbers as magnitudes.]\n\n146. It is clear that this way of regarding the point, the line, and the\nsurface is closely bound up with the practice of representing numbers by\ndots arranged in symmetrical patterns, which we have seen reason for\nattributing to the Pythagoreans (\u00a7 47). The science of geometry had\nalready made considerable advances, but the old view of quantity as a\nsum of units had not been revised, and so a doctrine such as we have\nindicated was inevitable. This is the true answer to Zeller\u2019s contention\nthat to regard the Pythagorean numbers as spatial is to ignore the fact\nthat the doctrine was originally arithmetical rather than geometrical.\nOur interpretation takes full account of that fact, and indeed makes the\npeculiarities of the whole system depend upon it. Aristotle is very\ndecided as to the Pythagorean points having magnitude. \u201cThey construct\nthe whole world out of numbers,\u201d he tells us, \u201cbut they suppose the\nunits have magnitude. As to how the first unit with magnitude arose,\nthey appear to be at a loss.\u201d[792] Zeller holds that this is only an\ninference of Aristotle\u2019s,[793] and he is probably right in this sense,\nthat the Pythagoreans never felt the need of saying in so many words\nthat points had magnitude. It does seem probable, however, that they\ncalled them \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9.[794]\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u039c, 6. 1080 b 18 sqq., 1083 b 8 sqq.; _de Caelo_, \u0393, 1.\n 300 a 16 (R. P. 76 a).\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n Zeller, p. 381.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n We learn from Plato, _Theaet._ 148 b 1, that Theaitetos called surds,\n what Euclid calls \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, by the name of \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, while\n rational square roots were called \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7. Now in _Tim._ 31 c 4 we find a\n division of numbers into \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, which seem to mean\n rational and irrational quantities. Cf. also the use of \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 in\n _Parm._ 164 d. Zeno in his fourth argument about motion, which, we\n shall see (\u00a7 163), was directed against the Pythagoreans, used \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\n for points. Aetios, i. 3, 19 (R. P. 76 b), says that Ekphantos of\n Syracuse was the first of the Pythagoreans to say that their units\n were corporeal. Probably, however, \u201cEkphantos\u201d was a personage in a\n dialogue of Herakleides (Tannery, _Arch._ xi. pp. 263 sqq.), and\n Herakleides called the monads \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 (Galen, _Hist. Phil._ 18;\n _Dox._ p. 610).\n\nNor is Zeller\u2019s other argument against the view that the Pythagorean\nnumbers were spatial any more inconsistent with the way in which we have\nnow stated it. He himself allows, and indeed insists, that in the\nPythagorean cosmology the numbers were spatial, but he raises\ndifficulties about the other parts of the system. There are other\nthings, such as the Soul and Justice and Opportunity, which are said to\nbe numbers, and which cannot be regarded as constructed of points,\nlines, and surfaces.[795] Now it appears to me that this is just the\nmeaning of a passage in which Aristotle criticises the Pythagoreans.\nThey held, he says, that in one part of the world Opinion prevailed,\nwhile a little above it or below it were to be found Injustice or\nSeparation or Mixture, each of which was, according to them, a number.\nBut in the very same regions of the heavens were to be found things\nhaving magnitude which were also numbers. How can this be, since Justice\nhas no magnitude?[796] This means surely that the Pythagoreans had\nfailed to give any clear account of the relation between these more or\nless fanciful analogies and their quasi-geometrical construction of the\nuniverse. And this is, after all, really Zeller\u2019s own view. He has shown\nthat in the Pythagorean cosmology the numbers were regarded as\nspatial,[797] and he has also shown that the cosmology was the whole of\nthe system.[798] We have only to bring these two things together to\narrive at the interpretation given above.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n Zeller, p. 382.\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 8. 990 a 22 (R. P. 81 e). I read and interpret thus:\n \u201cFor, seeing that, according to them, Opinion and Opportunity are in a\n given part of the world, and a little above or below them Injustice\n and Separation and Mixture,\u2014in proof of which they allege that each of\n these is a number,\u2014and seeing that it is also the case (reading\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 with Bonitz) that there is already in that part of the world\n a number of composite magnitudes (_i.e._ composed of the Limit and the\n Unlimited), because those affections (of number) are attached to their\n respective regions;\u2014(seeing that they hold these two things), the\n question arises whether the number which we are to understand each of\n these things (Opinion, etc.) to be is the same as the number in the\n world (_i.e._ the cosmological number) or a different one.\u201d I cannot\n doubt that these are the extended numbers which are composed\n (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) of the elements of number, the limited and the unlimited,\n or, as Aristotle here says, the \u201caffections of number,\u201d the odd and\n the even. Zeller\u2019s view that \u201ccelestial bodies\u201d are meant comes near\n this, but the application is too narrow. Nor is it the number (\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2)\n of those bodies that is in question, but their magnitude (\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2).\n For other views of the passage, see Zeller, p. 391, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n Zeller, p. 404.\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n _Ibid._ pp. 467 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: The numbers and the elements.]\n\n147. When we come to details, we seem to see that what distinguished the\nPythagoreanism of this period from its earlier form was that it sought\nto adapt itself to the new theory of \u201celements.\u201d It is just this which\nmakes it necessary for us to take up the consideration of the system\nonce more in connexion with the pluralists. When the Pythagoreans\nreturned to Southern Italy, they must have found views prevalent there\nwhich imperatively demanded a partial reconstruction of their own\nsystem. We do not know that Empedokles founded a philosophical society,\nbut there can be no doubt of his influence on the medical school of\nthese regions; and we also know now that Philolaos played a part in the\nhistory of medicine.[799] This discovery gives us the clue to the\nhistorical connexion, which formerly seemed obscure. The tradition is\nthat the Pythagoreans explained the elements as built up of geometrical\nfigures, a theory which we can study for ourselves in the more developed\nform which it attained in Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_.[800] If they were to retain\ntheir position as the leaders of medical study in Italy, they were bound\nto account for the elements.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n All this has been put in its true light by the publication of the\n extract from Menon\u2019s \u1f38\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, on which see p. 322, _n._ 742.\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n In Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80) the theory is ascribed to Pythagoras,\n which is an anachronism, as the mention of \u201celements\u201d shows it must be\n later than Empedokles. In his extract from the same source, Achilles\n says \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, which doubtless represents Theophrastos better.\n There is a fragment of \u201cPhilolaos\u201d bearing on the subject (R. P. 79),\n where the regular solids must be meant by \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fb7 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nWe must not take it for granted, however, that the Pythagorean\nconstruction of the elements was exactly the same as that which we find\nin Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_. It has been mentioned already that there is good\nreason for believing they only knew three of the regular solids, the\ncube, the pyramid (tetrahedron), and the dodecahedron.[801] Now it is\nvery significant that Plato starts from fire and earth,[802] and in the\nconstruction of the elements proceeds in such a way that the octahedron\nand the icosahedron can easily be transformed into pyramids, while the\ncube and the dodecahedron cannot. From this it follows that, while air\nand water pass readily into fire, earth cannot do so,[803] and the\ndodecahedron is reserved for another purpose, which we shall consider\npresently. This would exactly suit the Pythagorean system; for it would\nleave room for a dualism of the kind outlined in the Second Part of the\npoem of Parmenides. We know that Hippasos made Fire the first principle,\nand we see from the _Timaeus_ how it would be possible to represent air\nand water as forms of fire. The other element is, however, earth, not\nair, as we have seen reason to believe that it was in early\nPythagoreanism. That would be a natural result of the discovery of\natmospheric air by Empedokles and of his general theory of the elements.\nIt would also explain the puzzling fact, which we had to leave\nunexplained above, that Aristotle identifies the two \u201cforms\u201d spoken of\nby Parmenides with Fire and Earth.[804] All this is, of course,\nproblematical; but it will not be found easy to account otherwise for\nthe facts.\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n See above, p. 329, _n._ 767.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 31 b 5.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 54 c 4. It is to be observed that in _Tim._ 48 b 5 Plato\n says of the construction of the elements \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, which implies that there is some novelty in the theory as\n he makes Timaios state it. If we read the passage in the light of what\n has been said in \u00a7 141, we shall be inclined to believe that Plato is\n working out the Pythagorean doctrine on the lines of the discovery of\n Theaitetos. There is another indication of the same thing in Arist.\n _Gen. Corr._ \u0392, 3. 330 b 16, where we are told that, in the\n \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, Plato assumed three elements, but made the middle one a\n mixture. This is stated in close connexion with the ascription of Fire\n and Earth to Parmenides.\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n See above, Chap. IV. p. 213, _n._ 462.\n\n[Sidenote: The dodecahedron.]\n\n148. The most interesting point in the theory is, perhaps, the use made\nof the dodecahedron. It was identified, we are told, with the \u201csphere of\nthe universe,\u201d or, as it is put in the Philolaic fragment, with the\n\u201chull of the sphere.\u201d[805] Whatever we may think of the authenticity of\nthe fragments, there is no reason to doubt that this is a genuine\nPythagorean expression, and it must be taken in close connexion with the\nword \u201ckeel\u201d applied to the central fire.[806] The structure of the world\nwas compared to the building of a ship, an idea of which there are other\ntraces.[807] The key to what we are told of the dodecahedron is given by\nPlato. In the _Phaedo_ we read that the \u201ctrue earth,\u201d if looked at from\nabove, is \u201cmany-coloured like the balls that are made of twelve pieces\nof leather.\u201d[808] In the _Timaeus_ the same thing is referred to in\nthese words: \u201cFurther, as there is still one construction left, the\nfifth, God made use of it for the universe when he painted it.\u201d[809] The\npoint is that the dodecahedron approaches more nearly to the sphere than\nany other of the regular solids. The twelve pieces of leather used to\nmake a ball would all be regular pentagons; and, if the material were\nnot flexible like leather, we should have a dodecahedron instead of a\nsphere. This points to the Pythagoreans having had at least the\nrudiments of the \u201cmethod of exhaustion\u201d formulated later by Eudoxos.\nThey must have studied the properties of circles by means of inscribed\npolygons and those of spheres by means of inscribed solids.[810] That\ngives us a high idea of their mathematical attainments; but that it is\nnot too high, is shown by the fact that the famous lunules of\nHippokrates date from the middle of the fifth century. The inclusion of\n_straight_ and _curved_ in the \u201ctable of opposites\u201d under the head of\nLimit and Unlimited points in the same direction.[811]\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80); \u201cPhilolaos,\u201d fr. 12 (= 20 M.; R. P. 79). On\n the \u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2, see Gundermann in _Rhein. Mus._ 1904, pp. 145 sqq. I agree\n with him in holding that the reading is sound, and that the word means\n \u201cship,\u201d but I think that it is the structure, not the motion, of a\n ship which is the point of comparison.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n Aet. ii. 4, 15, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cb\u03c0\u03b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 <\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3>\n \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n Cf. the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of Plato, _Rep._ 616 c 3. As \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 generally means\n \u201ctimber\u201d for shipbuilding (when it does not mean firewood), I suggest\n that we should look in this direction for an explanation of the\n technical use of the word in later philosophy. Cf. Plato, _Phileb._ 54\n c 1, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ... \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 ... \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which is\n part of the answer to the question \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u1fc2\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; (_ib._ b 2); _Tim._ 69 a 6,\n \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 110 b 6, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 with Wyttenbach\u2019s\n note.\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 55 c 4. Neither this passage nor the last can refer to\n the Zodiac, which would be described by a dodecagon, not a\n dodecahedron. What is implied is the division of the heavens into\n twelve pentagonal fields.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n Gow, _Short History of Greek Mathematics_, pp. 164 sqq.\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n This is pointed out by Kinkel, _Gesch. der Phil._ vol. i. p. 121.\n\nThe tradition confirms in an interesting way the importance of the\ndodecahedron in the Pythagorean system. According to one account,\nHippasos was drowned at sea for revealing its construction and claiming\nthe discovery as his own.[812] What that construction was, we may\npartially infer from the fact that the Pythagoreans adopted the\npentagram or _pentalpha_ as their symbol. The use of this figure in\nlater magic is well known; and Paracelsus still employed it as a symbol\nof health, which is exactly what the Pythagoreans called it.[813]\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n Iambl. _V. Pyth._ 247. Cf. above, Chap. II. p. 117, _n._ 247.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n See Gow, _Short History of Greek Mathematics_, p. 151, and the\n passages there referred to, adding Schol. Luc. p. 234, 21, Rabe, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd] \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[Sidenote: The Soul a \u201cHarmony.\u201d]\n\n149. The view that the soul is a \u201charmony,\u201d or rather an attunement, is\nintimately connected with the theory of the four elements. It cannot\nhave belonged to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism; for, as shown in\nPlato\u2019s _Phaedo_, it is quite inconsistent with the idea that the soul\ncan exist independently of the body. It is the very opposite of the\nbelief that \u201cany soul can enter any body.\u201d[814] On the other hand, we\nknow also from the _Phaedo_ that it was accepted by Simmias and Kebes,\nwho had heard Philolaos at Thebes, and by Echekrates of Phleious, who\nwas the disciple of Philolaos and Eurytos.[815] The account of the\ndoctrine given by Plato is quite in accordance with the view that it was\nof medical origin. Simmias says: \u201cOur body being, as it were, strung and\nheld together by the warm and the cold, the dry and the moist, and\nthings of that sort, our soul is a sort of temperament and attunement of\nthese, when they are mingled with one another well and in due\nproportion. If, then, our soul is an attunement, it is clear that, when\nthe body has been relaxed or strung up out of measure by diseases and\nother ills, the soul must necessarily perish at once.\u201d[816] This is\nclearly an application of the theory of Alkmaion (\u00a7 96), and is in\naccordance with the views of the Sicilian school of medicine. It\ncompletes the evidence that the Pythagoreanism of the end of the fifth\ncentury was an adaptation of the old doctrine to the new principles\nintroduced by Empedokles.\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 3. 407 b 20 (R. P. 86 c).\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 85 e sqq.; and for Echekrates, _ib._ 88 d.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 86 b 7-c 5.\n\n[Sidenote: The central fire.]\n\n150. The planetary system which Aristotle attributes to \u201cthe\nPythagoreans\u201d and Aetios to Philolaos is sufficiently remarkable.[817]\nThe earth is no longer in the middle of the world; its place is taken by\na central fire, which is not to be identified with the sun. Round this\nfire revolve ten bodies. First comes the _Antichthon_ or Counter-earth,\nand next the earth, which thus becomes one of the planets. After the\nearth comes the moon, then the sun, the five planets, and the heaven of\nthe fixed stars. We do not see the central fire and the _antichthon_\nbecause the side of the earth on which we live is always turned away\nfrom them. This is to be explained by the analogy of the moon. That body\nalways presents the same face to us; and men living on the other side of\nit would never see the earth. This implies, of course, that all these\nbodies rotate on their axes in the same time as they revolve round the\ncentral fire.[818]\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n For the authorities, see R. P. 81-83. The attribution of the theory to\n Philolaos is perhaps due to Poseidonios. The \u201cthree books\u201d were\n doubtless in existence by his time.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n Plato attributes an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies (_Tim._ 40 a\n 7), which must be of this kind. It is quite likely that the\n Pythagoreans already did so, though Aristotle was unable to see the\n point. He says (_de Caelo_, \u0392, 8. 290 a 24), \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7,\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. This, of course,\n is just what proves it does rotate.\n\nIt is not very easy to accept the view that this system was taught by\nPhilolaos. Aristotle nowhere mentions him in connexion with it, and in\nthe _Phaedo_ Plato gives a description of the earth and its position in\nthe world which is entirely opposed to it, but is accepted without demur\nby Simmias the disciple of Philolaos.[819] It is undoubtedly a\nPythagorean theory, however, and marks a noticeable advance on the\nIonian views then current at Athens. It is clear too that Plato states\nit as something of a novelty that the earth does not require the support\nof air or anything of the sort to keep it in its place. Even Anaxagoras\nhad not been able to shake himself free of that idea, and Demokritos\nstill held it.[820] The natural inference from the _Phaedo_ would\ncertainly be that the theory of a spherical earth, kept in the middle of\nthe world by its equilibrium, was that of Philolaos himself. If so, the\ndoctrine of the central fire would belong to a somewhat later generation\nof the school, and Plato may have learnt it from Archytas and his\nfriends after he had written the _Phaedo_. However that may be, it is of\nsuch importance that it cannot be omitted here.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 108 e 4 sqq. Simmias assents to this doctrine in the\n emphatic words \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n The primitive character of the astronomy taught by Demokritos as\n compared with that of Plato is the best evidence of the value of the\n Pythagorean researches.\n\nIt is commonly supposed that the revolution of the earth round the\ncentral fire was intended to account for the alternation of day and\nnight, and it is clear that an orbital motion of the kind just described\nwould have the same effect as the rotation of the earth on its axis. As\nthe same side of the earth is always turned to the central fire, the\nside upon which we live will be turned towards the sun when the earth is\non the same side of the central fire, and turned away from it when the\nearth and sun are on opposite sides. This view appears to derive some\nsupport from the statement of Aristotle that the earth \u201cbeing in motion\nround the centre, produces day and night.\u201d[821] That remark, however,\nwould prove too much; for in the _Timaeus_ Plato calls the earth \u201cthe\nguardian and artificer of night and day,\u201d while at the same time he\ndeclares that the alternation of day and night is caused by the diurnal\nrevolution of the heavens.[822] That is explained, no doubt quite\nrightly, by saying that, even if the earth were regarded as at rest, it\ncould still be said to produce day and night; for night is due to the\nintervention of the earth between the sun and the hemisphere opposite to\nit. If we remember how recent was the discovery that night was the\nshadow of the earth, we shall see how it may have been worth while to\nsay this explicitly.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 293 a 18 sqq. (R. P. 83).\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 40 c 1, (\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd) \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03b7\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf. On the other hand, \u03bd\u1f7a\u03be \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f21 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (39 c 1).\n\nIn any case, it is wholly incredible that the heaven of the fixed stars\nshould have been regarded as stationary. That would have been the most\nstartling paradox that any scientific man had yet propounded, and we\nshould have expected the comic poets and popular literature generally to\nraise the cry of atheism at once. Above all, we should have expected\nAristotle to say something about it. He made the circular motion of the\nheavens the very keystone of his system, and would have regarded the\ntheory of a stationary heaven as blasphemous. Now he argues against\nthose who, like the Pythagoreans and Plato, regarded the earth as in\nmotion;[823] but he does not attribute the view that the heavens are\nstationary to any one. There is no necessary connexion between the two\nideas. All the heavenly bodies may be moving as rapidly as we please,\nprovided that their relative motions are such as to account for the\nphenomena.[824]\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 293 b 15 sqq.\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n Boeckh admitted a very slow motion of the heaven of the fixed stars,\n which he at first supposed to account for the precession of the\n equinoxes, though he afterwards abandoned that hypothesis\n (_Untersuchungen_, p. 93). But, as Dreyer admits (_Planetary Systems_,\n p. 49), it is \u201cnot ... necessary with Boeckh to suppose the motion of\n the starry sphere to have been an exceedingly slow one, as it might in\n any case escape direct observation.\u201d\n\nIt seems probable that the theory of the earth\u2019s revolution round the\ncentral fire really originated in the account given by Empedokles of the\nsun\u2019s light. The two things are brought into close connexion by Aetios,\nwho says that Empedokles believed in two suns, while Philolaos believed\nin two or even in three.[825] The theory of Empedokles is unsatisfactory\nin so far as it gives two inconsistent explanations of night. It is, we\nhave seen, the shadow of the earth; but at the same time Empedokles\nrecognised a fiery diurnal hemisphere and a nocturnal hemisphere with\nonly a little fire in it.[826] All this could be simplified by the\nhypothesis of a central fire which is the true source of light. Such a\ntheory would, in fact, be the natural issue of the recent discoveries as\nto the moon\u2019s light and the cause of eclipses, if that theory were\nextended so as to include the sun.\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n Aet. ii. 20, 13 (Chap. IV. p. 275, _n._ 609); cf. _ib._ 12 (of\n Philolaos), \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd. Here \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 is the\n central fire, in accordance with the use of the word \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 explained\n in another passage of Aetios, Stob. _Ecl._ i. p. 196, 18 (R. P. 81).\n It seems to me that these strange notices must be fragments of an\n attempt to show how the heliocentric hypothesis arose from the theory\n of Empedokles as to the sun\u2019s light. The meaning is that the central\n fire really was the sun, but that Philolaos unnecessarily duplicated\n it by supposing the visible sun to be its reflexion.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n Chap. VI. \u00a7 113.\n\nThe central fire received a number of mythological names. It was called\nthe Hestia or \u201chearth of the universe,\u201d the \u201chouse\u201d or \u201cwatch-tower\u201d of\nZeus, and the \u201cmother of the gods.\u201d[827] That was in the manner of the\nschool; but these names must not blind us to the fact that we are\ndealing with a real scientific hypothesis. It was a great thing to see\nthat the phenomena could best be \u201csaved\u201d by a central luminary, and that\nthe earth must therefore be a revolving sphere like the planets. Indeed,\nwe are almost tempted to say that the identification of the central fire\nwith the sun, which was suggested for the first time in the Academy, is\na mere detail in comparison. The great thing was that the earth should\ndefinitely take its place among the planets; for once it has done so, we\ncan proceed to search for the true \u201chearth\u201d of the planetary system at\nour leisure. It is probable, at any rate, that it was this theory which\nmade it possible for Herakleides of Pontos and Aristarchos of Samos to\nreach the heliocentric hypothesis,[828] and it was certainly Aristotle\u2019s\nreversion to the geocentric theory which made it necessary for\nCopernicus to discover the truth afresh. We have his own word for it\nthat the Pythagorean theory put him on the right track.[829]\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n Aet. i. 7, 7 (R. P. 81). Procl. _in Tim._ p. 106, 22, Diehl (R. P. 83\n e).\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n On these points, see Staigm\u00fcller, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Gesch. der\n Naturwissenschaften im klassichen Altertume_ (Progr., Stuttgart,\n 1899); and \u201cHerakleides Pontikos und das heliokentrische System\u201d\n (_Arch._ xv. pp. 141 sqq.). Though, for reasons which will partly\n appear from the following pages, I should not put the matter exactly\n as Staigm\u00fcller does, I have no doubt that he is substantially right.\n Diels had already expressed his adhesion to the view that Herakleides\n was the real author of the heliocentric hypothesis (_Berl. Sitzb._,\n 1893, P. 18).