-,,.

of

MedJatt*^

C^

LIBRARY
Toronto
<i

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in

2011 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/historyofgreekph02zell

A HISTOEY

GEEEK PHILOSOPHY
VOL.
11.

LOXDOX SPOTTLSWOODE ASD

PBIXTED BY XEW-STBEET SQCAEB AND PARLIAiraST STREET

:

CO.,

5"/-^

^/('cX^^-,^.-<_-j

A HISTORY

GKBBK PHI
V
FPwOM THE

OPHY
THl

EARLIER FHRIOD TO

TIME OE SOCRATES

d^'

W ITH

GF^S^P.AL INT B 0^iW\t^I

ANSLATED FROM THE QERW-N OF

ITY

OF BERLIN/

i\it

3ltnor's sanction

S\F.

ALLEYNE

IN TWO VOLUMES

/y/Ar

VOL.

II.

LONDON

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND

1881

CO.

All

rights

r-eserved

1 \\l

INSTITUTE CP lED!AEVAL STUDIES

10

EL>i3LEY PLACE

f|||\n

1932

of

Media

LIBRARY
1orcr.to
V
,

"

^,

..'.**

iJUL 1 1 1966

CONTENTS
OF

THE SECOND VOLUME.

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHH^OSOPHY.

SECOND SECTION.

HERACLEITUS, EMPEDOCLES, THE ATOMISTS. ANAXAGORAS.

I.

Hebacleitus.
PAGE

1.

General standpoint and fundamental conceptions of the doctrine of Heracleitus

1

2. 3.

4.

Cosmology Man his knowledge and his actions Historical position and importance of
:

47
. .

...
The
1

79

Heracleitus.

Heracleiteans
II.

04

Empedocles axd the Atomists.

:

A.

Empedocles
1.

Universal bases of the physics of Empedocles

tion
forces

genera-

and decay,
its

primitive
parts

substance"; and moving

2. 3. 4.

The world and

Scientific

117 145
. .

Religious doctrines of Empedocles

.171
Em,
.

character and historical position of the

.
.

pedoclean doctrine

184

vi

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

The Atomistic philosophy
1.

B.

page

Physical bases of the system.

Atoms and the Void

207

2.

Movement of the atoms.

universe.

Formation and system of the

235
,

Inorganic nature

3.

4.

knowledge and his actions The Atomistic doctrine as a whole its historical posiOrganic nature.
tion
:

Man

his

253 292

and importance.
III.

Later adherents of the school

Anaxagoras.

1.

Principles of his system

Matter and Mind

....
Character and

321

2.

Origin and system of the universe

3.

Organic natures

Man
The Anaxagorean
school.

354 363
Archelaus
373

4.

Anaxagoras

in relation to his predecessors.

origin of his doctrine.

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

THIRD SECTION.

THE SOPHISTS.
1.

Origin of the Sophistic doctrine

394
its

2.

External history of the Sophists

3.

Teaching of the Sophists considered in

Opinions of
the
Sophists

general character

407 429 445

4. Sophistic
5.

theory of knowledge and Eristic disputation

concerning Virtue and Justice.
.
. .
.

6.

Sophistic Khetoric Politics and Eeligion. Value and historical importance of the Sophistic doctrine

469

The various tendencies included

in it

496
517

INDEX

ERRATA.
Page

,,

24, 3, line

54

(first

57, 2,

6/or infra, p, 555, S, Srd ed. read infra, p. 46, 1. column), line 10 /or inf. p. 708, 2, 3rd ed. read inf. 234, 2. line 7 (second colunm)/or heat and warmth read light and
p. 621, 2

warmth.
,,

59,

Bfor

read 57,

2.
ii.

69, n. line 12 (first

column)/or Diog.

8 (inf.

p.

77) read Diog.

ix. 8 (inf. p. 77, 1).

70, line 12 (second

,,

column)/or 363, 5 read 363, 2. 614 sq. /or p. 601 sq. 3rd ed. read inf. 113 96, note 2, line 12 /or p. 707, 1, 4 read 148, 4 149, 3. 196, 1, line 12 207, 1, Line 13 omit sometimes. /or 294, 2 read 294, 4. 310, 1, line 2 320, 2, line 1/or Diogenes read Diagoras. 412, line 6/or Leontium read Leontini. 453, 1for p. 638, 1 read 630, 1. /or p. 638, 2 read 632. 2. 453, 4, last line
80, note 1

omit

i.

sq.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GEEEKS

IN ITS

HISTOEICAL DEVELOPMEXT.

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

11.

HERACLEITUS,EMPEDOCLES,THE ATOMISTS,ANAXAGORAS.
I.

HERACLEITUS.i

1.

The general standpoint and fundamental conceptions of

the doctrine of Heracleitus.

While
of all

in the Eleatic School the doctrine of the

Unity

Being had led

to the denial of the possibility of

-

plurality and Becoming, contemporaneously

^

with that

Schleiermacher,
;

Herakleitos
d.

Heracleitus

is

placed in the 69th

der Bunkle, ete.

thumsw.
1.

i.

Mus. 1807, p. 313

Bernays,

Alter-

sqq. (dott

in Schleiermacher's WerJce, 3 Ahth.

1

sqq.);

Heraditca,
;

Bonn, 1848; ibid/ Ekein. Mus. N. F. vii. 90 sqq., ix. 241 sqq. ibid. Die HeraMitischen Briefe, Berl. 1869; Lassalle. Die Fhilo.?ophie HraJdeitos des Dimkeln. 1858, Gladisch, Herakldtos und 2 vols. Schuster, HeraZoroaster, 1859 Teichkleitos von Ephesi'.s, 1873 miiller, Neue Stud. z. Gesch. d.
;
;

B.C.), no doubt on the authority of Apollodorus, who takes his dates almost entirely from Eratosthenes, Similarly, Euseb. Chron. gives 01. 70 Syn;

Olympiad (404-500

cellus, p. 283, C. 01. 70, 1.

He

is

Begrife.
-

1.

B..

In Diog,
II.

ix.

Herakldtos. 1876. 1, the prime of

described as a contemporary of Darius I. in the interpolated letters (Diog. ix. 13, cf. Clemens, Strom. i. 302 E; Epictet. Enchirid. 21), in which that prince invites him to his court, and Heracleitus declines the invitation. Eusebius. however, and Syncellus, p. 254 C, place his prime in 01. 80, 2 ad. 81, 2 in the
;
;

TOL.

IIERACLEITUS.
school there arose in Asia i\Iinor, at

the opposite pole

of the Greek civilised world, a system which developed

80th or 8 1st Olympiad, and this statement seems to derive confirmation from the fact that, according
to Strabo, xiv.
1, i. 25, p. 642 (in comparison with his evidence no weight can be attached to the 8th

of the so-called Heraclitean letters,

Bern), Hermo'lorus theEphewho, we are told by Pliny, H. Nat. xxxiv. o, 21, and Pumponius,
p. 82,

sian,

Digest,

i.

1, tit.

the

Roman

2, /. 2, 4, assisted deconiA'iri in their legis;

lation (01. 81, 4

452

B.C.),

was no

other than the friend of Heracleitus, wdiose banishment the philosopher could not forgive his countrymen. (Strabo /. c, Diog. ix. 2, &c. vide infra.) From this Hermann inferred {De P/iilos. Ionic. Miatt. p. 10, 22), and Sehwegler agrees with liim {Rom. Gcach. iii. 20 otherwise in Gesch. d. Griech. Phil. 20, Kostlin's edition, where also, p. 79, the
;

earlier contradiction with the utterances of the same author. Where Eusebius found the statement, and on what it is based, we do not know but if we remember that the prime of Heracleitus (not his death, as Hermann says: the words are clams habebatur, cognoscebatur, ijKfiaCf) is here made to coincide almost exactly with the legislation of the decemviri, it appears probable that it arose from the supposition that Hermodorus, the friend of Heinicleitus, entered into connection with the decemviri
;

immediately after his banishment, and that his banishment coincided with the aKULT) of the philosopher. Now the assertion of Diogenes can hardly be founded upon any accuit is rats chronological tradition far more likely (as Diels acknowledges, Bh. Mits. xxxi. 33 sq.) that its author knew only of the general statement that Heracleitus had been a contemporary of Darius I., and that in accordance with this, he
;

reference of Parmenides to Herawhich Bernays conjeccleitus,

tured, but which is irreconcileable with Hermann's computation, is admit :ed) that Heracleitus was

born about 01. 67 (510 B.C.) and I died about 01. 82 (450 b.c). have shown, however, in my treatise

Dc Hermodoro Ejjkcsio et Hermod. Plat. (Marb. 1859), p. 9

sqq. that this opinion is not justi-

fiable.

The statement of Eusebius repeated by Syncellus is in itself not nearly so trustworthy as that of Diogenes, taken from Hermann urges in ApoUodorus its favour that Eusebius determines the date of Anaxagoras and Democritus more accurately than Apollodorus, but this is not the case. On the contrary, the statement loses all weight by its glaring
;

placed his prime in the 69th Olympiad i.e. in the middle of Darius's But that reign (01. 64, 3-73, 4). this theory is at any rate approximately correct, and that the death of Heracleitus cannot be placed later than 470-478 B.C., we find extremely likely for other reasons. For though we may not lay much stress on the circumstance that, according to Sotion, ap. Diog. ix. 5, Heracleitus was regarded by many as a pupil of Xenophanes, the allu;

sion to him by Epicbarmus, which we have found probable vol. i. p. 532,

would imply that

his doctrine

was
b.c.
;

known in

Sicily as early as

470

and since he himself instances as

HIS DATE AXD LIFE.

the same presupposition in a contrary direction, and

regarded the one Being as something purely in motion

and subject

to perpetual
is

change and separation.

Heracleitus.^
Aristotle fixes

The

author of this system

men to whom varied knowledge has not broiurht wisdom, only Xenophanes, Pythagoras and Hecataeus in addition to Hesiod. this looks as if the later philosopher, and especially his antipodes Parmenides, were unknown to him. Moreover, the statements about Hermodorus do not by any means compel us to regard Heracleitus as later. For fir.st, the theory that Hermodorus, who took part in the decemvirs' legislation, was the same person as the friend of Heracleitus is not based even by .Strabo (as I have shown, I. c. p. 15) on trustworthy tradition, but merely on a probable conjecture and secondly, we have no reason to assume that Hermodorus was of the same age as Heracleitus. Supposing him to have been 20 or 25 years younger, it would be quite possible to admit his participation in the lawgiving of the decemviri, without on that account altering the date of Heracleitus' death to the middle of the We certainly cannot fifth century. place the banishment of Hermodorus and the composition of Heracleitus' work earlier than -l-TS b.c, for the rise of democracy at Ephesus
;

the

age of Hera-

cleitus at 60, if the reading of the manuscripts in Diog. viii, 52 be

'Api(TTOT\r}s yap avrhv (Empedoeles) en re 'HpaKXeirov k^-r]KOVTa irwy <pTf](n reTe\evTr]Kvai. Siurz, however, instead of 'HpaKAetTOj/ reads 'HpaK\eidr)>, and Cobet has admitted this conjecture, which is favourably regarded by many authorities (more than a conjecture he does not consider it), into the

correct

text.

to

me

It does not commend itself as indispensable for it is

;

perfectly conceivable that Aristotle may have connected the two men together in reference to their age, and the biographer of Empedoeles, here referred to by Diogenes (that these words, as well as the context, are derived from Apollodorus seems to me doubtful, in spite of the observations of Diels, Rh. Mus. xxxiii.
38), may have also quoted what he had taken the opportunity to say about Heracleitus, in the same

way

that in 55 Philolaus is mentioned with Heracleitus. On the other hand it is very possible that 'HpaKXetrov may have been a mistake for 'Hpa/cXe/STjs and we
;

must therefore leave

this question

before

would scarcely have been possible the deliverance from the

undecided like many others respecting the chronolog}' of Heracleitus.

'

On the other Persian dominion. this event may have given the deliverance. Both rise to theories are compatible with that supposition on the one hand, that Heracleitus died in -475 b.c. on the other, that Hermodorus assisted the decemviri in 452 B.C.
hand
:

The native

city of Heraclei-

according to the unanimous testimony of the ancients, was Ephesus. Metapontum is substituted by Justin, Cohort, c. 3, but this is merely a hasty inference from a passase in which Heractus.

leitus is

named

in connection with

IIERACLEirUS.
The doctrine
customary,
in
i.

of
;

Heracleitus,^
as

like

that

of

the

Hippasus of Metapontum
Arist. Mctaph.
3,

was
with

to

me

far-fetched.
is

The disposition
described

accordance

of

Heracleitus

by

984

a. 7.
1
,

His
&c.,

father, according to I)iog. ix.

was called Blyson, but others name him Heracion (whom Schuster, p.
362 pq.. conjectures to have been his grandfather). That he belonged to a family of position is evident from the stiitement of Antisthenes, ap. Diog. ix. 6, that he resigned the dignity of ^aaiK^vs to his younger brother for this was an office hereditary in the family of Androelus, the Codrid, founder of Ephesus (Strabo, xiv. 1, 3, p. 632; He Bernays, Hcraclitca, 31 sq.). held decidedly aristocratic opinions (vide infra'), while his fellow-citizens were democrats this explains why his friend Hermodorus should have been exiled (Diog. ix. 2)
;

Theophrastus as melancholy {ap. Diog. ix. 6 cf. Pliny, H. N. vii. 19, 80), and this is confirmed by the fragments of his writings. But the anecdotes which Diogenes (ix. 3 sq.) relates concerning his misanthropy are worthless not to speak of the absurd assertion that he wept, and Democritus laughed, over everything (Lucian, Vit. Auct. c. 13; Hippolyt. Eefiit. :. 4; Sen. De Ira, ii. 10, 5 Tratiqu. An. 15,
;
; ;

any instructors had, ordinary tradition seems entirely ignorant

2, &c.). that he

As

to

may have

which

and he himself regarded with little The favour (Demetr. ibid. 15). persecution for atheism, however, which Christian authors infer from this (Justin. Apol. i. 46; ApoL ii. 8; Athenag. Supplic. 31, 27), is perhaps wholly derived from the fourth Heraclitean letter (cf. Bernays, H-yrakl. Br. 35), and is rendered improbable by the silence of all ancient authorities. Concerning the last illness and death of Heracleitus all kinds of unauthenticated and sometimes contradictory stories are to be found in Diog. ix. 3 sqq., Tacian, C. Crrcec. c. 3, and elsewhere (cf. Bernays, Herakl. Briefe, p. ob If they have any historical sq.). foundation (Schuster thinks, p. 217, they may have a good deal), we cannot now discover it. Lassalle's opinion (i. 42), that they arose merely from a mythical symbolising of the doctrine of the passage of opposites into one another, appears

proves that the ancients (Clemens, Strom, i. 300 c, sqq. Diog. ix. 1; Prooem. 13 sqq.; similarly Galen, c. 2) found it impossible to connect him with any school. It is, therefore, manifestly an error to represent him as a pupil of Xenophanes, which is done by Sotion, ap. Diog. ix. 5, or as a scholar of Hippasus, which is asserted by another account {ap. Suid. 'Hpa/cA.), probably a misconc*^ption of Arist.

Mctaph.

i.

or to

connect him, as Hippolytus does, Iqc. cit., with the Pythagorean SmSox^- But that he claimed to have learned everything from himself, to have known nothing in his youth and all things afterwards
(Diog.
Procl.

Stob. Floril. 21, 7 106 E), seems merely an inference from some misapprehended utterances in his
ix.

in

Tim.

works.

Our most trustworthy source of information in regard to the doctrine of Heracleitus is to be found in the fragments of hiis own work.
'

prose,

This work was written in Ionic and according to Diog. ix. 5,

HIS WORK.
Eleatics,

developed

itself

in express contradiction to
from the fragments in existence and Schusters attempt at such a reconstruction is founded on sup;

12; Clem. Strom, v. 571 C, bore We are told the title Trept (piaeus. in Diog. ix. 5 that it was divided into three \6yoi, ets re rhv Trepi rov iravThs Koi rhv ttoXitikov koi deoXoyiHov.
It is quite possible (as

positions that are generally doubtful,

to me,

Schuster remarks, p. 48 sqq. in opposition to Schleiermacher, Werke z. Phil. ii. 25 sqq.) that the work may have contained several sections, each devoted to a particular subject and this may be brought into connection with the fact that, according to Diog. 12, it also bore the title of MoCo-aj if, like Schuster, p, 57, we think of the three muses of the older mythology. (On the other hand, two more titles are given in Diog. 12, which are certainly spurious;
;

and in some cases, it appears more than doubtful. That this was the sole work of Hera-

cleitus is unquestionable, not only because of the indirect testimony of Aristotle, Rhet. iii. 5, 1407 b, 16; Diog. ix. 7 and Clemens, Strom. i. 332 B, where mention is made of a axrypaixjxa in the singular, and not of (TvypafxnaTa, but because no other work was either quoted or commentated on by the ancients. In Plutarch, Adv. Col. 14, 2 'HpaKKsirov 5e rhv ZupodcrTprju, we should read, wath Diibner, 'Hpa/cAetSou (vide Bemays, Rk. Mus. vii. 93 sq.),
;

Bemays' Heracleit. 8 sq.) But there is no doubt that the Hiovaai. originate with Plato, Soph. 242 not (as Schuster, p. 329, 2, is inclined to suppose) with Heracleitus and the names of the three
cf.

tles

an amendment which of itself setSchleiermacher's doubt as to the genuineness of this writing, and

the trustworthiness of Plutarch's statements concerning Heracleitus (I. c). David, Schol. in Arist. 19 b,
Vir. El. 'H/jokA. Schol. ; Hesych. Bekker, Plat. p. 364, mention Heracleitus's (rvyypd/u.iJ.aTa but this is only a proof of their carelessness. The Heracleitean letters cannot possibly be considered genuine. Concerning a metrical version of the Heracleitean doctrine, vide infra,^. 21,1. Whether Heracleitus really depiisited his work in the temple of Artemis, as is stated in Diog. ix. 6 and elsewhere, cannot be ascertained if he did, it could not be for the sake of secrecy, as
7
;

given by Diogenes (as Schuster observes, p. 54 sq.) with the Alexandrian catalogues, and that these names correctly described the contents of the work is quite uncertain, as is proved, among other evidence, by the double titles of the Platonic dialogues. The fragments we possess contain very little that could be assigned to the second section, and still less that is appropriate to the third, if the former were really devoted to politics and the latter to theology and it is the same thing, as we shall find, with the other traditions concerning the doctrine of Heracleitus (cf. Susemihl, Jahrb. f. Fhilul. 1873,
sections
;

H.

I believe it 10, 11, p. 714 sq.). to be impossible to recover the plan

Xor c. 3, suggests. can we suppose that his well-known obscurity [ct Lucret. i. 639), which procured for him the title of (tkoTcivhs among later writers (such as Pseudo-Arist., De Mundo, c. 5,
Tatian, C, Gr.

of the work, with any certainty,

396

b,

20; Clem. Strom,

v.

571,

HEBACLEITUS.
the ordinary

mode

of thought.

Look where he

will.

C), proceeded from discontent and misanthropy (vide Theophrastus, ap. Diog. 6, and Luc. Vit. Auct. 14); or from a wish to conceal his opinions (vide Dios:. 6 Cic. N. D. iii. 14, 35 Divin. ii. 64, i. 26, 74 133, &c.). Against the hitter view,
;

vide Schleiermacher, p. 8 sqq. Krische, Forschuvigen, 59. p. Schuster saj-s in its favour (p. 54, 72 sq., 75 sqq.) that Heracleitus had every reason to conceal opinions
;

biguity of syntactical arrangement, which was noticed by Aristotle {Rher. iii. 5, 1407 b, 14; cf. DeHe himmetr. Be Ehcut. c. 1 92). self characterises his language as a language adapted to the subject, when in Fr. 39, 38 (ap. Plut. Pyth. Orac.c. 6, 21,p. 397,404; Clemens, Strom, i. 304 C. and pseudo-Iambi. De Myster. iii. 8, refer to the first of these fragments, and not to some
different

utterance,

and
iii.

pseudo-

which might have brought upon him an indictment for atheism but on the other hand it is noticeable that in his fragments those judgments on religious usages and political conditions, which would have given the most violent oifence, are enunciated in the plainest and
boldest manner possible (vide infra, opinions of Heracleitus on ethics and politics), while those propositions which are difficult to understand, on account of the obscurity of the language, are precisely those which could in no way have endangered the philosopher, however clearly he might have expressed them. Not one of the ancients asserts that Heracleitus was purposely obscure in his writings, in order to avoid persecution. The cause of his obscurity seems to have lain partly in the difficulty of at that philosophic expositions epoch, and partly in his own peculiar character. He clothed liis profound intuitions in the must pregnant, solemn, and for the most part, symbolical expressions possible, because these suited him best, and seemed best to correspond with the weight of his thoughts; and he was too sparing of words and too little practised in the art of composition to escape the am-

15 to the second), according to the most probable acceptation of thfse fragments (which Lucian, ^.c, confirms), he compares his discourses to the earnest and unadorned words of an inspired sybil, the oracular sayings of the Delphic god. This oracular tone of the Heraclirean utterances may be connected with the censure of Aristotle {Eth. N.Vn. 4, 1146 b, M. Mor. ii. 6, 1201 b, 5), who 29 says he had as much confidence in his opinions as others had in their knowledge. When results, merely, without demonstration are to be set forth in a statuesque style, the distinction between the several gradations of certainty can neither be The confifelt nor represented. dence with which Heracleitus stated his convictions is seen, among other examples, in the expression Olympiod. z??- Gorg. 87 (i^r. 137; vide Jahn's Jahrh. Sicppl. xiv. 267 Xeyw tovto kol cf. Diog. ix. 16)

Iambi.

Ue Myster.

TTapa npire(l)6v7)
'

Vide also infra, where the one on whom he relies more than on thousands,' is primarily himself. A remark attributed to Socrates on the difficulty
Hov.
;

of Heracleitus's exposition is given in Diog. ii. 22 ix. 11 sq. In Diog. ix. 15 sq., mention is also madft of some ancient commentators of He-

HIS WORK.
nowhere can our philosopher iind true knowledge.*

The mass
though
it

of
is

men

has no intelligence for eternal truth,

clear

and obvious; that which they daily

encounter, continues strange to

them

whither their

own when they

in sleep
racleitus's
;

road leads

is

hidden from them

what they do
it
is,

are awake, they forget, as if it were done

the order of the world, glorious as

absolute
is

Brandis {Gr. Rom. Phil, i, 154), -with good reason, on account of other passages, Diog, vi. 19, and ix. 6, dcubts whether the Antisthenes here alluded to is the Socratic philosopher
work.
(vide Schleiermacher, p. 5), and Lassalle makes the unfortunate suggestion, i. 3, that in Eus. Br. Ev. XV. 13, 6, Antisthenes the Socratic colled 'lipaK\ooTLK6s, hut is not 'HpoKAeiTftds, Tis avrjp to (ppovqixa;

exempt from all sensible

it

existence, that

is

the negative.'
:

To me

it

seems more likely that

the true meaning

is

is this attains to understand that

None wisdom
'

In my quoof. part II. a, 261. 4. tation of the fragments, in the follovring pages, I use Schuster's enumeration, but at the same time mention from whence the fragments are taken. Frag. 13, ap. Stob. Floril. 3, OKoauv Xoyovs ijKovaa ov5e\s 81
:

a.(piKve7Tcu

(-

eerai)

is

yivwCK^Lv,

on

ao<p6v

iari

tovto ware TravTuv

'^/lyvucrKeiv
fi

separated from all things,' that has to go its own way, diverging from general opinion. This does not contradict eirecrdai. T<p ^vvw, as Schuster (p. 42) believes, for ^vvov is something diflferent from the opinion of the people. Schusters explanation, which is that of Heinze (Lekre vom Logos, p. 32), that wisdom is the portion of none,' as far as I can see, does not harmonise any better with his conception of ^whv. In order to decide with certainty as to the sense of the words, we should know the connection in which they stand. 2 Fr. 3, 4, ap. Arist. Rket. iii.
is,
'

Kexupicr/xevov.

After

older editions have ^ yap dehs

eripiov
;

G-aisford on the

was repudiated by ground of the MSS. and was manifestly interpolated by some commentator who referred
this

the ao(phv ttolvtuiv KexcopjcryueVo;/ to the seclusion of the wise, in mistaken allusion to Arist. Polit. i. 2, 1253 a, 29 cf. Lassalle, i. 344 sq. Schuster's defence of the authenticity of the words p. 44, does not convince me. In the words Zti (TO(f)hp, etc., Lassalle refers (To<phv to the divine wisdom, and therefore That the explains them thus
; :
'

1407 b, 16; Sext. Math. vii. 132 (who both say that this was the beginning of Heracleitus's work) Clem. Strom, v. 602 D Hippol. Refut. ix. 9 toO \6yov ToOS' iovTos al. tov ovtos or Tou 5eoj/Tos the latter, which is the usual reading in our Aristotelian text, is inadmissible, if only for the reason that in that case the aei cannot be connected with the preceding context, whereas Aristotle expressly remarks that we do not know whether it belongs to what goes before, or what follows
5,
;
: :

it

it

seems to

me

Aristotle

must

HERACLEITUS.
have read roCSe ovros, and HeratoCS' cleitus must have written
:

iovTOS or Toi/Se eJfT.

y'luovTai,

aiei

a^vv^roi
rj

&v6p(i}woi

Kal

irpdcrdev

aKouaai Ka) aKovaafTes rh

yivofjiivwv

npurov
rhu Bern.

yap

-nduTfjiv

Kara

(so Mull. Schust. read) ioLKacn

TOi/Se
IxevoL
iireccv

Koyov

aireipoiaiu

Tretpoj-

KaX

^pycou

roiovrwv

OKoiwv iyw Sn]yvy.ai Kara (pvaij/ Siaip^uv eKaarov Kal (ppd^cvv '6kus Tovs 8e &Wous audpcairovs exei' Xavddvei oKoaa iyepd4vTs ttoiovcti {-eovai) OKooairep OKdaa evdovres imKavdayovTai. In this much disputed fragment I think, with Heinze, l. c. 10, and elsewhere, that del is to be connected with iSvros the \6yos, in my opinion, refers indeed primarily to the discourse, but also to the contents of the discourse, the truth expressed in it a confusion and identification of different ideas, united and apparently in; ;

of nature and nature is not only not mentioned as the discoursing subject, but is not named at all. In order to ascribe this signification to the \6yos, we must suppo.^e that rovSe refers to a previous definition of the \6yos as \6yos TVS (pva-ccos. That there was any such previous definition, is improbable, as this passage stood at the commencement of Heracleitus's work and even if its
as the discourse
;

cluded in one word, which should

least of all surprise us in Heraclei-

Hippolytus states) ran thus tov Se Koyov roDSe, we need not refer the Se to anything besides the title of the writing (in which K6yos irepl (pixrios may have occurred) we need not suppose with Schuster, p. 13 sqq., that a long introduction, and. one, as it seems to me, so little in harmony 'with, the tone of the rest, preceded what Heracleitus had snid, according to Aristotle, eV tt} dpxrj tov (TvyypdiJLfjLaTus, according to Sextus
first

words
:

(as

ivapxojJ-evos
so,

Twv

irepl

(pvcrews.

If
oSe,

says This discourse (the theory of the w'orld laid dowTi in his work) is not recognised by men, although it ever exists (i.e. that which always exists, contains the eternal order of things, the eternal
tus.

He

however, the twice repeated

truth), for although all happens ac-

cording CO it (and thus its truth is confirmed by all facts universally) men behave as if they had never had any experience of it, when words or things present themselves to them, as I here represent them (when the views here brought forward are shown them by instruction or by
'

as in the commencement of Herodotus's history, can only refer to the Heracleitean work itself. Cf. also Fr. 2, Clem. Strom, ii. 362 ov yap (ppoi/eovai ToiavTa iroWol okScoi (for which perhaps we should read oko^ols cf. ois iyKvpov<ri ap. M. Aur. iv. 46) iyKupacvova-iu, ou5e yivuaKovm eavTo7ai 8e fiadovTiS 5oKovffi. Fr. 1, Hippol, I. c.

e|777raT7)J'Tai

oi

dudpcunoi irphs ti]u

yvo}(nu Tcav (pavepwv, etc.

iv.

M. Aurel.

own perceptions). Schuster, 18 sq., refers the \6yos to the revelation which nature offers us in audible speech.' But even if we are to understand by yivo/xevwu
their
'

TOV 'HpaKKeneiov fj-e/xuTJddvaTOS vdup yeteadai, etc., fxefxpriaOat Se Kal tov " iiriKav6ai/o/x4vov 7/ odhs dyei' " Kal '6ti " (^

46

del

adai

'6ti

yris

TrdpTwv, etc., 'dudth.eepyuyTOiovrcji',

fidhiiTa diVveKots ofiihovai K6ya>,'" Ta b\a dLOiKovfTi, " tout6d 5ia<p4povTai, Kal ois KaQ' riixepai' iyKvpovai, TOVTa avToh ,(va (paiveTac " Kal ort
T<S
Set (iiffirep KadevSovTas iroie7v Xiyeiv Kal '6tl ov Se? " TraTSas roKeui'" [sc. x6yovs Xiyeiv
oi)

that all corresponds with the of which Heracleitus is speaking, the Adyos is not described
etc.,

"

Xoyos

Kal

"...

IGNORANCE OF MAXKIXD.
for

9
to

them does not

;

exist. ^

Truth seems
it,

them
it

in-

credible

2 ^

they are deaf to

to the ass chaff

even when

reaches

their ears

is

preferable to gold, and

the dog barks at everyone he does not know.^

Equally

incapable of hearing and speaking,'^ their best course

would be to conceal their ignorance.^ Irrational as they are, they abide by the sayings of the poets and
or something of the kind], rovr
ecTTL Kara, \pi\hu Ka66Tnrapei\7]<patJ.eu.

yii.

The words marked as a quotation I agree with Bernays, Bh. Mies. 107, in regarding as cited from

yvwT^ojs is an expression which reminds us so strongly of Christian language (cf. 1 Cor. ii,
)3a07) TTjs

Heracleitus, but manifestly only from memory, and therefore not altogether literally. The -words in
TT. 8aiT. i. 5 (if taken from Heracleitus) must belong to the same connection /cat to. /xhu Trpr]cr(Tovai ovK o'ldacnv, & [1. oXdacri, to,^ 5e ov Trpijaaovcn SoK4ov(nv elBevai, Kal TO fjLeu opwaiv ov yii/SaKovaiv, dAA' dfjLws avTolai Trdura yiu^rai 5l' avdyKrjv deiiqv Kal a fiovXovTai Kal & ^ovKovTai. fj.7]

Hippocr.

10; Rev. ii. 24; 1 Cor. viii. 1, 7 2 Cor. X. 5, and other passages), and partly because for the reasons already given, supra, p. 6. I cannot agree with Schuster, who, p. 72, finds in this fragment a recommendation to guard against persecution by means of mistrustful precaution. 3 Fr. 5 Theod. Cur. Gr. Af. Clem. Strom, v. 604 70, p. 13
; ;

a^vuTOi uKoixravres Kwcpols ioiKocrr (paTis avToicri fxaprupeei (the

A.
:

proverb witnesses concerning them)

irapeovTas
'

In this sense, as blaming the ordinary mode of conception, I un^

a.in'ivai.
;

derstand, at any rate conjecturally, the fragmentary words in Theophrast. Mefaph. {Fr. 12, 15,

3U

Wimm.)

Wimmer
the same,
fievwu 6

which conjectures crcaphs, and

wa-jrep
crap^

(for

Bernays ap. Schuster, p. 390, adpov, off-scourings o-cipos, which signifies

;

Arist. Eth. X. x. 5, 6: 'Hpa/cAetTos (p-qcriv, ovov avpfxar' clp e\4<xdai /xaAAov ^ xP^"'^^Fr. 36 Plut. An Sent s. ger. resp. c. 7, p. 787 Kvues yap Kal j^av^oixriv ou au jXT] yiuoxTKcecri nad' 'HpaKAenov. I give to these and similar sayings,

Fr. 28
a,

1176

is still

nearer)
orjcrlv

et'/cT?

k^X"-'-

KaWiaTos,

'UpaKKei-

Schuster supposes this to be Heracleitus's own opinion but neither of the two explanations he proposes, is satisfactory to me. This at least ma^ be the meaningof i^r. 37 Clem. Strom, v. 591 A aiTKTT'np yap Biacpvyydvei /j.^ yivtixTKea-dai.. The preceding words in Clemens I do not believe to be from Heracleitus, partly because
ros, Kda/xos.
;
'^

which have only reached us in fragments, the signification which seems to me the most probable, without absolutely vouching for it, ^ Fr. 32; Clem. Str. ii. 369 I)
aKOvaai ovk iTTKnafx^voi ovS' finelv. Fr. 31 ap. Stob. Fionl. 3, 82 Kpvm^iu aixaQi-qv Kpiaaov (^ e'y rh fjLeaov (pepeiu) this addition seems later. Plutarch differs somewhat in his interpretation, as we find in several places cf. Sehleierm. Mull. 315 Schuster, 71. p. 11
;

10

HERACLEITUS.

the opinions of the multitude without considering that the good are always few in number
;

tliat

the majority

live out their lives like the beasts, only the best

among

mortals preferring one thing, namely undying glory, to

is worth more than Even those who have earned the fame of superior wisdom in most cases fare very little l)etter at the hands of Heracleitus. He sees in them far more diversity of knowledge than real intelligence.

all besides

and that one great man

thousands of evil persons.-

Archilochus, on Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecatseus, but above all, on Homer, he passed the severest judgments ^ a few only of the so-called seven
;

On Hesiod and

wise
'

men

are treated by
is restort^d
;

him with more

by

respect.'*

How:

Fr. 71, as this

Kernays, Heracl. 32 sq. cf. Schuster, 68 sq. (in preference to Lassallf, ii. 303): from Pr.-.cl. in Alcib. p. 255 Creuz. iii. 115, Cous. tis yap Clem. Strom, v. 576 A avTwu [sc. Twi/ TroAAwv] voos ^ (pprif
; :
',

Srjuwv

a.ui5o7ij

'dnovrai

kuI

5i5a-

(TKaXcf) (1. -Acou) )(^piovTai o/jliAcc,

ovk

i5oTes OTL TToAAoi KaKol

oKiyoL Se

ajaOoi. alpeoi/TaL yap eV avrla iravTdiu ol apiffTOL k\4os aivaov 6vr)Twv,

01

(Laz. Mlscel. p. 20) cf Symmachus, Ejnst. ix. 115 Diog. ix. 16 6 ils fjLvpioi iay nap'' 'Hpa/cAeiTw apiffTos ?]. Olynipiodor. in Gorg. p. 87 (Jahn's Jahrb. Sicpphmentb. avrX xiv. 267) gives efs iixoi -noKXicv. Similarly, Seneca, Ep. 7, 10, represents Democritus as saying Ijuus inihi 'pro populo est ct populKS pro imo, and it is possible that Democritus, in whom we shall find other echoes of Heracleitus,
; ;

Se

TToWol

KiK6pT]vTai

OKucrirep
is

may have
him.
^

taken this saying from

an explanatory addition of Clemens. In

KTTivea.

The remainder

Cf.

on this point Fr. 22

i.

sq.

my

interpretation of the last proI

differ
(ii.

(sup. vol.

p. 336, 5
;

from Bernays, and Schuster, who make &vf]Twv dependent on k\4os. Bernays sees in the juxtaposition,

25 {infra,
ix. 1
:

p. 16, 1)
6'

Fr. 510, 4) Fr. 134 Diog.

; ;
;

Lassalle

436

sq.)

TOP

"Ofxrjpov e<paaKeu 6.^top

iKTUiV a7w'a;j/ (which we must primarily refer to the aywvis fJiovaiKoV)

position of the -words, k\(os advaov dvrjTwv, an ironical allusion to the worthlessness of that which even Lassalle finds in the best desire.

(K^dWeadai
XiXoxov
p.

Kal pairi^iaOai Kal 'Ap-

ofioiws.
1).

32,

Fr. 76 (vide inf. Heracleitus censures

Homer, because he would do away

with
*

them the thought that fame is the realised infinity of finite man. 2 Fr. 30, according to Bernays, loc. cit. p. 35 ; ap. Theodor. Prodr.

strife,
;

i.

Bias especially, i^r. 18 Diog. Also Thales, Fr. 9 also 23. The Heracleitus who is mentioned
88.
;

FLUX OF ALL
ever great then

THINGS.

11

may

be the differences between the

theory of Heracleitus and that of the Eleatics, they are

both equally opposed to the ordinary theory of the world. According to Heracleitus, the radical error in the
popular

mode

of presentation consists in

its

attributing

to things a to

them.

permanence of Being which does not belong The truth is that there is nothing fixed and

permanent in the world, but all is involved in constant change,^ like a stream in which new waves are continually displacing their predecessors ^ and this means not
;

ty

Alcaeus,

ap. Diog.

i.

76,

can

Arist.

259

hardly be our philosopher. 1 Plato. ThecEf. 160 D:

. . .

p. 298,

b, 9 in Metaph. iv, 8, 10 Bon,', Pseiido-Alex. in

;

Kara
152

Metaph.
Schol.

xiii. 4, 9, p.

'YipaKK^irov
18, 2)

olov pevfiaia

12 Bon.;
8;

Ammon. De

717, 14, 765, Interpr. 9;

Kiui7aeai TO. travra.

(inf.
-p.
]

Ihid.
4:01

CraL

D:

Kad'

'UpaKKeiTovtiv r)yo7vTO ra ovraUvai. re iravra Kal fxeveiv ovhiv. Rid. 402 A: A67et TTou-Hpa/cA. 0Ti7rdj/Ta
X'^P^^ fo^ ovlv iJ.evei. Kol ttuto^oD pu-p airiKd(wv ra uvra X4yei ws Sis
is

in Ar. 98 a, 37: Diog. ix. Lucian, V. Auct. 14; Sext. Pi/rrh. iii. 115; Pint. P^ac*. i. 23, The 6; Stob. Eel. \. 396, 318.

same theory Epicharmus, 529 sq.

;

is

presupposed
supra,
vol.

by
i.

^-ide

rhv avTov

TTOTafjibv
:

ovKav
.

i/xfiains.

rh irau dvai iv-jropeia, roiovrdv iro\v avTov rh Ti e?vat. oilov ovSev &Wo ^ x^P^^'^Soph. 242 C sqq. vide i??/. p. 33, 1 Arist. Metaph. iv. 5, 1010 a, 13 Jbid. 1,6, sub (vide next note). raTs 'Hpa/cAeiTetois do^ais, ws init. cLTravTu)!/ Tuv alaQ-qruv a^l pedurwu Kal iT7i(TTi]jx-t]s Trept avrwu ovk oucttjs. Ibid. xiii. 4, 1078 b, 14: toTs 'HpaKKeiTL0L5 \6yois us irdvToiv rwu
/AiVZ.
.
. .
. .

412

Plato. Crat. 402 A, vide previous note Pint, de Ei ap. I), c. 18: iroTU/xtf yap ovk ecmv ifx^y^vai ^'^ '''V o.^'^V '^-^' 'Upo-nXenov. ovSe
dvriTTJs

ovaias dls a^laoSaL Kara

e|i/,

aAA' o^vrrjTL Ka\ rax^' ^uerct/SoATjs Kal -rrdXii' crvydyei" '' aKiSvnai ^' irpoffeiai Kal a-rreiai." I consider that these words are from Hera.

cleitus,

and Schleiprmacher

is

also

alae-nrccv aet peovrwi/.

De An.

i. 2,

The of that opinion, vid*^ p. 30. words in the sixth Heracliteaa letter (as Bernays rightly observes,
55); [6 6ebs] " (ruvdy^i rd (tkiSpoint to this. On the other Kara hand, the words. ouSe e^ii/, appear tome to be an explanatory addition of Plutarch. Heracleitus can scarcely have spoken of 0j/77T7? oixria and we can hardly help seeing in Kaid '(i,iv (which Schuster, p. 91, finds a difficulty) the
p.
i/ojuei/a"
.

405
538,

a, 2,

the quotation, 3): iv Kiu-ffa-d 5' ehai to.

28 (after

uvra
Aoi.

KaKetj/os

ctero

Koi
b.

ol

ttoA'6ti

Top.

i.

11,

104
b,

21:

irduTa

Kivilr.u
viii. 3,

Ka&

Fhys.

253

'HpaKheiToy. 9 (infra, p.

1, 298 b, 29 Also later writers, as Alex, in Top. p. 43; Schol. in

15. 1);

De

C(elo,\\\.

{inf. p. 21, 1).

12

HERACLEITUS.
all

merely that
that

individual existences are fleeting, but

any continuance in the state of a thing is a delusion, as we are distinctly assured by Heracleitus himself,
as well as

by

all

our other authorities from Plato and

Aristotle onwards.^

Nothing remains what

est,

it is,
58,
:

every23
'

Aristotelian Stoic form of expression. The same expression is used by Plut. de s. JS'titn. Find. c. 15, end Qu. Xaf. 2, 3, p. 912 p. 559; Simpl. Ph?/s. 17 a, m, 308 b; Plut. Qu. Nat. adds, erepa -jap

So does Seneca, Ep.

Hoc

in idem flumen bis descendimus et non desctndimus.' The latter passage might be quoted in favour of
qiiod ait Heraclitus

vBara more fully Cleanthes, aj). Eus. Pr. Ev. xvi. 20, 1
iiTippel
; :

Schleiermacher's conjecture, I. c. 143, that in Heracleitus (AUeg. Ho)n. 1. c.) ' 81s " should be inserted
after iroraixdls to7s avTo7s
;

Xiyuiv ovrws- JTOTaixola-L Tolcriv avTolffiv ifx^aivovffiv eVepa Koi

'HpoLKX.
.
.
.

but

it

seems to

me more probable that the

krepa vdara i-jrippel (the rest cannot be regarded as Heracleitean). In Heracleitus, AUeg. horn. c. 24, p.
51,

Mehl.

we

find: TroTa/xoTs rols

avTo7s i/JL^aipofxev re Koi ovk iixfiaivojxiv, el/xevre Kol ovk ei/xep, which

be explained thus: 'We only to descend into the same in id<^ntical with itself; river, truth, we do not descend into the same, for during our descent it is changing and so we ourselves are and are not, because we also are (Schuster's constantly changing we ar-.^ in it, interpretation, p. 88 and at the same time no longer in it,' is less satisfactory to me). The words, however, likewise admit of In truth another interpretation we do not go down into the same river, and we are not the same (after elixiv we may supply ol avTol from the preceding context) Arist. Mctaph. iv. 5, as before.' 1010 a, 12, is in favour of this (KparvKos) 'Hpainterpretation KXdrcf iniTifia dir6vTL, otl 5U tw

may

seem

'

'

'bis'xn Seneca is an explanator}-addition taken from the famous proposition: 'We cannot descend twice into the same river,' Schuster's restoration of the text of Heracleitus from the above quotations (p. 86 sqq.) is not at all clear to me. All the expressions here cited need not necessarily be taken from one and the same place. Schuster, p. 201 sq., has been at much pains to^^rove that Heracleitus, in the sentences quoted above, merely intended to express the thought that nothing in the world I escapes the final destruction.' cannot, however, satisfy m} self that
*
'

his

argument

is

really satisfactory.

'

In the first place, it may well be doubted whether the original expression of the Heracleitean doctrine (as he believes, vide p. 86), is to be found in the words irdi/Ta
Xwpei" Koi ouSei/ fXfvei, Crat.

402

avT(f}

TroTO/A&S

ova

iariv

i/x^rjuai'

oiJ5' ctTra^; for if avrhs yap ^e7 Heracleitus had also said this, there was no reason for the censure.

It is (vide the last note but one). not altogether clear from this passage whether these were actually the words of Heracleitus it is also very improbable that, if they were, he should not often have recurred and in that to his original view
:

FLUX OF ALL
thing passes into
is all.

THLXGS.
;

13
all
;

its

opposite, all comes out of all

The day

is

sometimes longer, sometimes shorter

These

case

we might

conjecture that he

would not always have employed one and the same formula. Why the expression adduced by Schuster should be more authentic than the others that have been handed

down
which

to us
is

why

the iravra ptlv

mentioned by Aristotle three times (i) Ca:lo,\\\. 1. Metaph. 1, 6. and De An. i. 2, vide, infra.
p.

or the corresponding 22, 4) passage, olov peu^ara Kive^adai ra iravra, which is quoted in Plato as a saying of Heracleitus, Thecet. 160 D. should not equally reproduce
;

writers are unanimously agreed that he denied any permanent state of things. Schuster says (p. 207 sq.) that Plato was the first to ascribe this meaning to iravra yape? that Aristotle followed his example, but betrayed in Phi/.s. viii. 3, that he had not himself found a definite explanation of the words in Heracleitus's work. For my part, I can charge neither

his own words why he should have said iravra x<"P^^ ai^d not
;

(according to

Crat.
fxeveiv

401

D) Uvai

TO iravra Ka\
nut appear. Heracleitus the chief

ovhev, it does

Whatever expression

may have
qu*='stion

meant by
river,

it.

And

employed, what he he himself leaves

is.

no doubt upon this point.

The
in

which

lahitur et

lo.heti'.r

Plato nor Aristotle, nor even Plunor Alexander, who were equally in possession of this much read book, with so careless and superficial an account and I do not see what can justify us, even irrespectively of Heracleitus's own assertions, in opposins: their unanimous declarations with a theory which cannot bring forward a single witness in its defence. For even Phys. viii. 3 proves nothing. Aristotle here says, 253 b, 9 (paai rives KiveltjQai rwv ovroov oh to ukv
tarch,
;

omne vcluhili^ CBVum, would have been a very inappropriate illustraof the proposition that all things in tim.e come to an end but it is perfectly just in regard to the constant change of things. tion
;

ra

5'

01),

aXXa iravra

XavQaviiv rriv
irt.os

Ka\ ael. aXXa rjusr^pav a'taOrjcriv.

iro'iav

ovs Kaiirep oh Ziopi^ovras

Kiv7]criv

Xeyovaiv,

yj

ird(ras. oh X'^^^'

This

is

clearly

marked by Hera-

cleitus as the point of comparison,

when he says that we cannot go down twice into the same river. Whether the river flowed on eternally,

or at

some time or other

is,

came

to an end,

in reference to

this point, quite immaterial. even if the explanations of

cleitus

But Hera-

had

been

less

equivocal

than they are, the opinion of the writers who were acquainted with his works, not as we know them, in small fragments, but in their whole connection, would be decisive.

irhv airavrrja-ai. He therefore expressly attributes to Heracleitus (with whom this passage is primarily concerned) the assertion that all things are involved in perpetual change. He fails, however, to find in Heracleitus a distinct explanation as to the kind of change that is here meant and he goes on to show in regard to all kinds of change, increase and diminution, transformation and change of place (cf. Part II. 290, 3rd ed.). that they cannot go on uninterruptedly. But what follows from this ? \Miat is there to show that Aristotle's account of the matter may not have
;

14

HERACLEirUS.
so is the night
is
;

and
sun

heat and moisture alternate

the

at

one period nearer to us and at another farther

;

been correct viz., that Heracleitus distinctly maintained the perpetual variation of things, and proved it (as we shall find) by many examples, bur, that he did not, like Aristotle, distinguish logically the various kinds of change, and therefore in places where he announced
his proposition in a general manner, he held to the indeterminate conception of the motion (or the

flux) of all tilings, without explaining wherein this motion consisted whether the place, or the size, or
;

the material constitution of things, or all these at once, were constantly changing. In Plato, also, Thecet. 181 B sqq., the proposition that, according to the Heracleitean doctrine,

even with the present cosmical period it would only be in keeping with the idea that everything is, at every moment, changing all its old parts for new; that the world is everymoment. as by magic, disappearing and reappearing which we can hardly suppose to have been the opinion of Heracleitus. But in order to refute the accounts of his doctrine by these consequences, two things must first be demonstrated. Pirst, that Heracleitus, in case the accounts are correct, himself drew these inferences and secondly, that he
;
;

found

difficulty

in

them.

And

irdvTa

-nacrav
is

Kivqaiv

aei

perpetually changing its place as well as its constitution (is subject to a constant aKKoiicais as well as a Trepi(popa), is indeed declared to be the proper sense of the doctrine, but in such a manner that we can plainly see that it was Plato who first discriminated these two kinds of motion. Scliusrer is of opinion that to assume the perpetual change of individuals would lead to the
KiveiTai,

everything

we suppose perpetually changing (which no one, so far as I know, ascribes to Heracleitus), this is contradicted by the continuance of the earth, sea, and sky, of If they souls after death, etc.
greatest difficulties. that their shape
If
is

changing their constantly are substance for some other substance, this theory is compatible neither with the period of the world's conflagration, nor with the
following period in which aU is sea (vide i)ifra. Her. Cosm.), nor

neither of these two presuppositions can I admit. How do we know that Heracleitus, if he held transformation of the perpetual substances, regarded this transformation as taking place momentarily, and not gradually, now quickly, and now slowly ? or that he ever said to himself, If all is constantly changing, this must be true of the smallest particles of matter ? How again do we know thatfromhis point of view such an absolute transformation of stibstances would seem unthinkable? Even on this presupposition, the apparent permanence of particular things, even their continuance till the end of the world, would be perfectly explicable, if we also suppose that w^hat'they lose on one side wouid be made up to them on the other which, according to p. 559 sq., 3rd ed., seems to have been actually Heracleitus's opinion. Cf. with the preceding observations, Susemihl, l. c. 725 sq. Siebeck, Ztschr. Teichmiiller, f. Phil. Ixvii. 245 sq.
'
'

Neuc

Studiefi,

i.

118 sqq.

The

FLUX OF ALL
away.
visible

TlflXOS.

15

The

visible passes into the

;

invisible, the in-

again into the visible

is lost

one thing takes the

;

place of another, or

by means of the other

the

great

is

nourished by the small, the small by the great.

too,

From man,

nature takes some parts, while at the

others
;

same time she gives him

both coincide.^

she

makes him
that
is,

greater by giving to him, and less by taking away, and

Day and night

twvto

are the

same

last-mentioned author believes that Heracleitus opposed his doctrine of the flux of all things to the
assertion of

irphs Trdvra Kal irdura irphs cKaa-Tov

x<^'Pf<^5e -rrduTa Kal 0e7x koI avQpuinva dvoo Ka\ Karco duejySojxeva- yjuepq Kal eixppour] iirl rh /x-f,. .
.

Xenophanes that the

Deity is unmoved. I cannot agree with this conjecture for Xenophanes denies motion only of the Deity (vide supra, vol. i. p. 5-1:3 566), whereas the proposition of Heracleitus refers to things, and not to the Deity as such. This is in the passage of the Pseudo-Hippocrates, tt. SiaiTTjs, i.

KLarou

Kal

fKaxi^rov

Trupbs

ecpoSos Kal vdaros-

'/jKlos

eVI to fxa.
.

Kp6TaTov Kal ^paxvraTov Zr]v\ aKoros 'Aidrj, (pdos

a-Kiros
[/cat
Ltji/i

<pdos
'At577

(vide

/xeraKLvslTai']

infra) (poira Kelva 55e Kal

rdhs

'

(rotxeva

Kelae Trdarji/ wprjv. SiairprfcrK^lvd re ra ruivSe. to. 5e

Keivcov.

aZ rd

(Here come the

,

4 sqq., which Bemays, Her act. 10 (irrespectively of sqq., supposes many additions by Hippocrates himself) to have been taken from the work of Heracleitus, though perhaps- only the writing or the information of some disciple of Heracleitus may have been made use of (further details, p. 570, third edition). I take from it what seems to m.e, at any rate, according to the sense, to belong to Heracleitus where words are wanting in our text, this is indicated exei 5e
;
;

words

koX to. }xkv Trpr^a-a-ovai, Szc

given supra, p. 7, 2, but which do not apply here) (poireouTwy 5' iKeivai' wSerii'deTe KsTcre auju/xiayofievwy -rrphs aW-nAa, tt]!/ ireirpuuevnv ixoipr]v eKaa-rov iKirX.r}po7 Kal inl rh in-^C^v Kal iirl to /xuov. iopT]
Traciv
6.TT

d\\7\X(ji>v,

rw

txi^ovi arch

rov
rod
.
.

ixeiovos

Kal rev fxeiovi

aTrh

rod

av^dvTai koI rh fie^ov dirh ixdacrovos iaep-rrei Se is dvdpaynoy /uepea uepioiu, oKa oKov
fx4(ovos.
.

ra

juev ATjiI/o'/iex/ara Se Swtro^/Ta-

wSe* yeuicrQai Kal diroX4crdaL rcovrh, rcvvro. ^vfxfiiyrivaL Kal SiaKpidrji/ai

Kal rdyt.'kv Xayi^dvovTa irKe7ov Troie'ei, to 5e didovTa ixilov. irpiovaiu dvdpwrroi ^vKov, 6
julsv

eAwet, 6 Se uOeei.,

This latter word, however, is certainly not Heracleitean in this acceptation; the reduction of generation and decay to the combination and separation of matter rather betrays (as will be shown, I. c.) the
influence of

(Aristophanes uses the same figure, Wasps, 694) t^ 5' avrh tovto iroie'ovtri (similarly c. 16) /xslov 8e iroUovres irkelov Troieoua-i (in makinothe wood smaller, they make il

irXelov

i.e.,

they make more pieces

rh
5'

Anaxagoras

'iKacrrov

out of

it)

avrh

Kal

^vais

I'J

IIERACLEITVS.
is

there

one essence which

is

now
iJ-^v

light, ^

now dark
Koi
kolL

^
;

l:)eneficial
a.vdpdoiT(iiV

and destructive,^ upper and

it
is
;

under,'*
-Kdnixov
8e
6.TTorov

beginning
(rcvT-fipiov,

SO

ture of man rh fxlv w0eei, rb Se ehKei, to /xf^v

5e
AajttjSaj/ei,

with the na(nominative)

^idwffi,

Ix^viTi

avdpwirois

6x46piov.

rh
fxlv

Here comes

in the

example of the

Kot

tw

juev SiOaJCi, rc^

physicians (Fr. 81)

who

rijxvovTis

\_Tov'\
diSoocri,

5e

"Ka^^avii,

Ka\

tw

Ka'iovTSS TrdvTri fiaaavi^ovres

KaKws
/u.7]5e^'

(and that to which it gives, Lecomes more by so much), Tov Se Xan^di-ei, rocrovTco
ToaovTCf} irKiov
'

Tovs appwcTTovvras eTraiTiuvTai

d^iou
ixicrBwv

XajuL^dieiv

Trapa

twv

Frag. 2o, Hipjiol. Befui.

^jue'pa

ix,

yap, (prfal i^i^c. 'HpaKX.), Koi vv^ inriv ef, Keyu^v S5e irccs' BiddcTKaXos dh nK^iaroov 'HcioSos'

10:

TQVTOV iTTicnauTaL
ocTts
2
7]jxf:priu

7rA.eT(rTa

eiSevaz,

KoiX

evcppovqv gvk iyieV.

vuaKev, eari yap

be understood. Schuster, p. 67, explains it thus Day and night are the same that a prois to say, a division of ti me position, the profundity of which,

So

o-Tte/ is to

'

'

appcoaTOvvTwv ravra ipya^Sixeuoi ra ayaOa Ka\ ras vovaovs, iiraiTiwvrai, They &c., may be thus explained complain that they receive nothing corresponding to the reward they deserve nothing worthy of them, they accordingly conas a reward sider the evils they inflict on men as as something very valuable ayadd.' We get the same result if, in accordance with the Gottingen edition of Hippolytus and Schuster, p. 246, we substitute
'
:

fxiadhv for fxiaOwu.

in

would better suit the Platonic Dionysodorus or some Sophist of the same stamp, than
opinion,

my

Mus.

ix.

Bernays (R/iein. 244; Her adit." Br. 141)

iTrair^ovrai
fxiqSfp
'

proposes

a^ioi

What Heracleitus Heracleitus. meant by the unity of day and night is clear from Fr. 67 {infra, His censure of Hesiod p. 17, 3). refers to Theog. 124, w^here 'H/xipa is represented as the daughter of
Nv$. If he also censured Hesiod for believing in lucky and unlucky days, whereas one day is like another (Plut. Ca7n. 19; Sen. Ep. 12, 7), it must have been in some other passage, for there is no allusion to
it

they ask, little as they deserve a reward, payment from the sick.' Tn this ca^e
fxiadwu Xajx^dvciv, &c.,
it is not Heracleitus himself who concludes from the conduct of the physicians that good and evil are identical but Hippolytus draws this conclusion, in taking the ironical ayada of Heracleitus as earnest. That he may be allowed the full credit of this I will not dispute. The addition which Schuster, p. 247, is disposed to make to the fragment, from Ejy. Heracl. vi. 54, does not seem to me to have originated with Heracleitus. * Fr. 82; Hippol. ix. 10: yva;

here.
3

Hippol. I. c. Odhacrad vdwp KaOapwrarop Koi /utapcoTttTou (which, however, according

Fr 83

<pri(nv,

to Teichmiiller's just obserration,

(\>^iu) (pT}<rh',
fjiia

K.

29, is not to be translated 'troubled' or 'dirty.' as SchusStufJ.

i.

i(Tr\, cprjal,

ter has

means impure, and primarily refers to the bad taste and undrinkableness of sea- water)
it,

p.

249

it

Ka\ rb KUTw upper, e.a. in the revolution of the heavens and the transition of the elements one into another, becomes

o5bs ev6e7aKa\aKoXi.T] Ka\ ahri]- Ka\ rb 6.v(i} eV icTi koi rh avrd. (The
.

FLUX OF ALL
and enclJ
are alike

THINGS.
^

17

Mortal and immortal

the Deity

are the same.

Sickness

and health, hunger and

;

satiety, labour

and refreshment

is

winter, war and peace, plenty

day and night, summer and and want all is one, all
;

becomes
the dead

all.^
life,

From

the living comes death, and from

youth

from the waking,

from the young old age, and from the old sleep, and from the sleepino-,

wakefulness.

The stream
still
;

of generation and destrucclay out

tion never stands

tlie

of which things
"*

are

made

is

for ever
;

being moulded into new forms.

:

under, and vice versa upper and lower are consequently the s-trae esssnce. Meantime it is a question whether the words koL rh &ico Th avrb belong to Heracleitus. or merely contain an inference drawn by the author from odhs avw izc.)
.
.

103, Schuster, p. 174, &c. TahrS) ivi the latter alteration seems to me to lose the sense of the passage; and in both I am dis-

satisfied with the re I should therefore prefer "tout^ to") (Siv

;

'

ohos

av'j}

KOLTu:

ixii]

koX

u'vri].

Y^e
sijb-

Ka\ redifrjKhs koI rh iypr]yophs Kal rh KadevSov. Kal viov Kal ynpaioj/- TaSe

shall have
'

more
08
;

to say

on this

yap
e/c

ject further on.

irdktu fxeraTreaoi'Ta

Fr.
in

Ven.
Koi
-

II.

xiv.

Trepas

iirl

Porphyr. in Schol. 200 i^vvhu apxv kvkXou wepLCpepeias

:

icm KaKeTva ravra. ws yap ToD aoTOv tttjAoD Svvarai tis ttAcit/jLeTaTrecrouTa eKelvd

Q2a (Tvyx^^v Kal irdXiv irXdrreiv Kal avyx^'iv Kal rovro ev ttoo'
TCtiv

KUTO. ]ipdK\lT01/.
Cf. F/-. 60, infra,

Ir

TToielu

dStaAe/TTTOjy

outoj

Kal

r)

chapter on

(pvcris e/c T7JS

avTr]s vXrjs irdXai fxeu

Her. Ajifhrop. 3 Fr. 84; ap. Stob. Floril iii. uovaos vyeirjv iiToi-n(rsv 7)Sv Ka] 84: ayadhv, Ki/llos Kopov, Kafxaros avdTrauaiu. Fr. 67 Hippol. Bcfut. o Qios VH-^pV evcppoPT], x^'f"*"' ix. 10
:
;

Tovs irpoyovovs T]p.uiv du4ax^v, elra (rvj/exeT? auToTs iyeuvrjcre tovs irar4pas, elTarj/xas,

ut dWousiir' aAA-

OLs dvaKvKA-naei. Kal 6 ttjs 7ef ecrews TTOTouos ouros evdeXex'^s pewv ov-

TTOTe

(TTTjcreTaL,

Kal irdXiv e| ivav-

Bipos,

7r6\ixos

eip^vq, KSpos Xifxos.

Ttay

Philo. Leg. Alleg.W. 62 A: 'HpaK\eLTiov 56^r]s iTa7pos, Kopov koL

Xor\a}ioaivr]v (cf. infra, chapter

t^j (pQopas etre^A-x^puv eiT6 YLwKVTos Ka.\ov/j.euos inrh rwv

7]

ahr^

TTOiTJTOJj/.

TTpUTT}

olv

aWia

7}

on

Sei^acra

7){xiv

Her. CosiH. last pa2:e) koX tv to

KoX Trdvra
*

irav

avTT)

Kal

rh tov f]\lou (pus, jj rhu (ocpephj/ dyei aSrjy.

a.fxoL$]}
;

elffdyav.

Fr. 59 P'lut. co7is. ad. Apoll. 10, p. 106: TTore yap eV t]ix'lu abro7s ovK ecTTLV 6 ddvaros Kal t) (priaiv 'Hpa/cXeiTOS, ravro t' ivi (Schleier;

macher, r iari

p.
;

80, conjectxires:

tuvto
vii.
(

Bernays,
11.

Bh. Mus.

with Bernays (/. c.') as probability of Plutarch's having taken, not merely the words Ttturh ynpaihv from Heracleitus, but the whole drift of the passage and that the image especially of the clay and its moulding
I agree
to

the

VOL.

18

HERACLEITUS.
^

All life and consciousness of life

is

founded on

this

constant motion, which alone constitutes the existence

of things
;

nothing
in the

is

this

or that, but becomes

whatthings

ever it

is,

movement

of the life of nature

are not to be conceived as permanent, and finished once

for all
;

they are continually being reproduced

which

in the

is

in all probability also that

said of the stream of Becoming and decay, of light and Hades is chiefly borrowed from the same source. As to the meaning of those

youth is age, because it only arises from that which has long been in existence and age is youth, because it only consists in constant renewal and even the more ab; ;

Heracleitus declares the living to be identical with the dead, the waking with the sleeping, &c., because both pass into one another (for as the living becomes dead when it dies, so the dead becomes living when the as the young living feeds upon it becomes old through the lapse of years, so the old becomes young by the propagation of the species), and it cannot be urged that this was too trivial for the profound philosopher (Lassalle, i. 160); for in the first place the thought that in a certain sense the dead again becomes the living, and the old, young, -was sufficiently remote from the ordinary presentation, and secondly, the inference would be

words, Plutarch says

'

stract expressions that life

is

at the

same time death,

tification
c.
i

(cf.

&c., allow of jusPlut. De Ei. ap.

The unity of death 392). and life is referred to in Fr. 139 {Eti/mol. Magn. v. fiios; Eustath.
8, p.

rw oZv ^icc ovojxa 31, 6) ipyov BavaTOS. Hence the statements in Plac. 'Hp. r]pefxiav koI aracrip e i. 23 Twv oKoivavrip^i' eari yap tovto twv veKpwv. Iambi, ap. Stob. i. 906: rh /.uv ToTs avTo7s iirijxiveiv Kafxarov eivai rh 5e /xera^dWeiv fpepeip avdvavcriv. Numen. ap. Porph, Antr. Nymph, c. 10 '6Qev koX ^WpaKKenos
in
II. p.
:

fxkv fiios
'

(-0J/)

y\/vxfm,

(pdvai

ripi^iLv,

firi

QdvaTov, vypfjcn yej/4a6aL, that is to say, the fiery seeks to be transformed into the moist (vide i7ifra,

in

any case peculiar

to Heracleitus,

that consequently the living and the dead are one and the same. In themselves, however, the words might likewise signify the living is at the same time dead, and vice versa, because the living only arose from the destruction of a previous existence and the dead is undergoing the transition to that existence
:

chapter on Her. Anthrop.) - Plato Theaet. 152 D 4y^ ipw Koi jLia\' ov (pavKov x6yov ws 6.pa ei/ filv avrh kolQ' avrh ouSeV iariv. ovo' 6,v TL Trpon-eiTTOis op0ws ov5' ottoiouovu Ti, aAA' iav ws iJ.4ya -npoffayop^vrjs,
:

Ka\ CTjxiKpov (pav^irai, koX eav fiapv, KOv<bov, ^iifXTTavrd Te ouTws, cos ^tj Serbs oj'Tos ^uhs
vovv' iK 5e
5rj

txr\Te

rivhs

jU.iiTe

oiroio-

cpupas re Koi Kivnaeocs

because in waking all the powers are not in full activity, and in sleep they are not all at rest
;

waking waking

is

sleeping,

and sleeping

Kol Kpda^us

-rrpds

Trdura &
ttot'

St]

(pafxev

&\Kr]\a yiyuerai eJuai ovk opOws

irpocrayopeuoi'Tes' ecrn. fieu

yap

oi/Se-

ojbeu,

ael

Se

yiyvcrai.

156

FLVX OF ALL

THINGS.
;

]0

flux of phenomena by means of active forces they merely mark the points where the opposing streams of

natural

life

cross

each

other.

Heracleitus therefore

likens the world to a mixture which

must continually

be stirred that

it

may

not decompose,^ and the world-

creating power he compares to a child who, in plav,

draws his pebbles this way and that.^

fore,

While, thereParmenides denies Becoming, in order to maintain

its

the conception of Being in

purity, Heracleitus denies

iraiOif].

E
ej/

aCrbjUej/

Ka& avrh

uri^ev civai

alwvos

The anecdote in Plut.

7, p.

5e TTJ irphs 6.Wr]\a

duiXia rravra
Kii'ri-

y'lyveadai Kat -rravTola arro rris

.
. .

oil. can scarcely have any connection with this docGarrulit.

c.
1

aeciis oCShy elvai ev avrh Kaff avTO aXXa rivl del -yiyveaOai, rh 5' eiVat -Kauraxodev i^aipereov. In the first of these passages, this opinion is generally ascribed to all the ancient philosophers, except Parme-

trine.
is

The KVKewv

of Heracleitus

mentioned by Chrysippus, ap. Philodem. Xaf. Be. Col. vii. ac;

nides, and especially to Heracleitus.

Empedocles, and Protagoras; an I the Tiul is only applicable to Protagoras. However, it has already been proved, and vre shall see, further on, that the words quoted
correctly represent the doctrine of Heracleitus.

9,

is

Further details hereafter. Fr. 86 Theophr. Be Vertlg. Wimm. et 5e /x*; (this p. 138 no doubt correct Bernays,
'

cording to Petersen's emendation, to which, however, Sauppe prefers another and simpler version. Epicurus, ap. Diog. X. 8, calls Heracleitus a KUK7]T7}S. 3 Procl. in Tim. 101 F &\\oi Se KoX TOV ZriiXLQvp'yhu ivTcc Koamoupye7u TTai^eii' elpijKaai, KaBdTrep'Hpdk\itos. Clem. Paedag. i. 90 C ToiavT-qv TLva -nal^eiu TraiSiav rhv iamov Aia 'Hpa/cAeiTos \eyei. Fr. 49 Hippol. Eefut. ix. 9 alwv irais
:

iffTi

irai^wy,

ir^TTevwv
I.

'

iraiShs

rj

^aciKriiT].

Luc.

c.

ti

yap

6 alccv

iari

irals

irai^ccv,

TTe(T(Tevu}v,

5ia-

Heracl. 7, reads ct St?), KaQair^p 'HpaKA^LTOS <pr]ai, Kai 6 kvkgwv Zuararai fxr) KiuGVfj.evos (thus Wimmer reads, following Usener and Bern. the older editions leave out fiv, which, however, in spite of Lassalle, i. 75, is decidedly required by the context. Cf. Lucian, Vit. Auct. 14 e/nxe5oi/ oiiZiv. aWd koos
: :

(pepofxeuos

reads)

(or better, as Bernays awSiacpep. = eV t&J Smavjxcpepouei'os.

(pepe(rdaL

Bernays

{Rhein. Mus. vii. 108 sqq.) illustrates these passages excellently from Homer. II. xv. 360 sqq. Philo. Licor. M. 950 B (500 M.)
:

is KvKsaiva Trdi/ra auveiKeovTai. Kai iari TU3VT0 Tip-^is arep^'iT], yvwuis

ayvwcTiT), jxiya ixiKpdu. avco koltw irepi-

Be Ei.- c. 21, p. 393, where, however, the game of draughts is not specially mentioned. There is probably an allusion to the trals
Plut.
ireacrevcov in

the TreTTeuTTjs, Plato.

X(>>p^ouTa Ka\ aiiiifioueva iv

r-p

tov

Laws,

X.

903 D.

20

JIERACLEITUS.

Being that he may maintain in full force the law of Becoming while Paimenides declares that the notion of change and of movement is merely a delusion of the
;

senses, Heracleitus asserts

;

the same of the notion of

while Parmenides regards the ordipermanent Being nary mode of thought as erroneous in principle because
it

assumes generation and destruction, Heracleitus comes

to a similar conclusion precisely for the opposite reason.

But the metaphysical proposition that

are in

all

things

a continual flux becomes with

Heracleitus

physical intuition.

nature seems to

The living and moving element in him to be i&re if all things are con;

ceived in perpetual motion and change,

all

it

follows that

things are

fire.

This second proposition does not

seem

to have been developed

from the

first

by conscious
the direct

reflection, but the

law of change which he everywhere

perceives, presents itself to

him through
under
this

action

of

the

imagination

symbolical

aspect, the

therefore separate in his

sensible

more general import of which he cannot own consciousness from the form in which it is contained. In this way we
tlie
iii. 1,

must understand

assertion
298
h,

that Heracleitus held

Arist.

De

Coelo,

29: olShTafXv &\Xa iravra yivecr6a( re (paai koI pe7u, eiuai 5e irayicos ohdev, ^u 5e Tt jjlovov inroixiveif, | ov ravTa rravTa fxeTarrxruxaTiCeadai n-(pvK?u- birep ioiKaffi ^ovKiffQai \4-

yeiv 6.W01 T TTcWol koL

Tos 6 'E(p(Tios.
a,
:

'HpaK\ti.

Metaph.

3,

384

7 "iTTTratros Se Trvp 6 MeTairoutIvos Ka\ 'HpoLKXenos 6 'E(p4(nos

TLdea<Ti).

do-Alex, on Metaph. xii. 1, p. 643, 18 Bon.: 6 fikv yap 'Hpa/cA.6iTos ^ridero Th irvp. ovcriau Koi apxiw irvp elj'ai aroix^^ou. Diog. ix. 8 Clemens, Cohort. AZ A: rh irvp us apx^yovov (TefiouTes. The same is said in the verse, ap. Stob. Ed. i. 282 (cf. Plut. Plac. i. 3, 25) e'/c irjiphs yap irdvTa Ka\ els nvp iravTa reXevTa, which, however, in this
:

{apxvv
a,

Ibid.

iii.

4,

1001
(paa-lv

lo:

erepot. 5e irvp ol 5'

aepa

eluai rh tv Tovro Ka\ rb ov, Cyra fhai re koi yeyovfuai.

i^ ov

to Pseu-

is evidently spurious, and an imitation of the well-known verse of Xenophanes (sup. vol. i. p. 567, 4), which, liowBver, as is proved

form

THE PBIMITIVE
fire

FIRE.

21
or primitive
'

to be the first element, the principle

all things.^
'

matter of

This world,' he says,

the same

for all, has

been made neither by one of the gods nor

;

by any man
much
that

but was, and

is,

and

shall be,

an ever living

b, contains truly Heracleitean. For, after Simplicius has given as the doctrine of Heracleitus, 4k TTvpbs ireTrepafTfievov iravTa eivai Kol 1$ TOVTO vivTa avaXvenduL, 'Hpa/cAejTos he afterwards says
is
:

by Simpl. Phys. Ill

not to be understood as an a priori one; I am speaking of the law of change, which Heracleitus everyp. 13 sq.,

where perceived, and I have shown, on what kind of perceptions the philosopher based his proposition. I derive the proposition

"

tty TTvp"

Keywu

''

Koi

e'/c

irvpos

ra

irdyTaJ"

As

these words are

made

from observation, and expressly remark that it did not precede the
assertion * All is fire in the conI cersciousness of Heracleitus. tainly do not suppose, however, in regard to this fire, that Heracleitus was thinking merely of the actual we see. and hear crackfixe that ling.' etc. ; nor that any man ever thought that the whole world had
'

hexameter in Stobseus. and we else-wbere (ap. Proc. i?i Tim. 36 C; Plut. Plac. ii. 21; Qu. Plat.
into a

as

viii.

4,

9,

p.

1007;

cf.

also

the

TTi/pos cLfioi^riv,

infra, p. 27, 1)

meet

with fragments of verse bearing Heracleitus's name, -we may suppose that there was a version of his doctrine, made in hexameters to assist the memory, which probably emanated from the Stoics.
Schuster,
p.

'

been and would be again such a nay more, crackling fire that it was so always, even at the
visible
;

Sol, conjectures the

author of it to have been Scythians, who, according to Hieronymus, ap. Diog. ix. 16, rendered the work of Heracleitus into verse and refers to versified fragments in Stob.
;

i.

26.
*

Heracleitus says of present time. the world, not only iiv kolL ejrai. but fiv ael /cat ean kol earai irvp aei^wov. Consequently, I cannot but think that this view is symbolical. That fire was to Heracleitus onli/ a syml<ol for the law of change,' I never
'

On this Teichmiiller remarks Stud. I. 118 sq., and similarly, p. 135, 143 sq., although he quotes my very "words, from The metaphysical proposition'): 'Ac(2V,
'

said,

but

it

is

imputed

to

me by

cording to

this,

therefore,

cleitus first discovered the

Herameta-

physical truth, and then made the deduction, which depends upon the observation of things.' I really thought I had said the contrary
clearly to have been from such a misrepresentation Even the metaof my opinion.
sufficiently

safe

'

naively quotes the very words which refute him ('Heracleitus did not separate the more general meaning of this conception from its sensible form"), But if Heracleitus. in as evidence. asserting the world to be fire, did not mean to assert the absurdity that it was visible fire, the conception of fire must have had a signification with him. transcending its directly sensible content that is to say, it was a symbolical
Teichmiiller,

who

physical

'

proposition

is

obviously

conception.

IIERAVLEirUS.
fire,

kindled and extinguished in due measure

resting, rules in
all.^

' '

fire,

never

He
;

thus
it

indicates

his
^

reason for calling the world a

iire

was, as Simplicius

and Aristotle
'

observe, in order to express the absolute

no one absolutely. To the Greeks of the time of Heracleitus, indeed, the notion that the world was made by one of the gods would have been scarcely less strange than
p. 559, 1,

Ft. 46 (Clemens Strom, v. 599 B. Plut. An. Pr. 5, 2, p. 1014 Simp]. De Ccelo 132 b, 31, 19 Schol. in Ariat. 487 b, 46, 33)
T0J/5e Thv avrhv a-wavrwu ovre Tis du>u oure avdpwTrwv eTroiKOfffxov
TjCT^v'

aW'

^jv

ciel

Koi

earai, irvp

aei^oiiov,

aiTTOfx^vov /meTpa Kol airo-

ar^svuvfxevou fXTpa.

To

the latter

definition I shall presently recur.

The words rhv avrhv airdvrwv about which Schleiermacher (p. 91) is
uncertain, I consider genuine, on account of their very difficulty, though they are wanting in Plu-

the idea that a man made it. The eternity here ascribed to the world by Heracleitus does not contradict the assertion of Aristotle that all his predecessors considered the world as become, or created this
:

tarch and Simplicius; thea-nduruy, I refer, as masculine, to the gods and men, so that the words would indicate the reason why none of these can have made the world namely, because they all, as parts of the world, are contained in it. Lassalle, ii. 56 sq., says the one and same out of all things, that which, springing from all, is internally identical but the force of this explanation is not clear. That the world is the same for all, Heracleitus remarks also ap. Plut. De Sujjcrst. 3, vide mf. chapter on Her. Anthrop. We need not enquire with Schuster (p. 128), who supposed the world to have been created by a man, nor need we, with Teichmiiller, N. Stud. i. 86, answer the question by a reference to the Oriental apotheosis of princes (they were not so foolish in Egypt or Persia as to regard a favourite prince as the creator of the world). No god and no man means, as has already been observed, vol. i.,
;
:

has already been pointed out, vol. i. 570 cf. also infra. p. 440, 1 Her. Cosm. 2 Fr. 68 Hippol. JRcfut. ix. 10 ra 5e -navra olaKi^ei Kspavvos. Hippocr. TT. hiaiT. i. 1 0, end (vide infra, We meet with the p. 27, note). same world-ruling fire, also under
; ;
;
:

'

'

the name of Kcpavfhs, in the hymn of Cleanthes (Stob. Ed. i.30), verse 7 sq. where that Stoic, who we find from other indications especially resembled Heracleitus, exalts Zeus as He that holds in his hands the oei ^uovra Kepavvhv (^the irvp accC(i}Ou) ^ (TV Karevdvueis Koivhv K6yov, cis 5ia irdvTwv tpoira. Pkys. 8 a Ka\ '6croi 5e eu Kal tovtccu eOevTO rb aroix^^ov eKatnos sis rb ^pacrrripiov aTretSe Kal rh TTphs yevecriv iiriTr}5eioi> iKcivov, 'Hpa/cA.etTOS 5e ets a\ris fx\v, etc. rh (couySvov Kal dr]fxiovpyiKhv tov rh ^(aoySyov Trvp6s. Ibid. 6 a,
' ^

Kal SrifiiovpyiKhv Kal TtiirTiKbv Kal Zlo, irdvTWV X'^povi' Kal iravTcav oAXoiooTiKhv Trjs 6epfj.6Tr)ros Qiaffafx^voL

TavTTjv eaxov
*

tt^j/ 5o|o*'.

'

'

i. 2, 405 a, 25: Kal 'HpaKhiiTOS 5e r^u apx^v elvai (pTjffi

Be An.

^vx^v,

eiirep tJjv avaQv/jiiaaiu, i^ ris

THE PRIMITIVE
life

FIRE.

2:J

of nature, and to

make
out

the restless alternation of

phenomena comprehensible.
unvaryingsubstance,
of

Fire

is

not to

him an
derived

which things

were compounded, but which in this union remains

qualitatively unchanged, like the elements of

Empe;

docles or the primitive substances of Anaxagoras

it is

the essence which ceaselessly passes into

all

elements,
eternal

the universal noiu'ishing matter which, in

its

circulation, permeates all parts of the cosmos, assumes

in

each a different constitution, produces individual

existences,

lute

and again resolves itself and by its absomotion causes the restless beating of the pulse
;

of nature.

By

fire,

the fire-flash or lightning,^ Hera-

cleitus understood not

tolWo.
(TuvlffTTjaiv
'

merely visible
T)lxL(rv

fire,

but heat in
Tijiiau
irpri<Trr\p,

Kal acrccfiaruTa-

77),

rb

Se

rou T (Torstrik has this, instead of the St? of the Vulgate I prefer Sh, in aeeordance -with Cod. SX 10), Kal p4oi^ der to 5e KLfOvfj.evoi/ klvovfxivco yiyu!(TKadai. further details concerning this passage, infra, p.
;

whether Heracleitus
criminated
TrprjCTTT^p

may have

dis-

according to

26, 1, and Her. Anthrap., note -i. Aristotle himself says in Heracleitean language, Meteor, ii.3, 357 b, 32 rh tujv peovrwv vZarcav Kal rb rrjs (pXoyhs pevfxa. De Vita et m. T^ 5e i:vp del 5mC. o, 470 a, 3 reAet yivofiivov Koi peoy wa-irep ttorcfjios. Similarly Theophr. Fr. 3
:
:

the most literal interpretation of the word (as Stob. Eel. i. 594, asserts) from Kepavibs, or considered both alike as lightning. Lassalle. ii. 75 sq. would distinguish irpj](TTTjp

from

trvp

by making

irprjcrTTip

the cosmical elementary fire, the basis of all things, and at the same time the visible fire; while he regards TTvp as the visible fire only.

But

{LeLjne),
'

3.

K^pavvbs has already eome before us, p. 22, 2, in a connection in which it can only signify fire as the creative principle of the world, and not merely lightning in the irp-r\aT^p, however, special sense. has doubtless the same general significance in Fr. 47 Clemens,
;

The

this theory finds no support in the passage just quoted the only place where Heracleitus names irpT](TTrip nor in the fact that irpn^aTTjp (as Lassalle says) was already the designation in use among the Orphics for the impure,

'

Stro77i.

V.

599

trvphs

ipoirai

material, sensible, fijre which in an Orphic fragment ap. Proc. iti Tim. 137 C, therefore in a poem centuries later than Heracleitus, these words occur irprii.e.
: '

means that

TTpwTov OdXacraa daXdaarjs Se rb ^\v

(TTrjp d,uv5/?ou TTvpbs 6.pdos.

24

HEIiACLEITUS.

general, the

warm

matter, or dry vapours, according to

;
^

the language of later writers

and

for

this reason
'^v')(r)^

he even substituted for haps also

'

fire
it

the breath, the

per-

aether.-^
Aristotle
/..

But
c.

would imply a misconception

in the passage

When

(vide

previous note) says thatjHeraclcitiis sought the soul in the avaBu^iaffis, i^^s raWa (Tvvi(TTi)(nv, it is plain that this a.vaOvjxia(Jis cannot be separated from the irvp which is elsewhere declared to be Heracleitus's primitive matter. .Schuster thinks (p. 162) it is useless to enquire whether Aristotle meant the same thing by the two words to me there seems no reason to doubt If, in one so clear an expression. place fire, and in another the avadv/j-iaa-is is designated as the principle from which Heracleitus thought all things arose, -oe can only suppose (unless we charge Aristotle with the most obvious contradiction) that one and the same thing is intended by both terms. Aristotle indeed says (cf. p. 26, 1) exactly the same of the avaduij.iaais that Plato says of the all-permeating essence. Philoponus
;

Aristotle expressly says this we have just been discussing. Cf. also Fr. 89 ap.
2

Clem.
in

.^tcr?i.

Philo vi. 624 D; Mundi, 958 C (cf. Procl. Julian Orat. V. Tim. 36
Strom,
;

165
Gorg.
xiv.
iiScop

D. Spanh.
357,
(al.

Olympiodor. in
vpux]?^'

Jahns Jahrbb. Supplementh.

542)
:

davaros
vSaTi

vypTjCi)

yeueadai,

5e davaros yr\v y(v4adai' 4k yrjs 5e

k. I. c. 7), therefore, rightly interprets Aristotle, when he says: jrOp Se [Hp. eAe76t'] oh tt]v cpXoya

(m

vdwp yipeTai, e| vSaros 5c ^vxVPhilo indeed explains ^vxv as d^p, and Plutarch JJe Ei, 18, p. 392, represents Hemcleitus as saying irvpus Qduaros afpi yevfCis Ka\ depos QdvaTos uSoTi yh'eais that this is incorrect is clear from our previous quotations, and others which are yet to come (chap, on Her. Cosm.). ^ Aether is not named in any of the fragments of Heracleitus but that the conception was not unknown to him appears probable from the predicate aXQpios, which he gives to Zeus {Fr. 86, vide infra, p. 555, 3. 3rd ed.) from the Platonic derivation of aether from
;

(ws yap 'ApiCTTOTf'Arjs

uTrepjSoA?^

(pvo^'iv
'

V <p\h^

(Xeye

iTvp iari TTvpos) Sk it]v ^7)pau afadvulaaiv.

aWa

TavTfjs ovv clvai Koi rrjv \pvxvv. The expression virep^oKr] nvphs for flame
is

del 6e'a). Crat. 410 B, and still more from the fact that Pseudo-Hippocr. De Cam. i. 425 K, declares that Bepfi.hu appears to him to be the same as what was called by the

not to be regarded as Heracleitean the quotation only refers to

;

ancients
identified

aether; the Stoics, too, the iipper fire with

;

what Aristotle

said
ii.

in
3,

his

own
;

name

25 Meteor, i. 3, 340 b, 21) not to an utterance of his concerning Hera(Ge7i. et Corr.

330

b,

cleitus.

pretation
sqq.
;

ii.

Against Lassalle's interof avadvfxiaffis (i. 147 328 sqq.), cf. Part in. b,

23,

2nd

ed.

129, aether (vide Part in. 124, 4 2 2nd ed.). It is not, however, quite certain, for the iStoics may have arrived at their conception through the Aristotelian doctrine, and the treatise TT.o-apKo) J' is (judging from the doctrine of the elements which it contains, and other indica;

THE PRIMITIVE
he supposed
accordance

FIRE.
'

25
does, that
air.

of his whole system to say, as Aenesidemus

all

things to consist of
this

warm
of

In
w^ord,

with

larger

import

the

Heracleitus says of his

tions)

fire, tliat it is

never destroyed,^

much

later than Aristotle.

further supposition (Lass. ii. was the highest creative principle of Heracleitus, and that he held three stages of fire, in -which it manifested itself more or less purely, viz. aether,

The
89

sq.) that aether

Heracleitus, and which (even in Heracl. AUeg. Horn. c. 26) does not absolutely coincide wiih the distinction said to have been made by our philosopher between aether and fire. He thinks that the apathy of aether (ps.-Censorinus, L c.) which

TTvp,

and

irpT](rT7]p,

has

no

real

foundation, though its author has taken much pains to prove it. Lassalle thinks that this theory alone can explain the assertion of Aenesidemus, that air is the first principle of Heracleitus Lut I have shown (Part in. h, 23 sq., 2nd ed.) that we do not require it for this purpose. He also ui'ges that in Arabrosius Hexaem. i. 6 T., 1, 8 Maur., and also in Ps.-Censorinus Fr. 1, 4, in the enumeration of the elements, air (which can only have come there by a confusion with aether), and not fire, takes the highest place, as if that enumeration were necessarily according to a strict order, and as if Censorinus had not immediately after remarked the Stoics place aether above air and below air, water. He lays great stress on the quotation, I. c. [mvjulus constai] qicatiuor elementis, terra, aqua, igne, aere. ciijus principalem solem quidam 'putant, ut Cleanthes; but cujus does not refer, as Lassalle supposes, to aer, but to muiulus; for Cleanthes regarded the sun as the TiyefioviKhv tov k6(T/j.ov (vide
; : ;

contradicts the Stoic doctrine, must have been taken from Heracleitus, whereas it is far more likely that
its source is Aristotle's P?iysics (vide Part n. b, 331, 2nd ed.) from which we must also derive the

conceptions of Ocellus, 2. 23, and the spurious fragments of Philolaus (Lassalle, however, considers them authentic), which were discussed cf. /. c. p. 358. vol. i. 399, 1
;

'

23 sq. Fr. 66, Clem. Paedag. ii. 196 C rh 1X7} Svvov -Kws av ris XdOoi that the subject of hvvov is irvp or (pSo% we see from the addition of ATjcrerat fj.lv yap taws Clemens
III.

360 Part
:

Ap. Sext. Math. x. 233 ix. cf. Tertull. Be An. c. 9, 14

; ;

b,

rh alcrO-qThv <pws ns, rh Se uo-qrhu aSvvaTov effriv. Sehleiermacher's emendations (p. 93 sq.) seem to me unnecessary. Heracleitus may very well have said N'o one can hide himself from the divine fire, even when the all-seeing Helios

'

has

by

Partni. a, 125, 1, 2nd ed.). He on the Stoical discrimination of aethereal and common fire, in regard to which it is a question whether it was borrowed from
relies

tjs is also defended 28 (who pertinently reminds us of Cornut. Dear. 11, Schuster, p. 184; and p. 35"); Teichmuller, N. Stud. i. 184. Schuster, however, refers it to Helios, who obeys the laws which are inherent in fire but with this I cannot agree.
set.'

The

Lassalle,

ii.

26

HERACLEITUS.
it is

that

not like sunlight connected with a particular

and therefore changing phenomenon, but is the universal essence, which is contained in all things as their
substance.^

We

must

not, however, reduce it

on that

account to a metaphysical abstraction, as Lassalle does.

When

Heracleitus speaks of
'

fire,

he

is

not thinking
'

merely of

the idea of

Becoming

as such,'

the unity

in process (^process irende Einheit) of Being and non-

Being,' &c.

'^

tliere
'

is

not a word to imjDly that he

fire,'

means only the

that
fire,

ideal logical entity of

and not the

definite substance perceived in the sensation of heat, or

as

a principle,

is

absolute, immaterial,
fire.^

and

different

from every kind of material

me one

His own
for the

Cf. Plato, Crat. 412 C sqq., who, in his playful etymology of ^/iKaiou, probably borrowed from Heracleitus, proceeds quite in the style of Heracleitus when he says, oaoi yap TjyovuTai rh irav elvai iv

of the evidences

view taken of the Heracleitean fire in the text, which Schuster, p. 159, has missed. Other evidences are to be found in Aristotle's reduction of
T^vp to

the avaOv/niacris {supra 24,

in Heracleitus's
;

rh fxfu iroAu avTOv viroKafx^dvovffi TOiovTov Tt lvai, oiov ovSeu

TTopsiiX,

1)

and

own

utter-

aK\o ^
(iva'i

xwpeTi/,

Sict

5e

tovtov Tvavrhs
ov

ri

Sie^Lhv,

8l

iravra

to,

yiyvo/xeva yiyv^aduL- ehai 5e rax'^It mUSt TUV TOVTO Koi K^TTT OT ttT OV be the subtlest in order to penetrate all things, and also the
.

TOLXifTTOv,

Sjare

xp^o"^"'

Sxnrep
to

eaTUKTi ToTs

aWois (the same prediThis, the ^Uaiov,

;

ances (20, 1 22, 1 22, 2). When Schuster observes Fire is everything in the world, but it is for the most part extinguished,' he in fact asserts the same thing as the words he censures (fire is the universal essence, &c.). Vide the explanation of these words, p. 22 sq. As Lassalle supposes, i. 361 ;
;
:

'

'^

cates

which Aristotle attributes

ii.

7, 10.
3

the avaQvixiacns).
:

Ibid.

ii.

18,

30.

Lassalle's

receives different explanations one says 6 fj.ei> yap ris (pr)(n tovto ilvai
b'lKaiou,

rht/
et

r\Kiou

another

ipura,

ovZiv Z'lKaiov

olfxai e?j/ai eV

Tols avdpwirois 4irei5av 6 t^Aios 5vt] (perhaps a play on the words fxr] 50vou).
lire in

Another understands by
:

it

the abstract 6 Se ovk av rh TTup <pr]alu, ctAAa rh depfihv to iv r^ TTvpl kv6v. This seems to

verbose and prolix defence of these assertions, when closely examined, proves little. He first maintains that it is that fire consists in this not Being but pure process;' from which, however, even if the proposition were more ar'curate than it is, nothing would follow in regard to Heracleitus s conception of fire. He appeals to the above-mentioned
: '

rilE

PRIMITIVE FIRE.

utterances, on the contrary, as well as the statements of

ancient writers, leave no doubt that

definite substance in

it

was

fire

as

which he sought the principle and

however, changes into the most
its

essence of all things.

The primitive

fire,

various forms, and this,

tion of things derived.
are exchanged for
for gold,
fire,

transmutation,

is

the produc-

All things, says Heracleitus,

and
;

fire for all

^

things, as wares

and gold

for wares

and herein he gives us to

passages of the Cratyhis: but the deptxov iv Tcp TTvpi iybu, even if it really corresponds with Heracleitus's opinion, is not immaterial, but only the same matter which communicates its heating power to fire and if it be urged that some explain SiKaiov, like Anaxagoras, from vovs, this explanation does not relate tD fire but to the SiKaioi; and it is not derived from Heracleitus but from Anaxagoras. Las.^alle further supports his view by reference to two passages in Ps. Hippocr. IT. StoiT. i. 10, and De Carn. i. 425 K. And the thoughts there expressed have certainly a Heracleitean stamp, for in the first pasSLge. primarily in regard to man, it is said of the Oepfxararov /cot IcrxvpoTUTOV TTVp, OTZep TTOLUTUU iiTiKpaTieTai SieVo;/ a-nai/ra Kara (^utru', that tt6.vTo Zlo. TrauTos Ku&epva Koi TciSe koL iKuva, ovdiiroTe a.Tpcjj.i^ov and in the second Soksh Se /jlol h /caAe'ofiev 6epixhu aQavarov re etVai /cat fOilv iravTa Koi opav koL aKOveiv, Koi etSe'tat Travra Koi to. ovra Kal TO. /jLeWovra ^cnadai. "What conclusion is to be drawn from this against the identity of Heracleitus's fire with physical vital heat (the TTvp Tsxi'i'Khv of the Stoics) I do not
;

these Heracleitean philosophers say of TTvp or Qepixov. Lassalle, ii. 22, thinks he has found the true doctrine of Heracleitus in Marc. Oapella, vii. 738. although that writer does not mention Heracleitus but the materia ivfarmis and the four elements in the passage might have shown him that this is simply a Stoic-Platonic exposition. In vol. ii. 27, he also attempts to prove the immateriality of the Heracleitean primitive fire from Chalcid. in Tim. c. 323, p. 423 (fingamiis
;

e7iim
siiie

e^Hse

hiinc

ignem sine cerum

;

et
lit

ullins mattrice permixtione

putat Heraditus) here he has misunderstood the words of this XeoPlatonist (who is besides not a very authentic source). An ignis sine materice permixtione is not an immaterial fire (of which I never remember to have found a trace in any of the ancient philosophers not even among the Neo-Platonists), but a fire which is not adulterated by any admixture of burning substances. The same may be said of Lassalle's statement (i. 360; ii. 121) that Sext. Math. x. 232, According to Heracleitus asserts the first principle was not a marerial body.' I pass over some further
: '

Diogenes (vide suj>. 287, 7) says precisely the same of air, as

see.

observations. ' Plut. BeYA. Ft. bl

;

c. 8,

end

28

IIERACLEITUS.

understand that the derived arises out of the primitive

matter, not merely by combination and separation, but

by transformation, by qualitative change

but only the worth of
it.

for

in the

barter of wares for gold, the substance does not remain,

Any

other conception would

be altogether irreconcileable with the fundamental doctrine

of this philosopher concerning the flux

It
is,

of all

things.

therefore, decidedly untrue to assert, like

some of our

authorities, that, according to Heracleitus,

things are formed by means of the union and separation

of substances,
1

if this is

intended in the sense given to

such expressions by Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus.

leading
p.

if

But such language is also inaccurate and miswe understand by it, as some have done,- that
t'

388

irvpos

avraixei0i(T6ai

ndvTa,

(pTjalv 6 'HpctKAeiros, kuI irvp

o5a"7rf p

confusedly) thus apxh Tit^v oXoov rh irvp- 5vo dh avTOv Trddr), apaiSrrjs
:

airduTcvv,

Xpni^'^Tuu xpvfTos.

xpyfroD xpTj/xara /cal Herael. Alleg.

:

Ka] TrvKvorris,
Tracp^oucra,
t]

7)

jxiv

iroioiaa,

7]

be

Homer, c. 43, p. 92, therefore says TTvphs yap dr], Kara rhv <pv(jiKhv
'Hpa/fAfiToi/, ajxoifiy
rai.

ra TTZPra yiv-

Similarly Simpl. Phi/s. 6 a, and Diog. ix. 8 irupos afxoi^i-jv ra TrdvTa, al!^|J Eus. Pr. Ec. xiv. 3, 6
:
:

avyKpivovaa, rj 5e hiaKpivovaa, and Simpl. Phys. 310 a, siiys of Heracleitus and other physicists: 5ja irvKuwaews Kal /xaudcaews Tas yeveaets Kal (pdopas airoSi56aai, avyKpicns Se t/s t) ttv/j-iu

KvctXTis i(TTi Ka\ SidKpiais

t)

ixdvwcxis.

ajj.oi0'l]v
'

yap

[Trvphs) eli/at to. irdvTa.

is

The same
fire
is

Aristotle

not

among

these

of things from presupposed by Lucret. i. origin

doctrine,

he says indeed in Mctaph. i. 8, 988 b, 34 T77 fxlu yap av o6^i (Ttoi:

645

cleitean

X^KtiS^o'Tarov

eluai

irdi/Toov

e|

ov

combating the Herabut we cannot infer anything from this as to the

sqq., in

yiyvovrat avyKpiaei irpwrov, roiov-

rov 5e rh fiiKpoixepeaTaTOu nal AeTrToraTOU tt.u e'trj twv awfidToov, but he only here brings forward what may from his own standpoint be urged for the theory that fire is the primitive element he does not say that Heracleitus himself proved it in this way. On the other hand, Hermias, Irris. c. 6. expounds the doctrine of Heracleitus (rather
;

doctrine itself. In the Plac. i. 13, and Stob, i. 350, the theory of atoms is ascribed to Heracleitus apparently, if we may judge from Stobseus, through a confusion with Heracleides. 2 Aristotle says {Phys. i. 6, 189 b, 8) of the philosophers who only assume one primitive matter iravres ye rh eu tovto toTs ivavTiai^ olov KUKv6rT)ii Ka\ o"X''JjtiaTt^'bb'0'ji/.
;

FIHE ASD ITS THANSFORMATIOX.

Heracleitus belie\ed things to arise out of
fire

f?0

by con-

densation and rarefaction, and to resolve themselves into

fire

again. ^

It is undeniable that

when

fire

passes into

moisture, and moisture into earth, condensation takes

place, and, in the opposite case, rarefaction.

But from

Heracleitus' point of view, rarefaction and condensation

were not the cause but the consequence of the change

of substance
;

as he represents the process, it is not that

the closer juxtaposition of the fiery atoms makes moisture arise out of
fire,

and

solid earthy particles out of

moisture

but, on the contrary, that from

the rarer

element

is

produced a denser, since

fire is
;

changed into

moisture, and moisture into earth

and that conseout of the other

quently in order to reproduce

fire

substances, not merely a decomposition of their primijU.ai'OTTjTt

nes)

KoX

(Anaximenes and DiogeTc^ fxaWov Koi T]Trou

fjLevou Se

6
e/c

(PlatoV It woiild, however, follow not that Heracleitus regarded the derived as arising from rarefaction and condensation, but only from the development of opposites from the primitive matter and this is
;

aepa yivecrdai. Sim pi. Phys. Heracleitus and Hippasus TTvpos Ttoiovai to ovTa trvKPucrei
;

Ka\

jxavciitrei.
*

Which

is

manifestly the case

;

in the first of the passages quoted

from

Only the later correct. quite writers ascribe to him rarefaction and condensation. Thus in Diog. irvpds aiJ.oi$i]u to irduTa, ix. 8 sq.
:

apaiucrei.
. . .

Kal

-rrvKVoi-aei

yivofxei^a

trvKvov^ivov yap rh

irvp i^vy-

Simplicius Simplicius reduces condensation and rarefaction to (TvyKpiais and ^iaKpi<ns, in the same manner that Aristotle had already done, Phys. viii. 7, 10, p. 265 b, 30 condensa260 b. 7 tion, be says, results from the parts a body drawing more closely toof
;

paivecrdaL (Tvui<n6.iiev6v re yiveadai v5wp. rrriyvvfJ.evou 5e to uSojp els yrji/ Plut. Plac. i. 3, rpeireadai, etc.
. 25 (Stob. i. 304) 'Hpci/cAejToy tovtov ap^rjv Tcou o\u}V rh irvp
: .

Se

KaTa<T$i^uufi4vov
iravra.

Koau.onoi(7crdai

ra

TTpurov ixkv yap rh wa-

Xyjiip4(TTarov
ai/axa\a>[ievr]v
<pva^i

avrov

els

avrh

cru-

areXK6fiiVQv yrjv

yivecQai,
virh

eireira

gether, and rarefaction from their keeping farther apart. He further says that the proper expression for derivation from one primitive matter would be condensation and and from more than rarefaction one, union and separation remarks which Schleiermacher (p. 39) has no ground for thinking
; ;

t^v yr\v

rov irvphs

wunderlich.'

vSup

airoTe\e7<Tdai, avadvfxiw-

30
tive

JIEJRACLEITUS.
constituents,

but an entire transformation, a change of the parts, as well as of the whole, qualitative The language he uses to describe the is necessary.
passage of one element into another shows this clearly enouo"h, for. instead of rarefaction and condensation, of
the union and separation of substances, we read only of transmutation, of the extinction and kindling of fire,

terms which and death of the elements employed by no other natural philosopher. But are the most decisive argument is that any theory, which
of the life
; ^

assumes a primitive matter of unchangeable quality, would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles
of Heracleitus.
tirely different

Fire with

him means something

en;

from the elements of the early physicists the elements are that which, amidst the change of particular things, remains unchangeable; the fire of
Heracleitus
is

that which by

means of constant
all

trans-

mutation produces this change.^

It

follows then

from the flux of

things that

everything, without exception, unites in itself opposite

qualities.

Each change

is

a transition from one condi;

tion to the opposite condition

auoi$r} (vide supra, p. 27, 1), rpoTtr) {Fr. 47, supra, 23, 1), afihvvaQai and aTrrea-dai {supra, ^. 22, supra, 28, cf. Phit. Plac. i. 3 1
'
; ;

if

everything changes
motion was He-

lectical nature of

racleitus's principle of derivation,

he

2) (wv
2

and Bdvaros
fire
is

Why

(p. 24, 2). subject to this

transformation, Heracontinual cleitus does not say; the only theory that would correspond to his doctrine is this, that it does so because this is inherent in its nature because it is the aetX^o"- When, however, Lassalle asserts that the physical, and not the logical, dia-

is in error; a logical principle separate from a physical principle was altogether unknown to him. If we further enquire, how he knows that all things change, the only answer is he knows this from experience, as he apprehends experience (vide supra, p. 21, 1). ^ <j^q' gj^yg Schuster, 241, 1, only into a state that is different from the previous state.' But the subsequent state only differs from

'

FIRE AXD STRIFE.

and only
exists in this

31

middle-term between opposites

may

seize

in

the flux

are but a and whatever point we of Becoming, we have only a

;

mutation, things

point of transition and limit, in which

qualities

antagonistic

and conditions encounter one another.

While,

therefore, all things, according to Heracleitus, are per-

petually involved in transmutation, everything has at

opposite principles in itself it is and it and we can predicate nothing of a thing the opposite of which does not equally and simultaneously
;

every

moment
:

is

not

belong to

it.^

The whole

life

of nature

is

a ceaseless

phenomena, and each particular thing is, or rather becomes, that which it is, only through the perpetual emergence of the opposites midway between which it stands.^ Or, as this is exthe previous state, because a pai't of the previous characteristics have been exchanged for such as could not coexist in the same subject and in the same relation and such characteristics we call opposites, Every difference leads back to and every partial opposition, change fluctuates between two conditions, which, when conceived in a perfectly definite manner, exclude one another. ^ Cf. besides what is said on p. 11 sq., the statement of Aenesidemus, ap. Sext. Purrh. i. 210: 'The sceptics say that the opposite appears in all things, the Heracleiteans, that it actually belongs to all things and the corresponding statement of Sextus himself, ibid. ii. 59. Gorgias teaches /x-qBeu 63 iJvai: Heracleitus.Trai'Ta efvat (that
; ; '
:

alternation of opposite conditions and

ther sweet nor bitter. Heracleitus that it is sweet and bitter at once, - Cf. Diog. ix. irauTa re 7 sq.
:

ylvea-dai Ka0'
euauTLOTpo-rrris
.
. .

eluapfM^urju kuI dia ttjs

ytvecrOai

TiorrjTa.

rjpuocrOai to. ovra re irduTa /car' eVavStob. "0/. i. oS 'UpavX.

:

to Trepio^iKou
Se

irvp aiBiov. ^Ifiapuivrtv

Koyov

e'/c

rris ivavriodpo/xias Srjuiovt'jsv.

ovpyhv twv
div. h.

510

Philo. Qu. rer. (oOB M), after illus-

trating the proposition, irauff Sara eV koct^iu) (Tx^^ov ivavria ilvai ire<pvKv,

by

many

yap to
rovr

e| aixcpoiu

examples: ev twu ivaurixv, ov

to.

riMrfOhTOS yvd^pma
iaTiv,

iuavria.

oh

(p7.aiu"E\\riv?s top

^Ji4yav koI aoC^iuov Trap'

ahrois 'Hpd-

is

to say, everything is all);

is

Denei-

mocritusteaches that honey

abrov irpoavx^^v ws Ihid. Qu. in Gen. iii. 5. and p. 178, after a similar explanation: hinc HcracUtuslihros conscripsit de natura, a theologo
rris

kX^itov Kpd\aiov
evp^aei Kaivfjs.

(TTT]adaei^ov (piXocroVias

S2

HERACLEITUS.
:

pressed by Heracleitus
is

All arises from division

all

strife

the father and lord of

;
^

the world

and order of the unlike is joined together,^ high and deep

things, the law
T6 6eu)U KOi avBpuTruv airdXaiTO." ov yap t.v eluai apjioviav jxr] optos o^eos Koi l^apeos, ou5e ra (wa &V6V dri\OS Koi a^peuos ivavTiojv ovtwv. The

nostra mutuatus sententias dc contrariis. additis immensis atque laboThe last words riosis argumentis. would imply that Heracleitus, like the Pseudo-Hippocrates (vide $n-

pra, p. 15. 1), bad proved his doctrine of opp?sites by numerous examples. Fr. 75; Hippol. Befuf. ix. TToXe/uLOs irdurwu fxhu irariip iari 9 Kdvro:v Se fiaoiXe^ s. Koi tovs /^ei/ 6eovs e5i| tovs 5e audpunrovs, tovs tovs Se eAei/^efx.'kv ^oi'Kovs iiToiricre
'
:

same is related by Plutarch, /. c. (on which cf. Schuster, p. 197 sq.) SchoL Chalcid. in Tim. c. 295
;

Venet. z. U. xviii. 107

Catcg.

ScM.

in

making

Simpl. in in Ar. 88 b, 30, who, good this censure, ot'x'''?;

(prjcrL irdvTa, perhaps has taken some words from HeracleiThis doctrine of iroAetus's book.

aeaOai yap

Philodem. tt. Euo-ejSeias Col. Chrysippus said. Zeus and the Tr6\iJLos^ are the same, as Herapous.
7.

ixos is

also referred to in Plut.

1,

Be

Sol.

Anim.

4,

p.

964

but

it is

cleitus also taught, vide sajyc, p. 17, 2; Plut. Be Is. c. 48, p. 370:

a mistake to represent the philosopher as bla'ming Nature, because

she
4:

is TrJAe/xos.
-

7ap 6.VTLKpvs TroAefxov 6uo,ud(ei. Trarepa koi ^aaiXea Ka\ Tim. Procl. in Kvpiov irdvToiv.
'UpdK\iTO[,
liiev

Arist. Eth. N. viii. 2,

Ka.l

1155

b,

54 A:
iraTTjp

'Hp.

eAe7e:

TroAe^os

aPTi^ovu CVjXipipOV Koi iK TWV ^La(pip6vTuu KaK\i(TT7}v apixoviav Ka\ izavTa Kar
epiu yiv^aOai.

'HpaKAeiTOS

rb

-ndvTwv

Fr. 11
5e

Orig.

c.

The

avrii^ovv is to

Gels. vi.

42

et

XP^J "r^" ir6\fxov

46vTa
fiiva,

ivvhv

KaX

A[ki)v
epiv

epe?;/,

Koi

be understood, in the spirit of the figurative language of Heracleitus,

yiv6jj.iva TrdvTa kolt

Koi XP^^'

ings,
ipeiv,

where Schleiermacher's readeiSfVai for et 5e and %piv for are less bold than he himself
I
is

supposes.

am

not more certain

than he
XpewAieva,

about beginning with

for Lassalles interpre115 sq), 'bestir themselves,' cannot be proved to be Greek Brandis's (xwC6ixiva does

most literal sense, of two pieces of wood, which are cut in an opposite direction, in order to be added to one another, or propped the a-uficpepou against each other also, primarily denotes that which or jointly, bears reciprocally,
in the
:

tation

(i.

not seem to me like Heracleitus. Schusters conjecture, p. 199, apKaraxpeoJMei'a, pears preferable, applpng themselves to.' Aristotle confirms the (vide next note) Hence the words fivoiiiva, &c.
'

However, it would be another. quite in the manner of Heracleitus if here again he included, under the same idea, the different conceptions designated by one word and, therefore, meant by the <rvfjL(pepov, the compatible, and by the But I canavTii^ovv, the hostile. not, like Schuster, p. 227, limit Cf. on this their meaning to this. passage, Hippocr. it. Siair. i, 643 K.
;

censure of Homer, ap. Eudem. Eth. koi 'HpctJcAeiTos vii. 1, 1235 a, 25 " US ^plS CK iTTlTljJia. T<Z TTOLTiaaUTL
:

oIko56[xoi

e/c

hia<p6pmi

(TVfx<popov

STRIFE.

33

must
a

unite, in order that a

life,

concord, male and female,

new

may

be produced.^

What

separates, unites

with

itself 2:

the structure of the

world rests upon

the lyre
^
;

opposite tension, like that of the

ipya^ovrai, etc., and Alexander, Aphrod. ap. David Schol. in Arist. 81 b, 33, who explains the nature
cTTrep

bow and

tS^ov kol Xvpris.

Plato, Soph.

242 C sqq.

Some make Being a

.

plurality, others, after the Eleatic

of the avTiKeifiepa in the A.a)85oet57j (XTiva ixeTO. avriOiaews Tivos au^ei aXArjAa. Arist. in the two passages The pseudo-Hippocr. just quoted. shows more at length, tt. diair. i. that every harmony consists of 18, high and low tones to. Tr\e7aTa

manner, a Unity
2iAi/cai

'IctSes

5e

koI

|uAa
'

TLves

vcTTcpou

(Heracleitus
Iw^'evoriKacriv.

and

Movaai Empedocles)

on

(TvfxirXiKciv a(T<pa-

\4(TTepov atx<pQTepa Koi Xeyeiv, ws rh ov TToAAa re Kal eV i<TTiv ex^P? Sm-pepo.ueSe KOI (piXla (Tvuix^Tai.

8id(popa

iJ.d\L(Tra

Ivfxcpepei

kol

ra

etc.

eAaxicra did(popa riKKXra ^v/xcp^peL, (Cf. the KaWiarr] apuovla in

note.) He continues (TKevd^ovaiv avOpwiroicri 5ia<p6pci}V (rvfjicpopwv, TravTodaTra ^uylast
6\l/a

the

/idyeipoi

vov yap ael ^vucpepsraL, (paaiv at avfTOucarepai rwv Movcrxv, at 5e /xaXaKurepai rh ixiv aei ravd' ovtcos eX^ii' exaAacrav, iv fj.epi Se totc fxhv iv elfai (paai to wav Kal (piXov vn 'A(f)po5tTTjs, T0T6 Se TToXXa Kai
KoX^lxiov

ahrh avr^ 5ia ve^Kos

ri.

Kpivofres, CK Tcov avrujv oh ra avra,

^paxTiv
eleitus.

Koi

Koaiv

avdpwirccv,

etc.,

which sounds somewhat

like

Hera-

to If ydp (prjai^ Ibid. Syrivp. 187 (H/KiK.\.) 5La(pep6ixvov ahro avr^ lv/x<f>4pcrdaL uxrirep apjxoviav to|ou re
:

The comparison, too, of the opposites in the world with the opposition of sounds in speech, which is made by Hippoer. i. 23 Arist. De Miindo, c. 5, 396 b, 7 Plut. Tranq. An. c. 15, p. sqq. 474 (the last in immediate connection with the example of high and low tones), may have previously been made by Heracleitus. That he proved his doctrine of opposites by numerous examples, we are told by Philo {sujpra. p. 31, 2), and so out of the many that are to be found in Hippoer. I. c. c. 15 sqq.; Pseudo-Arist, I. c. Philo, Qu. Rcr. Div. HcBT. 509 D sqq. Hosch and others, here and there one may have been derived from Heracleitus. 2 Fr. 80, Hippol. Bef. ix. 9 oh Hkws Sia(pep6fJ.evov kwvrcp ^uuiacri
; ; ; ; ;
:

/cat

A'Vas. I assume, with Schuster, 230, that the most authentic text is that of Hippolytus; only in regard to TraXivrpoTros vide the
p.

The divergences following note. the Platonic quotations show that neither j/ nor hv was the subject to Sia(pep6,uVov; nor, of course,
in

the KOTfios, so often mentioned by It seems to me better Plutarch. to un'^erstand Stac^epojuei/oi/ itself as they do not comprehend subject how that which separates comes together: it is a apjxouia iraXivTponos (or, the harmony, i.e., the
;

world,
^

is TraXivrpoiros).

Is.

previous note. Plut De -rraXlvrovos yap 45, p. 369 ap/JLOvif] k6(Tuov oKwairep XvpTjs Kal
"^'ide
c.
:

T(5|ou Kaff 'HpaKAeiTov.

Similarly,

bjioXoyi'i'traXlvTpo-KOs apuoulr] okoj-

without mention of Heracleitus, but otherwise word for wjrd the

VOL.

II.

34

IIERACLEirUS.

whole and divided, congmous and incongruous, accordant and discordant, must unite in order that from all
same, De Tranqu. An. c. 15. p. 473, while on the other hand we read. De An. Procr. 27, 2. p. 1026
'Hpa/cAetTos
virju

5e

iraKivTpoiroi'

apfio-

stretching of the bow, there would be a difficulty about the apij-ovir] Kvprjs and the predicate iraKiuTouos or TraKiuTpoTTos would suit neither
;

Kol oKwcrirep \vpvs 8impl. P//t/s. 11 a: ws HpoLKXeLTus rh ayaduu koI rh KaKhu eis ravThv Xiyw crwieiai biKr]v roi^ov. Ka\ Kvpas. Porphyry, Antr.Ni/nq^h. Koi Sia tovto -KaXivrovos 7) C. 29
KUj/JLOv

interpretation.

Bernays seems to
first to

To^ov.

apuoi'ia Koi

(al. ?)) To|euet 5i' ivav-

TiW. The text, however, is here no doubt corrupt Lassalle (i. 96 sq., 112) takes 'shoot through' as hut synonymous with penetrate this seems to me impressible, and I can credit neither Porphyry nor Heracleitus with so monstrous an image as a harmony shooting with a bow, Schleiermaeher. p. 70, con; '

'

to|ou, jectures insread of to^4vi el so that the meaning would be And therefore Harmony is called a " strained back " harmony and a
: :
; '

of the bow because it is brought about by contradictions.' In this case we should have ex-

harmony

pected,
T.
.

instead of

et

St'

eV,

on

5.

Ijeen

Perhaps some words have lost, and Porphyry may have

k.
5.

written
oTi
8.

t.

TraKivrpo-^os

rj

apixouia Kocr^ov wy Kvpas koX tS^ou,

or, as Schuster more proposes (page 231) v apuovia Kvpas koI t6^ov eXirep 5t' The meaning of this expres4v. sion has always been a difficulty, even in ancient times. If. according to the precedent of Plato's Eryximachus and of Plutarch, the appLOvit] Kvprjs were understood of the harmony of tones, there would be no corresponding meaning for the apfiouirf t6^ov, and if the app.ov'n} tS^ov were referred to the
eV,

simply

discover the right meaning {Rh. Mas. vii. 94) in explaining apjjLovia by the combination or form of the lyre and the bow, i.e. of the Scythian and ancient Greek bow, which being bent at the two ends so greatly resembles a lyre in shape that in Arist. Rhet. iii. 11, 1412 b, 3o, the t61ov is called (popfxiy^ axopBos. Schuster also, p. 232, takes this view, only, instead of the Scythian, he understands the ordinary bow, which appears to me less appropriate. It is this form which is designated by the predicate TTaKivrpoiTos (bent backw^ards) or izaXivTovos, which I to|oi/ tvaXivrovov seems a prefer bow of the form alluded to, as Wex shows, Zeifschr. fur AlterIt is, thuvisw. 1839, 1161 sqq. therefore, a similar image to the one spoken of, supra, p. 32, 2. The conjecture which Gladisch tries to support, Zeitschr. fiir Alt. 1846, 961 sqq.; 1848, 2i7 sqq., that in the above passages ^apios instead of KripTjs, and o|eos instead, of To^ov, is to be read (according to Bast, Krit. Vers, iiher den Text d. Plat. Gastmakls, 1794, p. 41 sq.), besides beino: unnecessary, is very daring in the face of so many and such trustworthy testimonies. Bergk's slighter alteration {Ibid,
;

have been the

1847, 35) " T(^|ou Kol vvpT]s" can Rettig, be dispensed with. Ind. Lectl. Bern. 1865, agrees with the interpretation of Bernays, only he thinks the comparison of Heraalso

STRIFE.
one

35
one.^

may come,
is

as all

come from

In a word, the

whole world

ruled by the law of opposition.

most
find
skilful
it

cleitus has reference not to the form, but to the force of the bow and of the lyre. As the two conflicting moments of the extinguished and re-kindled fire condition the phenomenon, so the straining apart of the arms of the bow and lyre conditions the tension' (p. This conception also is com16). patible with the words, and contains a suitable sense. Lassalle, i. 105 sqq., opposes Bernays, but the ground ou which he does so appears to me not very important, and two of the passages to
'

impossible

commentator would to harmonise

Heraeleitus's words. The of the world is, indeed, compared to that of the lyre and

with

harmony

the bow, which must, therefore, be something known and given in experience, the point of the comparison lies in the iraXivrovos or iraXivrpoTTos but where is the mention of a harmony of the ]-yxe vjitk the bow and what, on the other hand,
;
;

are

we

to

type
'

understand by the anti-

harmony
;

of

differences,

c.

which he refers, Apul. De JIund-o, 21, and Iambi, ap. Stob. Floril. 81, 17, have nothing to do with

changing into its opposite ? Fr. 98 Arist. Be Mimdo. e. (Tvv6.\\)^ias ovXa [kcI] 5, 396 b, 19
:

ovy\ ovXa,
e/c -rdvTuii^

(TviJ.(pep6fj.evov

[wai] dia-

question. The statement of Porphyry (noticed above), even were the text of it in order, could equally prove nothing. Synes. Be Insomn. 133 A, compares the harmony of the world with that of the lyre, and explains the latter by the harmony of tones which makes it probable, indeed, that in his explanation of Heraeleitus's words he is following Plato, but cannot

the

(b^pSfievov, (Tvvaoov \_KaT\

Sia^ov koI

tv Kal e| euhs irdura.

e|

The

words

Kal

Trdvruv, &c.,

which

Schleiermacher, p. 79, separates from the first quotation, appear to me to belong to it. The ov\a ovx^ ov\a (the Kal in each case was most
likely wanting in Heracleitus, al-

concerning Heraeleitus's own opinion. Lassalle himself understands our view as a harmony of the lyre with the bow' (p. 111). He observes (p. 113), ^Ber Bog en sei die Seite des Hervorfliessens der Einzelheit und somit der Unterschiede ; die Leyer die sich zur Einheit ordnende
affect
'

our judgment

though they may have been found in the text of the work on the world) is thus explained by Hippocrates tt. SiaiT. c. 17 oIko56/xoi Sk S.acpopoov
:
:

epyd^ovrai, ra fxev ^T]pa vypaivovres to 5e vypa ^npaivoi'Tes,

(TVfKpopov

TO

/xiv

o\a Siaipeovres to 5e

5iT)pr}-

Bewequng
larity,

derselben.

The bow

is

the side whence flows forth singu-

and therefore
:

differences,

Schuster, p. 28.5, gives to oZXos the signification, woolly, compact, sprightly for he says Heracleitus here gives examples taken from the three arts of weaving, architecture and music. But this does not follow from the context of the passage, tt. Kofffxov
;
;

fxiva (Tvi/rie4vTes.

the lyre is the movement which reduces them to order an allegory of which, indeed, no Neo-Platonist need be ashamed, but which the

(Tvij.(pep6iievof

and

8ia<l)ep6fj.evov

con-

tain no special allusion to architecture, and the Trdvrwv ey, &c., would also contradict this inter-

30

HERACLEITUS.
On account
of these statements Heracleitns
is

cen-

sured by

Aristotle

and

his

commentators

for

denying the
recognised

law of contradictories.^

Later writers on the other hand

maintain that

it is his

merit to have

first

the unity of opposites, the identity of Being and non-

Being, and to liave

tem.^

made

it

the foundation of his sys-

Whether

this

be regarded as a merit or a defect,

absolutely true.

neither view of

it is

Heracleitus could

deny the law of contradictories if he opposite qualities could belong to the maintained that same subject, not merely at the same time, but in the
only be said to

same

respect.

But

this he does not say.

avrols-

He

observes,

and -would seem to show that the expressions should betaken in a wider sense; as in all the arts,
pretation,

one arises,

e/c

iroKKwu,

and vice

versa, but not ew irdvrcav. Arist. Metaph. iv. 3, 1005 b, ahvvarov yap bvTivovv ravrhv 23
:

vTToXafJL^dveiP

duai

koX

ixt]

eivai,
i.

KuOdirep rivS olovrai (vide vol.

oo3, 1)

T^^yeiu

'Hpct/cAeiToi/.

Ibid.
is

c. 4, init., where Heracleitus indeed named, but is evidently intended ibid. c. 7, end eoiKe 8' 6
; :

not

ravrhv yap iarai ay a6S> Ka\ KaKw elvai Koi /jlt] ayaQS koX ayaQco, ware ravrhv iarai dyadhv Ka\ ovK ayadhv Ka\ dvOpwiros Ka\ 'iinros. The commentators express themselves similarly. Alex, ad Metaph. 1010 a, 6; 1012 a, 21, 29; 1062 a, 25, 36 b, 2, p. 265, 17; 294, 30; 295, 19; 296, 1.624 sq. Bon.; Themist. Phys. 16, b (113 Sp.); Simpl. Phys. 11a, unt. 18, a, m of. Las;

salle,

i.

80.

Arist. 652, a,

ixhv 'Hpa/cXetTOV

fhai

Kul

fJLT]

elvai,

Xdyos, \^yu>v iravra diravra aXT)Qr\

Heracleitus

Asklepius, Schol. in 11 sq. attributes to the proposition, eVo

crvixfioXiKoos

opKTfxhv eJvai iravrcov rSov Trpayfidrcav,

Similarly c. 8, init.; ibid. rax^o^s 5' 6.v ris xi. 5, 1062 a, 31 ^aKoi avrhv rhv ^UpaKXeirou yKaffev bjxoKoy^'iV, /xTjSeVoTe ras
TToietj/.
:

but he only said this

aj/TJKeijueVa?

(pda^is

Svi'arhv

elvai

Simplicius and or yvfivacrriKcos. Aristotle, however (vol. i. p. 553, 1), cannot help confessing that an inference is here ascribed to Heracleitus,

Kara rwu avrwu a\r)dVa9aL' vvv S' oi) (Ti)VL(h eavTov ri Trore Xeyei, ravIbid. e. 6, r-qv eAo3e tt]u M^av. 1063 b. 24; Top. \\i\._ 5, 155 b, 30 hyadhv Koi KaKbv elvai ravrhv, Phys. KaQdirep 'Hpa/cXetrcJs <pr](nv. a\Xa fiT]v et t^ i. 2, 185 b, 19: rhv vvra iravra \6ycf} fv TCt 'HpaKkeirov \6yov (Tvn^aivfi Xiyeiv
: .

which he never drew and

could scarcely have recognised in Cratylus may perhaps this form. have given more occasion to it.
Plato, Thecst. 182, c. sqq. calls this assertion only a consequence of Heracleitus's view. 2 Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 305
;

Lassalle,

i.

81 sq.

STRIFE.

37

indeed, that one and the same essence assumes the most opposite forms, and that in everything, the opposite conditions and qualities between which, as subject to Becoming, it fluctuates, are united. But that it unites

them
far as

in one and the

same

respect, he does not say

(^

for

the reason, no doubt, that such a conception

which

as

we know was
'

first

expressly noticed by Plato and

Aristotle ) never oecm-red to him. Nor on the other hand has he spoken of the unity of opposites, the unity of Being and non-Being, in so general a manner, and the

general view does not follow so absolutely from the expressions he uses.
is

To

say that

'

light

and dark, day and night

One and the same essence one and the same pro;

cess is generation

and

destruction,' is one thing

to say

that

'

there

is

no difference between day and night, beas such,' is quite another

;

tween Being and non-Being

to maintain the unity of opposites in the concrete

is

not identical with maintaining

it

in the abstract

to
is

assert that opposites are found in the

same

subject,

not to assert their identity.

The former view alone can

be deduced from the examples which Heracleitus brings

forward, and he had no occasion to go farther, since his

concern was not with

physics.

speculative

logic,

but

with

must not, however, suppose ^ that his proposition meant no more than this Each thing:

We

displays very different qualities, either simultaneously,

if it

be suddenly brought into connection with several

it

other things, or successively, if

be opposed to one,

and that a variable thing

*

'

in the
edition,
-

language of Her-

Cf.

edition;

Part Part

II.
ii.

a,

527,
17-i,

1,

third

b,

second

Schuster, p. 236 sqq.

38

IIERACLEITUS.
is

bart, that the co-existence of contraries

merely the

product of an accidental opinion.

neither
Heracleitus'

Of such an idea own utterances nor the ancient

accounts of

him bear any

says quite universally

On the contrary, he trace. and with no limitation whatever,

that the things which are apparently opposed to each

other

such

as

and below

are one and the same

day and night, war and peace, above and the limits of his
;

reflection are indicated

by the fact that he has not as yet enquired under what conditions, and in what sense, this coincidence of opposites would be possible.

But though

it is

necessary that
it is

all

things should be

sundered into opposites,

that which

equally necessary that the

;

opposites should again combine to form a unity

is

for

most opposed originates from one and the

one essence which, in the course of
things produces
its
;

same

it

is

changes, produces opposites and again cancels them

which in

and in the working of conflicting principles sustains all as one.^ In

all

itself,

Fr.

67

Hippol.
elpr}vr),

Rcfuf.

ix.

10

Qihs

Tifiipt]

ev(p^6vr}, x^^H-^'^

irrespectively of Schuster's interpretation, each one makes a label

'

d4pos, iroXefios

Kopos \ifx6s-

aWoiovrai 5e
Bucofxacri-

HKcoairep

OTav
Ka6^

(Tvixixiyfj

ovo/id^cTai

T]5ouriu

at pleasure ') in that way we get no suitable sense, since the forms wliich the primitive matter
for
it

Bernays, Bh. Mus. ix. 245, in the second clause of this fragment where the text is evidontly defective, would substitute
cKacTTov.
6vu}/xa

assumes in its transformation are something objectively given, and cannot be described by any comparisons we may choose. It is rather to be explained thus: it (the air mixed with perfumes ) is named according to the smell (vide vol. i. p. 291, 2) of any one of these perfumes. (We do not say we smell air, but we smell myrrh, &c.) The Stoics (ap. Stob. Eel. i. 66) express themselves similarly of the Trj/eO^a, which penetrates all things:

for

dvujxaei;

.Schuster,

p.

188 would introduce ohos before

Ovwfiaffi.

To me

it

seems

still

instead of oKwa-irep (a.r]p in the old orthography is very like Trep). In the conelusion Kud' riSoviiv is not to be translated, as by Schuster and others, 'at pleasure ;' for (even
'Skccs aiip

simpler to read

HARMoyy.
separating itself from
itself, it

30
^

unites itself witli itself;

out of strife comes existence, out of opposition, union

out
all
;

of
2

unlikeness,

coincidence

One comes

out

of

all

things submit to the Deity for the concord

;

of the whole

even the unlike unites

itself to G-od

and
evil,

becomes like; even that which appears to men an

is for

them

a good

and out of
of

all

things

is

produced
the the

that hidden

harmony

the world with which

beauty of the visible cannot compare.'*

ras 5eirpo(T7]yopias ^eraXa/ifidvov 5ia ras rfjs v\r]S, 5i' ris Here we KX(^PVK^, TrapaWdSjis. have nothing to do with appellaTeichmiiller, tions at pleasure. N. Stud. i. 66 sq., thinks the disputed sentence can be explained
"without altering thetext, by making the subject to crvfjm.iyr} and ovoixd(erai, deSs, by which is meant fire. For my part I cannot conceive, even from Heracleitus's point of view, a god who becomes mixed with per\r]<pa(Ti,
jr.

This
Cf.

is

& 5e
c.

Z'lKaia.

Hippocr.
ofjioia,

Sia'iT.

11

irdvTa yap

dvouoia ioura'
\y6fiva,

/cat

crvixcpopa irdvTa,

5id<popa iovra' hiaKtyofx^va ov StoyucofjLrjv exovra, dypdifiova (speaking and not speaking, rational and irrational, as the two main divisions of the irdvTa). innvavTios 6 rponos ^Kaarccv, OfioXo-

yovfjidvos

yikv

ovv dvdpurroi
%x^'-

edeaav, ovBeKore

Kara Twvrh
OpQcOS'

0UT6 OpQwS OVT

6eo\ eOerrav alel
TO.

fXTI

OKOCTa Se
/cat

fumes.

Kaff r}Sovr]y Teichmiiller likewise translates 'at pleasure.' ' Plato, Soph. I. c, vide supra, cf. 252 B, where the difp. 33, 2 ference between Heracleitus and Empedocles is said to be that Empedocles represents these states of union and separation as alternating, and Heracleitus recognises in the separation itself a continual and contemporaneous union.
;

ra 6p6ws exef 6p6d tocovtov Sia(p4pi. preferably, Littre; (So Bernays, Heracl. 22 e^ei k-o.\ to. opdcvs Kal rd /u.77 6p6a>s. rocr. Siaxp.) Cf. the quotations from Aristotle and Simplicius, p. 32 33, 3.
6p6a Kal
fir]
:

Pint.

A)i.

Procr.

27,

5,

p.

1026:

dpuovlri

yap

d(pavr}s

pavepris

Kpe'iTTCisv Kad'

Hpct/cA.etTot',

iv

ri

rds

Sia(popds Kal ras erepOTTjray 6 jxiye/cpmi/e Kal KaTedvan/. part of this fragment is also in Hippol. ix. 9 oiri Se dcpavtjs 6 doparos iv rourot? (pav^pris Keyer dpuovia d'pavT]s Kpe'nrwv. iiraivil Kal irpodavud^ei vph Tov yivwCKouivov rh dyvoocrrov avTOv Kal doparov ttjs Svvdixeus. cVt dvdpuiiroLs iv 5e' icTTiv oparhs TovTois Xiyef ocruv oi\iis a/cor? /xd-

vvwv

6ehs

2 3

Cf. p. 35. 1.

The

first

Sckol.

Ven. ad

11. iv.

Tr6-

XefiOL Ka\ iJ-dxai r)fjuv 5eiva So.vet

tw

Se
riav

6ea5

yap airavra

ouSe ravra Seivd' crvj/reXel 6 dehs irphs apuovlav

(dWwv

^ Koi evidently only a

S\<nv
oIkovo/xuv

ditferent reading)

TO

(Tvix(pepovTa, oirep /cat

'HpaKkeiros

Ae7ei, ws rcf jxkv di'2 KaXa -ndvTa Koi ZiKoia, &u6puiroi 8e & juev d^iKa virei-

Qt](Tis,

ravra eSw

irporijiiu},

cp7](T\ ^

40

HERACLEITUS.
.

TwuTeVri TO dpara rwv aopdruv

(c.

10) ovTciis 'Hpa/fAciTos eV iai] fio{pa liderai Kal riixS. to. ifj.(pavrj eaTi yap, (pTjalif, TOts acpavicriv
.
.
.

up/xovir)

a(pavT]s
.

(pavfpiis
.

KpeiTTuy
OV
TO.

Kal'

OadiV

TTpOTl/Jiioi},

acpauri irpoTi/xijaas.

Ou

tlie

ground

of this last quotation it is conjectured by Schuster (p. 24 in opposition to him, vide Teichmiiller, N. St. i. 154 sqq.) that the words of Heracleitus ran thus is ri yap
;
:

ap/xovir]
'

acpavrjs (paveprjs

Kpe'iTTup

an iuvigible harmony be better than a visible?' But

acute as this conjecture is, it cannot be substantiated by the text of Hippolytus, if we consider this in its whole context. As the words apfjLou'n], Szc, are quoted, c. 9, without eo-Ti, and as these words cannot be taken to mean that the invisible is better than the visible, Hippolytus cannot (as I wrongly admitted to be possible in the Jenacr L. T. 1875, Art. 83) have had the interrogative is Ti, but merely ^ari in his text of Heracleitus. Nor are we forced by the passage in c. 10 to the theory of another text for he does not here conclude, as we should expect from Schusters reading, that the visible was preferred by Heracleitus to the invisible, but that both are made equal since at one time he calls the apfiovir] a(pav7}s the better, and at another he gives the preference to the oacou 6\pis, &c. That this conclusion is false is quite clear, but we are not justified in disallowing the employment of the passage in c. 9, because of the ' want of understanding that it evinces.
; :

Why should

'

However Hippolytus

may have

ing to which he makes the same passage in one of the two quotations, immediately succeeding one another, express the contrary of what it is said to express in the other. This theory seems the more inadmissible, since Plutarch entirely agrees with the first citation of Hippolytus, and with the reading of ecTTi in the second. I cannot endorse Schuster's judgment that the 'obscure account' in Plut. I. c. can have no weight in opposition to the clear testimony of Hippolytus. The only thing that seems to me clear in Hippolytus is that in his quotation in c. 9, he coincides with Plutarch. That which Schuster calls Hippolytus's clear testimony which refutes Plutarch, is, in fact, only his own conjecture, which is supported neither by the MS. of Hippolytus, nor by the connection of the passage. On the other hand, Plutarch's statement concerning what he had read in Heracleitus (and nothing else is in question here) is not in the least obscure it is perfectly evident that he only found in Heracleitus the assertion that the invisible harmony is better than the visible and not the question, Why should the invisible harmony be better than the visible ? Plutarch further says of the ap/iovia tpavepr], that God has hidden in it the 8ta(popai and eTfp6TriTes these expressions certainly do not belong to Heracleitus, nor does Plutarch cite them as belonging to him. But that some Heracleitean sentence was floating in Plutarch's mind (probably some words in connection with the double har'
'

'

'

misinterpreted the words of Heracleitus, the use which he makes of them shows how he read the passage, and refutes the theory accord-

mony)

we see from

Philo,
:

Qic.

in

Gen. iv. 1, p. 237 Auch. arbor est secundiun Heraclitum natura nostra, quce se ohducere atque abscondere

HARMONY.
whose decrees nothing in the world can transgress
amat. The tree does not. indeed, belong, as Schuster thinks {Fr. 1\, p. 193, Nature loves to hide herTeichmiiller folself, like a tree lows him, N. Stud. i. 183), to the citation from Heracleitus it refers to the tree previously mentioned by Philo, the oak of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, which is allegorised in and if it appears otherthis way wise in our Latin text, the two translators, or one of them, must
' '

41

divine law to which all things are subject/ the hUr]

;

the universe,' which

still

is

not risible

however, can we agree with Plutarch, who describes the

less,
apfjLovia

'

(pavepa,

not

(as

Lassalle

(The for it. answerable he Armenian text, as I am informed by Petermann, stands literally

says) as hidden, but. on the contrary, as that in v:hich the apixovia The invisia<pavr]s conceals itself. ble harmony must be the same as nature, who hides herself: the inner regularity of Being and Becoming and by the visible harmony must be meant either the external phenomenon of this re;

gularity, or

musical harmony in

The tree, according to thus Heracleitus our nature, loves to The conceal and to hide itself.') proposition which is supported by Themistocles, Or. v. 69 b {<pvais 5e
:

'

KaQ' 'HpoLKX. KPvwrecrOai (piXel, simi-

larly in the second recension of Or.

or xii. lo9 b), and by Philo, Be Prof. 4:76 G; Julian, Or. vii. 216 C (Strabo x. 3, 9, p. 467, does not belong to this) that nature kdvttThe Teadai Koi Karadverrdai (pi\e7.
V.

particular: so that the sense would then be: 'The inner harmony of the world is more glorious than any concord of tones.' Schuster connects into one fragment the words on the visible and invisible harmony with those which Hippolytus further quotes, oKotrcav oi^is, but the manner in which &:c.
;

Hippolytus mentions the two statements does not justify this; and the sense of the words (as we have explained it above) makes such a
connection impossible. Fr. 123; Stob. Floril. iii. 84 Tp4(povTaL yap irdm-es ot ai^pu}KpaTTiuoi votxoi inrh ipos rov deiov. T6i yap ToaovTOv bxoaov ideXti Ka\
"
:

words added by Themistocles

both places) Kal
irph
rrjs (pvcrws drifjuovpyos,

(in

ttjs (pvcrecvs 6

are evidently not taken from Heracleitus (La.ssalle i. 24, is inclined to think they are; so is Schuster, 316, 1, but the passages he adduces in support of this view from the writings of the Stoic and NeoPlatonic period are not convincing
to me).

i^apKesL
2

TTd.cn

Koi TvepLyiveTai..

Fr. 64; Plut.

riXios
(prifflv

De

Exil. 11, p.
fxr},

604

yap ovx vfrep^vcreTaL

6 'HpaKXeiros' i5e

jxirpa.

'Epivi/ves fxiv AtK77S iiriKOvpoi i^evp^

(Tovaiv.

From

all

this

it is

clear

that
71),

the

visible

harmony

can
(p.

this, ibid.

Somewhat differing from De Is. 48, p. 370 ^\lov

:

neither,

with Schleiermacher

5e [sc. 'Hpd/c\etTos
^f)(T(rdaL

(pTjffl*']

arj inrep-

be considered to mean the ele;

ruhs wpoTj^KovTas opovs'

uiv
Si'ktjs

el

ments (while the invisible harmony refers to organic beings) nor with
Lassalle

Se

(x^,

yXwrras

iiTLKOvpovs

e^vpr](Tiv.

Instead of
;

'Epiuvves

97 sqq.), the veiled and internally hidden harmony of

(i.

and the unintelligible yAwrrai Bernays {Heracl. 15 Rh. Mus. ix.

42
tlie

HERACLEITUS.
dependence or necessity by which
^

all

things are
^

ruled.

The same universal

order, conceived as efficient

Zii)K0VTa,
(TWfia,
(recos

259, 3) conjectures Xvcraai to have been the word used by Heracleitus. Lassalle. i. 351 sqq., defends 7Aa;TToj, and supports his reading by
Philostratus, Apoll. i. 25, 2, who mentions four images of birds i^ivyy^s), reminding i\& of divine retribution, named from the O^cbv

avTT]

5'

(nr4pfxa ttjs

iarl rh aldepiov tov iravThs yev4rrjv

8'

Kai TrepjoSou ixerpuv 7iTayix4vr}s.

ndvTa
icrri

Se

KaQ'

el/.Lapix4pr)v,

avTTju virdpx^tv avdyKriy ypdcpeiyovv

yap

elfiapixeuri

irdvTccs.

Here

and he of the Magi thinks that he has hereby proved n'^t only that the handmaidens of Dike were called tongues among the Persians, but that Heracleitus was acquainted with the religions
yXwTTai
; '
'

doctrines and symbols of the Magi. This is certainly a mistake; for even if pictures of the wryneck re spice fincm as symbolical of were used by the Persians and called the tongues of the gods, it would not follow' that the Erinnyes were called tongues of the gods or
'

'

gimply 7AcDTTOi.
;

But even Ber-

nays's suggestive conjecture has to for Schuster, p. 184, be given up

and

Hubmann (cf. previously Schuster, p. 357), propose KAudas for y\wTTas (the spinners, the Moirae, who, as goddesses of Death, know how to find the sun when it would overstep the measure of their life). Cf. further concerning StKTj, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 42 (vide sup.
quoted p. 26, l.from Cratylus. Clf-mens, Strom. iv. 478 B, AiKTjs vvo/xa ovK au rjSe<rav, does not seem to belong here. Plut. Plac. i. 27: 'Hpa/<:\. T&ura Ka6' eifxapfxiv-qv, rrjv 8e aiiTT]v So Theodovirdpx^i-v KoX avayKy]v. ret, Car. Gr. Af. vi. 13, p. 87; supra Stob. i. 58 Diog. ix. 7 Stob. i. 178 (Plac. i. 28): 'Hpap. 32, 1),
is
' ;
;

there is a brt-ak in the text which is the more to be regretted, as Heracleitus' own whorls are about to follow, whereas what goes before has such a Stoical sound that it is of little consequence to us whether the words from avrr) to yevecnws are (according to Schleiermacher's conjecture, p. 74) an interpolation If the relating to ov(ria, or not. text, as I believe, is in its right order, the meaning would be this he explained the e/juap/xeVrj as the Xoyu^, which permeates the matter of the world (the ald^piov (xwixa), as Simpl. Phys. 6, the (Tiripixa, &c. 'HpaAeiTos Se Troiet koi (cf. as a to this reading, Schleiermacher, p. 76) rd^iu rivd koI xpovov u-p'Cr/j.ei'OU T'/js ToC Koa/xov fxiro.BoXrjS nard Tiva
:

lfjLapixpr)i^

dvdyKrjv.
Sluit.
i.

Hippocr.
p. 7, 2
;

IT.

15, 1,

Cf. ap. Ps. 4 sq. (vide sup. the expressions) 5t'

Tr}v
irTrpcoiJ.vr]v

avdyKVi^
IxoipTjv,

9elr]u,

and Plut. An. Procr.

:

27, 2,

p.

1026

^v
. .

lfxapiJ.4vr]v

ol

iroWol

KaKoTiai

'UpdKXiLTOS 5e iraXivKoajxov, etc., ibid.

and what

rpoTTov

a.pjj.oviif]f

But here we 388. cannot be certain how much is taken from Heracleitus. - Fr. ilvai Diog. ix. 1 24

De

Ei,

c.

9, p.

yap
^re

et/

rh

ffocphu, inicrTaadaL )vuipir)v

oi

iyKv^epv-fjcrei

plur.) Sja TrduTwv.

senseless ol iyKvfi. conjectures, p. 109

-rrdvra (Neut. Instead of the Schleiermacher

(cf.

Lassalle,

i.

k\it.

ovalav

elixapjxivr}^

aTr(pali/e-

TO \6yoy Thu 5ia ovaias rov

-irauThs

334 sq.), oXi) Kvfiepv-na-eL, Bernays, Eh. Mus. ix. 252 sq., olaKi^iiy

ZEUS AM) THE ORDER OF THE WORLD.

force, is called the

4:J

woiid-riiiing

wisdom, the

X070S','

Schuster, p. 66, onj re Ku/3epn^cret, or otrj (otTj re) Kvfi^pvr\(jai, and Kvfiepmv is often found in a similar connection, with Heracleitus and others, as Schuster and Lassalle prove. Fr. 14; Grip. c. Cels. \\.
fjdos yap avdpunreiou ^hu oi-K 1 2 Pl^lt. eX* yvufxriv, d^tov 5e ex^':

^ Se ^'cDcra (pvcris 76 re tatraK^v airopporjv Koi jiotpav (K Tov (ppovovvros. oirixs Kv^ipiarai rh (xvixirav, ko0' 'Hpa/cAetroi', Instead of HXKus re, Schleiermacher, p. 118, here reads 6AA.o0ev Bernays, Rhein. Mus. ix. 255 aiMiicrri. Only the expression rh (ppovovu OTCoiS Kv^epvarai rh (rvfiirav is to be considered Heracleitean (it appears to me too well attested to be affected by the observations of Heinze, which will be discussed irifra, p. 45, n.); the awopporj and /uoTpo have quite a Stoic sound. On the Logos of Heracleitus, cf. Heinze. Die Lekre vnm Logos in Schuster, p. d. Grr. Fhil. 9 sqq. Teichmiiller, N. Stud. i. 18 sqq. That Heracleitus designated 167. the reason that works in the world, among other names by that of the Logos, cannot be actually proved from Fr. 3 {sup. p. 7, 2), but the truth to which the whole world bears witness, approximates to the conception of reason inherent in the world. Fr. 7 Sext. Math. vii. Se? 133, is less doubtful: 5ib 'r(j6aL T^ ^vvw. TOV Koyou Se iouTOS ^vvov ^wovcriv oittoXAoI us loiav exoj'T6S (pp6vr}(TLv (as if in rheir opinions they had a private reason of their own). By the \6yos Koivhs, in opposition to the I5la cppouTja-is. can only be meant Eeason as the common principle; and this it is, so far as it makes laws that are binding on the whole world. Schuster's

De

Is.

aWws

explanation of the \070s as the speech of the visible ^vorld,' is founded on two presuppositions,viz., that Fr. 7 stood in immediate connection -with the third fragment discussed p. 7, 2, and that in that fragment A070S meant the speech Of these suppositions, of Mature.' the former cannot be proved, and the latter, as above remarked, is The Koivhs ^^oyos very unlikely. must suTfly mean essentially the same with Heracleitus as with his successors, the Stoics (cf. Par: in. When, a, 126, 2, second edition). therefore, Sexrus, I. c. and viii. 8 the Koivhs \6yos by means explains of TO Koiirp (paivoixeva, he is rightly
'
'

opposed by Lassalle, ii. 28i, and wrongly defended by Schuster, p. Sextus himself, rii. 133, had 23. previously explained the \6ycs as the 6(7os \6yos. Eeason appears as something objective, and different from the thought of the individual, since we find in Fr. 79, Hippol. ooK iixov, a\Aa toO Koyov (so ix. 9 Bernays, Eh. Mus. ix. 2.55, and afterwards generally for Zoy^iaros)
:

aKovaai/Tas o/jioXoyeeiv aocpov ioTLv,

%v irdvTa etSeVat (cf. p. 45,
?i.)
;

but

the interpretation 'not listening to me, but to the speech as such, the contents of the speech, the reasons (cf. Schuster. 83, 228) is also admissible. On the other hand, in the definitions quoted in the previous note and at p. 31, 2. from Stobseus, of the l^Map|J.evr|, the \6yos is no doubt taken from the Stoic terminology ap. Clem. Strom, v. 599 C, the oioiKuv \6yos Kal deos is not found, as Lassalle thinks (ii. 60), in the citanon from Heracleitus, but in the interpretation by the this Stoics of Heracleitus's words interpretation itself is very inexact,
; ;

'

44

HERACLEITUS.
or the Deity
^

Zeus

and so far as

it

produces the end-

less series of

cosmical periods, and of the varying con-

ditions dependent on them, the ^Eon.2 All these concep-

and the same thing,^ and the world-forming force as active subject is not here distinguished from the universe and the universal
tions signify with Heracleitus one

order/

This force, however, also coincides with the

p. 19, 3;

and is expressly described by Clemens as an addition of liisown (SwafMiiyap A6761, the meaning of Also in Marhis statement is ').
'

32, 1; 38,
v.

1, cf.

Fr. 140;
:

Clem.
ao(phv

Strom,
jjiovtov

604

%v

rb
/cat

AeyecrOai

e0e'A.t

cus Auielius, iv. 46 (ride sup. p. 8, 71.), it is the Stoic who adds to the words, ^ jxdKiara SiriveKws 6/0.1r^ ra o\a SioiAovai \6y(f, these KovvTi. Originally scarcely moie was intended by them than by the oJs KaO' v/xepau parallel passage dyKvpoixri, that which is constantly presented to the eyes of men. Lassalle, ii. 63, thinks he has discovered in Fi\ 48, vide inf. p. 65, 1, the pre-existence of the Logos, but we shall find that AJ70S here means To nothing more than relation. sum up the results of the whole Heracleitus taught indeed that Eeason ruled in the world, and
: :

called this universal Reason the \6yos, but the concept of \6yos was not nearly so prominent with him Lassalle's exas with the Stoics. position requires to be essentially limited in reference to this his conjectures as to the connection of this doctrine with the Zoroastrian dogma of the word of Creation and of law, find no support (as Heinze, p. 56, acknowledges) in the sayings of Heracleitus for these presuppose nothing that transcends the Greek language and the Greek
; ;

ouK ideXii (oder ovk id. k. 46.) Zriuhs ovuofxa. I cannot here discuss the interpretations of these words by Bernays, Bh. Mus. ix. 256 Schuster o4o, and others. To me the best interpretation seems to be this: 'One thing, the only wise, wills and also wills not to be named by the name of Zeus.' It wills to be named so because in truth it is that which we honour under that name but it also wills not, because with this name presentations are connected which are not consistent with that primitive essence. That the form Z7\vhs is chosen instead of Atbs, to indicate its derivation from Cw, I agree with other writers in thinking probable but do not lay any great
;
;

stress
-

upon

it.

Cf. the quotations

on

p. 19, 3.

Heracleitus says about the JiLon, perhaps gave occasion to the assertion of ^iluesidemus (or Sextus), that the statement that time is identical with the wpwrou aca/xa (discussed in Part 111. b, 24) emanated from Heracleitus.

What

ideas.
'

Besides what

is

quoted

suj^ra,

For example the TroAe^os is sometimes Zeus, sometimes S'lKr], and the ^-Eon is explained as Zeus, and 5ri/u.iovpy6s. * The modern commentators on
'^

called

REASOX AXD THE WOELD.

primitive matter of the world
the Heraeleitpan philosophy are not quite asrreed as to how Heracleitus conceived the reason ruling According to Berin the world. nays, Eh. Mies. ix. 248 sqq.. he conceived it as conscious intelliLassalle (i. 32o, 335 sqq., gence. et passim) sees in it only the objective law of reason and Heinze {Lehre vom Logos, 28 sqq.). agreeing with Peipers {Die Erkenntnissthcorie Plato's, i. 8 sq.) comes to similar a conclusion. Lastly, Teichmiiller (N. Sfudi^n, i. 181
;

45

the Deity or the law of

scious thinking, he must have supit always to be such for he describes it as the aeiCaou (vide,

posed

sqq.), differing

from both views,

is

supra, p. 22, 1), the fiq Zvvov (st/pra, p. 25. 2), the all-governing power, which even in the present state of the world, despite the partial transmutation of the primitive fire into other substances. is not extinguished. That Heracleitus, however, defined the world-ruling wisdom as selfconscious, could only be affirmed or denied if we were sure that he had ever proposed to himself the question of its self-consciousness.

of opinion that self-consciousness cannot be separated from Heracleitus's world-ruling wisdom but Heracleitus, as I assume, not only did not discriminate as yet between subjective and objective reason, but represented this reason as subject to an alternation of sleep and waking, of weaker and stronger actuality as to any personality in regard to it, it never
; ;

But

this i s highly improbable. He speaks of the intelligence which rules all things, of the divine wisdom (vide supra, p. 42, 2). of the Svvov from which nothing is jbLTi hidden he says in Fr. 79 (vide
; :

supra, -p. 43, ??.) %v iravTa etSeVai we have no occasion to change elS4yai for eJvai (as in the Oxford edition of Hippolytus, Lassalle, i. 339, Heinze, p. 28 sq.) for eld^uai in
;

occurred to him at

all.

This last

this place expresses nothing

more

proposition is certainly not compatible with the self-consciousness which Teichmiiller recognises in Heracleitus's world-ruling wisdom for where self-consciousness is, there is also personality, whether the word be used or not, and whether the characteristics which belong to the conception of personality be present in more or less force. Nor is there any proof of the theory that Heracleitus believed the selfconsciousness of the divine \6yos to be sometimes extinguished and this follows as again revived little in the doctrine of Heracleitus from the analogy of alternating cosmical conditions, as in the doctrine of the Stoics. If he conceived the divine wisdom as a self-con;

than the other passages we have just been considering, or than the eu (Torpov. Fr. 140 (pT 44, 1). But though these conceptions, founded
on human self-consciousuess.contain implicitly the character of personal self-conscious thought, it is not to be supposed that Heracleitus saw this clearly, or that he expressly said to himself, the Reason that rules the world must be conceived as a personality had he said so, he could not possibly have conceived it at the same time as the substance through the transmutations of which all things come into
;

existence. The question, indeed, of the personality of the primitive essence in this sense was never raised in the ancient philosophy

46
the universe
is

HEliACLEITUS.
not separated from the primitive
all
fire
;

the primitive essence forms

its

things out of

itself,

by
it.

own power, according

;

to

the

law inherent in

Our philosopher's theory of the universe is therefore the most outspoken pantheism ^ the divine essence by the
has not even a word to nor in the express personality') other sense, until the time of Carneades and Plotiuus and consequt'ntly we find not unfrequently that thought, knowledge, reason, and so forth, are attributed to natures which we frona our point of view. could not conceive as personalities.
(whicli
'

viri\-fj(paTov''lTnraaos

koI

Hippol. Eeftit. ix. 10: \e7e1 Se koI (pp6vifxuv rovro elvai rh nvp koI rrjsZioiK-i](Tei(asTwv'6K(i3V aXriov KaK^I ^h avrh xPT](^l^o(Tvvr]VKa\K6pov XPW'Hpa:A.
fx-oavur]

5e
t]

ianv
127.

i]

SLaK6(Tfxr}(ris

kut^

avrov,

Se iK-rrvpua-LS K6pos.

Sext.

Mafh.

vii.

Vide

inf. p. 82, 1.

cognises

with Heracleitus. He rein the world a reason which guides and penetrates all things, and he ascribes predicates to this reason which we could So
it is
;

only ascribe to a personal being but he is wanting, not merely in the more definite conception of personality, but even in the discrimination of reason from matter. Anaxagoras was the first to sepaciple

Heracleitus held the irepUxov to be rational, and thought the Qetos \6yos came into man through the breath. On account of this identity of fire with the Deity, the south as the starting point of light and heat is called the sphere of bright Zeus, Fr. 86 Sfrabo i. 6, p. 3 vovs yap
;

Kal ka-iripas rep/xara

aujiov
Aios.

rrjs

6.pKTou

&pKTos, Kal ovpos aWpiou

r}

rate thyni definitely and on prinand to this the celebrated

;

passage relates in Metaph.

i.

3,

98-1 b, 15, where Aristotle says that Anaxagoras first perceived in

vovs the cause of the order in nature, which (as Teichmiiller, 189 sq., rightly observes in opposition to Heinze, I.e. 35 sq.) cannot serve as a proof that Heracleitus did not ascribe knowledge to the Deity, As in this passage, the God of Xenophanes is not alluded to, because he is not introduced as a that explains nature principle [a'lrios Tov Kdafiov), so the yvwfxri of Heracleitus is passed over, be-

I cannot give any more exact interpretation of these words, Schuster, 257 sq., understands by ovpos alOpiov Aihs the south pole but Teichmiiller rightly objects that we cannot expect to find th'S conception with Heracleitus. He himself thinks that by oZpos, Arcturns is meant; but oipos alQpiou Aihs would be a strange designation in that case, and how far Arcturus can be called one of the boundary points between morning and evening is not at all clear. The
;

words assert nothing more than that north and south lie between east and west and the ovpos
;

cause it is not opposed to matter as an independent principle. Vide supra, p. 22, 1,2; 31, 2 rb Trvp Oeh;/ Clemen.s Cok. 42 C
1
:

aWpiov Aihs only signifies the region of light, - In this pantheistic sense we must understand the anecdote related by Aristotle, Pari. An. i. 5, 645 a, 16, namely, that Heracleitus

THE FORMATION OF THE WORLD.

necessity of
its

47

nature

is

constantly passing over into

finite,

the changing forms of the

and the

finite abides
is

only in the divine, which in undivided unity

substance, cause and law of the world.

the

2.

Cosmology.

If

we enquire
the

further how, in the beginning of our

of

world,

transition

the

primitive

essence

into

derived existence was accomplished,

we

are told that,

according to Heracleitus,

fire

was

first

changed by the

Divine Creative Eeason into

air,

and then into moisture,

;

which

is

as it

were the seed of the world

all

from

this the

earth arises, and the sky and

that they contain.^

Here we cannot help seeing the influence of the physical

doctrine of the Stoics, which, for the very reason that
it

professed to be merely a reproduction and elucidation

of Heracleitus's doctrine, has so greatly biassed

and
that,

confused
to the

the

views of subsequent writers in regard

latter. 2

So much, however,

is

certain

called out to straiigers -who had scruples about visiting him in his daievai Qappovvrar, eTcat kitchen yap Kul fvravQa Ocovs. Cf. Diog. Trdvra i^ux'^*' ^^'''*' '^"^ Sai/xdix. 7
:

SiaKoa-fjLTjcrews, t KaX^I OdXacrcrav. iK

Serovro'ja-('9isyiueTaiyT] Koioi/pavhs,
koX

to

i/jLirepiexof^^va.

Concerning

TrpT)<TTT]p, cf. p.

23,

1.

v(i}v TTXvpT].
*

Clem. Strom,

v.

599 sqq. D.

That Heracleitus held the world to be underived is shown by Fr. 46 (p. 22, 1), that he held it also to be derived by Fr. 47 iJ.-f]vvei to eTrt:

- In Clemens's commentary on the words of Heracleitus we must refer the follo"sving expressions to the doctrine and terminology of the Stoics: \070s kcu 6eh$ to. avfi'

iravra Siolkccv.

on which

cf. p.
;

(xiripfxa ttjs hiaKOfffj-vtr^ois

44, n. also the

(p^p6ixua (Fr.
TTpSirov

47)

" "fvphs rpoiral

5e
tJ

OdXaacra77)

6a\dn<T7}s

Hv

rj!JLi.(Tv

rh Sk

Tj^icru Trp-ncrT-f]p."
7i.),

Swdixei yap \4yci (vide p. 44,

Sti TTvp

vwh Tov dioiKovvros \6you Ka\ deov TO <rv/jLiravTa Si' oepos rpeKerai els vyphv rb is (rire'pjuo rris

addition 5:' aipos, which is perpetually recurring in Stoic writings, and was required by the Stoic elements (cf. doctrine the of Part III. a, 136. 4, 137, 2, 169, 1, second edition), but has no place in the language of Heracleitus, and

48

HERACLEITUS.
tlie

according to Heracleitus, in
the primitive
fire

formation of the world,^

;

was

first

changed into water or sea

and from
developing

this,

by means of a second transformation

itself in opposite directions,

came on the
;

one hand the

other the
a theory which

solid

element, the earth

warm and

volatile element, the hot

and on the wind ^

;

makes the relation between Heracleitiis and Thales the same as that between Thales and Anaximander,*^ who was, of all the older lonians, the philosopher with whom Heracleitus was most closely
allied.

We

are told nothing more, however, about his

opinion concerning the formation of the world.

The

three forms assumed by the primitive essence

Fr. 46.) The Placita also, in the passage quoted p. 28, 2, refer to a description by Heracleitus of the formation of the world, though they contain a wrong account of it, viz., that through the separation of the grossest portions from fire, earth was first formed from earth water, and from water air. The second part of this exposition is derived from the Stoic doctrine of the elements (Part in. a, 169, 1), but that earth should proceed immediately from fire is contrary even to the theory of the Stoics. ^ This does not mean that the one half of the sea was to be earth and the other fire, so that nothing more would remain of it the words Oaxdaar^s Se, &c., assert only that the sea includes (potentially) in itself earth and fire in equal parts, so that both might equally proceed from it. Cf. Teichmiiller, N. Stud. i. 54 sq. ^ Cf. concerning him, vol. i. 250 concerning the similar view of sq.
;
;

contradicts (as will presently be shown) his theories on the transition of substances into one another. Among the Stoics we find in the formula rpoirr] wphs dC ae'pos e<s odwp that 5t' oe'pos always occurs as an interpolation and in none fire of our authorities is it said is changed into air, and air into
;

'

water.' This circumstance seems to indicate that an older exjDOsition must have been in use, in

which only the transition of fire into water is spoken of, as in the 47th fragment of Heracleitus. I agree with Schuster (p. 148
^

47 treats of the origin of the world from the primitive fire and not, as it has been thought, since Schleiermacher, of the transmutation of the elements in the world. For we have no reason to mistrust the assertion of Clemens that Fr. 47 referred to the forming of the world, and was connected with Fr. 46 {snp. p. 22, 1). (In the iin(pp6fx.fva, however, there is no immediate connection with
sq.) that Fr.
'
'

Xenophanes,

vol.

i.

p.

569.

FORMATIOy OF THE WORLD.

in the beginning are regarded

49

by Heracleitus in the

present condition of the world as the limits between

which the alternation of substances, the rotation of Becoming and decay moves. He denominates the change
(as Diogenes says^) as the way upwards and downwards, and supposes the world to originate in this way. Fire, he said, changes by condensation into water, and water into earth earth on the other hand becomes fluid and changes into water, from the evaporation of which
;

almost

all

other things are derived.

these processes he called the

The former of way do^vnwards, the latter

the way upwards.

This exposition cannot,- like the

fragment in Clemens, apply to the genesis of the world,

but only to the transmutation of matter in the world at
the present time.^
'

This

is

what Plato means by the

passes on to another point. Xo more can be concluded from the words rhv KocTfjLOU yiueaOai Kara, ravrr^v. For 1, Kara. Tavrrjv refers not only to the odos Kdrct) but to the oShs dvw kotw the previous context speaks of this as one simple way. not of two ways, odos dvu and bhhs Karaj according to Schuster, however, only what is said of the oSbs /caro? (irvKvovfxcvou Aeyet) applies to the making of the world, and what follows applies to its destruction. 2. The persistent use of the present forms, yive(r6ai, i^vypaivecrOai, etc., shows decidedly that something now going on is alluded to, not something that formerly happened. 3. The formation of the universe would be very inadequately described in the words which Schuster points out. for nothing is said of the formation of the heavens (cf. p. 47, 1). 4. The words wdXtv T au T7JI/ yrjv, etc., cannot possibly
:

ix. 8.

according to the qiiota:

tion on p. 78. 1 koX ixera^oXriv 65ov avw KOLTw Tov re Kotjfxov yiveadai Kara ravr-qv. iruKUOVfj-evov yap rh TTvp i^vypaiveaBaL avuKTrdijievov re ylj/ecrOaivdu'pjirrjyuvuevov Se rh vSccp els yxjv Tpeiveadai' Kal raimqv odov
iirl

tV

t6

Karci}
[1.

eivai \4yei.

irdXiu t'

aZ] TT]v yrjv x^^^^^^-^ ^'1 ^^ rh vSwp yivecrdai. eK Se tovtov ra \OLira, (TxeSbi/ -rravTa iirl tt]v avaavTT]v

BuuLaaiu audywv rrjv cnrh ttjs QaXdravTT] 5' iarlu f] eVi rh avw 65os, T-qs.
yiv(T6ai
-

S'

avadvuid<Teis,eXc.Qp. 52,2.)

As Schuster

believes, loo sq.

148.

Schuster indeed thinks it is from the connection that here also the formation of the world is But Diogenes has alintended. ready completed his observations on ileracleitus's doctrine of the
^

clear

and conflagration of the world in the previous words (p. 77,1.2); with koI ttji' fxerafioKrjv he
origin

VOL.

II.

60

IIERACLEITUS.

way downward and the way upward,^ and later writers without exception - who comment on the meaning of the We have, moreover, expression take the same view.
an observation of Heracleitus himself on the vicissitudes of matter, and the principal forms which he supposes it
to assume,

of Diogenes.

and this entirely agrees with the statement For souls,' he says, it is death to be' '
,

come water, and for water it is death to become earth but water comes from earth, and souls from water.'
whose
souls are continually

Schuster would refer this sentence to living beings only,

forming themselves from

the watery constituents of their body, and again rejust as the solving themselves into those constituents
;

latter are constantly

changing from water to earth, and

water."^

from earth back again to

witnesses,*^

But

this

inter-

pretation contradicts the unanimous testimony of our

which we have the

less
'

reason to doubt, since

contain a description of the fKirvpao-js, for it is said the rest came out of the water, which is almost entirely to be explained by the evaporation of the earth and of the Schuster therefore reads water.
:

(K

Se

roinov rh

Trvp,

to.

Xoiira

Phileh. 43 A. The wise maintain that our body can never be in a state of rest, del yap a-navra &va} re koI koltco ^et. There is no cpestion here of the origin and destruction of the world, but simply of the mutation of things
in the world.

But this alteration of (rxeSJ)!/, etc. the text would only be allowable,
the received text would bear no admissible construction. It makes, however, very good sense, though not the same that Schuster ascribes whereas in his reading, the to it
if
;

Philo. De Mtern. M. rd <noix^7a tov k6(T(xov 5o At x^'^oi't a (traversing a ^6\ixos, that is, a path returning
2

y^

g_

958
.
.

A
.

into itself) del

/cat

Tr)v avTT]v

b^hv
foi-

6.vw koX kcLtw auvexiUs afiei^oura. as

simple thought that fire arises from water by the evaporation of the water would be expressed by the confused and obscure expression rd
AoiTrd

Heracleitus expresses

i^

(vide

41, 4: ix^ra^o\7)v bpas awixdrau Koi yeueo-ews,

lowing note).

Max. Tyr.

aXKayrju Sdwv &uw koI ko-tw

'HpaKAetro/.-.

trxeSbv

Trcfj'Ta,

etc.

What

Kara Thu
^
*

can be meant by AotTrd ndvra'i Fire is the only thing which, in the
conflagration of the world, continues to arise from water.
still

Fr. 89; sicp. p. 24, 2.

Loc. cit. 268 sq., 157, 165. Philo, loc. cit. 958 C, adduces this passage in proof of his remark
^

THE ELEMENTS.
we
which constitutes the substance of

61

are told by Ai-istotle that Heracleitus denominated

all

fire,

things, as

soul.^

We

are, therefore, fully justified in

fire,

maintaining
tlie

that Heracleitus considered

water, and earth, as

its

fundamental forms which matter assumed in

formation.

trans-

Some

of the later authors indeed try here

'

to introduce four elements by interpreting

the soul

of Heracleitus as air, or regarding

it

as intermediate

between
distinct

fire

and water.-

But

this

cannot out-weigh the

;

declaration

of Heracleitus

more

especially

since the general tendency of that period to misin-

terpret

the ancient

philosophers on

especially encouraged

this point, was by the Stoic commentators, who

could not resist identifying their

those
of
Heracleitus.^

own conceptions with

same reason
little

For the

on the rotafion of the elements, and Clemens, Strom, vi. 624 A, thinks
that Heracleitiis is here imitating some Orphic verses which he quotes, but which in truth rather imitate the language of Heracleitus in asserting that from the ^xh comes water, from water earth, and vice See the authors quoted in versa. note 2, infra, who also refer the passage to the elements generally. 1 Cf. p. 22, 4; 24, 1. - Cf. Plut. Be Ei. c. 18, p. 392. who thus gives the passage quoted above from Fr. 89 irvphs Qdvarot dept yivi(Tis /cat de'pos Qdvaros vhari Also Philo, loc. cit., who yhiffis. thus explains it ^vxhv yap olofieios (Ivai TO TTvevfia Tr]v fiev aepos reXevvZaros T7]j/ yeueaiu vSaros, ir]v 5' yr)s Trd\ii> yeuecriv alv'nTTaL. ^lax. Tyr. 41, 4 Schl. p. 285 Cfi ^rCp rhv yrjs Qdvarov Koi arip (fj rhu TTvpbs Qdvarov vQuip ^fi rhv de'pos OdyaTov. yr\ rhy t'SoTos (which. howCA'er,
:
: ;

is no longer attributed expressly to Heracleitus). Plut. Plac. i. 3 ;

vide .^xp. p. 28, 2 Max. Tyr. /. c. The last writer does not ascribe the four elements to Heracleitus, but says in his own name that fire passes into air, air into water, water
;

into
fire,
^

earth,

and earth again into

.

Schuster, 157 sq., indeed believes, and Teichmiiller (X Stud. i. 62 sqq.) partly agrees with him. that Heracleitus in his doctrine of the elements did not omit the air. It seems to me, however, that there is no adequate proof of this. Heracleitus may very well have spoken when he had occasion to do so, of the air (as I have said p. 38. 1. in regard to Fr. 67) but it does not follow that he reckoned it as one of the fundamental forms of matter what we may call his elements.
;

As
2

Anaxagoras

and Democritus

represented the air as an assem-

52

IIERACLEITUS.
is

importance

to be attached to the fact that

some of

the later representations speak of a direct transmutation of fire into earth,' or of earth into
blage of different kinds of substances (vide inf. 815, 3, 708, third edition), so Heracleitus may have seen in it something intermediate between water and fire, a transitional form, or a series of transitional forms. The fact that Plutarch introduces air into the passage from Heracleitus, discussed supra, p. 24, ol, 2, cannot weigh against the 2
;

fire.^

Nor must
might be more

scure,

and though

it

correct on that account to represent clear and dark vapours as rising

clear

meaning of Heracleitus's own

words. If ^nesidemus substituted air for fire as the primitive matter of Heracleitus (vide Part III. b, 23), this can be explained (as shown, he. cif.) without assuming that Heracleitus ascribed to air a
fire.

similar part as to earth, water and The opinion of ^nesidenius concerning Heracleitus's primitive essence (which in any case is mis-

both from earth and sea, this is not quite the point in question. For, in the first place, Diogenes is not saying that the earth, as this elementary body, changes into fiery vapours yri here designates the land in contradistinction to sea, with the exclusion of the water in the lakes, rivers, marshes, and the And ground moist with rain. secondly, it is a question whether the clear and dark vapours ascend at the same time side by side, and are not all at first dark and moist, becoming afterwards bright. The dark would then serve to feed the clouds, the bright would go to
;

make

taken) cannot be brought forward as a proof of this theory. ' Plut. Plac, loc. clt. Max. Tyr.; cf. p. ol, 2. In that sense we might understand Diog. ix. 9 ylve.rrdai avadvfiioaeis OaXdrrTis, as iJ.eu OLTTQ re yris Kol AauTrpas Kal KaOapas, &s SeaKoreivas' av^effOai Se rh fxeu nvp virh ruv KajxTTpwv, rh Se vypdv inrb twv krepuiv. But this is not necessary. For even if Lassalle's theory (ii. 99) that only the pure vapours rise from the sea, and only the dark and foggy vapours from the earth, as well as the opposite theory that the pure and clear vapours arise from the earth, and the dark from the sea, is contradicted by the fact (which Teichmiiller points out, iV. Si'ud. i. 57) that the vapours arising from earth and sea are alike ob'

the stars and the bright sky. Schleiermacher, p. 49 sq., defends the idea of a direct transformation of earth into fire, on the ground that Aristotle, whose meteorology appears to be essentially dependent on Heracleitus, speaks of a dry evaporation side by side with a moist; and, therefore, of a direct But transition of earth into fire. the dependence of Aristotle upon Heracleitus cannot be proved either in a general sense or in rei?ard to
lastly not the

There is particular point. smallest ground for the conjecture of Ideler {Arisf. Meteorol. i. 351) that Heracleitus may have borrowed the doctrine of
this

the double evaporation from the Orphic poems; what is said by

by Clemens, Strom, vi. 629, cannot be quoted in support of it.