\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n In his letter to Pope Paul III., Copernicus quotes Plut. _Plac._ iii.\n 13, 2-3 (R. P. 83 a), and adds \u201cInde igitur occasionem nactus, coepi\n et ego de terrae mobilitate cogitare.\u201d The whole passage is\n paraphrased by Dreyer, _Planetary Systems_, p. 311. Cf. also the\n passage from the original MS., which was first printed in the edition\n of 1873, translated by Dreyer, _ib._ pp. 314 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: The _antichthon_.]\n\n151. The existence of the _antichthon_ was also a hypothesis intended to\naccount for the phenomena of eclipses. In one place, indeed, Aristotle\nsays that the Pythagoreans invented it in order to bring the number of\nrevolving bodies up to ten;[830] but that is a mere sally, and Aristotle\nreally knew better. In his work on the Pythagoreans, we are told, he\nsaid that eclipses of the moon were caused sometimes by the intervention\nof the earth and sometimes by that of the _antichthon_; and the same\nstatement was made by Philip of Opous, a very competent authority on the\nmatter.[831] Indeed, Aristotle shows in another passage exactly how the\ntheory originated. He tells us that some thought there might be a\nconsiderable number of bodies revolving round the centre, though\ninvisible to us because of the intervention of the earth, and that they\naccounted in this way for there being more eclipses of the moon than of\nthe sun.[832] This is mentioned in close connexion with the\n_antichthon_, so there is no doubt that Aristotle regarded the two\nhypotheses as of the same nature. The history of the theory seems to be\nthis. Anaximenes had assumed the existence of dark planets to account\nfor the frequency of lunar eclipses (\u00a7 29), and Anaxagoras had revived\nthat view (\u00a7 135). Certain Pythagoreans[833] had placed these dark\nplanets between the earth and the central fire in order to account for\ntheir invisibility, and the next stage was to reduce them to a single\nbody. Here again we see how the Pythagoreans tried to simplify the\nhypotheses of their predecessors.\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 a 3 (R. P. 83 b).\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n Aet. ii. 29, 4, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f48\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 293 b 21, \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f04\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n It is not expressly stated that they were Pythagoreans, but it is\n natural to suppose so. Such, at least, was Alexander\u2019s opinion (Simpl.\n _de Caelo_, P. 515, 25).\n\n[Sidenote: Planetary motions.]\n\n152. We must not assume that even the later Pythagoreans made the sun,\nmoon, and planets, including the earth, revolve in the opposite\ndirection to the heaven of the fixed stars. It is true that Alkmaion is\nsaid to have agreed with \u201csome of the mathematicians\u201d[834] in holding\nthis view, but it is never ascribed to Pythagoras or even to Philolaos.\nThe old theory was, as we have seen (\u00a7 54), that all the heavenly bodies\nrevolved in the same direction, from east to west, but that the planets\nrevolved more slowly the further they were removed from the heavens, so\nthat those which are nearest the earth are \u201covertaken\u201d by those that are\nfurther away. This view was still maintained by Demokritos, and that it\nwas also Pythagorean, seems to follow from what we are told about the\n\u201charmony of the spheres.\u201d We have seen (\u00a7 54) that we cannot attribute\nthis theory in its later form to the Pythagoreans of the fifth century,\nbut we have the express testimony of Aristotle to the fact that those\nPythagoreans whose doctrine he knew believed that the heavenly bodies\nproduced musical notes in their courses. Further, the velocities of\nthese bodies depended on the distances between them, and these\ncorresponded to the intervals of the octave. He distinctly implies that\nthe heaven of the fixed stars takes part in the concert; for he mentions\n\u201cthe sun, the moon, and the stars, so great in magnitude and in number\nas they are,\u201d a phrase which cannot refer solely or chiefly to the\nremaining five planets.[835] Further, we are told that the slower bodies\ngive out a deep note and the swifter a high note.[836] Now the\nprevailing tradition gives the high note of the octave to the heaven of\nthe fixed stars,[837] from which it follows that all the heavenly bodies\nrevolve in the same direction, and that their velocity increases in\nproportion to their distance from the centre.\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n The term \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af is that used by Poseidonios for the Chald\u00e6an\n astrologers (Berossos). Diels, _Elementum_, p. 11, n. 3. As we have\n seen, the Babylonians knew the planets better than the Greeks.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 9. 290 b 12 sqq. (R. P. 82).\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n Alexander, _in Met._ p. 39, 24 (from Aristotle\u2019s work on the\n Pythagoreans), \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3\n \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03bd. We must not attribute the\n identification of the seven planets with the seven strings of the\n heptachord to the Pythagoreans of this date. Mercury and Venus have in\n the long run the same velocity as the sun, and we must take in the\n earth and the fixed stars. We can even find room for the _antichthon_\n as \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n For the various systems, see Boeckh, _Kleine Schriften_, vol. iii. pp.\n 169 sqq., and Carl v. Jan, \u201cDie Harmonie der Sph\u00e4ren\u201d (_Philol._ 1893,\n pp. 13 sqq.). They vary with the astronomy of their authors, but they\n bear witness to the fact stated in the text. Many give the highest\n note to Saturn and the lowest to the Moon, while others reverse this.\n The system which corresponds best, however, with the Pythagorean\n planetary system must include the heaven of the fixed stars and the\n earth. It is that upon which the verses of Alexander of Ephesos quoted\n by Theon of Smyrna, p. 140, 4, are based:\n\n \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n The \u201cbase of Heaven\u2019s deep Organ\u201d in Milton\u2019s \u201cninefold harmony\u201d\n (_Hymn on the Nativity_, xiii.) implies the reverse of this.\n\nThe theory that the proper motion of the sun, moon, and planets is from\nwest to east, and that they also share in the motion from east to west\nof the heaven of the fixed stars, makes its first appearance in the Myth\nof Er in Plato\u2019s _Republic_, and is fully worked out in the _Timaeus_.\nIn the _Republic_ it is still associated with the \u201charmony of the\nspheres,\u201d though we are not told how it is reconciled with that theory\nin detail.[838] In the _Timaeus_ we read that the slowest of the\nheavenly bodies appear the fastest and _vice versa_; and, as this\nstatement is put into the mouth of a Pythagorean, we might suppose the\ntheory of a composite movement to have been anticipated by some members\nat least of that school.[839] That is, of course, possible; for the\nPythagoreans were singularly open to new ideas. At the same time, we\nmust note that the theory is even more emphatically expressed by the\nAthenian Stranger in the _Laws_, who is in a special sense Plato\nhimself. If we were to praise the runners who come in last in the race,\nwe should not do what is pleasing to the competitors; and in the same\nway it cannot be pleasing to the gods when we suppose the slowest of the\nheavenly bodies to be the fastest. The passage undoubtedly conveys the\nimpression that Plato is expounding a novel theory.[840]\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n The difficulty appears clearly in Adam\u2019s note on _Republic_, 617 b\n (vol. ii. p. 452). There the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 appears rightly as the \u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7,\n while Saturn, which comes next to it, is the \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7. It is\n inconceivable that this should have been the original scale. Aristotle\n touches upon the point (_de Caelo_, \u0392, 10. 291 a 29 sqq.); and\n Simplicius sensibly observes (_de Caelo_, p. 476, 11), \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd (ought not the reading to be \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd?), \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, but their \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is \u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. This is what led\n to the return to the geocentric hypothesis and the exclusion of earth\n and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 from the \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1. The only solution would have been to\n make the earth rotate on its axis or revolve round the central fire in\n twenty-four hours, leaving only precession for the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. As we have\n seen, Boeckh attributed this to Philolaos, but without evidence. If he\n had thought of it, these difficulties would not have arisen.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n _Tim._ 39 a 5-b 2, especially the words \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (\u201cthey appear to be\n overtaken, though they overtake\u201d).\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n Plato, _Laws_, 822 a 4 sqq. The Athenian says of the theory that he\n had not heard of it in his youth nor long before (821 e 3). If so, it\n can hardly have been taught by Philolaos, though it may have been by\n Archytas.\n\n[Sidenote: Things likenesses of numbers.]\n\n153. We have still to consider a view, which Aristotle sometimes\nattributes to the Pythagoreans, that things were \u201clike numbers.\u201d He does\nnot appear to regard this as inconsistent with the doctrine that things\n_are_ numbers, though it is hard to see how he could reconcile the\ntwo.[841] There is no doubt, however, that Aristoxenos represented the\nPythagoreans as teaching that things were _like_ numbers,[842] and there\nare other traces of an attempt to make out that this was the original\ndoctrine. A letter was produced, purporting to be by Theano, the wife of\nPythagoras, in which she says that she hears many of the Hellenes think\nPythagoras said things were made _of_ number, whereas he really said\nthey were made _according to_ number.[843] It is amusing to notice that\nthis fourth-century theory had to be explained away in its turn later\non, and Iamblichos actually tells us that it was Hippasos who said\nnumber was the exemplar of things.[844]\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n Cf. especially _Met._ \u0391, 6. 787 b 10 (R. P. 65 d). It is not quite the\n same thing when he says, as in \u0391, 5. 985 b 23 sqq. (R. P. _ib._), that\n they perceived many likenesses in things to numbers. That refers to\n the numerical analogies of Justice, Opportunity, etc.\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n Aristoxenos _ap._ Stob. i. pr. 6 (p. 20), \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n Stob. _Ecl._ i. p. 125, 19 (R. P. 65 d).\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n Iambl. _in Nicom._ p. 10, 20 (R. P. 56 c).\n\nWhen this view is uppermost in his mind, Aristotle seems to find only a\nverbal difference between Plato and the Pythagoreans. The metaphor of\n\u201cparticipation\u201d was merely substituted for that of \u201cimitation.\u201d This is\nnot the place to discuss the meaning of Plato\u2019s so-called \u201ctheory of\nideas\u201d; but it must be pointed out that Aristotle\u2019s ascription of the\ndoctrine of \u201cimitation\u201d to the Pythagoreans is abundantly justified by\nthe _Phaedo_. The arguments for immortality given in the early part of\nthat dialogue come from various sources. Those derived from the doctrine\nof Reminiscence, which has sometimes been supposed to be Pythagorean,\nare only known to the Pythagoreans by hearsay, and Simmias requires to\nhave the whole psychology of the subject explained to him.[845] When,\nhowever, we come to the question what it is that our sensations remind\nus of, his attitude changes. The view that the equal itself is alone\nreal, and that what we call equal things are imperfect imitations of it,\nis quite familiar to him.[846] He requires no proof of it, and is\nfinally convinced of the immortality of the soul just because Sokrates\nmakes him see that the theory of forms implies it.\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n Plato, _Phd._ 73 a sqq.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n _Ibid._ 74 a sqq.\n\nIt is also to be observed that Sokrates does not introduce the theory as\na novelty. The reality of the \u201cideas\u201d is the sort of reality \u201cwe are\nalways talking about,\u201d and they are explained in a peculiar vocabulary\nwhich is represented as that of a school. The technical terms are\nintroduced by such formulas as \u201cwe say.\u201d[847] Whose theory is it? It is\nusually supposed to be Plato\u2019s own, though nowadays it is the fashion to\ncall it his \u201cearly theory of ideas,\u201d and to say that he modified it\nprofoundly in later life. But there are serious difficulties in this\nview. Plato is very careful to tell us that he was not present at the\nconversation recorded in the _Phaedo_. Did any philosopher ever propound\na new theory of his own by representing it as already familiar to a\nnumber of distinguished living contemporaries? It is not easy to believe\nthat. It would be rash, on the other hand, to ascribe the theory to\nSokrates, and there seems nothing for it but to suppose that the\ndoctrine of \u201cforms\u201d (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9) originally took shape in Pythagorean\ncircles, perhaps under Sokratic influence. There is nothing startling in\nthis. It is a historical fact that Simmias and Kebes were not only\nPythagoreans but disciples of Sokrates; for, by a happy chance, the good\nXenophon has included them in his list of true Sokratics.[848] We have\nalso sufficient ground for believing that the Megarians had adopted a\nlike theory under similar influences, and Plato states expressly that\nEukleides and Terpsion of Megara were present at the conversation\nrecorded in the _Phaedo_. There were, no doubt, more \u201cfriends of the\nideas\u201d[849] than we generally recognise. It is certain, in any case,\nthat the use of the words \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 and \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9 to express ultimate realities\nis pre-Platonic, and it seems most natural to regard it as of\nPythagorean origin.[850]\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n Cf. especially the words \u1f43 \u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03af (76 d 8). The phrases \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f43\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03cc, and the like are assumed to be familiar. \u201cWe\u201d\n define reality by means of question and answer, in the course of which\n \u201cwe\u201d give an account of its being (\u1f27\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 78 d 1,\n where \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is equivalent to \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). When we\n have done this, \u201cwe\u201d set the seal or stamp of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f43 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd upon it (75\n d 2). Technical terminology implies a school. As Diels puts it\n (_Elementum_, p. 20), it is in a school that \u201cthe simile concentrates\n into a metaphor, and the metaphor condenses into a term.\u201d\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n Xen. _Mem._ i. 2, 48.\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n Plato, _Soph._ 248 a 4.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n See Diels, _Elementum_, pp. 16 sqq. Parmenides had already called the\n original Pythagorean \u201celements\u201d \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af (\u00a7 91), and Philistion called\n the \u201celements\u201d of Empedokles \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9. If the ascription of this\n terminology to the Pythagoreans is correct, we may say that the\n Pythagorean \u201cforms\u201d developed into the atoms of Leukippos and\n Demokritos on the one hand (\u00a7 174), and into the \u201cideas\u201d of Plato on\n the other.\n\nWe have really exceeded the limits of this work by tracing the history\nof Pythagoreanism down to a point where it becomes practically\nindistinguishable from the earliest form of Platonism; but it was\nnecessary to do so in order to put the statements of our authorities in\ntheir true light. Aristoxenos is not likely to have been mistaken with\nregard to the opinions of the men he had known personally, and\nAristotle\u2019s statements must have had some foundation. We must assume,\nthen, a later form of Pythagoreanism which was closely akin to early\nPlatonism. That, however, is not the form of it which concerns us here,\nand we shall see in the next chapter that the fifth-century doctrine was\nof the more primitive type already described.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n THE YOUNGER ELEATICS\n\n\n[Sidenote: Relation to predecessors.]\n\n154. The systems we have just been studying were all fundamentally\npluralist, and they were so because Parmenides had shown that, if we\ntake a corporeal monism seriously, we must ascribe to reality a number\nof predicates which are inconsistent with our experience of a world\nwhich everywhere displays multiplicity, motion, and change (\u00a7 97). The\nfour \u201croots\u201d of Empedokles and the innumerable \u201cseeds\u201d of Anaxagoras\nwere both of them conscious attempts to solve the problem which\nParmenides had raised (\u00a7\u00a7 106, 127). There is no evidence, indeed, that\nthe Pythagoreans were directly influenced by Parmenides, but it has been\nshown (\u00a7 147) how the later form of their system was based on the theory\nof Empedokles. Now it was just this prevailing pluralism that Zeno\ncriticised from the Eleatic standpoint; and his arguments were\nespecially directed against Pythagoreanism. Melissos, too, criticises\nPythagoreanism; but he tries to find a common ground with his\nadversaries by maintaining the old Ionian thesis that reality is\ninfinite.\n\n\n I. ZENO OF ELEA\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n155. According to Apollodoros,[851] Zeno flourished in Ol. LXXIX.\n(464-460 B.C.). This date is arrived at by making him forty years\nyounger than his master Parmenides. We have seen already (\u00a7 84) that the\nmeeting of Parmenides and Zeno with the young Sokrates cannot well have\noccurred before 449 B.C., and Plato tells us that Zeno was at that time\n\u201cnearly forty years old.\u201d[852] He must, then, have been born about 489\nB.C., some twenty-five years after Parmenides. He was the son of\nTeleutagoras, and the statement of Apollodoros that he had been adopted\nby Parmenides is only a misunderstanding of an expression of Plato\u2019s\n_Sophist_.[853] He was, Plato further tells us,[854] tall and of a\ngraceful appearance.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n Diog. ix. 29 (R. P. 130 a). Apollodoros is not expressly referred to\n for Zeno\u2019s date; but, as he is quoted for his father\u2019s name (ix. 25;\n R. P. 130), there can be no doubt that he is also the source of the\n _floruit_.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n Plato, _Parm._ 127 b (R. P. 111 d). The visit of Zeno to Athens is\n confirmed by Plut. _Per._ 4 (R. P. 130 e), where we are told that\n Perikles \u201cheard\u201d him as well as Anaxagoras. It is also alluded to in\n _Alc._ I. 119 a, where we are told that Pythodoros, son of Isolochos,\n and Kallias, son of Kalliades, each paid him 100 minae for\n instruction.\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n Plato, _Soph._ 241 d (R. P. 130 a).\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n Plato, _Parm._, _loc. cit._\n\nLike Parmenides and most other early philosophers, Zeno seems to have\nplayed a part in the politics of his native city. Strabo ascribes to him\nsome share of the credit for the good government of Elea, and says that\nhe was a Pythagorean.[855] This statement can easily be explained.\nParmenides, we have seen, was originally a Pythagorean, and the school\nof Elea was no doubt popularly regarded as a mere branch of the larger\nsociety. We hear also that Zeno conspired against a tyrant, whose name\nis differently given, and the story of his courage under torture is\noften repeated, though with varying details.[856]\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n Strabo, vi. p. 252 (R. P. 111 c).\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n Diog. ix. 26, 27, and the other passages referred to in R. P. 130 c.\n\n[Sidenote: Writings.]\n\n156. Diogenes speaks of Zeno\u2019s \u201cbooks,\u201d and Souidas gives some titles\nwhich probably come from the Alexandrian librarians through Hesychios of\nMiletos.[857] In the _Parmenides_, Plato makes Zeno say that the work by\nwhich he is best known was written in his youth and published against\nhis will.[858] As he is supposed to be forty years old at the time of\nthe dialogue, this must mean that the book was written before 460 B.C.\n(\u00a7 84), and it is very possible that he wrote others after it. The most\nremarkable title which has come down to us is that of the\n_Interpretation of Empedokles_. It is not to be supposed, of course,\nthat Zeno wrote a commentary on the Poem of Empedokles; but, as Diels\nhas pointed out,[859] it is quite credible that he should have written\nan attack on it, which was afterwards called by that name. If he wrote a\nwork against the \u201cphilosophers,\u201d that must mean the Pythagoreans, who,\nas we have seen, made use of the term in a sense of their own.[860] The\n_Disputations_ and the _Treatise on Nature_ may, or may not, be the same\nas the book described in Plato\u2019s _Parmenides_.\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n Diog. ix. 26 (R. P. 130); Suidas _s.v._ (R. P. 130 d).\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n Plato, _Parm._ 128 d 6 (R. P. 130 d).\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n _Berl. Sitzb._, 1884, p. 359.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n See above, p. 321, _n._ 740. It hardly seems likely that a later\n writer would make Zeno argue \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, and the title given\n to the book at Alexandria must be based on something contained in it.\n\nIt is not likely that Zeno wrote dialogues, though certain references in\nAristotle have been supposed to imply this. In the _Physics_[861] we\nhear of an argument of Zeno\u2019s, that any part of a heap of millet makes a\nsound, and Simplicius illustrates this by quoting a passage from a\ndialogue between Zeno and Protagoras.[862] If our chronology is right,\nthere is nothing impossible in the idea that the two men may have met;\nbut it is most unlikely that Zeno should have made himself a personage\nin a dialogue of his own. That was a later fashion. In another place\nAristotle refers to a passage where \u201cthe answerer and Zeno the\nquestioner\u201d occurred,[863] a reference which is most easily to be\nunderstood in the same way. Alkidamas seems to have written a dialogue\nin which Gorgias figured,[864] and the exposition of Zeno\u2019s arguments in\ndialogue form must always have been a tempting exercise. It appears also\nthat Aristotle made Alexamenos the first writer of dialogues.[865]\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0397, 5. 250 a 20 (R. P. 131 a).\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1108, 18 (R. P. 131). If this is what Aristotle\n refers to, it is hardly safe to attribute the \u03ba\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 to Zeno\n himself. It is worth noting that the existence of this dialogue is\n another indication of Zeno\u2019s visit to Athens at an age when he could\n converse with Protagoras, which agrees very well with Plato\u2019s\n representation of the matter.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n Arist. _Soph. El._ 170 b 22 (R. P. 130 b).\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n Chap. V. p. 231, _n._ 512.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n Diog. iii. 48. It is certain that the authority whom Diogenes follows\n here took the statement of Aristotle to mean that Alexamenos was the\n first writer of prose dialogues.\n\nPlato gives us a clear idea of what Zeno\u2019s youthful work was like. It\ncontained more than one \u201cdiscourse,\u201d and these discourses were\nsubdivided into sections, each dealing with some one presupposition of\nhis adversaries.[866] We owe the preservation of Zeno\u2019s arguments on the\none and many to Simplicius.[867] Those relating to motion have been\npreserved by Aristotle himself;[868] but, as usual, he has restated them\nin his own language.\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n Plato, _Parm._ 127 d. Plato speaks of the first \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the first\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, which shows that the book was really divided into separate\n sections. Proclus (_in loc._) says there were forty of these \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n altogether.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30; R. P. 133) that he\n is quoting \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03bd. I now see no reason to doubt this, as the\n Academy would certainly have a copy of the work. If so, the fact that\n the fragments are not written in Ionic is another confirmation of\n Zeno\u2019s residence at Athens.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0396, 9. 239 b 9 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: Dialectic.]\n\n157. Aristotle in his _Sophist_[869] called Zeno the inventor of\ndialectic, and this, no doubt, is substantially true, though the\nbeginnings at least of that method of arguing were contemporary with the\nfoundation of the Eleatic school. Plato[870] gives us a spirited account\nof the style and purpose of Zeno\u2019s book, which he puts into his own\nmouth:\u2014\n\n In reality, this writing is a sort of reinforcement for the argument\n of Parmenides against those who try to turn it into ridicule on the\n ground that, if reality is one, the argument becomes involved in many\n absurdities and contradictions. This writing argues against those who\n uphold a Many, and gives them back as good and better than they gave;\n its aim is to show that their assumption of multiplicity will be\n involved in still more absurdities than the assumption of unity, if it\n is sufficiently worked out.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n Cf. Diog. ix. 25 (R. P. 130).\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n Plato, _Parm._ 128 c (R. P. 130 d).\n\nThe method of Zeno was, in fact, to take one of his adversaries\u2019\nfundamental postulates and deduce from it two contradictory\nconclusions.[871] This is what Aristotle meant by calling him the\ninventor of dialectic, which is just the art of arguing, not from true\npremisses, but from premisses admitted by the other side. The theory of\nParmenides had led to conclusions which contradicted the evidence of the\nsenses, and Zeno\u2019s object was not to bring fresh proofs of the theory\nitself, but simply to show that his opponents\u2019 view led to\ncontradictions of a precisely similar nature.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n The technical terms used in Plato\u2019s _Parmenides_ seem to be as old as\n Zeno himself. The \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is the provisional assumption of the truth\n of a certain statement, and takes the form \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 or the like.\n The word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation,\n but the setting before one\u2019s self of a statement as a problem to be\n solved (Ionic \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Attic \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). If the conclusions which\n necessarily follow from the \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) are impossible,\n the \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is \u201cdestroyed\u201d (cf. Plato, _Rep._ 533 c 8, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1). The author of the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 (c 1) knows the\n word \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in a similar sense.\n\n[Sidenote: Zeno and Pythagoreanism.]\n\n158. That Zeno\u2019s dialectic was mainly directed against the Pythagoreans\nis certainly suggested by Plato\u2019s statement, that it was addressed to\nthe adversaries of Parmenides, who held that things were \u201ca many.\u201d[872]\nZeller holds, indeed, that it was merely the popular form of the belief\nthat things are many that Zeno set himself to confute;[873] but it is\nsurely not true that ordinary people believe things to be \u201ca many\u201d in\nthe sense required. Plato tells us that the premisses of Zeno\u2019s\narguments were the beliefs of the adversaries of Parmenides, and the\npostulate from which all his contradictions are derived is the view that\nspace, and therefore body, is made up of a number of discrete units,\nwhich is just the Pythagorean doctrine. Nor is it at all probable that\nAnaxagoras is aimed at.[874] We know from Plato that Zeno\u2019s book was the\nwork of his youth.[875] Suppose even that it was written when he was\nthirty, that is to say, about 459 B.C., Anaxagoras had just taken up his\nabode at Athens at that time,[876] and it is very unlikely that Zeno had\never heard of him. There is, on the other hand, a great deal to be said\nfor the view that Anaxagoras had read the work of Zeno, and that his\nemphatic adhesion to the doctrine of infinite divisibility was due to\nthe criticism of his younger contemporary.[877]\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n The view that Zeno\u2019s arguments were directed against Pythagoreanism\n has been maintained in recent times by Tannery (_Science hell\u00e8ne_, pp.\n 249 sqq.), and B\u00e4umker (_Das Problem der Materie_, pp. 60 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n Zeller, p. 589 (Eng. trans. p. 612).\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n This is the view of Stallbaum in his edition of the _Parmenides_ (pp.\n 25 sqq.).\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n _Parm._, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n Chap. VI. \u00a7 120.\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n Cf. for instance Anaxagoras, fr. 3, with Zeno, fr. 2; and Anaxagoras,\n fr. 5, with Zeno, fr. 3.\n\nIt will be noted how much clearer the historical position of Zeno\nbecomes if we follow Plato in assigning him to a somewhat later date\nthan is usual. We have first Parmenides, then the pluralists, and then\nthe criticism of Zeno. This, at any rate, seems to have been the view\nwhich Aristotle took of the historical development.[878]\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0391, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b). See below, \u00a7 173.\n\n[Sidenote: What is the unit?]\n\n159. The polemic of Zeno is clearly directed in the first instance\nagainst a certain view of the unit. Eudemos, in his _Physics_,[879]\nquoted from him the saying that \u201cif any one could tell him what the one\nwas, he would be able to say what things are.\u201d The commentary of\nAlexander on this, preserved by Simplicius,[880] is quite satisfactory.\n\u201cAs Eudemos relates,\u201d he says, \u201cZeno the disciple of Parmenides tried to\nshow that it was impossible that things could be a many, seeing that\nthere was no unit in things, whereas \u2018many\u2019 means a number of units.\u201d\nHere we have a clear reference to the Pythagorean view that everything\nmay be reduced to a sum of units, which is what Zeno denied.[881]\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 138, 32 (R. P. 134 a).\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 99, 13, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd (\u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), \u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd. This is the meaning of the statement that Zeno \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd,\n which is not Alexander\u2019s (as implied in R. P. 134 a), but goes back to\n no less an authority than Eudemos. It is perfectly correct when read\n in connexion with the words \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f13\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 (Simpl.\n _Phys._ p. 99, 11).\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n It is quite in order that Mr. Bertrand Russell, from the standpoint of\n pluralism, should accept Zeno\u2019s arguments as \u201cimmeasurably subtle and\n profound\u201d (_Principles of Mathematics_, p. 347). We know from Plato,\n however, that Zeno meant them as a _reductio ad absurdum_ of\n pluralism.\n\n[Sidenote: The Fragments.]\n\n160. The fragments of Zeno himself also show that this was his line of\nargument. I give them according to the arrangement of Diels.\n\n (1)\n\n If the one had no magnitude, it would not even be.... But, if it is,\n each one must have a certain magnitude and a certain thickness, and\n must be at a certain distance from another, and the same may be said\n of what is in front of it; for it, too, will have magnitude, and\n something will be in front of it.[882] It is all the same to say this\n once and to say it always; for no such part of it will be the last,\n nor will one thing not be compared with another.[883] So, if things\n are a many, they must be both small and great, so small as not to have\n any magnitude at all, and so great as to be infinite. R. P. 134.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n I formerly rendered \u201cthe same may be said of what surpasses it in\n smallness; for it too will have magnitude, and something will\n surpass it in smallness.\u201d This is Tannery\u2019s rendering, but I now\n agree with Diels in thinking that \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd refers to \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to \u03c0\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Zeno is showing that the Pythagorean point has\n really three dimensions.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n Reading, with Diels and the MSS., \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n Gomperz\u2019s conjecture (adopted in R. P.) seems to me arbitrary.\n\n (2)\n\n For if it were added to any other thing it would not make it any\n larger; for nothing can gain in magnitude by the addition of what has\n no magnitude, and thus it follows at once that what was added was\n nothing.[884] But if, when this is taken away from another thing, that\n thing is no less; and again, if, when it is added to another thing,\n that does not increase, it is plain that what was added was nothing,\n and what was taken away was nothing. R. P. 132.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n Zeller marks a lacuna here. Zeno must certainly have shown that the\n subtraction of a point does not make a thing less; but he may have\n done so before the beginning of our present fragment.\n\n (3)\n\n If things are a many, they must be just as many as they are, and\n neither more nor less. Now, if they are as many as they are, they will\n be finite in number.\n\n If things are a many, they will be infinite in number; for there will\n always be other things between them, and others again between these.\n And so things are infinite in number. R. P. 133.[885]\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n This is what Aristotle calls \u201cthe argument from dichotomy\u201d (_Phys._ \u0391,\n 3. 187 a 1; R. P. 134 b). If a line is made up of points, we ought to\n be able to answer the question, \u201cHow many points are there in a given\n line?\u201d On the other hand, you can always divide a line or any part of\n it into two halves; so that, if a line is made up of points, there\n will always be more of them than any number you assign.\n\n[Sidenote: The unit.]\n\n161. If we hold that the unit has no magnitude\u2014and this is required by\nwhat Aristotle calls the argument from dichotomy,[886]\u2014then everything\nmust be infinitely small. Nothing made up of units without magnitude can\nitself have any magnitude. On the other hand, if we insist that the\nunits of which things are built up are something and not nothing, we\nmust hold that everything is infinitely great. The line is infinitely\ndivisible; and, according to this view, it will be made up of an\ninfinite number of units, each of which has some magnitude.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n See last note.\n\nThat this argument refers to points is proved by an instructive passage\nfrom Aristotle\u2019s _Metaphysics_.[887] We read there\u2014\n\n If the unit is indivisible, it will, according to the proposition of\n Zeno, be nothing. That which neither makes anything larger by its\n addition to it, nor smaller by its subtraction from it, is not, he\n says, a real thing at all; for clearly what is real must be a\n magnitude. And, if it is a magnitude, it is corporeal; for that is\n corporeal which is in every dimension. The other things, _i.e._ the\n plane and the line, if added in one way will make things larger, added\n in another they will produce no effect; but the point and the unit\n cannot make things larger in any way.\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0392, 4. 1001 b 7.\n\nFrom all this it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion than that\nthe \u201cone\u201d against which Zeno argued was the \u201cone\u201d of which a number\nconstitute a \u201cmany,\u201d and that is just the Pythagorean unit.\n\n[Sidenote: Space.]\n\n162. Aristotle refers to an argument which seems to be directed against\nthe Pythagorean doctrine of space,[888] and Simplicius quotes it in this\nform:[889]\n\n If there is space, it will be in something; for all that is is in\n something, and what is in something is in space. So space will be in\n space, and this goes on _ad infinitum_, therefore there is no space.\n R. P. 135.\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0394, 1. 209 a 23; 3. 210 b 22 (R. P. 135 a).\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 562, 3 (R. P. 135). The version of Eudemos is given\n in Simpl. _Phys._ p. 563, 26, \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f42\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f37\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9.\n\nWhat Zeno is really arguing against here is the attempt to distinguish\nspace from the body that occupies it. If we insist that body must be\n_in_ space, then we must go on to ask what space itself is in. This is a\n\u201creinforcement\u201d of the Parmenidean denial of the void. Possibly the\nargument that everything must be \u201cin\u201d something, or must have something\nbeyond it, had been used against the Parmenidean theory of a finite\nsphere with nothing outside it.\n\n[Sidenote: Motion.]\n\n163. Zeno\u2019s arguments on the subject of motion have been preserved by\nAristotle himself. The system of Parmenides made all motion impossible,\nand his successors had been driven to abandon the monistic hypothesis in\norder to avoid this very consequence. Zeno does not bring any fresh\nproofs of the impossibility of motion; all he does is to show that a\npluralist theory, such as the Pythagorean, is just as unable to explain\nit as was that of Parmenides. Looked at in this way, Zeno\u2019s arguments\nare no mere quibbles, but mark a great advance in the conception of\nquantity. They are as follows:\u2014\n\n (1) You cannot get to the end of a race-course.[890] You cannot\n traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time. You must\n traverse the half of any given distance before you traverse the whole,\n and the half of that again before you can traverse it. This goes on\n _ad infinitum_, so that there are an infinite number of points in any\n given space, and you cannot touch an infinite number one by one in a\n finite time.[891]\n\n (2) Achilles will never overtake the tortoise. He must first reach the\n place from which the tortoise started. By that time the tortoise will\n have got some way ahead. Achilles must then make up that, and again\n the tortoise will be ahead. He is always coming nearer, but he never\n makes up to it.[892]\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n Arist. _Top._ \u0398, 8. 160 b 8, \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0396, 9. 239 b 11 (R. P. 136). Cf. \u0396, 2. 233 a 11; a 21\n (R. P. 136 a).\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0396, 9. 239 b 14 (R. P. 137).\n\nThe \u201chypothesis\u201d of the second argument is the same as that in the\nfirst, namely, that the line is a series of points; but the reasoning is\ncomplicated by the introduction of another moving object. The\ndifference, accordingly, is not a half every time, but diminishes in a\nconstant ratio. Again, the first argument shows that no moving object\ncan ever traverse any distance at all, however fast it may move; the\nsecond emphasises the fact that, however slowly it moves, it will\ntraverse an infinite distance.\n\n (3) The arrow in flight is at rest. For, if everything is at rest when\n it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is in flight at any\n given moment always occupies a space equal to itself, it cannot\n move.[893]\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n _Phys._ \u0396, 9. 239 b 30 (R. P. 138); _ib._ 239 b 5 (R. P. 138 a). The\n latter passage is corrupt, though the meaning is plain. I have\n translated Zeller\u2019s version of it \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f20\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f96\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Of course \u1f00\u03b5\u03af means \u201cat any time,\u201d not \u201calways,\u201d and\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd is, literally, \u201con a level with a space equal (to\n itself).\u201d For other readings, see Zeller, p. 598, n. 3; and Diels,\n _Vors._ p. 131, 44.\n\nHere a further complication is introduced. The moving object itself has\nlength, and its successive positions are not points but lines. The\nsuccessive moments in which it occupies them are still, however, points\nof time. It may help to make this clear if we remember that the flight\nof the arrow as represented by the cinematograph would be exactly of\nthis nature.\n\n (4) Half the time may be equal to double the time. Let us suppose\n three rows of bodies,[894] one of which (A) is at rest while the other\n two (B, C) are moving with equal velocity in opposite directions (Fig.\n 1). By the time they are all in the same part of the course, B will\n have passed twice as many of the bodies in C as in A (Fig. 2).\n\n FIG. 1\n\n A. \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf\n\n B. \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u2192\n\n C. \u2190 \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf\n\n FIG. 2\n\n A. \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf\n\n B. \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf\n\n C. \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf \u25cf\n\n Therefore the time which it takes to pass C is twice as long as the\n time it takes to pass A. But the time which B and C take to reach the\n position of A is the same. Therefore double the time is equal to the\n half.[895]\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n The word is \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9; cf. Chap. VII. p. 338, _n._ 794. The name is very\n appropriate for the Pythagorean units, which Zeno had shown to have\n length, breadth, and thickness (fr. 1).\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0396, 9. 239 b 33 (R. P. 139). I have had to express the\n argument in my own way, as it is not fully given by any of the\n authorities. The figure is practically Alexander\u2019s (Simpl. _Phys._ p.\n 1016, 14), except that he represents the \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 by letters instead of\n dots. The conclusion is plainly stated by Aristotle (_loc. cit._),\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd, and,\n however we explain the reasoning, it must be so represented as to lead\n to this conclusion.\n\nAccording to Aristotle, the paralogism here depends upon the assumption\nthat an equal magnitude moving with equal velocity must move for an\nequal time, whether the magnitude with which it is equal is at rest or\nin motion. That is certainly so, but we are not to suppose that this\nassumption is Zeno\u2019s own. The fourth argument is, in fact, related to\nthe third just as the second is to the first. The Achilles adds a second\nmoving point to the single moving point of the first argument; this\nargument adds a second moving line to the single moving line of the\narrow in flight. The lines, however, are represented as a series of\nunits, which is just how the Pythagoreans represented them; and it is\nquite true that, if lines are a sum of discrete units, and time is\nsimilarly a series of discrete moments, there is no other measure of\nmotion possible than the number of units which each unit passes.\n\nThis argument, like the others, is intended to bring out the absurd\nconclusions which follow from the assumption that all quantity is\ndiscrete, and what Zeno has really done is to establish the conception\nof continuous quantity by a _reductio ad absurdum_ of the other\nhypothesis. If we remember that Parmenides had asserted the one to be\ncontinuous (fr. 8, 25), we shall see how accurate is the account of\nZeno\u2019s method which Plato puts into the mouth of Sokrates.\n\n\n II. MELISSOS OF SAMOS\n\n[Sidenote: Life.]\n\n164. In his Life of Perikles, Plutarch tells us, on the authority of\nAristotle, that the philosopher Melissos, son of Ithagenes, was the\nSamian general who defeated the Athenian fleet in 441/0 B.C.:[896] and\nit was no doubt for this reason that Apollodoros fixed his _floruit_ in\nOl. LXXXIV. (444-41 B.C.).[897] Beyond this, we really know nothing\nabout his life. He is said to have been, like Zeno, a disciple of\nParmenides;[898] but, as he was a Samian, it is possible that he was\noriginally a member of the Ionic school, and we shall see that certain\nfeatures of his doctrine tend to bear out this view. On the other hand,\nhe was certainly convinced by the Eleatic dialectic, and renounced the\nIonic doctrine in so far as it was inconsistent with that. We note here\nthe effect of the increased facility of intercourse between East and\nWest, which was secured by the supremacy of Athens.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n Plut. _Per._ 26 (R. P. 141 b), from Aristotle\u2019s \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[Sidenote: The Fragments.]\n\n165. The fragments which we have come from Simplicius, and are given,\nwith the exception of the first, from the text of Diels.[899]\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141). It is possible, of course, that Apollodoros\n meant the first and not the fourth year of the Olympiad. That is his\n usual era, the foundation of Thourioi. But, on the whole, it is more\n likely that he meant the fourth; for the date of the \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1 would be\n given with precision. See Jacoby, p. 270.\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141).\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n It is no longer necessary to discuss the passages which used to appear\n as frs. 1-5 of Melissos, as it has been proved by A. Pabst that they\n are merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments (_De Melissi Samii\n fragmentis_, Bonn, 1889). Almost simultaneously I had independently\n come to the same conclusion (see the first edition, \u00a7 138). Zeller and\n Diels have both accepted Pabst\u2019s demonstration, and the supposed\n fragments have been relegated to the notes in the last edition of R.\n P. I still believe, however, that the fragment which I have numbered\n 1_a_ is genuine. See next note.\n\n (1_a_) If nothing is, what can be said of it as of something\n real?[900]\n\n (1) What was was ever, and ever shall be. For, if it had come into\n being, it needs must have been nothing before it came into being. Now,\n if it were nothing, in no wise could anything have arisen out of\n nothing. R. P. 142.\n\n (2) Since, then, it has not come into being, and since it is, was\n ever, and ever shall be, it has no beginning or end, but is without\n limit. For, if it had come into being, it would have had a beginning\n (for it would have begun to come into being at some time or other) and\n an end (for it would have ceased to come into being at some time or\n other); but, if it neither began nor ended, and ever was and ever\n shall be, it has no beginning or end; for it is not possible for\n anything to be ever without all being. R. P. 143.\n\n (3) Further, just as it ever is, so it must ever be infinite in\n magnitude. R. P. 143.\n\n (4) But nothing which has a beginning or end is either eternal or\n infinite. R. P. 143.\n\n (5) If it were not one, it would be bounded by something else. R. P.\n 144 a.\n\n (6) For if it is (infinite), it must be one; for if it were two, it\n could not be infinite; for then they would be bounded by one\n another.[901] R. P. 144.\n\n (6_a_) (And, since it is one, it is alike throughout; for if it were\n unlike, it would be many and not one.)[902]\n\n (7) So then it is eternal and infinite and one and all alike. And it\n cannot perish nor become greater, nor does it suffer pain or grief.\n For, if any of these things happened to it, it would no longer be one.\n For if it is altered, then the real must needs not be all alike, but\n what was before must pass away, and what was not must come into being.\n Now, if it changed by so much as a single hair in ten thousand years,\n it would all perish in the whole of time.\n\n Further, it is not possible either that its order should be changed;\n for the order which it had before does not perish, nor does that which\n was not come into being. But, since nothing is either added to it or\n passes away or is altered, how can any real thing have had its order\n changed? For if anything became different, that would amount to a\n change in its order.\n\n Nor does it suffer pain; for a thing in pain could not all be. For a\n thing in pain could not be ever, nor has it the same power as what is\n whole. Nor would it be alike, if it were in pain; for it is only from\n the addition or subtraction of something that it could feel pain, and\n then it would no longer be alike. Nor could what is whole feel pain;\n for then what was whole and what was real would pass away, and what\n was not would come into being. And the same argument applies to grief\n as to pain.\n\n Nor is anything empty. For what is empty is nothing. What is nothing\n cannot be.\n\n Nor does it move; for it has nowhere to betake itself to, but is full.\n For if there were aught empty, it would betake itself to the empty.\n But, since there is naught empty, it has nowhere to betake itself to.\n\n And it cannot be dense and rare; for it is not possible for what is\n rare to be as full as what is dense, but what is rare is at once\n emptier than what is dense.\n\n This is the way in which we must distinguish between what is full and\n what is not full. If a thing has room for anything else, and takes it\n in, it is not full; but if it has no room for anything and does not\n take it in, it is full.\n\n Now, it must needs be full if there is naught empty, and if it is\n full, it does not move. R. P. 145.\n\n (8) This argument, then, is the greatest proof that it is one alone;\n but the following are proofs of it also. If there were a many, these\n would have to be of the same kind as I say that the one is. For if\n there is earth and water, and air and iron, and gold and fire, and if\n one thing is living and another dead, and if things are black and\n white and all that men say they really are,\u2014if that is so, and if we\n see and hear aright, each one of these must be such as we first\n decided, and they cannot be changed or altered, but each must be just\n as it is. But, as it is, we say that we see and hear and understand\n aright, and yet we believe that what is warm becomes cold, and what is\n cold warm; that what is hard turns soft, and what is soft hard; that\n what is living dies, and that things are born from what lives not; and\n that all those things are changed, and that what they were and what\n they are now are in no way alike. We think that iron, which is hard,\n is rubbed away by contact with the finger;[903] and so with gold and\n stone and everything which we fancy to be strong, and that earth and\n stone are made out of water; so that it turns out that we neither see\n nor know realities. Now these things do not agree with one another. We\n said that there were many things that were eternal and had forms and\n strength of their own, and yet we fancy that they all suffer\n alteration, and that they change from what we see each time. It is\n clear, then, that we did not see aright after all, nor are we right in\n believing that all these things are many. They would not change if\n they were real, but each thing would be just what we believed it to\n be; for nothing is stronger than true reality. But if it has changed,\n what was has passed away, and what was not is come into being. So\n then, if there were many things, they would have to be just of the\n same nature as the one. R. P. 147.\n\n (9) Now, if it were to exist, it must needs be one; but if it is one,\n it cannot have body; for, if it had body it would have parts, and\n would no longer be one. R. P. 146.[904]\n\n (10) If what is real is divided, it moves; but if it moves, it cannot\n be. R. P. 144 a.[905]\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n These words come from the beginning of the paraphrase which was so\n long mistaken for the actual words of Melissos (Simpl. _Phys._ p. 103,\n 18; R. P. 142 a), and Diels has accordingly removed them along with\n the rest. I believe them to be genuine because Simplicius, who had\n access to the complete work, introduces them by the words \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, and because they are thoroughly Eleatic in\n character. It is quite natural that the first words of the book should\n be prefixed to the paraphrase.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n This fragment is quoted by Simpl. _de Caelo_, p. 557, 16 (R. P. 144).\n The insertion of the word \u201cinfinite\u201d is justified by the paraphrase\n (R. P. 144 a) and by _M.X.G._ 974 a 11, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f42\u03bd <\u1f13\u03bd> \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n I have ventured to insert this, though the actual words are nowhere\n quoted, and it is not in Diels. It is represented in the paraphrase\n (R. P. 145 a) and in _M.X.G._ 974 a 13 (R. P. 144 a).\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n Reading \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd with Bergk. Diels keeps the MS. \u1f40\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd; Zeller (p.\n 613, n. 1) conjectures \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f30\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n I read \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 with E F for the \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f42\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 of D. The \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd\n which still stands in R. P. is a piece of local colour due to the\n editors. Diels also now reads \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd (_Vors._ p. 149, 2).\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n Diels now reads \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 with E for the \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 of F, and attaches the word to\n the next sentence.