Plato, Crat. 402 B, and

THE ELEMENTS.

5;j

we seek in Heracleitus a conception of the elements in his meaning the Empedoclean or Aristotelian sense
;

is

simply that the three kinds of matter mentioned

first

above are the

matter in
all others
its

manifestations

of the

primitive

transformation

the
wood ?

first

bodies, to which

may

be reduced, and which are produced one

o-iven order
"^

from the other in the

'

and

this regular

Empedocles understands

by

his so-called elements (he himself,

as

well known, does not use the invariable primitive substances, which as such never pass over into each other. Aristotle makes his elements pass over into each other, but he does not derive them from any matter preceding them in time for the irpuTq vX-q has never existed as such; it is only the ideal presupposition of the elements, their common essence, that exists merely under these four forms. Heracleitus, on the contrary, represents fire as existing for itself before the framing of the world, and only changing in course of time into water and earth. - The question whether Heracleitus, in kindling wood for his hearth-fire, always reflected that this earth must change first into sea and then into irpv^T"hp. before it could rise into fire' (Schuster, 166), is one which the history of philosophy is not required to answer. He probably did not think every time he looked at the Caystros, that it was not the same river as before, nor torment himself at every draught of water as to whether the dryness of his soul The would not suffer thereby. onlv question which concerns us is this how Heracleitus on his own presuppositions explained common phenomena like the burning of
is

word)

If nothing has been told us on this subject we have no right therefore to disbelieve in those presuppositions. certainly do not

We

'

Heracleitus explained the burning of wood, nor even that he ried to explain it. //he tried, the answer was not far to seek. He did not require (as Schuster thinks) to regard the wood absolutely as earth. He might consider that earth and water were mingled in it that when it is consumed, the earth, so far as it does not change into water, remains behintl as ashes. The remainder, together with the water contained in the wood, first changes into dark vapour, then into light vapour, first into smoke, then into fire (which, according to Theophrastus, JDe Imi^ Fr. iii. 3, is burning smoke, and according to Arist. Meteor, ii. 2, 355
:

know how

a, 5, is

supposed by many physicists, as Diogenes, supra, p. 295, to be nourished by moisture). Here he had an explanation, which was not more inconsistent with appearances than many others, and accommodated itself admirably to his other
theories.
fire

Or he might regard the burning as a coming forth of the

contained in the
81
sq.).
Trepie'xoi'

(vide

inf. p.

and as an escape of

the burning particles of wood into theTreptexor. Definite evidence concerning the scientific theories of a philosopher cannot be outweighed

54

HERACLEITUS.
is

progression

equally maintained on both sides, as he

:

expresses in the sentence

the way upwards and the

way downwards

is

the

same.^

This expression also

is

shows us that change of substance

likewise change of place
to
;

with Heracleitus
the farther
it

the nearer a body approaches

it

the

fiery
it
is

nature, the higher

rises

removed

from that nature, the lower

sinks

as

even sensible observation would go far to prove.^

by the impossibility of reconciling
certain facts -with those theories, so long: a,s we are in ignorance whether and in what way the phi-

words quoted, p. 49, 1), which explains fxiTafioh^ as the change into one another of the iroAe/xos and o/xoXoyla, the moment that leads from Being to non-Being, and from non-Being to Being (vide also ii. 246, and with another combination of the words, ii. 137). Diogenes
himself never leaves us in any doubt as to the meaning of the oShs &VU and Ko.-'U). It is a singular objection to make (/. c. 173 sq.) that the quality of the elementary stages of transmutation cannot be described
as
o5bs
yuiTj.

losopher himself tried to reconcile them. Did Democritus and Plato regard wood as incombustible, because according to their theory earth cannot be converted into fire ?
vide infra, p. 708, 2, third edition, II. a, 676, 2. Fr. 82, ap. Hippocr. DeAlhn. ii. 24 K; Tert. Adv. Marc. ii. 28,

Part
'

ap. Hippol. vide also p. 50, 1. Lassalle (i. 128. 173 sqq.) is not content with referring the upward and

and more

fully
1
;

siqy.

p. 49,

The way
is

from
the

fire

through water to earth

as

downward way

to the stages of the elemental process, and the identity of the two ways to the sameness of these stages he thinks the above
;

proposition also means that the world is constant unity, constant adjustment of the two contradictory moments of Being and Nothing, of the tendency to yeveais and to 4Knvpa3(Tis or negation. But this is to make the dirk philosopher darker than he already is. There is no passage, either from or about Heracleitus, which warrants our understanding the oShs &vu} and KOLTw as anything except the way from earth to fire, and vice verm even in I)iog. ix. 8 it is only Lassalle's wrong translation (cf. the
;

earth through water to fire, although the direction pursued in the one case is different from that pursued in the other. That the way upward and downward does not involve any change of place I cannot admit. Lassalle attempts to prove this very diffusely (ii. 241-260), and Brandis {Gesch. d, Entw. i. 68) agrees with him on the point. argument has little Lassalle's
force Motion upward and downwards,' he says, is rectilinear the motion of Heracleitus is circular' (this is only true so far as he represents the transmutation of matters under the figure of a circle) ' the sea lies deeper than the earth
' :
'

same

that

from

CIRCULAR MOVEMEXT OF THE ELEMENTS.

55

The transformation of naatter moves therefore in a circle when its elementary nature, has attained in
;

earth

its

greatest distance from its primitive form,

its

it

returns through the earlier stages to

The uniformity and

one thing that
life.
is

fixed order of this

commencement. movement is the

nature and
its

permanent

in the flux of the world's

its

Matter

is

incessantly changing

place,

and consequently nothing, as gredients, ever remains the same

everything
is

to its material inas

it

was before

subject to a continual transformation, and

therefore to a continual loss of its material parts,

is, than the terra firma, not deeper than the sea- bottom) but if we understand the bZos ivw as relating to place, it must be higher (an argument by which we might prove that Plato and Aristotle knew nothing of the natural in regard places of the elements) to place, the above and below, the way upward and the way downward are not identical' (vide previous 'Plato and note and p. 16, 4). Aristotle could not have been silent about the o^osavw /caroj, if this exI^ression had been used in a literal sense, and not merely as a figure.' (Why not ? Are they not silent about many conceptions of great importance in the system of HeracPlato, however, does menleitus ? tion, Phileh. 43 A, the doctrine that everything consUmtly avw re koI koto; pe?, and in Thecet. 181 B, he says that this doctrine makes everything to be perpetually changing its place as well as its nature) Diog. ix. 8 sq. does not speak of any graduated motion in regard to "Arisplace (see preceding note). totle, Phys. viii. 3, expressly denies that 6.v(i} and Karw are to be under-

and

(that

'

'

stood in regard to place (this is not the case if it were so he would also expressly deny that Heracleitus taught the perpetual transmuOcellus (i. 12) tation of matter)
'

'

Kara tottov and Kara juerajSoA-V in opposition to each other.' How we are to understand by &pa} anything except upwards with reference to space or by KOLTQ) anything but downwards,
pla<"es

the

Sie'loSos

Lassalle
olivious

does not explain. It is that the ancient writers, one and all, who mention the doctrine of Heracleitus, understood it in the way that has hitherto been customary. Lassalle (ii. 251) himself indeed finds himself obliged to admit that Heracleitus may also have employed the expression o5cs

'

avw for th^- procession of the elements, and in that there must be a change of place. As fire occupies the upper portion of the world, Stob. Eel. i. 500, reckons Heracleitus among those who regard the sky as iivpivos this is not incompatible with the statement in Diog. ix. 9, that he never precisely explained the nature of the nepiexov.
;

56
this loss

HERACLEITUS.

must perpetually be compensated by the influx way upwards, or the way downwards, into its place and into its nature. The appearance of permanent Being then can only arise from this that the parts which flow off on the one side are replaced by the addition of others in the same proportion to water must be added as much moisture from fire and earth as it has itself lost in fire and the permanent element in the flux of earth, &c.
of other parts passing on the
:
;

things

is

not matter, but the proportion of matters

the world as a whole will remain the same, so long as

the elements pass over into each other in the same proportion
;

and each individual

tiling

will

remain the

same
thing

so long as the

same equality

in

change of matter

takes place in this particular place in the world.

is

Each

consequently that which

it is,

only because the

opposite streams
retreating stream,

of matter, the

advancing and the

meet

in it in this definite direction

and in
process

this definite proportion.^

is

The

regularity of this

what Heracleitus

mony,

hiKT],

by the name of HarFate, world-ruling wisdom, &c. while, on

calls
;

the other hand, the flux of

all

things arises from the

strife

change of substances, and the universal law of

In favour of this acceptation of Heracleitus's docti'ine, we certainly cannot adduce Fr. 48 (on which, cf. p. 60, 1) as direct evideuce, supposing these words to refer, not to tlie change of the elements into one another, but to the destruction of the world. But from what we know of his theory concerning the flux of all things, it is difficult to see how he could otherwise have explained the cir'

curastance

that particular things

to

and the world as a whole seem

continue for a longer or shorter This theory is period unchanged. established by the well-known example of the river (p. 11, 2), which Aristotle {Meteor, ii. 3, 357 b, 30 and also sq.) uses in this sense
;

assertion {swp. p. 13, w.) that according to Heracleitus all things were for ever changing, only we do not notice ir.
Aristotle's

by

own

CIRCULAR MOVEMENT OF THE ELEMENTS.

from
way.
If

57

the

opposition

of

the

upward and downward

we imagine

this theory logically applied to all

parts of the world, the result would be a natural scientific

system in which the different classes of the Real

so

would correspond to
in all probabilit}- far

many

stages of the universal

process of transformation.

Heracleitus, however, was

from entertaining the idea of a

;

comprehensive description of nature

and the

fact that

besides the anthropological theories presently to be considered, nothing remains to us of his natural philosophy

except a few astronomical and meteorological statements,^

is

probably to be explained as

much by

the

incompleteness of his
ficiencies in our

own

exposition as by the de-

which

is

it. The poiLt most commonly mentioned, and which stands

information concerning

almost alone in this connection,

of the daily renewal of the sun.
as
is

is

his

well-known theory
not only thought,

He

some other philosophers did, that the fire of the sun fed by ascending vapours,^ but that the sun itself is
^

From the utterance of Philo. Qu. in Gen. iii. 5. quoted p. 31,2, we can only conclude that Heracleitus proved his doctrine of the
oppositions of Being by a number of examples. There is no question of the detailed system of phys^ios to which Lassalle (ii. 98) finds allusion here. ^ Arist. Meteor, ii. 2, 354 a, 33 ^ih Kal yeAoloi -rrdvTes ocroi rCiv TTpOTepov vir4\a^ov rov 'iiKiov rpi(pecrOaL tw irypw. That Heracleitus is classed among these, we see from what follows. In Diog. ix. 9, there is a full account of Heracleitus's theory of the stars t6 Se
:
:

urepUxov bvoiov eVrtf oh StjXo?

fxivroi

eli/oi

Iv avTq>

CKacpas

iireaTpatxo-is

fj-evas kuto. koIXov irphs ^mos, ^y

adpoi^oueuas ras \aixirf,as auai-vynaaeis airoT^K^Iu (pKoya,, cis eh-ai to aarpa. Of these the sun diffuses

more heat and warmth than the rest, because the moon moves in an atmosphere that is not so pure and is nearer the earth, and the other
heavenly bodies are too distant
eKXeiireiu 5' tjAjoi/
(TTpecpofLeuccv

koL a^\i]vi)v av<a

(jKacpoiV tovs

ruv
Tfjs

re

Kara

fxriva

ae\-nvr]s

(txvh-C'T'^-

aixovs yivea-Qai arpecpofxevris iv avTTJ

Kara fiiKphv rr\s aKacpris. What Diogenes says is asserted in the

68
a burning

HERACLEITUS.
mass of vapour
;
^

and

as

he supposed that

these vapours were consumed and burned

up during the
-

day, and were produced afresh on the morrow, he arrived

at the proposition that the sun was
riacita,
ii. 22, 27, 28, 29 Stob. i. 550, 558 Schol i)i Plat. p. 409 Bekk. of the sun and moon Lut .Stobseus speaks of the sun in .Stoic language as ^uapc^a voephv eK
; '

new every day

so
:

Arist. Prohl. xxiii. 30, end

fjiev

o26,

Stb KoX (paai Tives rS)v ripaK\eiTi(6i'Toou, iK

ToO

TTOTiixov ^r)paivofx4uov

Kal -KTiyvvfXivov K'ldovs yiveaOat Kol

yvu, (K 5e TTjs 6a\drT7]s rhv ^Kiov

avaBvfxucrrOai.
-

rr/s

OaXdcraris.

The

boat -shaped

form of the sun is likewise alluded to by Ach. Tat. i?i Araf. p. 139 B. Similarly Anaximander (whom Heracleitus follows so much) represents the fire of the heavenly bodies as fed by vapours, and as streaming out of the husky coverings that surround it. Cf. vol. i. p. 251. The latter he conceives in a different manner from Heracleitus, who keeps to the old notion of the ship of the sun and moon. Stob. i. 510, no doubt incorrectly, calls the heavenly bodies TriKriixaTa irvpos. In the Ph(c. ii. 25, 6 'HpaKXenos
:

Plato, Rep.

vi.
S-f]

498

A:

irpbs

8e rh yrjpas iKrhs

rivwv oXi-yoiv iroXv jxaWov tov OLTVoafiivvvvTai 'HpaK\eiTeiov r]Xiov, oaov aiiQis ovk 4^dwroprai. Arist. Meteor, ii. 2, 355 a, 12: enel rpecpofxevou ye [sc. rov 7]\iov'\ rhv aurhi/ TpS-rrou, coatrep
iKeluoi
oi)

(paffL,

drjXou

on
6

kol 6 rjXios

jjl6i'ov,

Ka6dwep

'HpawAeiTcis

<^7jo-i,

j/eos i(p^ VH-^PV

eVTlv,

aW'
in

del
I.

v4os avv^x^^^

which Alex,

h.

(tV

cr\'f]V7fv)

yriu

bixix>^ri

Trepii-

rightly explains thus: oh fxSvov. ds 'HpctfAetTOS (pficn, v4os icp' TiiJ.4pr] au -fiv, Kad' e/ta<TT7ji' rjfx^pav i^aTTTO/xevos, tov irpurov eV rfj Sva^i afiivvvjxivov. The words, vios i(p'

&Wos

Schleiermacher, p. 57, rightly alters the name to 'HpaKAciStjs. According to Diog. ix. Plac. ii. 21 Stob. i. 526 7 Theod. Cur. Gr. Af. i. 97, p. 17, Heracleitus ascribed to the sun the diameter of a foot. Perhaps, however, this may be a misunderstanding of a statement relating to this apparent diameter, and not concerned with the question of his real
ArjfjLiJLevrjv.
;
;

T]fM4p7]

are quoted by Proclus, 334 D, from Heracleitus. To these words (and not to some
'/]\los

in Tim.

magnitude.

At any

rate, it

would

better accord with the importance Heracleitus ascribes to the sun

60, 2), if he supposed his be something commensurate. But it is quite possible he may have said, the sun is only a foot broad, and yet his light fills the
(m/*. p.

tize to

other passage as Lassalle, ii. 105, thinks) allusion is doubtless made by Plotinus, ii. 11, 2, p. 97 'UpaKXeircf, &s ecpf] del kol tov rjKiou yiypeaOai. One of the scholiasts of Plato represents the sun of Heracleitus as going down into the sea and being extinguished in it, then moving under the eaith toM'ards the east and being there reThis may be brought kindled. into connection with the quotation from Diogenes (cf. preceding note) After the in the following manner

'

burnt out, i.e., after it has been changed into water (for
sun's fire
this
is

whole world.'

we must

in

any case substitute

THE

Sl'X

AND

STARS.

59

that even the apparent permanence which the continuous

ebb and flow of matter lends to things belongs to the

sun
only for this
short
time.^

Aristotle

expressly

denies- that he applied this notion to the other heavenly

bodies

when, therefore, we are told that he supposed

the stars to be fed by exhalations
as a

the

moon and
and the

that
with

he regarded the moon, like the sun,

fire,^

cup

filled

stars as

masses of

fire,

we must consider

the

first

assertion, at

any

rate, as

an arbitrary extension

extinction in the sea), the boat-shaped husk, in -which it was contained, goes in the "way described to the east, in order there to be fQled wit] burning vapours. Only the sun's fire would then be renewed every day. his envelope on the other hand would continue
for the
I

but this makes no difference in regard to the hypothesis for as the fire is what alone is seen by us as the sun, it might still be said that the sun was every day renewed and if Heracleitus really believed in these reservoirs of fire of the sun and stars (which the singular explanation quoted from him of eclipses and the phases of the moon scarcely allows us to doubt), it was more na,tural that he should suppose them solid and therefore durable, than as consisting of vapours, and passing away with their content. Lassalle, ii. 117, thinks that, according to Heracleitus, the solar fire was not completely changed into moisture duriug any part of the day, but that this process was completed in the course of the sun's nightly progress round the other hemisphere (we have no right to speak of the other hemisphere as far as Heracleitus is concerned) and that this is the foundation of the statement of the
; ;

But such is Platonic scholiast. obriou>ly not his opinion, nor can those writers have entertained it, who simply attribute to this philosopher the statement that the sun was extinguished at his setting. Schuster'^ remark (p. 209) that if Heracleitus regarded Helios as a god, he would not have supposed him to be generated afresh every day, but only to change his substance, likewise contradicts all our evidence and the words of Heracleitus himself.
1 Fr. 64 (>/>. p. 41, 2) seems to refer to this duration of existence

but it may also relate to the boundaries of its course, for the daily life of the sun would have a longer
duration
farther.
if it

pursued

its

course

The measurements of time

:

and space here coincide. 2 Meteor. I. c. 355 a, 18

TTov 5e
T]Xiov,
/cot

Sto-

TO
5'

fjLovov

(ppouTicrai

rov

Twv

&\Aci}v

aarpwv

TrapiSetj/

avTOvs T7JI/ aun-qpiav. rotrovrwv kcu rh irXridos koI rh fj-eytdos outwv. Also iu l^robl. he. cit. it is only the sun which is formed from the vapours of the sea. 3 Vide cf. Olymp. in p. 621, 2 On Meteor, f. 6 a, p. 149 Ideler. the other side, cf. Bernays, HeracL 12 sq.
;

60
of his actual words.

HERACLEITUS.
^

He

appears to have thought

little
is

of the stars,
small.^

because their influence on our world

As to his explanations of other celestial phenomena, the statements that have come down to us are so fragmentary that we can glean hardly anything from

them
'

as to his real doctrine.^

done so, he could not have said that the sun was extinguished daily. In Plut. Qu. Plat. A'ii. 419 we have no
right (Schuster, p. 161, thinks the contrary) to refer anything beyond the words oipas at irdvTa (pepovai to Heracleitus. ^ After the words quoted p. 52, 2 57, 2, Diogenes thus continues 7]/j.pav T6 Ka: vvKra yiueadai /col fXTjuas Kul wpas irdovs Koi iviavToi/S. veTovs re kol Trveu/xara Koi ra toutols '6/xoLa Kara ras Sia(p6povs apaOvixidaeis.
; :

Still more may be said against the theory that Heracleitus supposed the sun to be nourished by the evaporations of the f-ea, the moon by those of the fresh waters, and the stars by those of the earth cf. 524; Plut. (Stob. Ed. i. 510 Here the theory of Plac. ii. 17). the Stoics is most likely ascribed This pliilosopher, to Heracleitus.
:

as

we have shown, was

silent as to

the nourishment of the stars, and he could not have believed that the earth was directly transmuted into the same A-apours from which the fiery element was fed (cf. p. 52). The Heracleiteans, who are spoken of in the Aristotelian prol>lems (vide p. 58, 1), make quite another application of the difference between salt water and fresh. - Cf. Fr. 50, ap. Plut. Aqtia an ei jut; 'i)\ios ign. util. 7, 3, p. 9o7 or, as it is ^v, v<f)p6uT] &v ?iu expressed in Plut. Be Fortuna, rjXinv fir] ovtos '4vKa c. 3, p. 98 Tuv &\\a)v aarpcov ii(pp6vr]u au fjyoCleanthes, who among the ixfu. Stoics seems most to have resembled Heracleitus, ascribed such importance to the sun, that he declared it to be the seat of Deity (Part m. a, 125, 1), and this we are told of the Heracleitean school
: ;
:

Tr]v

fj.hi'

yap ka/xirpau

auaduixiaaiv

(p\oyoc6e7arav iv t&5 /ci'/cAw

r]jx(pav TToiiLv, rT)v 5e

tov

rjXiov

ivafriav ini-

KpaTTiaaaav i/vKra aTroreAeTf Ka\ e/c fxi' TOV \auTrpov rh Qcpfxbu av^avofiivof depos KOLUV, e/c Ae rov (TkoTivov TO Oyphv TrXeovd^ov xei/xaJ;^a
air^pyd^iffQai.

aKoXovQoiS 5e tovtihs

Kal Trepl

twv

aWwy airioXoyel.

He-

according to this, derived the change of day and night, as wtII as that of the seasons, which is coupled with it, in the fragment quoted (p. 38, 1) from the alternate preponderance of the fiery element and the moist. That he mentioned the seasons we know from Plutarch (vide previous note). His explanation of the other phenomena
racleifeus,

(Plat.

Cmt. 413
to,

cf. sujj: p.

26, 1

mentioned above is referred to by 'Hpa/cA. ^povrrip Stob. Ed. i. 594 Kara av(rTpo(l)as avifxajv Kal fjLiv
:

naovra iiriHeracleitus himself, however, did not (cf. siiiJ. had he p. 25, 2) maintain this rhv
iqXiou Siaioura koI

vi(pwv Kal iixTTTuaeis irvevfidTUiV iis

TO. pe(pv,

rpovreveiv

ovra.

aarpairas Sh Kara
e|ctv|/6tS,

tols

twv
5e

dvfXLWlJL^VWV

TrpT](TTT]paS

Kara vecpwv

ifittpiiffus

Kal

o-jSecreis.

STRUCTURE OF THE UXI VERSE.

How
Heracleitus

01

conceived

the form and

struc-

ture of the universe

we are not expressly

told.

As,
fire

however, the transformation of matter has a limit in

above and in the earth beneath, and

as this qualitative

change coincides in Heracleitus with ascent and descent in space, he must have conceived the universe as limited
above and below whether he thought it spherical in form we do not know,i and in respect of the earth the
;

contrary theory seems the

more probable.^

Nor can we
as a

prove that he held the diurnal revolution of the heavens.^

But he must

at

any rate have regarded the world

In the statement of Olympiodorus (Mefeorol. 33 a: i. 284 /^.), that Heracleitus behaved the sea to be a transpiration from the earth, there seems to be (as Ideler rightly conjectures) some confusion with Empedocles. to which Fr. 48: quoted p. 65. 1. may have given rise. Hippokr. IT. SiaiT. [sup. p. Zr^ul, 15. 1) says indeed: <pdos aKOTOs 'AiSrj, (pdos ^Aidr), (Tkotos Z-qvi. (pona Kc7va iSSe /cai "aSe KeTcre irairau o}pt]v. But in the first place, it would not certainly follow from this that the world was spherical; for if the heavens turned sideways around the earth, and the earth were supposed cylindrical in form, as we find among the earlier and later lonians {mp. vol. i, p. 275 sq.), the under world would still be illuminated as soon as the sun in consequence of this revolution went- below the horizon. And secondly, we do not know whether the author is correctly expressing
'

entirely ext-nguished cannot be admitted fcf. p. 58. 2) as a solution of the difficulty. Besides the same light which illuminated the upper world could not in that case be also
in

Hades.

- As not only Anaximander and Anaximenes. but also Anaxagoras,

Democritus, and doubtless also Diogenes, ascribed to the earth the form of a cylinder or plate, it is very unlikely that Heracleitus should have conceived it otherwise. The theory of its being a sphere seems to have been confined to the Pythagoreans and the adherents of their astronomy, until towards the end of the fifth century. ^ His ideas about the daily extinction of the sun and the boat of the sun. and of the moon, point rather to a free movement of the several heavenly bodies, such as was held by Anaximenes {sup. vol.
1. !75 sq.). Heracleitus, who p. troubled himself little about the stars and astronomy, never seems to have rpfleeted that the daily rising and setting of all the heavenly bodies presupposed some

his stateHeracleitus's meaning ment is certainly quite incompatible with that philosopher's doctrine of the daily extinction of the sun. Lissalle's supposition that it is not
;

common

cause.

62

HERACLEITUS.

cohereDt whole, as indeed he clearly says,^ for only in

that case would the circular

movement be

possible, in

which

comes from one, and one from all, and the contrarieties of existence are bound together by an
all

all-embracing harmony.
is

reckoned by

later writers

When, therefore, Heracleitus among those who taught

the unity and limitedness of the world,^ this is in fact correct, though he doubtless never himself employed
those expressions.
If there be only one world, this

must be without
fire

beginning or end, for the divine creative

rest.

can never

In this sense Heracleitus says expressly that the world has ever been and will ever be.^ This, however, does not exclude the possibility of change in the con-

and constitution of the universe such a theory might rather seem to be required by the fundamental law of the mutability of all tilings, though it is not so
dition
;

in truth

for

that law would have been sufficiently

observed

if

the whole had maintained itself in spite of

its parts,

the change of

and nothing individual had had

physicists,

any

fixed existence.

Heracleitus might well have held

this theory, as the

two

Anaximander and
;

and to AnaxiAnaximenes, had held it before him respects closely allied. Indeed, mander he was in many the ancient writers almost unanimously attribute to

him the theory

'

that the present world will at some

(()v<TioX6yuv
is

Fr. 46, 98; supra, 35, 1. Diog. ix. 8 TreirfpaaOai re t^ nav Koi va dvai Kdafxou. Theododoret. Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 12, p. 58 Simpl. P%'^. 6 a; Arist. P%s. iii. ou0ets rh cv koI H-rreL5, 205 a, 26
2
: ;
:

not counter to this,

Lassalle (ii. the passage to overlooked the

for Heracleitus's primitive matter

is

not

unlimited.
refers

154),

who

Heracleitus, has additional words koI &nipoy.

^

pov

TTvp

iiToiricrei'

ou5e

yrji/

rwu

Cf. p. 22, 1:

COXFLAGRATIOy OF THE UXI VERSE.

future time be dissolved in
flagration a
lire,

G3

and that from the con-

of the universe, therefore, moves finitum. forward in a continuous alternation of reproduction and

new world The history

will

be produced, and so ad in-

destruction according to fixed periods of time.^

theory, however, has recently been
first

This

warmly disputed,

by Schleiermacher ^ and afterwards by Lassalle.^ But Lassalle has not sufficiently distinguished between two notions, which may certainly both be characterised by the expressions, the burning up of the universe or the destruction of the universe, but which in fact are far removed from one another. The question is not
'
'

'

'

whether an annihilation of the world in the strict

destruction of the the Stoics always use the It cannot expression iKirvpwais. be proved to have been used by Clemens. Strom, v. Heracleitus. 54:9. ii., says expressly, ^j/ v err epov iKirvpcoffiv iKaXecrav ol Stoji/coi. Likewise by Loc. cit. 94 sqq. Hegel, Gcsch. d. Phil. i. 313 and Marbach, Gesck. d. Phil. i. 68. Neither of these authors, however,
'

Eor the

"vrorld

of cosmical conditions and he so expressed himself in regard to these two motions, that their ideal separation might be taken for a temporal separation It is even possible that he himself might have so apprehended them.' The latter theory virtually reasserts the He: :

'

racleitean

world

conflagration of the for if a period of opposi-

tionless
is

enters into details with regard to it. 3 ii. Brandis, who 126, 240.

motion follows a period of motion involving oppositions, this

as
is

had strongly maintained the Heraeleitean destruction of the world by fire against Schleiermacher {Gr. Bom. Phil. i. 177 sq.), seems to have been persuaded by Lassalle to abandon this theory {Ge^ch. d. Entw. i. 69 sq.). In order to explain the statements of the ancients, he puts forward the conjecture

much as to say the SLaKoa/jL-qais followed by an eKirvpcca-is. "We can hardly, however, attribute to Heracleitus a merely ideal separation of thtse two motions, and to me it is still more inconceivable that he should have spoken of an oppositionless motion (in itself a
contradictio
in
adjecto).

As

this

that

Heracleitus held a double kind of motion one which is without opposite, and which he characand one terised as rest and peace which is involved in the opposites
; ;

view will be refuted in the following pages, I need not here enter into
it

more

particularly.

Lassalle's

lengthy discussion can of course be noticed only in regard to its essential content.

64
sense,

HERACLEITUS.
an absolute destruction of
;

its

substance was

intended

this Heracleitus, of course, could

not main-

tain, since to

him the world

is

only the definite form

of existence of the divine

fire,

and the divine

fire

is

consequently the substance of the world.

declared, as
explicitly
as
possible,

He

has also

that

he did not
is

maintain
this
:

it.

What we

are concerned with

simply
state of

Did Heracleitus believe that the present

it is

the world, and the distribution of elemental substances

on which

based, remains on the whole unchanged,

?

despite the continual transformation of the particular

Or did he consider that from time

to

time

all

the

different substances return into the primitive substance,

and are again reproduced from it ? That this latter was his opinion seems to be proved by his own statements. It is true that some of these leave us uncertain whether he meant a continual production of individual things from fire, and a corresponding
return
of these into
fire,

or

simultaneous trans-

formation of the universe into

fire,

and a

fresh creation

immediately succeeding

it.^

In others the language he

uses can scarcely apply to anything except the future

conversion of the world into

fire

the
all

destruction of
these
'

the world, to which the authors

who transmit

statements

to

us
'

do in
will

fact

apply them.
another
iireXObv

Fire,'

says Heracleitus,

them and
'

to

seize

come upon them ^ and

;
'

things to order
fragKal

in
irvp

Such as the
;

airTSix^vov fxsTpa
;

iravra

rh

Kpivel

sup. p. Kal airoff^ii/vvfjiivov ix4rpa the ejs irvp Ka\ c'k irvpos ra 22, 1

KaraKi]\\ieTai.

Here the use of the

ndura, p. 20,
p. 27,
2

1,

and the quotation,

10:

1.

future tense (which is certified in the case of the first verb by the second) makes it probable that it
is

Fr. 68, ap. Hippol. ix.

not a continuous transformation

COyFLAGRATIOX OF THE WORLD.

ment he
described, as
tion of the earth in the sea

60

Clemens informs us, the new formawhich preceded the burning

^

of the world.

Aristotle says

still

more unequivocally

Heracleitus and Empedocles are of opinion that the

world
is

is

sometimes in

its

present state, and then again

destroyed and enters upon a

all

new
'

state,

and that this

of

things
of.

spoken

into fire which is as in the present, -navTa

;

according to the same law.' But in this the meaning of ets is too

\6yov
little
'

olaKi^ei K^pavvos {sup. p. 22, 2) hut a transformation of this kind at some definite future time and that Hippolytus is therefore justified in quoting the words as an authority for the iKTrvpcDcris. Clem. Sirorn. v. 599 Fr. 48 oir(vs (Eus. Pr. Ev. xiii. 13, 33) k65e TraKiv avaKaii^av^Tai (sc. a/uLos, how the Tvoi'ld will again he taken back into the primitive essence the expression is Stoic, cf. Part III. a, 140, 6; and in respect to the corresponding avaxoop^^t/, cf.
;

regarded.

It signifies rather

to the

same

size,'

or

more accu-

rately (since Aoyos designates the proportion, in this case a proportion of magnitude), so that its magnitude stands to that which it had as earth, in the same proportion as previously, before it became earth.' (Vide also Peiper's Erkenntniss'

I cannot admit, Log. "Ifi), that in that case oKoaos must be substituted for oKolos. 6 avrhs oTos signifies the same as 6 avrbs ws (the
th'jorie Plato's. 8.)

with Heinze {Lchre

v.

ibid. 130, 3)
dLo.

TOVToiv

StjA-oT*

koL eKirvpovrai, aa<p6i>% " QaXacfCTa Zia-

/jLerpeerai els rov avrhv Xoyov OKinos irpwrov (Eus. wpoaOev) That these ^v ^ yei^eaOai 77}." words really refer to the return of

XeeraL Kol

the earth into the sea, from which it arose when the cosmos was formed (vide p. 47 sq.), the distinct language of Clemens forbids us to There is all the less reason doubt. to cancel yv, withLassalle (ii. 61), or with Schuster (129, 3), to subAs the sea then bestitute 7f/*'. came in its greater part earth, so now the earth must again become sea, in accordance with the universal law of the transmutation of matter (cf. p. 49 sq.). Diogenes also uses x^'c^o" (sKj). p. 49, 1) to designate this transformation of the earth into water. Lassalle, /. c. explains the words, els rhv avrhv

same magnitude as that which was previously). Heinze cancels yn like Lassalle, and explains the passage The seals changed into the thus same \6yos, that is, into the same fire of the nature of which it was previously before it arose independently.' But even if it is the same
:

'

is explained now as primitive fire, and now as \6yos, it does not follow that these conceptions are themselves interchangeable, and that the same expression which designates this essence on the side of its intelligence, could be used for a designation of the materia] substratum as such. A pantheist may say, God is spirit and matter he will not therefore say, 'the derived substances are resolved into the primeval spirit,' they are resolved into the but primitive matter.'

nature which

'

'

'

VOL.

IT.

IIERACLEITUS,
goes on without ceasing J
elsewhere
that
tliis

Heracleitus (he

observe3
fire
;

^)

says that all will at last

become
fire,

and

does not relate merely to the successive trans-

formation of individual bodies into

but to a state

in which the collective totality of things has swiulta'

Le

Coelo.

i.

10,

279

b,

12:

yiv6pLiVOV fxku ovv airauTes eluai <paeiv (sc. Tt)v ovpavov) aXKa yv6uevov 01 fxkv aiBiou, ol oe (pdaprhi^ wairfp

OTiovv
ol S'

aWoTcov (pvaiL awirrTa/xfvuv, ivaWa^ dre fxkv ovtws, ^re 5e

exe't'

6.X\(t}s

(pOeipo/iievov

Ka\ tovto

ael 5iar\e7v

outccs, wcTirep 'Ejxireoo-

K\ris 6

'

AKpayavrlvos koi 'HpaKAeiTOS

6 'E(p(aLos.

The words dre

aWcos
' :

ex6iv
is

may either be translated now in this condition and now

or,
'

it

in

sometimes in the same condition as now, and sometimes in another.' This does not affect the present question; but the use of (pdeipSfx^pov seems to
that,'
it

is

passage. It is obvious, however, that the words in tliemselves cannot have this menning. It may seem sti'ange that Ai-istotle should ascribe ro Heracleitus the opinion that the world is derived, whereas Heracleitus himself {sup. p. 22, 1) so distinctly describes it as underived. But Aristotle is speaking only of this present world, of the framework of the sky (ovpavbs) as to the rest, he acknowledges, 280 rb ivaWa^ avviCTTdvai Ka\ a, 1 1 diaXveiu avThv (here also is a striking refutation of Lassalle's emendation) ovSev aWoidT^pov iroiilv i(TT\v, ^ Th KaTaaKvii^iu avThv
;

favour the second rendering. As Prantl rightly observes, this "WTd cnn only be connected with &\Kcos exe"', so that the sense is the same as if it stood ore Se, (pOeipo/xevov,
:

a'lZiov
(pr}v.

Coelo,

aXKa [xeTa&dXXovTa ttjv fxapAlexander (ap. Simpl. Be 132 b. 32 sqq. Scbol. 487
;
:

43) observes quite in accordance If Heracleitus calls the with this

b,
'

SAAojs exetv. But if &K\oos e)(iv describes the state of things after the destruction of the world, ovtms ex^"' niust apply to the opposite of this, the world's present In the tovto oei SiaTecondition. Aeri/ ovTws, TOVTO evidently refers to the whole, 6t (xkv ovtws Stc 5e &,\Xci}s ex^iv: 'this, the alternation of the world's conditions, is always going on.' Lassalle, ii. 173, would refer it exclusively to the (p6ip6this jxeuou, and explains it thus destruction is eternally fulfilling itself;' so that, as he says, an alternation in time of the construction and destruction of the world, as part of Heracleitus's doctrine (and in that case as part of Empedocles's also) is positively excluded by this
: '

Koa/jLos eternal,

he must understand
ov r-^vSe t}]v SianS-

by the word:
(Tfxr)(rip,

aWa
eV

KaB6\ov
Tj

TT]V

TOVTWV

hlCLTa^lV, KaQ^
iXp(L

Tepov

ovTa koX %V (Is kKO.tov jx^TafioKii

to,

iravTOS, TTore fxev els Trvp ttotc Se ei?

Thu Toioyde
570,
-

k6(Tixov.

Also
a,

vol.

i.

p.

1.

Phys.

iii. 5,

205

Slxnrep

'Hpa/cAeiTC^s
TTore irvp.

(pr}(Tiv

airavTa yiueaOai

Meteor, i. 14, 342 a, 17 applied by commentators to Heracleitus here there is mention of the theory that the sea is becoming smaller by drying up. But a reference is the more uncertain, as a theory of this kind is nowhere attributed to Heracleitus, though it is ascribed to Democritus. Vide infra, chapter on Democritus.
sq. is also
;

COXFLAGRATIOy OF THE WOULD.

neously assumed the form of
language used,^ and
still

Cj7

fire

is

clear

from the

more from the connection.

For Aristotle

says, loc. cit., that it is impossible that

the world can consist of one single element, or pass

over into a single element, as would be the case
if all,
fire.^

according to Heracleitus's theory, were to become

The

Stoics from the

;

first

understood Heracleitus in no

other way

and

it is

very improbable that in so doing

they should merely have adopted Aristotle's view, and

not have formed their opinion from the philosopher's
assertions.

own

same
^

effect,'*

There are many other testimonies to the and though much trouble has been taken to
irdma merely.
163).

aTravra, not

Lassalle

(ii.

who

is

de-

termined to banish the Heracleitean conflagration of the world, even out of Aristotle, simply ignores this context yet he seems to have a misgiving on the subject, and so
;

second edition), there can be no doubt of it. As I have sho"wTi in the Hermes, xi. 4 H, the proofs, which, according to Theophrastus, Fr. 30 (Philo, .Fter7i. M. 959 C sqq.. p. 510 sqq. Mang.), were even in his time brought forward
a^ain^t the Aristotelian eternity of the world by the advocates of an alternate formation and destruction are to be referred to the founder of the Stoa. If they do not origi-

resorts to the following desp<^rate expedient. In the passage of the Physics, which at a later date passed into the second half of the eta-physics eleventh book of the (which book was compiled, as is well known, from the Physics), the proposition from which the words in question are taken {Phi/s. 205, 1-4; Metaph. 1067 a. 2-4) a, may first have been transferred from the Metaphysics. ^ There is no direct evidence of this, but, as the first teachers among the Stoics attached themselves in their physics to Heracleitus, whose doctrines were explained by Cleanthes and Sphgerus (Diog. ix. 15; vii. 174, 178). and as the theory of the eKirvpcoais was taught in the Stoic school from its

nate with him, they must be all the more directly derived from the Heracleitean school. * Diog.ix.8(p.77,l;78,l);:VI. Aurel. iii. 3 ('HpaK^. irepl t^s rod
Korrtxov ^Kirvp(i}(T(:Ois rocradra <f>v(Tio-

Xoyrjcras) Pint. Plac. Alex. Meteorol. 90 a,

;

i.

3,

26

Id.,

p. 260 where Lassalle's attempt (ii. 1 70) to do away with the iKirvpwais
ra,

commencement, and
Cleanthes (vide Part

especially

by
sq.

m.

a,

132

as impossible as in the passage quoted p. 66, 2 (Lassalle, ii. 177 sq. in regard to him, Bernays' HeraMit. Briefe, 121 sq.). Also Sirapl. loc. cit, 132 b, 17 (487 b, 33\ and mys. 6 a, 111 b, 257 b (where Lassalle indeed thinks no writer could express himself more
is

68

IIERACLEITUS.

discover statements to the contrary, not one trustworthy

testimony has been found in

world and
destruction by

all

the post-Aristotelian

literature, to prove that the alternate formation of the

its

fire

was ever denied to

;
^

have been a doctrine of Heracleitus

clearly against the iKTrvpuais, than
ei're

no such denial
and
'

Kara

izepioZov iKirvpovp-ivov d-re

;

Simplicius does in
del ix4v

tlie

words

octol

ctiSiots

afxoi^ats auaveov/uievov

(paaiv elvai KSa/xov, ov fxiv

del,

rhv avT^v
yLvoixepov

dXAa

fiAAore 6.XK0V
irepio-

Schleierniacher, asks, "with "v\hom except Heracleitus can

refer this latter

to

we

Kara rivas XP^^^^

Sous ws 'Apa^ifJL^vqs Te Koi 'HpdThemist, Pki/s. 33 b, p. KKeiros). Olympiodorus, Meteorol. 231 Sp. Euseb. Pr. Ev. 32 a, p. 279 Id.
;
;

M. 940 B In this last passage (489 M). Heracleitus is not named, but he
xiv. 3, 6
;

Philo, Mtern.

He is named is certainly intended. in the passage in Clemens, Strom. V. 599 B, which is no doubt taken from the same source, and is partly similar in language (here again Lassalle, ii. 159, seeks to explain away the obvious meaning), Cf. Strom. V. 549 C. Lucian, V. auct.
m/m, p. 77, 1. 127, after Schleiermacber, appeals first to Max. Tyr. xli. 4, end: /xerajSoAV opas (XoipLOLToiv Ka.\ y^veaeas, aWayrjv oSwu &vw Kal
14.

theory of Skitvpwais which is opposed to that of ? the Stoics It has already been shown, in the previous note, that Marcus Aurelius attributes eKirvpwcris to Heracleitus when he speaks of those who substitute a perpetual for a periodical renovation of the world, this must refer to the Stoical opponents of the destruction by fire (among whom
' ;

we may count
school)
;

Aristotle and his and the same holds good

;

Further details
Lassalle,
ii.

of Cic. N. Be. ii. 33, 85 Ps.third citation Censorin. B\. 1,3. of Schleiermacber (p. 100), and Lassalle (i. 236; ii. 128) is Phit. Def. orac. 12, p. 415: /cai 6 KAeoMfipoTOS' aKOvw TavT, %<Pv, iroKKwv

Koi

bpS)
to.

rrif

'2,Tw'iKr]v

eKTrvpwaiy,
/cot

Sicnreo

'HpaKheirov
Itttj,

'Opcpeus
Kal

KaTU) Kara rhv 'Hpa/cAetToi/

Sia-

i-rriveiJLoiiLiUTfu

outcu

ra

Soxvi^ op5-S fiiov Kul /jLera^oKriv cwThis ^arwu. Kaivovpyiav tov '6Kov.
'

'HtridSou Kal (rvue^^airaTwaau.

But

writer,' he concludes,

'

was acquaint-

ed with no other renewal of the world than the partial one which is He had no constantly occurring.' occasion to speak of any other in he is here simply menthis place tioning the fact of experience that
:

the destruction of one thing is the birth of another; but the e'KTrup'j)(ris is not an object of experience, Las.salle further quotes, of dpav. wo-re koi touto M. Aurel. x. 7 a.vaXf](pdr\vai ils rhv rod '6\ov x6yov,
:

seems to show that opponents of the Stoic iKirvpwa-Ls sought to withdraw from it the support of Heracleitus as well as of other authorities, the passage does not inform us in the least on what the attempt was based, or whether the censure that the Stoics misapplied the sayings of Heracleitus had any foundation

though

t]iis

certain

Lassalle makes a still in fact. greater mistake when he quotes

(i.

De

232) on his own behalf, Philo, U^p oi Vict. 839 D (243 M)

:

COXFLAGRATIOX OF THE WORLD.

can be discovered even
fikv

G!J

among

those Stoics

who were

K6pov Kal XpifMOfTycTjj/ iKoiXcaav,

iKirvpuaiu
kuI
ZiaKOfffX'qa'ii',

ol

St

and says that in this passage Kopos and iKTvvpwcris, xpVf^H-oavvr) and SiaK6(Tfji.r]<Tis are synonymous. So also the treatise of Philo on the imperishablentss of the -n-orld, which Lassalle also quotes, ascribes to Heracleitus the relative destruction of the world which was held by the Stoics; cf. p. 67, 3. The same is the case with Diog. ii. 8 {infra, p. 77), whose words Lassalle (ii. 136) is obliged to twist into their opposite, in order then to discover in them an exceedingly important argument against the burning of Nor can we gather the world. much from Plotinus, v, 1, 9, p. 490 Kal 'HpaKXeiTOS 5e rh tu olSei^ ai'diov Kol porjTou, for the theory that the Deity or the primitive fire is eternal, was as little denied by the Stoics, in spite of their iKirvpcoais, In Simpl. as by Heracleitus.
'
'

and Stobaeus presupposes him to have done so. Lassalle, ii. 142, thinks he has found valuable evidence in favour of his view in the treatise Trept Sicurrjs of the Pseudo-Hippocrates, where it is said, in the first book,
(vide previous note),

that all things consist of fire

;

and

water that these are alwajs in conflict with each other, but neither is able entirely to overcome the other; and therefore the world will always be as it now is. But although the first book of the work Trepl SmtTTjs

much that is Heracombines with it (as is now generally admitted) such heterogeneous elements that we are not
contain
cleitean, it

may

De
43),

C(bIo,

132

b,

28 (Schol. 487

b,

we

first

meet with the asser-

Heracleitus St' aiuiyeavTOv ao(piav iKcpepuv ov ravTa, airep SoKe7 ro7s ttoWoIs, av/J-aiuei., for he also writes k6(Tixov TouSe, &c. {supra, p. 22, 1), and in agreement with this we read, Stob. 'HpaKAeiro? ov Kara Eel. i. 454 Xp6vov ehai ytvv-qrhv rhv koctixov, aWa Kar imuoiau. But what can we infer from this? It is inconvenient for the Neo-Platonists to find in Heracleitus, in place of their own doctrine of the eternity of the world, an alternate genesis
tion

that

/joLTCov

TTjV

and destruction, and so

in his case,

as in others, they declare that this is not to be understood chronologiBut Siraplicius cally, but ideally. himself repeatedly says that Heracleitus spoke of such an alternation

the least justified in regarding the an authentic record of the physics of Heracleitus. This is evident when we consider the doctrine which forms the corner stone of its whole physiology and psychology that all things are composed of fire and water. The question as to the date of this treatise is therefore of secondary importance as far as Heracleitus is concerned, though it would certainly be interesting in relation to the history of philosophy in the fifth century, if Teichmiiller (X. Stud. i. 249 sqq.) could succeed in proving that it falls between Heracleitus and Anaxagoras. But that is far too early a date. There are no traces in it, certainly, of the existence of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy; nor can we, I admit, infer an acquaintance of the author with Aristotle's theory of the elements from C, 4 sub in it., where fire is described as warm and dry, and water as cold and moist, especially as, according
treatise as
:

to Plato,

Symp. 186 D; 188 A;

70

IIERACLEITUS.
heard, not of a literature which hs has studied and 2nd, the question were any is not whether there writings at all at that time (including the poems of Hesiod,
;

Soph. 242 D. and the quotation couceruing Alcm?eoD, vol. i. 525, 1, these four natural qualities had previously been insisted on M'ith great emphasis by the physicians and as water seems to have been called by Archelaus (infra, p. 847, 3, 3rd ed.) rh \pvxphv as well as rh
;

Homer, Xenophanes and

others),

tions

But though these consideramight lead us (with Bernays, Herakl. 3 sq., and Schuster, pp.
irypou.

but whether there was an extensive literature on these particular subjects. For the above reasons, we cannot build on the evidence of Heracleitus's 22nd fragment {sup.

99, 110) to assign the treatise lo the Alexandrian period, everything is against the theory that it belongs to the second third of the fifth

century. entering

An exposition so
into

detailed, particulars of all

kinds with the unmistakeable aim of empirical completeness, and in many parts of the first book quite overladen with such discussions, is very far from the style of that period, as it appears in all the philosophical fragments of the fifth century. Even the fragments of Diogenes and Democritus, and the treatise of Polybus, found among the works of Hippocrates (Trepl cpvaios avdpdoTTov), are evidently much more simple and ancient in expression. The author of the nepl Sialriqs indeed tells us that he belongs to an

Another 363, 5). that the author of the treatise does not know of the doctrines of the Atomists, of Empedocles and Anaxagoras. It would be more exact to say that but he does not mention them in the case of a writer who never mentions otlier opinions as such,
vol.
i.

p. 336, 5
is

argument

and only quotes from them what

he has himself adopted, this does not prove that he was unacquainted with them, and still less that they were not in existence. But even that cannot be said. C. 4 is exNoplained by the author thus thing is generated or destroyed everything changes absolutely, but merely by combination and separation when therefore he speaks of generation he is only describing the (^u/jL/xiayecTeai, and when he speaks of destruction, the 5ia/cpiVeT0at.' It seems to me clear that this is not Heracleitean and when Schuster (p. 274) maintains that it is so (withuut authority indeed from any of the fragments or from other evidence), I can only account for it by his own denial (discussed p. 12, 1) of the doctrine of the flux of all things. We do not find this identification of generation with the union, and of destruction with the separation of underived and imperishable substances, before
: '
:

epoch advanced in literature, when he speaks of the many (c. 1), who have already written about the diet most compatible with health, and also ii. 39 of all those who {6k6(jol) have written on the effect

That of what is sweet, fat, &c. tliere should have existed a whole literature on these subjects before the time of Hippocrates is highly improbable. Teichmiiller, indeed, reminds us that Heracleitus in Fr. 13, vide siqna (p. 7. 1), appeals to his study of the earlier literabut this is irrelevant, 1st, ture because Heracleitus is there speaking only of x6yoi which he has
;

Empedoeles, Leucippus and Anaxagoras and when Teichmiiller,

;

COXFLAGRATIOX OF THE WORLD.

p.

262. asks why one author may not have been allied on this point

Xenophanes (Parmenides for must surely be intended

with
;

Xenoph^ines never formally denied generation and destruction), and Anaxagoras with our author, the because simple answer is this
:

which Teichmiiller derives fundamental conception because a compiler, like our author, who is so entirely wanting in acuteness and logical perception as to
from
this
;

Anaxagoras. Empedocles and Leucippus were known to all antiquity as the authors of systems which have for their common foundation
the conception of generation and destruction whereas nobo'ly knows anything of the treatise irepi SiaiVrj?
;

confuse Heracleitus's iravra x'^P" with the above mentioned doctrine based on the presuppositions Parmenides, can never have been
>

the discoverer of that doctrine because lastly, as will appear from the following comparison, the reminiscence of passages from Anaxagoras and Empedocles is unmistakable. Cf. TrepI StaiT. c. 4
; ;

ovTco 5e rovToov ^yovrwv irov\\as Kol iravToSaTras ideas airoKpivovrai ott' aWijAoof Koi (nrepjjLdTwv

edit.)

Anaxagoras Fr. 3 (p. 798, 3rd toutcW 5e ovtws exovroiv

:

XPV hoKeeiv
Kavrota ev

eve7vai

ttoKKo.

re

nai

Koi C"?^^! ovdhv bjxo'iwv aWrjXoiaiv.

ttckti

rots avyKpivojxevois

Ka\ a-irepfxara Ttavrosv xPVH-o.t(i)v Ka\ iSe'as TravToias %xovra.

Fr. 6 (798,2): a-itepixdrcDv ohheu eoiKorwv aXXr^Xois. Fr. 8 (^ibid.) erepov Se oi'5eV
. .

airoWurai
TTpoaOev
i)u-

fj-ev

ovSev

airdvrwv
he

i^vfjLfj.ia'yofjLeva

Ka\

eariv ojioiov ovdevl aWw. to 5e ylueadai Fr. 22 (793, 1) Ka\ aTToWvadai. ovk opOus voui^ovcriv "EWrjves ovdeu yap xPVfJ-o- yiverai
:

^laKpivojxeva

kW'HOVTai'
etc.

vofii^eTai

oude

airoKKvraL

dW' an

eovruu
/cat

Se

irapa.

twv avdpwTrwv,

XpTjuttTCDi'

avixpLiayerai re

Sia-

Kpiverai.

Anar. ap.
ylyvecrQaL
Kal
rif

rh Arist. (p. 793, 4) diroAKucrdaL ravrov

:

KadearrjKe
vofxl^erai 5e
ir.

dAXoiovaSai.

t. avQp.

rh aev 4|

Emped.
ol 5'

v.

AtSoy es (pdos au^rjOev yeveaOai.

ore

jxev
.

40 (611, 1, 3rd edit.) Kara tpwra jxiyev <pdos

.

aldepos

"kt)

rore

jx'ev

rode 0aiTl

yevenQai.

fiT}

re ovTe to hv yeveadai, irodev yap earai Ti S' av SiaXeywfiai yeieadai

ovre
.

el

^wov

kiroQaveli' oiou
;

Emp. 92
iTrav^rjaeie

(609,

1)

rovro

5"

TToD "yap airoQavelTai

e\66v
0T?(Ut

TTT]

ro Trap ri Ke Ka\ irodev Se Ke /col diroAoiar

;

E/Hjp.

fl

cL-KoAecrOaL

rwv iroWuy

e'iveKep

44 (611. ]): voficf} 5' iir'iKal avros (referring to the use

epfirjvevw.

of the
Ka\ SLaKpiveadai StjAw

word yiypeadai
h.v

etc.).

ravra 5e [yeveaOai anoXecrdai)

^vfj-fj-iayecrdaL
.
.

Anax. Fr. 22 (793.

ovrus
rrdai

1)

Kal

yeueadai ^ufx/xiyrivai Tcaurh, diro. KeaQai, fieiadTJrai, SiaKpid^uai twvt6.

opdws KoXotev rh re yive(rvfiiiiayecyQai Kal rh avoWvaQai

SiaKpivecrdai.

HERACLEirUS.
6 vojjLos

yap
11.

tvj (pvaei irepl

ipavrlos,
.

c.

v6fios

tovtwu yap Kal (pvais

avrol
S:u

critus (mfra,

oi)X oixoKoyecrai OfxoXoyeSueva'

v6ixov

yap lOeaav
(pxxTiv 5e

i.vQpoiTzoi

y. 44, also Demo694, 4, 7<5, 2, 3rd edit.) v6ixcf} yXvKv, v6iJ.Cf} iriKphv etc. eVe^ 5e &TOfjia Kal Kep6v (instead of

Empcdocles,

Ct}VTo7(rip,

ov yivu}(TKOVTS irepl

irefi later

accounts have

(pvaei).

eQtaav

irdvrwv Oeoi dieKSabjxoiri

C. 28 ^vxv i^LfP ohv aU\ Ka\ eV fie^ouL Kal iv iAa.<T(rovL.

:

Anaxag. Fr. 8 (804, 1) voos 5e iras oixoi6s icTTi Kal 6 ixe^av Kal
:

6 iXdffawv.

I know not whether Teichniiiller would represent Anaxagoras in the last quotation as plagiarising from

those of Archelaus, and next those Heracleitean theories which had there become known through Cra-

the author of
to

Trepl Siairrjs,

It

seems

quite unmistakable that the latter has here adopted a proposi-

me

which was necessary to Anaxgoras on account of his main point of view, but which is not at all compatible with the theory of souls being compounded from lire and water. I think it has been sufficiently sliown that this writer was preceded by all the physicists of the fifth century but there down to Democritus is yet another proof from another side. Even the discovery on which he most prides himself, that living
tion
;

This circumstance makes probable that it was Avritten in Athens, though possibly by an Ionian. The above theory of date and place of composition agrees with what is said iu the work (c.
tylus.
ir

23)
.

ypufxuariKT] roiofSe'
(Jr}i.L-f]'Ca

(TX'lfj'-'^Twv

(Tvudecris,
. ,

<pwvri^ avdpu;irivr}S
t]

5i'

eTTxa

o';^?j/LiaTa)i^

yvwffis

ravra irduTa avdponros Ziairp-qncreTai (he speaks the sjunds described by

the
(TxhtJ-o-Ta)

Kal
jxt]

eirKTrdixevos
:

ypd/uLfxara Kal 6

iiriTTdjiievos

if

by the seven

crx'flfJ-aTa,

which in

natures, the human soul and all things, are compounded out of fire and water (c. 4-6, 35 et pass.) is not his own. but is borrowed from Archelaus the physicist {infra, p.

can hardly mean anything else than letters, the seven vowels are meant, these as (puviiepra miglit still be called in
this connection

preference

(rfifjcqla

<pu>vris

for

it

was only

847, 3rd edit.), and when (c. 3) he attributes to fire the power of moving all things, and to water that of nourishing all things, scarcely half the idea is original for Archelaus had represented the warm as in motion and the cold at rest. In accordance with all this, our treatise must be regarded as the work of a physician in the first decades of the fourth century, who, in writing it, made use of the physical theories then most prevalent in

after the time of Euclides (403 B.C.) that there were seven in much more trustuse iu Athens.

worthy mark of

this later time is

Athens

in

the

first

place

to be found, however, in the way our author opposes j/J/xos to ^vtis This oppo(c. 11, vide sjipra). sition is unknown prior to the Teichmiiller's objection Sophists. The 262) proves nothing. (p. question is not Can we suppose such a difference to have existed between the philosophical and the popular point of view ? can we prove that the words uouos and (pvais were separately used ? But
:

CONFLAGRATION OF THE WORLD.

opposed to the doctrine of the
as held

73

biirniiig of the universe,^

by their own

school.

From

Aristotle onwards,

therefore, it has been the unanimous, or all but unani-

mous, tradition of ancient authors that Heracleitus taught that the world would be destroyed by fire and

would then be formed anew. Some have attempted to refute

this theory

by older

and more authentic

'

evidence.

Plato

distinguishes

the opinion of Heracleitus from that of Empedocles

thus Heracleitus,' he says, held that the existent was continually coming together, even in separating
:

'

itself

whereas Empedocles, instead of a continual

-

concomitance of union and separation, maintained a

periodic alternation of these two conditions.'
could this language

How
be

have been

justified,

it

may

asked, if Heracleitus, as well as Empedocles, had taught

that there was an alternation between the condition of

divided and contradictory Being and a condition of the

world in which
all distinction

all

things become

fire,

and consequently
But,

of things and substances ceases?

in

the

first

place, Heracleitus, even if he maintained

fire,

that the world was destroyed by

need not necessarily

all

have presupposed that in this destruction

opposition
as in the

and

all

movement would be
:

for a

time extinct
a

Sphairos of Empedocles

he might have thought that, in

fire,

accordance with the living nature of

new appearWith

ance of the elemental contradictories, a new creation of

can we prove that they were opposed to each other formally and on principle in the language and thought of the earlier period? With Heracleitus human laws derive their support from the
dirine law (sz^/;^, p. 41,
this
]).

author they stand in a natural

'

contradiction.
Cf.

Part

iii.

a,

142,

second

edition,
-

Sup.

p. 33, 2.

74

HERACLEITUS.
If even he ascribed to the
fire
it

the world was beginning.

state
in

which

all

was resolved into

have considered
unity
;

longer

duration, he need not

a state of
his

absolute
is

oppositionless

for

fire

in

view
its

the living and eternally

is

moved

principle,

and

existence
opposites.

a perpetual appearing and disappearing of

Supposing, however, that he had explained

in neither of these ways

fire

how

the periodical dominion of

flux of all

was compatible with the

things, the

question remains whether Plato would on that account

have refrained from comparing him with Empedocles in

the manner quoted above.

For the two philosophers

at

are in fact opposed to each other in their principles, as

he says
first

'

Empedocles supposes that there existed

;

a state of perfect union of all substances

only
allow
this

after

the

cancelling
to

of
;

this

state,

does

he

separation

enter
is

and by the abolition of

is

separation union

again established.

Heracleitus, on

the other hand, declares that union

in

already present
is

and with separation

that every sundering

at

the same time a coalition, and vice versa.

He
;

did

not intend to retract this principle in his doctrine of a

periodic change in the conditions of the world
if

the

two doctrines are not compatible,

which he has not observed.'

it is

a contradiction

Is it inconceiveable that

Plato, where he wishes to characterise the relation of

the Heracleitean and Empedoclean principles shortly

and

decisively, should confine himself to their general

presuppositions, without enquiring whether their other

theories were altogether consistent with these
this, at
?

Is

not

any

rate,

much

easier to believe

than that Aris-

COyFLAGBATIOX OF THE WORLD.

totle

75

and

all his successors so grossly

misunderstood the
if

system of Heracleitus, as we must suppose,

we

reject
?
^

their evidence as to the conflagration of the universe

Xow,

as

already observed, the alternation of cos-

mical conditions was

not
all

involved
things
;

in

Heracleitus's
if

doctrine of the flux of

and

he really

imagined that after the conflaoTation there would be a period in which nothing would exist except the primitive fire, and that in this fire all oppositions would be
absolutely cancelled, such a doctrine would be incompatible with the creative vitality of that
fire,

and with

the proposition that the Eeal

is

perpetually sundering

from

itself,

in
is

order

again

to

be united.

But the

question here

not what might be deduced from the

Heracleitean principles, but to what extent the philo-

sopher himself drew the inference

and nothing

justifies

us in supposing that he never set

up any theory that

did not necessarily and logically follow from his general

principles,^ or

which

if logically

developed might not

clash with them.

The

daily extinction of the sun does

all

not in truth follow from the proposition of the flux of

things closely considered
;

it

rather contradicts the theory

which may

easily be

deduced from the presuppositions

of Heracleitus, that the mass of elemental substances

'

Aristotle, however, savs. Phys.

3,

T]p^iiv.
- If all the elementary substances are involved in perpetual transmutation according to a fixed succession, and herein, a like quantity of one substance is constantly arising out of a like quantity of the other (vide supra, p. 56), it necessarily follows that the collective amount must remain the same.

reference to Heracleitus. although he distinctly attributes to him the doctriue of the conflaarration of the "world: (paffi Tivfs KLve'iaOai twv ovtouv oh to ^jikv TO 5' ov, aX\a iravra koX aei, while
riii.

253

b,

9, in

(c. 1. 250 b, 26) ascribed to Empedocles the propo-

he has previously
sition
:

e/c

/uepet

Kiv^tcrQai koL iraKiv

76
(fire,

HERACLEirUS.
water, and earth) roust always remain the same

for that of fire

would be considerably diminished without

perpetual

compensation.

But

we

cannot on

that

account deny that Heracleitus held the theory.

pre-existence of the soul and
its existence after

The
death

cannot, strictly speaking, be brought into connection

with the ceaseless change of

all

things

but we
it.

shall

nevertheless find that Heracleitus believed in

It

is

the same in regard to the case before us.

He

could not

only have done without the conflagration of the world,

but he could even have carried out

his leading ideas

more

consistently,
tlie

if,

instead of a periodical genesis and

destruction of

universe, he

had taught,

like Aristotle,

that the universe was without beginning or end, while

its
is

parts were continually changing.

so
far

But
it.^

this

thought

in

advance of ordinary opinion that even

philosophy was long in attaining to

Not one of

the ancient philosophers had any idea of explaining the

constitution
of the world, except
in
his

the form of a
exposition

cosmogony
dispense
prevailing

not

even Plato in

can

with this form.

notions,
it

In comparison with the was much that a philosopher

Before

should assert, like Heracleitus, that the world, accord-

ing to

its

substance, was without beginning.

the system of the world as such was declared to be underived, and an eternity of the world in the Aristotelian

sense was asserted, an attempt was

made

to

combine

The Eleatics alone declared

Being to be underived; but Parmenides and his followers do not understand by this Being the world as such, for they deny multiplicity Xenophanes, on his a,Qd change.

has been shown {sup. vol. held such changes sq.), within the world itself, that his theory likewise is far removed from
side, as
i.

o69

that of Aristotle.

PERIODS OF THE WORLD.

77

the pre-supposition of an origin of the world with the newly won perception of the impossibility of an absolute

beginning, by the theory that the world was indeed

eternal according to
its

essential nature, but that its

condition was subject from time to time to so complete

a change that a
necessary.

new formation
it

of the world became

If this was not the

most

scientific theory,

was

at

most logical or the any rate the theory

then most ob\'ious to philosophy, and which Heracleitus

found in Anaximander and Anaximenus, his immediate

predecessors, in the ancient Ionian school,

and

this is

enough to

silence

all

opposition

to

the unanimous

tradition of antiquity.

As every process in the world has its fixed measure, changing cosmical periods is accurately defined and with this is probably conso also the duration of the
;

'

nected the statement (the correctness of which

great year which, according to some, he

is

not

thoroughly established) that Heracleitus believed in a

reckoned at

10800, and according to others at 18000 solar years.

^

Diog.

ix. 8

y^vvaadair' avrhv
irvpbs

[ihv

Koafxovl

iK

Ka.

iraXiv

iKirvpovadai.

Kara

Tivas

TrepidSou?

ivaWa^ tou

criifXTravTa

alwia- rovro

Se yiv(T6ai Kuff d/jLap/jLevnu.

Simpl.

Pkys. 6 a (sup.

p. 42, 1);

similarly

This year is fixed bj Linus and Heracleitus at 10800 solar years others determine it differently. On the other hand, Stobaeus says, Eel. i. 26i (Plut, Plac. ii. 32): 'EpdkK^itos [rhv ^i4yav iviavrbv riOeTai]
e/c

Oxlo, 132 b, 17 33); Eus. Pr. Er. xpovov re oipicrdai ttjs xiv, 3, 6 TaJv iravroiv els rh Trvp avaXvcrews Ka\ T)is eK TovTov yeueceus. 2 By the great year, says Censorinus, Z>i. Ta/". 18, 11, we are to which the period understand elapses before the seven planets again find themselves in the same sign as they were when ir began.

257

b,

De

fivpiav

OKTaKt.sxi'^''-(^v

iviavroov

(S?kol.

487
:

b,

Bernays, Rkein. Mus. y. F. vii. 108, thinks that this number was deduced from Hesiod's verses, ap. Plut. Def. Orac. 11, p. 415 but it is not easy to see how this could be done. Schuster, on the other hand (p. 375 sq.), gives the preference to the statement in the Placlta, for he conjectures that Heracleitus may have assigned to
vKiaKoiy.
;

78

HERACLEITUS.
separation of opposites, or the formation of the
;

The

world, was called by Heracleitus, strife

the union of

what was separated, peace or concord. The state of divided Being he called also want that of tlie unity which was introduced by the conflao^ration, satiety.^
;

In this contradiction the

small things as in great
;

life

of the world moves, in

it
is

but

only one essence

:

which manifests
creative iire
is

itself in
all
is

the change of forms

the

that comes into being and passes

away.

The Deity
did to

war and peace, want and

is

satiety.^

the world (as he inf. p. 87, -i) a period of 30 years, and to each cosmical year twelve centuries instead of twelve months of the 36000 years which we ^et in this way, the o^hs &va} and kcitw would each occupy 18000. This seems to me altosfether too uncer;

man, vide

always understood in other pasLnssalle's 'great year' sages. might equally well begin and end at any moment. Diog. according to the pre"

tS>v S' iuavrioov vious quotation rh fiev eVt t^u yeueaiv &yov KaXe7(T6ai rr6\fxov koL cpiv, rh 5' 4ir\ rvv
:

tain,

ferently

and the Vlacita also speak difthey must therefore, as Schuster thinks, have confused the duration of the ZiaKSapiricns with that of the whole cosmical year.
:

(KTrvpccaiv

bjxoKo'yiau
ix.

Kol
;

elprfvrju.

Lassalle,

ii. 191 sqq., advances the opinion (corresponding with his hypothesis about the sun, sup. p. 58, 2) that Heracleitus's great year is equivalent to the time which elapses before all the atoms in the universe have passed through the circle of Being, and have arrived at Not only is this the form of fire. entirely different from what is said by our authorities, but it is (even irrespectively of the atoms which are absolutely incompatible with his physical theories) much too farfetched and subtle for Heracleitus indeed, in itself it is wholly unEach year must have natural. some definite point where it begins and ends and so has the great year,' if we understand by it what
; ' ;

17.3; Philo, Leg. AUeg. ii, 62 A sup. p. 17. 3; Z>e Vict. sup. p. 68 n. The Kopos and the xp'^i^/^orrinrj are alluded to by Plutarch in the passtep. p.

Hippol. Re flit.
1
;

10

46,

sage of
iii.

a,

De El. c. 9, discussed in vol. 140, 6, second edition. Herahowever,

is

cleitus.

not mentioned,

and the whole statement probably

refers to a

Stoical interpretation

rally

Stoics had natuborrowed the expression KSpos and xpVC'lJ-oo-vi'r] from Heracleitus but we have no right to take for granted that what Plutarch here says of the duration of both states is also from Heracleitus, especially as the Stoics themselves seem by no meatiH unanimous about it.

of myths.

The

Seneca, Ep. 9, 16 (l. c. p. 131, 2), expresses himself as if the iKTrvpccms were merely a short episode between successive worlds. 2 Sup. pp. 17, 3; 38, 1; 46, 1.

AXTHROrOLOGY
3.

Man

his

Knoidedge and

Ids Actions.

Ma>", like everything else in the workl, in the last resort

originates from
fire.

But
is

in this respect there are great

differences between the

two parts of his nature. The body

rig-id

considered in itself
fore,

and

lifeless
it, it is

when, thereto Heracleitus

the soul has departed from

only an object of aversion.^

In the soul, on the other

hand, the infinite portion of man's nature,^ the divine

fire

in its purer form has been preserved.^ of fire, of

The

soul con-

sists

warm and dry vapours,"^ which consequently

;

1 Fr. 91, vide wf. p. 83, 3 Fr. ol (ap. Plut. Qii. Conv. W. 4, 3, 6 Orig. c. Ce's. v. 14. 24 cf. Schleiermacher, 106) viKves Ko-Kpiwu iK;
; :

fxiaffis

means the same as what is elsewhere called TrCp. Although this

called dcrci'juaTWTOToj',

fire is

we must

not conclude with Themistius (vide

i7if.) that it was aauixa-rov. or with Lassalle, ii. 331, that it was some-

^AriTorepoi.

Fr. 90 Diog. ix. 7- Tert. Dc An. 2; cf. Schuster, 270, 391 sq., ^l/vxvs Treipara ovk hv i^evpoio -Kuaav odow ovtw $a6hv iiriTTopevoixevos \6yov exet. I agree in the main with Schuster that Treipara refers to the limit to which the soul goes, the but it seems to limit of its nature me the alteration which he proposes jn the text can be dispensed with. Still less can I endorse Lassalle's
2
; ;

emendations
3

(ii.

357).

It is so far not without reason

that Chalcid, in

Tim.

c.

249 (as

shown by

Lassalle,ii. 341) ascribes

to Eeracleitus the Stoic doctrine so

thing absolutely immaterial the meaning is that it was the rarest, the least palpable substance, the substance which comes nearest to actual incorporeality. The reason given for this definition, viz. that the sold must be moved, in order that it may know things that are moved, is a conjecture of Aristotle, who has already (De A/i. 404 b. 7 sq.) stated the general presupposition on which he bases it. Cf. also Phiiop. Be An. C, 7 {supra, p. Themist. Dc A>i. 67 a, 24, 1) u (ii. 24 Sp.) koI 'UpaKKeLTos Se
; ;
:

familiar to the ancients generally, of the constant inten.lependence between the human spirit and the In what form however, Divine.

?)i'

apxvy TideTai twv

ovroiv. ravTr}v

TideraL Ka\ \l/vxv^' T^vp yap Ka\ ovros' rr)v yap avaQvuiatriu i^ fis ra 6,\\a
(Twicrr-qaiv

(so Arist.) ovk

aWo

t:

and how

definitely

ward
*

this doctrine,

he brought forwe cannot learn

irom this late testimony.

best authority for this is the passage from Aristotle discussed p. 22, 4; 23, 1; where the avaOu-

TOVTO 06 KOI Arius Did. ap. Eus. Pr. Er. xv. 20, 1 avaTlVp
VTroATJTTTe'oj/,
a<r(t)iJ.aTov

Ka\ peou aei.

The

dvfjLiacriu

fj.hu

odu
c.

ofioiccs

T'2

Yipa-

KXe'iTCf rr)v tI^vxV^ airocpaiyeL

Ztjuwu.
tt

Tert.

Be An.

Hippasus

80

HERACLEITUS.
'

on that account are also called

lire is,

soul.'
:

The purer

this
is

the

more

perfect
; '

is

the soul

'

the driest soul

the wisest and best

HcracUtv.s ex igni

it strikes,
effin-

we

are told, through the

{animum

Macrob. Somn. i. 14 : Hegunt). raclitns physicus [animum dixit^ scintillam sfellaris essentia (i.e., of Nemes. Xaf. the heavenly fire), Horn. c. 2, p. 28 'UodK\. 5e rr?"
:

connection in Plutarch, and partly from the passage about to be Plut. quoted from Clemens). avrr) yap Def. Orac. 41, p 432 |7jpa ^vxT) Kad' 'HpaKXiiTov. On the other hand we find in Pseudo:

fihu

Tov iravTOs ^vxvt' (this is not of exprest^ion) course Ht-racleitus's

auadvfxiaaiv eK

Plut. De Esu Cam. i. 6, 4, p. 995 " avyr] |7jprj ^vxv (TocpcoTaTT] " Kara
;

twv uypMu,

Tr]V 5e iu

TOis ^cLois

a.ir6

iv
T7

avTols
TT)

(scil.

re ttj? e/crbs koI ttjs avadvixtdacws ofxoyevTi avadufj.idrTL, oi' better:

irecpvK^uai.
iv. 3, 6. ix.

Thv 'HpaKXiiTOv eoiKev (sc. X4yiv] or, according to another reading,

avyi]
^T]pr]

\\/vxv

<TO<p

k.

t.

'Up.

eoiKev.

Similarly Galen.
etc. c. 5, vol. iv.

rov Travrhs)
Plac.
14, it

larly Plut.

SimiAccor;

Mores, to the

Qic. An. 786 K, and

same
p.

effect
:

Hermias
|7jo7?

in

ding to Sext. MafJi.

363

Tert.

Phmlr.

73

avyr}

T^ivxh
ii.

Be

A)).

9,

was

said

by some

aocpcardrif},

and Clemens Pcedag.

that Heracleitus held the soul to For the explanation of be air.

this, cf.
1

156 C, without mention of Heau7^ Se ^vxh ^fipo. croracleitus

:

Part Fr. 89
;

in. b, 23, 26.

sitj).

(pwTaTT] Hal

aplarr]
e/c

ovSe

iari

p. 24, 2

50

sq.

KaOvypos rals
aecri,

tov oXvov avadv/xidcrwjxaro-KOiov-

i.

614
-

sq.

ve(p^\ris

S'lktjv

Fr. 54, 55.

This proposition

is

very commonly attributed to Heracleitus, but the readings of the MSS. are so various that it is difficult to decide how it originally Stob. Floril. 5, 120,^ has stood.
aiiri

^vx^l

(T0(puiT6.rr)

koX

dpioTTj.

another In the fragment of avyr] ^ripr]. ]Musonius, ibid. 17, 43, the readings vary between av-r] without |T7pv;, air/Ti ^-npT) and o5 77) ^-qpr]. Instead of avr] Porph. Anir. Ny//iplK c. 11, has: ^vpo- ^^XV crocpwraTr} similarly Glykas, Annal. 74, 116 (.Schleiermacher, p. 130) ^vxh \r]poTp-f] (TotpuT^pr). Similarly Plut. avrr] yap \\/vx^l ^Vpr] V. Rom. C. 28 (al. avriy.yp.Kal |.) apicrTr] KaO' 'Hpdgives
avr] ^vpv,
;
: :

Our MS.

Philo, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. viii. 14,67 has: ov yri |7?p^, xpuxh o'o(pwTdrri Kal apiarrj, and that the true reading in this place is not, as in some texts, airyrj or avyfi (one text has ^vpfj |/i'x??) but ov yrj, is clear from the passage in Philu's Be Provid.W. 109: in terra sicca animus est sapiens ac virtutis aman.-; (for further details, cf. Schleiermacher, p. 129 sq.). Schleiermacher supposes that there were three different expressions ov yrj ^vph-^^XV,
fxivT].
:

&C., avr] ^vxv, &c., 01*77? |7jp)? \pvxv, &c. But this is very improbable
;

and even
fragments

if is

the

of the three distinct from the other

first

rajxevn

KKeiTOv, wcnrep acTTpairr] vi(povs SmTTtov aufxaios (that this

two, these latter seem to be origiHow the expresnally identical. sion really stood, and how its different versions are to be explained,

addition is also taken from Heracleitus seems probable, partly from the

cannot be positively determined. I do not think, however, that the

ANTHROFOLOGY.
bodily veil like lightning through clouds.^
If,

81

on the

other hand, the soul-fire

is

is

polluted by moisture, reason

lost

and

in

this

way
;

Heracleitus

explains the

phenomena of

intoxication

the drunken
is

man

is

not
As,

master of himself because his soul

however, everything
is

moistened.^

is

subject to perpetual change, and

it
is

constantly being produced anew, so

:

with the
into the

soul

not only did

it

its fire

come from without

fire

body, but

must be

fed from the

without in order

to sustain itself

theory which was obviously sugif

gested by the process of breathing,

once the soul were

compared
proposition, "
(pctiTOLTT],"

to the vital
ah'^ri
|Tjp7?

air."^

Heracleitus consequently
Sophocl. Phil. 1199 {^povTas avyais ucTL (pXoyi((tiv). Schuster's explanation If the gas is dry, the soul is wisest,' is (even irrespectively of the gas) contradicted by what is said above that it would only be possible to speak of an avy^ i-r]pa, and to declare the dry 0^7^ to be wise supposing there were also
fi'

^vxh

cro-

Heracleitean. The subject ^vxv as part of the predicate has something very disturbing in it, and avyi] ^rjp'o -would be a singular pleonasm, for there is no 01/77? vypd the rise of moisture is an extinction of the beam. If, therefore, the words -were originally so vrritten by Heracleitus (as certainly seems probable from the frequency with which they are quoted), we must suppose that there was some difference in the punctuation. If Heracleitus wrote that the moist soul was imprisoned by the body, but that the dry soul huTTTarai rod cruyLaros, qkws v4(peo5
is
;

an avyr] vypd. Would anyone say 'if the beam,' or 'if the flame, is drv?' I doubt whether that which is ascribed to Heracleitus by Ter'

tullian
tic,

(Be

A)i.

14), as well as
is

by

^nesidemus and Strabo,

viz.,

authen-

avyr]'
o-TTj

^VPV ^^X"^ (TOcpooTaTV Koi api-

(and something of the kind seems to be presupposed in Plut. V. Rom. 28), everything would be
Schuster, p. 140, that Plutarch's aaTpair^ would be much more applicable
fully explained.

suggests

that the soul, in totum corpus diffusa et uhique ij)sa, velut flatus in calamo per cavernas, ita per sensualia varils modis emicet. 2 Cf. the proposition quoted sup. p. 24, 2, which primarily has a more general meaning. 3 pr.bZ Stob. FloriL 0, 120 ^ aj/7?p OKorav fxsOvadfj dyerai inrh TTotSbs avrj^ov a(paK\6fj.vos, ovk
:

than
iV.

auyi] whereas Teichmijller, Stud. i. 65, shows that avy^ stands also for lightning cf. II.
; ;

iirdtwi' 0K7J jSaiVei, i>yp^v

ttjv \puxv*'

X(^p.

Cf. Plut.
2,

Qu.

Com:

in.,

Prooem.
*

and Stob.
i.

Floril. 18, 32.

xiii.

244;
II.

Hes.

Tkeoff.

699;
(

Cf. vol.

p. 485, 2.

VOL.

HERACLEITUS.
supposed
^

that Keason or

warm matter

entered into us

through the atmosphere,^ partly through the breath, When these partly through the organs of the senses.^
avenues are closed in sleep, the light of reason
>

is

ex-

<Smj5.
:

p. 42, 2

Sext. J/az'^.Tii.

127 sqq.

apeV/fet

yhp t^
.

(pucriKCfi

['UpaK\e'i.T(f] rh nepiexov ^yuSs Aoyitovtou Kov re %v Koi (poevripes OTJ rhv de7ov x6you kuO' 'HpoLKX^iTov
.
.

5i'

avairvoris airdcTavTis voepol yiuo-

fxeOa. Koi iv fxlv vttvois \r]daioi Kara,

5e

eyepaiv irdXiv

eiJ.(ppopS'

iu

yap

ro7s vTTUOis jj.vadi^Twi'

tuv

al(rQr}TiKCtiu

TTopwv ^wpi^^rai ttis

irphs

Tb

ircpie-

Xov
T7J?

av/xcpvias 6 iv tjjjav vqvs, ii6vt]s

Kara

auaTTVorjv Trpocrtpvcrews aoootovei

(oixevrjs

rivos

piCvs

eV

5e iypr]yop6<ri iraKiv 8ia roov alaOr]riKUiv TTOpcav wcnrep Sid rivcav OvplSwv

aXoyov elvai rhv &v6p<airov, That this is the meaning of the irepLcxov is clear from the words of Sextus we are connected with the air outside us by means of our breath, and with the light outside U8 by means of our This mode of conception is eyes. not strange in Heracleitus if reason is identical with fire, it is quite natural that it should enter man with the animating and warming breath, and be nourished by light
Epist. 18: 'Hpd/cA..
. . .

Kara
-

<pv(TLV ecprjcre

and

air.

Only

if

we

refine
fire

away

irpoKv^as
fidXXcou
ovirep oZv

Koi

rw

Trepi^xovTi
ei/Suerat
ol

crvfi-

XoyiKTjv TpoTToP

Zvvaixiv.

(TidaavT^S
diaTTvpoi

rw

trvpX

Kar

avQpaKis ttAtjaXXoiooaiu

yivovrai, x^P'-^^^^'^^^ ^^ (T^ivvvvrai, o'xnu} koX t] itri^evwd^lcra

to a metaphysical abstraction, as Lassalle does, hare we any right to find fault with this sort of language from him. Lassalle (i. 305 sqq.) understands by the trepiexov the

Heracleitus's

primitive

'

ToTs ^jUtTe'pois (Twfxaaiv airh tov ireptf'XOi'TOS ixo7pa KaTO. ^xlv rhu X'^'P'"
(Tixbv

(Tx^^bv
5ta
T(t)V

aXoyos yiueraL, Kara.

TrXeiaTuv
iropcov av/x-

5e

TTji/

<pv(Tiv

6fxoeiSr]s

tw

SA-oi)

KaQiararai.

The image of the embers is employed in another connection by the pseudo-Hippocrates, it. hiair. That Sextus here repro29. i. duces the conception of Heracleitus in his own words, or those of ^Enesidemus, is plain. The assertion, Sext. vii. 349 (cf. Tert. De An. 15), that the soul, according to Heracleitus, was outside the body, is merely an inference. Pnd. M. viii. 286, according to Heracleitus's express declaration m^ ^Ivai XoyiKhv rhv i.vQp(t3TT0v, ix6uov S' xnrdox^i'V Similarly TTipiexov. <f>pv^pS rb the so-called Apollonius of Tyana,
:

universal and actual process of becoming,' or (ii. 270) the objective, world-forming law, which is called the TTpUx'>v, because it overcomes all things. But Trepte'xeiv does not mean 'overcome' (certainly not, as Lass. i. 308 represents it, -with the accusative of the object), and rh
Trepiex^f never
'

means anything else the surrounding.' than In the passage from Sextus no other meaning can be thought of. Moreover it seems to me (as to Lassalle, i. 307) improbable that Heracleitus himself ever made use of the expression irepiexov. ^ Whether Heracleitus imagined that the soul was also developed from the blood, and was sustained by it (cf p. 79, 4), is not quite clear.

ANTHROPOLOGY.
tingiiished,
his

83

and man

is

limited in his presentations to

own world

to

the subjective fancies of di'eams,^

still

though in reality he
the

cannot withdraw himself from

movement
;

of the universe.^

When

these avenues
is

are opened, in awaking, the light of reason

again

kindled

when the connection with the outer world

for ever.^

through respiration ceases, this light goes out

But Heracleitus (as subsequently Empedocles, in a somewhat different manner) brought mythical notions of life and death into a connection with these physical theories, which was certainly not required by his philosophical presuppositions.

From

these presuppositions

we could only deduce that the

soul, like

everything else
life,

perpetually reproducing itself in the flux of natural

retains its personal identity so long as this production

proceeds in the same manner and in the same proportion

:

that,

on the contrary,

it

is

destroyed, as an inceases

dividual,

when the formation of soul-substance

;

and since soul-substance, according to Heracleitus, consists in warm vapours which are partly developed from the body and partly drawn in
at this definite point

with the breath, the soul cannot survive the body.

Heracleitus seems to have contented himself with the vague notion that life continues so long as the divine
fire

animates the man, and that

Pint.

it

ceases

when

that

fire

'

De

Siiperst.

c. 3,

p.

166

rwu iv
^

Tip Koa-ixcp yivofj.4v(av.

iv.

6 'HpoLKXeiTds ((>v(Ti.To75 iyprryopoaiv

'4va

Fr. 91, ap. Clem. Sfro-m.

Koi KOivou kSct/xov elvai.

twv

5h

530

avdpcDiros

iv eixppouT]

(pdos

KoiuccfjLeuuv
crTp4(pe(r6ai.

eKaarov

et'y

"iSiov

a-no-

airrei eavrcf'

atroQavwv oLTrocrBsadels.
inro-

(wu Se aTrreTai redveuros evSuv

:

kuI tovs Aurel. \i. 42 Kadevdovras, ol/j-ai, 6 'Hpa/cAetTos fpydras elvai \4yei Kol crvvepyovs
-

M.

(T$(Tde\s

o^^ets

iyprjyopws

aTTTerai

eiiSovros,

G 2

84
leaves Lim.

HERACLEITUS.

He

personifies

this

divine element and

says that

men

are mortal gods and gods immortal

men

our

life is

the death of the gods, and our death their

life.^

So long as
is

man

lives

the divine

part of his

nature

bound up with the baser substances, from

which in death he again becomes free.^ Souls, he says, traverse the way upwards and the way downwards they enter into bodies because they require change and
;

become weary of continuing

Fr. 60, the original form of is doubtless given by Hippol. aOduaBefut. ix. 10, iu the words TOi OvrjTol, fii'TjTOi aOdvaroi, ^ccvtS rhv iKeivwv Qdvarov, rhv 8e iKcivccy Schleiermacher, fiiov reOviwres. putting together the following pasHeracl. Allcg. Horn, c 24, sages Max. tvr. Diss. x. 4, p. 51 Mehl. end (xli. 4 ad fin.) Clem. Pcedag. Hierocl. in Carm. Atir. iii. 216 A Porph..^^r. Nynqih. p. 186 (253) Philo, Leg. Alleg. i. p. c. 10, end 60 C {Qu. in Gen. iv. 152); cf. Luc. V. Auct, 14, deduces from
'

in the

same

state.^

He

which

an inference from the utterance Still quoted above, is doubtful. less can we be sure from the passage in Philo that Heracleitus himself employed the comparison of
the aufxa with the a-^fia {sicjy. vol. i. 482, 1, 2). ^ Iambi, ap. Stob. Ed. i. 906 'UpaKXetTos /xev yap a,/ioij3ay dvayKaias TiOerai e/c rwv ivavriuv bZov re dvoo Ka\ Karcw hiaifopiveaQai ret? virei\r](pe, Kol rh i^ivxo.s fxev to7s avTo7s iiriixiveiv KajxaTov clvai, rh Se
:

fxeTu^dWeiv (pepeiv avdiravcTiv. The same. ibid. 896, in regard to the

different theories of the deterioraKaff of the soul it is said 'HpdKXciTOv 8e TTjs iv t<2 fx^rafidXXicrdai dva-n-avXrjs alrlas yiyvofxev7]s tS>v Karaytaywv ivepyrjfxdruv. These statements are illustrated Gaz. and confirmed by JEn. Th(ophr. p 5, Boiss.: 6 /xev yap 'UpdKXfLTOs SiaSoxhv dvayKaiav ri-

them
Oi^TlTol,

this
flfot

view
t'

&vdpco7voi

deol

dvOpcoiroi

aQavaroi,

tion

^cDires rov

iKeivocv

ddvarov, duiia-

Koures TTjv iKelvwu

C^W.
i.

Against
sq.,

him and
cf.

Lassalle,

136

vide
;

Bernays, Heracleit. Bricfe, 37 sq. and Clem. Strom. also, p. 17, 4

;

iii.

434 C
2

ov-x).

koX

'UpaKk^iros

QdvaTOV

TTju yevecriv /coAet

Heracleitus's theory was consequently expoimded by Sext. Pgrrh. Philo, L. Alleg. 60 C. and iii. 230 others, in similar language to that
;

defxevos dvo) Ka\

Kdrw

ttjs

^uXV^

"^VV

TTopeiav
av-^fj

ecpr]

yivecrOai.

iwe] Ka/xaTO^

TcS STjfjLiovpyo}

(Twiir^rrQai

Ka\

Whether the passage in

aTTodaueiv Koi

of the Pythagoreans andPlatonists. Sextus, I. c, 'Hp. (p7)(r\v, OTL Koi rh (pu Koi rh
iv

Tov 6eov roBe rh irav (Tvp-irepiTToAeti/ Ka\ vir iKeivcfi rerdx^ai Kal dpx^o-Oai, 5m tovto rrj tov rfpefxelv
dvu} iieTO.
iTnOv/jLia

Koi

dpxv^ (the dominion

i\iri^i

ry

Cw

^i""^ ^^'^'

over the body)

TT^i/

varco

(pricrl

Ki\

iv

Tcf

Tedvdvai,

racleitus's

own

contains Hewords, or is merely

rpvx^v (pepeadai.

Here, how-

ever, the Heracleitean doctrine is

LIFE ATTER DEATH.

applied also to individual
soiils

85

that which could only

be said logically of the universal soul, or of the divine

animating
attributed

fire.

We

see from various traces that he

further existence to souls escaped from

their bodies. In one of his fragments he says that there

awaits

man

after his death that

;
^

which he now neither

hopes nor believes

in another

he promises a reward to

interpreted in a Platonic sense. Heracleitus certainly never spoke of the Demiourgos and the other
;

between this passage and the Phaedrus may be occasioned (as Lassalle, ii. 235 sq.. seeks to prove), not so much by
similarities

Creuzer, would substitute ^yx^o'Qat, but, as he himself observes, the passage from .^neas is in favour of Kpxecdcu) dKa^sLv ^SuKv (as to the reasons of the soul's descent) d/teX^aas (Ta<pT) r]fxii/ Troirja'ai Toy \6yov.

When
4. p.

Plutfirch,

De

Sol.

Anim.

7,

Heracleitus's the influence of nritings on Plato, as by that of Plato's on iEneas. ^51neas, p. 7, SoKet rwv says of Heracleitus TTOvwv TTJs ^vxv^ avairavXav ehai rrjv pIs T(^v5e rov $iuv (pir/i^v and
: ;

9664, says of Empedocles and Heracleitus that they blame Nature

(ef. p.

32,
.

1
.

): &)s

avdyKrjv koI TrdKe/ioi/

Koi
rrjy

oiiaav

oirov

yeveaiv

avTTju e| aSiKias

awrvyx^veiv \4-

Numen.
Xyrnjph.
c.

ap.

Porph.

De
:

Antro

10 (sup. -p. 18, 1), agrees quotation " \pvXV^^^ Tep\^iv" fiT] ddvarov from Heracleitus (this, as Schuster, p. 191, supposes, is an addition of Numenius referring to the proposition quoted p. 24, 2, and an addition that is contrary to the meaning of Heracleitus, who represents the Tp'|is as consisting precisely in the transmutation, the ddvaros of the soul), ' vypfjai yey4vrith this

in the

adai.' Tp\pLv 5e lvai avrais ttjv eis

Tr)u

yeieaiv

tttwctjv.

The propo-

sitions of Heracleitus are, however,

most authentically given by Plotinus in the passage (iv. 8, 1) pointed o /xeu yap out by Lassalle, i. 131
:

'Hpa/cAeiTos

anoi$ds re avayeK

Kaias

Tidefievos

twv ivavTiwy,

yovai T(^ 6vr]T(S avvepxo^^vov tov aOavdrov Kot repireadai to yevofievov Ttapa (pv(Tiv fxeXsffi tov yevvi}(TavTOS aTT oa-K (a fiivo IS. it is a question whether the latter part of this passage from oirov onwards is (as Schuster supposes, 185, 1) really founded on Heracleitean utterances. It reminds us most obviously of Empedocles, inf. p. 3, 656, 2, third edit. ' Fr. 69, ap. Clem. Strom, iv. 532 B; Cohort. 13 D; Theod. Cur. &r. Aff. viii. 41, p. 118; Stob. Florxl. 120, 28 h.vQpbyKov% /xeVet h.-noQav6vTas aacra ovk IAttoj/Tai ouSe SoKeovcri. Perhaps there is a reference to the same subject in Fr. 17, ap. Clem. Strom, ii. 366 B; Theod. i. 88, p. 15: iay fi^ lA.Tr7jTat b.viX'KUTTOv ovk i^evpricrei, ave^epevvriTou ihu koi airopov. Instead of e\7r7]TCu and 4^vpr}(rL,
;

oSSu re avo: kuI koltu eliruv, Kol " ixera^dWov hvairaveTai '' Koi " Kafiaros eVxt 7o7s avro7s fxox^^^v koX
^.pxeadai" (^here Lassalle, following

Theodoret has
(rere.
eA-TTTJOl.

eA.iri^7jTe

and

^vprj-

Schuster, p. 45, conjectures

86

IIERACLEITUS.

those

who have

fallen gloriously

Wn a third he
;

speaks

of the condition of souls in Hades

in

two others he

makes mention of the daemons ^ and

heroes,"*

and assigns

49i

Fr. 120, ap. Clem. Strmn. iv. B; Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. ix.
:

ixopoi yap ij.4(oves fte'^o39, p. 117 ^as jxoipas Kayx'^vovai, ef. Fr. 119,

ap.

Theod.

aprii<p6.Tovs

ol

dtol

I cannot, with Schuster, p. 30-1, regard these passages as ironical. 2 Fr. 70 Plut. Fac. Lun. 28,
rifxwai Koi
ol

apOpuiroi,

end, p. 943
i|/iXai

'Hpa/cA. elTrev

on

at

(XTjxSivTai

Kaff

a5r]v.

The

meaning of these words

:

is obscure. Schuster's explanation Souls scent out Hades, reach after it greedily as a restorative, is the less satisfactory to me, as Plutarch gives the sentence in proof that souls in the other world can feed themIn this conselves on vapours. nection we might bring forward what Aristotle quotes, Dc Sensu, ws el iravTa to c. 5, 443 a, 23 hvra KaiTvbs yivoiro, plves h,u 5iay:

Heracleitus enunciated the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (Lassalle, ii. 204). Lassalle does not mean indeed by this resurrection the avdaraaLS aapKhs in the Christian sense, which Hippolytus. I.e., finds to be clearly taught {(pavepws must be substituted for <pavpas) ; he means only this that all the particles of matter which had previously formed a human body, find themselves again united at a later period of the world in a similar body. This conception is not only much too
far-fetched for Heracleitus, and entirely without support from any of his writings, but it is quite incompatible with his point of view these particles of matter do not exist any longer in the later period of the world they are as these definite substances entirely destroyed in the stream of Becoming they have become other substances and if even they may have been partially changed again into the constituents of human bodies, there is no ground for the supposition that from those particular substances which arose from some particular body, and from no others, a body will afterwards
: ; ;

refers

Bernays, Rk. Mus. ix. 265, in a far-fetched manner, as it seems to me, to the conflagration of the world. In these propositions we can hardly look for any
voiev.
it,

special reference.
3 Fr. 61, Hippol. Bcftit. ix. 10 (vdaS^ iovTL [Bern. 46uTas^ iiraui(TTaaQai koX (pvKaxas yiueffdai iyeprl
:

fa'j/T&>i/(so Bern, instead of e7epTiCoi'Tuv) Kol veKpav. I refer these words to the dsemons assigned as the pro-

tectors of

120

sqq.,

men, cf. Hes. 'E. kol tj/j.. 250 sqq. Lassalle i. 185
souls,

sees in

them a resurrection of

but this is a mistake, at any rate in regard to the expression for

;

does not here signify to rise again, but to raise oneself, namely, to be overseers of men. I must express myself still more decidedly against the idea that
4Travi(TTaff6aL

Schuster (p. be formed. 176) prefers this reading: [SaiiJ.wv e'^eAei] iyddde iovri ^TTUffracQai koX (pvKaKbs ( = (pvKa^) yiv^cQai iyeprl C K. V. But Hippolytus, as it seems to be, would then have had greater difficulties in finding the resurrection of the flesh, than in the ordinary text with its 4iravi(TTa(r6ai. * Fr. 130, Orig. c. Cels. vii. 62 ovTi yiyvuxTKwv deovs ovre ripuas
again
:

o'lrivis il<xi.

LIFE AFTER DEATH.

87

the dsemons as guardians, not only to the living, but to

the dead
;

and he

is

said to have taught that all things

It is doubtless, there-

are full of souls and daemons.*

fore, his

opinion that souls enter the body from a higher

existence,

and

after

death,

when they have proved

as

themselves worthy of this privilege, they return

dsemons into a purer

ever, he

life

in regard to details,

how-

seems to have retained the ordinary notions

Heracleitiis

concerning Hades.^
^^^lether

enquired
life

more

particularly

concerning the corporeal

of

man

cannot be dislittle

covered with certainty'* from the very

that has

been handed down to us by tradition on

this subject.

On

the other hand, there are

many

passages quoted
to

from him in which he applies his standpoint cognitive faculty and moral action of man.
'

the

Diog. ix.

7, cf, p.

46, 2.
life
;

And in an individual

not

as Theodoretus, v. 23. p. 73, says, in the soul of the world. ^ Cf. the similar eschatology of Pindar, supra, vol. i. p. 70. * We find from Fr. 62 ap. Plut. Bef. Orac. c. 11; Plac. v. 24; Philo, Qu. in Gen. ii, 5, end p. 82

1, 1 consider to be an emendation of Clemens, referring perhaps tc the view of the /Liera/SoATj discussed supra, p. 84, 3, or else a protest of

the Christian against the philoso-

pher who treats death simply as the end of life it would not agree with the JcaKiXei;' ttji/ yez/eo-ty which Clemens finds in the passage) " koX
;

Auch.

Censorin,

Z^z. i\^. C. 16, cf.

Bernays, Rk. Mus. vii. 105 sq., that he reckoned the life of a man at thirty years, because a man in his thirtieth year might have a son who was himself a father, and therefore human nature completes Reference its circuit in that time.

fx6povs yevigreat weight, however, is to be attiched to these observations. "^Tiat is said in Hippocr. tt. 5mit. i. 23 end, on the seven senses, and ibid. e. 10, on the abdomen, and on the three revolutions of fire in the human body,
-KouZas
crOai.''

KaTaXeiirovcn

Xo

is

made

ap. Clem.

to this circle in Fr. 73, ' eVet>SV/'o/;^. iii. 432

can hardly be taken from Heraeleitus the statement (of Job.

;

Sav (I. eireiTa) yevofXivoL Qu^iv id4Xovai yiopovs t' exeti'," jxaKKov Se
ava-rravea-dai.

Sieel,

(this,

in

spite

of
193,

Schuster'.s representations, p.

Walz, Rhett. vi. 95, quoted by Bernays, Herad. 19), that Heracleitus pursued anatomical enquiries, is more than doubtful.

88

HERACLEITUS.
In regard to cognition, he could only place its him was the central
all his convictions, viz.
liiix

highest problem in that which to

point of

in seizing the eternal

essence of things in the

of the phenomenon, and in

freeing ourselves from the deceitful appearance which

presents to us a permanent Being of the changeable.

He
in

therefore declares that

wisdom

consists in one thing,

; *

knowing the reason which

rules all

we must

follow

the

common
;

reason,
if

not the particular opinions of

is

individuals

a discourse

to be reasonable

it

must

be founded on that which

only thing which
is

thus

common to all, and the common is thought.^ Only

is

the rational cognition of the Universal can therefore

have any value

of course,

for

him the
:

sensual perception he must,

regard with mistrust.

What

our senses

perceive
essence
;

is
^

merely the fleeting phenomenon, not the

fire is

the eternally living

veils
;

hidden from them

stiff

by a hundred
'

they show us as something

Supra, p. 42, 2. This knowledge, however, is itself according

to Lassalle,
ii. 344, conditional on revelation to oneself of the Lassalle objective and absolute.' in support of this relies partly on Sext. M. viii. 8, iEnesidemus defined the aA.7)0es as the ^ur? Xri^ov TTjv Koivriv yvwfxriv and partly on the fragment quoted p. 25, 2. Sextus, however, does not say that

'

'

able to all, there is, even apart from Lassalle's modernising view no proof of it to of this thought, be discovered, cf. p. 43, 1. Fr. 1 ^ Fr. 123 Stob. Floril, 3, 84 : eVrt iraffi Tb (ppoveTv ^vv v6(fi ivv6p

"^

Xi^ovras
jravrccj',

lax^p'^C^^^o.''

XP^

'^V !"*'<?

OKwairkp
1.

vofj-u)

irdXis

Kal

-koXv
/c.t.A.

lax^P^Th^^'
sup. p. 41,
Arist.

'rpe<l>ovTai

yap,

On
i.

the mean43,
1.
:

iEnesidemus had this definition from Heracleiius, and if he did,

ing of the words,

*

cf. p.

we
the

could not conclude very

it.

much

from

The fragment
Svvop, wliich is

calls fire

sub init. tois 'HpaKXcireiois 5<{|ais, w$ twv ala-drjTwu del peSvrwv Koi iviariifiris

Metaph.

6,

fJiT]

something

irepl avrCuv
^

ook
ix.

oijcrr)5.

quite different from the /utj A^0oj/. Though it is ver}" possible that Heracleitus may have said that

Diog.
:

ri]v opaffiv ^/ey-

h^crQai
i.

(eXeye).

Lucret. Rer. Nat.

696

the Divine or Eeason was know-

se7isu

credit enim (^Hcraclitus) ignem cognosccre vere, cetera

COGXITIOX.
and dead what
all things.^
is

89

really the

most movable and living of

Or, as the later theory of the Heracleitean

it, all
;

school expresses

sensation arises from the collision

of two motions

it

is

the

common

product of the in-

fluence of the object on the particular organ, and the

activity of the organ which receives this influence in its

own

peculiar

manner

into

itself.

Sensation, therefore,

shows us nothing permanent and absolute, but only a

single

phenomenon

as this presents itself in the given

case and to some

fore,

definite perception.''^

Although, there-

we may

certainly learn from sensible observation.

sq.
ol

no'ti

credit, fire

being the only senin

5e

Trepi

'Avu^ayopau

Kal

sible

phenomenon

which

the

'HpaKXbiTOv
aiadriaiv),

r(S ivavriu) {iroioiai. t7]u

substance of things displays itself according to its true nature. ^ Fr. 95, ap. Clem. Strom, iii. 434 D, where, according to Teichmiiller's just obserration,

which is afterwards thus explained ol 5e tV alcrdriaLu inroXau^dvovTS iv aWoiaaei yiveadai Kal ro fj.V Ojxoiov airaQes inro tou
:

St.

i.

ofioiov,

97 sq., instead of TlvQa-yopas 5e koI TlvQayopa Kai should be read BdvaTOS iariv okocti e'/epfieVres bpio'as fxey, oKoaa Se evSovres virvos we see in sleep, dreams, so we see The opening in waking, death.' words of this fragment are thus interpreted by Lassalle, ii. 320 What we see, being awake, and hold to be life, is in truth the constant passing away of itself.' But this constant passing away, in which, according to Heracleitus, the life of nature consists, he would never have described by the sinister word death. Schuster, 274 sq., in order to avoid the degradation of the sensuous perception, here gives, as it appears to me, an interpretation very far-fetched and unlike
:
:

TOVTQ)

TO 8' ivavTLov ira67]TLKhv, Trpoa^Oeaav rrjv yvuixriv. iirt-

8' oXovrai ko.\ rh -jrepl ttji' avpL^ouvov to yap baoloos ttj (TapKi Oepfxhv i) xpuxpov ov iroiiiv

jxaprvpilv
acpriy

aXaQ-qiTiv.

According to this evi-

'

Heracleitus, which rightly discards.

^

Teichmiiller
Sensii,
i.

Theophrast.

De

dence, which is confirmed by Heracleitus's doctrine of the opposites in the world, there would be all the more ground for referring to the fleracleiteans as well as to Protagoras the exposition in the The&t. 156 sqq. Plato himself refers us to them, 180 c. sq. If even the more definite development of this theory was the work of later philosophers such as Cratylus and Protagoras, yet the fundamental idea in it, viz., that the sensible perception is the product of the concurrent motion of the object and of the sense, and has consequently no objective truth, belongs to Heracleitus himself.

00

HERACLEITUS.
many
qualities of things
^
;

in so far as this shows us

although the two nobler senses, and especially the eye,

ought to be preferred to the

worth

rest,^

in

comparison with
little

the rational perception the sensible perception has

;

eyes and ears are bad witnesses to

souls.^

men

if

they

have irrational

But

it

is

precisely this testifollow.

mony which

the generality of
for the

men
;

Hence the

deep contempt

mass of mankind, which we have

hence his hatred for
unreason which does not

already seen in this philosopher

arbitrary opinion,'* for the

perceive
1

the

voice
;

of the

Deity ,^ for the stupidity

it, even if we adopt the usual reading we get a better nieanino: if the word be taken in one who does its original sense not understand my language, anc whose language I do not understand. Heracleitus says then in his figurative mode of expression it is of no use to hear if the soul does not comprehend the speech which the ear receives; and the strange genitive ix^vrwv seems to have been used precisely because the sentence relates primaL'ily to the ears (though it vs also of cour-e applicable to the eyes). Cf. Schus-

88, 5. p. 86, 2 Hippol. Befut. ix. 9 o(Twv o^LS ctKOTj jj.dOrjai,'} ravra iyci) -TrpoTt^eoj on the sense of sight espeeially, Fr. 91. Fr. 9, Polyb. xii. ocpdaXfiol yap rcov itiruv ccKpifie27
-

Vide supra,
Fr.
8.

signification to

arepoi.

/xdpTvp^s,

which (notwith;

standing the different opinion of Eernays, Rk. Mus. ix. 262 Lass. ii.

323

sq.

Schuster, 25, 1) seems to

meto contain nothingmore than (for example) what Herodotus says (i. 8), and what Polybius understands
by the passage, namely, that one can better rely on one's own sight than on the assertion of others. ^ Fr. 11; Sext. Math. vii. 1:^6: KaKoX ixdpTvpes audpunroiaiv
o(pQaXixo)
/cat

ter, 26, 2.
*

Diog.

ix.

7: t^v

o'ir]<nv

Upav

dora

^ap^dpous \^vxas

ix<ii^Tuv

(which

is

no doubt more

nevertheless accused by Aristotle, Etk. N. vii.

v6ffov eXeye.
b, 5),
b, 29 (M. Mor. ii. 6, 1201 of an over-bearing confidence in his own opinions, as has already been noticed. Schleiermacher, p. 138, compares with the passage of Diogenes the following words from K^oW.Ty^n. Epist.l^: iyKaXvirr^os 4,

He was

the version of it ap. Stob. Floril. 4, 56). Instead of the last three words, Bernays, ff^. il/2<5. ix. 262 sqq., conjectures fiopfiSpov \pvxas xovTos, because in the reading of Sextus, the genitive
:

authentic than

1146

exourav after avQpunrois is very strange, and because in the time of Heracleitus, ^dp$apos would not have had the signification of rude.
It
is

^kucttos 6iJ.araiws ev h6^r) y^v6fXivos

not necessary to ascribe this

not quoted by Apoll. as Heracleitean. * Fr. 138 ; ap. Orig. c. Cels. vi.

but this

is

COGXITIOX.
which
is

91

puzzled and confused by every discourse,^ for

;

the frivolity which wickedly plays with truth

also his mistrust of the erudition

hence

which prefers learnitself.^

ing from others to enquiring for

will be content after

He

himself
the

much
'^

labour to find

little, like

gold-diggers

'*

he will not rashly pass judgment on

;

the weightiest things

he will not ask others, but only

himself,^ or rather the Deity, for

12
:

human

nature has no

avi)p

v'i]-KLOs

i]KOv(Te
Trats

irpos

5ai-

19, Gaisford,

was rightly restored

fioi'QS

OKOJCTTrep

Trpos

avSpos.

to Anaxarchus.
^

conjectural Saritxovos for SaifjLovos (Bernays, Heracl. lo) seems For Schuster's to me unnecessary. view of this passage, cf. inf. 93, 2. ^ Ft. 35 ; Plur. Aui. Poet. c. Be Aud. c. 7, p. 41 9, end, p. 28 i8\a| avQporKos inrh Travrhs Xoyov
;
:

The

476
15
:

Fr. 19 ap. Clem. Strom, iv. Theod. Cur. Gr. Af. i. 88. p.
;

xP^'^ov ol opucraovai Kal

hL(7)fjLvoi

yrju iroXKriv

eupiffKOvciv

bxiyov.

iiTToriadai (pi\e7.
-

Clem. Sfro'M.

v.

549 C:

5o-

KeouToov "yap 6 ^OKLfxwraTos yivwcTKei (pvKacTdiiv Koi fxemoL Kal Si/cTj KaraAT^v/zerai \|/eu5iij/
poLS.

Heracleitus applied this illustration we are not told; but the turn given to it in the text seems to me the most natural. Cf. also Fr. 24 and 140, sup. p. 42, 2 44, 1, and the Fr. 21 pointed out by Lassalle, ii. 312; Clem. Strom, x.
;

How

The

first

reKTOuas Kal fj.dpTvhalf of this fragment

615 B: XP/ 7P

^^ iJ-dXa ttoKKSiv

I do not think to be satisfactorily explained, either by Schleiermacher, who would substitute SoKeoi/ra and yiyvwcrKeiv (pyKacraei, nor by

"(TTopas <pL\oa6(povs 6.v5pas eluai Ka^' 'Hpa/cXeiToi/, where iaropia, inde-

Even the proLassalle, ii. 321. posal of Schuster, 340, 1 5o/c. y. % doKi/xctiTaTOv yiverai yLvwcTKei (pvKacr:

pendent enquiry, is to be distinguished from mere polymathy. According to Diog. ix. 73, he is reported to have said ^77 eiK?)
'"
:

Kepi

Tuv fieyiaTwy (TVfj.fiaK\uuLeOa, which does not sound like his usual

(reiv

so a poet decides to adopt

from that which passes for credible the most credible "), does not entirely satisfy me. Lassalle, by the
^evSwv rKrovs understands the senses. I agree with Schuster in thinking the allusion to the poets far more probable (cf. p. 10, 3). ^ In this sense, as has been previously remarke-i, we musL understand the sayings of Heracleitus against Polymathy, supra, vol. i. The fragment on 510, 4; 336, 5.
this

language. Fr. 20 (ap. Plut. axh. Col. 20,

2,

p.

Lassalle
tion

1118; Suid. UoiTTOvixos. Cf. i. 301 sq.) ihiOqadfitiv

:

ifxeocvTov.

The
these

right

interpreta-

which the above-named writers, and many of the more recent commentators, reof

words,

fer to the demand for self-knowledge, is probably given by Dioi

genes, ix. 5 eavrov t(pf] 5i(7](ra(rdaKal fxadelv irdvra nap' eavTuv. (Cf. Schuster, 59, 1, 62, 1.) Whether
:

subject, ap.

Stob.

Floril. 34,

Plotinus

(iv.

8,

i.

p.

468) under-

92

HERACLEITUS.
;

which the divine nature alone possesses human wisdom is nothing else than the imitation of nature and of the Deity.^ Only he who listens to the divine
intelligence,

law, the universal reason, finds truth

he who follows the

for ever hidden.^

deceptive appearance of the senses and the uncertain

opinions of men, to

him truth remains

This does not as yet amount to a scientific theory of

knowledge

nor can

we even suppose that Heracleitus

original meaning of the propositions {Fr. 15) quoted in the Greater

stands the expression thus seems doubtful. In V. 9, 5, p. 559, he follows the interpretation according to which eixavrhv designates the object that is sought or enquired for he says, in a discussion concerning the unity of thoiight rh and Being, opdm apa e/JLavrhv eSt^Tjcra/xTjj/ ws eu roov ovtuv. This is, of course, not conclusive as to the original meaning of the sentence but still less can I admit Lassalle's theory that the words us %v T, 0. also belong to Heracleitus, and that the whole proposition means, one must regard oneself as one of the existent things,' i.e., as existing as little as they do, and involved in the same
;
. . .

Hippias, 289
tean,

sq.,

as Heraclei-

though evidently not in the words of the philosopher, ws ^po

iTiQ'i]Kwv 6
ireict}

kolWicttos otVxpbs avdpwon av^afidWciv, avdpdiTwv 6 ffocpcoTaros irphs dshv

yiuei
.

iriOrjKos (pav7Tai koI (Tocpia /cat

kolX-

Aei Koi To7s aXKoLS iraaiv.

In Hip-

poc.

Trept

SiaiT.

i,

c.

12 sqq.

many

examples,
chosen,
are

not
all

always happily brought forward to

show that

human

arts arose

'

from the imitation of nature, though men are not conscious of it. This thought seems to belong to Heracleitus but the development of it, as it stands here, can be but
;

How this can be deduced from the words, I fail to see, and it does not seem to me probable that Heracleitus should have spoken cbs %v twv ovruv seems to of ovra.
tlux.

partially his.

Cf.

23

sqq., Schuster, p.
3

Bernays, Heracl. 286 sqq.

me

an addition of Plotinus, intended to justify his application of

in hand.

What Sext. Math. vii. 126, 131, says of Heracleitus is therea*^*^fore substantially true '. 6r}(Tiv &Tn(Trov eipai v^vofxiKs,
:

tV

Heracleitus's saying to the question The indecisive sentence ap. Stob. Floril. 5, 119, audpcaTroicn iracTL jueVeo'Ti yivuxTKeiu eavrovs Koi auKppovilv is rightly regarded by Schleiermacher as spurious. ' Fr. 14, 138, 6icp. p. 42, 2;
90, 5.

Xoyov viroTidtTai Kpirripiov Thp KOivhv \6yOV KOl O^loV Koi ov Kara, fxeroxw yivS^^Oa KoyiKol
rhv
.

5e

Kpnripiov
sceptics,

aA.7j0eias

(pTqaiv.

Many
;

on the other hand, reckon but him among their number

this

only

known
Diog.

exemplifies the wellarbitrariness of the school, ix. 7o. Cf. Sext. Pi/rrh.

Vide Fr. 123, sup. p. 41, 1. This seems to have been also the

2U9 sqq.

COGNITI ox.
felt

93

the want of such a theory, or clearly saw the neces-

sity of giving

an account to himself, before any enquiry

investigation.

concerning things, of the conditions of knowledge and

method

of

The

propositions

quoted

above, as was the case with the kindred theories of his

contemporary Parmenides,^ were essentially deductions

from a physical theory which brought him into such abrupt antagonism to sensible appearance, that he thought
himself obliged to mistrust the e\idence of the senses.
It does not follow

from

this that

he purposed to form

his system independently of experience,

and by means would

to

of an

a priori construction

for such a design

have presupposed enquiries into the theory and method

of knowledge which were alike

unknown

to

him and

the whole of the pre-Socratic philosophy.

are

Still less

we

justified

by Heracleitus's own expressions, or by

the statements of our most trustworthy authorities, in

making the ancient Ephesian the first representative of empiricism or discovering in him a tendency to observation and induction. 2

His reflection was concerned

;

with the objective in nature

Cf. vol. i. 591 sqq. Schuster (p. 19 sqq.) supports this statement mainly on the frag*

like every other philo-

ments

(2, 3),

discussed p.

7, 2.

But

one word to show that the \070y ae\ S}v is only perceived through the senses that we should observe the visible world,' and on the ground of appearance should follow out the true state of the case, still less to show that
inF/-. 3 there is not
;

'

'

this is the

07ili/

way

to arrive at

the knowledge of truth. In Fr. 2 Schuster introduces what is irrelevant when he represents Heraclei-

tus as blaming men, 'because they do not seek for knowledge, by enquiring into that over which they stumble every day' (that in order to know, they do not enter upon the way of observation), whereas Heracleitus blames them because they do not understand (or consider, (ppoveovai) that on which they stumble every day and do not (in what way is not stated) instruct themselves about it. Schuster likewise refers to Fr. 7 but I have already proved (p. 39, 4) that his explanation of this cannot
'

; '

94

HERACLEITUS.

sopher he started, in fact, from perception, and formed his convictions by the development of this but he never
;

be substantiated. I have also remarked, in the same place, that we have no right to give the meaning which Schuster adopts, to the sentence about the unseen harmony, nor to bring into direct connection with it the quotation on
p.

90,

0(T(t3v

o^LS aKOT) [xdOricris

Tavra iyco irpoTifxew. In itself, however, it does not imply that the only from sight ixde-na-is results and hearing, but merely that the pleasxires of knowledge are to be
preferred to all others how much to knowledge by is contributed thought, how much by observation, the fragment does not say. Further, in Fr. 7, the |wb// or the \6yos |ui/bs does not mean the
:

sensuous perceptions, he ascribed truth to that of fire only (not, as Schuster says, to fire under all disguises and changes,' but its simple visible fire). To withhold credence from the second of these statements because the first has been misapprehended, is to invert This supthe order of things. posed evidence in favour of Schuster's view thus turns out to be its distinct evidence against it appears incorrectness, moreover, from what is quoted, supra, p. 88,
* ;

89,

90,

3,

and especially

from

Aristotle's assertion (88, 4)

that Plato followed Heracleitus ws tu>v ulaOrjin his conviction

T&v
Trepl

act

peoj/TWj/

koX

eTrjo'TTjjU.Tjs

and speech of the visible world those are not censured who in' ; ' '

jecture

diilge
'

their

own

thoughts,'

and

seek in the invisible instead of the visible, each one for himself, a particular solution of the universal riddle (Schuster 23 sq), cf. p. not to mention that Hera43, 1
' :

The conhere that Aristotle is speaking only of Cratylus and the Heracleiteans, who on this point
avTcov ovk
oij(rr]s.
'

cleitus,

with his eh e>oi ^lvplOl (sup. p. 10, 2), certainly did follow and the koipt] his own thoughts Schuster with ypcofiV, to which ^nesidemus (ap. Sext. Math. viii. him at 8) refers ^vvhv, was, for Schuster, p. least, an authority.
;

thought very differently from their master' (Schuster 31), is wholly Aristotle does not inadmissible. say ra7s tSsv 'Hpa/cAetTeiwi/ St^^oiS, but TttTs 'HpaKXeiTciois 8o|ais now a 'Hpa/cAeiretos hS^a is as certainly
;

an opinion of Heracleitus as the 'HpaK\iT6ios Qeais, Pk?/s. i. 2, 185 a, 7, is a proposition of Heracleitus, and the 'HpaKKe'iTeioi \6yoi in the
parallel
xiii.

passage to this Metaph.

quotes Lucret. i. 690 u?ide sqq.. who calls the senses that omnia crcdita pendent, unde hie

27

sq., lastly

rognitns

ignem
tius

quern nominat est ipn but he forgets that Lucrethis

from Heracleitus, but

observation, not from his own presupposition against HeraWhen he wants to give cleitus. The doctrine to Heracleitus, he says 90, 4) that among all the (vide

takes

p.

4 (sup. p. 11, 1) are statements 'Hpa/^Aeiretos sigof Heracleitus. nifies proceeding from Heracleitus and if by an inaccurate use of language it might be uspd in regard to an opinion which had been merely derived by his scholars from his doctrine, it certainly could not be used of any opinion that contradicted his own. Schustherefore, has recourse to ter,

COGS ITI ox.

convictions had arisen.
at theories which
senses,
said,

96

proposed to himself the question from what sources his

When in this way he

had arrived

contradicted the assertions of om-

he did not say, as a true empiricist must have

theories
:

must be false he said that the senses were deceptive, and that rational knowledge alone was trustworthy. But by what process we are to
that the
attain this rational knowledge, neither Heracleitus nor

any of the pre-Socratic philosophers expressly enquired. The principle ascribed to him by modern writers,^
that the

names

of things explain to us their essential

founded upon a'la-drja-Ls.' On account of the relativity of perceptions, he rather denied the possibility of knowledge (cf. p. 896 sqq., 3rd ed.). But if in this there lies
also the presupposition that knowledge, if knowledge were possible,

another theory, viz. that Aristotle ascribes the conclusions which were drawn by Plato from the doctrine of Heracleitus to Heracleitus himself a suspicion which would only be justifiable if the assertions
:

of
as,

Aristotle
in

contradicted
authorities
;

other

trustworthy
truth,

wherethey coincide with

fact that

them

all.

But from the

Protagoras united his sensualism with the proposition about universal Becoming, we must not conclude with Schuster (31 sq.) Heracleitus also attached that supreme importance to the sencertainly not suous perception
;

Schuster, we represent Cratylus as opposed to Heracleitus through his rejection of the testishould mony of the senses. not the Sophist, who made no claim to reproduce Heracleitus's doctrine as such, diverge more easily from to Schuster's it than (according theory) a philosopher who dethat doctrine? cidedly professed It is not true, however, that Protagoras said that there was an iTTKTTTjiJLr], aud that it was the same as atcrdrjais and opinion
if,

like

Why

could only arise from perception, the hypothesis here admitted, viz. that there is a knowledge, is immediately opposed, and opposed for the very reason that perception cannot guarantee knowledo-e. So far as we can argue from Protaaroras to Heracleitus, the only result is that Heracleitus, as little as Protagoras, ascribed objective truth to sensible perception. Arcesilaus the Academician, c. 9, proved the impossibility of knowledge simply from the uncertainty of perceptions
(cf. Pt. III. a. 448 sq., 2nd ed.), but no one concludes from this that Plato, whose track he follows in his polemic against sense-knowledge, admitted no other kind of knowledge. Lassalle, ii. 362 sqq. Schuster. 318 sqq. Against Lassalle,
'
;

'

vide Steinthal

Gesck.

d.

Sprach.

i.

165 sqq.

96

HERACLEITUS.

nature, cannot be proved by direct evidence,^ nor with

certainty by induction, from the Cratylus of Plato
^
;

and though it would harmonise well with Heracleitus's general modes of thought,^ we have no right to conFarm.
Lassalle appeals to Procl. i/i, (Socrates i. p. 12 Cous. admires) rod 'HpaKAeiTciou (5i5a5ta to);/ ouoixdruv iirl ff<a\eiou)
^
:

tV

TT)v Tojv

ovTwv
is

yvcJocTiv

this utterance iu

odov. But which Heracleitus

himself
the

not mentioned, but only

;

his school, is entirely founded on

and the Platonic Cratylus same holds good of the passages of Amnion. De Interpr. 24 b, 30 b.
:

In the second of these it is said Socrates shows in the expressly Cratylus that names are not ovru (pvaei us 'UpaKheiTos \eyev (Socrates does not, howeA^er, name The first also unHeracleitus). mistakably alludes to the Platonic dialogue (428 E), as even Schusin 319 sq. ter acknowledges, the observation that many hold
'
;

as Cratylus did, could not at first have hit upon it. I do not see why, so long as they did not draw from this doctrine the sceptical consequences of Protagoras. But if Cratylus was not the first to set up this principle, it did not therefore necessarily emanate from Heracleitus between the death of this philosopher and the epoch when Plato heard the discourses of Crat}lus, there are more than sixty years. Schuster seeks (p. 323 sq.) to prove that Protagoras also held the above-mentioned doctrine, which he could only have derived from Heracleitus. But the sole proof which is adduced is the myth of the Protagoras, and in that the doctrine has
;

names
Kaddirep

for (pvcrews
rt^lov

dr]ixiovpyr}ixaTa,

KparvKos

koI

'Upd-

KAetTos.

In the Cratylus, it is said by the Heracleitean of that name 6v6uaTOS opOSrrfTa elj/ai kKaffTu twu vvTwv (pvcrei irecpuKvlav (383 A, cf. 428 J) sqq.), and that Cratylus really maintained this is the more likely, as the astounding inferences which he draws (p. 384 B, 429
-

Protagoras says, 322 A, on account of his kinship with the Deity early learnt the but it does not art of speech follow from this that all linguistic designations are accurate. Lastly Schuster (p. 324 sq.) supposes that Parmenides, in the verses quoted vol. i. 604, 3, alludes to Heracleitus's occupation with descriptive names but this conjecture, as it appears to me, is

no place.
that

man

B sq., 436 B sq.) from his proposition are entirely consistent with his other caricatures of the Heracleitean doctrine {infra, p. 601
But it does not sq., 3rd edit.). follow from this that Heracleitus himself set up such a principle. Schuster thinks that a school, which exaggerated the doctrine of the flux of all things so greatly

groundless. 3 Schaarschmidt, Samml. d. Plat. Schr. 253 sq. disputes this, on the ground that a natural correctness and fijs;ed character of words would be incompatible with and for the the flux of all things same reason, Schuster p. 321, will only admit it, if his interpretation of Trdvra ^et, discussed swp. p. 12, 1,
;

ETHICS.
^

97

elude from the plays on words and etymologies which occur in his fragments that he sought to justify this use of

nomenclature theoretically in the manner of later writers. WhdX has been said of knowledge applies to action.
Heracleitus does not yet accurately separate the two spheres, and has the same law for both. His judgment
as to the

conduct of

lenient than in the other.

they revel in

mud

more Most men live like beasts ^ and feed upon earth like the worm.^
;

men

in the one case is not

They

are born, bring forth children,

life.^

and die without

will

pm-suing any higher end in

The wise man

despise that for which the masses strive, as a worthless

and perishable
prices,

thing.-^

He

will not take his

own

cawill

but the

common

law, for

his

standard:^

hold good. But the flux of all things, even according to our acceptation, does not exclude the permanence of the universal law
;

sense and connection of the words quoted in Athen. v. 178 sq. and Arist. De Mundo, c. 6, end the
:

it

involves

it

and as

this is ap-

jU^Te " $op^6pcp xatp^'*'' KaO' 'HpaKXeiTov and the second " nav
first
: ; :

prehended by Heracleitus as the Logos, the thought that the human logos (reason and speech being
both included in this conception) has truth, as part of the Divine, is perfectly consistent with his point of view, 1 )8ios and fiihs, supra, p. 1 7, 4 where, however, the name is in opposition to the thing 5ia(ppalso
;
;

epTrerhv

tV

yvv

v4fiTai."

Bernays'

{Heracl. p. 25) conjecture that instead of these words there was originally something quite different in the text I cannot agree with. ^ Fr. 73 supra, On p. 87, 4. account of his contemptuous sayings about mankind in general,

Timon, ap. Diog. ix. 6, calls Heracleitus KOKKV(TTT]S UX^oXoidopOS.

^ So much as this may perhaps be true of the saying which Lucian

adai and ^vficpepeadai, p. 33, 2 /xSpoi and fioipai, p. 86.1 i,vv v6(f and iww, perhaps also Ztjj/os and p. 88, 3 al^oioicrLv and avaibiCfjv, p. 44, 1
;
;

7)y4oiJ.ai

a-rara, p. 103, 2 on the other hand, the comparison of (xc!}iJ.a and crj/ua is not Heracleitean, cf. 84, 2. Still more unimportant is the use of ovofxa as a
;

V. Auct. 14, puts into his mouth: TO. avdpwiriva irpi)y/j.ara 6i(vpa Kal daKpvicBea koi ovShv avrecov 5 ri /xr] iiriKrjpiov. The

periphrasis, p. 88, 3; 98, 5.

^

statement that he wept over everything {supra, p. 4, n.) seems to show that he gave utterance to senti-

Supra, p. 10,

1.

ments of

Such at any rate ma2/ be the

this kind. Fr. 7,123, sup.-p.43, 1;'88,

3,

YOL. n.

98

HERACLEITUS.

avoid nothing more than presumption, the over- stepping

of the bounds which are set for the individual and for

human

nature

and
is

in

thus subjecting himself to

the order of the whole, he will reach that satisfaction

which Heracleitus
highest end of
life.^

said to have declared to be the

It

whether he
to be
;

it

depends only upon man himself The world is always as it ought must be our part to accommodate ourselves to
is

happy.

the universal order

daemon.'*

the character of a

man

is

his

As

it

is

with individuals, so
is

it is

with the
for the

community.
state

There

nothing more necessary

;

than the dominion of law

;

human

laws are an
is
;

emanation of the Divine

on them society

founded,
a nation

and without them there would be no justice

cf.

Stob. Floril.
fieyiaTT],
Troiciu

3,

84

(rucppoveiv

(n7)(Tiv T0et/cez/.

Fr. 84 ap. Stob.

avOpdoirois

aperr]

nat

aocpir]

a\r)64a

Floril.

3,

83

yivetrOai

\4yeiv KaX
ovras,
'

Kara

(pvaiv iirat-

dK6(Ta QeXovffiv, ovk &ixiuov (there

Fr. 126 ap. Diog. ix. 2

vfipiv

Xph (r$vvviu fiaWou ^ TrvpKairjv. Eeferences to a particular kind of v^pis will be found in Fr. 128 ap. Arist. Polit. v. 11, 1315 a, 30; Etk. iV: ii. 2, 1105 a, 7 Eth. Eud.
;

would be no happiness if all the wishes of man were fulfilled). 2 Cf. the words quoted on p. 39, 3.
*

Fr. 92
c.

ap. Alex. Aphr.

16, Or.;

De

ii.

7,

1223

b,

22,

etc.

-xaKe-nhv

dvfiu fjidx^a-dai,

\\/vxri^

The emendations

yap wveerai. of this ap. Plut.

;

Plut. Qu. i. 1, 3,_p. 999; Stob. Floril. ^6os avOpdvcp Sai/xwy. 104, 23 This only expresses the sentiment of the corresponding words in EpiFato, Plat.
6,

p.

Coriol. 22 457 Iambi. Cohort, p. 334 K, I do not consider genuine. In regard to the meaning, in spite of Eth. N. ii. 2, it seems true, from the addition of ^vxv^ yo-p uyceTai, to refer not to a conflict with one's own passion, but with that of others. 2 Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. xi. 6, p. 152: Epicurus regarded pleasure as the highest good Democritus

De

ira

9.

p.

substituted 4iriQvixia Heracleitus avrl ttjs

(1.

(vdvfjLia),

rjSoinis

evape-

charmus {sup. vol. i. p. 531, 3), that the happiness of man depends upon his internal condition. As to the question of necessity and freedom to which Schuster, 272, 2, adverts, nothing is said. ^ Fr. 123, sup. 88, 3 41, 1 Fr. 121 ap. Clem. Strom, iv. 478 B: SiKTjs ouofxa OVK &!/ fj^^crav, et ravra (the laws) fii] ^v. The meaning of the sentence is not clear it might possibly contain (as Schuster supposes) a censure of the masses, who, without positive laws, know nothing
;
;

ETHICS.
must, therefore, fight for
its

99
for
its

laws as

walls.

This dominion of law

Heracleitus

is

equally infringed, whether the

arbitrary will of an individual rules, or that of the

masses.

is

indeed a friend to freedom,^

but he hates and despises democracy, which does not understand how to obey the best, and cannot endure any

pre-eminent
of right.
tion,

greatness."*

He

counsels concord, through

take
;

Teichmiiller's explaca

airo6ave7v)

-rracri

Kal to7s avi]is

which refers ravra to the unjust acts of men, -w-ithoiit which there would be no law {X. Stud. i.
131 sq.), has a very uncertain support in the use of Heracleitean words by Clemens, whose exegesis is very arbitrary and in itself it seems to me improbable. If, how;

jBojs TTiu tt6Kip

KaTaKnrilp (that
city to

to

say, they should

hang themselves

minors. Cf. Bernays, HeracUt. Briefe. 19, 129

sq.) o'lTives 'Ep/j-oSccpov 6.v5pa
oui]'icrTov
fj.r]de

and leave the

kwvrav
r)ixea:u

i^e^aXov,
ovri'iaTOS
el

(pami.s'

els
:

earu,

el

5e

^rj

ever, it

were

correct,

we must un-

SeTis Toiovros. originally perhaps el 5e alone). 6.\\r] re Kal

(Diog.

derstand by
'

5i/crj,

retributive justice

especially, Siktj ttoXvttqlvos.

Fr.

125; Diog.
'''^^

crQai

XPV

drifiov

virep Teix^os.

ix. 2: ^ox^vnep vSjxov okcos Cf. also the sayings

quoted p. 86, 1, which, however, primarily relate to death for one's

fatherland.
- According to Clem. Strom, i. 302 B, he moved a tjTant, Melancomas, to lay down his authority, and refused an invitation of Darius How much may be to his court. true in these statements we cannot teU the letters from which Diog.
;

aXKwv. According to lamblichus this saying was an answer to the request of the Ephesians, that he would give them laws ; a request which, according to Diogenes (ix. 2) also, he declined. It is not probable, considering his pronounced political position, that such a request should have been preferred to him by the democratic majority and those words were to be found in Heracleitus's work.
fxer
;

Concerning
dissertation

Hermodorus,

cf.

my

De Hermodoro (Marb.

ix.

12 sqq. takes the second, show that the writer of the letters was

acquainted with it, but nothing more. The discussion of Bernays, Heracl. Briefe, 13 sqq., only proves the possibility of the fact.
Strabo, xiv. 1, Diog. ix. 2 Cic. Tusc. V. Fyth. V. 36, 105; cf. Iambi. 173, Stob. Fhril. 40, 9 (n. 73
3

Fr.

40; ap.
;

25, p.

642

1859). As to his judgment on democracy, seethe anecdote, ap. Diog. ix. 3, which can only be founded on a saying of this philosopher, that he took part in children's games, telling his fdlow-citizen.s that this was wiser than to engage in politics with them also Fr. 127 Clem. Strom, v. 604 A i/o/ios
;
; :

Kot fiovX^ Treideadai evos, p. 589, 3,

and The(Ddorides, Anthol. Gr.

479,

vii.

Mein.)

fi|toj/

'Ecp^eioLs

7]$r}5hu

who

calls

Heracleitus

Qe^os

aTrdy^aadcu (Diog. evidently a mis-

vXaKTr)T7]S 57)^01' Kvu-v.

100

HERACLEITUS,
state can subsist.^

which alone the

tion of ethics

There are no

traces,

however, of his having attempted any scientific defini-

and

politics.

religion

of the notions and usages of the popular must have been reckoned by Heracleitus among human errors of opinion and action. A formal polemic against these, such as we find in Xenophanes, was not,

Many

however, his purpose.

He

not only employs the

is

name

of Zeus ^ for the Divine creative essence, but

generally

addicted to mythological designations.^

He

speaks of
accounts
of the

Apollo in the tone of a believer, and recognises in the

sayings of the Sibyl a higher inspiration."*
for

He

soothsaying generally by
spirit

the

connection

human

with the Divine.^

In the proposition as
still

to the identity of

Hades with Dionysus,^ and

more

' Plut. Garrid. c. 17, p. 571 (also Scbleiermacher, p. 82) relates of him a symbolical act which had

this
2
^

meaning.
Cf. p. 44,
1

quiescentibtis animis ope sensuum fidura denuntiare. ex q%io fieri, ut apfareant imagines ignotorum locorum simulacraque ho^ninum tarn

viventium
7ieri

For

example, the Erinnyes

p. 41, 2.

asserit divinationis

quam mortuorum idemqiie usum et prcemoinsfrue7itibus

and Dike,
^
;

meritos

divinis

ed, &va^, ou rb fiavTi'iSu 21, p. 404): eVrt rh iv Ae\(po7s, ovre Xeyei ovre
KpvTrrei,

In the sayings before mentionp. 6, n. Fr. 38 (Plut. Vyth. Orac.

potest atibus.

This is in the first instance Stoical, but the general thought at any rate, that the soul

aWa
c.

crrj^atVei,

and Fr.

by virtue of its kinship to God can divine the future, may have been
enunciated in some form by HeraFrom the Pseudo-Hippoc. TT. SiaiT. i. 12 (Schuster, 287 sq.) no safe conclusion can be drawn, on account of the nature of the work. Fr. 132 (inf. p. 103, 2) avrhs 54 'AjStjj Koi Ai6vv(ros. As one of the gods of the lower world Dionysus was worshipped in the mysteries, especially the Orphico-Dionysiac mysteries in the Orphic legends he is called sometimes the son of Zeus and Persephone, and somecleitus.
: ;

39

(ibid.

6,

p.

397)

2i)8yA\a 5e
Koi
a/jLV-

lxaivojxiv(^ (TTOixari, KaO^ 'UpOLKXeirou,

ay^Kaara

koi

aKaWdnricna
X''^''*"'

piara (pdeyyofxfvr]
^

fTWj/

e|<-

Kve^rai t^ 'pwufj Sia rhv deov.

Chalcid.*i;i

Trm.

c.

249: Hedivina ra-

raclitus vero consentientibus Stoicis

rationeni nostram cum tione connectit regenfe ac moderante

mundana, jrropter inseparabilem comitatum (on account of the insepathem) rablgi. coBnectioij^^ between conshiam decretiraiiojtiibilis factam

ETHICS,
in his utterances about immortality
times the son of Pluto and Persephone. The idea, however, that he was the same person as Pluto cannot be discovered in the more
ancient theology, and it is a question whether Heracleitus was not the inventor of jt. With him birth and decay coincide, as every birth is a fresh des::ruction of what preceded it; hence arose Dionysus the god of the luxuriant creative flowing life of nature, and Hades, the god of death. Teichm tiller (K. Stud. i. 25 sq.) interprets Dionysus as the sun, which is identical with Hades, because it arises out of the earth, and the earth again receives the light into itself. But against this we must observe, 1, that Hades is indeed the region under the earth, but not the earth itself. 2. That Heracleitus does not represent the sun as arising out of the earth, but from moisture, from vapours. and especially those of the sea (cf. 3. That the 57, 2; 58, 1; 60, 1). arising of the sun from the earth and its transition into the earth is something other than the identity of the sun and the earth. 4. That neither in Heracleitus nor in the Orphics of his time is there any proof that Dionysus meant the sun {sup. vol. i. p. 63 sq. 98 sq.). Teichdai (priai.

101

and the daemons,'

It is difficult to see

what

in regard to Heracleitus if Plato had said this. But Plato said nothing of the kind. Of the aldovs vlhs there is not a word either in the Crat. 403 A sqq. (the

would follow

only passage which Plutarch can have in view), nor anwhere else in Plato's works. And even in Plutarch it is so devoid of any admissible meaning, that one cannot help thinking there may have been some
scriptural error in a text in other For aldovs respects so corrupt. vPop (according to an emendation of
8, kindly communicated to me, we should doubtless read irKovcriov, which comes vpry near to it in writing) is actually to be found

Hereher

in

the parallel passage, Plut.

Be

Super st. 13, p. 171, and refers to Crat. 403 A, E {koto, t^v tov ttKovTov
56(Tiv
.

iTrccuoiJ.d(T6r]

evepyfTTjs

rwv

irap'

avri).

Teich-

muller has not succeeded any better, p. 32 sq., in establishing the theory that Heracleitus alludes in this fragment to the coarse D'.onysiac mythus in Clem. Cohort. 21 D sqq., which he misapprehends in regard to one point (22 A), on which he
lays much stress. The narrative of Clemens contains no reference to Heracleitus the Hera<;leitean frag:

moreover makes Hades into vlhs alhovs. that he may ultimately extract this singular meaning from our fragment the feast of Dionysus would be shameless, if Dionysus were not the son of shame and the shameless and the befitting the same but this interpretation is
miiller
; ;

way related to the Clemens, at the end of his account, couples this fragment with the mention of Phallic worship, it does not follow from this that Heracleitus, in choosing his words, was thinking of this particular myth, or spoke of Dionysus
ment
is
;

in no
if

myth

and

devoid

foundation. of all real Teichmijller appeals to Plut. De Is.

:

in

Hades

in

manner

for -which

ev n the myth furnishes no precedent.

'

koL yap UAdruv tov 29, p. 362 "Adrjv ws albovs vlhv ToTr Trap' avr( yivojiivQis /cat iTpo(Tr]jni dehv wvo/xda-

Supra, p. 85 sq.

'*

/^;

#,
i*

DD AD

102

HEllACLEITUS.

there

he shows great affinity with the Orphic doctrines.' Yet must have been many things objectionable to him

in the established religion

and in the writings of the

as
its

poets

which were considered

opinion which
is

sacred

records.*

The

so

consonant with the ordinary

point of view, that the Deity dispenses happiness or

misery to
of nature

men
;

as

he

wills,

was not compatible with the

philosopher's conception of the regularity of the course

^

nor was this consistent with the distinction

fragments (which Lassalle seeks to show, 246 sqq.) much more numerous than can actually be admitted, we could only conclude, considering the late origin of the poems from which these fragments are taken (vide Vol. I. p. 104 sq.), that they were under the influence of Stoicracleitus
2

1 Lassalle (i. 204-268) tries to prove that there existed an iotimate rehitionship between Hera-

cleitus

and the Orphies, and that

tliey exercised great influence over

liim. But the passage on which he chiefly relies, Plut. De EL c. 9, p. 388, does not give, as he believes, a representation of Heracleitus's theology, but a Stoic inof Orphic myths. terpretation that Plutarch thinks Lassalle would not have given to the Stoics the honourable designations of QioXoyoi and (To<pwTepoi, but he has overlooked, firstly, that by (TO(po3Tpoi (which here signifies rather shrewd than wise) are meant, not the mterpreters, but the inventors of the mythus, consesecondly, quently the Orphies that QeoXoyoi is no title of honour, and that Plutarch speaks elsewhere
;

Heracleitean views, not that Hewas influenced by the Orphies.

Lassalle,
ii.

455
this

sq.,

ingeni-

ously refers

to

about Homer (quoted supra,

and
p.

the remark Archilochus

10, 3,

and

dis-

of the Stoic theology and thirdly, that the theory expounded in c. 9 is afterwards, c. 21, called misIt does not follow in chievous. the least from Philo, De Vict. 839 {supra, p. 63, n.), that the expressions K6pos and xpV(^H-^<^^v-q, which Plutarch uses, were foreign to the Stoics (as Lassalle says). Even were the points of contact between Heracleitus and the Orphic
;

cussed by Schuster, 338 sq.). He supposes it to have been aimed at the two verses similar in meaning, Odyssey xviii. 135, and Archil. Fr. 72 (Bergk, Lyr. Gr. 551, 701), and conneols it with the analogous contradiction of Hesiod, vide following note. It seems to me less probable that Heracleitus (vide Schleiermacher, 22 sq. Lass. ii. 454) should have accused Homer of astrology, and consequently repudiated that art. The scholia on II. xviii. 251 (p. 495 b, 5, Bekk.) says, indeed, -that on account of
;

this

verse,

and

11. vi.

488, Heraa.<TTpo\6yos,

cleitus

named Homer

which in

this connection

can only
in.

mean

astrologer.

But a<TTpo\6yos

ETHICS.
of lucky

103

and unlucky days,

so widely spread in the old

religions.^

Heracleitus also expresses himself strongly

;

about the shamelessness of the Dionysiac orgies

very pillars of the Grreek religion

he

attacks, in the veneration paid to images, one of the

;

he also passes severe

sacrifices.''

judgment on the existing system of

Heracleitus wished to

These

criticisms are very searching, but it does not appear that

make any assault upon

the popular

religion as a whole, or in its general constitution.

the older language -svas never used for astrologer in our sense of the word, but always for an astronomer. But neither of these verses gave any opening for describing Homer
Fr. 132, ap. Clem. Cohort. 22, B. Plut. Is. et Os. 28, p. 362 ei
:

fjLri

yap

Aiovvacfj

ttoixtttip

iiroiovirro

Kcd

vfxviou

fic^a

aihoioiffiv

avai845e

(TTara

e'lpyaaTai

wvrhs (wur.)

even ironically as such. Schuster (339, 1), indeed, thinks that as, according to Clemens (vide inf. note 2), Heracleitus was acquainted with the Magi, and fidyoi = acrpoKoyoi, he may have also called Homer an astrologer. But even if Heracleitus really used the names vvktittoXoi, fxayoi, &c, (which is not quite certain), the later use of the words, which made magician and astrologer synonymous, cannot prove that Heracleitus might have spoken
of astrologers in this sense. It seems to me more likely, either that Heracleitus called Homer aarpoXdyos in the sense of astronomer and without any reference to the verses quoted above, or that some later writer of the same name (perhaps the author of the Homeric allegories) may have called him acTTpSXoyos in the sense of astrologer. * According to Pint. Cam. 19, cf. Seneca, Ep. 12, 7, he censured Hesiod for distinguishing rjfxfpai ayadal and <pav\ai us ayvoowri (pvcriv airdaTis rj/ifpas /xiay oZaav,

'At^Tjs Kal Aiovvcros,

oreoi fiaivovTaL

Koi \rivat(ov(riu.

The

last words,

on which cf. p. 100, 6, are intended probably to remind men of their

blindness in celebrating their wanton festival to the god of death. Cf Clemens, Coh. 13 D: t'lcti Srj /j.avTveTai, 'HpaKXeiros 6 'E(p4(nos vvKTnr6\ois, fxdyois, fiaKxois \r]vais, iivcTais. tovtois aireiAe? TO fxeTot. QdvaTov, tovtois fiauTeveTai rb irvp- to. yap vofii^o/ueva kot' dvdpccirovs fiva-T-f]' pia av LspuKTrl /xveivTai. The spaced words seem (as Schuster 337, 1, thinks, agreeing with Bernays, Heracl. Br. 13-ij to be taken from Heracleitus. But Fr. 69 (vide supra, p. 85, 1, cf. Schuster, 190) can scarcely have stood in p. the connection with this passage in which Clemens places it. 3 Fr, 129, ap. CJem. Coh. 33 B Orig. c. Cels. vii. 62, i. 5 Kal
;

aydXfjLaffi tovt4oi(Tl evxatn-ai 6ko1ov

6t

Tis

Z6ixoi(Xi

keaxW^voiTO, otre
?ip<i>as

yiypaxTKwv Beovs ovt

iiai.
*

olTivis

Fr. 131, ap. Elias Cret.

Ad

104

HERACLEITUS.

4.

Historical position

and importance of Heracleitus.

The Heracleiteans.

Heeacleitus was regarded even in ancient times as one of the most important of the Physicists.^ Plato especially, who had received so many pregnant suggestions from his school,

marks him out

theory which

as the author of

one of the chief possible theories respecting the world

and knowledge

the

is

most directly

opposed to the Eleatic.^

importance.

This

is,

in fact, the point in

this philosopher's

which we have principally to seek

In regard to the explanation of particular

phenomena, he has done nothing which can be compared with the mathematical and astronomical discoveries of
the Pythagoreans, or with the physical enquiries of

Democritus and Diogenes

and his ethical doctrines, though they are logically connected with his whole theory of the universe, in themselves are merely vague
;

general principles, such as

we

often find apart from

any philosophical system.

lie

His peculiar merit does not

in particular enquiries, but in the setting

i.

up of

Greg. Naz. or. xxiii. p. 836: jnirgmitur cum cruore pollmmtur non
secvs ac si
luto
se

11,

end), he also

&Ka, this
cally.
'

named them must be intended ironi;

quu
;
:

Tyan.

ahluat Ep. 27

in lutiim ingressus so ap. Apollon.

/*)?

tttjAi^

irriXhv

Kadaipeiv.

That

this

censure

is

directed not merely against trust in the opus operatum of the offering is obvious. The offering itself is called in]\hs, which harmonises completely with Heracleitus's saying about corpses {supra, p. 79, 1).
If,

He is often called <Pv(tik6s the absurd sftitement of Diodotus, the grammarian, ap, Diog. ix, 15, that his work was not really about nature, but about the state, and that the physical was only an example for the political, stands quite alone. ^ Cf. the writings quoted sw^ra.
p. 11,
1
;

therefore

(Iambi.

Be

Myster.

18, 2

26,

33, 2.

HISTORICAL POSITIOX.

105

universal points of view for the study of nature as a

whole.

Heracleitus

is

the

first

philosopher

who em-

phatically proclaimed the absolute life of nature, the

ceaseless

change of matter, the variability and transi;

toriness of everything individual

and, on the other

hand, the unchangeable equality of general relations,

the thought of an unconditioned, rational law governing the whole course of nature.

He

cannot, therefore, as

before observed, be considered simply as an adherent of

the ancient Ionian

physics, but

as the

author of a
to suppose

particular tendency, which

we have reason

was not in

its

origin independent of the Ionic school.

He
by

shares, indeed,

with that school the hylozoistic

theory of a primitive matter, which, transforming itself

own power, produces derived things. He shares with Anaximander and Anaximenes the theory of a periodical destruction and construction of the world.
its

In his whole conception of the world

it is

impossible to
;

misdoubt the influence of

Anaximander
life,

for

while

Heracleitus makes every individual, as a fleeting phe-

nomenon

in the

stream of natural

emerge and
individual

again disappear, Anaximander regards

existence as a
destruction.
theories of

all

wrong which things must expiate by their But the most characteristic and important Heracleitus are precisely those which he
of those philosophers asserted that
all

cannot have borrowed from the earlier Ionian philosophers.

Not one

nothing in the world has permanence, and that

substances and all individuals are involved in ceaseless,

restless

change

not one of

them

declared that the law

is

of the world's course, the world-ruling reason,

the

106

HERACLEITUS.
;

only thing that remains in the mutation of things

not

one has reduced this law to the sundering

of opposites,

and coalescing
elementary

nor

determined

the

three

not one has derived the totality of phenomena from the opposite course of the two ways, the way upward and the way downward. But in proportion as
bases
;

in all this Heracleitus

is

removed from

his Ionic pre-

decessors, so does he approach the Pythagoreans

and

Xenophanes.
that
all is
all

The Pythagoreans maintain,

as

he does,

things consist of opposites, and that, therefore,

harmony.
in

And

as Heracleitus recognises

no per-

manence

things

except the relation

of their in-

gredients, the Pythagoreans, though far from denying a

permanent element in substances, regard mathematical form as their substantial essence. Xenophanes is the
tirst

philosophical

representative

of

the Pantheism,
;

which

also underlies the

system of Heracleitus
at the

and in

connection with this his propositions in regard to the

thinking nature of Deity, which

is

same time

uniform natural

force,

prepared the way for the Hera-

cleitean doctrine of the reason of the world.

We

are

further reminded of the Pythagoreans by Heracleitus's

theories on the life of the soul apart from the body,

and by

his ethical

and

political principles

his opinion

of the sun

bears a striking resemblance to

stars.

that of

Xenophanes concerning the

find

with the later Eleatics, as well as

we compare him with Xenophanes, we

If

that Heracleitus and Parmenides, starting

from

opposite presuppositions, arrived at the same conclusion respecting the

unconditional

superiority

of

rational

cognition over sensuous perception.

Zeno overthrows

HISTORICAL POSITION.

107

with his dialectic the ordinary opinions about things,

in order to establish his doctrine of unity,
cleitus applies the

and Herafor

same

dialectic in

an objective manner
;

and more completely to the things themselves

the restless transmutation

by

of substances the original

unity re-establishes itself out of plurality as unceasingly,

as
it
is

constantly

separating into plurality.^

Con-

sidering that Pythagoras and Xenophanes were not

unknown

to Heracleitus,-

whose doctrine, on the other

hand, seems to have been mentioned by Epicharmus,^

and that if the usually received chronology be correct, Parmenides may likewise have been acquainted with it,
there is ground for the conjecture that Heracleitus may have been influenced in his philosophical theories by Pythagoras and Xenophanes, and may in his turn have influenced

Parmenides and the

is

later

Eleatic

school.

The

first

of these suggestions
severe
;

not indeed improbable,

his

despite the

judgments of Heracleitus on
special
principle,
it
is

predecessors

but his

clear,

cannot have been taken from them, and the propositions in which

we

find traces of their influence stand

with Heracleitus either in quite a different connection,

or else are not distinctive

enough to prove any actual

theirs.

dependence of his philosophy on

The unity

of

Being which, with the Eleatics, excludes all and change, maintains itself, according to Heracleitus, precisely in the ceaseless change and constant formation
of the
'

multiplicity

many

out of the one

the divine reason coin-

Cf. with the above the obserrations of Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 300 sq. and Braniss, Gesch. d. Phil. s. Kant. i. 184, on the rela-

tion of Heracleitus to the Eleatics.

iSMpm,Yol.I.p.336, 5; 510, Supra, Vol. I. p. 531.

4.

Xenophanes did not deny the

108

HERACLEITUS.
phenomena.
first

cides with the ordering of the changing

Tlie opposites, which, with the Pythagoreans, were some-

thing derived, are represented by Heracleitus as

arising

from the transformation of primitive matter.

unites what
is

Harmony, which
Pythagoreans
of their
;

opposed, has not with

as

liim a specifically musical signification, nor, finally, do

with the

theory of

we find in him a trace numbers. Whether he borrowed

from them

his theories as to the future state, it is diffi-

cult to decide, for the Pythagoreans themselves in these

theories showed

much

affinity

with the Orphic doctrines

and

if

he resembles them in the tendency of his ethics

the resemblance
to
is

and

politics,

confined to general

points which are

be found elsewhere among the

friends of an aristocractic

and conservative government,

Pythagoreanism.

and are not distinctive

traits of

His

well-known doctrine of the daily extinction of the sun

is

too consistent with his other opinions to allow of our

its affinity

attaching decisive importance to

multiplicity

with the
into all

and

variability

of

that

God changes Himself

to

things, but he decidedly excluded

things,

both conceptions from the primilive essence or Deity; whereas Heracleitus describes the Deity as fire which restlessly passes into Schuster the most various forms.
thinks it probable, and Teichmiiller {N. Stud. i. 127 sq.) undeniable, that he said this expressly in opposition to Xeno(p. 229, 1)

phanes.

This

appears
'

to

me

possible, but by no means certain God is day for the proposition,

and

1) is not such a direct and self-evident contradiction to the "eh dehs" of nor the statement Xenophanes

night,' &c. (p.

38,

the negation of the movement of the Deity in regard toplace(VoL I. 560, 3), that neither can be explained except in relation Still less, however, to the other. can I agree with Schuster (229, 1) that Xenophanes spoke of the barmony to be sought in the invisible, and that Heracleitus opposed hini with the proposition about the visible harmony, first because we do not know whether Xenophanes said what Schuster supposes, and secondly, because we do know that Heracleitus did not say what is here ascribed to him.

HISTORICAL POSITION.
notion of Xenophanes
;

109

though that

affinity is certainly

remarkable.

While, therefore, the historical connection

of Heracleitus with Pythagoras and

Xenophanes seems
this probability
is

probable enough,

it is difficult

to

make

a certainty.

Still

more uncertain

the conjecture
'

that Parmenides, in his polemic against

the fools who

hold Being and non-Being to be same and at the same

time not the same,'

chronology
first
^

was alluding to Heracleitus.

difficulties

In
the

this case there are considerable

;

as to

besides, the

expressly enunciated, so far as

;

Being of the non-existent was we know, not by

Heracleitus, but by the Atomists

therefore,
'

Parmenides must, have borrowed the identity of Being and

same inference may be drawn from the verses of Epicharmus, ap. Diog. iii. 9 (sup. Vol. I. p. 530, 1), in which he makes the representative of the Eleatic philosophy say a/xdxav6v
:

sq.

Bernajs, Bhein. Mus.^n. 114 and Steinhart, Hall. A. Litera;

1848, Xovbr. p. 892 sq. Platon's Werke, iii. 394, 8 Kern, Xeruyph. 14; Schuster, p. 34 sqq. 236. 2 V. 46 sqq. mipra, Vol. I. 589. ^ It has been shown, p. 1, 2, that Heracleitus's work was in all probability not composed before 478 B.C. That of Parmenides can indeed, it is scarcely be later mcst likely, rather earlier. Even accordiog to Plato's reckoning, Zeno, who in 454-2 b.c. was forty years old, had in his youth (thereturz.
;

y'

ott'

ovTivos

eJfxev

ri

irparov

This argument against absolute Becoming is not mentioned by Xenophanes on the other hand, it is expressly brought forward by Parmenides. v. 62 sq. (sup. Vol. I. p. 585, 3). If, then, EpicharfioXoi.
;

mus borrowed

it from Parmenides, and consequently was in possession

fore probably about 470-465 b.c.) defended his master Trpbs roi/s eiriX^ipovvTas avrhv KWfj.ccSe'iv the
;

of Parmenides' poem, it is not absolutely impossible, though not very probable, that this poem itself

may have

contained allusions

work of Parmenides must consequently be placed some years

and as Plato certainly does not represent Parmenides as
earlier;
older, and most likely much younger than he really was (cf. Vol. I. p. 581 sq.), we thus approach very nearly the date of Heracleitus's work. The

work of Heracleitus, which Epicharmus was using at the same time. It is still more improbable,
to the

however, that Parmenides should have first formed his theory, the premises of which had been fully given him by Xenophanes, in his maturity, under the influence of
Heracleitus's work.

]10

IIEIiACLEITUS.
his

non-Being from

opponents

his description of these

opponents, however, applies rather to the mass of

manto

kind with their uncritical reliance on sensible appearance, than to a philosopher who, in

marked opposition

them, denied the truth of sensuous perceptions.^

I have retained the above from the previous edition, essentially unaltered, because Schuster
'

If it

was included by Heracleitus among those who do not understand what

before their eyes {supra, p. 7, 2), whom the ever-living fire has become dead and rigid (p. 89, 1), but there is nothing to prove that
is

has not convinced me of the opposite theory by his defence, which For we lias meanwhile appeared. find, it seems to nie, neither in the opinions nor expressions of Parmenides such points of contact with Heracleitus as would warrant our supposing that he refers to Parmenithis latter philosopher. des opposes those dls rh Tvix^iv re Koi ovK eluai ravTov pevSixiffTai. But Heracleitus, as has been already shown, never said that Being and even Non-Being were the same his eifi^u T6 Koi OVK d/xev has not this sense (cf. p. 11, 2), nor is it contained in the Aristotelian assertion that he held good and evil to be the same (quoted by Schuster).
;

to

Parmenides,

in

what he

said, spe-

cially alluded to Heracleitus.

He

Setting aside the question of the

accuracy of this assertion (cf. p. 36 sq.), it is quite different whether we say good and evil (both of which belong to Being) are the same
;

and Non-Being are so. This formula was first introduced by Parmenides in order to express the contradiction in which the mode of conception he was combating But if we enquire what resulted.

and

]3eing

mode of conception was, he points himself (v. 37, 45 sqq., 75 585, 4) sq., of. supra, Vol. I. 584, 1 to those who held (1) a Non-Being, and (2) a genesis and decay. Parmenides might certainly have extended his censure to Heracleitiis's doctrine, as, on the other hand, he
this
;

describes his adversaries (l. c.) as &KpLra (pvKa, as people who lived as if they were blind and deaf; and warns them against trusting more to their eyes and ears than to the \6yos a description which indeed applies to the sensualists, among whom Schuster reckons Heracleitus, but not to a philosopher who so entirely agrees with Parmenides in his depreciation of sense compared with reason, and even expresses this conviction in the same way as Heracleitus actually did (supra, p. 87 sq. cf. Vol. I. 585, 591). That Parmenides in the second part of his poem represented fire and night on earth as the ultimate opposites exactly in the manner of Heracleitus,' I cannot discover. Parmenides has here two elements, the light and the dark, which he also named fire and earth with Heracleitus these two are only the 'ultimate opposites' among his three, or, according to Schuster, four elemental forms water, as the bond between them, is not
;
' :

less essential.

When

Parmenides
;

therefore, in his exposition of the So'^ai ^poTeioi {supra, Vol. I. 592, 3

595,

2),

from which

speaks only of two fiopcpai, all things are to be ex-

HISTORICAL POSITION.

Ill

be supposed, on the other hand, that in this denial of

the knowledge derived from sense, ParmeDides
is

fol-

lowing Heracleitus, we must remember that the polemic

of

these

significance.

two philosophers had an entirely different Parmenides mistrusts the senses because
change
;

they show us multiplicity and

mistrusts

Heracleitus
in

them because they show us permanence

individual things.

It is not probable, therefore, that

Parmenides was acquainted with the doctrine of Heraplained, without ever mentioning a third and when, moreover, he designates these in the first series, not as fire and earth, but as light and
;

jraXivrpoTTos KfKevdos of
51, Vol. 1. 584),
apfjLOpla

Parm. (v. and the iraXivrponos

(supra, p.

of Heracleitus

dark, this does not warrant the supposition that he was thinking especially of Heracleitus's three If he alluded elemental forms. to any particular system, it is frir more likely to have been that of the Pythagoreans, traces of which (Vol. I. p. 597, 2) so clearly appear in his cosmology, and to which, even before the table of the ten contradictions was framed, the obvious contrast of light and

33, 3), even if the true reading of the latter be not iraXivrovos, de-

pends merely on the use in both cases of the word ira\ii/TpoTros, an expression that is not very uncommon. The meaning, however, of
the expression is not in each case the same with Heracleitus bent
'
;

darkness was not unknown. From this system alone is derived the ^aiiJLUV f) Ttavra Kv^^pva (cf. Vol. I. p. 595, 2 600 sq.) Schuster reminds us instead of Heracleitus's yvufir}, rire oif] KvfiepvrjcraL irdma (supra, p. 42, 2) but the similarity here lies only in the words Trdvra Kvfiepvau, and proves very little, as we find the same expression in Anaximander
;
;

turning again describes that which returns out of Opposition into Unity; with Parmenides that which comes into opposition with itself in passing from its original direction into the con'

backwards

or

'

'

trary.

Still less results from the fact that Heracleitus once (p. 32, 1)

says

uBevai

xpv "^^^ TroAe/xov.

fiT]

&c.

Vol. I. p. 584, 1) hai (and v. 114, xP^^v Vol. I. 592, 3) Tuv fMiav ou xpefc'i' iari for the assertion that there must be a non-Being is not identical with the assertion that there
(v. 37,
ia-TL

and Parm.
ws

248, 1), and later in I. 287, 7), whereas the most characteristic trait of Parmenides's representation, that the SaifjLuv, like the Pythagorean eo-rto (supra, Vol. I. 450, 1), is enthroned in the centre of all the spheres, has no parallel in Heracleitus. The resemblance also between the
(supra, Vol.
I.

must be

Diogenes (Vol.

strife; what Heracleitus says is not alluded to in the tura given to the thought by Parmenides, and which is peculiar to himself; and the use of so inevitable a word as xpv, for which Parmenides substitutes xpewp' icrri, cannot be said to prove anything.

112
cleitus or took

HERACLEITUS.
account of
it

in the establishment of

his system.

But even

if it

be impossible to prove with certainty

the immediate relation of Heracleitus to the Pytha-

gorean and Eleatic schools, the historical position and

importance of his doctrine remain unaltered, whether

he was moved by his predecessors to oppose their theories,
or whether, in his

own study

of tilings, he chose to

adopt the point of view which they least regarded, and

which in the

later

development of the Eleatic system

was expressly denied.

primitive
substantial

Whereas

in the Eleatic doctrine

of the One, the ancient enquiry directed chiefly to the

ground of things reached

its

climax, in Heracleitus this tendency was opposed by

the decided conviction of the absolute vitality of nature,

as the

and the continual change of material substance, which, world-forming power and the law of formation
it,

inherent in

seems to constitute the only permanent

element in the mutability of phenomena. But if everything is subject to Becoming, philosophy cannot escape
the obligation to explain Becoming and change.
sequently, Heracleitus proposes a

Con-

new problem
is

to philo-

sophy.

Instead of the question concerning the substance

of which things consist, prominence

given to the

enquiry as to the causes from which arise generation,

decay, and change, and in devoting supreme attention
to this enquiry, the pre-Socratic physical philosophy

changes

its

whole character.^

Heracleitus himself an-

* Striimpell, Gesch. d. Theor. Phil. d. Gr. p. 40, inverts this re-

lation

cleitus preceded the

he makes out that HeraEleatics, and

that the transition was from him to them. The changefulness of nature (he remarks) which Heracleitus had taught, compelled

THE HERACLEITEAXS.
swered this question
indeed, that
all

113

very

incompletely.

He

shows,

things are involved in perpetual change;

he defines this change more acciurately as a development

and union of opposites

forms which
is

he describes the elemental but

if

it

assumes

we ask why everything

is

subject to Becoming, and permanent Being

nowhere
fire.

to be found, his

only answer

is

because

all is

This, however,

is

in reality only another exprestiion for

;

the absolute mutability of things

it

does not explain

how
its

it

happens that
;

fire

changes into moisture, and

moisture into earth

why the primitive matter exchanges

Even the seem to
for

originally fiery nature for other forms.

later adherents of the Heracleitean doctrine

have done almost nothing in this direction, or

scientific

the

establishment
views.

and methodical development

of

of their

The

school
its

Heracleitus

appears,

indeed, to have maintained

existence long after the

death of

its

founder.

Plato tells us that about the beit

ginning of the fourth century

boasted considerable
:

numbers in Ionia, and especially in Ephesus he himself had been instructed in Athens by Cratylus the
^

Heracleitean, 2 and a generation before, Pythagoras had

thought to say of every individual thing that it was not this changeful nature then was entirely abandoned by the Eleatics as an object of knowledge, and knowledge was exclusively directed to the existent. But since the founder of the Eleatic school is older than Heracleitus, and since the Eleatic doctrine in its whole tendency appears as the completion of the earlier
;

concerned with the explanation of Becoming, I consider this exposition

as incorrect.
'

Thecst.

179
8'

to the (pepoiievn ovaia

(with reference of Heracleiirepl

tus)

/xoxtj

odv

ahrris

oh

<parj\-r]

ovS'

oXiyois y4yovei'.
ehai,
^Icoviav koI

QEOA.

ttoAAoD Kal Se7 (pavXr]

irepl
ju-ev

aWa

tV

i-mdioaa-L

physics,

and the doctrine of He-

racleitus as the commencement of the later physics, which was chiefly

ol yap rod 'Upa/cXetToy eraipoi xopvyovaL tovtov tov \6yov fiaXa iphxcuhas. Cf. inf. p. 114. 3. - Arist. Metaph. i. 6: cf. Part
TrajUTroXu.
ri.

a,

344,

5.

According to Plato,

VOL.

II.

114

THE HERACLEITEANS.

supported his sceptical theories by propositions from To Cratylus we may perhaps refer those Heracleitus.^
traces of Heracleitean influences

which are evident in

the writings erroneously ascribed to Hippocrates.^

But
is

the

little

that

we know

of these later Heracleiteans

not calculated to give us a very high idea of their scientific attainments. Plato, indeed, cannot find words
to describe their fanatical

unmethodical procedure, and

the restless haste with which they hurried from one their self-satisfaction with their thing to another
;

oracular

sayings,

the

vain
for

confidence in
all

their

own
were

teaching

and contempt

others,

which

characteristic of this school.^

He makes merry

in the

Cratylus over the groundless nature of the etymologies

in which the disciples of Heracleitus exaggerated the practice of playing
Grat.

upon words; and

;

Aristotle relates
5'

440 D, 429 D, Cratylus was Socrates he cf. 440 is described {ibid. 429 E E) as an Athenian, and his father's name is said to haA-e been SmikAnother Heracleitean, called rion. mentioned Antisthenes, is also (Diog. vi. 19); who, as it would seem, and not the Cynic, was the person who commentated on Heracleitus's work(Diog. ix. 15); butwe

crvyypdfifxaTa (p^povrai, rb
^^
fiepei

eVijuet-

much younger than

vai eVi K6ycf koL ipwr-fj/jLari Koi rjavx''^^

a-rroKpivaaOai

Koi

ip^aOai rjrrov outoTs ui ^ rh fxrjSeu/j-aWou Se virep^dWei ro ovK ovSeu

irphs

rh av^pdaiv
eprj,

fxridh

a/j-LKpou

eveivai

toTs
ri

rjcrvxi-oise/c

dAA.'

&v

nvd

uairep

(papeTprjs

prjixaTiaKia

alviyjxaTuZ-i]

know nothing
'

Inf. chapter

further about him. on the Sophistic

theory of knowledge. ' Besides the treatise tt. SiatTTjs 15, 1, spoken of, sup. p. 69 sq. we should mention irepl rpocprjs, cf. Bernays, Heraclit. Br. 145 sq. ' Thecet. 179 E: koX yap
;
.

avaair&vres airoro^evovCvrfj^ x6yov Xa^etv, ti etp7]Kep, ere'p^ TreTrAi^lei Katvus fx^TcovoimaaiJLeva). Trepaue7s Oe ouSeVoTe ovS^v Trphs ov^eva avrwv ovSe ye 4Ke7uoL avTol Trphs aK\i}\ovs, aW' eu Trdw (^vKdrrovai rh /xtjScj/ fiefiuLov ia.v dvai fi-nT iu Kdycp jj-vt iu rais avrwv >^vxous. And again oySe

a, Kav rovrov

yiyverai twv toiovtuv 'drepos

piaO-qTr^s, a.X\^

htpou

irepl

ouToTs
offoi

Tovrwv twv 'HpaKXeiTeicov (xhv Tols Trepl t^v ''Ecpeaou

. .

dirdOef

ti.v

6ov<Tidaas

avrSixaroi ava^vourai rvxj] 'dKaaros avrcov ivkol rhv '4repov b erepos

etSeVat.

irpooiroLOvvrai

e/J-Treipoi

elvai

ovdev

TjyeTrai
:

Cf.

Crat.

ovShv fxaKKov 6l6v re SmA-ex^Tji/at f) Tu7s ol(TTpu>(Tiv, a.Tfx'^^^ y^f^ Kara to

384

A tV

KparvKov fxavTuav.

HERACLEITUS AXD ZOROASTER.

115

that Cratylas blamed Heracleitus for not having expressed with sufficient clearness the changeableness of

things

at last indeed, he did not venture to express

an opinion on any subject, because every proposition contains an assertion concerning a Being. If, never^

theless, the school of Heracleitus in the

beginning of the
its

fourth centuiy not only had adherents in

original

home, but
itself does

also in other places, this

is

certainly a sign of

its historical

importance

but the Heracleitean doctrine

not seem to have been further developed in

the school.

The philosophers who had

his

also

learned

something from
first

contemporary, Parmenides, were the

to attempt a

more accurate explanation of Be-

coming, which Heracleitus had made the ground idea

of his system.

Those who must next be mentioned in

this connection are, as before observed,

Empedocles and

the Atomists.*^
Arist. Metaph. iv. 10: eK yap ravr-ns t^s
^

5,

1010

a,

inro\'i]\l^u}s

i^Vvdricriu
fiiuctiv,
7]

rj

aKporcLTT)

5o|a twv

elprj-

1840), that Heracleitus vras a disciple of the Zoroastrian doctrine. In criticism I must confine

mj

my

Tuv (pacTKovTwu ^poKAetTi-

self to the principal points.

Grla-

(eiu, Kai o'lav KparvKos elxev, %s ro disch believes {Heracl. u. Zor. Rel. Te\evTa7ou uudku wero 8e7v Kiy^iv, u. 'Phil. p. 139 sqq. ef. 23 sqq.) oXKa. Tov SaKTvXou iKiv^i fxovov, koI that the systems of Heracleitus and 'HpaKXeirw eTreriua elirovri on Sis tw Zoroaster are one and the same, auTcv TTOTafx'2 gvk ^ariv ifi^rivar But even in their fundamental conThe ceptions they are very diflferent. avrhs yap wero ouS' aira^. same is repeated without any ad- The one is pure dualism, the other Philop. hylozoistic Pantheism the Persian dition in Ale:s. i7i h. I. Olympic- doctrine has two original beings, Schol. in Ar. 35, a, 33 one good and the other evil and dorus, ibid. 2 We can only mention by way that this dualism arose at first of appendix (for it is scarcely in- through a metamorphosis of the eluded in the subject matter of our primitive essence from its primitive history) the opinion recently ex- Being into the Being of another pressed by G-ladisch {sup. Vol. I. 34: (' eiyis Umwandlung des Urwesens sqq.), and previously by Creuzer aus seinem Urssin in Anderssein ') {Symbolik und Mythol. \\. \^Q, \^% is an assumption which contrasq. 2 ed. p, 595 sqq,, 601 sqq, ed. diets the most authentic accounts,
;

116

HERACLEITUS AND ZOROASTER.

;

and can only be supported, and change to which all things are subthat but imperfectly, by some later ject it is the natural force which
untrustworthy indications. Heracleitns, on the contrary, main-

and

produces what
well as

is

destructive,

as

what

is

beneficial to

man.

tains the unity of the world, and the power that moves the world, as strongly as any of the philosothe opposites with him phers are not original and permanent, but the original element is the uniform essence which, in its development, puts forth the most opposite forms of Being, and again
;

The Persian doctrine contains nothing of the transmutation of the elements, nor of the alternate formation and destruction of the world for what Gladisch quotes {Uel u, Phil 27; Her. u. Zor. 38 sq.) from Dio Chrysost. Or. xxxvi. p. 92 sqq. R. is evidently a later
;

interpretation,

by

which

an

in-

receives

them

into

itself.

The

Persian system remains fixed, even

in the opposition of good and evil, of .light and darkness, as a final and absolute opposition Ahriman and his kingdom are simply that which onght not to be, and which Ccf. Schuster, 225, 3) has only in The process of time intermeddled whereas with with the world Heracleitus strife is the necessary even evil is condition of existence a good for the Deity, and a world of light alone, without shadows, such as forms the beginning and end of the Zoroastrian cosmology,
;
: ;

is

entirely unthinkable for this very reason, however, the opposi;

tion

is

into the

continually resolving itself harmony of the universal

whole.

There is much more resemblance to the Persian dualism in that of Empedocles and the Pythagoreans than in the system of

Heracleitus. Heracleitus's chief doctrine of the flux of all things is entirely absent from the Zoroasand, therefore, the trian theology worship of fire common to both has in each case a different import.
;

The Persian religion in regard to light and warmth dwells mostly on their happy and beneficent influ-

man with Heracleitus, the cause and symbol of the universal life of nature of the
ence

on

fire is

of the Stoic cosmology is made out of the ancient Persian chariot of Ormuzd (on which cf. Herod, vii. 40), and the steed of the sun. Neither is there any mention of Heracleitus's theory of the sun, which, though so characteristic of him, would be absolutely out of place; nor of the Heracleitean anthropology, for the belief in the Fravashis, to which Grladisch refers, has hardly even a distant analogy with it. It has already been said, p. 6, that there is no reason for bringing the Logos of Heracleitus into connection with the word Honover, as Lassalle does. That Heracleitus, as to his political opinions, was a Zoroastrian monarchist' is a more than hazardous assertion his own utterances show him to have been aristocratic and conservative, but at the same time thoroughly Greek in his temperament, and he is expressly said to have declined an invitation to the Persian court. Under these circumstances, it is of no avail to prove that Heracleitus called strife the father of all things, when we know that strife with him had quite another meaning from the conflict of good and evil in the Zoroastrian religion that he made fire the primitive essence, when by fire he did not
' :

sipid allegorical representation

EMFEDOCLES.
I.

117

EMPEDOCLES AXD THE ATO MISTS.

A.

EMPEDOCLES,

1.

The universal bases of the Physics of E nqoedodes Generation and Decay Primitive Substances and Moving Forces.

Hep.acleitus had deprived substance of

all

permanence

Parmenides, on the contrary, had denied generation and

intend to express what the Persians did in ascribing the nature of light to pure spirits that he had a horror of corpses (a feeling very natural to man) that he is said by a tradition to have been torn to pieces
;
;

by dogs, which is something quite different from having a Persian funeral assigned to him, which could never have been carried out in a man's lifetime that he blames the adoration of images, which is censured by Xenophanes and others, and was unknown to the ancient Eomans and to the Germans that he demanded knowledge of truth, and was an enemy ol fakehood, which a philosopher certainly did not require to learn from fo;

1838 Stein, Empedoclis Agr. Fragmenta, Bonn, 1842; Steinhart, in Ersch und Grubers Allg. Encykl. Eiiter, sect. i. vol. 34, p. 83 sqq. on the philosophy of Empedocles, in Wolfs Literar. Analekten, B. ii. (1820), H. 4, p. 411 sqq. Krische, Forsch. i. 116 sqq,; Panzerbieter, Beitrdge z. Kritik u. Erldut. d.
; ;

Zeitsckr. f. Mein. 1 844 Alterthumsw. 883 sqq. 1845, Bergk, De Frocera. Empedoelis, Berl. 1839; Mullach, De Emp. Prooemio, BerL 1850; Qucesi. E7nixdocleantra Spec. Secund. Ibid. Philosoph. Gr. Frojgm. i. 1852 xiv. sqq., 15 sqq. Lommatzsch, Die
; ; :

Emp.

reign priests. Even supposing there existed many more of such similarities, we could not infer from them any real historical interdependence ; and if Heracleitus was acquainted with the religious doctrine of the Persians (which in itself is quite credible), there are no signs of its having exercised any decisive influence on his system. ' On the life, writings, and

The Berl. 1830. must be used with great caution Eaynaud, De Empedocle, Strassb. 1848, only gives what is even the work of well known
Weisheit d.

Emp.

last

Gladisch mentioned Vol. I. p. 34, in regard to Empedocles, keeps almost There are entirely to Karst&n.
also

some dissertations in Ueberi.

weg, Grundr.

23.

doctrine of Empedocles, cf. besides more comprehensive the works: Sturz, Empedocles Agrig. Lpz. 1805, where the materials are very carefully collected Karsten,

Agrigentum, according to the unanimous testimony of cur authorities, was the native city of Empedocles. The period of his
coincides almost exactly with the second year of the fifth century, but the more particular and uncertain statements are various. Diog. viii. 74, places his
activity

Empedoclis Agr. Carra. Eel. Anist>

118

EMPEDOCLES.
;

decay, motion and change

Empedocles

strikes out a

middle com'se.

He

maintains, on the one hand with

between 484 and with Diels, we follow Apollodorus. Eut it seems to me safer to place the beginning and end of his existence 8 or 10 years earlier, first because Empedocles, according to Alcidamas ap. Diog. viii. 56, attended the instructions of Parmenides contemporaneously with Zeno next, because the ov iroKv of Simplicius can hardly mean so long a period as 16 years and lastly (cf. vol. i. 636 and inf. Anax.), because Empedocles seems to have been already referred to by Melissus and Anaxagoras. We have little more certain information concerning him. He came of
therefore,
fall

prime (accordins: to Apollodorus) in the 84th Olympiad (444-440 B.C.), Euseb. Chron. in 01. 81, and
also
86, therefore, either or 436-432 b.c. Syncellus, p. 254 C, adopts the earlier date; Gellixis. xvii. 21, 13 sq., mentions the date of the Roman Decemviri (450 B.C.), but, at the same time, that of the battle of
in

424

B.C.

if,

01.

456-452

B.C.

Cremera (476 b.c). ment of Diogenes

The
is

state-

doubtless

based (as Diels sho-n-s, Bhein. Mtis. xxxi. 37 sq.) on that of Glaucus, which he quotes, viii. 52, from
Apollodorus, viz., that Empedocles visited Thurii immediately after the founding of that city (01. 83-4), which, however, leaves a wide margin, as it is not stated how old he was at the time. According to Arist. MctapJi. i. 3, 984 a. 11, he

a rich and noble family

xiii.

(cf.

Diog.

51-53; also Karsten, p. 5 His grandfather of the sqq ).

than Anaxagoras; but on the other hand, Simplicius says in Ph/s. 6 b, he was ov -nohv

was younger

same name in the 71st Olympiad had gained the prize at Olympia
with a four-horse chariot (Diog. after Apollodorus, as Diels c. I. shows), which is attributed to the philosopher by Athen. i. 3 e, following Favorinus (ap. Diog. I. <?.), and according to Diogenes, also by Satyrus and his epitomiser, Heracleides.

HarSiriv

ruv 'Ava^ay6pov yeyouds.

The statement that he joined in the war of the Syracusans against

Athens (415 b.c.) is contradicted by Apoll. loc cit. (Steinhart, p. 85, and Diels thinks it must be the war of 425 b.c, to which, however,
according to Apollodorus's calculation, the objection that he must then have been dead, or viripyeynpaKO}s, is less applicable). His age at his death is given by Aristotle aj). Diog. viii. 52, 78 (and perhaps also by Heracleides, cf. p. 3, n.), as 60 Favorinus ap. Diog. viii. 73, who gives it as 77, is a much less trustworthy testimony. The statement (ibid. 74) tliat he lived to the age of 109. confuses him His life would, with Gorgias.
;

almost

father Meton v^so the accounts call him for other statements vide Karsten,

His

all

p. 3 sq.)

seems to have assisted in

the ejection of the tyrant Thrasid?eus and the introduction of a democratic government, in the year 470 B.C. (Diod. xi. 53). and to have been subsequently one of the most influential men in the city (vid e Diog. A^iii. 72). After Meton's death, when the ancient aristocratic
institutions

had been

restored,

and

there were attempts at a tyranny, Empedocles, not without severity.

HIS LIFE.
Parmenides, that Becoming and Decay in the
sense,

119
strict

and

therefore qualitative change in the original

haps in order to contradict this evil report the so-called Telauges ap. Diog. 74, cf. o3, asserts that he fell into the sea from the weakness of old age, and was drowned. The personality of Empedocles plays an important part in all the traditions respecting him. His temperament was grave (Arist. ProbL xxxi. 953 a, 26. describes him as melancholic) his activity was noble and all-embracing. His political efficiency has already been mentioned. His power of language to which he owed these successes
;

assisted the democracy to gain the rictory, showing himself in word and deed a warm friend to the

The throne was offered to people. him, but he refused it, as we are told in Diog. viii. 63-67, 72 sq. Plut. Adv. Col. 32, 4, p. 1126. He was destined, however, to experience the fickleness of popular favour, and left Agrigentum probably against his will (Steinhart, 85, thinks it was because he liad participated in the war between Syracuse and Athens, bxit that participation, as we have seen, is not to be considered historical) for the Peloponnesus. His enemies succeeded in preventing his return, and he consequently died there (Timseus ap. Diog. 71 sq., ibid. 67, where the True reading for oiKi^ojxivov is oIkti(oixvov, and not, as Steinhart
thinks, p.
84,
aiKi^ofievov).

(Timon ap. Diog. viii. 67, calls him ay opaiwv Atjktjttjs eVewv Satyrus, 'ihid. 58, pr]rwp apiaros), and which
;

The

statement that he died in Sicily from the effects of a fall from a

chariot (Favorin. ap. Diog. 73)
is

not so well authenticated. The story of his disappearance after a sacrificial feast (Heracleides ap. Diog. 67 sq.) is no doubt, like the similar story about Romulus, a myth invented for the apotheosis of the philosopher without any definite foundation in history. A
naturalistic

still perceptible in the richnessof imagery and the elevated expressions of his poems, he is said to have strengthened by technical study. Aristotle designates him as the person who first cultivated rhetoric (Sext. Math. vii. 6, Diog. viii. 57, cf. Quintilian iii. 1, 2), and Gorgias is said to have been his disciple in the art (Quintil. I. c.

is

interpretation of this

myth

for the opposite purpose of

representing him as a boasting imposter is the well-known anecdote of his leap into >Etna (Hippobotus and Diodorus ap. Diog. 69 sq. Horace, Ep. ad. Pis.-iOi sq., and many others, cf. Sturz, p. 123 sq. and Karsten, p. 36), and also the assertion of Demetrius ap Diog. Per74, that he hanged himself.

Satyrus ap. Diog. 58). His own however, he seems tohave sought, like Pythagoras, Epimenides, and others, in the functions of a priest and prophet. He himself, v. 24 sq. (422, 462 Mull.), declares that he possesses the power to heal old age and sickness, to raise and calm the winds, to summon rain and drought, and to recall the dead to life. In the introduction to the KaOapixoi, he boasts that he is honoured by all men as a god, and that when he enters a city adorned with fillets and flowers, he is immediately surrounded by those in need of help,
vocation,

120

EMPEDOCLES.
;

substance, are unthinkable

but, on the other hand, he

does not absolutely abandon this point of view; he allows

some soliciting prophecies, and some healing of diseases. This element comes out strongly in his anthropology and doctrines on
Ancient writers speak not ethics. only of the solemn state and dignity with whieh he surrounded himself (Diog. viii. 56, 70, 73 Tertull. Do .^lian. V. H. xii. 32
;

statement of Hermippus, ibid. 69, sounds simpler. Further det;tils ap. Karsten, p. 23 sqq. on the
;

work of Heracleid. vide

10);
fro 03

Stein, p.

and

restrained

madman

by means of music (Iambi, r. Pi/th. 113, and others,

suicide
exists for these stories it is now, of course, impossible to discover. The first and third are suspicious, and seem only to have emanated from the verses of Empedocles what is said in the second, of the improvement of the river, may possibly be an allusion to the coin described by Karsten, on which the river-god in that case would merely represent the city of Selinus. That Empedocles believed himself capable of magical powers is proved by his own writings according to Satyrus, ap. Diog. viii. 59, Gorgias asserts that he had been present when Empedocles was practising them. That he also practised medi;

ap. Karsten, p. 26). historical foundation

How much

Pall.
sten,

Suid.

'EjU7reSo/c\.

Kar-

p. 30 sq.), and of the great reverence which was paid him

70), but also of which, like another Pythagoras, he wrought. He forbade injurious winds to enter Agrigeutum (Tirasus ap. Diog. viii. 60 Plut. Curios, i. p. 515 Adv. Col. 32, 4, p. 1126 Clemens, Suid. 'EfxireS. Strom, vi. 630 C dopd.; Hesych. KwAvaavefxas cf. cf. Philostr. J\ Karsten, p. 21 Ajjollon. viii. 7, 28), the circumstance is differently related by Timgeus and Plutarch the origin of it is no doubt the miraculous account of Timgeus, according to which the winds are imprisoned b}' magic, in pipes bke those of the Homeric ^olus. Plutarch gives a naturalistic interpretation of the miracle, which is even more absurd than the suggestion of Lommatzsch, that p. 25, and Karsten, p. 21 Empedocles stopped up the hollow through which the winds passed by St Fetching asses' skins across it. We hear f\irther that he delivered the Selinuntians from pestilences by altering the course

(Diog.

viii.

66,

many wonders

which was then commonly connected with magic and priestcine,

from his ow'n word.", quoted by Plin. H. X. xxxvi. 27., 202; Galen. Iherap. Meth. c. 1,
craft, is clear

B. X.

6,

Kuhn and
as
to

others.

The

traditions

the teachers of

Empedocles

will

be

mentioned

later on. The writings attributed to him are very various in content,

of their river (Diog. viii. 70, and Karsten, 21 sq.), brought an apparently dead man to life after he had long been stiff (Heracleid. ap. the Diog. viii. 61, 67, and others
;

questionable in regard to they really belonged to him. The statement ap. Diog. viii. 57 sq.^ that he wrote tragedies, and no fewer than 43, is doubtless founded on the evidence of

but

it is

many whether

Hieronymus
not on that

and

Neanthes, and

of Aristotle.

Hera-

LIFE AXD WRITINGS.

121

not only that particular things as such arise, decay and

change, but also that the conditions of the world are subject to perpetual change.

Consequently he

is

obliged to

reduce these phenomena to movement in space, to the

combination and separation of underived, imperishable,

and qualitatively unchangeable substances, of which there

must, in that case, necessarily be several, variously constituted, in order to explain the multiplicity of things.

These are the fundamental thoughts underlvino- the

the tragedies were the work of another person, who, according to Suid. 'E^uttcS. was, perhaps, his grandfather of the same name and, this conjecture has greiit probability, vide Stein, p. 5 sq., against Karsten, 63 sqq. 519. He justly considers that the two epigrams, ap. Diog. viii. 61, ^b, are spurious, and the same must be said of the verse or poem from which Dic^enes quotes an address to Telauges, son of Pythagoras {{bid. p. 17). The ttoXitiko., which Diog. 57 ascribes t^ him, together with the tragedies, probably refer, not to any independent
cleides thinks
;

(For another opinion vide Xullach,

Frooemio, p. 21 sq. xxv.) Two poems, one a hymn to Apollo, and the other on the army of Xerxes, are said by Diog. yiii. following 57, Hieronymus or Aristotle, to have been destroyed soon after his death. That Empedocles wrote down speeches or rhetorical instructions, the ancient accounts of him give us no reason to suppose, vide Stein, 8, Karsten, 61 sq. There remain, therefore, but two undoubtedly genuine works which have come dovrn to modern times, the (pvaiKo. and the KadapfMoi that these are separate works, as Karsten (p. JO) and others suppose, has been conclusively proved by Stein. The <pv(r>Ka were at a later period divided into three books (vide Karsten, p. 73), but the author seems to have contemplated no such division. On the testimonies and opinions of the ancients on the poems of Empedocles, vide Karsten, p. 74 sqq., 57 sq. Sturz, Karsten, Mullach and Stein have collected the friigments, and the three first have commented on them. (I quote from Stein, but add the numbers of the verses as given by Karsten and Mullach.)

De Emped.
Fragm.
i.

work, although Diogenes seems to presuppose this, but to smaller portions of other writings they cannot, therefore, b^ genuine, but must be placed in the same category as the so-called political part of Heracleitus's work. The state;

ment (Diog. 77, Suid. Diog. 60, is not connected with this) that Empedocles wrote mrpiKo, in prose, according to Suidas (*(aTaAo7a57j;'), may probably be accouutKl for
either by the existence of some forged work, or by a misapprehension of a notice which originally referred to the medical portion of the Physics, vide Stein, p. 7 sqq.

122

EMPEDOCLES.
we

doctrine of Empedocles on the primitive causes, as

gather partly from his own utterances and partly from

the statements of ancient writers.
If
it is

we

see a being enter

upon

life,

we generally think
;

see

something which did not previously exist if we it destroyed, we think that something which was,
Empedocles, following Parmenides

has ceased to be.^

in this respect, considers this notion as contradictory.

That a thing should come from nothing, and that

it

should become nothing, appear to him alike impossible.

From whence, he

asks with his predecessor, could any-

thing be added to the totality of the Real, and what

There is nowhere might be cancelled, and whatever it may become, soraething will always come out of it What, therefore, appears to us as generation again. ^ and decay cannot really be so it is in truth only

should become of that which is?

it

any void in which

V. 40 (342, 108 especially V. 45 sqq.

'
:

M)

sq.

cf.

V. 91 (119

K; 166,94 M):~
'

ou5e
doXiYocppoifS
-

n
_,
,

tou iravrhs Kcvehv TreAet

^
,
.

P7}irioi

oi)

yap

(T<piv
(

^''^^'^

,lai M^'p^ju. ac

thev have no far-

01 or) yiyvio-dai irapos

reaching thought's) ouk fOv e\inCovacu,

,

7rd0...A0o.;
,^k

^ eTrau^rjcreze
^

rh nau tl Ke Kul
^ ^
'

_,

^ov5ji>,pr,uou-

r,

Ti Karaeui^a^eLU re Ka\ e'|oAA.cr0a:

OTTOI'TTJ,
^

^^

""^ '^"^'^ (^^^^ ^''^ ^J^'^"' f themselves, remain what they

re)" 5t'

aWriKwv

Se fleocro

V. 48 (81, 102 M):

~
\
,

yiyuerai &\\odp 6.KKadiT}UKS, aiev

J
,

>

e/c

TOU yap
t' ihi>

fxr\

eofTOS au-qxavov

5 r

>

OLLoTa.

ecrri

y(v4(jeai

TO

f^6Wva6ai avqwcrov

/cot

V. 51 (350, 116 M) : ovk ti.u aprjp roLavia aocphs

fiavTivaaiTO,
els

<Ppc(rl

&irpr}KT0u (sc. eVri).

ale\

yap aTrjaovTai

(sc. e'oj'Ta) ottt]

u<ppa fiev Te

fiiovcn,

rh

St]

fiiorov

k4 tls alfu ipeidr}.

KaKeovai,

v.90(n7,93M):^

^''*^5i:ii;f!%;x;r"^"'"''"
-rrplp

e^re

yap ipdeipovTO diufnrepfs, ovKT ay ^aav.

Se

irdyei/

Te fipoTol Ka\ eVei

6.p'

XvQiv, ovZlv

elaly.

DEXIAL OF BECOMIXG.
mingling and separation.^
is is

123

What we
;

call

generation

the combination of substances

the separation of substances,

what we call decay though in ordinary

&\Xo

Y. 36 (77, 98 31): 5e 70L ipiw (pvffis

icTiv aTtavTwu

ovdeuos

durjTwv, ovd4 Tis ovXojxivov Qavaroio

TeXevrr),

aWa
eVrt,

/jLOuou

;ur|i's

re

Sid\Xa^is re

fXiyiVTWU
(pvais
5"

eVI
a,
. .
.

rois Ofoud^eraL
Cf.

dvQpuiTOKTiv.

Arist.

Medel

taph. i. 3, 984 Se TO rerrapu

dia/xeviiu
TrXriOei

'EftTreSo/cATjs

Tavra yap
dXX'

Kal ov yiyveadai

Kal

oAiyoTrjri crvyKpivofxeva
/cat

Kal SiaKptuoueva els ev re

6| evos.
7,

Be

Gen.

et
:

Corr.

ii.

ihid. c.

334 a, 26 The mixture of the elements with Empedocles is a

(TvvQe(TiS

Kaddirep
' '

irXivdcov

Kal

Xidcoy To7xos.
- That birth is nothing else than the combination, and decease than the separation of the substances of which each thing con-

not only by Empedocles himself, but by many of our authorities. Cf. V. 69 (96, 70 M) :sists, is often asserted,

the reading which stands in all the 3ISS. of Aristotle and Simplicius, is not the true reading, and whether the masculine oi QvtitoI is not to be supplied as subject of the proposition, and corresponding to ^poToi in V. 54). This is confirmed by the doctrine of Love and Hate (vide infra), for Empedocles derives birth or origination from Love, the essential operation of which consists in uniting matter while from Hate he derives the destruction of all things as Aristotle -also says, Metajjk. in. 4, lUOO, a, 24 sqq. It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that Empedocles simply identified origination with fjA^is, and decease or passing away, with SidWa^is. In one passage, however, he seems to derive both, yevecris and airoXei^is, from each of these causes from separation as well as from combination. V. 61 (87, 62 M) sqq. :
;
;

SiVa' epe'w T0T6 fiev

fxovop ilvai

yap ev

v^^iidr]

ovTws
7/5e

7)

fxevev

e'/c

irXeouxv ue^ua^TjKe
evbs
nXiov'

(K ttX^ovuu, T0T6
e| kvos eluuL.

S'

cS 5ie<pv irXiov

(pveadai,

(The verses are

5'

irdXiu

SiacpvuTOS

eKT\40oV(jl,
T])

doLT}

repeated in V. 76 sq.) 5e dui)ru>v yiv^cris, Solt}

ano-

jxkv

yiyvovTai re Kal ov arcpicnv ejxtrehos ahxv ( = Kal airoXXvvSio/xTrepes ov-

rriv /xev

Tttt)"

t"

yap ttolvtc^v oMKei re,

avi^ooos TiKTet

5e

rdo aXXdacToura
Oa/j-d X-nyei,

65. V 5e Trdkiv

dLacpvofxevoop

6p(p-

delcra SieTrrTj.

ravrri

alev eacriv dKivr\Tl

Kara kv-

Ka\ toCt' aXKacrcrovTa

Sa/J.a Xrjyei,

Sia/JL-rrfpes

ovets

/cA.oi/(aK:ii/7jTi I retain, agreeing with Panzerbieter others read okivT]Ta, which is a greater departure from the MSS. or aKivrirov, which for many reasons seems less probable;
;
;

&WoTe
6.\XoTe

fiev (piXoTriTL (TvvepxofJ-^y

ev airavTa,
S' av Six^ veiKsos x0ei

(Kaara
I

(popev/j.va

Then follows V.
cannot agree

it

is

a question whether dKiv-qroi,

69 sqq. vide

iH'.jjra.

124

EMPEDOCLES.
it
is

language
therefore,

may

bear the other name.^

Everything,
so

subject to

Becoming and Decay, only

appears
;

with Karsten

wlio, in V. 63, substitutes for Soirj 5e, " Toir]Se " for oAe/cei, " ai;|ei;"and ^uTdp(pdLcra,'' dpvcpOelaa," in accordance with our text of
;

to

demand some other

view for as verses 60-62 and 66-68 do not immediately refer to individuals, but to the universe and
its

Simplicius, for the changes are then too great, and the pregnant meaning of the whole verse is weakened. But Panzerbieter, Beitr. 7 sq. Steinhart, p. 94; and Stein, ad k. L, are scarcely justified in explaining the words as they do things arise, not merely from the union of matters, but also fi'om their separation, for in consequence of separation, new combinations appear; and simi:

conditions,

the

intermediate

verses

reference. The expression irdyTuv avvohos is likewise in favour of this

must have the same

larly things pass away, not merely through their separation, but also through their union because every new combination of substances is
;

the destruction of the preceding combination. This in itself would not be inconceivable, but it would contradict the opinion of Empedocles (so far as it has been hitherto ascertained),who explains birth only from the mixture of substances, and decay only from their separation. He would, in the other case, assert that every union is, at the

rendering for it corresponds too closely with cruvfpxo/J.cv^ els Ic airavra, V. 67, crvvepxofxtv^ els '4va k6(Ti.lov, v. 116 (142, lolM), TravTa (Tiv4px^T0.L %v p.6vov elvai, V. 173 (169, 193 M), to allow of its being interpreted in any other way. The meaning of V. 63 sqq. is, therefore The mortal is produced from immortal elements (vide ivfra, V. 182), partly in the issuing of things from the sphairos, in partly in their return to it both cases, however, it is again destroyed, here by the succeeding union, and there by the succeeding
; : ' ;

Cf. Sturz, p. 260 sqq., and Karsten, 403 sqq... for the remarks of later writers on Empedocles's doctrine of mingling and

separation.'

same
versa
;

time,

division,

(p4peTai,

^v/xthe Oia(pep6fj.euoi/ which, according to Plato,

and avr^

vice

separation, which, us nothing new.

however,

tell

Soph. 242 sq. (sujrra, p. 33, 2), constituted the peculiarity of Heracleitus's doctrine as distinguished from that of Empedocles, would belong just as much to Empedocles; and the contradiction with which Aristotle reproaches him (hif. 139, 1), that love while it unites, also separates, and that hate which separates also unites, would not exist; for this would be in accordance with the nature of love and The context of the verse hate.

and V. 40 (342, 8t6 pikv Kara (pwra fiiykv (pdos aldfpos '(kt) (I follow the emendation of the text in Plut.
Vide
:

p. 123, 1,
5'

108

M)

ol

Adv. Coin.

7,

p.

1113; Panzer-

bieter, Beitr. p. 16, and explain, if a mixture appears in the form of a

man)
7/e

kot' aKpore^wc

Orjpocv

y4vos

fl

Kara
r/fc

ddfivcoi/

t6t fxkv T65e (Panz. Toye) (paal yevecrdaf eSre S' aTroKpLuOaKTi, rb S' au SvaZai/car' olcovwv,

ixova TrdTjuov,
f]

Qifxis

ov (so

Wyttenb.

for other

COMBINA TIOX ASD SEPABA TIOX OF MA TTER.

far as it

125

becomes many out of one, or one out of many

it

so far,

on the contrary, as
its
it

maintains
its

itself in

this

change of place, in
nature, so far does

existence and

own

particular

remain, even in the alternation,

unchanged.^

There are four different substances of which

things are composed
:

all

earth, water, air,

=

and

fire.-

Emirpi-

cf.

emendations of the corrupt text. the editions) KaKiovai, vo^w 5'

4iri<pr}tii
'

V. 33 (55, 159
rou &Kove-

M):
iiS'

Tfcrcrapa

tuu vdvruv pi^wtxara

Koi avTds.

V.69 sqq.p. 123. 2. In V. 72 the -words admit of a double interpretation. Either: 'how far this alternation never cfasea,' or ho-w this never ceases to be in alterfar nation.' The sense and context seem to me in favour of the first view. On account of this unchangeableness of the primitive matters, Aristotle, Be Coelo, iii. 7.
'

Zeus

CLpy7]s "HpT)

t (f,ep4crBios

'ATSojveus

'Smarts

0'

7)

8aKpvoLS reyyei Kpovvaua

PpOreiov.

Manv conjectures respecting the text and meaning of this verse are to be found in Karsten and
Mullach
hgus,
ibid.
vi.

in h.

I.

Schneidewin,P/</7o;

init.

associates

Empedocles wirh
:

"Hvpato-Tos

Democritua in the censure

ol fikv

ovv Trepl 'E,uire5oK\ea koi AjjuoKpiTOU XavQavovffLV abroX avrovs oh yeVectf

Van Ten Brink, 731 sqq. Fire is also called Xestis is said to have been a Sicilian water deitv, believed bv Van Ten Brink, according to
155 sqq.
:

aWriXuv iroiovvres (sc. ruy crroiXeiw*'), aWh. (paivofj.4vr\v yeveaiv

6|

Hevne, to be identical with Proserpine (cf. however Krische,

Forsch.
i.

128),

It is clear that

ivvTrdpxou yap (KacTToy 4KKplvecrda.l

(pcuriv, Sca-irep

Here does not mean the

earth, as

i^ ayyeiovTrisyevcareuii

ovarjs aAX' ouk %k tivos vXris, ovSk yiyveadai ^^Ta^aWovTOS. Cf. also

(probably on account of (pepecrfiios) is supposed by Diog. viii. 76 HeracL, Pont. AUeg. Horn. 2-i, p. 52
; ;

Be Mel

975

a.

36

sqq.,

and
b.

Probus in
agoras,

Virp. Eel. vi, 3

:

the quotations, sup. p. 123,1.

therefore, Simp. Aid. attributes

When
68
:

Be
to

Oxlo,

Empedocles

the Heracleitean proposition rov KOfffiou TOVTOV ovre tis deuv ovre Tis avOpuiTTCov iiro'ni(TV, aAA' ^i/ del, the true text (first ap. Peyron, Emp. ef Farm. Fragm. now p. 132 Schol. in Arist. 487 b, b, 28 K. 43) shows that in the re-translation from the Latin, which we get in the text of Aldus, the names have been confused.
; ;

Suppl. c. 22 Refut. vii. 79, p. 384 (Stob. i. 288, and Krische, i. 126, might have escaped this error bv a slight change of the words), it means of course the air and it is not even necessary, with Schneidewin to
;

AthenHippol.

refer <pp4(rfiios to 'AlSwvevSy as it is perfectly applicable to air. Besides the ravthical designations we find the following, V. 78 (105. 60

rn,

M), 333 (321, 378 M) ttOo. v^'xp. aldvp; V. 211 (151, 278 31)

126

EMPEDOCLES.
is

pedocles

expressly desio-nated as the

these four elements,^ and all that

decessors tends to

first who admitted we know of his preThe earlier confirm the statement.

philosophers,

indeed,

admitted

primitive

substances

from wliich

all

things arose, but these primitive sub-

stances were wanting in the characteristic

by which

alone they could become elements in the Empedoclean

sense of the term
ness,
;

viz.,

the qualitative unchangeable-

which leaves only the possibility of a division

Similarly the earlier philoall

and com1)ination in space.

Empedocles regards

sophers are acquainted with

the substances which

as elements,

but they do not

class

them together
from
all

as
;

fundamental substances and apart

is

others

the primitive substance

with most of

them One. Parmenides poem has two primitive

philosophers has four
substances,
vZwp.
;

alone in the second part of his

substances, but none of these
first

and in respect to the

derived

we

find, besides

the unmethodical enumeraand

this matter neither increases nor diminishes, koI irphs rols ovt' aWo ri (so Mull., but the text is corrupt, and its restoration very

i]kios V. 215 alOrip, M), 197 (270. 273 M), V. 96 X^tt"', uti^pos. alOrjp, TTvp (124, 120 31) sqq. probabl}' tjXios, V. 377 (16, 32 alBr]p, ufxfipos, ala V. 31) aldiip, TTuvTos, x^'^'^ TjAios 187 (327, 263 M) vXiKTwp, ^Owv,
yr\,
;

(209, 282

uncertain) yiyverai owS' aTroX-nyei.

'

Arist.

31,

cf. c. 7,
ii.

ovpavos,

ed\a(r(Ta;

V.

198

(211,

Corr.

Metaph. i. 4, 985 a, 988 a, 20 De Gen. et Cf. 1, 328 b, 33 sqq.

;

211 M) x^'*"'' "NvaTLs, "Hcpaia-ros; Y. 203 (215, 206 M) x^^^y "H<paiI cannot aaree (TTOs, ofi^pos, ale-np. with Steinhart's conjecture {I. c. 93) that Empedocles by the variety of names wished to mark th.e difthe primitive ference between elements and those perceptible to V. 89 (116. 92 M), says sense. that the four primitive elements contain in themselves all matter;

Karsten, 334. The word (rTotxeioj/ is moreover not Empedoclean, as it is almost needless to observe, Plato is cited as the teacher who first introduced it into scientific language (Eudemus ap. Simpl. Phys. 2, a, Favorin. ap. Diog. iii. Aristotle found it already 24). in vogue, as we see from the expression (cf. Part.
rb.
ii.

KoKovti^va
b,

(rroix^la

336, 2nd ed.)

THE FOUR ELEMENTS.

tion

127

of Pherecydes and Anaximenes, only the triple

division of Heracleitus, the five-fold division of Philo-

laus

(probably already

connected with

Empedocles),

and Anaximander's two opposite categories of warm and cold. Why Empedocles fixed the number of his

own fragments,
At
first

elements at four, we cannot discover, either from his or from the accounts of the ancients.
sight
it

theories

in the
at

might seem that he arrived at his same manner as other philosophers

viz.,

arrived

theirs,

through observation and the

phenomena were most easily to be explained by this means. But in that case his doctrine was anticipated in the previous philosophy. The high estimation in which the number four was held by the Pythagoreans is well known. Yet we must not exaggerate
belief that

the influence this

may have had on Empedocles,

its

for in

his physics he adopted little

from Pythagoreanism, and

doctrine of elemen-

the Pythagorean school, even in

tary bodies, followed other points of view.

Of the

elements of Empedocles we find three in the primitive

substances of Thales, Anaximenes, and Heracleitus, and
the fourth in another connection, with Xenophanes and

Parmenides.
bodies
;

Heracleitus speaks of three elementary

gard to

and the importance of this philosopher in reEmpedocles will presently be shown. The three

ground-forms of the corporeal admitted by Heracleitus might easily be developed into the elements of Empedocles
;

if

the liquid fluid and the vaporous element,

air,

water and

were distinguished from each other in

of

the customary manner, and if the dry vapours, which

Heracleitus

had reckoned as part

the

supreme

128

EMPEDOCLES.
air.^

element, were considered as

of Heracleitus

The

three elements

seem

to have aris<^n from the doctrine

propounded by Anaximander and afterwards maintained by Parmenides, viz., the fundamental opposition of the

warm and
five

the cold, by the introduction of an inter-

mediate stage between them.

On

the other hand, the

elementary bodies of Philolaus represent a developelements of Empedocles. This doctrine,

ment, based on geometrical and cosmological conceptions, of the four

therefore, appears to have been in a state of constant

progression, fromAnaximanderto Philolaus, and the

num-

ber of the elements to have been always on the increase.

But though Empedocles declared the

be equally original, he, in

four elements to

fact, as Aristotle says,

reduces

them

to

two

for

he

sets fire

on one

side,

and the three

;

remaining elements together on the other

division of Parmenides.^

so that his

four-fold division is seen to originate in the two-fold

When, however,
and
air.

later writers

assert that his starting-point

'

was the opposition of the

Ion may have borrowed elements from Herahe can hardly have incleitus flueneed Empedocles, as he seems to have been younger. - Metaph. i. 4, 985 a, 31: ert
his

Aristotle

also

mentions the

theory of three elements, fire, air, and earth {Gen. et Corr. ii. 1, 329 Philop. in h. I. p. 46 b, a, 1). refers this statement to the poet Ion: and in fact Isocrates does say of him (tt. h.vTi^6(r. 268) "Iw^ 8' ov TrXeiu} Tpiwv [f(pr)aev elvai ra Similarly Harpocrat. ''icov. ovTo]. This statement may be true of Ion, even if (as Bonitz, Tnd. Arisf. 821 b. 40 and Prantl. Arist. WerJce, ii. 505 remark) the passage in Aristotle may relate, not to Ion, but divisions (Part to the Platonic II. a, 380, 4, 3rd edition), in which an intermediary is at first distinguished from fire and earth, and is then divided into water
'
'

three
;

Se

to.

oj?

eV

vK-qs

etSei

(TTOix^^a rdrrapa TrpcSro?

ijltju

X^yofx^va elTre;/* ov
cos
Ka')''

-xprirai

ye rirTapaiv, aXX'

Swcriz/

oZ(n ix6vols, -nvpL fxkv

8'

aiirh

to7s
777

a.uTiKifx4voL<>

re Ka\ aipi koX uSart. iK

3.

us uia (pvaei, Ka^oi 8'

&v ns avrh B^wpuv Be Gm. et Corr. ii.

ivioi S' eii0is

twu
330

i-n-a>v.

19: reTrapa \eyovaiv, oTov ^E/xir^doKKTis. avvdyei Se Kcd ovtos els ra 5vo- t yap nvp] TS,K\a iroLvra
b,

a.vTiridr\Tiv.

THE FOUR ELEMENTS.

warm and
or even of the dry

129

the cold, or that of the rare and the dense,

and the moist,

this

is

doubtless an

inference of their own, uncountenanced by Empedocles,

either in these expressions or elsewhere with such dis-

tinctness in his writings

and the statement that in

the formation of the universe the two lower elements

are the matter,

ments,^

and the two higher the efficient instrufrom his opinion. The four fundamental substances then, being eleis still

farther

ments, are necessarily primitive

they are

all

underived

and imperishable.

Each

consists of qualitatively

homo-

geneous parts, and without changing their nature they pass through the various combinations into which they are brought by means of the variability of things.^
' Cf. the passages from AlexThemistius, Philoponus, ander, Simplicius and Stotseus, ap. Kars-

to the other, as the active and the passive principle.

ten,
2

310 sqq.
Hippol. Befut.
vii. 29, p.

V. 87J114, 88 M): ravra yap lad re iravTa Kal

T}\iKa

384.

yivvav eaai,
TijuLTJi

Empedocles assumed four elements

5^0 fxhv vKiKa, yr\v koX vdwp, dvo 5e

S'

&\\ris

&\\.o

/ue'Set

irdpa

S TjOoS KdaTCf}.

opyaya

oJs

ra

vX.iKa Koa/xe^rai

Kal

juLeTa^dW^rai, Trvp 5e TO ipya^6/jLeva

Kal
.
.

aepa,

dvo
Kal

V. 89, vide

siijyra, p.

125, 2; V.

pcTkos

104(132, 128):
e'/c

is repeated after<pi\iav, which wards. The doctrine of this philosopher is still more decidedly misrepresented by the same author i. 4 (repeated ap. Cedren. Synops. i. 157 B), in the statement, probably taken from a Stoic or XeoPythagorean source) tV toD
:

tcDj/ irdvd' o(ra r'

^v oaa t
oiziaao}.

e<r0',

Z(ra

t'

ecrrai

Text

uncertain.

SeVSpea t' ifiXdcXT-qae Kal avepes r/Se yvva7KS, dripes T olwvoi re Kal vdaTodpefifxaves
Kal T deol 5o\ixo.'''(^v^s
(TTOL.
rifjificn <pepi-

iravTos apx7)v v^Ikos Kal (piXiav e(f>T]' Kal rh rris /xovados voep'hv irvp rhv

avTCi

yap

ecTTiv

ravra

5i'

aWrjXwv
yap
sqq.,

dehv

Kal Kal

(TweardvaL
et'y

e/c

Trvphs

to.

5e deovra

irdvra

irvp

duaKvdrjaeaQai.

yiyverai

dWoiund'

didirru^LS

other hand Karsten, p. 343, is incorrect in saying that Empedocles, according to Hippolytus, opposed fire and water one
the

On

d/xei^ei.

Cf. p. 122, 2.

Also V. 90

69 sqq. (supra,
Arist.

p.

Metaph.

i,

122, 2; 123, 2); 3 [supra, p. 1 23, 1),

YOL.

II.

130

EMPEDOCLES.
are
also

They

equal as to mass,'

though they are

mingled in particular things in the most various proportions,

and are not

all

contained in each particular

thing.^

The

peculiar traits, however, by which they

are distinguished from one another, and their place in

the structure of the universe, Empedocles does not seem

to have precisely determined.

He

describes

fire as
;

warm
some-

and glittering dark and cold

and to
fire

air as

fl

aid and transparent

water as

earth as heavy and hard,^

He

times attributes to earth a natural motion downwards,

a similar motion upwards
;

but his utterances In

this,

on the subject are not always

iii.

consist-ent.^

howto,

4,
ii.

1000

b,

17
i.

Gen.

et Corr.

ii.

in a pictures
dis,

apaovir} ixi^avre

314 a, 24 (cf. Be Coelo, iii. 3, 302 a, 28, and Schol. Simpl. Be Coelo, 269 b, 38 513 b); Be Coelo, iu. 7 (suprcu, ip. 125, 1); Be Melisso, c. 2, 975 a. and other passages ap. Sturz, 152 sqq., 176 sqq., 186 sqq., and Kargten, 336, 403, 406 sq. This at any rate seems to be asserted by the Icra -ndvTa in the
1
;

6, ibid.

I,

p. 227, has been led, by error in the punctuation in V. 129, corrected by later editors, to discover in these verses a meaning ali-en alike to the works and the

verses just quoted, which grammatically may with ^Ai/ca also relate to yivvav (of like origin), Arist. Gen et Corr. ii. 6 sub init. enquires whether this equality is an equality of magnitude or of Empedocles doubtless power ?

made no

distinction between them,

connects the word as little with yivi/av as Simplicius does, Phys. 34 a. 2 Cf. (besides what will presently be said as to the proportions of the primitive elements in this admixture) V. 119 (154, 134 M) sqq., where the mixture of matter in various things is compared with the mixing of colours by which the painter reproduces these things

He

standpointof Empedocles, viz., that the perishable has its cause in the Deity, as the work of art has in the mind of the artist. ^ V. 96 (124, 120 M) sqq., which, however, are very corrupt in the traditional texts. V. 99, which has been restored, though not satisfactorily, perhaps began thus: aldepa 6' ws ^"Tot. From this passage the statement of Aristotle is taken, Gen. et Corr. i. 315 b, 20 Plut. Prim. Frig. 9, 1, p. 948 but, on the other hand, Aristotle seems to refer in another place, Be Bespir. c. 14, 477 b, 4 {6ipiu.hu "yap chai rh vyphv ?ittov tov aepos), to some subsequent passage now lost from the poem.
all
;

Cf. p. 144, 1.

"We shall find later examples

Cf. Plut.

of this.

Plac.

ii.

7.

6;

and Ach. Tat. in Arat.

c.

4,

end

MIXTURE OF THE FOUR ELEMENTS.

ever,

131

there

is

observation.

Plato

nothing that transcends the simplest and Aristotle were the first to

reduce the qualities of elements to fixed fundamental determinations, and to assign each element to its
natural place.

Even without the testimony

these, following perhaps the

of Aristotle

it

would

source, assert

same that Empedocles as-

But it is clear that this only means: Empedocles himself

KacrTou.

signed no definite place to the elements, but supposed each element capable of occupying the place of the rest. Aristotle says, De Coelo, iv. 2, 309 a, 19: Empedocles, like Anaxagoras, gave no explanation of the heaviness and lightness of
bodies.
1

altogether denied that the four elements arose out of one another nevertheless in his doctrine of the
.Sphairos, he indirectly admits, without perceiving it, that they ^ue such an origin for if the unity of all things io the Sphairos be taken
;

Gen.

et Corr.

i.

8,

325

b,

19

in its strict acceptation, the qualitative differences of the elements

'E/tiTreSoKAci Se to. fx^v

aWa

(pauepbu

OTl fl^XP^ '''^^ (TTOLX^'l-OiV 6%^' "^^^ yeveaiv Koi rrjv (pOopav, avruv Se

TOVTwi/ irus yii/erai koL (pdeiperai rh ovre SrjKov acapevofxevov fieyidos oure eVSe'xeTot Aeyeiv avro} fxy] \4-

must disappear and the elements consequently, when they issue from the Sphairos, must form themselves anew out of a homogeneous sub;

yovn
(In

Koi Tov irvphs elyai (TTOixe^oi',

bfxoius 5e Ka\

De

Coelo,

iii. 6,

twv 6,Wwi/ airavTwv. 305 a, and Ludenied that the theory of

cretius,!.

746

sqq., it is

Empedocles held atoms.) These distinct assertions would be in direct opposition to Aristotle himself, if he really said what Eitter {Gesch. d. Phil. i. 533 sq.) finds in him, namely that all four elements are properly derived from one nature, which underlies
all differences,
(piKia.

It is not that a statement here attributed by Aristotle to Empedocles which contradicts the rest of his theory Empedocles is refuted by an inference not derived from himself. Xor can it be proved from Metapk. iii. 1, 4, that Aristotle designated the uniform nature, from which the elements are said to proceed, as (piXia. la Metajyh.m. 1, 998 a, 4, he asks the question irorepov rb ev koI rh ou, Kaddwep ol UvdayopeiOL Kal UXdrwu
is
;
:

stance.

and

is,

more

exactly,

e\ey(v, ovx erepou ri iariv ovaia Tcov uvrwv, ^ ov, aAX' eVepop
Tt rh vTTOKeijxei'ov,
<f>r]<n

aW

This, however, is incorrect. Aristotle says {Gen. et Corr. i. 1, 315 a, 3), that Empedocles contradicted himself: ojua ixkv yap ov <p7]aii' 'drepov e| erepou yluecrffai. toou
(TTOLX^icav ovhev,
/

uanep

'EuTreSo/cATjs

(piXiau,

aWos

Se ris irvp, 6 Se

vBup, 6 Se aepa.

Here he does not speak of the primary matter of the

four elements in reference to the 4)tAio.butthe (piXia (which Aristotle, as the uniting principle, calls the One, in the same manner as, e.g., the principle of limitation is called
2

aWa r&Wa

Travra

ydyrj

thav els cv cvvaairaaaf (pvcriv irK^v tov leiKovs, K TOV evhs yiyveaOai irdXiv
dfjLa S'
t7;>'

Tovrwv,

rs'2

EMPEDOCLES.

be obvious that the four elements of Empedocles could not be derived from any other more primitive element.
It is plainly, therefore, the result of a

misunderstanding

when

later writers assert that

he made atoms as con-

stituent parts of the elements precede the elements

themselves.^

Yet on one

side his doctrine

might have

given

rise to this opinion.

For

as,

according to him,

the primitive substances are subject to no qualitative

change, they can only be connected together mechanically

and even their chemical combinations must be reduced to such as are mechanical. The mixture of
;

substances

is

only brought about by the entrance of

the particles of one body into the interstices between

the parts of another.
Tre'pas,

The most
ler,

perfect combination.
in h.
I.

itbos) serves

aud the formative principle merely as an ex;iraple,

and Bonghi

adopt from

show that the concept of the One is employed, not only as subject, as by Plato and the Pythagowhat reans, but also as predicate
to
;

the passage asserts of the <pi\ia is merely this the (piXia is not Unity, conceived as a subject but a subject to which Unity, as predicate, This likewise holds good belongs. of c. 4, where it is said in the same Plato and sense and connection the Pythagoreans consider Unity as the essence of the One, and Being as the essence of the exso that the existent is not istent distinct from Being, nor the One from Unity oi Se Trept (pvaaos olov ws eis 'yvuipifxwTepov 'EiJLireBoKXrjs audyuv X^ycL '6 ji rh *> ou iarlu eu tv (so it must be written, if ev ov be considered as one conception or else it that which is One must be read as by Karsten Emp. Brandis, Bonitz, Schwegp. 318
: ;
: ;
:

Cod. Ah. ri ttotc rh ev iaTiv) S/^^exe "yap hv Xey^LV tovto t^v (piXiau ehuL. The statements, therefore, of Aristotle on this point do not contradict each other; while, on the other hand, most of the censures which Ritter passes on his statements respecting Empedocles, on closer examination, appear to be groundless. 1 Plut. Plac. i. 13: 'E. irph ra>u reacTaposv aroix^icop OpavcTfiara e\dX'-O'Ta, olovil (TTotxeTa TTpb (rTOixeicoj/,
bjXQiojx^pri,

OTTtp

earl

(TrpoyyvAa.

The same, with the exception of the last words (on which cf. Sturz, 153
sq.) in Stob.

Plac. I
10, p.
2

Ed. i. 341. Similarly 17 (Stob. 368; Galen, c.

258 K).
It

'

'

is equally improper, according to what we have just been saying, to suppose with Petersen, Philol.-Hist. Stud. 26, that the Sphairos as Unity was first, and that the four elements arose from it.

INTERMIXGLIXG OF SUBSTANCES.

133

therefore, of several substances is only an assemblage

of atoms, the elementary nature of which

in this process
:

is

not altered
arises out

it is

not an actual fusing of the atoms

into a

new

substance.'
is

And when one body

of another, one

not changed into the other, but the

matters which already existed as these definite substances merely cease to be intermingled with others.^

But as all changes consist in mingling and unmingling, so when two bodies are apparently separated by the
different nature of their substance, the operation of one

upon the other can only be explained on the hypothesis

that invisible particles segregate themselves from the

one and penetrate into the apertures of the other. The more complete is the correspondence between the apertures in one body and the emanations and small particles of another, the more susceptible is the former to the influence of the latter, and the more capable of

mixture with
'

it.^
to

According to the theory of Empedouse

2,

According
all
is

later

of

ra

Zia<paini

^mWov.
diupicray,

ol fjikv

otv

eirt

words (vide Part

ed.),

iii. a.

115.

2nd
;

nvMv ovtw

Zcnrep 'Efiire-

there
2

mixture is a TrapoLdiffis no Tvyx^'^i'^, any more

8t'

SokXtjs oh /xovov iwl

koL wacrxovrccv

rwv ttqlowtwv

a.\Xa Ka\ piiyvvaQal

than a Kpuais
Arist.
(ap.

oXcov.
iii.

De

Ccelo,

7 (cupra,

p. 125, 1), to "which the

Karsten, 404 nothing of importance. 3 Arist. Gen. et Corr.

tors
fikv

commentasq.) add
:

(ptjo-iv (in Cod. L, <pT\aiv is substituted for (paalu) bawv ol nopoi crvafierpoi eiaiv 65a} 5e jj.6.Ki<xra ku'l

irepl

jravTccu

ivl

AiVKiiriros

koI

\6ycf ZiwpiKacTi Atjuokpltos (for

oiv hoKel

Trao'Xf'i'

to7s i. 8 fKacTTou 5id

riuciiv

eVxciTou
Tifj-as

TrSpwu elaiSvTos tov ttoiovvto'; /cal KvpiaTOiTov, kol tovtov

rhv rpoTvov Koi

opav

/cat

aKovdv

(paal koi ras

&\\as

aicrd-naiLS

aladdvea-dai ndaas. en 5e opaadai Sid re aepos Koi vSutos Kal rci-u Siacpavciu Sid rh Tropovs exeiv dopdTous fiey Sid yuKpOTXira, -nvKvovs Se Koi Kara aTo7xov, Kai /xaWov exeiv

said, is afterwards not merely individual phenomena, but the formation and change of bodies by reference to Philop. in empty interspaces). h. L. sq. 35 b, and Gen. Anim. 59 in Sturz, p. 344 a (both passages sq.), gives nothing more, for the statement in Gen. Anim. that Empedocles called 'the full' ^'owtto, confuses this philosopher with De-

they,

as

explained

134
cles, this is

EMPEDOCLES.
pre-eminently the case when two bodies are

alike; therefore, he says, the like in kind and easily

mingled are friendly to each other like desires like whereas those which will not intermingle are hostile to
; ;

each other.'

This whole theory

'

is

closely allied to that

mocritus (ride infra, the Atomists). On the other hand, Aristotle's account is confirmed in a remarkable manner by Plato, Meno, 76 C OvKOvv Ae7eT airoppods rivas ruv Ecpo^pa uvTU)V Kor 'EfxireSoiiXia Kcu TrSpovs, ets ovs Kal St' 6)V ye.

V. 186 (326, 262

M.):

dpOfMLa fiev

yap

irdud'

avruu iy4uovTO
T/Se

fxepecTffLu,

TjAeKTcop re

xflcoi/

re Kal ovpavhs

al aiToppoai iropivovrai

Kat
TOKV

Udfu

ddKacraa, '6(T(Ta vw iv QvT\To7<rivdiroTT\ayxQivra

TtecpvKev.

ye.

&s

5'

avTOii

ocra

Kpaaiv

iirapTea
'A8i-

Toij/

airoppociv ras fxev app.6T-

fxaXKov eaniu,

reiv (viois tcov Tr6pu}V, ras Se i\oLTfl

fiei^ovs eivai

"EariTavTa.
alaOrjTos.
Cf.

aWr^Xois
f'xSpa

ecrrepKTai.,

oixoioodevT

<^po8iT7;.
8' ott'

Colour is then defined in accordance with this airoppoTi crxTjjLcaTwi'

:

aWrjXuu iT\e7mov

Xovcriv &ixiKTa, etc.

o^ei

(TvfxiJLeTpo'i

KoX

Theophr. De Se/isii, 12: '6\ws yap TTotet T^v ixi^tv Tf] (rvfi/jLeTpiq. -rcai/ TTOpwW StOTrep eXaiou fxku koi vSwp ov fxiyyvcrBaL, to 5' &KAa vypa Kal
irepl '6(Twv 5r?

Arist. Efh.
cf.

K
vii.

viii.
:

2,

1155

b,

7;

preceding
oixoiov

note-

rh yap
('E/xir.

b/jioiou

rov

i<pUcQai

(pr\(n).

Eth. Kud.

KaTapiQjxeirai tols iSias

v.

Mot.

Kpdaeis.

Of our fragments,
;

189

relates to this subject

also espe-

cially V. 281 (267, 337 M) : ^I'wfl' hri irdvTCtiv elaXv airoppoal, Haa'

1, 1235 a, 9 {M. 1208 b, 11): oi Se T^v o\r\v <pv(Tiv <pv<TiQ\6yoL Kal SiaKoa-fxovffLv apx>]v \afi6vTcs rh Uvai irphs rh 'd/xoiov, Sto 'dfjLOiov
ii.

11,

'EfXTreSoKXrjs Kal TrjV

kvv

^(pr)

KaQi]-

iydvouTO.

V. 267 (253, 323

Tovs fiV TTvp

M) :
iOeAov irphs

aOat e'TTi t^s Kcpa/xiSos Si,a rh exeti' TrXfiarov 6fj.oiov. Plato, Lys. 214

aveirefxir'

B In the writings of the natural philosophers we read otl rb ofioiov

:

bfxotov 'iKiadai,

V. 282 (268, 338) : &s yXvKV fxi:V yXvKv ndpirre, inKphv

S' eirl

T^ oyuoto) avdyKT] ael (piXov elvai. Empedocles found an example of

this elective affinity in the attrac-

TTiKphv opovaev,
e)87j,

o^v

5'

eV

o^v

SaAepbj/, 5aA.ep^

8'

iwex^vev.

He tion of iron to the magnet. supposed that after the emanations of the magnet have penetrated into
the pores of the iron, and the air which choked them had been expelled, powerful emanations from

V. 284 (272, 340

o'ivcf)

M) :
fiaWov
ivdpOfxioy,

i;5wp

fjifv

avTCLp iKaicp ovk iOekei.

V. 286 (274, 342

^v(T(T(f 8e

M) :

yKavKr, kokkov Karaixiffy^-

the iron pass into the symmetrical pores of the magnet, which draw the iron itself and hold it fast. Alex. Aphr. Qua^t. Nat. ii.
23.

rai &u9os.

PORES AXD EMANATIONS.

of the Atomists.

135

The small

invisible

particles take

the place of the atoms, and pores the place of the

The Atomists see in bodies a mass of atoms separated by empty interspaces Empedocles sees in them a mass of particles which have certain openings between them.^ The Atomists reduce the chemical
void.
;

changes in bodies to the alternation of the atoms

pedocles reduces

Em-

them

to the alternation of particles of

matter which in their various combinations remain, as

to quality, as

unchanged

as the atoms.-

himself, however, admitted neither an

1 Whether these opeoings are themselves entirely empty, or are filled with certain substances, especially with air, Empedocles never seems to hare enquired. Philoponus, Ge7i. et Corr. 40 a, b, who ascribes to him the second of these opinions, in contradistinction to the Atomists, not a trustworthy authority. is According to Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 326 b, 6, 15, we niust conclude (in spite of what is quoted above as to the magnet) that Empe':3ocles never arrived at any general definition on this point for he refutes the hypothesis of the pores on both
;

Empedocles empty space ^

(pvffiv,

(TvvQiTOisv

awfiaTocv

o'vtws

apafj.eiJ.iyfiva}v
TCD//.

dAArjAoiS

twv

Trpw-

d's

61

TIS \eiu!(ras c/cpijSwy Kal

Xyoudrj Troir)(Tas Xov /col X"-^*^^"^ '^ /cat /caS^etW Ka\ ixktv )Lii|etei/ cbs jU7j5ej/ e| avru)V BvvojrdaL fierax^tpicra(r6ai

X'^P'^

erepou.
:

Ibid.

c.

sub init. 49 According to Empedocles, all things are formed from the four plements, ov ijltjv oAAtjAoiv, ctAAo: KKpafj.4voiv ye Si Kara TrapaKeiaevxv fxiKpa fiopia re Kal ipavoyruv. Hippocrates first taught the mixing of
12,
fore,

presuppositions.
-

Arist.

Gen.
iKpivois

et

Corr.
tIs

ii.

7,

33-t a,

26

yap toTs \eyovicrrai

:

<nv

oKTirep

'E/xn-e5oA7)s

elements. Aristotle, thereGen. et Corr., uses this expression for the several elemental bodies avrwv tqvtojv rb acvpevofxevov ^76005, and in Plut. Flac. i. 24 ''Stob. i. 414), it is said of Empethe
:

Tpotros {ttis yeveaeus

rwv

(rwjxdroiv')

docles,
jxev Kal
(Teis

Anaxagoras,
SiaKpicrets

Democritus,
:

avdyKT) yap (rvvOeaiv eJpai Kaddinp 6^ TrAit^tt'V Kal \iduv toIxos' KOn. rh fj-lyjxa Se rovro eK aw^ofiivwu uhu
ecrrai

and Epicurus together

crvyKpicreis

eladyowri,

yeve-

rSiv

a-roix^iav,

Kara
p.

fiiKpa

he Trap
Coelo,

6.\KT]Ka
iii.

(TvyKeifxevup.

De

{supra,

Galen in Hippocr:
i.

De Sat.
:

125, 1); Horn.

2,

end, T. xv.
ffyeiTO

a.^sTafi\i\rwv

32 K. "Ejutt. i^ tuv nTrapwv (Ttoiyiyv^cBat

yap Kara rh -rroibp 6| aWoLua ew s Kara 5e rh voahv e/c crvvadpoiiTfiov ravras yiypeffdai. 3 Cf. v. 91. supra, p. 122, 2; Arist. Be Coelo, iv. 2, 309 a, 19:
5e KoX (pdopas oh Kvp'iws. ov
eviQi

fxev

X^iwv

tV

Tci>

eivai

olv ruv fir) <pa(TK6vT0}v irepl. Kevhv ovSey SiujpKTay

1^6

EMFEDOCLES.

Dor atoms,^ though his doctrine must logically lead to

both.-

Nor can we

certainly attribute to

him the con-

ception that the primitive substances are composed of

very small particles, which in themselves are capable of

farther subdivision, but are never really divided.^
definition seems, indeed, to be required
of the

This
is

by what

said

symmetry of the pores

for if these substances

are infinitely divisible, there can be no pores too small

to allow

a given substance to enter.

All substances,

must be able to mingle with all. But, as Empedocles was inconsistent in regard to the void, he
therefore,

may

likewise have

been so in regard to the smallest

particles.

Aristotle himself gives us to imderstand that

he knew of no express utterance of this philosopher on

this point.

We may

therefore conjecture that he never

it,

turned his attention to

but was content with the

indeterminate notion of the pores, and the entrance of

substances into them, without any further investigation
of the causes in which the elective affinity of bodies
originates.

But

it

is

only on one side

tliat

things can be ex-

plained by corporeal elements. These definite phenomena

are produced

when substances combine

oiov 'Ava^ay6pas
A^vkittttSs

in this particular
;

manner and
Koi to

in this particular proportion

(pna-iv.

but whence
ehai
5e,
el

Kov<pov Koi fiapeos

'E/xTreSoffATjs.
;

yap
/xt)

arra
irdvTrj

Theophr.

De

arepea,
-rrdpoi

aBiaipera

Sensu, 13

Lucretius,!. 742, not

later "v^Titers,

o-wexeTs

elaiv.

Ibid.

326
6,

b, 6

mention other

as Plut. Plac. i. that verse. Cf. the passages

'

such 18, who repeat

sqq.
^

Arist. J>e Coelo, ni.

de (TTfjcreTai irov
t)

305

a,

5id\vai?

quoted
Corr.i.

p.

133,
^

2.

[twv a-ufxaTcov'], ^toi dropiov earai rh (Toofxa iv & 'Icrrarai, ^ Siaiperov

jxev ov fxevTOi diaipedr](r6fjLevov

Cf. Arist.
b,

Gen.

et

1,

ov54-

325
KA.et

ax^^^i^ Se Koi 'E/xireSoo.vayKa7oi' Kiyeiv, wcrirep Koi

:

nore,

Kaddirep

ioiKev

'E/xnedoKKris

Bov\ea9ai Keyeiv.

LOVE AND HATE.

comes
it

137
?

that they combine and separate

What
to

is,

in other words, the

moving cause
for

Empedocles cannot
is

evade this question,

his

chief object

make

Becoming and Change comprehensible.

for

On

the other

hand, he cannot seek the cause of motion in matter

having transferred the Parmenidean conception of Being to the primary elements, he can only regard
these as unchangeable substances, which do not, like

the primitive matter of Heracleitus and Anaximenes,

change

their

form

by

their

own
all

inherent

force.

Though he must

necessarily allow to

them movement
change
in things

in space, in order not to

make

impossible, yet the impulse cannot lie in themselves

to

move and

to

enter

into

combinations by which

they, in their being and nature, are untouched.

EmThere

pedocles

never taught that the elements have souls,

though
'

this doctrine has been ascribed to him.^

Arist. says,
:

Be An.

i.

2,

404

no right to suppose that Empedohimself drew the inference, or him with a theory which "would alter the whole character of his system, and make his two efficles to credit

o(TOL 8' 7ri T^ yiuuaKdu koI rh alaQaveaQai ruv outoov (aire/8\e\I/ai'), ovTOL Se Xeyovcn rijv ^vxv^ 'ras

b, 8

apxas,
/j.v

ol

fxev

irXeiovs Troiovvres ol

oe ixiav ravrr]]/, ioa-rrep 'E/xTTfSo'fA^s

iK ru)v (TTOixeiW iravTuiv,

dvai

cient causes superfluous. Still less Q-m be gathered from Gen. et Corr.
6, end, -where Aristotle merely observes in opposition to Empedoii.

5h KaleKaa-Tov \f/vxvi''''ovTa:v. "What

he here says of Empedocles, however. is merely his own inference from the well-known verses and this Aristotle gives us clearly to understand in the words which follow, Xeywv ovtw " 7017; fxkv yap yatav oTra-Tro/xej/." These verses, it is clear, do not assert that the various substances are themstlves animate, but only that they become, in man, the cause of psychic activity. If even, on closer enquiry, the former opinion be deducible from the latter, we have
;

cles: &TOTroy 5e koi

t]

ypvxv iK
, .

ruv
uhv
to,

aroixdur
nvp
i]

tj

eV ri

avrwu

el

^i^vxv, to. -rrddr]

fi

inrdp^ei

avr^

ocra -nvpl

irvp'

Se p-iktov,

aoc/xaTiKd.

Nor can

the

quota-

tiou,si(p. p. 135, 1,

prove anything

respecting the animate nature of the elements. The fact that they

were also called gods (Arist. Ge7i. ef Corr. ii. 6, 333 b, 21: Stob. Ed. \, 60. snp. Vol. I. 612, 71. Cic. N. D. i. 12. sub init.) is unimportant as the statement is no doubt founded
; ;

13S

EMPEDOCLES.

remains then nothing but to separate moving forces

from matter, and Empedocles was the

philosophers to adopt this course.^
force, however, does not suffice for

first

among

the

A
;

single

moving

to

reduce

the two

moments

of

him he feels obliged Becoming combina-

tion and separation, birth and decay

forces.^

to

two different

Here again,

as in the doctrine of the primitive

substances, he derives

the various qualities and con-

ditions of tilings from so

distinct, of

many

substances originally

which each one, according to the Parmenidean

concept of Being, has one and the

nature.

same invariable

In his representation, Empedocles personifies

;

these two forces as Love and Hate

on the other hand,

he

treats

them

as
:

corporeal

substances

which

are

mingled in things

they do not belong merely to the

is

form

of his exposition, but the idea of force

;

as yet

not clear to him

he discriminates

it

neither from the

personal beings of mythology, nor from the corporeal

elements.
Its specific

import

lies

only in explaining

the cause of the changes to which things are subject.

Love

is

that which effects the mingling and combina-

tion of substances.
separation.^

Hate

is

that which causes their

In reality, as Aristotle rightly objects, the

taught the duality of the efficient causes is noticed by Aristotle,

merely on thoir mythieal designations {sup. p. 125, 2), and the same may be said of the laiyiwv, v. 254

Mctwph.
3

i.

4,

985
^^

a, 29.

(239, 310 M).

V. 78 (105, 79
^^^ .^
j^^^^^

M) :
^^
^j
^^^q>

leave out of our account the mythical figures of the ancient cosmogonies and of the poem of Parmenides, and suppose Anaxagoras with his conception of
'

That

is if

we

^p

y.

^,i^6s r

ohK6,x,vov h[x<i Tu>vro.T 6.-

vovs to have been later than pedocles.

Emwho

^^^^^^ j ^^^^

c^^^^^
>^

V^^^^^^ .^^

^^^^,

^^ irXaros re

That he was the

first

Of the

last

he goes on to say that

LOVE AND HATE.

tion
of

ia9

two forces cannot be divided,^ since every new combinasubstances

;

is

the

dissolution

of a

previous
is

combination

and every separation of substances

the

introduction to a
that Empedocles

new combination.
did not

But
this,

it is

certain

remark
So

and that he
then, as the

regarded Love exclusively as the cause of union, and

Hate
is

as the cause

of division.

far,

imity of the elements seemed to Empedocles the better

it

that which unites

it is

men

in love,

and
5lt7].

called '^-neoavu-n and 'A<ppoit

(Empedocles himseK calls

indifferently (piXorris,
sjip.ip.VZ^.

aTopyT], 'A-

(pfjodiTT], Kvirpis, apfxoviri.)

V. 66 sq. V. 102(130, 126 M):

Bidfiop(pa

the %v but the Sphairos. Karsten's objection to the identification of the Iv and the ovala Ivoiroihs, I. c. p. 318, is founded on a misconception of
this; for

in that passage
<pi\ia

means not the

iv

8e

Korcf.'

Kal

av5ixa

Aristotle's
10.

views).
b,
1
:

Metaph.
oTOTTa'S

sii.

iravra tt^Xovtui
(xvv 5'
I/Stj

1075

Se

koX
Trote?

eV (piXoTTjTi Kai aK\T)\oi(Ti

E.uTreSo/cX'TJs'

TTiV

yap
5'

(piXiav

Trode77ai.

ayaOSv

avri)

vovcra

[(xvudy^t.

yap)

dpx'? '^'^' ^^ '^'kol us vXt\.

. .

V. 110 sqq. {i?>f. p. 145) 169 (165, 189 M) sq. [infra, p. 152) 333 (321, 378 M) sq. {hif. p. 165, 3). With this the accounts of our other authorities agree; here we shall only quote the two oldest and best. Plato, Soph. 242 D (after

fjLopioj/

irou

5e Kal

yap Tov fiiynaros ro a<pdaprop

6,to-

elvai

rh

The utterances of writers collected by Karsten, 346

vcIkos.

later

what
a:

is

printed

sv.p.

p.

33,

2)
fikv

Se jxaXaKunpai
5e

(Emp.) rh

det Toi/O'
tJ.4pcL

ovrojs exeti' e'xaAacray, eV

Tore

fxiv
vtr'

%v ihai (paTi rh

sqq., and Sturz, 139 sqq., 214 sqq., are merely repetitions and expiaThe nations of Arisrotle's words. unanimity of all our witnesses and the clearness with which Empedocles expresses himself, make it impossible to suppose that Aris-

Tray Kal <pi.\ov

'A^poStTTjs, Tore

5e
Slcl
ii.

TToXAa Kal
vs7k6s
6,
tl.

iroXffjLiov

avrh avrqi

totle (as well as Plato and all subsequent authors) misunderstood

333
;

b, 11

Arist. Ge?i. et Corr. ti oZv tovtuv (the

:

his real

doctrine,

t.nd that

love

and

regularity of natural phenomena)

aXriov
fjLr]v

ov

yap
T]

St?

irvp

ye ^777.

aWa

rh v7kos' avyKpiaeus yap fxovov, rh Se SiaKpi(reus atriov {rnfra, note 1). On account of its uniting nature, Aristotle even calls the <piKij. of Empedocles, the One, Metaph. iii. 1.
ovB'
(pi\ia

Kal

were not, in his opinion, the causes of mixing and separation, but were merely used in the passages we have quoted to describe poetically the conditions of mixture and separation (Thilo, Gesch. d.
strife

Prdl.
^

i.

45).
i.

Mttcph.

4,

85

a,

21

kclL

'E^ireSoKATjs

iirl

irXeov fiiv rovrov

4;
1,

cf.

end,

sup. p. 131 {Gen. et Corr. i. has nothing to do with

( hvai^ay6pov)
ou
fxT]v

xRVto-i^

Toh

alrlois,

ov6'

iKavws ovr' iv rovrois

140

EMPEDOCLES.
state, ^ Aristotle is justified in

and more perfect

into principles.^

saying

that he makes, in a certain way, the Grood and the Evil

Aristotle, however, does not conceal

that this

is

merely an inference, never explicitly drawn

by Empedocles, whose original design extended no farther than to represent Love and Hate as the moving
causes.^

Later writers assert, in contradiction to the

tlie

most authentic ancient testimony and

whole doctrine

of Empedocles, that the opposition of

rb djj.oXoyov/xeyoi'.TToWaxov /xh' (piKia diUKplvei, rb r] 8e veTKOS (rvyKpivei. oiav fxev yap
eupitTKeL
2

Love and Hate

i.

Metaph.

4,

984

b,

32

eVel

yovv avToi

5e

TavavTia

rots

ayado'is

ev6vTa

ivicpa'iveTO iu rfj (pvcrei, Ka\ oh fxovov

TO (TTOixe^a SucrrrjTai rh irav viro ToG vfiKOvs, TO Te TTvp els U cTvy(Is

Ta^is Ka\ rb KaXbv

Kal TO alcrxpbv
. .
.

aXXa

nal ara^ia

ovtoos ixXXos ris

Kpiverai

Koi tSuv &\Xa}V (noix^itcv

(piXiav elarjveyKe Kal velKos eKarepov

eKaaTou.

orav 5e

7raA.1i'

iravra virh
eu,

eKaTepwu airtou toutwv.

aKoXovOoiri ^iduoiav Kal
jut]

el

yap

tis
t7]v

rris (piKias avvicDcriv

els

rh

avay-

Kal Xajx^dvoi irpbs

irpbs
Sl

KOioi/ e| kKacrrov

ra

fj-Spia

biaKpive-

xpeXXi^eTai

a6ai ndXiv.
iii.

(Similarly the mentators, cf. Stnrz, 219 if.)

4,

comIbid.

Xiy(jcv 'E,u7re5^KA7]S, evpi]aei Tr]v jxev

(piXiav alriav oZcav

1000

a,

24: Ka\ yap ovnep

8e velKOS
(pair)

rwv ayaQS)v, rh twv KaKc^v wct" et tls

Tiva
Kal

olr}6eir) Xeyeiv &v tls jxaXiCTa bjxoXoyovuevws avTw, 'EtivedoKXris, Kal ovTOS ravrhv Tr4TTOv9ev Tidrjai fikv

TpoTTOv

Xeyeiv Kol

wpwrov Xeyeiu rb KaKbv Kal ayadhv apx^s 'EjUireSo/cAea, TCtx' ^f XeVoi

KaXcas, etc., ibid. xii.

yap

a.px'hv

nva

alriav

ttjs

(pdopas

10; sup.ip. 138,

rb ve7Kos, 5({|eie 5' h.u ovQev 7)ttov Kal TOVTO yeuuav e|co tov ev6s' a-rravra yap eV rovrov raXXd iari ttAv;!/ o 6e6s. ibid, b, 10 aviu-^aivei avTcS ^b velKOS /j-ridev fxaX^op (pdopas ^ tov
:

48, p. 370. ^ Vide previous note, and 3fcto 5' ov eveKa iaph. i. 7, 988 b, 6 ai irpd^eis Kal al fiera^oXal Kal al
3
;

cf.

Pint.

Be

Is.

Kivriaeis Tpoirov fxev

Tiva Xeyovcriv

elvai a^Tiov.

o/jlo'loos 5'

ovS'

t]

(piXoTrjs

TOV eivar (Tvvdyovaa yap els rh ey <p6fipei tSaXo. For the criticism of EmpeHo^'les's doctrine of Becoming, cf. Gen. et Corr.i. 1 ii. 6. This is evident from the predicates assigned to Love and Strife 7}Tri6(ppwv (V 181) to Lnve ovXolj.ei^ov (V. 79); Xvyphv (335); [xaivojxevov (382) to Strife; and will appear still more clearly from what will be said later on of the Sphairos and the origin of the world.
;

(so expressly and decidedly) Se ov Xeyovcriv, ou5' 'dvrep

atriov, ovTUJ
irifpvKev. ol jxev

'

yap vovv Xeyovres ^ dyadbv ^ev Ti ravras ras ahias TiOeacnv ov fx^]V u>s eveKa ye TOVTwv % ov ^ yiyv6fj.ev6v ti twv ijVTCov, aXX' is anb tovtoov tos kiv^(piXiav
i)S
. .

.'wcrre Xeyeiv ceis ovcras Xeyovcriv Te Kal 1X7] Xeyeiv ttws crvfi^aivei avrols Tayaflbr aXriov ov yap awXws, aAAa

Kara

crvjx^e^riKbs Xeyovcriv.

Similar
ap.

utterances
Sturz,

of

later

writers,

232 sqq.

LOVE AND HATE.

141
^

coincides with the material distinction of the elements:

that by Hate we must understand the fieiy, and by Love the moist element.- Modern writers,^ with more
probability, assign fire to Love,
for the

and the other elements most part to Hate, but do not identify Hate and
This again
is

Love with the elements.

sible."*

scarcely admis-

Still further

departing from the real opinion of

six first principles to

Empedocles, Karsten supposes the

have been merely phenomenal forms of one uniform

primitive force, conceived pantheistically
Simpl. Phjjs. 33 a E.utt. yovv, Kairoi 8vo iv ro7s aTOix^'^ois
:

'^

and other

ivai/TiCtxreLS

viroOefj.ei'os,

6<^pfjiov

koX

\\ivxpov

Koi ^ripov,

els

fj.iau

ras dvo

crvveKopvcpwae ttjv tov veiKovs koI ttjs

(piXias, oKTirep /cat ravT-qv els jJLOvaZa
rr]v Tr\s avdyKTjs.
- Plut. Pri/n. Frig. c. 16, 8. p. 952, an utterance which Brandis (Bhein. Mus. iii. 129 Gr. Bom. Phil. i. 204) should not have treated as historical evidence. ^ Tennemann, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 250 Eitter, in Wolfe's Analekten, ii. 429 sq. cf. Gtsch. d. Phil. i. 550, with which also our first edition, p. 182, agreed. "Wendt zu Tennemann, i. 286. Eitter's reasons for this theory are the following: First, because Empedocles, according to Aristotle {sup. p. 128, 2), opposed fire to the three other elements in
; ;

i. 3, held fire to be the divine essence of things. Thirdly, because Empedocles himself, v. 215 (209, 282 M), says that Cj-pris gave fire the dominion. This last statement is based on an oversight the words are x^<JJ' Sow irvpl dwKe Kparvvat, she gave over earth to fire to harden it.' The statement

tus, Refut.

'

of Hippolytus
on.

we

shall refute later

first

In regard to Eitter's

and

''

principal reason, Empedocles may very well have considered fire as more excellent than the other elements, and Love as preferable to Hate, without therefore making the former element the substratum of the latter. He places Love and Hate as two independent principles beside the four elements, and this
is

in so doing appears have regarded it as superior to them for he considers the male sex as the warmer, refers want

common, and
to
;

required by his whole point of every combination of matter, even if no fire contributes to it, is the work of Love, and every sepa-

view

ration,
is

even

if it

be

eflfected

by

fire,

of intelligence to coldness of blood, and represents death and sleep as caused by the wasting of the fire Secondly, because (vide infra). Empedocles, according to Hippoly-

the work of Hate. ' P. 388 Si veto his vnvolucris Empedoclis rationem exuamu^, sententia hv.c ftre redit : tin am esse vim earnqiie divinam rraindum continentem ; hanc per qu at u or element a quasi Dei rnemhra, ut ipse
:

142

EMPEDOCLES.
writers represent

modern
which

Love
;

as the sole basis of all

things and the sole reality

lies

and Hate as something

^
:

only in the imagination of mortal beings

whereas the whole procedure of Empedocles shows that

he never attempted to reduce the various primitive forces and primitive substances to one primitive essence.^

The

reasons for this

dicated,

and

will

phenomenon have been already appear more clearly later on.

;

in-

ea appellaf, sparsam esse, camqiie ccrni potissiimim in duplici actionc,

distractione et contractinne, quarum hanc conjunct io7iis, ordinis,

omnis dcnique bo)ii, illam pugna, perfurbationis omnisque mali principiiim esse:

for before refer it to individuals Hate has separated the elements, which wore mingled together in
this primitive state, there

were no

harum mutua
et

vi et
effici,

ordincm mundi
oivnesque
res

mutationes
generari,

tarn,

dimias quam
all,

humanas
variari.
'

perpetuo

Cf. Sirapl. p. 700, 1.

i. 544, just quoted

Ritfer, Gesch. d. Phil.

558.

The statement

individual existences that could be in fault. It is also quite incorrect to say that Hate in the end perishes, and is at last nothing more than the limit of the whole for even if it is excluded from the Sphairos, it has not therefore ceased to exist it still continues, but so long as the time of peace
;
;

hardly agrees with

this.

The

re-

futation of his theory, as well as that of Karsten, is involved in the whole of this exposition. Ritter urges in defence of his view (1), the utterance of Aristotle, Metaph. and (2) that the power iii. 1 and 2 of Hate only extends over that
;

part of existence which, through its own fault, violently separates

itself

lasts as

from the whole, and only long as the fault continues. The fir.'^t argument has already been refuted (p. 131, 1), and the second is based on an improper combination of two doctrines, which Empedocles himself did not com-

lasts, it cannot act, because its union with the other elements is interrupted. (Empedocles's conception of Hate during this period is similar to that of Christianity in regard to the devil after the last judgment, existing, but inactive.) Later indeed it again attains to power, and becomes strong enough to de;troy the unity of the Sphairos as it did in the beginning of the This it development. world's could not have done, if in the opinion of Empedocles it were something unreal. Cf. also Brandis, Rhei7i. Mus. (edition of Niebuhr and Brandis), iii. 125 sqq.
2 The duality of the forces acting in the universe is therefore specified by Aristotle as the distinguishing doctrine of Empedocles. Metaph. i. 4, sup. p. 140, 2; 138, 2.

He refers the dividing of the Sphairos, through Hate, to a universal necessity, and not to the guilt of individuals (vide infra) and it is impossible he should
bine.
;

LOVE AM) HATE.

far

143

from

Such statements then as the foregoing are certainly satisfactory. These determinate things, formed

and changed with fixed regularity, could never result

from the combination and separation of substances unless
this alternation of

matter proceeded according to fixed

laws to that
this

effect.^

Empedocles did

so little to supply

want that we can only suppose he was not conscious

of

it.

He

calls,

indeed, the uniting force

^

harmony

but this does not imply

that the admixture of sub-

stances takes place according to a definite measure, but

only that the substances are combined by Love.

He

gives, in regard to certain objects, the proportions in

which the different substances of which they are composed are mingled in them.'*
Aristotle shows, Gen. et Corr. ii. 6 (supra, p. 139 n.). 2 V. 202. 137. 39i (214 sq., 25, ap. Mull. 2U, 175, 23). ^ As Porphyry infers, doubtless
*

Aristotle believes
opfiiadslaa
fx^i^wv efre

'^

that
eV

As

Kv-nrpiSos

reXtiois

Kifxeveaatu,

ur hXiyov
iK

-X^ov icn\v

iXaacr'xv.

rwv

alixd

re

y^yro Kai &XXrjs

from V. 202,' ap. Simpl. Sckol. in Aruit. 59 b, 45

Sok\(7
.
.

Catcff.

ei5eo (TapKos.
^ Part. Anim. i. 1, 642 a, 17: iviaxov 5e irov avTTJ [rp <pva^^,^ Kal

'E^ttc-

airh rrjs iuapfioviov

TttS TToioTTjras

twv
ava-

(TTOixeiuv
<paivovTi.
*

/ii'leois

'EuiredoKXris
vtt'

Tr^pnrinTsi,
a\7]ee'ias,

ay6/j.euos

V. 198 (211), on the formation of the bones

:

avTTji
/cal

TTjs

Kal

tV

ovcriav
(pafai

ttjv

(pmiv auayKa^crai
eifai,
*

Tov Xoyov

olou o(ttovv

iVffT^pVOlS

XodyoKTi SoLu rwu oKTu (jLep4wv Xdx^ N7]crTt5os

a^yXrjs, recrcrapa 5" 'HtpaiTTOio' to.
5"

ocrea
darire-

ovre yhp '4v ti Toi'V (TToix^iccy Xeyei avrh ovre dvo ovre travra, aXXa Xoyov r^y 7] Tpia ixi^eas avTwu. JDe An. i. 4, 40S a, eKacrrou yap avruv [rcav ^^Xuv'\ 19
:

hiTohiZovs Ti iariv

XfuKo.
apfjLOv'nis

yhovro
aprjpoTa

Xoycf}

rivL
i.

<pr\cnv

ehai [6

"EjUt.].

koXXt](Tiv

Metaph.

10.

The

earlier philo-

alTjdey.

Y. 203 (215):
r]

sophers had indeed derived all things from four kinds of causes, but only in an obscure and imperXct)

5e

x^^v rovroKTiv
(j.iyil(Ta

aweKvpae
/coi

feet
7}

manner: ^^XXi^o^ivri yapioiK^p

(piXo<ro<pia
irepl

irpct)TT7

trai/Twu,

'H(pai(rTCf}

oix&po:

re

auQipi

irafxcpapowyTi,

ore v^a re Kal Kar' apxas udcra rh vpurov, eVet Kal Eair^^oKXris oarovv
'

U4
this

EMPEDOCLES.
involves the thought that
tlie

essence of things

lies in their

form.

If so,

that thought, as even Aris-

totle admits, is not actually expressed

it

by Empedocles

seems rather like an involuntary confession.

it

He

appears never to have regarded

versal principle, as
is

in the light of a uni-

clear

from the evidence adduced

by

Aristotle, for in the various passages in

is

which the

subject

mentioned, he refers solely to the verse on

tlie

the formation of

bones.

He

can have found in

Empedocles nothing approaching to any universal law

such as Heracleitus enunciates in his propositions concerning the Reason of the world and the gradations of
the

elementary changes. Empedocles further derives

a

much from

movement

of the elements, which

fortuitous.

is

not not
are

farther explained, and

is so far

He had

arrived at the doctrine that all natural

phenomena

regulated by law.^
Tw
^.070;
4>-r](T\v

eifai,
t)

rh ri
'

fiv elvai

Kol

tovto 8' eVrl ovaia tov irpdy-

81a,

rh

rr]v yrji/ ovro} (pepecrdai

fxaros.

Arist. Gen. et Corr. 6, after tovto the words quoted, p. 138, 3 5' ioTlv 7] ovaia r] iKaffTov, aW' ov lx6vov, ' piii,i-s Te StaAA.a$is re /xr/eV:

waavKara Suero ptXais." (The two x^^*'" verses are v. 166 sq., St. 203 sq, K, 259 sq. M.) Phi/s. ii. 4, 196 a. 19: Empedocles says ovk ael Thv aipa
Kara tws)
<pv(riu.

&vw 5e dia rh

irvp

S' aldrip. (p-nai,

" /xaKpijai

Tcoi'" uxnrep

fKuuos

(prjatv

tvxv

5'

auooTOLTO} avoKpiuecrdai,

aW'

Situs

tt,v

4nl TOVTuiy ovofid^eTai (cf. E/up. v. 39, s/fpra), aAX' 01'; xdyos' taTi yap
IxLXSrjvai COS iTvx^v.
;t,

Ibid. p.

1,

sup. p. 123,

(to

334 which noth-

Tv^rjior which the words outw crweKvpae, etc., are then quoted. Phys. viii. 1, 252 a, 5 (against Plato) Ka\ yap %oiKTh ovtw \4yeiu
:

ing new is added by Philop. in h. I. 59 b) SiiKpLvc fxlv yap rb v^Ikos, T]vex&V 5' avca 6 aldrip ovx vno tov
:

TrAdtr/xaTi ixciWov.

dfioiras Se Ka\ Th ^eyeiv 'dTiirtcpvKfv ovtcos Kal TavTrjv

5e? vo/j.i(iv eluai apxT]v, (ivep eoinev

'EjUTrtSofcATjs tiV elirely,

veiKovs.
a-rrh

aA\' ^re fiev (prfaiv wcmep Tvxr]S, " ovtw yap avueKupa-e

Ka\ Kive7u eV /xepei

us rh Kparelv t^v (piXiav Kal

QioiV tStc,
(f>r}cri

&Wodi

5'

aWws," dre

5e

TT^puKeuai rh irvp dvca (pfpfadai

(cf. Dc An. ii. 4, 415 b, 28: Empedocles says plants grow k6.tu /xiv

rb v^Ikos virdpx^i toIs irpdyfiaaiv e| dvay/crjy, ripe/jLcTv 5e rhu fxera^v Similarly 1. 19 sqq. Cf. XP"'"'"'Plato, Laws, x. 889. What Ritter

CHANGES IX THE UNIVERSE.

145

11. THE

WORLD AND

ITS PARTS.

The The

four

elements are imderived and imperishable.

forces are also eternal.

efficient
is

Their relation,
is

however,

constantly altering, and so the universe

subject to change, and our present world to generation

and destruction.

Love and Hate are equally

original

says in "Wolf's Analekten, ii. 4, 438 in order to justify Empedocles against the censure of Aristotle, is not sufficient for this purpose.
sq.
,

160 ; Pint. Plac. i. 26) accordingly defines the Empedoclean avdyKti as the essence which makes use of
the (material) elements and of the causes. Plutarch, An. Procr. 27, 2, p. 1026, sees in Love and Hate what is elsewhere called destiny and Simplicius [sup. p. 141, 1) maintains more explicitly that Empedocles reduced the elemental opposites to Love and Hate,

Empedocles, V. 369 (1), describes Transmigration as an ordinance of necessity and as an

ancient decree of the gods, is of little importance as also that he represented, V. 139 {%^, 177 M), the alternating periods of Love and Hate as determined by an irreversible oath or covenant {TrXarhs 'dpKos). That, no doubt, involves that every period must follow an unchanging order, but this order still appears as an incomprehensible positive ordinance, and as such is only maintained in regard to these individual cases, not in the form of a universal law of the world, as with Hfracleitus. Cicero, Be fato, c. 17, sub init., says that Empedocles and others taught Omnia itafato fieri, ut id fatura vim necessitatis Simplicius, Phys. lOfi a, afferret.
; :

That

(moving)

and Love and Hate

Themist. Phys. 27
b,

to
p.

avdyKrf.

reckons auayK-q with Love and Hate

among

his
i.

efficient

causes.
vol.
i.

Ston.),

bseus. Eel.

60 (sup.

612

says that according to the most prO'^ bable reading and opinion, he held afdyKT) to be the uniform primitive base which, in regard to substance, divides itself into the four elements, and according to its form, into Love and Hate. Stobseus (i.

191 sq. includes Empedocles among those philosophers who spoke of avdyKri in the sense of matter* These are all later interpretations which can tell us nothing concerning what he really taught, and which, therefore, ought not to have found credence with Eitter, Gesch. d. Phil, i, 544. They no doubt proceed either from V. 369 (1) sqq., or from the analogy of Stoic, Platonic, and Pythagorean doctrines, or still more likely from a desire to find in Empedocles a uniform principle. Perhaps, indeed, Aristotle in tbe passage quoted above, Phys. viii. 1, may have given occasion to them. This passage, however, only refers, as is clear, to Emp. V. 139 sqq. (vide infra). Aristotle's cautious language shows that he cannot be alluding to any more definite explanation.
]

VOL.

II.

146

EMPEDOCLES.
;

balanced

and equally powerful but they are not always equally eacli has dominion alternately.^ At one time
:
'^

the elements are brought together by Love, and at

by Hate.^ Now the world combined into a unity, and again it is split up into Each process, according to plurality and oppositions. on until on the one hand complete Empedocles, goes
another they are torn asunder
is

union, or on the other complete separation, of the ele-

ments

is

effected
life

and equally long does the movement

is

of natural

continue, and individual existences arise

;

and pass away

'

but as soon as the goal

&WoT
fladKev
S'

reached this

KoL

V. 110(138, 145 M): yap Koi irdpos ?iv re Koi iaaerai,

ouSe TTOT,
o'loo,

aS Six eKaCTa (popevfieva

crvfxcpvvra

ve'iKeos ^xd^i,
&*/

rh irav vndvepde

rovruu
V Se

afjicpoTepdOf Keivaxrerai affire-

y4vr]Tai.

Tos alwv. /we'pet KpaTeovai irepnrKofxevoio

kvkKoio,

Text and interpretation are here equally uncertain we might con;

jecture
Kai aij^erai eV
Tzav,

Siatpvura

or

ZiaipvpT

eVl

KoX (pBivei
fiepei

fh &\Xn]Xa
a'lcrrjs.

The
;

subject, us is clear

from cm "to-

but this would only partially mend the matter. Mullach translates the text as it stands Donee
:

Tfpwv, is Love and Hate, of. V. 89 supra, p. 125, 2 end. sq. 2 V. 61 sqq. si<p. p. 123, n., where I give my reasons for dis;

qu(B concreta ftierunt penitus suc-

cubuerint

but I cannot think that

Empedocles could have expressed

this in so far-fetched a manner.
3

agreeing viith Karsten, p. 196 sq., and for altering my own previous I opinion in regard to this verse. nowreferit,not to individual things, but \Nith Plato, Soph. 242 D sq.;
Arist. Phi/s. viii. 1, 250 b, 26, and his commentators (vide Karsten, 197, 366 sq.) to the alternating V. 69 conditions of the world.
sqq. (sup. p. 123
;

Plato,
I.

/.
:

c.

Slip.

p.

Arist.
ovra),
e/c

c.

'EfXTredoKXTJs

1 38, 3 ; eV /xcpei

KivelcrQai Kai

irdXiv

ripe/j-elv

(sc.
7]

ra

Kiue7a6at.
Troifj

fx\v,

'drav
fj

<pi\ia

iroWcbv
e^

to ef
^^yc^t'

rh veiKos
S'

TToWa
ixera^v

evhs, rjpefxe7v

eV ro7s

XP^^^^>
ibid.
ibid.
i.
;

ovtc4)S

(V.
(sup.

69-73);
144, 1)

p.
4,

252
187
a,

a,

5
:

24

ciairep
e/c

125,

n.

V. 114

'EyUTTeSo/cATjs Ka\

'Ava^aySpas'
S'

tou

(140, 149 avTO. yap^ffTiv Tar;Ta(the elements),

M):

ixiy/xaros

yap Ka\ ovtoi

iroielv

eKKpivovcri

T&Wa.
rhu
S'
1.

tC
yiyvovT

a.\\-f}\o)v Se
6.udpo^Troi
0^'T)Taj^,

Oeovra re Kai

&\Kwv

edvca

aXXi^Xwv t^ tovtcov rhu arra$. Be Coelo, i. 10 sup. p. 66, Later testimony, ap. Sturz, p.
Sia(pepovai
fiev itepioSov
;

&\\0T
fls

/xev

(piXSTTiTi
K6rTfX0U,

(rvvepx<^H-^v'

256 sqq.

iva

CHANGES IX THE UXIVERSE.

movement
separated
it is
;

147

stops, the

elements cease to combine and to

absolutely intermingled or
this condition until

separate, because they are

and they

will

remain in

changed by a new impulse in an opposite direction.

life

Thus the

of the world describes a circle

the abso-

lute unity of substances, the transition from this to their

separation, absolute separation,

and return
it
is

to unity, are

the four stages through which

in endless reiteration.
it

constantly passing

In the second and fourth stages,

is

manifests itself in the separate existence of compo-

site
first

beings
stage,

here alone

natural

life

possible

in the

on the other hand, which admits of no separation of the elementary substances, and in the third,

which does not admit of their combination, indi\-idual The periods of movement and existence is excluded.
of natural life therefore alternate regularly with those

of rest and the cessation of natural

life.^

each of these periods

'

is

supposed to
Kara rhu
ture,
i.

last,

But how long and whether

ineiSay

So Aristotle says in the passages quoted from Phys. viii. 1; and the statement is confirmed by V. 60 sqq. of Empedocles, according to the sense given to this verse not to mention later siipra, p. 124 writers dependent on Aristotle, as Themist. Fki/s. 18 a, 58 a (124, 409 Sp.), and Simpl. Phys. 258 b, 272 b. Logical consistency besides w-ould seem to require that Empedocles should admit on the one side a complete separation, if he admitted on the other a complete intermixture, of substances. "WTien,
;

(r<pa7pou eK^ex^rai.

airavraa-vyKpidij

Brandis's conjec-

'EuiredoKATJs for EvStj/jlos

207, that -we should read seems to me erroneous), this must be considered one-sided; though Empedocles may himself have given occasion to such a view by having

therefore, Eudemus, Phys. viii. 1, refers the time of rest only to the union of the elements in the SphaiEvorjixos Se rrjy ros (Simpl. 27 b aKivTjiriav iu rp t^s ^jAics iiriKpareia
:

described the Sphairos alone with any exactitude, and having passed over without mention, or with very cursory mention, the opposite condition of absolute separation. Eitter's doubt (i, 551) whether Empedocles was in earnest as to the doctrine of the changing cosmical periods is sanctioned as little by his own utterances as by the testimony of others.

L 2

148

EMPEDOCLES,
by

their duration was ever precisely determined

pedocles, there
is

Em-

no certain evidence to showJ In the intermixture of all substances, with the

description of which the cosmogony of our philosopher

began,^ none of the four elements appeared separately.

This

and since perfect union excludes all influence of the dividing principle, Empedocles says
;

medley and unmoved

is
^

afterwards

described

as

spherical

that Hate was not present in

the the statement, V. 369 (1) sqq., presently to be mentioned, that sinful daemons are to wander about in the world for 30,000 Sipai. But it is a question whether we should infer (with Panzerbieter, Beitr. p. 2) from this a similar duration of the cosmical periods since the daemons must have lived before the commencement of their wanderings, and were to live afterwards and the connection of this doctrine with the Empedoclean physics is very slight. It is of little consequence whether by the Tp\s jxupiai wpai we understand, with Mullach {Emp. Prooem. 13 sqq.) 30,000 years, or with Bakhuizen van den Brink, Var. Led. 31 sqq., and Krische, in Plat. PhcBd. p. 66, 30,000 seasons, i.e. 10,000 years. The latter opinion is supported partly by the language and partly by the analogy of the Platonic doctrine. Cf. Part
*

it."*

He
Kpvcpw,

calls

the world
KvTei (Stein,

The only hint we have on

is

ouTws

a.pixovi7]s TTvKLvi^

subject

K:
b
:

Simpl. Phys. 272,

Kpvcpa) icrriipiKTai,

(T(pa7pos

KvKKoTpT]s /xoviri irepiT]yei (the repose which spread throughout the whole circle)
yaiwv.

The Sphairos is described as at rest by Aristotle and Eudemus,

Philop. Gen. et Corr. 5 a, in reference to the verse quoted above.
I.

c.

calls it aTToios,
*

V. 175 (171, 162 M):

e'l

tcDj/

8e

(Tvvepxoixepiou
"NflKos.

ecrxo-Tov

'lararo

This verse relates immediately indeed, not to the state of unity as completed, but only as

but it may easily be applied to the former if the process of combination begins with the dispossession of Hate, when unity

commencing

is

completed Hate must be wholly

out.

cast

Aristotle,

therefore

II. a,
'^

684, 694 sq., third edition.

Cf. inf. p.

V.
Qvr

sq.
tvff

K.

150 sq. 134 sqq. (64, 72 sq.. 59 170 sqq. M): a<^aipov i-qv.
r]eXioio SeSiV/ccTot
(

{Meiaph iii. 4; vide sup. 139, 1), may have quoted this verse to prove that Hate has part in everything outside the Sphairos awavra yap 4k rovTov tSAAo eVrj irK^v 6
:

5et-

Kuvrai) ayXahv eJSos,

oiiSe fxkv ov5' afrjs

Ada toy

fxlvos ouSe

QaKaaaa.

yovv (V. 104 sqq. s^ip. Koi XupXs Se rovTcav briKou- el yap fxrj fiv rh j/et/cos iv rots TTpdy(jLa(nu, eu au ^v airavra, ws (pr]aiv oTav yap avveKOr], r6Te 5', " eo"XaTov 'LaraTO ve^Kos'" Sib Koi, condeos- Keyei
;

130,

1)

THE SPHAIROS.
form,
Sphairos,

149

in this state of intermixture, because of its spherical

its

usual

designation

among

later
^

writers.

Aristotle uses instead the expressions fih/fia

and

IV.^

It is also called Deity,^ but not in a

it as

manner
and

that justifies our considering

a personal being.

Empedocles gave
interpretations
efficient
tinues
vifj.ov

this

name

to the elements also,

Plato to the visible

of

world.'*

Later writers adopt various

:

the

Sphairos

formless
of

matter,^
Stoics,^

cause,^

the

primeval
avrw
(pp6-

fire

the

Aristotle,

av^^a^vei

rhu evSaifiovearaTov OeovTiTTOV

cluai Tcoy
^ei TO.

aWwv' ov "yap yvuplaroix^la Tzavra' rh yao v7icos ovK e;^ez, rj Se '}va}(ris rov oixoiov rw
onoicf.

Cf.
et

xiv.

5,

1092

b,

g';

Corr. i. 1 (sup. p. 131, 1). The theory of Simpl. De Ccelo, 236 b, 22 Sckol. in Arist. 507 a, 2
;

Gen.

Phys. 7 b, that Hate also has part in the Sphairos, is founded on wrong interpretation. Cf. on a this point and vith Brandis, Bhein. Mus. iii. 131 Kitter, Gesch. d.
ef.
;

Phil.
'

i.

o^e.

Metaph. xii. 2, 1069 b, 21 1075 b, 4; xiv. 5, 1092 b, Phys. i. 4, 187 a, 22. 6 2 Metaph. i. 4, 985 a, 27 iii. Gen. et Corr. 4, 1000 a, 28 b, 11 i. 1, 315 a, 6, 20; Phys. i. 4, sub
c,

10,

the gods. Besides, Empedocles never characterised the Sphairos as the Deity,' but only as Deity. The well-known verses on the spirituality of Grod, as we shall presently see, do not refer to the Sphairos. Aristotle first called the Sphairos o 6e6s, but it does not follow that Empedocles called it so. * Philop. Gen. et Corr. p. 5 a but this is only, strictly speaking, a development of the consequences by means of which Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 1, 315 a, had already refuted Empedocles. In Phys. H. 13 (ap. Karsten, 323 Sturz, 374 sq.) he acknowledges that the substances are actually mingled in the Sphairos. A similar inference is
' ;

init.
'

deduced by Arist. Metaph. xii. 6, 1072 a, 4, and subsequently by Alex, in h. I. from the doctrine of
the efficient forces, viz., that Empedocles supposed the Actual to have preceded the Possible. 8 Themist. Phys. 18 a, 124 sq. probably a careless use of the interpretation mentioned by Simpl. Phys. 33 a. ^ Hippol. Befut. vii. 29 {sup. This statement, to which 129, 2). Brandis attaches far too much importance (i. 295), and which betrays great ignorance of the Empedoclean

Vide sup. 148,

(^70,

4,

142

180

M)

iravra

and Emp. v, yap l|ei7?s

ire\eixi^eTO yv7a Oeaiio,

* It is, therefore, strange that Gladisch should suy {Emped. u. d. Aeg. 33 cf. Anaxag. u. d. Isr. xxii.) 'Empedocles could not have called a mere mixture of the elements the Deity.' The whole world is, according to Empedocles, a mere mixture of the elements,
;
:

and so also are human souls and

150

EMPEDOCLES.
all

the intelligible world of Plato/ are

sions,

misapprehen-

which we may spare ourselves the trouble of re-

futing.

The opinion
and

that
is

the Sphairos has only an

ideal existence,
for

merely a figurative expression

erroneous.

the unity and harmony underlying the changeful

is

phenomenon,^
Aristotle,
self.^

equally

This

theory

is

contradicted by the explicit declarations of Plato and

and by the explanations of Empedocles him-

Moreover, such a discrimination between the

ideal essence of things

and their phenomenon tranthe

pre-Socratic

scends
physics.

the

general

standpoint of

world

could only arise when the primitive sub-

stances separated, or, in the language of Empedocles,

when the Sphairos became divided by Hate.^

doctrine, cannot be considered as historical evidence. Its only foundation is probably the analogy between the doctrines of Empedocles
^ Steinhart, similarly Fries,
^ *
I.

He
p.

tells

c.

91 sqq.

i.

188.

Cf. inf. 151, 1.

nSayLos, in contradistinction

and Heracleitus on the changing

conditions of the cosmos, on the strength of which, Clemens, Strom, V. 599 B, attributes to Empedocles the opinion that the world will be

to the o-^aTpos a distinction which,

accortling to Simplicins, Empedocles himself had explicitly introdiiced.

Cf.

Be
Trap'

Cado,
b,

139
22)
:

b,

16

(8chol. in Ar.
5id<popa

489

'E^utt.

destroyed by fire. * The Neo-Platonists concerning whom Karsten, p. 369 sqq.,

cf.

twv

avTcp

kSct/jlcov

ra

326, gives us
note
4..

many

particulars

cf. inf.

read in Thcol. Aritkm. p. 8 sq., that Empedocles, Parmenides, &c., taught like the Pythagoreans r^y fiouadiKriu (pvaiv 'EcTTias TpdiTov iv f^icrcp ISpmOai Kol Sia Th Icrop^oirov (pvKdaanu rrjv but this seems to reavTTjv eSpav fer, not to the Sphairos, but to Love, which is in ^he centre of the rotating cosmical matter (V. 172 ; vide v>f. p. 152, 1.
: ;

We

us kol ouSfxaai. xpV(^^o.^ 5ia(p6puis, rhv /jl^v a(pa7pov tov hi Koajxov Kvpiccs naXwv. ^ Plato (sz^jj). p. 138, 3) therefore derives the multiplicity of things from Hate, and Aristotle still more dci'idedly characterises the present period of the world as the one in which Hate reigns. Gen. et Corr, a/xa Se Kal rhv k6(tii. 6, 334 a, 5 fxov oixoiws ex^'*' <pVf^^^^ fTri re rov Tiponpou eVl ttjs ve'iKovs vvv koX Be Ccelo, iii. 2, 301 a, 14 : <l>i\ias. if we wish to expound the origin of
eUr} {siqyra, note 1) eKeyev,
:

FORMATlOX OF THE WORLD.

us, therefore, that in course of

151

time Hate grew up in

; ^

the Sphairos and sundered the elements

separation was fully accomplished,
the
-vp-orld,

Love came

when the in among

we must begin with that

state which preceded the division and separation of matter its preew Zucttutuiv Se kol sent state Kiuovfxivup ovK evXoyov ^ivai tt^u
:

cpiXlasrh vsTkos, koctuos effrlu^&Writf riva Kiuov/xeyos KivT,(nv koL ovx &y
<pi\ia Kal ro vsIkos KitoiKTiy. This interpretation is found even earlier, for Hermias, who certainly must have taken it from others, represents (Irris. e. 4) Empedocles as saying: rb v^Ikos irozel irdyra. With the later Neo-Platonists, according to Simp. Pki/s. 7 b, the prevailing opinion was that the Sphairos was produced by Love alone, and this world by Hate alone. More pre7]

because in this case, as it on p. 300 b, 19, there would have been a -world antecedent to the world Sih koL 'E/zTreyivea-iu
is
;

said

SoK\rjs

napa\i'nrL
(sc.

ti]v

ini

rrjs

(piAoT-qTOS

y^ytaij/)' ov

yap ay
e/c

idwaro avaTTJaai rhv ovpavov.

Kxocpt(TiJ.^v<vv
fj.hu

KaraaKevdCuy

(TvyKpicriv 5e iroiuv ^la tt]v (piKoTT^ra'

cisely,
ihid.

Simpl. De
b, 7;

Cczlo,

I.

c.

(cf.

K SiaKeKpiixeucov yap (Tvvi(TTT)Kv 6 Kocr/xos Tiiv (rToixdoiiv, war' avay^ Koiov yiueaBai i^ evos Kal air/h.eFollowiag this precedent, Hpif/.i/ov. Alexander regards Hate absolutely as the author of the world (Simpl.
J)e Coblo,

263

Schul.
iy

512 b, 14):
iy raviu>
ti

lxT)iTQre Ofi,

Kav

iiTLicpaTfi

T^

velicQS

uanep
;

rc^ (7(paipcfi

d\?C &IJ.0CO I'x' afjicpolv Xeyovrai yiveaOai this is only untrue in respect to the Sphairos. Theodor(piXia,

236

b, 9,

20

Schol.

or at any rate of the present world. In Philop. Gen^ it Corr. o9 b, he observes on Arist. Gen. et Corr. ii. 6 if by the koV}xos we understand the condition in which the elements were separated by Hate, or were again brought toge:her by Love, Hate and Lov wovild be the only moving if, on the forces in the kokt/xos other hand, we understand by the Koa-ixGS the corporeal mass which underlies the Sphairos as well as the present world, w must attribute to it a movement of its own ; ^ 6jj.oius, (brfffl, KOfffios Kal ravrou iari Ka\ Kivilrai iwi re rod yeiKOvs pvv Kal eVi rr\s oiKias Trporepov iy Sh rots fiera^v 5taA.eiVjuacri rup u;r' eKeiywv yivoixivwv Kivha^wv, Trporepov re ore ck rod veiaovs eireKpdTT]trev 7] (p.kia, nal yvv ore iK r^s
Arist.

5U7

a, 1),

Prodr. JJe Amic. v. 52, calls Hate the creator of the terrestrial world in contradistinction to the Sphairos, but this is unimportant. V. 139 (66, 177 M):
'

abrkp
is

iitei

jxeya NeT/css ivl

fi.e\4e<T-

(Tiy iOpecpdr]

rifxas

ayopovae riXeiop-ivoio
irdp'' iX-fj-

Xpovoio,
OS
(X<p\.y

ajxex^cuos -nXareos
(al. -ro)

Xarai
Trap'

opnov

instead of Trape\r]\arai necessary in sj)ite of ]\Iullach's contradiction, Emp. Pr.

iK.

seems to

me

'

p. 7 ; Fragm. 1.43; cf. Bonitz and Schwegler, in Metaph. iii. 4, who also defend this emendation. Y.l 42 {sup. p. 149, 3); Pint. Fac. Lun. 12,

TTuv Kal

5 sq., p. 926, where it is quite possible that the words X(>ip).s rh ^apv x^P''^ "^^ Kovcpuv may contain

Empedoclean expressions.

15:

EMPEDOCLES.

the divided masses, and produced at one point a whirl-

ing motion, by which

mingled, and Hate (this
for the

part of
is

the

substances

was

merely another expression

was forming

same process) was excluded from the circle that As this motion extended more and itself. more, and Hate was forced further and further away, the substances yet unmingled were drawn into the
mass, and from their combination sprang the present

world and mortal creatures.*

But

as

the world had

all

a beginning, so it will also have

an end, when

things, through continued unity, shall have returned

to the primitive condition of the Sphairos.^

The

as-

sertion that this destruction of the world would be by

' Ttius vre mnst tinderstHnd the following verses, 171 (167, 191

Ccopd T TO. irph

M):iirel

rwv
fxlu

K\(v60VS' Se T6 fj.i(Tyofx4vo}V X^*^' iOvca

fxvpia 6i"r]Twv,
IBericriu a.pr)p6ra,

Netfros

eviprarov

'lk^to

185. iravTolris

6av-

fia ISeadai.
SiVrjs,

eV 5e

ixea-p

^iX6t7]S cfrpo(pd-

evfl"

Xiyyi y4ur]rai, ^Stj TctSe irdvra irvv4px^rai eu

fx6vov eivai,

The

OirriTa

tures,

but, generally

ovK &(pap, a\\' ideXriixa (rvviardpL^v &\\o6ev &XKa.

17o. ru>u Se (Tvupxofxevaiv e|
^crX'^-

Tov

'[(TTaro Ke'iKos.

voKXa
Offer''

S' &iJ.iX^' eVrrj/ce

K^paioixivoi-

(Tiv

ivaWd^,
epvK fxerdpffLOV ov
ctt'

%ri Ue^Kos

yap

afXix(p4cA}S

TrdvTCos i^e(TT7]Keu

e^rxaTO Tfp-

that is decay. 2 Authorities for this have already been given at the commenceCf. also ment of this section. Arist. Metapk. iii. 4, 1000 b, 17 aAA.' Ofxcms roffovrSv ye X4yei o/xoXoyovp.4v(as (6 'E^utt.) ov yap to. fiev (pOapTO. ra Se &(p6apTa TroieT rcou vvrwv, aXXa iravra (pdapra irX^v tcDi/
:

are not, only living creaspeaking, all subject to generation and

/xara kvkKov,

ffroLx^icov.

Empedocles, therefore,

aWa
180.

TO

ixeu t' ivf/j-i/xve /xeXecvv, to.

54 T ih^f^VKei.
'Sffffov S'

aleu vireKirpodeoi, rdffov

T]in6(ppcov

^i?<6rr]s

re koi

e/jLireaev

ai'\ia

&lx^poTOS opjJL-h' Se fl^-riT' icpvovro ra Trp\v [xddov

as Karsten, p. 378, rightly observes, never calls the gods aUu iSpres, as Homer does, but only SoAtxo"''"'fs> y. 107, 126, 373 (135, 161, 4 K; The destruction 131, 141, 5 M). of all things puts an end even to the existence of the gods.

aOdvar' elvai.

FOBMATIOX OF THE WORLD.

fire
^

153

is

doubtless founded on a confusion of the doctrine

of Empedocles with that of Heracleitus.^

In this cosmogony there

all

is

a striking lacuna.

If

individual existence depends upon a partial union of

the elements, and ceases

when they

are wholly

mingled

or wholly separated, particular existences

must come
to

into being as

much when

the Sphairos dissolves into

the elements as
unity.

when the separated elements return

is

In the one case a world

Aristotle
^

formed by the sepa-

ration of the mingled, on the other

by the union

of

the separated.

actually ascribes this opinion

and that philosopher same sense. In the more precise development of the cosmogony, however, he seems to speak only of that formation of the
expresses himself, generally speaking, in the

to Empedocles, as has been shown,

world which follows the division of the elements throuo^h

Hate.

To

this all the

possess relate;^
sqq.) appear to
sition of

fragments and accounts which we and the verses quoted above (V. 171 leave no room for a more detailed expo-

what occurred and resulted when the elements

derived the formation of the greater masses, as the sky and the sea, primarily from the operation of Strife and that of organic beings from the operation of Love. This view must be greatly modified by the evidence quoted above (cf. Arist. Be Coelo, iii. 2). and by the nature of the case. Love forms both but in combining the elements -which had been separated by strife, it necessarily first produced the great masses, compounded in a simpler manner, and organic beings only in the sequel,
; ;

is

Vide 5?<27m, 149, 7. Such evidence as we possess very inadequate the most trust'

worthy "writers are entirely silent on this point. Besides, it seems inconceivable that the unity of all

elements should be brought about

by

their

conflagration, in

-which

Empedocles could only have seen

a transformation into one element, which, according to his principles, -was impossible. ' Similarly Alexander, vide supra, p. 150, 5. * Brandis, c. /. 201, remarks that Empedocles seems to have

154

EMPEDOCLES.

were separated out of

tlie midst of the Sphairos. It would seem that Empedocles did not himself notice

this deficiency in his exposition.

The

process of the world's formation he conceived

as follows.^

Out of the whirling mass in which

all

the
first

elements had been shaken together by Love, the air

separated
itself,

and condensing on the outermost rim,

After this

surrounded the whole like a hollow sphere.^

fire

broke forth, and occupied the upper space, next to

the outermost concave, while the air was forced under

'

Cf. Plut. ap. Eus.

/C

10

TTpdiTTlS

(\)7](t\

T7JS

Prap. i. 8, TWV CTTOlaef,a

Xeioj;'

Kpaaeus awoKpid^uTa rhv

Trepixvi^vvai KVKXcp' /xera 5e rhy aepa

ovk xoy ^Tcpav viro rod irepl rhy depa Trdyou. Plac. ii. 6, -i 'E. rhv fxev alQfpa irpuTOV SiaKpidrjuai, SevTepov 5e rh TrDp, e</)' w rr}v yrjv,
irvp iKdpaixhv KUi
X<iopav, avo)

rh

upper air and the lower. According to Eustath. zn Od. i. 320, Empedocles called fire Kapira\ifj.u}s av6iraiov, the swiftly aspiring, perhaps in the connection spoken of by
Aristotle,
'^

eKTpe;^eiJ/

loc. cit.

e^ fs

ayau

irepia(pLyyo/j.i/Tis rfj pvfxr)

TTJsirepKpopcts

ou

6ui.Liad?]vai

rhv
rwi>

/xeu

ava^Kvaai to v8wp, i^ rhu aepa* /cat yevecrOai ovpauhv eK rod ald4pos, Thu
e/c

?e T^Kiov

TOVTrvphs.TTiXridrivai
TO.
ii.

b' e/c

&Wuu
et

wepiycia.

Arist.

Gen.

Corr.

{'^itp.

p. 14i, 1).

Emp.
el
5'

V. 130 (182, 233

M) :
A.e|a>
irpcoff

&ye vvv rot iyu

Tjkiou

to Stob. Eel. i. egg-shaped, or rather lentilshaped. His words are: 'EjU.7r.T01; i/i//oiis rov airh tt/s yrjs eoos ovpavov Tr\Lova eJvai t/jj/ Kara rb ttAoTos 8id(TTa(nv, Kara tovto tov ovpavov /AuWov avaTT^TTTafxivov, hia rh WW TrapairKriaicDS rhv KoapLov Ke7a6ai. This opinion might commend itself to sensible observation and there would be no proof against it in the fact that it is unnoticed both by

According

566,

apxWi
ra vvv iffopup-eva
iroKvKVfxwv
rj5'

Aristotle,

De

dxlo,

ii.

4,

and
is

his

i^ Sjv

St/

4y4i/ovTO
Koi
0.7]

commentators, for Aristotle

not

navra,
yala. re

it6vtos

i/yphi

TiTav

7/5'

ald7]p (Tfpiyywv Trepl (1. Trept)

k\jk\ov aravTa.

alluding in that place to the views But as Emp, of his predecessors. (vide p. loo, 2) represents that at night the light hemisphere goes under the earth, and not that the

sky moves
Tirav, the oiitspread, is here most likely not a designation of the sun,

sideways

round

the

earth, there arises this difficulty

but a name for the sether and aldrip, elsewhere with p]mpedoc]es synonymous with avp, means the upper air, without implying any elementary difference between the
;

that the space taken up by the sky not sufficient for the sky to turn round in, a point to which Aristotle afterwards attaches some imis

ponauce.

SYSTEM OF THE WORLD.

the earthJ

155
\Yhich

Thus there arose two hemispheres,

:

together form the concave sphere of heaven

is

the one
is

bright, and consists entirely of fire

the other

dark, and consists of air with isolated masses of sprinkled in

it.

fire

Through the pressure

acquires
a
is

of the fire the

;

sphere of the heavens

rotatory motion
;

when

its fiery

half

over us

we have day

when the

dark half is over us, and the fiery half is hidden by the body of the earth, we have night.^ The earth ^ was formed from the remaining elements and was at first
moist and miry.
the water from
^

The
;

force of the rotation drove ouc

it

and the evaporations of the water

of the seasons, as well as that of
night, is explained in reference to the relation of the two hemisphere's. 3 Vide sup. Accordp. 154, 1. ing to this it is quite legitimate to reckon Empedocles among those who held one world only of limited extent (Simpl. Phi^s. 38 b; i>e Coelo, 229 a, 12; Sckol. in Arist. 505 a, 15; Stob. Eel. i. 494, 496; Plut. Plac i. 5, 2) but it is not probable that he himself definitely expressed such an opinion. (V. 173, supra, 152, 1, has nothing: to do with this.) The assertion (Plac. I. c. paraV.) that he regarded the world as only a small part of the whole {jav), and the rest as formless matter, is doubtless merely a misunderstanding of verses 176 sq. {sup. I. c.) relating to an earlier stage of the world. At any rate it furnishes no ground for supposing (Eitter in Wolfs An^l. ii. 445 sqq. Gesch. d. Phil. i. 556 sq. ef. Brandis, Rh. Mus. iii. 130 Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 209) that the Sphairos, or a part of it, continues side by side with
;

Aribt. and Plut. I. c. Plut. ap. Eus. I. G. continues iivai 5e KVKhcp irepl r^v yr\v (pepofxiva Swo TffiL(T(paipia, rb juLet/ KadoXov
-

day and

TTvpos,

rh

Se

ixiKrhv

e|

depos

Koi

uvktu elfai. Empedocles himself, V. 160 (197, 251 31), explains night as the interposition of the earth, which may be connected ^th Plutarch's statement in the manner inttj*/ 5e ctpxV ttjs dicated above Kivfjcreus avjx&rivai Kara rhv aOpoi(T/jLOU iiri^piaavTOS rov irvpSs. The last sentence, the text of which, however, is somewhat uncertain, must not be referred (as by KaroKiyov
irvphs, oirep oierai ttjv
;

sten, p. 331, and Steinhart, p. 95, to the first separation of the ele-

ments from the Sphairos).

ii.

Plac.

11 (Stob.
clvai

i.

500):

'E^tt. a-repe-

fiviov

Thu ovpavhv e| de'pos KpycrraWoeiZuis (this is confirmed by Diog. viii. 77 Ach. Tat. in Arat. c. 5, p. 128 Pet. Lact. Opif. Dei, c. 17) rh TTvpcobes Kal aepudes iv eKUTepca tuv In Plut. 7)fj.i(T(paLpiwu TrepiexovTa. Flue. iii. SfparalL, the alternation
(Tv/j.-ira-yeuTos inrb irvphs
; ;

15(5

EMPEBOCLES.
filled

imraediately
is

the lower aerial space.^

able to maintain itself in

The earth supension upon the air,

the same reason,

because of the rapid revolution of the heavens, which

hinders
it

from

falling

and

it is for

Empedocles
in
its

tells

us, that

the whole universe remains

place.^

He

agreed with the Pythagoreans'* in

supposing the sun to be a body of a vitreous nature, probably as large as the earth, which, like a burning glass,
collects

and

reflects

the rays of
it
:

fire

from the bright

is

hemisphere surrounding

the moon, he thought,

;

made

of hardened crystalline air

its

its

shape

is

that
its

of a disc,^

light
;

is

derived from the sun,^ and

roiai TrpocruTTOis" (V. 151

the present world for the blessed tSphairos could not be described as apyi] i/Atj. Nor does this follow, as we shall presently show, from
his doctrine of the life after death, for the abode of the blessed cannot be ideutififed with the Sphairos in

K, 242 M).

St, 188 This may be connected with the statement of Diog. -viii. 77- that the sun, according to Em-

pedocles,

was

rrvphs &6poi(rfxa jxiya,

supposing that Diogenes,

authority,

or his

meant by

this expression

which no individual
Eitter

life is

possible.

believes that beside the world of strife there must be another sphere in which Love rules alone but this is incorrect according to Empedocles they rule, not side by side, but after one another. Even in the present world, Love works together with Hate.
:
:

the assembling of rays into one focus. On the other hand it is manifestly a mistake (Plac. ii. 20, 8; Stob. i. 530 2)aral/.) to attribute to Empedocles two suns primitive sun in the hemisphere beyond, and a visible one in our

hemisphere.

Vide Karsten, 428 sq. and supra, Vol. I. 450, 1. For the
statement as to the
size

'

Vide

siqjra, p,

54,
ii.

of the sun,

Arist.

De

Calo,

13,

295

a.

16; Simpl. ad h. I. 235 b, 40. 3 Arist. I. c.W. 1, 284 a, 24.

*

Vide

vol.

i.

456.

L
b Se

Plut. ap. Eu8.

/. c.

^Kios

Stob. I. c. Plut. ap. Eus. I. c. Be Fac. Lun. 5, 6, p. 922 Stob. Eel i. 552. It seems strange that this condensation of the air should be effected
cf.
;

TTjV

(pvaiV OVK IfTTi TTVp

oWo
rfj
.

TOV
dc/)'

by

fire,

irvphs

avrav6.K\affis, dfioia
yLuofxfirp.
:

moon

is

while at the same time the compared to hail or a

;

vSaros
p.

Pt/th. orac. c. 12,

. ,

400

'E/i7reSoKXeous
o-'pavLOv
Trphs

(pdaavdis

KOUTOS rhv 7]Xiov TTipiavyri avaKKaan

epwrhs
yeudfj-euov,

frozen cloud. ' Stob. I. c. Plut. Qu. Bom. 101, end, p. 288 Plac. ii. 27 parall. Diog. l. c.
;

" avravye'iv

"OXv^iroy arapfii}'

V. 152-156 (189

sq.,

243 sqq.

THE HEAVENLY BODIES.

tance from the sun.^

lo7

distance from the earth amounts to a third of its dis-

The space beneath the moon,

is

in

opposition to the upper region, Empedocles

said to

of all

have regarded, like the Pythagoreans, as the theatre evil.2 The fixed stars, he thought, are fastened
;

to the vaidt of the sky

the planets, on the contrary,

move

freely

in respect to their substance, he believed

fires

that they were

which have separated themselve9

^

from the air.^

tion of the

Solar eclipses are caused by the interposi;

body of the moon

air,

the inclination of the

is

earth's axis towards the

path of the sun

the result of

the pressure of the

which

is

forced by the sun to-

wards the north.^

fixed
limits.^

The

course of the sun itself

Em-

pedocles seems to have conceived as confined within

The

daily revolution

of

the

sun was

M) Plut. Fac. Lun. 16, 13. p. 929 ; Ach. Tat. in Arat, c. 16, 21, p. 135 E, lil A. When the latter says that Empedocles calls the moon an dirdcr7ra(r/u.a rjXiov he merely means, as the quotation from Empedocles. V. 154, shows, that her lisht is an emanation of the solar light. According Plut. Plac. ii. 31. to this, the text ap. Stob. i. 566 should be corrected bnt it seems unnecessary to introduce into the passage of the Flacita, as Karsten
:

'

- Hippol. Refid. i. 4. He however, is probably alluding only to the complaints of Empedocles about the terrestrial life, which will be noriced later on the notion that the terrestrial region extends to the moon, he seems to have adopted himself, merely from its similarity with kindred doctrines.
;

Plac.

ii.

Tat.
^

m Ar,
i.

13, 2, b, parall.
;

Ach.
sqq.

c. ii.

cf. siq), p.

155, 2.

V. 157 (194, 248

530. Plut. Plac.

M)

Stob.
^

proposes, SiTrAcwriov ani^^iv rovriAiou

OTTO rrjs yris ^Trep ttjv CfX-fjvrjp.

Ac-

cording to Plac. ii. 1, parall. Empedocles supposed the sun s course to be the limit of the universe, which howeyer must not be taken In our fragments it too literally. is only said, V. 150, \b\ sq. (187, 189 K, 2il, 245 M), that the sun traverses the sky and the moon revolves nearer the earth.

ii. 8 parall. and Karsten 425, who places in connection with this the observation, Plac. ii. 10 y;>flr, that Empedocles, in accordance with the common usage of antiquity, called the north side of the world the right. It is not clear, however, what was his

theory in regard to this. Plac. ii. 23 par.

:

'Eutt.

inro

T7JS

irepiexo'^'''^^

axrrhv \rov 7jAiOj/]

153

EMPEDOCLES.
slower at
first tlian it is

much
ally

now,

a day was
He

origin-

nine months, and afterwards sevenJ

explained

the light of the heavenly bodies by his theory of emanations,^

and accordingly maintained that light requires a certain time to traverse the space between the sun and the earth.^ In the very scanty details known to us of his opinions respecting meteorological phenomena, and

traces can also be found of his peculiar doctrine,'*

the same

may

be said of his ideas respecting the inor-

ganic productions of the earth.^

(vQvTvop^lv

KoX

vTrh

twv

rpoiriKCov

kvkXwv.
Plac. Y. 1 8, 1 cf. Sturz, p. 328. 'Emit. Philop. De An. K, 16 %s iKeyeu, aTroppeov rh (pu'S (Toojxa hv e/ ToG (pu}Ti{,ovros aw/xuTOs, &C. cf p. 133, 2.

3 Arist. De An. ii. 6, 418 b, 20 De Seiisu, c. 6, 446 a, 26, who combats this opinion Philop. /. c. and other commentators of Arist.; vide Karsten, 431. * How Empedocles explained the change of the seasons has already been shown, supra, p. 155, He 2, from Eiis. Prcsp. i. 8, 10. thought hail was frozen air (frozen He spoke vapours), .S7/;?. p. 156, 6. of the origin of winds their oblique direction from the north-east and south-west he ascribed, according to Olympiodorus in Meteor. 22 b, i. 245 Id. cf 21 b, i. 239 Id.,
;

was that, in the condensation of the air, the water contained in it was pressed forth, and that in its rarefaction fire obtained room to get out. According to Arist. Meteor, ii. 9, 369 b, 11 Alex. ad h.l.-p. Ill b; cf. Stob. FcL i. 592, fire entered by means of the sun's rays into the clouds, and was then struck out with a crash. This was probably based upon the observation that thunder clouds generally arise at times when the sun is very powerful. ^ Especially the sea, which he supposed to be exuded from the earth by means of solar heat. (Arist. Meteor, ii. 3, 357 a, 24; Alex. Meteor. 91 b, i. 268 Id. 26 a Plut. Plac. iii. 16, 3, where Eus. Prcep. XV. 59, 2, has the right reading.) From this origin of the sea he derived its salt taste (Arist. I. c. Alex. l. c.) salt, c. i. 353 b, 11
p. 125, 1),
; ; ; ;

to the circumstance that the ascending vapours are partly of a fiery, and partly of a terrestrial, nature, and that their opposite

motion finds

its

adjustment in an

His theory of oblique tendency. rain and lightning, according to Philop. Phys. c. 2 (ap. Karsten,
404),
cf.

Arist.

De

Coelo,

iii.

7 {stip.

everywhere formed by the sun's heat (Emp. v. 164, 206 K, 257 M) but sweet water must also have been mingled with it, by which the fish live (^lian. Hist. An. ix. 64). Fire, the presence of which in the subterranean parts of the earth seems especially to have attracted his attention, he supposed

ho thinks,

is

PLANTS AXD ANIMALS.

Among
come

159

organic beings, on which he seems to have

^

bestowed special attention,' plants

forth from the earth, before

appear to have

first

was enlightened by the sun/ and afterwards animals. Both are nearly
it

and we shall presently find that Empedocles not only considered that plants had souls, but souls of the same kind as animals and men."* He
allied in their nature
;

also observed that the fructification of plants corresponds

with the generation of animals, though the sexes are

not separated in them
:

he compares the leaves of trees

Their

with the hair, feathers and scales of animals.^

growth

is

explained by the warmth of the earth, which

drives the branches upward, while their terrestrial ingre-

dients impel the roots downward."

his general theory of the

In accordance with

combination of the elements,

from the earth part by part.
*

not only to have heated the "warm

springs, but also to have hardened
stones.

207 K, 255 Arist. Prohl. xxiv. 11; Sen.

v. 162,

(Emp.

call
i.

The P/(7c-iYa, therefore, rightly them Cv"y Ps.-Arist. De PL

Nat. iii. 24.) The same fire, surging in the interior of the earth, keeps the rocks and mountains upright (Plut. Prim. Frig. We have already 19, 4, p. 953). spoken of the magnet, p. 134, 1. ' Cf. Hippocr. apx- l-nrp. c, 20.
Qu(sst.
i.

1, 815 a, 15 b, 16, says that Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Em-

pedocles attributed to them sensation, desire, perception,

and

intel-

and Simpl. De An. 19 b, observes that he endowed even plants with rational souls.
ligence
;

Arist.

Ge/i.

Anirn.
v.

i.

23,

in

620 Littre

Kaddivep 'EixneSoKXTis

reference

to

Emp.
5'

219 (245,
/j.aKpa 5eV-

% &K\oi ot Trepl (pvcno^ yeypdcpaa-iv e^ apxvs 8 ri iarlv avQpuiros Koi ottojs iy4vT0 irpoiTOV koX ottous ^vpeTrdyr] 2 The Empedoclean doctrine of plants is discussed by Meyer, Gesck. d. Botanik, i. 46 sq.; but, as he says himself, only according to the references given by Sturz.
Plut.P/rtc.v.26, 4;cf PseudoArist. De Plant, i. 2, 817 b, 35;
3

286
2.

M)

ouTw
1,

uoroKeT
c.

5pea irpuTov eXaias.

De
1,

Plaint,
a,

i.

20, where, however, the doctrine of Empedocles is not accurately represented. Plac. V. 26, 4.
"
^

817

a,

36,

815

236(223, 216
Arist.

M)
ii.

sq.

4, 415 b, and his commpntators in h. I. According to Theophrastus, Cans.

De An.

28,

Lucret.

Nat. Rer, \. 780 sqq. Karsten, 441 sq. Plac. v. 19, 5.

;

Plant,

There

it

is

expressly

said

that

i. 12, 5, the roots of plants (probably only for the most part) consist of earth, and the leaves of

plants, like animals, first

came forth

sether {Luft),

IGO

EMrEDOCLES.

he supposed that their nourishment was conditioned by the attraction of kindred substances, and effected by

means of the

pores, ^

He

explained the fact of some

plants remaining always green by reference to the sym-

metry of their pores, together with their material comThe elements which are superfluous for the position.^
nourishment of plants go to form the
fruit
;

the taste of

which

is

therefore regulated according to the sustenance

of each plant.^

In the

first

beginning of animals and men, their

supj^wsed,

different parts,

Empedocles

grew up separately

from the ground,"* and were then brought together by But since pure chance ruled in the action of Love.
this process, there resulted at first all kinds of strange

forms, which w^ere soon again destroyed, until at last

things were so ordered as to produce beings harmoniously shaped and capable of

1

life.^

Mankind
De

also

sprang

V. 282 (268, 338) sqq.

Q'W.

cf.

Aristotle says,
b,

Plut.

Com.

iv.

1,

3,

12,

where it is immaterial whether the words primarily refer to the nourishment of animals or not, since the same holds good of plants cf. next note and Plut. Z. c.
;

2, 300 29 (where he quotes this passage), that this happened iirl ttjs ^iKdr-nros but that does not mean

Coeh,

iii.

in the
ros,

kingdom of Love, in the Sphai-

(Similarly
iirl rr)s

but under the influence of Love, ihid. 401 a, 15: rrjv

<piX6Ti]rQS yeveaiv.)

vi. 2, 2, 6.

It is

Qu. Com. iii. 2, 2, 8, through which the statement in the Flac. V. 26, 5, receives its more precise determination. 3 Plac. V. Galen c. 26, 5 sq. 38, p. 341 ; Emp. v. 221 (247,
-

Plut.

more
yeum,
5

clearly
iirl rfjs

Anim.i. 18, 722

expressed in Gen. b, 19 Kaddirep 'Ejutt.

:

(piKor-nTos Xeycav.
iii. 6.

^rist. I)e A?i.

'Efxir. ecp-q

sub

init.

Kaddirep

"?) ttoXKoiu" etc.,

^ireira avi^Tid^treai r'v (t>LKLa.

288 M),
*
7^

V. 244 (232, 307

fi\v
ifi\d(TTri(Tav,

M) :
avavx^y^s
eii-

iroXKal
5'

KopaaL

yvji-vol

^irKd^ovTo Ppax'i'Oi'es
dofxcou,

vi5es
SjjJLfjiaTa 8'

oV eVXcwaTO -mviiTivovTa

pierwirwy,

29 (cf. Karsten, p. not possible that that which seems to us to be formed according to design may have happened by chance ? oirov fikv ovv airavra avvi^t] ojairep k^v el epeKa tov iyiveTo, ravra /xev iadoOrj airh rov auTojxaTOv (TvcravTa i7riT7jd^iu;s'
ii.

8,

198

b,

244),

is

it

LIVIXG CREATURES.
from the earth.
First, shapeless

IGl

lumps, formed of earth

and water, were thrown up by the subterranean fire, and these afterwards shaped themselves into human
members.^
6Vo Se
ytvri
a.
fxTf]

In this Empedocles only developes what

says that these deformities arose iv TTJ TrpcaTT) SiaKpicreL tov (r(paipov
Kcd
Ttj

oi/Tws, ctTTwAeTO koX airoK'E,u7r,

\vTai, KaOdirep
23.

\4yei ra
ii.

fiou-

avSp6iTpa}pa.

Ibid.

4,

296

apx'p
to.

T7JS

Koaixoirouas. irplv
a-K

TO vetKos TeAeiws
(235, 310
jnei^ov

aX^riXccv Si-

Emp. V. 254
avrap
iirel

M) :
ifxia'^eTO

Kara

daifiovi Saifxav (the elements'), ravToi re (rvixiriimcTKov, otttj cvve-

Kvpaev eKacTTa,

uWa

76

Tvphs

To7s TTOAAa

dl.r]UKrj

(-es) iE^^y^vouTO.

the verses quoted, however, it appears that Empedocles rather derived them from the union of the elements that had been separated by Hate and this is confirmed by the texts quoted .Hipra, p. 150, 5 160, 4 from
eXSr],
;

anplvai

From

Aristotle.

An example of the way in which Empedocles explain^^d the origin of the present organic beinss from these first productions, is given by
Arist. Part. Anira.
Zi6tt^P 'E/iTreSo/cATjs
i.

Cf. V. 267 (251, 321 the origin of human beings

1

M)
:

on

ovXo(pv7s /xlv irpwra rviroi (in re-

1,

640

a,

19:
5ia

uvk opdcos
iv
ttj

f tpTj/ce

\iyct)V tmdpx^'-V ttoXKo. rots

^(j^'ots

TO

crvufirivai

ovtoos

ytveixei,

this expression ef. Sturz 370, Karsten and Mullach i/l k. I.) x^o^^s iiaviTeXXov, aixcporepcoj' vSaTOS re Koi ov^eos
aicrav ix^vres.

gard to

oTou Koi r7]v pdj(iv TOiavrT]v ex^L'^, OTL arpacpevTos Karax^vvai avve^-q.

rovs

(The verses to which this refr-rs, with some others on the formation of the stomach and the organs of respiration, have been identified by Stein, Fhilol. xv. 143 sq. ap. Cramer, Amcd. Oxon. iii. 184. V. 257(238, 313 M): -

fMev irvp
6/j.o7uv

aveireuir'

iOeXov irphs

LKeaOai,
fxeXioiv

ovT ri
our'

TTca

iparov detxas

4lx(paivovras
iyoirriv

ovr

av iinxdi'p^ov av-

dpacTL yv7ov.

KoWa

jx\v afitpLTTpoaccira kol

ajxcpi-

arepv' i(pvouTo,

^ovyevri avhponpoopa, ra

5'

tixnaXiv

e^avireXXov auSpocpvri ^ovKpaua,

fxev air
rfi

ixe/j.tyiJ.4i/a

rp

avhpcbv,
5ispo7s TjCTK-rji-uva

Se yvvaiKO(pvri,
yviois.

In this manner no doubt Empedocles interpreted the

myths of the Centaurs, Chimeras, Hermaphrodites, &c. Philop. Phi/s. H. 13,

Censorin. Bi Naf. 4, 8, improperly connects this representation with the one previously referred to, and gives the doctrine of Empedocles thus prima memhra singula ex terra quasi prcegnunte passim edita deinde coisse et eFecisse solidi horninis materiam igni simul et uraore permixtam. The real opinion of the philosopher is also misrepresented in the Plac.y. 19, 5, through the wrong connection into which his VMrious utterances on the origin of living beings are brought.
:

TOL.

II.

162

EMPEDOCLES.

Parmenidcs,^ in connection with the ancient myths of

the Autochthones and giants,^ had already taught concerning the origin of men.

He

likewise follows Par-

menides in the theory that the sexes are distinguished from each other by their greater or less warmth but
;

Parmenides ascribes the warmer nature to women, Empedocles ascribes it to men,^and accordingly supposes (herein again differing from Parmenides) that
whereas
in the
first

creation of the

southern regions and

human race men arose in the women in the north and that in
'*

the ordinary process of generation, males are formed in

the warmer part of the uterus, and females in the

colder.'^

He

further supposed, in regard to this matter, that cer-

tain parts of the body of the child are derived from the
father and certain parts from the mother,

and that the

generative impulse arises

from the striving towards each

His conjectures as to

other of these divided elements.^

^

Si'.2yra,

Vol.

I.

601.

Giants also seem to be alluded to in the Plac. v. 27, where it is said that the present races of men are, as compared with the earliei', but this may as little children possibly refer only to the golden age (vide infra). ^ Arist. Part. Anim, ii. 2, 618
2
;

a,

25 sqq.
*

Plut. Plac. V.
sqq.;
Arist.

7.

Emp. V. 273-278

(259, 329
iv.
;

M)

Gen. Anim.

assigning boys to the right side; but this verse is the only authority given for the statement). Aristotle gives quite another explanation of the difference of sexes. The assertion of Censorinus, Di Nat. 6, 7, that male children proceed from the right side of the male organs and females from tlie left, contradicts what he afterwards says of the manner in which Empedocles explained sexual differences and the likenessof children to their parents.

1.764 a, 1; cf. i. 18, 723 a, 23 Galen in Hippocr. Kpidem. vi. 2, Klihn. The act. xvii. a, 1002,
not quite consistent. Empedocles himself speaks of difin the uterus ferent localities (Galen says still more distinctly

But we cannot

rely vide Karsten, 472.

Arist.
b.

much upon

this;

counts are

that he agreed with Parmenides in

iv. I. c. i. 18, 722 b, 8; 15; Galen, i)e (S'<?/;^. ii. 3, t. iv. 616, with reference to Emp. His more v. 270 (227, 326 M). definite notions on this subject, if he formed any, cannot be ascer-

1,764

LIVING CUEAT IJRES.

the development of the foetus were various.^
cases he

16:j

In some

sought to explain

the
^

origin

and material
of
life

composition of corporeal parts

arbitrary arrangement.^
tained.

by an uncertain and

The abode and manner

cles,

What Philop. Be Gen. An. 16 a. 81 b (ap. Sturz, 392 sq., Karsten, 466 sq.) says is contradictory, and evidently a mere conWhat is said jecture, cf. p. 17 a, ap. Plut. Qu. Xat. 21, 3. p. 917
(Emp. V. 272. 256, 328 M) Plac. v. 19,5; 12, 2; 10, 1; Cens. 6, 10, \ve may here pass over. Vide Karsten, 46-i, 471 sq. Sturz, 401
;
;

from the blood, of which Empedoaccording to Plut. Qu. Sat. 20. 2, said: uiaTrep yaXuKTOs oppov

Tov a'ijxaTos rapaxQ^vros (fermented) iKKpoveaOai to doLHpvuv. Empedocles also treated of abortions vide
;

In accordance with his general principle of the combiDation of matter. Empedocles supposed that fur fruitful seminal combination there must be a certain symmetry
sq.

and Sturz. 378. 2 In the bones two parts of water and four parts of fire are added to two parts cf earth; in flesh and blood the four elemen!- are mingled in equal or nearly
Plac. V. 8,

of pores in the male and femile.

When,
it

ho"vrever, this is excessive,

may have an
An.
ii.
;

opposite result, as

in the case of mules.

Ge7i.

Vide Arist.

cf. Philop. in h. I. 8 p. 59, a (ap. Karsten, p. 468, vhere the statement of the Placita, v. 14, on this subject is corrected). The foetus is formed during the first seven weeks, or more accuratelv, in the sixth and seventh weeks (Plut. Plac. v. 21, 1 Theo. Math. p. 162); birth takes place between the seventh and tenth
'
;

equal parts, v. 198 sqq., vide sup. 143. 4 in the sinews, according to Plac. V. 22, there are two parts of water to one part of earth and one of fire. In the Placita the composition of the bones is different from that given by Empedocles himself: and in Philop. Le An. E, 16, and Simpl. De An. p. 18 b, one part of water and one of air are substituted for the two parts of water; but these divergences are not worth considering. Kar;

sten's attempt to reconcile them contradicts the tenor of the verses quoted.

month
7.
:

{Plac. v.

18,

Censorin,

first the heart is formed 5) (Cens. 6, 1), and the nails last; they consist of hardened sinews

(Arist.

De
V.

Spir.

Plac.

22,

c. 6, 484 a, 38; and Karsten, 476).

The comparison with the curdling of milk in the manufacture of cheese, V. 279 (265 K, 215 M) may relate to the first beginnings of the embryo, cf. Arist. Gen. An. iv. 4, 771 b, 18 sqq. Perhaps, however, it may
also refer to the separation of tears

Thus he supposed (vide Plac. according to the more perfect text ap. Galen, H. Phil. c. 36, p. 338 Kiihn; Plut. Qu. Sat. cf. note 1) that tears and perspiration arise from a dissolution {riiKeaOai) of the blood, and according to v. 280 (266, 336 X) he seems to have similarly regarded the milk of females, the appearance of which, in his usual manner, he assigned to a given day. In v. 215
^
I.

c.

(209, 282 M) he de^scribes mor.^ particularly the forming of a part

164

EMPEDOCLES.

of the different animals were determined, he thought,

by the substances of which the animals consist

for

each

substance, according to the universal law, seeks

its like.'

From

the same cause he derived the position of the

various parts in the bodv.^

Animals, like plants, are

^
;

nourished by the assimilation of kindred substances

growth he deduces from warmth, sleep and the decay of old age from the decrease of warmth, death from its
entire cessation."*

As to the opinions of Empedocles about the other

bodily activities, the points on which tradition tells us

perception.
of the

most are the process of respiration and the sensuous The expiration and inspiration of the air
body (we do not know exactly
Philop. Gen. An. 49 a. Kar448 sq., conjecturps that this is merely an arbitrary extension of what he says (vide sup. p. 159, 7) about plants. The verses, however, which are quoted by Plut. Qn. Com, 1. 2, 5, 6 (233 sqq., 220 K, 300 M), prove nothing against it, and Arist. Gen. An. ii. 4, 740 b,
2

-which part is meant), comparing it, as it ?eems, with the preparation of pottery. ' Plac. V. 19, 6 (where, howInstead ever, the text is corrupt. of ets depa avairveiv should be read aipa ava fiXiireiv, &c. The ets concluding words, however, iraai ToTs 6wpa^i n^<puiV7]K4vai. I know not how to emend. Karsten is perhaps right in his suggestion of
TticpvK^ai
for
Tre(pwu7)K(uai,
irep]

sten,

12, is in its favour.

3

Plut.

Qu. Conv.
to v.

iv.

1,

3, 12,

which appeals

282 (268, 338

2,

but
iraa-i

M)

sqq.
*

hardly in that of

for

Plac. v. 27. Plac. V. 27, 23,

;

25,

and he

is

WTong

in referring the

passage to particular members). Empedocles was not always true to this principle; for he says that aquatic animals seek the moist element because of their warm nature, Arist. I)e Rcitpir. c. 14; Theophr. Cai'.s. Plant, i. 21, 5. The previous quotations from y. 233-239 (220 sqq., 300 sqq. M) and V. 163 (205, 256 M) seem to show that he treated minutely of the different species of animals.

Karsten, 500 sq. It has already been remarked, and Empedocles himself repeats it, in t. 247 (335, 182 M) sqq. respecting living creatures, that all destruction consists

in the separation of the substances

thing is composed. be brought into connection with the statements in the Placita through the theory that Empedocles regarded the decay of the body as a consequence of the
of

which a

This

may

failure of vital heat.

LIYiyCr CREATURES.
takes
place, on
bis

165
tli

theory, not

merely

rough the

windpipe, but throuo^b the whole body, in consequence

of the
its

movement

of the blood.

When

the blood, in

backward and forward course, withdraws from the

external parts, the air penetrates through the fine pores

of the skin
;

when the blood again

flows into those parts,

the air

is

expelled.^

He

explained sensation also by

reference to the pores and

sensation, it
is

emanations.

To

j)roduce

necessary that the particles detaching

themselves from the objects shoidd be in contact with

the homogeneous elements of the organs of sense, either

by the entrance of the particles of the object through

the pores, or (as in the case of sight) by the exit of
the elements ot the organ in the same manner.For,

according to the doctrine

first

enunciated as a principle
to us only

by Empedocles, things are known

elements of like kind in us
:

through the

earth through earth, water

is

through water,^ &c.

This theory

most

easily carried

out in regard to the senses of taste and smell.

Both,

according to Empedocles, result .from the taking up of

minute
^

particles of matter into the nose or

;

mouth, in
iv.

V. 287 (275, 343 M) sqq. cf. Karsten, Arlst. Respir. c. 7 Scholiastsm AJ.(onSimpl. Z)^4wtVG, p. 167 b. sq.); P/ac. ir. 22, v. 15, 3. 2 Vide supra, p. 132 sq. Theo; ;

through
sation.
cf.

-n-ithout

producing a sen9, 3 von der Lucrez.

;

Similarly Plac.

Hoper, Ziir Lehre Sinn^swahrnehmung d.

phrast.
rai

Sen.su, 7: 'Eutt. (/)7jo-1, ii/apfioTTeip [ras a7rop3oas] els

De

Stendal, 1872, p. 0. ^ y. 333 (321. 378 M.): yaiT] fifu yap yaiav oirunrauei', uSart
S"

roiis
frsojy]

TTopovs

Tohs

Ikcio-ttjs

[aiadrj-

v5wp,
S"

aladdveadaL, the diversity of

aldepi

aWepa
Se

dlou,

arap

izvpX

-nvp

the

occasions the specific each of tensations differences sense perceives that which is so symmetrical with its pores that it

pores

atZ-nXov,
(XTopyrj
crTopyriv,

v7kos

5e

re

ve'iKei Kvyp^X-

ck

tovtwv yap iravTa

TreirriyaaLy

penetrates into them, and so affects while everything else the organ either does not enter it, or passes
;

apuocrdevTa koI tovtois (ppovhvai koI aviuurai.

7;5oj't' 7/0'

im

EMPEDOCLES.
air,

the one case from the

in the other from the moisture

with which they are mingled.^

In the sense of hearing

he thought the sounds were formed by the entrance and

agitation of the air in the passage of the ear as in a

trumpet.^

In the sense of sight, on the contrary, the

seeing body was supposed to issue forth from the eye

in order to

come

in contact with the emanations of the

object.

of lantern

Empedocles thus conceived the eye as a kind in the apple of the eye fire and water are
:

enclosed in skins, the pores of which, arranged in alter-

nate rows for each substance, allow passage to the emanations of each
is
:

fire

causes the perception of that which

is

bright,

and water of that which

fire

dark.

When,

therefore, emanations of visible things reach the eye,

the emanations of the internal

of the eye through the pores,
these two arises vision.^
'

and water pass out and from the meeting of

Flac. iv. 17;

A.v\?,t.

De

Sensu,

I.e.;

Arist. Prohl. xiv. 14;

Gen.

e.

4,
Ij

441
;

lOo 465)
-

cf.

4; Alex. De Semu, Empedocles, v. 312(300,

a,

f.

Plut. Pluc. iv. 16, where, however, the KwSw;/ with which Empedocles (also aocording to Theophrastus) had compared the interior of the ears

Theopli.

De Sensu, 9

Anim. v. 1, 779 b, 15, Empedocles thought that light eyes were fiery and dark eyes moist that light eyes see more clearly by night, and dark eyes by day (the reason
;

is improperly taken to mean a bell instead of a trumpet. ' V. 316 (302, 220 M~) sqq. cf.
;

240 (227, 218

;

M)

sq.

Theoph.

/.

c.

Arist. De Scnsu, c. 2, 437 8 sq. Alex, in h.J. p. b, 10 sqq., 23 sqq.

;

Thurot. Philop. Gen. Anim. 105 b (ap. Sturz, 419 Karsten, 485); Plut. Plac.W. 13, 2; Joh. Damasc. Porrt^^. p. i. 17, 11 {Stoh. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 173).
43,

48

of this is characteiistically explained in Theophrastus) but the best eyes are those in which fire and water are mingled in equal parts, Hofer, I. c, opposes the notion that Empedocles supposed the inner fire to issue forth from the eyes but he has not considered Empedocles's own declarations concerning the <pa>s e|a) dLadpaxxKov, nor Aristotle's repeated expression, eliovTos tow (pwrhs, in reference to tliis; nor Alexander s comments on the verse
;

According to Theophr. and Philop.

of Empedocles, which are entirely on the same side. Plato gives the

THE SENSES AND THOUGHT.

Thought has a
similar origin.

167

Intelligence and the

power of thought are ascribed by Empedocles to all things,^ without distinction of corporeal and spiritual
;

thought therefore, like

all

other vital activities, arises

and depends upon the admixture of substances in the We form a conception of each element by body.-

means of the corresponding element

is

in oiu- body.

It

in the blood especially, because there the elements

are

most completely mingled, that thought and con.a

sciousness have their chief seat (this was

common

opinion

among

the ancients), and particularly the blood

of the heart. ^
same explanation
Part
II. a,

But Empedocles,

in accordance with

of sight. Cf. "27, 3 (English Trans-

In agreement 428). with the above quotations, we have

lation,
p.

also the definition of colour as airoppoia (Arist. I)e Sensu, c. 3. 440

Vide Sturz, 443 commentators. Karsten, 494. It is, sqq., 205 sq. however, incorrect. Empedocles did not hold that the soul is composed of the elements but what
;

we

call the activity of the soul

he

15; .Stob. Eel. i. 364, where four principal colours are named, corresponding to the four elements cf. sup. p. 133, 2 158, 2) and the theory of Empedocles on transparent bodies (Arist. sicjo. p. 133, 2), and These the images of the mirror. last he explained on the theory that cleaving the effluences of objects to the surfiice of the mirror were sent back by the fire streaming out at its pores. V. 231 (313, 298 M) -ndvra
a,
;

explained by the elementary composition of the body a soul distinct from the body he did not assume.
;

Theodoretus's assertion {Cur. G-r. Af. V. 18, p. 72), that Empedocles regarded the soul as a iu.7yij.a e|
aldpcx)8ovs
still

Kal

a^pcoSovs ovcrias, is
;

more

incorrect

and

it is

evi-

dent that the inference of Sestus, Math. vii. 115, 120, that Empedocles believed there were six criteria of truth belongs only to himself
10, after stating Empedocles's doctrine of the senses wtravrws Se Xiy^i /cat
:

yap

tadi (pp6vT](nv exeti' koL vufxaros

and his authorities. 3 Thephr. i)g Sensu,

286 Stob. Ed. i. 790; Simpl. De An. 19 b. - V. 333 sqq. sup. p. 165, 3. Arist. Be A7i. i. 2, 404 b, 8 sqq. concludes in his usual manner, from this verse, that according to Empedocles the soul is composed of all the four elements, an assertion which is then repeated by his
alaau.
viii.
;

Sext. Math.

Trepi (ppovi](T^u)s

Ka\ ayvo'ias' rh fxkv

oy.OLOLS,
*]

yap (ppovuu
ayvoeiv toIs

elvai rots

OLvofxaiois, a-s

rh S' ravrbv

irapairXriai.oy 'bu rrj aladT^asi rriv

oiapiBjxrjadixei'os

(ppourjaiv.

yap us
ivl
'

eKacTTOV

eKOLCTTa

yvwpi^ofxev,
"
e/c

TcAei irpocriQriKiv us

tovtuv,

1G8
his

EMrEDOCLES.
own
theories, could not

and did not exchide other

The more homogeneous is the mixture of the elements, the more acute are the senses and intelligence generally when the elementary particles are combined with each other in a loose and slack manner,^ the mental faculty moves more slowly when they are small and tightly compressed, it moves more quickly; in the one case
parts of the body from participation in thought.^
; ;

there

is

permanence, in the other instability

is

.-"^

If the

right admixture of the elements

parts of the body,
it

limited to certain

produces the corresponding special

like Par-

endowment/
&c.
KoX
(v.

Empedocles therefore supposes,

Zib

336

sq. svp. p. 80, 1).

Tw

ai'uarj

fidXttrra (ppove^p

er

TouTU) yap ^aXiTTa KCKpacrdai itrri Th (TTOix^'^o. Toou jxepwv. Emp. V. 327 (315, 372 M) :

' Notice the /ndXicrra, v. 328, and the conclusion of the passage in Theophrastus to be quoted imme-

diately.
- Or according to the Interpr. Cvuqu. on Horace, Ep. ad Pis. 465 (ap. Sturz 447, Karsten 496), where the blood is cold this, however, was probably regarded by Empedocles as a consequence of the loose combination of its parts. ^ This is the first germ of the doctrine of temperaments. Theophr. ^. c. 11 ocrois pev
:
*

TrsXdyeaai TiQpafj.jj.iv'r] avTidop6vros, v6r}ixa fxiXKTTa KuKXiaK^rai rfj TC avQpuiTTOKnv ulfxa yap dpdpdoirois vepiKap^iov iari
alfjLaros

ip

p6T]fj.a.

This verse

is
:

to

be received as

though it seems, according to Tert. De An. 15, to have heen found in an Orphic poem, it
doubtless came in the
first

Empedoclean

instance
;

from Empedocles.
C,
a,

this is

Phi lop. Be An. ascribes it to Critias but evidently a mistake. Later

writers repeat or misinterpret this

sometimes in the sense of subsequent enquiries concerning the seat of the rjyefioviKov vide Cic. Tnsc. i. 9, 19; 17, 41; Plut. ap. Eus. Prcpp. i. 8, 10; Galen, De Hipp, et Plat. ii. extr. T. V. Sturz, 439 sqq. Karsten, 283 Cf. also p. 163, 1, and 495, 498.
definition
:

Xaa kol TrapairXrjaia fxeuiKTai, koI 1X7) Sia TToXKov [here the text seems corrupt. I should conjecture Xiav TToAAa] /xT]d' av fxiKpa jU.7]5' inrep^dX\ovra TCf /j-eyedei, tovtovs (ppovifJ-cvrdrovs flpai Kol Kara ras al(rOrjacis aKpi^^ffrdrovs Kara x6yov Se Ka\ rovs iyyvjdrca tovtup. ocrois S' ivavTiws, arppovicrrdTOvs. Kol wv fxlv fxavd Ka\ apaia K^lrai ra ffroix^'ia,
oiiv
'

voidpovs Ka\ einiroi/ovs, Siv 5e ttvkpo.

Ka\ Kara jjuKpa Te6pav<T /net/a, tovs Se

TotovTovs o^ccos (so AVimmcr reads for oleTs Ka\) (pipojx^vovs, Ka\ ttoXXo.
iiri^aXXo/jLeuovs oXiya iiriTcXe7v 8ia

Plato, FhcBdo, 96 B.

THE SUXSES AXD THOUGHT.

menides,^ that the quality of thought
is

169

regulated ac-

cording to the constitution of the body, and changes

with

it.^

Aristotle infers

from this that he must have

;

sought truth in the sensible-phenomenon

but such a

conclusion Empedocles would have repudiated, as

as his Eleatic predecessor j"^
it is

much
from

whether rightly or wrongly

not our pui'pose to enquire.

For he

is

so far

placing absolute trust in perception, that he exhorts us

to give

no credence to

it

at all,

but to acquaint our-

selves instead with the nature of things

T^j/ o^vTTjTa
OLS
T'I)s

by

reflection

-^

Tov
ri

a'iyLOTos (popas.

5e

Ka0'
i(TTi,

eV

jxopiov

7]

fxiffi)

Kpaais

Tavrrj aocpovs eKaarous

elv3.L. Slu rohs fJ-kv piiTopas ayaOovs, rovs 5e Texviras' ws to7s /xev ev rals Xept^i Tois S' iv T77 yAwTTTj t?V Kpaaiv ovcxav. Ojxoioos 8' fX^'" '"'"

higher madness of religious enthusiasm. Col. Aurel. De Morb. Chron. i. 5, 145. 3 Metaph. iv. 5, 1009 b, 12,

where it is said of Democritus and Empedocles (of the latter on the

strength of the verse just quoted) ohoos Se Sia to viroXafx^aveiv (pp6vqaiv fj.ev ttjv aXaQ-qcriv, tavr-qv 5'
eltai aKKoLuxTLV.

(fare Ttts
is

aKKas Swdp-eis. This last thus expressed in Plut. ap. Eis.

:

rh Se Tjy suouikou FrcBf). i. 8, 10 ovTe iv Ki0aXfj ovr" iv Qwpo.Ki, aW' iv aifxoLTf o6ev Ka6' o tl up fxepos TOV (TcijxaTos TzKuov fj TTap^aiTapjxivov Th rjyepLOViKhv, oUrai Kar' iK^ivo irpOTepetv rovs avdpcinrous. Supra, vol. i. 602. 2 V. 330 (318, 375 :M) nphs irapehv yap /utjtjs de|eTot avdp'l'
:

to (paivoii^vov Kara.
|

TTiv

aXaQriaiv

avayKvs aKTjOhs
e| o.va.yKT]s

eivai (paaiv.

The words

iroicriv.

In support of this propo-

Empedocles also adduces the phenomenon of dreaming. According to Philop. Be An. P. 3, and Simp. De An. 56 b, the words in v. 331 (319, 376 M) likewise oa<Tov t' aWo7oi /xerirelate to it
sition
:

<pvv,

Tocov ap (T(pL(TLV aiel Ka\ <ppovieip aXKo7a Trap'KTraTo, He aiso

are to be connected with tpaaiv they are constrained to maintain. * For Eitter's suggestion (of. "Wolfs Anol. ii. 458 sq. cf. Gesch. d. Phil. i. 541) that, according to Empedocles, the Sphairus can only be known by reason, and the present world by the senses, has no warrant in his own utterances the verses quoted below (19 sqq.) are of universal application: there is no trace of any restiietion to the Sphairos. cf. note 4. ^ V. 19 (49, 53 M):
;
:

dW'
jx-fire

a7'

aQpn

Trdarj

iraXdfj.j],

tt-q

remarked that madness arises from corporeal causes, though he afterwards speaks of a madness produced by guilt, and, side by side with this diseased madness, of the

StjAov 'inacTOv,
Tiv' 64>i-v exwi'

Triarn irXiov, %
uirep rpovoo-

KaT
/itjt'

aKOVT)v,

aKorjv

ipiSovircv

^;iTa yXwar<jr}S^

170

EMPEDOCLES,

and thougli he keenly deplores, with Xenophanes, the

limitations of

human

knowledge,^ yet in regard to the

knowledge granted

to mortals,

he expects farmore from

It

reason than from the senses.

need hardly be

said,

however, that he set up no theory of knowledge in the

later sense of the term-/^ nor

ought we on account of the

of all parties to consider

common
him an

accusations from

men

ally of the sceptics.^

What made him

;

misim-

and one- sided experience

eVrl voTJaai. yvidiu irio-Tif
^pvKe,
voi
5"
r;

it is

'

V. 81 (108, 82 M) of the (piUr-ns: T^v (TV v6ct) SepKcv jUTj8" ufifxaaiv rjao TeBrjirwi. Later writers, such as Tert. Ue An. Lact. List. iii. 28 17, I pass over. 1 V. 2 (32. 36 M) :
;

possible in this way to attain to a real knowledge of the truth (v. 8 we must therefore content sq.) ourselves with that which man is Simihirlj, in a position to attain.
;

v. 11

(4:1,

45

M)

sq.,

Empedoeles

<rTivaj7rol

ixkv

yap iraKanai Kara.

yv7a K^xwrai'

voWa
iravpov
5.

8e 8eiA' ifxnaia., to. r

be

au6\vaQprj-

entreats the gods to preserve him from the presumptuous spirit which would utter more than is permitced to mortals, and to reveal to him u>v Qeixis iarXv i(pr]fiepioi<TLV aKovetv. A third passage, v. 85
(112, 86 M) sq., does not belong for when he to this connection ovris fied' there says of love,
;

VOV(TL fXipLpLVaS.
^(>)r,s

afiiov jxepos

tV

(Taures.

uKVfxSpoi Kairvulo
aireiTTai/^

5iiCT}v

apbd-.res

avrh fxovov ireiadevTes, otw irpoaeKvpaev enaaTos jrauToa iKavvofxevos, rh S' uXoy /xaif/
iVX^TUi vpe7u'
OUTQ3S
OVt' eTn^epKTO. TciS' Oil'5pOLTLU
5'

out' iiraKovaTO.

Panzerbieter and S'ein rightly read) kXicraojxivqv SeSa7]K dvTjrhs avr^p, this according to the context only means in its appearance as sexual love, this force indeed is known to everyone but its universal cosmical import has been as yet unknown, and is to be first revealed by him {crv 5' aKove
o\o(Tiv (as
; ;

ovre

v6(x}

KepiX-qn'Ta..

crv

ovv,

iirel trS' i\id(T6-ns,

vevareai

oi/

ir\4ov

rje

^poTeirj

/xriTis

upjipev.

This passage, the strongest which is found in Empedoeles, in truth only asserts this considering the
:

limitations of human knowledge and the shortnes.s of human life,

vre

cannot suppose we have

ein-

braced the whole with a fortuitous

\6ycay (Tr6\ov ovk ctTraTTjAof). The following is attributed to him by Sextiis, Afaik.xn. 122, but evidently with no other foundation than the verse first quoted not the senses, but the dpOhs Koyos this is is the criterion of truth partly divine and partly human the human part only can be communicated in speech. 3 The sceptics ap. Diog. ix. 73
:

SJE^'SE

AXD THOUGHT.

171

trustful of the senses our fragments do not expressly

state
;

but a comparison of the analogous opinions of

other
physicists

Parmenides, Democritus and

little

leaves

doubt that the cause, in his case

as in theirs, lay

in the contradiction between the sensible

phenomenon
diffi-

and

his physical theory,

and more especially in the

culties with ^yhich the conceptions of

Becoming, Decay

and qualitative Change are beset

so that here also the

propositions of the theory of knowledge appear not as

the basis, but as the fruit of objective enquiry.

Feelings too, according to Emj^edocles, originate in

the same manner and under the same conditions as

opinions.

Tnat which
it,

is

akin to the constituent parts

that which

of each

human being

begets in him, together with the

;

knowledge of
is

the sensation of pleasure

opposed to those constituents

l^egets the feeling of

aversion.^

Desire consists in the striving after kindred

is

elements, of which each individual

is

in want

and

it

ultimately the result of a mixtm-e of

substances

adapted to the nature of the individual.

in. TEE RELIGIOUS DOCTRiyES OF EMPEBOCLES.

Hitherto we have been occujjied with the physical

theories of Empedocles.

All the doctrines connected

with these start from the same presuppositions, and

Cic. Acad.
ii.,
i.

12, 44.

In Acad. pri.

riSecrOai

ij.eu

iroicov Tois 6,ao'i.ois A-wTreT-

5, 14,

this statement is contraV.

aOatdh tq7s ivavTiois.

Parall.
S.
ii.

dieted.
^

25,

30,

Joh. Damasc. 35 (."Stob,

;

Emp.

336

sq.,

189 sqq.

{sitp.

Floril. ed.

Theophr. Ue p. 165, 3; 134,1). Sensu, 16, "with reference to this

verse:

Plut. 461.
-

Plac.

Mein. iv. 235 sq.) of. y. 28 and Karsten,

c.
;

oAAa /xw ouSh

ttji/

tjSout^v

Plut. Plac. L
vi. 2, 6.

cf.

Qu(Bst.

Koi Avirriv duoKoyovij.vws aiToblhua Lv,

Conv.

172

EMPEDOCLES.
mny
dis-

though, in regard to particular details, we

cover EQUch that
is
is

arbitrar}^ yet on the whole there

all

evidently an attempt to explain

things in reference

same principles and the same primitive causes. The physical conceptions of Empedocles appear, thereto the
fore, as parts of

a system of natural philosophy which,

all sides,
is

though not complete on

religious

yet carried out in

accordance with one plan.

doctrines

It

is

otherwise with his

and prescripts, which are taken

KaOapfjLOL,

partly from the the third book of the

but especially from the

no connection with his
propositions

poem on physics, and apparently have

In these

scientific principles.

we

see only articles of faith

which were

superadded to his philosophic system from quite another

quarter.

We

cannot, however, entirely pass

them

over,

We
tion
is

will take first the conceptions of

life after

Transmigrathat
it

and

death.

Empedocles

tells lis

the immutable decree of fate that the daemons

who

have sinned by murder or perjury should be banished

for

30,000 seasons from among the Blessed, and tra-

verse the painful paths of life in the various forms of

mortal existence.^

He

presupposes, therefore, a prim-

eval state of bliss, the theatre of which

'

must have been

wpas
airh

V. 369 (1):
avdyK-ns xpVM'^, S(a>u ^r)(pinpLa
TraKaihu,

Tpis (iiv ixvpias

aAaA.7]cr0ai,
(pv6fii/ou

fiaKapcov

eo-Tij/

irauTo7a Sia xp<^^ov etSeo

aiSiou. TT\aTe(T(Tt KaT(r(ppr]yu7p.4uou

OvrjTuv,

upKOLS

apyakfas
(p6vov
(j)i\a

eSre

tis

afxir\aKiT]<ri
ixi-fivT]

^lStoio K\evBovs.

^eraWiiffo-oi/ra

yu7a

ainaros, ^ eniopKOU afxaprr^cras iiroH^crar]

The statements of later authorities I pass over here, and in what follows, as thej only reiterate aud
distort
saye.

dainoiv,

otTg

jxaKpaioovos

XeXaxacTL

^ioio,

what Empedocles himself They are to be found in

Sturz, 448 eqq.

TRAXSMIGEATIOX OF SOULS.
heaven for he complains that he has been cast out from the abode of the gods upon tlie earth, into this cavern,^ and a return to the gods is promised to the
;

The poet describes in forcible verses, ostensibly own recollection,^ the wretchedness of ^^uiltladen spirits who are tossed about in restless flight
pious.2

fiom

his

through

all

parts of the world

"*

the pain and sorrow of

the soul which, having entered the place of oppositions

and of transitoriness,'^ finds itself clothed in the garment of the flesh, and transferred from life into the kingdom of death/ The
strife,

and of

of sickness

'

V. 381 (7, 9
/tat aArjTTis,

M) :
eifxl,

to the
^

same condition.
Ka\ KuKvtra, iSocv acvvr]-

Tuv Koi iyw vvv

(pvyas BeoQeu

V. 385 (13, 17 :S1):

KXavad re

ve'iKii fxaiuop-ivu} tt'ktvvos.