\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of reality.]\n\n166. It has been pointed out that Melissos was perhaps not originally a\nmember of the Eleatic school; but he certainly adopted all the views of\nParmenides as to the true nature of reality with one remarkable\nexception. He appears to have opened his treatise with a reassertion of\nthe Parmenidean \u201cNothing is not\u201d (fr. 1 _a_), and the arguments by which\nhe supported this view are those with which we are already familiar (fr.\n1). Reality, as with Parmenides, is eternal, an attribute which Melissos\nexpressed in a way of his own. He argued that since everything that has\ncome into being has a beginning and an end, everything that has not come\ninto being has no beginning or end. Aristotle is very severe upon him\nfor this simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition;[906]\nbut, of course, his belief was not founded on that. His whole conception\nof reality made it necessary for him to regard it as eternal.[907] It\nwould be a more serious matter if Aristotle were right in believing, as\nhe seems to have done,[908] that Melissos inferred that what is must be\ninfinite in space, because it had neither beginning nor end in time.\nThis, however, seems quite incredible. As we have the fragment which\nAristotle interprets in this way (fr. 2), we are quite entitled to\nunderstand it for ourselves, and I cannot see anything to justify\nAristotle\u2019s assumption that the expression \u201cwithout limit\u201d means without\nlimit in space.[909]\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0391, 3. 186 a 7 (R. P. 143 a). Aristotle finds two flaws\n in the Eleatic reasoning: (1) \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; (2) \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9. This is the first of these flaws. It is also\n mentioned in _Soph. El._ 168 b 35 (R. P. _ib._). So Eudemos _ap._\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 105, 24, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n The real reason is given in the paraphrase in Simpl. _Phys._ p. 103,\n 21 (R. P. 142 a), \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, though of\n course Melissos himself would not have put it in that way. He regarded\n himself as a \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 like the rest; but, from the time of Aristotle,\n it was a commonplace that the Eleatics were not \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, since they\n denied motion.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n This has been denied by Offner, \u201cZur Beurtheilung des Melissos\u201d\n (_Arch._ iv. pp. 12 sqq.), but I now think he goes too far. Cf.\n especially _Top._ ix. 6, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The same point is made in _Soph. El._ 167\n b 13 and 181 a 27.\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n The words \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 mean simply \u201cbut it is without limit,\u201d and\n this is simply a repetition of the statement that it has no beginning\n or end. The nature of the limit can only be determined by the context,\n and accordingly, when Melissos does introduce the subject of spatial\n infinity, he is careful to say \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (fr. 3).\n\n[Sidenote: Reality spatially infinite.]\n\n167. Melissos did indeed differ from Parmenides in holding that reality\nwas spatially as well as temporally infinite; but he gave an excellent\nreason for this belief, and had no need to support it by the\nextraordinary argument just alluded to. What he said was that, if it\nwere limited, it would be limited by empty space. This we know from\nAristotle himself,[910] and it marks a real advance upon Parmenides. He\nhad thought it possible to regard reality as a finite sphere, but it\nwould have been difficult for him to work out this view in detail. He\nwould have had to say there was nothing outside the sphere; but no one\nknew better than he that there is no such thing as nothing. Melissos saw\nthat you cannot imagine a finite sphere without regarding it as\nsurrounded by an infinite empty space;[911] and as, in common with the\nrest of the school, he denied the void (fr. 7), he was forced to say\nreality was spatially infinite (fr. 3). It is possible that he was\ninfluenced in this by his association with the Ionic school.\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n Arist. _Gen. Corr._ i. 8. 325 a 14, \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd. That this\n refers to Melissos has been proved by Zeller (p. 612, n. 2).\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n Note the disagreement with Zeno (\u00a7 162).\n\nFrom the infinity of reality, it follows that it must be one; for, if it\nwere not one, it would be bounded by something else (fr. 5). And, being\none, it must be homogeneous throughout (fr. 6_a_), for that is what we\nmean by one. Reality, then, is a single, homogeneous, corporeal\n_plenum_, stretching out to infinity in space, and going backwards and\nforwards to infinity in time.\n\n[Sidenote: Opposition to Ionians.]\n\n168. Eleaticism was always critical, and we are not without indications\nof the attitude taken up by Melissos towards contemporary systems. The\nflaw which he found in the Ionian theories was that they all assumed\nsome want of homogeneity in the One, which is a real inconsistency.\nFurther, they all allowed the possibility of change; but, if all things\nare one, change must be a form of coming into being and passing away. If\nyou admit that a thing can change, you cannot maintain that it is\neternal. Nor can the arrangement of the parts of reality alter, as\nAnaximander, for instance, had held; any such change necessarily\ninvolves a coming into being and passing away.\n\nThe next point made by Melissos is somewhat peculiar. Reality, he says,\ncannot feel sorrow or pain; for that is always due to the addition or\nsubtraction of something, which is impossible. It is not easy to be sure\nwhat this refers to. Perhaps it is to the theory of Herakleitos with its\nWant and Surfeit, perhaps to something of which no record has been\npreserved.\n\nMotion in general[912] and rarefaction and condensation in particular\nare impossible; for both imply the existence of empty space.\nDivisibility is excluded for the same reason. These are the same\narguments as Parmenides employed.\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n The view of B\u00e4umker that Melissos admitted \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or motion\n _in pleno_ (_Jahrb. f. kl. Phil._, 1886, p. 541; _Das Problem der\n Materie_, p. 59) depends upon some words of Simplicius (_Phys._ p.\n 104, 13), \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. These words were formerly turned into Ionic and passed\n off as a fragment of Melissos. They are, however, part of Simplicius\u2019s\n own argument against Alexander, and have nothing to do with Melissos\n at all.\n\n[Sidenote: Opposition to Pythagoreans.]\n\n169. In nearly all accounts of the system of Melissos, we find it stated\nthat he denied the corporeality of what is real,\u2014an opinion which is\nsupported by a reference to fr. 9, which is certainly quoted by\nSimplicius to prove this very point.[913] If, however, our general view\nas to the character of early Greek Philosophy is correct, the statement\nmust seem incredible. And it will seem even more surprising when we find\nthat in the _Metaphysics_ Aristotle says that, while the unity of\nParmenides seemed to be ideal, that of Melissos was material.[914] Now\nthe fragment, as it stands in the MSS. of Simplicius,[915] puts a purely\nhypothetical case, and would most naturally be understood as a disproof\nof the existence of something on the ground that, if it existed, it\nwould have to be both corporeal and one. This cannot refer to the\nEleatic One, in which Melissos himself believed; and, as the argument is\nalmost verbally the same as one of Zeno\u2019s,[916] it is natural to suppose\nthat it also was directed against the Pythagorean assumption of ultimate\nunits. The only possible objection is that Simplicius, who twice quotes\nthe fragment, certainly took it in the sense usually given to it.[917]\nBut it was very natural for him to make this mistake. \u201cThe One\u201d was an\nexpression that had two senses in the middle of the fifth century B.C.;\nit meant either the whole of reality or the point as a spatial unit. To\nmaintain it in the first sense, the Eleatics were obliged to disprove it\nin the second; and so it sometimes seemed that they were speaking of\ntheir own \u201cOne\u201d when they really meant the other. We have seen that the\nvery same difficulty was felt about Zeno\u2019s denial of the \u201cone.\u201d[918]\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n See, however, B\u00e4umker, _Das Problem der Materie_, pp. 57 sqq., who\n remarks that \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd (or \u1f44\u03bd) in fr. 9 must be the predicate, as it has no\n article. In his fifth edition (p. 611, n. 2) Zeller has adopted the\n view here taken. He rightly observes that the hypothetical form \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f42\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 speaks for it, and that the subject to \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 must be \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, as with Zeno.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n _Met._ \u0391, 5. 986 b 18 (R. P. 101).\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n Brandis changed the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 to \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, but there is no warrant for this.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n Cf. Zeno, fr. 1, especially the words \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ pp. 87, 6, and 110, 1.\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n See above, \u00a7 159, p. 363, _n._ 880.\n\n[Sidenote: Opposition to Anaxagoras.]\n\n170. The most remarkable fragment of Melissos is, perhaps, the last (fr.\n8). It seems to be directed against Anaxagoras; at least the language\nused seems more applicable to him than to any one else. Anaxagoras had\nadmitted (\u00a7 137, _fin._) that, so far as our perceptions go, they do not\nentirely agree with his theory, though he held this was due solely to\ntheir weakness. Melissos, taking advantage of this admission, urges\nthat, if we give up the senses as the ultimate test of reality, we are\nnot entitled to reject the Eleatic theory. With wonderful penetration he\npoints out that if we are to say, with Anaxagoras, that things are a\nmany, we are bound also to say that each one of them is such as the\nEleatics declared the One to be. In other words, the only consistent\npluralism is the atomic theory.\n\nMelissos has long been unduly depreciated owing to the criticisms of\nAristotle; but these, we have seen, are based mainly on a somewhat\npedantic objection to the false conversion in the early part of the\nargument. Melissos knew nothing about the rules of conversion; and if he\nhad, he could easily have made his reasoning formally correct without\nmodifying his system. His greatness consisted in this, that not only was\nhe the real systematiser of Eleaticism, but he was also able to see,\nbefore the pluralists saw it themselves, the only way in which the\ntheory that things are a many could be consistently worked out.[919] It\nis significant that Polybos, the nephew of Hippokrates, reproaches those\n\u201csophists\u201d who taught there was only one primary substance with \u201cputting\nthe doctrine of Melissos on its feet.\u201d[920]\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n B\u00e4umker, _op. cit._ p. 58, n. 3: \u201cThat Melissos was a weakling is a\n _fable convenue_ that people repeat after Aristotle, who was unable to\n appreciate the Eleatics in general, and in particular misunderstood\n Melissos not inconsiderably.\u201d\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, c. 1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd. The metaphors are taken from\n wrestling, and were current at this date (cf. the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of\n Protagoras). Plato implies a more generous appreciation of Melissos\n than Aristotle\u2019s. In _Theaet._ 180 e 2, he refers to the Eleatics as\n \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, and in 183 e 4 he almost apologises for\n giving the pre-eminence to Parmenides.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS\n\n\n[Sidenote: Leukippos and Demokritos.]\n\n171. We have seen (\u00a7\u00a7 31, 122) that the school of Miletos did not come\nto an end with Anaximenes, and it is a striking fact that the man who\ngave the most complete answer to the question first asked by Thales was\na Milesian.[921] It is true that the very existence of Leukippos has\nbeen called in question. Epicurus said there never was such a\nphilosopher, and the same thing has been maintained in quite recent\ntimes.[922] On the other hand, Aristotle and Theophrastos certainly made\nhim the originator of the atomic theory, and it still seems possible to\nshow they were right. Incidentally we shall see how later writers came\nto ignore him, and thus made possible the sally of Epicurus.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n Theophrastos said he was an Eleate or a Milesian (R. P. 185), while\n Diogenes (ix. 30) says he was an Eleate or, according to some, an\n Abderite. These statements are exactly parallel to the discrepancies\n about the native cities of the Pythagoreans already noted (Chap. VII.\n p. 327, _n._ 763). Diogenes adds that, according to others, Leukippos\n was a Melian, which is a common confusion. Aetios (i. 7. 1) calls\n Diagoras of Melos a Milesian (cf. _Dox._ p. 14). Demokritos was called\n by some a Milesian (R. P. 186) for the same reason that Leukippos is\n called an Eleate. We may also compare the doubt as to whether\n Herodotos called himself a Halikarnassian or a Thourian.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n Diog. x. 13 (R. P. 185 b). The theory was revived by E. Rohde. For the\n literature of the controversy, see R. P. 185 b. Diels\u2019s refutation of\n Rohde has convinced most competent judges. Brieger\u2019s attempt to\n unsettle the question again (_Hermes_, xxxvi. pp. 166 sqq.) is only\n half-hearted, and quite unconvincing. As will be seen, however, I\n agree with his main contention that atomism comes after the systems of\n Empedokles and Anaxagoras.\n\nThe question is intimately bound up with that of the date of Demokritos,\nwho said that he was a young man in the old age of Anaxagoras, a\nstatement which makes it unlikely that he founded his school at Abdera\nbefore 420 B.C., the date given by Apollodoros for his _floruit_.[923]\nNow Theophrastos stated that Diogenes of Apollonia borrowed some of his\nviews from Anaxagoras and some from Leukippos,[924] which can only mean\nthat there were traces of the atomic theory in his work. Further,\nApollonios is parodied in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes, which was\nproduced in 423 B.C., from which it follows that the work of Leukippos\nmust have become known considerably before that date. What that work\nwas, Theophrastos also tells us. It was the _Great Diakosmos_ usually\nattributed to Demokritos.[925] This means further that what were known\nlater as the works of Demokritos were really the writings of the school\nof Abdera, and included, as was natural, the works of its founder. They\nformed, in fact, a _corpus_ comparable to that which has come down to us\nunder the name of Hippokrates, and it was no more possible to\ndistinguish the authors of the different treatises in the one case than\nit is in the other. We need not hesitate, for all that, to believe that\nAristotle and Theophrastos were better informed on this point than later\nwriters, who naturally regarded the whole mass as equally the work of\nDemokritos.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). As Diels points out, the statement suggests\n that Anaxagoras was dead when Demokritos wrote. It is probable, too,\n that it was this which made Apollodoros fix the _floruit_ of\n Demokritos just forty years after that of Anaxagoras (Jacoby, p. 290).\n We cannot make much of the other statement of Demokritos that he wrote\n the \u039c\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 750 years after the fall of Troy; for we cannot\n be sure what era he used (Jacoby, p. 292).\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n Theophr. _ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p. 25, 1 (R. P. 206 a).\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which\n he arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He\n gives Tetr. iii. thus: (1) \u039c\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f43\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9); (2) \u039c\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; (3) \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b7; (4)\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. The two \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 would only be distinguished as\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 when they came to be included in the same _corpus_. A\n quotation purporting to be from the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 of Leukippos is preserved\n in Stob. i. 160. The phrase \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 in\n _M.X.G._ 980 a 8 seems to refer to Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ 325 a 24,\n \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1fa0\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and would prove nothing in any\n case. Cf. Chap. II. p. 138, _n._ 305.\n\nTheophrastos found Leukippos described as an Eleate in some of his\nauthorities, and, if we may trust analogy, that means he had settled at\nElea.[926] It is possible that his emigration to the west was connected\nwith the revolution at Miletos in 450-49 B.C.[927] In any case,\nTheophrastos says distinctly that he had been a member of the school of\nParmenides, and the way in which he speaks suggests that the founder of\nthat school was still at its head.[928] He may very well have been so,\nif we accept Plato\u2019s chronology.[929] Theophrastos also appears to have\nsaid that Leukippos \u201cheard\u201d Zeno, which is very credible. We shall see,\nat any rate, that the influence of Zeno on his thinking is\nunmistakable.[930]\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n See above, p. 380, _n._ 921.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n The aristocrats had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown in\n their turn by the Athenians. Cf. [Xen.] \u1f08\u03b8. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb. 3, 11. The date is\n fixed by _C.I.A._ i. 22 a.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n Theophr. _ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ p. 28, 4 (R. P. 185). Note the\n difference of case in \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 which is the phrase used by\n Theophrastos of Anaxagoras (p. 293, _n._ 660). The dative seems to\n imply a personal relationship. It is quite inadmissible to render \u201cwas\n familiar with the doctrine of Parmenides,\u201d as is done in Gomperz,\n _Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 345.\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n See \u00a7 84.\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n Cf. Diog. ix. 30, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (R. P. 185 b); and Hipp. _Ref._\n i. 12, 1, \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Diels conjectured that the\n name of Zeno had been dropped in the extract from Theophrastos\n preserved by Simplicius (_Dox._ 483 a 11).\n\nThe relations of Leukippos to Empedokles and Anaxagoras are more\ndifficult to determine. It has become part of the case for the\nhistorical reality of Leukippos that there are traces of atomism in the\nsystems of these men; but the case is strong enough without that\nassumption. Besides, it lands us in serious difficulties, not the least\nof which is that it would require us to regard Empedokles and Anaxagoras\nas mere eclectics like Diogenes of Apollonia.[931] The strongest\nargument for the view that Leukippos influenced Empedokles is that drawn\nfrom the doctrine of \u201cpores\u201d; but we have seen that this originated with\nAlkmaion, and it is therefore more probable that Leukippos derived it\nfrom Empedokles.[932] We have seen too that Zeno probably wrote against\nEmpedokles, and we know that he influenced Leukippos.[933] Nor, is it at\nall probable that Anaxagoras knew anything of the theory of Leukippos.\nIt is true that he denied the existence of the void; but it does not\nfollow that any one had already maintained that doctrine in the atomist\nsense. The early Pythagoreans had spoken of a void too, though they had\nconfused it with atmospheric air; and the experiments of Anaxagoras with\nthe _klepsydra_ and the inflated skins would only have had any point if\nthey were directed against the Pythagorean theory.[934] If he had really\nwished to refute Leukippos, he would have had to use arguments of a very\ndifferent kind.\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n This point is important, though the argument is weakened by Brieger\u2019s\n overstatement of it in _Hermes_, xxxvi. p. 183. He says that to assume\n such a reaction as Anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once\n been discovered would be something unexampled in the history of Greek\n philosophy. Diogenes of Apollonia proves the contrary. The real point\n is that Empedokles and Anaxagoras were men of a different stamp. So\n far as Empedokles is concerned, Gomperz states the case rightly\n (_Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 560).\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n See above, Chap. V. p. 224, _n._ 492; and Brieger in _Hermes_, xxxvi.\n p. 171.\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n Diels (formerly at least) maintained both these things. See above, p.\n 359, _n._ 859; and p. 382, _n._ 930. If, as seems probable (\u00a7 158),\n Zeno wrote his book some time between 470 and 460 B.C., Leukippos can\n hardly have written his before 450 B.C., and even that is too late for\n him to have influenced Empedokles. It may well have been later still.\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n See above, Chap. VI. \u00a7 131; and Chap. VII. \u00a7 145.\n\n[Sidenote: Theophrastos on the atomic theory.]\n\n172. Theophrastos wrote of Leukippos as follows in the First Book of his\n_Opinions_:\u2014\n\n Leukippos of Elea or Miletos (for both accounts are given of him) had\n associated with Parmenides in philosophy. He did not, however, follow\n the same path in his explanation of things as Parmenides and\n Xenophanes did, but, as is believed, the very opposite (R. P. 185).\n They made the All one, immovable, uncreated, and finite, and did not\n even permit us to search for _what is not_; he assumed innumerable and\n ever-moving elements, namely, the atoms. And he made their forms\n infinite in number, since there was no reason why they should be of\n one kind rather than another, and because he saw that there was\n unceasing becoming and change in things. He held, further, that _what\n is_ is no more real than _what is not_, and that both are alike causes\n of the things that come into being; for he laid down that the\n substance of the atoms was compact and full, and he called them _what\n is_, while they moved in the void which he called _what is not_, but\n affirmed to be just as real as _what is_. R. P. 194.\n\n[Sidenote: Leukippos and the Eleatics.]\n\n173. It will be observed that Theophrastos, while noting the affiliation\nof Leukippos to the Eleatic school, points out that his theory is,\n_prima facie_,[935] just the opposite of that maintained by Parmenides.\nSome have been led by this to deny the Eleaticism of Leukippos\naltogether; but this denial is really based on the view that the system\nof Parmenides was \u201cmetaphysical,\u201d coupled with a great reluctance to\nadmit that so scientific a hypothesis as the atomic theory can have had\na \u201cmetaphysical\u201d origin. It is really due to prejudice, and we must not\nsuppose Theophrastos himself believed the two theories to be so far\napart as they seem.[936] As this is really the most important point in\nthe history of early Greek philosophy, and as, rightly understood, it\nfurnishes the key to the whole development, it is worth while to\ntranscribe a passage of Aristotle[937] which explains the historical\nconnexion in a way that leaves nothing to be desired.\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n The words \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 do not imply assent to the view introduced by them;\n indeed they are used, far more often than not, in reference to beliefs\n which the writer does not accept. The translation \u201cmethinks\u201d in\n Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 345, is therefore most\n misleading, and there is no justification for Brieger\u2019s statement\n (_Hermes_, xxxvi. p. 165) that Theophrastos dissents from Aristotle\u2019s\n view as given in the passage about to be quoted. We should be saved\n from many errors if we accustomed ourselves to translate \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 by \u201cis\n thought\u201d or \u201cis believed\u201d instead of by \u201cseems.\u201d\n\n Leukippos and Demokritos have decided about all things practically by\n the same method and on the same theory, taking as their starting-point\n what naturally comes first. Some of the ancients had held that the\n real must necessarily be one and immovable; for, said they, empty\n space is not real, and motion would be impossible without empty space\n separated from matter; nor, further, could reality be a many, if there\n were nothing to separate things. And it makes no difference if any one\n holds that the All is not continuous, but discrete, with its parts in\n contact (_the Pythagorean view_), instead of holding that reality is\n many, not one, and that there is empty space. For, if it is divisible\n at every point there is no one, and therefore no many, and the Whole\n is empty (_Zeno_); while, if we say it is divisible in one place and\n not in another, this looks like an arbitrary fiction; for up to what\n point and for what reason will part of the Whole be in this state and\n be full, while the rest is discrete? And, on the same grounds, they\n further say that there can be no motion. In consequence of these\n reasonings, then, going beyond perception and overlooking it in the\n belief that we ought to follow the argument, they say that the All is\n one and immovable (_Parmenides_), and some of them that it is infinite\n (_Melissos_), for any limit would be bounded by empty space. This,\n then, is the opinion they expressed about the truth, and these are the\n reasons which led them to do so. Now, so far as arguments go, this\n conclusion does seem to follow; but, if we appeal to facts, to hold\n such a view looks like madness. No one who is mad is so far out of his\n senses that fire and ice appear to him to be one; it is only things\n that are right, and things that appear right from habit, in which\n madness makes some people see no difference.\n\n Leukippos, however, thought he had a theory which was in harmony with\n sense-perception, and did not do away with coming into being and\n passing away, nor motion, nor the multiplicity of things. He made this\n concession to experience, while he conceded, on the other hand, to\n those who invented the One that motion was impossible without the\n void, that the void was not real, and that nothing of what was real\n was not real. \u201cFor,\u201d said he, \u201cthat which is strictly speaking real is\n an absolute _plenum_; but the _plenum_ is not one. On the contrary,\n there are an infinite number of them, and they are invisible owing to\n the smallness of their bulk. They move in the void (for there is a\n void); and by their coming together they effect coming into being; by\n their separation, passing away.\u201d\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz\u2019s _Greek Thinkers_, and\n seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat\n imaginative work. It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same\n point of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the\n Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions (_Hermes_, xxxvi. p.\n 185). I am sorry that I cannot agree with either side; but the\n bitterness of the disputants bears witness to the fundamental\n importance of the questions raised by the early Greek philosophers.\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 8. 324 b 35 (R. P. 193).\n\nIt is true that in this passage Zeno and Melissos are not named, but the\nreference to them is unmistakable. The argument of Zeno against the\nPythagoreans is clearly given; and Melissos was the only Eleatic who\nmade reality infinite, a point which is distinctly mentioned. We are\ntherefore justified by Aristotle\u2019s words in explaining the genesis of\nAtomism and its relation to Eleaticism as follows. Zeno had shown that\nall pluralist systems yet known, and especially Pythagoreanism, were\nunable to stand before the arguments from infinite divisibility which he\nadduced. Melissos had used the same argument against Anaxagoras, and had\nadded, by way of _reductio ad absurdum_, that, if there were many\nthings, each one of them must be such as the Eleatics held the One to\nbe. To this Leukippos answers, \u201cWhy not?\u201d He admitted the force of\nZeno\u2019s arguments by setting a limit to divisibility, and to each of the\natoms which he thus arrived at he ascribed all the predicates of the\nEleatic One; for Parmenides had shown that if _it is_, it must have\nthese predicates somehow. The same view is implied in a passage of\nAristotle\u2019s _Physics_.[938] \u201cSome,\u201d we are there told, \u201csurrendered to\nboth arguments, to the first, the argument that all things are one, if\nthe word _is_ is used in one sense only (_Parmenides_), by affirming the\nreality of what is not; to the second, that based on dichotomy (_Zeno_),\nby introducing indivisible magnitudes.\u201d Finally, it is only by regarding\nthe matter in this way that we can attach any meaning to another\nstatement of Aristotle\u2019s to the effect that Leukippos and Demokritos, as\nwell as the Pythagoreans, virtually make all things out of numbers.[939]\nLeukippos, in fact, gave the Pythagorean monads the character of the\nParmenidean One.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0391, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b).\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0393, 4. 303 a 8, \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 (\u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. This\n also serves to explain what Herakleides may have meant by attributing\n the theory of corporeal \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse\n (above, p. 338, _n._ 794).\n\n[Sidenote: Atoms.]\n\n174. We must observe that the atom is not mathematically indivisible,\nfor it has magnitude; it is, however, physically indivisible, because,\nlike the One of Parmenides, it contains in it no empty space.[940] Each\natom has extension, and all the atoms are exactly alike in\nsubstance.[941] Therefore all differences in things must be accounted\nfor either by the shape of the atoms or by their arrangement. It seems\nprobable that the three ways in which differences arise, namely, shape,\nposition, and arrangement, were already distinguished by Leukippos; for\nAristotle mentions his name in connexion with them.[942] This explains,\ntoo, why the atoms are called \u201cforms\u201d or \u201cfigures,\u201d a way of speaking\nwhich seems to be of Pythagorean origin.[943] That they are also called\n\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2[944] is quite intelligible if we remember what was said of that\nword in the Introduction (\u00a7 VII.). The differences in shape, order, and\nposition just referred to account for the \u201copposites,\u201d the \u201celements\u201d\nbeing regarded rather as aggregates of these (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9), as by\nAnaxagoras.[945]\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n The Epicureans misunderstood this point, or misrepresented it in order\n to magnify their own originality (see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3; Eng.\n trans. ii. p. 225, n. 2).\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0391, 7. 275 b 32, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd; _Phys._ \u0393, 4. 203 a 34, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1ff3) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 b 13 (R. P. 192); cf. _de Gen. Corr._ 315 b 6.\n As Diels suggests, the illustration from the letters of the alphabet\n is probably due to Demokritos. It shows, in any case, how the word\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd came to be used later for \u201celement.\u201d We must read, with\n Wilamowitz, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0396 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0397 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 for \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0396 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039d \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, the older\n form of the letter \u0396 being just an \u0397 laid upon its side (Diels,\n _Elementum_, p. 13, n. 1).\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n Demokritos wrote a work, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd (Sext. _Math._ vii. 137; R. P.\n 204), which Diels identifies with the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd of\n Thrasylos, _Tetr._ v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd (_de Sensibus_, \u00a7 51). Plut. _adv. Col._ 1111 a, \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (so the MSS.: \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2,\n Wyttenbach; <\u1f22> \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2, Diels). Arist. Phys. \u0393, 4. 203 a 21,\n (\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (\u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1). Cf. _de Gen. Corr._ \u0391, 2. 315 b 7 (R. P. 196).\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0398, 9. 265 b 25; Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1318, 33, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 36, 1 (Diels, _Vors._ p. 346), and R. P. 196 a.\n\n[Sidenote: The void.]\n\n175. Leukippos affirmed the existence both of the Full and the Empty,\nterms which he may have borrowed from Melissos.[946] As we have seen, he\nhad to assume the existence of empty space, which the Eleatics had\ndenied, in order to make his explanation of the nature of body possible.\nHere again he is developing a Pythagorean view. The Pythagoreans had\nspoken of the void, which kept the units apart; but they had not\ndistinguished it from atmospheric air (\u00a7 53), which Empedokles had shown\nto be a corporeal substance (\u00a7 107). Parmenides, indeed, had formed a\nclearer conception of space, but only to deny its reality. Leukippos\nstarted from this. He admitted, indeed, that space was not real, that is\nto say, corporeal; but he maintained that it existed all the same. He\nhardly, it is true, had words to express his discovery in; for the verb\n\u201cto be\u201d had hitherto been used by philosophers only of body. But he did\nhis best to make his meaning clear by saying that \u201cwhat is not\u201d (in the\nold corporealist sense) \u201cis\u201d (in another sense) just as much as \u201cwhat\nis.\u201d The void is as real as body.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 b 4 (R. P. 192). Cf. Melissos, fr. 7 _sub\n fin._\n\nIt is a curious fact that the Atomists, who are commonly regarded as the\ngreat materialists of antiquity, were actually the first to say\ndistinctly that a thing might be real without being a body.\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmology.]\n\n176. It might seem a hopeless task to disentangle the cosmology of\nLeukippos from that of Demokritos, with which it is generally\nidentified; but that very fact affords an invaluable clue. So far as we\nknow, no one after Theophrastos was able to distinguish the doctrines of\nthe two men, and it follows from this that all definite statements about\nLeukippos in later writers must, in the long run, go back to him. If we\nfollow this up, we shall be able to give a fairly clear account of the\nsystem, and we shall even come across some views which are peculiar to\nLeukippos and were not adopted by Demokritos.[947]\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n Cf. Zeller, \u201cZu Leukippus\u201d (_Arch._ xv. p. 138).\n\nWe shall start from the fuller of the two doxographies in Diogenes,\nwhich comes from an epitome of Theophrastos.[948] It is as follows:\u2014\n\n He says that the All is infinite, and that it is part full, and part\n empty. These (the full and the empty), he says, are the elements. From\n them arise innumerable worlds and are resolved into them. The worlds\n come into being thus. There were borne along by \u201cabscision from the\n infinite\u201d many bodies of all sorts of figures \u201cinto a mighty void,\u201d\n and they being gathered together produce a single vortex. In it, as\n they came into collision with one another and were whirled round in\n all manner of ways, those which were alike were separated apart and\n came to their likes. But, as they were no longer able to revolve in\n equilibrium owing to their multitude, those of them that were fine\n went out to the external void, as if passed through a sieve; the rest\n stayed together, and becoming entangled with one another, ran down\n together, and made a first spherical structure. This was in substance\n like a membrane or skin containing in itself all kinds of bodies. And,\n as these bodies were borne round in a vortex, in virtue of the\n resistance of the middle, the surrounding membrane became thin, as the\n contiguous bodies kept flowing together from contact with the vortex.\n And in this way the earth came into being, those things which had been\n borne towards the middle abiding there. Moreover, the containing\n membrane was increased by the further separating out of bodies from\n outside; and, being itself carried round in a vortex, it further got\n possession of all with which it had come in contact. Some of these\n becoming entangled, produce a structure, which was at first moist and\n muddy; but, when they had been dried and were revolving along with the\n vortex of the whole, they were then ignited and produced the substance\n of the heavenly bodies. The circle of the sun is the outermost, that\n of the moon is nearest to the earth, and those of the others are\n between these. And all the heavenly bodies are ignited because of the\n swiftness of their motion; while the sun is also ignited by the stars.\n But the moon only receives a small portion of fire. The sun and the\n moon are eclipsed.... (And the obliquity of the zodiac is produced) by\n the earth being inclined towards the south; and the northern parts of\n it have constant snow and are cold and frozen. And the sun is eclipsed\n rarely, and the moon continually, because their circles are unequal.\n And just as there are comings into being of the world, so there are\n growths and decays and passings away in virtue of a certain necessity,\n of the nature of which he gives no clear account.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n Diog. ix. 31 sqq. (R. P. 197, 197 c). This passage deals expressly\n with Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even \u201cLeukippos and\n Demokritos.\u201d For the distinction between the \u201csummary\u201d and \u201cdetailed\u201d\n doxographies in Diogenes, see Appendix, \u00a7 15.\n\nAs it comes substantially from Theophrastos, this passage is to be\nregarded as good evidence for the cosmology of Leukippos, and it is\nconfirmed in an interesting way by certain Epicurean extracts from the\n_Great Diakosmos_.[949] These, however, as is natural, give a specially\nEpicurean turn to some of the doctrines, and must therefore be used with\ncaution.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n These are to be found in Aet. i. 4 (_Dox._ p. 289; _Vors._ p. 347;\n Usener, _Epicurea_, fr. 308). Epicurus himself in the second epistle\n (Diog. x. 88; Usener, p. 37, 7) quotes the phrase \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[Sidenote: Relation to Ionic cosmology.]\n\n177. The general impression which we get from the cosmology of Leukippos\nis that he either ignored or had never heard of the great advance in the\ngeneral view of the world which was due to the later Pythagoreans. He is\nas reactionary in his detailed cosmology as he was daring in his general\nphysical theory. We seem to be reading once more of the speculations of\nAnaximenes or even of Anaximander, though there are traces of Empedokles\nand Anaxagoras too. The explanation is not hard to see. Leukippos would\nnot learn a cosmology from his Eleatic teachers; and, even when he found\nit possible to construct one without giving up the Parmenidean view of\nreality, he was necessarily thrown back upon the older systems of Ionia.\nThe result was unfortunate. The astronomy of Demokritos, so far as we\nknow it, was still of this childish character. There is no reason to\ndoubt the statement of Seneca that he did not venture to say how many\nplanets there were.[950]\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n Seneca, _Q. Nat._ vii. 3.\n\nThis, I take it, is what gives plausibility to Gomperz\u2019s statement that\nAtomism was \u201cthe ripe fruit on the tree of the old Ionic doctrine of\nmatter which had been tended by the Ionian physiologists.\u201d[951] The\ndetailed cosmology was certainly such a fruit, and it was possibly\nover-ripe; but the atomic theory proper, in which the real greatness of\nLeukippos comes out, was wholly Eleatic in its origin. Nevertheless, it\nwill repay us to examine the cosmology too; for such an examination will\nserve better than anything else to bring out the true nature of the\nhistorical development of which it was the outcome.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, vol. i. p. 323.\n\n[Sidenote: The eternal motion.]\n\n178. Leukippos represented the atoms as having been always in motion.\nAristotle puts this in his own way. The atomists, he says, \u201cindolently\u201d\nleft it unexplained what was the source of motion, and they did not say\nwhat sort of motion it was. In other words, they did not decide whether\nit was a \u201cnatural motion\u201d or one impressed on them \u201ccontrary to their\nnature.\u201d[952] He even went so far as to say that they made it\n\u201cspontaneous,\u201d a remark which has given rise to the erroneous view that\nthey held it was due to chance.[953] Aristotle does not say that,\nhowever; but only that the atomists did not explain the motion of the\natoms in any of the ways in which he himself explained the motion of the\nelements. They neither ascribed to them a natural motion like the\ncircular motion of the heavens and the rectilinear motion of the four\nelements in the sublunary region, nor did they give them a forced motion\ncontrary to their own nature, like the upward motion which may be given\nto the heavy elements and the downward which may be given to the light.\nThe only fragment of Leukippos which has survived is an express denial\nof chance. \u201cNaught happens for nothing,\u201d he said \u201cbut everything from a\nground and of necessity.\u201d[954]\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0398, 1. 252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a); _de Caelo_, \u0393, 2. 300 b 8\n (R. P. 195); _Met._ \u0391, 4. 985 b 19 (R. P. _ib._).\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n Arist. _Phys._ \u0392, 4. 196 a 24 (R. P. 195 d). Cicero, _de nat. D._ i.\n 66 (R. P. _ib._). The latter passage is the source of the phrase\n \u201cfortuitous concourse\u201d (_concurrere_ = \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n Aet. i. 25, 4 (_Dox._ p. 321), \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u2019\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nIf we put the matter historically, all this means that Leukippos did\nnot, like Empedokles and Anaxagoras, find it necessary to assume a force\nto originate motion. He had no need of Love and Strife or Mind, and the\nreason is clear. Though Empedokles and Anaxagoras had tried to explain\nmultiplicity and motion, they had not broken so radically as Leukippos\ndid with the Parmenidean One. Both of them started with a condition of\nmatter in which the \u201croots\u201d or \u201cseeds\u201d were mixed so as to be \u201call\ntogether,\u201d and they therefore required something to break up this unity.\nLeukippos, who started with an infinite number of Parmenidean \u201cOnes,\u201d so\nto speak, required no external agency to separate them. What he had to\ndo was just the opposite. He had to give an explanation of their coming\ntogether, and there was nothing so far to prevent his return to the old\nand natural idea that motion does not require any explanation at\nall.[955]\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n Introd. \u00a7 VIII.\n\nThis, then, is what seems to follow from the criticisms of Aristotle and\nfrom the nature of the case; but it will be observed that it is not\nconsistent with Zeller\u2019s opinion that the original motion of the atoms\nis a fall through infinite space, as in the system of Epicurus. Zeller\u2019s\nview depends, of course, on the further belief that the atoms have\nweight, and that weight is the tendency of bodies to fall, so we must go\non to consider whether and in what sense weight is a property of the\natoms.\n\n[Sidenote: The weight of the atoms.]\n\n179. As is well known, Epicurus held that the atoms were naturally\nheavy, and therefore fell continually in the infinite void. The school\ntradition is, however, that the \u201cnatural weight\u201d of the atoms was an\naddition made by Epicurus himself to the original atomic system.\nDemokritos, we are told, assigned two properties to atoms, magnitude and\nform, to which Epicurus added a third, weight.[956] On the other hand,\nAristotle distinctly says in one place that Demokritos held the atoms\nwere heavier \u201cin proportion to their excess,\u201d and this seems to be\nexplained by the statement of Theophrastos that, according to him,\nweight depended on magnitude.[957] It will be observed that, even so, it\nis not represented as a primary property of the atoms in the same sense\nas magnitude.\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1,\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u1fc7\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 (\u201cor else\u201d) \u03bf\u1f50\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; _ib._ 12, 6, \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3. Cic. _de fato_, 20, \u201cvim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito\n impulsionis quam plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et\n ponderis.\u201d These passages represent the Epicurean school tradition,\n which would hardly venture to misrepresent Demokritos on so important\n a point. His works were still accessible. It is confirmed by the\n Academic tradition in _de Fin._ i. 17 that Demokritos taught the atoms\n moved \u201cin infinito inani, in quo nihil nec summum nec infimum nec\n medium nec extremum sit.\u201d This doctrine, we are told, was \u201cdepraved\u201d\n by Epicurus.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n Arist. _de Gen. Corr._ 326 a 9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. I cannot believe this\n means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on\n sensation, \u00a7 61 (R. P. 199), \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7a \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nIt is impossible to solve this apparent contradiction without referring\nbriefly to the history of Greek ideas about weight. It is clear that\nlightness and weight would be among the very first properties of body to\nbe distinctly recognised as such. The necessity of lifting burdens must\nvery soon have led men to distinguish them, though no doubt in some\nprimitive and more or less animistic form. Both weight and lightness\nwould be thought of as _things_ that were _in_ bodies. Now it is a\nremarkable feature of early Greek philosophy that from the first it was\nable to shake itself free from this idea. Weight is never spoken of as a\n\u201cthing\u201d as, for instance, warmth and cold are; and, so far as we can\nsee, not one of the thinkers we have studied hitherto thought it\nnecessary to give any explanation of it at all, or even to say anything\nabout it.[958] The motions and resistances which popular theory ascribes\nto weight are all explained in some other way. Aristotle distinctly\ndeclares that none of his predecessors had said anything of absolute\nweight and lightness. They had only treated of the relatively light and\nheavy.[959]\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n In Aet. i. 12, where the _placita_ regarding the heavy and light are\n given, no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides\n (fr. 8, 59) speaks of the dark element as \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2. I do not think\n that there is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the\n fragments of the early philosophers.\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, 308 a 9, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd) \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis way of regarding the popular notions of weight and lightness is\nclearly formulated for the first time in Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_.[960] There\nis no such thing in the world, we are told there, as \u201cup\u201d or \u201cdown.\u201d The\nmiddle of the world is not \u201cdown\u201d but \u201cjust in the middle,\u201d and there is\nno reason why any point in the circumference should be said to be\n\u201cabove\u201d or \u201cbelow\u201d another. It is really the tendency of bodies towards\ntheir kin that makes us call a falling body heavy and the place to which\nit falls \u201cbelow.\u201d Here Plato is really giving the view which was taken\nmore or less consciously by his predecessors, and it is not till the\ntime of Aristotle that it is questioned.[961] For reasons which do not\nconcern us here, he definitely identified the circumference of the\nheavens with \u201cup\u201d and the middle of the world with \u201cdown,\u201d and equipped\nthe four elements with natural weight and lightness that they might\nperform their rectilinear motions between them. As, however, Aristotle\nbelieved there was only one world, and as he did not ascribe weight to\nthe heavens proper, the effect of this reactionary theory upon his\ncosmical system was not great; it was only when Epicurus tried to\ncombine it with the infinite void that its true character emerged. It\nseems to me that the nightmare of Epicurean atomism can only be\nexplained on the assumption that an Aristotelian doctrine was violently\nadapted to a theory which really excluded it.[962] It is totally unlike\nanything we meet with in earlier days.\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n Plato, _Tim._ 61 c 3 sqq.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n Zeller says (p. 876) that in antiquity no one ever understood by\n weight anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which\n they move downwards; except that in such systems as represent all\n forms of matter as contained in a sphere, \u201cabove\u201d is identified with\n the circumference and \u201cbelow\u201d with the centre. As to that, I can only\n say that no such theory of weight is to be found in the fragments of\n the early philosophers or is anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato\n expressly denies it.\n\nThis brief historical survey suggests at once that it is only in the\nvortex that the atoms acquire weight and lightness,[963] which are,\nafter all, only popular names for facts which can be further analysed.\nWe are told that Leukippos held that one effect of the vortex was that\nlike atoms were brought together with their likes.[964] In this way of\nspeaking we seem to see the influence of Empedokles, though the\n\u201clikeness\u201d is of another kind. It is the finer atoms that are forced to\nthe circumference, while the larger tend to the centre. We may express\nthat by saying that the larger are heavy and the smaller light, and this\nwill amply account for everything Aristotle and Theophrastos say; for\nthere is no passage where the atoms outside the vortex are distinctly\nsaid to be heavy or light.[965]\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n The Aristotelian criticisms which may have affected Epicurus are such\n as we find in _de Caelo_, 275 b 29 sqq. Aristotle there argues that,\n as Leukippos and Demokritos made the \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the atoms one, they were\n bound to give them a single motion. That is just what Epicurus did,\n but Aristotle\u2019s argument implies that Leukippos and Demokritos did\n not. Though he gave the atoms weight, Epicurus could not accept\n Aristotle\u2019s view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance\n of lightness is due to \u1f14\u03ba\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, the squeezing out of the smaller\n atoms by the larger.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this\n distinction. Cf. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13, especially 295 a 32 sqq., where he\n points out that Empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies\n on the earth (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f25 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2), nor for the\n weight of bodies before the vortex arose (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n Diog., _loc. cit._ (p. 390).\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n This seems to be in the main the view of Dyroff, _Demokritstudien_\n (1899), pp. 31 sqq., though I should not say that lightness and weight\n only arose in connexion with the atoms of the _earth_ (p. 35). If we\n substitute \u201cworld\u201d for \u201cearth,\u201d we shall be nearer the truth.\n\nThere is a striking confirmation of the view just given in the atomist\ncosmology quoted above.[966] We are told there that the separation of\nthe larger and smaller atoms was due to the fact that they were \u201cno\nlonger able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their number,\u201d which\nimplies that they had previously been in a state of \u201cequilibrium\u201d or\n\u201cequipoise.\u201d Now the word \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1 has no necessary implication of\nweight in Greek. A \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae is a mere leaning or inclination in a certain\ndirection, which may be caused by weight or anything else. The state of\n\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1 is therefore that in which the tendency in one direction is\nexactly equal to the tendency in any other, and such a state is more\nnaturally described as the absence of weight than as the presence of\nopposite weights neutralising one another. That way of looking at it may\nbe useful from the point of view of later science, but it is not safe to\nattribute it to the thinkers of the fifth century B.C.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n See above, p. 390.\n\nIf we no longer regard the \u201ceternal motion\u201d of the premundane and\nextramundane atoms as due to their weight, there is no reason for\ndescribing it as a fall. None of our authorities do as a matter of fact\nso describe it, nor do they tell us in any way what it was. It is safest\nto say that it is simply a confused motion this way and that.