V. 390 (11, 15 31)

e'l
(/7js

:
ocrffov /jltik^os

TijjLrjS

re

/cat

aSe ireawv Kara yatav ava(Trpi(poixai (Text of this fjLera Byr^rols. verse is very uncertain.)

6ea x^pov, 386 (21, 19 31) hea ^6vos re Koros re Kai aXXocv eQvea K-npwv, ayXM-Vpai re voaoi koi (rT}\pies epya re pevard. Cf. v. 393 (24,

392 (31, 29

M) :
im ^vrpou inroareyov.
;

22 31) for the description of the opposites in the terrestrial Tvorld, of XdoviT] and 'HAio'tttj (earth and fire), of ATjpts'and 'Apaoiiri (hate

ijKvBofiey to5'
'

V. 449 sq. vide inf. p. 174, 5. 3 Y. 383 (380, 11 M): ^877 yap iror' iyw yevo/uLiffv Kovpos re

and love), ^vaw and ^QifievT] (birth and decay), beauty and ugliness, greatness and littleness, sleep and
waking, &c.
Plui.
cles
life

(We

need not, with

p.

Kopt) re

Tranquil. An., 15,

474, in-

terpret this to
re
Ka\
etV

mean

that

ddfivos

t'

olwpos

a\l

Empedo-

eWoTTos Ix^vs.

Y. 377 (16, 32 aldepLov fiev yap (Tfpe

*

M):
jxivos irovrovde

assigned to everyone through a good and an evil genius.) ^

Cf. 157, 2.

SiwKei,

(TapKUJV

V. 402 (379, 414 31): aXXoyvuTi irepiareXXovaa

irovros

S'

es

xGovhs ovda's

aTreirrvo'e,

X^rwpi.

yala

8'

es

avyas
5'

According to Stob. RA.

al6epos e/j.fiaXe
Saifiwu.

rjeXiov aKajxavros, 6
divais
'

i. 1048, the subject of the proposition is v

6,\\os

5'

e|

aWov

dex^rai CTU'yeeK

'

ovai Se iravres.

V. 404 (378, 416 31)

(cfwy
eriQei
aiiei^oiV.

^ev yap

veKpoeite

V. 400 (14, 30

M)

seems to refer

174

EMPEDOCLES.

exiled diemons in the course of their wanderings enter

not only into

human and animal

;
*

bodies, but also into

classes the

the forms of plants

but in each of these

state, after the

noblest dwellings are appropriated to the worthiest of the

daemons.^

The intermediate

departure

of the soul from the bod}^, seems to have been con-

ceived by Empedocles in accordance with the prevailing

notions of Hades.^

Whether he supposed that the

term of wandering was the same for all souls, and what duration he assigned to it, we cannot be certain.'* The
best rise at last to the dignity of soothsayers, poets,
physicians, and princes, and from thence return as gods
to the gods.^

This belief
purifications of

is

connected by Empedocles with certain

in his writings,^
^

which we find traces

and
'

also with the prohibition of flesh

Cf. p. 173, 2;

and the slaying

159, 3.

tea; irpSixoi

a.vdpwiToi(nv iirixdovioLai

V. 438 (3B2, 448

fiaievvai

M) :
^

ireXouTai,

eV eiipea-cn Keovres bpeiAex^es x-

^"^^^

ava^Kaffrovai
(pipiaroi,

0eo:

riixfim

yiyvovraL
3

5d<puai

5'

iv\

dei'dpecriu

adamTOis 6.\\oiaiv
rpd-rreCoL.

ofiearioi,

avro-

TjvKduoLffiu.

alluded to in v. 389 the immediate refepence is unknown &tvs h.v Xet,j.'2ua Kara gkotos rjKacrKovaiv. ^ The rplcri^i^p^o. S^pa., V. 3/4, are of uncertain meaning (vide sup. p. 148, 1), and ^ve find on the

This

is

^'''"",

"'^Spelo;.

^xea^^,

airdKvpoi
"^"-'''^''^

(23, 21

M)

,.^f 7^^^!f I^"^^^^; ^^^- I- P- '0' ^>^e 4. J^-o^^ In the introduction to the KaQapjxoi,
,
''^^''^r'^'-

^'^5

f^^ ^^^"^
"

(392, 400 M), Empedocles of his present life, 67c. 8 ^'^' imfiporo,, ovk.ti dur)T6s.

other hand, in v. 445 (420. 455 M) sq. a threat, which doubtless refers to transmigration
:

V. 442 (422, 452

Kpif\vdwv

M) :
6.Tro

airoppviTTeade

TreVr'

api/uLUVTes arei/jei" xa/^-Kif

7

TOiydpTOi
oijTTOTe

xAe7r^ff-ii/
, ,

aAvovres kukS,

Tr}(Tiv

SeiXaLOJv

ax^osv

KwcpvaeTe

ixop(\)T]v

y^ 430 (410^ 442 M) S' aWd^ai'Ta Trarryp

:

(p'lKov

^c^^
(nrd((i

^eipas
fxeya
6
5'

^^1^^^s

V. 447 (387, 457

v6Koi koX
IrjTpol

M) :
vfxuo-

iTTevx6iJ.Vos,

vr]TTLOS

ts

U iropfrac,
Ovovtos
"

els

5e Te'Xo? fxdvreis

re Koi

XiaaS/xevos

av-qKov-

crrricrev u/xoicXeccv

TBAXSMIGEATIOy OF SOULS.
of animals.

175

light of crimes, as flagrant as the

Both necessarily appear to him in iLe murder of human

In the bodies of animals are
not the same general
?
^

beings and cannibalism.

human

souls

why then should

law apply to animals as to our fellow-creatures

In

order to be quite consistent, Empedocles should have

extended these principles to the vegetable world

this was, of course, impossible
:

so

but he contented himself

^
;

with prohibiting the use or abuse of a few plants,^ on account of their religious significance.

However important
scripts

this

doctrine

and these prethey have

may have

been to him

personally,"*

only a partial connection with his system, and on one side, indeed, are unmistakeably opposed to it. When

Empedocles looks back with longing from the world of strife and of oppositions towards the blessedness of a primeval state in which all was peace and harmony,

we

recognise in this the same temper and point of view

as applied to

human

life,

which

asserts itself in regard

to the universe in the doctrine of the vicissitude of its

(Tcpd^as
5'

eV ix^yaooKn

KaKriv aAe-

dAAof to fitv iravToov vouiuov hid t'

evpvfj.45ovTos

yvvaTO SaiTa. ws 5' ouTws TraTe'p'

Bvfj.hv

vios

kX'xv

/cat

fMvrepa TraTSes ^ ^ aTTopjaiaavTe: <pi\a^ koto (rap/COS eSovcriv.

alOepos ^j/e/cews r^Tarai 5ta r' airAeVou airy^s (V. 425, 403 K.

437
'

31).

V. 436
o^fMOL,

(9,

13
oil

M)

"^ Karsten
The
laurel

well observes, p.

8t'

TTpoaOev

fie

SiuXeffe

j/rjAees ijuap,

nplu (Tx^tXi ^pya ^opas

fi-nriaacreaL.

Trepl x^'^^^<r^

\^^ (418

and the bean, v. 450 31) sq., if indeed

V. 428 (416, 440

-^\ f
^

the second of these verses (S^iXol iravOeiXoi Kvapuav airo xetpos exeo-fle)
j^

Arist.i?^.f.i.l3.1373b.l4:V

/^aUv E
to

^^^

^^^

.r..u..yoeu-ivxou;rourof..uyao
,

>

the votino- in the ^ popular assemblies.

^
V

siblv reier

'^
5.,

ide p. 173.

176

EMFEDOCLES.
In both cases the state of unity
;

conditions.

is

con-

sidered the better and the earlier

division, opposition,

and the

strife of particular existences is

looked on as a

misfortune, as something which arose through a distur-

bance of the original order, through the abandonment

of the blessed primitive state.

But

if

his religious

and his physical theories lie in the same direction, Empedocles never attempted to connect thera scientiticalW, or even to prove their compatibility. For though mental life is only a consequence of the combination
of corporeal substances, yet as individual
life it is

con-

ditioned by this definite combination

fore,

the soul, there-

can neither have existed before the formation of

it outlast

the body, nor can

the body.

This difficulty

seems to have been so completely overlooked by

pedocles, that, as far as
slightest

Em-

we know, he made not the

it,

attempt to solve

or to

combine the doctrine

of transmioTation with his other theories.

says of the

What he

movement
all

of the primitive elements, which

wander through
with the
bodies
;

forms in changing combinations,^

^

has only a distant analogy and no actual connection

wandering of

daemons

through

terrestrial

and though the elements themselves are designated by the names of gods,^ and called daemons,^ it
'

Vide
p.

.s7/^rff,p.

130,

122,3.

Karsten,
u. d.

511,and GladischjE/??!;. Aeg. 61, suppose that verses

int^ to Empedocles, first spring from the combination of elementnry substances, and perish when

51 sqq. (quoted sup. p. 122, 3) refer tothepre-existence and immortality of this soul. This is an error the reference is to the imperishableness of the primitive elements of which the perishable beings (^poToi)
;

The perprimitive substances is therefore quite diiferent from the continuance of the individuals of that which is compounded of those substances,
this com])ination ceases.

mauence of the

consist.

^
"

existences, individual All even the gods and daemons, accord2

Vide sujjva, p. 125, 2; 137, V. 254, vide svpra, 160, 5.

1.

TRANSMIGRATIOX OF SOULS.

177

does not follow that Empedocles really identified two

such distinct things as the transmigi'ation of souls and

the circulation of the elements
:

or intended

what he
are

said of the first to apply to the second.^

justified in thinking that

Xor
is

we

Metempsychosis
life.^

with him

mere s}Tnbol

for the vitality of nature,

and the grahimself ad-

duated development of natural

He

vanced this doctrine in

its literal

sense with the gTeatest

earnestness and precision, and founded on it prescripts

which may perhaps appear to us

trivial,

but which

possessed in his eyes undeniable importance.

There

remains, therefore, only the supposition that he adopted

the doctrine of Metempsychosis and all depending on

from the Orphico-Pythagorean tradition, without combining it scientifically with his philosophic convictions advanced in another place and in another
it,

connection.^

The same may be

said of the

mythus of the golden

age, which Empedocles sets forth in a special manner,"*

'

As
;

is

maintained by Sturz,

Eitter C^'olf's Aval. ii. 453 sq., Gesch. d. Phil. i. 563 sq.) Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Phil. 41 Wendt on Tennemann,i. 312, sq. &c., after the precedent of Irhov, De Palingenesia Vetem.ra (Am-

471 sqq.

' That it is quite possible to entertain ideas that are mutnally

incompatible

is

shown

in

numerous

instances. Ho-w many theological doctrines, for example, hare been

believed by Christian philosophers

sterd, 1733), p. Sturz, I. c).

233 sqq.

&:c.

(vide

- Steinhart, sq, c. /. p. 103 Sext. Math. ix. 127 sqq. cannot be quoted in support of this; for he, or rather the Stoic whom he transcribes, attributes to Empedocles

philosophy would logically contradict them * In the verses which seem to he aWxided to hj Arist. Gen. et Corr.
-vrhose
!

ii.

6,

334

a.
:

5,

viz.

Y. 405 (368,

417
ovS4

^)

sqq.

and the Pythagoreans Metempsychosis in the literal sense, and founds it upon the Stoical doctrine of the world spirit.

ns i\v K^ivoi(jLv''Kpr\s 6eos ovde KvSoiuhs ovSh Zeis ^aaiXeus ovhh Kpovos ovSe
UocrfiBcov

d\Aa

Kvirpis ^aaiXeia.

Cf.

V. 421

VOL.

II.

178

EMPEDOCLES,
find

though we cannot
it

with his other doctrines.

any point of connection in It cannot have belonged

for in the Sphairos

to the

imagery of the Sphairos,^

;

were no individual existences

golden
beings,
trial.

nor to the description of

the heavenly primeval state, for those

who

lived in the

age are expressly said to have been

human

and

all their

surroundings appear to be terresthe passages just

Some would conclude from

quoted from Aristotle, that the golden age must be

assigned to the period in which the separation of the
different elements
this

from the Sphairos

urge in

first

began.

But
have

view has

little to

its behalf, for, as 'we

already seen, Empedocles gives no particulais about

that form of the universe, which contrasted so entii'ely

with the present.^

It seems, then, that he

employed

the myths of the golden age to enforce his principles

respecting the sacredness of animal
life,

without trou-

bling himsef to consider whether there was room in his

system

for

such a theory.
opinions
of

Side by side with these myths and doctrines the

theological

Empedocles now claim our

offered in
;

(364, 433 M) sqq. In the following verses we are then told how these gods were worshipped by the former

the place of real ani-

raceof men with unbloody sacrifices and gifts, for all animals lived in friendship with men, and the plants furnished fruits in abundance. (As
to this interpretation of aya\fxa,
cf.

mals just as the offering of a bull of baked flour was ascribed to the philosopher himself by Favorinus ap. Diog. viii. 53, and to Pythagoras by Porph. V. P. 36.) Cf. sup. p. 162, 2. The notion of Stein and Mullach,
that the verses (Vol.
I.

51

1,

1) attri-

Beruays, Thcophr.v.
179.

d. brbiiintigkeit,

Bernays conjectures,

in the

preceding verses, CTaKToh (wpo7(n This instead of -ypairTols (cfoiai. does not commend itself to me. Empedocles may very well have niaiutained that painted C^ ^ere

buted in antiquity to Pythagoras or Parmenides really belonged to this section seems to me doubtful, To which they are referred
'

by

Gesck. d. Phil. i. 543, 546, and Krische, Forsch. i. 123. ^ Supra, p. 153.
Ritter,

THEOLOGY.
attention.

179

He

speaks of the Grods in

ways

In the

first jilace,

he mentions

many different among the. beings

all.^

who

arose out of the combination of primitive substances,

the gods, the long-living, the revered of

These

gods are manifestly not distinct from the divinities of the polytheistic popular faith, except that, according to
the cosmology of Empedocles, their existence
to a particular space of time.^
is

limited

The dasmons

also,

some

of

whom

maintain themselves from the beoinnino- in

wanderings of Metempsychosis,-^ belong to the
Secondly, Empedocles
allies

the abodes of the Blest, while others return thither

after the

popular faith.

himself with

the same popular faith when he calls the elements and

the

moving
;

forces daemons,

and gives them the names

is

of gods
that

but the mythical veil

here so transparent

we may consider

this use of the divine

names

as
six

purely allegorical.

According to his own opinion, the

primitive essences are indeed absolute and eternal existences, to

whom,

therefore, the predicate divine belongs

to the created gods, but

in a

more original sense than

Thirdly, the same

the poet only occasionally ascribes a personality to these

essences.

may be

said of the divinity

all

of the Sphairos.

This mixture of

substances

is

di-

vine only in the sense in which antiquity regarded the

world as the totality of divine forces and essences.'

V. 104 sqq. {sup. 130, 1); cf. 119 (154, 134 M) sqq. 2 Vide suj). p. 152, 2. 3 Vide sup. p. 172, 1 172 sq. * 5^7?. 137,1, end;r25, 2; 138,3. 5 The contrary is maintained by Wirth, d. Idee Gottes, 172 sqq.

(cf,

Gladisch,

Emp.

sq.,

69 sqq.).

He

u. Aeg. 31 connects what

d.

is said of the divinity of the Sphairos (vide svp. p. 141, 4) with the dottrire of Love, and both with the Empedocleau verses immediately to be quoted, and so attains this conception God is an intelligent subject, his essence is (piXia, his primitive existence the Sphairos, which is therefore itself de:

180
Lastly,

EMPEDOCLES.
we
possess verses of

Empedocles

in

which he

describes the Deity in the

manner and almost

and
V.
;

in the very

scribed in verse 138 {siip. 147, 1) as something personal. This combination, however, cannot be established on historical testimony, nor is it compatible with the most certain definitions of Em^Dedocles's
doctrine.
is

Strife the most baneful (Emp. 79 sqq., 405 sqq. St. 106 sqq., 368 sqq., K. 80 sqq., 416 sqq.;

M,

Wirth's main argument obserYation of Aristotle {sup. p. 148, 4), that the fvdaifxoueo-TttTos Behs of Empedocles is more ignorant than any other creature
the

most blessed existence must be that in which there is no strife but only Unity and Love. All that can h<^ proved is that the Sphairos of Empedocles is described as Divinity and a blessed
Sec), the

it has no Hate in itself, and consequently cannot know it. But it shoAvs little acquaintance with Aristotle's nsual manner of literally interpreting his predecessors, to infer from this that Empedocles considered the Sphairos as an intelligent subject, exempt from the His obserprocess of the Finite. vation is perfectly explicable, supposing he was merely alluding to verses 138, 142 (snp. p. 147, 1 149, 3), where the Sphairos is described as god and as a blessed Being. Aristotle seizes on these defi-

for

But (as Aristotle himself remarks, Gen. et Corr. ii. 6, 333 b, 20) he also calls the elements and the beings derived from the elements men as well as daemons gods and he had the same right to describe his Sphairos as blessed, that Plato had to apply the word to our visible world, even if he did not conceive it as a personal being. Supposing, however, he did conceive it as such, or in the dubious manner of the early philosophers, in spite of its imperessence.

sonal nature, ascribed to it certain

personal attributes,

knowledge

nitions,

and combining them with

for example would by no means prove that it was god in

this

the farther proposition that like is known by like, is able to convict Empedocles of an absurdity. But as it does not follow that Empedocles himself said the Sphairos does not know Hate, neither does it follow that he spoke of it as possessing any faculty of knowledge. It is qnite possible that this assertion inference drawn by is only an even the superlative Aristotle evSaiixoueararos dehs need not necessarily have been found in Empedocles (who on metrical grounds could not have employed it as it Aristotle himself may stands). have originated it, either ironically, or because he concluded that Unity being the most desirable condition,
;

the monotheistic sense, the highest existence, not subject to the process of the Finite. In the first place we do not know that Empedocles entertained the monotheistic idea of Grod since the verse in which it is supposed to be found refers, Ammonius thinks, to Apollo; and in the second place, if he did entertain it, he could not possibly have identified this supreme God with the Sphairos, For according to Wirth, the supreme God is withdrawn from the process of the Finite but the Sphairos is so completely involved in this process that it is itself in its whole integrity (vide sup. p. 149, 3) split up by Hate, and re; ;

THEOLOGY.

181

words of Xenophanes, as invisible and unapproachable, and exalted above human form and limitation, as pui'e
spirit ruling the

whole world.

This utterance indeed

deities,-

immediately relates to one of the popidar

solved into the divided world; in these verses the Deity is described the Sphairos. on as pure spirit the Contrary, as the mixture of all corporeal substances. To prove the compatibility of these conceptions, it is not enough to observe that, from the realistic point of view of the ancients, God might be conceived as the unity of the elements and that a conception of Deity similar to this was held by Diogenes and the Eleatics. The question is not whether the Deity might be conceived as the unity of the elements (this we find among the earlier Ionian hylozoistic philosophers and others), nor whether, in that case, reason and thought could be ascribed to a primitive essence materially conceived (this is done by many philosophers Diogenes and Heracleitus for instanceand by all the Stoics) but whether one and the same philosopher has ever conceived the Divinity simultaneously as pure spirit {(ppv^ '^^PV 'f"' adeacpaTOS eTTAero fiovvov) and as a mixture of all corporeal elements. For this "WLrth's there is no analogy. theories are altogether opposed to the fundamental conceptions of Erapedccles's system. According
;
;
;

and

should arrive at a theory of the world resemblingHeracleitean pantheism. But Empedocles himself declares the four elements, and the two moving forces, to be the First and uncreated. The mixture of these elements, on the other hand, the Sphairos, he repeatedly and explicitly describes as something
derived,
ciples.

and arising out of the

combination of the original prin-

The Sphairos, therefore (notwithstanding the Aristotelian 6 6ehs), cannot possibly have been considered by him as the Divinity in the absolute sense, but only as a divinitv cf. p. 1-19. 4. 1 V. 344 (356, 389 M) :
;

ovK

eariv
fidlcriv

ireXdaacrd'

ovr

6<pda\virep

i(pLKThv

Tjuerepois ^ X^P'^^
ireidovs

Xa^uv,

Te
ety

aydpwTTOtcnu

a,ua|jTc)s

(ppiia TTtTTTei.

ov

fxkv

yap ^porerj

(al.

avSpo/xer))

KecpaXrj

Kara

ovre yap yvla

KeKacTTai.

ov fxev atra\ i/uroio dvo K\a5oi atcr(Tovrai,

ov

TToSes,

ov

Qoa
Upj]

yovv
koI

ov

fj.r]5ea

Xaxvriei'Ta.

o\Aa

((>priv

dQicF^aros
KaraicT-

CTrAeTo fxovvov,
(ppovTiai

to his representation,

and

Kocruov
Qor,criu.

airavra

also ac-

aovcra

cording to Gladisch, I. c, the first to exist was the unity of all Being, the Divinity, which is at the same time all elementary matter and from this uniform essence only, could particular substances have developed themselves. Thus we
;

Ammon. Be
Schrjl.
'

Interpret.

ap.
Sia

in Arist.

135

a,

199, 21
:

Tavra Se

6 A.KpayavT'ivos aocphi

eTTippairi^wv

rohs

irepl

deuu us avrpoi]-

OpwTToei^uv ovTwu irapd to7s iroiTjTaTy

\eyofjL4vovs

fivOovs

iirijyaye

182

EMPEDOCLES.
it

even were
pedocles,

otherwise,

we could not imagine that Emplurality of gods,

is

who everywhere presupposes a

and whose whole character

that of priest and prophet,

would have assumed

so hostile an attitude towards the

popular religion as his Eleatic predecessors.

sider these verses, therefore, as
is

To con-

often done, a confession

;

of pure monotheism

is

a mistake

nor ought they to be

;

interpreted in the sense of a philosophic pantheism

for of this there is

no trace in Empedocles

:
'

indeed,

it

would be wholly incompatible with one fundamental

principle of his system, the original plurality of the

elements and efficient forces.

purification

But the design

is

of a

of the
it,

popular faith

notwithstanding

discernible in

and he himself

clearly

avows

tliis

de-

sign when, in the introduction to the third book of his

physical poem, he extols the value of the true

know-

ledge of God, deplores the false notions concerning the

gods,-

and

calls

on the muse to help

him

to

make a

good discourse about the blessed gods. Even this purer faith, however, stands in no scientific connection with
his philosophic theories.
'yovj.dvus ix\v TTfpl 'AttSWodvos, ov iju aiiTw T?po(Texh^ o XSyos,

An
Trepii

indirect connection there

2

y
8'

342 (354, 387

M)

Se rhv avrhv rpoTrov

i<al

Kara irepl rod

t,\^ios %s e^'iwv Trpairi^cav iKTr](Taro

ttXovtov,

eeicv iravrhs
''

anXus diro(paLv6fj.Uos, oyre 7ap," &e. According to Diog.

{yide snp.
]

SeiXhs

<rKor6c(T(ra

Q^av

irepi

So^a
3

fle/xriXeu.
^

rm. 57
<;les

21,

...)

EmpedoAttoAel

composed a

xpooiju-ioi^ eis

Xava, which, however, was burned after his death. Is it likely that it survived in a transcript ? ' We have already (Vol. I. 446 sq.) noticed the passage of Sextns which ascribes to him, as well as to the Pythagoreans, the Stoical doctrine of the world-spirit.

yap

icpftixepicov

'ivnch

ri

crot,

Hfx^pore Mova-a, 7}ix^Tipr\s efueXeu yueAeVas

n'Sos iXOelu,
evxa/Jiducp vvv
Ai^7rio,

Slo,

(ppov-

avre irapicrTaTo, KaX-

dfKpl

6<-'2v

(xaKapav dyaQhv x6yov

ificpaivovTi.

THEOLOGY.
certainly
is
:

183

the

anthropomorpliism of the popular

religion could not be altogether congenial to

philoso-

pher in

whom

a taste for the knowledge of natural

causes was so highly developed.

But

these theological

conceptions themselves belong neither to the foundation,

nor to the development, of Empedocles's system.

The
is

god who pervades the universe with

neither
its

his

thought

creator nor

its

former, for the cause of the

world

is

to be found only in the four elements

forces.

and the

two motive

Nor, according to the presupposi-

tions of the system, can the

government of the universe

belong to him

for the course of the world, as far as

we

can learn from the fragmentary utterances of Emp3docles, is

dependent equally upon the admixture of the

elements and the alternate action of Hate and Love,

which again follow an irreversible law of nature.

Xo

room
(rod
:

is left

in his doctrine for the personal activity of

*

even Necessity, in which Ritter

recognises the

one
this

efficient cause,

the Unity of Love and Hate, has not

meaning with Empedocles.^

for

Xor can we suppose

is

that the Deity to which the above description relates

conceived as Love
efficient

Love

is

only one of the two

is

powers to which the other

;

diametrically

opposed

and

it

is

treated by Empedocles, not as a

spirit ruling absolutely over the world,

but as one of

the six elements bound up in all things.^

spiritual notion of G-od
is,

The more

which we find in his writings

therefore, as little in

harmony with

his philosophic
it is

theories as the popular religion, to which

1

primarily

Gesch.

d. Phil.

i.

544.

X'^^^

mpra,

p. 138, 3.

Vide supra,

p. 142, 1.

184

EMPEDOCLES.
;

related

we cannot

in consequence derive it

immediately

from those theories, but must trace it to some other antecedents, such as, on the one hand, the precedent
of Xenophanes, whose influence
is so

clearly betrayed

in the language of the passage quoted from

Empedocles

and on the other, the moral and

religious interest,

which

we recognise
bloody

in his reforming attitude in regard to the

sacrifices of the ruling faith.

But though these

is

traits are very

important

if

our object

to attain a

complete picture of the personality and influence of

Empedocles, or to determine his actual position in

regfard to religion in its details, their connection

with

his philosophic convictions

is

too slight to allow of our

attaching any great importance to them in the history

of philosophy.

IV. THE SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER AND HISTORICAL

POSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EMPEDOCLES.

Even
its

in antiquity philosophers

were greatly divided in

respect to the value of the doctrine of Empedocles and

relation to earlier
this

and contemporaneous systems

of

and

dissimilarity

opinion has

since

rather

increased

than diminished.

While, among

his

conof

temporaries,

Empedocles

enjoyed a high

degree

veneration, which, however, seems to have been accorded

to

him

less as a
;

philosopher than as a prophet and

man

of the people

and while later writers from the most opposite points of view mention him with the greatest
^
*

Cf.
is

what

with the Terses quoted said of Xenophanes, Vol. I.

560
^

sq.

yj^jg supra, p. 119.

CRABA CTER AND POSITI OX OF HIS D CTEIXE.

respect,^ Plato
^

So

and Aristotle
highly
;

sophic merit less

^ seem to rank his philoand in modern times the

enthusiastic praise given to

him by some

writers

"*

is

counterbalanced by more than one depreciatory judgment.-^

Still greater is

the difference of opinion respect-

ing the relation of Empedocles to the earlier schools.

Plato
'

{I. c.)

places

him with

Heracleitus,

xA.ristotle

usually

the one hand, as is -well known, the neo-Platonists, whose distortion of Empedocles's doctrines has been already spoken of; and on the other, Lucretius, on account of his greatness as a poet, and his physical tendencies, which were Atomistic. Lucret. ^. R. I, 716
qq.
:

On

lean doctrines (e.g. Metaph. i. 4, 985 a, 21; iii. 4,1000 a, 24 sqq. xii. 10, 1075 b; the definitions ot'

Love and Hate,

19
;

ibid.

i.

8,

989

b,

Gen.
:

sqq.

ii.

Corr. i. 1, 314 b, 15 6, the doctrine of the

et

quorum Acraganfin\ um Acragantinus cxon primis ^

-

Empedocles
insula
quera

est,

elements, Fhys. viii. 1, 252; the theories on the cosmical periods, Meteor, ii, 9, 369 b, 11 sqq.; the explanation of lightning) is not more severe than is usual with
Aristotle,

triqueiris
.

terrarum

In .W.or

ii,

gessit in arif,

^^' }^^ conception of

3, 3o< a, the sea as

qu^ cum -magna modis midtis miTOJuLa videtur,

, ,

exuded from the earth

=

is

spoken

nil

tamen hoc kabuisse viro pr^clarius in se

toit that is not of ^^ ^? .^^^^ inuch importance and the censure expression and poetry ot ^^ ^
;

nee sanctum

magis

et

mirum

ca-

rnmque videtur. carmi^ia \uin etiam

pj^i^

Jl^P^l^^.l^^. ^?^f: l^' Poet. ^. 1447 b ^4

;

divini pectoris

however,

is

^^t 1 .), which, counterbalanced hj

o,),

.'

some praise
""%

(ap. Dioe:, vui.

vociferantur et exponunt prmlara reverta humana vidcatur stirpe ut creatus

^'' philosophy as

mi

^'^t ''^^'f such, Jut the comparison with f^^^'^goms [Metapk.i. 3, 984 a,
11) is decidedly untavonrable to Empedocles, and the word li/eAXi^^aQai, ibid. 4, 985 a, 4. if even it be extended (/J/(7. i. 10) to the whole of the earlier philosophy, gives us the impression that Empedocles was especially wanting in
clear conceptions,
* Lommatzsch in the treatise mentioned, p, 117, 1. ^ Cf. Hegel. Gesch. d. Phil. i. 337; ilarbach, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 75; Fries, Gesch. d. Phil.\. IBS.

cles, as
is

Soph. 242 E, where Empedocompared with Heracleitus, characterised as ixaXaKwrepos. * Aristotle, indeed, never passes
2
;

formal judgment on Empedocles but the remarks he lets fall upon occasions would lead us to suppose that he does not consider him equal, as a naturalist, toDemocritus, or as a philosopher to Parmenides and Anaxagoras. The manner in which he refutes many Empedoc-

186

EMPEDOCLES.

with Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus, and even with the earlier lonians
;^

since the epoch of the Alexan-

drians, however, he has generally been classed with the

Pythagoreans.

JNIodern writers have almost without ex-

ception departed from this tradition,^ without arriving

in other respects at

any unanimous theory.

Some reckon

him among

the lonians, and admit, side by side with

the Ionic nucleus of his doctrine, only a small admixture

of Pythagorean and Eleatic elements.^

Others, on the
^

contrary, consider

him an

Eleatic,"*

and a third party

peaces

him

as a dualist beside Anaxagoras.

The ma-

jority, however,

seem more and more inclined to agree that in the doctrine of Empedocles there is a mixture of various elements Pythagorean, Eleatic, and Ionic, but especially Eleatic and Ionic ^ in what relation, and according to what points of view they are combined, or whether they are ranged side by side in a merely eclectic

fashion,

is still

a matter of controversy.
it

In order to arrive at a decision,

1

would seem the

iii.

Mctaph.
en'^,
c,
;

i.

3,

c.
i.

6 4

7,

984 a, 8, c, 4, 988 a. 32; Phys.

et

Fhil.
sq.
;

i.

188; Bhcin. Mies.

I.e.

123

Marbach,
166
;

viii. 1

Gen.

Corr.

i.

1,

8;
sq.

De

Coelo,
2

iii.

7 ct pass.

I. p.
;

Bitter, Z.c; Braniss, s?/^. Vol. sq. Petersen, sup. p. 194

LoniTnatzsch alone follows it Wirth {Idee der imconditionally. Gotth. 175) says that the whole system of Empedocles was penetrated with the spirit of Pythagoreanism. Ast. Gesch. d. P/nl. 1 A, p. 86, restricts the Pythagorean element to the speculative philosophy of Empedocles, wliile his natural philosophy is referred to the lonians.
3

Gladisch, in Noack's Jahrb.f. spck. P/nl. 1847, 697 sq.

^

Striimpell, Ges'ch.

d.

thcorct.

Phil. d. Griechen, oo sq.

Hegel,

I.

c.

321
sq.
;

Wendt
d. Plat.
;

zu
i.

Tenueman, i. 277 mann, Gesch. n.

150
p.
;

K. P. HerKrische,

St/sf.

Karsten,
;

p. 54,
;

517

Tennemann, Gesch.
sq.
;

d. Phil.

i.

241

Phil.

8chleiermacher, <^. Brandis, Gr.-rbm. 37 sq.

6^esf^,
;

Forschungen,i. 116 Steinhart, ^. e. 105 cf. 92 Schwegler, Gesch. d. Phil. p. 15 Haym. Allg. Enc. Zte. Sect. xxiv. 36 sq. Sigwart, Gesch. d. Phil. 1. 75; Ueberweg,
; ;

Grund.

i.

22.

HIS TEACHERS.

187

most obvious course to consult the statements of the But they ancients as to the teachers of Empedocles.

no certain foothold. Alcidamas is said to have described him as a disciple of Parmenides, who afterwards separated himself from his master to follow
afford us

iVnaxagoras and Pythagoras.^

so strange that

The

last assertion
it

sounds

we can hardly

believe

was ever made

by the celebrated disciple

of Grorgias.

Either some later

namesake of his must have said so, or his real words must have been misunderstood by the superficial comSupposing, piler from whom we have received them.^
however, that Alcidamas
did

make

the assertion,

it

would only prove that he inferred a personal relation

between these philosophers from the similarity of their doctrines, without himself having any knowledge of the matter. Timseus likewise says that Empedocles was a
disciple of Pythagoras.^

He
;

adds that this philosopher

for stealing

was excluded from the Pythagorean school

speeches (\0y0K\07rsLa)
thes,'*

and the same is said by Xeanwhose testimony does not strengthen the crestory.
:

dibility of the
'

On

the other hand,

reans,

we must

Diog.

viii.

iv Tcp

(pvtriK'x (prjffi

5Q 'A\KiBduas 5' Kara robs avrovs

Koi
"^^v

Xpovovs
aKovcrai

Z-hfcova

'EfiiredoKXea

TlapfxeviSov,
Ko-"*-

eW
fxkv

varepov
Zr^uxpa
S"
'

aiToxf^p^t^^'-

Ava^ayopov SiaKovaai kui UuOayopov Koi Tov fiev TTju crffMuoT-qra (r]\w(rai Tov re fil(jv Kol tov crxht^o-Tos, tov
Zk Tr]v <pv(no\oyiav.

Kar' Idiau (piKococpriaai, rov

disciple Empedocles or merely of an affinity with the doctrine of Pythagoras and Anaxagoras, without any personal In the one case, the disci pleship. expression ol afxcpl Tlv6ayopOv, in the other aKoKov9e7i/, or some similar word, may have given rise to

whose
;

became

So Karsten suggests (p. 49), me also it seems the most probable. Whether Alcidamus, as Karsten conjectures, may have spoken only of cert^iin Pythago-

the misunderstanding. ^ Diog. viii. 54. Later writers. such as Tzetzes and Hippolytiis, I
Cf. Sturz, pass over. Karsten, p. 50. * Ap. Diog. viii.
p.
14,

and

to

and
Vide

bb.

Vol.

I.

315, n.

188

EMPEDOCLES.
these statements are based on unhistorical

remember that
goreans.

presuppositions as to the esoteric school of the Pytha-

Others prefer to consider Empedocles as an

;

indirect follower of Pythagoras

ever, are so contradictory,
false,

their assertions,

how-

many

of

and all so meagrely attested, upon them. Lastly, Empedocles

generally described
as

them so manifestly that we cannot rely

is

by

many

writers

Pythagorean, ^ without any

further particulars about his doctrines or his relation to

the Pythagorean school

but whether this description

is

founded on some definite historical tradition, or only on

conjecture,

we cannot

tell.

He
;

is

also said to

have been

personally connected with the Eleatic school, and this

would seem more probable for though it may have been impossible for him to have known Xenophanes, whose disciple Hermippus calls him,^ yet there is no
historical probability against the theory that

he

may
Dio-

have had personal intercourse with Parmenides.'*

In a letter to Pythagoras's son Telauges, the authenticity of which is suspected by Neanthes, and on which Diog. viii. 53, 74, also seems to throw doubt, Empedocles was described as a disciple of Hippasus and Brontinus (Diog. viii. 55). From this letter, no doubt, comes the verse with the addrcos to Telauges, which is quoted in Diog. viii. 43, after Hippobotus and it may also have given occasion to the idea {rivis Eus. Prcep. x. 14, ap. Diog. I. c. 9, and, after him, Theodoretus, Cur. Gr. Aff. ii. 23, p. 24 Suid. 'E/x7re8oKX^s) that Telauges him'
;
; ;

Arehytas as the teacher of Empedocles. - Examples are given by Sturz, 13 sq. Karsten, p. 53. Cf. also the following note, and Phi op.
X"^'"^) even mentions
;
I

Le An.
D,
16.
^

C,

i.

(where

'EMTreSo/cA-Tjs

is

to be substituted for Ti/xaios), ibid.

Diog.

viii.

56

"Epixiir-nos

8'

ov UopfxepiSov, Eevoa^dvous 8e 7670v4vai (tiXoottjv, & koX avvZiarpl-^ai

ttiv iTroiroiiau

6ayopLKo7s ivrvxeiv.
ix.

varepou 6e to7s FluCf. in Diog. 20, the supposed reply of Xeno

phanes to Empedocles.
*

Simpl. I'hys. 6
kou

1):

nap,uci/iSou

irKT]cna(nT]s

^rjXurrjs

koI

ert

self (or, as
eays,

Tzetz.

Chil.

iii.

902,

/xaWou UvBayopeiwv.

Pythagoras

and

had instructed him.

Telauges) Suidas ("Ap-

Olympiodorus, in Gorg. Prooem. end (Jahn's Jahrb. Sup;pleinentb. xiv. 112);

HIS SUPPOSED TEACHERS.

genes does not distinctly say
represents
^

189

whether Theophrastus
Parmenides, or

him

as a personal disciple of

only asserts that he was acquainted with Parmenides's

work.

We

must, therefore, consider

it

as

an unsettled

point whether Empedocles was actually instructed by

Parmenides, or merely used his poems.

He

has also
is

been called a disciple of Anaxagoras,- but this

highly
;

improbable on historical and chronological grounds

Karsten's attempt to prove the external possibility of

their relation by conjectures, which in themselves are

mgst hazardous, must therefore be considered a failure.'* It is still more unwarrantable to ascribe to him journeys in the East,^ which were unknown even to Diooenes
the sole foundation for this statement
lies

doubtless in

Empedocles's reputation for magic, as clearly appears

from our authorities themselves.^

Suidas. 'E,u7re5oKA7?s, and Porphr. ibid. Porphyry no doubt, ho-vrever,

Thus, while part of

Cf.
I. 3,

his philosophic standpoint. Dioj. viii. 66, o3, 63. Athen.

e.

confuses him with Zeuo when he says he was beloved by Parmenides. Alcidamas, vide sup. p. 188, 3. 1 6 8e Q6(ppacrrQ5 Diog. 00 avrhv (-nXciyrrjv Ilap/xej/iSou 9770-1 yeu4adai Kal fjufirjTitu iv ro7s Troirjfiacri Kol yao iKe7vov eV eTrecri tou
:

620 d. Snidas, "A/cpcoj/. Pliny, ZT.JNaz'.xxx. 1,9, speaks indeed of distant journeys which
xiv,
*

had been undertaken by Empedoas by Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato, to learn mafiric. He can
cles,

irepl (pvcrcas
-

\6yov i^eveyKelu.

only, however, be thinking of travels in the East (which sftem to be as-

Vide sup. p. 188. 3. This will be shown in the section on Anaxagoras. * Karsten 49) supposes (p. that Empedocles may have come contemporaneously with to Athens Parmenides, about 01. 81, and may here have heard Anaxagoras.
^

cribed to

him
2,

also
3)

by

Philostr. V.

ApoU.

i.

p.

him among those tercourse with the 3Iagi. ^ This alone would

when he classes who had had in-

make

it

But

all

that

we

are told of his first

very improbable that the system of Empedocles should have stood in such a relation to the Egyptian theology as Glaid\sch. {Empedocl. u.
d. Aeg. and other works of his mentioned. Vol. I. p. 35, 1) supposes. For such accurate knowledge and complete appropriation

journey to Greece points to a time when Empedocles was already at

the highest point of his fame, and had doubtless long ago attained

190

EMPEBOCLES.

what we know respecting tbe teachers of Empedocles is manifestly legendary, we have no security that the
of Egyptian ideas "would be inconceivable, unless Empedocles had long resided in Egypt. That no of such a residence tradition should have been preserved, either by Diogenes, who relates so much

concerning him from Alexandrian sources, and who has carefully collected all information respecting his teachers, nor by any other writer, seems the more incredible if we consider how zealously the Greeks, after the time of Herodotus, sought out and propagated everything, even the most fabulous statements, tending to connect their wise men with the East, and The inespecially with Eaypt.
ternal affinity, therefore, between

the system of Empedocles and the Egyptian doctrines must be very clearly manifested to justify the
conjecture of any historical conOf this Gladisch, in nection. spite of all the labour and acute ness he has devoted to the subject, has failed to convince me. If we put aside the doctrine of Metempsychosis and the asceticism bound up in it, which were naturalised in Greece long before the time of Empedocles, and which he brings

forward in an essentially different if we form from the Egyptian further put aside all that is ascribed to the Egyptians solely on the authority of the Hermetic writings and other untrustworthy
;

Sphairos, the Elements, and Love and Hate. As to the Sphairos. it has already been shown (p. 179 sq.) that it is not the primitive essence out of which all things are developed, but something derived and compounded of the original essences if, therefore, it is true (in regard to the ancient Egyptian and pre-Alexandrian philosophy, this must be greatly qualified) that the Egyptians regarded the Supreme Deity as one with the world, and the world as the body of the Deity even if it can be proved that they held the development of the world frona the Deity, the affinity of their system with that of Empedocles would not be established, because these theories are absent in the latter. As to the four elements not only is it evident that Empedocles's conception of the elements is derived from the physics of Parmenides but the doctrine of these four primitive substances (which would not of itself be decisive) Gladisch has only been able to find in Manetho and later accounts for the most part taken from him in the Egyptian expositions, as Lepsius has proved Ueher die Goiter d. vier Elemente (
;

bei

d.

Aegypiem, Ahh.

d.

Berl.

Akademie, 1856.
p.

sources,

or

that

is

in

itself

too
it,

little characteristic to

allow of our

deducing
there
still

any inference from

remain, among the parallels drawn by Gladisch, three important points of comparison, viz., the Empedoclean doctrines of the

Kl. 181 sqq.), and Brugsch (ap. Gladisch, Emp. u. d. Aeg. 144) has confirmed, the four pairs of elemental gods are not found prior to the Ptolemies, and for the first time in the reign of Ptolemy IV. (222-204 B.C.). The four elements consequently must have come, not from the Egyptians to the Greeks,
Hist. Phil.

BIS TEACHERS
more probable statement
tradition.

AXD TRAVELS.
comes from

191

really

historical

We

therefore get from this source no inliis

formation respecting

relations to his predecessors,

satis-

which the study of his doctrine could not more

factorily

and certainly
can

afford.

We

distinguish in

this

doctrine

constituent

elements of three kinds, connected respectively with the

Pythagorean, Eleatic, and Heracleitean points of view.

These difierent elements, however, have not an equal

importance in regard to the
philosophic

system of

Empedocles.
the

The

influence of Pythagoreanism appears

decidedly only in the mythical part of his doctrine, in

concerning Transmigration and the and in the practical prescripts connected theredaemons,
statements

with

in his physics it
to

is

either not felt at

all,

or only

in reference

particular

and secondary points.

derived

In

regard to these doctrines there can scarcely be a doubt

that Empedocles

primarily
the

them from the

Pythagoreans

though

Pythagoreans

may have

originally adopted

them from the Orphic

mysteries, and

Empedocles, in his ordinances respecting the slaying of animals and the eating of flesh, may have given them a

more
tians.

strict

application than the early Pythagoreans,

trine is clearly evident.
Isis
If, lastly,

but from the Greeks to the Egjp-

Manetho himself has unmistakeably borrowed them from

as he everywhere, the Greeks with the same freedom as the writers, introduces Greek later conceptions into the Egyptian Even in what is philosophy. quoted, Eus. Pr. Ev. III. 2, 8, and l)iog. Prooem. 10, from him and his contemporary Hecataeus concern;

and Tvphon are the protot^-pes of (\>i\ia and veiKos, the parallel is so far-fetched, and the import of these Egyptian divinities is so different from that of the two
natural forces of Empedocles, that we might as reasonably derive them from many other mythological forms, and from some (e"g.

Ormuzd and Ahrimau)

reasonably.

far

more

ing the elements, the Stoical doc-

192

EMPEDOCLES.

It is likewise probable that, in bis personal bearing, he

have adopted here and there certain religious notions from the Pythagoreans, but we have now no means of proving this, for it is very vnicertain whether
also

may may

have kept in view the example of Pythagoras.

He

or not the prohibition of beans

Pythagoreans.'

emanated from the early Whatever he may have borrowed from

would be rash to
all

them on

this side of his doctrine, it

infer that

he was in

respects a Pythagorean, or

belonged to the Pythagorean Society. His political As character would of itself refute such an inference.
a Pythagorean, he

must have been an adherent of the

ancient Doric aristocracy, whereas he occupies a position

diametrically opposite, at the head of the Agrigentine

democracy.

Thus, in spite of the Pythagorean tendency

of his theology, in his politics he differs entirely from

the Pythagoreans, and so

his philosophy.

it

may have

been in regard to

The

religious doctrines

and prescripts

which he took from the Pythagoreans are not only, as we have already seen, devoid of any internal connection
with his physical theories, but are actually opposed to

them.

To

place him, on the strength of those doctrines,

among
licism,
in his

the Pythagorean philosophers, would be as great

a mistake as to place Descartes, because of his Catho-

among
is

the Scholastics.

In his philosophy
is

itself,

physics,

Pythagoreanism

little

apparent.

There

no trace of the fundamental conception of the

viz.,

system

that numbers are the essence of things

the arithmetical construction of figures and of bodies,

* It has Cf. Vol. I. 345, 6. already been observed, p. 175, 3,

that this

is

also uncertain in regard

to Empedoeles.

TBAXSMIGEATIOX OF SOULS.

193

and the geometrical derivation of the elements lie quite out of his path the Pythagorean number-symbolism
;

is

wholly unknown to him, in spite of his usual pre-

dilection for figurative

and symbolical expression.

In

particular cases he does indeed attempt to determine

according to numbers the proportion in which the ele-

ments are mixed

but this

is

something quite different

In regard to his doc^

from the procedure of the P}i:hagoreans, who directly

declared things to be numbers.
trine of the elements also,
it is

we have already seen

that

improbable that

it

should have been influenced to

any considerable extent by Pythagoreanism.

to

Moreover,

the more precise conception of an element, according

which

it

is

a particular substance, unchangeable in

its qualitative determinateness, was entirely

unknown

to the Pythagoreans,

and was
it

first

introduced by

Em-

pedocles.
it
is

Before

him

could not have existed, because

wholly based upon the enquiries of Parmenides

concerning Becoming. The influence of the Pythagorean

number-theory upon the Empedoclean system,

were any such influence at
very important.
Similarly
all,

if

there

cannot be considered

we

are superficially

reminded

of the Pythagorean musical theory which was so closely

connected with their theory of numbers, by the

of HarmiDny, which Empedocles ascribes,

name
other

among

names, to Love

but in no place where he speaks of the operation of this Harmony do we find it compared with
;

the concord of tones

nowhere is there a trace of any knowledge of the harmonical system, or a mention of the harmonic fundamental proportions, so familiar to
:

Vide supra,

p.

125

cf.

Vol.

I. p.

436

sq.

VOL.

II.

194
tlie

EMPEDOCLES.
P3^thag'orearis
:

and

since

Empedocles expressly
it

maintains that none of his predecessors were acquainted

with Love as a universal force of nature,'

doubtful whether he calls Love

seems very

Harmony
is

in the sense

in which the Pythagoreans said all

Harmony, and

whether like them he used the expression in a musical, and not rather in an ethical sense. Again, the Pythagoreans brought their astronomical system into connection with their arithmetical and musical theory, and
this is also alien to Empedocles.
tlie

He knows

nothing of

central fire and of the

movement

of the earth, of

the harmony of the spheres, of the distinction of Uranus,

Kosmos, and Olympus,^ of the Unlimited outside the and of empty space within it. The only thing that he has here borrowed from the Pythagoreans is the opinion that the sun and moon are bodies like glass,
universe,

and that even the sun

that
is

reflects fire

not his own.

He
;

is

said to have considered the north as the right side

of

but

no importance, since the theory did not exclusively belong to the Pythagoreans. These few analogies are all that can be traced between the Empedoclean and
Pythagorean physics
extent.
;

and they do not prove that the

former were influenced by the latter to any considerable

may have borrowed the and the propositions connected dogma of Transmigration opposition of the earthly and Vide szipra, p. 170, L
Although Empedocles
'

- The only statement which might contain a reminiscence of

this, viz., that the sphere beneath the moon was considered by Empedocles as the theatre of evil, is uncertain (vide supra, p. 157, 2), and would, even if proved, show a very distant similarity for the
;

heavenly, the boundary of which the moon the lowest heavenly is patent to ordinary observation the definite discrimination of the three regions is wanting in Empedocles, v. 150 (187, 241 M) sq. he uses ovpavhs and uAvfj-iros
is

body

synonymously.

RELATION TO THE ELEATICS.

with
it

195
scientific

mainly from the Pythagoreans,

all its

his

theory of the world was formed, in

chief points,

independently of them

a few statements of minor im-

portance constituted his whole debt to Pythagoreanism.

The philosophy
Eleatics,

of Empedocles owes far more to the and particularly to Parmenides. From Parderives its first principle, which determined
:

raenides
its

it

whole subsequent development

viz.,

the denial of
all

Becoming and Decay.

Empedocles removes

doubts
it

as to the origin of this principle

by proving

with

the same arguments, and in part even with the same

words, as his predecessor.^

Parmenides disputes the

'truth of the sensuous perception on the ground that it

shows us a non-Being in origination and decay

Empe-

docles does the same, and the expressions he uses are the

same

as those of Parmenides.^
all is

Parmenides concludes
all is

that because

Being, therefore
is

One, and the

plurality of things

Empedocles cannot
avoid the

merely a delusion of the senses. admit this in reference to the

of Parmenides.
:

present state of the world, yet he cannot altogether

conclusion

He

therefore

adopts another expedient

he reg-ards the two worlds of the Parmenidean poem, the world of truth and that of
full reality to

opinion, as two different states of the world, attributes

both, but limits their duration to definite

periods.

In the description of the two worlds also he follows the precedent of Parmenides. The Sphairos is
'

Cf. -with Y.

48 sqq. 90, 92

sq.

Empedocles {supra, p. 122, 1, 2) Parm. v. 47, 62-64, 67, 69 sq. 76 (Vol. I. p.o85); andTviththe v6^JL'^ of Empedocles, v. 44 (p. 124, 1),
of

the %0os iroKvimpou of Parm. (Vol. I. p. 585).

t.

oi

v. 45 sqq. 19 sqq. 81 (p. 122, 1); Parm. v. 46 sqq., 53 sqq. (Vol. I. p. 585).

Cf.

Emp.

o 2

196
spherical,

EMPEDOCLES.
homogeneous and unmoved,
; '

like the

Being of

Parmenides

the present world, like Parmenides' world

is

of delusive opinion,

compounded of opposite elements.

^
;

The

fourfold

numbei- of these elements Empedocles

ultimately derived from the duality of Parmenides

and things

arise

from them because Love (corresponding

different in kind.

with Eros and the world-ruling goddess ^ of Parmenides)

combines what

is

In his cosmology

Empedocles approximates to
statement that there
it is
is

his predecessor, both in

his conception of the shape of the universe,

and in the
rest,

no empty

space.^

For the

rather in his organic physics that he adopts the

opinions of Parmenides.
genesis of

What Empedocles

says of the

man from

terrestrial slime, of the origin of

the sexes, of the influence of heat and cold on deter-

mining
is

sex, in spite of

many

additions and divergences,

most

closely related to him.^

The most

striking point
is

of similarity, however, between the two philosophers

' To convince ourselves of the similarity of the tw^o descriptions, even in expression, we have only to compare Emp. v. 134 sqq., especially V. 138 (iztprrt, p. 148, 3), with Parra. v. 102 sqq. (Vol. I. p. 587, 2). need not attach much weight to the fact that Aristotle called the Sphairos the One {supra, p, 149, 2), for this designation certainly does not originate with Empedocles; nor to the divinity (p. 707, for the 4) ascribed to it; 1, Sphairos of Empedocles was not in any case named God in the absolute sense in which the One universe was thus named by

^ Who like the (piKia in the formation of the world has her seat in the centre of the whole,

and
I. p.
*

is

also called
1

Plutarch

at any rate by Aphrodite {supra, Vol.

;

596,

600).

We

Vide supra, p. 135, 3, Vol. I. Concerning the moon, cf. 586, 1. Parm. v. 144, with Emped. v. 154 (190 K, 245 M). Apelt, Pcrr???. et Emp. Doctrinade Mundi Structura
{Jena,

1857),

p.

10

sqq.,

linds

much harmony between

the astro-

nomical systems of Parmenides and Empedocles. To me this is not

so apparent.
*

Vide

p.

60 sqq.

cf.

Vol.

I.

Xenophanes,

p. 601 sq.
p. 128, 2.

Supra,

RELATIOX TO THE ELEATICS.

derive from the mixture of corporeal constituents

197

their theory of the intellectual faculty, which they both

:

each
is

element, according to this theory, perceives which

akin to

it.^

Here Empedocles,

irrespectively of
is

his

different definition of the elements,

only to be dis-

tinguished from the Eleatic philosopher by his more

precise development of their

common
human

presuppositions.
his

There

is

a reminiscence of

Xenophanes in

com-

plaints of the limitations of

knowledge,- and

especially in the verses in which

Empedocles attempts
Grod.^

a purification of the anthropomorphic notion of

But even

this purer idea of

God

stands in no scientific

connection with his philosophic theories.

But, however undeniable and important the influence of the Eleatics upon Empedocles
1

may have

been,

cannot agree with Eitter in classing him altogether

the Eleatics.
Eitter thinks that Empedocles same relation to true knowledge as and that he too is inclined to consider

among

places physics in the

Parmenides did,

much

of our supposed knowledge as delusion of the

senses, nay,

even to treat the whole doctrine of nature in

If,

that light.

notwithstanding he applied himself chiefly

to this subject,

and spoke of the One Being in a merely

mythical manner in his description of the Sphairos

the reason of this
racter of

may

lie

partly in the negative cha-

the Eleatic metaphysics, and partly in his

is

conviction, that divine truth

unspeakable and unat-

tainable for
1

human
I.
]

intelligence.'*

Empedocles himself,
;

Vide Vol.
Supra,
'2.

602
;

p.

70, 1

sup. p. 164. cf. Vol. I. p.

bib,

In Wolfs AnaleJcten, ii. 423 sqq. 458 sqq. Gesch. d. Phil. i. ol4sqq. 551 sqq.
;

Supra, p. 181,

1.

198

EMPEBOCLES.
tliat his

however, so far from betraying by a single word

purpose in his physics
expressly
is

to report uncertain opinions,

repudiates

such

view.

He

distinguishes
;

indeed the sensible from the rational perception

other
physicists

but

do

this,

for
;

example, Heracleitus,

Democritus and Anaxagoras

divine

he contrasts the perfect

wisdom with imperfect human wisdom, but herein Xenophanes and Heracleitus preceded bim,
although they did not therefore deny
tlie

truth

of

divided and changing Being, nor did they, on the other

hand, limit their investigations to the illusive phe-

nomenon.^

The physics

of Empedocles could only be

regarded from the same point of view as those of Par-

menides

if

he had explicitly declared that in them he

intended to set forth only the erroneous opinions of

mankind.

Far from doing

so,

he assures us (with an
is

unmistakeable reference to this interpretation of Par-

menides) that his representation

ceiving words.^

not to contain de-

We

have no right then to doubt that

his physical doctrines are seriously meant,

and we can

only regard what he says of the original plurality of

matter and of moving

individuals
all

forces, of the alternation of cos-

mieal periods, of the Becoming and passing away of

as his own conviction.^ It would be ao'ainst o internal probability and all historical analogy that a

Vide supra, Vol.

II. 91.

I,

575
:

Vol.

2 V. ah 5' 86 (113, 87 M) &Kov^ Xdywu (xroKov ovk a.TTar-i]K6v, h6^as h' anh TovZe cf. Farm. V. Ill
:

doctrine of Love, but as that doctrine is intimately connected with his other physical theories, and especially with the doctrine of Hate atid of the elements, the

fiporeias fjidvdaue, Koa-fxoi^ifj.ui^eiTicoi'

words must apply to his Physics

generally.
^

ai^arr]Khv

uKovcov.

A^ide

sujjra,

Vol.

I.

605,

this in

Empedocles asserts 3. immediate reference to the

cf p 147^

i^

HELATIOX TO THE ELEATICS.

199

philosopher should have applied his whole activity not

only to expound opinions that he held to be false from

their foundation, side

by

side with the true view,

and

in contrast with it

but actually to develope these

opinions in complete detail, in his

out an allusion to the right standpoint.

own name and withThe physical

removed from
or division

doctrines of Empedocles are, however, far

the Eleatic doctrine of Being.

only

Parmenides recognises
:

One Being, without movement, change

Empedocles has six original essences which do not indeed change qualitatively, but are divided and moved in space, enter into the most various proportions of admixture, combine and separate in endless alternation,.

become united in individuals, and again issue from them form a moved and divided world, and again cancel it. To reduce this Empedoclean theory of the universe to the Parmenidean theory, by asserting that the principle of separation and movement in the former is something unreal and existing only in imagination, is an unwarrantable attempt, as we have The truth probably is that Empedopreviously seen.^ cles really borrowed a good deal from the Eleatics, and
;

that in his principles as well in the development of his

system he was especially influenced by Parmenides;

but that the main tendency of his thought nevertheless

pursues another direction.

Vrhatever else he

may conchief

cede to Parmenides, he disagrees with

point
:

him on the

the reality of motion and of divided Being is

as decidedly presupposed

Parmenides.

by him as it is denied by Parmenides cancels the whole multiplicity

'

P. 142,

1.

i>00

EMPEDOCLES.
phenomena
in the

of

thought of the One substance

Empedocles seeks to show how this multiplicity was developed from the original unity all his efforts are
:

directed to the explanation of that which Parmenides

had declared
change.
philosophers,

to be unthinkable, viz., multiplicity

all

and

These two, in the theories of

are

the early

connected in the closest manner;

and
so,

as the Eleatics
all

the unity of

were compelled by their doctrine of Being to deny Becoming and motion,

side,

on the opposite
;

both were simultaneously mainHeracleitus, the

tained

whether, as in the case of

multiplicity of things was supposed to be developed by

the eternal

movement

of the primitive essence, or, on

Becoming and change were supposed to be conditioned by the multiplicity of the original substances and forces. The system of Empedocles is only
the other hand.

comprehensible as a design to save the reality of phe-

nomena which Parmenides had called in question. He knows not how to contradict the assertion that no absolute Becoming and Decay are possible at the same
;

time he cannot resolve to renounce the plurality of

things, the genesis, mutation, and destruction of individuals.

He, therefore, adopts the expedient of

these

re-

ducing

all

phenomena

to the combination

and

separation of qualitatively unchangeable substances, of

which, however, several must be of an opposite nature

if

the multiplicity of things

is

in this

way

to be ex-

plained.

But

if

the primitive elements were in them-

selves unchangeable, they

would not

strive

to quit the
;

condition in which they are originally found

of their

the cause

movement cannot

therefore lie in themselves,

RELATIOX TO PARMEXIDES.
stances, be discriminated

201

but in the motive forces which must, as particular sub-

from them

and

as all

change

and motion, according to Empedocles, consists in the combination and separation of matter, and as, on the
other hand, according to the general principles respect-

ing the impossibility of Becoming,

it

might seem inadand vice

versa,^ it

missible to suppose that the combining force was also

at another
is

time the separating

force,

necessary to admit, so Empedocles believes, two motive

forces of contrary natm-e

and influence. Love and Hate.

In the operation of the primitive forces and primitive

substances, Unity and Multiplicity, Eest and

Motion
:

are apportioned to different conditions of the universe

the complete union and complete separation of substances are the

two poles between which the

;

life

of the

world circulates

at these poles its

motion
;

ceases,

under

the exclusive dominion of Love or Hate

lie

between them

conditions of partial imion and partial separation, of

individual existence and of change, of origination and

decay.

Although the unity of things

is

here recog-

nised as the higher and happier state,

it is at

the same

time acknowledged that opposition and division are equally original with unity, and that in the world as it
is.

Hate and Love, Plm-ality and Unity, Motion and Eest,

;

counterbalance one another

indeed, the present uniis

verse in comparison with the Sphairos

considered as

pre-eminently the world of oppositions and of change,

the earth as the theatre of conflict and of suffering,

and

terrestrial life

as the period of a restless motion,

of a miserable wandering for fallen spirits.

1

The Unity

Supra,

p. 138.

202

EMPEDOCLES.

of all Being, which the Eleatics maintained as present

and
ever

actual, lies for

Empedocles in the past

for

and, how-

much he may long

that Unity, our world in

his opinion is wholly subject to the

change and division

which Parmenides had declared

of the senses.

to be a

mere delusion
of thought

In

all

these traits

we recognise
it

mode

which, in proportion as

diverges from that of Parmeof Heracleitus

;

nides, approximates to that

affinity is really so great that

and the

we

are compelled to sup-

pose that the doctrine of Heracleitus had a decided

influence on Empedocles and his system.

The whole
the universe

tendency of the Empedoclean physics reminds us of

the Ephesian philosopher.

As he
it,

sees in

everywhere

opposition

and

change,

so

Empedocles,
all

however earnestly he deplores

the present world
strife

finds on

sides in

and alternation, and

is

his

whole

system aims at the explanation of this phenomenon.

The unmoved Unity

of all Being

indeed the presupis

position from which he starts,

and the ideal which

before liim in the distance, but the essential interest of

his enquiry
is

bestowed upon the moved and divided

leading thought
lies

world, and

its

in the attempt to

gain a view of existence which shall render compreliensible the multiplicity

and change of phenomena.

In

resorting for this purpose to his four elements, and the

two motive forces, he is guided on the one hand indeed by the enquiries of Parmenides, but on two points the
influence of Heracleitus
is

clearly to be traced

the four
^
;

elements are an extension of the Heracleitean three

Cf.

p.

126

sq.

Empedocles resembles Heracleitus in

his very

HELATION TO IIERACLEITUS.
and the two moving
forces correspond
still

203

more exactly

with the two principles in which Heracleitus recognises

the essential moments of Becoming, and which, as Empedocles did subsequently, he designated as Strife and Harmony. Both philosophers see in the separation of the combined, and the combination of the separated,
the two poles of natural life both suppose opposition and separation to be the primal conditions. Empedocles, indeed, detests strife which Heracleitus had extolled as
;

the father of

all

things

but the genesis of individual

existences he can only derive from the entrance of Strife into the Sphairos, and he does so, for the
essentially, as Heracleitus. It

same reason

would be impossible that specific and separate phenomena should emanate from Heracleitus's one primitive matter, if this did not
change into opposite elements
;

and

it

would be equally

impossible that they should emanate from the four ele-

ments of Empedocles, if these elements remained in a conEmpedocles differs from dition of complete admixture.
his predecessor, as Plato correctly observes,^ only herein

that he separates the moments, which Heracleitus had

conceived as contemporaneous, into two distinct transactions

;

and, in connection with this, derives from two

motive forces what Heracleitus had regarded merely as the two sides of one and the same influence, inherent
in the living primitive matter.

The

theories of Herac-

leitus on the alternate formation and destruction of the world, are also modified by Empedocles, for he supposes

the flux of Becoming which, according to Heracleitus^

words; for he
of HeracleitiTs
calls the aXdpias Zeus
Zei/s apy-qs.

p. 125, 2
'

46,

I.

SuprOy

Vide

sic2^m, p. 33,

p. 138j 3.

i>04

EyiPEDOCLES.
still,

never stands

to be interrupted

by periods of

rest

*
;

but this doctrine he probably owes, notwithstanding^', to

the Ephesian philosopher.

The

relative ages of the

two

men

favour the supposition that Empedocles was ac;

quainted with Heracleitus's work

to the Heracleitean doctrines
less
^

even before the date

therefore, the

of Empedocles, his compatriot Epicharmus had alluded

;

we have,

reason to doubt that there existed between the views

of the two philosophers, not only an internal affinity, but

an exterual connection

that he reached

all

those impor-

tant doctrines in which he agrees with Heracleitus,^ not

through Parmenides merely, but probably borrowed that

side of his system actually

from

his

Ephesian predecessor.
earlier lonians,

Whether he was acquainted with the

if so, to

and
the

what extent, cannot be ascertained.

result, then, of our discussion is as follows
its
:

The
dency,

philosophic system of Empedocles, in

is

general ten-

bility of things
all

an attempt to explain the plurality and mutafrom the original constitution of Being

the fundamental ideas of this system arose from a

combination of Parmenidean and Heracleitean theories, but in this combination the Eleatic element
the system
concerned, not with
is

subordi-

nate to the Heracleitean, and the essential interest of

is

the metaphysical

enquiry into the concept of Being, but with the physical

investigation

of natural

phenomena and
is

their

causes.

The leading point

little
sqq.
I.

of view

to be found in

the proposition that the fuudamental constituents of things are as

*

capable of qualitative change as of

^

Vide supra, 145 Tidesupra, Vol.

As Gladisch
die Aeg. 19 sq.

thinks,

Emped.

530, 532,

3.

und

CHARACTER OF HIS LOCTRIXE.

generation and decay
;

205

but that, on

tlie

contrary, they

may be combined and

ways, and
is

separated in the most various

this,

that, in

consequence of

that which
arises

compounded from the primitive elements

and changes
its

and

decays,

form and

its

constituents.

From
logical

this point of view,

Empedocles has attempted a

set beside

explanation of natural phenomena as a whole,

in the double form of a
;

having defined his primitive substances and

them the moving cause

com-

bining and a separating force

all else is

derived from

the working of these forces upon the primitive substances

from the

mixture and separation of the elelike

ments
after

and Empedocles,

Diogenes and Democritus

universal princi-

him, aimed at reaching the particular of phehis

nomena, without losing sight of

ples.
If,

therefore,

we understand by Eclecticism a
are

method by which heterogeneous elements

without fixed
scientific

combined
to

points

of view, according

subjective temper and inclination, Empedocles in regard

to the essential content of his physical doctrine cannot

be considered as an Eclectic, and we must be careful

not to underrate his
scientific merit.

While he used
on

the definitions of Parmenides concerning Being for the

explanation of Becoming, he struck out a path

which physics has ever since followed him

fixed the

he not only

number

of the elements at four, which for so

long almost passed for an axiom, but introduced the

very conception of the elements into natural science,

mechanical explanation of nature.

and thus became with Leucippus the founder of the Lastly, from the standpoint of his own presuppositions, he made an

206

EMPEDOCLES.

attempt which, considering the then state of knowledge,

was most praiseworthy,

individual; for us
it is

to

explain the actual in the

specially interesting to observe

the manner in which he, the earliest precursor of Darwin,

tries to

make comprehensible
teleologically,

the origin of organisms

life J

framed
Tvith

and capable of

His system,
it

however, even irrespectively of such failings as

its

shares

whole epoch,

is

not without lacunae.

is

The
is

theory of unchangeable primitive elements

established scientifically, but their fourfold

indeed

number
forces

not further accounted

reason

for.

The moving

ap-

proach the substances from without, and no sufficient

is

given

why they

W'hy one and the

are not inherent in them, and same force should not be at work,
;

combining and separating

for

the

qualitative

un-

changeableness of substances did not exclude a natural

striving after change of place, to which even

Empe-

docles represents

them

as subject

and he himself can-

not stringently carry out the distinction between the

combining and dividing

tion of these
to be
forces,

force.^

Accordingly, the opera-

as Aristotle remarked,-^ appears

;

more

or less fortuitous

and

it

is

not explained

why

their simultaneous operation in the present world

should be preceded and followed by conditions in which

they separately produce, in the one case a complete

mixture, in the other a complete division of the elements.'*
Lastly, in his doctrine of transmigration

ence,
1

and pre-existand the prohibition of animal food founded upon

"

Cf. p. 160.

Cf.

the judgment of

Plato

2 3

Vide Vide

p. 138. p. 144, 1.

quoted

p. 33, 2.

THE ATOMISTS.

207

the latter, Empedocles has combined with his physical

system elements which not only have no scientific connection with that system, but absolutely contradict it.

However

great, therefore,

may

be his importance in

the history of Grreek physics, in regard to science his philosophy has unmistakeable defects, and even in the

ground-work of
of nature, which

his system, the

is its

pm-pose,

is

mechanical explanation confused by mythical

forms and the unaccountable workings of Love and Hate. This mechanical explanation of natm'e, based upon
the same general presuppositions,
strictly
is

carried out

more

and logically in the Atomistic philosophy.

B.
1.

THE AT0:MISTS.

Physical bases of their system.

Atoms and
is

the void.

The founder
'

of the Atomistic philosophy

Leucippus.^

cippus

The personal history of Leuis almost unknown to us.

he must

we can only say have been older than his disciple Democritus, and younger than Parmenides, "vrhom he himself follows he must therefore have been a contemporary of Anaxagoras and Empedocles other conjectures will be considered later on. His home is sometimes stated to have been in Abdera. sometimes in sometimes Miletus, sometimes in Elea (Diog. ix. 30, where for MiXtos read Mi\7j(rio?, Simpl. P/iys. 7 a, Clem. Protr. 43 D Galen. H. Ph. c. 2, Epiph. Exj). Fid. 1087 p. 229 D) but it is a question whether any one of these statements is
As
to his date,

that

fnunded upon historical tradition. Simpl. I. c, doubtless after Theophrastus, names Parmenides as the teacher of Leucippus, but most
writers, that

thev

may

retain the

accustomed order

of' succession,

(Diog. Procem. 15. ix. Galen, and Suid. I. c. Clem, Strom. \. 301 D Hippol. Refut. i. 12), or Melissus (Tzetz. Chil.

name Zeuo
30
;

ii.

980

also Epiph.

I.

e.

places

him

after

Zeno and
e.

INIelissus.

but

an an Eleatic). Iambi, Pi/th. 104, has Pyth:igoras. Nor are we certainly informed whether Leucippus committed his
as
Eristic,
i.

describes
V.

him generally

doctrines to writing, nor of what these writings were. In Aristotle, Be Melisso, c. 6, 980 a,

kind

208

LE UCIPr us. DEMO CRIT US.

details,
it
is

His opinions, however, in their

have been so
impossible in

imperfectly transmitted to ns, that

our exposition to separate, them

celebrated disciple Democritus.^
7,

from those of his

shall find, as

Yet we

we

find the expression, eV

tiivKi-Kirov KoKovfiivois XSyois,

roh which

to point to some \v'riting of uncertain origin, or some exposition of the doctrine of Leucippus liy a tliird person. It is questionable, however, what may be inthe author of ferred from this the book, De Melisso, may have used a secondary source, even if an original source existed. Stob. Eel. i. 160, quotes some words from a' treatise Trepl vov but there may be some confusion here (as

seems

l)een pretty early forgotten by most writers in comparison with the riper and more exhaustive achieve-

ments of his disciple. The persistence with which he is ignored by Epicurus, the re viver of the Atomistic philosophy, and by most of the Epicureans, may have contributed
to this (see chap. iv. of this section).
* For the life, writings, and doctrine of Democritus cf. Miillach, Dcmocriti Ahderitce Operum Fragmenta,kQ.. Berl.,18i3 (Fra^/H. Pfiilos. Gr. i. 330 sqq.). In addition to other more general works, vide also Ritter, in Ersch. nnd Grubtr's Encykl. Art. Dimoc.

3Iullach, Dcmocr 357, after Heeren in h. I. supposes) with Democritus.

Theophrastus, following Diog. ix. 46, attributes the work fiiyas SmKoafjLos,

Geffers,

which

is

found

among

Democritus's writings, to Leucippus his statement, however, could only have related originally to the opinions contained in this work. But if these statements are not absolutely certain, the language of Aristotle and of others concerning Leucippus proves that some work of this philosopher was known to later writers. The passage quoted
;

QucBstiones Democritece, Gott. 1829; VivpencovAt, De Atomicorurii Boctrina Spec, i., Berl. 1832 Burchard in his valuable treatises,

Democriti Philosophic cle Se7isibics Fraomenta, Mind., 1830; Fragmente d. Moral, d. DemGcriius, ihuJ. Heimsoth, Democriti de 1834 anima Boctrina, Bonn, 1835 B. Ten. Brinck. Anecdota Ejncharrni, Democrati Eel. in Schneidewin's Philologns, vi. 577 sqq. Democriti
;
;
;

{infra, p. 215, 1) Gen. et Corr. i. 8,

word (pr\(T\v, tliat a work of Leucippus. It will hereafter be shown by many references
that Aristotle, Theophrastus, Diogenes and Hippolytus also employ the present tense in their quotaCf. likewise what is said tions. (Vol. I. p. 293, 4) on the use made of Leucippus by Diogenes of Apollonia. But the work, and even the name of Leucippus, seems to have

from Aristotle, shows, by the it was taken from

de se sqq.
;

ipso
vii.
tt.

Testimonia, ibid.

354

sqq.

589 Democriti

liber,

avOpwirov
;

(pixrios, ibid. viii.

414 sqq. Johnson, Der Sensualismus d. Demokr., &e., Plauen, 1868 Lortzing, Ueb. die Ethischen Fragmente Demokrifs, Berlin, 1873; Lange, Geschichte d. Mater ialismjis,
;

i.

9 sqq.

According to the almost unani-

mous testimony
Mullach
p.
1

of antiquity (vide
sq.),

Democritus's native city was Abdera, a colony

LIFE OF DEMOCRITUS.
we proceed, that the main
to its founder.
of Thrace, at that time remarkable for its prosperity and culture, hut which afterwards (vide Mullach, 82 sqq.) acquired a reputation for stupidity. According to
ix. 34, Miletus is substituted by some writers; and the scholiast of Juvenal on Sat. x. oO substitutes Megara but neither suggesHis tion merits any attention. father is sometimes called Hegesissometimes Damasippus, tratus, sometimes Athenocritus (JDiog.

209

features of the system belong

Eratosthenes. Easebius, it is true, places the acme of Democritus in 01. 69 and again in 01. 69, 3, and,
in seeming agreement with this, asserts that the philosopher died in 01. 94, 4 (or 94, 2), in his lOOth

Diog.

/.

c).

For further

details,

cf.

Mullacb, I. c. The year of his birth can only be ascertained with

approximate certainty.
self,

He

him-

according to Diog. ix. 41, says he was forty years younger

year Diodorus xiv. 1 1 says that he died at the age of 90, in 01. 94, 1 (401-3 B.C.) Cyril c. Julian.i. 13 A, states in one breath that he was born in the 70th and in the 86th Olympiad the Passah Chronicle (p. 274, Dind.) places his acme in 01. 67, while the same chronicle afterwards, following 317) (p. Apollodorus, says that he died, being 100 years old, in 01. 104, 4 (ap. Dind. lOo, 2); but these are only so many proofs of the uncer; ; ;

than Anaxagoras, and as Anaxagoras was born about oOO B.C., those who place his birth in the 80th Olympiad (460 sqq. ApoU. ap. Diog. loc. cit.) cannot be far wrong. This agrees with the assertion that Democritus (ap. Diog. I. c.) counted 730 years from the conquest of Troy to the composition of his ULKpOS hl6.KQ(T[lOS, if his Trojan era (as B.Ten Brinck,
Phil. vi. 589 sq.,

Mus. xxxi.

30. suppose) dates

11 oO {Miiller, 11 54-1144), but this is not quite When Thrasyllus, ap. certain. Diog. 41, places his birth in 01. 77, 3 and says that he was a year older than Socrates, and Eusebius accordingly in his chronicle assigns 01. 86 as the period of his
flourishing, they

and Diels, Rh. from Fr. Hist. ii. 24;

were perhaps

in-

fluenced, as Diels conjectures, by this Trojan era, which is clearly inapplicable here, and differs by tea

years from the usual one given by

tainty and carelessness of later writers in their computations. Further details in the next section (on Anaxagoras). Statements like that of Gellius, N. A. xvii. 21, 18 and Pliny, H. N. xxx. 1, 10, that Democritus flourished during the first part of the Peloponnesian war, give no definite information, nor can we gather any from the fact that he never mentions Anaxagoras, Archelaus, (Enopides, Parmenides, Zeno, or Protagoras in his writings (Diog. ix. 41, &c.). When Gellius says that Socrates was considerably younger than Democritus, he is referring to the calculation which Diodorus follows and which will presently be discussed on the other hand, we must not conclude from Arist., Part. Anim. \. 1 {sup. Vol. I. p. 185, 3), that Democritus was older than Socrates, but only that he came forward as an author before Socrates had commenced his career
:

TOL.

II.

210

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

The
origin and general standpoint of the Atomistic
is

doctrine

described by

Aristotle

as

follows.

The

Socrates, no as a philosopher. doubt, however, was chiefly known to Aristotle, as he is to us, in connection with the last decade of
his
life,

That our philosopher displayed remarkable zeal for knowledge will readily be believed even irrespectively of the anecdote in Diog.
ix.

as the teacher of Plato

36.

But what we are

told

and Xenophon and of the philosophers who propagated his phiii> the Socratic schools. birth of Democritus must therefore 1)6 placed about 460 B.C. or perhaps even earlier; we cannot

losophy

about the instructions which even as a boy he had received from the Magi, not to mention the fable in
Valer. Max. viii. 7, ext. 4, that the father of Democritus entertained as a host the army of

The

fix it

with certainty.

Still

more

uncertainty is there with respect to his age and the year of his dath. That he had reached a great age {inatura vetustas, Lucret. iii. 1037) we are constantly assured, but the more detailed statements vary considerably. Diodorus L c. has 90 years, Eusebius and the Passah Chronicle I. c. 100, Antisthenes (who, however, is erroneously considered by Mullach, p. 20, 40, 47, to be older than Aristhe list of authors cf. totle, and their works) ap. Diog. ix 39, more than 100; Lucian, Macroh. 18, and Phlegon, Longcevi, c. 2, 104 Hipparchus ap. Diog. ix. 43, 109; Censorin, Li. Nat. 15, 10 says he was nearly as old as Gorgias, whose life extended to 108 years. (The statements of the pseudoSoranus in the life of Hippocrates, Hippocr. 0pp., ed. Kiihn, iii. 850, that Hippocrates was born in 01. 80, 1, and according to some was 90 years old, according to others, 95, 104, and 109 years old, are very similar and B. Ten Brinck Pkilol. vi. 591 is probal)ly right in conjecturing that they were transferred to him from Democritus.) As to the year of Democritus' death, vide mpra.
; ;

Xerxes, has little evidence in its favour (Diog. ix. 34, appealing to Herodotus, who neither in vii. 109, nor viii. 120, nor anywhere else, ever mentions such a thing),

and

is

chronologically impossilile.

Langc, however, Gesch. d. Mater. i. 128, endeavours to save the incredible tradition by reducing the
regular instruction in the course of which Democritus, according to Diogene.'j, had learned rd re ttc/jI OeoXoyias Ka\ acTTpoXoyias to an exciting influence upon the mind of an intelligent boy and Lewes
;

of Phil. i. 95 sq.) relates in one breath that Democritus was born in 460 B.C., and that Xerxes (twenty years before) had left
(Hist,

structors.

some Magi in Abdera as his inThis whole combina-

tion probably dates from the epoch in which Democritus was regarded by the Greeks as a sorcerer and father of magic. Philostr. v. Soph. X. p. 494, relates the same of Protagoras. The acquaintance of Democritus with Greek philosophers is far better attested. Plut. adv. Col. 29, 3, p. 1124, says in a general manner, that he contra-

among dicted his predecessors those whom he mentioned some;

times to praise, and sometimes to

ITS PRiyClPLE Ayi)

GENERAL

BASIS.

211

Eleatics, he says, denied the multiplicity of things

and

motion, because these are inconceivable without the

oppose them, "we find the names of

Parmenides and Zeno (Diog.

ix.

42), -whose influence notwithstanding upon the Atomistic philosophy-

Pythagoras Anaxagoras {ibid. 34 sq. Sext. Math. vii. 140), and Protagoras (Diog. ix. 42 Sext. Math, vii. 389; Plut. Col. 4, 2,
is
;

unmistakeable
38,
46),
;

(ibid.

connected with the Pythagoreans not only does Thrasyllus ap. Diog. ix. 38, call him (tjAwttjs ruv UvdayopiKuu, but, according to the same text, Glaucus the contemporary of Democritus had already maintained
:

irdvTws

tSov
;

YIvdccyopiKwv

rivos CLKovaai avrSv

In all probahility his p. 1109). only teacher was Leucippus but even this is not quite certain, for the evidence of writers like Diog. ix. 34; Clem. Siroin. i. 301 D; Hippol. Eefut. 12, taken alone, is not conclusive and though Aristotle {Metaph. i. 4, 985 b, 4, and after him, Simpl. Phi/s. 7 a) calls Democritus the comrade (iTaZpos) of Leucippus, it is not clear whether a personal relation between the two men [eraipos often stands for a disciple, vide Mullach, p. 9, etc.), or only a similarity of their doctrines is intended. The former, however, is the most likely interpretation. On the other hand, the assertion (ap. Diog. I. c, and after him Suid.) that Democritus had personal intercourse with Anaxagoras is quite untrustworthy, even if the statement of Pavorinus that Democritus was hostile to Anaxagoras because he would not admit him among his disciples be considered too selfevident an invention to be worth quoting as an argument against
: ;

and according to Porph. F. P. 3, Duris had named Arimnestus, son of Pytha-

goras, as the teacher of Democritus. He himself, according to Thrasyllus ap. Diog. /. c. had entitled one of his writings Pythagoras,' and had spoken in it with admiration of the Samian philosopher ;
'

it. (Cf. also Sext. Math. vii. 140.) Moreover, Diog. ii. 14, says that it was Anaxagoras who was hostile to Democritus but this we must
;

set

down

to the thoughtless care-

lessness of this author. also frequently told that he

We

are

was

according to Apollodorusap. Diog. I. c, he also came in contact with Philolaus. But the authenticity of the Democritean Uvdayop-qs is (as Lortzing, p. 4, rightly observes) very questionable, and he could have adopted nothing from the Pythagorean science, excepting in regard to mathematics; his own philosophy having no affinity with, that of the Pythagoreans. In order to accumulate wisdom, Democritus visited the countries of the east and south. He himself in the fragment ap. Clemens, Strom, i. 304 A (on which cf. Geffers, p. 23 Mullach, p. 3 sqq., 18 sqq. B. Ten Brinck, Philol. vii. 355 sqq.), cf. Theophrast. ap. iEHan. V. H. iv. 20, boasts of having taken more distant journeys than any of his contemporaries he particularly mentions Egypt as a country where he had remained some time. As to the duration of these journeys, we can only form conjectures, as the eighty years spoken of by Clemens must clearly le based on some gross misapprehen;

212

TUB ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

is

Void, and the Void

nothing.

Leucippus conceded to
is

them that without the Void no motion

(Papension or clerical error. cordt, Atom. Boctr. 10, and Mullach, Democr. 19, Fr. Fkil. i. 330,
suppose
irepTe,
it',

possible,

and

that

-t,

which
;

signifies

may have been mistaken

for

the cipher for 80 and Diod. i. 98, does in fact say that Demoremained five years in critus Egypt.) Later writers relate more particularly that he spent the whole of his large inheritance in travelling, that he visited the Egyptian priests, the Chaldeans, the Persians, some say even the Indians and Ethiopians (Diog. ix. after him buidas ArjixSKp. 25 Hesych. AvfJ.6Kp. from the same Clemens, I. c. source, ^lian, /. c. speaks only of Babylon, Persia and Egypt Diodorus, i. 98, of five years' sojourn in Egypt Straho, xv. 1, 38, p. 703, of journeys through a great part of Asia Cic. Fin. v. 19, 50, more generally, of distant journeys for the acquisition of knowledge). How much of all this is true, we can only partially discover. Democritus certainly went to Egypt, Hither Asia and Persia but not to India, as asserted by Strabo and Clemens, The aim cf. Gerters, 22 sqq. I. c. and result of these journeys, however, must be sought, not so much in the scientific instruction he received from the Orientals, as in his own observation of men and of nature. The assertion of Democritus ap. Clem., that no one, not even the Egyptian mathematicians, excelled him in geometry (concerning his mathematical knowledge, cf. also Cic. Fin. Plut. c. not. 39, 3, p. i. 6, 20 inter1079), implies scientific
; ; ; ; ;
;

favours the conjecture that Democritus could not have learned much in this respect from foreigners. What Pliny says {H. N. xxv. 2, 13; XXX. 1, 9 sq. x. 49, 137 xxix. 4, 72; xxviii, 8, 112 sqq.; cf. Philostr. V. Apoll. i. 1) of the
; i

magic

arts

which

Democritus

learned on his travels is based upon forged writings, acknowledged as such even by Gelliub, N. A. X. 12 cf. Burchard, Fragm. Mullach, 72 d. Mar. d. Bern. 17 What is said of sqq., 156 sqq. his connection with Darius (Julian, cf. Pliu. Ejnst. 37, p. 413, Spanh. H. N. vii. 55, 189 further details, infra, chap, iii., and ap. Mullach, 45, 49), though it sounds more natural, is quite as legendary. The same may be said of the statement (Posidonius ap. Strabo
;

xvi. 2, 25, p. 757,

xi. 363),

and Sext. Math.

that Democritus derived his doctrine of the atoms from Mochus, a very ancient Phoenician philosopher. That there existed a work under the name of this Mochus is proved by Joseph.

contained an atomistic theory similar to that of Democritus, this would only prove that the author had copied the philosopher of Abdera, not that the philosopher of Abdera and not only had copied him
;
;

Athen. iii. i. 3, 9 Damasc. De Princ. p. Kopp.; cf. Iambi. V. Pyth. but if it Diog. Prooem. 1
Antiquit.
;

128
385,

14;

Democritus, but

Leucippus also

must in that case have done so. The germs of the Atomistic theory
are too apparent in the earlier G-reek philosophy to leave room for supposing it to have had a

course,

but

at

the

same

time

ITS TBIXCIPLE

AND GEXEBAL

BASIS.
;

213

that the Void must be regarded as non-existent

but he

thought he could nevertheless retain the reality of pheforeign origin.

That the -work of

Mochus was not in existence in the time of Eudemns seems probal )le from the passage in Damascius. After his return, Democritus appears to have remained in his native city but a visit to Athens (Diog. ix. 36 sq. Cic. Tusc. v. 36, 104; Yaler. Max. viii. 7, ext. 4) may perhaps he assigned to this later epoch, in regard to which we possess hardly any trustworthy information. Having impoverished himself by his journeys, he is said to have avoided the fate of the improvident by giving readings of some of his own works (Philo, Provid. ii. 13, p. 52, Aueh. Diog. ix. 39 sq. Dio Chrys. Or. 54, 2, p. 280 R; Athen. iv. 168 b; Interpr. Horat. on Epist i. 12, 12); others relate that he neglected his property (a story which is also told of Anaxagoras and Thales); but silenced those who censured him by his speculations with oil presses (Cic. Fin. V. 29, 87; Horat. Ep. i. 12, 12. and the scholia on these texts, Plin. H. xviii. 28, 273 Philo. Fit. Conterapl. 891 C, Hosch. and after him Lactant, Inst. iii. 23). Valer. /. c. says he gave the greater part of his countless riches to the state, that he might live more undisturbedly for wisdom. It is however, whether questionable, there is any foundation even for the first of these assertions; or for the statement (Antisth. ap. Diog. ix. 38, where the suggestion of ^lullach, p. 64, to substitute Tdp(pe<Ti for Ta.<pois seems to me a Lucian, Philopseud. c. mistake 32) that he lived among tombs and desert places not to mention
;

the story of his voluntary blindness (Gell. T. A. X. 17 Cic. Fin.

:

Tusc. v. 39, 114; TertuU. Apologet. c. 46. Cf. on the other hand Plut. Curiosit. e. 12, p. 521
I.

c.

sq.),

which was perhaps occasioned

by

his observations on the untrust-

worthiness of the senses (cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 23, 74, where the expression
ea:ccEcare,

employed for

this

sensibus orhare is view). The

assertion of Petronius, Sat. c. 88, p. 424, Burm., that he spent his life in enquiries into natural science, sounds more credible with this is connected the anecdote ap. Plut. Qu. Conv. i. 10,2, 2. It may also be true that he was re-

garded with great veneration by his countrymen, and received from them the surname of cro(pia (Clem. Strom, vi. 631 D ^lian, F. H. iv. 20); that the dominion over
;

his native city was given to him is, on the contrary, most improbable (Suid. Arj/jLOKp.). Whether he was

married we do not know one anecdote, which seems to imply that he was so, has little evidence in its favour (Antonius. Mel. 609 MuUach, Fr. Mor. 180) but the contrary is certainly not deducible from his utterances about marriage (vide infra). The widespread statement that he laughed at everything (Sotion ap.Stob. Fiorit. 20, 53; Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 194 sqq. Juvenal, Sat. x. 33 sqq. Sen. De Ira, ii. 10 Lucian, Vit. Anct. e. 13; Hippol. Refut. i. 12; ^:iian, v. H. iv. 20, 29 Suid. At]h6kp. see, on the contrary, Bernocr. Fr. Mor. 167) proclaims itself at once as an idle fabrication what we are told of the magic and prognos;

214

THE ATOMISTIC

PIIILOSOPIIY.

nomena, of birth and decay, of motion and multiplicity, by admitting that side by side with Being, or the Plenum,
of this philosopher, is equally absurd (vide supra, and Plin. H. N. xviii. 28, 273, 35, 341 Clem. Strom, vi. 631 D; Diog. ix.
tications
;

judging from the titles and fragments that have come down to us, miist have embraced matheings,

matical,

physical,

ethical,

gram-

42; Philostr. AjjoU. viii. 7, 28). His supposed connection with Hippocrates has likewise given
rise to

many
;

inventions

accord-

matical and technical subjects. Diogenes, i. 16, mentions him as one of the most prolific of philosophic authors and we have no
;

ing to Cels. Dr Medic. Prcef. Ps.Hippocr. v. Soran. {0pp. ed. Kukn,\\\. 850), Hippocrates was represented by many as his disciple. Alread3'even in Diog. ix. 42 ^Elian, V. H. iv. 20 Athenag. Siippl. c. 27 we can trace the beginning of the legend which subsequently, in the supposed letters of the two men, was carried out into the wildest extravagances vide IMulLastly, the various 'lach, 74 sqq. statements as to the end of DemoDiog. ix. 43 Athen. ii. critus ap. 46 e; Lucian, Macroh. c. 18; M. Aurel. iii. 3, &c. (vide Mullach, 89 sq-].) are also untrustworthy. Even the more general assertion of Lucretius, iii. 1037 sqq., that feeling the weakness of old age. he voluntarily put an end to his life, is far from certain. Surpassing all his predecessors and contemporaries in wealth of knowledge, and most of them in acuteness and consecutiveness of thought, Democritus, by the combination of tliese excellences, became the direct precursor of Aristotle, who frequently quotes and makes use of him, and speaks of him with unmistakeable ap})roval. (Authorities will be given later on.
; ;
:

substitute for his name, in this text, the name of Demetrius (Phalereus), as Nietzsche, Bh. Mus.

right to

XXV. 220 sq., does; for the same Diogenes, ix. 45 sqq., after Thrasylliis, specifies no fewer than fifteen Tetralogies of Democritus's writings, among which physical subjects occupy the largest space. Besides these, a number of spurious writings are mentioned; and most likely there are many such, even among those reputed genuine (Suid. ArjfxoKp. only allows the authenticity of two). At any rate, the name of Thrasyllus is no more a guarantee for the contrary, in the ease of Democritus, than in that of Plato. Cf. Burehard, Fraffm. d. Mor. d. Bern. 1 6 sq Eose, Be Arist. lib. ord. 6 sq., believes that forgeries of writings under the name of Democritus began at a very early date, and declares the whole of the ethical writings to be spurious. Lortzing, I. c, more cautiously, decides that two ethical treatises, tt. vdv/xii]s and virodrJKat, are genuine, and the source of most of our moral fragments; the rest he either rejects or mistrusts. The statements of the ancients as to particular works
.

Theophrastus and Eudemus

wise paid
c.

like-

will be found in Heimsoth, p. 41 concerning sq. ; Mullach, 93 sqq.

;

much

attention to De-

mocritus, as Papcncordt shows, I. His multifarious -v^-ritp. 21.)

catalogue of Diogenes, cf. also Schleiermacher's Abhandlnnr/ V. J. 1815; Werke, 3te. Abth. iii.

the

ITS rRIXCIPLE

AXD GEXERAL

BASIS.

215

there was also the non-Beinp: or the Void.

fact

Beinof in

on this theory

is

not merely one, but consists of

an

infinite

number

of small invisible bodies which

move

in the Void.

On

the combination and separation of

these bodies, are founded

Becoming and Decay,

things.'
TITTUP

change,,

and the reciprocal action of

193 sqq. The fragments of these vrorks (of which the greater number, many of them doubtful or
belong to the ethical be found ap. 3Iullach. Cf. Burchard and Lortziug VI the works quoted B. Ten Brinck in the Ph'dol. vi. 577 sqq. viii. 414 sqq. On account of his elevated and often poetical language, Demospurious,
WTitings) are to
; ;

Leucippus and
iariv.
iviois

<pv(jiv

yap
(Vol.
5'

icov

cpxaio^j'
ilvai

e5o|e rh ov e| avajKris %v
CLKivrjTov
.
.

Kou
2)

etc.

I.

632,
cfV^T]

AeoKiiriros
oi -rues

e^ct;/

\6yovs

trpos ttjv at-

c9t]<tiv SfioXoyoi'/jLiva
avaip-f)(jOv(TLv

ovt
/fiVTj.Tji/

(pdopav ovT

Keyovres ovk y4yeaiv ovre Kal TO TrXrjdos

5e

Twy ovrav.

6ao?^oyi](Tj.s

ravra
TO %V
k^vov

ix\v T07s <pCUVOiX.ivOLS, Tols 6

critus is

compared by

Cicero. Oraf.

KaTa(TKud(ovriy, us ovre
oiiaav
fJLT]

h.v Kiirrjaiv

20, 67; De Oraf. i. 11, 49, with Plato. He also, Divhh ii. 64, 133, praises the clearness of his ezposition while Pint. Qu. Conv. v. 7, 6.
;

6,1/ev

Kevov

to

re

Kal TOV OVTOS OvOeV fjLT] ov (prjCTLV elvaf Th yap Kvpius %v

1)V,

Trau7r\r)6is

ov aAA'

^ivai

to toiovtuv

admires its lofty flight. Even Timon, ap. Diog. ix. 40, speaks of him with respect and Dionys. Be Compos. Verb. c. 24, places him beside Plato and Aristotle as a pat2,
;

ovx Ij/. aKX' aTTeipa to -rrXridos Kal aopaTa Sia au'.KpoTjjTa tuv tyKwv. TavTa 5' eV T<f KevcS (pepeadai (^Keuhu yap elvai), Kal (Tvi'iaTdfiefa ^ikv
yivea-iv Troieiv, StaXvofieva 5e <pQopav. iroiilv Se Kal TtdcTx^i-v fl Tvyxd-vovaiu
aiTTOpLiva

tern philosophical writer (cf. also Papencordt, p. 19 sq. Burchard, Fracjm. d. Moral, d. Bern. 5 sqq.). His writings, which Sextus still possessed, were no longpr in existence when Simplicius wrote (vide Papencordt, p. 22). The extracts of Stobpeus are certainly taken from older collections. Be Gen. et Corr. i. 8 {mpra, p. 133, 3), oSw Se fiaKiffra Koi irepl navTOJU v\ Koyay 5iwpiKa(n AevKiir; '

TavTT] yap ovx %v elpai. Kal (TvvTiQifxeva 5e koX TrepiirXeKS/xepa

Se tov kct' aKT]diav hos yeveaOai it\^6os. ov5' e/c twu ttoWuv ev, oAA' elvai tovt aSwaTov, aAA' wcTrep 'EuTreSoKA^s

yfvviv eK
OVK
&;/

a\r}6as

Kol
Sia

TWU aWosv Tives (paari irdcrx^tv TTopoiv, ovTW iraaav aWoicoaiv

Kal Trap rb Trdax^i" tovtov yiveaOai Thv TpoTTov, 5ia tov Kvqv yivouinf}5
TTjs

SicAiVeajs Kal ttjs (pOopas.

ojulo'lus

howevcr, does not mean that Leucippus and Democritus agree in every respect with each other, but that they exTTos

KOI ArjixoKpiTos (this,

Kal TTJs av^ricreus inreicrSvoixeixnv

plained all phenomena in a strictly scientific manner from the same principles) apxw Troirjaduevoi Kara

Instead of the words in spaced type, I formerly conjectured. Kal TOV OVTOS T}<T<T0V Th ^UTJ OV (p-qClV elvai. Although we might appeal in support of this reading to the probable sense, and to the passages
(TTepeaju.

210

THE ATOMISTIC P21IL0S0PRY.

Emthe
neither

Democritiis therefore agree with ParmeDides and

pedocles, that

Becoming nor Decay,

; ^

in

strict sense of the words, is possible

they also allow

this),^

(what indeed

is

the direct consequence of

that
^
;

niany cannot arise from One, nor One from

many
^

and that things can only be many if Being by means of the non-existent or the Void
quotedfw/ra,p.217,l,fromAristotle and Simplieius, j'et the traditional reading appears to me equally admipsiljle if -we interpret the words ilvai, 'he allows that nothing Koj. existent can he non-existent.' It is still simpler to read (witli Cod-^x E), in the immediately preceding context, u)S ovk &i/ k'iv. ovs, &c.,then the apodosis begins with t6 re Kevhv, and the explanation presents no
^

is
:

divided
finall}^,
^

they assert that motion would be inconceivable

Vide
p.

with-

and Arist. Be Ca-lo, iii. 4, 303 a, 5 (pacrl yap (AevK. Koi Arjp.oKp.') elvai ra irpwra
215,
1,
:

/j-iyiOr] ttXtjOsl ij.eu

aSjaipera,

Kol ovt^ e|
e/c

yiyveaOuL ovre

aneipa jxeyeOei 3e evhs TroAAa ttuWccv ev, aWa

rfj TOVTCoj- (TvfxirXoKfj Kal irepiirAe^ei

Prantl, in his edition, introduces Troiet Kevhv fxr] "bu after "t(^ re Kevhv fxr) ibv," which seems to me too great a departure from the MS., and also to have little
difficulty.

Metaph. vii. 13, 1039 a, 9 odvvaTOV yap elvai (pr,(nv (Democritus) e/c Suo %v ^ i^ hhs 8vo yeveadai to. yap ixeyeQr] ra arofxa ras ouaias Troiel. Pseudo-Alex, h. I. 495, 4 Bon. 6 ArifxoKpiTOS
TrdvTa yevvarrdai,
:

eKeyev otl adurarov

fiiav

e/c

dvo arofMUiv

yeviffQai
avTOLS

(JvKaQels
jLciai'

yap auras
Similarly,

vireriQero) ^

e/c

Zvo {aTfxi]rovs

resemblance
Aristotle.

style of c, who in his account probably follows Theophrastns. Philop. in h. I. p. 35 b sq., gives us nothing new. 1 Arist. P7i)/s. iii. 4, 203 a, 33 ArifxoKpiTos 5' ouShv 'irepoy e| erepov

with

the

yap

eXeyev).

Cf. Simpl.

I.

yiyvecrOai, tuiv irpcoTwi/ (prKriv.

Alex,
2G, p.
:

in

Mctaph.

iv.

5,

1009

a,

260, 24. Bon. of Democritus ityovfxevos 8e jUTjSej/ yiveaQai e'/c rov firi uvTOS. yuTjSeV t' e/c Diog. ix. 44 Tov /JLT] UVTOS yiueadai Koi els rh jxt] *ot> (pedpeaeai. Stob. Eel. i. 414: Atj/xSkpitos, &c., (TvyKpiaeis fj.lv Kal SiaKpiaas elcdyovcn, yevea-eis 5e koI ov yap Kara t6 (pOopas ov Kvpius. voihv i^ aX\oiui(TiU)5 Kara Ser^ -woahv iK (rvvaQpoKTjxov ravras yiyveoBat. 2 Cf. Vol. I. p. 586, 2; 587, 2.
: ,

Simpl. De Cixlo, 271 a, 43 f, 133 a, 18 f {Schol. 514 a, 4, 488 a, 26). Arist. Gen. et Corr. I. c. jPlni.<i. i. 3, xidesiq). Vol. I. p. 61 8, 1 Phyii. iv. 6, 213 a, 31 (against the attempts made by Anaxagoras to confute the theory of empty space) ovKovv TovTo ?)e7 heiKvvvat, on ecrri ri 6 arjp, dA.A' on ovk ecrrii SLaaT-n/xa erepou raiv awjuLaroov, ovre ^wptaThv ovTe ivepyeia ov, o ^laXa^x^dvei rh Tvav cru'fxa uaT elvai /xy] trvj/ex^^j KaBdTrep Xeyovai ArjjjLOKpiTOS Kal AevKLir

TTos <al erepoL ttoXXoI

ywv.
^

Compare what
Arist.
?.
(7.

is

twv cpvcnoXoquoted from

1;

Parmenides, Vol.
Gen.
Vhys.

I. p.

586,

587,2.
I.

et
:

Corr.

c.

213

b,

fxev (in

the

first

4 Xeyova-i S' ev place) on. Kiv-qai^^

ITS PBIJSCIFLE

AND GEXEBAL

BASIS.

2]

out the supposition of an empty space.

But instead of

inferring from thence, like the Eleatics, that multiplicity

and change are merely appearance, they draw this

opposite conclusion
:

as there are in truth

many

things
as all

which
this

arise

and decay, change and move, and

would be impossible without the supposition of the non-existent, a Beiug must likewise belong to the nonexistent.

They oppose the main

is not,'
is

principle of

Parme^

nides that 'Xon-Being

with the bold statement

in no-

that

'

Being

in

no respect more real than Xon- Being,'

is

that something {to hsv), as Democritus says, wise more real than nothing.^

Being

is

conceived by

them

as

by the

Eleatics,^ as the

Plenum, Non-Being

as the Void."^
T]

This proposition therefore asserts that

et"?]

Kara roizov ouk av

(popa Kal av^ricns)
Kiirqcriv, et

{avTTj

8'

Theophrast.)

ttjv

yap tuv aTOfiwv

ecTTi

ov yap av
e'er}

ovcriav vacTrjv Kal irAripTj vTroTidiJ.e-

5oKe7v eJvaL
('

fx}]

Kevov.

vos ov e\eyev elvai Kal iv

tw

'

Kev(fi

It appears that
;

no m-^tion -nould
:

(pepeaOai, oirep /xv ov ^KaAei Kal ovK

be possible not as Grote, Plato i. motion could 70, understands it not seena to be present.') Demo' '

eXaTTOv
sentence.
2

TOV
is

Leucippus

uvtos elvai (prjai, the subject of the

2, p.
fir]
'

critus's

argument for

this proposi-

Pint. JfJv. Col. 4,

i]

1109:

tion -will immediately be

examined

(ArifioKpLTOs) Siopi^erat

fj.a\Kov

and the relation of the Atomistic theories of the Void to those of IVIelissus later on. ' Arist. Mefaph. i. 4, 985 b, 4 AeuKITTTTOS 5e KOi 6 kTOLpOS aVTOV
ArifMOKpnos aroix^la fxkv rh nXrip^s Kal rh Kevhu eivai (pacri, Xiyovres rh rh fxei/ ou, rh Se fxi) ov, tovtwv 8h fj-eu TrXripes Kal ar^pehv rh hi/, to 5e Kevou ye Kal fxavov rh /xtj op (Sih Kal ovBev ixaWov rh ov tov fXT) uvtos ehai (paaiv on ou5e Th Kfvhv tov

Th Sev

6vo/xd(ccv

TO Th

fj.r,5v

eiiai

Sev fxev
8e

(rwjxa

jxr^^fv

t5

Tua Kal vTTOcTTCiCiv iSiav 6XovTs. The word dhv, Tvhich subsequently became obsolete (as the German Ichts is
Kevbv, us Kai tovtov (pvaiv

[Schwegler ra h. I. sugHevov Th awfia, or to ar(t)^aTa, which perhaps is better] a'lTia 8e twv ovtuv TavTa wi v\r]v. Simpl. Pfii/s. 7 a (no doubt after
adcfxaTos),

now), is also found in Alcseus, Fr. In Galen's account, 76, Eergk. De Eleni. Sec. Hipp. i. 2, t. i. 418 Kiihn, it is supposed, with some probability, that %v should be replaced by SeV. ^ Svpra, Vol. I. 588 sq.
2 and p. 215, 5 init. iravT^s oe TavavTia apx^-s iroiovaiv K04 Ar^ixoKpnos Th o'Tepehv Kal KevhVy oiv
*

gests

TOV

SiijJ.

notes

and

1; Arist. Phi/s.

i.

218
all

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

things consist of the matter which
itself.^
fills space, and These two cannot, however, be

empty space

merely side by

side, if

phenomena
;

are to be explained

by reference to them
another, so that the

they are necessarily in one

Plenum is divided by the Vacuum, and Being by non-Being, and through the changing relation of their parts, the multiplicity and change of That this division cannot go things is made possible.^ on to infinity, and that consequently indivisible atoms
must be supposed
all
T^

to be the ultimate constituents of

things,
{x%v Sos
'hv,

Democritus proved with the observation

rh
S' cbs

ovk hv eJuai
a, 2'i
:

(p-qaiv.

Mc^aph.

iv. 5,

1009
'

koi

3, that 6.ro[xa is used likewise by Democritus. Stobseus, Ed. i. 306: At),u6kp. ra vaffra kol Kevd; similarly
i.

Kcu yap ovros (pf](XL Koi Arijx6KpLT0S rh Kevhv Koi rh irXripes oixoiws Kad' Stlouv virdpx^i-v p.^pos. Kairoi rh jx^v ov rovruv cJj/ai rh Se /av] o^', not to

348.
^

Cf.

MuUaeh,

p. 142.

6,

According to Arist. Phj/s. iv. 213 b, the arguments of Demoin

critus

favour of empty space

(1)

mention

later writers.

According

were as follows:

Movement

to Theophrastiis (sup. p. 217, 1), Leucippus used the word vacrrhu

Simpl. ( = (rTepihv) for the Void. De Cce'o, 133 a, 8, Scftol. 488 a, 18,
asserts this still

more distinctly of
riyelrai
rr]u
elt^ai fxiKpcus ovcrias,

Democritus
ttXyiOos

ArffiSKp.

ru/v a'CZioiv (pvaiv

cLTreipovs,

ravrais 8e r'irov

aWov

vTVQTiQv,(nv 6,Tretpourw fieyeOeL,

TTpocrayopevii 8e rhv (xkv roirov ToTrrSe

rw re KewS: Koi tw ouSa/l rwv 8e ovaiiov eKaa rrjv ru^ TwSe Koi rcfi varrw koi r& ovti. lind.' 271 a, 43; Schol. 514 a, 4, and i7if. p. 220, 3 Alex, ad Mctaph. 9So 1'. 4, p. 27, 3 Bon. TrArjpes'Se
Tors ov6)xaai,
Kol roi a-weipw,
;

can take place only in the Void; for the Full cannot admit anything else into itself (this is further supported by the observation that if two bodies could be in the same space, innumerable bodies would necessarily be there, and the smalle't body would be able to include the greatest) Rarefaction and (2) condensation can only be explained by empty space (cf. c. 9 init.) (3) The only explanation of growth is that nourishment penetrates into the empty spaces of the body; (4)
;
;

eKeyov rh

<rwiJ.a.

rh rSiV aro/xuv 5ia

va(rr6rT]Td re Kai aixi^iav rov Keuov.

According

Thood. Cior. Gr. Aff. Democritus usod vaara to express the atoms, Metrodorus Epicurus ci-rofia; we aZiaipera, shall find, however, infra, p. 219,
to
iv. 9, p. 57,

Lastly, Democritus thought he had observed that a vessel filled with ashes holds as much water as wheil it is empty, so that the ashes must disappear into the empty interspaces of the water. 2 Cf. Arist. Metaph. iv. 5 {sup.

211 A); Pht/s. iv. 6 40 b, p. 284 Sp.

Themist. Phi/s.

ITS PRINCIPLE
already supplied to

AXD GEXEPAL

BASIS.

219

him by Zeno,^ that an absolute would leave no magnitude remaining, and Irrespectively of this, howtherefore nothing at all.'ever, the hypothesis was required by the concept of Being which the Atomists had borrowed from the for, according to this concept. Being can Eleatics Leucippus and only be defined as indivisible unity. Democritus accordingly suppose the corporeal to be composed of parts incapable of further division all
division
;
:

consists,

they say, of Atoms and the Void.^

All the properties which the Eleatics ascribed to Being are then transferred to the Atoms. They are
'

Supra, Vol.
Arist. Phi/s.

I. p.
i.

614

sq.
I.

Koyois
Corr.

ireiTe7(r6ai.

PhUop. Gen.

et

3 (of. Vol.

et Corr. i. 2, 316 a, "where the fundamental of the argument given in the text undoubtedly belongs to Democritus, even if the dialectical development of it may partly originate with Aristotle. In the previous context Aristotle says, to be quoted and this deserves in proof of his respect for Democritus, that the Atomistic doctrine

618, 1);

Gen.

13 sqq. thought

8 b, seems to have no other authority than Aristotle. ^ Democr. Fr. 'Phys. 1 (ap. Sext.
7 a,

Math.

135; Pyrrh. i. 213 sq. Col. 8, 2; Galen, Be Elcm. Sec. Hipp. i. 2 i. 417 K) vSfjLO) yXvKv Koi (Kal should no doubt be omitted) vofxy TriKphv, vouo}
vii.

Plut. Adv.

Oepuhu,

1-61x03

\pvxp6p.

voficv

XPO'T?

"

of Democritus and Leucippus has in its favour than that of the Ti'nK^us of Plato alnov Se Tov iir' tXarrov dvuaadai to. OfxaXoyovixfva. avvopav (sc. rhv TlXaTCiivci)

ere^ 5e arofxa Koi kvou, air^p vo/xiC^TUL ,uev elvai Kcii So^dC^rai to ajV07]Ta, ovK eari 5e KaTo. aX-qdeiav Tavra, aAAa ra aTOfia fMovov Kol
Kv6v. Further references are unnecessary. That the term Sro^a or aTOjxoi (oucriai) -was used by Democritus, and even by Leucippus, is clear from this fragment, and also from Simpl. Phys. 7 a, 8 a ; Cic. Fin. i, 6. 17; Plut. Adv. Col. Else8, 4 sq. (vide p. 220, 4). "vrhere they are also call-d iSeai or (rxVH-CLTa (vide inf. 220. 4), in opposition to the Void, va<7Ta (p 223, 3), and as the primitive substances, according to Simp. Phys. 310 a,

much more

7]

airapia. Sih oaoL ivuKTjKaai jmct^Xov

(pvffiKols

[xaXXov ^vvavrai roiavras apxas at iir\ TToXv ^ivavrai crwelpeiv 01 5' eK tcou TToXXooi' X6ytx-v adecvprj-roL tccv vnap^ XOVTUv vvres, TTphs oXiya ^Ke-tpavTes
iv TOts
wroTidecrOai
a-!ro(paivoin-ai paov. t5oi S'

Sf rts Koi

e/c

T0VT03V, Qcrov Siap^povaiv ol (pvcriKios

KOL KoyiKWS (TKOTTOVVT^S' Tr^pXyafjTOv
oLTOfxa eivai fieyedri

oiixh(pa(nv

on

rh

avTorpiywvov iroXXa ecTTat. ArjuoKpiTos 5' av (pavs'iT] oIkhois Koi (pvaiKols

apparently also (pv<ns the latter, however, seems to be a miscon;

ception.

L>20

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

and imperisliable,
for

nnderived

the primitive con-

stituents of all tliino's cannot have arisen from anvthino^ O

else,

I/O
;

and nothing can resolve

filled,

itself into

nothingJ
division

They
^

are completely

and contain no empty space

;

and are consequently indivisible

plurality are only possible where

for

and

Being

or the
;

Plenum

is divided by Non-Being or tlie Vacuum in a body which has absolutely no empty space, nothing can pene-

trate

by which

its

parts can be divided.^

For the same

is

reason in their internal constitution

and nature they

unchange-

are subject to no change, for Being as such

able

that which contains no kind of Non-Being must

Where there are no and no empty interspaces, no displacement of parts can occur; that which allows nothing to penetrate
therefore remain always the same.
parts,

into it can be effected by no external influence

and
are

experience no change of substance.'^

*

The Atoms

Vide

p. 216, 1

Plut. Plac.

i.

3,

vide previous note.

hovi-ever, is

His statement,

28. To prove that all things are not derived. Democritus appeals to the fiiet that time is without beginning, Arist. rhys.xVu. 1, 251 b, 15. Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 8 {sup. 'p.2\o,\y. rhyap Kvp'oisov iraixTTKy]d\s ov. Philop. in h. Z. 36 a: the indivisibility of the atoms was thus
'^

not to be regarded as independent historical evidence, hut merely as his own emendation of
that of Aristotle (vide Vol. I. p. 632, 2). Simpi. De Coelo, 109 b, 43 %Kfyov Sckol. in Arist. -184 a, 24 yap outui (Leucipp. and Democrit.) airdpovs dvai to5 irX-fiBsi ras apxo-s,
:

proved by Leucippus %Ka(rrov tSiv uvrav ecTTt Kvpiws ov' iv 5e tw uvti

:

as koX aro/xovs Koi a^iaipeTovs ifoixi^ou naX airadels

Sioi

ti)

yairas

eli/UL
i.

ohdiv ia-TLu ouK ov, wcrre o^5e Kevov. et Se ou^ev Ksvhv iv avTo7s, 7T]v de Siaipeaiv avev Kevov a^vvarov yeieffdai,
^

Kal a/xoipovs tov kcvov.

6,

Cic. Fi?i.

}7

'.

corpora indiviJiM

proj}ie7' soli-

clitatem, cf.'p.

216,4:] 217,1- Asindi-

a'^vvarov &pa aura Siaipedrivai. Arist. Mefaph. vii. 13; J)e

iii.
i.

Ccelo,

et Corr.

4; sup. 8, 325

-p.

216,3; Gen.
:

b, 5

<xx^^^>^ Se

Kal

"E/iTreSo/cAer

avayKoiov
(prjcriv

Xiy^iv
flva.i
fxr]

Sicrirep

Ka\

AevKi-mroi

magnitude unbroken by no atom is li/ |ut'ex") as the Being of the Eleatics, the indivisibility of which Parmenides had also proved from its absolute homogeneousness, vide Vol. I. 586,
visible

interspace, every

yap &rTa

cTTepea, adtaipera Se, el

5S5,

2.
stip.

'^TdyTTjTropoiavyex^'iselaiv. Philop.;

Vide

p.

215, 1; 216, 3;

ITS PRINCIPLE
lastly,

AND GENERAL
in

BASIS.

221

according to their substance, absolutely simple

;
^

and homogeneous

for,

the

first

placej

on this

condition only, as Democritus believes, could they work

upon each other

Arist.
;

and secondly,
note.
'

as

Parmenides had
Simpl.
;

De Calo, iii. 7 {sup. p. 125, Gen. ct Corr. i. 8, 32o a, 36: ]) ava-yKa7ov airaOes re efarrroi' \4yeiv
aZiaip^Toiv, ov

o-TeppOTTjTo.

vide previous
4; Philop. u.
:

Arist. P/ii/s,
h.
I.

iii.

Twv
Adv.

yap

oTov re ird-

crx^i'V

aW
;

Simpl. in
Arist.
5e
jxr]

cf.
i.

infra, p. 224, 2
7,

7j

Sia rod kvov.

Plut.
Atj.uJ-

De

Ccelo,

27o

b,

29

ei

Col. 8,

ri

yap \4ysi
rh

KpiTos

ovcrlas

arrsipovs

irXrjdos

Xeya
elvai
fxlv

(Tvvexhs rh irav, aAA' wairep ATjjjiOKpLTOS Kal A^VKnriros

aTO/MOVi
a-jroiovs

T6
Kol

Ka\

a3La<pcpovs
eV

gtl

6'

SiwoiC.ueVa

aTrafeTs

ru

Kivu,

rw Kivw. jxiau avayKalov iravruv rriv Kivrjmv. ^iJopiarai

axVI-'-adii'' T7,j/

(ppea6ai

SLeairapiJLei'as'
fl

OTav

Se

yap Tols

Se (pvaiv

TreXdawcnu aK\r]\aLS,
fj

cruMTreVwcrii/

eivai (pacnv aurwi/ p.iav, wa-rrep

au

ei

TreptTrAo/fwcri,

(paiveadai

ruv

aO-

poi^oixivau rb /x^u v5up, rh oh Trvp, rh Se (pvrhv, rh 5" avQpxTTov eivai 5e

Xpvahs eKaarov etrj Kex'-^'pi-Cfxej/oi-, Aristotle consequently calls the Atoms (Phi/s. i. 2. 184 b, 21): rh
yevos
poviras
h.
/.

TTovra Tos
utt'

OLTo/jiovs

tSe'as (al.

iStcos)

ev,

axvl-i-o-Ti

5e

?)

etSet dia(pe-

avTOv
fK

Ka\ov[x4vas,

fjLriSev'

iipai
&j/

7ap toO /xt/ yeueaiv, e/c 5e twv ovtuv

juei'

eVepov Se Cvtos ovk

ji-qdhu

^ Kal iuavrlas.
a, 1
:

Simpl. in
e'/c

10

cuioyevels Kal

ttjs

yei/eaOai

rw

jxriTe

na.ax^'-v /j-Vt^

/xerajSaAAetj/ ras aTOjxovs virh areppoT7]70S, odev

Id. ibid. 35 b, rh elZos avruv Kal ti]v oualau ev Kal wpiajxeuou. Id. De Coelo. Ill a, 5;
ahrris uvcrias.
:

ovT Xf'oau

e'l

ovT

<pv(Tiu

^ ^vx^i^

^'1

axpwcTa'j/, airoiwv Kal

Sc/iol. in Arist.

484

a,

34

aTOfiovs

o/xolas T7]v (pvaiu {6fxoLO(()ve7s Karst.).

[av^u^''"'] iiirapx^i-v (and, therefore,

since they are colourless, no colour can arise from them, and since they are without properties and without so far, that life, no (pijais or soul is, as we have respect to the essence of things, and not merely to the phenomenon). G-Albn.De Elem.Sec. Hipp. i. 2, t. i. 418 sq. K: airaQri 5' vnoridevTai to (ra/xaTa ejvai to. oifb' aWoiovadai Kara. irpwTa Ti Svi^a.i.Leva ravras Stj tos aWoid; . . .

b,

Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 7, 323 10: Ari/xoKpiTos 5e irapa tovs

-

aWovs
TToie'iv

Idiws

eA.e|e

/xovos

and

irdax^^t^)eli/ai

avrh Kal oixoiou

Kal

(on the (prjal yap rh to t6 ttoiovu

irdcrxov ov yap iyxo^pelu rd Siacpepcvra Trao'xeii' vw' dW-fiXciJV, dX.Ka Kap erepa uvra iroirj

erepa Kal
Ti els

acLS, &s airavres avSpcunoi TreTrio'Teu-

KatTiv (Ivai

oJov ovre dep/xaii eaOai Ti (paaiv iKeivwv oure xl^vx^adai, k.tK. {sup. p. 220, 1) /xt^t' &\\r]u
.
. .

dWriXa, ohx ri erepa, aAA.' ^ rahrov ri virdpx^i, ravr-i] rovro avrols. arvfxfiaiveiu Theophr, De dSvvarovSe (p-qcri [ATj.aoSensu, 49 Kp.'\ rh [I. ToJ fiT) ravrd ndax^'-^, dAAa Kal erepa 6vrairoie7p ohx '^repa [1. ovx V ^"'L ctAA" ^ [1. 7^] ravrdf
:

ri

7ra(rxe'

to?s ofioiois.

That De-

Tiva

b\ws

iTfL54x^(Tdai

iroioTTjra

Kara
ix.

ixr]5fj.(av

iJ.TafioKriv.
.

Diog.
.

44

e^

aTO/jiwv

direp
ttjv

elvat airadrj Kal

avaWoiwra

Sioc

mocritus applied this principle in the manner mentioned above is not stated expressly, but is in itself We found the same with probable.

222

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

is

already shown,* this dissimilarity of one from another

a consequence of Non-Being

where pure Being with-

out Non-Being

is,

there only one and the same constiis

tution of this Being

possible.

Our

senses alone
;

show

us things qualitatively defined

and distinct

to the

primitive bodies themselves, the atoms,

we must not

ascribe any of these particular qualities, but merely

that without which an existence, or a body, would not

be thinkable.^
stance that
fills

In other words. Being

is

only the sub-

space, matter as such, not matter de-

fined in any particular

manner

for

all

definition

is

exclusion, each determinate substance is not that which it is, therefore, not merely a Being but a others are
:

Non-Being. The Atomistic doctrine of Being in all these respects differs only from the Eleatic in transferring to
the

many

particular substances that which Parmenides

had said of the one universal substance or the universe. But the homogeneousness and unchangeableness
of the atoms

must not be
our

carried so far as

to render

the multiplicity and change of derived things impossible.

If,

therefore,

philosophers can admit no

qualitative differences

among

the atoms, they must all

the more insist that quantitatively, in regard to their

form, their magnitude, and their reciprocal relations

Diogenes (Vol. I. 286, 2) and as Diogenes (according to Vol. I. 300, 2) borrowed from Lcucippus, it is certainly possible that this weighty observation may have originally belonged to Leucippus. 1 cf. Vide Vol. I. p. 586, 1
;
;

terial

alone as a real 5ia rh

(pvaei

ix-qhlv

vnoK^'taQai

alaOriThu,

twv tr
^x'^vaSiv
I.

Trdvia avyKpivovcruv aTOixwv Trdarjs

ala-drjTris Ttoi6rT\Tos %pr)jj.ov

cpvaiv.

Plutarch and Graltn,

c,

supra, 216,
2

4.

6.

Cf. p. 219, 3; Sext. Math. viii. Democritus regards the imma-

with less exactitude, calls the atoms &Troia. Further details will presently be given as to the qualities predicated or denied in regard to them.

THE ATOMS: THEIR FORM AXD

in space, these atoms
various.

SIZE.

223

must be conceived

as infinitely

Democritus therefore declared that the atoms

dififerences of

are distinguished from each other in regard to their

shape, their order and their position

size

The main and weight are likewise mentioned. distinction is that of shape, which, on that account, is
often

brought foi'ward alone

and from which the

atoms themselves are named forms. ^ The Atomistic philosophy goes on to maintain that not only the atoms
but the differences of shape
infinite

among
to

the atoms must be

is

in

number, partly because there

shape
should belong

no reason

why

one
;

them more than

this supposition

another

and partly because only on

MdajjJi.
i.

Arifet.

4,

after the

words quoted,

p. 217, 1: KaOd-rrep ot

pvO/xos.

raWa
.
.

V TTOiovvres rrjv vTroKii^4vr\v ohaiav rols iraQ^aiv aurrjs yevvwai

.

only another prontinciation of Diog. ix. 47 speaks of writings it. tuv Siacpepovruv pvffixwv
is

and
^

IT.

aiieirpippvafiiwu.

rhv auTov, rpoirov Ka\ ovtoi ras

For example, by
;

Aristotle,

Sia(popas alrias
(Tiv.

twv

6.W(iiv eiuai (pa-

Tuvras

yi4vT oirptls eivai Xiyovai,

^6 KOI TOL^LV Kol deciv. Siap4(paai rh ov pvcrfi^l- Ka\ Siadiy^ /xei/ Kol TpoTTTj jjLOiov ToincDV 8e
(TXVf^O-

Phys. i. 2 X>e Cceh. i. 7 (vide p. 221, 1); Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 325 b, 17 To?s ^i.\v yap itniu adiaipera to,
:

peiv

yap

TrpaJTa

twv

crcufxarccu, axviJ-aTi Siacpe-

poiTa
1

fj-ofov,

and afterwards, 326

aToirov Koi
et

a,

pvafihs
raE,i.s,
7]

(TX^M** ^(TTiv, ri 5e 5ia9t77j Se Tpoirr) decris' 5ia(p4pei yap

aWa
3

ixt]v

fir]6hv

inrdpxei'

aW'
4,

fj.6pov (TXVH-OI.

TO fihv A ToG N axV/J-o-Th '^^ ^^ AN Tov NA Ta|t, rh Se Z rod N 6iaei.

ibid. viii. 2, init.

Plur.
iii.

Phys.
e'/c

Adi: Col. 203 a, 21

:

c.

Arist.

(/^Tj/io/cfuTos)

more briefly, The same differences among the atoms are mentioned by Arist. Phi/s. i. 5. init.

The same

is

stated

iT\s naucnrepfj.ias

rwv

(TxVf^d.TU}v
;

{&TTeLpa TToiel

ra (TToix^7a)
;

Gen. et

Corr.
ifif.

i.

2,

see folio-wing note,

;

and
;

Corr. i. 1, 314 a, 21 c, 2, 33 e, 9, 327 a, 18. These statements are then repeated by his commentators Alex. Metaph. o38 b, 15 Bekk. 27, 7 Bon.; Simpl. Phys. 7 a. 8 a, 68 b {Schol. 488 a, 18 Philop. Be An. B, 14 Phys. C, 14; Gen. et C&rr. 3 b, 7 a. 'Puc/ibs, characterised by Philop. and Suid. as an expression peculiar to Abdera,
Ge7i. et
b,

315

229, 4 Be An. i, 2 ef. p. 226, . Be Bespir. e. 4, 472 a, 4, 15 Simpl. Phys. 7 a, ride p. 224, 1. Democritus had himself composed a -work Trepl iS^aiv (Sext. Math. vii.
p.
;

137), which, no doubt, treated of the form of the atom, or of the atoms generally. Hesychius says l^4a, no

doubt after Democritus, ai:d that

it

meant also to iXdxiCTTov

auixa, cf.

MuUach,

135.

1-24:

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

it

can

be explained that things are so infinitely diverse,

are subject to so

many changes and appear

Further, the
as to size,^
315
roJ

so differently

to different people.^

atoms are
but
it is

distin-

guished from each other

'

not clear

Arist. Gen.
:

ct

Corr.

i.

2,

b.

eTrel 5'

wovto raXr]des fV

(paivecrOai,

iuavria Se Koi aireipa ra

iiroirj-

(paivoaeva, ra.(TxV}J-c.ra ^rreipa

aau, w'TTe rais ixera^oKats rod cruyKeijxivovTh avrh ii^avrioi' 5oKe7u

Kxl

aWw
eV-

&\Ky

Koi /.LeraKiue'ia-OaL jxiKpov

[xiyvvf-Uvov Koi

oKws

eVepoj/ (paiv^crOai
e/f

6fbs ix?TaKii/ri9euTos'

rwu

yap roayw^ia Kai

ypauudrcov.
A7?/.toK-piTOs
(T03i.iS,rwv

Kup-cp^ia

auTCou yiverai
:

I})id. c, 1,

3l4r a, 21

ap. Philop. Plut. Plac. i. 3, 30 (the tM'o last also remark the divergence of Epicurus on this point) cf. Part in. a, 375, second edition Themist. Phys. 32 a (222 sp.); Philop. i)t^ ^;i. B, 14; Simpl. Phys. 7 a, "who gives as a reason for this definition, appealing to the utterances of the Atomists themselves: rSiu iv Tatv o.i6ixois (rxvud24,

66

Alexander,

Gen.

ct

Corr.

3b;

Se

KoX
5'

AevKLiriTos

e/c

Tcoi/ a-rreipov
fjLrjdhu

rb

TrKrjdSi

(paii dia
ff
:

rh

a^iaipirwv

raWa
ixopcpas,

cruyKeT-

^aWov

toiovtov

toiovtoi/

(r6ai

(pacri,

ravra

&n(ipa koX rh

TrKrjdos eli/at Kol

ras

avra Se

ehai {cf. Plut. Col. 4, 1 according toColotes, Democritus maintained

:

nphs avra Siaipepsiv (here raWa is again the subject) Tourots e| Siu elcri (the atoms of ^Y]aich they consist) Bnd. KoL dicrei Kai rd^ei tovtoou. (AeuKtTTTros) aireipois c. 8, 325 b, 27
:

Tuv

Tvpayixdruif 'eKa(TTou ov
i)

ixaWou

rotou

Tolov dvai),
:

with Aristotle
(TTOV els kr^pav

and previously, ruv (rx77;UaTwj' e/caavywcrre

apx^i-'V

inKOfTixovfjL^vov

upia-Qai
(TTepecbu

o'XTjaao't

tcov

a^iaipertav
iii. 4,
:

xpKTiv aXKriu 7roie7u Biddscnv evXSyass aTreiputu ovcrwv tusv

eKacTTov.
;

De Caeh,

ndvTa

TO,

irdOv Koi ras ovaias airoBca-

303 a 5. p. 21 6, 3 ibid, line 10 Kai irphs TOVTOLS eVel ^lacpepsL ra (Xwixa.To

o-XT^.w-ac'i'

aeiv eTrriyyeWovro vcp' ou re yii/erai Kai irws. 5i5 Kai (pacri fxovois rois

(this is

repeated at line

30), Eitcipa 56 ra o'X'i^/xara, KoX TO OTrAa awtxaTO. (paffiv

dimpa
eluai.

De A7i. i. 2, 404 a, 1. The infinite number of the atoms is very often

mentioned, e.g. Arist. Pkys. iii. 4, Gen. et Corr!\. 8, 325 203 a, 19 Simpl. Phys. 7 a Plut. a, 30 Adv. CoK 8, 4 Diogr. ix. 44 (who, however, clura.sily adds that the atoms ire also unlimited in size). Concernini? their innumerable and manifold forms, (rKaKrjva, ayKiarpdoStj, Ko7Ka. Kvpra, &e., cf. Theophr. Id. Metaph. 65 sq. D'i SensH, (Fr. 34) 12, where he censures Democritus for the irregularity of the forms of his atoms Cie. N. D. i.
;
; ;

ra ffroix^^a irdura Kara Xoyov. Id. De Coelo, 133 a, 24, 271 a, 43 {Schol. 488 a, cf. infra, p. 232 sq.; 32. 514 a, 4)
&Treipa
Troiov(ri

(Tvfx^aiueiv

245.
2

1.

Arist. Ph>/s.
S'

iii.

4.

203
e'l

a,

33

AT]fx6KpLro9

ovdev erepof

erepov

yiyveadai rtov irpwrcou (prjaiu dW' Ufius 7e aiiro rh Koiuhf aHyia irduTuiu earlv dpx^> fx^yiQe^i Kara n6pia Kai axvi^o-TL Siacp^pov, which is repeated by Philoponus, Simplicius, in h. I., and others {Schol. in Arist. 362 b, 22 sq.); Simpl. De Coelo, 110 a, 1 133 a, 13 {ibid. 484 a. 27; 488 a, 22) Gen. et Corr. \. 8 {inf. p. 227, 1). Theophr. De Sensu, 60 Arjfj.6Kpiros rh. fieu rois iJ.eye9e(n, ra Se
;
:

THE ATOMS: THEIR FORM AND

how this distinction
For
as the
is

SIZE.

225
^

related to the distinction of form.

atoms are indivisible only because there

is

no vacuum in them, they are not mathematical points, but bodies of a certain magnitude,- and in this respect
they

may be

as different as they are in form.

all

Demo-

critus,

however, supposed that

;

to be perceived by our senses

atoms are too small this he was compelled to

(TK\r]p6TVTos,
inrh

uTo
^iopi<^i.

Ibid. 61, vide

i7ifra 226,

aOiaipera
plicius,

aiJLLKpoTrjJos.

Leucippus as Sim-

i. 3, 29; 4, 1. the one hand, as has just been shown, the form only is usually mentioned as that by which the atoms are distinguished from one another, and so we might suppose that a certain size was connected with each form (thus Philop. De An. c. 6, conjectures that Democritus regarded the spherical atoms because, among as the smallest bodies of equal mass, those that are spherical have the smallest extent). On the other hand, among the atoms of like form, greater and smaller are distinguished, as we shall presently find, in respect to the round atoms and conversely atoms of various forms are, on account of their agreement in size, included in one element. Arist. De Ccelo, iii. 4, 303 a, 12 (after the quotation on p. 224. 1) trolou 8e koX Ti kKOLcrroi) to (rxT^jua twv (Ttoix^'''"'

1.

Flut.Phc.

On

that considered that the indivisibility of primitive bodies arose not merely
Phi/s.

Leucippus

216 a. says and Democritus

from their

airddeia. but also from the (TpLLKphv Koi ufxepes Epicurus, on the contrary, did not hold them to
:

be
b,

afJL^pri.

but

6.rop.a.

5id tt^v aird-

Oeiai/.

Similarly, in
Sckol.

Be
14,

1,

514
Sia

a,

Cceh, 271 they are

koX

spoken of as

(TixiKp6TT\ra

vaa-TOT-qra arofioi.

This is a mistake (perhaps of the Epicureans) Aristotle's polemic against the

is directed against the mathematical atom as well {Be Coelo, iii. 4, 303 a, 20). but Democritus and Leucippus, as Simpl. Phi/s. 18 acknowledges, a, suppospd, not thatthe atoms were mathematically indivisible, but, like Epicurus, that they were physically indivisible. 3 Sext. Sfark. vii. 139: Keyei

atoms

Se Kara Xe^iv
I54ai,
7]

"

yi'u>fj.7is
-q

Se Svo elalu

ovOev iTTiOLupLcrav,
TTvpl

dXAo

fxovov

rw

jxkv

yvrjaiT]

Se

aKorlr]

Trjf

crcpalpav

aireSwKav

df'pa

Ka\ aKOTL-qs jxku raSe ivtxr-avTa, o^is,

OLKor],

Se Koi

vdup Kol

raWa

/xeyeOei Koi

odnri,

y^vais,

\pavais

7]

Se

fjLiKpoTTiri

ws ovcrav avrwv ri]v (pv(Xiv oTov iravanepfxiav irdvTwv for they suppose t5}v <TTQix^'>-<>^v that in them atoms of the most various forms are mingled. - Gralen {Be EI em. sec: Hipp. i. 2 T. I. 418 K) say*; that Epicurus regarded the atoms as aQpavdra
dielKov,
;

yvt]air)
fjituT)]

airoKKpv/xuevr]

\_dirjKeKpi-

Se (?) TOUT77S."

eJra TrpoKpiiiri(p4pei.

j/wi'T^s (TKOTL-ns T7]v yvr)(rir]v

\tywv

" OTav

7]

(TKOt'lt]

/jltjuctl

Svv-qraL ^Tjre opiju

eV eKarrov

(see

what
fjLr]Te

smaller), ixt]T aKoveLU, oSfxaaOai, /iTjre yeveaQai, /xrire

is still

iv TTJ i^ayirej alcrddveadai,

aW'

iirl

VOL. IL

226

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

assume because every substance perceptible to sense is But divisible, changeable, and of determinate quality. magnitude directly involves weight, for weight belongs
to every
it

body as such, and

as all

matter
;

is

homogeneous,
the propor-

must equally belong

to all bodies

so that all bodies

:

of the same mass are of the same weight

tion of weight of particular bodies
sively conditioned
is

therefore exclu-

by the proportion of their masses,

this,

and .corresponds entirely with

and when a larger

is

body appears
only because

to be lighter than a smaller one, this

it

contains in
is

it

more empty space, and

than that of the other.*

therefore its mass

AeTTTOTepoj/,"

really less

there (the meaning must be) true knowledge enters

:

TTvp Koi TpvxVt^ X^yei, oTou iu tcS aepi

Arist. Gen.

et Corr.

215, 1)
{Schol.

Simpl.

Be

8 {suip, p. Ccelo, 133 a, 13

i.

&c. The atoms there are rightly called, in Pint. Plac. i. 3, 28, Stob, Eel. i. 796, Xoyip 6eupr}Ta, though the expression may originally belong to Epicurus and Aristotle, Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 326 a, 24, censures the Atomistic doctrine thus 6.Tonov koI tI

488

a, 22),

ra KaXovtxdva ^vafxaTa, h (pa'iueTai eV rats 5ia rwu dvpiScou aKrlcriv, and these words are too explicit to justify Philoponus {De An. B 14
Gen.
et

Corr. 9 b) in citing the

motes of the sunbeam as an example of bodies which usually

escape our senses.
critus, in connection

But

if

Demo-

with a Pytha-

gorean theory [swp. Vol. I. p. 476, 2), supposed that these motes consisted of similar

IJLiKpa ixku
ju,7j.

When

a^Laipera elvai ii^-yaKa 5e Dionysius ap. Eiis. Pr.

atoms

to the soul,

lv. xiv. 23, 3, says that Epicurus believed all atoms to be absolutely small and imperceptible to sense
;

whereas Democritus supposed some to be large; and Stob. Ed. i. 348, asserts that Democritus thought it possible that an atom may be as large as a world this is certainly be more It would erroneous. reasonable to infer from Arist. De An. i. 2, 404 a, 1, that the atoms were under certain circumstances

he might still consider them as aggregations of those atoms, thftparticular constituents of which we cannot distinguish. * These propositions, so important in regard to the subsequent theory of Nature, are an immediate consequence of the qualitative

homogeneousness of all matter. The Atomists were aware of these consequences, as Aristotle shows {De Ccelo, iv. 2, 308 b, 35) ra
:

irpcaTa Koi

&.Top.a rois

fjikv

iir'nreda

visible.

Aristotle
:

here

says

of

XeyouTiv
rh

Democritus

ctTretpcoj/

70^

vvrosv

e| S>v (rvv^arriKe ra fiapos exoj'Ta tS)v auiixaruv (Plato) aroTroi/

(rXi7/i*aTa>j/ fcal

arSy-uiv

ra

acpaipoeibrj

(pdyai,

7o7s

Se

arepea [xaWou

THE ATOMS: THEIR SIZE AXD WEIGHT.

227

Thus the Atoms must have weight, aud the same specific weight but at the same time they must differ in
;

weight quite as much as in magnitude.^

is

This doctrine
:

of great importance for the Atomistic system

^

texts

which maintain the contrary

ivZex^Tai
fiapvrepou

are

to

be considered
:

X4yeiu

rh

/xu^ou

eluai

avrwv (Democritus does

:

not say this, vide following note)

text, by Schneider and Wimmer in their editions Burchard, Bernocr. Philippson,''TA77 Phil, de Sens, lo
;

Tuu

5e avi/deTwv, iireidriirep ov (pai-

avBpojTcivr],

135

Papencordt, Atom.
Preller,
I.
:

verai

rovrov

ex^'"

'^KacTTOv

rou

Bodr. 53
text

and

c.

The

rponov,
fjieu

aXKa iroWa ^apvrepa bp'2iXuTTW rhv oyKov ovra, KaOdirep

x-^'^^^i

el yap stands thus diaKpLOfj evOev eKaarov, el Ka\ Kara

itself

ipiov

'drepov

rh
efioi

oltlov

o'xVf^'^
etxj.

dio.(pepoi,

Otacpepei

crraduhv,

otovToi T6 Kol

mists, no yap Kevhv i/xirepiXafMBavo/xevov kov(/Ji^eti/

(Atodoubt Democritus) rb
\4yovaiv
(paai Kol
iroielu

TO

(TwfjLaTa.

^(TTiv

8x6 TO

p.^i^(a

Kovcporepa, ttXuov

yap exejj' Kev6v. 5m tovto yap koI rhv uyKOU eluai yu.et^c> (TvyKei/xeva TToWaKLS e'^ "icrccv (rrepeuy ^ Ka\ iXarrovav. B\ws Se Kal -rravTOs a'lTiou eJyai tov Kovcporepov rh
irXeiov iuvirdpx^i-i'

302 35 {Schol. 516 b, 1); Alex. ap. Simpl. ibid. 306 b, 28 sq. (Sckol. 0I7 a. 3). ^ Vide previous note and Arist. Kairoi Gen. ef: Corr. i. 8, 526 a, 9 ^apvrepou ye Kara rrjv imepox^v
Cf. also Simpl.

Be

Cxlo,

b,

(pri<Tiu

elvai d^rip-OKpiros eKacrrou rcci

b.

Kevov
irvp

5ia
<pa<xi

yap rovTO
KovtpOTarov,

Koi.

rh

eivai

on -KXeiffrov e%ei K^vov. Theophr. De Sens'/, 61 ^apv /xhu

:

oZv Ka\

Kovcpov Toj (xeyiOei

d^aipel

Simpl. Be CcB^o, 2o4 Shol. in Arist. 510 b. 30 vide infra. Further details, p. 241. - So Plut. Plac. i. 3, 29. Epicurus ascribed form, magnitude, and weight to the atoms AtjuoKpiTOS fxev yap eXeye Syo, fxeyeOos
adiaiperwv.

27

61 703 SiaKpiOeLT] ev eKaarov (the individual atoms), et Kol Kara (Xx^P-o- 5ia<p4poi (so that they cannot therefore be measured by one another), (nadixov av in\

ArjfxoKpiTos,

fj-eyedei

TTfv Kpiffiv [so I rea^l

Preller, H.

PhU. Qr.-rom.
ou
jxtjv

(pv(nv\ exety.

aKV

with 84 for %v ye to7s

/xiKTo7s KoucpOTipov

Sv

eluai

exou Kevhv, ^apvrepou de rh

Tov.
ev
aiT\03S

rh -nXiov e\ar-

aWois

eu eviois fiev ovtoos e'lp-qKev Se Kovcpou eJvai (prifjiv

rovrb &dpos, e-redr]Kev. Stob. i. 348 (cf. p. 225, 3): ArjixoKp. TO. Trpurd (prim <xup.oi.Ta, ravra h' 'f\v to. vacTTa, ^dpos fxev ovk ex^tv, Kiveia-daL Se Kar aX\r]\0TVTriav Cic. Be Fato, 20, eu rqi aireip(p. Epicurus represented the 46. atoms as moved by their weight, Democritus by impact. Alex, on ov^e yap Metapli. \. 4. 985 b, 4 re Ka\ crxTJuaTOis
S' '''E.TTiKovpos

Kol

rpiTov,

TTodev

ri

^apvT-qs
CLTSfMOLS

ev

rats

d-o/iois

TO XeiTTOv.

yap SiaKpiO. based on my partly on Mullach, p. 214, 346 sq. Various conjectural readings have been suggested to complete the

"words el crraOfxhu are partly own conjecture, and

The

Xeyovcrr ra yap auepy] ra eirivoovfieua

ovra Alexander here appeals to the third book of Aristotle, it. ovpavov but seems
rais
kolI

fxepr)

avTwv a^apri

(pacriv fivut..

to refer

what

is

said in the first

Q 2

!>28

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

Concerning the differences of the atoms as and order, Democritus seems to have given no

erroneous.
to place

farther or

more general

definitions

at any rate, tradition

has preserved nothing beyond what

quoted.^

we have already
as

The Void was conceived by the Atomists

limited
;

un-

was required, not only by the infinite number of the atoms, but also by the idea of empty
this

space.^

The atoms
it
is
;

are

comprehended by the Void,^

;

and by

are separated from each other

wherever

therefore there
sarily is the

a combination of atoms, there necesit is,

Void

like the

Plenum, in

all things.-^

This definition, however, was not so rigorously carried

out by the founders of the Atomistic philosophy that

they admitted no direct contact of the atoms with

chapter against the Platonic construction of the elements, wrongly,
the distance between the ends of what surrounds a body (t^ dida-rrjixa
rh ixera^v rcov icrxo-rav tov TrepteXovTos), a distance which is sometimes filled with a body and sometimes empty. But it is quite possible that Democritus, whose definitions are coupled by Simplicius with those of Epicurus, did not formulate his theory so exactly, Phys. 124 a. Simplicius says: to yap Kivbu tottov elireu 6 ArtnoKpnos. Similarly 80 b. ^ Vide previous note, and p. 215, 1.
*

and Democritus, who admitted no parts in the atoms.

to Leucippus
* The differences of place and form, which Aristotle enumerates {Phys. i. 5), he gives not in the name of Democritus, but in his

own.

Arist.

Be Cosh,
Kal
KivtS

iii. 2,

300

b,

AevKlTTircp 8 Kiyovcriu ael

(TwjjLara

Arj/jLOKpira}
to.

to7s

Kiv^lcrQai

irpwra

iv

tcxj

Kol raS aireipcp,

XeKTeou rii/a Kiurjcnv Kal tls i] Karh. Cic. Fin. i. 6 (puaiv ahruv Kivt](ns. {inf.); Simpl. Phi/s. 144 b; De
Coelo, 91

Arist.
et

Be

Coelo,

i.

7,

275

b,

b,

36,
a,

300
;

b,

{Sckol.

29

Se

/X7J

(yvv-)(}s

rh

irav,

aA\'
iv.

Stob. Ed. i. 480 a, 37) Ac380; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 28. cording to Simpl. Phi/s. 133 a, Democritus distinguished from the
38, 516
{rdiros), by which, like Epicurus after him (Part iii. a, 373, second edition), he understood

wanfp Xeyei

A7]/x($/cpiT0S kol AevKiir-

TTos. diwpi(TfjiuaTU}

Keu^.

Phys.

6 (cf. p. 216, 4) where there is also an allusion to the similar doctrine

Void, Space

of the Pythagoreans.
^ Arist. Metaph. 217, 4, &c.

iv.

5; sup. p.

THE
each other
; ^

VOID.

229

it was only the actual uniting of the atoms which they denied.^

According to these presuppositions,

all

qualities of

things must be reduced to the amount, magnitude, form

and relations in space, of the atoms of which they consist, and all change in things must be reduced to an altered combination of atoms.^ A thing arises when a complex of atoms is formed it passes away, when such a complex is dissolved it changes when the place and position of the atoms is changed, or a portion of them is displaced by others it augments when new atoms are added to the complex it decreases when
; ;

some atoms are separated from

1

it."^

Similarly all in-

Cf. Arist.
offoi S"

Phys.

iii. 4,

203

a,

19

&ireipa iroLouai to. (ttol-

XeTa, KaQdirep ^Ai/a^ayopas Kai Atj/jloKpiTOS acp'p TTJ avvex^s rh

. . .

but it is still without internal connection, and, therefore, not in the strict sense (rvvex^s. Yide Pht/s.
acpfj
;

viii.

4,

aireipop elvai
i.

(pa(riv.
:

Gen.

et Corr.

195
ovxi

b,

255 a, 13 Simpl. Pkys. where this expression is thus

;
:

8 {sup. p. 215, 1)
fl

ttol^Iv 5e

koL

Tvyxo-vovaip atrTOfM^va, Plato, as well as 29. Leucippus, supposed the atoms to have a definite form e'/c 5^ tovtwv
irdaX^i-v
ibid.

325

b,

ai yeuecrcis koI aldiaKpiaeis. Aeu/ciVTTCj)

fjLeu

yeveaeccs

dvo rpOTTOi au eieu [sc. rrjs /cat StaKpiVews], did re tov

Zia.

Kcvov Koi

TT]s a<pT]S (ravTT?

yap

diaiperhv eKaarov), YlXdru'vi 8e Kara

tV
is

acpTjv

iJ.6vov.

Ibid.

326

a, 31,

directed against the Atomis:s: et jxkv yap fxia (pvffis 4(Tt\u airdvTwv ri TO xcopttra;/ ^ Sid ri ou yiyu^Tai a,\pd/xua ei/, wCTrep vdwp liSaTOS orav eiyrj; Simpl. De Coelo, 133 a, 18; ScLl. 488 a, 26. There is no contradiction here with the passage quoted above, note 2, which asserts that the world is not crvvex^s for that which merely touches can form indeed a connected mass in space, and so far may be called avpex^s ry
;
;

rfj d(p-^ avvex^Co/J-epa dAA' TTJ kv(i)(Tii, cf. inf. p. 245, 1. have, therefore, no right to understand contact in the Aristotelian passages as referring merely to close proximity, as is done by Philop. Gen. et Corr. 36 a. 2 Cf.previousnote, andp. 216,3. 3 Cf. Simpl. De Coelo, 252 b, 40 {Schol. 510 a, 41): ArjuSKpiTos Se, d)S QeocppaCTOS iu to7s ^uaiKols larope7, ws ldicoriKa>9 dirodiSovTcuu rSiv Kara Th depfxhu Koi ih y^^vxphv Kol ra Toiavra aLTioKoyovvTwv, iiri ras

amended

We

drdfj-ovs dvePr].
^

Arist. Ge7i. et Corr.

:

i.

2,

315

b, 6

Ar)fx6Kpnos 5e

/cat

TToiTjaavTes
(Tiv

rd

ax'^'ilJ-o-Ta
e/c

A^vKi-mros t7]v dXXoicoTroiovat.

Koi TTju yeueaiv

tovtwv

SiuKpicrei fxeu

Kal avyKpicrei ysi/eaiv

5e /cat
fie'cet

Kal (pQopdv, rd^ei

XoiwcTiv,

dX1).

&c.
9,

ibid. c. 8 (p.

215.

Ibid.

c.

327,

16: opw/xey dh rh

230

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

upon another
is

tluence of one thing

of a mechanical
;

kind, and consists in pressure and percussion

fore,

if,

there-

a merely dynamical influence seems to be produced

from a distance, we must suppose that it is in reality mechanical, and as such brought about by contact.

The Atomists,
nomena,
tions.^

therefore, seek to explain all such

phe-

as

Empedocles

did,

by the doctrine of emanavarious physical properties

If, lastly,

many and

appear to belong to things, these also must be explained

mechanically by the quantitative relations of the atoms. According to their substance, all things are alike only the form, size, and combination of their original con;

stituents

are

different.

But among
is

these

derived

qualities themselves there

avrh
OTh
(rw/jLa

an essential difference.

avvex^s ov ore
ov
iraBhu,

fxu

vyphu
koI

5e

ireTTriyhs,

diaipeaei

(Tvudeffei

TOVTO
i.

ouSe Tpoirrj
Ar)iJ.6KpL-

KOL SiaOiyij, KaOdirtp

Tos, Meta'ph.
viii.
9,

Xeya
:

4, p. 223, 1.

Phf/s.

the Atomists ascribe movement in space only to the primitive bodies, and all other movements to derived bodies ai|a-

265

I),

24

viaGai yap
roov
ardjULCtiv

ical

(pOiveiv Koi

aWoiov-

aQoLi (TvyKpivoixivoiv KoX hiaKpivoixivwv

aco/adTCtiv

^aaly, which

Simpl. 171, h. I. 310 a, constantly repeats Be Coelo, iii. 4, 7 (sup. p. 216, 3; 125, 7); Simpl. Categ. Schol. in Ar. 91 a, 36 Galen, I)e El em. sec. Hipp. i. 9, T. I. 483 K, &c. ' Cf. Arist. Gen. ct Corr. \. 8 Leucippus and {sup. p. 215, 1). Democritus derive all action and One thing suffering from contact. suffers from another, if parts of the latter penetrate the empty interspaces of the former. Alex. Aphr. (QM.iV^a^.ii.23,p. 137 Sp.) mentions the oraauations more distinctly; he
; ;

us that Democritus, like Empedocles {sup. p. 134, ]), sought to explain the attractive power of the magnet (on which, according to Diog. ix. 47, he wrote a treatise) on this theory. He thought that the magnet and the iron consist of atoms of similar nature, but which are less closely packed together in the magnet. As on the one hand, like draws to like, and on the other, all moves in the Void, the emanations of the magnet penetrate the iron, and press out a part of its atoms, which, on their side, strain towards the magnet, and penetrate
tells
its

empty

interspaces.

The

iron

itself follows this

movement, while

the magnet does not move towards the iron, because the iron has fewer spaces for receiving its effluAnother and a more imences. portant application of this doctrine, in which Democritus also agreed with Empedocles, will be found in the section on sense-perceptions.

QUALITIES OF THINGS.
Some
of the
fore

2;il

of

them

follow immediately from the relative

proportion of the atoms in combination, irrespectively

manner

in

which we perceive them

they there-

belong to the things themselves.

Others, on the

contrary, result indirectly from our perception of those

proportions and combinations; they, therefore, primarily

belong not to the nature of things, but to the sensations

These consist in weight, density, caused by things.^ and hardness, to which Democritus adds heat and cold, That these qualities do not present taste and colour.the objective constitution of the thing purely, he showed

objects, in the

from the different impression produced by the same above-mentioned respects, upon different

persons and in different circumstances.^

*

But they
:

are

Here

-n-e

first

distinction of primary

meet with the and secon-

make noc sense

ehai,
(pvaei
5"

irotTjT^ 5e po/j-i/xa

arofiovs Kal Kevop.

dary qualities, afterwards introduced by Locke, and of such great importance for the theory of knowledge, - Demofrit.s?<'^.p. 219, 3; Theophr. Be Sensu, 63 (cf. 68 sq.) on Democrit. -nepl yikv olv ^apios koX Koixpov Kal (TK\r]pov Kal fxaXaKou
:

According to Democrit. /. c, it should stand thus Trotorr/Tas 5e

:

vofjL'x
*

eivai, etc.

jxelov 5e,

Theophrastus continues: (Ttjws ovk elal (pixrei, rh /xtj

iraai
(paivecrdai
T]fxiv

iu TOVTOis acpopi^er T&jf

5'

SAAa-j/

al(TQT)Twv ovSeubs eivai 0i(riv,

aWa

Travra vddri tt/S alaOrjcrews aXAoiov/UcVtjs, | r/s yiveadai rrjv (pavTaaiav.

(pvcriv vTvapx^i^v,

to7s C'^ots, toCt' SAAots o|u Kal SAAoiS SpijuLv, Tols Se crrpvcpvov Kol tk oAAa 8e wcravTws. en 5' avrovs (the perceiving subject) fiTaPd\\6iv T-p Kpdaei (the mixture of their cor-

ravTOL

dAA' t

yKvKV

iriKphv,

Kal

erepois

ovSk yap Tov \pvxpov Kal rod depfxov rh (xxhaa [so.

aWa
77

tS}v cnofjLWV^ /LieTOTTiTTTOi/ ipyd<^crdat

poreal ingredient changes others, however, read Kpiaei) hal [1. KaToj Ta Trddr} Kal rds ^AiKt'ay ^ Kal (pav;

Kal TT]V

riixerepav

aWoiucriv
tout'
Cf.

ri

phv

cbs

7)

diddecris

alria ttjj (pavra-

yap av adpovv
eKcuTT^, TO 8' els

iviax^^^v

crias, ibid.

67,

The same reasons

jjiiKpa Ziaveu.r\iiivov
Xv'\i<t.

for the uncertainty of the sense-

avaiaQ-nrov elvai.
iii.

De An.

perceptions are mentioned by Aristotle,

20; Simpl. Phys. 119 1); Be All. 54: a; Sext. Math. The words of Diogeviii. 6, etc nes, ix. 45, belong no doubt to in our text they this connection
2,
a,
;

426

Metaph.
it

iv.

5,

1009
to

h, 1, as

belonging,
critus.

would seem,

Demo-

Democrit. ap, Sext. Math. vii. 136: vfJ^^^s 5e rw fj.v iovTi ov^ev arpeKes ^vvie^ei>, ^ctoCf,

232
of

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

course based

and the by dephilosopher's task is to point out what this fining the form and relations of the atoms by which

upon something

objective,

is,

the sensations of heat, colour, &c., are brought about.

Of the primary
greater

qualities of things, their weight

:

is

reduced by Democritus simply to their mass

the

the

mass of a body,
it

after
is
;

subtracting the
if

void interspaces, the heavier

equal, the weight
density.^

the extent be

must therefore correspond with the must be conditioned by the proportion of the empty and the fall in bodies yet it depends not merely on the number and size of the empty interspaces, but also on the manner of their a body which is intersected equally at distribution points by the Void, may possibly be less hard many than another body which has larger interspaces, but even though the former, also larger unbroken portions
Similarly hardness
;
:

taken as a whole, contains in an equal space

Void.
iron.^

less

of the

Lead

is

denser and heavier, but softer than

The secondary

qualities were generally derived

by

Democritus from the form, the size and the order of the atoms; for he supposed that a body produces
different sensations according as it touches our senses

with atoms of such or such form or magnitude arranged

in closer or looser, equal or unequal, order
TriiTTOP 5e
[
;

and that,

Kara re aufxaros
of. p.

Siadiyrjv
iirei-

Gen.
et
^
^

= Ta^ii/,
'

223, I] Koi raiu

Corr,

ai6vro3V KoX
sity

twv avTio-Tr]pi(6pTu;v. Vide sup. p. 226 on the denof the atoms as a consequence
;

39 b cf. Arist. Gen. 326 a, 23. Theophrastus, I. c. 62. This results also from what
et Corr.
i.
;

8,

of their close juxtaposition. Simpl. Philop. C'a^f^. (Basil. 15ol) 68 7

said of particular colours and tastes, Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 2, 316 a, 1: XP"'"'' ov <pj](nv elvai
is

QUALITIES OF THINGS.
therefore, one

233
dif-

and the same object appears to us

or colder), according as the
it

ferently {e.g.

warmer

atoms

of one or other kind of which

is

composed, impinge

upon our organs

of sense in sufficient

mass to produce
colours and to

a perceptible impression.^

His more precise definitions

says,^ to

relate chiefly, as Theophrastus

the qualities perceptible to taste.

tells

What

Theophrastus
natural

us on both subjects

^ is

a further proof of the care

with which

Democritus sought to

explain

phenomena by means
but this
is

of his general presuppositions

not the place to follow up such details.

still

We
Theophr.

have
,

to notice the opinion of

Odor.), 64.

Democritus

[Arj^o/cp.] Tpoir777o/;;Cpa>;uaTt^(r0ot.
I. c.

63 {sup.
oh
fj.riu

p.

231, 2);
a^airep

aad

ibid.

64

aWd

Koi TO.

aWa

kol

ravra (Heat, Taste,

toIs
axVfJ-acri,
vi. 2,

Theophr. also remarks on the "want of exact definitions respecting colours, and the form of the atoms corresponding to each
colour.
^

Colour)

avartdrjai
Cai'.s.

ibid. 67, 72.

Plant,

On

tastes,

-which

must be

&TOTrov Se KOLKelfO Tois

ra

oxVI^o-tcl

Xeyovatv

[sc.

airia ra>v

xu^wf]

7j

Twv

ojjLjiwv Stacpopd

Kard
fXT]

/xiKpoTrjTa

Kal jj-tyedos

els

rh

r^v avrriv

e^eti' Svvafxiv.
' Vide the concluding words of the passage, quoted p. 231, 2. and Theophrastus, Be Sensu, 67 ^(rav:

regulated by the form of the atoms touching the tongue, I. c. 65-72 ; Be Cau^. Plant, vi. 1, 2, 6, c. 6, Odor. 64; cf. 1, 7, 2; Fr. 4, Be Alex. Be Sensu, 105 b (which
Arist.

Be

Seiisu, c.

4,
J

441
09
a.

a,

6,

refers to Democritus),

On

colours,

among

-which Democritus

T03S Se Ka\ Tas

ixWas
tS)v

l/cacTTOi; 5v;/a/.tet9

dirodidwaiy, dudyccv els

diravToiv

rd

(Txr,p.ara'

ovQv aKepaLOv eJvai Koi dpnyes toTs 6.\Aois, dW' iv eKaffTCt} (sc. x^^V) "'oAAa
5e
crxTj/LictTw;'

regards -white, black, red and green as the four primitive colours. Be Sensu, 73-82, cf. Stob. Ed. i. 364; Ai'ist. Be Sensu, c. 4, 442 rb 7ap XevKhv Kal rh (xiXav b, 11
:

ehac Koi rov avihu

exeii' Aetoi' Koi

tJ) (jikv

rpax^

(pTqaiv eivai (^Arjfj.oKp.)

rpax^os KOI irepi^epovs Kal 6^4os Kal tCjv KoiTTobv & S" Uv iinj irXeltXTOv, TOVTO /xaXicrra ifiax^eiv -rrpos re t7]u
a^adriaiu Kal ti]v Swi/a^ir.

(Similarly
Cf. also

Anaxagoras, vide infra.)

;

Arist. MetapJi. iv. 5 swp. p. 217, 4 I)e Gen. et Corr. i. 2, 315 b, 9;

rh 5e Xelov, els oe rh trxilAiaTa dvdyei rovs x^P-*^^^Ibid. c. 3, 440 a, 15 sq. Alex. I. c. 103 a, 1 09 a. The emanations to -which light and colours are reduced have been partly considered, supra, p. Further details hereafter. 230, 1.
;

Philop. ad h. I. 6 a, and the secion on the senses. 2 De Sensu, 64; Fr. 4 {De

Cf. also Burchard, Bemocr. Phil, de Sens. 16; Prantl, Ai-ist. iib. d. Farbcn, 48 sqq.

234

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

He
could not of course regard

on the four elements.

these substances as elements in the proper sense, for the

atoms are

in his

system the

first

of all things.

Nor could

he, as Plato afterwards did, regard them, in spite of their

being composed of atoms, as the primitive substances

of all other visible bodies
;

for

more than four

visible

elements must then have resulted from the innumerable

As soon, however, as the four elements had been established by another philosopher, he may, nevertheless, have bestowed upon them special attention, and may have sought to explain their qualiforms of the atoms.

ties
fire

by reference
it,

alone had for

as

considered

But him any very great importance he we shall see, to be the moving and
to their atomistic constituents.
;

living principle throughout nature, the spiritual element

proper.

On

account of

its

mobility he supposed

it

to

consist of

round and small atoms, whereas, in the other

is

elements, there

a mixture of heterogeneous atoms,

and they are distinguished from one another only by the magnitude of their parts.
to
It is consequently a mistake include (vide Simpl. Phys. 8)
'

Leucippus and Demoeritus

with

the pseudo-Timseus, in the assertion that they all recognised the four elementsasthepriniitive substances of composite bodies, but tried to reduce these elements themselves to more original and more simple causes. The statement of Diog. ix. 44, that Demoeritus believed the four elements to be combinations of

apocryphal. Even supposing (and this is not probable) that air originally stood in the text, it would still be false. Democritu.s

may certainly have spoken

fire

of earth,
to

and wterinthe work

which

the author appeals in support of this statement (the '2,o<pi<niKa, which is wanting in Mullach's list) but if the work were genuine, not in such a manner as to designate them the elements of all
;

atoms is more plausil;le on the other hand, the assertion ap. Galen, H. Philos. c. 5, p. 243, that he made earth, air, fire and water principles sounds entirely
;

bodies.
p. 225, 1.
CorIo, iii. 4 supra, observed, ibid. 303 a, 28, water, air, and earth arise by separation out of one another
2

Arist.

Be As

MOVEMENT OF THE ATOMS.

How
it

235

comes

to pass that

the atoms in general

enter into these definite combinations, and

how the

origin of composite things and the formation of a world

is

to be explained,

we must

consider in the following

section.

2.

The movement of

the

Atoms;
:

the

formation and system

of the Universe

Inorganic Nature.

The

atoms, as they circulate in infinite space,' are in

cf.

concerning this process,

also

c.

In regard to 7 {supra, p. 125, 1). the warm or fire, ibid, and De An.
i.

Further of their internal parts. details will be found in the section

on the
'

soul, ivfra.

2,

405
Calo,
i.

a,

8 sqq.

c. 3,

De

8, 306 b, 326 a, 3 xiii. 4, 1078 b, 19. As a reason for the above theory, in many of
iii.
;

Carr.

8,

406 b, 20 Gen. ct 32 cf. Metaph.

;

Aristotle compares this primeval state with the btxov iravra of Anaxagoras, Metaph. xii. 2.

1069
(priaiv

b,
i)v

22:
5'

ko:

ws AT^/xoKpiros
iravra
dvvdfiei,

Ojxov
ov.

these passages motion, De Ccelo, iii. 8, perhaps only as an arbitrary conjecture, and also the burning and penetrating force of fire, is assivmed. Theophr. De Sensii, 75 red consists of similar atoms to the warm, only that they are larger the more, and the finer the fire contained in a thing, the greater its brilliancy (e.g. in red-hot iron) depfxhy yap rb XettTov. Cf. 68 Kal T0V70 TToWoLKis x4yovra Siori rod xvjxov [1. dipixov^ to axv.^<^ (r<paipoiBs. Simpl. /. c. ol Se irepl
:

ivepy^ia

But we cannot of

course consider the words ^i^- ov (with Ps.-Alex. ad h. I. p. 646, 21 Bon. Philop. ap. Bonitz, ad k. L;

Trendelenburg on Arist. De An. Heimsoth. p. 43 Mullach, 318 Fragm. i. 358, and p. 209, 337 Lange, Gesch. d. Mater, i. 131, 25) as a verbal quotation from Democritus, and on the strength of them
;
;
;

ascribe to him the distinction of hwafxei and ivepyeia, and therewith the fundamental conceptions of the The passage Aristotelian system.

AiVKLTTirOU

Kol

Arj/XOKplTOl'

must be construed thus

"'

Also ac-

TO

fief

depfxa

yiveadai
/cat

Ka\ irvpeia
o/xoiav

Tuv
dejiu

awfxaToiV oaa e| o^vripwv koL

AeTTTO/.iepeo'Tepa'J'

Kara

KLiJ.uu:v crvyKeiTai tcDc

Trpurwv

(Twixaroiv,

TO Se

;|/i;xpa

Koi vSaTctiSr]
Koi

oaa

ec

riv

ivavrioov,

to

fxlv

KafxTzpa koL ^coTeiva, to. Sh

aixvSpa

Kal aKoreivd.

The pyramidal form

of flames, Demooi"itus. according to Theophr. Fr. 3, De Igne, 52, explains by the increasing coolness

cording to the exposition of Democritus all things were together not because actually, but potentially in the original mixture of atoms, all things were contained according to their substance, but were not Cf. as yet formed and defined. Bonitz and Schwegler, ad h. I. The Atomists themselves, moreover, could only have believed in this primeval state to a very limited
: '

236
ceaseless

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

movement.^
This movement appeared to our

philosopher so directly necessitated by the nature of

things,^

that he expressly declared

it

to

be without

beginning,^ and on this ground he refused to assign to

it

any cause, since that which

is

infinite

and has no

beginning cannot be derived from

extent, since combinations of atoms, worlds, had always existed. 1 Vide p. 236,3; 228,2; 215, 1. Arist. Mctajih. xii. 6, 1071 b, 31:
hib evioi TToiovcriv del eVe'pyeiai/, oTou

another.'*

But

if

jxdrov

yap

(paffi

Tr)u Slptjv Kal

rr]v

Kivrjaiv, etc.)
TTore'
^

eVr:

tJ)

ov xiyouat. avTOjxarov.
Sjuws

ri

AevKiTTiros koi IIAciTcof del yc.p eluai

(pacri
KLVT](Tiv.

aWa
d)5l,
:

8:d ri Kal riua

ov \4yuv(riv, ov5e
Ibid.

ouSe Tr]v alTiav.

del

1072

a,

ol

XeyovTes

KivriCTLV

elvai

wcnrep

AevKiiriros.

Galen,

De

418

K:

(p^p6/xcva ravrl

sec. Hipp. i. 2, T. I. rb 5e Kevhu xu>pa tis ip y rd ad!>i.LaTa 6,vco re

Elem.

Kal KOLTO} avjXTTavTa Sid iravThs rod

aiuuos
i)

t)

7re/)i7rAeeTai' ttods aX\7]Kois,

TTpoaKpovei, Kal airotrdWeTai, Kal

5iaKpivi

\-eTai^

Se

Kal

(TvyKpiuei

[-eratl TraKiy els aAAijAa

Toiavras oixiK'ias, ko-K &Wa avyKpifxara Tvdvra

rtfxirepa

Kara rds tovtou ret re

iTOiil Kal
rot.

previous note, Cic. Fin. i. {Danocritus) atomos quas appcllat, i.e. corpora indAvidua propter soliditatem, censet in infinito viani, in quo nihil nee siimmum nee infimum nee medium nee ultimum nee extremum sit, ita ferri, ut concursionibus inter se cohaerescant ex quo efficiantur ea quae shit quaeque cernantur omnia ; cumque motum atomorum nulla a principio sed ex aeterno tempore intelligi convenire. Cf. p. 228, 2; Hippo). Refut. i. e\eye 5e [ArjiHOKp.] ws del kivov13 /jLiuccu rwv ovTwv iu tS} k^vw. * Arist. Ihys. viii. 1. end oXus 5e TO pofxi^eiu apxw eivai ravTTjv
6,

Cf

17:

il-le

aw/jLara

Kal

to.

ivaQrjixaTa

iKavriu,

OTi

del

f)

eaTiv
dj/dyet

outojs

avTUv

Kal TOLs alaQriaiLS.

:

yiyveTai, ovk opQGis e^et viroXafielu,

Arist. Ihiis. ii. 4, 196 a, 24 iXal 5e' TiJ/es en Kal roi/pavov rovde Kal Twj/ Kocr/JLiKciov -ndvrwv alTioovTai

rh avTO/j-arov airh ravTO/JLixTOV yctp yiyy^adai ti]u 5Lvr]u Kal rrjv KLurjaiv TTiv ZiaKpivo-crav Kal Karaarricraaav ils Tainriu ttju rd^iv rh irav. Simplicius rightly refers this passage to the Atomists, as they, and they

rds Trepl (pvaectis aWias, ws ovtw koI rh irporepov iyipeTo' tov Se del ovk d|tot Gen. Anim. ii. 6, apxhv C^T^'iv. 742 b 17: ov KaXSis Se Xeyovcriv ovhe TOV Std Ti Trjj' audyKrjp, oaoi Xiyovaiv, on ovto^s del yiv^rai, Kal
icp'

AiOfJ-OKpLTOS

TavTTjP
piTTjS,

eiuai

vofxi^ovcnv

apx^v iv

avTo7s, wcTTrep Arj^oKpiTos 6 AjSStjOTi Tuv fjikv del /cal aireipov OVK ea-TLV apxv, "^^ Se Sid tI apxh,

alone, believed the universe to have

been formed by a rapid whirling motion without deriving this motion from a special motive force. Phys. 74 a, b oi inpl A-q^ioKpiTov
:

Tcci'

k6(Ti.i.'j3V

aiTLWfjLiPOL Ti)

anduTcou avTO^xaTov (airh ravTo.