[967] It is\npossible that the comparison of the motion of the atoms of the soul to\nthat of the motes in a sunbeam coming through a window, which Aristotle\nattributes to Demokritos,[968] is really intended as an illustration of\nthe original motion of the atoms still surviving in the soul. The fact\nthat it is also a Pythagorean comparison[969] in no way tells against\nthis; for we have seen that there is a real connexion between the\nPythagorean monads and the atoms. It is also significant that the point\nof the comparison appears to have been the fact that the motes in the\nsunbeam move even when there is no wind, so that it would be a very apt\nillustration indeed of the motion inherent in the atoms apart from the\nsecondary motions produced by impact and collision. That, however, is\nproblematical; it only serves to suggest the sort of motion which it is\nnatural to suppose that Leukippos gave his atoms.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n This view was independently advocated by Brieger (_Die Urbewegung der\n Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Leucipp und Demokrit_, 1884) and\n Liepmann (_Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome_, 1885), both\n of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting that weight\n is an original property of the atoms. On the other hand, Brieger\n denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original\n motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there\n is only a latent weight, a _Pseudoschwere_, which only comes into\n operation in the world. It is surely simpler to say that this weight,\n since it produces no effect, does not yet exist. Zeller rightly argues\n against Brieger and Liepmann that, if the atoms have weight, they must\n fall; but, so far as I can see, nothing he says tells against their\n theory as I have restated it. Gomperz adopts the Brieger-Liepmann\n explanation. See also Lortzing, _Jahresber._, 1903, pp. 136 sqq.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 2. 403 b 28 sqq. (R. P. 200).\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n _Ibid._ \u0391, 2. 404 a 17 (R. P. 86 a).\n\n[Sidenote: The vortex.]\n\n180. But what are we to say of the vortex itself which produces these\neffects? Gomperz observes that they seem to be \u201cthe precise contrary of\nwhat they should have been by the laws of physics\u201d; for, \u201cas every\ncentrifugal machine would show, it is the heaviest substances which are\nhurled to the greatest distance.\u201d[970] Are we to suppose that Leukippos\nwas ignorant of this fact, which was known to Anaxagoras, though Gomperz\nis wrong in supposing there is any reason to believe that Anaximander\ntook account of it?[971] Now we know from Aristotle that all those who\naccounted for the earth being in the centre of the world by means of a\nvortex appealed to the analogy of eddies in wind or water,[972] and\nGomperz supposes that the whole theory was an erroneous generalisation\nof this observation. If we look at the matter more closely, we can see,\nI think, that there is no error at all.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, i. p. 339.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p. 274; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. p. 312;\n and for Anaximander, Chap. I. p. 69, _n._ 132.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n Arist. _de Caelo_, \u0392, 13. 295 a 10, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (sc. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nWe must remember that all the parts of the vortex are in contact, and\nthat it is just this contact (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) by which the motion of the\noutermost parts is communicated to those within them. The larger bodies\nare more able to resist this communicated motion than the smaller, and\nin this way they make their way to the centre where the motion is least,\nand force the smaller bodies out. This resistance is surely just the\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 which is mentioned in the doxography of\nLeukippos,[973] and it is quite in accordance with this that, on the\natomist theory, the nearer a heavenly body is to the centre, the slower\nis its revolution.[974] There is no question of \u201ccentrifugal force\u201d at\nall, and the analogy of eddies in air and water is quite satisfactory.\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.\n\n[Sidenote: The earth and the heavenly bodies.]\n\n181. When we come to details, the reactionary character of the atomist\ncosmology is very manifest. The earth was shaped like a tambourine, and\nfloated on the air.[975] It was inclined towards the south because the\nheat of that region made the air thinner, while the ice and cold of the\nnorth made it denser and more able to support the earth.[976] This\naccounts for the obliquity of the zodiac. Like Anaximander (\u00a7 19),\nLeukippos held that the sun was further away than the stars, though he\nalso held that these were further away than the moon.[977] This\ncertainly suggests that he made no clear distinction between the planets\nand the fixed stars. He does, however, appear to have known the theory\nof eclipses as given by Anaxagoras.[978] Such other pieces of\ninformation as have come down to us are mainly of interest as showing\nthat, in some important respects, the doctrine of Leukippos was not the\nsame as that taught afterwards by Demokritos.[979]\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 83, _n._ 168.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n Aet. iii. 12, 1, \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c8\u1fe6\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n Diog. ix. 33, \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, <\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72> \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n From Diog., _loc. cit._ (_supra_, p. 391), it appears that he dealt\n with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with\n solar eclipses. It seems to have been this which led him to make the\n circle of the moon smaller than that of the stars.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n Diels pointed out that Leukippos\u2019s explanation of thunder (\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of\n Demokritos (\u0392\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, _ib._ 11). The explanation\n given by Leukippos is derived from that of Anaximander, while\n Demokritos is influenced by Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35 _Philol.-Vers._\n 97, 7.\n\n[Sidenote: Perception.]\n\n182. Aetios expressly attributes to Leukippos the doctrine that the\nobjects of sense-perception exist \u201cby law\u201d and not by nature.[980] This\nmust come from Theophrastos; for, as we have seen, all later writers\nquote Demokritos only. A further proof of the correctness of the\nstatement is that we also find it attributed to Diogenes of Apollonia,\nwho, as Theophrastos tells us, derived some of his views from Leukippos.\nThere is nothing surprising in this. Parmenides had already declared the\nsenses to be deceitful, and said that colour and the like were only\n\u201cnames,\u201d[981] and Empedokles had also spoken of coming into being and\npassing away as only \u201cnames.\u201d[982] It is not likely that Leukippos went\nmuch further than this. It would probably be wrong to credit him with\nDemokritos\u2019s clear distinction between genuine and \u201cbastard\u201d knowledge,\nor that between what are now called the primary and secondary qualities\nof matter.[983] These distinctions imply a conscious epistemological\ntheory, and all we are entitled to say is that the germs of this were\nalready to be found in the writings of Leukippos and his predecessors.\nOf course, these do not make Leukippos a sceptic any more than\nEmpedokles or Anaxagoras, whose remark on this subject (fr. 21_a_)\nDemokritos is said to have quoted with approval.[984]\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n Aet. iv. 9, 8, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3. See Zeller, _Arch._ v. p. 444.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n Chap. IV. p. 200, _n._ 443. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gomperz\n (p. 321) from Galilei, to the effect that tastes, smells, and colours\n _non sieno altro che puri nomi_ should, therefore, have been cited to\n illustrate Parmenides rather than Demokritos.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n See p. 240, fr. 8.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n For these see Sext. _Math._ vii. 135 (R. P. 204).\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n Sext. vii. 140, \u201c\u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1,\u201d \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6.\n\nThere appear to be sufficient grounds for ascribing the theory of\nperception by means of _simulacra_ or \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1, which played such a part\nin the systems of Demokritos and Epicurus, to Leukippos.[985] It is a\nvery natural development of the Empedoklean theory of \u201ceffluences\u201d (\u00a7\n118). It hardly seems likely, however, that he went into great detail on\nthe subject, and it is safer to credit Demokritos with the elaboration\nof the theory.\n\n[Sidenote: Importance of Leukippos.]\n\n183. We have seen incidentally that there is a wide divergence of\nopinion among recent writers as to the place of Atomism in Greek\nthought. The question at issue is really whether Leukippos reached his\ntheory on what are called \u201cmetaphysical grounds,\u201d that is, from a\nconsideration of the Eleatic theory of reality, or whether, on the\ncontrary, it was a pure development of Ionian science. The foregoing\nexposition will suggest the true answer. So far as his general theory of\nthe physical constitution of the world is concerned, it has been shown,\nI think, that it was derived entirely from Eleatic and Pythagorean\nsources, while the detailed cosmology was in the main a more or less\nsuccessful attempt to make the older Ionian beliefs fit into this new\nphysical theory. In any case, his greatness consisted in his having been\nthe first to see how body must be regarded if we take it to be ultimate\nreality. The old Milesian theory had found its most adequate expression\nin the system of Anaximenes (\u00a7 31), but of course rarefaction and\ncondensation cannot be clearly represented except on the hypothesis of\nmolecules or atoms coming closer together or going further apart in\nspace. Parmenides had seen that very clearly (fr.2), and it was the\nEleatic criticism which forced Leukippos to formulate his system as he\ndid. Even Anaxagoras took account of Zeno\u2019s arguments about divisibility\n(\u00a7 128), but his system of qualitatively different \u201cseeds\u201d was lacking\nin that simplicity which has always been the chief attraction of\natomism.\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n See Zeller, \u201cZu Leukippus\u201d (_Arch._ xv. p. 138). The doctrine is\n attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, 1 (_Dox._ p. 403); and Alexander,\n _de Sensu_, pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions his name in connexion\n with it. This must come from Theophrastos.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n ECLECTICISM AND REACTION\n\n\n[Sidenote: The \u201cbankruptcy of science.\u201d]\n\n184. With Leukippos our story should properly come to an end; for he had\nreally answered the question first asked by Thales. We have seen,\nhowever, that, though his theory of matter was of a most original and\ndaring kind, he was not equally successful in his attempt to construct a\ncosmology, and this seems to have stood in the way of the recognition of\nthe atomic theory for what it really was. We have noted the growing\ninfluence of medicine, and the consequent substitution of an interest in\ndetailed investigation for the larger cosmological views of an earlier\ntime, and there are several treatises in the Hippokratean _corpus_ which\ngive us a clear idea of the interest which now prevailed.[986] Leukippos\nhad shown that \u201cthe doctrine of Melissos,\u201d[987] which seemed to make all\nscience impossible, was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from\nthe Eleatic premisses, and he had gone on to give a cosmology which was\nsubstantially of the old Ionic type. The result at first was simply that\nall the old schools revived and had a short period of renewed activity,\nwhile at the same time some new schools arose which sought to\naccommodate the older views to those of Leukippos, or to make them more\navailable for scientific purposes by combining them in an eclectic\nfashion. None of these attempts had any lasting importance or influence,\nand what we have to consider in this chapter is really one of the\nperiodical \u201cbankruptcies of science\u201d which mark the close of one chapter\nin its history and announce the beginning of a new one.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n Cf. what is said in Chap. IV. p. 167, _n._ 383, of the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n The \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 are invaluable\n documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories\n at this date.\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n Cf. Chap. VIII. p. 379, _n._ 919.\n\n\n I. HIPPON OF SAMOS\n\n185. Hippon of Samos or Kroton belonged to the Italian school of\nmedicine.[988] We know very little indeed of him except that he was a\ncontemporary of Perikles. From a scholiast on Aristophanes[989] we learn\nthat Kratinos satirised him in his _Panoptai_; and Aristotle mentions\nhim in the enumeration of early philosophers given in the First Book of\nthe _Metaphysics_,[990] though only to say that the inferiority of his\nintellect deprives him of all claim to be reckoned among them.\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R. P. 219 a). In Menon\u2019s _Iatrika_\n he is called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion or\n Metapontion. This probably means that he was affiliated to the\n Pythagorean medical school. The evidence of Aristoxenos is, in that\n case, all the more valuable. Hippon is mentioned along with Melissos\n in Iamblichos\u2019s Catalogue of Pythagoreans (_V. Pyth._ 267).\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n Schol. on _Clouds_, 94 sqq.\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0391, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a).\n\n[Sidenote: Moisture.]\n\nWith regard to his views, the most precise statement is that of\nAlexander, who doubtless follows Theophrastos. It is to the effect that\nhe held the primary substance to be Moisture, without deciding whether\nit was Water or Air.[991] We have the authority of Aristotle[992] and\nTheophrastos, represented by Hippolytos,[993] for saying that this\ntheory was supported by physiological arguments of the kind common at\nthe time. His other views belong to the history of Medicine.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n Alexander in _Met._ p. 26, 21 (R. P. 219).\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n Arist. _de An._ \u0391, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220).\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n Hipp. _Ref._ i. 16 (R. P. 221).\n\nTill quite recently no fragment of Hippon was known to exist, but a\nsingle one has now been recovered from the Geneva Scholia on Homer.[994]\nIt is directed against the old assumption that the \u201cwaters under the\nearth\u201d are an independent source of moisture, and runs thus:\n\n The waters we drink are all from the sea; for if wells were deeper\n than the sea, then it would not, doubtless, be from the sea that we\n drink, for then the water would not be from the sea, but from some\n other source. But as it is, the sea is deeper than the waters, so all\n the waters that are above the sea come from it. R. P. 219 b.\n\nWe observe here the universal assumption that water tends to rise from\nthe earth, not to sink into it.\n\nAlong with Hippon, Idaios of Himera[995] may just be mentioned. We\nreally know nothing of him except that he held air to be the primary\nsubstance. The fact that he was of Sicilian origin is, however,\nsuggestive.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n _Schol. Genav._ p. 197, 19. Cf. Diels in _Arch._ iv. p. 653. The\n extract comes from the \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of Krates of Mallos.\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n Sext. _adv. Math._ ix. 360.\n\n\n II. DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\n186. After discussing the three great representatives of the Milesian\nschool, Theophrastos went on to say:\n\n And Diogenes of Apollonia, too, who was almost the latest of those who\n gave themselves up to these studies, wrote most of his work in an\n eclectic fashion, agreeing in some points with Anaxagoras and in\n others with Leukippos. He, too, says that the primary substance of the\n universe is Air infinite and eternal, from which by condensation,\n rarefaction, and change of state, the form of everything else arises.\n R. P. 206 a.[996]\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n On this passage see Diels, \u201cLeukippos und Diogenes von Apollonia\u201d\n (_Rhein. Mus._ xlii. pp. 1 sqq.). Natorp\u2019s view that the words are\n merely those of Simplicius (_ib._ xli. pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be\n maintained.\n\nThis passage shows that the Apolloniate was somewhat later in date than\nthe statement in Laertios Diogenes[997] that he was contemporary with\nAnaxagoras would lead us to suppose, and the fact that he is satirised\nin the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes points in the same direction.[998] Of\nhis life we know next to nothing. He was the son of Apollothemis, and\ncame from Apollonia in Crete.[999] The Ionic dialect in which he wrote\nis no objection to this; it was the regular dialect for cosmological\nworks.[1000]\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206). The statement of Antisthenes, the writer of\n _Successions_, that he had \u201cheard\u201d Anaximenes is due to the usual\n confusion. He was doubtless, like Anaxagoras, \u201can associate of the\n philosophy of Anaximenes.\u201d Cf. Chap. VI. \u00a7 122.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n Aristoph. _Clouds_, 227 sqq., where Sokrates speaks of \u201cmixing his\n subtle thought with the kindred air,\u201d and especially the words \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6\n \u03b2\u03af\u1fb3 | \u1f15\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. For the \u1f31\u03ba\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2, see\n Beare, p. 259. Cf. also Eur. _Tro._ 884, \u1f66 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206).\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n Cf. Chap. VII. pp. 327 sqq.\n\nThe fact that Diogenes was parodied in the _Clouds_ suggests that he had\nfound his way to Athens; and we have the excellent authority of\nDemetrios Phalereus[1001] for saying that the Athenians treated him in\nthe usual way. He excited so great dislike as nearly to imperil his\nlife.\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n Diog. ix. 57, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Diels follows\n Volkmann in holding that this is a note on Anaxagoras which has been\n inserted in the wrong place. I do not think this is necessary, though\n it is certainly possible.\n\n[Sidenote: Writings.]\n\n187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several works, though he\nallows that only one survived till his own day, namely, the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.[1002] This statement is based upon references in the surviving\nwork itself, and is not to be lightly rejected. In particular, it is\nvery credible that he wrote a tract _Against the Sophists_, that is to\nsay, the pluralist cosmologists of the day.[1003] That he wrote a\n_Meteorology_ and a book called _The Nature of Man_ is also quite\nprobable. This would be a physiological or medical treatise, and perhaps\nthe famous fragment about the veins comes from it.[1004]\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 151, 24 (R. P. 207 a).\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n Simplicius says \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, but he adds that Diogenes called\n them \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, which is the older word. This is, so far, in favour of\n the genuineness of the work.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n Diels gives this as fr. 6 (_Vors._ p. 350). I have omitted it, as it\n really belongs to the history of Medicine.\n\n[Sidenote: The Fragments.]\n\n188. The work of Diogenes seems to have been preserved in the Academy;\npractically all the fairly extensive fragments which we still have are\nderived from Simplicius. I give them as they are arranged by Diels:\u2014\n\n (1) In beginning any discourse, it seems to me that one should make\n one\u2019s starting-point something indisputable, and one\u2019s expression\n simple and dignified. R. P. 207.\n\n (2) My view is, to sum it all up, that all things are differentiations\n of the same thing, and are the same thing. And this is obvious; for,\n if the things which are now in this world\u2014earth, and water, and air\n and fire, and the other things which we see existing in this world,\u2014if\n any one of these things, I say, were different from any other,\n different, that is, by having a substance peculiar to itself; and if\n it were not the same thing that is often changed and differentiated,\n then things could not in any way mix with one another, nor could they\n do one another good or harm. Neither could a plant grow out of the\n earth, nor any animal nor anything else come into being unless things\n were composed in such a way as to be the same. But all these things\n arise from the same thing; they are differentiated and take different\n forms at different times, and return again to the same thing. R. P.\n 208.\n\n (3) For it would not be possible for it to be divided as it is without\n intelligence, so as to keep the measures of all things, of winter and\n summer, of day and night, of rains and winds and fair weather. And any\n one who cares to reflect will find that everything else is disposed in\n the best possible manner. R. P. 210.\n\n (4) And, further, there are still the following great proofs. Men and\n all other animals live upon air by breathing it, and this is their\n soul and their intelligence, as will be clearly shown in this work;\n while, when this is taken away, they die, and their intelligence\n fails. R. P. 210.\n\n (5) And my view is, that that which has intelligence is what men call\n air, and that all things have their course steered by it, and that it\n has power over all things. For this very thing I hold to be a\n god,[1005] and to reach everywhere, and to dispose everything, and to\n be in everything; and there is not anything which does not partake in\n it. Yet no single thing partakes in it just in the same way as\n another; but there are many modes both of air and of intelligence. For\n it undergoes many transformations, warmer and colder, drier and\n moister, more stable and in swifter motion, and it has many other\n differentiations in it, and an infinite number of colours and savours.\n And the soul of all living things is the same, namely, air warmer than\n that outside us and in which we are, but much colder than that near\n the sun. And this warmth is not alike in any two kinds of living\n creatures, nor, for the matter of that, in any two men; but it does\n not differ much, only so far as is compatible with their being alike.\n At the same time, it is not possible for any of the things which are\n differentiated to be exactly like one another till they all once more\n become the same.\n\n (6) Since, then, differentiation is multiform, living creatures are\n multiform and many, and they are like one another neither in\n appearance nor in intelligence, because of the multitude of\n differentiations. At the same time, they all live, and see, and hear\n by the same thing, and they all have their intelligence from the same\n source. R. P. 211.\n\n (7) And this itself is an eternal and undying body, but of those\n things[1006] some come into being and some pass away.\n\n (8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is both great,\n and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of great knowledge. R. P.\n 209.\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n The MSS. of Simplicius have \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; but I adopt Usener\u2019s\n certain correction. It is confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos,\n that the air within us is \u201ca small portion of the god\u201d (_de Sens._\n 42); and by Philodemos (_Dox._ p. 536), where we read that Diogenes\n praises Homer, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 (cf. Cic. _Nat. D._ i. 12, 29).\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n The MSS. of Simplicius have \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03ad, but surely the Aldine \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad is\n right.\n\nThat the chief interest of Diogenes was a physiological one, is clear\nfrom his elaborate account of the veins, preserved by Aristotle.[1007]\nIt is noticeable, too, that one of his arguments for the underlying\nunity of all substances is that without this it would be impossible to\nunderstand how one thing could do good or harm to another (fr. 2). In\nfact, the writing of Diogenes is essentially of the same character as a\ngood deal of the pseudo-Hippokratean literature, and there is much to be\nsaid for the view that the writers of these curious tracts made use of\nhim very much as they did of Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.[1008]\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n Arist. _Hist. An._ \u0393, 2. 511 b 30.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n See Weygoldt, \u201cZu Diogenes von Apollonia\u201d (_Arch._ i. pp. 161 sqq.).\n Hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of\n those writers. His great achievement was the separation of medicine\n from philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i.\n pr.). This is why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which\n the \u201csophists\u201d are denounced and others in which their writings are\n pillaged. To the latter class belong the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd; to the former, especially the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmology.]\n\n189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as the primary substance;\nbut we see from his arguments that he lived at a time when other views\nhad become prevalent. He speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean elements\n(fr. 2), and he is careful to attribute to Air the attributes of Nous as\ntaught by Anaxagoras (fr. 4). The doxographical tradition as to his\ncosmological views is fairly preserved:\u2014\n\n Diogenes of Apollonia makes air the element, and holds that all things\n are in motion, and that there are innumerable worlds. And he describes\n the origin of the world thus. When the All moves and becomes rare in\n one place and dense in another, where the dense met together it formed\n a mass, and then the other things arose in the same way, the lightest\n parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun. [Plut.]\n _Strom._ fr. 12 (R. P. 215).\n\n Nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what is not. The\n earth is round, poised in the middle, having received its shape\n through the revolution proceeding from the warm and its solidification\n from the cold. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).\n\n The heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone. He thinks they are the\n breathing-holes of the world, and that they are red-hot. Aet. ii. 13,\n 5 = Stob. i. 508 (R. P. 215).\n\n The sun was like pumice-stone, and into it the rays from the aether\n fix themselves. Aet. ii. 20, 10. The moon was a pumice-like\n conflagration. _Ib._ ii. 25, 10.\n\n Along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible stones, which\n for that very reason are nameless; but they often fall and are\n extinguished on the earth like the stone star which fell down flaming\n at Aigospotamos.