Th S' del direipov, SsO'tc rh epanav rh did Ti vepl tcov toiovtwv Tivhs rb Qqrsiv eJvai (br}(ri tov aT^ipov dpxW' Cf. note 1.

CHAXCE AND NECESSITY.

Aristotle
iria^

237

justly

censure

the

Atomists for not

it is

liaving duly sought the cause of motion,^

untrue to

say that they derived motion from chance.^

can only be called fortuitous,

stand
all

Motion by fortuitous we underthat does not proceed from design ^ but if this
if
;

expression be taken to

mean

that which happens with-

out natural causes, the Atomists are far from

making

such a statement.

On

the contrary, they expressly

declare that nothing in the world happens by chance,

but
^

all

follows of necessity from definite causes

'^

that
42;

Arist.

Be

Cosh,
i.

iii.

2, cf.

p.

c.

37, 93;
i.

Tusc.
;

i.

11, 22, 18,

228. 2; Metaph. Kivi](Teo}S, odev t) overt, Koi ovTOi

ix. 33,
6'

4,

ttcDs

end: n-epl 5e vwdpx^t to7s

rols
Cf.
:

TTapair\r](TLccs

6,\\ois padvfxws acpelcrav.

Diog.
eluai

who says of Leucippus

Kocr/xov

umrep yeveaeis
Kal

ovtw koX
<pdopas

av^r](xets

rpdiaeis

Kol

Kara riva dvdyKr)v, ^v owoia iarlv ou Sia(Ta(p6'i. Similarly Hippol. i. 12, -vrhich is taken from the same
source. - Aristotle gave occasion to this misunderstanding when in Phi/s.
ii.

Cicero speaks more truly {Fin. i. 6, 20) of a concursio turbuUnta. The same conception is to be met with in the Placita ascribed to Plutarch, i. 4, 1 Philop Gen. et Corr. 29 b; Pkys. G-. 9; Simpl. Phys. 73 b, 74 a Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 23, 2 Lactant. Inst. \. 2
2, 6
;

Acad.

and perhaps
^

also in

Eudemus, vide

supyra, p. 236. 2.

4.

he made use of the expression

which in this place, and always with him, is synonymous whereas Democritus with Tvxv must have used the word in quite a different sense, if indeed he used it at all. It is Cicero, however, especially who put this opinion in Cf. N. D. i. 24, 66 circulation. ista enim flagitia Bemocriti, sive
avTSfjLarou,
;

Aristotle does, Phys. ii. 5, 17 sqq.. who, so far, can truly maintain from his own standpoint, that the Atomists supposed the world to have come into being by chance.

As

196

b,

Stob. Eel.
:

i.

160 {Democr. Fr.

iravra lear
abrrju

Phys. 41)
avd-yKTjv,

A^vkittttos
S'

eliiaptx4vt)V

vov

a\Ka

inrdpx^iv \4yeL yap iv t^ irepl " ouSev XPVI^a /xaTTjv yiyverai, irdura e: Koyov re Koi urr'

tV

etiam ante Leucippi,

esse

corpuscula

qucedam laevia, alia aspera, rotunda alia, partim aniem angidata, curvata qxLCBdam et quasi adun^a ; ex hiseffectum esse coelumatque terram,
nulla cogpnte natitra sed concursu "We find the quodam fortuito. same concursus fortuitus also in

cLudyK-ns." That Leucippus has not, without show of probability, been denied to be the author of the

treatise

Trept

vov,

and that

this

fragment has been ascribed to Democritus, we hare already seen, but this is of no imp. 207, 1 portance in regard to the present
;

question.

^38

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

little

fortune has a

power over men, and chance

for

is

merely

name used

as

an excuse

our own

faults.^

Aristotle

and the

later writers

admit that the Atomistic philoapparently

sophy strongly maintained the unconditional necessity

of all that happens,^ reduced even what
fortuitous
*

is

to
Fr.

its

natural
14
ap.

causes,^
critus);

and started more

esCf.

Devwcrit.
:

Mor.

Democritus placed the

Stob. Ed. ii. 344; Eus. Pr. Ev. avOpwiroi rvxv^ etSwAoj/ xiv. 27, 4 iirXdaauTO irpd^aaiu t'Strjs a^ovXiT]', (ppovvau (or avolvs). fiaia yap

sence

of avdyKT) in the duTiTunia

Kal (popd Kal irXy^yT} ttjs vK-qs.

also p. 237, 1, 4. 3 Arist, Phys. iv.

ivLOL

2,

195

b,

36

TVXV
y^vxh
2

y^o.x^TO.<-> Ttt

Se TrAetfT ra eV

^iw

yap

Ka\

et
/xtj

iffriu

ev^vvcTOS
Arist.
Ge7i.

o^vdepKeeiu

kutl-

avrS/xaTOu'l

ri/xv "rh diropovcriv ovdhv

\_r}

yap

yivecrOai dirh ti'Xtjs (paalu,

elj/ai
ott'

aAXd
'6(Ta

Anim.

v.

8,

789

irduToov

ri a'lTiov uipifffxivov,

rb ov '4vKa acpels \4yeiv (Aristotle again censures him for this, De Besp. c. 4 init.) ndura avdysi els avdyKrju oTs xp^Ta: (pvais. Cic. Be Fato, 10, 23: 7) maluit, accipcre Democrifus
b, 2: A77,uJ/cpiTos 5e
.
.

XeyofjLep

avTOjxdrov yiyvecrdai ^ Tvxv^r oToj/ Tov iK6e7v dirh tvxv^ els T7]u dyopdv naX KaraXa^elv ov i^ovXeTO iJ.ev ovk wero 5e, aXriov rh

^ovXeadai ayopdaai iXQovra' oixniws

Se Ka\
67rt

tS>v
dei

aXXwu
ri

tSsv dirh

rvxv^

necessitate
avellere.

omnia

fieri,

quam a

cor-

XeyojuLepcov
a'lTiov,

elvai

2)oribus vidividids imturales

motus
:

dXX' ov Tvxfiv-

Xa&etv rb Simpl. Phys.

Similarly, ibid. 17, 39; e^ Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 1 aireipov xp^Ji/ow TrpoKarex^crOai rfj
avdyKT)
KoX ovTa
ix.
Siuris o)s

irdvd'
KCLi

a-TrXcas

eCO/JLeva.

rd yeyovora Sext. Math.

jxkv

74 a (on the words which refer to what has just been quoted, KaBdTrep 6 iraXaibs Xoyos eiireu 6 dvaipHv rrjv rvxv^) """P^^ A-nixoKpirov ioiKev elprjcrdai. eKeivos yap, k&v eu ifj
'

113: Kar dvdyKrjv eX^yov ol irep\

:

Koi vTrh

Koa/iioiroua idoKei rfj tvxJI xpf/(T0ai,

rhi^ ArjixSKpi,-

dXX'
(p-qcriv

ev

rdls
tvji/

fMepiKoorepoLS

ov5ev6s

Tou, ovK ay kluoIto 6 KOffjxos.

ix.

Diog.

eivai

tvxW
v)

alTiav, dva(pe-

-ndvra Te KaT avdyK-qv yiveSivr]s alrlas ov(rr]s tt]S yeueffews irdvTWv, %v dvdyKrjV Xeyei.

45

pcov els

dXXas alrias, oIovtov dr]rravphv

ttjv (pureiav T-qs

(xOai,

rris

eupelv rh aKdrrreiv

iXaias, tov 5e KaTeayijvai tov (f)aXa-

ap. Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff". Nr. 8, 11, p. 86 and Theodohimself says Democritiis retus denied freewill, and gave over the whole course of the world to the
vi. 15,
:

Oenomaus

necessity
25, 26 irdvTa
8'
:

of fute.

Plut.

Plac.

i.

Ilapfx^viZr)S

Koi Ar^ixoKpLTos
'

KaT

dvdyKt]u

ttjv

avrrju

Kpov rb Kpaviov Thv derhv pi\l/avTa Tvv x^^^^W t^TTcos rb x^^^'^''"^ PO-yVovTci) ydp 6 EvStj/hos IcrTopel. Similarly 76 a, 73 b. The same is asserted, only in Stoical language, in the statement of Theodoretus I. c. p. 87, that DemoTitus declared the Tvxv to be an ddrjXos atria dvOpwTTivcp

eluai Ka\ eltiapfxiu-qu Koi Z'lK-qu Koi

XSycp.

Cf. Part.

iii.

a,

151.

Kpovoiav Ka\ Koap.oiroioi' (this is only

partially true in respect to

Demo-

2nd ed. But if Democritus did not admit chance in regard to the
3,

CHANCE AND XECESSITY. GBAVITY.

logically than either of

239

the

earlier

systems, from a

strictly physical explanation of nature.^

could not

of course
:

reference to design

blindly -workino- force

The Atomists by was to them a natural necessity their system knew nothino^ of
explain natural phenomena
;

any

spirit that

in the later

had formed the world, or of a Proyidence meaning of the word ^ the reason of this,
;

howeyer, was not that they belieyed the world to be

ordered by chance, but, on the contrary, that they would
in no respect relinquish the idea of
original
its

necessity.

movement

of the atoms, also, they

The must haye

Xothing
that the

regarded as the necessary effect of a natural cause, and

this cause
else

can only be sought in gravitation.

of,

can be thought

when we

are told

smallest bodies must necessarily be set in motion (vide supra) in empty space, that the Void is the cause of sometimes the Atomists conceived weight as motion
"*

an essential property of

all bodies,

and consequently,

as
It

corresponding to the corporeal mass of the atoms.-^

particular,

we may be

sure that so

logical a thinker

would never have supposed the whole universe to be

'

the

work of chance. Cf. what is said by

Aristotle

on this point (besides the quotationp.219, 2; 215,1), Gen. et Corr. i. 2, 315 a, 34 (he is speaking of the explanation of becoming, decay, oKws Se irapa to e7ri7ro\r}s &e.) Trepl ovZ^vos ov^^h i7ri(TrT}crev e|w
:

proached with this, vide Cic. Acad. ii. 40, 125 Plut. ap. Eus. I. c. Plac. ii. 3 (Stob. i. 442) Nemes. Xat. HoQi. c. 44, p. 168 Lactantius /. c. According to Favonius. ap. Diog. ix. 34 sq., Democritus expressly opposed the Anaxagorean doctrine of the forming of the world by foGs. How far, however, he was able to speak of a universal reason
; ;
;

we
*

Arifj-oKpiTOv.

ovTos

8'

eoiKe fxkv irepl

shall enquire later on. As Aristotle says {Phys. viii.

anavruv
TT&js
:

(ppovTiaai.

^Stj

Se eV tc?
i.

405 ATjjuo/cp. 5e koX yXa^vpxripus a. 8 e'lpriKev. anocprjuduevos 5ia ri toutwv

8ia<|)e'pet.

Be An.

2,

9. 265 b, 23) when he describes the Atomists as those who admit no particular moving cause, hia Se to

Kvhv
^

Kiveiixdai

(paaiu.

Similarlv,

eKarepov.
^

Eudemus
is

ap. Simpl. Pki/s.

1,
:

124

a.

P. 237, 3.

Democritus

commonly

re-

P. 226, Desensu, 71

also Theophr. Kairoi t6 ye fiaph koI

and

240

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

that the velocity of this motion corresponds
;

is also clear

to

the

mass of each atom

must

fall

the large and heavier more quickly than the smaller and lighter
^

moreover,

it

is

expressly stated that Democritus, like

all

Empedocles, represented
originally

the atoms as having been

;

moved by

their weight

and that he explained

the upward motion of

many

bodies by the pressure

which drives up the lighter atoms when the heavier Accordingly the famous theory of Epicusink down.2
rus on the deflection of the atoms
is

characterised as a

contradiction of Democritus, whose fatalism Epicurus

thus sought to evade

in reality, however, his polemic

and that of his followers against the absolutely vertical of the atoms ^ only applies to the older Atomistic philosophy not to mention that Epicurus was certainly
fall
:

not the discoverer of the purely physical derivation of

Koixpov orav OLopiCjl toIs fj.ey46(Tiv, avdyKT) TO otTrAa Trdvra Tr]v avrrju
exeti' opfxrjv rrjs (popas.
'

roirov
Kiurjaiu

Kiv^tcrQai

koI

ov

fxovov

Trpwrriv oA-Ac^ Kal

fj.6ur]v

ravrrju ovtoi
airodiSdacn.

to7s

(TTOix^iois

Cf. inf. p. 241.

Cic. vide following note.

"

Simpi. Be Coelo, 254 b, 27, Schol.in Arist. 510 b, 30: ol yap jrepl Aiq^xoKpLTov Kal varepou 'Ettikovpos rds aroixovs irdaras dfxo(pve7s ovffas ^dpos exeiv (paal, rw 5e eiuai riva jSapuxepa i^oodov/xeva to, kov^STcpa vTT avTcov v(pL(ap6vTcov eVi t^ &VCO (pep^adar Ka\ ovto) xiyovcriv olroi SoKieTi/ to fxlv Kov<pa ehai rd (Wb:it follows is not 5e fiapea. concerned with the exposition of the theories of Democritus.) Similarly, ibid.o\^ 1). 37 121 b, 42 Schd. 517
;
;

Cic.

N. D.

i.

25, 69

Epicurus

cum

videret, si atonii ferrentur in

locum inferiorem
esset

suopte pondere,

nihil fore in nostra potestatc,

sarins, invenit
cffugtret,

quod

earttm motus certus et necesqnomodn necessitatem

quod
ait

fugerat
et

videlicet Bemocritum atomum, cum pondere

gravitate directa dcorsum feratur, declinare paululum. It is evident

the presupposition

here

is,

that

b, 21;
T7;v

486

a, 21;

i7ncZ. PA^.s.
.

310a:
Kara

Democritus came to his conclusions through admitting that the atoms exclusively followed the law of
gravitation.
*

01 irepl Ar\(x6KpiTov

eXeyoi/,

eV

auTots fiapvTTqra,
Zid

Kivovfjiiva

ToCra [to dropLo]

etKOVTos Ka\
/xr]

tov Kevov avTiTvirovuTOS Kara

Lucr.

Epicurus ap. Diog. ii. 225 sqq.

x. 43,

61

MOVEMENT OF THE ATOMS.

by his arbitrary theories on the deviation of
th.e

241

motion and of the universe which he himself violates

atoms.

We

must, therefore, consider the movement of the

doctrine

atoms, according to the

of

Leucippus and

Democritus, simply as a result of their weight, and

consequently the earliest kind of motion

must have
-

been downward and perpendicular.'

in infinite space there is no above

The

difficulty that

and below

does not

seem to have forced

'

itself

upon the Atomists.from our head is always contrary to a motion from our feet towards our head, even should both lines be produced to infinity. Lange, Gesch. d. Mat. i. 130, approves of this argument, and thinks it may be referred to Democritus. But Democritus not only said that the

of Lewes 101) that Democritxis ascribed no weight, but only force, to the atoms, and supposed weight to arise from the shock given by means of a greater force, cannot be supported even by the statements quoted, p. 227, 2, and contradicts the most trustworthy evidence. - Cic. Fin. i. 6, vide S2(p.^. 236. 3 Simpl. De Ccelo, 300 a. ^biSchol. 516 a, 37) avriXiy^i fxera^v -n-phs Tovs IJLT} voixi^ovras eivai jxkv Sj/w zh 5e Karw. ravr-qs Se yeyovacTL ttjs

The opposite theory

i.

{Hist, of Phil.

atoms actually moved in the direction which we are accustomed to designate as downwards, he maintained that they nuist follow this direction he placed the cause of their motion in their weight, and
;

SJ|7js

'

l^vai,i^avopos ixkv KoL

Ar]fi6-

rh aireipov viroriOeadai jh KQ.V. Aristotle does not seem to have the Atomists in view in the passage De Ccelo, iv. 1, 308 a, 17 but on the other hand in Phys. iv.
Kpiros
;

Sm

214 b, 28 sqq. Be Ccelo. i. 7. et pass., he applies the above censure to them. Cf. Part ii. b, 210 sq. 312, 9nded.
8,
:

Epicurus, indeed, ap. Diog. x. defends the theory that even in infinite space there may be a
^

60,

movement upward and downward

in the following observation.
If,

he says, no absolute Above and Below (no dvwTOTa> and Karwraru}) be possible in infinite space, still a motion in the direction of our feet

was solely on this ground that he could determine anvthing as to direction, for we cannot perceive the movement in the least. But if the atoms are led downwards by their weight, this below is not merely the place which, from our position on the earth, appears as lower, but the place which for each atom, wherever it may be in infinite space, is the lower, the goal of its natural motion. But there cannot be a below in this sense in infinite space. If Epicurus overlooked this fact and sought to defend the doctrine handed down to him of the fall of the atoms against the censures of Aristotle, by an expedient so little in harmony with the presupit

its

positions of that doctrine,

we need

VOL.

II.

242

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

In and
for themselves, the

atoms in their movement

would

all follow

the same direction.

But

as

they are

unequal in

size

and weight, they

;

fall (so

the Atomists

think) with unequal velocity

they therefore impinge

upon one another, the lighter are forced upwards by

the heavier,^

and from the

collision

of

these

two

motions, and the concussion and recoil of the atoms,

there arises a circular or whirling
not
like

movement

in which

be much surprised. But it is in-

leviorihus atque ita plagas (irXriyas,

credil)le.that a natural philosopher

Democritus should not have remarked the contradiction it is far more likely that both he and Leucippus regarded the fall of
;

bodies in the void as self-evident and never proceeded to reflect that the case was that of a natural motion downward, and that such a motion in unlimited space was
impossible.

vide inf.^gignere, qii(B fossint genilike Epicurus talis reddere motus (vide Part iii. a, 378, second edition) he opposes to it Aristotle's proposition {ibid. ii. b, 211, 1 312, 3), that all bodies fall with equal velocity in empty space. Further, although the Placita, i. 4 (Galen, c. 7), primarily reproduce the Epicurean theory merely (cf.
;

According to Arist. Be Coelo, iv. 6, 313 b, 4, Democritus called this upward motion aovs. - This concepiion of the origin of the circular motion from which the Atomists derived the universe
'

vide m/ra), is not only necessitated by the interconnection of their doctrine, which cannot be satisfactorily established in any other way, but is fully confirmed by all That the historical testimony. original motion of the atoms was in a downward direction, and that only in consequence of this motion
(

III. a, 380, second edition), yet this theory itself indicates the doctrine of Democritus as i^s source and Diogenes and Hippolytus, moreover, make precisely similar statements as to Leucippus. Diog. yiveaOai 8e rovs Koafiovs ix. 31 ovTW (pepeadai war' airoTo^^v eK Tr)S
:

Part

airipov TToAAot (rco/xaTa -navTola to7s

(TX^IJ-OL(Tiv

ejs

fx^ya Kcvhv, a-rep aO-

poicrOhra Zivf]v a-mpyd^eaOai fxiav, Ka6' %v TzpoaKpovovra kcu TraVTodaTrcos KVKKov/xeva diaKpivccrdai x^^'P'^ "^^
o/jLOLa

TTphs TO.

Hixoia.

In-oppSirccv 5e

Sia

rh

trXriOos

ij.t}k4tl
j.l\v

TT^piep^peaOai, to.
ets

diwo/xefwv X^irra x^puu

Kol irepLTrXe-

a portion of the atoms was driven upward, is expressly stated by LucreSimplicius, vide p. 240, 2. tius contradicts this opinion in a passage which, according to our previous remarks, can only refer to Democritus, ii. 225: Graviora fotesse corpora, quo citius rectum per inane feruntur, incidere ex supero

t5 e|w Kevhu,

uxrirep 8iaTT(5yuei/a,

TCI 5e

XoLira (Tv/xixeveiv

Ko/xeva

(TvyKaTaTpiX^^t^

aWrjAoLS
crcpaL-

Koi

Trote?!/

TcpwrSv ri avarrifxa

pofiSes.

Bcfnt. i. 12: yeueaQai \4yei' 'drav eis (xiraKoivov [^fx^ya K^vhv] ck Tov TrepieyouTOS adpoitrdi] TroAAa (Tw/xaT.x Koi avppvv, TvpocrKpovovra
K6(rjxovs

Hippol.

5e

[outcsj]

MO FUMES T OF THE
all

ATOMS.

243

parts of the congeries of atoms are thenceforward

involved.'
a\\-f]\oi5
(rvfinX^Kecrdai.
irapa-rrXriaia
to.

hp.oiO(T-

^vaLK&u

(priai

ns.

Further details
Augustine's asmesi-e

XVI^ova Koi
Kal

7r6pi7rAe;(;0j/Ta)'

ras ixopcpai, els eVepa (in-

in the next

note.

sertion, i^pwi".

118,28:

cm-

stead of 6ts erepa vre should probably read eu avtrrtjiMa) yiveirOai. Aristotle doubtless is referring to the Atomistic philosophy in De Ccelo, i. 8, 277 b. 1 Fire, he says, takes the up-^ard direction by virtue of its ovrn nature, not in consequence of force employed by another, Scnrep riyes (pacri rrj (kOXltpei and perhaps Plato also refers to it, Tim. 62 C. How the Atomists supposed the circular motion originated from the two rectilinear
:

cursioni atomorurn vim quandam animalem et spirabilem, is rightly referred by Krische, Forsch. i. 161, to a misapprehension of Cicero, Tusc. i. 18, 42. Lange's conjecture {Gc^th. d. Mat. i. 130, 22) that Democritus supposed the circular motion to take place after the formation of the complex of atoms, out of which the world originated,
finds no support in the tradition on the other hand, Diog. ix. 31, represents the cri'o-TTjua a(paipoei^s as arising first from the Siy-q. Similarly Epicurus, I. c, speaks of a STvos in the Void, eV ^ e'Sexeraj
KOfffjLOv
'

motions upward and downward,

are not told.

we

Epicurus, ap. Diog. X. 61, 43 sq. speaks (without reference to the Atomists) of a lateral motion caused by collision and a rebound of the atoms the latter is also ascribed to Democritus in the Phc i. 26 (sup. p. 238. 2), as well as by Galen (sup. p. 236, 1), and Simplicius, De Ccelo, 110 a, 1 {Schril. 484 a, 27): to-s arouovs (pepeadai 4v t Kev^ koL iirtKa;

yivicBai.

This idea, in connection with what has been remarked, p. 236, 4,

explains why the doctrine of Democritus is sometimes represented as if the mutual concussion and rotation of the atoms were maintained to be their only motion, of which he sought no further derivation, cf Ding. ix. 44 (pepeaOai
:

TaXaix^avoxxras a.XXi\Xas crxr/Kpovea6ai, KOI

tiu

Tcy

/xev airoTraXX^crdai.

ottt?

S'

iv

Ta
:

oXcf}

Sivovfievas (ras oltouovs).

:

Tvxooai, ras 5e irepiiTXiKeffQai aXXrjXais Kara Tr]u rwv crxT,ua.To:v

KoL [xeyiOl-p Kal deaecov koI rd^ewv
av/jLueTpiav, Kal avixfialueiv Kal ovrco

Id. 45, p. 238. 2

Sext. Matl^Ax.
i.

113

ap Stob. Ed.
:

394 (Phc.

i.

%v yivos kiv7)(Txs rh Kara iraXuhv [if the irXdyiov of

23, 3)
At],u6kp.

yeveaiv arcoreEpicurus's remark, ap, Diog. X. 90. that this exposition requires to be completed, refers to the doctrine of Democritus of the formation of the world by means ov yap of the circular motion aOpoKTfihv 56? fiovov yeueaOai ouSe S7pov iv S iv^ex^Tai Koafxov yiveadai Kev(f Kara rh So^a^S/JLevov e^ avdyKT]s, av^ecrOal ff ews ti.v erepoj irpocrKpovar}, Kaddirep twv KaXovuivoiv
T7?i'

Twv

(TvvQiTwv

the text ought not to be replaced

Xe'iadai.

by
348,

ttAtjt^i/]

airecpaiueTO.

(Ibid.

where the concussion of the atoms is even stated to be their only motion, and their weight is
denied, sup. p. 227, 2.)

Alexander,

ad Mftaph. i. 4, p. 27^ 20 Bon. oirroi yap (Leucippus and Democritus)

X4yov(Tiv aXX-qXoTVTrovcras Kal Kpovuirphs dXX-fjXovs Kiveladai ras aTO/MOvs, TToQev fUvroi tj dpxv rrjs
fj.vas

Kiv^aews Toty [r^r] /caro

<pv<XLv.

cv

244

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

Through
this

movement

of the atoms, in the

first

place the homogeneous particles are brought together

for that^vhich is alike in

weight and form must

for this

very reason sink or be driven to the same place. ^

follows, however,

It

from the nature of things that not

for

loose concatenations merely, but firm combinations of

atoms must be produced

as the variously

shaped

particles are shaken together,

many must
vii.

necessarily

adhere and become entangled one with another, must

\iyov(TLV 7j "yap Kara tt]v oWtjAotuKiav ^tai6s icTTL KivqffLS KoX ov Kara 0v(ny, vcTTepa Se t) fiiaios ttjj Kara (pvariv. ovSk yap, etc., SU2)P- 227. 2. Cic. De Fato, 20, 46 alia7n enim
:

Math.

116 sqq.

(cf.

Plut. Plac.

iv. 19, 3,

that it consorts with like

4>ri(Tiv,

Arist. Rth. N. viii. 2), is a universal law that like

:

and

koI yap

(Sd,

ofMoyeudcri

(c^okti

^vvayeXd-

vim motus haheant a Democrito impulslo7iis, qnam plagam (vide previous note) ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis. Simpl. De Coelo, 260 b, 17 (Schol. 511 b, 15): ^Ae\otomi'\
701^ del

quandam

C^Toi,

wy

irepicTTepai irepicTTepfjai Koi

KiveicQai

ra

TrpSJTa

eu
p.

r^

aireipw kcj/w

fiia..

(MuUach,
:

384, quotes from Phys. 96 A-qixoKpiTos (pixrei aKiv^ra Kiycav rd aroixa TrArjyp KLve7(T0a'i. (prjaiu but the words are not in our present passage.) For the same reason Aris;

y4pavoi yepduoKTi koI iirl tuv &\\a}i/ d\6ywv. But he considered that the cause of this lay not in a tendency inherent in the primitive substances, but in the mechanical motion, the size and form of the atoms, as we see from what follows wtrauTcos Se Kol nepl twv d\pvx(^v, Kardirep opfjv irdpcari iiri re twv
:

KoaKiuevofxevcov (nrcpjxdrwv
rS>v trapa rfjai Kv/narwyfjai

KoX

iir\

}pi(piSoi}v

Hkov

fxkv

yap

KaTO. rhv tov koctkIvov

jLcerd

Coelo, iii. 2, 300 b, 8 sqq. 294 b, 30 sqq., asks the Atomists what was the orie:inal and natural motion of the atoms, since this forcible motion presupposes a natural one ? It is quite

totle,

De

87i/ou SiaKpiTiKcJs (paKol

(})aKcav

ii.

13,

rdacouTai Kal Kpidal fi^Ta KpiOewv /cat irvpol yuera trvpSov, okov 5e Kara Kivr^criv TTjj/ rov al fikv KVfJLaros i//rj(/)rSe9 ds rhv avrhv iTri/xTjKees
tSttou
rrjffi

eiTi^r]Keai

aOeovrai, at

conceiA-able that the downward motion in empty space, which seemed

Se Trepi(peps

Tfj(ri irepKJyepeffL.

rest appears to be

(The added bySextus

possible to the Atomists, though

not to Aristotle, may have been left without notice, because Democritus presupposed, without exthat this was the natural motion of the atoms. Cf. the passages quoted, p. Democritus himself re242, 2. marks in the fragment ap. Sext.
plicitly stating,
'

Cf. Alex. Qu. Nat ii. 6 ArjlM^Kpirds re 23, p. 137 Sp. Kal avrhs diroppoias re yii/eaOai

himself.)

rd

riOerai Kai ret hjnoia (pepecrOai Trphs dAAd Kal els rh Koivhv [1, '6/j.OLa

Kevhv']

irdvra
:

(pepecrdai.

Simpl.
(i/xoiou

Ph?/s. 7 a
virh

TrecpvKeuai

yap rh

rod bfioiov

Kivelffdai Kal (pepecrdai

rd

(TvyyevT) irphs &\Xr]\a.

FORMATIOX OF THE WORLD.

embrace and impede one another in their
suited to their nature
of atoms
^

246
course,^ so
is

that some will even be retained in a place which

;

not

and thus from the combination

compound
the

bodies are formed.

itself

Each

of these

complexes separating
bodies
is

from the mass of primitive

These worlds, according
;

germ

of a world.

to the Atomists, are

innumerable

for the

niunber of

atoms being

infinite,

and empty space being unlimited,

atoms

will be

found in the most various places.

size

As
and

moreover the atoms are infinitely various in

*

Arist.
;

De

Ccelo,

iii.

216, 2)
1
)

Gen.

et Corr. {sup. p.

4 {sup. p. 215,
h.
I.
;

Ka\ avi'Ti64[jLeva 8e

/cot TreptTrAe/cd-

eAe7oi/(Lencippus and Democritns) TO 700 aA.Aa to ZoKovvTa avvexT] o-cpfj wpoaeyyi^iLV oAAtJAois
(Twexf'^s
Sto Kal TT]v TOiirju avripovv, aTToXvcriv

/jLsva yei/uav.

Philop. ad.
i.

36

a,

seems to be only inrenting

po!. Befut.
:

Hip-

TWV
libs

OTTTO/Ltez/WJ/

h4y(JVTeS TTjV SoKOV-

Galen Acad. ii. 38, 121 Simpl. Be 133 a. 18; Schol. 488 a,
:

12, vide p. 242, 2; ride p. 243, ?i Strabo in Cic.

Coe^o,

crav TOjxr]u

Kal Sid

TToAAo
iK

yiveaOai
%v

tovto 0118' eXeyov

.

e|
.
.

ouTe

TToAAwj/

Kar' dX-qd^iav
cruairXoKfj

26:
Kal

(Tviex^s,
d~6uci)u

oAAo

t^

ruv

(TTacrid^eii'

Sk

[ras

aTo'^ous]

(pepeadai iv

r^

Kevui Sid re rr/v avo-

MOtOTTjTtt KOI

ras

aWas ras elpTJixei/as

auro Kol
fx^vroi

Sia<popai, (pcpojxivas 5e i/ji-riirTeiv Kal

n-epiTTXeK^iiQai
5?

TrepiwKoKT]v roiavTqv
irXr^aiov
/xiav
.

avfj.\paveiv fxef
TTOiel,

eKaarov %v Sok^Iu yiveadai. Tr]v 8e crvixirXoK^v 'A^SriplraL eVaAAoliv cKoAouv uKTirep ArijxoKpiros. (Also some of the M.'SS. have K^piTTKi^ei instead of iiraXXd^si in the passage from Aristotle.)

eipac

(pvcriv

e|
.

iKsii/wv

ovd'

rivrivaovv yevvS.

rov 5e

o'y^/ieVetj'

ras ovaias

fier

a\Xr}Xcav fiiXP'' tuos aiTiarai iiraWayas Kal tos avri\i]\piis

ras

According to Aristotle [Be cf. Simpl. 6, 313 a, 21 Schol. 518 a, ad. k. I. 322 h, 21 1), Democritns explained the phe-

Coelo, iv.

r&v TO yu.ei/ yap avrSiv elvai crKaKr]va, to 5e ayKiarpubrt (cf. with this p. 224, 1) to Se oWas
cwfxdrwv.
iirl auapidfxovs exovra diacpopds. Toaovrov ovv xpovov T(pwv avruv

nomenon
stance

that

flat

specifically

bodies of a subheavier than

op'Te'xea'^ot

vofxi^^i

Kal

(ru^^ueVeiv,

6CDS iax^po'^'^p^ '''^ ^'^ "^^^ irepiexov-

ros avdyKt] irapayevo^iivy]

(Teiaj]

koX Sto-

water can yet flo.it upon water in this way. The warm substances, he Siiid, arising out of the water would not allow them to sink and in the same manner he conceived the earth as a flat disc borne up by the air. He therefore supposed
;

X^P^^ avTas Siaaireipr]. Ibid] 271 h, 2 {Sckol. 514 a, 6) on the passage quoted from Aristotle ravTus 6e [tos OTd/iOus] (wvas
Kal
:

that,

by

rotation,

that which

is

lighter might easily come into a lower place, and the heavier into a

higher place.

246
t<hape, the

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

worlds formed from them will display the
;

gTeatest diversity

yet

it

may

also

happen that sonie of

them

are absolutely alike.

so

Lastly, since these worlds

had a beginning, diminution, and

as long as

are they subject to increase and

;

finally to destruction

they increase

other substances from without unite with

is

them

they diminish when the contrary

if

the case

they are annihilated

two come into

^

collision,

the smaller

is

crushed by the greater

and and in their

internal construction likewise they are subject to per-

petual change. 2
Aristotle doubtless has the Atomistic philosophy in view when {Phys. viii. 1, 2o0 b, 18) he says: oaoi fikv aiTeipous t6 Koa/xovs dvai (pacri Ka\ tovs (jAv yiype(T6ai rovs Se
'

et

similes, sed undique perfecte absolute ita pares, ut inter eos

nihil prorsus intersit, et eos qicidetn

inniimerahiles : itemqtie homines. Diog. ix. 31 of Leucippus koX

:

(pdeipeadai

twv
;

Koa/xci}!/,

dei

(paCLu

(TTOlX^^d
To. Ibid.

<pT]<Tl.,

KOfffJiOVS t"

CK TOVTOJU

ehai yeueaiv for the words rovs IJ.hi/ yiv. can only be understood of co-existent worlds like those of the Atomists, and not of successive worlds, as heldbyAnaximander aud Heracleitus. The refutation of the opinion that there may be several worlds {Be Coelo, i. 8) must also
refer to co-existent worlds. Later writers are more explicit oi ixkv yap aireipovs tu. TrKriOeL rovs Koarpiovs
:

aireipovs elvai Kal dia\veaQai eis rav-

44 of Democritus airdpovs
:

elvai

KocTjxovs Ka\ yvv7]Tovs Kal

;

(peaprovs.

Ibid. 33, supra 236. 3 Hippol. Refut. i. 13 aireipovs 5e ehai Koafxavs [iXeyev 6 ArjixoKp.) Kal
:

fieyedei SiacpepovTas,
eivai riMov /mi^Sh
yuet^co

eu tktl 5e
rjiuu Kal

fi-)]

(TeK.i]vi)v,

ev tktl 5e
ev

[-ows]
TTAeio)

Tuv

Trap'

TJcri

[-ous].

elvai

5e

ruiv

K6(Tfj.oou
fjihu

aviaa

to, diaarrifxaTa,

kuI

t^

viroOenei^oi, d)S ol irepl ^Ava^ifiavdpou

irKeiovs

(that this is a misunderstanding has already been shown, Vol. I. 257 sq.) Koi AevKiTTirou Koi Atj/jloKpiTOV, yivofjLeuous avTOus kol
.

TOVS fxkv TOVS Se (pOiveiv, Kal ttj ixhf yivecrdaL TTJ Se AetVejj', ^deipeadai Se avTOvs

i\dTTOvs, Kal av^eadai tovs 5e aKfj-d^eiu

rfj

Se

eV

aWrjKctiU irpoairiirTOi/Tas.

eiuai

(pdeipofjifvovs

viredfUTo
ae\

eV

&TreipLV,

Se iviovs Kocxfiovs ipi^/JLOvs ^(iuu Kal

&WWV
8e

fxhu

yivo/jLevwi/,

6.\Kwu
Ccelo,

(pVTWU Kal iravThs vypov

fxa^eiv

aK-

(pdeipofxevcvv.

Id.
b,

De
b,

Se

k6(tij.ov

eus

&i/

,u7]KeTi

91

b,

36,

139
a,

5;

Schol.

in

dvvr]Tai

e^oiQev

tl
:

irpoa\aix$dveiu.

Arist.

480
ii.

38,

489

13

Cic.

Acad.
dicerc,
et

17,
sic

65: ais Bemocritum

Stob. Ed. i. 418 At]jx6kpltos 06ei' peadai rhv Koarfxov tqv fxei^ovos
VIKWVTOS.
'

innumerabiles esse mmidos,

quidem

quosdam

inter se

non

Cf. p. 248, 3.

FORMATION OF THE WORLD.

The way
in

247

which our world originated

is

thus more

particularly described.^

When

by the concussion of

many atoms

of different kinds, one mass of atoms

had

been separated in which the lighter portion had been

driven upwards, and the whole had been set in rotation

by the encounter of the opposite movements,^ the bodies

pressed outwards placed themselves in a circle outside
of the whole, and so formed around
it

a kind of husk.^
it

This covering grew thinner and thinner, as parts of

while, on the other hand,

were gradually carried by the motion into the centre,

the mass of the incipient

world was gradually increasing by the atoms continually

added to
fire,

it.

substances which had sunk

The earth was formed from the down into the centre and
;

the sky,

and

air

from

those which went upwards.

portion of these shaped themselves into balls of denser

mass, which at

first

were in a

damp and miry

state
it

but as the air which carried them round with

^ Diog. ix. 32, after the quotation on p. 242, 2 toOto S' olo;/ u/iera eavrqi u(pi(TTa(rdai, TrepiixovT 4u
:

was

iravrola craixaTa
fiea-ov

S>v

Kara,

i-tjv

tov

TrepiSivovjx4ya)i', avTepeiaiv Aeirrhv yiveadai rhv Trepi^ u/xeVa,

(TvppeovTwv

ael

iiri^auaiv rris Sivr}s

eVex^eVraj*/
4irl

rwv avv^x^^ ^'^'^^ Kal ovtu juej/

'

agreement with this, vide the exposition ap. Plut. Ptac. 1,4, concerning which see p, 242, 2. ^ Cf. p. 248, 2. ^ This is also to be found in Stob. Eel. i. 490. Stobseus adds that the crust is formed (chiefly) of hook-shaped atoms, Cf. Galen,
267 K. In reference to this, Metrodorus the Democritean is censured
c.

yej/ecrdai Tr]u yrjv, avixfiivovTuiv rcou

11, p.
^

rh jxiaov. avrdv re KaKiv rhv irepUxovra olou vyiiva koto rrjv iiriKpvcriv rwv av^ea-dai
e|w0i/ crcofj-aTwi/
S'lvt)

re (pepo/xevou

ap. Plut. Fac. Lv.n. 15, 3, p. 92S, for representing the earth as sinkits place by its own the sun, on the contrary, as pressed upward like a sheath

avrhu wv Uv
raadai.
ixepa
TToietj/

iin\l/avaT}

TaCra iniK(TvjxTr\cK6^ikv

ing

into
;

tovtwv 5e nva
(rvaTr\fj.a

weight
its

rh

trpwrov
tj7

KaQvypov Ka\
[Se]
/cat

TrrjAwSes,

^r]pavdiUTa

by

own

lightness,
like

and the
scales

stars

TTepi^ep6fx^va avv
dTroTeAecrai

tov

o\ov

Sivri elr"

iKiTupwd4vTa tt/v twu

(pvaiv.

as moving balance.

the

of

aaTepcau

In

iMS

THE ATOMISTIC

FIIILOSOFIIT

forced through the ascending masses, and set in stormy

whirliug motion, they gradually dried, and the swift

motion kindled them, and

similar

so

the stars arose.^

In a

manner by the pressure

these ran

of the winds and the

influence of the stars the smaller particles were forced

out of the earth

hollows,

together as water into the

and

so the earth

condensed into a firm mass,^

a process which, according to the theory of Democritus,

is,

still

continually going on.^

increasing

In consequence of the
it

earth's

mass and density,

attained

its

fixed place in the centre of the world, whereas in the

beginning, when it was still small and light, it had moved hither and thither.'' The notions of the Atomists respecting the universe are therefore tolerably in harmony with the ordinary
' Cf. on this point, besides the quotations just given, and wf. note 4, Hippol. i. 13: tov 5e irap" tjijuv KOGjxov irpdrepov rriv yriv rijov aarpcov yeviffdai. rovs re L*iog. ix. 30 Koafxovs yivfaOai awudrwv els rh Kevhv iixTTi-nrdvrwv Kcd a\Ar,\ois TTepLTThSKO/xeVOtlU CK T TTJS KlVr]aW9
:

like), TTpoaeOXifiero
prjs

-nds

6 juiKpo/xe-

(rxw^''"'0'^^s
(pvcriv

ravrr}s

Ka\

rT]v

vypdv
avrt]

iyevva

pevariKoos Se
irpbs

hiaKeifievr)

Karecpepero

Kara rhu
Kal Trdvra
T7)s

av^riffiu

avrS)v

yiveaOai
Ibid. 33
:

rrjv Toou aarepccu (pvaiu.

/xei/

(popcis,

rd aa-rpa did rh rdxos rhv 5' T]Kiov virh rSiU

dareLicov iKirvpovadai, Tr)v Se aeKrivT)u

rod TTvphs hhiyov fJuraXafx^dueiv. Theod. C7tr. Gr. Aff. iv. 17. p. 59. Democritus, like Anaxagoras, regarded the stars as masses of stone, -which have been kindled by the revolution of the hfavens.
2

Viae.

i.

itoW^s 5e

vK-qs

rovs Ko'iKovs rSirovs Kal dvva/xeuovs )(Up?]aai re Kal are^ai r) KaO' avrh rh {)5a>p imocrrdv eKoiXave rovs viroKeijxevtws rdirovs. This exposition, though primarily Epicurean, may, perhaps, in the last resort be referred to Democritus. This is probable, both on internal evidence and from a comparison with the theories about to be quoted. ^ According to Arist. Meteor. ii. 3, 365 b, 9 Alex. i7i h. I. 95 a, b Olympiod. ink. I. i. 278 sq. Id.. he supposed that the sea would in time dry up through evaporation. * Plac. iii. dpxds 13, 4: Kar
;
;

irepieiKfiixixev^s ep rrj yfj, irvKvovp-iv-qs re TavTir)s Kara rds dirh ruiu

en

fjLev

irXd^ecrdai, r)]v yr\u (pr)aiu 6 Atj-

fxSKpiros Sid re /j-iKpSr-qra Kal KoucpoTTjra, TTUKvcoQelcrav 5e t^*

irvevjidTwv irXriyds Kal rds dirb

rwv

XP^^V

'^'^^

darepwu avpas (solar heat and the

^apvvQet(Tav Karaarrjvai.

THE rXI VERSE.

opinion.

249

SuiTounded by a circular layer of tightly

it
^ ;

swims in the infinite Void its centre is the earth the space between the centre and the fixed external envelope is filled with air in which
compressed atoms,
;

the stars move.^

The

earth, they agreed

with the

ancient physicists in supposing to be an exceedingly

flat cylinder,

which supports

itself

on the air by means

of its bre'adth.

The

stars are, as already stated, bodies

of a terrestrial nature,

which have become heated by

:

the revolution of the sky

like Anaxagoras,

Democritus
:

asserted this particularly of the sun

and moon
as

he also
kind of

agreed with his predecessor in representing them both

as of a considerable size
;

and the moon

earth, for he recognised in its face the

tains.^

shadow of moun-

The statement that

these two heavenly bodies

had originally been,

'

like the earth, the nucleus of other

told no/caTajflev

At any
;

rate

we are

Tjpe^eTv,

ficnrep

rh iv toTs
sol

thing of a movement of the entire universe the Atomists seem to have been of opinion that, through Its circular motion, the tendency of weight in a downward direction would be overcome. AevKiinros rvfiPlac. iii. 10
:

KAei/zuSpats vSwp, cf. p. 245, 2.

^

Cie. Fin.

i.

6,

20

Demoi.

crito
:

magnus

videttir.

Stob. Eel.

532 [rhv tjAioi/] Arifj-oKpnos fxvZpev ^ Tcirpov Sidirvpoi', rpoirrjv 5e yiVetrQai e/c ttjs irepicpepovaris

ahrhv

divij-

afws.

Ibid.

ooO

[tt/j/

creXrfvqv^

7rai/oei5^ [ttjj/

"yvp], AriixoKpLTOs

Se
Se

diaKoeidri ^ikv tcc irKarei, KoiKt]u

TO fxiaov.

The

last clause

does not

mean, as I formerly supposed, that

the earth is hollow, but that it is depressed in the centre, and elevated towards the edge, cf Schaefer, Astroii. Geogr. d. Gr., Flen^b. 1873, p. 14; Arist. Le C(xlo, ii. 13, 294 'AvolijueVTjs Se Koi Avai,ay6b, 13 pas Ka\ A-nix6KpLTos rh TrAaros aiTiov ou ".dp ehalcpacri rod p.4uiiv ahri]u. Ti/xueLv dW" iTrnrw/jLaTi^eLv rhv depa top 5' ovk exovra rou Kdra'Oev jueroo'TTJvat roTrov iKauuv adpooy tw
:

anpioiex^v iv eavr^ ireSia kou opt} koi <pdpayyas (and in the same words, Theodor. Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 21, 23), Ibid. 564, concerning the face of the moon. Cf. following note and as to the light of the
/cat A7)iJ.6Kf,LTus

'Ava^ayopas

ixa Oidirvpov,

moon, pp. 250,

it is

3, and 248, 1. ^Tien said in Diog. ix. 44, that the

'

sun and
of
fire,

moon

consist, like

souls,
i.e.

smooth and round atoms,

this

of
to

can only refer to the which was afterwards added

their earthly nucleus.

fire

250

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

became
with

universes, and that the sim only subsequently

filled
fire,^

when

its

circle

grew

larger,

may

be

brought into connection with the

at

rest of the Atomistic

cosmology through the theory that the sun and moon,

an

earlier stage of their formation,

had been taken

universe.^

hold of by the masses circulating

nucleus, and so had

about the earth's

become part of our

is

The

opinion of Leucippus and Democritus concerning the

order of the stars
'

variously given.^

Their orbits,

7:

T]\iov

<pr](ri,

Plut. ap. Eus. Fr. Ev.^ i. 8, Se Koi aekrjurjs y4vcriv kut' iSiav (p^peadai ravra

nesis)

(namely at the time of their geTOirapdirnv %xovTa lUTjSeVw KaQoKov depfM^jv (pvaLU, ^TjSe yuTjj/
TOvuauTiov
irepl

from the earth, the moon came then Venus, the Sun, the other planets, the fixed stars. According to Galen, H. Ph. 11, p. 272 (also less fully, ap. Stob. Ed.
first,

KaixirpoTarriv,
fioiwixeurju tt?

Se

e|cy-

ttju

yriv

(pvaef

508), they came in the followorder moon, sun, planets, fixed stars according to Hippol.
i.

ing

yeyovevai yap hKarepov rovruv irp6repov en Kar' Idiav inro^oKriv riva

KOd/xov, vcTTepou Se fxeyeOuiroiov/xeuov

rov

irepl rhi^ 7]\lou

kvkKov
irvp.

iuairuAr}-

thus moon, sun, 3, fixed stars; the planets, the distance of whicn, as before noticed, was differently given by DemoRcfut.
i.
1
:

(pdrivai iv auT<S
-

rh

That the sun and moon should

originated
in

have

diflPerent

manner from the other heavenly

bodies, might appear necessary on account of their size. The statement of Diogenes, that the sun, according to Leucippus, was kindled by the stars, quoted p. 2-^8, 1, and no doubt connected with what has just been cited from Plutarch,

critus, seem to have been omitted through the negligence of the transcriber. According to Lucretius, V. 619 sqq. Democritus ex-

plained the deviation of the sun's course at the solstices by saying that each heavenly body followed the movement of the sky with less and less velocity, the nearer it approached the earth ideoque reUiiqid jyaulatim solem cum postcrio:

seems also to of the sun and

^

show that the case

ribus
sit,

signis

inferior

multo

quod

moon was

peculiar.

According to Diog. ix. 33 (concerning Leucippus), the moon was nearest, and the sun farthest from the eartli, the other stars being intermediate between them this reminds us of the statements quoted, Vol. I. p. 599, 2, concerning Parmenides. According to Plutarch, Plac. ii. 15, 3, reckoning
;

fervida signa (the signs of the Zodiac in which the sun is in summer, of. v. 640) et magis hoc lunam. So that the sun is passed by the fixed stars, and the moon by all the heavenly bodies, and again overtaken which gives the appearance of the sun and moon going in an opposite direction from The words ap. Plut. the rest.
;

quam

THE UNIVERSE.

251

those philosophers thought, were originally (before the

inclination of the earth's axis) parallel to the earth's
surface
;

their

motion consequently was a

lateral revo-

lution,^ the direction being in all cases from east to

west
stars

their velocity increased with the distance of the

fore the fixed stars

from the circumference of the universe, and thereoutstrip the sun and the planets,
swifter than the moon.^
say, they
earth.'*

and these again are

of the
stars,

The

fire

other writers

believed

to be

nourished by the vapours of the

The

theories
axis,'^

of the Atomists on the inclination of the earth's

Fac.
Li'.n.

16,

10, p.

929: "

/cara

(TTddjxrju, (p7]ffl Arj/jLOKpLTOS,

laTauevr]

rov (pwTiCovTOS [v <Ti\T]vr]] vTToKafJifiavei KoX Sex^TUL rhv ri\iov" do not for affect the present question Kara (TrdOfxriu does not mean close opposite directly by,' but properly, lying in a straight line.' as we find ap. Simpl. J)e Ccelo, 226 Seneca, a, 20 {Schol. 502 b, 29) Qu, Nat. yii. 3, says Democrittis suspicari se ait phcres quoque esse Stellas, quce currant, sed nee manerum illarum postiit necnomina, nondum comprehensis quinque siderum cursibus but it does not follow from this that Democritus did not allow the number of the planets Seneca's meanto have been five At ing appears to have been this that time the five planets had not only been long universally known in the eastern lands visited by our philosopher, but they had also been admitted into the astronomical system of the Pythagoreans.' Moreover the title of a treatise TrepI T(t)V TTKavqTwv (Diog. ix. 46) What is against the supposition. Democritus really said was probably this, that besides the five
; ' ; ' ' ; : . . .

'

planets, there might be others which Seneca heard at third hand, and misunderstood. This seems probable, from their theory, shortly to be mentioned, of the inclination of the earth, and from the corresponding statements of Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Diogenes, with whom the Atomists in their ideas about the form and position of the earth are entirely agreed. 2 Pint. Plac. ii. 16, 1. ^ Lucr. I. c. p. 250, 3. * According to Eustath. in Od. xii. p. 1713, 14 Rom. Democritus explained Ambrosia the food of the Gods, in reference to the nourishment of the sun by vapours. ^ According to Plutarch, Plac. iii. 12, they supposed that the earth inclined towards the south, which Leucippus explained by the lesser density ofthe warmer regions, and Democritus by the weakness of the southern part of the irepie'xov the opinion of both philosophers is no doubt the same the warmer part of the universe filled
;

known

with lighter and more movable atoms offers less resistunce to the

25L>

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

eclipses,^

on solar and lunar

cosmical
place.

on the light of the

stars

and the milky way,^ on comets,^ and on the great

year,'' can be only briefly naentioned in this Democritus in regard to most of these points

agrees

with Anaxagoras.

Some

other astronomical
^

observations which are ascribed to this philosopher

we

may
to

be allowed to pass over in silence, and in respect

is

the few further theories he

own
345

said to
Arist.

have held
Meteor,
i.

pressure of the earth's disc, and

therefore it inclines to that side. In that case it is difi&cult to see why the water does not all run towards the south, and overflow Cf. the the southern countries. theories of Anaxagoras and Diogenes on the same subject (Vol. I. also the following note. p. 293, 4)
;

light.
a, 25,

8,

and his expressions are repeated by Alex, in h. /. 81 b;

Olympiodorus, f/2 A. ?. p. 15 a; i. 200 Id. Stob. Eel. i. 576 Plut. Plac. iii. 1,8; Macrob. Soonn. Scip. see also Ideler, ad Meteorol. i. 15
;
:

i.

410, 414.
^

According to Ding. ix. 33, Leucippus had taught e/cAeiVeiv

'

Democritus, like Anaxagoras, supposed the comets to be a collection of several planets, so near

TjXiov KoX aeXrjurii'

yriv

r^

KSKXicrdai tt]v

to

one another, that their light

i.
;

irpbs ixca-rjixfipiau,

which

is

mean-

The words, tu) KeKXiaOai, &c., as is shown by what follows, must originally have stood in the same connection as the passage and just quoted from the Placita other reasons must have been assigned for the solar and lunar eclipses. But it is possible that
ingless.
;

Arist. Meteor, was united. 342 b, 27, 343 b, 25 Alex,

6,
I.

h.

Diogenes
-

may

himself be responsi-

ble for the confusion.

Democritus thoughtthe milky

;

way was composed

of many small stars in close proximity in regard to its peculiar light, he supposed with Anaxagoras that the other stars were enlightened by the sun, and that we see in them, not their own, but the sun's light reflected whereas the stars of the milky way lie in the shadow of the earth,
;

and consequently shine by their

Olympiodorus, in 79 b p. h. I. i. 177 Td.; Plut. Plac. iii. 2, cf. Sen. Qii. H^at. vii. 11 Schol^ 3 in Arat. Diosem. 1091 (359). * Democritus assigned to this great year, 82 ordinary years and 28 intercalary months (^ens. Di. Nat. 18, 8); that is, he supposed that in this time the diflference between the solar and lunar year was 82 solar years being equalised equal to 1012 (- 12 x 82 + 28), which gives nearly 292- days for each lunar month, if the solar year be reckoned at 365 days. ^ Cf. Mullach, 231-235; ibid. 142 sqq. on Democritus's astronomical, mathematical, and geographical writings, of which, however, we know little except the titles.
78
a,
; ; ; ;

MAX. ANIMALS. PLANTS.

relating
to

253

the

sphere

of inorganic

nature, a

bare

enumeration must

suffice.^

III.

Organic Nature.

Man

his

hiovAedge and

Ms

actions.

The

enquiries of Democritus in regard to organic

;

beings included not only animals, but plants

he was,
a philo-

however, chiefly occupied with mankind.-

From
is

sophic point of view, his anthropology alone

^ He supposed that earthquakes were caused by the action of subterranean 'water and currents of air

worthy

The

rules about the weather must also be referred to Democritus. ap.

Mullach, 231
Philos.
i.

sqq.
sq.),

238

(Fraqm.
;

(Arist. Meteor,

ii.

7.

3 60 b,

this

is repeated by Alex, rn h. I. Sen. Naf. Qu. vi. '20) thunder, lightning, and hot blasts (wp-ncTTrip') he tries, ingeniously enough (ap. Stob. i. 594), to explain by means of the nature of the clouds which engender them and the various effects of light ninar, ap. Pint. Qu. Con v. iv. 2. 4. 3 (Democr. Fr. Phys. 11\ he accounts for by saying that some
;

may

so far as they be considered at all genuine

368

on the other hand, what is ascribed to him. ihid. 238, 239 sq. {Fraqm. i. 372 sq.), concerning the finding of springs, ont of the Geoponica, cannot belong to him as the Democritean Greoponica (on which, cf. Meyer, Gesch. d. Botanik.'i. 16 sq.) are wholly spurious.
:

The
ix.

list

of his writings, ap.

sq.,

bodies offer resistance to it, Avhile others allcw it to pass through. AVind arises when many atoms are pressed together in the air into a small space -when they hare room The to spread, there is a ^alm. overflowings of the Nile he explains thus When the snow melts in the northern mountains, the evaporations are carried by the north wind of the latter part of the summer towards the south, and fall in the Ethiopian mountains (Diod. i. 39 Athen. ii. 86 d; Plut. PIoc. iv. 1,
:

Diog.
irepl

46

mentions
Kol

aWiai
koI
'Tepl
B',

ajrepixdrcov
alriai

(pvrwv

KapTTbov,

irepl

Cv^^
;

y'

avdpanrov
irepl

(pvcrios
IT.

^ wepl aapKhs
also

vov,

ala6-f](nccu

the

books TTspl x^^w;/ and -rrepl xpowi' partly belong to the same category. Baokhiiisen T.Erinck, in Philologus,
viii.

414

sqq..

has collected from

Schol. Apolhn. Rkod. in A/yon. 4 Sea-water, he supposed, iv. 269). like Empedocles, to contain sweet water as well as salt, and that the fisihes were nourished by it (^lian. Of the magnet H. Anim. ix. 64). we have already spoken, p. 230, 1.
;

the spurious letter of Democritus to Hippocrates irepl (pvaios avQpwTTov, and other sources, the probable fragments of the treatise trepl avSpunov (pvcrios. Tn this treatise perhaps the words may have stood which are censured by Sext. Math. vii. 265 Vyrrh. ii. 23, but which cannot of course have been intended as an actual definitioti &v6p(i}ir6s iariv & iravres tS/xe;/.
;

254

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

;

and handed down to us consist merely animals Even his theories of isolated remarks and conjectures. on generation and the development of the foetus,^ on
of attention
^
'

such of his observations on plants

as have been

empty channels of run straight, grow more quickly, hut last a shorter time, because the nutritive substances, though circulating more swiftly through all their parts, are also carried off more swiftly, Theophr. Cans. Plant, i. 8. 2 ii. 11,17. AYhat is quoted by Mullach, p. 248 sqq. {Fragm. i. 375 sq.), from the Gcoponica concerning various agricul tural growths, cannot be certainly traced to Democritus. Cf. previous note. Concerning the soul of plants,
'

Plants, the

which

about hares in Mullach, 254, 103 (Fragm. Philos. i. 377, 13 from Geopon. xix. 4) is clearly not his. ^ According to Plutarch's Placita, he supposed that the seed is secreted from all parts of the body
(v. 3, 6, cf. Arist. Ge7i.

Anim.
;

iv,

i,

vide infra.
- The passages collected by sqq. {Fragm. i. Mullach, 226 366 sq.) from Elian's History of

Animals relate
:

to

that the lion does subjects come into the world blind, other animals ; that fishes upon the sweet portions of the

the following not

like

feed
sea-

water

concerning the productiveness of dogs and swine, the un;

fruitfulness of

Gen. Anira.

ii.

mules (cf. also Arist. 8, 747 a, 25, para-

the the the differences of bodily structure between oxen and bulls on the abTo sence of horns in bulls. Democritus may likewise be referred the observations, ap. Arist. Part. Aniiii. iii. 4, 665 a, 31 on the Gen. entrails of bloodless animals Anim. v. 788 b, 9 (Philop. ad h. I. 119 a), on the structure of teeth
;

phrased in his usual manner Philop. ad h. I. 58 b), and on origin of these hybrids formation of stags' horns on
; ;

by

Philop. Gen. Anim. 81b; Censor. Di. Nat. c. 5, 2), and that it is found in women, and also an organ connected with it he seems to have distinguished its visible constituents from the atoms of fire or soul concealed in them. (Plac. v. 4, 1, 3: further particulars result from his doctrine of the soul.) The continuance of the foetus in the maternal body causes its body to resemble that of the mother (Arist. Gen. Anim. ii. 4, 740 a, 35, whose statement is amplified by Philopouus, ad h. I. 48 b, obviously on his own authority and not on that of Democritus). The process of formation begins with the navel, which retains the foetus in the uterus (Fr. Phys. 10, vide infra); at the same time, however, the coldness of the air assists in closing the maternal body more firmly, and in keeping the foetus in repose
a,

764

6;

i.

17,

721

b, 11

(vElian, H. Anim. xii.

17).

The

Hist.

Anim. ix. 39, 623 a, 30, on the webs of spiders. The statement

external parts of the body, especially (according to Cens. Di. Nat. 6, 1) the head and the stomach, are formed previously to the internal (Arist. I. c. 740 a, 13. Philoponus asserts, no doubt quite arbitrarily, and on no other evidence than this passage, that, according
to

Democritus,

^ut?

eV

t^

KapSio.

MAN.

255

which the ancient physicists were so prone to speculate, are not of a kind to demand our particular attention.

We

niay mention, however, that in

of his

agreement with

several

predecessors

he represented

men and

animals as arising from terrestrial slime J

to

Man, on account of his bodily structure and form, is Democritus an object of the highest admiration.
^

In his description of the human body

attempts to describe
its

he not merely

parts according to their position

and nature with

and importance

as

much

exactitude as the then state

of these enquiries allowed, but he praises their utility

for the life of

man

with such fervour

that, is spite of his general

tendency to a purely me-

chanical explanation of nature, he approaches the tele-

ology which has always been chiefly connected with the

study of organic
of Socrates,
eivai
TTiv
Sviafiiu,

life, and which even then, in the person had begun a successful conflict with the
Koi
TToirjTiKriv

QpeiTTiKTf]v

a\\'

e/cTos).

The sex of

the child depends on the relative proportions of the paternal and maternal seed, emanating from the sexual organs (Arist. I. c. 761 a. 6, whose observations are enlarged upon by Philoponus, 81 b, doubtless more accurately than by Cansorinus, Bi. Nat. 6, 5 similarly Parmenides, vide Vol. I. p. 601, 4). Abortions are caused by super;

and Diogenes, indicates enquiries about animals for it refers to the cotyledons which are absent in the
;

fcetation (Arist.

I.

c.

iv.

4,

769

b, b).

and following him, Philop. 90

body. This is primarily asserted of men by Censorinus, Di. Xat. 4, 9 and his statement is placed beyond question by the analogy of the Epicurean doctrine. The same appears to be intended in the mutilated and imperfect notice in Galen, Hisf. Phil. c. 35, p. 335. According to Fulgentius, Mi/f k.ni. 7, he praised the ancients,
^
;

human

The

child gets its nourishment through the mouth, even in the

womb, by sucking
;

a part of the utprus corresponding with the teats cf. Arist. Gen. An. (Plac. V. 16, 1 The last-menii. 7, 746 a, 19). tioned theory, which Censorinus
{I. c. 6,

referring to Homer, II. ii, 478, for assigning the various parts of the human body to different gods the head to Zeus, the eves to Pallas,

According to David, ScM. in Ari^t. 14 b, 12, he called man a

&c.
fiiKphs Koa-fios.
^

3) also attributes to

Hippo

Qf

^g^ Brinck,

I.

c.

256

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

The
fortress of the
is
is

naturalism of the ancient physics.

body

is

given in charge to the brain, which

the lord of

the whole, to the heart

is

whom

the power of thought

entrusted

called the queen, the nurse of anger,

^ ;

and

is

armed

with a coat of mail against attacks

in regard
it is

to the organs of the senses

and of speech,

shown

how

suitable they are for their functions, &c.2

Demohe does

critus, indeed,

never says that they are so fashioned for

definite ends with design

and

set

purpose

not actually proceed teleologically, but as he traces the

result not to a fortuitous concurrence of circumstances

but to nature as

Unity,''

which does nothing without

possible from his

reason and necessity,-^

he approaches as nearly to the

is

teleology which he despises as

own

point of view.^

The

soul on the hypotheses of the Atomistic doc-

trine can only be conceived as corporeal, but its material

substance must be of a kind to explain

ture.
'

its

peculiar na-

This, according to Democritus,

^

lies

in animating

Cf. p. 258, 2.

de^riixiovpy-qraL.

organs of sense the words which are quoted by Heracleides (ap. Porph. in P/ol.
2

Cf. in respect to the

Harm,
ii.

(in Wallisii Ojrp.

:

Math.

T.)

p.

215

(^ cikot?)

e/cSoxetoi/

(U''0coj'

ovcra jxivii
TjSe

tV (prxv7]v ayyeiov

StKTjv

yap
3

elcrKpiveTai Koi 4upe7.

Ar'ist.

CL
I.

p.

259, 2).
c.
fj.hxo'icri

avQp.
iv

De Bcspir. i {mfra, In the words tt. (pva. No. 28 v 5e aaooixaros

:

Vide supra, p. 237 sq. This is not, however, carried to such an extent that we need doubt his being the author of the We find the above description. same theory in Plutarch's quotation, Be Am. Prol. e. 3, p. 495 cf. Fort. Eom. c. 2, p. 317: yap
^
;

f>

ofKpaXhs
(pr)(Ti

irpwrov

iu

^i\Tpri<n

(&s

Ar]fx6KpiTOs)

o.yKvpr\fi6Kiov
7ret(r/xo

(pvcris

e|eTev|

iravrd-

(xaKov Koi irXdvrjs i/xcpveTai,

fj.4WovTi.

fxopcpa (XirKayxvoov yei/ea, it is pos-

Ka\ KXr\ixa rai yivop-ivca Kapwo)

Kal

sible that dcrc6/xaTos

may
;

the supreme worker if ought not to substitute aSparos. Vide previous note, and No. ivvr]Tov dirh (pKefifuv re Kal 26
:

belong to indeed we

We

shall

see

in

the

course of this chapter that

critus

Demo-

had no

difficulty in corabin-

ing with his materialism the recognition of the spiritual in nature

pevpcou irKeyixa

(pvcrios

viro

and in man.

MAX.
and motive force
:

THE

HUMAX
is

BODY.
efifects

2b7

ihe soul

that which

the

movement
if it is

of living beings.

But

this it can only

do

itself in

constant motion, for the mechanical

is

motion, which alone

recognised by the Atomists, can

is

only be produced by what

moved.

The

soul

mast

therefore coDsist of the most movable substance

fine,

smooth, and round atoms

tlie

in other words, of
its

of

fire.^

And
force

same

results

from the second chief quality of

vivifying
is

the soul, which appears side by side with

the
;

power of thought,
fiery particles

for

thought likewise

motion.^

These

were consistently supposed

parts because

by Democritus

to
is

be diffused throughout the whole

body
>

the body

animated in
T]

all

its

P. 234.
Arist.

De An.
Koi

i.

2,

403

b,

29

^vx'h]' ^^xvv tJ-hv yap dyai ravro Kal j'ovv, TOVTO 5' eluai twi irpurwv

(^a<r\

yap

evioi

irpwroos

^vxhv
to
urj

Kal
oe
TO-*/

d^iatpiTCDV
?iid

awndruv.

KiirjriKhi'

TO KLvovv, KLVuvixiVOv avrb

^liai

olr]64uT$ 8e
ij-tj

fjnKpouep:av Kal to crx^/xa*

er5e;^((r0ai klv^Iu
ttji-

8e (TXTJ/iaTCtfV evKivriTOTaTov rh

erepou,

tojj/

Kivovjxivocv ri

tpvxTT^

o(f)aipoei5S

Aeyer
S'

vTT4\a$ou
fjihu

eJvai.

o6ev

At}u6kpitos

fuKivriTorarov]

e?fot

roiovrov [scil. rhv vovv kcu

irvp 71 Koi

depfjiov (p7}(nv avrrju

elfar (ZTreipwv yap ovTcav (TXTllJ-aruv

Kol
drofjiav

to

(TcpaipociSri

Tvvp

Kal

^i'XVv
225")

^.e^et,

oTov

iv

rta

d4pi

rd

Ka\ov^va ^vafiara,
oixoLws

etc.

5e

Kal

p. Aeu/ctTnroy.

(vide

Cf. Ibid. c. 4, o, 409 a, iO and the following notes, especially p. 259, 2. That Democritus regarded the soul as composed of warm and fiery substances, and of smooth and round atoms, is asTrdp.

rh

b, 7-

to. a(paipoidri v^uxV. Sta rh ixaXiara Sid TravThs dvvacrdai diaZi'veiv Tovs ToiQVTovs pvcTfiovs (this fxpression, with which cf. p. 223, 1, seems to show that Aristotle

rovTcou 5e

serted by many writers, e.g. Cic. Tusc. i. 11, 22; 18, 42; Diog. ix. 44 Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 4 (Stob. i. 796, the same thing is asserted of
;

not merely advancing his own opinions, but quoting from Democritus) Kal Kipuv rd Xonrd HivovfjLva Kal avrd, viroKan^duoures rtju 4^vxvy elvai rh Trapexov to7s C'f^'-^ "^^^
is

Nemesius, Xat. Ham. c. 2, p. 28, explains the round atoms which form the soul as fire and air,' and Macrobius, Sornn. i.
'

Leucippus).

14, as

'

Spirjtus

'

but these are in-

accuracies, resulting perhaps

from

KivncTiv.

Ihid, 40o'a. 8

A-qjxoKpiTos

Se Koi y\a(pvpwTpws

eipTjfcei/ diro-pr]-

vdfxivos Sia Ti TOVTccv [sc. rod Kivr}riKov Ka\ yfupiCTTLKOv'] kKanpov [sc.

a confusion with Epicurus's doctrine of thf^ soul, or from Democritus's theory of the breath, mentioned infra.

VOL.

IT.

258

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

all,

there are atoms in

which, according to their nature,

are involved in perpetual motion

and

also

move that

which surrounds them

that there
is

indeed, he goes so far as to say

a soul-atom between every pair of bodythis does not

atoms.^

But

mean

that the
all

movement

of

the atoms must be the same in

parts of the body

on the contrary, according to Democritus, the various faculties of the soul have their seat in different parts
of the body
:

thought in the brain, anger in the heart,

desire in the liver.^

When,

therefore,

later

authors

assert that he assigned the whole

body to the irrational

part of the soul as its abode/ and the brain or the heart
to the rational part, the statement,
to be discarded,
1

though not wholly

is

only partially correct.^

b,

On account

Arist.
Koi

De An.
Kivilv

i.

3,406

15:

tvLOi Se

<pa(x\ t7]v ^'^X^'^

Adposita, alternis variare ac nectere mernhra.

xb awfxa iv S eariv ws ahrr] Kivitrai,

ojov ArifxoKpLTos
(prjai TCLS
.
. .

KivQVjxivas

'',dp

adtaipeTOvs (T(paipas Sia rh

/xr/SeTTOTe

TTicpvKeuai

(p4KKeiV

Koi

KLve7v

fx^vnv crvverh (rw/xa irciv,

to the fancy of Philippus the comic poet, that Dsedakis gave motion to his quicksilver statues by pouring Hence at the beginning into them. of c. 5 he says: ei-n-ep 'yap eTTLU t]

which Aristotle compares

Lucretius thought that the atoms of the body were much more numerous than those of the soul and that the latter were therefore distril)uted at wider intervals than Democritus supposed. * In this sense Democrit-us, tt. avdpdoTTou (pvaios, Fr. 6, calls the brain (pvXaKa oiavo'iris Fr. 1 5 the Fr. heart fiaa-iXis opyris tlOtji'os 17 the liver, iiridvixiris aXriov.
;

We find the same, probably quoted from Aristotle, in Iambi,

ixari.

Pint.
''"^

Plac.

iv.

4,

A^fjiS4'^'

KpiTOS,
Xh'^f

'ElTLKOVpOS,
1^^^

dlfMipT}

tV

ap. Stob.
in Sext.
I.e.
2

i.

924, and more concisely

^oyiKhu %x^v(Tav iv
rh
S'

t^

dcopaKi

KadiBpviJ.vou,

^-Xoyov

Math.vu. 349; cf.Macrob.

iii.

KaQ^ oK7]v TT]p avyKpiaiv rov ffdofxaros

diea-n-apixvou.

Lucret.

370

Theod. Cur. Gr.

Aff.

Illud in his rebus nequaqiiam siunere

possis,

'imroKpaTT^s /xev yap Koi AT]fJi6KpiT0S Koi HAOLTWV iv iyK^<paK<jf) TovTO [rh rjye/j.ovi.Kbu'] IdpuaBai
V. 22, p,

73

Demoeriti quodsaneta viri

ponit,

se^itcntia

elpi)Kaaiv.
^ The Placifa manifestly confuse the doctrine of Democritus with that of Epicurus] (on which,

Corporis atque animi primordla, sin-

gula privis

THE SOUL.

150

of the fineness and mobility of the soul's atoms, there

danger lest they should be forced out of the body by the air that surrounds us. Against this danger Democritus says we are protected by our inspiration, the importance of which lies in its constantly introducing new fiery and vital matter into the body this
is
;

in part replaces the soul-atoms that pass off;

and

also

and

chiefly hinders

are in

by its counter current those which the body from gaining egress thus enabling
;

them
breath

to resist the pressure of the outer air.

is

If the

impeded, and

if this resistance
air,

is

in conse-

quence overcome by the force of the

fire
cf.

the internal
As, however,

wastes

away and death

is

the result.ev
Tif

Part III. a, 386, second edition). In Theodoretiis the conception of the rjye/xoviKhu. at any rate, is interpolated.
^

ToiovTOiv

yap auTa Koi

That expiration also

helps

avaitvitv KaiXveii/ ivvirdpxouTa eV to7s (rvvaveipyovTa to avvayov Ka\ tvnyvvov kuI (fjv de ecos au SvfwvTai tovto voieTv. k?imilarly
to,

^w'ois iKKpiveaOai,

towards this purpose is clear from Arist. De An. i. 2 (following note)

for the exit of older fiery particles corresponds to the entrance of new.

This is said more definitely, but no doubt only on the authority- of

the passage in Aristotle. byPhilop. De An. B, 15 Simpl. De An. 6 a, and the scholia on tt, ava-Kvor)s Simpl. De An. 165 b. 2 Aristotle, De An. i. 2, con5ib K<A Tov ^pv opov eli/ai tinues TTju avairvo-f^V avvdyovTO^ yap tov
: ;
:

4 Arj/noKpiTos S' on TVS ava-Kvorjs (rv/d^aivei rt To7s avairviovcri \eyei, (pdaKwv kco\v(LU iKdXi^ecrdai t^u rpvxvv ov fi4vT0i y' us TovTov y' eVe/ca iroir](raaav TavTo ttjv (pvcriv ovdtu eipriKev okas yap uiairep koI ol dWoi (pvaiKol
Ii''Sj)n'. c.
e/c
:

De

fxeu

Kai ovTOS ovBhv dirreTai tt/s ToiavTrjs

ahias.
depixhv

Aeyei 8' ws rj ^vxh Kal to TavTQv ra irpSoTa (TxVf.'.aTa

. .

Tojf (Tcpaipoeiduv

avyKpn'oix^voov ovv

avTuv

vTTo

TOV rcepUxovTos iKSxi^ov-

Tos ^orjOeiau yiveaOai ttjv dvairvoiiv

6/j.hu

Trept^xoPTOS to, (TdcfxaTa (Philop. ad.

B, 15, in agreement with the Atomistic presuppositions, assigns as a reason for this, the coldness of the Trepte'xo" cf. also Arist. De kuI eKd\iBespir. c. 4, 472 a, 30)
h.
I.
;
:

(pT](nv ^ iv elvai

yap tu d4pi iroXw dpitwv toiovtqiv, b. KaXe7

(Ke7pos vovv Ka\ xpvxvv dvaiTv4ovTooZv Ka\ elaiovTOs tou depos crvveL(n6v'
Ttt

fiovros Toov

0'x'>7jttaTc;i' to.

Tope'xoj'Ta

To7s {Vots Tr}v

Kivqcriv dia

to

/xtjS'

aiiTO, rfpe/xelv /iTjSeTroTe, fior)Qeiav

yi-

yveadai QvpaQev iireicrSi'Tuv &\X(ou

TavTa Kal dveipyovTa QKi^^/lv KwXveiv T?V ivovcatf eV to7s ^usois Sti'eVui ^vxy]v Ka\ hid tovto iv tc? dvaiTve7u Kal iKiTve7u cJvat t5 0}v kuI dToQvT](TKeiv. OTav ydp KpaTrj to Trepte'xoj/ avi/d\7fiov Kal firiKeTi Qvpadev

tV

s 2

260

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

fire is

the

not extinguished instantaneously,

vital action

it

may

also

happen that
explained
left

may

be restored when part of

the soul's substance has been

;

lost.

In this way sleep

fiery particles

is

in that case only a

few

have

the body.^

ried out produces the

il(Tihv Zvvi]TaL aueipyeif,
/xtj

The same process more completely car-^ phenomenon of apparent death.^

Suvafie-

vov avaiTpcTv, tot6 avfxfiaiveiv rhv Qavarov toIs ^uois' eluai yap lov

from older writers

Qavarov TTjf rwr toiovtwv (TxripLaroov 4k tov awixaros e^oBov 6K ttjs rov
Trepte'xoiTos
eK0Ai\|/6WS.

AVhy

all

creatures die however, and what is the cause of respiration, Deniocritus did not say.

Thus much seems to result from the theories of the Epicu>

reans concerning sleep {Liicret.

ir.

913

sqq.).

- Cf. on this point the fragment of Proclus's commentary on the tenth book of the BepnbUc, which

Mullaeh, 45) relates, of course namely, that Domocritus, to comfort King Darius for the death of his wife, told him that, in order to recall her to life, it was only necessary to write upon her grave the names of three men who were free from sorrow (Lucian, Demon. 25, relates the same thing of Demonax). Pliny may perhaps have been thinking of this story when he says {H. N. vii. 55, 189) reviviscendi promissa a Democrifo vanitas, qui non revixit ipse but it
in
; :

is

also possible that these

words

was first communicated by Alex. Morus on Ev. Joh. 11, 39. p. 341
;

and first corrected by Wyttenbach ad Plut. de s. Num. Vind. 563 B (ATiimadvens. a. 1, 201 sq.) and Mullach, Democr. 115 sqq. Democritus had written a treatise on
;

subject discussed in antiquity (vide the -writers just mentioned, and what is quoted, p. 120, n., on the person brought to life by Empedoand cles when apparently dead)

the

apparently dead, a

passage in Democritus's treatises on magic, from which Pliny, ignorant of criticism as he is, quotes only this much and that Julian's anecdote, which gives a moral turn to the supposed magic, may likewise Ijave reference to a statement that Democritus could raise the dead, or had left
allude to
'a
;

may

much

instructions

how

to

rate, the passage in

do it. At any Pliny is con-

also a treatise, ir^pX tuv iu cfdov, in which, as Proclus says, he en-

quired irws rhv aToOavSvTa irdXiv but the only ava&iuvai SvvarSu answer is that it is possible the person was not re;illy dead. To these enquiries about the resuscitation of the dead, the graceful fable seems to refer which Julian {Epist. 37, p. 413 Spanh., printed
;

only with magical arts, imagination of later fabricators has ascribed to the naturalist of Abdera and not with the doctrine of immortality, which is altogether irreconcileable with his point of view. Even the words. qui non revixit ij^se, which would be meaningless as applied to ano

cerned

which the

ther
fore,

life,

show this

Koth is,

there-

entirely mistaken {Gesch. d. Abendl. Phil. i. 362, 433), and so is

Brucker {Hist.

Crit. Phil.

i.

1195),

THE
If,

SOUL,

1^61

however, death has really taken place, and the atoms

is

of which the soul

composed are completely separated

is

from the body,

return to
it,

it

impossible that they can

ever

or that they can maintain themselves in

combination outside the body.^

Democritus, therefore, does not deny that there
difference between soul
is

a
is

and body, nor that the soul

superior to the body.

tial in

The
is

soul with

him

is

the essen-

man, the body

only the vessel of the soul,^ and

he admonishes us beauty apart

for this reason to

;

bestow more care on

the latter than on the former

he declares corporeal

from

understanding to be something

animal

he says the glory of animals consists in

bodily excellences,^ that of

man

in moral

he seeks

the abode of happiness in the soul, the highest good in

a right disposition
;

he makes the soul answerable

Floril. 120,
5r]ai 5e rrjs

for

n-hom he follows, in his inference that Democritus was an adherent

of the Persian
resurrection.
'

20
eV

^vioi Qvqrris <pvaioi

SiaKvcriv ovk flSores avOpwiroi.

doctrine

of

the

tw

^ico

^weiKaKOTpayuo;^pdi/o/

(xvvqs,

rhv t^s ;30T^y

Koi
ipofioiai

eV

the nature of the subject that we scarcely require the testimony of lamblichus ap. Stob. Eel. i. 924 LactanTheodoretus, tius, Insf. vii. 7 and the Cur. Gr. Aff. \. 24, p. 73 Placita, iv. 7, 3, to disprove the belief of Democritus in immortality more especially as it is nowhere stated that Epicurus differed from him in this respect; and, considering the great importance ascribed by Epicurus to the denial of immortality, the veneration with which he and his school regarded Democritus seems to exelude any disagreement between
lies so entirely in
; ;
;

This

rapaxflfri
overt,

roAanruipe-

i^euSea irepl toG ixera rrjv refxv6oTrka(TTeoj/Tes

XeurV
The

obscure

statement
4,

XP^^^^in the

that Leucippus the body only, cannot be taken into account, ^ Sk^j/os is a common designation for the body with Democritus, Fr. Mor. 6, 22, 127, 128, 210. ^ Fr. Mor. 128: ai^Opuiroia-i apPJacita, v. 25, referred death

to

fxo^v

\pvxvs

iroLeeadai

fiaWov ^ Xoyov \l/vxh

'

(xufxaros
M^*'

"^P

reAewTciTTj (TKTjveos /j.oxQvp'-W opdol. a-K-qveos 5e icrxvs aveu Xoyiaj-iov

them on

Democritus this subject. thus expresses himself, ap. Stob.

|/uxV ovSev rt afxeivco TiO-qai. * Ibid. 129. ^ Ibid. 127. ^ Fr.l,&:c. Further details

z/*/.

2G2

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPIIY.

it causes to the body;^ he contrasts the endowments of the soul as divine with those of the body which are nierely human ^ he is even said to have

the injury

reckoned the intellect of

man among

the divinities.^

This, however, presents no contradiction to the materialism of the Atomistic philosophy, if

selves at its

we

place our-

own point

of view.
;

The

soul is

something

corporeal, like all other things

but since the corporeal

also possible

substances are as various as the form and composition

of the atoms of which they consist,
it is

that one substance

may have

qualities wliich belong to

no other

and

if

the sphere be regarded as the most

perfect shape, Democritus

may

also

have held that that

Spirit

which

is

composed of the

finest spherical atoms, fire, or

the soul, exceeds

all else in

worth.

is

to him, as

to other materialists,'^ the

most perfect body.

From

this connection of ideas,

we can now

see in

what sense Democritus could assert that soul or spirit dwells in all things, and that this soul, distributed throughout the whole universe, is the Deity. As he
identifies reason
'

with the soul, and the soul with the

s. lib.

Plut. Uir. An. an Corp.

p.

for

though

Philodemus,

whom

{Plitt.

Fragm. 1), c. 2, Democritus says that

695 W., if the body arraigned the soul for abuse and ill-treatment, the soul would be condemned. - Ibid. 6 ra ifi'X')? ayaOa 6 TO. OeioTepa, 6 5e ra ip(6iJLvos
:

(TK-nueos, ravdpwin'fia.
^

Cic.

y. D.
turn

i.

critus

qui

12, 29: Demoimagines in

.
. .

Beorum numero

refcrt

turn

scientia7ni/itelligentiamque7iostram,

We are justified in regarding this statement as historical evidence

;

Cicero here follows, is apt to distort the opinions of the ancient thinkers, yet there is generally some basis of fact underlying his assertions he reckons among the gods of a philosopher all that that philosopher describes as divine, even in the widest sense. Democritus, however, may well have called vovs duos, and in a certain sense Behs also. * For example, Heracleitus, the Stoics, &c.
:

SOUL AND BODY

warm and
all

263

fiery substance,

he must necessarily find in

as

things exactly as

light
air

much

and warmth. soul and reason

much soul and reason He therefore considers

is

he finds
other^

that in the

distributed
soul

how
?

wise could

we

inhale from
life

it

and reason

He

and even in corpses he probably thought there remained a portion of vital heat and sensation.^ This warm and animate element he
also ascribed

to plants,-

seems to have described as the Divine in things,^ and

so it

may

well have been said in the later form of ex-

pression that he regarded the Deity as the AVorld-soul

and Eeason, formed out of round atoms of

'

fire.^

Such
not quite

Aristotle,

in
c.

quoted,
roiv,

De

Eespir.

passage the 4 iv yap rw

:

Se

iirl

fxiKpov fjLolpau exety a'uveVeoJs).

is

The
i.

thing, however,
:

aepL TToKvv apiQixov ilvai tojv tolov-

bevond question Cicero

:

says, Ttise.

h KaXel eKelvos vovv koX

:

^vxWifx-

Theophr. De Sensu, 53
\pvxoTpos 6
-

octw

num igitur aliquis dolor 34, 82 out o/iinino post mortem sensus in
corpore
est ]

arjo.

nemo

id

quidem

dicif,

Plut. Qu. yat. 1, 1, p. 911: ^aiou yao eyyeiou rh (pvrhv dJvai ol

irepl

UKa.Twi'a Kol 'Ava^aySpav Ka\

ArifjLOKpiTuv oiovrai.

Plant,

c.

1,

815

b,

16

Ps.-Arist. De 6 Se 'Ava^a:

yopas Koi
TreSo/cArjs

ArjpLOKpiTos Koi 6 'E,u-

Koi voxJv koi yvwffiv ^Jirov ex^iv TO (pvra. 3 Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 4: o Se Arj/xoKpiTOS Travra jnerexeti' (p'qaX

^vx^s TToms
t(j:v

KoX TO. I'eKpa

ruv

(Twjxa-

SiOTt ael hiacpavws rivos dspixov

ttK^'ioi'os

Kal al(rdr}TiKov /xerexej, rov

^laiTu^oiievov.
s. ii.

Job. JDamasc. Parall.

25, 40. Stob. Floril. ed.

Mein.

IV.

236

Ar]fi6Kp.

to

(TQiixaTcav

aladdveadai.

veKpa ruv Similarly,

efsiDemocritum iyisimnlat Epicurus: Democritici negant. According to this passage it would seem that the statement of Democ-ritus was either limited to the time before the corpse becomes completely cold, or that he ascribed to thede;id an infinitesimal portion of soul, but neither consciousness nor feeling. * Cic. D. i. 43, 120: turn principia mentis qucB simt in eodem un iverso Deos esse dicit. These principia mentis are manifestly what Aristotle means in the passage just quoted the fine and round atoms. Cf. on this point, p. 262, 2

263,
^
i.

1.

Alexander

in Topica, 13 (also

menides, vide Vol. I. p. accordance with this last passage, Philippson changes " yutKpoG into " ueKpov," ap. Theophr. De Sensu.
'"

ParIn 602).

Stob. Eel.

i.

56

Plut. Plac.

71:

{(pw'i'

[AriixoKp.] yheardai ixkv

a.\-r\Qiiav,

eKacrrov koI eiyai Kar

ISius

Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 16, Galen, R. Ph. c. 8, p. 251, whose imperfect text Krische (Forsch. i. 157) rightly refers to the more complete passage, ap. Cyrill. c. Jm/. i. 4 yovy jxhy yap elvai rbv deov
7, 13, ap.

204

TRE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

is,

language

however, inaccurate and misleading, for

of the Divine, he

when Democritus speaks

means not only

all
;

no personal being, but no one being at

but merely the substance of

not a

soul,

souls,^ fiery

atoms, which

produce

life

and motion, and where they are congregated

;

in larger masses, reason also

this is very different

from

the one force that moves the Universe, in the sense of

Anaxagoras's vovs or Plato's world-soul.^

therefore,

Other writers

who deny that he held the theory of a spirit forming the world and a Divinity ruling it, are more in accordance with the truth. The spiritual from his point
of view
is

not the power above matter collectively

;

it is

a part of matter

the only motive force

soul is the

is

gravity and
all

the sole reason

things,

why the

most movable of

and the cause of motion,

it

is

that the substances

of which

consists are on account of their size

and

shape the most easily moved by pressure and impact.

The

doctrine of spirit did not result from the general

necessity of a deeper principle for the explanation of

nature

it
;

primarily refers only to the activity of hu-

man

so ids

and though analogues of these are sought

from the corresponding statements of Anaxa-

in nature, yet the statements of Democritus concerning

spirit differ

goras and Heracleitus and even of Diogenes.

of difference
is

The point

this: that he considers spirit, not as the

as one substance side
is less

power forming the world, but only

by side with others
:

here his doctrine

advanced

than that of Empedocles, which in

many

respects it

much

resembles
'^"''

for
ttAtji/

Empedocles maintains the rationeV -nvpi

iVxypi'C^'''"'

curbs,

o-0otpoet5el, Ka\

avrhv ilvai ti]v tov

Kdafxov ij/uxV-

Principia mentis, as rightly says, apxal vo^pai. " ^ ide sup. p. 239, 3.
'

Cicero

FACULTIES OF THE SOUL.

ality

265

which he attributes
;

to all thin^-s to

be an internal

quality of the elements

represents
it

Democritus on the contrary

resulting from the mathe-

as a

phenomenon

matical construction of certain atoms in their relation

to the others
;
^

sensation and consciousness are merely

a consequence of the mobility of those atoms.

Of the faculties of the soul Democritus seems to have bestowed most attention on those of cognition
at

any

rate, tradition tells us of his

attempts to explain

these and no others.

According to what we have seen

presentations consist of

of his theories, he could only start, generally speaking,

from the presupposition that

corporeal processes.^

all

In particular he explained the

perceptions of sense as well as thought.

The former he

derived from the changes which are produced in us by

means of external impressions

'

^
;

and since every opera-

Whether

this

is

a defect

or,

as Lange, Gesch. d. Mat. i. 20, helieves, a merit in the theory of Democritus, or -whether it may perhaps be both, the logical development of a one-sided point of view, I need not here enquire. It is all the less necessary since Lange has acknowledged the substantial correctness of my representation

and are only to he understood in this connection, ^ Stob. Exc. e Joh. Darnasc. ii. 25, 12 (Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 233): Aeu/fiirTros, ATj^uo/cparTjs (-d/fpitos) tols alaOrjaeis koI ras vorjaeis irepoLwaeis ehai tov (Tufxaros.
spirit,
*

Arist. Mefapk. iv.

12, of

o, 1009 b, Democritus and others Sia

:

to

vTroKa/jL^di'eiu

<pp6vT]aiv jxev ttjv

but he at the same time remarks The want in all materialism is this: that it ends with its explanation of phenomena where the highest problems of philosophy
:

'

begin.'
2 This may also explain why the theories of Democritus on the spiritual in nature are here mentioned for the first time his interpretation of nature did not require these theories; they resulted* from his contemplation of the human
:

a^adrjcriv, ravrriv 5" dvai aWoiccaiv, th (paivofxevov kcto. ttju OLcrdria-iu e| avdyKrjs aXrjehs ^hai (pacriv. Theoph. Be Sensn, 49: Atj/jlokpltos Se rtf aWoiovadanroie? rh alaQdvecrdaL. Theophrastus goes on to observe, in reference to the unanswered question of Democritus whether each sense perceives what is like itself or what is unlike, that this may admit of a double answer so far as the sense-perception is a change, it must proceed from what is hete, . .

26(3

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

body upon another
is

tion of one
it

conditioned by touch,
all

may

be said that he represented

all

sensation as con-

tact,^

and

the senses as various kinds of touch. ^

is

This

contact, however,

not merely direct contact,

it is

more

or less the result of the emanations without

which the

interaction of things on each other would be inexplicable.

As these emanations penetrate through the organs of sense into the body, and spread through all its parts,
tliere arises

the presentation of things, sensible percepin order that this result should be attained,

tion.^

But

on the one hand there must be a certain strength in

the impression, a certain amount of permeating atoms
'*

and on the

other, tlieir material constitution

must

cor-

rogeneous, so far as like can only affect like {sup. p. 221, 2), from what is homogeneous. Cf. p. 267, 2. ' Vide sup. p. 230. - Arist. De Sensu, c. 4, ii2 a,

Koi '6rav el(r4\dr) Sia rf/s aKorjs Sia-

Kara Trav, &aTrfp ov Ta?s dAA' oKcp rcfi crwiJ.ari tt/v ataOrfaiu ovaav. ov yap ei Ka\ arvjjLX^'icrOai

aKoals

Trdax^i Tl TTJ
alffdai/erai.
a'O'^rjrreo't]

aKorj^

dia tovto koi

20

Ar]/.i.6KpLTOS
((>vTio\6y(j}i'j

5e Koi ol irKitcrroL

irdcrais

yap

[sc.

Ta7s
iroLel'

rwv

oaoi \eyou(n

irsp]

rovro ye bpLoias
IJis*

aicrdrjcrews,

aTOTTcoraTov tl -jroLovcnv'
to.

Kal ov fxSvov Tals aladijcreo'iu,

Kal rfj ipuxv-

dAAa

iravra yap
Kal
acpi]
^

aiV^Tjra arrra TroLovaii'.

Ka'iToi el ovTOt}

tovt

e^ei,

SriAou

d'S

Tuv

aWwv
rh

aladi)aecov

e/cdcTTTj

ris icTTlv.

Theophr. De Sensu, 54
fxT]

aro-

TTOV Se KoX

fxdvov tols ofijxaffiv

acvfxari /xeradLBS-

aWa
vai

KoX

Tw aAAo)

yap Sia (prjcrl Tovro Kiv6Tr)ia Kal vypdrrjTa exetj/ Selv Thv (xpQaKfxhv, 'Iv i-nnrXiov
T7)y
aiad-f](Tea)S.

SexVTO-'' 'f'
SiScf.

'''V
:

aWco

(Twfxari irapa-

opinion in regard to the other senses has not been transmitted to us, but it is clear from the above quotation that he assumed, not merely in smell and taste, but also in the perceptions of touch, the entrance of emanations into the body since he could only explain sensation as a contact of the whole soul with outer things. For the sensation of
;

in hearing, the agi 55 tated air penetrates through the

warmth seems

also to result

from
;

but especially through crav Se iurhs yeurjTai, CTKiSvaaOai Sia rh rdxos. This is further explained by what follows. aroTiov Se Ka\ hi wu {&r, Se 57 rh X^iov, better olt. Se koX Xhiov) Kara irav rh arwjxa rbv \\/6(pov elaiivai
bofly,

whole

the

ear,

the nature of this contact. * Vide sicjmt, 233, 1 p. 231, 2 Theophr. Be Se?isic, 55. The tones penetrate indeed through the whole body, but in greatest numbers through the ears, 5i6 koi Kara fxev t5 ^AAo 000fia ovK aladdueo'dai,
;

TavTTi 5k (xdvof.

THE

SEXSES.
;

267
for as like

respond to that of the organs of sense

cerned with what
as

can

only work upon like,^ so our senses can only be conis

like

them

we perceive each

thing,

Empedocles taught, with that part of our nature which is akin to it.^ If, therefore, Democritus believed that much is perceptible which is not perceived by us,
because
it is

not adapted to our senses,^ and admitted

senses

the possibility that other beings might have

which are wanting to

us,"*

it

was quite consistent with

his other presuppositions.

Vide sup., p. 221, 2. Theophr. De Sensu, 50. We see when the eyes are damp, the cornea thin and firm, the internal
'

(Anaxagoras)' (paal ')ap yivucTKeadai rh ofxoiov rw dixoitf>. " Stob. Exc. e Jok. Damasc. ii. 25, 1 6 (.^tob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv.
233) A-quOKpnos -kX^lovs fxkv ehai Tas aia6r](TeLs twu alcrdrjToiii/, TCf Se /xi] ava\oyi^eiv to. alffd-qTa t^ irK-fj:

tissues porous, the channels of the

eyes straight and dry

(TXVI^ouoTev
[sc.

kol bfxoio-

ol

ocpOaX/xoY]

tois
vii.

aTTOTvTrnvfxevois.

Sext.

Math.
us

Oei

KavQav^iv.

That
its

this

state-

116

iraKaia yap tls,

-KpoeiTTOV,

ment, which in

&uoo9eu -irapa to7s (puTiKols

KvKUrai

ho^a wepl Tov to, ouoia rS:v o^ioiwu ehai yfcvpia-TiKOL. Ka\ touttjs e5o|e
/xeu KOL

ArjiJLOKpiTos KSKO/xiiiepaL

ras

irapaixvOias,

namely

in the passage

present form is so strange, originally had the meaning assumed in the text, is of course merely a conjecture. * Plut. Plac. iv. 10, 3 (Galen, c. 24, s, 303) ArjfiOKpiTOS TrXiiovs
:

given on p. 244, 1. That the passage really stood in this connection

eluai

alffOifaeis

Trepl

to aXoya

^aJa

by Plut. Plac. iv. where an extract from it is introduced with the words Arjfxois

established

19, 3,

as Gal. has) irepl rovs deovs Kal (Tocpovs. This, as it stands, can only be an inference drawn by
Kal
(1.
fi,

some opponent, and not Pemocritus's

KpiTOS Koi TOV afpa (p-qalv iis 6ij.oi.o(TxVIJ-ova. dpvirTeadai aoifxara koi ai^'ytoIs e/c rris (p(i3vr\s Kokiv^ua-Qai Qpav(Tixa(Ti- (cf. inf. p. 269) " KoKoibs

own

assertion

but

it

clearly

yap irapa KoXoihv l^dvei," etc. On the principle that like is known by like, vide Arist. De An. i. 2, 405 b, 12 those who define the nature of the soul by its intellectual faculty, make it one of the elements, or something composed of several elements Xeyovres ira: :

shows us what Democritus really said. He mxist have asserted that animals might have senses which were wanting in other creatures, and from this an adversary, probably a Stoic, deduces the consequence, which seems to him ridiculous, that a knowledge is ascribed to irrational natures, which is not possessed by the highest intellectual natures gods ;ind wise men.

paTrATjtriws

dA^1^Aots

ttXt^v

evos

268

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

As
to the several senses,

we hear

of no peculiar

views as held by Democritus except in regard to sight

and hearing.

The

rest

are discussed

by him indeed,

but beyond the general theories noticed above, he does not appear to have advanced anything essentially new with respect to them.^

He

explained the perceptions

of sight, as Empedocles did,

by the hypothesis that

which retain the

emanations
eye,

fly off

from
;

visible things

form of the things

these images are reflected in the

and are thence diffused throughout the whole body thus arises vision. But as the space between the objects and our eyes is filled with air, the images that
;

fly off

from things
so
is

cannot themselves reach our eyes

is

what does
them.

the air which

moved by the images

as they stream forth,

and receives an impression of

that the clearness of the percep-

Therefore

it is

tion decreases with distance, but as at the

same time
it
is

emanations are going out from our eyes, the image of

the object

is also

modified by these.^
^itv,

Thus

very

Theophr. De Sensic, 49: irepX 5' ^St) twv iv ^lipei [aiadT)Koi o-ewj/] Tretparat Xeynv. 57 rrepl 6^ws Kol d/corjs ovtcos fx^u aiTo^iZwai. ras 8' aKXas ai(T0r]aeis
kKacTT-qs
:

instead of "SiV??," as Mullach thinks (and with this aura agrees), in Simpl. Phys. 73 b {Bemncr. Fr.

Phys. 6)
''SeTv
tlvoi

Ar)(x6KpLros
Trot-rbs
ttcDs

iv

oh

<pi)(n

airh

awoKpiueaOai
8e Koi inrh

The

crx^Sbv oixoias irouT rots TrAeifrrots. short statements on the sense

irai/Toiuv sldeoov,"

atria?

/xtj

Xey^i, Oikv airh

of smell, /. c. 82, and Pe Odor. 64 contain nothing particular. Cf. p. 232, 3. - E'iduXa, as they are usually called (Diog. ix. 47 mentions a
treatise

ravio^aTov Kai rvxv^ yevvav aurd. ^ The above is deduced from

Arist.
(p-qaL

ArifxoKpiros

Be Smm, c. 2, 438 a, 5 S' on fxkv tiBwp eivai

:

by Democritus irepl elSdXwv). According to the Etymol. Magn., sub voce SetVeAa, Demoeritus himself

[t^v oUrai rh

6|/ii']

Ae^et kuXcos, oti

eivai

5'

6pq,u

t7]u

fjL<pa(Tii^

(the

reflection of objects in tovto ixkv yap eye), ov Kakoos

'

the
crvjx-

and in that

made use of this word, case we ought, no

fxev

doubt, to substitute " Sei/ceAo " for

rh otl rh ujUL/xa AeToi', etc. ovu ttjv oypiv eluai vBaros aXriOfS fxiv, ov iul4vtoi (Tvfj.fiaivei rh bpav ij
fiaivet,

THE
are in themselves.^

SENSES.

260

evident that our sight does not represent things as they

sounds

is

the same.^

The explanation of hearing and Sound is a stream of atoms passIn this stream of atoms, and in
it,

ing from the resonant body, which sets in motion the

air that lies before
it.

the air which

is

moved by

atoms of like form, ac-

cording to a law noticed above, come together.^

When

these reach the atoms of the soul, sensations of hearing

vSup, oAA.' y 5ia(j)avS.
I.

Alex.
Scfisu,
'

171

h.

97 a;

fheophr. De

50

ravfxev oZv iroie7 tt? ificpdaei rriv yap ifxcpaaiv T7JI/ S' iSicvs \4yei ovK evdvs iu TJ] Koprj yii/eTdat,

opav

aWa
"

rhvadparhf iJ.To.^v
virb

T7J9o|/ecfS

kuItou

ovpav^ elLT). find a less exact statement in Plut. Plac. iv. 13, 1 (cf. Mullach, p. 402) seeing arises, according to Leucippus, Democritus and Epiciirus /car' elSwKwv eiV/fpicret? Kal Kara rivcuv
ToJ
:
:

We

bpoojxivov Tvnovadai, av(TTW6fj.i/ov

Tov dpo^jxefov Kai rod opuvros

aKTivivu iL<jKpL(nv fMSTa Tr]u Trphs to viroKifj.iPOV euTTa(TLU ttolMi/ imo-

{airavros

yap

del 711 ea6ai riva airop-

aTpe(pov(jwv irphs tt]v

o'fpiv.

How

po-nv) eTretra tovtou (TTepebv ovra

Kal

aWoxpoov
vypuls
'

e/jLcpaiueadai

7o7s ofM-

fxacTLV

Koi rh ixhf ttvkvou ov

vyphi' SiUvai.

Sex^or^o-''''''o 5'

Theo-

phrastus repeats the same statements afterwards (in 51, where, however, " Tinrov/xevov " is to be read for ^'irvKvov/xeyov"), in his discussion of this theory, and adds to them what is quoted on p. 266, &e. In support of his theory on images, Democritus appeals to the visible image of the object in the eye (Alex. I. c.) the fact that we cannot see in the dark he explains, according to Theophrastus, 55, by the supposition that the sun must condense the air before it can retain the images. Why he did not imagine that these images themselves entered the eye, instead of their impression on the air, we can see from the notice, ap. Arist. De An. i. 7. 419 a, 15: ov yap Ka\us TOVTo Aeyei ArifjLOKpnos, 0I6fjieuos, t yevoiTO Kevhf rh /xera^v,
:

the eye, in the opinion of Democritus, ought to be formed in order to see well we have already found, We are told that he also p. 267. 2. explained the reflections of mirrors on the theory of etSwAa vide Plut. Plac. iv. 14, 2, parall. Cf. Lucret. iv. 141 sqq. Vide p. 231.
;

'

Theophr. l. c. 55-57 cf. 53 Piut. Plac. iv. 19 Gell. X. A. V. 15, 8; Mullach, 342 sqq.; Burchard, Bemocr. Phil, de Sens. 12; cf. p. 266, 3; 267. 2.
2
;

Vide

p.

244,

1.

By means

of

Democritus, as it seems, sought to explain the relations and musical properties of tones which he discusses in the
treatise
it.

this conception

pvQfxwv

Kal

apfxaviris

(Diog.

ix. 48).

tone, he

might

the purer the more homogeneous are the atoms in the flux of which it consists, and the smaller these atoms are, the more acute is the tone.
say, is so

much

opaaQai av aKpi^oJs Kal

ei ju.i'p,u7j|

eV

270 are

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY

the
result.

the whole body,

But although sounds enter through we only hear with our ears, for this
mass
it

organ

is

so constructed that it absorbs the largest

of sounds and affords

the quickest passage, whereas

the other parts of the body admit too few to be perceptible to us.^

Thought has the same

same.^

origin as perception.
is

That

which perceives, and that which thinks,

Perception and thought
soul's

one and the

are

both material

changes of the

body/ and both are occasioned, like

If this

every other change, by external impressions."^

' From this point of view, the physiological conditions of an acute sense of hearing are investigated

ap.

Theophr.
-

56.
i.

Arist.

De An.

iKeivos [Atj/xJk'pitoj] fikv

ravrhv ^vxVf "' ahrfdes elvai Th <paiv6iJ.vov (of. p. rhv irotTjcrat hib KaXws 272) "OfjLTipov (in whom, however, this is not to be found concerning Hector vide the commentators on this passage, and on Mefaph. iv. ws "EKTwp and Mnllach, 346) .5,
; :

404 a, 27 yap airXws vovv rh yap

2,
:

into the mouth of Atossa, and indirectly of Democedes. 3 Stob. cf. Arist. inf. p. 271, 1 Meiaph. iv. 5 Theophr. De Scnsu, ctAAa Trep] fiev tovtwv eoiKe 72
; ;

[ATj/xofp.]

(TwriKoXovOrtKei/ai
(ppov(7u

rdis
t-^v

TToiovaiu

oAws rh

Kara

aAXoiwaiu, rjwcp iar\u

do^a.
TTOLVTes

apxai-OTaTri
ttju SidOeaiv

yap

ol TraXaiol Kal ol

TTOiTjrai Kol (ro(po\

Kara
a,

aTro5i56aa-i

rh
3,

(ppoue7u.

Cf. Arist.
:

fceTr'

h.KXo(ppQviwv. ov

Stj

xpTjraj tco

vw

u)S ?uj/ajuei tli'I irepl r7]v a\7]9cLai/,

aWa
Ibid.

ravTh x4yei ypv^V^ Koi vovv. 405 a, 8, snp. 257, 2 Metaph. iv. 5, 1009 b, 28 {infra, 271, 1) Philop. De An. A, 16 o. B, 16 Iambi, ap. Stob. FM. i. 880 ol Se nepX ArjfjiOKpiTOV iravra ra e'idrj rS)v
; ; ; :

ovvdjxeoiv els ttjv ovaiav avrris [ttjs

xl/vxvs] (Tvvayovaiv.

To

this

belongs

what

is ascribed to Deniocritus in the traditional rext of 8tob. Floril. 116,45 but instead of Democritus
:

o'l ye 21 apxcuoi rh (ppovelu Kal rh aladdueaOai ravrhv elvai (paaiv, for which, together with Empedocles' verses quoted p. 169, 2, Homer, Od. xviii. 135, is quoted, perhaps from Democritus, with the observation Trdvres yap ovroi rh voilv (TwfiariKhv wairep rh alaOdpeadac viroXa^^dvovaiv. Cf. the following note. Cic. Fin. i. 6, 21 (Democriii su7it) atomi, inane, imagines, qua idola nominant, quorum inctirsione non solum videamus, sed etiavi cogitemus. Plut. Plac. iv. 8, 3 Stob. Floril. iv. 233 Mein. No.

De An.

iii.

427

we should

doubtless read

Atj^uo/ct)-

Sous (vide Heimsoth. Democr. de An. Doctr. p. 3), for the words are
iu

Leucippus, rr]v Epicurus

18,
:

Democritus
a'laOiqriv

and
rrjv

Kal

Herod,

iii.

134,

who

puts them

yiveaQai eldcoXuji' (^mOcu npoaiovrwv, fJLrj^evl yap iiri^aKXeiv

vdrjcriv

THE SEXSES AND THOUGHT.

movement
it is

271

of such a kind that the soul

is

placed by

in the proper temperature, it will

;

apprehend objects

rightly,
it is

and thought is healthy but if, on the contrary, unduly heated or chilled by the movement imit, it

parted to
diseased.^

imagines

false

things,
to

and thought
see,

is

theory,

Though it is how thought is

is

upon this distinguished from sensible

difficult

perception,^ Democritus

very far from ascribing the

calls sensible

same value
fjLrjSerepav

to them.
'''^^

He

perception the
fiej/

X^P^^
Ct".

Trpoa-rriirTOVTOi

veovra. ws (ppcvovvTos
irapacppovovvras,

koI Tobs

Democr. ap. Sext. Maik.'n\.lS6(supra,p.'23\.S). Theophr. /. c. 58 irepl Se tov

el5di\ov.
'
:

(podvctv

eVl
fxera

Too-ouTov
ttjv
fj

eXpriK^v,

on

^ grandis v. Xiebuhr nnd Brandis, iii. 139, Gr.Rom. Phil. i. 334) supposes an
'

ov Tavrd. (Bkein. Mus.

aW'

yivcTai
iivxr^s

(TvfifiCTpws

ixovaris rrjs Kii>T]<nv iav 5e

un mitt elbares
of

Atome und
intuition
void), but

Innev.-erden dor des Leercn^ (a direct

TTt^pidepixos TLs

irepi-.pvxpos y^v-qrai.

the

iJ.TaWa.TTeiv
Trahaiovs
ia-rlu

(prjai.

Swtl kuI tovs

vTroXafie7v. otl

it is difficult

atoms and the to see how,

KaAws rovff

accoriling to Democritus's presup-

aXKotppov^'iv.

Sxttc

(pavephv

OTL rrj Kpd(Ti

(ppove7u.
jxeTo.

rov crwfiaTos Trotet rh Instead of the words

Eitter,
i.

T.

KLvnaiV)

620,

would suLstitute "Kara TTji^/cpacriv." I had myself thought of koto Trjv KivT](jiv. But it now appears to me
that the traditional text, also retained by Wimmer, is in order, and that Theophrastus intends to say: the (ppov7u (the right judgment of things, in contradistincrion to aAAo9poi/eTi/) gains entrance when the condition of the soul produced by the movement in the organs of sense is a symmetrical condition. This titatpment of Theophrastus is elucidated by the citations on p. 270, 2, and also by
iv. o, 1009 b, 28: rov "Ouripov TuuTrju exovra (palveadai t^v Bo^av (that all presentations are equally true), 8tl eVoiTjc-e rhv "EKTopa, ws i};4arr]

atoms and the void could act upon our souls otherwise than in the things compounded of them, nor how these things could act upon our souls except through the senses. Xor does Johnson's attempted explanation (p. ] 8 sq. of the treatise mentioned p. 208, 1) enlighten me. Eitter's proposal {Gesch. d. PhiL i. 620) is better: viz. to identify clear or rational knowledge with the symmetrical state of the soul (vide previous note); only in that case we
positions, the

must assume what is never ascribed to Democritus, and in itself seems

highly unlikely, that in his opinion every sensible perception disturbed the symmetry of the soul. It seems'to me most probable that Democritus never tried to establish psychologically the superiority of

Arist.
(pa<T\

Metaph.
Koi

8e

thought to sensible perception. Vide Brandis, Gesch. d. Entw.

i.

vTTo

T7JS

7r\7J77js, KiicjQai

aXKocppo-

Ho.

272

THE ATOMISTIC

rillLOSOPIIY.

dark, and the rational perception alone the true ; the real constitution of things is hidden from our senses
all

nomenon

that they show us belongs to the uncertain pheour intellect only discovers, what is too
;

subtle for the senses, the true

essence of things, atoms

and the void.^

manifest in

Though we must start from what is order to know what is hidden, it is thought

alone which can really unfold to us this knowledge.^ If, therefore, Aristotle attributes to Democritus the

opinion that the sensible perception as such

the statement
is

is

true,^
^
;

founded merely on his own inferences

because the Atomistic philosophy did not distinguish

between the faculty of perception and that of thought, therefore Aristotle concludes that it can have made no
distinction between
>

them

in respect of their truth.^

aXr]9iau

It
this

Authorities have already been

;

seems to belong to

See also 225, 3. given, p. 219, 3 Cic. Acad. ii. 23, 73. Later writers have so expressed this as to assert that Democritus ascribed reality to
the intelligible alone (Sext. Math. viii. 6) and denied sensible phenomena, which he maintained existed

connection, only no doubt the text yiueaBai fxfu perhaps is corrupt: arose out of (t^) (paiv6fxevov, and eKacrrov may be a mistake for
" eKacTTQ}"

passage

not in actuality but only in our opinion {Bnd. vii. 135). 2 Sext. 3/rt/^. vii. UO AicJxi/xos rpia KttT avrhv cKeycv dvai Kpiriipia' Tr)s ji^v Toiiu 6.5t}Kuu Kara:

?\r]\l/eus

TO.

(paLv6pi(:va,

Sos

(pTfcriv

indicates in the Metaphysics: be connected not is to e'l with dvai but with (paa\, so that because they hold the meaning is thought to be the same as sensation, they must necessarily declare the sensible phenomenon to be
*

As he himself
from

the

avayK-qs

'Ai'a^ay6pas,hv inl tovtw Aiq/xoKpLTOS

eiraive7Qr)Tr](Teo)<i

true.'
5 That such procedure is not unusual with Aristotle may be seen The from numerous examples. very passage in Metaph. iv. 5 contains only inferences of this kind upon which he founds his complaint against some of the natural philosophers, that they deny the law of contradiction. We have, therefore, no grou.nd for the

Se

Tr]v

%vvoiav

alpfiTews 5e koI (pvyris to.

'

ttolOt).

The

criteria' must here be laid, as well as the whole exposition, to the account of the narrator. 3 Ge7t. et Corr. i. 2 (.?wp.219, 2); BeAn.\.1 {mp. 270, 2) Mdaph. Likewise 265, 4). {sup. iv. 5 Theophr. T)c Sensu,l\ {sicp. 263, 3). yiveffdai fxev (Kaarov koI dvai Kar
;

THE SENSES AND THOUGHT.

is

273

impossible, however, that

Democritus could arrive

at that conclusioD without eontradictino: the

tal conceptions of his

fundamenin reality

system

for if things

consist only of

atoms which our senses do not perceive,

the senses plainly do not instruct us concerning the

true natm'e of things
;

and

if

Democritus, like Parme-

nides and Empedocles, declared

Becoming and Decay

deceives us with

to be unthinkable, he could not escape the conclusion of

those philosophers, that perception

the appearance of

Becoming and Decay, nor could he maintain the opposite assertions attributed to him by

Aristotle.

He
is

himself
so

tells

us indeed quite distinctly

It

how
less

far

he

from

doing.
to

would have been no

impossible for
:

him

admit these fiuther concluthe senses in different

sions

viz.,

that if sensation as such be true, all sensations

; ^

must be true
theory

consequently

if

(Papencordt 60, Mullach 415) that Democritus altered his opinion on this point, and discarded the evidence of the senses which at Though he first he had admitted. may with time have modified his views in regard to certain particulars (Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 7, p. 448 A), it does not follow that he could entertain at different times opposite convictions on a subject like the one we are considering, with which the very foundations of the Atomistic system are interwoven. As little can we allow (with Johnson, /. c. 24 sq.) that Aristotle's language bears this construction Democritus supposed that the
: '

themselves {ro aXrjdes, Be An. and Ge/i. et Corr.) even more decidedly than by the interconnection of the passages quoted. The theory -which, according to Johnson, Aristotle attributes to Democritus could not have been charged upon him as an erroneous opinion arising from a confusion of thought with sensation, ^ Philop. himself attributes this proposition to him. Be An. B, 16: 6.vriKpvs yap elivev ^6 A7]yL6Kpitos] on rh aX^eh koL rh cpaivofievov ravrdv icm. koI ovSev Siacpepeiv ttjv aXr^deiav koI to rfj ala-drjaei (paivoix^vov.

d\Aa t^

<paiv6uvou

l/ccto-Toj

koI rh Sokovv tqvto kuI ehai aXijdes, Sxnrep koL TipcuTayopas eXeyev.

phenomenal is actually present objectively, though it may not be in harmony with our presentation of
to ourselves.' This interpretation is contradicted by the words
it

But Philoponus has probably no

other authority than the passages
in

Aristotle,

from

which

such

a theory cannot be deduced. Nor can we take much account of the

VOL.

IT.

274

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

opposite
declarations
;

persons or at different times declare the contrary con-

cerning the same object, these

must be equally true, and therefore also equally false and thus we can never know how in truth things are
constituted.^

He

says no doubt that every thing con-

tains atoms of the

most diverse forms, and that

so differently
;

this is

the reason

why things appear

but

it

does not follow from thence that the Real itself, the

atom, has simultaneously opposite qualities.

complains of the narrowness of
declares

He
;

also

that truth

lies

in

human knowledge he how things the depth

;
;

really are constituted

we know not

our opinions change

with external impressions and corporeal conditions.^

assertion of Epiphanius, Exjj. Fid. D, that Levicippus taught ] 087 /coTO (pavraalau koI SSKr^aiv to navTa yiveadai Kol firjSeu KUTa oAr)Beiav,

truth of sensible perceptions, vide sup. p. 231, 3) 5i6 Ar)fx6KpiTos y4 (p-qffLP ^TOi ou6hv dpai dArj^es ^ rjfuv

a5r]\ou.

Pint. Adv. Col. 4,

8'

1108: 7/caAet
Gf. Arist.

avTw

[sc.

1, p. A-qjxo-

a.

1009 to (paivojxiva aX-qQiia (for the theory that

'

Meiaph.iy.
Koi
tj

5.

Kp'lTCf

38

d/JLoiws 5e

irepl

TrpayfxdTOiV

KOAWTTJS] TtpUTOV, UtI TWV Kaarov eiirwv ov /xaXXov

eiuai,

all

phenomena and presentations

are true, cf. the beginning of this chapter) eViots e/f rwv alcrdriTwv iKr}kv9ei'. t6 /Lief yap d\rj0es ov
n\7)6ii
ou5^

Kpiueadai oiovrai TrpoaiiKeLV

5'

dXiyoTrjTi, rb
TTlKpOV.

avrh to7s
elvai

/uej/

yXvKv
Se

yevo/xevnis doKelu
(ixTT
1

TOis

cuyKexvKe rhu Also i. 213. the doctrine of Democritus is akin airh yap rod to that of the sceptics To7s /uei/ yXvKv (paiu^aOai rh yue'At, ro7s 5e iriKpov, rhv AyijxdKpiTOV iiri?Koy'L^a6ai (paai. rh /xi^re yXvKv avrh eJfai /xrjre inKphy, Koi Sid rovro iiriro7ov
fiiov.
7)

To7ov

tSext.

Pyrrh.

TTaVT^S KafJ.VOl'

(pQeyyecrdai rT]v " ov /xaXKov " (pwvvv,

^ irduTes napecppSvow, Svo 5' ^ Tp7s vyiaivov ^ vovv e?xoi'. So/cetj/ Uv TovTovs Ka^viv Ktti irapa(ppove7i/,
Toifs
TOJJ/
5*

an opinion which Johnson P. Sensual, d. Demokr. 23, ought not to treat as historical eviaK^irTiKTju ovg-av
;

6.W0VS
^cioou

oij.

ert 8e TroAAots
irepl

&Woi}U

ravauTia
tjjjuv,

ruv

dence without further examination. 2 Vide previous note, and p.

224,
^

avTUU

(palveadai. Ka\

koI avT(f

1.

Se kKacTTU) irphs avrhv ov ravra Kara rr]u aicdrjcTiv ael doKe7u. Tro7a ovv

TOVTwv aXr}6ri ^ |/ei'57) &bri\ov ovOhu yap jxciWou -aSe r) TaSe aKr\dr], aAA'
the reasons given by Democritus against the
bfioiois

Ap. Sext. Math. vii. 135 sqq., besides the quotation, p. 225, 3 " krerj fxv vvv on olov eKaarov ear 11/
:

^ ovK

(essentially

deS-fjXwrai."

iariv ov ^vvUfieu, iroXXaxv '^ yiuwffKeiu re XPV

6.y6pwn-ov rcfSe rai Kav6vi,

on

ireris

SUPPOSED SCEPTICISM.
Lastly, he admits that the
trarily chosen
^
;

275

names

of things are arbi-

which might have been made use of in a sceptical sense. But that he meant by this to declare all knowledge impossible, is not credible. Had
such been his conviction, he could not have set up a
scientific svstem, or

discriminated true knowledo-e from

obscure and confused opinion.

Moreover we are told

that he expressly and fully contradicted the scepticism

of Protagoras," which, according to the above statements,

he must have shared

eristics

and that he sharply censured the

of his time.^
" StjAo?
fj.hv

The
5ri

later

sceptics

themselves

otTrTJAAoKTOJ."'

koI

ovTos 6 Xoyos, on ovh^^v "i^ixev nepl ovSevos, aAA' iirtppvaniT) sKaaTOiaiv

7]

So^is.'

''

KairoL SrjXop ecrrci, on,

eTefj olov CKatTTOi'. yii/w(TKeiv, iv airopcf

'

cVtiV."

Ap.

Diog.

ix.

72

eT7? Se oiiShv t^iiew er ^v6^ yap r) a\T}6iir} " (the last is also ap. Cic.

sons. The further development of these arguments as given by Proclus cannot be referred to JDemocritus. Cf. Steinthal. Gesch. d. Sprachwissensch. bei Gr. u. Rom. 76, 137 sqq., with whose explanation of these expressions I do not. however, entirely agree the vwivaov
:

Acad. n.
as

10,

32).

Such passages

especially,

he seems to

me

to have

doubtless the only foundation for the remark of Sextus, Math. viii. 327. that the empirical physicians dispute the possibility of demonstration rdxa 8e
are
:

these

misconceived. Some linguistic writings of Democritus, on the authenticity of which we cannot decide, are mentioned by Diog. ix.
48.
-

Kol Arj/xSKpLTOS,
5ia

Tuv Kavovuv

'iTxvpws yap avrfj avTelprjKev, indi-

Plut.

I.

c.

aWa. toctovtov ye
^
toIov

ArjfioKpiros dTroSe? rod vofjii^eiv, ^rj

otherwise rdxa would be unnecessary. Procl. in Crat. ] 6 supposes that the ovofiara are fleVei according to Democritus. In support of this view he brings .furward
rectly,
' '

fxaWov
yopa

eiuai

roiov

twv

TTpayixdroov
ToJ

eKacrrov,
aocpiarf]

ucrre UpccTa-

tovto

elirovTL

,uefxaxriadsi Ka\ yeypa<p4i'aL KOL TTidava irphs ahrov. Sest.

vii.

iroWa Moth.

389

iraaav
Tis

iJ.hv

oZv (pavracriau
dia
rriv irfoi-

and vuvv/xov, and contends that many words hare several meanings, many things several names and also many things which, judging from analogy, we might expect to have a distinct designation have none
'KoXv(n]jxov laoppoirov
;

ovK

etiToi

a\r)6ri

KaOws o re ArifjLOKpiTOS kol 6 TlKaTwu avTiXeyoures rai UpoTay6pa iSiSacTKov. Cf. ibid. vii. 53. 3 Fr. Mo. ap. Plut. Qu. Com: i. 1. 5. 2 Clem. Strom, i. 3, 279 D. he complains of the Ae|ei5ia;;/
Tpoirrjv,
;

he seems likewise to have appealed to the change of the names of per-

dfjpaTopis, {ijAwTttl TexvvSpiwy, fpiSdvTks Kal LuavTeAiKTifs.

T 2

276

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

and even
ill

point out the essential difference between his doctrine

and theirs

;
'

Ai'istotle records his

testimony
all

(which harmonises
knowledge), that of

with the supposed denial of

all

the pre-Socratic philosophers he

concerned himself the most with definitions of conceptions. ^

\\Ve must, therefore, suppose that the complaints

of Democritus as to the impossibility of knowledge are

intended only in a narrower sense

only of the sensible

it is

perception does he maintain that

limited to the

changing phenomenon, and guarantees no true knowledge.

On

the other hand, he does not deny that reason

may

be able to perceive in the atoms and the void the

true essence of things, though he deeply feels the limitations of

human knowledge and

It is

the difficulties in the

way
all

of a profound enquiry.

quite compatible with

this that he should not be deterred

by the abundance

of his

own knowledge and

observations, from warning

us in the spirit of Heracleitus against indiscriminate

Sext. Pyrrh.

i.

213

sq.

5ta-

TrpayixarevofjLevov

(popws fifVTOL xp^vrai rf} " oii /xaXAOV ' (pwvfj di T6 SKeTTTlKol KOi 01
a-rrh

Koi irepl rovrwv opi^eaOai Kad6Xov ^r]TovpT09 rrpcvrov

TWV

^ikv

flip

(pVfflKOIV

cVt

fXlKphv

rov
airh

ArjjwoKpiTou

^KUi>oi
j/

fxkv

Arj^uo/cpiTOS

7^i|/aT0

fxovov

KoX

wpi-

yap
rov

tov

/arjS

e'repo

eJuai
8e
eTri

aarS nus rh
ii.

depiihv Koi rh \pvxp^v,

;

raTTOVcri tt]v (pwuTjv,

rf/xe^s

ayvoilv irSrepou afi(p6Tpa ^ ouScTepov tI icrri rS)v

(paivofjiivwv.

&c. (vide sitp. Vol. I. 505, 3) Pki/s. 2; 194 a, 81: els /xeu yap rovs airo^Ki^avTi S(^|6iej/ av a.ox'<-ovs
eli^at
[t/

7rpoSr)A.OTaT7}

Sr;

yiue-

(pvais^

ttJs

uArjs

eTrl

fjLL-

rai

7]

SiaKpiais. orav

b ArifJi.6KpLTOS

X4yi]
ircrj

fjLev

" irefj 8e aro/ua /cat Keu6u." yap \iyei avrl rov dA.7jKar^
aKriQeiav
Se

Oeia.

ixpeardiai
Kevhi/,

\4y(i)v

ras re arojxovs koi rh

T}ixuv
.

on dievwox^f
olfiai
2

irepirrhv

\yiiu.

Kpov yap tl jxipos 'EfiinSoKXris Ka\ Av/Ji-^Kpnos rov eiooi/j Kal rov ri i]v eivai ri'pauro. That Democritus did not altogether satisfy later demands in this respect, "we see from the proposition censured by Aristotle, Sext. Part. An. i. 1, 640 b, 29
;

Part. Anim.
;

i.

1,
;

cf.

Vol.

I.
:

Math.

vii.

264: ipOpwirSs eVri

185, 3 Metaph. xiii. 4 1078 b, 17 2/cpaT0us 5e irepl ras ijdiKas aperay

iravres IS/iev.

ETHICS OF DEMOCRITUS.
learning, and from placing- thought higher than
pirical

277

emonly

knowledge

that he should assert that

men

arrived at culture by degrees, ha^4ng borrowed, as he

thinks,

some

arts

from the animals

that they at

iirst

strove only to satisfy their

most necessary wants, and

life
;

then, in the course of time, to beautify their

on

which account Democritus

insists

all

the more that

education should come to the help of nature, and by

the remodelling of the man, bring forth in
nature."*

him

a second

We recognise in all these sayings

a philosopher

who

does not undervalue the labour of learning:, and

does not content himself with the knowledge of external

phenomena, but by no means

despairs of knowledge.

a sceptic

who

absolutely

A
critus

philosopher

who

discriminates the sensible pheso

nomenon from
does,

true essence
fail
life

decidedly as

Demo-

cannot

to

seek

the

problem and

happiness of

human

in the right constitution of

mind and temperament, and not

external

in submission to the

Such a character is stamped on all that has been handed down to us of his moral views and principles. But however clear this may be, and however numerous the ethical writingfs which are
world.
attributed to
1

him

'^

(sometimes indeed unwarrantably),

:

Fr.

Mor. 140-142

iroKvvoov ovk Ixoi^cj. voiriv ov TToXv^aQi-qv aaKeeiv XPVfir] iravra iTritfraadai Trpodiifico, /u.7) TrdvTwv afxadr,s yeuri. I must abandon my previous doubts as to the Democritean origin of these fragments, as, according to the above remarks, they harmonise well with the views of this philosopher. Fiut.Solert.Ani/n.29,\,-p.97i.
TToA.u/u.aSees
-

TroAAot

Philodem. Be Mus. iv (Vol. i. 13o, ap. Mullach, p. 237). On this subject cf. Arist. MetajjL i. 2, 982 b, 22. * Fr. Mor. 133: ^ (pvais Ka\ t] SiSax''? wapair'^iicTLov ian kuL yap tov ^.vdpocirov f? diSaxv ixiraphvauoi
3

Hercxil.

/x^Tappvaijiovaa 5e (pvaioiroieeL.
^ Cf. Mullach, 213 sqq. Lortzing in the treatise named on p. 208, 1. The fragments on morals

278

THE ATOMISTIC TIIILOSOPHY.

still far

he was

from

tlie

scientific

treatment of Ethics

which

was

inaugurated
its

by

Socrates.
is

His

ethical

doctrine in regard to

form

essentially

on a par

with the unscientific moral reflection of Heracleitus we can see indeed a distinct and the Pythagoreans
;
^

view of

life

running through the whole, but

this

view

is

not as yet based upon general enquiries concerning the

nature of moral action, nor carried out into a systematic
representation of moral activities and duties.

In the

manner

of the ancient ethics, he considers happiness as

life
:

the aim of our

pleasure

and aversion are the

;

measure of the useful and injurious

the best thing for

man

is

to

go through

life,

enjoying himself as much, and

troubling himself as

little, as possible.^

But Democritus
is

does not conclude from this that sensuous enjoyment

the highest end.

Happiness and unhappiness dwell not

is

in herds or in gold, the soul

the abode of the daemon

^
:

not the body and wealth, but uprightness and

intelli-

gence produce happiness {Ft.

soul

5)

the goods of the

of the

are

the

divine

goods,
de

those
virti'.te
-

body, the

(which, for the sake of brevity, I quote only according to the numbers in this collection), ap. Mull, Deraocr. 160 sqq. Frag. Philos. i.
;

quidem dicta. Fr. Mor. 8 ovpos ^v/xcpopeoDv koI

:

a^v/xcpopewv Tep|/is koi arepTrir].

To

3-iO sqq.
'

Cic.

Fin.

v.

29, 87

Demo-

critus neglected his property quid quaerens alhcd, nisi heat am vitam?

quam si etiam in rerum cognitione ponebat, tamen ex ilia investiga.tio?ie naturae consequi volebat, ut esset bono animo. Id enim ille summum bonum, evdvfxiav et saepe adaixfiiav
i.e. aniimim terrore Sed haec etsi praeclare, nondum tamen et perpolita. Pauca

the same eflFect Fr. 9 (cf. Lortzing, instead of the incomprep. 28 hensible ireptiqKfxaKorwv, we might TrpTjKTeojv). Fr. 2 conjecture &pi(rTov avOpairq} rhu $iov Stdyeiv ws irX^tcrra euOvix-nOevn Kal iXaxia;

ra avir^devn, which is so expressed in Sextus {stip. p. 272, 2), as to

make the

appellat,

liberum.

sensations the criterion of desire and detestation. ' Fr. 1 eudaiixovir) ^vxv^ KaKodai/xovir} ouk iv fioaKrifxaa-i ol:

Kiei, ouS' fV

xp^^Vf ^^Xh

5' ot/cTjT'jj-

enim, neqtie ea ipsa enticleate ab hoc

piov Salfxovos.

ETHICS OF DEMOCRITUS.
human.^

279
are an

Honour and wealth without wisdom

is

uncertain possession,^ and where reason

wanting,

man

knows not how

fear of death.^

to enjoy life or

how

to

overcome the
is
'^

Not every enjoyment

therefore

desirit

able, but only the

fitting that

enjoyment of the beautiful

is

man

should bestow more care on the soul

than on the body,^ that he

out of himself.^
essential nature consists

may

learn to create his joy

its

In a word, happiness according to

disposition

only in cheerfulness and well-

being, a

right

and unalterable peace of

mind/

These, however, will become the portion of

man

the more surely, and the more perfectly, the more

he knows how to keep measure in his appetites and

enjoyments, to discriminate the
jurious, to avoid

useful

from the in-

wrong and unseemly, and to limit himself in his actions and wishes to that which corresponds with his nature and ability.^ Contentment,
what
is
'

^ '
*

^ *

Fr. Fr. Fr. Fr. Fr. Fr.

Cic.

6,

vide sup. p. 262,

1.

crOai 5'

avTr]u Sk tov
rHiv
ejvai

Siopirrfiov Ka\

58, 60.

rris

diaKpiyeoos

Tjdovuv

Koi

51-56.
cf. 19. 3 l28, vide step. p. 261, 3.
;

toDt'

rb

KaXXLcrrov
avdpwirois.

re

koX

avfxcpopwraTov

Clem.
[reA-or

Strom,

ii.

417 A:

ArijxoKp. jxkv iv

avrhu

e|

eavTOv ras
;

r^

irepl

t4\ovs

ttjv ^vdvfxiau

T^pipias idi^6fjLevov Xa/x$duciv.

eivai SiSacr/cci]

Theod. sup. p. 278, 1 xi. 6, vide p. 98, 2 Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1 088 Diog. reXos 8' dvai ttjj/ evdv/jLiav, ix. 45
^

Cur. Gr. Af.

:

01*

T7/J/

efioi

auT^j/ odaau rfj Tj^ovr}, ws irapaKovaavres i^riyfjcravTo.aA-

Aa Kad' Tjf yaXvvCjs koI evaradcos rj ^uxv Oidyei, wrh fi-qSevos raoaTTO/ueVrj

%v koX eueeTTw TTpoa-r}yopevcreu. Cf. the following note. l)iog. 46 and Seneca, Tranqu. An. 2, 3, mention a treatise, tt. ehdvfiir}s, "which is probably identical with the euecrro; described by Diogenes as lost. What Stobseus calls Ataraxia is designated by Strabo, i, 3, 21, p. 61, as adavuacrria, and

TLvhs

(po^ov ^ Sfia-iSaLfinvias ^ 6.K\ov rrddovs. KaXel S' avTT)v koL

K.a\

by
Fr.

Cicero,
^

l.

c, as ada/iBia.

eveCTOJ
Koi

Stob. Eel.
evi<TT(ti

iroWoTs &Wois ov6jxaaiv. ii. 76 tt?!/ 8* evdvixiav

:

Vide the previous note, and a.vOpwtroi.(n yap evdvfiir) 20

;

yiuerai. /xerpiOTTjTi rep'^ios Koi fiiov

Kol ap/xoviav <Tv/j.,uTpiav

T Kol arapa^iav Ka\e7,

avyiara-

luMMerptp, ra Se \eiirovTa Koi {nrep^dWovra jjierairiirTeiv re (pi\4ei Kal

'2S0

Tim ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

moderation, purity of deed and thought, culture of the

mind, these Democritus recommends as the way to true

happiness.

He

allows that happiness

is

reached only
{^Fr.

with labour, that misery finds

man unsought
all

10)

but he maintains notwithstanding that

fault if he

the means of

happiness are assured to him, and that

makes a wrong use of them.

;

it is his own The gods give

man
The

nothing but good

;
^

only man's folly turns the good

to evil

as the conduct of a

man

is,

such

is his

life.^

art of happiness consists in using

and contenting
life is

oneself with

what one has

got.

Human

short
:

and

needy and exposed to a hundred vicissitudes

he who
for
;

recognises this will be satisfied with moderate possessions

and not require anything beyond necessaries

happiness.

his

What

the body needs

is

easily earned

that

which makes trouble and

fxeydkas
at S'
e/c

difficulty is
\(aTepov

an imaginary want.^
ttjs

KivrjCTias iixiroi^eiv Tj] \pvxfj,

ixeyaXoyKirjs.
:

Cf,
et

fieydKwp SLaaJTjjxaTwv Kiveofxevai (that -which moTes backwards and forwards between two extremes) rwu xpvx^^^v oure dharad4es eicrt ovre evOvfjLOi.. In order to PS(?ape this, JJeniocritus advises that we should compare ourselves, not with those who have a brighter lot, but a worse, that so we may
find
it

M.

Aurcl.ix. 24

''OA.i7a

Trpfjo'tre,"

(p-ojlu

(who,
:

it

is

not stated) "

QeoX
Totffi

yue'AAeis evOv/j.'fia-^iv"
'

Fr. 13

o'l

avOpdokoX tto-

iroLai Sioovai

rayaOa iravra
tiAtju

Kai koL vvv,

kuI

dj/oic^eAea.

raSe

oirSaa fiAafiepa 8' ov TraAai

easier

eVl To7(n ^vvaToiiai

exeii/ T7?v 7J'w/i7]j' Kai ToTo't 7raper)D(rt

ovtc vvv Qeoi avQpdnroiiri. Scopeovrai dAA' avrol To7a5eai i/j.TrKd(ovai Slo, voov TvcpXoTTjTa koI a.yvoofxo(xvn]v. Fr. 12-: ctTr' uu rj/x7v rdFr. 11.

apKeeadai.

good
is

Fr. 118: He who with courage does righteous

;

yaOa
kuko.

deeds

he

free from care despises the right is troubled by fear and by the remembrance of his deeds. Fr. 92: rhv evQvjXi^aOai fxeWovra XPV I^V TToAAd irpricrffeLv /J-Vte IS'lt) /xrjTe ^vvfj, fXTj^e ciaa' av irpi^aar) inrep

happy and

who

avT^uv Kal rd ruv 5e av KaKcov iKxhs iXrifiev (we could remain free from it). Cf. Fr. 96
yivPTai, aito tcov
e7rauptfr/coi/ie0'

Most

evils

come
:

to

men from

within. Fr. 14, swp. p. 288, 1. ' Fr. 45 To7ffi 6 rpoTros eVrl cutuktos, TOVTeoiai Kal fiius ^upt4TaKTai.
^

re duva/JLiv alpeecrdai
(puaiv,

rrji'

icavTov Ka\

Fr.

22,

&c.

7}

yap

euoyKiTj

adcpa-

XPvC^^

olSe,

cf. 23 and 28 t^ OKoaov [perhaps, -av^

:

ETHICS OF DEMOCRITVS.
The more a man
ness
is

281
insatiable-

covets, the

more he requires

worse than the extreme of want.

contraiy,

{Fr. 66-68.)
little,

To him, on the
suffices
;

who

desires

little

restriction of

desire

makes poverty

riches.^

He who

has too much, loses that which he has, like

the dog in the fable {Fr. 21); through excess every

pleasure becomes a pain (37)
faction which
fool
;

moderation, on the other

hand, increases enjoyment (35, 34), and ensures a satisis

independent of fortune (36).

He

is

what he has not, and despises what is at his command (31) the sensible man enjoys what he has, and does not trouble himself about what he has
desires
;

who

not. 2

The

best

is

therefore always the right measure,

evil.^

excess
self is

and deficiency come of

the noblest victory
conquers,
(i^r.

To conquer oneis

75); he

the valiant

man who
(76)
;

not

enemies merely, but desire

is
it

to overcome anger indeed

difficult,

but the

rational

man becomes
in mistortune

master of
is

(77)

to be right-

minded

great (73), but with under(74)

trouble.

standing,

we can conquer

Sensuous
;

enjoyment affords but short pleasure and much pain

and no satiating of

appetites'*

only the goods of the

soul can give true happiness

and inward contentment.-^

is

Wealth gained by
XpT^C"-'';

injustice
yivaxTKeL.

an

evil

culture

is

5e

xPvC^v ov

xPvCot' I formerly referred to the body, and I stiU.

The neuter rb

enjoyed bv poverty, of being secure from jealousy and enmity,

^

Fr. 29,
pf.

cf.

42.
iravrl to

think this is possible; though I admit that Lortzing's (p. 23) reading. according to which to xpvC^v is the beast and 6 XPVC'^^ i^^^-

05: kqXov in\

Cf, Fr. 33.

tcrov,
fioi

wrep^oXr] 5e koI eWeirl/is ov

-?"''

Sok^si.
*

47,

cf.

46, 48.
p. 279, 7, 8.

makes good
1

sense.

Vide supra,
Fr. 61,
cf.

sq.

Fr. 24, cf. 26, 27, 35 sq., 38 cf. Fr. 40, on the advantage

62-64.

282

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

;
^

better than possessions

no power and no treasures

can be equivalent to the extension of our knowledge.^

Democritus demands therefore that not merely deed

and word,^ but the

justice; that

will

also,"*

shall be

pure from in-

man

should do good, not on compulsion,

{^Fr.
'^

but from conviction

135), not from hope of reward,

but

for its

own sake
not from

and should keep himself from

but from a sense of duty
;

evil (117),

fear,

he
all

should be more ashamed before himself than before

others,

to no one or to all

and avoid wrong equally whether it will be known ^ he says that only that man pleases
:

the gods

who

hates wrong

the consciousness of doing

right alone brings peace of

mind (i^r. Ill); doing makes a man more unhappy than suffering wrong wrong (224). He extols wisdom, which guarantees us
the three greatest goods

to think truly, to speak well,

and to act rightly

1

^
;

he holds ignorance to be the cause

Lortpro4, 71,
'

Fr.

136.
i'>. 18,

With
with

this

Fr. 107,

cf.

242.

zing, 23, connects

much

bability
if

Stob. F/or/^.

indeed by the eiSaha eaQriri (Meineke has this word instead of aladrjTiKo.) the emptiness of the ostentatious man is meant to be
described.
27,

Dionys. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 3: ArifxSKpiTos yovv avrhs. u>s eAe7e fiovKcadai [xaWou (pacriu,
2

fiiav eupetv alTioXoyiav,

ttiv riep-

(Twu ol ^a<ri\eiai/ yeveadai.

Democritus, according to Diog., ix. 46; Suid. rpiToy. (cf. Schol.-Bekker in II. 0, 39; Eustath. ad 11. 0. p. 696, 37 Kom. Tzetz. ad Lyco])hr. v. 519 Mullach, p. 119 sq.), had composed a work, TpiroyeveLa, in which he explained the Homeric Pallas and her other names as wisdom: '6ti rpia yiyverai e| out^s, & iravra ra avOpuiinva crwex^h namely, eS A.071^eadai, Kty^iv kuKws, opBws irparTeiv.
^
; ;

Fr. 103, 106, 97, 99. Fr. 109: ayaOhv ov t6 jxr] aZiKieiv, aXKa rb /uTjSe edfKciu. Cf. Fr. 110, 171. ^ Fr. 160: xP"'''''"f^s (beneficent) ovK 6 ^keirwu irphs r}}v afji.01^V, aAA' 6 eS dpav TrpoT)pT)ixeuos.
3 <
"

Fr. 98, 100, 101.

Lortzing, p. 5, considers this an interpolation, and I do not deny that it may be so but such allegorical language does not seem to exceed that which is elsewhere ascribed to Democritus and his contemporaries (cf. p. 251. 4 255, 2; 287, 3; Part iii. a, 300,
;

ETHICS OF DEMOCEITUS.
of all faults
:

283

and recommends instruction and practice

as the indispensable

means

of perfection

he warns

men

against envy and jealousy,^ avarice'* and other faults.

All that has been

handed down to us of the writings of

Democritus shows hirn to have been a

man

of extensive

experience, acute observation, earnest moral tempera-

ment and pure

cerning social
life

principles.

His utterances,

too, con-

correspond with this character.

The

value of friendship, with which Greek ethics was so

deeply penetrated, he rates very highly

righteous
live
-^

he who has no
not to
better

man

for

his friend,

he

says, deserves

but the friendship of one wise

all fools

man

is

than that of
however, a

{Fr.

163)

in order

to be loved,

man

must, on his

side, love others (171),

it is

and

this love is only fitting

when
also

not defiled by any

unlawful passion.^

So

Democritus recognises the

declares indeed that the

necessity of the state.

He

wise
that

man must
a

be able to live in every country, and

its

noble character has the whole world for

fatherland,^ but at the same time he says that nothing

is so

important as a good government, that

falls

it

embraces
it
;

all

things and everything stands and

^

with

he

2nd ed.). It is quite different from that employed by the Stoics {ibid. Besides, the words need 308, 1). not necessarily have formed part of the main content of the treatise,
they
tion.
1

Fr. 68-70. Fr. 162. cf. 166. Fr. 4 StKctos epws avv^picttws icpUadai twu koKHcv, -which
^

may have been merely an

some moral
reflec-

introduction to

does not seem to me rightly to understand. " Fr. 225 avdpi aocpw iraaa 777 fiarr}- ^pvxvs yap ayadris varpls 6
Miillach
:

a/jLadif}
2

Fr. 116: aixapTirjs TOv Kp4<T<Tovos.

cutitj

t]

^vfj.iras
^

Koajios.

Fr.

212:

to.

Kara

rriv iroXiv

Fr. 130-134, 115,

sq.

cf.

85
sq.

sq.,

236
'

Xi^^^^ '^'^^ \onrui/ fxeyiara rjyeeadai OKCDS &^TaL e5, ^Tjre (piXovciKsovTa
irapa rh
iireiKks
ix'r]Te

Fr. 30, 230, 147, 167

lax^v Iwin-t^

284

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

is

thinks the distress of the commonwealth

that of individuals
;
^

worse than
plenty and

he would rather

live in poverty

and freedom under a democracy, than dependence with the great {Ft, 211).

in

He acknow-

ledges that nothing great can be accomplished except

is

by unanimous cooperation (Fr. 199), tliat civil discord under all circumstances an evil (200) he sees in law
;

a benefactor of

men

(187), he requires

dominion of the

best (191-1 94), obedience to authority and law (189 sq.,

197), unselfish care for the

common good (212), general

;

willingness to help others (215)

he deplores a state of

things in which good rulers are not duly protected,

rulers

and the misuse of power is rendered easy for evil ^ and in which political activity is connected
;

with danger and misfortune.^

at one with the best

Democritus

is

therefore

men

of his time on this subject."^

;

His opinions on marriage are more peculiar

TrpiTidij.evov

but their

^vvov.
yi(TTT]

rapa rb xpWT^^ tov yap v ayofiivr] (xiopOwcris iarf Koi iv Tovrcf frdvra cui, Koi rovrov aw^o/x^uov
iroAis
/cat

iravra aui^iTai,

tovtov

(pOeipo-

Plut. adv. Col. 32, 2, p. 1126: A-q/xoKp. jxkv wapaiv^'irriv r^TTo\LriKT)v Txvr]v
TO.

u4uov

Trdura Siacpdeiperai.

ixeyiarriu

ovaav iKbiddaKeadaL kol Tovs ir6iovs dicoKeLV, a.(p' wv to /tiey6,\a Koi Xa/jLnpa yivovrai tols dvdpwirois, cf. Lortzing, p. 16. F7\ 43 diropir) ^vvr) rrjs eKa'
:

(TToi/xa'^ejrwTepTjeATTts iiTLKovpias.
'^

ou7ap

LtTToAeiVeTai

text
3

is

Fr. 205, where, however, the not quite in order. Fr. 214.

So

understand

Fr.

213:
d/xe-

Tolai

xPVO'To^ai ov ^v/xcp^pov XiovTO-s Tola I [twj/] kwvTuiv

etc.
;

dWa

unconditional sense, this warning against political activity would not be in harmony with the other principles of Democritus. Cf. in addition to the above quotations Fr. 195. What Epiphanius, ^j^. Fid. 1088 A, relates of him: that he despised existing authority and acknowledged only natural right, that he declared law to be an evil inv^ention, and said the wise men should not obey the laws but live in freedom, is manifestly a misapprehension. The art of exegesis as practised at a later date might easily fmd in the citations, p. 219, 3, the universal opposition of vd/xos and (pixris, little as this applies to civil laws.

TTpi^aanv,

lor

taken in an

ETHICS OF DEMOCEITUS.
peculiarity

285

and
it
:

his

is not od the side where from hi> materialism seeming eudsemonism we might expect to find

in

a higher moral view of marriage is indeed wanting him, but not more so than in his whole epoch.

chiefly offends him in marriage is not the moral, but the sensual element of this relation. He has a horror of sexual enjoyment, because consciousness is

What

therein overcome by desire, and the

man
;

gives himself

over to the debasing charm of the senses.^

rather a low opinion of the female sex
^

He
and

has also

desires to

have no children because their education withdraws

men

from more necessary

tain
;

activity,

and

its results

are uncer-

children

and though he acknowledges that the love of is universal and natural, he esteems it more

prudent to take adopted children

than to beget others in the case of

whom one whom it

can choose,
is

a chance

how they turn

opinions are

Though we must allow that onesided and defective, we have no

out.

these

right

on that account to

raise against the ethical principles

of Democritus, as a whole, objections which

raise against Plato in spite of his

we do not community of wives,

nor against the Christian votaries of asceticism.

Whether Democritus
'
:

has connected his ethics with

mocritus fur declining marrijige and the possession of children because thev Avotild be a disturbance to him in his eudsemonism, but this is a misunderstanding; the aTjStat, which Democritus fears, refer to the trouble occasioned by

a/MiKpii-

^vuova-'nj aTroTrhTj^iT] Fr. 50 eleVcurat yap 6.vd()wnos e|

dj/^paSTTou (to

which should probably

koX

be
Fr.
/cat

added
49
(T(pi
:

a-KocnraraL

TrX-nyrj

Tii/i jUpi^(5;uej/os, cf.

Lortzing 21
rolcn

sq.).

^vo^i^voi ivOpcoiroi

T^Sovraj

yiveraL

airep

acppo-

5iaLd(ov(ri.

Fr. 175, 177, 179. ^ Fr. Theodoretus, 184-188. Cur. Gr. Aff. xii., censures De-

misguided children. Theodoretus is only quoting from Clemens, Strom. ii. 421, c, who does not, however,
express himself so decidedly.

286

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

manner that we must
is

his scientific theories in such a

regard them as essentially part of his system,

question
;

another

and

can only answer

it

in the negative.

There

is

indeed a certain connection between them, as

;

already observed
sensible

his

theoretic

elevation

above the

phenomenon must have inclined the philosopher

and
his

in the moral sphere also to ascribe small value to external things

;

insight into the unchangeable

order of nature must have awakened in

viction that
it

him the con-

was best to find satisfaction and content-

ment
did

in that order.

But

so far as

we know, Democritus
;

little

himself to elucidate this inter-dependence

he did not enquire into the nature of moral activity

generally, but promulgated a

number

of isolated ob-

servations and rules of

tainly

life,

which are connected certhese

by the same moral temper and mode of thought,

definite
scientific conceptions
;

though not by

ethical propositions, however, stand in so slight a con-

nection, that they

might one and

all

have been ad-

vanced by a person to

whom

the Atomistic doctrine

However remarkable and merimay, be, and willingly as we accept them as a proof of the progress of moral reflection, also evinced contemporaneously by the Sophistic and Socratic doctrine, we can, nevertheless, only see in them an outwork of his philosophical
was entirely
alien.

torious therefore the ethics of Democritus

system, which can have but a secondary importance in

our estimate of that system.

It is the
religion.^

same with the views of Democritus about That he was unable to share the belief of
what follows Krische, Forschungen, 146
sqq.

Cf. for

RELIGION AND THE GODS.

his nation as to the

287
in
all

gods
the

is

evident.

The Divine,
on which

the

proper sense,
is to

eternal

essence
or

depends,

totality of the

him only Nature, atoms moved by

it
is

their weight

more accurately, the and form-

ing the world.

If the gods are substituted for this in

popular language,

merely a form of expression.^

In a secondary manner he seems to have desig-nated

the animate and rational elements in the world and in
as the Divine, without meaning by it anything more than that this element is the most perfect matter and the cause of all life and thought.''^ Moreover he

man

perhaps

named

the stars gods, because they are the

fire
;

chief seat of this divine

and- if he had also as-

cribed reason to them, this would not have contradicted the presuppositions of his system.

In the gods of the

popular faith, on the contrary, he could see only images

of the fancy
:

he supposed that certain physical or

air

moral conceptions had originally been represented in them, Zeus signifying the upper
&c., but that
;

Pallas,

wisdom,

these forms had afterwards been errofor

neously taken
existence.'*

actual

beings, having

a personal
this opinion,

That men should have arrived at

280,
'

^ Ft. 3for. 13, supra, Similarly, Fr. Mor. 107

1.

fjiovvo

mocritus stcspicatur this is probably a reference to the origin of

;

e0(pL\4es,
k4iv.

'6(roi<Ti

^x^p^v
:

rh

a^i-

Ka\6v. In rh the quotation, p. 267, i, the mention of the gods, as is there shown, cannot belong to Democritus, who, however, might still have spoken of them hypothetically.
-

Fr. Mor. 250 ^laXoyi^eaQai del

deiov

voov

Cf. p.

262

sq.

Tertull.

Ad Nat.u.

Cum

reliquo igni superno

Deos ortos De-

the stars it might also, less fitly, be connectecf -with the existences presently to be discussed, from -vrhieh the etSwAa emanate. That the stars were regarded as gods is shown by the explanation of ambrosia, noticed p. 2ol, 4. Clemens, Cohort. 45 B (cf. Strom, x. 598 B. and concerning the text, Alullach, 359 Burchard. Democr. de Sens. Phil. 9 Papen; ;

288

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

he explained partly from the impression which extraordinary natural phenomena, such as tempests, comets,
solar

and Imiar

eclipses, &c.,
it

produce on them,^ and

partly he believed

to be

foimded on real observations

Free therefore as
of the phe

which were not rightly understood.

is

his

attitude in regard to the popular religion, he

all

cannot resolve to explain

that

it relates

nomena
more

of higher natures, and their influence on

:

men,

absolutely as deception

it

might rather seem

to

him

consistent with his sensualistic theory of knowledge

to derive these conceptions also from actual external impressions.

He
oQ^v
roov

assumed, therefore,^ that there dwell in

aTreiKOTws 6
avOpwircov

cordt.

72)

ovk

ra

Avi-LOKOiTOS

\oyiwv

avar^lvavTas ras (prjrrh oXiyovs Xc7pas ivravda ov vvv r/epa KaXiojXiV 01 "EAATji/es TrdvTa (this seems to

ayaOowoid, to. 5e kukovOu Kal evx^Tai ^vK6yx(fV (so I read, with Krische, p. 154
fxhv eJvai
iroid.
;

Burehard, I. c. and others, for u\6ywv on account of the passages quoted, inf.) tv^^'^v el^doXcov. elvai Se ravra fxtydXa t Kal vnepfxeyddri Kal Sva(()6apTa ij.6v. ovk d(pQapra Se, irpon'qixa'iv^iv re ra ^ueA-

be incorrect, thcmgh it was doubtMS. used by Clemens perhaps we should read iravT^s, or still better. ivaT^pa) Ata uvOeeaOai, Kal (a a>s or voixi(Lv us seems to have dropped out here) iravra ovtos
less in the
;

Xovra ro7s

avdpcairoLS,

Oeoopov/jLeva

oTSev

KoX

5i8oT

Kot

a(paip4erai
iravroiv.

Koi

(Thus far also, almost word for word, the anonyKal (pwvds a(pLvra.

fiaaiKevs ovtos

twv

On

Pallas, vide p. 282, 8.

mous commentary on Aristotle's De Divin. p. s. Simpl. Be Anima,

;

Sext. Mafh. ix.

19.

Demo-

critus is of the number of those who derive the belief in gods from

extraordinary natural phenomena

bpS}VTS yap,
recvpois
epciirwi',
(prfffi,

"KaQrmaTa
Kaddirep

ol

ra iv ro7s fieTraXaioi twv avkol

and, very similarly, Themist. on the ssme work, p. 295. Both substitute evX6x(^v for Sp. vX6ywu. and leave out before virep^xeyiQi] the words fieydXa re Ka), which are no doubt glosses.) odev

p 148, Aid.

fipovras

aa-

rovrav avroiv (pavracriav Xa$6ures

ol iraXaiol

K^pavvovs re koI 6,o'Tpa)v 7vv6Sovs (comets, so also p. 252, 3; Krische. 147") vXiov re kol treXijVTjs /cXei|/eiS e'Sei/xarovi/TO, Qeovs
rpairas
oUjXiVOi T0VT03V ahious eiuai.
'

vwtvdrjaav eluai Oehv

(pvcriv

fxr}-

Oevhs &XXov -rapa rav-ra ovtos Qeov

rov 6.(p6aprov rh Se 42
:

eV>wXa elvai
Kixl

exovros. Cf. eV rw
dvOpoDiroeiSels

irepiexovri virep(pvr\

Sext.
TO?s

Mafh.

ix.

10

Atj^o-

exovra
OTTota

fxop(pds, Kal

KaOSXov roiavra
di/uirXdrreiv

KpiTOS 5e

XdC^iv

etScoAa tluo. (prjaiv e'/XTreavOpwirois, Koi rovrcav

^ovXerai

avrco

Ar^jxSKpiros, iraureXoos ecrri Svairapd-

RELIGION AND THE GODS.

the air beings who were similar to
superior to
life
:

280
in form, but

man

him

in

greatness, power, and duration of

these beings manifest themselves when emanations and images, streaming forth from them and often reproducing themselves at a great distance, become visible and audible to men and animals, and they are held to

be gods, although in truth they are not divine and imperishable, but only less perishable than
Aemil. P. c. 1 Ar]/j.6KpLT0S fiiu yap euxec^ai (prjai Be7u, birws euXoyxajv eidwXwv r\yyx-' Koi TO VW^l^V, KOi TO (rvfX(pv\a XPVCTO. ^ia?^ov Tifxiv e/c tov Trepiexoi/Tos, ^ TO (pavKa Ka\ ra aKaia, en (Tvix(pipT)TaL. Def. Orac. c. 7
SeKTOK.

man.
is

These
speaking,

Pint.

Cicero, an Epicurean

who introduces

as

many absurdities

and contradictions as possible into

the doctrines of Democritus, in order the more easily to turn them
into
V.

ridicule.) Clemens, Strom. 590 C: TO yap avTO. [Atiiuloko.)

Se r^-nfxSHpiros, euxofJ-^vos
elSuXctiv Tvyxdi'^tv, SrjKos

evKofx^^
"^v

TreTToiTj/cej/

etSwXa

ro7s

hvOpuTrois

eVepa Su(Trpdire\a Ka\ fiox^Vpo-s yiuuxTKWv

irpoairiTTTOVTa
a-rrh

kA

to7s aXoyois ^cpois

ttjs deias oixTias.

where QuaovcrCa

exovra

TrpoajpeVets rivas nat

opfxas.

mentious this theory in Bivin. ii. 58, 120), N. D. i. 12, 29: Democritus, q^ici turn unaCie. (-who also

designates natura quae fundat, the beings from

t5wA.a emanate.

whom

imagines the

Cf. Ibid. Cohort.

gines earuraque circuitus in

Deomtm

numero refert, turn illara naturam, quae imagines fundat ac mittat,

turn
sq.).

of Democritus are the atoms, the void and the eiScuAa) and Krische, 150, 1 Max. Tyr. Diss. xvii. 5 the Deity,

43

D (the

first principles

scientiara
(cf.

intelligentiarnque

according to Democritus, was

TTo^es
(sc.
T]i^7v,

oyiO-

nostram

Ibid.

on this point, p. 262 43. 120 turn enimcenset

:

therefore like to

imagines divinitate praedita^ inesse in universito.te rerum, turn principia mentis, quae sunt in eodcm uiiiverso, Deos esse dicit ; turn animantes i7nagine^, quae vel prodesse
nobis soleant vel nocere, turn inquasdam imagines tangentes tmiversum mundum tasque, ut (This complectantur extrinsecics. latter is certainly a perversion

men). From a misunderstanding of what was said by Democritus concerning the beneficent and maleficent nature of these existences, and perhaps through the instrumentality of some forged writing, no doubt arose the statements of Plinius, E. N. ii. 7, 14, that Democritus supposed there were two
deities,

Icena
Hcer.

and

Beneficium.

of
tion

the
of

doctrine

of

Democritus,

by the menwhich we also find in Sextus and Plutarch we ought, moreover, to remember
occasionefl probably

the Trepiexov,

ii. 14, 3, even confounds the atomistic eiSwAa with the Platonic ideas. For the rest, cf. the account of the Epicurean doctrine (Part m. a, 394 sqq. 2nd

Iren. Adv.

ed.).

that in both

these

passages

of
I

VOL.

IT.

290

THE ATOMISTIC FHILOSOPHY.

for

beings and their images are partly of a beneficent, and

which reason Democritus, we are told, expressed a wish that he might meet with fortunate images from the same source, lastly, he
partly of a destructive nature
;
:

derived presages and prophecies, for he thought that

the phantoms unfold to us the designs of those from

whom

they emanate, and also what In

fact,

is

going on in other

parts of the world.'*

they are nothing else than

the daemons of the popular belief,^ and Democritus

so far

may

be considered as the
so often

first

who, in mediating be-

tween philosophy and the popular religion, entered

upon the course

pursued in after times,

viz.,

that of degrading the gods of polytheism into daemons.

Together with this physical view of the belief in gods,

some words of
refer

his

have been transmitted to

us,

which

to

its

ethical importance.^

In no case did he

think himself justified in assuming an antagonistic

position to the existing religion,

and to the order of

be true of him-

the

commonwealth self, as it was asserted of

;

it

may,

tlierefore,

his followers,

perhaps only on

account of the Epicureans,'* that they took part in the

accustomed religious services

ples of Democritus.

from the Greek stand-

point this would be quite in order, even on the princi-

Democritus likewise follows the popular

'

Of a similar kind are some other doctrines in which faith more than
Cf. p. 291, 1.
i.

Cf. also Fr.

242: xph r^v

ix\v

The daemons were supposed

v(r40eiav (pav^pws ivBeiKwadai, ttjs Se aArjddas da^povvTws trpotcnaadai.

to be long lived, but not immortal. Cf., not to mention other references,

Pint. Def. Orac. c. 1 1, 16 sq. p. 415, 172, 1. 418, and sup. p. 152, 1 3 Fr. Mor. 107 vide sup. 287,
;

These words, however (as Lortzing remarks, p. 15), do not sound as if written by Democritus.
"

Orig. C. Cels.

vii.

66.

FROPHECY AND MAGIC.

his physical system,

291

though he

harmony with

it.

tries to bring them into Thus besides what we have just

been speaking of as to the manifestations of superior

beings, he believes in prophetic

dreams, and seeks to

explain

them
all

also

in general (so

by the doctrine of images. As dreams we must understand him) arise because

it

images of

possible things reach sleeping persons, so

under certain circumstances, he thinks,

may

also

happen that these images

of soul, the opinions and

(like

the words or features

which we perceive in waking)

may reflect

the conditions
;

dreams
is

arise,

hidden.

and thus which instruct us concerning much that But these dreams are not thoroughly trustdesigns of others

worthy, partly because the images are in themselves

not always equally clear and forcible, partly because

on their way to
the
air,

us,

according to the constitution of

they are subject to greater or lesser changes.^

of emanations and images
is

The theory

also

employed
even

to justify the superstition, so prevalent in Greece

'

Plut.

Qu. Conv. vin. 10, 2:

iyKaTa^iKTaovcrdai
iropwv
eis to.

tprjal Ariix6Kpiros Ttt

opixas, orav ivdpOpovs koI aauyxutovs (puXdrTovTa Trpo(riii^T] tols eko-

e'iSu}\a

Sia

ruv

vai

tovto
Aeiou

5e
ttjs

fxaKiara
(popas
6

Trotet

5i'

o-w/j-aTa

Kal

iroie^v

ras

Kara rbv
"

ae'po?

yivofj.4vr]s

vnvov
8e

o-J/eis

iiravacpepo/jLiva

(poirav

aKwXvTOV Kol raxeias

irapivhs,
iroAArji/

Se

(pdivo-

Tavra iravTaxodev

airiovTa

Ka\

w (pv\Xoppoe7 to

Bevdpa,

CKevaiv Koi tuarlwv

<al (pvriiiv

udXi-

avw/xaXiav
hia<TTpi(pii

exw
/cat

Kal rpax^irapaTpeirei

ffra 5e ^cf)wv uwh crdhov -noKKov Kai

epfx6T7}TOS, oh fxovov
eiSets

r-qra.

exovra
Kal

fiopcpo-

TroWaxv ra

e^SojAa Kal rb

ivapyes

ToG
.

awfiaros
.

eKiJ-e/iayfj-evas

avrSiv i^'nnKov Kal acrQ^ves TroteT

t^

o/iotOTTjTttS

aWa

tuv Kara

fipaSvrriTi rrjs iropeias ajxavpov^^vov,

"^vx^v

Kivrjjxdrwv Kal ^ov\evp.aTwr

^KacTTCv Kal T]dwy Kal iradaiv (^(pdaeis

ava\afj.fiduo:

ra

(Xuvi(p4\Ke(Tdai,

Kal

uaitep av iraXiv irpos opywvruv Kal hiaKaiofXivwv iKOpwaKoma iroKXa Kal Tax^ KOfxi^nfj.ua ras ifx(pdffLS voepas
Kal crr^fiavTiKas airodiSuaiv.

Tpoa-irLiTTOv-^a

/xera

tuvtwv Stnrep

These

^lj.\pvxa (ppd^fiv Kal Siaa-reAKeiv to7s

viroS^XO/J^^vois

ras

twv

fxiBiivTwv
Kal
T-

avra 5o|ay

Kal

ZiaKoyiafiovs

theories are alluded to in Arist. Be Divhi. p. s. c. 2, 464 a, 5, 11; Plut. Plac. T. 2 Cic. Bivin. i. 3, o.
;

292

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

:

from to the present day, of the effect of the evil eye the eyes of envious persons images, he thinks, proceed
trouble those with

which carrying with them something of their temper, whom they settle.^ The argument
which our philosopher
approved, was simpler.^

for the inspection of offerings,

also

Whether and

in

what

manner, lastly, he connected the belief of the divine inspiration of the poet ^ with his other doctrines, we are
not told
;

souls, of a favourable

but he might very well suppose that certain organisation, receive into them-

in livelier

images and are set by them motion than others and that in this consists the poetic faculty and temperament.
selves a greater profusion of
;

4.

Tlie Atomistic Doctrine as

a whole;

its

historical place

and import

later adherents of the School.

The

character and historical position of the Atomistic

variously estimated in ancient

philosophy have been

and modern times.

In the ancient order of succession

;'*

the Atomists are always included in the Eleatic school

Plut. Qu. Conv. V. 7, 6. DemoCic. Divin. i. 57, 131 critus autem censet, sapicnter insti'

Democritus,ap. Di.Chrys. Or.

53. "Ofiripos (picrios Xax^v deaCova-ns iweuv Kdo-fiov i-riKT-rwaro iravToiuv.

Id. ap.
iroiTjTTjs

tuisse veteres,

tit

hostianim immola-

Clem. Strom,
Se atro-o fxev

vi.

698

taruni inspicerenticr exta, quorum ex hahitu atque ex colore turn saliisigna pestilentiae turn hritatis percipi, nonnunquam etiam, quae

tip ypd<pr) fier'

agrorum vel ferThe limitation to futura. these cases prov^^s that only such changes in the entrails are intended as are effected by natural causes,
sit

vel' sterilitas

/cat Upov iruevfjiaTos KaXa Kapra ia-ri. Cic. I)ivin. i. 37, 80: Negat enim sine furore Democritus quenquam poetam mag-

ivQovaiacr^iov

(?)

tilitas

num
*

esse posse.

and

Democritus
less

seems

subject

explicit

on this than Plato,

Tim. 71.

By Diogenes, Pseudo-Galen, Suidas, Hippolytus, Simplicius, Tzetzes. In the first three it appears from the place assigned to the Atomists, and in all from their statements as to the teachers of

HISTORICAL POSITION.
Aristotle generally places

293

them with Empedocles and

Anaxagoras, sometimes classing them with these philosophers

among

the physicists,' and sometimes remark-

ing upon their affinity with the Eleatics.^

times the order of these ancient
lists

In

modem

has been followed

by a few writers only, who describe the Atomists as a

second branch of the Eleatic School, as Eleatic physicists.^

The more usual course

the Ionian

is,

either to reckon

them
as a

among

physicists,"*

or to place

them

particular form of philosophy

among

the later schools.*

But even
is

in this case their relation tc predecessors

and
it

contemporaries has been variously stated.

Though

generally admitted that the Atomistic doctrine atto.

tempted
far it

combine the conclusions of the Eleatics

with experience, yet opinions are not agreed as to how

was influenced by other systems, and especially by those of Heracleitus, Anaxagoras and Empedocles.
(vide
it

Leiicippus and Democritus

sup. p. 207,
1
;

as
^

Tennpmann
;

does.

On the 210, n). same presupposition, Plutarch, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 7, places Demoimmediately after Parme-

critus

Reinhold, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 48. 53 Brandis. Rhein. Mus. iii. 132, 144; G-r.-rom. Phil. i. 294, Marbach, Gesch. cl. Phil. i. 301
;

nides and Zeno; Cicero's Epicurean, jS'. D. i. 12, 29, places him with

87,

95;

Hermann,

Gesch.

und

Empedocles and Protagoras after Parmenides. Mctaph. i. 4, 985 b, 4. - For example, Gen. et Corr.
^

i.

\\Ae supra, 21 b,
e.g.
i.

1.

Phil.

Degerando, Geschich. d. 83 sq. of Tennemann's

translation, Tiberghien, Sur la generation dis connaissances humaines, Similariy, Mullach, 373 p. 176.

System d. Plat, i, 152 sqq. ^ Tiedemann, Geist d. spek. Phil. i. 224 sq. Buhle, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 324; Tennemann, Gesch. d. Phil. 1 A. i. 256 sq. Fries. Gesch. d. Phil. i. 210; Hesel Gesch. d. Phil. i. 321.324 f Braniss. Gesch. d. Phil. s. Ka-nt, i. 135. 139 sqq.; ride sup. Vol. I. p. 168 Striimpell, Gesch. d. Theoret. Phil. d. Gr. 69
; ;
; :

sqq.

vide Vol.

I. p.
iii,

209.

Haym,
38
;

Ast, Gesch. d. Phil. 88. places the Atomistic philosophy under the category of Italian idealism, alsq.
;

Allg. Enc. Sect,

vol. xxiv.

Schwegler.
Gesch.
d.

Gesch. d. Phil, p 16; Gr. Phil. p. 12. 43;

i.

though he elsewhere characterises

Ueberweg,

p. 25.

294

THE ATOMISTIC rHILOSOPHV

While some see in it the completion of the mechanical which were founded by Anaximander,' it seems to others a development of the Heracleitean standpoint, or, more accurately, a combination of the conphysics,

ceptions of Heracleitus and those of the Eleatics,^ an

explanation of Becoming, as held by Heracleitus, by

means of the Eleatic Being.^ Wirth places the Atomists

side

by side with Heracleitus

because

Heracleitus

maintained Becoming, and the Atomists the plurality

of things,* as against the Eleatics
;

JNIarbach connects

them not only with

Heracleitus, but with Anaxagoras

Eeinhold and Brandis, and likewise Striimpell, derive

the Atomistic doctrine from the double opposition to

the Eleatic doctrine of the One, and to the dualism of

Anaxagoras

'

lastly,

Brandis regards

it as

the connect-

ing link between Anaxagoras and the Sophists.

earlier period,

At an
still

Schleiermacher

and

Eitter''

had

more decidedly reckoned the Atomists among the Sophists, and had declared their doctrine to be an unscientific corruption of the Anaxagorean and Empedoclean philo'

Hermann,

I.

c.