[1009] _Ib._ ii. 13, 9.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n See Chap. VI. p. 292, _n._ 657.\n\nWe have here nothing more than the old Ionian doctrine with a few\nadditions from more recent sources. Rarefaction and condensation still\nhold their place in the explanation of the opposites, warm and cold, dry\nand moist, stable and mobile (fr. 5). The differentiations into\nopposites which Air may undergo are, as Anaxagoras had taught, infinite\nin number; but all may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and\ndense. We may gather, too, from Censorinus[1010] that Diogenes did not,\nlike Anaximenes, speak of earth and water as arising from Air by\ncondensation, but rather of blood, flesh, and bones. In this he followed\nAnaxagoras (\u00a7 130), as it was natural that he should. That portion of\nAir, on the other hand, which was rarefied became fiery, and produced\nthe sun and heavenly bodies. The circular motion of the world is due to\nthe intelligence of the Air, as is also the division of all things into\ndifferent forms of body and the observance of the \u201cmeasures\u201d by these\nforms.[1011]\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n Censorinus, _de die natali_, 6, 1 (_Dox._ p. 190).\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n On the \u201cmeasures\u201d see Chap. III. \u00a7 72.\n\nLike Anaximander (\u00a7 20), Diogenes regarded the sea as the remainder of\nthe original moist state, which had been partially evaporated by the\nsun, so as to separate out the remaining earth.[1012] The earth itself\nis round, that is to say, it is a disc: for the language of the\ndoxographers does not point to the spherical form.[1013] Its\nsolidification by the cold is due to the fact that cold is a form of\ncondensation.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n Theophr. _ap._ Alex. in _Meteor._ p. 67, 1 (_Dox._ p. 494).\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).\n\nDiogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists that the heavenly\nbodies were made of air or fire, nor yet with Anaxagoras, that they were\nstones. They were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which we may trace\nthe influence of Leukippos. They were earthy, indeed, but not solid, and\nthe celestial fire permeated their pores. And this explains why we do\nnot see the dark bodies which, in common with Anaxagoras, he held to\nrevolve along with the stars. They really are solid stones, and\ntherefore cannot be penetrated by the fire. It was one of these that\nfell into the Aigospotamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed that the\ninclination of the earth happened subsequently to the rise of\nanimals.[1014]\n\nWe are prepared to find that Diogenes held the doctrine of innumerable\nworlds; for it was the old Milesian belief, and had just been revived\nby Anaxagoras and Leukippos. He is mentioned with the rest in the\n_Placita_; and if Simplicius classes him and Anaximenes with\nHerakleitos as holding the Stoic doctrine of successive formations and\ndestructions of a single world, he has probably been misled by the\n\u201caccommodators.\u201d[1015]\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n Aet. ii. 8, 1 (R. P. 215).\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 83, _n._ 123.\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and plants.]\n\n190. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubtless under the\ninfluence of heat. Their souls, of course, were air, and their\ndifferences were due to the various degrees in which it was rarefied or\ncondensed (fr. 5). No special seat, such as the heart or the brain, was\nassigned to the soul; it was simply the warm air circulating with the\nblood in the veins.\n\nThe views of Diogenes as to generation, respiration, and the blood,\nbelong to the history of Medicine;[1016] his theory of sensation too, as\nit is described by Theophrastos,[1017] need only be mentioned in\npassing. Briefly stated, it amounts to this, that all sensation is due\nto the action of air upon the brain and other organs, while pleasure is\naeration of the blood. But the details of the theory can only be studied\nproperly in connexion with the Hippokratean writings; for Diogenes does\nnot really represent the old cosmological tradition, but a fresh\ndevelopment of reactionary philosophical views combined with an entirely\nnew enthusiasm for detailed investigation and accumulation of facts.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n See Censorinus, quoted in _Dox._ p. 191.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n Theophr. _de Sens._ 39 sqq. (R. P. 213, 214). For a full account, see\n Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. As Prof. Beare remarks,\n Diogenes \u201cis one of the most interesting of the pre-Platonic\n psychologists\u201d (p. 258).\n\n\n III. ARCHELAOS OF ATHENS\n\n[Sidenote: Anaxagoreans.]\n\n191. The last of the early cosmologists was Archelaos of Athens, who was\na disciple of Anaxagoras.[1018] He is also said to have been the teacher\nof Sokrates, a statement by no means so improbable as is sometimes\nsupposed.[1019] There is no reason to doubt the tradition that Archelaos\nsucceeded Anaxagoras in the school at Lampsakos.[1020] We certainly hear\nof Anaxagoreans,[1021] though their fame was soon obscured by the rise\nof the Sophists, as we call them.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n Diog. ii. 16 (R. P. 216).\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n See Chiapelli in _Arch._ iv. pp. 369 sqq.\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n Euseb. _P. E._ p. 504, c 3, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03ac\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 are mentioned by Plato (_Crat._ 409 b 6), and often by\n the Aristotelian commentators.\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmology.]\n\n192. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos[1022] writes as follows:\u2014\n\n Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of Apollodoros. He\n spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to Anaxagoras, and of\n the first principles likewise. He held, however, that there was a\n certain mixture immanent even in Nous. And he held that there were two\n efficient causes which were separated off from one another, namely,\n the warm and the cold. The former was in motion, the latter at rest.\n When the water was liquefied it flowed to the centre, and there being\n burnt up it turned to earth and air, the latter of which was borne\n upwards, while the former took up its position below. These, then, are\n the reasons why the earth is at rest, and why it came into being. It\n lies in the centre, being practically no appreciable part of the\n universe. (But the air rules over all things),[1023] being produced by\n the burning of the fire, and from its original combustion comes the\n substance of the heavenly bodies. Of these the sun is the largest, and\n the moon second; the rest are of various sizes. He says that the\n heavens were inclined, and that then the sun made light upon the\n earth, made the air transparent, and the earth dry; for it was\n originally a pond, being high at the circumference and hollow in the\n centre. He adduces as a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not\n rise and set at the same time for all peoples, as it ought to do if\n the earth were level. As to animals, he says that when the earth was\n first being warmed in the lower part where the warm and the cold were\n mingled together, many living creatures appeared, and especially men,\n all having the same manner of life, and deriving their sustenance from\n the slime; they did not live long, and later on generation from one\n another began. And men were distinguished from the rest, and set up\n leaders, and laws, and arts, and cities, and so forth. And he says\n that Nous is implanted in all animals alike; for each of the animals,\n as well as man, makes use of Nous, but some quicker and some slower.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n Hipp. _Ref._ i. 9 (R. P. 218).\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n Inserting \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, as suggested by Roeper.\n\nIt is not necessary to say much with regard to this theory, which in\nmany respects contrasts unfavourably with its predecessors. It is clear\nthat, just as Diogenes had tried to introduce certain Anaxagorean ideas\ninto the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to bring\nAnaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views by supplementing it with\nthe opposition of warm and cold, rare and dense, and by stripping Nous\nof that simplicity which had marked it off from the other \u201cthings\u201d in\nhis master\u2019s system. It was probably for this reason, too, that Nous was\nno longer regarded as the maker of the world.[1024] Leukippos had made\nsuch a force unnecessary. It may be added that this twofold relation of\nArchelaos to his predecessors makes it very credible that, as Aetios\ntells us,[1025] he believed in innumerable worlds; both Anaxagoras and\nthe older Ionians upheld that doctrine.\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n Aet. i. 7, 4 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 217 a).\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion.]\n\n193. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of Diogenes, has all the\ncharacteristics of the age to which it belonged\u2014an age of reaction,\neclecticism, and investigation of detail.[1026] Hippon of Samos and\nIdaios of Himera represent nothing more than the feeling that philosophy\nhad run into a blind alley, from which it could only escape by trying\nback. The Herakleiteans at Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped up as they were\nin their own system, did little but exaggerate its paradoxes and develop\nits more fanciful side.[1027] It was not enough for Kratylos to say with\nHerakleitos (fr. 84) that you cannot step twice into the same river; you\ncould not do so even once.[1028] But in nothing was the total bankruptcy\nof the early cosmology so clearly shown as in the work of Gorgias,\nentitled _Substance or the Non-existent_, in which an absolute nihilism\nwas set forth and based upon the Eleatic dialectic.[1029] The fact is\nthat philosophy, so long as it clung to its old presuppositions, had\nnothing more to say; for the answer of Leukippos to the question of\nThales was really final. Fresh life must be given to the speculative\nimpulse by the raising of new problems, those of knowledge and conduct,\nbefore any further progress was possible; and this was done by the\n\u201cSophists\u201d and Sokrates. Then, in the hands of Demokritos and Plato,\nphilosophy took a new form, and started on a fresh course.\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n Aet. ii. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n Windelband, \u00a7 25. The period is well described by Fredrich,\n _Hippokratische Untersuchungen_, pp. 130 sqq. It can only be treated\n fully in connexion with the Sophists.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, _Tht._ 179 e.\n The new interest in language, which the study of rhetoric had called\n into life, took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary\n etymologising, such as is satirised in Plato\u2019s _Cratylus_.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n Arist. _Met._ \u0393, 5. 1010 a 12. He refused even to speak, we are told,\n and only moved his finger.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n Sext. _adv. Math._ vii. 65 (R. P. 235); _M.X.G._ 979 a 13 (R. P. 236).\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX\n THE SOURCES\n\n\n _A._\u2014PHILOSOPHERS\n\n[Sidenote: Plato.]\n\n1. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell upon the\nhistory of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical and\nepistemological inquiry; but when he does, his guidance is simply\ninvaluable. His artistic gift and his power of entering into the\nthoughts of other men enabled him to describe the views of early\nphilosophers in a thoroughly objective manner, and he never, except in a\nplayful and ironical way, sought to read unthought-of meanings into the\nwords of his predecessors. Of special value for our purpose are his\ncontrast between Empedokles and Herakleitos (_Soph._ 242 d), and his\naccount of the relation between Zeno and Parmenides (_Parm._ 128 a).\n\nSee Zeller, \u201cPlato\u2019s Mittheilungen \u00fcber fr\u00fchere und gleichzeitige\nPhilosophen\u201d (_Arch._ v. pp. 165 sqq.); and Index, _s.v._ Plato.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Aristotle.]\n\n2. As a rule, Aristotle\u2019s statements about early philosophers are less\nhistorical than Plato\u2019s. Not that he failed to understand the facts, but\nhe nearly always discusses them from the point of view of his own\nsystem. He is convinced that his own philosophy accomplishes what all\nprevious philosophers had aimed at, and their systems are therefore\nregarded as \u201clisping\u201d attempts to formulate it (_Met._ \u0391, 10. 993 a 15).\nIt is also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in a much\nmore sympathetic way than others. He is distinctly unfair to the\nEleatics, for instance.\n\nIt is often forgotten that Aristotle derived much of his information\nfrom Plato, and we must specially observe that he more than once takes\nPlato\u2019s irony too literally.\n\nSee Emminger, _Die Vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den Berichten des\nAristoteles_, 1878. Index, _s.v._ Aristotle.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Sidenote: Stoics.]\n\n3. The Stoics, and especially Chrysippos, paid great attention to early\nphilosophy, but their way of regarding it was simply an exaggeration of\nAristotle\u2019s. They did not content themselves with criticising their\npredecessors from their own point of view; they seem really to have\nbelieved that the early poets and thinkers held views hardly\ndistinguishable from theirs. The word \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, which Cicero renders\nby _accommodare_, was used by Philodemos to denote this method of\ninterpretation,[1030] which has had serious results upon our tradition,\nespecially in the case of Herakleitos (p. 157).\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n Cf. Cic. _De nat. D._ i. 15, 41: \u201cEt haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo\n libro de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi\n Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis\n immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati\n quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.\u201d Cf. Philod. _de piet. fr._ c.\n 13, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Skeptics.]\n\n4. The same remarks apply _mutatis mutandis_ to the Skeptics. The\ninterest of such a writer as Sextus Empiricus in early philosophy is to\nshow that skepticism went back to an early date\u2014as far as Xenophanes, in\nfact. But what he tells us is often of value; for he frequently quotes\nearly views as to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Neoplatonists.]\n\n5. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators on\nAristotle in so far as they are independent of the Theophrastean\ntradition. Their chief characteristic is what Simplicius calls\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, that is, a liberal spirit of interpretation, which makes\nall early philosophers agree with one another in upholding the doctrine\nof a Sensible and an Intelligible World. It is, however, to Simplicius\nmore than any one else that we owe the preservation of the fragments. He\nhad, of course, the library of the Academy at his disposal.\n\n\n _B._\u2014DOXOGRAPHERS\n\n[Sidenote: The _Doxographi graeci_.]\n\n6. The _Doxographi graeci_ of Professor Hermann Diels (1879) threw an\nentirely new light upon the filiation of the later sources; and we can\nonly estimate justly the value of statements derived from these if we\nbear constantly in mind the results of his investigation. Here it will\nonly be possible to give an outline which may help the reader to find\nhis way in the _Doxographi graeci_ itself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Sidenote: The \u201cOpinions\u201d of Theophrastos]\n\n7. By the term _doxographers_ we understand all those writers who relate\nthe opinions of the Greek philosophers, and who derive their material,\ndirectly or indirectly, from the great work of Theophrastos, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b9\u03b7\u02b9 (Diog. v. 46). Of this work, one considerable chapter, that\nentitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, has been preserved (_Dox._ pp. 499-527). And\nUsener, following Brandis, further showed that there were important\nfragments of it contained in the commentary of Simplicius (sixth cent.\nA.D.) on the First Book of Aristotle\u2019s \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Usener,\n_Analecta Theophrastea_, pp. 25 sqq.). These extracts Simplicius seems\nto have borrowed in turn from Alexander of Aphrodisias (_c._ 200 A.D.);\ncf. _Dox._ p. 112 sqq. We thus possess a very considerable portion of\nthe First Book, which dealt with the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af as well as practically the\nwhole of the last Book.\n\nFrom these remains it clearly appears that the method of Theophrastos\nwas to discuss in separate books the leading topics which had engaged\nthe attention of philosophers from Thales to Plato. The chronological\norder was not observed; the philosophers were grouped according to the\naffinity of their doctrine, the differences between those who appeared\nto agree most closely being carefully noted. The First Book, however,\nwas in some degree exceptional; for in it the order was that of the\nsuccessive schools, and short historical and chronological notices were\ninserted.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Sidenote: Doxographers.]\n\n8. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the epitomators and\ncompilers of handbooks, who flourished more and more as the Greek genius\ndeclined. These either followed Theophrastos in arranging the\nsubject-matter under heads, or else they broke up his work, and\nrearranged his statements under the names of the various philosophers to\nwhom they applied. This latter class form the natural transition between\nthe doxographers proper and the biographers, so I have ventured to\ndistinguish them by the name of _biographical doxographers_.\n\n I. DOXOGRAPHERS PROPER\n\n[Sidenote: The _Placita_ and Stobaios.]\n\n9. These are now represented by two works, viz. the _Placita\nPhilosophorum_, included among the writings ascribed to Plutarch, and\nthe _Eclogae Physicae_ of John Stobaios (_c._ 470 A.D.). The latter\noriginally formed one work with the _Florilegium_ of the same author,\nand includes a transcript of some epitome substantially identical with\nthe pseudo-Plutarchean _Placita_. It is, however, demonstrable that\nneither the _Placita_ nor the doxography of the _Eclogae_ is the\noriginal of the other. The latter is usually the fuller of the two, and\nyet the former must be earlier; for it was used by Athenagoras for his\ndefence of the Christians in 177 A.D. (_Dox._ p. 4). It was also the\nsource of the notices in Eusebios and Cyril, and of the _History of\nPhilosophy_ ascribed to Galen. From these writers many important\ncorrections of the text have been derived (_Dox._ pp. 5 sqq.).\n\nAnother writer who made use of the _Placita_ is Achilles (_not_ Achilles\nTatius). Extracts from his \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae to the _Phaenomena_ of Aratos are\nincluded in the _Uranologion_ of Petavius, pp. 121-164. His date is\nuncertain, but probably he belongs to the third century A.D. (_Dox._ p.\n18).\n\n\n[Sidenote: Aetios.]\n\n10. What, then, was the common source of the _Placita_ and the\n_Eclogae_? Diels has shown that Theodoret (_c._ 445 A.D.) had access to\nit; for in some cases he gives a fuller form of statements made in these\ntwo works. Not only so, but he also names that source; for he refers us\n(_Gr. aff. cur._ iv. 31) to \u1f08\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd. Diels\nhas accordingly printed the _Placita_ in parallel columns with the\nrelevant parts of the _Eclogae_, under the title of _Aetii Placita_. The\nquotations from \u201cPlutarch\u201d by later writers, and the extracts of\nTheodoret from Aetios, are also given at the foot of each page.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The _Vetusta Placita_.]\n\n11. Diels has shown further, however, that Aetios did not draw directly\nfrom Theophrastos, but from an intermediate epitome which he calls the\n_Vetusta Placita_, traces of which may be found in Cicero (_infra_, \u00a7\n12), and in Censorinus (_De die natali_), who follows Varro. The\n_Vetusta Placita_ were composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels\nnow calls them the Poseidonian \u1f08\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (_\u00dcber das phys. System des\nStraton_, p. 2). There are also traces of them in the \u201cHomeric\nAllegorists.\u201d\n\nIt is quite possible, by discounting the somewhat unintelligent\nadditions which Aetios made from Epicurean and other sources, to form a\npretty accurate table of the contents of the _Vetusta Placita_ (_Dox._\npp. 181 sqq.), and this gives us a fair idea of the arrangement of the\noriginal work by Theophrastos.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Cicero.]\n\n12. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy goes,\nCicero must be classed with the doxographers, and not with the\nphilosophers; for he gives us nothing but extracts at second or third\nhand from the work of Theophrastos. Two passages in his writings fall to\nbe considered under this head, namely, \u201cLucullus\u201d (_Acad._ ii.), 118,\nand _De natura Deorum_, i. 25-41.\n\n(_a_) _Doxography of the \u201cLucullus.\u201d_\u2014This contains a meagre and\ninaccurately-rendered summary of the various opinions held by\nphilosophers with regard to the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae (_Dox._ pp. 119 sqq.), and would be\nquite useless if it did not in one case enable us to verify the exact\nwords of Theophrastos (Chap. I. p. 52, _n._ 2). The doxography has come\nthrough the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in the\nheadship of the Academy (129 B.C.).\n\n(_b_) _Doxography of the \u201cDe natura Deorum.\u201d_\u2014A fresh light was thrown\nupon this important passage by the discovery at Herculaneum of a roll\ncontaining fragments of an Epicurean treatise, so like it as to be at\nonce regarded as its original. This treatise was at first ascribed to\nPhaidros, on the ground of the reference in _Epp. ad Att._ xiii. 39. 2;\nbut the real title, \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, was afterwards restored\n(_Dox._ p. 530). Diels, however, has shown (_Dox._ pp. 122 sqq.) that\nthere is much to be said for the view that Cicero did not copy\nPhilodemos, but that both drew from a common source (no doubt Phaidros,\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd) which itself went back to a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos.\nThe passage of Cicero and the relevant fragments of Philodemos are\nedited in parallel columns by Diels (_Dox._ pp. 531 sqq.).\n\n II. BIOGRAPHICAL DOXOGRAPHERS\n\n[Sidenote: Hippolytos.]\n\n13. Of the \u201cbiographical doxographies,\u201d the most important is Book I. of\nthe _Refutation of all Heresies_ by Hippolytos. This had long been known\nas the _Philosophoumena_ of Origen; but the discovery of the remaining\nbooks, which were first published at Oxford in 1854, showed finally that\nit could not belong to him. It is drawn mainly from some good epitome of\nTheophrastos, in which the matter was already rearranged under the names\nof the various philosophers. We must note, however, that the sections\ndealing with Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles come from\nan inferior source, some merely biographical compendium full of\napocryphal anecdotes and doubtful statements.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The _Stromateis_.]\n\n14. The fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean _Stromateis_, quoted by\nEusebios in his _Praeparatio Evangelica_, come from a source similar to\nthat of the best portions of the _Philosophoumena_. So far as we can\njudge, they differ chiefly in two points. In the first place, they are\nmostly taken from the earliest sections of the work, and therefore most\nof them deal with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and the\nearth. In the second place, the language is a much less faithful\ntranscript of the original.\n\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cDiogenes Laertios.\u201d]\n\n15. The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes Laertios, or\nLaertios Diogenes (cf. Usener, _Epicurea_, pp. 1 sqq.), contains large\nfragments of two distinct doxographies. One is of the merely\nbiographical, anecdotic, and apophthegmatic kind used by Hippolytos in\nhis first four chapters; the other is of a better class, more like the\nsource of Hippolytos\u2019 remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise\nthis \u201ccontamination\u201d by referring to the first doxography as a \u201csummary\u201d\n(\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c2) account, while the second is called \u201cparticular\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\n\n\n[Sidenote: Patristic doxographies.]\n\n16. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in Eusebios (_P. E._\nx., xiv., xv.), Theodoret (_Gr. aff. cur._ ii. 9-11), Iren\u00e6us (_C.\nhaer._ ii. 14), Arnobius (_Adv. nat._ ii. 9), Augustine (_Civ. Dei_,\nviii. 2). These depend mainly upon the writers of \u201cSuccessions,\u201d whom we\nshall have to consider in the next section.\n\n\n _C._\u2014BIOGRAPHERS\n\n[Sidenote: Successions.]\n\n17. The first to write a work entitled _Successions of the Philosophers_\nwas Sotion (Diog. ii. 12; R. P. 4 a), about 200 B.C. The arrangement of\nhis work is explained in _Dox._ p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides\nLembos. Other writers of \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03af were Antisthenes, Sosikrates, and\nAlexander. All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre\ndoxography, and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic\napophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Hermippos.]\n\n18. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_c._ 200\nB.C.), wrote several biographical works which are frequently quoted. The\nbiographical details are very untrustworthy indeed; but sometimes\nbibliographical information is added, which doubtless rests upon the\n\u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 of Kallimachos.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Satyros.]\n\n19. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, wrote (_c._\n160 B.C.) _Lives of Famous Men_. The same remarks apply to him as to\nHermippos. His work was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos.\n\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cDiogenes Laertios.\u201d]\n\n20. The work which goes by the name of Laertios Diogenes is, in its\nbiographical parts, a mere patchwork of all earlier learning. It has not\nbeen digested or composed by any single mind at all. It is little more\nthan a collection of extracts made at haphazard, possibly by more than\none successive possessor of the MS. But, of course, it contains much\nthat is of the greatest value.\n\n\n _D._\u2014CHRONOLOGISTS\n\n[Sidenote: Eratosthenes and Apollodoros.]\n\n21. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes of Kyrene\n(275-194 B.C.); but his work was soon supplanted by the metrical version\nof Apollodoros (_c._ 140 B.C.), from which most of our information as to\nthe dates of early philosophers is derived. See Diels\u2019 paper on the\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of Apollodoros in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxi.; and Jacoby, _Apollodors\nChronik_ (1902).