Hegel, i. 324 sqq. takes this view, observing: In the Eleatic philosophy, Being and non-Being appear in opposition; with Heracleitus both are the same and both equal; but if Being and non-Being he conceived objectively, there resuits the opposition of the Plenum and the Vacuum. Parmenides set up as his principle, Being or the Heracleitus the ahstract universal process to Leucippus belongs the determination of Being in its actu2
;

ality.
i.

Cf.

Wendt,

zii

Tennemann,

Schwegler, Gesch. the first edition of the present work, i. 212. Schwegler, on the contrary, Gesch. d. Griech. Phil. 43, trea'-s the Atomistic philosophy as a reaction of the mechanical view of cature against the dualism of Anaxagoras. Jahrb. d.. Grgenw. 1844, 722 Idee d. Gottheit. p. 162. * Or, as Brandis says, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. * Gesch. d. Phil. 72, 74 sq. Gesch. d. Phil. i. 589 sqq. against him; 'Rva.ndis, Phein. Mu&.
'
I.

Haym,

c.

d.

Phil 16;

cf.

''

''

322.

iii.

132 sqq.

XOT A FORM OF SOPHISTRY.

sophy.

205
it

This view must here be examined, as

comto

pletely destroys the position which

we have assigned

the Atomists, and must affect our whole conception of

their system.

This conception

is

founded partly on the literary

finds

character of Democritus, and partly on the content of

his

doctrine.

In regard to the former, Eitter

much

to censure.

Some words

that the philosopher

-

uses at the beginning of a treatise

evince arrogance

of his travels and his mathematical knowledge he speaks

vaingloriously, his language betrays liypocritical enthu-

siasm

even the innocent remark that he

is

is

forty years

younger than Anaxagoras,

character of the system^
tance.
vain,
it

meant

as

an ostentatious

comparison with that philosopher.

all this

In respect of the

would be of no imporEven supposing that Democritus may have been does not follow that the doctrine he taught was
if

an empty form of Sophistry,

his alone.
is

indeed the doctrine were

;

This

is

not, however, the case

for

though

it

remarkable how his name, both with adversaries and

to

admirers of the Atomistic philosophy, from EpicmTis

and Lucretius down

Lange, has caused that of his

it is

master to be forgotten,^ yet

*

certain that his physics

members
of the school

Gesch. d. Phil.

i.

Ap. Sext. Math.

vii.

594-597. 265 (who

'while other

sees in
Cic.
Trepl

it only a pretentious boast) Acad. ii. 23, 73 tol^^ \4-ya

:

ruv ^vfirdvTcoi/. ^ According to Diog. x. 7, even P^picurus would not reckon Leueippus (whose work was perhaps wholly unknown to him) as a philosopher (aXA' ovoe

AevKnnr6 u
Hcrmarchus
;

TLva
nor

"yeycvrjfTdai (pr)(n (pi.\6(ro(pov),

his

successor.

regarded him (Epicurus) as Democritus's teacher. Lucretius never mentions him. Lange, in the 18 pages which he devotes to the Atomists. only once refers to him A doubtful (p. 13) in the remark tradition ascribes to him the proposition of the necessity of all that happens;' for the rest, he so expresses himself that anyone nofc previously acquainted with the true
:
'

296

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY

from Leucippus.*
these censures are in themselves most unjust.^

in all their essential features are derived

But

As
it

to the statement of his age in comparison with

Anaxa-

goras,

we know nothing
;

of the connection in which

stood
in

such statements however were not

uncommon
book are

antiquity.

The opening words

does not

of
it

his

simply an announcement of what

self-confidence

contains.

His

exceed, and

often

does not

nearly equal, that with which Heracleitus, Parmenides

and Empedocles express themselves.^

guage, though ornate and fervid,
affected
;

Lastly his lan-

is

never stilted and

what he

says of his travels

^

and of his geo-

metrical knowledge

may have

stood in a connection in

state of the case "would snppose Democritus alone to be the founder of the Atomistic system.

For instance, the reduction genemtion and decay to the union and separation of underired matter, the doctrine of atoms and
*

of

the void, vide sup. p. 215, 1 217, 1 the perpetual motion 220, 3 of atoms (236, 1), which he can
; ; ;

on which Lange lay s so much stress, belong, therefore, to Leucippus, whom he passes over so unaccountably in silence a fact, the recognition of which would not indeed have unduly diminished the great merit of Democritus, but would have corrected exaggerated notion-s of his originality and importance.

only have deduced from their gravity, the concussion of the atoms, their rotary motion, and the formation of the world, which resulted from it (p. 242, 2) the conceptions (somewhat different from those of Democritus) on the shape of the .earth, the order of the heavenly bodies, the inclination of the earth's axis (249, 2 250, 3 251, 5) the nature of the soul (258, 1 ) all this
; ;
;

Cf. Br audi s, Ehcin. Mus. iii. 133 sq.; also Marbach, Gesch. d.

Phil.
'

i.

87. Cf. as to Parmenides,

Farm.

shows that Leucippus had treated of cosmology and the theory respecting living beings, though probably not so profoundly as his disciple. The fundamental conceptions of the Atomistic physics,

which are precisely those portions

28 (XP^'^ Se (re iravTa irv6((rdai, &c.) ; V. 33 sqq., 45 sqq. (Vol. I. as to Empedocles, Emp. p. 584, 1) 4fJ2 M) sqq.. 352 V. 24 (424 K; 379 M) sqq. (vide sup. (389 If Democritus is to p. 118, n.). be regarded as a Sophist on the strength of one expression, which, jn truth, is not more boastful than the beginning of Herodotu.s's history, what would Ritter hare said suppsing, like Empedocles, he had represented himself as a god wandering among mortals ? * Yide sup. p. 210, 211.
V.
;

NOT A FORM OF SOPHISTRY.

which special motives might have given
speaking generally, a
rise to it
;

297

and

man cannot

be considered a Sophist

because he asserts in a suitable place a thing of which

he has in truth every right to be proud.

But the Atomistic philosophy

the
first place, it is alleged,^

itself,

we

are told,

bears throughout an antiphilosophical

character.

In

we

find in

Democritus an

undue predominance of Empiricism over speculation, an unphilosophical variety of learning this very ten;

dency, secondly, he erects into a theory, for his whole

doctrine of knowledge seems intended to annihilate the
possibility of

true science and to leave nothing but

;

the idle satisfaction of erudition

thirdly, his physical

system

is

wholly deficient in unity and ideality, his law

is

of nature

chance

he acknowledges neither a god nor

all

the incorporeality of the soul, and the result of

this is that, fourthly, departing

from the character of

finally, his

Hellenic philosophy, he entirely separates the mythical

element from the dialectical; and

evince a low view of
tistic cavilling
life,

ethics

and a mind given up to ego-

and mere enjoyment. Most of these censures have been already refuted
any rate considerIt

in the course of om- exposition, or at

ably modified.

may

be true that Democritus accu-

mulated much more empirical material than he was able to master with his scientific theory, although he
entered more deeply and particularly into the explanation of

phenomena than any

of his

predecessors.

But

this is the case with

'

most of the ancient philosophers,

d.
sq,

Thil.

Schleiermacher, lb sq. Eitter,

;

Gcsch.
p.

601,

6U

sq.;

622-627.

597

298

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY

it

and

must be

so with every philosopher

who

unites

comprehensive observation with philosophical speculaIs Democritus to be blamed because lie did not tion.
neglect
theories

experimental science, and tried to base his upon an actual knowledge of things, and thence
Is
it

to explain the particular?

not a merit rather

than a defect he should have embraced a larger sphere in his enquiry than any other previous philosopher, and
in his insatiable thirst for

knowledge should have des?

pised nothing, whether small or great

collecting materials could

This zeal for

only be detrimental to his

philosophical character if he had neglected, or explicitly

discarded, the intellectunl knowledge of things, in order
to bask in idle self-sufficiency in the light of his

own
de-

But all that we have seen in the pages has shown how far he was from this
erudition.

foregoing;

how

cidedly he

preferred

thought

to

sensible perception,

how industriously he laboured nomena from their causes.^

to explain natural pheIf,

in

so

doing, he en-

counters that which in his opinion cannot be derived

from any ulterior principle,^ we may, perhaps, perceive

in this a proof of the insufficiency of his theory, but

not

Sophistic
:

neglect

of the

question respecting

ultimate causes

and

if

the difficulty of the scientific

problem

forces

him

to

complain of the

futility of

human
l)e

knowledge,"* he

may

well claim to be judged

by the same standard

as his predecessors,

and not

to

considered a Sophistical sceptic for sayings which,

or a Parmenides, an
*

coming from a Xenophanes,

'

Anaxa-

Vide Vide

S2ip.

271 sqq.

With
Vide

suj,ra, p. 236, 4.

p.

Eitter, p. 601, 274.

2iOT

A FOBM OF SOPHISTRY.

290

goras or a Heracleitus, would gain for these philosophers

the reputation of scientific modesty.

a subject of reproach that he

It is also

made

recommended moderation
for his

even in the pursuit of knowledge, and consequently

undertook his enquiries only

own

gratification
first

and not in the

this
is

interests of truth.^

But

in the

place

not compatible with the other charge of super-

fluous learning,
so true

and secondly, we can only wonder how

If even

and innocent a remark could receive such an

however he had
so
said,

interpretation.
fact

what in

he never does say in

many

words, that

we should

strive after science in order to be

happy,

it

would only

be to reiterate the assertion, a hundred times repeated,

of the

most honoured thinkers of

all

ages

and we

should have no right to represent as a base-minded

Sophist, a
to science,

man who
and who,

with
as
it

rare devotion gave his life

is

related,

would have

re-

fused the

kingdom

of Persia in exchange for a single

scientific discovery.^

But the scientific theory advanced by Leucippus and Democritus is no doubt unsatisfactory and onesided.

Their system

is

throughout materialistic
all

its

specific object is to dispense with

Being save

cor-

poreal Being, and with every force save that of gravitv:

Democritus declared himself in express terms against the vovs of Anaxagoras.^ But most of the ancient systems are materialistic
:

neither the Early Ionian School,

nor Heracleitus, nor Empedocles recognised any im-

'

Mor.
Sfjs,

Ritter, 626, on account of i-V. /iT? -navra iiriaraadai 142

:

Hitter's representation,

follows
* ^

irooQ6}jiio, ix^\iTT\ Tfi wo\v/ia6iT] avirj-

we should

expect, according to

but what is] ndvTWv afxaOvs yevri. Vide sup. p. 282, 2. J^iog ix. 34 cf. 46.
;

300

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY

;

material essence

even the Being of the Eleatics

it
is

is

the

Plenum

or the

body, and

precisely the Eleatic

conception

of Being

which forms the basis of the

Atomistic
tinguished
severity

metaphysics.

from their and consistency with which they have carried out the thought of a purely material and mechanical
construction of nature
;

The Atomists are only dispredecessors by the greater

this

can scarcely, however, be

so

counted to their disadvantage, since in

doing they

merely deduced the consequences required by the whole

previous development, and of which the premisses were

already contained in the theories of their predecessors.

We

therefore mistake their historical significance if

we

separate their system from the previous natural philo-

sophy, with which

it

it is

so closely connected,

and banish

under

tlie

name
It is

of Sophistic beyond the limits of

likewise

true science.

unjust

to

maintain, on

account of the multiplicity of the atoms, that this

system

is

altogether wanting in unity.

deficient in the unity of
;

Though
it is

its

principle

is

numbers,

not

without unity of conception

on the contrary, in at-

tempting to explain
opposite of the

all

things from the fundamental

Plenum and

the

Vacuum, without
it

re-

course to further presuppositions,

result

proves itself the

after

of

consistent
is

reflection,

striving

unity.

Aristotle

therefore justified in praising its logical

its

consistency and the unity of

principles,

the preference to
the
'

it

in that respect as

and giving compared with

This
i.

less

consistent

doctrine
is 1
;

of Empedocles.^
et

Vide on this poiut -what quoted (p. 215, 1; 219, 2; 239,

from Be Gen. Be An. \. 2.

Corr.

i.

2;

NOT A FORM OF SOPHISTRY.

would
it sets

301

sufficiently disprove the fui'tber

statement that
;

chance upon the throne of the universe

far the

but we

have already seen how

doing.^

Atomists were from so

is

All that can truly be said

that they acknow-

ledge no ultimate causes and no intelligence working

to an

end.

Even

this

peculiarity however they share

with most of the ancient systems, neither the principles of the Early lonians nor the world- creating Necessity of

Parmenides and Empedocles can be credited

with more intelligence than the Xecessity of

critus
,

Demodistinc-

and Aristotle in

this respect

makes no

tion between the x\tomistic philosophy

and the other

for pro-

systems.^

Can the Atomists then be blamed

its

ceeding in the direction of the contemporary philosophy,

and

for

bringing

tendency to a

scientific

completion by

the discarding of unwarranted suppositions and mythical

imagery?

And

is it

just to praise the ancients

when

they declare the Necessity of Democritus to be mere

chance, while the same statement in regard to
cles,

Empedoreceived

who

in truth gave greater occasion for

?
^

it, is

with censure

The atheism
is

of the Atomistic philosophy

is

merely

another expression for the same defect.

But

this also

found among others of the ancient philosophies, and

at

any rate

thought.
can, least

it is no proof of a Sophistic mode of That Democritus denied the popular gods of all, be imputed as a fault to him on the
;

other hand, he held that the belief in gods was no mere

P. 236 sqq. Vide Phys. ii. 4 Metaph. \. 984 b, 11. Concerning Empe3, docles especially, Phys. \\\\. 1, 252
'

a, 5 sqq.

Gen.
a.

et

Corr.

ii.

6,

333

b, 9.
^

334

Cf. Eitter, p.

605;

cf.

534.

302

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY

might
an attempt deserving of

delusion, and sought for something real which

have given

rise to it

all respect.

however imperfect may seem to us his solution of tlie problem. Even this measure of hlame, however, must
hypothesis of the slhwXa^ only does in his
;

when we perceive that Democritus, in his way what so many others have done since his time namely that
be limited
^

he explains the popular gods as daemons, and in

his system.

this

adheres as logically as possible to the presuppositions of

Moreover,

if

he has purified his exposiis

tion from all

mythological ingredients, this

not, as

Schleiermacher asserts, a fault but a merit which he

shares with Anaxagoras

and
is

Aristotle.

The
is

fact that

even a purer idea of

God

wanting in the Atomistic

this

system
to

is

a graver matter.
;

But

want

not peculiar

Sophistic

the ancient Ionian physics could only

;

speak of gods in the same sense as Democritus Parmenides only mentions the Deity mythically Emloo-ically
;

pedocles speaks

of

him

(irrespectively of the

many

same category as want of consistency. those of Democritus) merely from

daemon-like gods which are in the

With Anaxagoras

first,

philosophy attained to the dis;

crimination of spirit from matter but before this step had been taken the idea of Deity could find no place in
the philosophic system as such. If, therefore, we understand by the Deity the incorporeal spirit, or the creative

power apart from matter, the whole of the ancient philosophy is atheistical in principle and if it has in
;

part, notwithstanding, retained a religious tinge, this is

either an inconsistency, or

it

may

be due to the form of

Vide sup.

p. 291.

2s

OT A FORM OF SOPHISTRY.
is

803

the exposition, or perhaps

the result of personal faith,

;

and not of philosophic conviction

set aside

in all these cases,

however, the best philosophers are those who prefer to

the religious presentation rather than adopt
it

without philosophical warrant.

The
criterion

ethics of

Democritus are not indeed

so closely

connected with the Atomistic system as to furnish any

of that system.

Nevertheless Eitter brings

forward some unreasonable objections to them.

In their

form they are certainly eudaemonistic, inasmuch as pleasure and aversion are made the standard of human
actions.

But in
is

all

the

ancient

system, happiness
life
;

stands at the apex of Ethics, as the highest end of

even Plato
conceived

scarcely an exception

and

if

happiness

is

by Democritus in a one-sided manner

as

pleasure, this merely proves a defective scientific basis

in his ethical doctrine,
sition.^

and not a

self- indulgent

dispo-

The

principles of Democritus themselves are

;

pure and worthy of respect

and Eitter 's objections

It is said that

to

them come
strict

to very little.

he was not
this is sup-

about truth, but the

maxim from which

posed to be taken, asserts something entirely different.^

Also he
its
is

blamed

for

depriving the love of country of

for finding
:

moral value, and

nothing moral in the

om" previous discussion,
is

conjugal and parental relation

however, will show that this censure

* Even Socrates, as a rule, founds moral activities on a merely eudaemonistic basis. - It is in Fr. Mor. 125 aKt]Qobut this, fivdeciv XP^^^ '6irov Xdi'iov it is clear, only means that it is often better to keep silence than
:

in part wholly

to speak the same thing that is thus expressed in Fr. 124 oiK-fj'iov
;
:

iKevdepirjs ira^priaLiT

klvSvuos Se

i]

rov Kaipov.
tes

Moreover, even Socra-

aud Plato, as everyone knows, maintain that under certain circumstances a

lie
i.s

allowable.

304

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

it

unfounded, and in part greatly exaggerated, and that

might be with equal truth applied

never reckoned gard to his

to

many who

are

among

the Sophists.^

Lastly, with re-

wish that he might meet with favourable

:

sthcdka. Ritter observes with all the force of a prejudice

'

An

entire surrender of life to accidental occurrences

^

is

the end of his teaching.'

somewhat strange
for pleasant

to us, but in itself,

it is

Such a wish may indeed sound and regarded from

as natural as the desire
;

the Atomistic standpoint,

dreams or

fine

weather

how

little

Demo-

critus makes inward happiness dependent on chance,

we have already shown.^ But the whole comparison

sophy with Sophistic doctrines
those doctrines that
is
is

of the Atomistic philois

based upon a view of

Sophistry
of thought which This,

much

too indefinite.

here supposed to be that

mode

misses the true and scientific attitude of mind.

however,

is

not the nature of Sophistic teaching as

seen in history, which rather consists in the withdrawal

of thought from objective enquiry, and

its restriction

to a one-sided reflection, indifferent to scientific truth

in the statement that

man

is

the measure of

all

things,

that

all

our presentations are merely subjective phenoall

mena, and

moral ideas and principles are merely

arbitrary ordinances.

Of

all

these characteristics

find nothing in the Atomists,"^

Not to mention -what has been already quoted of other philosophers, we find the same cosmopolitanism ascribed to Anaxagoras as to Democritus. 2 Ritter, i. 627. 3 Vide p. 238, 278. 3 280, 1. 1
'
;
;

we who were accordingly

* Braniss says (p. 135) in proof of the similarity between the Atomistic doctrine and that of the Sophists, that it regarded spirit, as opposed to the objective in space, as merely subjective,' but this is not accurate. The Atomistic system, in
'

RELATION TO PARMEXIDES.
never reckoned as Sophists by any ancient writer.
are natural

805

They
^

philosophers,

who

are

commended

and and

regarded with preference by Aristotle for their logical

consistency
;

and

it is

precisely in the strictness

exclusiveness of a purely physical and mechanical ex-

planation of nature that the strength and weakness of

their system
all for
lies.

We
;

have, therefore, no ground at

separating the Atomistic philosophy from the

other physical systems

historical position only

and we can rightly define by assigning

it

its

to its true place

among
cated.

these.

What

that place

is,

has already been generally indidoctrine

is,

The Atomistic
all things,

like the physics of

Empedocles, an attempt to explain the multiplicity and

change of

on the basis of Parmenides' propo-

sition concerning the impossibility of Becoming and

Decay

to escape the conclusions of Parmenides' system

first

without questioning those

principles

to save the

relative truth of experience as against Parmenides, while

common
tems, has

-with other physical sys-

among its objective princi;

pies no spirit separate from matter but we have no right to turn this negative proposition into a positive one, and say that they place spirit exclusively in the subject for they recosrnise an immaterial principle as little in the subject as out of Braniss. p. 143, justifies his it. statement with the remark that
;

apparentlytaking interest in things, subjective thought is only concerned with itself, its own explanations and hypotheses, but supposes it will attain in these objective truth. &c. Part of this might be asserted of any materialistic systern, and the rest is refuted by what has just been said against
Eitter,
*

1.

the Atomistic philosophy opposes to inanimate nature only the subject with its joy in the explanation of nature, as spirit: in place of truth it introduces the sul)jective striving after truth (dSti:xtruth, the while real knowledge of things)
;

300, 1. the pre-Socratic philosophers, none is more frequently quoted in the physical writings of Aristotle than Democritus. because his enquiries entered most particup.
-

Vide

Of

all

larly into details,

VOL. n.

306
its

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

absolute truth
is

renounced

to

mediate between

the Eleatic point of view and that of ordinary opinion.' Of all the earlier doctrines, therefore, it is most closely
allied with that of

Parmenides

allied,

however, in a

double manner
his propositions

directly,
;

inasmuch

as it adopts part of

indirectly,

inasmuch
its

as it contradicts

another part, and opposes thereto

own

definitions.

From Parmenides

it

borrows the conception of Being

and non-Being, of the plenum and vacuum, the denial of generation and decay, the indivisibility, qualitative
simpleness,

and
it

unchangeableness

of

Being
like

with

Parmenides,

teaches that the cause of multiplicity

lie

and motion can

only in non-Being

him

it

discards the perception of sense, and seeks for all truth

in the reflective contemplation of things.

to

In opposition

Parmenides

it

maintains the plurality of Being, the

reality of

motion and quantitative change, and, in con-

sequence, that which most clearly expresses the opposition of the

two points of view, the reality of non-Being

In the physical theories of the Atomists,

or the Void.

we

are reminded of Parmenides

by

several particulars,^

and especially by the derivation of the soul's activity from warm matter but on the whole the nature of the
;

subject was such that the influence of the Eleatic doctrine could not be very considerable in this direction.

With Melissus

also,

as

well

as

Parmenides, the

Atomistic philosophy seems to have had a direct his'

Vide
sq.

s?^ra, p.

210

sqq., cf. p.

is

229

2 e.g. the conception of the universe, which, according to the second portion of Parmenides' poem,

surrounded by a fixed sheath; the genesis of living creatures Irom slime, the statement that a corpse

retains a certain kind of sensation,

HELATION TO THE ELEATICS.

torical connection.

307

But

if

there

is

no doubt that Leu-

cippus

is

indebted to Melissus, Melissus, on the other

hand, seenas to have bestowed some attention on the

doctrine of Leucippus.

For example,

if

we compare

the arguments of Melissus with those of Parmenides

and Zeno,
the latter

it is

surprising to find that in the former the

it

conception of the Void plays a part which

;

does not in

that not only the unity of Being, but likeis

wise the impossibility of motion,

proved by means of

the unthinkableness of the Void;

and the theory of

found

divided bodies which only enter into connection through

contact
in none
is

expressly controverted.^

This theory

is

of the physical systems except that

of the

Atomists,-

means

of

who alone attempted to explain motion by empty space. Are we then to suppose that

Melissus, to

whom

no especial intellectual acuteness

is

ever ascribed, himself originated and introduced into

its

proper place this conception which was so important

for the subsequent Physics,

and that the Atomists

first

borrowed from him what was one of the corner-stones

of their system
;

or

is

not the opposite supposition far

more probable,
in general

viz.,

that the Samian philosopher,

allied with

who

was more closely

the doctrines
so carefully

of the contemporary natural philosophy,

its importance had been proved by a physical theory which derived the motion and multiplicity of all things from the Void ? 3
>

studied that conception, only because

Vide
sq.

sv.pra. Vol. I. p. 632, 2

snpra, 215,

635
-

Vide p. 22S, 4; 229, 1. Arist, Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (vide

1, Vol. I. 632, 2) cannot be brought forward against thi.. Aristotle here certainly represents the Eleatic doctrine, from which

X 2

308

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY,

Whether
in their polemic against the Eleatics, the
all

Atomists were at

under the influence of the HeraIn

is

cleitean system cannot he stated with certainty.

regard to Democritus,

it

is

in itself prohable,

and

confirmed by

his ethical fragments, that the treatise of

Heraeleitus was not

unknown to him

for

not merely do

particular sayings of his agree with Heraeleitus, but his

whole theory of

life closely

sian philosopher.*

resembles that of the EpheBoth seek true happiness not in

;

externals, but in the goods of the soul

both declare a
;

contented disposition to be the highest good

recognise as the only

both

means

to this peace of

mind, the
both are

limitation of our desires, temperance, prudence, and

subordination to the course of the universe

much

alike in their political views.^

That Leucippus,

on the other hand, was acquainted with the Heracleitean doctrine, and made use of it, cannot be so distinctly maintained but all the theories of the Atomists which
;

brought them into collision with Parmenides, lie in If the the direction which Heraeleitus inaugurated.
Atomistic system insisted on the reality of motion and of divided Being, it was Heraeleitus who maintained,
to Leucippus, primarily according to Melissus, iDUt as his chief concern is to show the relation between the Eleatic and Atomistic systems, without any special reference to the particular philosophers of the two schools, we ought not to conclude from this that he

he passes

from Heraeleitus, Vol.

regarded Leucippus as dependent on Melissus. Such as the statements about

'

I. 510, 4 336, 5, the proposition that the soul is the dwelling place of the daemon, p. 278, 3, cf 98, 5; the theory that all human art arose from the imitatiou of nature, p, 277, 2, cf. 92, 2 the utterance quoted p. 10, 2, in reference to which Lortzing, p. 19, cites Ps.-Galen, op. larp. 439, xix. 449 K, where these words are ascribed to Democritus: &vdpwTroi
;

encyclopaedic learning, sup. p. 277,

1,

els eiTTai koI 6.v6pa>Tros Travrts.

-

compared with what

is

quoted

Vide

p.

97

sq.,

277

sq.

RELATION TO HERACLEITVS.
Real
sites
;

309

more decidedly than any other philosopher, that the

is

constantly changing and sundering into oppo-

all things from Being and motion to be conditioned by this opposition, Heracleitus had previously said that

if

the Atomists derive

all

non-Being, and believe

the father of

strife is

all things,

that every motion preis,

supposes an opposite, and that everything

is

and equally

Being and non-Being are the two moments of the Heracleitean Becoming, and the
not, that
it
is.

which

principle of the Atomists that non-Being

is

as real as

Being, might without difficulty be derived from the

theories of Heracleitus on the flux of all things, if for

absolute Becoming, relative

Becoming

an unchangeable primitive matter

deference to the Eleatics.

were substituted in
further, are

Becoming from

The Atomists,

in accord with Heracleitus in their recognition of an

unbroken interdependence of nature, in which, despite

their materialism, they acknowledge a rational

con-

Like him, they hold that individual worlds arise and perish, while the whole of the original matter is eternal and imperishable. Lastly, the cause
formity to law.^
of
life

and consciousness

is

sought by Democritus in

the

warm atoms which

are diffused throughout the uni;

verse, as well as the bodies of living creatures

and

this theory, in

spite of all divergences as to details,

greatly resembles the doctrine of Hei'acleitus concerning

the soul and the universal reason

of
life, sleep,

while the phenomena

and death, are explained in both systems in a similar manner. All these traits make it probable
'

Vide supra,

p.

236 sqq.

cf.

Qf 256

sq.

262

sq.

cf.

79

39

sq.

eq.

310

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHT.

its

that the Atomistic philosophy was influenced in

be-

ginning, not only by the doctrines of the Eleatics, but

of Heracleitus
:

if

even, however,

it

arose independently

of the latter, at any rate the thought of change and

Becoming, of multiplicity and of divided Being, is so predominant in it, that it must, from the state of the
case, be regarded as a

union of the Heracleitean standplurality of derived things

point with the Eleatic, or, more accurately, as an attempt

to explain the

Becoming and

on the hypothesis of the Eleatic fundamental doctrines,

from the nature of the primitive Being.'

essentially the

The Atomistic system, therefore, proposes to itself same problem as that proposed by the system of Empedocles. Both start from the interest of
the plurality and change of things.

natural science, to explain the generation and decay,

But both concede

Both,

to the Eleatics that the primitive Keality can neither

decay nor alter in

its

nature or constitution.

therefore, adopt the expedient of reducing

Becoming

and Change to the combination and separation of unchangeable substances, and since this
is

only possible,

and the .multiplicity of phenomena

' Wirtli seems to me less accurate \vlieu (vide supra, p. 294, 2) he co-ordinates the Atomists and

is

only explicable,

Heracleitus \vith this observation: 'In the Eleatic doctrine there lies a double antithesis, agnnst Becoming and against plurality; the former conception, that of Becoming, was taken from Heracleitus. the latter, that of plurality, from the Atomists. Eor on the one hand, as Aristotle perceives (vide supra, p. 210 sqq.), the Atomists are as much concerned in the

vindication of Becoming and Change as of plurality on the other, their method is essentially distinct from that of Heracleitus in that they return to the Eleatic conception of Being, and expressly recoguising this conception, attempt to explain phenomena whereas Heracleitus not only does not recognise the conception, but in fact most decidedly annuls it.' Moreover, there is a chronological interval of some decades between
;
;

theoi.

RELATIOX TO HERACLEITUS.
if these

311

unchangeable substances are many, both sepa-

rate the one primitive matter of the earlier philosophers

into a plurality

Empedocles

into four elements, the

Atomists into innumerable atoms. Both systems, therefore, bear the

stamp of a purely mechanical explanation

even in
in

of nature

both recognise only material elements, and

;

only a combination of these elements in space

the particulars of their theories as to the

way

which

the substances combine and influence one another, they

are so very similar that

ceptions of Empedocles

we need only develop the conmore logically to arrive at

Lastly, both dispute the truth
it

Atomistic definitions.^

of the sense-perception, because

does not show us the

unchangeable

first

principles of things,

and deludes us
distinguishes

with an actual Becoming and Decay.

the two theories from each other,
is

What

merely the severity

all

with which the Atomistic philosophy, discarding

presuppositions, develops
physics.

other

the

thought

of mechanical

theory mythical and religious notions,

only a dry naturalism
;

While Empedocles unites with his phvsical we here encounter

while he sets up as moving-

forces the mythical forms of

Love and Hate, movement is explained by the Atomists in a purely phvsical manner as the effect of weight in the Void while he
;

attributes

to

the

primitive

substances a

qualitative

determinateness

from the

beginning,

the

Atomists,

maintaining more
duce
all

strictly the

conception of Being, re-

qualitative differences to quantitative differ-

ences of form and mass; while he limits the elements

according to number, but makes them infinitelv divi*

Vide supra,

p. 134.

312
eible,

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

the Atomists more logically go back to indivisible

primitive bodies, which, in order to explain the plurality

of things, are conceived as infinite in
nitely various in form

number and

infi-

and

size

while he makes the

union and separation of matter alternate periodically,

the Atomists find the perpetual union and separation of the atoms based on their eternal motion.
therefore, follow the
is

Both systems,
this

same tendency, but

tendency

more simply and

logically developed in that of the

Atomists, which so far occupies a higher place scientifically

than the system of Empedocles.

its

Yet neither

bears in

main

features such decided traces of de-

pendence on the other that we should be justified in

ascribing the doctrine of Empedocles to Atomistic influences
;

the two systems seem rather to have been

developed simultaneously from the same presuppositions.

tail, as

Only when the Atomistic philosophy goes more into dein the doctrine of emanations and gl'ScoXa, in

the explanation of the perceptions of the senses, and

the theories on the origin of living creatures, does an
express obligation to Empedocles

become probable, the

more

so as

he was

much

reverenced by the later ad'

herents of the Atomistic school.

But
is

this further de-

velopment of the Atomistic doctrine

apparently the

work of Democritus, in regard to whom there can be no doubt that he was acquainted with the opinions of his
famous Agrigentine predecessor.

No

influence of the ancient Ionic School can be

;

traced in the Atomistic system

a knowledge of the

Pythagorean doctrine
'

is

indeed ascribed to Democritus,^

p. 185, 1.
^

Vide the quotation from Lucretius,

yj^g

p_ 210.

RELATION TO THE PYTHAGOHEANS.

but whether
do not know.
it

313

was already possessed by Leucippus we

If this were in truth the case, the

ma-

thematical and mechanical character of the Atomistic

doctrine might have some connection with the Pytha-

gorean mathematics, and in proof of the similarity of

the two systems, we might refer to the Pythagorean

Atomistic doctrine of Ecphantus,^ and to the remark

of Aristotle,^ in which he compares the derivation of

composite things from atoms with

derivation
of

the

Pythagorean

things from numbers.

In respect to

Ecphantus, however, we might more easily suppose

that his theory had been influenced by the Atomists.
Aristotle's

comparison of

the

two doctrines

proves
;

nothing as to any real connection between them

we

must, therefore, leave the question undecided, whether

or not the founder of the Atomistic doctrine received

any

scientific

impulse from the Pythagoreans.

but as this can

Lastly there remains the enquiry concerning the

relation of the Atomists to Anaxagoras
;

only be pursued after we have acquainted ourselves with

the opinions of that philosopher,
to a future chapter.
it

must be postponed

As to the history and adherents of the Atomistic

philosophy after Democritus, tradition
tells

us

little.

Of Nessus,

or Nessas,^ the disciple of Democritus,

his

we

know nothing but

name.

A disciple

of this Nessus,

or perhaps of Democritus himself, was -Metrodorus of

'

Vide Vol.

I. p.
iii.
:

527.

M^
words yap riva
ttoiovctiv
*

ca^ws

hriXovciv,

ofiws

tovto

De

Ccelo,

after the
Tp6irov

^ovKovrai Keyeiv,
l^iog- i^.

quoted
Kttl

p. 216, 3

58

Aristocl. vide

olroi iravra to ovra

Kol
i^

following note.

ao.diJLOvs

apiQ^uv

'

Ka\

yap

314
Cbius,*

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

who seems
to have been one of the

most im-

portant of these later Atomists.

While agreeing with Democritus in his fundamental the plenum and vacuum,^ the atoms,^ the infinity of matter and of space,'^ the plurality of worlds,^ and also resembling him in many particulars
doctrines, concerning
' Diogenes, I. c. mentions both statements, Clem. Sfrom. i. 301 D, and Aristocl. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv.

TTepl ArjfxdKpiTov Trote?

Pi'otagoras and 19, 0, mention Metrodorus Suidas, Aij/xoKp. cf. Uvppwv the latter, Democritus's
;

Xlos apxas crx^^hv ras avras Toh rb ir\ripes Koi TO Kivhv ras irpuTas alrias vnoQeix^uos, wv rh /jLfv ov rh 8f (xrj ov thai,
Trepl Se

rT]v fxiQoZov.

twv aWoiv iSlau riua iroL^lraL So also Aristocl. ap.

:

disciple; Aristocles ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 8, says on the contrary that Democritus was the instructor of Protagoras and Nessas, and that Metrodorus was the disciple of Nessas. The name of Metrodorus's father, according to Stob;eus, Eel. 'O Xlos is i. 304:, was Theocritus. the usual appellation of this Metrodorus to distinguish him from other philosophers of the same name, especially the two from Lampsacus, of whom the elder was a disciple of Anaxagoras, and the younger of Epicurus. But he is nevertheless sometimes confounded with them for instance, in Simpl. P/>-l/s. 257 h, where it can only be through an oversight that the Metrodorus to whom in common with Anaxagoras and Archelaus is attributed the theory of the creation of the world by vovs is designated as the Chian. The statements of the P'acita (except ii. 1, 3, where Metrodorus the disciple of Epicurus IS mentioned), of the Eclogse of Stobaeus, and of the pseudoGalen concerning Metrodorus, relate to the Chian, those in Stobaeus' Florilegium to the p]picurean. 2 Simpl. Phys. 7 ^ (according to Theophrastus) koI yir]Tp65wpos Sk 6
;

Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 19, 5 Metr. is said to have been instructed by Democritus, apx^s 5e airocpriuaaOoii TO irKripes Koi rh kv6v Siurh fxeu ov rh Se jxT] ov elvai. ^ Stob. Ed. i. 304; Theod. Cur. Gr. Affect, iv. 9, p. 57, according to whom he called the atoms d5tatpeTa. On the void, in particular, cf. Simpl.
I.

c.
<

p. 152, a.
;

Plut. Plac. i. 18, 3 Stob. 380 Simpl. I. c. 35 a, cf. following note. * Stob. i. 496 (Plut. Plac. i. 5,
Eel.
i.
;

Galen
. .

c.
.

7, p.
<pr](rli'

249

K)

Mr^Tpoelvai

Sapos

aroirou

iu

fieyaKcv TreSi'w eVa

ardx^^

yevur}9r]vac

Kal eVa Koafiov ev rcf aireipw. uti 5e 6,TreipoL Kara rh irXridos, 5rj\ov 4k

Tov

oLTTfLpa TO.

oiTia ilvai.

el
5'

yap

KocTfxos

ireitepaff^eios,

ra

a'lTLa

Trdvra aireipa, e^ wv oSe 6 Koafxos yeyovev, avdyKt] dweipovs eJvai. ottov

yap

TO.

aiTia iravTa, eKe7 Kal rd dwoaXria Se (adds the nar7; rd (TTOiX(^a. mention of the the singular, when Plutarch

TeKeafj-ara.

rator)

i]Toi at drofiOL
is

'

There

again

All in ap. Eus.

yir]Tp65.
TTciv,

6
el

Pr. Ev. i. p. 12 says: Xios di5/ov elvai (pr}(Ti. rh

uri

^v yevvT}rhv
direipov 5e,

e/c

rov

/x^

ovros dv

i)v,

on

diSiOv,

ov yap odev ijp^aro, ov5e irepas ovde

METRODORUS.
him

315

of his explanation of nature,^ he was separated from

as a physicist

by many opinions peculiar to him-

self;^

and

as a philosopher,

by the sceptical inferences

he explained as the Ti\iaKhs kvkKos, probably meaning that it was a circle of light left behind by the sun on his way through the
critus,

Xetv t6 ttSv KLvelcrdai yap aSuuaTov,

fir]

ixeHiaTafMivov,

ixidicrracrdai,

5e

avayKotov ^Tot els TrKrjpes ^ els K(v6v (but this would seem to be impossible, since in the irav, the totality of things, all the void and Even all the full are contained). here there is no contraJiction to the atomistic standpoint, for the atoms and the void are eternal, and if -within the infinite mass of atoms motion has never begun and never ceases, yet this mass as a whole (and only as such is it spoken of) because of its infinity can never be moved. Metrodorus could perfectly, therefore, in regard to it, adopt the doctrine of Melissus on the eternity, unlimitedness, and immobility of Being (that he did so is proved by the comparison in even the false Vol. I. 553 sqq. deduction of the unlimitedness of the world from its eternity reappears here), and we may disregard the conjecture that Eusebius in his excerpt has mixed up two accounts, one relating to Melissus and one to Metrodorus. On the other hand, there is between the words quoted above, and the words which directly follow them, a lacuna which no doubt is the fault, not of Plutarch, but of the compiler of the Eusebian
;

heavens {Plac.

iii.

1,5; Stob. 574

Like AnaxaGal. c. 17, p. 285). goras and Democritus he called the sun a fivSpos ^ Trerpos Siairupus {Plac. ii. 20, 5; Gal. U, p. 275; less precisely, Stob. 52 4, irvpivov xmapx^i-v). Also his explanation of earthquakes (Sen. Xat. Qu. vi. 19) as caused by the penetration of the external air into the hollow spaces ^^^thin the earth, must have been suggested to him by Democritus, who however ascribed that phenomenon even more to the action of water than to currents of air {sup. p. 253, 1). Xo doubt there were many other theories in which

he agreed with Democritus, but which have not been handed down
to us, because the compilers chiefly

quote from each philosopher those opinions by which he was distiuguished from others. ^ Especially his theories about the formation of the world seem to have been very distinctive. He is
said {Plac. iii. 9, 5) to have regarded the earth as a precipitate from the water, and the sun as a precipitate from the air; this is, indeed, but a modification of the conceptions of Democritus, and with it agrees what is quoted, p. On the other hand, the 247, 4. statement of Plutarch is much

extracts.
^

Thus he agreed with Demo-

critus (vide supra, p. 252, 2) that

not only the moon and the other planets, but also the fixed stars receive their light from the sun (Plut.
ii. 17, 1 Stob. Ed. i. 518, 558; Galen, H. Ph. c. 13, p. 273 K); the milky way, unlike Uemo-

more remarkable
nvKvov/j.svov

Se

(ap. Eus. i. rhu alSfpa

8,

12)

KOie'tu

Plac.

ve(p4\as, eira vSwp, h Ka\ KaTihv eVt

TOP rj\iov a^evuvvai ai/rhv, kol iraXiv

apaiovtieyov
i^dirTeadai'

XP^^V

^^

316

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

which he drew from the doctrine of Democritus. For example, he not only questioned the truth of the senseperception,^ but declared that

we could know nothing,

not even ivhether we know something or nothing.^ Yet

he cannot have intended in these propositions to abolish

on principle

all possibility

of knowledge, as in that case

he would neither have professed the chief doctrines of

the Atomistic system, nor would he have occupied himTTrtyyucrdai
TToieTi/ 6/c

toJ ^rjpv "^^^ ^\iov /col rov Xafxirpov v^aros aaripas, vvKTa re Koi rjiuLepav ck rris

sarae

ward
about

view which by Plato

is

brought forand Aristotle

fffieaews

Koi

e|ai|/ea>5

Kal

Ka66-

Xov

TCLs

K\ei^eis aTTOTeXf^y.
if

The

stars to be generated each da.y afresh through the influence of the sun on the atmospheric water but even if this portion of his cosmogony has been misrepresented, and he in reality only accounted in this way for the first production of the stars, it would still be a considerable diWhat vergence from Democritus. is further said of the daily extinction and rekindling of the sun has more similarity with the theory of Heracleitus than of Demo;

words sound as had supposed the

Metrodorus

Like Anaxagoras, Metrosaid to have regarded the stars as wheel-shaped (Stob. 510), and like him also to have assigned
critus.

dorus

is

against the Atomistic hypotheses weight. Cf. further his theories on the Dioscuri (PL ii. 18, 2); on shooting stars {Plac. iii. 2, 11 Stob. i. 580) thunder, lightning, hot blasts {PL iii. 3, 2 Stob. clouds (Plut. ap, Eus. i. 590 sq.) l. c. on the other hnnd, Plac. iii. 4, 2; Stob. Flwil. ed. Mein. iv. 151, contain nothing of importance) the rainbow {Plac. iii. 5, 12); the winds {Plac. iii. 7, 3); the sea {Plac. iii. 16, o) and the quotation* in the previous note. Ap. Joh. Damasc. Parall. 8. ii. 25, 23 Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 2, 34. The proposition, i/^euSeTs elvuL ras ala-Orjffeis, is ascribed to Metrodorus, as well as to Democritus, Protagoras, and others. Similarly Epiph. l. c. ovSh rais
;
;

'

al(rdr)(r(ri

5eT

Trpocrexc"'*

5oK7)o'6i

the highest place in the universe to the sun, the next highest to the moon after them came the fixed stars and planets {Plac. ii. 15, 6; Gal. c. 13, p. 272). According to Plac. iii. 15, 6, he explains the fact of the earth's remaining in its place in the fo. lowing manner /atjScj/ iv
;
:

yap

i(TT\ TO, irdvTa.

2

Aristocl. ap. Eus. Pr. Eo. xiv.

Tw
^jiT]

o'lKeiw

T6ir(f

crwfia

KivtlcQai,

Tis irpowaeie ^ KadfKKvcreif

/uTjoe

kott'

irtpyfiav Sih
KeifxevTiv

tt]u

yrjv,
;

(pvaiKws,

Kive7<T6ai

a re the

the opening of a treaMetrodorus said ffixuu ovdeu oTSev, oyS' avrh rovTO irdnpov oX^afx^v ^ ovk oldafxev. The same thing is quoted in Sext. Malh. vii. 88 cf. 48 Diog. ix. 58; Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1088 A; Cic. Acad. ii. 23^ 73 the last asserts that it stood initio libri qui est de natura.
19, 5.
tise Trepl (pixTcws,
:

At

ovSels

ANAXARCHUS.
self

817
;

so

closely with

physical

enquiries

they must,

therefore, be regarded merely as an exaggerated expres-

sion of his mistrust of the senses,

and of

his

judgments

concerning the actual state of

human knowledge.

The

truth of thought he does not seem to have disputed.^

Anaxarchus of Abdera,^ the companion of Alexander,'

celebrated for his heroism under a torturing death,"*
said to have been
disciple, Diogenes.
is

taught by Metrodorus,'^ or by his

He

too was reckoned

;^

among

the

precursors of Scepticism
Aristocles,
:

but the only thing that can

Hones Attica, 181-193.
^ He had fallen into the hands of his enemy, the Cyprian prince Nicocreon, and was by his command pounded in a mortar unconquered, he called out to the tyrant Trriaa-e rhu 'Ava^dpxov dvKaKov, ^ Avd^apxov ov irTLTTsis. The circumstance is commonly narrated with various minor details cf. DioS". I. c. Plut. Virt. Mor. 10, p. 449 Clem. Stroin. IT. 496 D Valer. Max. iii. 3. ext. 4 Plin. H. Nat. vii. 23. 87; Tertull. Apoloqet. bd Ps. Dio Chrvs. Or. 37, p. 126 R (ii. 306 Dind.). Wiedemann, in the Philohqus, XXX. 3, 249, 33, refers to other
;
:

'

I.

the statement
6.V

on

c, cites from him irdvTa iarlv, h

Tis vorjaai.
signify,
'

This

to

all is

be taken for each man

may

what he thinks of it' (cf. Euthydem. but the meaning may also be ifif.) the all is that which we can t/ii?ik
;

'

included in it so that it expresses the worth of thought as contrasted with perception. Similarly Empedocles (vide sup. 169, 5) opposes vos'iv to the senses. On this sub'

ject, cf. p. 225, 3.

He is described as an inhabitant of Abdera, Diog. ix. 58 Gralen.

*
;

H. Phil.
pas,'
'

c. 3, p.

234 K, and
' '

c. 2,

'Aua^ayo'Avd^apxos is to be read, as even Diels now admits. ' So Diog. ix. 58. More definitely Clem. Strom, i. 301 D and Aristocles, ap. Eus. xiv. 17, 8, name Diogenes as the teacher of Anaxarchus. The native city of
p. 228, wliere instead of
;

testimonies.
Ps. Galen. H. Phil. 3, p. 234 K, reckons him among the sceptic*;, and Sext. Math. vii. 48, includes

him, with Metrodorus.

among those
:

who admitted no
Also

cr'terion of truth.

this Diogenes

was Smyrna

but,

in p. 87 sq. he says think this of Metrodorus,

;

Many
Anax-

according to Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1088 A, Cyrene was also mentioned. Epiphanius, on whom, however, we cannot certainly rely, says that
his philosophical standpoint was the same as that of Protagoras.
*

dorus,

archus and Monimus of Metrobecause of the remark quoted above of Anaxarchus and
;

Monimus
Kacrav
fj

on

cncr]voypa<pla

a-Trej-

ra ovra. toTs 5e Kara vwvovs jxaviav TrpocnriTTTOvffi ravra u/xoici-

Concerning him, Luzac, Lee-

818

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

is

be quoted as evidence of this

a contemptuous ex-

pression about the doings and opinions of men, which

does not assert more than we constantly find apart from

all

connection with any sceptical theory.

Other ac-

counts represent

him

as an adherent of the

Democritean

theory of nature.^

He may
On

also

be connected with

Democritus when he declares happiness to be the highest

end of our

efforts.^

the other hand, he diverges

from him in his more precise conception of the practical problems of life, with which his philosophy was mainly concerned, in two directions. On the one side
he approaches Cynicism;^ he praises Pyrrho's indifhe confronts external pain with that conference temptuous pride which appears in his famous utterance
'*

while he was being pounded in Nicocreon's mortar

Ap. Pint. Trajiqu. An. 4, p. 466 Valer. Max. viii. 14, ext. 2, he i represented as bringing before Alexander the doctrine of the infinity of worlds, which would be
'
;

he

ix.

37).
;

230

Cf. Galen, H. Phil. 3, a philosophic sect might be

e/c
7]

called
&(nrp

rikovs

Kai
6

SSyinaros,

^vSoLjj.opiK'f].

as inappropriate to a sceptic as the

language agreeing with the utterances of Democritus (siip. 277, 1), quoted in Clem. Strom, i. 287 A; 8tob. 34, 19 on iroXvuaQi-n, which,
the wise man, is declared to be very injurious to the person who chatters about everything without distinction; a statement which Bernays, Rh. Mus. xxiii. 375, also proves to have come from the mechanist Athenseus (vide "Wescher s Poliorcetique des Grecs,

Xos reKos ttjs (1. 07^7.) Tr}v euSai/xoviap eXeyet/, Diog. Proosm. 17. Many of the philosophers are named otto 5mOeaeup, ws 01 Y.vhaijxoviKoi, Clearchus ap. Athen. xii. 548 b rSsu
:

yap 'Aid^apkot' avrhu euaycoyris

though useful

to

hv^aifxoviKuv Ka\ov}xevo}v 'Ava^dpx^p. ^ Thus Timcn speaks, ap. Plut. Virt. Mor. 6, p. 446, of his BapcaKeov re Kai ifxixavhs, his Kvveov and Plut. Alex. 52, calls fj-euos, him iBiav rivd Tropevofievos e'l apxvs oShv eV (piXoao(i)La Koi So^av el\T)<ptii)S
vTrpo\l/ias Koi
Bcov.
* Diog. ix. 63. Once when Anaxarchus had fallen into a bog, Pyrrho passed by without troubling himself about him, but was praised by Anaxarchus for his d5id<popou

oKiywpias rwv

ffvvi]-

and not to his airddda kol evKohia toii ^iov (as Diog. ix. 60, asserts\ that he owes his appellation 6 EubaifxoviKhs (Diog. and Clem. I. c. Sext. vii. 48
;
;

4, 202). 2 It is to this statement,

Athen.

vi.

250

sq.

iElian V. H.

Kal dcrropyov.

XAl'SIFHAXES.
takes

319

corrupting
in

many liberties with the Macedonian conqueror,^ him at the same time with flatteries, couched the language of honesty.On the other side, in his
is

personal conduct he contradicts his principles by an

effeminacy and self-indulgence for which he

in

censured

many

different quarters.^

Anaxarchus was the inXausiphanes

also

structor of Pyrrho the Sceptic.^

seems

to have been indirectly connected with Metrodorus, at

least

he

is

described as a follower of Pyrrho's scepticism,

as the teacher of
pleasure,

and at the same time

^

Epicurus

'

we

the anecdotes, ap. Diog. Diogenes himself calls atix. 60. tention to the different account in Plutarch, Plut. Qu. Conv. ix. 1, ]EL V. H. ix. 37 Athen. vi. 2, 5 250 sq. (according to Satyrus) even the last seems to me to contain not flattery but irony, as is presupposed by Alexander's answer. 2 I know not how otherwise to regard his behaviour after the
Cf.
;

and proves it by many examples. Ap. Plut. Alex. 52,

Callisthenes says to him, -when the question was under discus-sion

it were warmer in Persia or in Greece, he must, doubtless, have found it colder in Persia since

whether

in Greece he had exchanged his cloak for three coverings but

;

even Timon savs, ap. Plur. Virf. Mor. 6, p. 4-16 his (pxxns ri5ovoTr\^^
:

murder

of Clitus (Plut. Alex. 52,

mc-r. 4, 1, p.

drew him aside against

knowledge.
Luz-ic
lies in

Arrian, Exj). Alex. iv. 9, 9), on which Plutarch observes, that through it he made himself greatly belo\ed, but exercised the worst influence over the king and I see no reason to mistrust the narrative of Plutarch. On the other hand, it may be true that it was not Anaxarchus, as Arrian says, I. c. 9, 14. 10, 7, prefacing his statements with \6yos Kar^xei, but Cleon. (so Curt. Be Reh. Alex. viii. 17, 8 sqq.), who recommended to the Macedonians the adoration of Alexander. That Alexander valued rhv fxev apixoviKhv rbu evfiaifMOviKhy) 'Avd^ap\ou, {I. Plutarch likewise observes, Plut. Alex. Virt. 10, p. 331. ^ Clearchus ap. Athen. xii. 548 b, reproaches him with love of

ad princ.

781

To

his better see in all this, as

does,

only
final

peripatetic

calumny the

motive of which

the enmity between Callis-

thenes and Anaxarchus, seems to me hazardous, though I attach no undue importance to the assertion of Clearchus. * Diog. ix. 61, 63, 67 Aristocl. ap. Eus. L c. and 18, 20. Diog. Profm. 15, where together with him a certain Xausiodes. otherwise unknown, is introduced as a disciple of Democritus and an instructor of Epicurus, X. 7 sq. U; ix. 64, 69 Suid. 'Ettik. Cic. N. D. i. 26, 73. 33, 93
;
'" ; ;

Sext. Math,

Clemens, Strom, i. 301 D. According to Clem. Strom, ii. 417 A, he declared aKaTaTT\r,^la to be the highest
i,

sq.

320

THE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

tlierefore,

may,
of

suppose that, like Metrodorus, he com-

bined an Atomistic theory of physics with a sceptical view

human

knowledge.*

In general,

among

the successors

of Democritus, the Atomistic philosophy seems to have

followed the sceptical tendencies which might so easily

be deduced from

its

physical presuppositions, though it

these

did not itself abandon

presuppositions

while

previously and contemporaneously, a similar modification of the Heracleitean physics was undertaken by

Cratylus and Protagoras, and of the Eleatic doctrine by

Gorgias and the Eristics. Whether Diagoras, the famous

Atheist,

who became

proverbial in antiquity, can be

rightly included in the school of Democritus, appears the

more doubtful
or at

since he

would seem to have been older,

any rate not younger, than Democritus, and not a single proposition of his philosophy has been recorded.^
good, which was called by
critus adaix^ia.

Demo342,

first

As
cf.

to his relation
iii. a,

a dithyrambic poet that he originally feared the gods but

;

with Epicurus

Part

2nd

ed.

' This connection between Epicurus and Metrodorus, through the medium of Nausiphanes, may have given rise to the stnteraent (Galen. H. Phil. c. 7, p. 24:9 Stob. Eel. i. 496), that Metrodorus was the KaO-nynrhs 'EiriKovpov. 2 Concerning Diogenes, vide Diodorus xiii. 6 end; Jos. c. Apion. Sext. Math. ix. o, 3; Suidas, c. 37 sub voce; Hesch. Dc Vir. RluMr. sub voce; Tatian, Adv. Gr. c. 27; Athenag. >%;)y/f 4 Clemens, CoCyrillus, c, Jul. vi. hort. 15 B 189 E; Arnob. Adv. Gent. iv. 29; Athen. xiii. 611 a; Diog. vi. 59. From these passages we get the that Diagoras following result was born in Melos, and was at
; ;

became an atheist, because a flawrong committed against him (as to which particular accounts differ) remained unpunished by the gods he was then condemned to death in Athens for blasphemous words and actions,
grant
;

teries,

especially for divulging the niysand a reward offered for

delivering

him up

in his flight he

was

lost in

phanes

a shipwreck. already alludes

v.

Aristoto

his

830 (01. 89, 1), and to his condemnation. Birds, v. 1073 (01. 91, 2). Cf. with this last quotation Backhuysen v. d.
atheism, Cloiids,

Brinck,
sqq.

v. Lecit.

ex Hist. Phil. 41
is

His condemnation signed by Diodorus to

also as-

01. 91, 2;

the statements of Suidas that he flourished in 01. 78 (wh'ch Euse-

ANAXAGORAS.
Of the Democritean philosopher Bion know no particulars whatever.
III.

321

of Abdera,'

we

AXAXAGOIiAS.Matter and Mind.

1.

Trliiciples of his sijstem:

Anaxagoras, born about 500

his bius like-wise maintains in Chron. on 01. 78), and vras set free

b.c.,^
3

was a contemporary

bv Democritns from imprisonment, mutually confute one another. In the accounts of his dearh, perhaps he is confused with Protagoras. A treatise in which he published the mysteries is quoted under the title of (ppvyiOL xSyoi, or airoTivpyiCovres.
'

This date, previously accepted universally, has been recently disputed by Miiller, Fragm. Hist. ii. 24; iii. 504; K. F. Hermann, De Philos. Ion. (statihus, 10 sqq. and Schwegler {Gesch. d. Griech. Phil. cf. Born. Gesch. iii. 20, 2); p. 35 and the life of Anaxagoras has been placed 34 years earlier, so
;
;

that his birth would fall in 01. 61,

3

Diog.

iv. 58.

What

is said

by

the comic poet. Damoxenus, ap. Athen. 102 a, on the popularity of the physics of Democritus, relates to the Epicurean physics, and only indirectly through these, to the Democritean philosophy. 2 On the life, writings and doctrine of Anaxagoras, vide Schaubach, Anaxagorce Claz. Fragrnenta, &c., Leipzig. 1827. where the accounts of the ancients are most carefully collected Schorn. AnaxaClaz. Diogenis Apoll. gor(B et Breier. Fragrnenta, Bonn, 1829 6. Anaxag. Berl. 1840; Phi'l. Krische, Forsch. 60 sqq. Zevort, Bissett. sur la vie et la doctrine d'Anaxagore,Va,v. 1843; MuUach,
;

3 (534 B.C.). his death in 01. 79, (462 B.C.), his residence in Athens

between 01. 70, 4. and 78, 2 (497An attempt had already (1842) been made by Bakhuysen von den Brinck ( Var. Lectt. de Hist. Philos. Ant. 69 sqq.) to prove that Anaxagoras was born in 01. 65, 4, came to Athens at the age of 20 in 01. 70, 4, and left the city in 01. I opposed this view in the 78, 2. second edition of the present work,
466).

1859), with almost universal acquiescence. It would seem from Diog. ii. 7, that Apollodorus probably, after Demetrius Phaler. (Uiels, Eh. Miis. xxxi. 28), placed the birth of Anax-

and at p. 10 sqq. of DeHermodoro (Marb.

my

treatise,

Fragm. Philos. i. 243 sqq. Among modern writers, cf. the treatise of Gladisch and Clemens, De Philos. Anax. Berl. 1839 (quoted Vol. I. Concerning older monop. 35).
graphs, especially those of Carus

agoras in 01. 70,

Still

(500-496

B.C.).

more

definite is the statement

and Hemsen,
35 Brandis, 24.
;

of.
i,

Schaubach, p. 232 Ueberweg,

;

1,
i.

(ibid, with the prefix KeycTai) that he was 20 at the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, and lived to the age of 72 that his birth took place in 01. 70, 1 (500 B.C.), and his death
;

01. 88, 1 (528, 7 b.c.) and though the traditional text of Die-

in

YOL.

II.

'^'22

ANAXAGORAS.
down upon Athens,
to

I. c, represents Apollodorus as assigning 01. 78, I as the yeKV of his death, we should doiil)tless read (as most agree) k^So/x-nKoarris The coninstead of oy^o-nKoarris. jecture of Bakhuysen v. d. Brinck (p. 72), that the number of the Olympiad should be retained, but that instead of redu7)Kevai riKfxr}Kevai should be substituted, has The ordinary little in its favour. theory is confirmed also by Hippol. Befut. i. 8, who, no doubt, places the d/cju^ of this philosopher in 01. 88, 1, merely because he found this year mentioned as the year of his death, and erroneously referred it AVith to the time of his d/c/x7j. this agrees also the statement of Demetrius Phal. (ap. Diog. A c), ^nplaro in his list of the archons

genes,

a city which

'

'

neither then, nor for many decades previously, had harboured any noteworthy philosopher within its walls ? (Schaubach, 14 sq. Zevort, 10 sq., etc., propose that without changing the name of the arehon, " recrcrapaKOUTa " should be substituted for e^iKoa-i that is, should be substituted for so that Anaxagoras would have come to Athens at the age of forty, in 456 B, when Pal lias was arehon.) Now it is true that Diodorus, Eusebius and CjTillus assign dates to Democritus, which are not
;
;
'

'

'

compatible with this; for

if

Demo-

critus (as Diodorus, xxiv. ]], says) died in 01. 94, 1 (403, 4 b.c.) at the

age of 90, or

if (as

Eusebius and

<piAoao(})(7u 'AOrjprjaiu

eVl

KaWiov,

4twp e'lKoffi S}u, without even changing (with Meursius, &c., cf.

Menage, ad

h.
i.

I.

Brandis,
;

Gr.

Rom.
d.

Phil.
I.

233

Brinck,

c.

79 sq.

Bakhuysen v. Cobet in his

Cyrillus say, vide stq). 209) he was born in 01. 69, 3, or 01. 70, Anaxagoras, who was 40 years older (Diog. ix. 41 ; vide sujy. p. 209), must have been at the beginning of tlie fifth century a man of from

edition)

into KaWiddov, as these are only different forms of

KaWiou

the same name.

Kalliades was
iu

Arehon

Eponymus

480

b.c.

therefore get the year 500 B.C. as the birth-year of Anaxagoras. Only we must suppose Diogenes or
his authority to have misunderstood the statement of Demetrius, who must either have said of Anaxago-

We

33 to 41 years old. But there many important reasons to be urged against this theory. In the first place, it is not only Eusebius and Cyrillus who, in their dates, are guilty of so many contradictions, and in the case of Democritus
are
incredible contradictions and errors

(examples may be found in regard to Eusebius in my treatise, I)e Hermodoro, p. 10 cf also Prcep.
;

probably, ^p|. (piXoa. for in 'AQ-i]ur\(ri apxovTos KaKAiov that case ^p|. (pi?^. could not relate to the appearance of Anaxagoras as a teacher, for which the age of 20 would be much too young, but only to the commencement of his philosophic studies. What could have induced him to come for this purpose at the very moment when the armies of Xerxes were pouring
;

ras or

^p|aTo

(piAuao(pe7i/

i-rrl

KaWiou,

more

where Xenophanes and Pythagoras are made contemporary with Anaxagoras, and Euripides and Archelaus
Ev.
X. 14,

8 sq.

xiv. 15, 9,

are nevertheless called his disciples.

to

As to Cyrillus. remember that in

oK/^ry

it is

enough
13
b,

C. Jul.

he assigns the

of Democritus
;

simultaneously to 01. 70 and 86

and Parmenides to 01. 86, and makes Anaximenes the philosopher, no doubt by a confusion with the

HIS DATE.
rhetorician of Lampsacus, a conCedren. temporary of Epicurus. 158 C, also describes him as a teacher of Alexander the Groat) but also Diodoms who, in chronological accuracy, is not to be com-

pared with Apollodonis. Hermann thinks that the three statements on the date of .Democritus, viz. of Apollodorus, Thrasyllus and Diodorus, are to be traced back to this that they are all founded on a previous notice, according to which Democritus was born 723 years after the destruction of Troy and each
:

calculated the date after his own Trojan era (placed by Apollodorus in 1183, by Thrasyllus in 1193,

the 730th year after the destruction of Troy, must have been well known indeed, from Diog. ix. -il, to them would seem that Apollodorus it founded his calculation of Democritus's birth-year upon this very statement. Bv.t in that case they could not possibly have placed the birth of the philosopher in the 723rd year of the same era in the 730th year of which he had comthey could only posed iiis work have found its date by making the stitements of Democritus as to his epoch correspond with their era In regard to instead of his own.
;

by Diodorus, in agreement with Ephorus, in 1217 B.C.); and that they then determined the date of Anaxagoras according to that of Even if this were Democritus. true, it would not follow that Diodorus is right, and that the other two are wrong in itself, however, the conjecture is not probable. For, on the one hand, it cannot even be proved that Ephorus assigned the destruction of Troy to 1217 (Bakhuysen v. d. Brinck, Philol. vi. 589 sq., agrees with Boeckh and Welcker in saying 1 1 50
;

Anaxagoras, however, Demetrius Phalereus, and others, ap. Diog. ii. 7, are in accord with them, who cannot certainly have arrived at a'l thf-ir theories through a wrong application of one and the same Trojan era. Even to an Eratosthenes, an ApoUoJoinis, or a Thrasyllus, it would be impossible to ascribe so careless a procedure as that with which Hermann credits them. In the second place, Diodorus himself,

Hermann's

chief witness,

agrees

with the above testimonies concerning Anaxagoras; since in xii. 38 sq., when discussing the causes of the Peloponnesian war, he ob-

and Miiller, Ctes. et Chronogr. Fragm. 126, does not seem to me to have proved anything to the
contrary) only this much is clear from Clemens, Strom, i. 337 A; Diodorus, xvi. 76, that he fixed the migration of the Heraclidse in 1070 or 1090-1 B.C.; and it is, moreover, very improbable that
;

The embarrassment in serves which Pericles was placed by his

:

Apollodorus and his predecessor,Eratosthenes, arrived at their conclusions about the dates of Democritus and Anaxagoras, in the way For Dethat Hermann suggests. niocritus's own statement, that he

administration of the public treasure was increased by some other the proaccidental circumstances cess against Pheidias, and the charge of Atheism against AnaxaHere the trial of Anaxagoras.' goras is assigned, with the greatest possible explicitness, to the time immediately preceding the Peloponnesian war, and consequently his birth in the beginning of the fifth or the end of the sixth
:

century.

composed the

^iik^os

5ioi.KocriJ.os

in

comment

(p. 19),

Hermann's explanatory that upon ocoa-

824

AXAXAGOliAS.
the end of Perieles's life (Pint. Per. 33); and, according to Plut. l\'r. 32. the \\ii](pin jj.a against those who denied the gods, and taught Metarsiohigia, was the work of Diopeithes, who is mentioned by Aristophanes {Birds, v. 988) as
still

sion of the charges apainst Pheidias, the old complaints against Anaxagoras were revived, is so unnatural that scarcely any one couUl admit it. 'The enemies of Pericles,' says Diodorus, 'obtained the arrest of Phoidias ical avrou rov riepiKAeous KaTi]y6povv iepocrvXiav. irphs Sh rovTots 'Aua^ayopav tov ao(pi(n^]v, Si5d(nca\ov uiza XlfpiK\4orjs, u)$ ufT^fiovvTa (Is rovs Oeovs 4(TuK0(pduTovu. Who can believe that Diodorus would have tlms ex:

alive (414 B.C.).

Nor

is

it

pressed himself if he had been nlluding, not to a suspicion attaching to Anaxagoras, who was then living, but to the charges tJaat had been brouglit against a man who had been dead for thircy years ? The present forms, SiddaKaKou OUT a and atre ^ovura, alone would prove the con'^rary. Plutarch also (Pericl. 32) places the accusation of Anaxagoras in the same period and historical connection
;

prejudiced by the circumstance on which Brandis, Gcsch. d. Entw. i. 120 sq greatly relies, that Socrates, in Plato's Vhcedo, 97 B, derives his knowledge of the Anaxagorean doctrine, not from Anaxagoras himself, but from his treatise. Plato might, no doubt, have brought him into personal connection with Anaxagoras, but that he

must have done so, if Anaxagoras was in Athen until 434 B.C., cantells

Bot be maintained. Thirdly, it against Hermann's view that

Xenophon {Mem. iv. 7, 6 sq.) and Plato {Apol. 26 D) treat Anaxagoras

as

the

physical

philosopher

upon
'

also observes, Nic. 23, the occasion of a lunar eclipse

and he

during the Sicilian campaign, Anaxagoras, who was the first to write openly and clearly on lunar
eclipses, owt' avrhs
6
?iv

iraXaihs, ovre

Xoyos ivdo^os (acknowledged by public opinion), on account of the disfavour in which the physical explanation of nature M'as at that time held in Athens, his opinions were, however, received with caution and in a narrow circle,' Plutarch, therefore, agrees with Diodorus, that Anaxagoras was in Athens until near the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. No argument against this can be derived from the fact that Satyrus, ap. Diog. ii. 12, names Thucydides (son of Melesias) as the accuser of Anaxagoras for Sotion (ibid.) had designated Cleon as such, who only attained to any celebrity towards
;

whose doctrines and writings were universally knoAvn in Athens towards the end of the fifth century, just as they were represented by Aristophanes in the Clouds. Now, if he had left Athens more than sixty years before, nobody would have remembered him and his trial, and the enemies of philosophy would have directed their attacks against newer men and doctrines.
Plato, in the Cratyhis (409 A), the date of which cannot possibly be earlier than the two last decades of the fifth century (Plato attended the lectures of Cratylus about 409407 B.C.), describes Anaxagoras's theory of the moon as something
&
(Kelfos veu}(TTl
^Aeyei/.

Moreis

over, Euripides

(born 480 b.c.)

called

a disciple

of Anaxagoras

(i)tf. 328, 1), and if he himself seems to betray that he was so

(vide Vol. II. a,

12, third edition).

HIS DATE.
this presupposes that the philoso-

325
and
as

Anaxagoras;

his

father,

pher did not die before 462 B.C., several years after he had quitted Athens. If it be objected that the authors who attest this relation of Eui-ipides to Anaxagoras are comparatively recent, there is a valid answer even to that objection. For, according to Athenseus, v. 220 Callias b, the of ^Eschines the Socratic contained: ttjittov Ka?e\iov
'

Hipponicus, fell at Deliura in 424 B.C., he could not before that date have been represented as favouring

But against this we have not only Plato's account, which makes Protagoras even bethe Sophists.
fore the beginning of the Peloponnesian war entertain a number of

'

Trpbs

Tou Trarepa Siacpopau Kai

;

rrju

Ava^ay pourojv aocpiaTuv SLap.(i}KT](nv (mockery) he had consequently connected Anaxagoras and Prodicus with Callias, who "W^as not bom at the time when, according to Hermann, Anaxagoras left Atbetis. Hermann's only resource
TlpoSiKov Kol
in this difficulty is the conjecture

the most distinguished Sophists, but the still more decisive proof that Callias's younger half-brother Xanthippus was already married before the year 429 (Plot. Per. 24, 36 cf. Plato, Prot. 314 E). If we add to these arguments the fact that Anaxagoras (as will be shown at the end of this chapter), net
;

that we should read UpcoTaynpov instead of 'Ava^ayopou in Athenseus. (De Aesch. Socrat. Eeliqu. 14.) But this alteration is quite arbitrary, and no reason can be as.signed for it except the impossibility of reconciling the traditional text with Hermann's hypothesis. That Anaxagoras, according to the language of the time, might haA'e been called a Sophist, is clear from Vol. I. p. 302, 1, and will be made clearer further on {hif. Chap. III. Soph.). Hermann expressly acknowledfjes this, Diodorus himself (vide supra) calls him so, and the name involved no evil imputation. Why then a Socratic like Jischines should have objected to class him with other Sophists it is hard to see for Socrates himself, in Xenophon's Mem. ii. 1, 21, pnsses a much more favourable judgment on Prodicus
;

than on Anaxagoras.

Hermann

thinks, lastly, that as Callias wa-s still (ap. X^u. Hellcn. vi. 3. 2 sq.) in 01. 102. 2 (371 B.C.) occupied with
state
affairs,

have

he could no longer attended the lectures of

only was strongly influenced by Parmenides. whose older contemporary, according to Hermann, he was. but in all prolability studied Empedocles and Leucippus, the correctness of the popular theory as to his date will no longer be doubtful. No argument against this can be founded on the statement in Plutarch, Tkeraist. 2, that Stesimbrotus asserted that Themistocles had listened to the teaching of Anaxagoras, and had occupied himself with Melissus For though Plut. Cimon, 4 s^ys of Stesimbrotus that he was vepl rhv avrhu 6/xoO Tt xpo'^'O'' '''V Ki^a-i/i yeyovMS, this evidence can be no more worthy of belief in regard to Anaxagoras than to^Melissus, who was somewhat younger, and not older than Anaxagoras, according to the reckoning of Apollodorus and we have the choice between two alternatives either to suppose that Themistocles, during his stay in Asia Minor (474 to 470 B.C.), actually came in cont^ict (it could nor have amounted to mor than this) with Anaxagoras, who was then in Lampsacns, and with Melissus or that the
;

02G

AXAXAGOliAS.
This learned man,^ who

of Empedocles and Leucippus.

is

also

named with

distinction

among

the most ancient

mathematicians and astronomers,^ came from his native

writer,

"whose work, according to Plut. Per. 36, was composed more than forty years after Themistoc4ef>'s death, and of wliose untrust;

disciple of Democritus,

and Bemo-

critus the disciple of the Persians,

whom

ternal house

worthinees Plutarch {Per. 13, 3 Themist. 24) furnishes conclusive proofs, is in this case also speaking groundlessly, or inventing with some ulterior purpose. To me the latter is far the more probable. As little can be said for the statement that Archelaus, the disciple of Anaxagoras. was regarded by Panaetius as the author of a consolatory poem addressed to Cimou after the death of his wife (Plut. Cim. 4), for this is apparently a mere conjecture, as to the truth of which we know nothing and even if we accept it as true, we are altogether ignorant how long this poem was composed before Cimon's death (4o0), how old Archelaus
;

Xerxes brought into his pabut this is little to the purpose, for the supposed disci pleship of Protagoras emanates, as will be shown, from very doubtful sources and as to the
;
;

Persian instructors of Democritus, we have already seen {sup. p. 210) that the story is altogether imworthy of credit. KAa^ojueVjos is his usual appellation. His father, according to Diog. ii. 6, &c. (cf. Schaixbach. p. 7). was called Hegesibulus, or also Eubulus on account of his wealth and good f\imily he occupied a pro'
;

time, and how much younger he was than Anaxagoras.

was at the
Plutarch,

who

assigns the flight of

Anaxagoras from Athens to the

period immediately preceding the Peloponnesian war, thinks, however, that the chronology is in favour of the opinion of Panaetius. For similar reasons, we should not 1)6 justified l.)y the statement (even were it correct) that Socrates was a disciple of Anaxagoras, in assigning Anaxagoras's residence in Athens to the fir^t third of the fifth century. I have already shown, howcA-er, elsewhere (Part 11. a, 47, third edition) how little this statement is to be trusted. Hermann alleges in support of his theory, that it is only on his calculation that Protogoras can be the

minent position. - That Anaxagoras was so, there is no doubt, but how he arrived at his extensive knowledge it is no longer possible to discover. In the hioZoxh, he was usually placed after Anaximenes, and therefore was called the disciple and successor of that philosopher (Cie. K. D. i. 11, 26 Diog. Proam. 14, ii. 6; Strabo, xiv. 3, 36, p. 645 Clem.
;

A.: Simpl. P%.?. 6 b; Gfilen. H.Phil, c. 2, &c. cf. Schaubach, p. 3 Krische, Forsch. 61); but this is. of course, a wholly unhistorical combination, the defence of which ought not to have been attempted by Zevort, p. 6 sq. the same theory seems to have been adopted by Euspbius {Pr. Ev. X. 14, 16) and TheodoreSfrovi.
i.

301

tus

{Cm\ Gr. Af.

22, p. 24,

cf. iv.

45, p. 77), when they represent him as the contemporary of Py-

thagoras

and

Xenophanes,
places his

and
in

when Eusebius

d/CjU^

LIFE AND WRITINGS.

city Clazomenae
^

327

to Athens,^

where in his person philo;

sophy
his

first

became naturalised

and though throughout

many years'

residence in this city, he had to struggle

with the mistrust and prejudice of the majority of the

inhabitants,'' yet there
Oi.

were not wanting intellectual men,

Chios) on the summit of which Anaxagoras pursued his astronomical observations (Philostr. Apoll.
ii. 5, 3). With his mathematical knowledge are also combined the prophecies which are ascribed to him the most famous of these,
;

70-3 and his death in 01. 79-2. is said about a journey of Anaxagoras to Egypt for the pxirposes of culture, by Ammian, xxii. le, 22; Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. ii. 23, p. 24; Cedren. Hist. 94 B; cf. Yaler. yiii. 7, 6, deserves no credit. Josephus brings him into connection -with the Je-^-s (C. Ap. c. 16, p. 482), but this is not correct. The most trustworthy ac-

What

the fabled prognostication of the much talked of meteoric stone of

Aegospotamus,
currence in

relates

to

an oc-

counts are entirely silent as to his teachers and the course of his education. From love of knowledge, it is said, he neglected his property, left his land to be pasture for sheep, and finally resigned his property to his relations (Dicg. ii. 6 sq. Plat. Hipp. Maj. 283 A; Plut. Pericl. c. 16 De V. Mre Al. Cic. Tusc. v. 39, 115: 8, 8, p. 831 Yaler. Max. viii. 7, e^t. 6, &e. Schaubach, 7 sq. cf. Arist. Eth. N.x\. 7, 1141 b, 3); nor did he trouble liimself about politics, but regarded the sky as his fatlierland, and the contemplation of the stars as his vocation (Diog. ii. 7, 10 Eudem. Eth. i. 5, 1216 a, 10; Philo, JEtern. M. p. 939 B Iamb. Proirept. c. 9, p. 146 Kiessl. Clem. Strom. ii. 416 Laetant. Instit. iii. 9,
; ;
;

the heavens, and is brought into connection with his theory of the stars; Diog. ii. 10 Ael. H. Anim, vii. 8; Plin. H. Not. ii. 58, 149 V\\xt. Lysand. 12; Philostr. Apollon. i. 2, 2, viii. 7, 29 Ammian. xxii. 16, 22 Tzetz.
;

Chil.n. 892 Suid.'Ai'a|a7. bach, p. 4U sqq.

;

Schau-

According to the account of Diog. ii. 7, prefaced with (pacrXv, he

2

lived in

Athens for thirty years.

In that case his arrival there must have taken place about 463 or 462 B.C. For the rest, in regard to
dates, cf. p. 321 sqq.
3

Zeno of Elea
I. p.

is

also said to

have lived for a while in Athens,

vide Vol.
*
.

609,

1.
.

23;
*

cf.

Cic.

De

Orat.

iii.

15, oQ.
;

Ps.-Plato,

Antera.st.

Procl.

in Euclid. 19 65 sq. Friedl. (after

Eudemus)
yecL'/xeTpiav

ttoWuv
;

icp-fj^aro

Kara

Plut. Be Exil. 1 end. In after times, some pretended to know the very mountain (Mimas, in the neighbourhood of

Cf the passage from Plut Nic. 23 discussed supra, p. 324; Plato, Apol. 26 c, sq. and Aristophanes, Clouds. Even the appellation No Ds, which is said to have been given him, was no doubt rather a nickname than a sign of respect and recognition (Plut. Pericl. 4 Timon,
;

the later writers quoted by Schaubach, p. 36, probably copied from them).
ii.

ap. Diog.

328

ANAXAGOEAS.
his instructive society
lie
^
;

who sought

and in the great

Pericles especiall}^

found a protector whose friendship

for the disfavour of the populace.-

was a compensation

When, however,
began
to attack

in the period immediately preceding

the Peloponnesian War, the enemies of that statesman

him

in his friends, Anaxagoras

became

implicated in a charge of denying the gods of the state,

from which even

shield

his powerful friend could not altogether

him

he was therefore obliged to quit Athens,^

17 sq. But this relation became the prey of anecdote and scandalmong( rs (even no doubt at the time) among their idle inventions I include the statement in Plut. Per. 16, which is not very happily explained by Backhuysen v. d. Brinck, that once, when Pericles could not look after him for a long time, Anaxagoras ft-U into great distress, and had almost resolved to starve himself when his patron opportunely interposed. ^ Concerning these events, cf. Diog. ii. 12-15; Plut. Per. 32; Nic. 23 Diodor. xii. 39 Jos. c. Ap. ii. 37 Olympiod. in Meteorol. 5 a, 1, 136 Id. (where, in opposition to all the most trustworthy
;

^ Besides Archelaus and ^letrodorus (who will be mentioned later on) and Pericles, Euripides is also spoken of as a disciple of Anaxagoras (Diog. ii. 10,45; Suid. Evpitr. Diodor. i. 7 end Strabo,
;
;

xiv.
14,

1,

A. xv. 20, 4, 8 Alexander Aetolus, whom he quotes Heracl. Alleff. Horn. 22, M. Dionys. Halic. Ars p. 47 Rhet. 10, 11. p. 300, 355 E, &c.
;

30

36. p. Gell.

645

Cic.

Tusc.

iii.
;

Scliaubach, p. 20 sq,), and he himself seems to allude to the person as well as to the doctrines of this philosopher (cf. Vol. II. a, 12, 3rd ed.). According to Antyllus ap. Marcellin. V. Thucyd. p. 4 D, Thucydides had also heard the
cf.

Th.it discourses of Anaxfigoras. it is a mistake to represent Enipedocles as his disciple, has been shown, p. 187, cf. p. 118; for evidence that Democ rates and Socrates could not have been so, cf. p.

evidences,

Anaxagoras

is

repre-

210 and Part

2

On

ii. a, 47, 3rd ed. Pericles' relation to

An;

axagoras, cf. Plut. Fer. 4, 5, 6, 1 6 Plato, Fhcedr. 270 A; Alcih. i. 118 C Ep. ii. 31 1 A Isocr. it. avTiZoa.
; ;

235

Ps.-DemoBth. Amator. 1414 Cic. Britt. II, 44; De Orat. iii. 34, 138; Diodor. xii. 39 {sup. p. 323);
;

Diog.

ii.

13, &c., ap. Scliaubach, p.

sented as having returnf-d); Cyrill. C. Jul. vi. 189 E; also Lucian, Timon. 10 Plato, Apol. 26 D Laics, xii. Q67 Aristid. Orat. Schaubach, p. 47 45, p. 83 Dind. sqq. The details of the trial are variously given. Most accounts agree that Anaxagoras was put in prison, but some say that he escaped with the help of Pericles others that he was set at liberty, but banished. The statement of Satyrus, ap. Diog. ii. 12 (as to the real meaning of which Gladisch,
;

CHARACTER OF HIS DOCTRIXE.

and betook himselt
the year 428
B.C."

to Lampsacus,^

where he died, ahout

His

h^cientific

theories

had been em-

bodied in a treatise of which valuable fragments have

been preserved.^

The
Anax. u. d. improLalle

doctrine of Anaxagoras
Isocr. 97i offers a

is

closely related to the

and banishment,

very he wa>i accused, not ouly of aaifina

coujecture),
tliat

his condemnation

lait also of

ixTjSicriJLos,

stands quite

alone.
*

As

to the date of the charge

The as well as other misfortunes. people of Lampsacus honoured his by a public funeral, by memory altars, and (according to Julian,
dedicated to Kovs and 'AK-ndeia) by a yearly festival which lasted for a century (Alcidamas. ap. Arist. Bhef. ii. 23,' 1398 b, 15 Diog. ii. Ii sq. cf. Plut. Pi-acc. Ger. Beip. 27, 9, p. 820; Ael. V. H. viii. 19). ^ This, like most of the treatises of the ancient philosophers, bears the title Trept (pvceoos. For
;
;

and the accusers, vide p. 323 sq. That he founded a school of

ciently

philosophy there, is very insuffiproved by the statement of Eusebius, Fr. Ev. x. U, 13, that Archelaus took charge of his
;

school at Lampsacns and from his advanced age, it is not likely. Indeed it is a question -nhether the conception of a school, generally speaking, can rightly Le applied to

him and
-

his friends.

dates are given by Diog. ii. 7 in part after Apollodorus vide nup. p. 321 that at the time of his trial he was old and weak, is mentioned also by

These
;

the fragments of which cf. Schaubach, Schorn and 3Iullach. Besides this treatise he is said (Vitruv. vii. Pra-f. 11) to have written on Scenography and, ac;

cording to Plutarch, Ve Exil. 17, p. 607, he composed a treatise in

prison, or more properly, a figure which related to the squaring of

Hieronymus, ap. l)iog. li. The asseition that he died from voluntary starvation (Diog. ii. 15 Suid. and avoKaprfpriaas) is 'Aj/clay. very suspicious ; it seems to have arisen either from the anecdote mentioned p. 328, 1, or from the statement of Hermippus, ap. Diog. ii. 13, that he killed himself, from grief on account of the disgrace that came upon him through his trial. This anecdote, however, as we have said, is very doubtful, and relates to something else the assertion of Hermippus cannot be reconciled either with the fact of his residence in Lampsacus, or ftith what we know of the equability with which Anaxagoras bore
;

the circle. Schorn's notion (p. 4), that the author of the work on Scenography is another person of the same name, is ceriainly inccrrect. Zevorts conjecture seems more pluusible that the treatise on Scenography formed part of the treatise ic^pi (pixreucs, and that this was his only work as Diogenes, i. 16, no doubt en more ancient authority, gives us to understand. Of other writings there are no definite traces (vide Schaubach, 51 sqq.

Phil 208). Por the opinions of the ancients on Anaxagoras cf. Schaubach, 35
Eitter, Gci-chich. d. Ion.
sq., cf,

Diog.

ii.

6.

330

AJVAXAGOEAS.

contemporaneous systems of Empedocles and Leucippus.

The common
ration

starting point of all three

is

found in the
the ex-

propositions of Parmenides on the impossibility of gene-

and destruction

their

common aim
for this

is

planation of the actual, the plurality and variability of

which they acknowledge

from which
is

and

purpose they

all

presuppose certain unchangeable primitive substances,

all

things are formed by means of combi-

nation and separation in space.

Anaxagoras, however,

distinguished from the two other philosophers in his

precise definitions concerning the primitive sub-

more

stances and the cause of their motion.

They conceive

the original substances without the qualities of the

derived
:

Empedocles

as elements qualitatively distinct

;

from each other, and limited in number Leucippus as atoms, unlimited as to form and number, but homogeneous as to quality.
supposes
all

Anaxagoras, on the other hand,

the qualities and differences of derived

things already inherent in the primitive matter, and

therefore conceives the original substances as unlimited in kind, as well as in number.

Moreover, while

EmpeLove
and the

docles explained motion by the mythical forms of

and Hate, and therefore in

effect of

reality not at all

it

Atomists on their side explained

that

mechanically by the

weight, Anaxagoras came to the conclusion

it

can be only understood as the working of an in;

corporeal force

and he accordingly opposes to matter, motion and order.

mind,
as

as the cause of all

all

On

these

two points

that

is

peculiar to his philosophy, so far

to turn.
lies, as

we are acquainted with it, may be said The first presupposition of his system

before

GEXEP.ATIOX AXD DESTEUCTIOX.

331

remarked, in the theorem of the unthiiikableness of

absolute BecomiDg.
'

Of generation and destruction

For nothing
is

the G-reeks

do not speak correctly.

generated nor destroyed, but

out of existing things

compounded, and again separated. The right course, therefore, would be to designate generation Anaxaas combination, and destruction as separation.'
everything
is
'

goras, accordingly, is as unable to conceive generation

and destruction
Parmenides
;

in the specific sense of the words, as

for this reason

he also maintains that the

totality of things can neitlier increase nor diminish ;^

and in his opinion it is an improper use of language to employ such expressions at ali.-^ In truth, the so-called Becoming of the new and cessation of the old, is only the change of something that previously existed, and
continues afterwards
tive,
;

and

this
:

change

is

not a qualita-

but a mechanical change

it

the substance remains

what

was, only the

mode

of its composition changes

generation consists in the combination, destruction in

the separation, of certain substances."*
'

Fr. 22 Schavh. 17 Mull.

j/o^tcTouo-jv

rh

aWa
^

iravra

Xaa.

aUi.

5e yiveadai KoX airohXvaeai ovk op-

eds

ol "E\Ar)P'6s.

ovdei/

yap
dAA'

xpVf^o, jlv^rai, ovoe

air'

a-noWvraL,
'^^^'

iovrwv

xp^'i^"-'^^^

fiia-yerai

re Koi biaKplverai, Kal ovTccs av opGws KaKoUu to Te yiveadai (Tv/x/jLiayfo-dai Koi rh airoKXvThe treatise of (TdaL diaKpiveaeai. Anaxagoras did not begin with these words; but that is, of course, no reason why they should not form the starting-point of his system. = Fr. 14 tout4wu 5e ovtw dia:

In the fragment just quoted " voix'i^eiu " seems to allude (as, indeed, the mention of '* EAA.7]j/es' "vvould lead us to suspect) to the current expression, which correspojids "with the "v6ij.(o" of Empedocles and Democritus (p. 124, 1; 219, 3), and with the " e9os of Parmenides (V. 54, vide siqy.
Vol. I. p. 584, 1), and is therefore not quite accurately translated by
'

believe.'
*

Arist. Pliys.

i.

4,

187

a,

KeKpi/j-fvcav yivuxxKeLV xpVyO'Ti ''^^yTa

eoiKe Se 'Avo^ayopas
oli]Qrivai

6.rreipa

26: ovtws
viro-

y'ap

ovSkv (Kaadw i<Tr\v ovok izXiw oh avvarhv -ndvTxv tK^u cJpai,

\afj.^nt/eiu

[to (ttoix^Io] 5ia rb 56^av KOLp-qv rriv

TOiv

ANAXAGOEAS.
In this manner a plurality of original substances

was at once admitted

but whereas Empedocles and the

Atomists maintain the simplest bodies to be the most

primitive, and accordingly ascribe to their primitive
substances, besides
tlie

universal qualities of all matter

only the mathematical characteristic of form, or the

simple qualities of the four elemeuts, Anaxagoras, on

the contrary, believes that the individually determinate
bodies

-such

as flesh, bones, gold, &c.

are

the most

primitive, and that the elementary substances are only

a mixture,' the apparent simpleness of wliich he explains

ov yivojxiSia uvros rovTO yap ovtco Xeyovffiv, " l\v o/xov ra TTa.PTa"' Koi " rb yiv^aQai roiov^e KadeaTT}Kep aAA.OioGcr0at," ol Se (TvyKpLCTiv Kal diaKpimv. en S' e/c ToG yifeaOuL 6| aW-f^Acov ravavTio.'
elz/cw

(pvaiKuv

dA.7j0f), ojs

etc., to

Anaximenes instead of Ancertainly in error. Sia/cpjcrt?, vide 3 (following note) and

is

vov

OL'Sev^S'

e/c

rov

fX'})

'

axagoras, he

On

(TvyKpicris

and

Mefapl', i. G(m. An. i. 18 {ivf. p. 334, 1). Later testimonies reiterating that of Aristotle, ap. Schaubach, 77
sq.,

The words rh aWoLovcrOai seem to me to contain, like the preceding words, a direct citation so that we should translate the passage thus For therefore they say all things were united together,' and Becoming means to change,' or th^ey also speak of combination and separaivvirripx^v 'apa, etc.
yiv.

136
'
:

sq.

Arist. Gen. ct
6 ;uei^7ap
crroix^^o.

Corr.

i.

1,

314

a,

18

(Anaxag.)Ta
kcll

b\xoio-

/xeori

Ti6r](riv

oTov ocrrovv
tSsv 6.KXu>v

'

Kal crdoKa Kal ixueXhu

cop

'

There is another allusion tion. to these words in Gen. ef Corr. i. 1, 314 a, 13 kolItoi 'Ava^ay6pas ye riiu olKeiav (poivr)'J rjyuS-naeu Keyei yovv oos rh yiyvendai koX anoXhvJ^aL
:

eKaarov avvclovuixov (sc. tw oXcp, as Philoponus, ad h. I. 3 a, rightly explains) t^ fxepos ecrr'iu iuavriws Se (paivovrai keyovres oi irepl 'Ava^ayopau to7s nepl 'EfxireSoKXea- 6 ixev yap <pr)(n trip Kal v^wp
.

Kal aepa Kal yrju (rroix^7a riffaapa

Kal airXci ejpai /jluXXov ^

aapKa Ka\
6/j.oiOfxe-

offTOvv Kal TO. roiavra rcou

ravrhu KaOearrfKe tw aWoiovaOai (which is repeated by Philop. ad h. I. p. 3). In any case, we find in this a confirmation of the state-

puu,

ol

06

ravTa
'

juej/

ctTrAa

Kal cto-

XeTa, yrjv ?ii Kal irvp Kol uSa-p Kal yap Traua-irep/xiau aipa (rvvOera

ment that Anaxagoras expressly reduced Becoming to kWoiwcns (cf. p. 71); when, therefore, Porphyry (ap. Simpl, Phys. 34 b), in this passage of the Physics, proposes to refer the words rh yip^adai,
' '

TouTwv (for they, the four elements, are an assemblage of

eJvai

them,

the

determin;ite

bodies).
3,

Similarly,

Be

Coslo.

iii.

302

a.

28

'E/nive^oKXel 'Apa^ayopas S' ipaPTiws Xeyei irepl tSov (Xroix^iccp,

:

6 fxev

yap

irvp Kal yr\v

/cat

to.

av-

PlllMITIVE SVBSTAyCES.
by saying that, on account of the amalgamation of
possible determinate substances, not one of these
(TTOixa toVtols (TTOixaoL (priaiv eii/ai aoofxarcvu Ka\ avyKe^adai iravr'

333
all

is

per-

ruv

in TOVTOov, 'Ava^ayopas
riov.
{\iy(i}

5e rovyav-

only assert the same thing as the fragment quoted, p. 331, 1, and we have no reason (with Schaubach,
p. 81) to mistrust the express statements of Aristotle in the two passages fir.;t quoted. Philoponus indeed. Gen. et Corr. 3 b, contradiets his statement with the assertion that the elements also belong to the class of things that have equal parts. But this is of little

TO yap bixoiojj.ipi] aroLx^'ia 5' olov adpKa kol ucttovv Koi

/col

roiv TOiovrwv 'inacTTov), aipa Z\

TTvp
/jLiyfjLa

rovTwi>

ttal

ruv

&Wwy

-'

cnrepuoTWP ttovtwi' elvai yap l/fcirtpov avTWP e| aopdrav ouoLOuepwv TrdvTuv Tidpoiafxeuwv. In like manner Simpl.,/?? A. L.sujp.yol.l.p 233, cf. Theophr. H. Plant. 236, 1 1 iii. 1,4; ibid. ap. Simpl. Phys. 6 b Lucret. i. 834 sq. Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 141 b cf. 147 b I>iog. ii- 8, This seems etc., vide p. 333 sq. to be contradicted by Arist. Mc; ;
;

importance for if we mi 7 argue from other analogies, this theory has only been invented by Philoponus from the Aristotelian conception of that which has equal
;

parts.

The mode

of

conception

Auatayopas Se b-TT^ipovs dvai (prjcri ras apx^s ax^Sov yap ottovto to bixoiOfjiipri,
iaph.
.
.

i.

3,

984

a.

11

'

to Anaxagoras. moreover, perfectly agrees

which Aristotle ascribes

Kaddirep vSwp rj irvp, ovtoj 717veadai koi anoWvadai <pr](Ti axryKpi(Tfi

with the general tendency of his doctrine; since he supposes that

Ka\

SiaKpiaci

ixovov,
oIjt

ovTf

yiynaSaL

&\\o)s S' a-rroWvaQai,

no quality, per.^eptible to sense, appears in the original mixture of

substances,
it

may
that,

also
after

seem to
its
first-

aWa

oiaueyeiv atom.

But the "words

him natural

v5up 7) Trvp may also signify that the conception of ofMOioix^phs explained through them by is Aristotle only in his own name while, at the same time, (rx^^oi/ indicates that Anaxagoras cid not reckon all which Aristotle includes under this conception as primitive substances (Bre'ieT,Pk/los. d. Anax., 40 sq., after Alexander, ad h. I.); or, still better, the words may be an allusion to what has previously been quoted from Empedoclcs for he maintains that all bodies of equal parts, as well as the elements (according to Empedocles), originate only in the given manner, through combination and separation (cf. Bonitz. in h. L). The passages, as Schwegler remarks,
Kadd-rrep
:

imperfect separation, only the most universal qualities, the elementary, should be observable.
3Ioreover, Anaxagoras (vide infra) does not suppose the four elements to be equally primitive but, first,
;

he makes
air arise

themselves,

and air separate and out of fire and water and earth. "When
fire

Heracleitus, AVeg. Horn., 22, p. 46, ascribes to Anaxngoras the theory

which

is

elsewhere

Xenophanes

that water and earth

ascribed

to

are the elements of all things (not merely of men, as Gladisch says, An<ix, II. d. hr.) he can only have arrived at that incomprehensible statement through the verses there quoted from Euripides, the

supposed disciple of Anaxagoras.

a34

AXAXAGORAS.
its

ceived in
is

distinctive individuality, but only

all agree. ^
is

that

perceived wherein they

Empedocles and
formed from the
Aristotle

the Atomists hold that the organic

elementary; Anaxagoras, conversely, that the elementary

is

formed from the constituents of the organic.

expresses
this

usually

by asserting that Anaxagoras

ofMotofiepPj)

maintained the bodies of similar parts (ra

to be the elements of things,^

and

later writers call his

primitive substances by the

In the samp way perhaps that seemingly colourless light arises from the mixture of all coloured
'

name
so that
"\^ith

of ofMoto/juspscat.^
7]

bij.oioix4peLa is
d/xoiofxeprj

synonymous
;

T^

(so at least his

Words seem to

me
;

best explained

lights.

Vide, besides the quotations in the note before the last, Geti. Aiiim. i. 18. 723 a, b (on the opinion that the seed must contain in itself 6 avrhs parts of all the members) yap \6yos eoLKev elvai ovtos tcS Wva^aySpov, t(S jUL-qQev yiyveadai ruiu Phi/s. i. 4, 187 a, 2o: uuoLoixepSiu. aireipa tcSl t oaoLOixepri koL ravavria
:

Breier. p. 11, explains them somewhat differently) for the rest he

gives a sufficiently count, i. 830

:

accurate ac-

nunc

et

Anaxagora scrutenmr
memorant, &c.

lio-

m(Bomeria.m,
qiicim Grail

834:
lorincipio,

(TToiel 'Avafa7.).

Ihid.

iii.

4,

19

otroi 5' aTreipa iroiovai.

203 a, ra aroi-

rerum quom
(al.

elicit

homoeorer.

iiieriam

itrincipium
j9flz*a^i7Zw

Xeta, Kaddwep 'Ava^ayopas Kol ArjfxoKpiTos, b uev iK ruiv oixoLOfxepwu 6 5'

quam
ossa

d. horn.)

videlicet

aique
atque

minutis
ossihus
hie,
et

iK rrjs Traua TrepjULias rihu crXTJ/^aTajv, a-pf? (Tui/e^es rh S.-iretpou eluai T17
(baaiv.

de pauxillis

oyiinutis

Mcfaph.

i.

7,

988

a,

28:

^Ava^aySpas Se
aireipiav
iii.

tV

visceribus viscus gigni, sangucnque

rojv oixoiofxepoov

[apxh^ \4yeL].

Be
.

creari

Ccelo,

-rrpuTOV fxev ovv

.

on
.

aireipa [ra cTTOix^la']

ovk tcriv dewpr^reov

sanguinis inter
gicttis,

sc onultis coeuntibu'

Kai TTpwrou rovs Trai/rara op.oiofx^pri aroLX^^ot. TTOLOvuTas. Kaddirep 'Ava^a-

ex aicrique putat micis consistere

posse
a2irui/i, et

Gen. jUiini. ii. 4 sq., 740 b, IG, 74i b, 13, can scarcely be quoted in this connection. ^ The word is first met with in Lucretius, who, however, uses it, not in the plural for the several primitive elements, but in the singular, for the totality of these;
yopas.

de terris terram concres-

cere parvis

ignihus ex ignis,
esse,

umorem umorihus
pu-

cetera consimili Jingit ratione

tatque.

The

in later writers.

plural onoioix^peiai is first found Plut. Pericl. c.

PRIMITIVE SUBSTANCES.

335

Anaxagoras himself cannot have employed these

expressions,^ for not merely are they wholly absent

from

the fragments of his treatise,- but they can only be explained in connection with Aristotle's use of language.^
4
:

vovv

aiTOKpivovra ray 61x010iii.

/xepclas.
irepl

Sext. Pi/rrk.

33

toTs

^Ava^ayopav

ttiKrav

aladriTy]v

TTOioTTjTo irepl rals 6[M0L0fxepeLais ^iro-

without exception agree, ajid whom we chiefly follow in our exposition, places it beyond a doubt by a thorough enquiiy into this whole
doctrine. The opposite theory is held by all the earlier writers, and by Schaubach, p. 89 Wendt, zu Tennemann^ i. 384 Brandis. I. c. 245 (otherwise in Gesch d. Ejifiv. i. 123): Marbach, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 79 Zevort, 53 sqq. - In places where we should have expected the words ra oixolo;
;

XeiTTovaiv.
cLTO/xovs

Math.
rj

x. 25, 2:

oi

yap
tj

elirSuTes

6/jLOiojj.epeias
:

uyKovs. 25^. Diog. ii. 8 apxas de Tas dfxoiofxipsias' Kaddirep "yap e/c

ruv ypTjyiJidTwv Ktyofxivuv rov xP^cov GvuiCTTdvaL, ovrois iK twv dpLOio/xepwi/

jXLKpuv crwixdruv rb
crdai.
ttckv

air/KeKpi:

Simpl. Phi/s. 258 a eSoKei 5e \4yLV 6 'Ai/a|., on bjj.ov irdvrwv uuTwv xpVi^f^'i''^^ 'fO' Tip^ixovvruv rhv Eireipop irph rov xpo^ov. ^ovhrjdcls 6
Koa/jLOTTOios

liepri,

as in Fr.

i.

3,

6 (4).

goras has

crirepixaTa, or, still

Anaxamore

vovs 0iaKp7vai
'

to.

etSTj

indefinitely, xpV/J-ara.

(kinds of things,, not as the word has been translated, ideas it seems to refer to Anaxag. Fr. 3).
;
'

Be
39)

C'jelo,
:

268

b,

Cf. Simpl. 37 ^Schol. 513 a,

oixoiojx^pT)

'Ava^ay.

to.

ilov

(rdpKa Koi

6(Ttovu

koL

ra TaavTa.

OTTep oixoiofiepeias KaX^T, Kivr]aiv av-

airep (TirepixaTa indXei.

^ Aristotle designates bv the name of ofjLoiojxephs [ Gleichtkeilig) of

Tots

eveTroiT}(Tv.

Ibid. 33

a,

106

and Porphyry and Themistius, who are both cited by him here (P%5. 15 b, p. 107 Sp.).
a, 10,

like parts, bodies

which

in all their

Philop. Pki/s. A, 10; Ibid. Gen.

Corr.

et

b; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 8 (Stob. i. 296): 'A-va^ay. apxds TOiv uPTWv Tos dfjLpi.ofJLpias anecprjvaro, and af:er the reasons of this air}) theory have been discussed Tov ovv Ofioia TO fi^pT) iivai eV rp
3
. . .

parts consist of one and the same substance, in which, therefore, all parts are of like kind with each other and with the whole (cf. on this point Gen. et Corr. i. 1, and Philop. in h. I. p. 332, 1 ihid. i. 10, 328 a, 8 sqq. Part. Anini. ii.
; ;

Tpo<pf; Tols yivvufJLevois

OfioLOjiepeias

avrds
'

e/caA.ecre.

Schleiermacher -was the first to announce this (on Diog. Werke, iii. Gesck. d. Phil. 43). 2, 167; afterwards Ritter {Ion. Phil. 211, 269 Ge.^ch. d. Phil. i. 303) Philippson ("TA-Tj avQp. 188 sqq.) Hegel {Ge-sch. d. Phil. i. 359) and subsequently Breier (PA//, d. Anax. 1-54), with whom modern writeis almost
;
;

2. 647 b, 17, "vvhere biioion.^(>\% and TO i^ipos bjjLUJvvixov TO? oAo) express the same idea. Alexander, De Miat. 147 b: avo/uLoioixepri /xev to iK SLatpepoyTu-v fxepaiu avvearuTa, ws npoauirov kol x^''f>, biMOioueprj Se adp^ TLS [tc] Koi OCTTa. fivs Kul oiua Koi
^A.6l|/,

bkwS UV

TO. p.6plOL

Tbls OKOLS

eo-T* o'i;i'&Jj'i;^a\

and he distinguishes from the ofMOLo/xepes on the -one hand, the elementary (which, however, is reckoned with the ofioio-

836

anaxagohas.
certainly cannot have spoken of element?, for this
first
;
^

He

term was
Aristotle

are besides,

introduced into philosophy by Plato and and the primitive substances of Anaxagoras in accordance with what we have already said,

something different from the elements.

is

His meaning

rather that the substances of which things consist, are

in this, their qualitative determinateness, underived and

imperishable

and since there are innumerable things,

of which no two are perfectly alike, he says that there are

innumerable seeds, not one of which resembles another,^

fjiepds,
iii.

sup. p. 332,

1,

und Be Cah,

and on the other, 17) the so-called organic in the narrower sense. In this graduated scale, formed by these three kind^, he always indicates the lower as the constituent and condition of the
4,

302

b,

is there very decidedly irdvTa 5e ravTa /xopia eJvai apeTT^s, ovx ws Ta rod xP'^'^'oi' tJ.6pLa o/xoid eariv dWr^Xois Ka\ rw oA-oj uu jx6pid ecTTiy, dkK' uos rd rov Trpoaooirov /.iSpia Kal Tcd o\w ou 1x6 pid ear Kai dAXr}\oL$ dvufxaia. The comprehensive ap:

higher the ofMOioucpes consists of the elf'ments the orgunie, of the to the substances of like parts (ifMoio/xeuhs belong flesli, bone, gold,
;
;

plication of this distinction, however, which we find in Aristotle, is

wanting

in

Pbto.

According to
;

silver, &c.

to the organic, or of

unlike parts, the face, hands, &c., De Gen. vide Part. Anim. ii. 1 Anim. i. 1, 715 a, 9 Meteor, iv. 8, 384 a, 30 De Goelo, iii. 4, 302 b, 15 sq., Hist. Anim. \. 1 twv 4v toIs CcioLS ixopiwv rb. /xeV iariu aavudera,
; ;
;

the explanation in the Placita, I. c. Sext. Math. X. 318 Hippol. Befut. x. 7, of the Homoeomeries as 6\xoia. to7s
said,
;

what has been

yei'Vi'Cfj.evois, is
'

incorrect.
1.
tj

Cf. p. 126,
:

Fr. 6 (4) XPVy-o-rwv, rov

-

trv^/ii^i?

TrduTwv
Kal

re

Siepov

rod

'6(Tix

BiaipelraL
els

els

dfxoLOfxepri,
to.

olov

odpKes

adpKas.

5e
y)

(TvvOeia,

^Vpov, Ka\ rov Bepfxov Kal rov \l/vxpov, Kal Tov AafiTTpov Kal tov (ocpepov,
Kal yrjs ttoWtjs ei-ov(r7]S Kal a-rrepixdruou direlpwu Tr\7]dovs ovBeu ioiK6-

baa eh
els

x^^P ^^'^ x^lpas hiaipetrai ovZe rh 7rp6accels

avo/jLOLO/xepri, oTou

Kov

np6(ro}Tra.
I.

in Breier,

c.
I.

Further details \Q sqq. Ideler on

;

the Meteor.

c,

where references

to Theophrastus, Galen, and PloIn the discrimitinus. are given.

yhp twu dhXcav the substances already named, the Qepfxbv, &c.) ovVev eoiKe r<S erep'ji rb erepov. Fr. 13 (6):
Tcov d\Xr}\0LS. obSe

(besides

erepov

ov5ev

(besides

vovs)

iariu
'61.1.0101/

nation of like and unlike parts, Plato anticipated Aristotle {Proc. the expression 329 D, 349 C) 6/j.oioiJ.ep}]5, it is true, does not occur, which is another proof of its Aristotelian origin, but the idea
;

ofxoiou oudevl erepcc direlpijov e6vrcou,

Fr. 8
ovdei/l

erepov Se ovSev ecrriu

dWca.

The

infinite

of primitive matters is tioned, e.g. in Fr. 1 (<?/. p. 338, 1); e.g. Fr. 1 ; Arist. Mefaph. i. 3, 7

number often men-

PRIMITIVE SUBSTANCES.
but they are different in shape, colour, and
\\Tiether
this

337
taste.^

statement relates only to the various

and to the things compounded from them, or whether the individual atoms of matter of the same class are also unlike each other, is not specified, and this question was probably not entertained by Anaxagoras nor is there any trace of his
classes of the original substances,
;

having brought the

infinitely heterogeneous character

of the primitive substances into connection with

more
it

general metaphysical considerations

it

is

most pro-

bable, therefore, that, like the Atomists, he founded

merely upon the multiplicity of phenomena as shown

by experience.

Among

the opposite qualities of things,

we

find the categories of the rare

and the dense, the

dry,

warm and
Fhjs.

the cold, light and dark, moist and

;

brought into especial prominence

4; Be Coelo, iii. 4 334, 1); De Melissa, c. 2, 97o b, 17, &c., vide Sehaubach, 71 sq. Cicero, Acad. ii. 37. 118, says
i,

but as iVnaxagoras
ehai, but this sense), iroXXa re

4,

iii.

p.

21,

defend %u

(siip.Tp.

332.

makes no proper
vois (this will

koX iravToia iv Tract rols arxryKpivofxi-

be further discussed
o-Trepuora
Trdi/Tccv

Anaxagoras taught
Jinitam, sed
e-x

materiam

in-

later
koX

on)
xpoi-o-s

/cat

ca particidas similes inter se minutas, but this is only a

xpTj/idrcov koL tSe'os iravroias

kcl\

^xovra
the

^Sovas.

On

wrong
fxepv,

interpretation of the

oixoio-

which he no doubt took from Greek authority; in order to correspond with ovSev ioiKSrwu in
his

meaning of f)5ovT], vide Vol. I. p. 291, 2, and supra, p, 38, 1. Here

also

we should here read fZ.?.s2//n7e5. In favour of this conjecture we

i^r, 6.

may be translated 'smell,' taste is much more appropriate. It is most probable, howit

but

'

'

might quote Aug.

Civ.

D.

viii.

de partictdis inter se dissimilibus, corpora dissimilia (vide rnfra, Anaxagorean School Archelaus). ' Fr. 3 roxrriwv Se ovtws e^ovTojv xpT? So/ce'eij'eVerj'at (this reading, suggested by Simpl. Be Coelo, 271 a, 31 Schol. 513 b, 45. is rightly
;

adopted by Sehaubach and Mullach: Brandis, p. 242

;

and Schorn,
Z

ever,thatthe word, like the German Schraecken in certain dialects, unites both significations without any accurate distinction. - Like that of Leibnitz, ascribed to him by Ritter, Ion. 'Phil. 218; Gesch. d. Phil. i. 307, that everything maintains its individual character through its relation to the whole, ^ j^j.. Fr. 8 (6): 6, p. S36, 2
'

'

VOL.

II.

338

ANAXAGORAS.

supposed the particular substances to be original, without deriving tbem from one primitive matter, the perception of these universal opposites cannot have the

same importance

for

him

as for the Physicists of the

ancient Ionian School or for the Pythagoreans.

All these different bodies Anaxagoras then conceives
as originally

mixed

together, so completely

and in such
perceptible

minute
in its
as a

particles, that not one of

them was

individuality,

and, consequently, the

mixture

whole displayed none of the definite qualities of

things.^

Even

in derived things, however, he believes

the

separation

cannot be complete, but each

;

must
of

contain parts of all

airoKpiv^rai
aird

for

how could one come out

irvKvhv, KaX airh

re rod apaiov rh rod ^vxpov rh Qep/xhu, Kal aiTO Tov (ocpepov rh Xa/j-nphp, Fr. Kal airh rod diepov rh ^rjpov. 19 (8): rh fxhv TTVKvhv Koi Biephv
Kal \pvxpov Hal (ocpephu iuQdde (Twet] yrj, rh 5e apaihu

rightly maintained by Schorn, p. 64 sq. 16; Krische, Forsch. Mullach, 248), contains not the very words of Anaxagoras, but merely an epitome of his doctrine,

Xoop-qaev, u6a vvv

Kol rh depfxhv Koi rh ^T]phv e'lex^pTJcrej/

rh irpSaca rov alOepos. Vide p. 339, 1. It is no doubt in reference to these and similar passages that Aristotle, Ph?/s. i. 4 (sitp. p. 334, 2), calls the oixoioixeprj also iuavrla (cf.
els

connected with the commencement of his treatise. On the other hand, Simpl. Be Coelo, 271 a, 15 (Schol. 513 b, 32), has retained the words which Mullach passes over " ^o-re tcDj/ airoKpivo/j.4uuv jxt] eiSevai rh Tr\ri6os /xrjrc X6ycf3 ixiire epyo}." Fr. 6 (4) TTpy 5e aiTOKpLvQr\vaL ravra,
:
:

Sim pi.
'

rki/s.
1
:

Fr.

33 b ibhl. 10 a). (opening "svords of his

;

irdvrwv

6fj.ov

i6vrctiu,
'Tjv

ouSe

eudrjXos (e^5.)

ouSe/^iyj.

XP'^^V OTre/caJAue

dfxod irdvra xpi]}ji.ara ?iv, treatise) &ireLpa Kal TrXrjdos Kal (TfxiKporrira, Kal yap rh ajxiKphv direipov ^v Kal irdurwu oixou 46vrcou ovSeu evBrjKou
(al.
Ii/StjAoj/)
-^v
i>Trh

yap
etc.

T]

crv/ii/xiEis

itdvroiv
1).

xpVl^drca'J,

(vide p. 337,

The expres-

proverb

sion d/xov irdvra, which became a among the ancients, is

;

afxiKporriros.

Simplicius, who reports these words in P%5. 33 b, repeats the first clause on p. 106 a but what he there adds is his own emendation ; Schaubach, therefore, is in error when he makes a separate fragment of it, p. 126. Similarly his Fr. 17 b, ap. Diog. ii. 3 (as is
;

continually alluded to by e.g. Plato, Phcedo, 72 C ; Gorg. 465 Arist. Phys. i. 4 (supra, p. 331, 4);

Metaph. \\. 4, 1007 b, 25, x. 6, 1056 b, 28, xii. 2, 1069 b, 20 (cf. Schaubach, 65 also Schwegler)
;

sq.

Schorn, 14

sq.

Schaubach, p. 86

Fr. Z, supra, p. 337, 1 ; cf. Fr. 5, infra. ;

MIXTVRE OF SUBSTANCES.
another
all
if it

?.39

and how could the transition most opposite things, one into of another, be explained, if they were not all of them in If, therefore, an object appears to us to contain all?^
were not in
it
;

things, even of the

Fr. 7 (5) : eV -navrX iravrhs p. G41, 3 fio7pa cveari irK^i/ voov, %<Tri olai Se
:

evi. Fr. 8, infra, p. 341 3 Fr. 11 (13): ov K^xuipKnai ra iu vl k6(T^w ou5 airoKeKOTTTai TreA-eKsi", oure TO Qep}.i.hv airh rod \l/vxpov ovre rh ipuxpov anh rov Oepixov. Fr. 12 (6), w^hich is referred to in Theoplir. ^v TavrX ap. Simpl. P?(ijs. 35 b

Koi v6os

iravra XP'^JM^Ta (pdvai elvai, olov 7}Se 7} rrap^ Kal To5e rh offrovv koL ouTcos briovy Koi irdvra apa. koL

apxv yap oi) fxovov iv iKdarcp e'crrt rrjs SiaKpiaeecs, aXAo Kal -rdv-uiv, etc., which Simpl. inSua roivvv
'

h.

iravTa ov5e x^'P'^ icrriv eluai. navTa -rravTOS fxo7pav ^erex^'" ore 5e TOvXdxiO'TOi/ i-ir] eariv eiuai, ovk av duvaiTO x^pi-^^W<^^; ov5^ av Xiai/ a.<p'

aWa

Ihid.i. I. p. 106 a, well explains. 4 (after the quotation on p. 331, 4) et yap irav jxev rh yivouevou avdyKT] yii/eadai *; e| ivrccv *] e'/c u-ij uurwv. rovTocu de ro fxev in ixt) ovrccv ro Xolttov yiueadai advvarou
.

r}dr}
e'l

crvfjL^aiueiv e|
jjiev

hvdyKrjS ip6p.i(Tav

{Cod.

better:

6>'

cf.

Fr.

8)

ourau

Kal ivvrrapxovruiv yiOio cpacn irav iu

kuiVTOv yeueadai,

aW'

oVep (or oicu^)

fecrdai, Olo. aiKpor-qra de rc-iv uyKocv

e'l

Tvepl dpxhi', ^Ivai (this

word seems

avaiaBi^rcev
ixeyux&o.'-

Tj.utj'.

to be correct) koL pvv Travra bixoZ. iu TracL 5e TToAAa evecm Kcii t'xv airoKpn'Ofievccu itra Tr\7j0os iv to7s jjai^ocri

vaurl

Siort iruu eK vairos

'

(paiveadaL 5e Siaeccp'xu yivojieuou (bepoura Kal TrpoaayopeveadaL ere pa

a.\\-!)\wu eK

re Kal ixdrroai (' and in all things, even those divided from the original intermixture, i.e. individual things, are substances of different kinds, in the least, as much as in the The same idea is thus greatest.' expressed at the commencement of the fragment i'trat jxolpai ela-i rov T ixeydXov Koi rov T^iiKpov). This is frequently repeated by Aristotle (vide the folloAving notes). Alex. De Sensic, 105 b Lucret. i.
:
;

rov fidXiaO' iirepexoueu

rfj
fj.eu

ros Sta ttXtiQos

aireipwu'

jxi^eL

rwu

elXiKpiuws
jx4\au
*]

\evKhu

//

yap o\ou yXuKv 7j adpKU ^

ocrrovu ovk elvai, orov Se irKelcrrov

&c. vide Schaubach, ll-t sq., 88. 96; Philop. Phi/s. 10, and Simpl. P?i>/s. 106 a; do not express this qmte correctly "when they say that in every Homceomeria

875

sq.

eKaarov ex^h rovro SjKeTf eJuai rxu (pvaiu rov -npayixaros. In the Placita, i. 3, 8, and Simpl. /. c, the doctrine of the bij.oiojj.epri is derived more immediately from the observation that in the nourishment of our bodies the different substances contained in the body are formed from the same means of nutrition but that Anaxagoras was also thinking herein of the transmutation of inorganic matter
;

all others are present.

'

is

shown by

his famous assertion

Arist. Phjt/s.

iii.

4,

203

a,

23

6 fxeu

(Anaxag.) oriovv rwv uopiccv

bfj-o'ius rw iravrl Zib. ro opav oriovv | brovovv yiyvoixevov ivrevdev yap eoiKe Ka\ bixov Trore

eivai fxiyfxa

that snow is black (that is, there is in it the dark as well the light); for the water of which it consists is black (Sext. Pi/rrh. i. 33 Cic. Acad. ii. 23, 72, 31, 100, and after
;

z 2

340

ANAXA G OR AS.
to the exclusion of other qualities,
is

some one quality

this
onl}^

because more of the corresponding subis

stance than of other substances

in it

but in truth
it,

each thing has substances of every kind in

is

though

it

named from

those only which predominate.'

is

This theory

certainly not without difficulties.

If

we accept the

original mixture of matter in its strict

meaning, the mixed substances could not retain their

particular qualities, but

must combine into a homoinstead of

geneous mass

we should consequently have,

a medley consisting of innumerable different substances,

a single primitive matter, to which none of the qualities

of particular

substances would belong, like the

Infinite of this

Anaximander, to which Theophrastus reduces

reduced by Aristotle.^
;

mixture of Anaxagoras,^ or the Platonic matter, to

it
is

which

If,

on the other

him Lactant. hut. iii. 23 Be Shnpl. Medic, ii. 1 B

Kiihn.
Schol. in

xi.

Galen, 461
161).

for the sake of clearness is, of course in this form, alien to Anaxagoras,

Uiad.

ii.

propositions which were deduced even by Aristotle from the above theory- of Anaxagoras will be discussed later on. Bitter (i. 307) explains the sentence, 'all is in all,' to mean that the cirAivity of all primitive constitueuts is in each of them: but

The

sceptical

vide Breer, p. 48. - Vide sup., Vol. 236.

^

I.

p. 233,

Metaph.
h.

i.

8,
:

989

a,

30

(cf.
5'

Bonitz, ad
ei

I.)

^Kva^ayvpas

ris viroXafioi Svo Kiy^iv aroix^la,

/xdMcrT av viroKafioL Kara xS-yov, t>u iKe7uos avros /.dv oh diiipdcocrev, t]koXovdrja-^
yueVr'
h.v

e|
.

compatible neither with the unanimous testimony of the ancients, nor with the spirit of Anaxagoras's doctrine. Vide in addition to the two last notes Arist. il/?^fl^/^.i. 9, 991 a, A criticism 14, and Alex. ?w h.l. of Anaxagoras's doctrine concerning the Being of all things is to be found in Arist. Phys. i. 4. The distinction between matter and quality of which I have made use
this

seems to

me

indyovaiu avrov ovOep ^v airoKiKpifx^vov,

.

dvdyKTji to7s ore yap

.

hriXov

uts

uvOiv

i)v

aXrjOes
.
. .

etVeTi/

ovcrias iKeivrjs

Kara ttjs ovre yap iroiou

n
ri.

olov re avrh ehuL ovTe Troahv ovre

rwu yap

eV ^epei

n
.

X^yofjiivwv

tovto Se aSvuaTov fxifxiy/xevwu ye iravruiv iK Srj ^57770^ &i/ aireKiKpiro tovtwv <ri/jui3aiVei Xeyeiu avrui ras apxas to re v {tovto yap airXovu
^IhCov

v-Ky]px^v av

avrq},

Ka\ afxiy^s) Ka\ daTepov, olov ri^e^uev

MIXTURE OF SUBSTANCES.
be maintained in the mixture,
it

341

hand, the determinate qualities of the substances are to

becomes evident,

as in

the system of Empedocles, that this would be impossible

unless the ultimate atoms were incapable of division or

of amalgamation with others

and thus we should arrive

at the indivisible bodies, which are likewise by some Not only, however, is writers ascribed to Anaxagoras.^

he himself
division

far

from holding the theory of one uniform

to infinity.^

primitive matter,- but he expressly maintains that the

and increase of bodies goes on

KOI /t-

TO kopiCTTOV TTplv 6pL(jdrjl/at raax^^f e'l^ovs tivos. Skttc \4yeTai fiev ovT opQus oijTe aacpus, ^ovKerai fxiVTOi ri TTapairXriffLQV rols re vcrepoy Xd-yovai Koi to7s vvv (paivopL^voLS jxaWoy. Never indeed in express "^ords; for Simpl. Phi/s. So h, only says that the primitive substances do not separate chemically, any further; not that they cannot be divided in regard to space. And (ap. Stob. Eel. i, 356) it is evidently by a mere transposition of the titles that the atoms are attributed to Anaxagoras and the homoeomeries to Leucippas. Yet some of our authorities seem to look upon the homceomeries as minute bodies, e. g., Cicero in the passage quoted sup. p. 336, 2 but especially Sextus, who repeatedly mentions Anaxagoras \rith the various atomists, Democritus, Epicurus, Diodorus Cronus, Heracleides and Asclepiades and identifies his otioiofiepri with the oltojjloi, the iXdx'-a'Ta Koi aueprj awfiara, the avapfxoi 6-)Koi (^Pi/rrh. iii. 32 Math. ix. 363, x. 318). That he is here following older accounts, we have the less reason to doubt, since HippoL Eefut. x. 7, p. 500
'
; ;

word for word with D, Matk.x. 318; and in an extract

agrees
froni a Pythagorean,
i.

e.,

a neox.

Pythagorean

treatise,

ib.

252,

we read

ol

yap arofiovs
fi

etTrof-res
rj

^ ouoioixepeias
vorjra crw^tara
;

oyKovs

koivus

similarly, ibid. 254:.

writers Ritter (i. 305) is inclined to regard the primitive seeds as indivisible. - This is clear from our previous citations from Aristotle. We may refer also, however, to Phi/s. iii. i {sup. p. 334, 2), where a.<pr} designates the mechanical combination, as distinguished from the and to the disehemicrtl (au'|*s) cussion. Gen. et Corr. i. 10, 327 b, 31 sqq., where Aristotle evidently has in view the Anaxagorean doctrine mentioned shortly before. Stobseus, Eel. i. 368, is therefore right when he says: 'Ai/a^aY. tos Kpaaeis Kara vapdd<riy yiyeadai rwu
;

Among modern

OTOlX^t-diV.

oure yap tov t6 ye e\dxi-<^Tou. ro yap ihu ovk aAA' eKa/T<Tov aei eart TO jjiT] OVK elvat (I. ro^fj ovk elvai. It is impossible that Being should be annihilated by infinite division, as others maintain; vide sup. Vol I. 615; XL 218): aWk
^

Ft.

(15):
'

(TfiiKpov

ye

e<rri

842

ANAXAGORAS.
are, therefore, distinguished

His primitive substances

determinateness, but

from the atoms, not merely through their qualitative

through their
divisibility.

He

also contradicts, quite as emphatically, the second fun-

damental doctrine of the Atomistic system, when he

disputes, on insufficient grounds
it is

true, the presupis,

position of

empty

space.

His opinion

that the
J

different substances are absolutely mixed, without therefore

becoming one matter

Empedocles had
little as

also

main-

tained this in regard to the mixture of the elements in the Sphairos, perceiving, as
latent contradiction.

Anaxagoras, the

But

if

a world

is

to be formed from these substances,

there must

be in addition an ordering and moving

power, and this, as our philosopher believes, can only

the thinking essence, in spirit or mind (Geist).^ The reasons for this theory are not given in a general manner in the fragments of Anaxagoras's treatise but
lie in
;

KOI Tov ixeydXov aei icri fiel^ov Koi tcrov earl tw crfJ-iKpcS irhriOos (in-

ykp on effri ri 6 ar/p, arpe^KovvT^s rovs aaKovs al SetKeViSe/ffwovtri

crease has as

many

diminntion

literally,

gradations as there is as
irpos kcovrh 5e

vvvrts u)S lax^p^s 6 o/;p, koI ivairoXajx^dvovT^s iv raTs KXeif^uSpms (cf.

much great as small),

',Ka.(rr6uJcjTi Ka\
et

also p. 135, 3).

^^^^

Lucret.

i.

843

yap

Ka\ ai^iKpSu. -nav e. iravrl, Kai ttu^.k ttuvtos

j^^^

^^^^^^ ^^^^
^^^

^^^^^ -^^^^^

[Anax-ag.]

^^

-^^

,^^j^^ ^^^^^^

tov eAax^rTou ^0K0VT0S eKKpid-n(T7Cu Ti ^KaTTOV to fxiyiaTov Sok^ov a-nS iKeivov, Ka) Tivos i^eiipiO-n (uvtov jjni^ouoi. Fr. 12 {\(j): TouAaxio-Tov ixt) eanz/
iKKpiuerai, Kai
airb
'

^^,,,,^,-^^

^ corp<yribus finem esse

sccaudls
-

So

translate,

with

other

fhai.
1

ol ixey

Arist. Pu;i/s. iv. 6, 213 a, 22 ovf SeiKuvvai iripa>fxvoL '6ti

:

ovK effTiu [Kej'br], ovx ^ ^ovXovTai Xiyeiv oi avdpooiroi Kevhv, tovt' |6Xiyxouoiv, aXK' a/xapTcivovrfs AeyovffLV, wairep 'Ava^ayopas koI ol i\4yxovTs, TQVTov Thv rponou

the NoDs of Anaxagoras, although the tAvn expressions do not exactly coincide in their raeanfor the German language ing contains no more exact equivalent. The precise conception of vovs, indeed, can only be taken from the explanations of Anaxagoyas himself,
^rriters,
;

SPIRIT.
they result from the characteristics by which
distinguished from the various substances.

343

mind
and

is

These are
its

threethe
knowledge.

singleness of its nature, its power,

Everything

else is

mixed with

all things,

is

mind must be apart from all, for itself; unmixed with other things, can it have
power.
It is the rarest

for only if it
all

things in

its

and purest of

all

things

and

for this reason it is in all essences entirely

;

homo-

geneous

as to other things,

no individual thing can

is

be like another, because each

ticular

compounded

in a parSpirit,
it
;

manner out

of different substances.

on

the contrary, has no heterogeneous particles in

it is,

therefore, everywhere self-identical; in one substance

there will be more, in another less of

it

but the smaller

mass of

spirit is of

the same nature as the greater

things are distinguished only according to the quantity,

and not by the quality of the

ra ^xkv &k\a iravFr. 8 (6) rhs ixolpav exei, voos 84 eVrt aneipou
'
:

spirit inherent in

them.^
Simpl.
iu-

Mullach, instead of

Sto) ap.

Pht/s. 33 b) TrXe'iara %vi,

ravra

Kal avTOKpaTes Kal ixe/MiKTai ovSevl

Xp^}j-o.ri,

aXKa
el

fj-ovvos
fjt.7]

euiVTOv icrriv.
^v,

yap

e^'

avrhs icp' ewuTov

efxe-

dAAd TPw
recv

ey.ifj.iKTO

&W(fi, jxerel-

Xev au
/j.lkt6
jj.o1pa
fj.01

airduTCoi' -xpVIJ-OiTc^v, ei

iarl Kal ^v. The same is repeated by later -nriters in their own mode of expression cf. Plato, Crat. 413 C eJvai Se rb Z'lKaiov % \eyei 'Ava^ayo;

577\otcto 6V eKacTTOU

(eV

ttovtI

yap iravTO^
ai^

eueariv, &(nrep ev rols irpoffQev

pas, vov eipai tovto avTOKparopa yap avrhv uvra Kal ovQevl iJ.eiJ.Lyfj.e'

AeAe/CTct) Kal eucvKvev

(Tvfj.fiefxiyfj.ha,

ahrou

TO.

axTre

fj.r]Oeybs

XprifiaTos Kpareeiv ofioiws, us Kal e<TTL yap fj-ovvov eovra e(p' ewvTOv, AeTTTOTaToV T irdvTi^u xPVfJ-arccv

vov iraura (p-qcrlv avrhv Koajxelv to, irpayfiaTa 5ta -Kauruv loura. Arist. Metaph. i. 8 {sup.T^. 340, 3); Phys.
viii. 5,

Kal

KaQapwrarov
TvXrjV

iravrdiTacri

256 b, 24 there must be something that moves, and is itself unmoved, Sj6 Kal Ava^ayopas 6p'
:
'

Oe oiidev airoKpiverai erepov dirh tov

dus

Ae'^ei,

rhv vovv

aitaQri

(pdancav
Kii/T](Teci}s

krepov
acov.

uoov.

r6os

de

iras

Kal afxiyrj

eluai, eTreiSrJTrep

bfj-oios ecrri /col 6

fue^uv Kal 6 eAatr-

apxvi^ avrhv 7Toie7 elvai

erepov 8e ovBev eariv Ofioiov

ovSevl &A\(f, dAA' orewv (so Preller, Hiit. Phil. Gr.-Rom. 53, and

ovrw yap Uv fiovos kivo'ik] aKivriTOS &v Kal Kpa~ roi-q afjLiyrfs Sov. De An. i. 2, 405
a,

13:

'Ava^ayopas

5'

apx'hv

344

ANAXAGORAS.
spirit

To

must

also

belong absolute power aver matter,

It

the motion of which can only proceed from spirit.^

must,

lastly, possess
its

an unlimited knowledge,^
is

for only

through
because
niscient,

knowledge
:

it

in a position to order all

things for the best

it

vov9 must, therefore, be simple,

could not otiierwise be all-mighty and omit

and

must be all-mighty and omniscient,

:

that

it

may

order the world

the fundamental idea of

the doctrine of vovs^ and the idea chie9y brought for76 rhv vovv riQ^Tai fxdKKTTa-KduTwv (py](r\v avTOV roou ovrwv atrXovv ^Ivai Ka\ a^iyri re koX kuQapov; 405 b, 19: 'A^a^. 5e p.6vos OiTTaQri (prjfflv elvai rhv vovv koX kolvhv ovdhv ov9evl tuv &Wcou ^x^^v. TOIOVTOS 8' Av TTUS yvwpic7 KCLl QlO. TiV aWiav, ovt' eKelpos eLpT}Key,
out'

fi6vou "yovv

qualitative unchangeableness, however, there is not as yet the immovableness in space, the aKivrjrou which SinipL, Fhys. 285 a, derives from Aristotle. Further evidence

repeating
^

that

of

Aristotle

ap.

Schaubach, 104. Alter the words " koI KaOapcirarou," Anaxagoras continues, Fr.
8'i
:

eK

Twu

elprjfxevoijv

(rvfx(pau4s

i(TTiv. Ibid. iii. 4, 429 18 a, avdyKV apa, eVei iravra voil, ajxiyrj

itrxei KoX
lii/uxTlv

Kol yvwixriv 76 Trepi iravihs iracrav oaa re l(TX^L jxiyiarov.

eJuai, uxTTiep

(prjalu
S'

'Aua^ayopas,
'iua

'iua

Kparrj,

tovto

eo'Ti*',

ypcopi^r]

(this is Aristotle's
rrapefj.cpaiyoiJ.evov

own comment)

exet koX ra /xe^u} Koi ra e Aacrjroj jrduTwv voQS Kpareci. Kal rrjs irepiXwpT^trios TYjS (TVjx-Kdarjs fdos eKpd-

yap KwXvei rh aA-

Korpiov

the apathy which is attributed to vovs in some of these passages ArisKoX

avTKppdrr^i.

By

totle

understands

its

unchange-

ableness; for, according to Metaph. V, 21, he describes as iraQos a iroioT-qs KaO' %v aXKoiovadai eVSe'xerai (cf. Ereier, 61 sq.). This quality is a direct consequence of vovs for since, the simpleness of
;

&aT TTpLX<^py](TOii rT]v apx'hv. and p. 343, 1. Tiie infinity which is ascribed to it in the last passage seems chiefly to refer to the power of vovs. 2 Vide previous note, and the following words koX ra avjxjxiaydTTjaev,

Cf. note 3,

fjievd

re koI airoKpn'oixeva Kal 8iaKpivojxeua irdvra %yvu> voos (which

are also quoted by Simpl.

Be
:

Ca:lo,

271
^

a,

20; Schul 513

b, 35).

to Anaxagoras, all change consists in a change of the parts of which a thing is composed, the. simple is necessarily unchangeable. Aristotle may therefore have derived this conception from the words of Anaxagoras quoted above. But Anaxagoras may perhaps himIn this self have spoken of it.

according

Anaxagoras

continues

Ka\

OKola ijXiXXev eceffOai Ka\ OKola ifv Kal dacra vvv eari Kal OKola ^arai,
Trdvra dieKSa/uLrjae voos' Kal ttiv TrepiX^pTjcTiV ravrriv, ^v vvv Trepixa'peej Tcc re ampa Kal 6 tjXios Kal rj (reX^vq
Kal 6 dijp Kal 6 aldrjp ol diroKpivoix^voi.

286,

1,

Cf. what is quoted, Vol. from Diogenes.

I.

SPIRIT.
ward by the ancient
world-forming
this
force,

345

writers,* lies in the conception of

AVe must, therefore, assume that

was actually the point from which Anaxagoras

attained his doctrine.

He knew

not
;

how

to explain

motion, by means of matter as such - and still less the regulated motion which produced a result so beautiful and so full of design as the world. He would not have recourse to an irrational Necessity, nor to Chance,-'^ and so he assumed an incorporeal essence, which has moved

and ordered matter

in view
'

that he really had such an essence

cannot well be doubted, as his emphatic asser-

Plato, Fhado, 97

{inf. p.

351, 1); Laws, xii. 967 B \ihid.); koX Ty)v twu Crat. 400 A rt 5e a.K\o)v a-rrdvTwv <J)v(Tlv oh TricTTeveis 'Ava^ayopa vovv Kal ^vxv" elfat Tr)i>
: ;

oiaKoaixovcrav koX

e;^oy(raj'

Arist.

15: the must ancient philosophers knew only of material causes in course of time it became evident that to these a moving cause must be added and at last, after prolonged enquiry, it was acknowledged that both were insufficient to explain the beauty and design of the system and course vovv S77 tis ^Ittuv of the universe

Metaph.

i.

4,

984
;

b,

been unmoved for it is in that primitive state that the essence of the corporeal presents itself purely and absolutely. What Aristotle quotes {Phys. iii. 5. 205 b, 1) concerning the repose of the infinite does not belong here. ^ That he explicitly repudiated both is asserted by later writers only: Alex. Aphr. Be An. 161 a, TO. {Be B'oto, c. 2 Xiy^i yap ('Aia^.)
;

/xTjSef

tUv

yiyojJLevcou

yiveadai Had'

ilyLapix4v7]v,

aW'

flvai Kevbv
i.

rovro
Aff.
ol

rovvofxa.

Plut. Plac.
p.

29, 5 (Stob.
/cal

Eel.

i.

218; Theodoret, Gr.

87): 'Ar-olay.

Cur.

vi.

iv^luai KadaTrep iv toTs (ccois nal iv

TTJ (t)v(TL

rov aXriov tov koc/ulov Koi

TT/S rd^ecvs irdaris, oiov viicpwy i(pdinr)

Trap' eiKri \eyovTas rovs irporepov. to?s o\ois -wpCiros Plut. PericL c. 4 ov Tuxw ou8' avdyKrjv, oiaKoajur]aecos dpxT^u, aKkd vovu eTreVrTjo-e KaQapov kou &Kparov, eju^e/xr/zieVoj' To7s dWois, awoKplt/ovTa ras 6/xoio:

IruiKoX &8t)\ov alr'iav avOponrivco \oyi(Tu^ (rrjv rvxw)In point of facr, however, the statement contains nothing improbable, even though the words employed by our authorities may not be those of

Anaxagoras. Tzetz. in 77. p. 67, cannot bt quoted against it.

*

As

is

asserted by Philop.

Dc

Further details p. 346 sq., and in Schaubach, 152 sqq. - This is clear from the statement to be mentioned later on, that the primitive mixture before the working of mind upon it had
/xipeias.

An. c, 7, 9; Procl. in Parm. vi. 217 Cons. and is presupposed by all philosophers from Plato on;

wards, according to their idea of

vovs.

Yide especially Aristotle,

p.

343.

846

ANAXA G OR AS.
mind above
it

tion of the pre-eminence of

all else

can rest

on no other

basis

and though

may

not be wholly

due

to the inadequacy of his language, that the con-

ception of the Incorporeal comes out vaguely in his description^

as a

though he may actually have regarded

^

spirit

more

subtle kind of matter, entering into things

in extension

this does not interfere

with his general

for

purpose.^

Our experience
spirit

affords

no other analogy

incorporeality and for design towards an end than that

of the

human

and

it

is,

tlierefore,

quite natural

that Anaxagoras should

define

his

cording to this analogy, as thinking.

moving cause, acBut because he

is

primarily required spirit only for the purpose of explaining nature, this

new

principle

neither purely

apprehended, nor

strictly
is

and

logically carried out.

On

the one side, spirit

described as a nature that knows

and

exists for

itself,'*

andthus we might suppose we had

on the other hand,
the subtlest of
it

reached the

full

conception of spiritual personality, of

;

free, self-conscious subjectivity

is

also

spoken of as

if it
;

were an impersonal matter, or

is

an impersonal force
^

it

called

all

Vide

i7)fra

and Zevort,

p. 8-i

pqq.
^

The proof

of this lies partly

wonis X^-mdraTov ttuvtcou Xpvp-o-Tuv (Fr. 8, p. 3-13), but especially in what will immediately Ije observed on the existence of vovs
in the

in things.
^

The same

presentations of

half-materialistic vovs are also to

-n'ho

be found among philosophers

sphere as surrounded by the Deity, can scarcely he considered free from them. When, therefore, Kern, Ueb. XeuojiJiancs, p. 21, finds no proof that Anaxagoras taught an immaterial principle unextended in space, this does not touch the matter. He probably did not teach it in so many vords, but his design is nevertheless to distinguish vovs in its nature from all composite
things.

in theory maintain the opposition

of mind and matier most emphatically.

ixoiyos

i<p'

euvrov ian [Fr.

4-iistotLe,

for

instance,

8).

when he

conceives the terrestrial

SPIRIT: IS IT A PERSONAL BEING?

things,^
it
is

^47

sa^l that

parts of
is

it

are in

particular

things,-

and the amount given

designated by the exwhile no specific

life

pressions 'greater
distinction
is

and

lesser spirit,'^

observed between the lowest stages of

and the highest stages of ration alitj.-* Though we ought not to conclude from this that Anaxagoras of set purpose wished to represent spirit as impersonal, these traits will prove that he had not as yet the pure idea for an of personality, nor did he apply it to spirit
;

essence, parts of which inhere in other essences as their

cannot with any propriety be called a personality and when we further observe that precisely the distinctive tokens of personal life, self-consciousness and
soul,

free self-determination, are

nowhere ascribed to

vovs^"^

that

its

existence for self [Fitrsichsein) primarily re-

lates only to

the sicgleness of

its

nature, and would

hold good just as

much

of any substance with which no

other substances are mingled;^ finally, that knowledge was not unfrequently attributed by the ancient j^hilo-

sophers to essences which were indeed temporarily per'

Sup. 346,
Fr.
7,

2.

voo'!

the second can only be understood of a

"vrhere also

the similar expressions of the various accounts [sup. p. 343) describe, indeed, like the one quoted
344, 1, absolute power over matter, but not freewill and so the knowledge of Nous chiefly relates to its knowledge of primitive substances, and what is to be formed out of them. Whether NoCs is a self-conscious Ego, and whether its action proceeds from
p.
;

/iolpa

voov.
b,
1
: '

Arist,

Be An.
8'

i.

2,

404

Kva^ayopas

t\ttov

(on the natiire ef the soul). iroWaxov fxev -yap rh oiTLov Tov KoXoos Kai opdcfs rhv vuvi' \eyei, eTpwdL 5e tovtov eiuai Tr,p xpvxv^' ev airaaL yap (?.vr}iv xmapx^iv
5icrad)e? Trepi avrcov

roh
Kal

Cvois, Kol
Tij.dois

ue-vaAois Kol
aTi/xooTepoLs.

jj.iKpo7s

Koi

Cf.

what was quoted from Diogenes,

Yol. I. p. 287, 1, 7. ^ Fr. 8 ; cf. p. 34.3.
*

Cf. sup,, note 2.

will, Annxagoras probably never thought of asking, because he only required Nous as worldforming force. As is clear from the connee-

free

For

avTOKparr]s, Fr.

8,

and

tion of Fr.

,S

just quoted.

348
sonified

AXAXAGOHAS.
by them, but were not
seriously regarded as

persons, as individuals;^

when

all this is

borne in mind,

the personality of the Anaxagorean spirit becomes very

uncertain.

The truth probably

is,

that Anaxagoras de-

fined, indeed, his conception of vov9 according to the

Thus Heracleitus, and afterwards the Stoics, regarded fire as at the same time the world-intelli'

gence Heracleitus represents man as inhaling reason from the surrounding air with Parmenides thought is an essential predicate of Being, of the universeil material substance Philolaus describes number as a thinking nature (sup. Vol. I. p. 371, 2), and Diogenes (Vol. I. p. 287, 7) believes he can
;

transfer all that Anaxagoras had said of mind simply to the air.

Even Plato may be mentioned

is

in

this connection, for his world-soul

conceived according to the analogy of human personality, but with a very uncertain personality of its own and at the beginning of the Critias, he invokes Cosmos, the derived god, to impart to the speaker true knowledge. Wirth {d. Idee Gottes, 170) objects to the two .first of these analogies, that Heracleitus and the Eleatics, in the conceptions just referred to, transcend their own principles; but our previous exposition will serve to show how untrue this is.
;

my view of merely a proof of the bias, which will see nothing but Pantheism everywhere in philosophy (as if the doctrine of Diogenes would not have been truly pantheistic, and in that case only, if he had made the personal Deity into the
He
also discovers, in

Diogenes,

of Diogenes, the matter from which things are formed by condensation and rarefaction, can be so regarded. That it must be a person, because the self-conscious principle in man is air,' is more than a hazardous inference. In tliatcase^ the air of Anaximenes, the warm vapour of Heracleitus, the round atoms of Democritusand Epicurus, the corporeal in the doctrine of Parmenides and the blood in that of Empedocles would each be a self-conscious personality. It by no means follows from what I have said that Diogenes was not in earnest when he asserted that the air has knowledge he is certainly in earnest, but is still so far from clear conceptions on the nature of knowledge, that he supposes that this qualitj,iust as much as warmth, extension, etc., may be attributed to lifeless, impersonal matter. But if matter is thereby necessarily personified, there is still a great difference between the involuntary personification of that which is in itself impersonal, and the conscious setting up of a personal principle. Still less can be proved by the mythical personification of natural olijects, which Wirth also quotes against me if the sea was personified as Oceanus and the air as
all
'

'

'

Here,
their

the.-e

gods were discriminated

forms.

from the elementary substances by

human

"Water as

sue//,

substance of all things]. Eor my part, I do not see what we are to understand by a person, if the air

air as such,

as

pjersons,

were never regarded either by Homer or

Hesiod.

SPIRIT: IS IT
analogy of the
to
it,

A PERSOXAL BEING
in attributing

349

human mind, and

it
;

thought

ascribed to

a predicate which strictly belongs

only to a personal being

but that he never consciously

its

proposed to himself the question of

in consequence,

personality, and,

combined with these personal conceptions others which were taken from the analogy of impersonal forces and substances. Were it even true,
as later writers
^

maintain, probably without foundation,'^

that he describes vovs as Deity, his theory would be only

on one side theistic

its

on the other
is

it is

naturalistic,
:

and

peculiar character

shown in

this

that spirit, in

spite of its distinction in principle

is

from the corporeal,

also conceived as a force of natm'e,

and under such

conditions as could apply neither to a personal nor to a

purely spiritual nature.^

'

Cic. Acad.

ii.

37, 118

i/i

or-

dinem adductas[partiailas] a mente divina. Sext. Math. ix. 6: vovv,

OS iari Kar^ aiirov B^6s.
i.
;

Stob. Eel.

56 Themist. Orat. xxvi. 317 c; Schaubach, 152 sq. 2 For not merely the fragments, but the majority of our testimonies are silent on this point; and those

which allude
trustworthy

to

it

are not very

about such things. The question, however, is not very important, since iiovs, in any case, does, in fact, correspond with
Deity.
c, that in the doctrine of Anaxagoras there is a
^

completed, that spirit is not actually conceived as a subject independent of nature, because though, on the one hand, it is represented as incorporeal and thinking on the other, it is regarded as an element divided among individual natures, and working after the manner of a physical force. Xrische, Forsch. 65 sq., expresses himself quite in accordance with this view. Gladisch, however {Anax. w. d. Isr. 56 xxi. et pass.), and F. Hoflfmann ( Ueher die Got;
;

tesidce dxs

Anax. Socr.

u. Flaton,

Wirth

says,

I.

'

least

I have not the ground for denying this, nor have I denied it, as he supposes, in the Jahrl). d. Gegcnw. 1844. p. 826. All that I maintained, and do maintheistic element.'

tain,

is

this

that the breach be-

tween begun

spirit

and nature, though by Anaxagoras, was not

Wiirzb. 1860. Ber dualistische Theisraus des Anax. wnd. der Monothcismus d. SoJcr. u. PL in Yichte's Zeitsckriftf. Philos N. F. xl. 1862, p. 2 s^q.) have attempted to prove that our philosopher's doctrine of God was pure Theism, But neither of these writers has shown how the pure and logically developed concept of personality
;

350

AXAXAGOEAS.
This will become
still

clearer

when we perceive that

even the statements concerning the efficient activit}^ of So spirit are chargeable with tlie same contradiction.
far as spirit is to be an intelligent essence which, out of
its

pose,^ has
for

knowledge and according to its predetermined purformed the world, the result must have been Anaxagoras a teleological view of nature for as the
;

compatible with the statement that NoOs is divided among all living creatures, and that the various classes of these creatures are distinguished indeed by the quantity, but not by the quality of this Hoffmann, i/ovs inhering in them. however, expressly allows that the two things are not compatible {F. Zeitsohrift, p. 25); but when he deduces from this that we cannot
is
'

that idea and that he mat/ have proceeded in this way (not, as HofFm. F. Zcitschrift, 26, s-ajs, must \va\q, done so), I conclude, among other reasons, from the circumstance, that many noteworthy philosophers have actually taken this course. To find fault with this opinion of mine on the score of 'Halbheit' (/. c. 21) is strange; if I say that Anaxagoras remained half-way,
;

seriously ascribe to Anaxagoras

this is

something different from

the doctrine that NoOs is a essence which has parts and can be divided, so that parts of it abide in
other natiires as their soul,' this is (if we may say so wirhout offence) to turn the question upside down. What may be ascribed to Anaxagoras we can ox\\\ judge of from his own statements, which, in this
are explicit enough and if these sitatements are not altogether compatible with each other, we can only conclude that Anaxagoras was not quite clear about the consequences of his own point of view.
case,
;

ovy remaining half-way.

But

my
:

adversary has not sufficiently discriminated the historical question how did Anaxagoras conceive the Deity as vovs ? from the dogmatic question, how ought we to conceive
it ?

Whereas

it

is

quite

immate-

rial for our

conception of the person-

God, whether Anaxngoras and other ancient philosophers had or had not this conception, and whether they apprehended or developed it more or less purely or
ality of

imperfectly.
(p.
' This is indicated in the words 344, 3): OKOia ejieWeu eaea-

All that I maintain is this: I do not deny that Anaxagoras conceived

his Novs as an intelligent nature,

dai SLeK6afjLr]a voos. Anaxagoras perhaps also spoke of mind as sustaining the universe, cf. Suid. 'Aj'a(Also ap. Harpokration, Cevovv nrdvTwv dren. Chron. 158 C) (ppovphv eliTiv. But it does not follow that he himself employed the expression, cppovpos.
|a7.
:

working according to design but I do deny that he combined with

;

the conception of such a nature, all the presentations which we are accustomed to connect with the idea of a personal being, and excluded all those which we exclude from

EFFICIEXT ACTIVITY OF SPIRIT.

spirit itself is
spirit, so
is

351

conceived after the analogy of the

its

human
activity

must

operation be conceived
its

its

the realisation of

thouo^hts throuo-h the

medium

of matter
interest

activity working to an end.

much

But the physical

is

too strong with our philosopher to allow

of his being really satisfied with the teleological view

of things; as the idea of spirit has been in the
first

instance forced

upon him by the inadequacy of the

it

ordinary theories, so he makes use of

only in cases

where he cannot discover the physical causes of a phe-

nomenon. As soon

as ever there is a prospect of arriving

at a materialistic explanation,
spirit divides matter,

he gives

it

the preference;

but

it

does this in a mechanical

it

manner, by the rotatory movement

laws from the
first

produces

all

things are then developed according to

mechanical

motion, and spirit only enters as a

Deus ex raachina wherever this mechanical explanation fails. Still less, even when it is present, is any special
^
'

Plato,
jj.4v

P/icsdo,

97

aAA.'

koI
fieu

avayiyvcccrKuv

a-<ov(jas

irore eK ^ifixiov rivhs,

6pa> av^pa t'^ vw ovhev XP'^!^^^^ ^^^^ riuas

a.4pas

ws (pTn 'Ava^ayopov, ai/ayiyvwaKouTos Kal \4yovTOS, ws apa uovs icnlv 6 ^LaKOCpiUV T6 ai Tvdvrwv aiTios,
ravrn
eOo|e
07?

alrias iiraiTiwuivoi' els ro QiaKOfTimelv

to.

iTp6.yfxaTa,

oh koI ald4pas

Kal vdara airiwpievov kol

/tal
'^*^'

ttj

alria

rjadiqp

re

Ka\
'^^

aroTra,

etc.;

Zauv-', xii.

aWa iroWa 967 B

fxoL

Tpoirov rivh. e5 ^x^'-^

Tives

iroKuav tovto ye avrb

rov vovu elvai iT6.vr(v cXtlov. koL ovra-'S Ixei, top 7]'-/T] a a uriv, el rovd' ye vovv Kocrp-ovvra ivdvra kol eacrrov TiOevai ravTT] oitr} av ^eKrioTa exp' et oZy tis ^ovKolto ttjv alriav
oinri yiyverai /) rovro Sttv irepl aiiTOv evpelv. ottt) ^eXricTTOv avrcp earlv 7) eJvai. *] aWo otlovv -xdcrxeiv 1) TToielv. etc. but -when I came to know his tieatise better (98 B),

evpelv TTepl

eKdarov,
eari,

Kal tots, Xiyovres is vovs ett] 6 ^iaKZKO(jj.r]KU}s iravG' oaa Kar ohpavov. ol 5e ahrol ttoAiv auaprduovres v]/ix7js (puaews . elnelv eiros averpe^av oiiravd* cos 7raA.11/, eavrovs 5e iroXv pLuKKov to
irapaKii/dvvsveiu
.
.

anoWvTai ^

yap

St]

rrph

twu

6p.p.dT(i:v

iravra

avrols e<pdvr] ra Kar

fxeva p-earu elvai

ohpavov <pep6-

Xidcov Kal yrjs Kal

irohKojv 6.\\o;v ail/uxcov aoc/xdrav 5ia-

veuovTcav
KocrpLOv.

ras

alrias

iravros

rov
is

airh Stj QavpLaarr\s eKiri^os,

S3

era7pe,
irpo'iwv

Aristotle's

language
-svith this.

(ixop-W

(pepopLevos,

eireidr]

quite in accordance

On

352

ANAXAGORAS.

Anaxagoras not only any personal interference of the Deity in the course of the universe, but we find in him no trace even of the thought of a Divine government
rule assigned to it in the world.
is

silent as to

the one hand he acknowledges that an essentially higher principle was discovered in vovs, that in it all things are referred to the Good, or final cause, but on the other he complains, partly in the words of the Fhccdo, that in the actual development of the system the mechanical causes are hrought forward and mind is only introduced as a stop-gap. Besides the quotations on p. 344, -i 346, 6, vide Metaph. 984 b, 20 oi yikv olv ovTU}<i i. 3, VTro\a[xfidvoi/Tes (Anax.) a/xa tov
; :

Tf tS}V uVTOiv, a\?C ojs airh

rovrwu

ras KivricreLS ovaas Xeyovaiv. Later writers who repeat the judgment of Plato and Aristotle are cited by Sehaubach, p. 105 sq. In this place it will sufiice to quote Simpl. P/n/s. 73 b: /cat 'Ai/a|. Se rhu vovv idaas, u)S <l>r](Tiv EtjSrjixos, Ka\ avro{xaTL^wu TO, iroKXa avviaTticTi. ' The Placita attributed to Plutarch, i. 7, 5 (also ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 16, 2), say, indeed: 6 5'
'Ai^a^aydpas (pricrli/, ws dffr-nKei /car' apxas TO aciixara povs [Se] avTct SieKSa-fXTjae deov Ka\ ras yeveaeis Twv oXwv iiToiri(rev, and after men-

Ka\cis Ti]v alriau

apxV

eJi/ai

twv
c.

uviwv
7]

edeffav KoL rrju ruLavTr]u odeu

Kivnais virdpx^i to7s ovcriv (cf.

tioning the similar exposition of

6 end.); xii. 10, 1075 b, 8: 'Aua^ay6pas Se u)s Kiuovu rh ayadhv apxvu 6 yap povs Kive?, aKXa Kive7 HfeKci Tivos; xiv. 4, 1091 b, 10: TO yet/vrjcxav irpSirov ^piTrov ridearri "E/xTreSo/cAfjs re Kal 'Ava^aySpas. But on the contrary he says, in chap. i. 4, 985 a, ] 8 the ancient philosophers have no clear consciousness of the import of 'Aua^ayopas re their principles
'

Plato (in the Timteus)

Koiuws
you
ox)v

it is

added:

afxapTavovffLv aficpoTepoi,

OTL rhv dehv iTroir^aau iirLarpecpoixi-

TMP

avBotiitrivwy,
KoffjJioy

^ Ka\ rovrov

KaracTKevd^ovTa' rh yap [xaKdpioy kol &<pQaprov C<?oi/ oKov hv TTepi Trjf cruj/oxV "t^^
xdpi-P

T^v

IZias evdaiixovias Kal acpdapaias dve-

Tnarp(pS

iari

rcHy

avdpwirivwy

XRV^ai rq) uui -rrphs rrjv Koa/J-OTToiiay, Ka\ oray airooT^frr), hia Tiv alriav e| avdyK-rjs icTTl, rSre irapeXKei avrhv, iv 5e ro7s aKXoLS
fxrixaifj

yap

Ttpayixdrwy KaKo^aifiwv 8' ay ei-r] ipydrov St/crjt' ical riKrovos axdocpopwy ktX j-Lepiixvocv els rrjv rod k6(T[xou

KaraaKevrjv.

But

to

see

in

iravra fxaWou alriaraL

^ivwv
6'

i)

vovv.

C. 7,

tuu yiyvo988 b, 6 rh
:

passage 'an explicit and clear testimony of Plutarch, which makes all further enquiry superPlutarch fluous,' to believe that
this
'

ou ci/eKa at irpd^eis Ka\ at (/.era^oha\ Kal al Kivr)(Teis, rpS-jroy fxiv riva Keyovcriu airiov, ovtw (as final cause) 5' ou Kiyovciv, ohV ovnep
ol fxev yap yovv Keyovres us dyadhv /xev n ravras ras ahias riQiaaiv, vv /jltju ws eve/cci ye tovtuv ^ oj' ^ yiyv6^ep6v

ascribes

so

definitely to

Anaxa-

k4>PvKv.

71

(piAiau

goras the superintending care of vovs, even in human affairs, that he even makes it a ground of censure to this philosopher' (Gladisch, Anax. d. u. Isr. 123 cf. 165), requires all the prejudice and hastiness into which the lively desire
;

EFFICIENT ACTIVITY OF SPIRIT.

353

of that belief in Providence which had such great im-

portance with philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and

to substantiate a favourite opinion

ofren betrays writers not othervnse deficient in learning or in the art Glaiisch of methodical enquin', knows as well as any of us that the Placita, in their pres^-nt form, are not the work of Plutarch, but a much later compilation, patched together from various, and sometimes very doubtful, sources be;

he cannot be so unacquainted with Plutarch's theological views as not to admit that it would be impossible for him to have raised such objections against the belief Providence, in and especially against Plato's conception of it he can scarcely dispute that the Epicurean origin of this belief appears absolutely certain at the first glance (cf. with the passage we are considering the quotations in Part iii. a, 370-390. 2nd ed.); and yet he speaks as though we were here concerned with the undoubted testimony of Plutarch. The supposed Plutarch does not even say what Gladisch finds in him he only gives as Anaxagoras's own statement the same passage as all other writers, viz., that the Divine NoGs formed the world
sides,
:

"VNlien Gladisch further (p. 100 sq., 118) puts into the mouth of our philosopher the propositions that there is nothing out of ordei and irrational in nature; that vovi as the arranger of the universe is also the author of all which is usually regarded as evil, this is more than can be proved. Arist. Mctaph. xii. 10, 107o b, 10, blames Anaxagoras indeed becausf^ to

tion.

ivavTiop
T6? vS,

fj.ri

iroir](Tai

ro)

or/aGu

koL

but we ought not to conclude from this that he referred evil also to the causality of vovs. for it is likevrise possible that he never attempted to solve the problem of the existence of evil

and Metaph.
32
sq.,

\.

4,

984

b,

8 sqq.,

when he

attributes to

Anaxagoras

the belief in a Divine Providence over men, this is simply an inf'-rence of the Epicurean who was enabled b}' it to apply the usual objections of his school against that belief, to the Anaxagorean

unmit-takeably favours the The passage in Alex. latter view. Bon. oo3 b, ad. Metaph. 4 b, 4 'Apa^ayopa Se 6 vovs tov eu 1 Br. Koi KaKWS fJiOVQV "^V TTOlTJTlKhv T6 afriov, as etprjKev (se. 'ApicrroT.), would in no case prove much, for it would merely be an inference, and by no means a necessary inference, from the principles of Anaxagoras (for Anaxagoras might equally-well have derived evil from matter, as Plato did). It is, however, manifest (as even Gladisch inclines to admit) that we ought here to read " KaXus '' for " KaKocs."
; :

Metaph i. 3, 984 b, 10. and Alexander himself, p. 2o, 22 Bon. 537 a, 30 Br. describe the vovs of Anaxagoras as the cause of the ev
Arist.
Kol KaXu's.
Still less

This inference, however, has as historical evidence no higher valuethan, for example, the equally Epicurean exposition in Cic. X. B. 6fi), i. 11. 26 (cf. Krische, For.<ch. according to which vovs is a 02uv endowed with sensation and modoctrine.

can be inferred

from Themist. Ph^/s. 58 b (413 Sp.) According to Anaxagoras nothing irrational and unordered finds place
'

He is rather in this passage opposing Anaxagoras froic

in nature.'
his

own

standpoint.

TOL.

II.

A A

854

AXAXAGOEAS.
"WTiether this be matter for praise or blame,
it

the Stoics.
in

any case

proves that the inferences which would

result

from the conception of an omniscient framer of

all

the world, ordering

things according to set purpose,

;

were very imperfectly drawn by him

purely, or

that he conseitself

quently cannot have apprehended this conception

made

clear to himself all that it involves.

is

Anaxagoras's doctrine of spirit

thus, on the one side,

the point to which the realism of the older natural

philosophy leads up beyond itself;

side,

but on the other

the doctrine

still

rests

to

some extent on the

of natural

ground of
finds

this realism.
is
;

The cause
for,

Becoming

and [Motion
is

sought

and what the philosopher

spirit

but because he has sought this higher

imperfectly

principle primarily for the purpose of explaining nature,

he can only employ

of nature
view.
is

it

the teleological view

immediately changed into the meclianical

says, the final cause,

Anaxagoras has, as Aristotle

it

and he uses

merely as motive

force.

2.

Origin mid System of the Universe.

In order to form a world out of the original chaos,

Mind

first

produced at one point of this mass a rotatory

its

motion, which, immediately spreading, involved in

action an ever-increasing portion of the mass, and ex-

tended
1

itself

further
1)
:

and
koI

further.^
irXeou, note 3.

This

motion,

Fr.

8 (sup. p. 343,

In this description,

T7J9 'jrpix<>>pvo'ios Tris avfnrdarjs vovs

iKparriaev,

apx^"'
ijp^aTO

'^c'^

wcTTe Trcpixo^pvo'ai 7i}u TrpwTov aith tov afjLiKpov

eireire

Anaxagoras seems to have primarily in view the idea of a fluid mass, into which, a body being
cast, there

TrepixwpTjo'at
'''

ivKiav
eTrl

n^piiX^P^^i

T^^pi-X'^P'h<^^t'

arise whirling eddies, spreading ever further and further.

FORMATlOX OF THE VXI VERSE.

through
its

3bo

extraordinary swiftness, effected a division

of the substances, which

were in the

first

instance

separated into

two great masses,^ according to the

rare,
;

most universal distinctions of dense and and warm, dark and bright, moist and dry
reciprocal action of these
is

cold

and the

of decisive importance in

the further conformation of thiDgs.

Anaxagoras called
all

them Aether and

is

Air, including
;

under Aether

that

warm, light and rare and under Air all that is cold, dark and dense.^ The dense and moist were driven by the rotation into the centre, and the rare and warm
without, just
as

in

all

eddies of

water

or

air

the

Perhaps it was some expression of this kind -which gave rise to the
erroneous statement of Plotinus, ii. 4, 7, that the fuy/u.a\s water. For the warm and dry are with Anaxagoras, as with the other physicists, identical with the rare and light, vide infra, note 3. - Fr. fTrel %|aTO 6 18 (7) airo tov Kiveoixevov j/6os Kiveeir,
E/in.
'

Karuxev, aucporepa aweipa iovra. Tavra yap fjidyiara ^v^criv iv toItl

av/xTraai

Kal Kal

-rrXrjBii

Kal

u(yd6ei.
al6^,p

Fr. 2

yap

6 arjp Kal 6

OLTTOKpipeTai CTTO

TToWov. i<TTL Th Tr\r}Gos. Arist. De Ca-Io. iii. de'pa 5e Kal irip 3 {sup. p. 332, 1)
:

tov TVepi^XOyTOS TOV Kal Toye irepiexou aneipov

fJuyjJLa

TOVTwv

Kal
.

rwv
.

aWwv

aTi^fj-

fxaTccu ira.vTb.-v

S.6 Kal yiyveadai

TTavThs aireKpiveTO, Kal otrov iKivrjcrev

6

v6os

Ttav

rovTO

SieKpidr]'
t]

KLfeo-rrfpi-

jj.evci}u

5e Kal SiaKpiuopLduocv

navT iK TovTuv (air and fire)* to yap TTvp Kal Thv aldepa irpoo-ayopevei TavTo. Theophr. Be Sensu, o9
OTi TO jue^ fxapbu Kal Xctttov 6fp^oi/

;^wpT7(riS

iroXX<2

fxiiKKov

e'TTOtee

(11): oi/'tco TOVTewu K^pix^^P^ovrtev re KaX awoKpivofidvoov VTTO B'lris Tf /cat rax'JT7JT0S- /Strji/ 8e 7) raxuTTjs -rroihi, t] eoiKe Se TaxvTTjS ahriav vvZiv\ T^V TaX^TTITa TUU vvu XP'hl^O-TI'
(OVTCiiv

Oiaxplv^aBai.

Fr.

21

Th

Se

TTLKvhv
'Ava^.

Kal
Siatpet

iraxv

Ivxpoi'.

uairep

tov de'pa Kal

aWa
iari.
^

TrdvTccs

xp^l^^"^^^ ^^ avdpu>Troi(TL, TroWairXarrlcos Taxv

8, 19,

TOV aiOepa. That Anaxagoras understood by aether the fiery element, is also confirmed by Arist. De Coelo, i. 3. 270 b, 24 Meteor. i. 3, '339 b, 21; ii. 9, 369 b, 14.
:

Similarly,

Fr.

vide

p.

337,

3.

This theory, already advanced

1)V

Eitter {Icm. Phil. 266, Gesck. d. i. 321) and Zevort, 105 .sq., is based upon the following passages. Annx. Fr. 1 (after what is quoted, p. 338, 1) iraira -yap arip re Kal aldrip
Phil.
:

Plut. Plac. ii. 13. 3 ; Simpl. De Ccelo, 55 a, 8, 268 b, 43 {SchoL 475 b, 32, 513 a, 39); Alex. Meter/rol. 73 a, 111 b; 6]ym piodoriis, Meteorol. 6 a {Arist. Meteor, ed. Id. i. 140), where we read in addition that Anaxagoras derived o<07jp from aWw,

A 2

356

ANAXAGORAS.
elements
are
carried

heavier

towards

the

centre.'

From

the lower mass of vapour water was at length

secreted,

and from water earth

from earth stone

is

formed through the action of cold.^

revolution, and

Detached masses

of stone, torn away from the earth by the force of the

having become incandescent in the

;

aether, illumine the earth

these are the stars, includ-

ing the sun.^

By means

of the sun's heat the earth,

wdiich at first consisted of slime

'

and mud,'* was dried

tt]u ova'iav.
ttj
5'

Fr. 19, vide sup. p. 337,

3,

eiuai
Trjs

Kara

cvTouia
ire-

cf.

Arist.

De

C(xlo,

ii.

13,

295

a,

Trepi5ivr}(Toos

a.vcpTr6.QovTa

Meteor,

7; Simpl. Phys. 87 b; De Ccelo, 23o b, 31 sqq. The o'ord^ of Anaxac^oras are followed by Hippol. Eefut. i. 8, and less accurately by Diog. ii. 8. 2 Fr. Tovrewv otTr^ 20 (9)
ii.
:

Tpovs eV

T77S yris

Koi KaTacpXe^avra

TOVTO'js y)<TTipiKeiaL,

Hippol.

I.

c.

r,XLQV 5e koX (TfX^]vr]v koX iravTa to.

&aTpa K(dovs
K7](pdeuTas
TrepKpopas.

clfai ifxirvpovs (TvuTepitt]S

virh

tov

aidepos

airoKpivoixiuwv aufxir'nywrai yri' eK txkv yap twp j/e0eAwi' v^cop airoKptveTUi. iK 5e rov vSutos
Ti]s
yri

That Anaxagoras believed the stars to be stones, and

the sun in particular to be a redhot mass {\i6os SiaTrvpos, fivSpos SLairvpos), we are repeatedly informed. Cf. (besides many other passages quoted by Schaubach, 139s qq., 159) Plato, Apol. 26 D,

(K os

7^5 \i9oL (TvixTT'hyvvvTai virh Tov -^vxpov. The doctrine of the elements cannot be ascribed to Anaxagoras, either on the strength of this passage, or on that of the Aristotelian texts quoted p. 332, 1 In his system it would 334, 2. have had quite another meaning from that of Empedocles cf. the
; ;

Laws
iv,
ii.

xii.

7,

6 sq.

previous note, and Simpl De Ccelo, 269 b, U, 41 {Schol. 513 b, 1),

281
3

a, 4.

Pint. Lusanrl.

c.

12:

^Ivai 5e

Ka\

Twv harpcav ^Kaffrov OvK

fikv

^v

rj

7re</)VKe X'^P?'

^'^^^V J^P ouTa ^ap4a

avrepeiaei
Koi
Trepz-

Xdaireiv

KXacrei tov aiOfpos, eAKecrOai 5e vtto I3(as a(pLy^,6fxevov [-a] SiVt? koI rovcp
rr)S TTepicpopas,

11 sq., of this opinion to the phenomenon AYhat is said of meteoric stones. in the Pladta, as to the terrestrial origin of these stony masses, is confirmed by the passages in Plutarch and not only so, but from the whole interconnection of his doctrines, it is impossible to see how he could have imagined stones arose except from the earth, or at any rate in the terrestrial sphere. Cf. the

967 C. Xenoph. Me7)i. According to Diog. he appealed in support

;

ws

ttov kuI

to irpSirov

4KpaTf)6r]

/xt]

neefTiv

Bcvpo,

rwv

two notes. The sun and moon must have arisen at the same time
last

i\ivxp^v

KoX

fiapiwv
ii.

aiTOKpivop-evuv

13, 3: 'hva^ay. rhv irepiKdp.evou aldepa itvpivov ^te*'

TOV 7rauT6s. Plac.

(Eudera. ap. Procl. in Tim. 258 C). * Cf. the following note and
Tzetz. in
11. p.

42.

FORMATIOX OF THE rXIVERSF.

of evaporation, salt

S67

up, and the water that was left became, in consequence

and

bitter.^

This cosmogony labours under the same difficulty

that we find in
all

attempts to explain the origin of

the universe.

If on the

one hand the substance of

is

the world, and on the other the world-forming force,

eternal,

how comes

it

that the world

?

itself,

at a definite

moment

of time, began to exist

We

have no right,

however, on that account to explain away the statements

of our philosopher, which throughout presuppose a be-

ginning of motion in time

or to adopt the opinion of

Simplicius,- that Anaxagoras spoke of a beginning of

motion merely
belieA-ing in

for the sake of

argument, without really

it.^

He

himself adopts the same tone in

speaking of the beginning of motion and the original

intermixture as in treating of other subjects, and he

nowhere implies by a single word that what he says Aristotle ^ and has any other than the obvious sense.

Eudemus
1

both

so-

imderstood him

and, indeed,

it is

impossible to see
Dio?.
;

how he could have spoken

iii.

of a con-

ii.

8;

Plut, FIa<;.

HippoL JRefut. i. 8. Alex. 16, 2 Meteor. 91 b, ascribes to Anaxagoras the statement (Arist. Meteor. ii. 1, 353 b, 13) that the taste of sea-water is caused by the admixture of certain earthy ingredients only this admixture is not brought
;

So B.itter, Io7i.P?iiL 2o0 sqq. Gfsch d. Phil. i. 318 sq. Brandis, i. 2o0; Schleiermacher, GescJi. d.
^
;

Phil. 44.
*

Phys.

viii. 1,

2o0

b,

24:

<pr]al

fap 4k^7vos
ourccv koI

['Ai/al.],

bjxov

ttoli/toou

Tipefiovvrwu

rhv

&Treipov

about (as Alexander seems first to have concluded from the passage in Aristotle) by percolation through the earth, but results from the
constitution of the fluid, the earthy portions of which remained behind in the process of
original

XP"''^^! Kivf](jiv eixiroiriaai Koi Zianplvai.

'"

rhv vovv
6

Simpl.

Phys.

273 a

5e

EuStjjuos fxifxcp^rai

tw 'Ava|a7opa oh
ouaau
tj

iiovov
(rOai

on

/jli]

-rrporepou
tt]v

6.p^a-

irore Keyei

k'lvt}<tiv,

a\A'
Xrj^eiv

on

Koi irep) rov diaixev^iv

ciTreTv,

Trore

evaporation. - Phys. 257

irapiXm^v ovtos (papepov.

Kai-mp

ovk

b.

858
tiniial increase of

ANAXAGORAS.
motion without presupposing a comSimplicius, on the other

mencement
hand,

of that motion.

is no more to be trusted in this case than when he applies the intermixture of all substances to the unity of the Neo-Platonists and the first separation

of opposites to the world of ideas;

but, in regard to

the inherent difficulties- of his presentation, Anaxagoras

may

easily

have overlooked them,

as others

have done

before and since his time.

With more

reason we

may

ask whether our philosopher supposed there would be at

some time

or other a cessation- of motion, a return to

the original state of the universe.^

According to the

most trustworthy witnesses he did not express himself clearly on. this point ;^ but his language respecting the does not sound as if he increasing spread of motion
"^

contemplated any end to

it,

nor

is

there any connect-

ing link with such a conception in his system.

again plunge
origin,

How
its

should V0V9, after once bringino- the world into order,

it

into chaos?

This statement had

no doubt, in a misunderstanding of that which Anaxagoras had said about the world and its alternating
conditions.-^
Ph)/s.
;

Lastly, it

is

inferred

from an obscure

106 a 33 b sq. 8 a vide Schaubach, 91 sq. - As Stobseus, Ac/, i. 416,maintains. Since he classes Anaxagoras in this respect with Anaximander and other lonians, we must understand his statement as referring to an alternate construction and destruction of the world. 3 Vide cf. Arist. p. 357, 5 Simpl. Phys. viii. 1, 252 a, 10 De Coelo, 167 b, 13 (Sckol. 491 b, 10 sqq.). This last passage cannot
'
;

257 b

be quoted in favour of the opposite view, for it only asserts that Anaxagoras seems to regard the morion of the heavens and the repose of the earth in the centre as eternal, It is stated more defiuitely in Simpl. Fhys. 33 a, that he regarded the but it is world as imperishable doubtful whether this is founded on any express statement of Anaxa;

goras.
* ^

Supra, p. 354, 1. According to Diog.

ii.

10,

he

rXITY OF
fragment of his treatise
^

Till-

WOULD.

359

that Anaxagoras believed in

many
ture I

universes similar to our own;- but this conjec-

must

also discard.

For even

it

we attach no

weight to the testimony of Stobseus,^ that Anaxagoras taught the unity of the world ;"* yet, as he himself
describes the world as one, he

must

certainly have re-

garded

it

as

an interdependent whole, and this whole

can only form one universal system, since the move-

ment of the original mass proceeds from one centre, and in the separation of matter, like parts are brought the heavy going downinto one and the same place This fragment must therewards, the light upwards.

fore refer, not to a distinct universe, but to a part of our

own, most probably to the moon.'^

maintained that the mountains around Lampsacus would some time in the distant future be covered with the sea. Perhaps he was led to this conjecture by observations like those of Xenophanes (Vol. I. p. 569).^ ^ FrA{10): avOpwTTOvsTeavixTrayrjvai KOI

Beyond the world

raXAa

Koi Toiai ye

avSpwiroKTiv ehai.

(a)a ocra \l/uxVi' ex^'? kcj

TToXias (TwuiKriaivas Ka\ epya Kare-

aKevarueva, wcrirep irap' rifxiv koL ri^Xiov re avrolaiv eiVoi Ka\ aeKT]i'T\u Ka\ ToAAa. waTrep nap Vfjuu, Kol tt]v yriv avTolcri (pveiv iroKka re KOt iravrola wu eKelvoi to oni'iaTa aweViLKCLlXevOl

is

T7JJ/

o'lK-n'Tiv

xp^ovTai.

Simpl. Phys. 6 b, speaking of this, makes use of the plural, tovs k6(Tfxovs but this is of no importance. - Schaubach, 119 sq. 3 Ed. i. 496. * Fr. 11, sup. p. 338, 2. ^ The words (the context of which we do not know) may refer
;

either to a diflferent part of the earth from our own, or to the earth in a former state, or to another The first is not jirobable, world. as it could not be asrserted of a different part of the world, that it likewise had a sun and moon, for Anaxagoras, entertaining the notions he did of the form of the earth and of the Above and Below (vide p. 360, 3), cannot have believed in antipodes, in regard to whom the observation might have The second exbeen in place. planation is excluded by the present forms elvoi, (pvuv, xp^ovrai. Theie remains, therefore, only the third, and we can but suppose that the moon is intended; moreover, we know that Anaxagoras elsewhere says it is inhabited, and calls it an earth. If a moon is also assigned to it, this would then signify that, another star is related to the moon as the moon is to the earth.

360

ANAXAGORAS.

spreads infinite matter, of which more and more is drawn into the cosmos,^ by means of the advancing vortex. Of this infinite Anaxagoras said it rested in itself, because it has no space outside itself in which it

could move.^

In his theories concerning the arrangement of the

universe, Anaxagoras
is

for the

most part

allied

with

the ancient Ionian

physicists.

In the midst of the

whole

rests the earth as

its

a flat cylinder, borne, on acair.^

count of

breadth, upon the

Around the earth

the heavenly bodies

so that the pole

moved
is

at the beginning, laterally

which

visible to us stood always per-

pendicularly over the centre of the plane of the earth.

Afterwards the position of the earth became oblique,

and on account of this the stars, during part of their As to the order of the heavenly course, go under it."^ bodies, Anaxagoras agreed with all the more ancient
astronomers in placing the sun
earth
;

and moon next the

but he thought that between the

moon and
:

the

earth there were other bodies invisible to us

well as
tlie

these, as

earth's shadow, he supposed to be the cause

of lunar eclipses,^ while eclipses of the sun were caused

'

Vide

sz/.;5ra,

p. 354, 1
iii.

355,3.
b,
1
:

Arist. Phps.
5'

5,

205

drtiTrco? Xij^i Trepl ^kva^aydpas (rrripi^^eiv TT)s ToO aTTeipov /xouris' yap avrh aiiro (prjari rh aireipov. avrco- 6.\\o yap Tovro Se OTi eV Cf. what is quoted OU06J/ Trepte'xei. from Melissus, Vol. I. p. 635. 3 Arist. De Calo, ii. 13, vide supra, p. 249, 2; Meteor, ii. 7, 305 Diog. ii. 8; Hippol. a, 26 sqq. Rpfxit. i. 8; Alex. Meteor. 06 b, and others ap. Schaub. 174 sq.
;

According to Simplicins, Be

Ccelo,

167 b, 13 (Schol. 491 b, 10), he meni-ionod the force of the rotation us a furtlier reason for the quiescenee of the earth but Simplicins seems here to be unwarrantably transferring to him what Aristotle says of Empedocles cf p 156. 2, 3. * Diog. ii. 9 Pint. Plac. ii. 8 also Hippol. i. 8 (cf. Vol. I. p. 293, 4; and sup. 251, 1). ^ Hippol. ^. c?. Stob. ^c^. p. 22 i. 560, according to Theophrastus, also Diog. ii. 11; cf. Vol. I. p. 455, 3.
;

THE UXIVEBSE.

361

solely by the passing of the moon between the earth and sunJ The sun he held to be much larger than it
us, though he had no idea of its real size.^ As we have already seen, he described it as a glowing mass of stone. The moon he believed to have mountains and valleys like the earth, and to be inhabited by living beings ^ and this, its terrestrial nature, he

seems to

thought, explained
eclipses)

was

so

why its own light (as shown in lunar dim ^ its ordinary brighter light he
;

derived from the reflection of the sun, and though

it is

not to be supposed that he himself

yet he was certainly one of the
into Grreece.^

made
first

this discovery,-^
it

to introduce

How

he accounted for the annual revo-

lution of
'

the sun, and the monthly changes of the

Piut. Fac. L. 24, 6, he explained the fable that the Nemean lion had fallen from the heavens by the conjecture that he might have come from the moon. * Stob. i. 564 Olympiod. in Meteor. 15 b, i. 200 Id.
of.
;

tion

Hippol. I. c, also the observaOVTOS acptopia TTpUTOS Ttt TTept

eKAei^e'^
"'*'
:

ras

(puTiafiovs,

cf.

o yap Trpwros Pint. ^'ic. c. 23 aatp^ijTarov re iravrav Ka\ dappaXedi'-

rarov
fjLev'js

irepl

ffeXrjvrjs

Karavyacrjxcov

Kal (TKias

Xoyov

els

ypa(priv Ka.ro.Qi-

'A.vai^ay6pa.s.

According to Diog. ii. 8 Hippol. /. c, he said it was larger, and according to Pint. Plac. ii. 21, many times larger than the Peloponnesus, "while the moon (according to Plut. Fac. L. 19, 9,.p. 932) was the same size as that peninsula. 3 Plato, Ajpol. 26 D rbv fjJkv fhai T-qv 8e fiXiov Xidov (p-n(T\v aeXTjvrju yrjv. Diog. ii. 8 Hippol.
: ;

Parmenides maintained this before him, and Empedocles contemporaneously with him, vide Vol. I. p. 600, 2, and sup. p. 156, 8.
^

calls

The former, v. 144, for this reason voKrupaks irepl the moon
:

yaiav aXd^euov aXKorpiou (pis. On the other hand, the discovery is wrongly ascribed toThales (Vol. I. p. 225, 1). Plato, Cral. 409 h iKelvos

/.

c.

Stolj.
;

249, 3) 359, 1).

ooO jjarall. (supra, Anaxag. Fr. 4 {supra,

i.

p. p.

['Ai-al-] veeoarl

i\eyev, ori
''"^

t]

Gi\r,VT)

Stob. i. o64, it would seem (and it is besides probable in itself) that Anaxagoras connected with this the face in the moon according to Sehol. Apoil.
;

From

Plut. Fac. Lim. 16, 7, p. 929; Hippol. I. c; Stob. i. 558; cf. p. 356, 3. According to Plutarch's Plac. ii. 28, 2, the Sophist Antiphon still
airh
(pa>s.

ToO f}\iov ex^*

thought the

moon shone by her

Rhod.

i.

498 (vide Schaubach, 161),

own

light.

362

A^AXAGORAS.
certainty.^

moon, cannot be discovered with

The

stars

he supposed to be, like the sun, glowing masses, the heat of which we do not feel on account of their distance and their colder surroundings
;

like the

moon

they have, besides their own light, a light borrowed

from the sun

in this respect he
stars
:

makes no

distinction

between planets and fixed

earth's shadow,
is

those to which the

sun's light cannot penetrate at night, because of the

form the milky way.^

west."*

Their revolution

always from east to

From

the close juxtaposi-

tion of several planets arises the

phenomenon of comets.^

How
logical

Anaxagoras explained the various meteoro-

and el-emental phenomena is here only shortly indicated,^ as we must now examine, in detail, his theories respecting living beings and man.
FromStob.'cZ.i.526; Hippol. we only learn that the periodical return of both is derived from the resistance of the condensed and the air driven l;efore them reason the moon returns oftener in her course than the sun, is said to be that the sun by his heat warms and rarefies the air, and so conquers this resistance for a longer period,
^

I.

c.

from the 1>reaking forth of the sethereal fire through the clouds (Arisr. Meteor, ii. 9, 369 b, 12 Alex, o^ A. /. Ill b; Plut. Plac.
;

Cf. Vol. I. p. 276, 1.

2

Hippol.
3.

I.

c.

and
\.

su])ra,

.p.

356,
*

Arist. Meteor.

8,
:

345

a, 25,

and his commentators Diog. ii. 9; Hippol. I.e.; Plut. Plac.m. 1,7,
252, 2. Plut. Plac. ii. 16. Dcmocritus was of the same opinion. * Arist. Meteor, i. 6 Alex, and Olympiod. afZ A. ^. sw;>m, p. 252, 3 Plut. Plac. iii. 2, 3 Diog. ii. Schol. in Arat. Dioscm. 1091 (359). ^ Thunder and lightning arise
cf. p.
*
; ;

Sen. NaL Qic. ii. 19; cf. ii. 12, less precisely Diog. ii. 9), similarly hurricanes and hot blasts (tv(I)u>v and Trpri(rrvp, Plac. I. c.) other winds from the current of air heated by the sun (Hippol. I. c.) hail "from vapours, which, heated by the sun, ascend to an altitude at which they freeze (Arist. Meteor, i. 12, 348 1), 12; Alex. Meteor. 85 b, 86 a; Olyrap. Meteor. 20, ap. Philop. Meteor. 106 a, i. 229, 233 Id.); falling stars are sparks which the emits by reason of fij-e on high its oscillation (Stob. Eel. i. 550 Diog. ii. 9; Hippol. I. <?.); rainbows and mock suns are caused by the refraction of the sun's rays in the clouds {Plac. iii. 5, 11;
iii.

3,

Hippol.

l.

c.

ORGANIC BEINGS.
3.

363

Organic Beings.

Man.

If, in opposition to the prevalent opinion of his time,

our philosopher degraded the stars into lifeless masses which are moved by Mind in a purely mechanical

manner, through the rotation of the whole, in living beings he recognises the immediate presence of 31ind.
'

In

all

things are parts of all except Mind, but in some

also.'
^

Mind
things

is

'

That which has a

smaller,

soul, the greater

and the

therein
in

rules

Mind.'

In

what way Mind could

tion and

exist
;

particular things he

doubtless never inquired

but, from his whole exposi-

mode of expression, it is clear that there floated before him the analogy of a substance which is in them in an extended manner.^ This substance, as
has already been shown, he conceived as homogeneous
in all its parts,

and he accordingly maintained that the

all

mind

of one creature was distinguished from that of

:

another, not in kind, but in degree

mind

is

alike,

but one

is

greater, another

less.'*

It does not, however,

follow from this that he necessarily reduced the differences of mental

endowment

to the varieties of cor-

poreal structure.'^

He
;

himself speaks expressly of a

the melting of the snow on the Ethiopian mountains (Diodor. i. 38, &c.). Vide on these subjects Schaubach, 170 sqq., 176 sqq.
r. 7, ride p. 272, 1. Fr. 8, p. 34 3, 1. Kparuv, a-s is clear from what immediately follows, indicates moving force.
'

Schol. Tenet, ad /?. p. 547) earthquakes by the penetrating of the sether into the hollows by which

the earth is pierced (Arist. Meteor. Alex, ad h. L 106 b Diog. 7 ii. 9 Hippol. I. c; Plut. Plac. iii. lo, 4; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 9; Ammian. 3Iarc. xvii. 7, 11, cf. Ideler, Arid. Meteorol. i. 587 sq.) the rivers are nourished by rain, and also by the subterranean waters (Hippol. /. c. p. 20) the inundations of the Nile are the result of
ii.
; ;
;

Cf. Arist. sup. 347, 2. ^ Vide sup. 345 sq.

*

Cf. p. 343.

^
i.

\^
i.

[^ thought by Tennemann, 326 sq. Wendt, ad h. I. p.

;

3G4

ANAXAGORAS.
amount of
mincl,^

various

and

this

is

quite
Also,

logical

according to his own presuppositions.

said that

when he

man

is

the most sensible of

all

living beings,

because he has hands,- he probably did not

mean

to

deny the advantage of a superior order of mind,^ but

is merely employing a strong expression for the value and indispensability of hands.'* Nor can we suppose

that Anaxagoras regarded the soul itself as somethingcorporeal, as air.

in asserting that he

On the other hand, Aristotle is right made no distinction between the

soul and ]Mind,-^ and in transferring to the soul

this presupposition

upon what Anaxagoras primarily says of Mind, that it is the moving force.^ Mind is always and everywhere that which moves matter. Even if a
417
sq. ; Ritter, Ion. Thil. 290; Gesch. d. Phil. i. 328; Schaubach, 188 ; Zevort, 135 sq., &c. * In the Flacita, v. 20, 3, the opinion is ascribed to him that all living beings have active, but all
jxev

Kal afxeXyofxev Kal (p^pojxcv

'

/col

&yoixev crvKXaix^avovT^s.

Plac. iv. 3, 2

ol 5' air'

'Kva\a-

have not passive intelligence he cannot possibly have said

this

and

in order to express the special pre-

rogative of man above animals, the sentence must be inverted. 2 Arist. Part. Anim. iv. 10, 687 a, 7 ' Pi-va^aySpas ixlv oiv (pricrl, Sia rh x^^P^^ ^X^"' (ppovi'f.i.uiTarov ilvai Tcau Cywi/ &p6pO}Trov. Cf. the verse in Syncellus, Chron. 149 c, to which the Anaxagoreans are there said to appeal x^ 'P*^" oXKviiivuv
".

ySpov a^poeiSri ix^yov re Kal aw/uLa [rrju \puxVi^]This theory is more definitely ascribed to Anaxagoras and Archelaus, ap. Stob. Eel. i. 796; Theod. Ctir. Gr. Aff. v. 18, p. 72; cf. Tert. De An. c. 12; yimpl. De An. 7 b ap. Philop. De An. B. 16 (Anaxagoras described the soul as a self-moving number); Brandis, Gr.-Bbm. Phil. i. 26 1,
;

rightly substitutes He^o/cpaTTjs.

ibid.
c.

Cf.

5.

^DeAn.\,2;
ibid. 40-5 a,
fi.eu
1

sttp. p. 347, 2; ^Ava^aySpas 5' eoiKC erfpov xiyeiv \pvxw t^ kuI yovu,

fppei TTo\vjxr]Tis ^Mr]vr].

(Ixnrep e'iTrojxev Kal

S' aix<po7u

Trporcpov, xp7]Tai
irXrjv o.px'h^

shown by the observation of Plutarch, De Forin respect of our tund, c. 3, p. 98 bodies, we are far surpassed by the iixireiplu 5e Kal (xviiixri kol beasts (TO(pi(x Kol re-^vri Kara ^Ava^ayopau CCpWV T aVTUV XP'^M^^'* '^"^ /3AtTT0^

This

is

also
'

76

etc.
^
I.

ws vide
c.

jxia (puaei,

p. 343, 1.
a,

404

25

dixoiccs

5e Kal

'Ava^ayopas
rh TTuy

^l/ux^j/

'

Kiuovcrau, Kal (1

Xeyei r))v ris aXXos etpriKev ws

elrat

iKiuricre vovs.

PLASTS AXD ANIMALS.

being moves
itself,
it

3G5

must be Mind which produces

from without, but

this motion, not only mechanically,

from within

in such a being, consequently,

it

must dwell

becomes in him a soul.^ This animating influence of mind Anaxagoras

ascribes
life

Mind

itself

re-

cognises even in plants, to which, like Empedocles and

Democritus, he
origin of

and

sensibility.^

The

plants he explains in accordance with the

;

fundamental ideas of his system for he supposed their germs to come from the air,^ which, like the other
elements,
is

a mixture of all possible

seeds.'*
;

In the

same manner the animals originally arose ^ the slimy earth was fructified by the germs contained in the
aether.^
1

This was asserted contemporaneously bv

Em-

Cf. p. 363.

So Plut. Qu. X.

c. 1, p.

Ps.-Arist.
b^ 16

Be

Plant,

c. 1,

911 81oa, 15

their seeds, not from the air and moisture, but from the fiery element, the aether.

(5?/^. p. 159, 4; 263, 2): 6 filv 'Aua^ayopas Kal ^wa eliai [to. (pvToj Koi rioeadai Kal Xvir^^adai elre. rfj re CLTTOppO-p TCtlV ipvWcCf KO.l T^ av^V,(Tl Tovro iK\a,u&duwv. According to the same treatise, c. 2, he al.o attributed breath to plants on the other hand, Arist. De Bespir. 2, 440
;

Adv. Haer. ii. 14, 2: dogmati~ant, facta animalia decidentibus e c(lo

^

Iren.

Anaxagoras

....

b, 30. refers travra to

3

C^a only. Thpophr. H. Plant, iii. ], 4:

fihv
r'bv

in terrain seminihus. Hence Euripides, Ckrysipp. Fr. 6 (7): souls arise from gethereal seeds, and return after death to the aether, as the body returns to the earth from which it sprang. This is not contradicted but rather completed by

'Ava^aycpas

aepa irdprav
Ka\

(pdaKosv exetv ampixaTo:

Ttt ipvTd.

raura avyKaracp^poiieva tw vSari yevvav

what we read in Hippol. Eefut. \. 8, p. 22, and Diog, ii. 9 Q2a 5e

:

7i]v

apxw
5e

eV
e|

ir/pr2

ycviaQai,

/jLera

Whether
still
is

it is

meant that

ravra
yeubovs

aXXriXccv.

produced in this According to Arist. Be 2, 817 a, 25. Anaxagoras oilled the sun the father, and the earth the mother of plants but this is unimportant. * Cf. on this subject p. 332, 1. ^ Yet their higher nature seems to be indicated in the deriA'ation of
plants are

yev4(j&ai
'

e|

manner

not clear. Plant, c.

vypov Kal varepov 5e e| aWriKuv.

ii.

and, ^wa depuov Kal

8. this

According to Plut. Plac.

happened before the inclination of the plane of the earth (sifp. p 360, as Anaxagoras doubtless as4) sumed because the sun might then work upon the earth without in;

teiTuption.

36G

AXAXAGORAS.

pedocles, previously

by Anaximander and Parmenides, and subsequently by Democritus and Diogenes.^ Anaxag-oras also agrees with Empedocles and Parmenides
in bis theories

on generation and the origin of the

sexes.2

Of

his opinions

about animals, excepting the

assertion that all animals breathe,^ tradition has told us

nothing of any importance

said (with

and the same may be

has

the

exception of what

already been
corporeal

quoted) of our information concerning the

life

of man.'^

The statement that he represented the

body
is

soul as perishing at its separation from the

1 Vide sup. p. 159 sq. ; Vol. I. Vol. pp. 256, 601 Vol. II. 255, 1 Also the Anaxagoreans, I. 295. Arclielaus (vide infra), and Euri; ;

very

pides, ap. Diodor. i. 72 Accordin2: to Aristotle, Ge77.

Philop. iv. 1. 793 b, 30 Diog. ii. 9; Gen. An. 81 b, 83 b Hippol. I. c. (certain divergences, ap. Censorin. Di. Nat. 5, 4. 6, 6, 8; Pint. Plac. V. 7, 4, need not be considered), he supposed that the male alone furnished the seed, the female only the place for it the sex of the child is determined by the nature and origin'of the seed boys spring from the right side of the uterus, and girls from the left. Cf. stip. Vol. I. p. 601, 4; Vol. II. Censorimis further says p. 162, 5. that he thought the brain of the foetus -was formed first, because all the senses proceed from this that the body was fornifd from the aethereal warmth contained in the seed (which harmonises well with what is quoted in 365, 6), and that the child reccivKl nourishment through the navel. According to Cens. 5, 2, he op osed the opinion of his contemporary Hippo (Vol. I.

Anim.

p. 282, 5) that the seed comes from the marrow. 3 Arist. Be Be.'^pir. 2,470 1), 30. The Scholia ad h. I. (after Simpl. DcAn.Yenet. 1527), p. 164 b, 167 a. "With Diogenes, this theory, which he shared with Anaxagoras, stands in connection with his view of the nature of the soul. With Anaxngoras this is not the case (vide p. 365, 6) but thp thought must have been obvious to him, that all things, in order to live, must inhale vital warmth. Cf. p. 365, 6. We have only the observations in Aristotle, Gen. Anim. iii., that he thought certain animals copulate through the mouth and ap. Athen. ii. 57 d, that he called the white in the egg the milk of
;
*

birds.

According to Pint. Plac. v. he said that sleep merely concerned the body and not the soiil in support of which he no doubt appealed to the activity of the soul in dreams. According tc Arist. Fart. An. iv. 2. 677 a, 5, he
^

25,

3,

(or possibly his disciples only) derived feverish diseases from the
gall.

MAX.
uncertain
:

THE

SEXSES.

'

367

and

it

is

a question

whether he ever ex-

pressed any opinion on this point.

suppositions,

From

his

own prebut

however, we must necessarily conclude

is

that mind, as such,

indeed eternal, like matter

is,

that mental individuality

able as corporeal.

on the contrary,

as perish-

Among mental

activities

Anaxagoras seems to have

as

kept that of the intellect primarily in view,

indeed

knowledge appeared to him personally (vide infra) But though he deto be the highest end of life.
cidedly gave the
preference to thought

over sensible
at length

perception, yet he seems to have treated more

of the latter than of the former.

In contradiction to

the ordinary theory, he adopted the view of Heracleitus,

that the sense-perception
is

called forth, not by that

is

which

is

akin, but
is

by that which
it

opposite to
its

it.

That which

of like kind, he says,

makes on

like
it

no impression, because
every sense-perception
1

introduces no change in

only the unlike works upon another, and for this reason
is

united with a certain distaste.^

iii.

TTOTepov

Pint. I. c. under the title iarlv wrvos ^ ffdvaros,

2.

&:c..

if

they are historical,

ypvxvs V (rdiixaros ] continues: eliat Se Koi ^vxn!> Qavarov rhv Stax&'picuov. This statement is the more untrustworthy, as the proposition

to show that he regarded death as a simple necessity of nature, without thinking of a future life after death but this inference would be likewise
;

would rather seem

that death concerns the body only, and not the soul, is referred to Leucippus, and on the other hand,

uncertain.
-

Theophr.

Be

Sensu.

Trepl

Empedocles, in spite of his belief in immortality, is credited with the theory that it concerned both. It is plain that no inference can be drawn from the expression ap.
Diog.
ii.

al(jQr,aiws at fx^v ttoXXoX koi kuBo\ov oo^ai 5vo elaii'. ol fiev yap tw
S"

iroiovcriv, ol 5e t ivavTico. To the former belong Parmenide's,

ofxoicp

Empedocles,
latter

and Plato to the Anaxagoras and Heracleitus.

;

11

Cie.

Tnsc.

(vicle inf. 371. o): and ances, ap. Diog. ii. 13,

43, 10-i the utteri.

--El.

J\

H.

27: 'A^a^ayopa^ 5e yiueadai fihv toI-s ^vavrioLS' to yap ouoiov a-rades anh tov 6/j.olov Kafi' iKaarriv Se

868

ANAXAGORAS.
chief confirmation of his theory Lay however, he

The

believed, in

the

consideration of the

several

senses.

We

see because
:

of the

reflection
is

of

objects

in the

apple of the eye

this reflection

formed, according

to Anaxagoras, not in the part which resembles the

object in colour, but which

is

different; as the eye

is

dark, we can see in the day

if

the objects are illumi-

nated

but in certain instances the opposite is the case.^ we receive the impresSimilarly with touch and taste
;
;

sion of heat and cold from such things only as are

warmer
So

or colder than our body

bitter, the fresh

we perceive the sweet with the

salt

with the

element

in ourselves.^
;

we smell and hear the opposite with the opposite the more precise explanation of smell is that it arises from
respiration
to
;

of hearing, that the tones are transmitted

the brain

through the cavity of the

skull.^

In

respect to all

the senses, Anaxagoras believed that large

organs were more capable of perceiving the great and

After this has Leeu shown in detail, he contimies, juera a^KxQria-iv airo(yav S' 29
iretpSrai ^lapidii^lv.
:

svp-a, p. 165.
^
/.

3.

Xvir-ns-

So^eiei'
irai^

(similarly in 17) oVep av aK6\ov6ov ehai rf] inroOeaei. yap rh avo^oiov airroii^vou irouov

Concerning hearing and tones, other writers tell us a few further particulars. According to
c.

xape'xei, as Ave clearly see in those

sensible impressions, which especially strong and lasting.

p, 89, 2.
1

are
Cf.

Thcophr. I. c. 27. 36 sqq.), where c. 28 (cf. the sensation it is thus expressed follows Kara t7?v eK\i\\/iu tV eKa(TTOV Ttavra yap ivvnapx^iv ev i]fuv. Cf. with the last proposition the
2
I.
:

quotations

from Anaxagoras, p. 338 sq., from Farmenides, Vol. I. p. 165, 3, and from Empedoclcs,

Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 6, Anaxagoras believed that the voice was caused hy the current of air proceeding from the speaker striking against condensed air and returning to the ears; in tliis way also he explainpd the echo. According to Plut. Qu. Co7iv. viii. 3, 3, 7 sq., Arist. Prohl. xi. 33, he thought that the air was made to vibrate with a tremulous motion by the heat of the sun, as we see in solar motes and that in consequence of the noise that
;

results

tinctly by

from this, we hear less day than by night.

dis-

MAX.
distant,

THE

SESSES.
near.^

S69

and smaller organs the small and

definite

As to

the share of vov9 in the sense-perception, he does not

seem to have expressed any

opinion, bat to
is

have presupposed, notwithstanding, that vovs

of perception.-

the

percipient subject, while the senses are merely organs

But

if

the sense-perception

is

conditional on the
it

nature of the bodily organs, we cannot expect that

should reveal to us the true nature of things.
corporeal thing
is

Every

an intermixture of the most various

object be purely repui'e

ingredients
flected in

how then can any

Spirit alone
is

it ?

and unmixed
;

it

alone can separate and distinguish things

it

alone can

procure us true knowledge.

to ascertain truth.
fact that

The

senses are too

weak

This Anaxagoras proved from the

we do not perceive the minute atoms which

state into the opposite.^

are intermingled in a body, nor the gradual transitions

from one
denied
all

That he therefore

possibility

of knowledge,^ or declared all

alike
true/^
^Ira
ex

presentations to
'

be
sq.

we cannot suppose,
darepov
ZiaKpiveiv
els

TTieophr.

I.

c.

29

bdrepov Kara
-Kapa. jxiKpov

This seems to be conveyed by the words of Theophrastus, De He says Clidemus Sensu, 38. (vide infra') supposed that the ears do not themselves perceive objects, but transfer the sensation
-

aTayoua
r)

Trapryx^oifxev, oh Suj/rja-pTai

vJ^is

ras

fxera^oAas,
viroKZLixevas.

Ka'nrep -n-pos

rrjv cpvaiv

to

vovs,

oifx

SxTirep

^Ava^ayopas

apxvv
3

iroiu irduroov rov vovv.

:

"A. Scs Sext. Math. vii. 90 SiafidWcav ras aladr^aeis, " viro acpavpoTTjTos avrwv,'' (prjaiv, " ov dvuaToi iaaev KpiueLv TaXrjdds "

aadi/e7s

reason, th^t the senses cannot distinguish the constituents of things, is alluded to in the passages quoted, p. 272, 2, and in the statement {Plac. i. 3, 9; Simpl. Be Cceh, 268 b, 40 Schol. 513 a, 42) that the so-called o^oiofxepr} are perceived, not by the senses, but by the reason alone.
;

The farther

(Fr.
TTjs

25).

r'lQriGi

5e

iriaTiv

avrwv

airio-Tios rr]v -n-apa /xiKphv

rwv

Xpd^jJ-dTwv

i^aXXay'qv. el 'va.p 5vo Xd^oifieu xpw.itaTa, jxeXav Ka\ \evKhu,

Acad. i. 12, 44. Metaph. iv. 5. 1009 b, 25 'Ava^ayopov 5e Koi a.ir6(pdeyj.a jj.vr\'~f.Qvvoer ai -rrpos rwv iTa'.pxu nvas,
*

Cic.

Arist.

TOL.

II.

B B

370

A^'AXAGOIiAS.

since he himself states his oi^inions with full dogmatic

conviction

as little can

we

infer,

as Aristotle
all things,

does,

from the doctrine of the mixture of

denied the law of contradiction
; ^

that he
is

for

his opinion

not that opposite qualities belong to one and the same

thing as such, but that different things are inextricably intermingled

;

the inferences which a later

w^'iter,

rightly or wrongly, derives from his propositions ought

not to be ascribed to himself.

He

regards the senses,

indeed, as inadequate; he admits that they only instruct us imperfectly as to the nature of things
;

yet he

argues from phenomena to their hidden causes,^ having

really attained to his

way
its

and

as the world-creating

own theory in this and no other Mind knows all things,

is

so the portion of

Mind which

share in this knowledge.

in man must be When it is said

is

allowed
that he

declared reason to be the criterion,^ this

true in fact,

though not

literally.

He

doubtless never attempted any

precise definitions of the nature and distinctive character

of thought.^

The moral
&i/ inroKd^wffii',

life

of

man

was, in aU probability, not

them,
tion.
*

Htl roiavT avTo7s earxti to, ovra ola

hardlj

require

refuta-

which, if the tradition is true, no douht is only intended to assert that things contain for us another meaning when we consider them from another standthe course of the world point will correspand to our wishes, or contravene them, aoeording as we have a right or a wrong theory of the world. Cf. also Ritter, Imi. P^e7. 295 sq. The alteration which
;

Gladisch, Anax. u. d. Isr. 46, proposes in the words of Anaxagoras, and the explanation he gives of

Metaph. iv. 4, 5, 17, 1007 b, 1009 a, 22 sqq. 1012 a, 24, xi. Alex, Metaph. 6, 1063 b, 24 p. 295, 1 Bon. 684 a, 9 Br. ^ Supra, p. 272, 2. ^ Sext. Math. yii. 91 'Ava^. koivus rhv \6yov 6(p7] KpirripLou ehai. * This we must infei? from the silence of the fragments, and of all testimony: even Philop. JDe An. C 1, 7, does not ascribe the Aristotelian definitions: " 6 Kupia,s Xcy6ixevos vovs 6 Kara tV <pp6vT](nv"
25,
;

THE SENSES AND THOUGHT.

enquiry.

371

included by Anaxagoras in the sphere of bis scientific

There

are, indeed,

some

isolated expressions

of his, in wliich he describes the contemplation, of the

cosmos as the highest task of man,* and blames the

superficiality of the ordinary view of life
;

and

traits

are related

gentle

him which evince an disposition,^ a magnanimous

of

earnest and yet

indifference
to

external possessions,"^ and a quiet fortitude in distress

" d vovs airXais avri^oKais rols Trpdyuaaiv avrifiaXKwv ^ tyvw ^ ovK e7vw," to the philosopher himself he only makes use of them in the discussion of his doctrines. 1 Eudem. Eth. i. o, 1216 a, 10 (and others, p. 326, 2), says (prefixAnaxagoras replied ing (paaiv) to the question why life has any Oeoopyaai [eueKo] tou rov value ovpauhv KoX TT]i/ Tvepl t\)v '6Kov Koir/xou
;
:

that he was never seen to laugh on the other hand, the anecdote told of him in Plut. Pracc. Ger. Reip. 27, 9, p. 820; Diog. ii. 14, that on his death-bed. he asked, instead of any other honours, that the children might have a holiday from school on the anniver.eary of his death, shows a genial and kindly disposition.
Cf. what is said, p. 326, 2, on the neglect of his property. All the more incredible is the calumny
*

ra^iv. Diog. ii. 7 i^phs rhv elirdura' " ouSeV (Toi fx4hei Trjs irarpidos
: ;

" eixpvuei,

e(pi],

e/xol

yap Kol acpoSpa

rhu ovpav6v. He calls his country the heavens either because his interest and his thoughts are at home there, or because of the theory mentioned p. 365, 6, on the origin of the soul or in allusion to both at once, he may mean that the heavens from which our soul springs are the "worthiest object of its interest. 2 Eudem. I. c. c. 4, 1215 b, 6
/xeAet T7JS irarpidos," 5ei|as
;

ap. Tert. Apohget. c. 46. Themistius. Orat. ii. 30 C, uses hiKaiorepos ^Aia^ayopov proverbially.
= According to Dicg. ii. 10 sqq. he replied to the news of his condemnation (this, however, is also

by Diog. ii. 35, of Socrates) that the Athenians as well as himself have been long ago condemned to death by nature to the observation, " itneprjd-ns 'A07jvaictiu" " oi [j.hv ovv, aW' iKelvoi
told
'

'

'kva^.

ipcoTTjdels, Tis 6 evdaifxo-

vdaTaTos
vojxi^eis,

" ovOels,

clirev,
6.v

wv
r'ls

crv

ifxov " to a condolence upon his being forced to die in banishment, it is the same distance ever}'where
;
'

dAA'

&roTros

aoi

to
i.

Hades'
43,

(this is also in Cic. Tusc.

;

(pave 17]."
^

Cic.

Acad.

his grave and Plut. Per. c. 5, ascribes the wellknown seriousness of Pericles to his intercourse with Anaxagoras

23, 72, praises dignified demeanour;

ii.

to the news of the death of his sons fjSeiv avrovs

104)

and

.^lian, V. H.

viii.

13, relates

last is told Apoll. 33, p. 118 ; Panaetius ap. Plut. Coh. Ira, 16, p. 463 E, and by many others, but of Solon and Xenophon as well

dvrjTohs yevvriffas.

The

by Plut. Cons.

ad.

B 2

372

ANAXAGORAS.
scientific rules

but we know of no

belonging to this

department,^ and even the statements mentioned above

are not taken from the treatise of our philosopher.

Nor did he enter much into the subject of religion. The charge against him was made, indeed, on the score
of atheism,, that
this censure
is,

denial of the gods of the state

but

was only based on his theories about the

:

sun and

moon

as to the relation of these theories to

the popular faith he had doubtless hardly expressed an

opinion.

The same

is

probably the case in regard to

his naturalistic

explanation of phenomena, in which

said to have been the

his

contemporaries were accustomed to see miracles

portents.^

and
but

Lastly, he

is

first
^
;

to interpret the
it

Homeric myths in a moral sense

this respect

would appear that in

he

is

wrongly

credited with what

really belongs
for

to
if

his

disciples,-^

and
as
p. 53.

especially to

Metrodorus;^

the allegorical
apervs koI
St/caio-

Anaxagoras, vide Schaubach,

'

vaaQai ^hai

irepl

of Clemens, Strom, ii. 416 I) (repeated by Theod. Cur. G^r. ^_^. xi. 8, p. 152) Beapiav (pdvai *Ava^ay6pau Tov ^iov TeKos ehat Koi T7?f airh TOUT7JS ihevdipiav, is no doubt derived simply from the ethics of Eudemus {supra, p. 371, 1). 2 Vide the "WTiters cited p. Iren. ii. 14, 2, calls him 328, 3 for this reason Anaxagoras, qui et atheus cognominatus est. 3 Such as the much talked of stone of -35gospotamos, ap. Diog. ii. 11, and the ram with one horn, a.p. Pint. Per. 6. * SoKet 8e irpccTos, Diog. ii. 11
.
.

The statement

rov \6yov Mr)Tp65oopov rhv Aajx^aKrivov

uvv-qs' eVl irkiov 8e TrpoarrivaL
yvciipifiou

cnrov5c(rai
(pvcriKriv

uura avrov, hu koI irpGirov rov ttoltitov -jrepl t'ov

Trpayixarelau.

tV

Heraclit.

AUeg. Homer, e. 22, p. 46, has no connection with this, ^ Syncell. Chron. p. 149 C:
kpixtivdvovo'i

Se oi 'Ava^ayopioi rovs
/xev rhv Aia, r^xvn^, 80ej/ ko.\ toVide p. 364, 2.

/xvOuSeis Oeovs, vovv

riju Se 'AOtjvui/

Kadd

(pr^ai

^afiwpTpos eV Travrodunfi

laroplci,, t))v 'OjiT^pov iToiri<nv o.no(pi\-

x^^P^^- ftc. ^ Y'lAc concerning Metrodorus (who is also mentioned by Alex, Meteorol. 91 b, and Simpl. Phys. 257 b, as a disciple ef Anaxagoras, and in Plato's Ion. 530 C, as a solemn expounder of the Homeric poems), Tatian. C. Graec. c. 21, p. ai M7jTpo5a)^os Se 6 Aafi262

RELATION TO PREDECESSORS.
interpretation of the poets
is

373

altogether more in har-

mony

with the taste of the Sophistic period, the moral

is

interpretation

least of all suited to

Anaxagoras, who

paid so

little

attention to ethios.

Of him we may ven-

ture to say that, in his enquiries, he confined himself

entirely to physics.

JF.

Anaxagoras in
and Origin of
Archelaus.

relation to his 'predecessors.

his Doctrine.

Character

The Anaxagorean School

We

have already observed, in regard to Empedocles

and Democritus, Melissus and Diogenes, that in the

course of the fifth century the various schools of phi-

losophy and their doctrines were gradually beginning to

and more important influence over one The example of x\naxagoras only confirms our observation. This philosopher seems to have known and made use of most of the ancient doctrines from
exert a livelier

another.

Pythagoreanism alone he stands so entirely aloof that

we can
that

discern no influence, however indirect,

from

quarter

upon

his doctrines, nor

even an invo-

luntary

coincidence

between the two systems.

On

the other hand, the influence of the Ionian physicists

is

unmistakable in his doctrine of primitive opposites,^

bolical persons
:

^aKr\v)is

4v TCf Trept 'Oix-qpov Kiav evTjdus 5tei\eifTat irdvTa els aAA.77-

Hesvchius

('Ayatxe/x.),

and according to Metrodonis

ovre yap "Hpav yupiau fxeTdyav, eJuai oijTe 'Adrivay ovre Aia tovt (pricriu, oirep ot tou9 Trepi^o^ovs avToh
Kal

actually interpreted Agamemnon as the Pether. But as a rule, as

ra

Tfx4vr]

KaQi^pvcravT^s voixi8e
viroaTacreLS

^ovTi,

(pvaeccs

Kal

(TTOLxeiwv

^laKOff/jL-fiireis.

We might

just as well, adds Tatian, explain the fighting heroes as merely sym-

be seen from Tatian's censure, allegory was not employed by him in rc-speet to the human figures of the Homeric poems, ^ P. 355, of. Vol. I. p. 250,
272,
2.

may

374

ANAXAGORAS.

in his astronomical theories,^ in his views about the

formation
creatures
;

of
^

the

earth,'^

and the origin of living

what he says of the mixture of all things and the unlimitedness of matter reminds us of Anaximander and Anaximenes, and though in particular details he has no such striking points of contact with
Heracleitus/ yet his whole system
is

directed to the

explanation of
cleitus

phenomena was more forward

the
to

reality of

which Herathings are

acknowledge than any

all

other philosopher,

of

change, to which

subject, and of the multiplicity resulting from change.

Still

more

clearly can

the Eleatic doctrine.

on the impossibility

we trace in him the influence of The propositions of Parmenides of Becoming and Decay form the

starting-point of his whole system.

He

coincides with

the same philosophers in mistrust of the sensible perception, in

denial of
;

empty
^

space,^

and in certain of
is

his physical theories

the only doubt

whether these

doctrines

came

through the

him directly from Parmenides, or medium of Empedocles and the Atomists.

to
is

To

these his contemporaries (the lonians and the

Eleatics), as has been already observed. Anaxagoras

primarily allied.

The

three systems equally propose to

themselves the problem of explaining the formation of

the universe, the Becoming and individual generation of
1

P. 360, P. 356,
1.

cf.

cf.

Vol. I. p. 273 sq. Vol. I. p, 2.30,

254,
^ *

P. 365 sq. His theories concerning the sense-perception, however {mp. p. 367 sq.), seem to betray the influence of Heracleitus. 5 Sup. Eitter (i. p. 342, 1.

806) thinks that this may have arisen independently of Eleatic influences, out of the polemic against Atomists or Pythagoreans but, considering the unmistakeable interdependence of the Anaxagorean and Parmenidean doctrines on the
;

whole,
^

it

seems to

me

improbable.

Cf. p. 365, 6; 366, 2; 368, 2.

RELATIOX TO COXTEMPORAEIES.
without, however, maintaining an absolute

375

beings, and the changes and multiplicity of phenomena,

Becoming and Decay, and a qualitative change of the primitive matter, or giving up any part of the Parmenidean
theories^

concerning the impossibility of these processes.

To

this

end they

all

adopt the expedient of reducing

generation to the union, and decay to the separation of

substances, which, being underived and imperishable,

change in that process, not their

place and relation in spice.
definitions

quality,-

but only their

But

in their

more

precise

the

three

systems

differ.
all

plurality of

original

substances they must

indeed assume, in

order to things
;

make

intelligible the multiplicity of derived

but to these substances Empedocles ascribes

;

the elementary qualities

Leucippus and Demoeritus

Anaxagoras, the qualities of
for the

merely the universal qualities, which belong to every

corporeal thing as such
j

determinate bodies.

In order to account

innu-

merable differences in the nature and constitution of

derived things, Empedocles maintains
that the fom-

elements are mingled in infinitely various proportions,

the Atomists

hold that the homoo-eneous matter

is

divided into an infinite

number

of primitive bodies of

various shapes, while Anaxagoras says that the innu-

merable substances are capable of the most various

intermixture.

The primitive
but

substances, therefore, are

conceived by Empedocles as limited in

differences

of kind,

infinitely divisible;

number and by the

Atomists, as unlimited in

number and
as

variety of form,

but indivisible

by Anaxagoras,
of

unlimited in number
infinitely
divisible.

and

distinctions

kind,

and

376

ANAXAGOEAS.

Lastly, in order to explain motion

ration of derived things
is

based

on which Empedocles
;

all

gene-*

adds to

the four elements two moving forces

but as these are

wholly mythical forms, the question as to the natural

cause of motion remains unanswered.
find a purely natural cause of

The Atomists
;

motion in weight

that this

may

tiplicity of

operate and produce the infinite movements, they introduce empty space

and mul-

between the atoms.

sity of

Anaxagoras

feels

indeed the neces;

adding to matter a moving force

he does not,

however, seek this in a mythical image, external to

nature and reality, but recognises in spirit or mind the
natural ruler and mover of matter.

In the further application of his principles to the

explanation of nature, Anaxagoras
respects agreed with
is

also

in

many

Empedocles and Democritus. All three begin with a chaotic mixture of primitive substances, out of which they say the world arose by means
of
a whirling motion, self-engendered, in this mass.
is

In their conceptions of the universe there

hardly one

important difference
critus.

betvv^een

Anaxagoras and Demo-

As Democritus regarded the three lower elements as a medley of the most various kinds of atoms, Anaxagoras saw in the elements generally a medley of
all seeds.*

Ail three philosophers are in accord about

several theories, such as the obliquity of the ecliptic,^

the animate nature of plants,^ the origin of living

beings from the terrestrial slime

1 Cf. p. 22o, 1, with 332, 1; Aristotle uses the same expression, iravairepfiia, in both cases,

'*

Empedocles and
;

2
^ *

Vide p. 157, 5 251, 5 360,4. P. 173, 3; 263, 2; 365, 2. P. 365, 6; 366, 1.

;

EEL ATI ox TO EMPEDOCLES.

Anaxagoras al?o in regard
to the generation

377

and defirst

velopment of the

foetus

and, at any rate, the

and

last-named of these theories are so remarkable that

cannot regard the coincidence as fortuitous.

we

Although, however,

it

thus appears unquestionable

that the above-mentioned philosophers are not merely

allied as to their doctrines,

but that they actually and

is

historically influenced one another, it

not so easy to

determine which of them

that are

first

advanced the propositions

Anaxagoras, Empedocles

common

to all three.

and Leucippus are contemporaries, and tradition has not told us which was the first to promulgate his system. Aristotle indeed says of Anaxagoras, in a well-known
passage, that he was earlier as to his age, and later as
to
his

works, than

Empedocles.-

But whether

this

means that his doctrines appeared later, or that they were more matured, or on the other hand, more imperfect,

than those of Empedocles,

If

it

is

not easy to dis-

cover.-^

we

try to decide the question according to

2.

'

Pp. 162; 366,

. .

we deduce

the consequence of

li"s

Metirph. i. 3, QS-t a, 11: 'Ai'afayopas SI rfj fihv T]\iKia TrpoTfpos i:v tovtov, to'is 5' pyois iicmpos, 3 The -svords allo-vr of all three In regard to the interpretations. first, even if Breier {Phil. d. Anax, 85) is right in snying that epya cannot refer to the writings, the
.

theories, taoos av (paveirj Kaivofrpe-

TreaTepws keycav

^ovXerai (xivTO-

TiirapanX'ria'Louro'i'; u.TrepovX4you(ri;

and in still closer correspondence with our text, De OyJo, iv. 2, 308
b,

30 Ka'nrep opr^s apxaiorepoi ttjs vvv T]KiKias Kaivorfpas ivo-naav irepl ru>v vvv Aex^evTojj/. On the other hand, vcrrepov also designates that
:

Opera omnia
achievements
over, as

translating the

nothing hinders our text thus his

: '

which
in
11,

is

inferior to something else

Cf.
b,

value.

Arist.

Metaph.

v.

fall

later.'

More-

1081

22: to yap inrep^xov

riper

what is later is as a rule and more advanced, varepos

;

tt; Swdfiei irporepov, and Theophrast. ap. Simpl. Phys. 6 b, who,

may
and

also be used in this sense Aristotle, c. 8, 989 b, 5, 19,

using the same

versely,

actually says

of Anaxagoras:

if

expression consays of Plato: rovrois iiriytvo/jievos nXoTo^v. tt; fj-'^v Sofrj

378

ANAXAGORAS.
we
shall probably

the internal relation of the doctrines,

be drawn in two opposite directions.

it

On

the one hand,

would seem
spirit

tliat Anax-ao'oras's o

derivation of motion

must be later than the mythical derivation it by Empedocles, or the purely material explanation it receives from the Atomists for in the idea of Spirit not only is a new and a higher principle
from
assigned to
;

introduced into philosophy, but this principle

is

the

same with which the subsequent development

connected
;

is

chiefly

whereas Empedocles, in his conception of the

moving forces, approximates to the mythic cosmogony, and the Atomists do not advance beyond tlie pre-Socratic materialism.

On

the other hand, however, the

to

theories of

Empedocles and the Atomists appear

for

be

more

scientific in

regard to the primitive substances

;

than those of Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras places the

qualities of derived things immediately in the primitive

substances, while the other two systems seek to explain

those substances by reference to their elementary and

atomistic constituents
KOI
TTJ
:

consequently, the procedure of

Se

dvudfxei

TTporepoi,

toIs

This signification Xpovois v(TTpos. is given to the vrords of our text

which our text

by Alexander, p. 22, 13 Bon. 534 The words, thus underb, 17 Br.

a
stood, contain a rhetorical and not logical antithesis for, in point
;

of fact, there would be nothing surprising in the older view being the less perfect but if Theophrastus could express himself as he does (^. e.), Aristotle may have said the same in the same sense. If, on the contrary, we understand by vffT^pos the riper, there arises the
;

substances with. concerned, Aristotle could not possibly have rated the doctrine of Anaxagoras higher than that of Empedocles, which he himself followed. But it may be that in the predicate rots pyoLs varepos he had in view the whole of Anaxagoras's doctrine, in wliich he certainly recognised an essential progress, as compared with previous philosophers, and that his observation was merely intended to explain why he had placed Annxagoras, in spite of his
the

primitive

is

difficulty (of

which Alexander

re-

age, immediately after Empedocles.

minds

us), that in the question of

RELATIOy TO THE ATOMISTS.

the Atomists
is

379

more thorough, because they are not

content with attaining sensibly perceived substances, but

derive these, individually and collectively, from some-

thing

still

more

primitive.

Thia might incline us to sup-

pose that the Atomists appeared later than Anaxagoras,

and Empedocles at any rate not

earlier

and that

it

was

precisely the inadequacy of Anaxagoras's explanation of

nature wliich caused them to abandon Spirit as a separate principle side by side with matter, and to set

up a

uniform and

strictly materialistic theory.^

But the opposite view has nevertheless preponderating reasons in

its
-

favour^
that

In the

fi?st

place,

it

has

already been shown

Empedocles

wasS

acquainted

with the

poem

of Parmenides, and that he took from

that source what he says on the impossibility of generation and decay.

we compare with this AnaxagorasV utterances on the same subject,^ we find that
If

the thoughts and expressions in thena exactly harmonise

with those of Empedocles, whereas they have no similar

connection with the corresponding verses of Parmenides.

The passages

in

Empedocles therefore presuppose an

l^e

acquaintance with Parmenides, and can

sistance from Anaxagoras

explained
as-

on the basis of such an acquaintance, without any

;

conversely, the statements

of Anaxagoras can perfectly be understood on the supposition

that
is

he was acquainted with Empedocles's

poem:

there

nothing in them that implies a direct

This relation of the three
first

obligation to Parmenides.

systems makes
1

it

highly probable that Empedocles

V.

Cf. p.

293

sq.

36

sqq.,

40 sqq. 69
;

sqq., 89,

92

P. 195 sq.; 161 sq. Sup. 331, 1, 2, 3; cf. Emped.

(p. 122, 1, 2

123,

1,

2; 124,

1).

380

AKAXAGOEAS.
all

derived his statement that

generation

is

the union,

and

all

decay the separation, of substances, from the doc-

trine of
while,
tlie

Parmenides of the impossibility of Becoming

first

on the other hand, Anaxagoras

:

borrowed
is

theory from Empedocles

and
it

this

conjecture

confirmed when we observe that

those of Anaxagoras,

harmonises better

with the other presuppositions of Empedocles than with

For to identify generation with

mixture, and decay with division, must have been easy

to a philosopher

who regarded the elementary substances

out of which the particular
;

as the original principle

was formed, merely through combination

connection with
this,

and who, in

considered the uniting power as

the truly divine and beneficent, and the intermixture

of all matter as the most blessed and perfect state.
is,

It

on the contrary, much

less

easy

if,

with Ajiaxagoras,

we regard

particular substances as the most primitive,

their original intermixture as an unordered chaos,

and

the separation of the mixed substances as the special

work of the

spiritual

and divine essence.

In that case

the generation of individual beings must be derived

primarily from the separatioUg and in the second place
only from the union, of the fundamental substances
;

while their decay must be brought about by their return

to the elementary condition of intermixture.^
*

Among

Steinbart {Allg.

L. Z. 1845,

Novhr. p. 893 sq.), on the other hand, thinks that the doctrine of the generation of individuals from mixture and separation does not harmonise with the four primitive substances of Empedocles; it could only have been an organic part of a doetrino in which the physical

elemenis were not tlxe simplest. But what is mixture, if not the generation of a composite something from sometliing more simple? If, therefore, all things arose out of intermixture, the simplest substances must be the most primitive; as indeed all mechanical physicists, except Anaxagoras, have assumed

helatiox to the atomists.

ssi

the other theories of Anaxagoras, especially in what he

says of

the sense-perception, he seems sometimes to

contradict Empedocles, and sometimes to show traces

of his influence.^

We may

therefore suppose that the

philosophical opinions of Empedocles were published

before those of Anaxagoras, and that Anaxagoras

made
Atom-

use of them.

The
istic

sam.e holds good of the founder of the

have from Anaxagoras, especially in his astronomical conceptions, in which he is allied with
School.
certainly
to

Democritus

seems

borrowed much
the older

theory

of

Anaximander and Anaximenes.^

Anaxagoras, on the contrary, seems to be referring

to

Leucippus when he refutes the doctrine of empty

its details

space in

by physical experiments.

When

he

expressly asserts the unity of the world, and protests

against the division of primitive substances,^ he can

scarcely have in view

Atomistic philosophy.
of all the other schools

any other adversary than the The Pythagoreans, who alone

might be

iiltended, give quite

;

another merming to the conception of the Void

Heracleitus

and

the older enemies of this conception, Parmenides and

bestow on
philosopliy

who were anterior to the Atomistic theory

it

no detailed refutation.
the

The Atomistic
first

seems to have been

to

arouse
space.^

serious discussion as to the possibility of

empty

There

is

doubtless a reference to this philosophy, also,

1
;

for this very reason, and do assume, even to the present day. with Cf. p. 367, 2 368, 2
'

2-i8 sqq.
^
-p.

p. 165,
2

3.

Vide supra, supra, p. 338, 2. * Ci. p. 306.

342,

Fr. 11,

Vide supra,

p. 360, 3, 4

374,

382
in the

ANAXAGOHAS.

remark^ that there can be no 'smallest,' since Being cannot be annihilated by division for here the
;

theory of indivisible bodies

is

directly supported

by the

assertion that things are annihilated

by infinite divi-

sion

wliich, indeed,

had already been pointed out by

^

Zeno, though he gave a different application to the

theory.

Anaxagoras's denial of a blind Fate

has also

been

said,

though
:

less
is

certainly, to have reference to

the Atomists

there

no other system to which

it

would better apply.

trine,

I should therefore suppose that

his doc-

Leucippus must have preceded Anaxagoras in

to

it.

and that Anaxagoras had directed his attention That this was quite possible chronologically we
^

have already seen

in the course of our discussion.'*

The
'

special philosophic importance of Anaxagoras

'Sjjioiou.

Vide supra, p. 341, 3, cf. p. 218; Vol. I. 614. - WAQS'Wp. p. 345, S, cf. p. 238 sq.

Mullach's

interpretation

quod etiam Aoiaxagoras ostendit

infinittun sui simile esse (so far, ac-

P. 306.

Further confirmation of this might be found in the treatise Be AccordMelisso, c. 2, 976 a, 13. ing to the most probable reading, though this is partly founded on
conjecture,
yiip b/jLoiov
ovx>-

supra, p. 343, 1, and at the same time iras ^fxoios), introduces a thought that is superfluous and irrelevant to the context, and is besides contradicted by iT^ey^eiv
8,

cording to Fr.

as vovs

is infinite,

we

are there told koI ovTb) AeyeL rb irav ilvai,

: .

though merely for

far
'

this
'

word

is

used not

Ti"! (Mullach w? ^^^ completes this in agreement with Beck, aXKoi kripu) tivi. I should myself conjecture 'aKKcp of3uoi6v tivi) STrep Ka\ 'Ava^ayopas (Beck rightly
.

prove,' yet it

substitutes Anaxagoras for 'Adrjvayopas, which we find in Cod. Lips.) ixiyx^h 8ti Hixoiov rh ^ireipov rh

T4pw oyioiov, uKTTf: Zvo uvra ovK ttv v ovo' Emipou These words, it seems to ehai. me, can only be understood to mean that Anaxagoras contradicted the theory that the Unlimited is
Se
ojuLOiou
ir)

TrXeiui

a opinion is refuted. But as the writer does not expressly say that Anaxagoras contradicted the opinion of Melissus concerning the homogeneous nature of the 6.Tripov, his language may also be understood thus Even Anaxagoras contradicts the opinion that the ^ttcipou must be homogeneous, so far as he represents the infinite mass of the primitive matter as consisting entirely of heterogeneous parts.'
:
'

but also for always designates proof by which an opposite

refute,'

CHARACTER OF HIS PHILOSOPHY.

is

Z^'6

based upon the doctrin-e of vovs.

With

this doctrine

his theory of

matter
is

is,

however, so intimately connected

that the one

itself, as

conditioned by the other.

it

Matter in

he represents
to

in the primitive state before

Spirit

had begun
;

motionless mass

for all

come from
for Spirit

Spirit.

work upon it, can only be a chaotic, motion and separation must But matter must nevertheless conof derived things as such
;

tain all the constituents

creates nothing
exists.

new:

it

only divides what

is

actually

Conversely, Spirit
is

necessary, be-

cause matter, as such,

unordered and unmoved, and

restricted to the separation of

the activity of matter

is

substancea, because they are already supposed to contain

within themselves

all their

determinate qualities.

one doctrine
the later

is

so directly given in the other that

The we

cannot even enquire which was the earlier and which

;

for

this

conception of matter could only

result if an incorporeal

moving

cause, distinct

and working in
tained
:

this

particular

from it manner, were main-

and such a moving

if

maintained
this

cause could only be the nature of matter were conceived in

particular
so
far

way and no
original

other.

Both

definitions

are

equally

they
If

merely

indicate

the two sides of the opposition of Spirit and matter,

as

conceived

by Anaxagoras.

we ask how

this

opposition itself arose in the

mind

of our philosopher,

an answer has already been given in the course of Ancient physics recoo-nised the present discussion.^
only corporeal
nature.

With
P. 345.

this

corporeal

nature

Anaxagoras cannot

satisfy himself, because

>

he knows

384

ANAXAGORAS.

not how to explain from such a cause the movement of

nature, the beauty and design of the universe, especially
as he has learned

from Parmenides, Empedocles and

is

Leucippus, that the corporeal substance

something
Accord-

underived and unchangeable, not moved dynamically

from within, but mechanically from without.

ingly, he discriminates Spirit, as
force,

moving and ordering

from matter

and as he

finds all order conditional

on a division of the unordered, all knowledge conditional on discrimination, he thus defines the opposition
of Spirit and matter
:

Spirit,

he says,

is

the dividing and

is

discriminating force, and consequently

;

itself

simple

and unmixed matter is that which is absolutely mixed and composite a definition which was closely connected with the traditional ideas of chaos, and more recently with the doctrines of Empedocles and the Atomists
:

concerning the primitive state of the universe.

If,

however, matter really consists originally in a mixture

of
all

things,

and the operation of moving force in a

separation of them, things as these definite substances

must already be contained in the original matter, and in place of the elements and atoms the so-called Homoeomeries are introduced.

The fundamental
as resulting partly

conceptions, therefore, of the

An-

axagorean system are without difficulty to be explained

from the theories of

earlier

and con-

temporary philosophers, and partly from such considerations as

might easily and naturally occur to its author. Such being the case, we can the more readily dispense with the other sources of this doctrine, which some even among the ancients sought to derive from Hermotimus,

CHARACTER AND ORIGIX OF HIS SYSTEM.

but these views have so

385
^
;

the mythical magician,^ or from the wisdom of the East

little to

recommend them that

there can scarcely be a doubt of their groundlessness.

As to any dependence of Anaxagoras on Orientaldoctrines,

there exists no tradition on which the smallest reliance

can be placed, nor does the nature of his system render

it in

any way probable.^

Arist.

Hermotimus
b,

is

manifestly not a

Metoph.

i.

3,

981

18, after mention of voxJs: (pauepwi fiiv ovv ' Ava^ayopav tajuev a\pduevov

Tovruv

rii/

Kdywv, aiTiav

irpoTepov 'EpudriULOS 6

S' ex^t KAa^OfteViOS

eiVeij', The same is repeated by Alexander, &c., ad h. I. (Schol. in Ar. 536 b) Philop. ad h. Z. p. 2 ap. Simpl. Phjjs 321 a Sext.
;

or of nothing definite. But even if he had named Egypt as the destination of this journey, hi.- evidence could ea.sily be contradicted, and the saying concernins: the grave of Mausolus, which Diog. (ii. 10) puts into the mouth of our philosopher (who died 19 Olympiads,
i.e.

76 years, before
it

it

was

built),

Elias, Cret. in Greg. 7 :isaz. Orat. 37, p. 831 (in Cams, Nachg. W. iv, 341), with no other authority for the statement except this text of Aristotle. - To these belong the stateix.
;

Math.

any confirmation. If it be urged that the Greeks from the time of Anaxagoras were
so inclined to place their scientific greatness in connection with Eg;\'pt, that it is improbable an Egyptian journey, known to have been undertaken by this philosopher, should have received no mention, we can only infer from the complete silence of all authorities on the subject, that nothing whatever was known of such a journey. Concerning the hypothesis of Gladisch, I have already given my opinion on the general presuppositions and collective result of this, Vol. I. p.
36.
to

would scarcely lend

ment already mentioned,

2,

p.

that

Anaxagoras

visited
;

East and especially Egypt the hypotheses of Gladisch

326, the also

{^Die

Bel. v.nd die Philosophie Anaa-ag. und die Israeliten), and some of the ancients (on whom cf. Auaxag. und d. Isr. p. 4), who would connect him with Judaism. 3 How inadequate are the authorities for Anaxaoforas's risit to Egypt, we have already seen in the notice of them, p. 326, 2. Xot one is less recent than the last decade of the Fourth Century after Christ even Valerius Maximus does not speak of a journey to Egypt, but only of a diutina peregrinatio, while the property of Anaxagoras was laid waste, and it is very possible that he was thinking of Anaxagoras's residence in Athens.
;

The
suit

interpretation

of

facts

the interest of arbitrary combinations, with which he is there censured, is not wanting in the present case. For example, from the dogmas of the Old Testament, not only does he deduce, p. 19, the doctrine of pre-existent matter (for which the Alexandrian Book of "Wisdom is cited among other evidence as perfectly valid

VOL.

II.

C C

380
historical

ANAXAGORAS.
contemporary of Anaxagoras, but a mythical
y

figm'e in the past,

who has only been

idle

associated with

Anaxagoras by the
;

ingenuity of later writers.^

Cels.
iii.

testimony) but also the Anaxagoand rean Homoeoraeries (p. 48)

;

Tert.

Be An.

c. 2,

44,

who adds

conversely, from Anaxagoras (as has been shown, p. 352, 1) he deby the most inadequate rives, reasoning, the Jewish notions of

that the inhabitants of Clazomenas erected a shrine to Her motimus after his death. Thirdly,

Hermotimus

is

cleides ap. Diog.

mentioned by Heraviii. 4 sq. among

the government of the universe. The doctrine of the Old Testament of the creation of the world by the direct Divine behest is represented as in all essential respects entirely the same' (p. 43) as that of Anaxagoras, of the first movement of
'

those in whom the soul of Pj'thagoras had dwelt in its previous wandei'ings and this is repeated by Porph. F. Pyth. Hippol. Befut.
: ;

i.

12; Tert. Be An. 28, 31. That the statement refers to the
2, p.

Hermotimus
there

we

are

discussing

from which movement all things arise in a purely mechanical manner. A parallelism

matter by

vous,

that is instituted in such a way can be of no assistance from an historical point of view. ' The statements of the ancients in regard to Hermotimus (the most complete collection has been made by Cams, Ueber die Sagen von Hermotimus,' Nachg. Werke, iv. 330 sqq., and previously in Filllc^ bom's Beitr'dge') are of three kinds. The first has just been quoted Secondly, it from Aristotle, &c. is asserted that Hermotimus had that his this wonderful faculty soul often quitted his body for a long time, and after its return to the body would give news of things at a distance but once his enemies took advantage of this state to burn his body as if he had been dead. Thus "Pliny, H. N. vii. 53 Pint. Gen. Socr. c. 22, p. 592 Apollon. Dysc. Hist. Comment it. c. All three, however, are evi3. dently dependent on the same source (probably Theopompus cf. Rohde, Bhein. Mus. xxvi. 558); Orig. c. Lucian, Micsc. Enc. c. 7
'

can scarcely be a doubt, though Hippolytus erroneoiisly calls him a Samian. But since in these narrations Hermotimus appears as a fabulous personage of the distant past, it is obvious that the statement which Aristotle mentions must be devoid of all hisnot to mention torical foundation
;

the modern writers who would even make Hermotimus the teacher of Anaxagoras (vide Cams, 334,

362

sq.).

originated

This statement no doubt in the myth, in an

attempt to find in the separation of the soul from the body, which is related of the old soothsayer, an analogue of Anaxagoras's distinction of mind and matter. It is possible that Democritus may have been the author of this interpreSimilar tation, cf. Ding. ix. 34. legends are found in India, as

Eohde shows,

I.

c.

and

it

may

well be that the story, like other myths and some of our fables about animals, may have had its whether we suppose it rise there to have been brought by the ancestors of the Hellenes in very ancient times from their Asiatic
:

CHARACTER ASD ORIGIN OF HIS DOCTRIXE.

AVe

387

may

therefore

discard all these conjectures, and

consider the doctrine of Anaxagoras as the natural pro-

duct of the previous philosophic development.

is also

And

it

For if in Spirit a higher principle has been found through which nature itself is conditioned, and without which neither
the

the natural end of that development.

movement

of nature nor

its

order and design can

he explained, there arises

henceforward the demand

that this higher cause of nature shall also be recognised,

the one-sided philosophy of nature comes to an end,

and along with nature, and even before comes an object of investigation.

it,

spirit be-

The school
course.

of Anaxagoras did not itself take this AVe are indeed reminded of the Sophists in
; ^

Metrodorus's allegorical interpretations

but on the

other hand Archelaus,- the only disciple of Anaxagoras

home, or to have come by wav of further Asia to the lonians on the
coasts.

Proam. 15; Eus. xiv. 15, 9: Aug, /. c, and from thence emigrated to Athens. The same presupposition,
or a negligent use of the source

P. 372, 6. Archelaus, son of Apollodorns, or, according to others, of IVIjson, is described bj most -writers as an Athenian, but by some as a Milesian (Diog. ii. 16; Sext. Mat/t. vii. 14, ix. 360; Hippol. BefutA. 9;
'

employed by Clemens, seems to have

rise to the astounding assertion (Diog. ii. 16; cf. Sehaubach,

given

Clemens, Cohort. 43
i.

Plut. Flac.
;

12 Justin, Cohort, c. 3 and Simpl. Phys. 6). That he -svas a scholar of Anaxagoras we are frequently told (cf., besides the writers just cited, die. Tiisc. v. 4, 10 Strabo, xir. 3, 36, p. 645; Eus. Pr. Ev. X. 14, 8 sq. August. Civ.
3,
;
;

D,

viii. 2). According to Eusebf us, I. c, he first presided in Lampsacus over the school of Anaxagoras, whose successor he is called, ap.

Clem.

Strom,

i.

301

A:

Diog.

Anax. 22 sq.) that he first transplanted Physics from Ionia into Athens. Most, probably, however, both the first and second of these statements are merely inferences from the supposed connection of the dLadoxv. Cf. p. 329, 1. The same judgment must be passed on the statement (Cic, Sext., Diog., Simpl. I. c. lo, Aristoxeniis unci Biokles ap. Diog. ii. 19, 23, x. 21 Eus. Pr. Ev. X. 14, 9, xiv. 15, 9, XV. 62, 8; Hippol. i. 10; Galen, H. Phil. 2, &c.) that Socrates was his disciple. This is not historical tradition, but a pragmatical con:

l c c 2

388

ANAXAGORAS.
any
particulars,^

of

whom we know

remained faithful to

jecture,

shown to be improbable not merely by the silence of Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle, but also by the mutual relation of the doctrines of the t-\vo men, and by the philosophic character of Socrates.
(Cf.

no fixed theory of philosophy, but occupied himself merely with particular investigations.
teor.

Arist.

Me-

Part

II.

a,

47

sq.,

3rd ed.)

The accounts concerning the doctrine of Archelaus -would lead us to

conjecture that it "vvas expounded in writings. book of Theophrastus about him, which is mentioned

by Diog,
I. c.

T. 42,

was perhaps only a

Simpl.

says he supposed lightning to be only a phenomenon of light, like the glittering of water Theophrastus, H. Ph. in motion. I. c, says that, according to him, plants consist of the same substances as animals, only that they are less pure and warm and {Cans. Plant, i. 10, 3) that the colder plants flower in winter, the

9,

370

a, 10,

section of a larger work.

warmer
author

in

summer.
23,
1,

The same
sq.)

seems to refer toTheophrastus's Physics and not to this exposition.

'

{I. c. iii.

mentions

The Anaxagorean school ('Aj/aPlato,

Crat.

|a7opetoi,

409
ol

Syncell.

Chron.

149

C;

dn-'

'kvai^aySpov, Plut. Tlac. iv. 3, 2 ol TTepX 'Av. in the t^xte which Schau-

bach, p.

32,

paraphrase) is without any further account of it. A trace of its influence has already

quotes is merely a sometimes mentioned

his opinion on the best time for sowing; and (V. 9, 10) his viev concerning a disease of the vine lastly he tells us(Z>e Sensu, 38) that Clidemus expressed some opinions on the perceptions of the senses oXaQavdaQai yap (p-qai toTs 6(p6a\iuio7s ;uei/ (so Wimmer reads instead of /xJvov) on diacpaveTs' raTs 8' aKoa7s '6ri ilxiriTTTwv 6 a7]p Kivei- rais 5e picXv
; :

i(peXKOix4vovs rhv aepa, rovrov

yap
rovs

come before us
TT.

70 sq.) in the treatise of the pseudo-Hippoerates,

(p.

auafxiyvvadai'
XvfJiOvs Kal

jij

5e yXcixxcrr;

scholiast on Plato's Gorgias (p. 345, Bekk.) calls the sophist Polus an Anaxagorean; but this is evidently an inference unSiaiTTjs.

justitiably drawn from 465 D. In regard to Clidemus,also,it seems to me doubtful whether Philippson is

rh Qepp.hu Ka\ rh ^'vxphu, eluai' rev S' &\Xcc awaari Trapa /xeu Tavr ovQev, avrcou 5e Tovrau Kal rh Oepuht^ Kai to. vypa Ka] TO, ivavTia' fxouov 5e rds aKoas avras /J-fU ovdev Kpiveiv, els 5e rhv voxiv SiaTre/xTreiv ovx oia-irep 'Aua^aydpas apxv^ iroie? iravruv (of alldia rh
(Top.(pr]U

right in assigning him to the school of Anaxagoras ("TAtj auQp. 197), though I cannot agree with Ideler (Arist. Mcteorol. i. 617 sq.), who makes him an adherent of Empedocles. It would rather appear that
this naturalist,

who

is

mentioned

by Theophrastus {H. Plant, iii. 1, 4) after Anaxagoras and Diogenes, and again {De Soisic, 38) between them, and whom we may
probably regard as a contemporary of Diogenes and Democritus, had

This sense -perceptions) rhv vovv. alone shows that Clidemus did not share the philosophic opinions of Anaxagoras; and, indeed, nothing is anywhere said of him in a philosophic point of view. That he is a different person from Clidemus, or Clitodemus the historian (Miill.er, Hist. Gr. i. 359 sqq.), with whom he is identified by Meyer, Gesch. d. Botanil\ i. 23 sqq. and others, is proved by Kii'chner, Jahrh. f. Philol. Suppl. N. F. vii. 501 sq.

ARCHELAUS.
the
physical

589

tendency of his master, and while he

sought to soften clown his dualism, approximated some-

what to the ancient materialistic

in his case our information
is

physics.

But even
\Ve are

very scanty.

told that in respect to ultimate causes he agreed with

Anaxagoras

that, like

him, he assumed an infinite

number

of small bodies of equal parts, from which all

things arise by means of mechanical combination and

separation, and conceived these substances as originally

mingled together

but that he distinguished Spirit from

it.^

the corporeal as the power which rules over

The

original mixtm'e of all substances he (approximating

herein to Anaximenes and the ancient Ionic school) sup-

posed to be like

air,^

which, indeed, Anaxagoras had reof opinion that ofMOiofxeprj nva ot-rreipa eivai aw/xaTa, e| u/U i} ruv al(j9r]Tccu ydveais awiMdrocy, yivo^^vr]
.
.

^ SimpL Phys. 7 a (after Theophrastus,) iv rfj yev^aei rov KOCfj-ov Koi ro7s 6.\\ol5 TT^iparai Tt
:

^v

(pepeiv iSlov.

SiSccaiv
(xeif

danep

ras apxas 5e tus uvtols 'Ava^ayopas' ovtoi

t(2
-n-A-rjdei

Kara
those

crvyKpiffiv Kai avudeaiv,

where-

fore they are both counted

among

ovv

aireipovs

Koi

avofjioyzviLS
o/jLOLOpLepeias

ras px'^^ \4yuvai ras rideures ap^ds. (The

mixture as a mass of substantially separate matters. Philop. De An. B 16 Archeall

:

who regard

latter also in
i'/i

269 b, 1 Ar. 513 a.) Clem. Cohort. Schol. oi fiev avrwv rh aireipov 43 D 'Ava^ayopas Kadvfiv7t(Tav, wv
Ccelo,
;
: . . ,

Be

laus belongs to those ucroi elpriKaai TO irau vTrh rov j'ov KeKivrjaOai.
-

Through

this

theory,

which

jueV ye Apxi^iios' TovTco rov vovv eTreaTrjadTrjv ttj aireLpia. Hippol. Rf/ut. i. 9 ovros ecp-q rT]v jxl^iv rrjs vKvs ofMolws Ayards re dpxas oxravrais. layopa Aug. Civ. D. viii. 2 etiam ipse de inter dissimilibus, jparticuUs se qnibm singula qtiacque fierent, ita

Kul

a/jLcpQ}

confirmed by what immediately fuUows, the statement that Arehelaus held air to be the primitive matter may easily be combined, as it appears to me, with the other
is

accounts.

Cf. Sext.

Math.

ix.

360

'Apx
i.

aepa

[eA.e|6 irdvTwu eiyai,

a.pxr,v nal o'TOixetOj/].

3,

omnia constare putavit, ut inesse etiam mentcm diceret, quae corpjora

di^simiUa,
i.

Jui^tin,
.

Plut. Plac. 12 (word for word the same: Cohort, c. 3 end) 'Apx:

depa. dtreipoy [^dpxvv dTre(pr]vaTO^

e.

illas

particular,

Koi

T7]v

irepl

conjuvgendo et dissipando agtret omnia. Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 1-11 b Anaxagoras and ArcheUus were
:

fj-dvcca-iv

av'ov TZUKv6rr\Ta Kai TOvTdiv 5e rh jxkv elvai Trip

Th Se

vdctjp.

390

ANAXAGORAS.

garded as a mixture of primitive substances of various

kinds, but
still

only as a part of the original mass.*

Moreover, while Anaxagoras strongly insisted on the un-

mixed nature of Spirit, Archelaus, it is said, represented mixed with matter ^ so that in air animated by Spirit, he had a principle similar to that of Anaximenes and Diogenes, but different from theirs by reason
Spirit as
;

of

its

dualistic composition.^

He

also agreed

with these

philosophers in describing the

first

separation of the
"^

primitive

mixture as rarefaction and condensation.

separation the

In this

first

warm

and the cold were

divided, as had been taught by Anaximander, and also

byAnaxagoras

but, as the original mixture was already

air,

declared to be

Archelaus (herein differing from

Anaxigoras) called these two principal masses of derived

tilings fire

and water.^

Following the example of his

the active, and water as the
tried

master, he regarded
passive element
;

fire as

and since he
it

to explain tbe

formation of the universe in a purely physical manner

from their joint operation,

might seem
it.

as if these

material bases were the ultimate cause of the universe,

and that Spirit had no concern with

'

This cannot,

P. 3oo,
Jlippol.
tSrob.
:

3.
/,

c: ovTOS
i.

T(u uai

ivvirdpx^i-v ri evOeccs fjuyjxa.

vypov. Herm. Irris. c. 'Apx- airo(paiVG}xivos tcDv o\iXV Hippol. ^-PX^^ Qepfibu Kai ^uxo6u.
QeppCov Kol

5:
/.

correct

so far be vovv rhv 6i6v, i.e.,he may have churacterised air and Spirit as the eternal and
^

Ed.

o6,

may
koI

c.

eluai

5'

'Apx-

o-^py-

rh

aTroKpivecrOtti

apxh^ rrjs KLvi^aeus (so Duncker, after

dir'

Eoper and
Bepfibv
6ep/j.hv

Kitter)

aWT}\wv rh

divine.
*
^

vide 389, 2. Plut. Plac. Vide Vol. I. p. 250, and Vol.

;

II. p. 3o-5.
^ Plut. riac. I. c, Diog. ii. 16: eAeye 5e 5vo alrias duai y^viaeccs,

koI rb ixhv ih Se y\)vxphv 7;pe^eTz/. Cf. Plato, Soph. 242 hvo 5e '^r^pos tl-Kwv, vypbv /cot ^vpbv ^ Qspjxov KOL ^pvxphv, (Tvuoikl^sl re avra icat iKdidwtn. The reference to

kuI Th

\pvxphv,

KivelaQai,

Archelaus

is

not, however, certain.

AECHELAUS.
however, have been the meaning of Archelaus
^ ;

391

he no

doubt supposed, like Anaxagoras, that

that vortex arose the

spirit

produced

a vortex in the primitive infinite mass, and that from

first

division of heat

and

cold,

from which
the midst

all

other things spontaneously proceeded.

In the division of matter the water ran together in

;

through the influence of heat, part of this

air,

evaporated and ascended as

;

another part condensed

from the earth came the stars, and became earth which are detached portions of earth. The earth, which is a very small part of the universe, is kept in
its

place in the rotation by the

air,

and the

air

by

fire.

The

surface of the earth must, according to xVrchelaus,

;

be depressed towards the centre

level,

for if it

were absolutelv

the

sun would

rise

and

set

everywhere at the

same time.

The

stars at first revolved laterally

its

around

the earth, which, on account of perpetual shadow

;

raised edge, lay in

only when the inclination of the

heavens began, could the light and warmth of the sun

operate upon the earth and dry
ceptions there
'

it up.^

lu all these con-

is

little to

distinguish xVi'chelaus from

obscure -rrfptppu, irvpl Trepippurai, as Diog. continues oQev t) jxkv vwb toD aepos, 6 Se virh rris rod irvpos
:

Vide previous note and Stob.

:

oh fi4vroi Koa^oiioibv tov voi>v. The above results from Hippol. loc. cif.y "where, however, the text is very corrupt; and from Diog. ii. 17, "where the traditional
I.

c.

rrepiipopas

KpoLrelrai.
i.

Byk,

l^orso-

krat. Pldl.

247

sq.,

proposes to
:

reading is ecjually inadmissible in its meaning. According to this r-qKoixevov the -words run thus OricTi. tI) vSwp inrh tov Oepfiov. Ka6b
:

els TO TTvpubes (Tvv'iaTaTai. "KOteiv yrjV Kadh 5e irepiphet, aepa yevvav. Fur TTvpu^es Kitler, i. 342, reads
/.ikv

transpose the sentence th\:s ko.%o [xXv irepippil iroiiiv yriv, Kudo Se els rh irvpides crvpiffTaTai aepa yevvav. But "what then -would be the meaning of irepippe?? In the same passage is the statement Tr]v Se

BaXaTrav
"way

ev

to'ls

ko'iXois

5ia

rrjs

yr\s riBovjxivr\v cvveaTauai.

In this

TupwZes

perhaps

""e

shoidd

siilj-

stitute for this ir-rjAudes,

and for the

no doubt the taste of seawater "was explained.

392

ANAXAGOHAS.
whom he
likewise resembles iD his opinions

Anaxagoras,^

concerning living beings, so far as we are acquainted

with them.
Spirit,-

The cause

of animation in all creatures

is

the air

which Archelaus seems to have connected with that they breathe.^ They first arose from the
:

heat of the sun

this

produced from the

terrestrial

slime various kinds of animals, which were nourished

by the slime and only lived a short time subsequently, sexual propagation was introduced, and men raised themselves above the other creatures by their arts and manners.^ Concerning his other theories about men
;

and animals, nothing has been told us

but

it

seems

reasonable to conjecture that in them also he followed

Anaxagoras, and that, like him and other predecessors,

he bestowed special attention on the activities of the

senses.''

The statement that he believed

irpcorov

in the existjxipos

^ ArcheCf. p. 355 sq., 360. laus (vide supra, 362, 6) also agrees with Anaxagoras in his explanation of earthqiiakes, ap. Sen. Qu. N.

eV

tw Kara

[Karoo
(aia

fJi^p^i], oirov

rh d^pp-ov Ka\ to ^vxpov

4fxicryeTo, avecpaiu^TO

rd re

aWa

TroWa

Kal avSpiOia irdura ttju avrriv

ttjj i\vos

vi. 12.
-

hiairav tx^vra eK
I.

rpe^oyif^ffis

Hippol.

c.

vovp Se Xeyei
Ojxoicas.
XP''i^

jj-^va, i)v

Se oXiyo-xpovia- vcrrepoi' Se
t]

TTCKTiu iijL<pv(T6ai ^c^ois

avTols Ka\

i^

d\\r]Xoou

aaaQai yap '^Kamop Ka\ rwv aa)/.LdTU)V oacfi rh jxkv Ppadvrepcos rh Se Ta^vrepw$. Instead of XP'^I""""'^'*' '^'^ should read no doubt xpv<^^<^h find instead of the obscure words, rcou
awfidroov
offu) r(f

avecrrr] Kal biKpi9r](rav dudpwTroi

dnh

TWf dWuv,
'^"^

Kal 7]ye/j.6vas Kal voixovs

r^xt^as Kal nShfis Kal

ra ^\\a
is
;

crwixari bjxoiuis, as

Eitter suggests {Ion. Phil. 304). ^ This, I conjecture, partly from his general theories on Spirit, discnssed above, and partly from the testimonies quoted, p. 364, 4. Also the fact that that opinion was attributed to Anaxagoras is most easily explained on this theory. * Hippol. 5e Ccywu I.e.: Trepl (prjalv. '6ri ^^pixa-Lvoixivris rrjs 77JS rh

to be cf. found in part ap. Diog. ii. 16 A misapprehension of p. 365, 6. tliis tradition seems to have given rise to the statement of Epiphanius, Exp. Fid. 1087 a, that Archelaus thought all things originated from earth, which he regarded as the apxv tuu oAcou. ^ There seems to be an allusion
crvvfarricrav.

The same

to

this
ii.

in
17".

the

short notice, ap.

Se
eJ-jr^

Diog.

rrpcoros

((xnvrjs

yiv^cnv rrjv rov dcpos

irKri^iu,

where

ARCHELAUS.
ence
of an
infinite

393
^

number

of worlds

is,

no doubt,

founded on a misapprehension.

Some

writers

maintain that Archelaus occupied

himself with ethical enquiries as well as physics, and

that he was in this respect a precursor of Socrates."^

In particular, he

is

said to have sought the origin of

right and wrong, not in nature, but in custom.^

These

statements, however, seem to have arisen from the impossibility of conceiving the supposed teacher of Socrates

to be ^vithout an ethical philosophy

and confirmation
a passage which

of this presupposition was looked for

originally

in-

had

quite another meaning."^

That Archelaus

accomplished anything important in the sphere of ethics

is

improbable, from the silence of Aristotle, who never

once mentions him.

But although the school

faithful, as

of Anaxagoras remained

he himself did, to physical investigations, yet

is

however wpwros
sup. p. 368. 3. * Stob. EcL

incorrect, vide

i.

496, vide sitpra,

vii.

Vol.
-

I. p.

262, 3. Sext. Math.

14

'Apx-

...

7b

(pvcriKhv Kal tiQikov [/uerrjpii.

Diog. X^'^o]. ovros axpaadai

16: toiKe Se koX

rjOiKris.

ttjs

kol

yap
T(f

Trepi vofjLuiy Tr(pL\oa6(pr}K Koi

KaKuiu

hat SLKaiuv irap

av^Tjo-at

vu

'X<aKpdrr]s

auThs evpelv inr\ri<pdr]. 3 Diog. I. c: ra (\iye di (qia anh ttjs l\vos yeuu-ndnvar Kal rh SiKaiov fhai Kai to alaxphu oh
. . .

passage in Archelaus's treatise as that quoted on p. 392, -i, from Hippolytu.s. Archelaus in that case had merely sa-d that men were at law or morals, and fii'^'t without only attained to them in course of time; and from this, later writers deduced the sophistical statement that right and wrong are not Kitter's exfounded on nature. planarion of this proposition (Gesch. d. Pkil.i. Sii): "That good

and
the

evil in the "world arise

from

(pva^L
*

aWa

vo/jlco.

in Diogenes the remarkable combination of the two

At auy rate

propositions concerning the genesis of animals, and the origin of right and wrong, would lead us to suppose that his utterances are ultimately derived from the same

distribution {yoiios) of the primal seeds in the world,' seems tome impossible this signification of vofjLos is not proved by any of the analogies which he adduces, Diogenes, moreover, certainly took the sentence which he quotes only
:

in i:s ordinary meaning,

394

THE

SOPHISTS.

the new principle which he had introduced into physics

necessitated an altered direction of enquiry
;

and thus

he

is

immediately connected with the phenomenon

which marks the end of the previous philosophy, and

the transition to a the

new form

of scientific thought

viz.,

rise of Sophistic opinion.

III. THE SOPHISTS.!

1.

Origin of the SopJiistic doctrine.

fifth

Philosophy, until about the middle of the

century,

was confined to the small

circles

which the love of

Sci-

science had assembled in particular cities around the

authors and representatives of physical theories.

entific
life.

enquiry concerned

itself

but

little

with practical

The

necessity of theoretical instruction was only

felt

by a few, and as yet the attempt had never been

scale to

made on an extended
scientific culture.

make

science

common

property, and to found moral and political activity on

Even Pythag^oreanism can hardly be

;

regarded as such an attempt

for in the first place it

was only the members of the Pythagorean Society on

whom its
'

educating iufluence was exerted

results.
viii.

and secondly,

Geel, Historia crifica qui Socratis (state Athcnis Jloruerunt {Nova acta literaria societ. Bheno-Traject. P. II.), Utr. 1823. Hermann, Plat. Phil,
Jac.

Sophistamm,

474-.')44; to

I shall

Hist, of Greece, which discussions often have occasion to refer,

Grote,

pp. 179-223,296-321. Baumhauer, Pisputatio litcraria, quam vim So-

on account of their very great importance. Schanz, Beitr, z. vorsokrat. Phil, aus Plato, 1. H. Die Siebeck, Sophisten. Gott. 1867
;

phista habverint Athenis ad (statis su(B diiciplina.m mores ac stvdia immutanda (Utr. 1144), a laborious "u"ork, but without important

Ueh. SoJcrates

Untersnch.
1

z.

Verk. z. Sophist ik Phil. d. Gr. 1873, p.

G^n^ic?;-,
'

sc^q.

Ueberweg,

i.

27.

ORIGIX OF SOPHISTIC LOCTRIXE.

its

395

science

Pythagorean morality

had no immediate reference to practical life is a kind of popular religion

is

Pythagorean science, conversely,

physics.

The
by

prinsciento

ciple that practical capability is conditioned

tific

culture was, generally speaking, quite

alien

antiquity.

Meanwhile, in the

course

of

the

fifth

century,

various causes combined to alter this state of things.

The mighty impulse which Greece had received

since

the Persian wars, and Grelon's victory over the Carthaginians, must, in its subsequent influence, have deeply

affected

Greek science
at

also,

to the nation

large.

and the relation of science Through a magnanimous enall

thusiasm, a rare devotion on the part of

these

individuals,
:

extraordinary

successes

had been attained

proud

self-reliance, a youthful desire for action, a pas-

sionate

struggle for freedom, glory and power, were

their natural result.

The
on

traditional institutions

and

national customs became too narrow for a nation that

was spreading

itself

all sides

the old constitutional

forms could nowhere, except in Sparta, maintain their

ground against the

spirit of the

age
so.

the

old customs,

even in Sparta, were unable to do

The men who had

its affairs

staked their lives for the independence of their country

would not
to decline

suffer their interest in the

;

conduct of

and

in the gi'eater

number, and the most

democracy arose to
diffi-

intellectually active of the cities,' a

power which in course of time was able without

culty, to set aside the few barriers of law yet remaining.

1 Especially in Athens and other Sicilian colonics.

among her

allies in Syracuse,

and the

396

THE
who by her

SOnilSTS.
had ])ecome the
and since
Pericles,
scientific

Athens,

glorious deeds
life,

ruling centre of Greek national

had

also united in herself

more and more the

powers and
this course.

efforts of the nation,

was foremost to pursue

The

result

was an incredibly rapid pro-

gress in all spheres, an active rivalry, a joyful straining

of all the powers which, let loose by freedom, were

guided by
ends
;

tlie

great genius of Pericles to the highest

city

was enabled within a single generation to attain a height of prosperity and power, of glory and culture, of which history affords no parallel.

and

so this

With

the increase of culture the claims on individuals

necessarily increased, and the customary

means of edutill

cation were no longer sufficient.

Education had,

then, been limited to music and gymnastic, together

with some elementary arts

everything further was

life,

left

to the unmethodical practice of

and to the personal

Even politics and the art of oratory, so indispensable to a statesman, were learned in the same manner. This method had
influence of relatives and fellow-citizens.^

indeed produced the most brilliant results.

From

the

school of practical experience the greatest heroes and

statesmen went forth, and in the words of the poets

of Epicharmus and Pindar, of Simonides and Baccbylides, of

practical

^schylus and Sophocles an abundant store of wisdom and observation of mankind, of pure moral principles and profound religious ideas, was deposited in the most perfect form, for the benefit of all. But just because men had gone so far, they found it
necessary to go
taste and
farther.

If a

higher cultivation of

intellect,

such as could be attained in the

1

Vide Vol.

I. p.

77.

ORIGIX OF SOPHISTIC DOCTRIXE.

accustomed way, was universally disseminated, the

397

man

who wished around him

to distinguish himself was forced to look

for

something new.

If all were habituated,

through political activity and multifarious intercourse,

to a keen apprehension of the relation of tilings, to

rapid judgment and resolute action, only a special train-

ing could give decided ascendency to individuals

if

an

appreciative sense of the beauties of language and the

subtleties of expression

were quickened in

all,

speech

required to be treated in a more artistic manner than

heretofore
;

and the value of

as

this

artistic

eloquence

became

necessarily greater

more importance was

of the speeches.

attached, in the all-powerful popular assemblies, to the

momentary charm and impression

this reason there arose in
Sicily,

For

independently of the

Sophists,

rhetorical school of Corax.

and almost contemporaneously with them, the But the necessities of the

time required not merely a methodical introduction to

rhetoric, but scientific instruction concerning all things

of value in practical, and

more
spirit

especially in civil, life

and

if Pericles

himself did not disdain to feed his re-

fined and

commanding

upon intercourse with

to benefit

Anaxagoras and Protagoras, the disciples of this scientific

culture might the

more confidently expect

as it

became

easier for a receptive intellect,

by the

proper use of dialectic, to discover weaknesses and contradictions in the

ordinary notions about ethics, and

thereby to attain, even as against the most skilled

and experienced men of practice, the consciousness of

superiority.^
' Cf. the remarkable conversation between Pericles and Alci-

blades, Xen.

Mem.

i.

2,

40

sq.

398

THE SOPHISTS.
Philosophy, in
its earlier
;

one-sided physical tendency,

could not satisfy this need

a point where
its

but

it

had

itself arrived at

form must of necessity imdergo a

change.

It

had
;

started from the contemplation of the

external world

but already Heracleitus and Parmenides

all

had shown, and

subsequent systems had agreed with

them, that the senses cannot teach us the true essential

These philosophers did not indeed on that account cease to regard the explanation of
nature of things.
nature as their proper task
reason that which
is
:

they hoped to establish by

hidden from sense.

But what right

specific character

had they to

this

assumption until the

of intellectual thought and its object, as distinguished from the sensible perception and sensible phenomenon, had been more closely investigated ? If thought, like

perception, acts according to the nature of the body

and of external impressions,^ it is not easy to understand why the one should be more trustworthy than the other and all that the earl}^ yjhilosophers, from their various standpoints, had said against the senses may be
;

said universally against the

human

faculty of cognition.

If there

is

nothing besides corporeal Being, the mis-

trust of the Eleatics

and the principles of Heracleitus.

all

may

be applied to

reality.

They had contended

showing the contra-

against the reality of the

Many by

tension in space

and exand the reality of the One might be questioned on the same grounds. Heracleitus had
:

dictions that would result from its divisibility

said that nothiug

is

fixed except reason

the universe
>

and

it

and the law of might with equal right be asserted

602; Vol.
II. pp. 79, 171.

Vide Vol.

I. p.

ORIGiy OF SOPHISTIC DOCTBIXE.

399

that the law of the universe must be as changeable as

the

fire

of which

it

consists

our

knowledge

as change-

able as the thing to which

it relates,

and the soul in

its

which

it

dwells.^
its

The ancient

physics, in a word, con-

tained in

materialism the germ of

destruction.

If there be only corporeal Being, all things are extended

in space

and

divisible,

and

all

presentations arise from

the working of external impressions upon the corporeal

soul

from

sensation

therefore, if the reality of di-

vided Being and the truth of the sensible phenomenon

be renounced from this standpoint, truth and reality

are altogether cancelled, all things are resolved into a

subjective

appearance

and, with

the belief in the

cognisability of things, the endeavour after the

knowfor

ledge of

them must

likewise be at an end.

As Physics thus indirectly paved the way

rectly forced

an

'^

altered tendency of thought, so this tendency was di-

upon Physics from without. Though we much stress upon the fact the later physicists, as compared with the earlier, that bestow far more attention on the study of man, and that
ought not, perhaps, to lay
Democritus, already a contemporary of the Sophists,
also occupied himself to a great extent with ethical

questions

yet we

must in any case regard the Anaxafor

or,

gorean doctrine of Spirit as the direct preparation

the
Sophistic
doctrine,

more accurately, as the clearest indication of the change which was even then taking place in the Greek theory of the world. The
1

That such

inferences

were

really deduced from the doctrines of the Eleatics and Heracleitus will be shown in the fourth Chapter

of this section. In regard to Heracleitus it has already Leen

shown, p. 115, 1 ; and in regard to the Atomists, p. 314 sq.

400

THE SOPHISTS.
is

V0V9 of Anaxagoras

not, indeed, the

human mind

as

such

and when he said that vov9

rules all things he

did not

mean

that

man

means

of thought.

has all things in his power by But he had nevertheless created

of his

the conception of

mind out
it

own

consciousness,
as a force

and though

it

may have

been treated

by him

of nature, in its essence

was not distinct from the

mind

of man.

Consequently, when others transferred

what Anaxagoras had said of Mind to the human mind

the
opened

only

Mind

given in our experience

they went
its

only one step farther upon the road which he had

they

reduced the vovs of Anaxagoras to

basis in actual fact,

and

set aside a presupposition

:

which

must have seemed

that the world
is

to others untenable

they allowed
;

the work of the thinking essence

[but as the world was to

phenomenon, so the world-creating consciousness became human consciousness, and man became the measure of all things. Sophistic did not directly arise from this reflexion. The first appearance of Protagoras, at any rate, can hardly be assigned to a later date than the development of Anaxagoras's doctrine, and we know of no Sophist who had any express connection with that doctrine. But
a subjective

them

the doctrine shows us, speaking generally, an alteration

in the attitude of thought to the outer world
;

whereas

previously, the grandeur of nature had so absorbed

man

that he was carried away, and became self-forgetful in his

admiration of

it,

man now
;

discovered in himself a power

which, distinct

from everything corporeal, orders and

spirit

rules the corporeal world

appears to
;

him some-

thing higher as compared with nature

he turns from the

ORIGIN OF SOPHISTIC DOCTRINE.

investigation

401

of

nature,

in

order

that

he

may

be

occupied with himself.^

That

this

would immediately take place

to be expected.

in the right

way was hardly

With the

brilliancy of the epoch of Pericles there

culture and went hand-in-

hand an increasing relaxation of the ancient discipline The undisguised self-seeking of the and morality.
greater States, their tyrannical conduct to the lesser,

even their successes, undermined the public morals

the
ceaseless internal feuds

opened a wide

field
all

for

hatred and
passions
first
;

revenge, for avarice, ambition,

and

the

men accustomed

themselves to the violation,

of public, then of private rights, and the curse

of

all

self-aggrandising policy was fulfilled in the most

cities,

powerful

such as Athens, Sparta and Syracuse

other
States

the recklessness with which the State trampled upon the

rights

of

destroyed

in

its

own
indi-

citizens respect for right

and law.^

And when

viduals had sought their glory for a while in devotion

to the ends of the

common

selfishness,

thev beo-an to
in

apply the same principle

direction,

of egoism

an opposite
to

and

to sacrifice the welfare of the State

Moreover, as democracy in most of the States increasingly threw aside all the restraints
their
interests.^

own

of law, the most extravagant notions were formed con1

similar

relation

to

that

>^q ^^^jre forcible reason could

between Anaxagoras and the Sophists is to be found later between Aristotle and the post-Aristotelian philosophy, with its practical onesidedness, and its abstract subjeeCf. Part m. a, 13, 2nd ed. tivity. 2 Cf. in reference to this Part
11. a,

be given for the Sophistic theory of egoism than that brouffht forward by the Platonic Callicles {Gorg. 483 D), and afterwards
repeated in
(vide

Eome by Cameades

23, 3rd ed.

II.

Part iii. a, 467, 2nd ed.), that in politics men only proceed on these principles,

YOL.

D D

402

THE

SOPHISTS.
;

ceriiing popular government and civil equality there grew up a licentiousness which respected no customs or proprieties,^ and the perpetual alteration of the laws

internal

seemed to justify the opinion that they arose without necessity, merely from the whims, or the
Finally, the

interests, of those temporarily in power.^

must itself have more and more removed the limits which were formerly set by morality The unqualified and religious faith to selfishness.
advancing culture
admiration of

home

institutions, the simple presupposi-

tion, so natural

to a

restricted stage of culture, that

everything must be as we have been accustomed to

home, necessarily vanished before a wider knowledge of the world and of history, and a keener For the man who had once observation of mankind.^
see
it

at

accustomed himself

to ask for reasons in everything,

traditional usage naturally lost its sanctity;

and he

who

felt

himself superior to the mass of the people in

intelligence would not be inclined to venerate, in the

resolutions of the

ignorant multitude, an inviolable

law.
its

Nor could the ancient belief in the gods hold

;

place before the growing enlightenment

the

reli-

gious services and the gods themselves belonged to the

things which some nations regard in one way, and some

in another
;

moreover, the old myths contained

much

that was incompatible with the purer moral conceptions,

and newly attained

'
;

insight.
^

Even
Cf.

art

contributed

Here asain Athens is an example the fact itself requires no

confirmation in place of all other evidence we may refer to the masterly description in the Republic,
;

on this point the quotations that will be cited later on in connection with the Sophistic theories on right and law. ^ Cf., for example, Herod, iii.
38.

viii.

557

sqq.,

562

sqq.

ORIGIN OF SOPHISTIC DOCTRIXE.

to the

403

undermining of

faith.

Plastic art, by its very

perfection,

of
it

made men recognise in the gods the work the human mind, which in art actually proved that
itself
still

was capable of creating from

free to control
it.^

the divine ideal,

and was

But

more dangerous
all,

for the traditional

customs and religion must have been

of the drama,

the development of poetry, and, above

the most effective and popular kind of poetry.

The

whole action of the drama, comic

as well as tragic, is

based upon the collision of duties and rights, of views

and

interests,

upon the contradiction between traditional

and

usage and natural laws, between faith and the speculations of reason, between the spirit of innovation

the

predilection

for

what

is

old,

between

v^ersatile

cleverness and simple rectitude

dialectic of

in

a word, upon the

moral relations and

duties.itself,

The more per-

fectly this dialectic unfolded

the lower poetry

descended from the sublime study of the moral whole

to the relations of private
life,

the more she sought her

glory (after the

manner

of Euripides) in

the subtle

observation and accurate dissection of dispositions and

motives, the more the gods were subjected to

human
that the

standards, and the weaknesses of their anthropomorphic

nature exposed,

the

more unavoidable was

it

drama should mine the old

serve to nourish moral doubt, to underfaith,

utterances, to bring into circulation

^ The most flourishing period of art, even of religious art, seems in general to occur when some form of faith is beginning to waver,

and along with pure and exalted some that were

prepared we need only think of the artists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
:

pj^p^

jj^ ^^

4^

3^^;^

edition,

and

its

transformation

is

being

D D 2

404
frivolous
it

THE
and dangerous

SOPHISTS.
to morals.^

Of what

use was

to

recommend the

virtue of the ancients,

and to
every-

complain, like Aristophanes, of the moderns,

if

one was alike quitting the standpoint of past times,

and making merry in a wanton humour with all that had then been holy ? Tlie whole epoch was penetrated with a spirit of revolution and of progress, and none of
the existing powers was in a position to exorcise
It
it.

was impossible that philosophy should not be

Essential points of contact with

infected by this spirit.

it

were already to be found in the systems of the

Physicists.

pedocles, Anaxagoras

and Heracleitus, Emand Democritus with one accord distinguish between nature and traditional custom, between truth and human tradition, this distinction
Parmenides
needed only to be applied to the sphere of practice in
order to maintain the Sophistical view of the positive

When

element in morals and law.

If several of these philo-

sophers had expressed themselves with bitter contempt

in regai'd to the senselessness and folly of

mankind, the

conclusion was not far to seek

that

the opinions and

laws of this foolish

multitude were not binding on

the wise.

In respect to religion, this declaration had

long since been made.

The bold and telling assaults had given a shock to the Grreek popular of Xenophanes belief, from which it never again recovered. Heracleitus agreed

with him in a passionate polemic against

poets

the

theological

and

their

myths.

Even the

mystical school of the Pythagoreans, even the prophet

'

The character of Greek poetry

century
is

more

at length in the introduction

in the fifth

discussed

to the second part of this work.

ORIGIN OF SOPHISTIC DOCTRINE.

405

Empedocles, appropriated this purer conception of G-od,

which, outside of philosophy

not

unfrequently in the

verses of a Pindar, an .Eschylus, a Sophocles, an Epi-

charmus
as

gleams

out amidst the luxuriant growth of

mythical imagery.

The

stricter physicists,

lastly such

Anaxagoras and Democritus

occupy towards the faith

;

of their country an attitude of complete independence

the visible gods, the sun and moon, are in their opinion
lifeless

masses

and whether the guidance of the uni-

verse be entrusted to a blind natural necessity or to a

thinking mind, whether the gods of the popular creed

are quite set aside, or are changed into the slhoiKa of

Democritus, makes no great difference as far as any

connection with the existing religion
is

concerned.

More important however for the purpose of our enquiry, than all that we have been considering, is
the

whole character of the

factors

earlier

philosophy.

All

the

sceptical

which promoted the development of a mode of thought, were also of necessity

to

favourable
generally,

moral

scepticism

if

truth,

speaking

disappears from

consciousness

on account

of the deceptions of the senses and the flux of phenomena, moral truth must likewise disappear from it. If man is the measure of all things, be is also the measure

we cannot expect that all men should conceive things in the same manner, neither can we expect that all men in their
of what
is
;

commanded and permitted and

if

actions should follow one and the

tical result could only

same law.

This scep-

be escaped through a scientific

apparently opposed.

method, which should be able to reconcile contradictions

by the union of that which

is

406
to

THE

SOPHISTS.

distinguish the essential from the unessential, to

point out abiding laws in changing phenomena and in

the capricious actions of

men

and, in this manner,

Socrates saved himself and philosophy from the errors of the Sophists.

But

it

was here, precisely, that

all

the earlier philosophers failed.

Starting from a limited

observation, tliey brought forward

now

one,

and now
all

another quality in things, to the exclusion of

qualities, as their first principle.

other

Even those among

them who sought

to

combine the opposite principles of

Unity and Multiplicity, Being and Becoming viz. Empedocles and the Atomists did not get beyond a one-sided physical and materialistic theory of the

world

and thougli Anaxagoras completed the material

as a force of nature.

causes by the addition of Mind, he only apprehended

Mind

The one-sidedness

of their

procedure

made

the ancient

philosophers not merely

incapable of opposing a dialectic which combated these

partial notions by means of one another, and cancelled them by each other, but in the progress of reflection If they must necessarily have been forced to adopt it.

the Plurality of Being were maintained, the Eleatics

proved that All

is

One

if its

Unity were asserted, this

was met by the consideration which had led the later viz., that with Physicists beyond the Eleatic doctrine Plurality all concrete qualities of things must likewise

be given up.

If something unchangeable were sought

as the object of thought, Heracleitus upheld the uni-

versal experience of the variability of

phenomena.

If

the fact of their variability were admitted, then the objections of the Eleatics against

Becoming and Being

EXTERNAL HISTORY.
had
to be overcome.

407

If natural enquiries were pursued,

the newly-awakened consciousness of the higher im-

portance of spirit turned aside the enquirer.

duties were attempted to be
fixity could

If moral

established, no point

of

be found in the vortex of opinions and

to lie only in the justi-

usages,

and natural law seemed

fication of this caprice, in the

dominion of subjective
all scienfirst

pleasure and advantage.

tific

This uncertainty of

and moral convictions was

brought to an end

by Socrates, who showed how the various experiences were to be weighed ag-ainst each other dialectically, and

combined in general conceptions, which teach us

to

know the unchangeable

sophers, to

essence of things in the change

of their accidental characteristics.

The
still

earlier philo-

whom
him

this

method was

strange, could

not withstand

their
all

one-sided theories mutually

destroyed each other.

The revolution which was then

the
spheres of Grreek
life

being accomplished in
Sophisticism,

took possession also of science, and philosophy became

2.

The Exiernal History of

person who
is

the Sojjhists.

The

first

mentioned

as

having come

forward under the

'

name and with

Protain

the pretensions of a

The
is

fullest account of

goras

given by Frei
Protagorece

his

QucBsti'Ties

1845); this is

(Bonn, merely confirmed and

Crif. Soph. p. 68-120, is unimportant the monograph of Herbst in Petersen's Philol.-Histor. Studien
;

supplemented as to details, by 0. Weber, Qa<Bstiones Protagorece

(3Iarb. 1850), and Vitringa, De Prot. Vita et Philos. {Qvon. 1853).

Of the

earlier writers, Gael, Hist,

(1832), pp. 88-164, contains much matter, but treats it rather superfioially; G^hst, De ProtogorcB Vita, Giessen, 1827, confines himself to a short discussion of the biography of Protagoras.

408

TRE
is

SOPHISTS.

Sophist
this

Protagoras,^ of Abdera.^

The

activity

of

man

extends over almost the whole of the second

fifth

half of the

century.
earlier,^

Born about 480

from

B.C.,

or

perhaps somewhat

his thirtieth year

up-

' All writers, from Plato downwards, describe him as a natire of Abdera {Prot. 309 C Bc^). x. 600 Eupolis, accordiog to Diog. C), ix. 50, &c., calls him instead a Teian, but this is only a diiFerence The Abderites expression. of were called Teians because their In city was a colony of Teos, Galen, H. Phil. c. 8, instead of Protagoras the Elean, Diagorasthe elian should be substituted. The father of Protagoras is sometimes called Artemon, sometimes Mseandrius, also Mseandrus or Menander vide Frei, 5 sq. Vitr. 19 sq. 2 In Plato, Prot. 316 B, sqq., he says himself that the Sophistic art is of ancient date, but that those who practised it formerly disguised themselves under other names eyw odv TOvTuv TTjv ivavTiav airacrav oSop
;

lodorus, ap. Diog. ix. 56, assigns his most flourishing period to 01.

iXr^XvOa, Kol oiioAoyw re ao(pi(TTr]s eJvai Koi Traideveiu avdpuirovs, &C.

In reference to this we read further on, 349 A (Tv y ava<pavShv aeavrhi/ viroKTjpv^dix^yos (Is iravras rovs"E\:

84 (444-440 B.C.). That he was considerably older than Socrates we learn from Plato, Prot. 317 C, where it is said that there was none of those present of whom he might not have been the father (though this remark may not be intended literally) from Prot. 318 B. ThecBt. 171 C, and from the circumstance that the Platonic Socrates often speaks of him ( Thecet. 164 E sq., 168 C, D, 171 D. Me^io, 91 E cf. Apol. 19 E) as dead, and in the Meno, I. c. he is said to have nearly attained the age of seventy. In regard to the time of his death, tri js the words in the Meno rrjv rifxipav ravTr}v\ evSoKiucou ovSeu irenavrai imply that he belonged to the distant pa.st and if the statement of Philochorus, ap. Dicg. ix. 55, is correct, that Euripides, who died in 406 or 407 B.C., alluded to him in Ixion, he cannot be supposed
;

\7]vas (Tocpirrrriu iirovoixdaas (TeavToy

aTT(pT]vas

Traidevaews
TrpcoTOS

Kal

operas
fxiaQhv

SiddcTKaKov

tovtov

a^iuxras 6,pvvadaL.

(The

latter stateix.

That by the verse of Timon, ap. Sext. Math. ix. 57, has already been shown by Hermann {Zeitschr. f. Alterto

have lived beyond 408

B.C.

this theory is not contradicted

ment

is

repeated in Diog.

52

Philostr. V. Soph. i. 10, 2; Plato, Hipp. Maj. 282 C, &c.) When in the Meno, 91 E, certain predecessors

of the Sophists are mentioned, this does not refer to Sophists proper, but to the persons previously spoken of in Prot. 316 sq. ^ The dates in the life of Protagoras are uncertain, as with most of the ancient philosophers. Apol-

thumsiu. 1834, p. 364), Frei, p. 62, &c. The assertion (Diog. ix. 54) that his accuser Pythodorus was one of the Four Hundred, makes it probable that his trial took place in the time of the Four Hundred though it must be granted to the writers named above that this does not absolutely follow and another testimony {inf. 409, 2) designates Euathlus as his accuser. The other
;

EXTERNAL HISTORY: PROTAGORAS.

wards
^

409

he passed from one Greek

city to another, offerall

ing his instructions in exchange for payment, to

who sought
culture
;

to gain practical ability

and higher mental

success, that

and

so brilliant

was his

the

youths of the educated classes everywhere flocked to

authorities in favour of his persecution by the Four Hundred (cf. Frei. 76; Weber, 19 sq.) are uncertain. The statement that he was ninety years old at his death
Schol. ad ( ivioi, ap. I)iog. ix. 56 ; Plat. R^j). X. 600 C), which contradicts the testimony of Plato, 24, he asked, indeed, a fixed sum, but left it to his pupil to decide at the end of the instructions what he would give, if the price seemed to him excessive. All the more improbable is the well-known story of his law-suit with Euathlus, ap. Gell. v. 10 Apul. Floril. iv. 18. p. 86 Hild. Diog. ix. 56; Marcellin, Rhet. Gr. Ed. W^alz, iv. 179 sq. Especially as Sext. Math. ii. 96 Prokgg. in Hermogen. Rhet. Gr. Ed. Walz, iv, 13 sq. Sopater, in Hermog. Max. ibid. V. 6, 65, iv. 154 sq. Plan. Prolegg. ibid, v. 215 Doxopater, ProUgg. ibid. vi. 13 sq., say the same of Corax and Tisias. The case here supposed of an unanswerable question seems to have been a favourite theme for sophistic rhea,
;

followed also by ApoUodorus (ap. Diog. ix. 56), deserves no attention. According to the foregoing evidence, the conjecture (Geist, 8 sq. Frei, 64 Yitringa, 27 sq.) that his birth
;

was
411

in 48" B.c,
B.C.
;

and his death

in

does not

too old his birth assigned still more accurately to 481-2 (Diels, Rh. Mus. xxxi. 44); on the other hand, Schanz, Z. c. 23, doubtless goes too far in assigning his birth to 490-487, and his death to 420-417 B.C. Cf. the detailed discussion of Frei, p. 13 sqq., and

make him at all may probably be

torical

exercises

if

Pythagoras's
ix.

ZiKt] virhp /jLiadov

(Diog.

55)

was
this

Weber, p. 12. According

*

genuine,
to Plato,

we might assume that

Meno, 91 Apollod. ap. Diog. ix. 56, he

practised his profession as a Sophist for forty years. - Tide 411. 1 Plato, p. 408. 3 Theat. 161 D, 179 A. The fee that he asked (for a whole course) said by Diog. ix. 50, 52 is Quintil. iii. 1, 10, &c. (Frei. 165)
; ;

theme had been discussed in it, and that the anecdote arose from thence; if it was not genuine, the
opposite assumption, that the anecdote gave occasion to its fabrication, has more in its favour. According to Diog. ix. 54 cf Cramer, Anecd. Paris, i. 172 (Frei, 76), Euathlus was named by Aristotle as the person who accused Protagoras of atheism but this is perhaps only the ignorant repetition of an expression relating to the lawsuit about his payment. According to Diog. ix. 50, Protagoras also collected money from those present for single lectures.
; ;

T. 3, 7,

have been 100 minse, and Gell. speaks of a pecunia ingens amiua. The sum is no doubt
to

greatly

thoitgh it appears from Prot. 310 D. that he demanded considerable remuneration. According to Plato, Prot. 328 B; Arist. Eth. X. ix. 1, ll64

exaggerated,

410

THE
Besides
^

SOPHISTS,
witli
city,^

him and overwhelmed him

gifts. ^

admiration and with

Sicily

his

native

and Mag^na
but also
the exact

Grrsecia

are mentioned as the scene of his labours, but

Athens,"^

especially

where not only

Callias,
;

Pericles and Euripides sought his society

'

The most vivid account of

represents

him

as

speaking of a

the

enthusiastic veneration accorded to Protagoras, is given by E sq., Plato, Prot. 310 sqq., &c. Cf. Rc'iy. X. 600 C {inf. 418, 1) Thecet. 161 C; as to his gains we read in the Mi?io,%\ E, that his art

former

visit

which took place a

3U

yielded

to liimself

more than that of Pheidias and ten other sculptors

;

Athenaeus, iii. 113 c, speaks proverbially of tlie gains of Gorgias and Protagoras. Dio Chrys. Or.
liv.

280 R, cannot be quoted as

to

evidence

the contrary,

as

is

considerable time before the second, to which the dialogue is assigned. Plato makes this second visit begin before the commencement of the Peloponnesian War, for that is, irrespective of trifling anachronisms, the supposed date of the dialogue, which was held on the second day after the arrival of the Sophist (vide Steinhart, Tlatomls Werke, i. 425 sqq., and niy treatise ^on the Platnn. Jnachronismen, Abk.

shown by
-

Frei, p. 167 sq. According to Julian, V.

H.

iv.

Plato. Rep.

Upooray. Schol. ad. 600 C, his fellow Favocitizens called him Koyos. rinus, ap. Diog. ix. 50, says, through a mistake for Diogenes (vide sup.

20;

cf.

Suid.

X.

Perl Akad. 1873; Phil. Hist. Kl. p. 83 sq.). That Protagoras "was at that time in Athens, we find also from the fragment, ap.
d.

p. 213. w.)
3

ao(pia.

His

residence

in

Sicily

is

mentioned in Plato's Greater Hipjnas, 282 D, wdiich, however, itself There is is not very trustworthy.
a reference to Lower Italy in the statement that he gave laws to the Athenian colony in Thurii (Heracleid. ap. Diog, ix. 50, and Frei, 65 sqq., Weber, 14 sq., Vitringa, 43 sq.), since he no doubt himself in that case accompanied the colonists.

Cons, ad Apoll. 33, p. 118, and Per id. c. 36. Whether he remained there until his exile, or continued his wanderings in the interim, we are not told, but the latter supposition is far the most Plut.

probable.
5 In regard to Callias, the famous patron of the sophists, who, according to Plato, Ajjol. 20 A, had expended more money upon them than everyone else put together, this is well known from Plato (Protag. 314 D, 315 D, Crat. 391 B), Xenophon {Symp. i, 5), &c.

From

Sicily he may have gone to Cyrene. and there formed a friendship with the mathematician Theodorus. whom Plato mentions, Thecet. 161 B, 162 A. ^ Protagoras "was repeatedly in Athens, for Plato {Trot 310 E)

In regard to Euripides, we gather it from the quotations, p. 408, 3, and also from the statement (Diog. ix. 54), that Protagoras read aloud his treatise on the gods in Euripides' house. In regard to Pericles, vide the quotations from Plutarch.

EXTERNAL HISTORY: PROTAGORAS.

different places

411

date and duration, however, of his residence in these

we cannot

precisely ascertain.

On
;

ac-

count of his treatise concerning the Gods, he was persecuted as an Atheist, and obliged to leave Athens
his

in

voyage to Sicily he was drowned

his treatise

was

burnt for political reasons.^

is

Of

his doctrine

nothing

known to us; he

is

said to

have been a pupil of

^

Democritus,- but this, in spite of Hermann's opinion

to the contrary,^ T consider to be as fabulous
in the previous note
;

as the

for even if

the anecdote mentioned in the second quotation be merely a piece of gossip, such gossip would have been impossible unless the intercourse of Pericles with Protagoras had been a recognised fact. Concerning other disciples of Protagoras, vide Frei, 171 sqq.
1

quarrelled with him, reproached him with despising all other philosophers, and with having called Plato a sycophant of Dionysius, and Aristotle a debauchee (olo-wtos) ipopp.o(popov re llpwrayopav Kol ypacpia
ArjfxOKpiTov Kal iu Kuixais
SiSdcrKtiv.
ypd.jj.fi.aTa

The same

is

asserted

by

The
;

above

is

attested

by

Suidas, UpwTayopas KorvXr], (popjxo<p6pos, by the Scholiast in Plato's

Plato,

171 D; Cic. N. D. 63 Diog. ix. 51 f, 54 sq. i. 23, Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 19, 10 Philostr. V Soph. i. 10 Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 37 Sext. Math. ix. oQ, &:e. but the evidence is not agreed as to the particular circumstances, and especially as to whether Protagoras left Athens as an exile or as a fugitive. Vide Frei, 75 sq.; Krische, Vitringa, 52 sqq. Forsch. 139 sq. Diagoras is substituted for Proti=igoras in Valer. Max. I., i. ext. but this is of no importance. 7 - The oldest evidence for this is an Epicurean letter, Diog. ix. 53 TrpcoTOS TTjv Ka\ovu4v7]v TvKrjv, 4(p' 7)5 r a (popTia ^ao'Ta'^ovciv, eufiev,
Thecst.
; . ;

Bep. X. 600 C, and somewhat more at length from the same Epicurean letter, by Athen. viii. 354 c. Lastly, Gellius v. 3 elaborates the story still further, but without adding any different features. Protagoras
is

also called the pupil of

'

'

Democritas by Philostr. V. Soph. i. 10, 1 Clem. Strom, i. 301 D, and Galen, H. Phil. c. 2 and the statement in Diogenes is based upon the same assumption.
; ;

De

Philos. lordc.JEtatt. 17, cf.

u)S

<pr](Tiv

'AptCToreATjs iu
(popaocpopos
(pTj^l,

rw

-Kepi

fur Alttrthumsw. 1834; 369 F. Gesch.d. Plat. 190. Vitringa follows him, p. 30 sqq. Brandis also gives credit to the statement of Epicurus, while Mullach, Democr. Fragm. 28 sq., Frei, 9 sq.,
Zeitschr.
;

Tzaihiias'

'ETTLKOUpOS TTOV

yap i)v, Cos Koi Kul TOVTOU TOV

and others, contest

*

it.

rpoTTov ^pOt) irphs A-qixoKpiTOv, |yA.o

5e5e/ca;s ocpdeis M. x. 8, Timocrates, a pupil of Epicurus, tvho afterwards
;

In reasons are these. the first place there is no credible testimony for the statement. In regard to our authorities, Diogenes

My

412

THE
Magi
^

SOPHISTS.

statement of Philostratus, according to which he was

instructed by the

the same, who, according

to

others, were the teachers of Democritus himself.^

his

Of

writings, which

were tolerably numerous,^ only a

few fragments have been preserved.

G-orgias of

Leontium was a contemporary of Protagether uncertain, contradicts the most trustworthy theories as to the chronological relation of the two men (cf. p. 209, 321 sqq.), and since we shall presently find that there is not a trace of Democritean influence in the doctrines of the Sophists, we may venture to regard-the whole as most probably an unhistorical invention.
. 1 V. Soph i 1 0, 1 His father, Maeander, by his magnificent reception of Xerxes, is said to have obtained the instruction of the
. .

and Athenseus name

as their source only the Epicurean letter Suidas and the Scholiast of Plato depend only on Diogenes; the representa;

is evidently a mere amplification of that which Athenaeus relates as from Epicurus, All these testimonies, therefore, are wholly derived from the statement of Epicurus. What value, however, can we attach to this when we see what slanders the writer permits himself, in the same letter, against Plato, Aristotle, and others ? (As to the conjecture of its spuriousness, Weber, p. 6, which is not justified by Diog. X. 3, 8, I say nothing nor can I attribute any weight in the discussion of the question to the words of Protagoras in the Scholium in Cramer's Anecd. Paris, i. The statement of Epi171.) curus is perfectly accounted for l)y the contemptuousness of this phi-

tion of Gellius

Magi

for

his

son.

Dino

in

his

Persian History mentions Protagoras and his father, but it does

not follow from this, as Weber supposes, p. 6, that he related the above story of the Magi, though the thing is possible. The story the stateis irreconcilable with ment of Epicurus; for, according to the latter, he was only a daylabourer, while in the former he appears as the son of a rich man, who gained the favour of Xerxes by his princely gifts and hospitality.
-

losopher (whose self-satisfied vanity depreciated all his predecessors), even if it had no further foundation than the above-mentioned notice of Aristotle. The statements of Philostratus, Clemens, and the pseudo-Galen may ultimately have had the same origin in any case they cannot claim more credit than other statements of the same authors concerning the SiaSox"^. Eut the discipleship of Protagoras to Democritus, besides being alto;

Cf. p.

210

n.

of the ancients concerning these will be found in Erei, 176 sqq. Vitringa,
^
;

The scanty statements

113
vii.

sq.,

150

sq.

cf.

KaTa)3a?LA.o;/Tef des Frot.,

;

Bernays, Eh. Mus.

those which (1850) 464 sqq. claim our attention will be mentioned later on.

EXTERNAL HISTORY: GORGIAS,

goras, perhaps

413

somewhat anterior to him.^

He

also

came to Athens, where he

the year 427

made

his first appearance in

B.C., at

the head of an embassy to solicit

fixed at 108 years (Plin.

Vide Foss, Be Gorgia Leon1828), who treats of far mere particularly and ex-

H. N.

vii.

tino (Halle,

him

haustively than Geel (p. 13-67); Frei, Beitrdgez. Gesch. der Griech.; Sophistik, Rkein. Mies. vii. (1850) 527 sqq., viii. 268*qq. The native city of Gorgias is unanimously been Leontini stated to have (Leontium). On the other hand, the statements as to his date differ considerably. According to Pliny, H. N. xxxiii. 4, 83, in 01. 70, he had already erected a statue to himself of massive gold in Delphi here, however there must be a mistake in the calculation of the Olympiads, whether arising from the Porauthor, or the transcribers. phyry ap. Suid. stcb voce, assigns him to 01. 80 Suidas himself declares him to be earlier. Eusebius in his Chronicle places his acme in
:

156; Lucian. Maeroh. c. 23; Cens. Di. Naf. 15, 3 Philostr. v. Soph. 494 ; Schol. ad Plato. I. c. ; cf. Valer. Max. viii. 13, ext. 2), sometimes at 109 (ApoUodor. ap. Diog. viii. 58; Qumtil. iii. 1, 9;
48,
;

Olympiod. I. c. Suid.), sometimes 107 (Cic. Cato, 5, 13), sometimes at 105 (Pausan. vi. 17, p. 495), sometimes less precisely at more than 100 (Demetr. Byz. ap. Athen. xii. 548 d), came to an end subsequently to the death of Socrates. This is clear from
at

Quintilian's evidence, ing to the pertinent

I.

c, accord-

Foss (p. 8 sq.), phon's statements concerning Proxenus, the pupil of Gorgias

remark of also from Xeno-

01. 86.

According to Philostr. T.

Soph. i. 9, 2 (oT which little stress can be laid), he came to Athens

ijSr]

yy)p6.(jKwv.

Gorg. p. plementb. xiv. 112), makes him twenty-eight years younger than Socrates but the statement on which this is founded, that he wrote in 01. 8i (444-440 b.c.) irepl (pvcrews implies the contrary. The safest clue, though it may not be altogether accurate, is to be found in the two facts that in 01. 88, 2
;

Olympiodorus in 7 {Jahii's Jahrbb. Sup-

{Anabas. ii. 6, 16 sq.), also from Plato {Apol. 19 E), and from the statement (Pausan. vi. 17, p. 495) that Jason of Pherae highly esteemed him (vide Frei, Bh. M. vii. 535) this agrees with another statement, that Antiphon, who was born about the time of the Persian War (the second, no doubt), is called rather younger than Gorgias (Pseudoplut. Vit. X. Orat. i. 9. p. 832, with which cf. Frei, I. c.
;
:

According to all these Gorgias can scarcely have lived earlier than Foss, p. 11, and Dryander, Be Antiphonte
sq.).

530

indications,

(427 B.C.), he appeared in Athens as the ambassador of his country (the date is given in Diog. xii. 53,

from

(Halle, 1838), 3 sqq. suppose, viz. 01. 71, 1 to 98, 1. But he

may perhaps have been

Kriiger,

later (as

Thucyd. iii. 86), and that his long life (cf. Plato, Phadr. 261 B Plut. Bef. Orac. c. 20, p. 420), the duration of which is sometimes
cf.
;

ad Clinton Fasti Hell. p. 388 thinks), and Frei may be more

correct in assigning his birth proximately to 01. 74, 2 (483 b.c), and his death to 01. 101, 2 (375 b.c).

414

THE SOPHISTS.
Already

help against the Syracusans.^

much esteemed

in his own country as an orator and teacher of rhetoric,^

he charmed the Athenians by his ornate and flowery language,^ and if it be true that Thucydides and other
important writers of this and the succeeding epoch
imitated his
style,'*

he must be allowed to have exercised

actual discipleship, and whether moreover the remark of Satyras, which primarily refers to

' Vide, concprning this embassy, the previous note and Plato. Hipp. Maj. 282 B; Paus. /. c. Dionys. Olympiod. Jucl. Lys. c. 3, p. 458 in Gorg. p. 3 (likewise Plut. Gc7i. Soc. c. 13, p. 583, in itself not indeed historical evidence), and Foss, p. 18 sq. 2 This appears probable from the expressions of Aristotle ap.
;

volves

the rhetoric of Gorgias, does not

Cic. Brict. 13, 46, and especially from his having been sent as ambassador to Athens. Hardly any-

thing besides is known of Grorgias' previous life, for the names of his father (ap. Paus. vi. 17, p. 494,

upon mere conjecture, perhaps upon the passage in the Meno. The same may be said of the statement in the prolegomena to Hermogenes, Rhet. Gr. ed. Walz, iv. 14, where Gorgias is represented as having been taught by Tisias, with whom, according to Pausan. vi. 17, he contended in Athens. To infer from Plut. De Adul. c. 23,
rest

even

p.

Karmantidas, ap. Suid., Charmantidas), of his brother (Herodicus, Plato, Gorg. 448 B, 456 B), and of his brother-in-law (Deicrates, Paus. I. c.) are immaterial to us and the statement that Empedocles had been his teacher (vide on this
;

64; Conj. Praec. 43, p. 144, that Gorgias led an immoral life is the less justifiable, as the anecdote in the second of these passages, concerning his married life, contradicts the express testimony of Isocrates ir. avTid6(T. Idol, that he
^
I.

was unmarried.
Diodor.
;

I.

c.

point Frei, 7?^. Mus. viii. 268 sqq.) is not established by Satyrus ap. Diog. viii. dS Quintil. I. c, Suidas, and the scholia on Plato's Gorgias,
;

Olymp. I. c. Hermog. Rhet. Gr.

c.
;

Plato, Hipp. Prolegg. in

ed.

Walz,

iv.

465 D and it cannot be deduced from the language of Aristotle,

;

quoted

p.

119,

note.

However

therefore, credible it may be, that Gorgias may have received impulses from Empedocles, as an

and may also have appropriated something from

orator

and

rhetor,

his physical theories (as we may infer from Plato, Mcno, 76 C Theophr. Fr. 3 De Igne, 73) it
;

Doxopater. ibid. vi. 16, &c. 15 vide AVelcker, Klein. Schr. ii. 413. * This is said of Thucydides in Dionys. Ep. ii. c. 2. p. 792 Jud. Antyllus de fhuc. c. 24, p. 869 ap. Marcell. V. lliuc. p. 8, xi. Dind. of Critias in Philostr. V. Soph. i. 9, 2 Ep. xiii. 919 cf. Isocrates, who was a hearer of Gorgias in Thessaly; Aristoteles ap. Quintil. Inst. iii. 1, 13; Dionys.
; ;

is

questionable whether this

in-

Jud. d. Isocr. c. 1, 535 De vi die. Demostk. c. 4, 963 Cic. Orator, 52, 176: Cato, 5, 13; cf. Plut. V.
;

EXTERNAL HISTORY: GORGIAS.

Sooner or later after his

415

considerable influence over Attic prose and even poetry.

first

visit,*

Grorgias seems to

have betaken himself permanently to Grreece Proper,

where he wandered through the

earning thereby

cities

as

Sophist,^

much

wealth.^
;

In

tlie

last

period of

Dec. Orai. Isocr. 2, 15, p. 836 sq, Philostr. V. Soph, i.l 7, 4, &c. (Frei, I. c. 541); of Agathon in Plato, Symp. 198 C, and the Scholiast on

the beginning of this dialogue, cf. Spengel, Swj'oy. Texv. 91 sq. of -S]schines in Diog. ii. 63 Philostr. Ep. xiii. 919; cf. Foss, 60 sq. That Pericles was not a hearer of Gorgias is self-evident, and is shown by Spengel, p. 64 sqq, ^ For the supposition {Prolegg. in Hermog. Bhet. Gr. iv. 15) that
; ;
'

he remained there after his first visit, is contradicted by Diodor. I. c. and by the nature of the errand on which he went.
- In Plato he says, Gorg. 449 B, that he teaches oh /jlovov ivdd^e aWa KOi SAAo0i this is confirmed by Socrates, Apol. 19 E, and hence Theag. 128 A. In the Meno, 71 C, Gorgias is absent, but a former sojourn of his in Athens is spoken
;

vi. 17; Philostr. V. Soph. 2; Ep. xiii. 919, he himself delivered at Olympia also according to Philostr. V. 5. i. 9 ; 2, 3, a discourse on the fallen in Athens, and the Pythian oration in Delphi. Much reliance, however, could not be placed on these statements as such, if the facts they assert were not in themselves probable. In regard to Siivern's mistaken conjecture that Peisthetserus in the Birds of Aristophanes is intended for Gorgias, vide Foss, 30 sqq. ^ Diod. xii. 53, and Suidas, represent him as asking a premium of 100 minse, which is also said by others of Protagoras and of Zeno the Eleatic (vide p. 409, 2 Vol. I. 609, n.); in Plato's Greater Hippio.s, 282 B, it is asserted that he gained much money in Athens similarly in Athen. ili. 113 e cf also Xenoph.
i.

Pans.
9,

of.

Cf. Hermippus ap. Athen. xi. 505 d, where some unimportant and very uncertain anecdotes on Gorgias and Plato are to be found

(likewise ap. Philostr. V. Soph. Prooem. 6, en Gorgias and Chaeriphon). There is mention of a journey to Argos, where attendance at his lectures was forbidden, in Olympiod. i)i Gorg. p. 40

5; Anah. ii. 6, 16. On the other hand, Isocrates says Trepi avTiZoa. 155, that he was indeed the richest of all the Sophists with whom he was acqu;iinted, but that at his death he left only 1,000 staters, which even if they were gold staters wouldonly amount to 15,000

Symp.

i.

marks {7501.). The magnificence of his external appearance would

seem to have corresponded with
his supposed wealth as, according

Proxenus, according to Xenoph. Anab. ii. 6, 16 (after 410 B.C.), seems to have had instruction from him in Boeotia. Among the writings of Gorgias, an Olympic discourse is named, which, according to Plut. ConJ. PrcBC. c. 43, p. 144;

to iElian, V. H. xii. 32, he used to appear in purple raiment; but the golden sttitue in Delphi is especially famous which, according to Pans. I. c. and x. 18, p. 842 Hermipp. ap. Athen. xi. 505 d ; Plin.
;
;

416
his
life,

THE
we
find

SOPHISTS.

him

in Larissa in Thessaly,^ where,

age,^

after

an extraordinarily long and hale old

he

appears to have died.

to

Among
'*

the treatises ascribed

him^

is

one of a philosophic nature; two declamaare probably spm-ious.-^

^
^

tions

which bear his name

is

Prodicus

mentioned

among

the disciples of

H. X. xxxiv. 4, 83, he himself erected, whereas according to Cic.

Be

Orat.

iii.

32, 129; Valer.

Max.

viii. 15,

ext. 2,
i.

Philostr.

9,

the Greeks. Cicero, describe it as massive Philostratus and the so-called Dio Chrys. Or. 37, p. 115 K, as golden,
;

and apparently also 2, it was erected hy Pliny and Valerius

Pausanias as gilded. Plato, Meno, at the beginning. Arist. PoUt. iii. 2, 1275 b, 26; Pans. vi. 17, 495 Isocr. it. avrMa.
'
;

155.

In regard to the length of his vide siqora in regard to his green and hale old age, and the temperate life of which it was the fruit, vide Quintil. xii, 11, 21; 13 (repeatedly in Cic. Cato, 5, Valer. viii. 13, ext. 2) Athen. xii.
2

life,

548 d (Geol,
Macroh.
21
;

p.

30, rightly conjec;

tures ysLCTepos for krepov)

c.

Lucian,
101,

23; Stob.
;

Floril.

cf.

Foss, 37 sq.

Phil.

ii.

Lucian, One of his last sayings is death. reported by ^lian, V. H. ii. 35. 3 Six discourses, probably also a system of Rhetoric, and the treatise tt. (pvaeccs rj toD /u^j ovtos. Vide the detailed enquiry of Spengel, 'S.way. Texv. 81 sqq. Foss, pp. 62-109. Foss and Schonborn (p. 8 of his dissertation quoted below) give the fragment of the discourse on the Fallen, which Planudes, in Herirwg. Rhet. Gr.

Mullach, Fr. 144 sqq. According to he starved himself to

ed. Walz, v. 548, repeats from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. * The Defence of Palamedes and the P raise of Helen. ^ Opinions on this point are divided. Geel, 31 sq., 48 sqq., considers the Palamedes to be genuine and the Helen spurious. Schonborn, De authentia declamationum Gorg. (Bresl. 1826) defends both; Foss, 78 sqq., and Spengel, I. c. 71 sqq., reject both. Steinhart {Flatos Wtrke, ii. 509, 18) and Jahn, Palamedes (Hamb. 1836), agree with the last writers. To me the Palamedes appears, if only on account of its language, decidedly spurious, and the Heleii very doubtful but I cannot agree with Jahn's conjecture that these writings may have been composed by the later Gorgias, Cicero's contemporary. Spengel may more probably be right in assigning the Praise of Helen to the rhetorician Polycrates, a contemporary of Isocrates. ^ Welcker, Prodikos von Keos, Klein. Vorgdnger des Sokrates. Schr. ii. 393-541, previously in Ehein. Mus. 1833. ' Scholia ad Plat. Rep. x. 600 C (p. 421 Bekk.), of whom one calls him the pupil of Gorgias, another the pupil of ProtagoT'as and Gorgias, and a contemporary of Demo;

critus.

Vide,

on

Suid. YlpuTay. and Tlp6Z. the other hand, Frei,

Prot. 174.

EXTERNAL HISTORY: PRODICUS.

Protagoras and Gorgias
far true that,
so.^
;

417

but this

is

doubtless only so

judging from

his age, he

citizen of lulis,- a

might have been town in the little island of

its

Ceos, renowned for the purity of the manners of

inhabitants
ides

fellow-townsman of the poets Simonfirst

and Bacchylides, he seems to have

his

come
:

for-

ward in
it
affairs,"*

own country

as

an ethical teacher

whether

be true or not that he frequently journeyed, on public

to Athens,

under whose dominion Ceos stood,'

it

was there only that he could find an important

sphere of action.

That he
it

visited other cities

is

is

not
the
^
;

altogether certain,^ but

Sophists, he required

possible.
for his
is

Like

all

payment

instructions

the esteem, in which he was held,

'

attested not only

This
for

may be deduced from

known

Prodieus already appears in the Protagoras (perhaps indeed rather too soon) as a Sophist of repute and yet it is said, 317 C, that Protagoras might be his father also in Apol. 19 E, he is brought forward among the still living and active Sophists he can therefore neither be older, nor very much younger, than Socrates, and his birth may be approximately This assigned to 460-465 B.C. agrees in a general manner with what is said of him by Eupolis and Aristophanes, and in the Platonic Dialogues, and also with the statePlato,
; ; ;

to Plato from his own observation, and were fresh in the remembrance of his hearers. 2 This is asserted by Suidas, and indirectly by Plato, Prot. 339

Simonides his Prodieus is always without exception called Vieios or Ktos (vide, concerning the orthography, Welcker, 393). ^ Cf. on this point the passages cited by "Welcker, 441 sq. from Plato, Prot. 341 E; Laws, i. 638 A. Athen. xiii. 610; D. Plut. Mul.
calls

E,

when he

fellow-citizen.

Virt. Klai, p. 249.

*

Plato,

Hipp.
i.

Moj.
12'^

282

C;

Philostr. V. Soph.
^

ment

that Isocrates

was
;

his pupil

although (vide Welcker, 397 sq.) assert anything very definite on the strength of it. The description of his personality in the

we cannot

Welcker, 394. What Plato says, Apol. 19 E, does not appear decisive, and the
accounts of Philostr. V. S. i. 12; Prooem. 5 Liban. Pro Socr. 328 Mor. Lucian, Herod, c. 3, may easily
;
;

Protagoras, 315 C sq. would imply that the traits there mentioned, the careful attention to the invalid Sophist, and his deep voice, were

be founded on mere conjecture. ' Plato, Apol. 19 E; Hipp. Maj. 282 C Xen. Symp. 1, 5, 4,
;

YOL.

II.

E E

418

THE

SOPHISTS.

by the assertions of the ancients,' but by the celebrated names that are found among his pupils and acquaintEven Socrates is knovm to have made use ances.^
62
;

Diog.

ix.

50

Plato, Crat. 384

B;

according to Arist. Bhcf.

than an arbitrator

: '

Apostol.,

who

iii. 14, 141o b, 15, his lecture on the right use of words cost fifty drachmas another doubtless of a popular kind intended for a more general audience (like the lecture on Heracles perhaps), only a single The pseudo-Platonic drachma. Axiochus, p. 366 C, speaks of lectures at half-a-drachma, at two, and at four drachmas; but upon this v.-e cannot depend. Plato, Apol. 19 E; Prot. 315 D, and particularly Rep. x. 600 C, where it is said of Prodicus and Protagoras that they could persuade their friends w? ofne ohiav ovre irdKiv Tr]v avruv SioiKi7v oioi t'
;

takes Trp65LKos fur a proper name, without thinking of the Cean, has, as Welcker observes, misunderstood the word. Welcker, p. 405, tries to show that this proverb occurs at the beginning of the thirteenth Socratic letter, where we certainly
find " npoS'iKCi}

Tw

Kicj cocpcoTipou,''

but the expression here does not sound like a proverb it relates only to supposed utterances of Simon concerning the Heracles of
:

'

Prodicus.
(Tocphs
;

(Xen.

Even the Mem. ii. 1

predicate
;

Sgmp.

4,

62 Axioch. 366 C; Eryx. 397 D) proves nothino:, for it is identical with 'Sophist' (Plato, Prot. 312 C, 337 0, ct p)ass.), still less does
Plato's ironical Tracraooos koX 6^7os.

eaovTUi iav
TT]

/jlt]

acpe^s auTOOv iTriara-

rriacoffL ttjj Traideias,

koI

iirl

ravrrj

(Tocpia

ouTco

atpoSpa
eVl

(^tAoGj/rat,

Prot. 315 E Lys. 216 A).

2

(cf.

Euthyd. 211 C;
the

wcrre (xovov ovk

tous KecpaXais

e.g.,

Damon

musician

irfpicpepovaiv avTOvs ol IraTpot.

Also

it appears from Aristophanes (cf. Welcker, p. 403 sq.) that Prodicus was respected at Athens, and even

(Plato, Lack. 197 D), Theramenes, himself a Cean by birth (Athen. v.

220 b Schol. on Anstoph. Clouds, Suid. Qnpo-fJ..) Euripides 360

; : ;

by
all

this poet, the relentless foe of

Sophists. Though he may have occasionally reckoned him {Tagenistce, Fr. 6) among the ; ' chatterers yet in the Clouds, v. 360 sq., he praises his wisdom and prudence in contrast "s^ith Socrates, without irony in the Tagenistce {Fr. 6), he seems to have assigned him a worthy role, and in the Birds, V, 692, he introduces him at any rate as a well-known teacher of wisdom. The proverb (ap. Apostol. xiv. 76) TlpohiKov (ro(pa)Tpos (not IIpoStKov Tov Kiou, as Welcker supposes, 395) has doubtless nothing to do

other

'

with the Sophist, but means wiser

'

20, 4 Vita Eurip. ed. Aristoph. Frogs, 1188); Isocrates (Dionys. Jttd. Is. c. 1, p. 535 Plut. X. Orat. 4, 2, p. 836 repeated by Phot. Cod. 260, p. 486 b, 15, vide Welcker, 458 sqq.). That Critias also attended his instructions is in itself probable, but is not proved by Plato, Charm. 163 nor can it be established by Prot. 338 A, cf. Phadr. 267 B, that Hippias the Sophist was influenced by Prodicus of Thucj^dides, it is merely said, by Marcellinus V. Thuc. p. viii. Bind, and the Scholion ap. Welcker 460 (Spengel, p. 53), that in his mode of expression, he

(Gell. XV.
cf.

Elmsl.
;

EXTERNAL HISTORY: PRODICUS.

of,^

419

and recommended,

his in^t^uction,2

though neither

Socrates nor Plato assumed an attitude towards

really dififerent

him
of

from that in which they stood to Prota-

goras and Gorgias.^

Beyond

this

we know nothing

took for his model the accuracy of Prodicus the truth of which observation Spengel, '2,vv. Tex'- o3 sqq., proves by examples from Thucydides. According to Xenoph. Syrnp. 4, 62, cf. i. 5. Prodicus was introduced to Callias, in whose house we find him in the Prota;

teachers
cro(po7s

mental birth, he assigns to other av iroWovs ue?' Svj 4^4SocKa npOOLKCf}, TTOWOVS 5e 6.\\oii
:

T6

Kol

fleo'Trecriois

avopdat.

goras, by Antisthenes, who was also one of his followers. ' Socrates often calls himself, in Plato, the pupil of Prodicus.
[Kij/Suj/euet] (re re Mcno, 96 D Vopyias ovx tuavws TreTrotSeuKeVat
:

the other hand, it is Antisthenes and not Socrates, through whom Prodicus makes the acquaintance of Callias. ^ All the remarks of the Platonic Socrates concerning the instruction which he received from Prodicus, even those in the Meno,

On

have
tone,

ifxe UpoBiKos. Prot. 34:1 you, Protagoras, do not seem understand the distinctions

Koi

A
to

of
Sia

words
Th

obx Sxnrep iyw

eluai

e/jiircipos

UpuSiKov rovrovt: Prodicus always corrects him, he says, when he applies a word wrongly. Charm. 163 D: UpoSiKou
/ua07jTTjs
jjLvpia

an unmistakeably ironical and as to any historical content, nothing is to be derived from them, beyond the fact that Socrates was acquainted with Prodicus, and had heard lectures from him as from other Sophists. That he sent
certain individuals of his acquaint-

ance to
special

him does
preference,

not prove any

for,

according

riia
in

h.KT]Koa

Trepl

ovofidrwu

SiaipovvTO'!.

On

the other hand,

we read

Crat. 384 B, that he knows nothing about the correctness of names, as he has not heard

to the passage in the ThccBtetus, he sent others to other Sophists. have no right to make of these others, one other, viz., Evenus, as Welcker does, p. 401. In Xen.

We

the fifty-drachma course of Prodicus, but only the single drachma In Hipp. Moj. 282 C, course. Socrates calls Prodicus his kralpos. Dialogues like those of Axiochus (366 C sqq.) and Eryxias (3^7 C sqq.) cannot be taken into consideration in regard to this question. - In Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 21, he appropriates to himself the story of Heracles at the cross ways, which he repeats in all its details, from Prodicus; and in Plato, ThecEt. lol B, he says that those who are not in travail with any

Mem. iii. 1, Socrates even recommends the tactician Dionysodorus

a friend. He not only takes rebukes from Hippias in the Greater Hippias (301 C, 304 C), to which I cannot attach much weight, but from Polus, in the Gorgias, 461 C, without expressing himself in the ironical manner which he does {Prot. 341 A) to Prodicus. He describes Hippias likewise as a wise man {Prot. 337 C), and Protagoras (Prot. 338 C, 341 A), Grorgias and Polus {Gorg. 487 A); he calls the two last his
to

E 2

420

THE SOPHISTS.
life

the

of Prodicus.^

His character

is

described, but

only by later and untrustworthy testimonies,^ as licentious and avaricious.

Of

his writings, tradition has only

handed down imperfect accounts and some imitations.^

and in the Thecet. 161 D, expresses himself as grateful to Protagoras with the same graceful irony as elsewhere in speaking Although, therefore, of Prodicus. it may be true (Welcker, 407) that Plato never brings his Socrates
friends,
lie

nised no essential
also
^

difference betheirs. Cf. Socr. Magistr.

tween his labours and

Hermann, De

49 sqq.

into

collision

in

argument with

Prodicus, nor introduces any pupil of his who might bring discredit on his teacher, as Callicles or Gorgias, yet this proves little, for neither does he introduce any such pupils of Protagoras and Hippias and Callicles himself is not s^ccio.lly quoted as a pupil of G-orgias. Whether the non-appearance of Prodicus in the arguments shows a high estimation of him or the reverse would be matter of enquiry. But if we recall the satirical man-

According to Suidas and the 600 C, he was condemned at Athens as a corrupter of youth to drink hemlock. The falsity of this statement is undoubted, vide AVelcker, 503 Nor is there any ground sq., 524. for the theory that he chose this death voluntarily for himself. 2 The scholium on Clouds, v. 360, which perhaps is only repeated erroneously from v. 354, and Philostr. F. S. i. 12, where he is represented as employing people
scholiast on Plato, Rep. x.

to act as recruiting officers for his instructions (perhaps merely on

ner in which Plato,

;

I'rot.

315

C,

represents this Sophist as a sufferwhat insignificant ing Tantalus and absurd parts he assigns him, the ihid. 337 sqq., 339 E sqq. fact that nothing special is recorded cf him except his distinctions of words (vide wi/.), which are treated with persistent irony and a rhetorical rule of the simplest kind in Phadr. 267 B and that he is always placed in the same category with Protagoras and other Sophists {Apol 19 E; Eep. x. 600 C; Euthyd. 277 E, and throughout the Protagoras), we shall receive the impression that Plato regarded him indeed as one of the most harmless of the Sophists, but of

account of Xen. Sg}}ip. iv. 62). Vide, on this subject, Welcker, 513 On the other hand, Plato, sqq. Prof. 315 C, describes him, not merely as weak in health, but as
effeminate. ^ Of his works there are known to us the discourse upon Heracles, or, as the proper title was, '^Clpat (Schol. on Clouds, 360 Suidas, wpai ripoS.), the contents of which are
;

Mem. ii. 1, 21 sqq. (other details in Welcker, 406 sqq.), and the lecture Trepl ovofxaTwv upd6T7]Tos (Plato, Euthyd. 277 E Crat. 384 B, &c. Welcker, 452), which, even judging from Plato's caricatures of it, must have been preserved after the death of the author. statement in Themist. Or.
given by Xen.
; ;

far less importance than Protagoras and Gorgias; and that he recog-

XXX. 349
the

b,

would seem

to

imply

existence

of a panegyric on

EXTERNAL HISTORY:
Hippias of
Elis^

HIPPIAS.

421
of

seems to have been almost

After the

the same age as Prodicus.'^

order to gain by his orations

manner

of the

Sophists, he also wandered through the Grreek cities in

and lectures fame and and he frequently came to Athens, where he likewise assembled round him a circle of admirers.^

money

Agriculture; the imitation in the pseudo-Platonic Axiochivs, 366 B sqq. (Welcker, 497 sqq.), a discourse on the mitigation of the fear of death, and the story in the Eryxias, 397 C sqq., a discussion on the value and use of wealth. ^ Mahly, Hippias von Elis, Ehein. Mies. N. F. xv. 514-535; svi. 38-49.

intended, and not some other person of the same name nor what relation the age of Plathane bore to that of her two husbands. If she was several decades younger than the first, but the same age or not much younger than the second, by whom she had no child, the birth of the Sophist (even if he
;

In this respect he is menthe Protagoras in the same way as Prodicus (vide supra, So in the Hippias Maj. 417, 1). 282 E, he appears considerably younger than Protagoras, but still old enough to come into conflict Xenophon, with that Sophist.
^

tioned in

was really her first husband) must be placed about 460 b.c. On the native city of Hippias all authorities are agreed. His supposed instructor
is

Hegesidemus (Suid.

'Itttt.)

]\ler/i. iv. 4,

sq.,

depicts

him

as

an old acquaintance of Socrates, who, at the time of the dialogue, had revisited Athens after a long absence, and Plato's Apol. 19 E, presupposes that in 399 B.C. he was one of the foremost Sophists Against this conof the time. current testimony of Plato and Xenophon, the statement of the pseudo-Plutarch (F. X. Orat. iv.
Isocrates in his old Plathane, the widow of the rhetorician Hippias says the (Suid. 'Atapeus, first Sophist), cannot justify us in sup16, 41) that

wholly unknown, and perhaps is only mentioned through an error. G-eel concludes from At hen. xi. 506 sq. that Hippias was a pupil of Lamprus the musician and of the orator Antiphon but there is not the smallest foundation for the
;

story.
^

What

on the subject
other instruction
like

tradition has told us is this: Hippias, Sophists, offered his in different places
(Plat.
;

for remuneration

Apol. 19

age

had

maTried

and other passages) in the Greater Hpjpias, 282 D sq., he boasts of having made more money than any other two Sophists together. The same dialogue, I. c. and 281 A, names Sicily, but especially Sparta, as the scene of his activity whereas, on account
;

posing (Miiller, Fr. Hist. ii. 59 Mahly, I. c. xv. o20j that Hippias was only a little older than we do not even know Isocrates whether Hippias the Sophist is
;

of the numerous political embassies to which he was attached, he came less frequently to Athens on the other hand, Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 5,
;

422

THE

SOPHISTS,
even

Preeminent

for his vanity,

among the

Sophists,^

he aspired above all things to the reputation of uniconstantly bringing out of the versal knowledge,
treasury of his manifold wisdom, according to the taste

of his hearers, something

amusement.^

new for their instruction and The same superficial manysidedness

that Hippias was killed in a treasonable undertaking, deserves no more credence than the other iniquities which TertuUian ascribes to many of the ancient philosophers. e.g. in the matter of the purple robe which -3lian, V. H. xii. 32, ascribes to him. - In the Greater Hippias, 285 B sqq., Socrates, in ironical admiration of his learning, names, as subjects of his knowledge, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, the science of letters, syllables,rhythms,
'

remarks only in a single passage, that after long absence he came to Athens and thn-re met Socrates. The Lesser Hippias, 363 C, asserts that he usually at the Olympic

games delivered
temple
precincts,

lectures

the

and answered

any questions that were put to him. Both dialogues (286 B, 3G3 A) mention epideictic speeches in
(These statements are Athens. repeated by Philostr. V. Soph. i. Lastly, in the Protagoras, 11.) 315 B, 317 I), we see Hippias with other Sophists in the house of Callias (with whom he is also represented as connected in Xenoph. Symp. 4. 62), where, surrounded by his followers, he ^ave information to all questioners concerning natural science and astronomj', and afterwards took part in the proceedings by delivering a short We cannot, however, discourse. deduce with certainty from these statements anything more than is given in the text, since the representation in the Greater Hippias is rendered suspicious by the doubtful authenticity of that dialogue
(vide
Zcitschr.
f.

and harmonies
to these

he himself adds

the history of the heroes and founders of cities, and of archaeology in general, boasting at the same time of his extraordinary memory. The Lesser Hipjnas, in the introduction, mentions a lecture on Homer, and, at p. 368 B sqq., makes the Sophist boast, not merely of m;iny and multifarious lectures in prose, but also of epics,
tragedies, and dithyrambs, of his knowledge of rhythms and harmonies, and of the opQoT-qs ypa/xluLOLToiv, of his art of memory, and
skill, e.g.

Alterthumsiu.

of every possible technical art and the fabrication of clothes,

1851, 2o6 sqq.), and even the details of the other dialogues are scarcely free from satirical ex-

while Philostratus is uumistakeably employing, not in-

aggeration

dependent and historical sources, but merely these Platonic dialogues.

TertuUian's assertion, Apo'oget. 46,

and ornaments. These statements are subsequently reby peated by Philostratus I. c. Apul. Cic. De Orat. iii. 32, 127 also by partially Floril. No. 32 Themist. Or. xxix. 345 C sqq., and them is founded the treatise cf on pseudo-LuciaUj 'l-Kirias % ^aAayeTo!
shoes,
; ;

EXTERNAL HISTORY: THRASYMACHUS.

was no doubt characteristic
tivity.

423

also

of his literary ac-

Of other
it

celebrated Sophists

who

are

known

to us,

remains to mention Thrasymachus,^ of Chalcedon,^ a

referred to in the Greater Hippias.

(c. 3, sub init.), be a production of the time of Hippias. Meantime it is a question how much fact underlies this story; for if, on the one side, it is impossible to calculate to what point the vanity of a Hippias might be carried on the other side it is very likely, and the language in which it is clothed favours the supposition, that in Plato's account, a boastful style of expression, not so altogether childish, or, generally speaking, the self-complacent encyclopsedic knowledge of the Sophists, may have been parodied in an exagMore reliance, gfrated manner. in any case, is to be placed, on the statement of the Protagoras, 315 B (vide previous note), 318 E, that Hippias ir.structed his pupils in the arts (r^xvai), under which may have been included, besides the arts named (arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music), encyclopaedic lectures on mechanical

which, however

itself claims to

Hippias himself says in a Fragment ap. Clem. Strom, ii. 624 A, that he hopes in this treatise to compose a work collected from earlier poets and prose-writers, Hellenes and barbarians, and agreeable by reason of its novelty and variety. The statement ap. Athen. xiii. 609 a, is taken from another treatise,
the title of which. rui/a7a)77? perhaps,

had some more

definite addition.

In the Greater Hippias, 286 A, there is an allusion, doubtless founded on fact, to a discourse

wisdom

containing counsels of practical for a young man. The

Homer seems to have been distinct from this {Hipp. Min. cf. Osann, 509). According to Plutarch, Numa. c. 1, end, Hippias made the first catalogue of the victors at Olympus, and we have no reason to doubt this statement, as Osann does. From a treatise of
lecture on

and

and on the testiof the Memorabilia, iv, 4, 6, that because of his universal knowledge he aimed at saying always something new. Xen. Syrnjp. 4, 62. * The little that we know of his writings, or that has been preserved from them, is to be found in Osann. Der Sophist Greel, 190 sq. Hipp, ah ArchcEolofi, Rhein. Mus. Milller, Fragra. ii. (1843) 495 sq. Miihly, l. c. Hist. Gr. ii. 59 sq.
plastic art
;

mony

Through XV. 529 sq., xvi. 42 sq. these works we learn something about the archaeological treatise

Hippias. of which no exact title is given, a notice is quoted, ap. Prokl. in Eucl. 19 (65 Fr.), concerning the Mathematician Ameristus, the brother of Stesichorus. Pausan. v. 25, 1, refers to an elegy compospd by him. What is said by Philostr. v. S. i. 11. of his style is perhaps only an abstract from Plato. Gfeel 201 sq. C. F. Hermann, Be Trasyraacho Chalcedonio. Ind. Lect., G-otting. 1848-49; Spengel, lexv. '2.VV. 93 sq., where the various statements as to the writings of Thrasymachus are also to be found. ^ The Chalcedonian is his con-'

stant appellation, but he seems to

424

THE

SOPHISTS.

younger contemporary of Socrates,^ who occupies no inconsiderable position as a teacher of rhetoric,^ but in

other respects

is

unfavourably portrayed by Plato ,^ on

account of his boastfulness, his avarice, and the undisguised selfishness of his principles
;

Euthydemus and
late in life

Dionysodorus, the two eristic pugilists, described by

Plato with exuberant humour,

who

came

forward as professors of disputation, and at the same

time as ethical teachers, whereas they had previously

only given lectures on the arts of war and forensic
oratory
;

Polus of

Agrigentum, a
is

pupil

of

Gror-

have spent a considerable portion

From the of his life in Athens. epitaph in Athen. x. 454 sq., it is probable that he died in his native
city.
' This is to be conjectured from the relation of the two men in Plato's Eepublic, but on the other hand it seems probable from Theophrast. ap. Dionys. De vi die. Demosth. c. 3, p. 953 Cic. Orat. 12, 3 sq., that he considerably preceded Isocrates, who was born in 01. 86, 1 (435 b.c), and was older than Lysias (Dionys, Jud. de Lys. c. 6, p. 464, in opposition to Theophrastus, regards him as younger but the contrary results from the Platonic representation). As the date of the dialogue in the Republic is supposed to be about 408 B.C. (cf. p. 86 sqq. of my treatise, mentioned p. 410, 4), Tbrasymachus must have at that time
;
;

1400

confirmed by Arist. Rhet. ii. 23, and in a lesser degree b, 19

;

by the

Opa&vfxax^LoXrit^iKepfxaTus of

Ephippus, ap. Athen. xi. 509 c. Thrasymachus, however, in the course of the RepiMic becomes more amenable cf. i. 354 A ii. 358 B; V. 450 A. " Euthyd. 271 C sqq., 273 C

sq.

these

where we are further told that two Sophists were brothers (this we have no reason to think an invention), that they had emigrated from their home in Chios to Thurii (where they may have formed a connection with Protagoras), that they left the city as

fugitives or exiles, and travelled

about, remaining mostly in Athens, and that they were about as old, perhaps rather older, than Socrates.

arrived to manhood.

Vide infra. Rep. i. cf. especially 336 B, 338 C, 341 C, 343 A sqq., 344 D, 350 C sqq. That this description is not imaginary, we should naturally presuppose, and the opinion
2 3

Dionysodorus also appears ap. Xen. Mem. iii. 1, as a teacher of The statements of Plato strategy. and others concerning both the brothers are collected by Winckel-

mann
i.

p. xxiv. sqq.

in his edition of Euth^'^demus, Grote doubts {Plato,

536, 541) whether there were in Athens corresponding to Plato's description in the

two Sophists

EXTERXAL HISTORY.
gias,^

425

who, like his master

in his later years,^ confined

;

his instructions to rhetoric

Protarchus,-*
;

the orators Lycophron/

and

Alcidanaas,-^ also

belonging to the school

Nobilit.
;

The<etetus and this is so far true that this description is (as it never attempts to conceal) a satirical parody. In its main features, however, it is confirmed by Aristotle and others, cf. p. 456 467, 2). Grote further believes {ibid. 559) that in the epilogue of the Euthydemus (304 C sqq.)^ the Sophist of that name is treated as the representative of true dialectic and philosophy; but he has entirely misimderstood the design of this portion of the dialogue. Cf. Part ii. a, 416, 3. Even Euthy demits 305 D, proves nothing. He is described as an inhabitant of Agrigentum by the pseudoPlato, Theag. 128 f Philostr. V. Soph. i. 13, and Suidas, suh voce; that he was considerably younger than Socrates is plain from Plato, Philostratus calls Gorgias, 463 E, him moderately wealthy, a Scho liast on Axist.Rhet. ii. 23 (in Geel, 173) irous rod Topyiou, but the
;

and Ps. Plut. De

"What Arist. Rhet.

18,

3.

iii. Alex. 3 Tap. 209, 222, relate of his mode of expression, stamps him as a

pupil of Gorgias.

ments
this.

to

Also the statebe discussed, infra, pp.

;

455, 456, 477

487, 1, coincide with few unimportant sayings

are also to be found ap. Arist. Polit. cf. I. c. Metaph. viii. 6, 1045 b. 9 Alex, ad h. I. Concerning the man
;

himself, vide Vahlen, Rkein.

xvi. 143 sqq.
*

Mm.

'

former is no doubt inferred from the high price of Gorgias' instruclatter (according to observation) from a misunderstanding of Gorg. 461 C. There is reference to a historical treatise of Polus in Plato. Fhcedr. Gorg. 448 C, 462 B sq. 267 C Arist. Metapk. i, 1, 981 a, 3 (where, however, we must not, with Geel, 167, consider what follows as an extract from Polus) cf. Spengel, Schanz, I. c. p. 134 sq. I. c. p. 87 tions,

and the
just

Geel's

deunmistakeably Plato Protarchus (to whom in the Philibus the principal part after Socrates is assigned), Phileb. 58 A, as a pupil of Gorgias, and chiefly indeed in rhetoric, for his recommendation of oratory is here quoted as something which Protagoras had often heard from him. As Plato elsewhere never introduces imaginary persons with names, we must suppose that Gorgias really had a pupil of this name; and in that case, the conjecture (^vide Hirzel, Hermes, x. 254 sq.) has everything in its favour, that this Protarchus is the same from whom Aristotle, Fhys. ii. 6, 197 b, 10, quotes a text probably taken from a public oration. ^ Alcidamas of El sea in jEolm was the pupil of Gorgias, who after his death undertook the leadership
scribes

of his rhetorical school (Snid. Top710s, 'AAkjS. Tzetz. Chil. xi. 746

Athen.
rival

xiii.

592

c).

He was
and

Plato, Me)w. 95 C. Lycophron is called a Sophist

iii.

of

Isocrates,

bitterly

by

Arist. Polit.

9,

1280
;

b, 10,

Alexander, in Soph. el. Schol. 310 Bon. a, 12; in Metaph. p. 533, 18

opposed him not only (as A'ahlen shows D. Rhetor Alkid. Sitzungsberichtc der Wieiicr Akad. Hist.Phil. Kl. 1863, p. 491 sqq., cf.
:

420

THE
;

SOPHISTS.

of Grorgias

Xeniades, of Corinth, whose sayings remind

^
;

us most of Protagoras

Antimoerus, the scholar of

Evenus of Paros,^ the rhetorician and teacher of virtue, and Antiphon, a Sophist of the time
Protagoras
;

of Socrates,'* not to be confounded with the famous

especially p. 504 sqq.) in his Meo-ariviaKhs, but also in the discourses of his that have been preserved,

and are probably genuine, against

the writers of speeches or Sophists. A second declamation bearing his name, the denunciation of Palaraedes by Ulysses, is spurious. All the particulars known of his writings are given by Vahlen the fragments of them are to be found
;

in Oruf. Atiici,

ii.

15-4 sqq.

That

he survived the battle of Mantinea (362 B.C.) is proved by his Messenian oration composed subsequently to that battle (Vahlen, 505 sq.). The onlj- author who mentions him is (Sextus, Math. vii. 48, 53, 383, 399, viii. 5; Pyrrh. ii. 18 according to Math. vii. 53, Democritus had already spoken of him, no doubt in the same connection in \vhich he had opposed Protagoras
^
;

the most distinguislied scholar of Protagoras, and intended to make himself a professional Sophist. From the last remark Ave may infer that he really appeared subsequently as a teacher. The same may perhaps hold good of Archagoras (Diog. ix. 54). Concerning Euathlus, vide p. 409, 2. Plato, Ajyol. 20 A PhcBclo, 60 D; PhcBdr. 267 (cf. Spengel, 2ym7. T. 92 sq. Schanz, 138). According to these passages, he must have been younger than Socrates, was at once poet, rhetorician, and teacher of dper?; avOpunrivy] re Koi TToXiriK^, and demanded a fee of five minse. Further particulars concerning him in Bergk, Lyrici Gr. 476, and the writers there quoted. Ibid. 474 sq., for the frag'

A
;

ments of
*

his poems.

(vide stipra, 275, 2). As to his sceptical propositions, "we shall have to speak further on (956). Grote, Plato, iii. 509, refers the statements of Sextus to the -well' known Coricithian Xeniades, the master of the Cynic Diogenes and Rose, Arisf. Libr. Ord. 79, to

man

the personality of tiiis (concerning whom, according

On

a treatise which must have been forged -with his name but the fact of his having been already mentioned by Democritus is here
;

overlooked.
-

Of

this

man we know nothing

to Athen. xv. 673 e, Adrantus and Hephsestio wrote), cf. Sanppe. Orat. Att. ii. 145 sqq. Spengel, "^vvay. Texvwi/, 114 sq. Welcker, Kl. Schr. ii. 422 Wolff, Porphyr. Be Philos. He is ex orcic. haur. Bel. 59 sq. described as (ro(pi.(TT)]s in Xen. Memor. i. 6, and is there represented as seeking to allure to himself the pupils of Socrates, and consequently disputing with him on three occasions this passage is referred to not only in Ps.
; ; ; ;

further than what is said in I'rot. 315 A, that he came from Mende in Macedonia, was regarded as

Pint.

r. Dec. Orat. i. 2, p. 832 (where the Sophist of Ehamnus is

expressly

saicl to

be meant), but

EXTERNAL HISTORY:
orator.

CALLICLES.

427

Critias, also, the celebrated leader of the

Athe-

nian oligarchs, and Callicles,^ must be counted

among

the representatives of the Sophistic culture, although

they were far from being Sophists in the narrower sense,

i.e.,

paid and professional teachers,- and the Platonic

Callicles,

from the standpoint of the practical

15
;

politician,
to

probably also in Aristotle's state-

and are only attributed

cf.

him

ment about Antiphon's jealousy

Socrates (ap. Diog.
totle calls
ii.

46).

of Aris-

through the carelessness of the

transcriber,

Spengel, T. 2. 115.

him 'Avt.

6 r^paroCKOiros,

and
Id.
414:

this agrees vrith

ii.