\n\nThe method adopted is as follows:\u2014If the date of some striking event in\na philosopher\u2019s life is known, that is taken as his _floruit_ (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bc\u03ae),\nand he is assumed to have been forty years old at that date. In default\nof this, some historical era is taken as the _floruit_. Of these the\nchief are the eclipse of Thales 586/5 B.C., the taking of Sardeis in\n546/5 B.C., the accession of Polykrates in 532/1 B.C., and the\nfoundation of Thourioi in 444/3 B.C. Further details will easily be\nfound by reference to the Index, _s.v._ Apollodoros.\n\n\n\n\n INDEXES\n\n\n I. ENGLISH\n\n Aahmes, 22, 46\n Abaris, 87, 97 _n._ 205\n Abdera, school of, 381\n Abstinence, Orphic and Pythagorean, 102 sq., 104 sq.;\n Empedoklean, 289\n Academy, 35\n Achilles and the Tortoise, 367\n Aether. _See_ \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\n Aetios, App. \u00a7 10\n Aigospotamos, meteoric stone of, 292, 312, 413 sq.\n Air, 77, 78, 79 _n._ 154, 120, 173, 214, 224, 263, 309, 336, 341, 411\n sq. See \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1\n Akousmata, 105 sq., 328\n Akousmatics, 96, 103\n Akragas, 228 sqq.\n Akron, 231\n Alexander Aetolus, 295\n Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 139, 209\n Alkidamas, 229 _n._ 504, 231 _n._ 5, 235, 297 _n._ 675, 321 _n._ 739,\n 360\n Alkmaion, 123 _n._ 263, 223 sq., 236, 327, 344, 350\n Amasis, 39\n Ameinias, 193\n Anaxagoras, 290 sqq.;\n and Perikles, 294 sqq.;\n and Euripides, 295;\n relation to Ionic school, 292;\n and Zeno, 362\n Anaxagoreans, 35 _n._ 50, 415\n Anaximander, 52 sqq.\n Anaximenes, 75 sqq.;\n School of, 83, 292, 408 _n._ 997\n Androkydes, 328\n Andron of Ephesos, 93\n Animals, Anaximander, 72 sqq.;\n Empedokles, 279 sqq.;\n Anaxagoras, 315 sqq.;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 414\n Antichthon, 344, 349 sqq.\n Antonius Diogenes, 92\n Apollo Hyperboreios, 93 _n._ 189, 97 _n._ 205, 232\n Apollodoros, App. \u00a7 21, 43, 52, 75, 94 _n._ 192, 125, 143, 192 sq., 228\n sq., 290 sq., 358, 370\n Apollonios of Tyana, 90, 92\n Apophthegms, 51, 127\n Archelaos, 415 sqq.\n Archippos, 99, 319\n Archytas, 110, 319, 328, 346\n Aristarchos of Samos, 349\n Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 87, 97 _n._ 205\n Aristophanes, 75, 296 _n._ 669, 381, 408\n Aristotle, App. \u00a7 2;\n on Egypt, 18, 23;\n on Thales, 47 sqq., 50;\n on Anaximander, 57 sqq.;\n on Pythagoras, 93 _n._ 189, 100, 107 _n._ 226;\n on Xenophanes, 137 sq., 139 sq.;\n on Herakleitos, 160 _n._ 373, 162, 177, 179;\n on Parmenides, 193, 203, 207, 208, 213;\n on Alkmaion, 223;\n on Empedokles, 177 _n._ 401, 228 _n._ 502, 231 _n._ 511, 234, 237,\n 253 _n._ 565, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274 _n._ 606,\n 278, 280, 281, 397 _n._ 962;\n on Anaxagoras, 263 _n._ 582, 291, 303, 305, 306, 309, 310;\n on the Pythagoreans, 100 _n._ 208, 110, 111 _n._ 232, 119, 331 sqq.,\n 353 sqq.;\n on Zeno, 361, 365 sqq.;\n on Melissos, 374 sq., 377, 378;\n on Leukippos, 380, 385 sq., 387, 397 _n._ 962;\n on Hippon, 49 _n._ 2, 406;\n on the _galeus levis_, 74 _n._ 141;\n on the theoretic life, 90, 108;\n on the mysteries, 91\n [Aristotle] _de Mundo_, 185\n [Aristotle] _de Plantis_, 279 _n._ 618, 298 _n._ 677, 315\n Aristoxenos on Pythagoras, 92, 94 _n._ 191, 95, 96 _n._ 201, 3, 98 sq.,\n 102, 109 _n._ 231;\n on the Pythagoreans, 107, 319, 334, 353;\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 100 _n._ 209, 325;\n on Hippon, 406 _n._ 988;\n on Plato, 323 sqq.\n Arithmetic, Egyptian, 22, 111 _n._ 233;\n Pythagorean, 109 sq.\n Arithmetical symbolism, 111\n Astronomy, Babylonian and Greek, 25 sqq.\n _See_ Heavenly bodies, Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, Earth, Eclipses,\n Geocentric and Heliocentric hypothesis\n Atheism, 51, 75, 141\n Athens, Parmenides and Zeno at, 192;\n Anaxagoras at, 294\n Atomism. _See_ Leukippos\n Atoms, 387 sqq.\n\n Babylonian language, 21 _n._ 29;\n astronomy, 25 sqq.;\n eclipse cycle, 41;\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, 350 _n._ 834\n Beans, 102\n Biology. _See_ Animals, Plants\n Blood, Empedokles, 286, 288;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 414\n Brain, Alkmaion, 224;\n Empedokles, 235;\n Sicilian school of medicine, 288 _n._ 645\n Breath. _See_ Respiration.\n Breath of the World, 79, 120\n\n Cave, Orphic, 257 _n._ 571\n Chaos, 8, 9 _n._ 7\n Chronos, 10\n Cicero, App. \u00a7 12;\n on Thales, 50;\n on Anaximander, 64;\n on Anaximenes, 82;\n on Parmenides, 220, 221 _n._ 482;\n on Atomism, 393 _n._ 953, 394 _n._ 956\n Clement of Alexandria, 19\n Comic poets on Pythagoreans, 103 _n._ 218\n Condensation. _See_ Rarefaction\n Conflagration. _See_ \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n Continuity, 369\n Copernicus, 349\n Corporealism, 15 sq., 206, 227, 357, 377\n Cosmogonies, 8 sqq.\n Croesus, 28, 37, 38\n \u00c7ulvas\u016btras, 24\n\n Damasias, 43 _n._ 68\n Damaskios, 9 _n._ 10, 232\n Darkness, 79, 121, 173, 214\n Death, Herakleitos, 171 sqq.;\n Parmenides, 222;\n Alkmaion, 225;\n Empedokles, 283\n Dekad, 113\n Demetrios Phalereus, 290, 408\n Demokritos, 2 _n._ 1;\n date, 381;\n on Egyptian mathematics, 24;\n on Anaxagoras, 291, 381;\n primitive astronomy of, 345, 392;\n and Leukippos, 381\n Diagonal and Square, 116\n Dialectic, 361\n Dikaiarchos on Pythagoras, 92, 96 _n._ 202, 100\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 381, 407 sqq.\n Divisibility, 304, 306, 362, 365, 376\n Dodecahedron, 341 sqq.\n Doric dialect, 325, 327 sq.\n\n Earth, a sphere, 26;\n Thales, 47 sqq.;\n Anaximander, 70, 72;\n Anaximenes, 80, 81, 83 _n._ 167;\n Xenophanes, 136;\n Anaxagoras, 313;\n Pythagoreans, 344 sqq.;\n Leukippos, 401;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 413\n Echekrates, 343\n Eclipses, Thales, 40 sqq.;\n Anaximander, 67;\n Anaximenes, 82;\n Herakleitos, 164;\n Alkmaion, 224;\n Empedokles, 276;\n Anaxagoras, 299;\n Pythagoreans, 349 sq.;\n Leukippos, 401\n Ecliptic. _See_ Obliquity\n Effluences. _See_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\n Egypt, 39;\n Thales in Egypt, 43;\n Pythagoras and Egypt, 94 sq.\n Egyptian arithmetic, 22 sq.;\n geometry, 23 sq., 44 sq.\n Ekphantos, 338 _n._ 794, 387 _n._ 939\n Elea, era of, 125 _n._ 270, 127, 192\n Eleatics (_see_ Parmenides, Zeno, Melissos), 35 _n._ 49;\n Leukippos and, 382 sqq.\n Elements (_see_ \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, Roots, Seeds, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ae), 56 _n._\n 103, 57, 59, 235, 263 sqq., 265 _n._ 586, 339 sqq.\n Eleusinia, 86\n Embryology, Parmenides, 203 _n._ 448;\n Empedokles, 282\n Empedokles, 227 sqq.;\n relation to Leukippos, 236, 383, 392;\n on Xenophanes, 138, 246 _n._ 555;\n on Pythagoras, 232, 259 _n._ 577;\n on Parmenides, 239, 261\n Ephesos, 143 sqq.\n Epicurus and Leukippos, 380 sq., 388 _n._ 940, 391 _n._ 949, 394 sq.\n Epimenides, 9, 87\n Equinoxes, precession of, 25, 347 _n._ 824\n Eratosthenes, App. \u00a7 21, 228 _n._ 502\n Eros, 9, 219\n Euclid, 116, 117\n Eudemos on Thales, 44 sq.;\n on Pythagoras, 115 _n._ 241, 116 _n._ 243;\n on Parmenides, 203 _n._ 449;\n on Zeno, 363, 366 _n._ 889;\n on the term \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 263 _n._ 580\n Eudoxos, 118, 216, 342\n Eukleides of Megara, 355\n Euripides (fr. inc. 910), 12 _n._ 14, 14 _n._ 18;\n and Anaxagoras, 295 sq.\n Eurytos, 110 sq., 320, 322\n Eusebios, 19\n Euthymenes, 44\n Even and Odd, 333 sqq.\n Evolution, Anaximander, 73 sq.;\n Empedokles, 281;\n Anaxagoras, 315\n Examyes, 40\n Experiment, 31 sq., 274\n\n Figures, numerical, 110 sq., 337\n Fire, 121, 160 sq., 215\n Fire, central, 218, 344 sqq.\n Forgeries, 46, 113 _n._ 235, 185\n Fossils, 136\n\n Galen, 234\n _Galeus levis_, 74 _n._ 141\n Geocentric hypothesis, 31, 123, 218\n Geometry, Egyptian, 23 sq.;\n of Thales, 45 sq.;\n of Pythagoras, 115 sq.\n Glaukos of Rhegion, 228 _n._ 503\n Gnomon (the instrument), 31 _n._ 4, 53\n Gnomon (in geometry and arithmetic), 114 _n._ 238\n Gods, Thales, 50;\n Anaximander, 64, 74;\n Anaximenes, 82;\n Xenophanes, 140 sq.;\n Herakleitos, 188 sq.;\n Empedokles, 264, 272, 288 sq.;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 410 _n._ 1005\n Gorgias, 229 _n._ 504, 231, 234, 256 _n._ 569, 287 _n._ 642, 417\n Great Year, 25, 175\n\n Harmonics, 118\n \u201cHarmony of the Spheres,\u201d 122, 351.\n _See_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 and Soul\n Harpedonapts, 24, 116\n Hearing, Empedokles, 285;\n Anaxagoras, 317\n Heart, 235, 288 _n._ 645\n Heavenly bodies, Anaximander, 66 sqq.;\n Anaximenes, 80, 81;\n Pythagoras, 122 sq.;\n Xenophanes, 133 sqq.;\n Herakleitos, 165 sqq.;\n Parmenides, 215;\n Empedokles, 274 sq.;\n Anaxagoras, 312;\n Leukippos, 401;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 413\n Hekataios, 20, 44, 46, 53\n Heliocentric hypothesis, 27, 347 _n._ 825, 348 sq.\n Herakleides of Pontos, on Pythagoras, 104, 105, 108, 321 _n._ 739, 387\n _n._ 939;\n on Empedokles, 228 _n._ 502, 3, 233 _n._ 520, 236 _n._ 532;\n heliocentric hypothesis of, 349\n Herakleiteans, 35 _n._ 48, 140, 417\n Herakleitos, 143 sqq.;\n on Homer, 182, 185;\n on Pythagoras, 94, 107, 143;\n on Xenophanes, 143\n Hermodoros, 143\n Herodotos, on Homer and Hesiod, 8;\n on Egyptian influence, 17;\n on geometry, 23;\n on Orphicism, 95 _n._ 195;\n on Solon, 28;\n on Lydian influence, 38;\n on Thales, 38, 39, 40, 43 sq., 46;\n on Pythagoras, 93, 94 _n._ 191, 95 _n._ 195, 2, 107\n Hesiod, 6 sqq.\n Hieron, 125\n Hippasos, 103 _n._ 217, 117, 121, 156, 215, 341, 343, 354\n Hippokrates, 235 _n._ 528, 405 _n._ 987, 411 _n._ 1008;\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, 79 _n._ 154\n [Hippokrates] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 167 _n._ 383, 183 _n._ 413, 305 _n._ 695,\n 307 _n._ 699, 405 _n._ 986\n Hippokrates, lunules of, 343\n Hippolytos, App. \u00a7 13, 156\n Hippon of Samos, 49, 58 _n._ 109, 406 sqq.\n Hippys of Rhegion, 121 _n._ 260\n Homer, 5 sqq.\n Hylozoism, 15\n Hypotenuse, 116\n\n Iamblichos, _V. Pyth._, 92 _n._ 186\n Ibykos, 220 _n._ 482\n Idaios of Himera, 58 _n._ 109, 407\n Ideas, theory of, 354 sqq.\n Immortality, 91, 172 sq., 225\n Incommensurability, 116 sq.\n Indian philosophy, 21.\n _See_ Transmigration\n Infinity, Anaximander, 59 sqq.;\n Xenophanes, 137 sq.;\n Parmenides, 207;\n Melissos, 375.\n _See_ Divisibility, \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n Injustice, 56, 71, 160, 226\n Ionic dialect, 327 sq., 408\n\n Justice, 32, 161 _n._ 374\n\n Kebes and Simmias, 320, 343, 354, 355\n Kebes, \u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, 194\n Kratinos, 406\n Kratylos, 417\n Kritias, 288 _n._ 645\n Kroton, 95 _n._ 198, 222\n Kylon, 97 _n._ 204, 98\n\n Lampsakos, 297, 415\n Leukippos, 380 sqq.;\n and the Eleatics, 382, 384 sqq.;\n and Empedokles, 236, 383, 392;\n and Anaxagoras, 383 sq., 392;\n and the Pythagoreans, 387, 389, 392;\n and Demokritos, 381, 389 sqq., 401 _n._ 979\n Light, Empedokles, 276.\n _See_ Moon\n Lightning and Thunder, 68, 70, 401 _n._ 979\n Limit, 121, 215, 333 sqq.\n Lives, the three, 108, 109 _n._ 229, 154 _n._ 362\n Love. _See_ Eros, Love and Strife, 266 sqq.\n Lucretius, on Empedokles, 237;\n on Anaxagoras, 306 _n._ 696\n Lydia, 37 sqq.\n Lysis, 99, 319, 326\n\n Man, Anaximander, 73;\n Herakleitos, 168 sqq.\n Maoris, 9\n Map, Anaximander\u2019s, 53\n Materialism, 208\n Matter. _See_ \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\n Measures, 167 sq., 181, 410, 413\n Medicine, history of, 222, 225, 226, 234, 236, 265 sq., 288 _n._ 645,\n 322, 344, 405, 411, 414\n Megarians, 355\n Melissos, 369 sqq.\n _Melissos, Xenophanes and Gorgias_, 138 sqq.\n Menon, \u1f38\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, 49 _n._ 85, 235 _n._ 527, 322 _n._ 742, 327 _n._ 763,\n 340 _n._ 799, 406 _n._ 988\n Metapontion, 95 _n._ 199, 97 _n._ 205\n Metempsychosis. _See_ Transmigration\n Meteorological interest, 49, 70\n Miletos, 37 sqq., 76, 380, 382\n Milky Way, 69, 220, 314\n Milo, 99, 222\n Mochos of Sidon, 19 _n._ 27\n Monism, 206, 227\n Monotheism, 141 sqq.\n Moon, 68;\n light of, 202 _n._ 446, 275, 276, 299, 314\n Motion, eternal, 15, 61;\n denied by Parmenides, 207;\n explained by Empedokles, 267;\n Anaxagoras, 309;\n criticised by Zeno, 366;\n denied by Melissos, 376;\n reaffirmed by Leukippos, 392 sq.\n Mysteries, 90, 190\n\n Necessity. _See_ \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\n Nikomachos, 92, 112 _n._ 234\n Nile, 43 sq., 313\n Noumenios, 19\n Nous, 309 sq.\n Numbers, Pythagorean, 331 sqq.;\n triangular, square, and oblong, 114\n\n Obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac), 52, 82, 401\n Observation, 29 sq., 73 sq.\n Octave, 118\n Opposites, 56, 186 sq., 225, 235, 266, 305\n Oriental influences, 17 sqq.\n Orphicism, 5, 9 sqq., 87 sq., 95 _n._ 195, 109 _n._ 229, 194, 221, 232,\n 257 _n._ 571, 258 _n._ 573\n\n Parmenides, 192 sqq.;\n on Herakleitos, 143, 198 _n._ 438, 204 sq., 210;\n and Pythagoreanism, 210 sqq.\n Pausanias, 234 _n._ 523, 238\n Pentagram, 343\n Perception, Parmenides, 202 _n._ 447, 222;\n Alkmaion, 223 sq.;\n Empedokles, 284 sq.;\n Anaxagoras, 316 sq.;\n Leukippos, 401 sq.;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 414\n Perikles and Zeno, 193;\n and Anaxagoras, 294 sq.;\n and Melissos, 369\n Petron, 65, 121\n Pherekydes of Syros, 9, 87\n Philistion, 234 _n._ 523, 235 _n._ 526 and 527, 266 _n._ 587, 288 _n._\n 645, 356 _n._ 850\n Philo of Byblos, 19 _n._ 27\n Philo Judaeus, 18, 158, 185\n Philodemos, 50 _n._ 89, 64, 221 _n._ 483\n Philolaos, 319, 320 sqq.\n Philosophy as \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 89;\n Pythagorean use of the word, 89 sqq., 194, 321 _n._ 739, 359;\n synonymous with asceticism, 18\n Phleious, 89 _n._ 178, 94 _n._ 191, 109 _n._ 229, 320\n Phoenician influence, 18, 19 _n._ 27, 39\n Physiology, Parmenides, 221 sq.;\n Alkmaion, 223;\n Empedokles, 282;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 411\n Pindar, 232\n Planets, names of, 26 _n._ 40, 220;\n distinguished from fixed stars, 26, 82, 276, 392, 401;\n motion of, 122 sq., 225, 350, 353;\n system of, 344 sq.\n Plants, Empedokles, 277 sq.;\n Anaxagoras, 315 sq.\n Plato, App. \u00a7 1;\n on Egyptians and Phoenicians, 17, 20, 27 _n._ 41;\n on Egyptian arithmetic, 22;\n on schools of philosophy, 35;\n on Pythagoras, 96 _n._ 202;\n on Xenophanes, 140;\n on Herakleitos, 140, 159, 162, 176, 178;\n on Herakleiteans, 161 _n._ 373, 188 _n._ 418;\n on Parmenides, 192, 207, 221;\n on Empedokles, 159, 178, 269 _n._ 593;\n on Anaxagoras, 291 _n._ 655, 295, 297 sq., 309;\n on Philolaos, 319;\n on Pythagoreans, 121, 124;\n on incommensurables, 117 _n._ 245;\n on Zeno, 192, 358, 360, 361;\n on Melissos, 379 _n._ 919;\n _Phaedo_, 89 _n._ 178, 91 _n._ 183, 108 _n._ 228, 109 _n._ 229, 172\n _n._ 391,182 _n._ 411, 320 sq., 342, 343, 345, 354;\n _Cratylus_, 417 _n._ 1027;\n _Theaetetus_, 117 _n._ 245, 263 _n._ 580, 338 _n._ 794, 417 _n._\n 1027;\n _Sophist_, 356 _n._ 849, 358 _n._ 853;\n _Politicus_, 280 _n._ 621;\n _Parmenides_, 358 _n._ 852, 359, 360 sq.;\n _Philebus_, 323;\n _Symposium_, 221, 281 _n._ 625;\n _Phaedrus_, 295;\n _Gorgias_, 321;\n _Meno_, 234 _n._ 524;\n _Republic_, 25 _n._ 39, 90 _n._ 181, 177 _n._ 400, 216, 219 sq., 352;\n _Timaeus_, 61 _n._ 115, 79 _n._ 154, 113 _n._ 237, 118 _n._ 248, 121,\n 122, 225, 287, 340, 342, 345 _n._ 818, 346, 352, 396;\n _Laws_, 107 _n._ 227, 117 _n._ 246, 353\n Pleasure and pain, Empedokles, 285;\n Anaxagoras, 317\n Pliny, 42, 52\n Pluralism, 227 sqq., 357\n Political activity of philosophers, Thales, 46;\n Pythagoras, 96 sq.;\n Parmenides, 195;\n Empedokles, 230 sq.;\n Zeno, 358\n Polybios, 99 _n._ 206\n Polybos, 379\n Polykrates, era of, 53 _n._ 97, 94\n Pores. _See_ \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n Porphyry, 92 _n._ 187, 104 _n._ 219, 257 _n._ 571\n Poseidonios, 19 _n._ 27, 81 _n._ 159\n Precession. _See_ Equinoxes\n Proclus, commentary on Euclid, 44, 115 _n._ 243\n Proportion, 117 sq.\n Protagoras, 188, 360\n Purification. _See_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n Pyramids, measurement of, 45.\n _See_ \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2\n Pythagoras, 91 sqq.;\n forged writings, 325\n Pythagoreans, 212 sqq., 319 sqq.\n\n Rarefaction and condensation, 77 sqq., 163, 204, 403, 412\n Religion, 85 sqq., 189, 294.\n _See_ Orphicism, Monotheism, Gods, Sacrifice\n Respiration, 235, 253 _n._ 565, 284\n Rest. _See_ Motion\n Revolution, diurnal, 61, 274, 346 sq.\n Rhegion, 99, 220 _n._ 482, 319\n Rhetoric, 86, 234\n Rhind papyrus, 22 sqq.\n Roots, 263\n\n Sacrifice, mystic, 104 _n._ 220;\n bloodless, 258 _n._ 576\n Salmoxis, 93\n Sanchuniathon, 19 _n._ 27\n Sardeis, era of, 43 _n._ 67, 53, 75\n Schools, 33 sqq., 293\n Sea, Anaximander, 66, 70 sq.;\n Empedokles, 277;\n Anaxagoras, 313;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 413\n Seeds, 306\n Seqt, 23, 46\n Seven Wise Men, 39, 46, 51\n Sight, Alkmaion, 224;\n Empedokles, 284, 287 sq.;\n Anaxagoras, 316\n Silloi, 129\n Sleep, Herakleitos, 169 sq.;\n Empedokles, 283\n Smell, Empedokles, 285;\n Anaxagoras, 316\n Sokrates, Parmenides and Zeno, 192 sq., 358;\n and Archelaos, 415\n Solids, regular, 328 sq., 340\n Solon. _See_ Croesus\n Soul, 86, 91, 168, 225, 343, 414\n Space, 204, 207, 366, 389\n Speusippos, 113 _n._ 236;\n on Parmenides, 195;\n on Pythagorean numbers, 321, 336 _n._ 790\n Sphere, Parmenides, 207 sq.;\n Empedokles, 262.\n _See_ Earth, Eudoxos, Harmony\n Stars, fixed, 68, 80\n Stoics, App. \u00a7 3, 157, 179 sq.\n Strabo, 19 _n._ 27, 194, 195 _n._ 430\n Strife, Herakleitos, 184;\n Empedokles, 266 sqq.\n Sun, Anaximander, 68;\n Anaximenes, 80;\n Xenophanes, 134 sq.;\n Herakleitos, 165 sq., 174;\n Empedokles, 274 sq., 347 sq.;\n Anaxagoras, 314\n\n Taras, 97 _n._ 204, 319\n Taste, Empedokles, 285;\n Anaxagoras, 316\n Tetraktys, 113 sqq.\n Thales, 39 sqq.\n Theaitetos, 117, 329\n Theano, 353\n Thebes, Lysis at, 99, 320;\n Philolaos at, 99\n Theodoros of Kyrene, 117\n Theogony, Hesiodic, 6 sqq.;\n Rhapsodic, 9 _n._ 10, 232\n Theologians, 10\n Theology. _See_ Gods\n Theon of Smyrna, 27 _n._ 41\n Theophrastos, App. \u00a7 7;\n on schools, 33, 35, 52;\n on Prometheus, 39 _n._ 55;\n on Thales, 48;\n Anaximander, 54 sqq., 66;\n on Anaximenes, 76 sqq.;\n on Xenophanes, 126, 136, 137;\n on Herakleitos, 145, 156, 163 sqq.;\n on Parmenides, 209, 213, 214, 218, 220;\n on Empedokles, 229 _n._ 504, 236, 267 sq., 272 sqq., 278, 284;\n on Anaxagoras, 291, 292, 293 _n._ 660, 313 sq., 316 sq.;\n on Leukippos, 380 sq., 382, 384 sqq., 390 sqq., 402;\n on Diogenes of Apollonia, 381, 407 sq., 412;\n on Hippon of Samos, 406\n Theoretic life, 291\n Theron of Akragas, 229, 232\n Thourioi, era of, 228\n Timaios Lokros, 323 sqq.\n Timaios of Tauromenion, 228 _n._ 508, 230, 233, 237 _n._ 534\n Timon of Phleious, 129, 324\n Touch, Empedokles, 285;\n Anaxagoras, 316\n Transmigration, 95, 101 sqq., 124, 289 sq.\n Triangle, Pythagorean, 24, 115\n\n Unit, 337, 365\n\n Void, Pythagorean, 120, 214, 224, 336, 383;\n Parmenides, 204, 207;\n Alkmaion, 224;\n Atomist, 389 sq.\n Vortex, Empedokles, 274;\n Anaxagoras, 311;\n Leukippos, 399 sqq.\n\n Water, 48 sqq., 407\n Weight, 394 sqq.\n Wheels, Anaximander, 67 sq.;\n Pythagoras, 122;\n Parmenides, 215\n Worlds, innumerable, Anaximander, 62 sqq.;\n Anaximenes, 82 sq.;\n Pythagoras, 121;\n Xenophanes, 136;\n Anaxagoras, 312;\n Diogenes of Apollonia, 414;\n Archelaos, 417\n\n Xenophanes, 124 sqq.;\n on Thales, 41;\n on Pythagoras, 124\n\n Year. _See_ Great Year\n\n Zamolxis, 93\n Zankle, 127 _n._ 275\n Zeno, 358 sqq.;\n on Empedokles, 359;\n on Pythagoreans, 362\n\n\n II. GREEK\n\n \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, 56, 60, 71\n \u1f00\u03ae\u03c1, 79 _n._ 154, 263, 264 _n._ 583, 284 _n._ 634.\n _See_ Air\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1, 263, 264 _n._ 583, 312 _n._ 709\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 105 sq., 328\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, 96, 103\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7, 219, 256 _n._ 569, 269\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 167 _n._ 382, 168 _n._ 385\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 400\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03be, 216\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, 57 _n._ 105, 60 _n._ 113\n \u1f04\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f21, 233 _n._ 520, 236 _n._ 533\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af, 236, 287 _n._ 642\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, 391 _n._ 949\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae dist. \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, 23, 111 _n._ 233\n \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, 122, 158, 184\n \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 24\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, 13, 57\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f43 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, 355 _n._ 847\n\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af, 73 sq.\n \u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, 106\n\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, 155 _n._ 364, 172 _n._ 391\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 65 _n._ 126\n \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, 32, 161 _n._ 374\n \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7. _See_ Vortex\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, 120 _n._ 254\n\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, 355, 388 _n._ 943\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1, 403\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 198 _n._ 435;\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd, 204 _n._ 450\n \u1f14\u03ba\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, 397 _n._ 962\n \u1f14\u03ba\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 61\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 178 sqq.\n \u1f15\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78, 140, 363 _n._ 880, 377\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1. _See_ Opposites\n \u1f11\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 139 _n._ 306\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 400\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce, 330 _n._ 770\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, 74.\n _See_ Gods\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, 28, 108\n\n \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1, 235 _n._ 527, 263 _n._ 580, 355, 356 _n._ 850, 388 _n._ 943\n \u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, 243 _n._ 549, 249 _n._ 558\n \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, 225\n \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, 398\n \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, 14 _n._ 18, 28, 107 _n._ 244\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 88, 107 sq.\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, 1 _n._ 862\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03cd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1, 253 _n._ 565, 254 _n._ 566, 263, 309, 384\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, 219\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, 32, 148 _n._ 336, 182 _n._ 412\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9, 310\n\n \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae dist. \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, 23\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, 146 _n._ 332, 148 _n._ 339, 152 _n._ 355, 153 _n._ 358 and _n._\n 359, 157;\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 355 _n._ 847\n\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 118\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, 296 _n._ 670\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 101 _n._ 212\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 101 _n._ 212\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1, 32\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ae, 263 _n._ 580, 356 _n._ 850\n\n \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, 338 _n._ 794, 368 _n._ 894, 387 _n._ 939\n \u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2, 341 _n._ 805\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6, 306\n \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 72 _n._ 138\n \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, 88 _n._ 175\n \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 115 _n._ 240\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, 31, 140 _n._ 310;\n Aristotle\u2019s \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, 177\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, 273 _n._ 603\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, 101 _n._ 212\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 150 _n._ 184\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, 150 _n._ 347, 198 _n._ 438\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, 307, 389\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae, 63 _n._ 119\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9, 60 _n._ 114, 170 _n._ 389\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 63 _n._ 119\n \u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 77 _n._ 151\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, 224, 226 _n._ 500, 236, 269, 284 sq., 383\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, 69 _n._ 133, 165\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c2, 25 _n._ 38\n\n \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c8\u1ff3\u03b4\u1ff6, 127 _n._ 276\n \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, 398\n\n \u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, 321\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 140 _n._ 307\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 215\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 54 _n._ 101, 56 _n._ 103, 263 _n._ 586, 265 _n._ 586, 306,\n 333, 388 _n._ 942\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6, 157 _n._ 370\n\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2, 113 sq.\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, 67 _n._ 129, 174\n\n \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, 57, 330 _n._ 770, 342 _n._ 807\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 33 _n._ 46, 360 _n._ 866, 361 _n._ 871\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, 116 _n._ 242\n\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70, 33 _n._ 46\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6, 28.\n _See_ Philosophy\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 12 sq., 56, 388 _n._ 941 and _n._ 944\n\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, 114 _n._ 238, 115 _n._ 240\n\n _Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nWhen Burnet gives the fragments of a Greek philosopher, he does so\nselectively, resulting in gaps in the sequence.\n\nSome quoted and translated passages, printed as prose, also include line\nnumbers in the right margin. These now appear in the text delimited by\n<< >> at the place in the text where they originally appeared. These\nnumbers should be regarded as approximate.\n\nIn note 813, the Greek phrase includes an unmatched closing bracket.\nThis is a direct quotation from p. 234 of _Scholia in Lucianum_, edited\nby Hugo Rabe. The bracket was used by Rabe to separate the topic (the\npentagram) from its gloss.\n\nErrors deemed most likely to be the printer\u2019s have been corrected, and\nare noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.\n\n 75.13 according to Theophra[s]tos Added.\n\n 197.21 Look stea[fd/df]astly with thy mind Transposed.\n\n 212.26 It seem[s] to me Added.\n\n 213.18 and Theoph[astros/rastos]certainly followed Misplaced.\n him\n\n 249.21 meadows of Aph[h]rodite Removed.\n\n 292.34 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5)[\u201d] Added.\n\n 331.19 Aristotle on the Number[s]. Added.\n\n 332.32 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1[\u03cc/\u03bf]\u03c3\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 Replaced.\n\n 402 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4[\u03b1/\u03ac] Replaced.\n\n 415.6 Anaxagorea[ns] Presumed.\n\n 433.5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0[\u1f78/\u03bf]\u03c2 Replaced.","title":"Early Greek philosophy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":150775}