Hermog. De

Gr. iii. 385 W, ii. who, quoting Didymus the grammarian, distinguishes him
7 (^Rhet.
Sp.),
6

by the appelLition
(TKOTTos

Ka\

reparo-

Kal

ouGipoKpirrjs

\ey6,ueuos

from Antiphou the rhetorician of

In the treatise tt. t. aX-qdeias he no doubt brought forward the mathematical and physical theories to be mentioned later on no fragments of any system of physics of his (as Wolff supposes) have been handed down to us. The interpretations of dreams, mentioned by
;

Ehamnus.

When Suidas mentions one Antiphon as TeparoaKO-rros /cat eVoTrotbs koI ao<pi(rTT]5, and a second as oueipoKpLTTjs, he has no doubt

Cicero, Divcn.

i.

20, 39,
9,

ii.

70, 144";
14,

Seneca,
109,
*

Control.

p.

148 Bip.
ii.

Artemidor.

Oneirocrit.

p.

Hercli.,

seem

to

have been

erroneously referred to different persons two statements derived from separate sources, but relating Tzetzes (in to the same person. a scholium quoted by Wolff, I. c from Ruhnken) represents Antiphon o TcpaToaKoiros as a contemporary of Alexander; but this cannot weigh against the above more authentic and unanimous testimonies, and does not justify us in distingaiishing, as Wolff does, 6 TeparoaKdnos from the Sophist of the Memorahida. His Xo'^oi mp\ rfjs aXif]Quas are discussed in Hera small mog. I. c. p. 386, 387 fragment of the a 'AXiideias is given some other by Suidas, aSeriros writings, which are ascribed to him in the traditional text of Hermogenes, belong to Ajitiphon of Rhamnus, as is clear from the subsequent context in Hermogenes, and also from Philostr. F. Soph. i.

taken from a separate book.

The

principal interlocutor in

the third part of the Gorgias, from 481 B onwards, of whom we know so little that his very existence has been doubted. In favour of it, however, we have Plato's usual style, as seen in other instances, and the definite statement, 487 C, which seems to be qiute of an individual character, whether it be historical or not. Cf. concerning Gorgias, Steinhart, PI. Werke, ii. 352 sq. - Some writers would therefore distinguish Critias the Sophist from the statesman of that name (Alex. ap. Philop. De An. C, 8 Simpl. De An. 8 a). Tide, on the other hand. Spengel, I. c. 120 sq. Dionys. Jiui. de Ihv.c. c. 51, and Phrynichus ap. Phot. Cod. 158, p. 101 b, reckon Critias among the model writers of the Attic style.
;

428

THE
On

SOPHISTS.
^

speaks contemptuously of the uselessness

rists.

of the theo^

the other hand, in the political rules

of the

famous Milesian

architect, Hippodamus,-^ the peculiarity

is

of the Sophistic view of law and of the state

not

discernible, although the multifarious literary activity

of the man'*
ists."*

is

suggestive of the character of the Soph-

The communistic theory of Phaleas the Chalcedonian ^ may perhaps with more probability be brought
into connection with the Sophistic doctrine
;

it is

at

any rate quite in the

spirit of Sophistic innovation,

and

may
little

easily be

deduced from the proposition that

exist-

ing rights are contrary to nature; but we know too

about him, to be able to determine his personal

relation to the Sophists.

In regard to Diagoras,

it

has

already been shown" that we have no right to assume

his atheism to
*

have been based on his philosophy

sqq.,

and

Gorg.

ef.

515

A
as

484 C and 519

from
ii.

C,

487 C; where Calis

ixovias,

some fragments are given

is

Ly

licles,

politician,

clearly

distinguished

Callicles
8.

as

Sophist. - Arist. Polit.

3

Concerning the date and personal circumstances of this man, who is mentioned by Arist. I. c. und Polit. vii. 11, 1330 h, 21, as the first person who attempted to lay out cities artistically, Hermann,

92-94, 98, the same person (as Hermann helieves, p. 33 sqq.), and whether Hippodamus the Sophist really had any connection with the Pythagoreans {ibid. 42 sq.), cannot he ascertained,
Stol)a?us, Floril. 43,

71-103, 26,

Arist. Pofit.
<piXoriy.iav

ii.

y^vofx^vos
Se koX

koL irepl rhv

diet

aKKov ^iov irepLTTOTepos

.

Xoyios

mpl

ri]v o\t)v cjiixni' (in physics, cf.

i.

Be Hippodamo Milesio{:Sl-dr}).lSAl), comes to the following conclusions he may have been twenty-five years
:

Mefaph.

6,

/xevos, irpcoros

987 rwu

jxr]

h, 1) elmt ^ovXoTroXiT^vop-ivoiv

iuex^'i-pvc^

"J"'

^rept TroKireias etTretj/

old in 01. 82 or 83, when he made the plan for the Piraeus, that he planned the city of Thurii in 01. 84; and in 01. 93, 1, when he huilt Rhodus, was considerably past sixty. Whether Hippodamus, the so- called Pythagorean, of whose
treatises, v. iroKiTeias

ttjs apio-T-rjs.
^

Among whom Hermann,

p.

18 sqq., includes him.

Arist. Polit. ii. 7, where he mentioned as the first who demanded an equality of goods, Vide p. 320, 2.

is

''

and

tt.

euSat-

EXTERNAL HISTORY.
with the Sophists, so far as their art

429

the same holds good of the rhetoricians contemporary

is

not connected

with the Sophistic doctrine by any definite theory of

ethics or cognition.

From
their

the beginning of the fourth century, the imless

portance of the Sophists grows

and

less,

though

name

is

still

in use for teachers of eloquence,

and generally for all those who imparted scientific inPlato in his earlier dialogues is struction for payment.
constantly at war with the Sophists
are only mentioned
it.^
;

in the later, they

for

when

occasion specially calls

Aristotle alludes to certain Sophistic propositions

in the

physicists, as

same way that he speaks of the theories of the that something belonging to the past which he treats as permanent is the Eristic disputation which was indeed first introduced by the Sophists, but was not confined to them. We hear of no notewoilhy representatives of Sophistic opinion after the time of Polus and Thrasymachus.
;

3.

The Teaching of

the Sophists considered in its General

Character.

Plato himself complains that

it

is

difficult rightly to

define the nature of the Sophist.^

This difficulty

lies

for us chiefly in the fact that the teaching of the Sophists

does not consist in fixed theorems equally acknowledged

by

all its

adherents, but in a scientific

mode

of thought

1 introduction to e.g. in the the Republic, where the connectwn with fundamental ethical enquiries causes the polemic against

sophistic doctrines to be resumed.

^ Soph. 218 C, 231 B, 236 C, sq.

sq.,

226 A,

430

THE SOPHISTS.
in
spite

and procedure which,

family likeness between
p9,tible

of the unmistakeable
is

its

different branches,

com-

with a multiplicity of starting-points and results.

Sophist,

Contemporaries designate by the name of

generally speaking, a wise
larly,

man

but more particu-

one who makes wisdom

his calling

and profession^

who,

not satisfied with informal and unmethodical

influence on fellow-citizens and acquaintances, regards

the instruction of others as his profession, and in his

wanderings from city to city

everyone desirous of culture.^
Plato, Prof. 312 C: ri Tiy^i rhv (To0icrTf}v "70; /JLfv, ^ 5' hs, iicnrep Tovpo/JLU A.7ei, tovtov eT^ai rhv Tuv <TO(p(iov iwKTT'iTnova, where the validity of the evidence as to the use of language is not affected by the derivation of the last syllables from eVjCTTjjuwi', in the manner of Platonic etymologies. Diog. i. 12 ot 5e ao<pol Kal ao(pi(rra\ eKaXovvTo. In this sense Herodotus, i. 29, iv. 95, calls Solon and Pythagoras, and in ii. 49 the founders of the cult of Dionysus, Sophists. The name is also applied by Cratinus. ap. Diog. i. 12, to Homer and Hesiod, by Sophocles in the fragment ap. Sckol. Pind. Isthm. v, 36, &c. (Wagner, Frag. Gr. Fragm. i. 499, No. 992) by Eupolis (acto a citharist cording to the Schol. Ten. Zu. II. Eustath. in k. I. p. 1023, 0, 410; according to 13) to a rhapsodist Hesych. aocpiar., the designation was in use for all musical artists. Androtion ap. Aristid. Qxatnorv. T. ii. 407 Dind., AristarchuG ap. Plut. Frat. Am. i. p. 478 and Isokr. IT. avriZ6<r. 235 apply it to the seven sages the first of these
'

offers it for

payment, to
extent, this

As

to

its

eivai

authors applies it to Socrates also (while on the other hand ^schin. Adv. Tim. 173 describes Socrates as a Sophist in the later sense) Diog. Apoll. ap. Simpl. PJ/gs. 32 b; Xenoph. Mem. i. 1, ll"; Ps.Hippokr. TT. apx- larp. c. 20 Isokr. I. c. 268, apply it to the ancient physicists JEschines tlie Socratic
;
;

to Anaxagoras (vide supra, p. 325) Plato, Meno, 85 B, to the teachers of mathematics ; conversely, the Sophists are called <ro(po\, vide sitpra 418, 3, end 419, 4; cf. Plato, Apoll. 20 D. The * explanation of the word as teach; ;

and Diodorus

of wisdom Hermann, Plat.

ers
it

disputed by i, 308 sq., as appears to me, rightly; while

'

is

Phil,

Steinhart,

Plat.

Leben,

288,

92,

defends
2

it.

Plato, Prot. 315 A (which exeV: Te'xi^ jxavQam, plains 312 B)

:

ws

(TO(pi(TTT)s

iaofievos

316

D:
^V^'-'i-

iycb 5e rriv ao(pL(rTiK7}v

fxkv ilvai iraXaidv, etc.

r^x^W

Thrasymaehus
T]

in Athen. x.

Epitaph on 454 sq.

8e Texvri [sc. avToD] aocpii).

3

rr]p aocpiav

plov

Xenoph. Mem. i. 6. 13: koI waavTws tovs fxkv apyvTw fiuvAofxei/cc trooXovvTas (ro<pL-

HOTV REGARDED BY THE AXCIEXTS.

instruction

431

might embrace everything included by the

its

Greeks in the comprehensive idea of wisdom,^ and

task might therefore be variously apprehended
:

while

and Prodicus, Euihydemus and Evenus, boasted of imparting to their pupils intellectual and moral culture, civil and domestic virtue,'^
Sophists, like Protagoras

some

Gorgias laughs at such a promise, and confines his instructions to rhetoric;^ wliile Hippias prides himself on
his proficiency in arts of all kinds, on his archaeological

and physical knowledge,'* Protagoras,

tics, feels

as teacher of polistudy.-^

himself far above this learning of the

in the art of politics
:

Yet even

many

different branches

were included
aTCLs

for

example, the brothers Euthydemus

5e %v av
IxeQopia (piKo(r6<pov re apdphs Kal ttoXiTLKoL), are intended to describe

airoKaXovcTLV'

cxttis

yvc^ U(pva oura SiddaKCvv o ri av

exp

ayaOoy (p'lKov voiclrai. rovrov vo/xiKa\u> KayaOw TroXirr} CofJ-eu a Tu> TrpocTTJ/cet ravTa iroiuv; cf. p. 409, 2; 417, 7; Protagoras ap. Plato, Prot. 316 C: ^4pou yap 6.v5pa Kal
iSvra els 'ir6\eis /xeydXas Kal eV ravrais ireidovra rwv viu>v rovs $e\Ti(TTOvs, air oXeinovT as ras twv

the position ascribed to himself by that Sophist. 3 Plato, Meno, 95 C cf. Phileb. 58 A. Polus, Lycophron, Thrasy;

machus,
< 5

etc., p.

423 sqq.

&\\wv (Twovaias
vai

eavT(f avvei-

ws ^e^TLOvs icrofxevovs dia tV iavTov (Tvvovaiav, etc. (cf. 318 A); iroiSeueij/ avQpuirovs Apol. 19 E tovtoov yap liairep Topyias, etc.
:

Supra, p. 422, 2. In Prot. 318 D, the Sophist says that it shall not be with his scholars as with those of other Sophists (Hippias), whoTos rex^as
avTOvs Trefpev-^oras &,KOPTas iraKiv av &yovriS 4fj.^dWov(nv els r4xvas,Xoyia/jLovs

re Kal aarpovo^xiav Kal yewKal

/lOvcriKTiv

Kd(nr]v tS>v TrdKeoiV rovs veovs, oTs s^eari tuv cavrwv TToXiTwv -rrpoiKa ^vve7vai S> tiv
e/foo'TOS
. . .

liiv

ts

fierpiau

diddaKOj/res

^ovXccPTai,
iKcivooi'

ruvrous

ireidovcrt.

ras
(Tcpiai

by him they shall only be taught what suits their purpose to Se fxddrjixd i(TTiv ev$ovAia irepi re twv
:

^vvovaias airoXnrdvTas

oIkslcov,

ottcos

au &piaTa
Kal
irepl

tt]v

avrov
ttjs

^vve7vai XPVH>0-Ta- Sihovras Kal X'^P"'

olKiav

BioiKoT,

ruv

Similarly Meno, 91 B. Arist. Etk. N. vi. 72 Inf. note 5 sup. 408. 2 424, 4; 426, 3. I do not think that the -n-ords of Prodicus, ap. Plat. Euthi/d. 305 C {ots ecpr^ Upod.
TrpofreiSeVai.
, ;

Suvarwraros h.v ei'17 Kal Ttpdrreiu koI Xeyeiv, in a word, therefore, the TToXiTiKT] Texvr), the introduction to civic virtue.
to. ttjs iroKeoos

TrJAeoJS, ottoss

432

THE

SOPHISTS.
ethics, lectures
^

and Dionysodorus combined with

on
is

strategy and military tactics,^ and even Protagoras

said to have entered into details of wrestling
arts,

and other
his

applying them in such a manner as to contradict

professional

men.

When

therefore

Isoerates, in

speech against the Sophists, includes under that

quence, while an opponent
self,

name
him-

the Eristic teachers of ethics and the teachers of elo^

applies

it

to Isoerates

on account of his studied and written speeches,

is

this

entirely consonant with the

language of the

time.

Every paid teacher of the

is

arts included

under
relates

higher culture

called a Sophist.

The name

primarily to the object and external conditions of instruction.

In

itself it

implies no

judgment concerning
;

the worth

or scientific character of this instruction

it

rather admits the possibility that the Sophistic teacher

may

impart genuine science and morality as well as the

Plato and Aristotle were the
first

reverse.

to restrict

the idea of the Sophistic doctrine within narrower limits

in discriminating
it

as dialectic Eristic

from rhetoric,

and

as a false

appearance of knowledge, arising out of a

perversion of the moral sense, from philosophy.

Sophist, according to Plato,
is

The

a hunter who, giving

himself out as a teacher of virtue, seeks to catch rich

young men.
>

He
D
;

is

a merchant, a host, a pedlar,

who

53;

P. 424, 4. Diog. ix. Plato, Soph. 232 According to of. Frei, 191.
;

wrote a Prei conjectures that this may be a portion of a more comprehensive work on the arts; but perhaps some later
Diogenes,
treatise,

Protagoras
7rd\7js

irepl

writer may hare composed a separate treatise out of the discussions mentioned by Plato, and these discussions may have been really in the Eristic disputations or the contradictions.
^

Alcidamas, vide p. 425,

5.

now REGARDED BY THE

traffics in art,

AXCIEyTS.

433

a tradesman

tation

a person

who makes money by dispuwho may no doubt be mistaken for a

philosopher, but to whom it would be doing too much honour to ascribe the higher vocation of purifying men by means of the elenchic art, and of freeing them from
conceit.^

The

Sophistic teaching

is

an art of decepreal

tion

it

consists in this

that men without

know-

ledge of the good and right, and conscious of such a

deficiency, can give themselves the appearance of that

knowledge, and in conversation with others can involve

them
but

in contradictions.-^

It is therefore

no art at

all,

a flattering

shadow of an
is

art

a
is

caricature of the
it

true art of politics, which

art of dress is to
false rhetoric

related to

only as the

gymnastic, and

distinguished from
is

only as the setting up of principles

dis-

tinguished from the application of them.^

Similarly,

Aristotle describes the Sophistic doctrine as a science

confined to the unessential

or,

as appearance-knowledge,'

more

exactly, as the art of gaining

appearance-knowledge.^

money by mere These descriptions are evio'la-^s.

ri.

' Soph. 221 C, 226 A; cf. Eej). 493 A: ^Kaffros twv fnadapuovv'

Jhid.

c.

11,

171

b,

27;

cf.

33. 183 b, 36: ol irepl robs ipicTTi-

roiv tStwTWV, ov%

KaXovcri, etc.
3

Stj

oxnoi aocpicrras

Ibid.
;

sqq.
*
I,

Soph. 226 B-231 C. 232 A-236 E, 264 C cf. Meno, 96 A. Bej). Gorg. 463 A-465 C;
;

kovs \6yovs fiKrOapvovvres. Still stronger language is used by the pseudo-Xenophon, De Venat. e. 13 oi (ro(pi(TTa\ S' iirX tw i^airaTav
:

Kiyovcri koL ypdcpovcriu eVi tw eavTwu Kep^ei. koI ovSeua ovdhu w<pe\ovaiv

cf. Part ll. a, 509 sq., 3rd ed. Metaph. vi. 2, 1026 b, 14 xi. 1064 b, 26. 3. 8, p. 1061 b, 7; ^ Metaph. iv. 2, 1004 b, 17; ecrrt yap So2?h. M. c. 1, 165 a, 21
C.
;

ou5e yap crocphs avruv iyewero ovdels ou5' %ariv ol uhu yap <ro(t)L<TTal
.
.

irXovaiovs

koL v4ov9 d-qpui/rai, ol ^^ q:i\6<ro<poi ttcicxi koivoI Kal cpiXor

rvxas
avSpciv
^ouai.

(happy
oure

circumstances)
oijre

Sh

7]

(T0(pi<TTiK7)

(paivofxivq ao(pia oi/aa

(TO(pi(TTr]s

Tiixxaiv

arijxa-

5' ov,

Ka\ 6

airh

(paivQpLivT]s

xp-quaricTT^s aocpias o\A' ovk

VOL.

II.

F F

434

THE

SOPHISTS.

dently in part too narrow, in part too broad, to afford

us trustworthy information
character of the

concerning the peculiar

are considering

phenomenon we

too

narrow, because from the outset the idea of the wrong

and untrue

is

included as an essential

characteristic
;

in the conception of the Sophistic doctrine

too broad,
its defi-

because they do not represent that doctrine in

nite historical aspect, as
it

actually appeared at a certain

period, but as a universal category.

in a
still

This

is

the case,

higher degree, with the language of the more

ancient accounts.
tion in

The conception

of a public instruc-

wisdom

tells us

nothing as to the content and

and whether it was imparted payment or not, is in itself quite unimportant. If, however, we consider the circumstances under which the Sophists made their appearance, and the earlier customs and culture of their nation, these traits will serve in some degree to explain their peculiar character and
spirit of this instruction,

for

significance.

The previous method of education and instruction among the Greeks provided indeed distinct teachers for
particular arts and accomplishments, such as writing,

arithmetic, music, gymnastic, but left everyone to receive his general training

and education simply through

It

intercourse with his family and acquaintance.

some-

times happened, no doubt, that individual youths allied

themselves with some

man

of special reputation, in
to public affairs
; ^

order to be introduced by
Thus Plutarch in his life of Themistoeles represents that statesman, in the beginning of his public career, as seeking intercourse with
'

him

or

Mnesiphilus, who, as Plutarch observes, belonged neither to the orators, nor to the <pv<nKo\ <pi\6ao<poi, but aimed at disticguishing

AS PROFESSIOXAL TEACHERS.

435

that teachers of music or other arts attained, under

certain conditions, to a

sonal and political influence.^

ever, is

more extended sphere of perIn neither case, howthere question of any formal instruction, any
as,

directions, based on certain rules, for practical activity,

but only of such influence

personal intercourse.^

without any express

educational purpose, must naturally result from free

Not one of the ancient

Physicists

can be supposed to have

opened a school of his own,

or given instruction in the

way that was afterwards

customary

the communication of their philosophical

himself by "what was then called (ro<pia, the 5eji/OT7js 7roAtTi7j Kal dpa(TT-f]pios avvecTLs, on the grouTid of an old family tradition of Solon ol /lera raCra, adds Plutarch,

this case, as in Plato, S?/mp.

203 D, seems to designate both the Sophist

and the crafty man) concealed his

avocation as teacher of Pericles in politics, under the mask of a musician. Similarly, Protagoras, ap. Plat. S(/mp. 203' D, maintains that the art of the Sophists is very ancient, but from fear of the dislike attaching to them, they had all before him concealed it; some having called themselves poets, as Homer, Orpheus, Simonides, &c. others gymnasts others again musicians, as Agathocles and Pythoclides. Here it is in fact
;

diKaviKals /.ll|a^T6S Te'xj/ats koI fi^ra-

yayovTss
acTKTqcriv

airh
iirl

tSiv

Trpd^ecov

ttjj/

rovs Xoyovs

crocpLcrral

Trpo(Tr)yopvdr](7au.
' e.ff. Damon, cf Plut. Per. 4 Plato, Lack. 180 D; Ak-ih. i. 118 C, and Pythoclides. cf. Pint. /. c.

E; Alcib. i. 118 C. Plutarch has drawn this distinction quite correctly (Them. 2) when he says that those persons were called Sophists who transferred political training from practical activity to speeches Sophists in the sense alluded to p. 430, 3, can only be said to exist where the
Plato, Prot. 316
2
;

conceded what Prot, 317 B, expressly declares, and what was of course self-evident in most of tha

arts and skill, which hitherto had been attained by practice in the treatment of actual cases, are henceforth founded on theoretical instruction (Koyoi) and the \iniversal rules of art which are thus imPlutarch also says, less parted.

accurately {Per. 4), that Damon being an &Kpos (To<picrT7]s (which in

that of those who were called Sophists in the special sense the 6ij.o\Qye7u ao<(>t(TTr]s elvai Kal iraiSeveiu avdpwTrois was absent in the predecessors of Protagoras; they are ao<po\, like the seven wise men, but not ao<pi(rTa\, according to the meaning of the word in the time of
viz..

abore-mentioned cases,

the distinguishing

mark

Socrates.

F F 2

43G

THE

SOPHISTS.

doctrines seems to have been entirely confined to the

narrower circle of
a Protagoras and

tlieir

acquaintance, and to have been

If

conditioned by the relation of personal friendship.

his

successors

departed from this

custom,

it

argues a two-fold

change in the popular

estimation of science and scientific teaching.

On

the

one hand, such teaching was now declared to be indispensable for everyone who desired to distinguish himself in

active life

the previous capability for speech

and action attained merely by practice was condemned as unsatisfactory theoretical study, and the knowledge of universal rules, were announced as necessary.^ But on the other hand science, so far as the Sophists troubled
:

themselves about

it

at all,
It

was essentially restricted to

is

this practical problem.

its

not in knowledge as such,

use as a means of action, that its but simply in worth and importance are sought.^ The Sophistic doctrine, therefore, stands

on the
;
'

'

boundary line between

is

Philosophy and Politics

practice

to be supported

by theory, and enlightened in regard to its ends and means but theory is to be merely a help to practice. This science is, in its general aim and purpose, a philosophy of enlightenment and nothing more. From this point of view alone can we rightly
;

criticise

the

disputed question concerning the

pay-

This fundamental distinction between the instruction of the Sophists, and the purely practical

differed from Damon and others in the superior amount of know-

ledge

and
to

ability

which

they

instruction ofthe previous teachers, is overlooked by Grote, viii. 485 sq., when he maintains that the appearance of the Sophists was nothing new, and that they only

brought

the exercise of their

profession, ^ Qf ^Iso p. 430, 3. ^ Yide sicpr a, -p. iZl, 2.

THEIR FEES FOR IXSTRUCTIOX.

ment accepted by the
Sophist?.

437

parting of philosophic opinions

As long as the imand knowledge was

on the same line with all other educational intercourse between friends, there could, of course, be no question
of

payment

for philosophic

instruction
it.

the study of

philosophy was, like instruction in

even with those

who wholly devoted themselves

of free choice.

to philosophy, an affair

This

is

the light in which both were

regarded by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and consequently the idea of

remuneration for instruction in

philosophy was energetically opposed by these

a
gross
indig-nity.

men

as

Wisdom,
sold.^

in

the

opinion of the

Socrates of Xenophon, like love, should be bestowed as

a free

gift,

and not

He who teaches

any other

art,

may make his pupil just and virtuous but he who promises to make others better must be able to trust to
says Plato,profess to
;

take wages in return, for he does not

their gratitude,

and should therefore require no money.

Aristotle expresses himself in a similar strain.^

lation between teacher

The

re-

and pupil is with him no business connexion, but a moral and friendly relation ^ founded on esteem by money
gods.
;

the merit of the teacher

it

is

not compensated

can only be rewarded by gratitude of the

feel

same kind that we

towards parents and towards the

From

this point of view

we can well understand

the harsh judgments that were passed on the earnings of

the Sophists by Plato and Aristotle, as
p.

432
^

sq.

we have seen, That the same judgments, however, should

13
;

Mem,

i.

6.

vide supra,
cf.

p. 430, 3.
2

Gofg. 420

sqq.

Soph.

223 D sqq. The same in Isoct. Adv. Soph. 5 sq. ^ Etk. S. ix. 1, 1164 a, 32 sqq.

433

THE

SOPHISTS.

now be
tion
is

repeated, that in an age in which all instrucusually given by salaried and paid teachers, and
as

by such

on

this very account

would have been con-

sidered Sophists in Grreece, the teachers of the fifth cen-

tury before Christ should, merely because they

payment
spirited,

for

their instructions, be treated as

demanded meanflagrant

self-seeking,

avaricious

men

is

injustice, as

Grrote justly maintains.'

Where the nefelt,

cessity for scientific instruction is

more extensively

and

in

consequence a
is

separate class

of professional

teachers

formed, there the necessity also arises that

to

these teachers should be able

support themselves

by the labour to which they devote their time and Even in Greece this natural demand could strengtli.
not be ignored.

Socrates, in his

magnanimous conPlato and an Aris-

tempt
totle,

for the necessaries of life, a

with their ideal theory of the relation between

master and teacher an ideal fostered by their own

easy personal circumstances, and by the Hellenic prejudice against all industrial activity
all remuneration for their

may have disdained

;

teaching

and the mass of

the people

may have been

as

the more ready to blame

the Sophists for their gains, which were represented,

no doubt,
vated

much

greater than they actually were

ill-will

for in this case

the universal

of the unculti-

man

towards mental work the labour and trouble

are

of which

unknown

to him, was

combined with
classes, of the

the jealousy of natives towards foreigners, of democrats towards the teachers of the

upper

friends

of the

old

against
'

innovators.
sq.

In point of

L.

c.

493

THEIR FEES FOR IXSTRUCTIOX.

fact,

439

however, as has been well observed,^ there was no

reason

why
have

the

Sophists, especially in foreign cities,

should have given their instructions gratuitously, or

should

themselves

defrayed

the

cost

of

their

mainteuance and of their journeys.

Even Greek

cus-

tom
sions

in

no way forbade payment

musicians and

for intellectual posses-

painters,
;

poets,

physicians and
all

rhetors,

gymnasiarchs and teachers of

cities

kinds were

paid

and the Olympic victors received from their

rewards of

native

money

as well as prizes, or

even themselves collected contributions in their conquerors' wreaths.

philosophic

teaching be

Xor can the theory of payment for condemned without further

argument, even from the ideal standpoint of Plato and

Aristotle
;

it

does not necessarily follow that the scientific

activity of

the teacher or his moral relation to his

;

pupil should thereby be corrupted

cases, the love of the wife for her

for, in
is

analogous

husband

not atfected
to

by the judicial obligation of the husband

cian
is

maintain

her, the gratitude of the restored patient to the physi-

not deteriorated by his

fee,

nor that of children

to their parents

by the circumstance that the parents are bound by law to support and educate them. That the Sophists should have asked payment from their pupils

and hearers could only be turned to their disadvantage if they had made exorbitant demands, and had shown themselves generally in the pursuit of their calling to be cove-

tous and. dishonourable.

of

But

it is

only in regard to some

them

that this can be proved.

Even

in antiquity, no
rife

doubt very exaggerated notions were

1

concerning

Welcker, Kl. Schr.

ii.

420 sqq.

440
tlie

THE

SOPHISTS.

payments they claimed, and the riches which they

;
^

amassed

but Isocrates assures us that not one of

considerable fortune, and that their

them had made any

it
is

gains did not exceed a moderate amount.^

quite possible that many, especially

And though among the

younger Sophists,
selfishness

may have

deserved the reproach of

it

and covetousness,^

is

a question whether

we ought
all

to apply to a Protagoras

and a Grorgias the

descriptions of sophistic teaching which

men, to

whom

payment

for philosophic instruction

appeared at the

outset as something vulgar and shameful, had copied from the Sophists of their own time. Protagoras, at any rate, showed great consideration for his pupils'* when he left the amount of his fee to be decided by themselves in doubtful cases
;

and that there was a difference

Sophistic
is

in

this

respect

between the founders of

teaching and their successors,

^

indicated by Aristotle.^
(Adv. Soph.
3),

Vide the statements on this

;

tics

because the

subject, p. 409, 2 ; 410, 1 ; 415, 3 ; 421, 3. 418, 1 2 n. avTiSoc. 155: oAws ixeu odu
ovdels eype^rjcreTat

whole of virtue was to be had from

them
minse

for the absiu'd price of 3 or 4

;

while in Hel.
;

6,

he blames

twv
eV

KaXoviJ.4vwv

them
^

for only caring for the

Cf. p. 424, 3

money.
viii.

aofpKTTuv TToXXa
jLiei/os,

xpi]iJ.a.Ta

avXXi^d-

433

sq.

dW'

ol

ixkv

oKiyoLs, ol

top fiiov 5ta7ayoujes. Vide the statement as to Gorgias (quoted p. 415, 3), who
5'

iv irdvu jxiTpiois

* As Grote (Hist, of Gr. 494) rightly observes.

^ *

Cf. p. 409, 2.

amassed more wealth than any of the Sophists, and had neither
public nor family expenses. must not suppose that the Sophists earned as much as the actors. In later times, the fee for a course of instruction seems to have been 3-5 Evenus in Plato, Apol. minee. 20 B, asks 5 Isocrates Avho, like other rhetoricians, took 10 minffi (Welcker, 428), ridicules the Eris;

We

In the passage quoted by Welcker, Eth. X. ix. 1, 1164 a, 22 sq., where this custom of Protagoras as to payment is mentioned, and Aristotle then goes on to say that it was different with the Sophists, i.e. with those of his own time: these no doubt were obliged to demand payment in advance, for no one after getting to know their science would have given them anything for it. Xenoph. Be Venat.

THEIR FEES FOR INSTRUCTIOS.

If

441

we consider impartially the circumstances under

which these
tlie

men

arose,

and the accounts which have

justified in charging-

been preserved of them, we are not

Sophists as a body, and especially those of the earlier

generation, with niggardliness and avarice.

But although we must

phists, or at

protest, on behalf of the So-

any rate of many of the most important of them, against a prejudice which for more than two thousand years has done more than all besides to injure their good name, two things must yet be borne in mind.
In the
first

place,

the

introduction

of

payment

for

scientific instruction in that period,

whatever we

may

think of

its

moral

justification, is at

any rate a proof of

the change already adverted to in the general estimation

of the worth

and importance of

scientific

knowledge

sign that now, instead of honest enquiry, satisfied with the

knowledge

of the actual, that as

knowledge only

is

sought,

and regarded
employed
as a

worthy and attainable, which

to other ends,

may be

means

and

consists less in

general mental culture than in certain practical capabilities.

The Sophists claimed

to

teach the special

tricks of eloquence, of worldly prudence, of the

manage-

ment

of

men; and
the

it

is

the prospect of the resulting

advantage,

possession of political and oratorical

as indispensable guides, hold

trade-secrets,

which they,

out before everything else to the youth of the period.^

13,
is

less conclusive:

Tve

know

no one Zmiv

ol
;

vvv
for

(To<pi(rra\

a-yaQov iirolrjaav

it is

douhtful

whether the author intends Ly the older Sophists with whom he compares the Sophists of his time, Protagoras, &c., or whether he is

referring to other philosophers and teachers of rirtne, in which case the vvv orocpiaToX would coincide with the <ro(pi<TTa\ KaKovfjLevoi pre-

vionsly mentioned, ^ Proof of this will be given in the description of the Sophistic

442

THE

SOPHISTS.
it

Secondly, experience shows that

was a most dangerous

ex-

thing, under the circumstances of that time, to place

the higher education and preparation for public

clusively in the hands of teachers
for their

life

who were dependent

maintenance on the payments of their pupils.

As human nature is constituted, scientific activity would inevitably by such an arrangement become dependent on the wishes and necessities of those who sought instruction, and were in a position to pay for it. These pupils would chiefly estimate its value by the advantage which they might hope from it, for their personal ends very few would look beyond, and recognise the use of
studies, the practical application of

which did not

lie

ready to hand.

nation would require to be penetrated

in an unusual degree, and far

more than was the

as a

case in

Grreece at that time, with the value of pure

and inde-

pendent enquiry,

if science

whole did not sink,

skill,

under these conditions, into mere technical

Cf. also p. 431, instruction. Plato, Sy^niy. 217 sqq.,
o, and where

and

Liades did not seek intercourse with Socrites in order to become

like
crOai

Alcilnades treats Socrates as a Sophist when he would give him all he possesses in order Trdur oLKOvfrai '6aanep ovros ^5ei, while Socrates, by his purely moral conception of their relation, makes him feel the difference of his instruction from that cf the Sophists, The t>ophists, it is true, are not ramed here, but the way in which Alcibiades at first treated his relation with Socrates shows what pupils of his class were accustomed to seek and to expect from their The same holds good instructors. of the remark of Xenophon, Mem. i. 2, 14 sq,, that Critias and Alci-

him

in

character, but

vofxi-

cravre, ei ofxthT^craiTriu eK^iucp, yeve-

au iKavooraro}

Xiyeiv re

Kal

fact that the Sophists announced themselves as teachers of virtue and improvers
TrparTdiv.

The

of
it

men

may

does not alter the case, for well be asked wherein

virtue (or

more properly,

ability,
:

fitness, dperr?) is to
aper?;, for instance,

be found

the

which Euthydemus and Dionysodorus promise

to

give to their scholars more quickly than all other teachers (Plato, EuthycJem. 273 D), is entirely different

from what we

call

virtue.

THEIR FEES FOR IXSTRVCTIOX.

become
restricted

443

more and more under a long con-

tinuance of them to supplying the mass of

men

with

the crafts and knowledge which they considered advantageous, as quickly and easily and pleasantly as possible.

In the circumstances under which the Sophistic instruction was given there lay a great danger for the
thoroughness
philosophic
of enquiry and the earnestness
of the

mind

and

this

danger was further inin

creased by the fact that most of the Sophists, without

any

settled abode,

and without any interest

moral
life

the

State, were thus without the restraint which citizenship

affords to

men

in respect to their

and the

moral side of their professional

alter

activity.'

That circum-

stances themselves led to this result cannot, however,

the matter.

It

is

undeniably true that, for

talented and cultivated citizens of small States, travels,

and public

lectures,

were in those times the only means

of obtaining recognition for their attainments and a

comprehensive sphere of action, and the discourses of a

Gorgias and a Hippias at Olympia are not in them-

more blameworthy than those of an Herodotus was only possible by means of instruction, to open the profession of payment for teacher to all who were capable of it, and to collect in the effects, one place the most multifarious powers
selves
is
it

also true that it

however, of such an institution are not on that account

cancelled.
'

If the Sophistic teaching involved

Tim. 19

from the

Cf. Plato,

E:

rh 5e
/J-ku

Tuv

(TO<piaTwv yevos av TroXK'2v

Xoycuv Kai Ka\u'v

aWav

juaA' ifxivei-

pQv riyrjuai, (po^ovp.aL 8e, /xrivus, Si re KKavT]Thv ov Kara Tro'/Veis ot'cTjcets

SiifKriKos, aa-roxov audpwv ri kcu iro\iTikuv (it is incapable of rightly understanding the old Athenians),

re

iSt'as

ovoaur]

ufxa (pi\oa6cpav

444

THE SOPHISTS.
and practically advantageous,

outset the limitation of the scientific interest to the

useful
this one-sidedness

was greatly increased by the dependence of the Sophistic teachers upon the wishes and taste of their hearers,

and the more

deficient in scientific

and very soon

should
for the

after

in ethical content the Sophistic instruction became, the

more
of

inevitable

it

was that

it

speedily be

degraded into a mere instrument

acquirement

money and fame. Though this disregard

of purely scientific enquiry in

and for itself presupposes a sceptical temper, yet the most important of the Sophists never expressly declared, and the rest only implied by their general procedure, that they had broken with the previous philosophy because they thought a scientific knowledge of things
impossible.

When man

despairs of knowledge, there

remains to him only the satisfaction of activity or en-

joyment;
self;
self,

for his intellect,

which has

lost its object,

it-

there arises the task of producing an object from

its

self-confidence
;

now becomes absorption

will.^

in

duty

knowledge becomes
life
is

So the Sophistic

upon doubt of the But this makes a fixed scientific truth of knowledge. and moral attitude impossible to it it must either follow the old opinions, or, if it criticises them more closely, it must come to the conclusion that a moral law
philosophy of
entirely based
;

of universal validity

is

as impossible as a universally
Cicero, &c., the Illumination of the last century, the connection between Kant's Critique of the
*
' '

1 Examples may easily be found in the history of philosophy it is sufficient for our present purpose to recall the practical tendency of Socrates, and the later eclectics,
:

Eeason, and

his

Morality,'

and

similar instances.

THEORY OF KXOWLEDGE
recognised truth.

PROTAGORAS.

445

It cannot therefore claim to instruct

activity,

men

as to the

end and aim of their

:

furnish moral precepts

to the

its

instruction

and to must be limited

means through which the ends of individuals, of

whatever kind those ends

may

be,

can be attained.
in the

But
art,

for the

Greeks

all

means are comprehended

art of sj^eech.

Rhetoric, as

the universal practical

forms the positive side to the Sophists' negative

It therefore quits
is

morality and theory of knowledge.

the sphere with
concerned.

which the history of philosophy

will

We

the

dififerent aspects

now examine more particularly of the phenomenon w^hich we are

considerinof.

4.

The

SoijTilstic

Theory of Knowledge and Eristic

Disputation.

Even among

the

most ancient philosophers we find

many
ledo-e,

complaints of the limitations of

human knowand from the time of Heracleitus and Parme-

nides downwards, the uncertainty of the sensible perception was acknowledged from the most opposite points
of view.

But

it

was not until the appearance of the

Sophists that these germs were developed into a uniTersal scepticism.

For the

scientific establishment of

this scepticism, they took as their starting-point, partly

the doctrine of Heracleitus, partly that of the Eleatics

that the same result should have been attained from

such opposite presuppositions

one-sided

may

be regarded, on the
one another;

one hand, as a true dialectical induction through which

those presuppositions
cancel

446

THE
it is

SOPHISTS.

but

at the

same time suggestive of the Sophistic

doctrine, which was concerned, not with any definite

view of the nature of things or of knowledge, but

only with the setting aside of objective philosophical
enquiries.

Protagoras based his scepticism on the physics of

Heracleitus.

He

is

not, indeed,

an actual adherent of

that philosophy in

its full

extent and original import

fire,

what Heracleitus had taught concerning the primitive and its changes and gradations generally speaking,

of the objective constitution of all things

could not be

appropriated by a Sceptic as he was.

But he

at least

adopted from the Heracleitean philosophy, in order to use

them
tion.

for his

own

purposes, the general propositions of

the change of all things, and the opposing streams of

mo:

According to Protagoras,
^ ;

all

things are in constant

motion
*

but this motion

152 D, 157 A sq. 156 A, expresses
:

is

not merely of one kind

Plato, Thc(et.

(vides?</. 18,2), i6. this in the following manner ojs tJ) jrau Kipr}aii ^v Kol aWu napa tovto
ou5e*/,

The preterite is used here p. 70). as in the Aristotelian expression,

^v duai. can, therefore, neither attribute this pure motion to Prot. (Frei, 79), nor accuse Plato of an invention (Weber, 23 sqq.), justified by Sextus, wiio declares of Protagoras in Stoical
t'l

We

that he

is

not thinking, how'

moved
is

something but only pure motion of a motion the subject of which

ever, of motion without

from 180 D, 181

TTOLVTa

constantly chansing, is clear C, D, where he uses these words, n&vra KLvelrai, ra

KiueloOai,
irav
a.ix(poTipu}S

language {Pi/rrk.

i.

217)

^tjo-Iv

odu 6 av^p tt]v vX-nv peuo-r???/ dvai, p^olxrris Se aurrjs (TVf^x^^ iTpo(rQi<xeLS a.v7\ twv airocpopriaecov yiyveaOai.

KLi/e7a6ai, (pepSfxevov
IJiivov,

re koL aWoiousqq.
. :

and also from 156 C

ircirra
/xev

ravra
(peperai

KLUilraL
<popa

yap Kol

eV

avTwv
tlie

7}

Kivrjais Tricpvxei',

&c. (and

same

texts prove that "^v does not imply, as Vitringa asserts, p. 83, that originally only motion was, but

In Tkecstetus, 181 B sqq., it is further shown that the motion of all things, assumed Ijy Protagoras, must be defined not merely as <popa. but as aKKoiwcris but it is clear, from the same passage, that Protagoras himself had not explained himself more particularly on the
;

that
tial

all is,

according

to
cf.

its

essen-

subject.

nature,

motion

Schanz,

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE.
there are innumerable motions, which, however,

447

may

all

be reduced to two

classes, since

they consist either of

doing or
qualities

suffering.^

Only through their action, or their

being acted upon, do things receive their particular

;

and

as

doing and suffering can belong to a

it is

thing only in relation to other things with which

attribute any quality or definiteness
to

brought into contact by motion, we ought not to

anything as
such
only because
things

it

is

move towards each

other, mingle, and work upon one another, that they become determinate we can never say, therefore, that
:

they are something,

only
^

or, in

general, that they are, but

that
ThecBt.
]

they
5vo

become
:

something,

and

become.-

56 A, continues
elfS?;,

ttjs /xev

5e

Kivfiaews

TrArj^et

aireipov eKUTepov, dvvafjLiu Se rh fxev

same no doubt originally taken from these passages in Philop. Gen, et Corr. 4 b, and Ammon.

This is 7VGL7u exov TO 5i TracTx^'-v. further explained at 157 A: neither action nor suffering belongs to a thing absolutely in and for itself; but things act or are acted upon by meeting -with others to vhich they are related in an active or passive manner; the same can therefore

Categ. 81 b, Schol. in Arist. 60 a,

be active in rela'ion to one thing, and passive in relation to another. The language in this exposition is for the most part Platonic, but -sve are not justified in denying altogether to Protagoras the distinction

where the proposition ovk elvai ovoevos is ascribed Protagoras (Frei, p. 92, conjectures, probably erroneously, that these are his very words). It is also expressed in the language of later terminology by Sextus, I. c. thus Tovs x6yovs itavTocv twv
15,
(pvffiv wpiijfxiirqv

to

(paivofxivoiv

viTOKeladai

iv

tj;

vXri,

words which do not seem to me lightlv explained either by Petersen {Phil Hist. Stud. 117),Brandis (i. 528), Hermann {Plat. Phil. 297, 142), Frei (p. 92 sq.), or Weber (p. 36 sqq.). These words do not assert that the causes of all phenomena lie only in the material, but rather the converse, that in matter, in things as such, irrespectively of the manner in which we apprehend them, the germ of all things, the equal possibility of the most various phenomena is given, that everything, as Plut. Adv. Col. 4, 2,

between active and passive motion. 2 ThecBt. 152 D, 156 E imp. rh 8" ov SeT, ws 18, 2), 157 B
:

X6yos, ovre ti ^vyXojp^^v ovre tov out' i/iov ovts T.,56 out' iKilvO OVT &\\0 Ovdcv
6

tS}u

(xo(po)v

Ti iiv laTTJ, aKKa Kara. (f>v<riv vfOfxa (pd4yyecr6ai yiyuofxei^a Koi iroiovfieva

Kal

aTToWvixeva

Koi

ahXoiovfieva.

(The form of the exposition seems

to belong to Plato.)

We

find the

448
Throiio^li

THE

SOPHISTS.

the meeting of these two kinds of motion our

^

presentations of things arise.

Where an

object comes

in contact with our organ of sense in such a manner

that the object acts upon the organ, and the organ

is

acted upon, there arises in the organ a definite sensation,

qualities.^

and the object appears endowed with determinate But these two results occur only in and
StSy^m 8e, rh jxep
viafxhy]

says in explaining this theory of Protagoras, is jutj fxaWov rolov ^ Toiov and as Sextus himself goes
;

aladrjrhv,

rh Bh
yev-

aicrdrjCLS, ael (TvveKir'nTTOV(Ta /cat

ixera tov

aladriTOu.
uri/eis,

The
olkouI,

on to explain,
oaov
'

t)vva<xQai

ti]v uAtjj',
'6(xa

alcrdricrcis
d<T(l>pri(Tis,

are called
xl'v^eis,

i(p'

iauTfj, -rrdvTa elvai

iraai

Kavaeis,
;

^]5oual,

(paiveTai.

It is

not quite clear whether

to the aladyjThu belong colours, tones, &c.

\v7raL, iiTiOvfxiai, (p6^oi, etc.

he simply identified active motion with that of the aladriThu and passive with that of the a'[<Tdr}(ns (as Schanz, p. 72, believes), or whether he regarded the motion of the ala67]Thp and the o'taOrjais only as definite kinds of active and passive The latter opinion seems motion.
to me the more probable, partly for the reason that if Protagoras ascribed to things an objective existence, independently of our presentative consciousness, as he undoubtedly did, he must also have assumed a reciprocal action of things upon one another, and not merely an action upon ourpartly because the remark selves (157 A, vide sup. p. 446, 2) tells
;

This

is

iireidau odv ofxfxa KoX

then further explained &\Xo tl tuu

TovTw
is

so

^vfiixfTpwv (an object which formed as to act upon the

TrjTci

eye) vXyicrida'ap yevvijffr) rrju Aei/zcore Kal ataOriaiv avrfj ^vfKpvrou, & ovK &v TTore iyev^ro t/carepou ih-eivcov TTphs aWo i\66vTos, rdre
Stj, ixera^i/

(pepo/xivoiv rris fxev oi/^ews

nphs Tuv 6(p9aXfxa)V, rris 5e Aeu/coTTj; OS TVphs TOV (TVVatTOrLKTOVTOS Th Xpufxa, 6 fiev 6(pda\fxhs apa oi/zecos e[jt.ir\ocs iyeveTO Kal Spa Srj rSre Kal eyevero oUti o\pis aWa o^OaXfihs bpSsu, TO 5e i^vyyiV7\(Tav Th XP^I^^ XevKOTTjTos TifpieirX-qadT] kol iy^feTo oh \vk6t7]s av aWa hevKOv
. . .

Kal

aK\7]phu Kal Bepfihv Kal iravTa, Thv avThv Tpoirov

Stj

TaAAa

ovtw,
(j.hu

the same way, viz., that the identical thing that in relation to one thing is active, in relation to another thing may be passive: for in respect of uur a'lad-nais the aladr]rhv is always active it can only be passive in respect of other things. Thcat. 156 A, after what is quoted, p. 446, 2 ck 8e ttjs rovrwv dfjLiKias T6 Koi Tpi'<pecos irphs 6.W7]\a yiyi'eTai cKyova irX-fjdei fxku Eneipa,
;

inroKrjTrTeov
elvai,

avrh

Kad' avrh fMrjSev

etc.

The various

relations

in

which things stand to the senses seem to have been derived by Protagoras from the greater or
lesser
it

'^

swiftness of their motion, said (156 C) that some move slowly, and consequently only attain to what is near, others more quickly, and attain to what
for
is

is

farther.

The

former

would

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: PROTAGORAS.

during this contact
coloured,
therefore
itself,
;

449
it is

as the eye does not see

when
is

not afifected by some

colour,

so

the

object

not

when
is

it

is

not seen by any eye.

Nothing
for

or becomes,
for the

what

it is

and becomes, in and

; ^

but only

percipient subject

the object,
the

however, will naturally present

itself differently to

percipient subject, according to the constitution of the

latter
:

things
;

are

for

each man, that which they

to

appear to him
necessarily

and they appear

according to
is

him,

as they

appear,
-

his

own
;

state

condition
that
it
is

Man

the measure of

all things,
is

must and of Being

is

of non-Being that it

not

there

no

answer for example to the perceptions of touch,

and the

latter to

those of sight. ' Vide previous note, and I. c. were e| airdvTwv tovtc^u 157 A oVep e^ apxris iAeyoixev, ovBev elvaj. %v avrh Ka& avrh, aWa rivl ael yiyvea-dai, etc. (Vide supra, 18, 2
:

lo, and Vitringa, p. 106 belieye), but to Democritus. 2 Plato proves this, lo7 E sqq., by the example of dreamers, sick persons and lunatics, and observes that since they are differently con-

and

447
Tj/iLii/

1),

160 B: AeiTrtrai

Sr),

oijjLai,

stituted from those -who are awake in good health, different perceptions must necessarily result

aWi]Xois, e'ir ia/xev, eluai, etre yiyvofieda, yiyveadai, iireiirep rjfxcvv t) avdyKrj tt]v ovcriav (TvpSe7 fjLfv, cruvSet Se ouSevl Twv aXKoov, ouS' aZ T]pLiv avTols. aWrjKois drj XelweTai avudedeadat,

ware
71

etre tis clvai xt ovo^xd^n,

TLv\ elvat.

axjTcv, 6tT6 yiyveadOLi, etc.

TLvhs ^ TTpos Ti prtreov cf. Ph(edo,

;

90 C. Similarly Arist. Mctaph. ix. aladrirbv ovShv ecrrai 3, 1047 a, o alcrdavofievov &<TTe rhu ITparroIXT) yopov Koyov trvfi^iiff^Tai \eyeiu avToTs. Alex, ad k. I. and p. 1010 Hermias, h, 30; p. 273, 28 Bon. Irris. c. 4 Sext. Pn/rrh. i. 219 ra
:

from the contact of things with them. At 158 E, however, he does not seem to refer this answer explicitly to Protagoras, but gives it rather as the necessary completion of his theory. This makes it the more probable that the similar statements and arguments ap. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 217 sq. Ammon. and Philop. in the passages quoted, sup. David, Schol. in Arist. p. 447, 1 60 b, 16, were not taken from the
;
;

5e /xrjSevl
oiiSh eariv.

tuv

avQpurroov (paivo/LLeva

On
a,

the other hand, the

of Protagoras, but, like those of the ThecBtetus, are merely the comments and additions of the several writers. ^ Theat. lo2 ^tjcI yap irov
treatise

word
iii.

(pv<TLo\6yoi, in Arist.

Be An.
t^3

[riuwT.]
aidpcoirov
(jti,

TTOLvroov

;^pi7/uaTa;j'

/xeTpov

2,

426

20,

alludes, not
h.
I.

eivai,
fjLT]

rwv

/xev

ovtwv ws

Protagoras (as Philop. ad

tSou 5e

ovrwv, ws qvk tariv.

VOL.

II.

460
The same

THE

SOPHISTS.
C.

sentence, sometimes with

Similarly
ii,

Thecst.

152

A;

cf.

and sometimes withby Plato, quoted Crat. 385 E Arist. ThecBt. 160 C Metaph. x. 1, 1053 a, 35; xi. 6; Pyrrh. i. 216 Sext. Math. vii. 60
this addition out, is often
: ;

Cic. Acad,
kK&(TT(f

46, 142), rh SoKodp TOVTO Koi ilvai trayioiS

;

Diog.

ix.

According

51, &c. (vide Frei, 94). to Thecet. 161 C, Prota-

goras said this, apx^f^^^os ttJs clKt)As there is also mention of 6iias. the a.\T}6eia of Protagoras, 162 A, 170 E; cf. 155 E, 166 B; Crat. 386 C, 391 C, it seems probable the treatise in which the thajt sentence occurred had the title 'AKi^eeia (as the Schot. ad Theat. It does not, 161 C maintains). however, appear impossible that Plato himself first called it so, because Protagoras had therein often and emphatically declared that he would make known the true state of things in opposition According to to ordinary opinion. Sext. Math. vii. 60, the Avords stood at the beginning of the Kara^dkXoi/Ts, and Porph. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. X. 3, 25, says that Protagoras in the x6yos Trepl rov ovro^ opposed the Eleatics, which no doubt was the case in the work from which the words in the Thecetetus are But perhaps Porphyry taken. designates this work according to its contents, and the proper title

Metaph. xi. 6 cf. iv. 4, 22; iv. 5; AleS:. ad h. I. and elsewhere David, Schol. in Arid. 23 a, 4, v/here, however, what is said in the Euthydemus, 287 E, is transferred to Prota(Arist.

1007

b,

goras) irdcras ras (pavTacria^ Koi ras dd^as a\7]6e7s inrdpx^^v Koi rS>u TrpSs Ti dual Tr]v aKr}6eiav (Sext. Math.
vii.

60

cf.

Schol.

in Arist. 60 b,

But here also, if the account is true, the meaning can only be, that what appears to anyone in a certain manner, is for him as it
16).

appears to him, Plato, Thecet. 152 A, expressly says this, and is unjustly censured by Grote {Plato,
it

347, 353, 369), for having left unnoticed. The expressions made use of by the authors mentioned above are, as is often selfevident, not the expressions of
ii.

Protagoras. The same may be said of Plato's observation that knowledge according to Protagoras consists in sensation and nothing besides (cf. next note) and of the inference of Aristotle (I. c. Metaph. iv.), and his commentator (Alex, p, 194, 16, 228, 10, 247, 10, 258, 12
;

was

Karafia.\Xov'T<i (sc. XSyot), or

r)

possibly the ap. Diog. ix. 55, may be only another exCf. pression for KarafidKKovTes.
'AK-fjeeia

Kara/S.

two books of 'AfTiKoyiai

Bon. 637 a, 16. Q5'i a, 1. 662 a, 4. 667 a, 34 Br.), that according to Protagoras self-contradictory assertions could at the same time be true. The statement of Diog. ix.
51 6^676 re ^TjSej/ ^Ivai y\ivxhf T^apa ras aladiia-eis, for which he refers to the Thcmtetus, seems either to have been deduced from the proposition that things exist only in the act of perception, or (as appears to me more probable) to be a mistake for the other proposition that eViCT^jUTj is nothing else than
;

Weber, 43 sq. Frei, 176 sqq. Bernays, Eh. Mus. vii. 464 sqq. Vitringa, 115; Schanz, Ucitr. z. Vorsokr. Phil. 1 H, 29 sqq. Bethe, Vers, einer Wurd. d. So'phist. ReThe meaning of deJcunst, 29 sqq. Protagoras's maxim is usually oXa "hv ZoKrj eKaarcp given thus ToiavTu Koi ehai (Plato, Crat. 386
: ; :

atffdrja-is.

What
p.

Analyt. Post.

Themistius says, 25 Sp. Schol. rn

;

THEORY OF EXOWLEDGE: GORGIAS.

no universally valid knowledge, but only opinion.^

451

objective truth, but only subjective appearance of truth,

The same

result is attained

bv Gorgfias from the

Arist. 207 b, 26, on Protagoras's view of knowledge, is no doubt deduced from the passage in Aristotle, which does not refer to

this proposition, in the connection

Protagoras at all. ' Grote {Plato, ii. 322 sqq.) indeed doubts whether Protagoras himself founded his proposition,
the measure of all things,' in the manner supposed in the text, upon Heracleitus's theory Schuster goes still further {Herokl, 29 sqq.) he not only maintains in connection with his observations on Heracleitus (discussed supra, p. 93 sq.), that neither Prot g^ras nor Heracleitus arrived at a theory of knowledge through metaphysical principles, but he also believes that Protagoras assumed the existence of knowledge, and that it coincided with a'la-Brjcns and the opinion
'

stands with Plato, canthat there is a knowledge and this knowledge consists of aXad-na-is, but rather the converse there is no objective knowledge, for there is no knowledge that is
in
it

which

not

mean

Man

is

anything but a'icrdriaLs, and attrdrfais is mere appearance and nothing else this is evident from Tkeat. 152 A sq., 161 D, 166 A sqq., &c. But all our witnesses without exception say the same they all declare that, according to Prota:
:

goras, that is true for every man which appears to him true, which is directly contrary to the propo-

based upon aiadricns This last statement is destitute of all foundation, and is besides irreconcileable with every tradition concerning Protagoras that we possess. In the first place the proposition ovk &AAo (^Thecit. 151 E. 160 D) Ti i(TTiv iiriaTT^fxr] ^ aicrdriats, is not (as even Schuster observes) directly attributed to Protagoras by Plato. Plato expressly says (152 A; cf. 159 D), that Protagoras enunciated this in another form:
:

(rpoTTou Tij/a

results

from

&Wov), in so far as iravrwv his words

:

)(pt]fx6.Twv

that there can be no knowledge transcending appearance, and consequently (since (paluecrdai = alaOdverrOai, 152 B) transcending ai'(r07](ns. But in that case, it is dear that
fiirpov

iudpuTTOs,

that there is an eVtcTiij^Tj.' must, if we adopt this, understand by eVto-T7j/x7j a presentation that is only subjectively/ true, a mere fancy ((pavraaia, The<st, 152 It would be more reasonable C). to doubt whether Protagoras had really established his proposition in the manner that Plato supposes. Plato, as I have repeatedly observed, does not seem to have kept strictly to the form of Protagoras's exposition but we have no reason to deny to Protagoras the essential content of the theory which Plato puts into his mouth, or to doubt its connection with the physics of Heracleitus, even supposing that Sextus, Pyrrk. i. 216 sq., Math. vii. 60 sqq., is not to be considered an original source, which he certainly is in respect to part of his statements. It is difficult to see how Plato arrived at his exposition, if Protagoras himself had not furnished an occasion for it.
sition
'

We

G G 2

452

THE

SOFJIISTS.

opposite point of depailure.

In

his treatise

on Nature,

or the non-existent/ he sought to prove three propositions

(1)

Nothing
is

exists
;

(2) If anything be assumed

to exist, it
it

unknowable

(3) If even

it is

knowable,
of the first

cannot be imparted in speech.

is

The proof

proposition
Eleatics.
'

entirely based

on the theories of the

'

If anything existed,' said Grorgias,

it

be either existent or non-existent, or both at once.'

(A)
it

must But

cannot be non-existent, because nothing can at

;

the same time exist and not exist

and non-Being would

;

then, on the one hand, as non-Being, not exist

but, on
exist

the other hand, so far as

further, as

it is

non-Being

it

would

Being and non-Being are opposed to each other, we cannot attribute existence to non-Being without denying
it to

Being

but existence cannot be denied

to Being.2

what exists must either be derived or underived^it must be either One or Many, (a) It cannot be underived; for what is not derived, says Grorgias, in agreement with Melissus, has no beginning, and what has no beginning is infinite. But the infinite is nowhere it cannot be in some other, for in that case
.Just as little, however, (B) can
for the existent

be existent,

detailed extract from this but in his own words, is given by Sext. Math. vii. 65-87, a shorter one by the pseudo-Arist. De Melissa, c. 5, 6. For its title, vepl Tov ixT) ovTos ^ TT. <t){)iTeoos, we Kose's are indebted to Sextus. doubt of its authenticity {Arist. Lihr. Ord. 77 sq.) seems to me not adequately justified either by the silence of Aristotle concerning the scepticism of Gorgias, nor by the fact that Gorgias n hisl ater
*

life

treatise,

The statement
is
tt.

confined himself to rhetoric, that nothing exists ascribed by Isocrates, HeL 3,

avTidSa., 268, to his master Gorgias, in the former of these passages, with express reference to the writings of the ancient Sophists. - Sext. 66 sq. and (though somewhat differently, which perhaps is the fault of the text) the treatise on Melissus, c. 5, 979 a, 21 sqq.

THEOHY of KNOWLEDGE: GORGIAS.

it

4o3

would not be

infinite

nor in

itself, for

what compreis

hends must be some other than that which

hended.
If,

compreIf^

But that which

Being
is

is

nowhere
it is

exists not at all.

therefore,

underived,

non-existent.^
it

must have arisen either from Being or non-Being. But from Being nothing can be derived for if Being became another, it would be no longer Being: and ason the other hand, we suppose
it to

be derived,

little

can

it

have arisen from non-Being: for

exist, the proposition
;

if

non-

Being does not

would apply that

out of nothing nothing comes and, if it exists, the same reasons hold good which make a derivation from Being impossible.^ (6) Being can neither be One nor Many. Not One for what is really One can have nocorporeal magnitude and what has no naagnitude is
;
:

nothing.^
of unities
rality.'*
:

Not Many
if

for every plurality is a

there

is

no unity, there
to this that
is

is

also

number no plu-

(c)

If

we add

moved
'

since all motion

Being cannot be change, and, as suchy would

;

be the Becoming of non-Being

Cf. Vol. I. p. 638, 1
;

since,

fmibermore,

all

618,

2.

also that they could not both simulb, 36 (according koL %v supplement ^ikv ovKavdvvaaQai ilvaLorikaunarov av e'er} to e^ to yap aauaarov, (prjo'Li', ovdhv, exwv yfu/x-qp irapairXri-

- Sext. 68-71, De Mel 979 b, 20 sqq. The latter expressly refers to Meliseus and Zeno, vide supra, Vol. I. 618, 2; 627 ^q. Sextus

taneousiy be true. ^ De Mel. 979

to 3Iullach's

gives the conclusion of the argument more simply he merely says that from non-Being nothing can come, for that which produces another, must first exist itself; and he adds that Being cannot at the same time be derived and underived, since these terras exclude one another. Perhape, however, this may be his own addition. Sextus, after refuting the two alternatives of a dilemma, is fond of showing
:

(riav

rep

tov ZT)v<avos Twycp (vide

Vol. I. 615, 1). Gorg. ap. Sextus, 73, proves at greater length that the One can be neither a ttogov,.

supra,

nor a (rw^x^^i
aufia.
*

iio^

^ ijJyeBos, nor a

Sext. 74 ; De Mel. 979 b, 37 (according to Foss and Mull.); cf. Zeno, I. c. and Melissus, sicprUy. Vol, I. p. 638, 2.
;

454

THE

SOPHISTS.
is

motion presupposes a division, and every division

cancelling of Being,
^

it is

evident that Being

is as

un-

thinkable as non-Being.
existent nor non-existent,

(C) But
it

if

Being

is

neither

plainly cannot be both at

once
tion,

^
'

and thus,
proofs

as G-orgias believes, his first proposiis

that nothing exists,'

of

proved.

The
simpler.

the two other propositions sound

If even something existed it would be un;

knowable

for the existent is

is

nothing that

is

thought,
otherwise

and what

thought

is

nothing that
for

exists,

what everyone imagines

be impossible.
it is

himself must necessarily

false presentation

have an actual existence, and a

would
If,

But

if

Being

is

nothing that

is

thought,

neither thought nor

it

known

it is

unknowable.^

however,

were even knowable,

it

could not be im-

parted in words.

For how can intuitions of things be

fact,

produced by mere tones, when, in

versely,

words arise conis

from intuitions

Moreover, how.

it possible

that the hearer in hearing the words should think the

same

as the speaker, since

one and the same cannot be

?
^

in different places and different persons

Or
it

if

even

the same were in several individuals, would

So in the treatise on Melissus, 980 a, 1 cf. siqira, Vol. I. p. 634:. In Sext-us this proof is absent, but
'
;

not neces-

supra, 453, 2.
^ De Mel. 980 a, 8, where, however, the commencement is mutilated and not satisfactorily amended by Mullach while Sextus, 77-82, introduces much matter of his own. Sext. 83-86, who here again no doubt intermingles his own comments; more completely, but with a text that is not altogether certain, De Melissa, 980 a, 19 sqq.
;
*

it is

Hjt likely that Gorgias made rio use whatever of the arguments of Zeno and Melissus against motion, From his procedure in other cases, we may conjecture that he set up a dilemma, and showed that Being can neither be moved nor unmoved, There seems, therefore, to be a lacuna in this place in our text. - Sext. 75 sq. cf. the remark
;

THEORY OF KXOWLEDGE: G ORG IAS.

sarily

455

appear to them differently, since they are different

?

persons and in different places

in part purely sophistical
difficulties are
;

These arguments are

but, at the

same time,

real

touched by them, especially in respect to

:

the third proposition

and the whole might well have

the
possibility

been regarded at that period as a formidable attempt

to
establish

doubt as to

of

know-

ledge.^

No
there
is

other Sophist seems to have taken such pains

least,

about the complete justification of scepticism, at

no tradition of any attempt of the kind.

All

the more general, however, was the agreement in the

result

which was common to the Heracleitean and Ele-

atic scepticism, the denial of

any objective truth, and

though
a

this denial

was in very few instances based upon

Grorgias, a Heracleitus

developed theory of knowledge, yet the sceptical

arguments of a Protagoras or a
observation which was perhaps

or a Zeno. were, notwithstanding, eagerly utilised.

first

after the precedent of Zeno, that

at the

The made by Grorgias the One cannot be

same time Many, and that therefore the union

cognised nor described.
;

the other hand, Grote 0/ GV.viii. 503 sq.) is carried too far by his predilection for the Sophists, when he says that the demonstration of Gorgias relates only to the Thing-in-itself of the The Eleatics only reEleatics.
1

On

Of such a

(/Ti^^.

limitation our authorities contain Gorgias not the slightest hint argues quite generally and unconditionally that nothing can exist or be known or be expressed. The Eleatics themselves, however, did not distinguish between the phenomenon and that which lies behind it but only between the true theory of things and the false, A double Being, phenomenal and absolute, was first held by Plato, and in a certain sense by Aristotle.
;

cognised as reality the essence lying beyond the phenomenon as against them, Gorgias (he says) shows with good reason that such
;

a Thing-in-itself (' ultra-'phenomenal Something oryoumenon')^<jes, not exist, and can neither be re' '

456

THE SOPHISTS.
is

of a predicate with a subject

to have found special favour.^

inadmissible

seems

With the

propositions

of Protagoras concerning the relativity of our presentations,

all

may

be connected the statement of Xeniades that

opinions of

mankind

are false

and

if

Xeniades,^ in

contradiction to a presupposition of the physicists, at

first latent,

but since the time of Parmenides explicitly

recognised, regarded generation as a

Becoming out

of

nothing, and decay as pure annihilation, he

1

may have
of
cf.
;

Cf. Plato, Soph.

251

B m^v who
:

ye,

olixai,

Tols
fieu-

toTs re v4ots Kot yepSvrcav 6\^iiJ.a0e(n Oulyriy irapeaKevaKa-

was the teacher both Antisthenes and Lycophron

p. 425,
3.

Damasc, De

Friric. c.

evdvs yap avTiKa^icrdai 7rai/Ti irpdx^i-pou, ws aSvuarov ret re ttoWo,

126, p. 262, says that the statement was indirectly made by Protagoras,

6V Koi rh eu TroAAa eJyai, Koi St) ttou XaipovcTiu uvK iwvres ayaOou Aeyeij/

aWa rh ix\v ayaQhv ayarhv 8e 6.v6pwn-ov &vdpuTrov. Plato here certainly has Antisthenes and his school primarily in view but that his remark is not confined to them, is clear from Philebus, 14 C, 15 D, where he describes it as a common and universal phenomenon that young persons, in their dialectical disputations, used sometimes to convert the One into the Man}^ and sometimes the Many into the One and to dispute the possibility of the Many in the One, Aristotle, Pkys. i. 2, 185
&,v9pooirov,

6hv,

but explicitly by Lycophron this, however, is no doubt founded merely on an inaccurate reminiscence of the passage in Aristotle. 2 Cf. p. 426, i. This is to bo found ap. Sext. M. vii. 53 Eei/ja; :

Stjs

8e 6 KopivQios, ov Ka\ Ai)p.6KpLT0S

fx4ij.vr]Tai,

iravT

eliroou

\peu5ri

Koi

Tcaffav (pavracriau

So^av xpivoecrOai, Ka\ e/c tov /xt] uvtos irav rh yiud/xevov yiuecrdai, Koi els rh p.-}) hv TTciv rh (pdeipofxevov (pOeipscrdai, Svvdfxei rrjs avTrjs ex^^ai rw "Eevokol
(pdvei
ardcrecos.

The

latter,

ever, relates only to the

howsupposed
:

scepticism

of

Xenophanes

we

b, 25, is still

more

explicit

iOopu-

fiovvTO 5e Kol ol vcrrepoi

rwv

apx^.'^^^

(Heracleitus was previously named), OTTws fiT) a/xa y4vr]Tai ayroTs rh aurh U Koi "TToAAa. Oih ol fxhu rh eariu atpethoVy wairep AvKdcppup, ot Se rrjp
Xe^iv ixereppvdfjLL^ou,

on

6 avdpcv-n-os

ov \vk6s icTiv, ctAAa AeAev/cwrat, If Lycophron alluded to this etc. statement, it probably was not first circulated by Antisthenes, but was borrowed by him from Gorgias,

cannot deduce from it that Xeniades' point of departure w^as the Eleatie doctrine. The statement as to generation and decay is only compatible with that doctrine, if Xeniades used it to prove that generation and decay are altogether impossible. The proposition that all opinions are false, is also mentioned by Sextus, vii. 388, 389 viii. 5 he reckons Xeniades among those who admitted no criterion, iJ/. vii. 48; P. ii. 18.
; :

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
been moved to
of
all it

EUTHYDEMUS.

4.67

by

Heracleitiis's doctrine of the flux

things.

Perhaps, however, he asserted this only

hypothetically, to show that generation and decay are

Becoming out of nothing and into Euthydemus, no doubt interof Heracleitus and the Eleatics. mingled the theories
as unthinkable as a

nothing.

Others, like

This Sophist maintained on the one hand, in the spirit

of Protagoras, that all qualities belong to all things at
all

times equally and simultaneously

; ^

on the other, he
is false,

deduced, from the propositions of Parmenides,^ the conclusion that no one can err or say what
it is

and that

consequently impossible to contradict oneself, for

the non-existent can be neither imagined nor uttered.^

This statement, however, we meet with elsewhere, partly

in combination with the Heracleito-Protagorean Scep

Plato, Crat. 386 D, after the

:

Euthydemus argues that

possible to tell a
lie,

it is

not

citation of Protagoras's proposition,

'

for he

who

measure of all things ouSe /car' EvOvdrffMov ye, olfxai, <To\ hoKdl tracTi iravTa OjxAoos eJvai Koi aei. ouSe yap h,v ovtus elei/

Man is the
ixrjv

aAAa

oi ixku

<"'

xP''!''"'''''''

^^

TTovripol,

et

dfj.oiws aitacTL Ka\ del dpexTj Koi

et-i].

Sextus, Math.

vii. 64,

KaKia couples

says something, always says "what is, and he who says what is, says the truth what is not, cannot be said, for nothing can be done with that which is not. The same thesis is shortly summed up, 286 \pvSrj \eyeiv ovk eari C. thus
;
:
.

Protagoras with Euthydemus and Dionysodorus ruv yap irpds Tt Kal ovTOi t6 re ov Kal rh aXridhs airoKe:

oude do^d(eiv

after Dionysodorus

whereas Proclus, in Crat. repeating the assertions in that Protagoras Plato, remarks and Euthydemus agree indeed as to their result, but not in their points of departure. This, howcf. what is ever, is scarcely true quoted, p. 447, 2, on Protagoras, with the proposition of EuthyXoiiraai,

41,

demus. - Parm.
suy.
3

v.

39
;

sq.,

64

sq.,

vide
sqq..

Voh

584, 1 585, 3. In Plato's Euthyd. 283

I.

has previously demonstrated that as one cannot say what is not, it is likewise impossible that different persons should say different things of the same object for if one says something different from the other, they cannot be speaking of the same object. This statement also appears in Isocr. HcL 1, where, however, it seems to relate to Anitisthenes (concerning whom, cf. Part II. a, 256, 1, 3rd ed.), for the elder sophists are expressly contrasted with the upholders of this
;

opinion.

458

THE SOPHISTS.
/

ticism

and thus we may with probability assume that

observations of different kinds and starting from different standpoints

may have

been employed without

any

strict

logical connection, in order to justify the

general distaste for scientific enquiries and the sceptical

temper of the time.

The

practical application of this scepticism If no opinion

is is

is

Eristic

disputation.

true in itself and for all

men, but each

true for those only to

whom

it

appears

to be true, then every statement

may

with equal right

Protagoras

be opposed by another

there

is

no proposition the con-

trary of which would not be equally true.

himself deduced this fundamental principle from his

theory of knowledge,^ and though we are not told that
others stated
it so

broadly, yet the nature of their proit.

cedure throughout presupposed

Serious physical or

metaphysical enquiries are not ascribed by tradition to

any of the Sophists.

Hippias, indeed, loved to

make

display of his physical, mathematical and astronomical

acquirements,^ but a thorough enquiry into the subjectThus Cratyhis (vide sup. p. 113 sq.) says in the Platonic dialogue bearing his name, 429 D, that we can say nothing false: TTus yap h.v \4yccv ye tis tovto, t) \eyei, fxi] rh "bf ?)^eyoi ov tovto eVri t6 ^levBi} Keyeiv, rb fxr] to. ovTa Ae^ejj/ and in Eiithyd. 286 C, we
'
. .

rally to yap jj.^ ov ovt^ Siavoela-dai riva ovre Aeyeij/- ovaias yap ov^eu
:

*j

read, in reference to the previously quoted statement of Dionysodorus

:

rh (jlt] hu /xerex^iv. irpwros (pr] Svo Diog. ix. 51 \6yovs efvai Trepi Travrhs iTpa.yjiaros avTiKeijxiuovs aWiiXois' oh Kal crvvr]pwTa (he used them in dialectical questions) -rrpcoTos tovto irpd^as. Clem. Strom, vi. 647 A "EWtju^s
ovda/xri
:
:

Kal yap ol ap.p\

Uponayopav acpoSpa iXP^vTO av7(f Kal ol ^tl iraXaioalso Diog. ix. 53). Cf. in Categ. Schol. in Ar. 60

UpwTayopou TvpoKaTdp^avTos, vuvtI \6'vq} \6you ai/TiKeifxevov ira(paai.

Tpoi (cf.

.Vmmon.
a, 17.

In Soph. 241 A, 260 D, the statement that there is no untruth is ascribed to the Sophists gene-

Sen, Ep. 88, 43 Protagoras ait, de omni rein utramque partem disputari posse ex mqv/) et de hac ipsa, an omnis res in
pe<TKevd(rdai.
:

utramque 'partem disputahilis ^ Vide sup. p. 421 sq.

sit.

ERISTIC DISPUTATIOy.

459

matter of these sciences could not be expected of him,

and though Antiphon, in

the circle
^

his

two books upon Truth,

alluded also to physical subjects, his attempt to square

shows that he had no special knowledge of

these subjects.
tion
is

What

is

related of

him

in this connec-

either borrowed from others, or else falls short of

the general level of natural science at that time.^

Pro-

tagoras not only himself refrained from giving instruc-

tion in physics, but Plato describes

him

as ridiculing

that of Hippias
J

and Aristotle

tells

us that, true to

On which, cf. p. 426, 4. This attempt is mentioned by Aristotle, Pkys. i. 1, 185 a, 17; Soph. El. c. 11, 172 a, 2 sqq., but is expressly described as that of a According to Simpl, dilettante. Phys. 12 a, which Eudemns here seems to follow (Alexander in h. I.
2

confuses the solution of Antiphon with another; in the text in the Physics he seems to have apprehended it rightly), it simply conthe sisted in drawing a polygon circle and measuring the superficial for he content of the polygon thought that if only sides enough were given to the polygon, it would coincide with the circle. 3 The Placita, ii. 28, 2 (Stob. Ed. i. 556^ Galen, H. Ph. c. 15, p. 281 Joh. Lyd. De Meno, iii. 8, p, 39), ascribe to him the opinion (which was also held by Anaxagoras, vide sup. p. 361) that the moon shines with her own light, and that when we do not see this, or see it imperfectly, it is because the light of the sun overpowers that of the moon. According to Stob. Eel. L 524, he thought the sun was a fire, nourished (as Anaximandei' and Diogenes also held,

vide sup. Vol. I. 253, 295 sqq.) by the vapours of the atmosphere and its diurnal course is the result of its constantly seeking fresh nourishment instead of that which has been consumed. According to the same authority, i. 558, he explained lunar eclipses (in agreement with Heracleitus, vide sv.p. p. 58, 2) as the inversion of the boat in which the fire of the mooa is kept. According to the Placita, iii. 16, 4 (Galen, H. Ph. c. 22, p. 299 he said the sea was farmed by the exudation of the earth caused by heat (according to the opinion of Anaxagoras, vide sv/p. Galen, in Hippocr. p. 357, 1). Epidem. T. xvii. a, 681, quotes a passage from the treatise named above, in which a meteorological phenomenon (it is not quite clear what phenomenon it is) is explained. * Tide supra, p. 431, 5. When therefore Tertullian (De An. 15, towards the end) ascribes to Protagoras the opinion that the seat of the soul is in the breast, this
,

must refer to some incidental remark, and not to an anthropological

theory.

460
liis

THE

SOPHISTS.

sceptical standpoint, he found fault with astronomy

because the actual positions and courses of the stars do

not coincide with

therefore,

tlie

figures of the astronomers

; ^

if,

he wrote upon mathematics,^ he must have

its

taken the line of denying

confining
Grorgias
its

scientific

certainty and

practical application within narrow limits.^

may have employed

own

certain physical theories

occasionally for his

purposes,"*

but his scepticism

likewise

must have deterred him from independent enquiry in this sphere, and such enquiry is never ascribed to him. Nor do we hear anything of natural science
in connection with Prodicus, Thrasymachus, or other

famous Sophists.^
'

Instead of an objective interest in

which
is

Mctavh.

iii,

a,

2,

is

combined with
^

this, is

given by

repeated by Alexander, ad h. I., and amplified probably on his own authority by Asclepius (Schol. in Ar. 619 b, 3). This statement is referred to by Syrian, Metaph. 21, I. c, Bagol. - nepi fx.a.Bii]ixaTwv, Diog. ix. 55 cf. Frei, 189 sq. ^ He may easily have admitted such an application, and even have given positive instruction in regard
to it. According to Dioo-. I. c. and Plato, Soph. 232 {infra, 461, 1), he also wrote about the art of wrestling; according to Aristotle (vide supra, 411, 2) he invented a

Socrates in his

own name.
l)y

pad
*

for porters.

of Prodicus is Galen, De Elem, i. 9 T. i. 417 K; De Virt. Phys. ii. 9; T. ii. 130, under the title: TrepJ (pva-fas ov it. (pvcr^us avQpwTTOv and Cicero says, Pe Orat. iii. Quid de Prodico Chiol 32, 128: quid de Thrasymacho Chalcedonio, Abderita loquarl de Protagora quorum unusquisquQ 'plurimurti temporibiis illis etiam de natura rerum et disseruit et scrijosit. But that this treatise of Prodicus really contained physical enquiries is not proved by the title. Cicero in the passage quoted only wants to show
treatise

named indeed
;

Sopater, Aiaip. Qtit. Bhct. Gr. Topy. fxvdpov fluai Keycov rhv ^Kiov (where there is perhaps, however, a confusion witli AnaxaPlato, Meno, 76 C: BowAei goras). oiiv croi Kara Topyiav aTroKpiuco/xai
viii.

veteres doctor es axictorcsque dicendi

23

nullum genus dispufationis a se alienum 2yutasse semperque esse in

omni

orationis ratione versatos,

and

for this purpose he instances, besides those just mentioned, not only the example of the universal artist, Hippias, but the offer of Gorgias to give lectures on any given theme. Here, therefore, we

OvKovv A.e'7eT6 aTro^poas rivas rwu ovTwv Kar' 'E/XTreSoKAea

.
. . . .

Koi -rrSpovs, etc.

The

definition of

colours, on the other hand,

which

ERISTIC DISPUTATION.
tlie

461

knowledge of things, there

this

is

only the subjective

interest in the exercise of a formal art of thought

and

speech, and
of others,
is

must

find its sole task in the confuting

when once any

positive conviction of its

own

renounced.

Eristic disputation, therefore, was directly

;

involved in the Sophistic teaching

Zeno having pre-

pared the way, we find in Grorgias a demonstration which

is

thoroughly

eristic

at

the

same time, Protagoras

^

distinctly brings forward Eristic as a separate art, for

becomes

and it finally which he himself wrote an introduction so inseparable from the Sophistic doctrine, that
;

the Sophists are shortly designated by their contemporaries as Eristics

;

and their doctrine

In
this,

is

defined as the

art of making everything doubtful, and of contradicting

every statement.^
have
to do, not

however,

the

Sophistic

sophy,

with natural philoit is, but with orations

;

how far nior30ver, a question Cicero's own knowledge of the subject extended, and whether he may not have inferred too much from
titles

such as

irep\ cjivcreccs, "Tcpl

tov

more probably from the ambiguous remark of a preovTos, or still

decessor on the difference between

forensic
fact

Welcker. 522
that
Arist.

and epideictic oratory. (Cf. Moreover the sq.)

Critias
i.

(according

to

405 b, 5, which statement the commentators merely repeat) supposed the soul to be blood, inasmuch as sensation has

De An.

2,

iyevvr](Tev (these words seem to have been taken from some tolerably ancient authority), for which reason Timon says of him, ipi^ifx^vai eu el^is. In bo Diogenes mentions a rexvT} ipicrriKuu, the natnre of which we may see from the passage quoted from Aristotle {infra, p. 462. 1); and Plato says {Soph. 232 D) that from the writings of Sophists we may learn to tr^pX iracrav T6 Kal Kara fiiav kKacrr-qv re'xi/Tjv, ^ii TTpos iKacnov avrhv rov Srjh. fiiovpyhv avTuireiv ra Upwra.
. .

yopeia
-

irepi

re iraKijs Kal rcbv

aWwv

rexvctiv.

its seat there,

does not justify us in the conclusion that he occupied himself systematically with natural philosophy. ^ <ai ri-jv dLoivoiav Diog. ix. 52 acpels Tvphs rovvoua die\4xdT] kul rh vvv i-mitoAd^ov "yivos twv ipiariKwu
:

Plato, Soph. 225 C rh 5e ye (sc. rov avTiXoyiKov uepos) Koi Trepi ^iKoiwu avTwv kol olSIkuv irspl ruu 6.KXwv oXas aucpicr^T]Kal Tovv ap' ovK ipiariKOv aZ Xiyeiv
:

evT^xvov

eldifffxeda. The Sophistic doctrine then consists in applying this art of disputation in such a manner as

462

THE SOPHISTS.
The
different

teachers proceeded very unmethodically.

artifices

which they employed were collected from all sides, just as they presented themselves and the attempt
;

was never made theory, and to arrange them according to fixed points The Sophists cared nothing for any scientific of view.
to combine these various tactics into a

consciousness about their method, but only for its direct

application to particular cases, and they therefore

made
before

their disciples learn quite mechanically the questions

and

fallacies

which

most

commonly came

them.^

We

get a vivid picture of the Sophistic art of disit

putation, as

was constituted in

later times, in Plato's

dialogue of Euthydemus, and in Aristotle's Treatise on

to

earn money. Similarly it is maintained further on (232 B sqq.)

to be the general characteristic of

15. As to other enquiries, he says, he has only had to complete what

others

had begun

rhetoric,

for

the Sophist that he

"Kepi

is

avriXoyiKhs
said,

"nduTwu

irphs

aix(pia^riTr}(Tiv,

and consequently
sqq., that the

it is

230

art of the Sophists

resembles the Elenchic art of Socrates, if only as the wolf resembles Cf. 216 B, where the the dog. expressions dehs i\eyKTLKhs and raiv irepl TCLs eptSas io-rrovSaKOTCtiP are intended for the Sophists perhaps in conjunction with Megarian and Cynic Eristics. Similarly Isocrates designates them as twv Trspl ras
epiSas diarpifiduTcov,
KoKiv'bov^ivuiv
(c.

example, had from small beginnings gradually developed to a considerable extent, through the instrumentality of a Tisias, aThrasj'^maTavr-t]s Se ttjs chus, a Theodorus
:

irpayf^uTeias oh rh fx\v i)V rb

f^v

S'

ovk
irepl

Trpoe^eipya(rix4vov,

aW'

ovdev

TravTeXws vizripx^v. Koi yap twu

Toi/y epiariKovs
dfjLoia TLB 1]V

jrpay/jLaTeia.

\6yovs ixKTdapvovvTuiu iraidevais rf} Vopyiov Tj xSyous yap ol ixev prjTOipwTrjriKovs

els
otis

piKovs

ol

Se

iSiSocrau

eKjuauOdveiv,
ifjLiriirreiu

irXeicTTdKis

ruv

ir.

r.

%p.

Soph. 1, 20, cf. Hel. 1), and Aristotle (vide following note) as ol Trepl rovs ipicniKovs \6yous ixLadapi/ovfTes (cf. Plato, Even Demosupra, p. 433, 1). critus complains of the disputatious people and their fallacies, supra,
p. 275, 3.

tovs rax^^a fJ.ev aT^xvos 8' ^v 7} BiSaaKaXia to7s fxavQduovai irap' avrwv, ov yap rex^rtv aWd TO. dirh ttjs r^xv^s Zi56vTes iraideveiv vire\d/x^avou, as if a shoemaker (says Aristotle) were to give
wrjOrjaav

eKdrepoi

aWr]\wu \6yovs'

dioirep

his pupil a
trade.

number of ready-made shoes instead of instruction in his

Arist. Soph.

El.

33,

183

b,

ERISTIC DISPUTATIOX.
Fallacies
; ^

463

one

is

a satire written with

and though we must not forget that the all poetic freedom, and
is

the other a universal theory which there

no reason

to restrict to the Sophists in the narrower sense, or to

anything
that

historical, yet the

tions one with the other,

harmony of these descripand with other accounts, shows

we
us

are justified in applying

them

in all their es-

sential features to the Sophistic teaching.

tell
is

What they
The

certainly not

much

to its

advantage.

Eristics were not concerned about

any

scientific result

their object was to involve their adversary or interlo-

cutor in confusion and difficulties from which he could

find

no way of escape,
;

so

that every answer that he

this object

gave seemed incorrect

and whether

was

attained by legitimate inferences, or surreptitiously by

means of

fallacies,

whether the interlocutor was

really

or only apparently vanquished, whether he felt himself

vanquished, or only seemed to the auditors to be

so,
it

whether he was merely silenced or made ridiculous,

did not matter in the
least.^

If a discussion
"*

is

uncomis

fortable to the Sophist, he evades it

if

an answer

Properly the ninth book of Topica, vide Waitz, Aristoi. As to particular Orff. ii. 528. fallacies quoted by Aristotle, cf. Alexander in the Scholia Waitz, in his Commentary ; Prantl, Gesch.
^

the

defined as rrvWcr/KTyLos koX eXeyxos <paiv6p.evos yikv ovk &v 5e.

*

In

Sojoh. El. c. 15, 174: b, 28.

Aristotle gives the rule from the standpoint of the Sophists Set Se koX acptaraixevovs tov Koyov ra Xonra
:

d. log,
-

i.

20 sqq.
a<pvKTa
epajT'^/xara,

twv
of
boasts,

i-n-ix^ipTjjjLd'^wu
5'

iiriTefiveiv
/cat irphs

The

eirixetpTjreoj'

evtore
iK^lvo

aWo
''"'S

which the Sophist dern. 275 E, 276 E.

^

Euthy-

tov
iav

elprijievov,
firj

(KXa^oyras,
ex??

irphs

rh

Keiixevov

the Euthydemus, and Arist. Soph. El. c. 1 (cf. c. 8, 169 b, 20), where the Sophistic demonstration is shortly
Cf. the "whole of

iinxeLpe'iv oirep 6 AvKocppuv iiroirjae,

Trpo^KrjOeuTos

Kvpav

iyKocuidCfiv.

Examples are given in Euthy dem.

287

sqq.,

297 B, 299 A,

etc.

464

THE

SOPHISTS.
;
^

desired of him, he insists on asking questions

if

any-

one

tries to

escape from ambiguous questions by closer

definition, he

demands yes

or no

if

he thinks his
if

adversary knows of an answer, he begins by deprecating

all

that can possibly be said on that side

he

is

accused

of contradicting himself, he protests against bringing

forward things that are done with long ago

"^

if

he has no

other resource, he stupifies his adversaries with speeches, He tries the absurdity of which precludes any reply .^
to

hoodwink the

diffident

man by
ael

a swaggering

mode
irepl

of

address,^ to surprise the thoughtful

'

man by
Xeyco,

hasty inferrwv
ra
rb

Enthyd. 287

sq.,

295

B sqq.

ra avra

aWa Ka\
Slo.

'6 Soph. El. 17, 175 b, 8: t' eTTI^TJTOVfft VVV fxkv fjTTOV TZpOTepOV 5e fxaWov ot ipKTriKoi, rh ^ vol fi

avrav.

crv 8' icrws

Tro\v/xa6r]s

eJvai Trepl

rwv avrwv

ovdeirore

aura

ov anoKpii/scrOai. Cf. Euthyd. 295 sq., 297 r> sqq. 3 Thus Thrasymachus in Plat,
i.

C, challenges Socrates Bep. koL o-kws to say what is justice

336

fjLOi

fj.r]

epcls, '6ti

ih
;U7)5'

Se'oj/

icrrl

ytiTjS'

OTL rh cj(p4\Lixov

OTi rh

Xvane-

Xovv /X7)5' OTi rh /tep5o Xeou fxr]b' on rh ^v/xcpepov, aXKa (Tacpws /J-Oi Kal a/cpi/3ws Ae'/e o Ti h.v \4yys' ws iyu) ovK d7ro5e'|ojuat, iav v9\ovs tolovtovs Ae'TTjs, with which cf. the answer of
Socrates, 337 A.

Plato, Gory. 490, puts the same into the mouth of Socrates and Callicles so perhaps it may actually have been said by the historic Socrates. ^ For example in the Euthydemiis, where the Sophists at last admit that they know and understand all things, and even as little children understood how to count the stars, mend shoes, &c. (293 D) ;
\4yeis.
;

that puppies and sucking pigs are brothers (298 D) and the finale, when the adversary lays
their
;

This

delightful

287

done with the most in EiUhydem. elr', 5 SaJ/cpares, 6<^?;,

is

down

his

arms and

all

break forth
!

naivete

in wild excitement, Ctesippus ex-

claims,

TTUTTTral,

Aiovvao'^uipos

vTToXa^wv, ovras el Kpouos, wcrre h to irpwrov eiTTOfx^v, vvv av 0.1X1 p.vr](rKiL, koX elf ri irepvcriu eliTOU, vvv avaixvrjaQriaei, toTs 5* eV
TrapSvTi Xeyofx^vois
;

Dionysodorus
ovv 6 'Hpa/fATjs

5 'Hpa/cAeis and ir6repov answers TTUTTTTal iariv ^ 6

:

TTUTTTTal 'Hpa/cAfjs.
6 In Rep. 336 C, Thrasymachus introduces himself into the conversation with the words ris i/ixas
:

T^

Xpfi Ner/i. iv.

ovx e'^ei? o ri Similarly Hippias ap. Xen.

4,
6,

says ironically to

iraKai (pXvapia exet,

ri evrjdi^eade irphs

S)

Sc^Kpares, Kal
viroKa-

Socrates ert yap crv eKeiva ra avra K4yis, h iyu) iraKai irori crou i^novaa to which Socrates replies h Se ye TOVTOv SeivSTepov, Sj 'Itr-Kia, ov fxovov
: ;
:

aWrjXovs
avrols
;

raK\Lv6ixevoi

vfx.7v

in

the

Eutkydemus, 283 B, Dionysodorus

begins thus
:

Si

'^caKpares

re Kal

ERISTIC DISPUTATIOX.
ences,^ to betray the inexperienced

465
into surprising

man

statements^ and clumsy expressions.^

Assertions that

were only intended

to

have a relative meaning and a

;

limited application, are taken absolutely

holds good of the subject
is

that which
;

transferred to the predicate

from
it is

superficial analogies are

deduced the most extrava-

gant conclusions.

It is maintained, for instance, that

impossible to learn anything, for a

;

man

cannot

knows and he cannot seek for that of which he knows nothing the wise man can
learn what he already
:

learn nothing, because he already knows, and the foolish

man

nothing, because he does not understand

^
;

more-

who knows anything knows all things, for the man who knows cannot be also ignorant he who is the father or the brother of anyone, must be the father
over, he
;

and brother of everyone

vfj.e7s 01

for a

father cannot be not

aWoL

irorepou Trai^ere
.
. .

Tavra \4yovTes,

fj

o-TrouSa^ere
;

(similarly Callicles, Gorg. 481 B) and when Socrates has said that he is in earnest. Dionysodorus still warns him (TKc^Tret jLirji/, dJSwfcpares,
:

adversary into "wrong expressions, or if he expressed himself rightly, into the opinion that he was committing faults^, Soph. El. c. 14, 32, and the -noirja-ai dSoXecrxet*', ibid. c.

& vvu Xeyeis. Soph. EL c. 15, 174 b, 8: <r<p6opa Se Kal woWolkls Trote? SoKelv eA7j\67x0at rh jxaKKna (TO(pL(TTiKhv rav ipccTwvrwv, rh fTVKO<pdpTr)iJLa
tiiroos
^

uh e^apfos

ecrci

The latter consisted in 13, 31. obliging the enemy to repeat the idea of the subject in the predicate: e.g. rh (Tijxhv Koi\6rT)s pivos icrriv,

tan
*

Se p\s

(Tip.-/],

eariv apa pis pis

koiXt].

fj.T]5kv

<Tv\\oyi<XQ.iJ.evovs

fjLT]

ipu)TT]/xa

This seems to have been a

rh r^Xevraiov, aWa crvfiirepavTiKws (Ittuv, ws crvXKeXoyLcrfi4uovs, " ovK &pa rh koI t6." - Vide Soph. EL c. 12, where various artifices are suggested by which the interlocutor might be entrapped into false or paradoxical
Troi7v

favourite fallacy of th< Sophists. and many different applications of it are quoted by Plato, Me/io, 80
:

assertions.
^

Among

the Sophistic devices

which Aristotle mentions is the Solecism (this was to mislead the

D sq., 276 D sq. by Aristotle, Soph. EL c, 4. 165 b, 30; cf. Metaph. ix. 8, 1049 b, 33; and Prantl, Gcsch. d. Log. i. 23. ^ Eiithyd. 293 B sqq., where the most absurd consequences are deduced from this.
E; Euthyd. 275

YOL.

II.

H H

466

THE
B
a

SOPHISTS.
If

a father, or a brother not a brother.^

is

not

B
If

and

is

human
is

being,

is

not a

human

being.-

the negro
teeth.^

black, he cannot be white, even as to his

If I sat yesterday in

a certain place, but to-

day

sit

there no longer,

it is

at the

not true, that I

a sick

sit there.''

If

same time true and a bottle of medicine does

man

good, a cart-load of the remedy will

make

him

still

better.^

Questions were raised such as that

of the veiled person,^ and difficult cases imagined, such

as the oath to swear falsely,^
fruitful

and the
^

like.

The most
less

mine, however, for Sophistic art was afforded

;

by the ambiguity of language

Sophists were

and the

the

concerned with

real

knowledge,

and

the smaller the advance in that period towards the

grammatical definition of words and propositions, and

towards the logical distinction of the various categories,
the more unrestrainedly could the intellect run riot in
so

wide a sphere, especially among a people so expert

in speech, and so accustomed to linguistic catches

riddles,
'

and

as the

Grreeks.^
sqq.,

Equivocal expressions were

and similar catches are mentioned by Aristotle, So])h. El. c. 24. ' Some one has sworn to commit a perjury; if he actually commits it,
is this

Euthyd. 297
Soph.
Ibid.

with the

same argumentative exaggeration.

"^

EL
EL

c. 5,

166
7
;

b, 32.
cf.

167 Pkileb. 14 D.
3
*

a,

Plato,

vopK7v or
25.

eTrtop/ceTi'?

Soph.

Soph.

c.

22, 178 b,

24

EL
4
:

c.

C. 4, 165
^

b, 30 sq. Euthyd. 299

34 sqq. Arist. Soph. EL c.

a,

180

1,

165

a,

sq.,

where

els tSttos

chtpveararSs icrn Kot

there are others of the same kind. " A veiled person is shown, and one of his acquaintances is

hr)ixocriwraros 6 hia

twv ovojxaTwv,

because words, being universal designations, are necessarily ambiguous, cf. Plato, Rep. 454 A, where Dialectic is characterised as the ^laipe^v kut etSr?, and Eristic as the custom /car' aiirh rb ouo/j-a Siwk^iv

asked whether he knows him if he says yes, he says what is untrue. for he cannot know who is hidden behind the veil if he says no, he
; ;

equally says an untruth, for he does know the veiled person. These

rov K^x'^^vtos
^

tV

ivavTioicriv

Examples are numerous, not

ERISTIC DISPUTATION.
taken in one sense in the
another in the second
; ^

467

first

proposition, and in

that which gave a right

;

mean-

ing only in combination was separated

that which

ought to be separated was united

only in the comic poets, but also in the common proverbial expresAristotle speaking of the sions. Sophistical play on words alludes to those \ayoi ye\o7oi, which are quite according to Greek popular
taste,
e.ff.
:

the inconsistency
&pa
:

/xdd7]fjLa'

(TirovSaioi'

pid&rtfjia

to

Euthydtm. ap. Arist. Soph. El. c. 20, 177 b, 46 the ambiguity lies here in fidd-qfia, which may either mean knowledge in the sxxbKaKov.
jective
sense,

or

the

object

of

iroripa
;

rwv

^oHi/

e/x-

irpocrdev

T|eTai
&fi<p(a.

ovSerepa,

dw'

viriad^v

Rket.

ii.

Similarly Arist. 24, 1401 a, 12 quotes:

fjLvv,

knowledge. - So in the Euthyd. 295 A sqq. Thou knowest all things always with it (the soul), therefore thou
'

(TTTouScuov iuai

for

from

it

come

knowest
El.

the

/j-var-npia.
'
:

For example to koko. ayadd' TO. yap 54ovTa ayada, to 5e /ca/cd Uovra {Soph. EL 4, 165 b, 34).
Spa 5e apa h opa tls, tovto opa Tou KiOfa. wcrre opa 6 k'iuv. apa o (TV (prjs fJvai, TOVTO av (pjis eivai qjTJs Se Tddof ehai, (Tv apa (pi^s Kidos
;

things always.' Soph. a, 168 a r Two and three are five, therefore two is five,
all
c. 4, 5,

166

and

tliree is five

'

'

and

is

person, whoever, therefore, strikes and B has struck one person and not several,' and the like. Ibid. c. rh ehai twv kokwv 24, 180 a, 8

A
TL

eiuai.

ayaQov

rj

yap (ppomjais

eaTitr

ap' (TTi (Tiyuvra Xiy^iv, etc.

iTTKTT-iifxT}

Tihv KaKuv. but if it

(Ibid. 166 b. 9, and c. 22. 178 b, 29 sqq.). Of the same calibre, and partly identical with these, are the fallacies in the Euthyckmus, 287 A,

(so the conclusion

iTTiaTqjjLt)

be must have run)

is

Tuv

Kojcwv, it

also t1

TWV
3

KOKOtV.

D,300A,D,3UlCsqq.). apaTaCra
^76?
croi

trd

^Ivai,

wu

h.u

&p^r}S

kjI i^rj
;

avTo7s XP^/""^"" o ri au ^ov\t)

aov ofj-oXny^ls elvai tou Aia Koi Tovs 6.\\ovs deovs, apa eleari (TOL avTOVs aiTodoadai, etc. {Euth. 301 E sq. Soph. El. c. 17, 176 b,
eTreiSTj
;

Euthyd. 298 D sq. (of. c. 24, 179 a, 34): 'You have a dog, and the dog has puppies ovkovv iraTTip i)v aos iffTiv, S(TT6 COS KaTT]p yiyverai. Soph. El. c. 4, 166 a, 23 sq. : SuyaTOv KaOrjfievov ^aSi^eiv koI /xt]
E.g.

Soph. El.
'

ypd(povTa ypdcpnv,
Ibid.
c.

6 avQpu>n6s

icTTi

twv

^ycoi/

vai.

&pa 6 6.v6pa}Tros rwv ^cfwu). AVhat someone has had, and has no longer, he has lost therefore if of five stones he lose one, he has lost ten, for he has ten no longer.' If a man who has several dice, gives me one of them, he has given me what he had not, for he has not only one' (Soph. El. c. 22, 178 b, 29 sqq.). Tov /ca/coC (Tirovddlov Th
KTrifxa
'

and the like. 12 sqq., where the following are given as fallacies of Eutbydemus dp" o75as ah vvv ovaas eV Heipaiel Tpiijpeis iv
20, 177 b,
:

'

( Do you know, being that there are ships in the Pirseus or 'Do you know in Sicily, the ships that are in the ? Piraeus This last interpretation results from Arist. Rhct. ii. 24, 1401 a, 26. Alexander's explana-

'SiKeXici

wv

in

Sicily,

'

'

463

THE

SOPHISTS.
employed
all

of language in the use of words was

for

small witticisms and

railleries,^

&c.

In

these things

the Sophists knew neither measure nor bounds.

On

the contrary, the more glaring the extravagance, the

more laughable the statement, the more

exquisite the

absurdity in which the interlocutor was involved, the

greater was the amusement, the higher the renown of

the dialectic pugilist, and the louder the applause of

the listeners.
tion,

indeed,

Of the great Sophists of the first generawe may with certainty assume, even
descriptions,

judging from Plato's

that

they never

descended to this level of charlatanism and buffoonery

tion of the passage does not seem ap' ecmv, ayaOhu to me correct)
:

ovra
01'

(TKUTe'a

ixoxQ'HP'^v

eluai

ap"

a.?\.rides elire'iv

vvv

on

ah yeyouas

ap' e^SeXTai rh avro ay.a re koI TreTrotT^/ceVat ov. oAAa ixvv opav ye tl a/xa Kol ecopaKevai rh curb Koi Kara ravrh ivh^x^rai, for
TTOteTv
;

ample,

Kidapi^cvv ^X^^^ ovyaixiv rov KidapiXetj/- KiOapiaais av 'dpa oh KiOapiCcov.

Aristotle, in all these cases, asci'ibes the fallacy to the avvQeais, the false

combination of words, and this is quite right the ambiguity is based upon the fact that the words iraTTjp t}v a OS iariv, m-dj either
;

is, being a father, yours,' or 'it is he who is your father; that KaOrjfxevov $adi(eiv 5vvaa6ai means to be as a person sitting in a position to go,' and also to be in a position to go sitting that ayadhu ui/TO. (XKVTea ixox'^VP^v ehai means
'

mean he

'

'

'

to be a good cobbler and a bad (man) and to be a good cobbler and a bad cobbler that etTrelj' vvv OTi av y4yovas means to say now that you came into the world and to say that you now came also
'
'

'

'

'

'

'

into the world,' &c.

' Soph.ELc. 4, 16Cih, 10 c. 22; Aristotle calls this irapo rh <rx^Ma ri]s \4^ews, and quotes as an ex-

the fallacy here arises from the analogy of Troteti/ ti being applied, on account of the similarity of the grammatical form, to opav n. To the same class belong the statements of Protagoras, caricatured by Aristophanes {Clouds, 601 sqq.), on the gender of words, that according to the analogy we must ;urji/is and 6 TriljAr/l (Soph. El. say 14, 173 b, 19). Concerning another kind of grammatical paralogism, the play upon words which are distinguished only by their pronunciation and accents, as oh and ov, 5i5ouLv and Sidoiuev (Soph. El. 166 b, o. c. 21), Aristotle c. 4, himself says that examples of it never came across him either in the writings of the Sophists, or in oral tradition, because these fallacies are always detected in speech, to which the arts of the Sophists

alwavs had reference.

ETHICAL DOCTRiyES.
;

4G9

and childish delight in foolish witticisms but their immediate successors, from all that we know, appear to have done so, and they themselves at a,ny rate prepared the way for this degeneracy. For they were incontestibly the founders of Eristic disputation.'
If,

however,

we once enter on the downward path

personal prowess,
it is

of a dialectic which

cares not for truth of fact, but only for the display of

no longer possible to halt at will puglaacity and vanity have full sway, and allow themselves all the

advantage which this standpoint affords

and such a

dialectic will claim the right to exercise

this principle until it is refuted

by a higher principle

The

Eristic off-shoots of the

Sophistic teaching are,

therefore, as little accidental as the insipid formalities

of Scholasticism in later times, and if

we

are

bound to

discriminate between the quibbling, of a Dionysodorus

and the argumentation of a Protagoras, we ought not ta

forofet

that the one

is

the lineal descendant of the other.

5.

The

ojjinioiis

of the Sophists concerning Virtue

and Justice

Politics

and Religion.

The Sophistic Rhetoric.

The remarks
also

at the conclusion of the last chapter

may
The

be applied to the Ethics of the Sophist.

founders of the Sophistic doctrine did not proclaim the

theory of

life

coiTCsponding with their scientific stand-

point so unreservedly as their successors

in some cases
it

they did not proclaim

be developed.
>

it

at all

but they scattered the

could not

seeds from which by a historical necessity

fail

to

Although, therefore, we must

Cf. p. 461 sq.

470

THE

SOPHISTS.

always distinguish between the beginnings of Sophistic

Ethics and the later and more completed form, yet we must not on that account overlook their mutual interdependence and their common presuppositions. The Sophists professed to be teachers of virtue, and

they regarded this as their peculiar task, because they

did not believe in the scientific knowledge of things

and had no
sense,

taste for

it.

The conception

of duty seems

to have been accepted by the elder Sophists in the

same

and with the same indeterminateness, as by their compatriots generally at that time. They included under this name all that according to Greek ideas constituted the capable

man

on the one side

all practical

and useful
all
/

arts,

including bodily activity, but especially

;
'

that

is

of value in domestic and civil life

on the

other side, ability and uprightness of character.

That

the latter was not excluded, and that the Sophistic

teachers of the
first

generation were far from opposing

is

on principle the prevailing moral theories,

all

clear

from
in

that

we know

of their

Ethics.

Protagoras,

Plato's dialogue, promises his pupil that every day that

he passes in his company he shall become better, he

[y

will

make him
;

a good father of a family and a brave

citizen
'

he
431

calls
pq.

duty the most beautiful of

at

all

things

Cf. p.

Now, there-

fore,

we meet with attempts

political theories, e.g. the treatise

of Protngoras, nepl iroXireias (Diog. 55) and the works mentioned, stcpra, p. 428, of Hippodamus and Phaleas, of whom the former, according to Aristotle, opens the series of theoretical politicians in Greece. To these also the famous exposition of Herodotus (iii. 80-82)
ix.

belongs which, though somewhat more detailed, might well form part of an independent theoretical discussion snch as the Sophists loved, in historical language, concerning the value of the three forms of government (cf. p. 473, 1 473, 6) possibly it may have been actually taken from a discussion of this kind. ^ p^^^ 313 A, E, sq. {sup. p. 430, 3; 431 5).
;

ETHICAL DOCTRINES.

471

he does not regard every pleasure as a good, but only

pleasure in the beautiful
;

nor

is all

pain an

evil.^

In

the

mythus

which Plato has chiefly taken from a

^

treatise of Protagoras

natural

means

of defence

we read The beasts have their to men, the gods have given
:

'

for their protection the sense

of justice and the ab;

horrence of wrong {hUrj and alScos)

are implanted in every

these qualities

man by
:

nature, and if they

should be wanting in anyone, that person could not be

commonwealth in political questions, and all take part, by means of instruction and admonition, in the moral education
tolerated in any
therefore, all have a voice,

of youth.'

Justice appears here as a law of nature, the

is

subsequent distinction of natural and positive right

still

alien to the orator.

The natural

disposition re-

quires to be cultivated, Protagoras says, by instruction,

but on the other hand instruction can only attain

its

end when nature and habit come to its aid."' G-oroias declined, indeed, both the name and the responsibility
>

Prot. 349 E, 351

is

sqq.

In

on the other hand,

E/i.

jShis.

\u.

what

said 349 B, on the parts of virtue, there can scarcely be

anything really derived from Protagoras.

2
3
I.

c.

320 C sqq.

Werke, i. 422, because the mythus is quits worthy of Plato, but why should it be too good for Protagoras? The language has a peculiar colouring, and the thoughts
Steinhart, Fl.
this,

doubts

466, believes that this is the title of a rhetorical work. I am inclined to refer it to the Foliteia. * Videthe words from the ^eyoy Xoyos of Protagoras, in Cramer, ATiecd. Paris, i. 171 (ILallach, Fr. Philos. ii. 134. 9): cpvcreui koI &crKr,(rws SiSaaKa\ia Se^rar /cot d7r6
veorrfTos
veiv.

5e afj^ajj.4vovs

Se? fxavda-

and their investiture are quite in

the style of the Sophists.

From

Here the question is already suggested, which Plato asks at the beginning of the Mow, and with which philosophy has so greatly
occupied itself ever since the time of Socrates, viz. how instruction is related on the one hand to natural disposition, and on the other to moral practice ?

impos182 sqq., thinks, and others agree with him, that it is from the treatise, irepl T^y eV apxv KaTaardjews Bernays,
it

what work

is

taken

it is

sible to discover;

Frei,

472

THE
;

SOPHISTS.
any
rate, in his later life
*
;

of a teacher of virtue

at

but this does not hinder him from speaking about

virtue.

He

did

not, however, attempt

any general

definition of its nature, but described in detail wherein

consisted the virtue of the

man and

of the

woman, of

the old
slave,

man and

of the boy, of the freeman and of the

without departing from the prevailing opinion.

Plato does not accuse

him

of

immoral principles

Gror-

gias rather hesitates about proceeding to the inferences

of a Callicles.^
^

Nor did Hippias,

B
:

in that discourse in

Plato, Meno, 95

ri 5al

hi)

oi

ao(pi(TTai

cot outol,

o'lirep

jx6uol

AVelcker, Kl. Schrlffen, ii. 522 sq.) ei Se ^ovXei yvvaiKhs apcr^v, ov

(TrayyiXKovTai, ZoKovtri Zi'bdffKaXoi. KoX Topyiov j-iaXiara, flj/at aperfjs '6ti ovk S> '2,a}KpaTS, Tavra 6.yafxaL, ay TTOre avrov tovto aKovauLS vtti;

XaXeirhv dieXde7u, oti Se?

oiKiau
si>

ai/rrju rr]v

re to, euhov Ka] KarriKoov ovcxav rod auSphs.

oIk67v

(Tib^ouadu

Ka\ clAXt] 60"Ti TraLbhs aperr] Koi OrjXeiai

(j)(yoviivov,

aWa

Kal

ruu aWoJU
vnicrxvov-

Kal appevos Kal Trpecr^uTepov aydphs,

el fxku

KaTayiAa,
jxivcaw

orav

aKovarj

fiovAei eKevdepov, ei 5e ^ovKei

aXKa Xeyeiv oUrai Self Troutv Fhilcb. Zivois. Cf. Gorg. 449 A 58 A. - Arist. Polit. i. 13, 1260 a, 27 The moral problem is not the we same for different persons ought not, therefore, to define
; :
;

8ov\ov. Kal aAAai itdix-woWai aperai

ela.v,
irepi

ware ovk

diropia elwelu apeTjjS

t: effri' Kad' eKacTTriv

yap rwv
enaaperi]
'S.wKpatj

TTpd^euu Kal
(xrov
ecTTLV,

rwv

TjXiniui' irphs

epyov eKacrrcf
cuaavroos Se,
T]

tjjxmv
oi[j.ai,
di

Tes, Kal

KaKia.

The more general

virtue universally as Socrates does:

ttqKv
yias.

yap

'a^^ivov k4yov(ni^ ol e^a-

ras dperas, wairep TopAfter th^s evidence we may the more readily ascribe to Gorgias himself what Plato in the Meno, 71 D sq., puts into the mouth of the disciple of Gorgias, with express reference to his master: ri (pfis
pidu.ovi'res

apT7]v eluai
d)

'AAA' ov

;;taA67rbj',

'^wKpares,

cl-rrelv.

irpSiTOV jxkv,

ei

which are extorted from 3feno (73 C, 77 B) cannot with certainty be ascribed to Gorgias, though some isolated expressions of his may perhaps be employed in them. Plutarch, Mid. Virt. p. 242, quotes a few words from him on female virtue. Foss, p. 47, righily applies to virtue the apophthegm ap. Prod, ad Hesiod. 0pp. 340, Gaistord, on Being and appeardefinitions

avhphs aperrju, pa5iov, Htl avTt] icrrlv audphs oper^, 'iKauuu eiuai
6ouA.et,
Tct

ance.
3 Gorg. 459 E sq., cf. 482 C, 456 C sqq. Likewise what Plutarch quotes from him, De Adulat. We must not, et Am. 23, p. 6i: indeed, require from our friends wrong-doing, but we must be ready
'

rrjs

TTf^Aews irpaTreiv
jxev

i<al

Trparttul^Tu

Topra Tov^
Tovs
(Cf.,
8'

cpikovs
KaKU)S,

^v
Ka\

e'x^pous

evKafieladai

/.i7?5ei/

aurhu tolqvtou ira6(7u.

this principle,

in regard

to

ETHICAL DOCTRIXES.
whicli he imparted rules of life to

473

Xeoptolemus through

Xestor,^ set himself in ojjposition to the customs

and

As to Prodicus, it is well known that his doctrine of virtue was approved, even by those who, in other respects, had no leaning to the Sophists. His Heracles,^ which gained for him so much praise, portrayed the worth and the happiness of virtue, and the pitifulness of an effeminate life, given
opinions of his countrymen.-

over to the pleasures of the senses.

In a discourse on

wealth he seems to have taught that riches in themselves are not a good, but that all

depends upon their

it is

employment
passions.^

for the licentious

and intemperate

misfortune to possess the means of satisfying their

Lastly, a discourse

upon death
of
life,

is

mentioned,

in which he described the

ills
ills,

praised death as
fear of

the deliverer from these

and silenced the

death with the reflection that death can affect neither

the living nor the dead
still alive,
;

not the living, for they are

for

and not the dead,

there
is little

they exist no more.-^

In

all thisj

to be found in the

way

of

new

thouofhts and scientific definitions,*^ but as little on the

do -wroRff for tlietn,' hardly contradicts the prerailiDg moral Eotions, while it presupposes in a general manner the idea of right. The substance of these is gyxQumXhe Greater Hippias,2%%X, no doubt correctly Xeoptolemus
to
'
:

^ *
'"

Ap. Xen. Meyn. ii. 1, 21 sqq. Eryxias, 395 E, 596 E, 397 D. Aciochus, 366 C, 369 C. That

asks Xestor iro'ia. iim kuXo. iTTLrr}Seujuara, t av ris 67riT7j5euaas veos

:

what follows, especially the arguments for the belief in immortality, 370 C sqq., is likewise borrowed from Prodicus seems to me improbable and the author does not in any way assert it. This very cir;

cbv evdoKifjL(i)TaTos
St?

y4voLTO' jxeTCLTavTa

\4'/wu iarlv 6 ^((TTup kol vttotlavTM TrafXTToWa vouiixa Kai TrdyKa\a.

64fXivos
- He there boasts of the siicoess of his lectures in Sparta.

cums'ance, however, speaks for the credibility of the previous references to that Sophist. ^ Heracles at the cross-ways is only a new investiture of thoughts

which Hesiod had already brought

474

THE

SOPHISTS.

other hand of Sophistic cavilling at moral principles.^

Prodicus appears here rather as a panegyrist of the old

customs and theory of

life,^

as

an adherent of the school

poets, of
If,

of the practical sages and

gnomic

Hesiod and

Solon, Simonides and Theognis.

phistic morality were to be

therefore, the So-

judged of from the relation

for

in which the

first

Sophists placed themselves to the

thought of their nation, there would be no ground

any distinction between them and the ancient sages.

This, however,
is

not the true state of the case.

Although the founders of the Sophistic teaching may have been unconscious of raising an opposition to the
prevailing principles, their whole point of view must

have tended in that direction.

itself a

Sophistic opinion

is

in

transcending of the previous moral tradition

it

by

its

very existence
If

proclaims this tradition to be

to follow

inader;[uate.

we had simply

common

habits

and customs,
his family

special teachers of virtue

would be unto do.

If,

necessary, every

man would
is

learn by intercourse with

and acquaintance what he had

on

the contrary, virtue

made

the object of special in-

forward in the well-known passage on the path of virtue and of vice, 'E. K. 'Hrj. 28o sqq. With the passage of the Ert/xias Welcker, p. 493, justly compares sayings of Solon
145 sqq., 230 sqq., 315 sqq., 719 sqq., 1155). author shows (p. 502 The same sqq.) that the euthanasia of Axiochus is specially grounded upon Cean customs and theories of life and at p. 434 he makes this general remark The wisdom of Prodicus (in Plato) might be said to be
v.
;

(vide sup. Vol, Theognis (vide

I.

p. 116,

2),

and

older than Simonides, if it did not transcend the simple notions of the poets, and were deficient in philosophie definiteness and importance.' ^ I agree with Welcker (p. 532) that the semi-eudsemonistic basis of the moral admonitions in the discourse on Heracles are not far removed from the standpoint of ordinary Greek morality (which Plato frequently censures for this reason, e.g. in the Phcedo, 68 D sqq.). ~ His Praise of Agriculture is rightly brought into connection with this, by Welcker, p. 496 sq.

MORAL

SCEFTICISM.

475

struction, it can neither be asked nor expected that this

instruction should be limited to the

ancient usage, or to the imparting of rules of

mere tradition of life which

first

do not affect moral conduct

the teachers of virtue

must do

as the Sophists did

from the

they must
on

enquire wherein virtue consists,

preferred to vice, &c.

why

it

deserves to be

To

this question, however,

the presupposition of the Sophistic

standpoint, only
is

one logical answer was possible.

If there

no truth
all

of universal validity, there can be no universally valid

law
that

if

man
is

in

his

opinions

is

the measure of
:

things, he
is

so also in

his actions

if for

each

man

true

which appears to him true, that which

seems to each right and good, must be right and good. In other words, everyone has the natural right to
follow his caprice

from doing

so

and inclinations, and if he is hindered by law and custom, it is an infringement

power to break through

of this natural right, a constraint with which no one is

boimd

to comply, if he has the

it.

or evade

These inferences were very soon, indeed, actually

drawn.

Though we may not

consider as an adequate

proof of this the words which Plato puts into the

mouth

of Protagoras on the subject,^ since they pro-

bably exaggerate that Sophist's own declarations,^ yet

the promise to

make
;

the weaker case the stronger

for, if

has a suspicious sound

to boast that he
1

the orator can venture

is

in a position to help

wrong

to gain

Thcat.

167

C:

oU
Ka\a

7'

tv

eKd(TTT) TToAei i'lKaia. Kal

SoKrj

ravra Kal ehai

avrfi

ews av avra

s^/^x p. 470. the meaning of promise, vide inf. 488, 1.

^

Vide
Oil

this

476

THE SOPHISTS.

the victory, faith in the inviolaltility of right must

It was still more endangered necessarily be shaken. by the discrimination and opposition of natural and positive right, that favourite theorem of the later Sophistic ethics which we hear first clearly and defi-

nitely enunciated

by Hippias.

Xenophon

represents

this Sophist as disputing the

moral obligation of laws,

which
everywhere

because they so often change,^ while he acknowledges

as divine or natural law only that
equall}" observed
;-

is

but

how

little

of such law exists, his

archaeological enquiries might have been sufficient to show him. In Plato ^ he says that law, like a tyrant, compels men to do much that is contrary to nature.

These principles soon appear as the Sophists' general confession of faith. In Xenophon,^ the young Alcibiades,
the friend of the Sophistic doctrine, already expresses
himself in the same manner as Hippias, and Aristotle
1

3fe/. iv. 4, 14, after Socrates

^^y^

eL

c.

12,
iff

173

has reduced the conception of justice to that of hiwfulness

8',
^(pT],
d>
:

TrActo-ros 5e

roiros

a, 7* rod ttokIu

vo^ovs

SwKpares, irais ^.u ris TjyrjaaiTO (nrovdalop irpay^a cluai r) rh TT^iQeaQai ahrols, ovs 76 TroXXaKis
avTol
01

kXtjs eu

7rapd5o|a Kiy^iv licnrep kol 6 KaWitw Vopyia yiypairraL \4ywv,

Kol
ot
apx'^-^oi

5e

irduTes

wovto
eivai

avix^aiveiv, Trapa rh

Kara

<pv<nv Kai

d^ixet'Oi

airo^OKLixdaavTes

Karh Thu
Kara
(pvaiv

fSjxov,

ivavria yap

fj-eTaridefTai;
I. c. 19 sqq., Hippias allows that there are also unwritten laws, which proceed from the gods but amon^ these he will only reckon those which are ererywhere recognised, such as veneratio.i of the gods and of parents; while on the other hand, for example, the prohiljition of incest, being against the custom of many nations, is not included in the number.
;

<f>v(nv Ka\ vSixov,

Kol r)]v diKaioavv7]v

vofxov
5'

jxkv

oi/
.

dvai KaXSv.

KaXou

Kara
5i-

Similarly,
toTs

Plato,

Themi

172 B: eV

Kaiois Kal ddlKois Kal daioLS Kal avoaioLs idiKovatu lax^pK^'^^"-', ^^

ecrri

"""^

(pvaeiavTuuovhev ovalav eavrov exoi', aA\a rh KOLvfj dS^au tovto yiyi'^Tai aXrjdh orav oo|7? Kal oaov '^"^''^^^'av 5oKr] xP'^^^'-^ 7^ ^^ X6~ /xr] -KavTairaai rhv UpwraySpov yov hfyovcnu uo4 iroos rrjv aocpiau
'

3 *

Prot.

Mem.

237 C. i. 2, 40 sqq.

'dyovai.

NATURAL AND VOMITIVE RIGHT.

describes as one of the

477

most popular
of the

Sopliistic

common'

places

the assertion

Platonic Callicles

that

nature and custom stand in most cases in contradiction.

Xow
that

it

universal

would not unconditionally follow from this moral principles are founded only on
from the positive law being behind
law of nature.

ancient custom, and not on nature; for the contradiction

may

in itself arise

the strict requirements of the

And
to
as

examples are not wanting where the independence of

ancient custom, claimed by the Sophists,
attacks upon institutions which

moved them we can only regard

prejudices or imperfections of the laws of that time.

Lycophron declares nobility

vantage
slave
;^

to

be an imaginary ad-

Alcidamas points out that the contrast of and freeman is unknown to nature, and others gfo

so far as to

nature.^

^ Gorg. that Callicles vras not a Sophist in the narroTrer sense, but a politician, who sometimes spoke with considerable contempt of this fruitless

impugn slavery as an institution contrary to But we can easily see that their attacks upon 482 E sqq. The fact & S" av (/.erddcavTui koI orav, rore
Kvpia eKaara eJuai, yiyvofieva ri^vy /cat rols uofiois, d\A' ou Stj tiui
<pva;i (exactly the same argument which, according to 476, 1, Hippias had employed),
- Ps.-Plut. De Nobilit. 18, 2, Is the eirysveia rSiv ri/j.iwi' koI frirov-

argumentation (vide sup. p. 427), Plato certainly is unimportant. intends us to regard him as a representative of the Sophistic culture, who does not hesitate to push it to its extreme consequences. It is evidently of the Sophists and their disciples of whom Plato is chiefly thinking, when, in the Xa?t'S, X. 889 D, he tells us of people

Saia}u,fiKa9d-7repAvx6(ppa}v6(TO(piiTrT]s

eypa\pe Kaivov [k^vou, cf.

Meineke,

ad

Stob. Floril. 86, 24] ri ndij.Trai/ ; 4Ke7vos yap avrnrapT-^dWav kripois

avT7]u,

ayaQols
(p-qa-lv,

evyeveias

acpaves rb

KaWos,

uku ovu, eV Koyca

?e rh aefivov.
^ Arist. says, Pol. i. 3, 1250 b, 20 to7s 5e irapa <pv<xiv [5o/ce? elvai] rh deaTro^eiv. vojx'j) yap rou /j.hu SovXov elvai rhv 5' iKevdepoi^. (pvaei
:

who maintain
vi)

tijv vo!xoQs.a[av Tracrau

5eris oiiK

(pvaei,

Texyp

ahrjOels
(pvaeL
to.

eluai TOLs Oeaeis

ixav

... to KaKa

&Wa

ehai, vSfjup 5e '^repa.

8e S'lKaia ovS' tluai roirapdirav

(pvcrei,

5' ovOhi/ diacpepeLf. SLOirep

ovShSiKaiop'

aW^ a.fj.(pi(TPriTovvTasOiaTe\e7v aWi]\ois Koi fj-eTaTiee/ji^vovs del ravTa-

^iaiov

ydp.

himself in

Alcidamas expressed a similar manner, as

478
positive laws

THE

SOPHISTS.
to such cases.

would not be confined

Law

and ancient usage had been hitherto the only moral

authority
all
;

if this

authority were no longer binding,

moral obligation was open to question, belief in its inviolability was declared to be a prejudice, and so long as no new basis of moral life was indicated, there
judicial law
Yahlen proves
treatise quoted

remained only the negative result that every moral and is an unjust and unnatural restriction of
(p.

50-i

sq.

of the

supra, p. 425, 5), from Arist. Bhet. i. 13, 1373 b, 18, where Aristotle appeals in support of the theory of a universal natural

law

to his

Meo-o-Tji/iaKtJs

and the
ii.

Scholiou {Graf. quotes from that

Attici,

154)

the Politics, the declaration that this social arrangement, which throughout Hellas constituted a lawful right, was a wrong such an attack could only damage the effect of the discourse. Aristotle, however, speaks in Polit. i. 6, 1255 a, 7, of

work these words,

to

TToWul Tuv

eV rots vSjxois,
;

who

which originally appear

have

stood in the Aristotelean text 4Kv94povs acpYjKe irdvTas Qehy, ovSei/a

Yet SovXov 7] (pvnis iT(:TTol-f]Kev. Aristotle does not seem to be thinking specially of him in the passage quoted above from the
Politics.

For the Meo-trrjj/iaKbs (as Yahlen has conekisively shown, p. 504 sqq.) had a definite practical
that of effecting the recognition of the restored Messenians after the battle of Manand as in this it ran tinea counter to the feelings of the Spartans, who strongly disliked having their Helots (intermingled
;

purpose

accuse slavery of injustice and in c. 3, either he or the adversary whom he has primarily in view, sums up these accusations (as the vojxcp yap ts fxev Sov\os trimeter 8' iK^vOepos shows, which also t)s betrays itself, c. 6, 1255 b, 5) in the words of a tragic poet, possibly Euripides (from whom Oncken, Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. 33 sq., has collected similar statements), or AgaBut thon, the pupil of Gorgias. even if the passage in the Politics has no special reference to Alci:

damas, it is probably concerned with a theory which, by the application of the Sophistic distinction

with the Messenians) for independent neighbours (as Isocrates says,

Archid. 28,
cf.

between vo^jlos and (pvais, laid bare the most vulnerable pirt of ancient
society.

8, 87,

96) it was

quite fitting to remind them that the opposition of slaves and freemen was not absolute, that all men On the are by nature free-born. other hand, an attack on the principles

this

theory

Among the adherents of may have been the

connected with
their

Cynics,

who were
through

Gorgias

founder,

and who made great use of this distinction, if they were not (as I
conjectured, Part
its first assertors.
ii.

and the whole institution of slavery, such as is presupposed in

a,

276, 3rd ed.)

NATURAL AXD POSITIVE RIGHT.

human
freedom.

479

Hippias, in the application which he

makes of
principle
;

his proposition, approximates closely to this

others do not hesitate to

is,

avow

it

openly.^
solely

Natural right

as Callicles says {l.c.\ only

;

and
to be

the right of the stronger

and
this,

if

the prevailing opinions

is
:

and laws do not recognise

the weak found
it

the reason

found

in the weakness of the majority of

men

the mass of

selves against the strong

more advantageous to protect themby an equality of rights but

;

stronger natures

will not therefore be hindered

following the true law of natm-e

interest.

the

from

law of private

All positive laws therefore appear from this

point of ^iew as arbitrary enactments, set up by those who have the power of making them for their own

advantage
nothing

the

rulers,
is

as

Thrasymachus

says,^
;

make
is

that a law which

else

useful

to themselves

riolit

than the advantage of the ruler. Only fools and weaklings consequently will believe that they are bound by those laws the enlightened man knows
;

how

little

such

is

the case.

The Sophistic

ideal is

unlimited authority, even though attained bv the most unscrupulous means, and in Plato, Polus ^ considers none
'

Cf. the quotations, p. 476, 2,

1,

from Hippias, Plato, and Aristotle, and remark especially, in

5
;

277.

338 C sqq., who no doubt has good reason for putting these principles into the mouth of the Chalcedonian
rhetorician
inf.
p.
:

the last mentioned, the expression ot opxaTot Trai/res, which, though not to be taken literally, bears witness to the wide diffusion of this mode of thought; and which we may suppose to be founded, not on Plato's statements, but on Aristotle's own

also
2,

what

is

quoted

independent knowledge, since he had an intimate acquaintance with

the Sophistic rhetoricians. 2 According to Plato,

Bep.

i.

agrees herewith, Thrasymachus there admits that justice would be a great good, but he denies that it is to be found among men, because all laws are made by those in power for their own advantage, ^ QQ,.g ^-q q g^^ Similarly Thrasymachus, Bep. i. 34i A cf. iaw5ii.661 B; Isocr.Pa7ia^^.243sq.
-481,
;

480

THE SOPHISTS.

happier than the King of Persia, or Archelaus the Macedonian, wlio rose to the throne through innumerable treacheries and deeds of blood.
is

The

final result

thus the same as in the theoretic view of the world,

;

unlimited subjectivity

the moral world like the natural

world

is

recognised as the work of man, who, by his

will,

imagination, produces phenomena, and by his

laws

and customs, but who

is

in neither case

bound by nature

and the necessity of things.^

The above result does not seem to me to be contravened, even by Grote's animated defence of the
'

Sophistic ethics {Hist, of Greece, simiviii. 50-i sqq., vii. 51 sq. larly Lewes' Hist, of Phil. i. 108 sqq), full as it is of weighty and pertinent suggestions in justification of the errors and extravagancies which had previously pre;

vented any unprejudiced historical It representation of Sophistic. would certainly be very precipitate to charge the Sophists in general,

and without distinction of individuals, with principles dangerous to morals, or with immorality of life. But, it is no less precipitate
with Grote (viii. 527 532 sq.) and Lewes, I. c, that such principles as Plato puts
to maintain,
sq.,

Sophists could not have said various things which gave offence to people. But how do we know that a Thrasymachus and his like would have aroused among those who chiefly sought Sophistic instruction the ambitious young politicians, the aristocratic youths, whose prototypes were Alcibiades and Critias the same opposition by the views Plato ascribes to them, which they certainly aroused in the democratic community which adhered to the ancient forms of religion, politics, Grote, moreover and morality? (viii. 495 sqq.), defends Protagoras

make the weaker argument appear the stronger (cf. inf. 488), by observing that Socrates, Isocrates, and others, were also accused of the same principle;
for his offer to

into

the mouth of his Callicles and Thrasymachus could never have been brought forward by any

Sophist in Athens, because the hearers on whose applause the Sophists depended, would thereby have been roused to the most vioOn lent opposition against them. this ground it might also be proved that Protagoras did not express those doubts in the existence of the gods which occasioned his condemnation and that many other
;

but this is to misstate the quesProtagoras was not falsely tion. accused of the principle, but himGrote goes on to self set it up. say that no one would blame an advocate for lending his eloquence to the side of wrong as well as of right but this again is only half true the advocate must certainly urge on behalf of the criminal whatever he can say for him with a good conscience, but if he were to make a trade of his art of
; :

RELIGION AND THE GODS.

Among human

481

prejudices and arbitrary rules, the

Sophists necessarily assigned a prominent place to the

If no knowledge be knowledge about the hidden causes of things must be doubly impossible and if all positive institu-

religious faith of their nation.

possible, a

tions

and laws are the products of human caprice and

entii-ely

calculation, the worship of the gods, which in Greece

belonged

to

public jurisdiction, must

come

under the same category.

says Protagoras,
are,

This was expressed in plain

'

terms by some of the leading Sophists.

'

I can

Of the gods,' know nothing, neither that they

^

nor that they are not.'

Thrasymachus

is

mentioned
;

as entertaining

doubts of Divine Providence

Critias

maintains^ that in the beginning

helping
the

men

lived without

wrong
call

to

conquer,
per-

everybody would

him a

pecially Krische. Forsck. 132 sqq. - Hermias, in the Ph<Bdru?, p.

This is what is verter of justice. offensive in the promise of Protagoras he is not blameworthy, nor did his contemporaries blame him. for teaching an art which might be abused, but for recommending this art preciselyfrnm that point of view. The disquisitions of Hippias on vo^os and (pvffis are entirely passed over by Grote and
:

192 Ast.

{Qpaavfx.)

^ypa-^sv

iv

\6ycf lairrou Toiovrou ri. on ol QeoX ovx opuai TO avQpuTTiva ov yap to

lx4yi(TT0V ro:v

if avdp'jfuois

ayaduv

Trapf7dov,Tr)V 8iKaioffvvr}V opufxevyap

Lewes.
*

The famous opening words

of

this treatise for

which he was com-

pelled to leave Athens, according to Diog. ix. 51, &c. (also Plato, Thecet. 162 D) ran thus: ir^fA fikv
Beccv
ov9'
oxjK
ojs

exco

eldevai ov6'

ws elalv

ovK elaiv. ttoWo. yap ra KcoXvovra elopai, t; re dSrjAdTTjs Koi

Tous avdpuirovs ravrri fi^ xp^f^^^^^^^ In the verses given by Sext, Math. ix. 54, and on account of which Sextus, Pyrrh. iii. 218, and Plutarch, Be Superstit. 13, p. 17, reckon Critias as an atheist with Diagoras. The same verses, however, are ascribed in the Placiia, 2 paralL i. 7, of. ibid. 6, 7 to Euripides-, who is there said to have placed them in the mouth of Sisyph\TS in the drama bearing his name. That such a drama com;

^paxvs i'v 6 /3to? Tou aidpccTTov. Others give the tirst proposition, less correctly, thus Trepl Oeci'v ovre
:

el elfflv ovff

dno7ui rivis

elcri

hvvajxai

X^yeii:

Tide
II.

Frei,

96

sq.,

and

es-

posed by Euripides existed, cannot be doubted after the positive statements of .^lian, V. H. ii. 8 but Critias may likewise have written a Sisyphus, and it may have been uncertain at a later period whether
;

VOL.

I I

483

THE

SOPHISTS.

law and order, like the animals, that penal laws were given for protection against tyi'anny but as these could
;

only prevent open crimes,

it

occurred to some clever

and imaginative man to provide a protection against secret wrong-doing, by relating that there are gods who are mighty and immortal^ and see all hidden things and, to increase the fear of them, he placed their abode In proof of this theory, the Sophists no in heaven.
doubt appealed to the variety of religions
adore the same god
:

if tlie belief

in gods were based upon nature^ they said,

all
;

men would

the variety of gods shows most

clearly that the worship of

them merely

originates from

That which holds good human of positive institutions in general, must also hold good
invention and consent.^
of positive
religions
;

because religions are different

in different nations, they can only be regarded as arbitrary inventions.

Prodicus explained the rise of

reli-

gious belief in a more naturalistic manner.

of old time, he says,^

The men held the sun and moon, floods

and therefore
gods,

and streams, and

gods, just as the

all

things that are of use to us, to be

;

Egyptians do the Nile

bread

is

revered as Demeter, wine as Dionysus, water

as Poseidon, fire as Hephaestus.^

the verses belonged to him or to Euripides moreover, a drama is mentioned by Athen. xi, 496 b, the authorship of which lay in doubt between Critias and Euripides cf. Fabricius ad Sevt. Math. Bayle, Diet. Critias, Rem. c. l. H. Whoever may have written the verses, and in the mouth of whomsoever they may have been placed, they are at any rate a monument of the Sophistic view
; ; ;

The popular
E
:

of religion. ' Plato, Laws, x. 889

Beovs,

fxaKapie, eluai

wpwroV

(pacnv ovtoi

Tiffi

[the cro^ol] rexvii, ov cpvaei, axxd vS/xois, koI tovtovs &\?^uvs &AKr), Stt^j %Ka(noi kavrolci avvwjxoX6yr\aav vo/xoOeTovjxeuoi. Cf. pp.

476,
^

2,

5; 477, 1. Sext. Math. ix.

i.

18,
cf.

51

sq.

Cic.
^

N. D.

42,

118;

Epiph.

Exp. Fid. 1088 C.

We may bring into connection

RELIGION AND THE GODS.

483

however, as such, are upon this theory likewise denied;^

though Prodieus mentions them in the usual manner upon Heracles,- this proves no more than the coiresponding appropriation of their names in
for

in his discourse

the

myth
is

of Protagoras

;^

and that he distinguished the

one natural or true God from the

there

many

popular

gods,"*

no evidence to

certify.

The statements

also of

Hippias,

who

referred the unwritten laws in Xenophon,^

agreeably to the prevailing opinion, to the gods, are

unimportant, and merely show that this Sophist was

too inconsistent to

make

the obvious application of his

TJie Sophistic

theory concerning the laws to religion.

teaching as a whole could only logically assume towards

the popular religion the position of a Protagoras and a
Critias.

If even the things that

we

see are for us

merely what we make them, this must

case with those

still

more be the
is

we do not

see

the object
is

only the

counterpart of the subject,

the creator of his gods.

man

not the creature, but

The

rhetoric of the Sophists stands to their ethical

life

theory of

in the

same relation that their Eristic

disputation stands to their theory of knowledge.

with this the importance which
Prodieus, according to Themist. Or. XXX. 349 b, ascribes to agriculture in the origin of religion: Upovpyiav -nacrav avdpuirccy Kal ^vaTT)pia Koi iravTtyvpeLs kou reXeras voT'2v yewpyias Ka\wv e|aTTei, fJ^wf KaL Qewv evvoiav [ei'*'-] im-evdfv
is

To

the products of the field; a view which was certainly countenanced by the cult of Demeter and Dionysus. i Consequently Cicero and Sextus reckon Prodieus among the atheists, in the ancient acceptation of the word.
2
^

aydpuTTovs

iXdi'iif

Kal

iraaay

Xen. Mem.

iL

1,

28.

eixTf^eiay iyyvwfj.vos.

The autumn

and harvest festivals might especially seem to have given rise to

the worship of the gods, since they were particularly concerned with
I 1

Plato, Prof. 320 C, 322 A. * As Welcker, /. c. 521, is disposed to assume.

=

Mem.
2.

iv. 4,

19 sqq. vide

suj).

476,

484

THE
man who

SOPHISTS.

the

denies an objective wisdom, there remains

only the appearance of wisdom in the sight of others

and

similarly, to the

man who

denies an objective right,

there remain only the appearance of right in the sight

of others, and the art of producing such an appearance.

But

this art is the art

of oratory.^

For oratory was

not only the best means, under the conditions of that

period, of attaining power and influence in the State

but

it

is,

speaking generally, the instrument by which

itself

the superiority of the cultivated maintains the uncultivated.

over
is

Where

therefore a high value

set

upon mental

culture, as it was

by the Sophists and their

whole epoch, there the art of oratory will be fostered

and where this culture is deficient in any deeper, scientific, and moral basis, not only will the importance of
eloquence be over-estimated,^ but
negligent of
sided
its
it will

itself

become

content, and concern itself in a one-

manner merely with its immediate success and The same will inevitably happen as in external form.
'

The task

of rhetoric

is

thus

defined
is

by the Platonic Gorgias, Gorg. 454 B (cf. 452 E) l\iietoric

:

Gorgias himself, he is certainly quoting only from the passage in Plato, and the same passage is
doubtless also the source of that other definition quoted in the anonymous introduction to the a-Tdcreis of Hermogenes ap. Walz. Bhet. Gr. vii, 33 Spengel, Sw. T. 35, from Plutarch, the Neo-platonist's Commentary on the Go)';

the art ravrr^s

ttjs TreiOovs, ttjs

eV TOtc dLKacTTTjpiois Ka\ Tols

aWois

Kc.\ irepl tovtoiv a iart dlKaid re Kol adiKa, and therefore Socrates, 455 A, with the consent of the Sophist, defines it as irnQovs 5t]fiiovyhs iriarevTiKrfs, aW' oh 5iZaffKaKiKi-js, Trepl rh biKaiov re Kal That the essence of SotiSiKou. is rightly dephistic rhetoric scribed in these words will be clear from the rest of our chapter.

ux^oLs

as opos prjropiKrjs Kara Fopyiav. Cf. Plato, Phileb. 58 A, where Protarchus says he has often heard of Goi-gias, ws ri rod Tr^ideiu noKv 5ia(p4poi iracrcov t^xvuv iravra yap
cfias.
-

When, however, Doxopater, Li Aphthon. Bhet. Gr. ed. Walz, ii.

104,
attributes
this definition to

txp'

avTf}
fiias

5ov\a

Si'

eKSvrwv koI ov
etc.
;

hia

-koioIto,

similai'ly

Gorg. 452 E, 456

sqq.

SOPHISTIC RHETORIC.

485

the exclusive application of dialectic forms to Eristic

argamentation.

The form which has no corresponding

skill

content becomes an external, false and empty formalism,

and the greater the

culture which
is

with which this formalism

is

managed, the more quickly must follow the ruin of a

limited to
it.

These observations

may

serve to explain the

meaning

and
to
is

specific character of Sophistic rhetoric.

In regard

scarcely a doubt, that they practised

most of the Sophists we know, and of the rest there and taught this
sometimes setting up general rules and theories,
for imitation, or furnishing

art,

sometimes models

ready-

made speeches for immediate use ;^ while not a few even We are acquainted with theo- dri[xriyopiKo7s Se oXiyois (Tupyiou
'

works on rhetorical siibjects by Protagoras (vide infra and Frei, 187 sq,), by Prodicus (vide supra, p. 420, 3), by Hippias (vide infra,
retical

TrepeTvxov \6yois) Kai riai koI Te'x-

ypengel, p. 60), by Thrasymachus (vide on his'EAeoi, Arist. Soph. El. c. 33, 183 b, 22; Bhct. iii. 1, 1404
a,

13; Plato. Phcedr. 267 G.

Ac-

cording to Suidas, sub voce, and the Scholia on Aristophanes, Birds, V. 881, he also wrote a rex^V of which the "EKeoi perhaps formed a Herpart vide Spengel, 96 sqq, Schanz, p. mann, Be Thras. 12 131 sq.) by Polus (vide supra, p.
; ; ; ;

The same author mentions {Be Compos. Verb. c. 12, ip. 6&E) a discussion of Gorgias irepl Koupov, with the remark that he was the first who ever wrote on the subject. Spengel, I. c. 81 sqq., however, thinks that on account of the passages from Ari'^totle, quoted p,
vais.

and by Evenus (Plato, Blmdr. 267 A, vide supra, p. 426, 3), That Gorgias at his death left a Texvrj, i^^ asserted by Diog. viii. o8, and by the author of Prole425,
1),

462, 1, and Cie. Brut. 12, 46, w-e are justified in denying the existence of any work on the rhetorical art by Gorgias. But as Schanz (p. 131) pertinently observes, neither of chese passages is decisive Cicero, following Aristotle, names Corax and Tisias as the first authors of Protagoras rhetorical technology and Gorgias as the first who made speeches concerning commonplaces;
:

gomena

to

Hermogenes quoted by

this,

however, would not prevent

QuiuSpengel, ^vay. Texv. 82. tilian includes him among the Artiura Scriptores (Quintil. iii. 1, 8). Dionysius observes in the fragment given by a scholion on Hermogenes (ap. Spengel, 2. T. 78)
:

their having also written about the rules of art : from the language of the treatise against the Sophists, it would certainly seem that Aris-

Gorgins on a par with Tisias and Thra'^ymachus

totle did not place

iS6

THE sopinsrs.
rhetoric the chief object of their instructions.^

made

Their own lectures were rhetorical displays f besides the speeches wh.ich they had prepared,'^ tliey plumed
tliemselves on never being at a
loss,

even at a moment's
^
:

notice, for specious answers to all possible questions

.IS

a culf ivator of rhetoric it does not imply tliat he was unaequainteii with any rhetorii-al work of Gorgias. On the other hand, Plato. Phcedr. 261 B, 267 A, expressly alludfs
;

machus
voce,

Suidas, sub attributes to the Chalcedonian Sophist, acpopiial prjropiKal, according to Welcker's conjecture
individually,

who

(KL Sckr
the
X.

to technical treatises on rhetoric by this Sophist these, however, probably consisted not of one complete theory of the rhetorical art. but of dissertations on particular questions: at least the expi'ession T^xvai riv4s in the work of Dion^'^sius (cited stfpra) indicates this (ride also "Welcker, Kl. Sekr. ii. Still more important 456, 176). than their writings, however, were the example and pi'actical teaching of the Sophistic rhetoricians (Protagoras ap. Stob. Floril. 29. /ueXerrj equally repudiates 80, &VSV Text^Tls and r^XV] o-^^^ M^ xir-ns), and especially those discourses on general themes ascribed to Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and Prodicus (fleVeij or loci communes, as distinguished from the particular eases on which the periodical and political discourses turned these were inrod^(reis or cau,sa cf. Cic. 7b/). 21, 79 Quintil. iii. 5, 5 sq., and others
; ;

ii. 457), identical with virepfid\\ovTs cited by Plu;

tarch,

Sympos. i. 2, 3 and At hen. 416 a, who quotes something Quintilian from his procemia. merely ascribes to Prodicus the cultivation of loci communes, -which looks as if he had not, like the three others, developed them for but the purposes of instruction
;

cited
;

in

Frei,

QiKest.

Trot.

150

the only point in which I sqq. disagree with Frei is in his distinction of theses from loc-i communes).

Vide on this subject, Aristotle ap. Cic. End. 12, 46; Uiog. ix. 53
Trpos

speeches in the larger sense like those cited from him {siif. p. 473), and also the lectures of Hippias been (/. c), might possibly have reckoned as loci communes. The employment of such commonplaces was even vnlh. Gorgias very mechanical, vide supra, p. 462, 1. Cf. besides what follows, p. 425, 472. 1. E7ri5ei|iy, eViSeiKi/uc^ot are, as is well known, the standing expressions for these, Cf. e.g. Plato, Gorg. sub init. Protag. 320 C, 347 A. * Such as tlie Heracles of Prodicus, the displays of Hippias, Prot. 347 A, and stqora. p. 423, 1 and the speeches of Gorgias (vide supra, 415, 2 416, 3), especially the celebrated speech at Olympia. Gorgias is mentioned as the first who displayed his art in these impromptu speeches. Plato, Gorg.
^
;

**

(Protagoras r-pwros /caTtSci^e ras 0eVe(S iTrLX^Lpr,creLs) ras Quintil. iii. 1, 12, and on Thrasy;

447,

Ka\

T7JS eTTiSet^ews*

epctiTav

'6

Ti

yap avrw V tout' fiv iKeK^v; yovv vvv 5?; TLS ^ovKoiTO T&v ey^Qv

SOPHISTIC RHETORIC.
besides the rhetorical exuberance which allowed
all possible

487

them

expansion of their subject, they boasted of

tersest

having the art of compressing their meaning into the language besides independent discussion, they
; '

considered the explanation of the poets as part of their

task
;

aloug with the great and noble, they thought

TTphs airauTa e<pT^ airoKpiveii.
;

it

ovTuv Ka\
adai.

qicod
cisse

De Orat. 22, 103 primum ferunt Leontinura feCic.

Gorgiam : qui perniog mini qniddam suscipere ac profiferi videbatur, cum se ad omnia, de quibus

qulsque audire vellet, esse paro.tuni Ibid. iii. dmuntiaret. 32, 129 (hence Valer. viii, 15, ext. 2). Quintil. Inst. ii. 21, Fin. ii. 1, 1 21 Philostr.r. Soph. 482, no doubt
;
;

only through a misunderetanding, represents him as coming forward in this manner in the Athenian
theatre.
'

Cf.

Foss 4o, similarly on

Hippias, svp. p. 421, 3. e.g. Protagorj s, ap. Plat. Vrot. 329 B, 334 E s'qq., where we read ort crv o\o'i t' el k<xi avrhs of him
:

he went into every possible detail connected with his theme. The same was the case with his scholar Lycophron. ap. Arist. Soph. El. 15, 171 b, 32 and Alex, ndh.l. SchoL in Arist. 310 a, 12. Hippias in the Protagoras, 337 E sq., makes a conciliatory proposition to Socrates and Protagoras, that the former shall not insist severely on the conciseness of the dialogue, and that the latter shall bridle his eloquence, so that his speeches shall not exceed due measure and Prodicus is ridiculed in the Phcedrus, 267 B, because he, like Hippias, prided himself on this ^ouos avrhs evpT)Kfvai uu Set \6yccv t4xvt,v Zetv
; ; :

Se oyre /j-aicpuu oirre Ppax^ccv,

fxerpiwv.
-

oAAo

Koi 6.W0V SiSa^at TTepi rait/ avTwv Ka\ fxanpa \{yeiv iau ^ov\r], ovtws, ware

Plato, Prot. 338

[iTpwT.],

E:

T)yovfxai,

rhu Xoyov ^TjSeVoTe iiriknrelu, koi ad ^pax^a o'vroos, (hare /UTjSeVa aov
eV

i(pr\

'^aiKpaTS,
{.iipos

iya afSpl
ilvai Trept

TratSeias
i-nSiv

fxeyio'TOV

^paxvTrepois
in
it

eiTreli/.

The same

Sejvbv eli/ar ecrrt 5e tovto to. vtto

fivai <Tv-

the Phcedrus, 267 B, said of Gorgias and Tisias: crwToixlavreXo'ywv Ka\i.iT^ipa occurs

ruv Tron]TO}v Xeyojxeva oiovr'

adai
SieXeli'

where
fjLT]KT]

is

vievai a re 6p6ws ical a ixv, xal iirlcrra-

ire pi

-KavTwu

avivpov,

and
:

Sovpai,

re ifal ipuTuiixevou \6yov on wliich follows the well-

Gorgias himself says, Gorg. 449 C Koi yap ai) Ka\ toito eV iariy av ^rifil, IJ.T]54v av iv $paxvT4poiS ijiov to. avra.

on which Socrates requests him, as he requests Protagoras in Prot. 335 A, &c., to use shortness of speech in the discourse. But that he was addicted to diffusiveness of language we also see from Arist. Bhet. iii!" 17, HIS a, 34, for
etVeTv.

know.; discussion of the poem of Simonides. Hippias similarly, at the commencement of the Lesser Hippias, treats of Homer and other poets; and Isocrates (Panath. 18, 33) makes an attack on the Sophists, who, having no original thoughts of their own, chatter about Homer and Hesiod.

488

THE

SOPHISTS.

showed intelligence to praise

cant, the

for a change the insignificommonplace, and the unpleasant.* Protagoras

had

alread}^
:

to be this
strongei',

announced the highest triumph of rhetoric it could convert the weaker into the and represent the improbable as the probable
that
'^

'

Tims
Isocr.

and

Plato, Si/mp. 177 B, Hcl. 12, mention eu;

and silk-v\'orms Alaccording to Menander, T-. eVtSet/fT. Bhet. Gr. ix. 163. Tzetz. CMl. ix. 746 sq. wrote in praise of death and of poverty: and Polycrates, whose art of rhetoric is closely allied to that of the Sophists, composed enlogies en Busiris and Clytemnestra, and an accusation of Socrates (Isocr. Bus. 4 Quiiitil. ii. 17, 4), a speech in praise of mice (Arist. Rhet. ii. 24, 1401 b, 15), of pots and of pebbles. (Alex. TT. acpopfj.. pr]T. Rhet. Gr. ix. 334 to iii. 3 Sp.) To the same class belong the Busiris of Isocrates, and Antiphon's discourse (Welcker, Kl. Schr. ii. 427, conjectures him to have been the Sophist mentioned p. 426, 4, not Antiphon of Ehamnus, to whom it is ascribed by
logies on salt

cidamas,

Athen.
-

397, 3 c, iipon peacocks.

ix.

and others)

That Protagoras promised his pupils to teach them how the ?ittu>p
koyos could be made the Kpe'moov,
is

attested by Aristotle, Rhcf.

ii.

After he has been speak ing of the tricks by which the improbable can be madf probable, he adds, koX Tt> r'bv tjttw Se \6yov
24, end.

describes that promise as actually given by Protagoras, and that he is not (as Grbte, Hist, of Greece, riii. case) 495, represents the merely expressing his own judgment on rhetoiic consequently Grellius, y. A. V. 3, 7, entirely agrees with him when he says, ^wllicchatur ss id chjcere, quafimn verborum industria cemsa infirmior jieret fortior, quam rem graece ita rbi/ tjtt&j Koyov KpeirToo dicebat TToitlv. (Similarly Steph. of Byzantium "AjSSTjpa appealing to Eudoxus, and the Scholion on the Clouds, X. 113; cf. Frei, Qa. Prot. 142 sq.) At the same time we see from these passages the meaning of this promise the tittusv \6yos is the cause which in reason, and consequently in law, is the weaker and this by the art of the orator is to be made the It is therefore not altostronger. gether untrue when Xenophon, Qu. 11, 25. says in explanation of Protagoras's expression, rh i/^eC8os aKrjdh TroteT?/, also Isocr. tt. aurioda. 15, 30; \pevS6jj.evop raX7}6-q Xiyouros iiriKparui', and -napa rh
; :
;

h'lKaiuv

iv ToTs kyuen,

ttX^ov^kt^Iv

KpeLTTwrroielu tuvt'' itirii'. ko.\ ivnvQiu ^iKaiws i?iv(rxf:po.Lvov ol auOpuDvoi

rh UpoDTaySpov eTrdyyeXi.ia. \pfvd6s re yap iari, Hal ovk aX-qdes aWa

(paiudfiepou
eiKhs,

kol

iv

uvhiixid

T^x^V ^^^' ^^ pr]TOpiKf] Koi epicrriKfj. It is obvious that Aristotle here

nor even when Aristophanes with malicious explicitness makes owl of 7]rru>v x6yos an o^lkos Xoyot. Protagoras certainly did not profess in actual words that he would teach the art of helping the xinjtist cause to triumph but he undoubtedly promised that people should learn from him how to help any
;

SOPHISTIC RHETORIC.
and
in a

489
that he

simikr sense Plato says of Gorgias

is

'

more value than truth, and understood in his speeches how to make But the the great appear small, and the small gi'eat. more indifferent the orator thus became to the contents of his orations, the higher grew the value of the techthe discovery that appearance
of
nical instruments of language

made

and expression
was the case

on these
time^

consequently the rhetorical instructions of the >^ophists

almost exclusively turned

quite

as

at this

independently of philosophy, in the rhetorical

Protagoras and
the

schools of Corax and Tisias in Sicily.^

Prodicus occupied themselves with

founders

gTammatical

and lexigraphical aspects of lang-uage, and thus became

the
of
scientific

linguistic

enquiry

among
first

the Greeks. 3

Protagoras'* doubtless was the

to

distinguish the three genders of nouns,^ the tenses of

possible
caiisp

to

conqxier,

even

what

is

there falsely ascribed to

when

in itself it did not deserve

The same thing was afterwards repeated by many others. Aristophanes accuses Socrates not only of meteorosophy, hut also of the art of making the Kpeifrasv In 'nrToiv \6yos the Plato. Socrates, while defending himself asainst this charge {Apol. 18 B, 19 B), describes it as a common accusation against all philosophers {I. c. 23 D, to. Kara iravTusv
to conquer.
.

Socrates. ^ Ph(Bdr. 267

of.

Gorg. 456

(vide supra 483). There is a similar statement of ar^ auonymoiis writer concerning: Prosqq.
;

455

dicusandHippiasinSpengel. Sway. r^X^- 213 (khet. Gr. v. Walz. vii. 9), but Welcker, I. c. 450, justly attaches no- importance to it.
Spengel. /. c. 22-39. Cf. for the following remarks, Lersch, Die Sprackphilosc/phie der
-

Tccy <pi\o<TO(povPT<ai/ vpox^^poi'

XtyovTiv,
also I. sure.
c.

on
to

Kp^LTTb} TTOjetf),

ravra Xoyov and Isocrafes has

.

r'bv T\rr(i)

Alberti, Pie Alien, i. 15 sqq. Sprachphilo$02}hie von Platcm (Phi;

lologus

xi.

1856,

p.

681

sqq.),

same cenOnly we cannot infer from its being wrongly imputed to some that it was also wrongly imputed
off the

ward

699
*

sq.

Vide, coDcerning Protagoras, Spengel, 40 sqq. sqq. Schanz, 141 sq.

Frei, 120
^
;

Grote himself does not conclu' e from ApoL 26 D, that Anaxagoras did not teach
to Protagoras.

Arist. Bkct. iii. 5, 1407 b, 6. remarks on this subject that language treats as masculine many

He

400

THE

SOFHISTS.
he also gave
language.^

verbs,^ the different kinds of propositions;-

instruction

concerning the right use of

Prodieus

is

famous
/
'

for his distinctions

between words of

similar meaning, which he taught for large fees in one

of his lectures
this discovery

the satire which Plato pours forth upon

seems to show that his distinctions and

been reasonably inferred that Protagoras, in his discussions,

things that hould really foe feminine (Id. Soph. EL c. 14, and repeated by AleK. ad h. I. Schol. 308 ;i, 32 vide supra, 467, 3) ArisClouds, his tophanes, -who, in transfers this and much besides ^rom Protagras to Socrates, makes it the occasion of many pleasantries. V. 651 sqq. ijipT] xpo''!"^' Diog. ix. o2.
; ;

was

ac-

customed to make use of the expressions opOhs, opdoTTfs. On the other hand, ap Themist. Or. xxiii. 289 D, opQoiireio. and opOopprfuoavu-q are not (as Lers'-h supposes, p. 18) ascribed to Protagoras, but to Prodieus.
^

'

cuxwAtj,
iii.

ipcjT'qais,

fLTroKpicns,

Trepl

The fifty-drachma course, ovoixarwv opdurrjTOs, 'which has

List.

As Quint il. mentions this classification in his chapter on the differemt kinds of speeches (political, forensic, and so forth), Spengel conjectures (p. 44) that it has reference, not to the grammatical form of sentences, but to the rheivTiiXh, Diog'. ix. o3.
4, 10,

torical daaracter of the discourses

and

their parts; that it primarily, ho'wever, r-efers to grammar is clear from thefitatement (Arist. PoeY. c. 1 9,

Protagoras blamed because he did not commence the Iliad with a command

1456

b, 15) tha*:

Homer

to the muse instead of a pr.iyer iu the words fxriviu aciSe. ^ Plato, P/uedr. 267 C npcorayop^ia 8e. & 'S.uiKpares. ovk ^v fxeiroL
:

already been mentioned, p. 418, 1. I feel myself obliged, on account of the passage in Plato's EutkydeniHs. E, to agree with 2'i'i Welcker (p. 453) and most writers that the subject of this course was not the question whether speech is <i>v(rei. or vaficf, but concerning the right use of words and the differences between apparently equivalent expressions. The hiaipilv wepl ovoaoLTwv, Ckarmid. 163 D, at any rate, can only relate to these verbal distinctions and if Prodieus founded his rule* upon the same statement that Plato, Crat. 383 A, ascribes to Cratylus ovofxaros 6p66; :

TTJTtt fJvtLL ^KaCTTU}

7r(pvKi'2av,

ToiavT^ arra
7ra7, iccu

'OofloeVeta y4

TWV OVTWV (pVCTeL we should have to seek

ris,

S>

aXka -jroWa /cat KaXd. Ci'. SiSafa: ere ttjv 6pf)6Crat. 391 C TTjra TTcpl rwv tolovtwv {pvofxaro.,
:

the chief content of this course (which evidently embraced the quintessence of Prodiciis"s whole linguistic science) in the Siaipea-is
OJ/OyUaTWJ/.
^ Cf. in regard to this knowiKlge of words, without which he (Welcker, 454) never speaks, and is hardly ever mentioned in the
'

generally tpc-aking.
fjLa9(:

language) %u

napa

n.p(ji}ray6pou.

From

these passages (to which Prot. 339 a, Plut. Per. c. 36, might be added), and from Aristotle, I. c, it has

SOPHISTIC miETORIC.
definitioDs were set forth with a
placenc}^,

491

good deal of self-comand no doubt very often in an ill-timed

metre and

manner.
euphony.

Hippias too gave rales for the treatment of

speech,* but tbey were probably limited to

The

discourses of Protagoras, judging from

Plato's representations, l^esides their general clearness

and simplicity of expression, appear

terised

to

have been charac-

by a suave dignity, an ease and copiousness of language, and a delicate poetical colouring, although
they were not unfrequently too long.Prodicus,
if

we

may

trust the narrative of

Xenophon,^ made use of

but which from
all

choicer language, in which the subtle distinctions of

words were carefully attended to

accounts was not very forcible, nor free from the errors
for

which Plato censures

it.

Hippias does not seem

to

have disdained pompous display in his expositions

gives,"*

Plato at any rate, in the short example which he

represents

him
;

as

full

of extravagant bombast
'

and

Platonic difilognes.' Irot. 337 A,

Meno^lh E Crat. 384 B F.v.tliyd. 277 E; of. Charm. 163 A, D Lack. 197 D. The first of these
339
;
; ;

especially, caricatures passages, the manner of the Sophists with the most huraourous exaggeration.
Cf.

Arist,
'

Top.

ii.

6,

112
i.

b,

22;

of "svhat kind of letters, does the word Socrates consist ? - The a^fivor-qs of his esposition is noticed by Philostr. V. Soph. i. 10, end, no doubt, however, only after Plato ; and its KvpioKt^ia by Hermias in Pheedr. 192. According to the fragment in Plut, C'oso?.

Prantl, Gesch. d. Log.

irept

16.

ad ApoU.
Hipp,
ovvd-

pvd/xwv Koi apixoviav Ka\

I):
TT.

ypa/xixircov opftorrjros. Plato^

Mi?i.
/jL^ws

368

ypa/j.ua.Twt'

pvd^wv wai apfxoviwv, Hipp. Maj. 285 C. From ^exi.JMcm. iv. 4, 7, nothing can lie inferred. "What Mahly, I. c. xvi. 39. Albprti, I. c. 701, 'and others find in the passage is much too farfetched. The c^uestion is simply
Koi (TvWafi'Zv KOI

33, he used his native dialect, like Democritiis, Herodotus and Hippocrates. * That we are justified in doicg so, though the representation of

Xenophon {Mem. ii. 1,

gel,
^

is

not

literally

true

34), is

shown by Spen;

57

sq.

337 C sqq. cf. Hipp. Maj. 286 A. "With this exception,

Prot.

this

'

Of how many

letters,

and

neither of the dialc^ues called Hippias contains any of this mimicry.

492

THE SOPHISTS.
That he should seek to impart

redimdant metaphors.

a special charm to his discourses, through the multi-

and contents, might and so vain of the many-sidedness of his. knowledge and so much the more value must he have set upon his art of memory, especially as a help in his rhetorical
fariousness of their subject-matter

be expected from a

man

of such varied learning,

;

orations.'

Gorgias, however, of
renown,"'^

all

the Sophists at-

tained the greatest

important influence on
witty and intellectual,

and exercised the most Greek style. He was both and managed to transplant with

ornamental imagery, the play and thoughts, of the Sicilian oratory into Greece proper. At the same time it is in him and his school that the weak side of this rhetoric is most
brilliant success the rich
W'Ords

upon

clearly apparent.

The

adroitness with wdiich Gorgias

cir-

could adapt his lectures to particular objects and

could impart a

cumstances, and pass from jest to earnest, and vice versa,

as occasion required
it,

new charm

to

w'hat was already admitted,

and soften down what was

startling, in unfamiliar statements,^

the
;

adornments

and

brilliancy w^iich he gave to language through unp-^jx-r]v

' As to this art, as well as the varied learning of Hippins, cf. p. 422, 2; on the art of memory in

t iuavria Kaivuis
18,

\6yov, naiva re apxatojj Arist., Rhet.

b,
3,
SeTt/

ret
iii.

1419

quotes from him

tt/v
ixiv
a-irovSTji/

particular,
-

cf.

Vide

p.

Mahly, 413 sq.

xvi.

40

sq.

this

rule:

The charac-

dLacpOeip^iv

tS>v

ivavriwv

yeKwn,

ter of the eloquence of Grorgirts is examined by Geel, 62 sqq., and

Schouborn, AiUh. Declamat. Gorg. 15 sqq. Spengel, 63 sqq., and Fos, 50 sqq. ^ Plato says in the Fha-'drus {supra, 490, 3) of him and Tisias

more thoroughly by

De

rhv Se yeXwra cttouStj; and according to Dionvsius (ride supra, 485, 1 ) he "vvas the first who Trote upon the necessity of the orator's bestowing attention on the circumstances of the case (Trept Kaipov), though in the opinion of his critic, he did not handle the matter satisfactorily.

TO.

re

av

a^iKph.

ixeydXa

Kol

ra

fj.eyd\a (T/xiKpa (paipiadai iroLOvai ota

SOPHISTIC RHETORIC.

49.'

expected and emphatic applications, through elevated

and

alnaost poetical expression,

through elegant figures

of speech, rhythmical construction,^ and symmetrically

connected propositions,
'

all this

is

acknowledged even

Arist.

Rhet.m.

1,

1404
7]

a,

25:

TTOiTjTiKr;

irpuiTf)

eyevero

A-e^is,

oTov

7]

Pomp.

76-t

Topyiov. Dionys. rif uyKov ttjs

:

Ej).

ad

troiririKrjs

TrapaaKvr}s.

Be Vi

QovKv^idov
irpiireiau

Ktti

Kal

die. Bern. 963]: ropyiov rrjv fxeyaKo(Ti^iv6r7)Ta koX Ka\ihid.

KiXoyiav.

Cf.
;

968;
:

Ej).

ad

same expressions, the equality of syntactic construction and of the members in two sentences) ; -jrapSfiGia or irapo/JLoicoaeis (a play upon words of similar sound, o/jLOLoreKevTa and ^fxoioKarapKTu), and antitheses, cf. Cic. Oraf. 12, 38 sq., 52, 175, 49, 165
tition of the
;

Pomp. 762 Diodor. xii. Gorgias came to Athens

^OVTL
TT/s

53,

when
|v(-

tw

\e|eajs

e|67rA7j|e

tovs

'Adrivaious (similarly Dion. Jud. dc

Lys.

458)
ttjs

-wpuiTos

yap ixPV(piXorex'-'ia

aaro

Ke^ews
Kal

o'X7?/"aT(r/xo?s
rfj

Dionvs. Ep. ii. ad Amm. p. 792, 9,0% { Jud. de Thuc. 869; Be Vi die. Bern. 963, 1014. 1033; Arist. Bkei. iii. 9, 1410 a, 22 sqq. The figures mentioned by Diodorus are included in these avocTrdtreis and
;

irepiTTOTepois
Sia(pipo(Tiv,

7rpo(T^o\ai,

named by

Philostratus,

avTiOeroLS

Kol

IcroKw-

Aois Koi TTapiaois Kal OjUojoreAeuTOis

Kai rtcriv erepois roiovrois, a totc

fj.sv

dia

TO leVov

rrjS

KaTacxKevris

aTToSy^Tjs tj|joDto, vvu Se -jvepiepyiav

Ixetv SoKel Kcd

cr-'ov

(pa/ii/erai

narayeXai.
9,,

irXiOvoLKis

Kal KaraKop'jis Tidi-

were perhaps employed by Gorgias without giving any express rules concerning them in no case can we argue from Arist. I. c. that he WHS unacquainted with them for Aristotle is then speaking only of figures which arise out of the re:

ix^vov.
(cf.

Philostr.

V. Soph.
opixris

lation of the parts of the sentence.

Ep. 73 [13],_3):
(Totpiarals
'^p|e

ToTs

Kal

re 70^ 7rapa5o|o-

In the sharply pointed antitheses and propositions of equal members,

wa.? directly involved, as Cicero observes, loc. cit. Similar arts are ascribed to Polus by Plato, Phcedr. 267 C rit 5e UuXov kCjs (ppdcro.uev av ixovaela Koyoiv, ws ZnrXaa loKoyiav Kal yvwjxoKoyiav
:

Koyias Kal irveu/.taros Kal rov to, fxeydXa /j.eydXws ^pix-qvevciy, airofTTaa-icav re (the emphatic interruption by the commencement of a new proposition. Vuif Frei, Rk. Mm. 534 sqq.) Kal trporr^oXwv (no doubt, of a limited kind, vide Foss, 52) v(p' wv 6 \6yo5 T}Bi'xu eavrov
yiverai Ka\ (ro^apunepos, on

rhythm

Kal eiKouoXoyiav, ovoixdrcav re Aiku/j.vtiocv

TToiriaLv
h.

eKeivcp

idcvp-fjaaro

irphs

which account Philostratns compares him, in an exaggerated manner, with

jEschylus. As figures of speech which Gorgias invented, i.e., which he was the first to use consciously and designedly, there are especially mentioned irapitra or irapiaitxTeis {paria paribus adjuncta, the repe-

the passage itself, the text of which appears to be .someAvhat mutilated, and Licymnius, the rhetorician, mentioned in it, vide Spengel, 84 sqq. and Schanz, p. 134 sq.). To this belongs what is said in the Fhcedr. 267 A of Evenus.
eveTreias

(on

4y4

THE SOPHISTS.

by those who, in other respects, are not too fiavourable in But at the same time later their judgment of him. critics unanimously agree that he and his pupils, in
applying these expedients, far exceeded the limits of

good

taste.

Their expositions were overladen with

unusual expressions, with tropes and metaphors,^ with

pompous

epithets and synonyms, with cunningly turned

;

upon words and sounds their style moved with fatiguing symmetry in short propositions consisting of two members ; the thoughts bore
antitheses^ with plays

no proportion to the expenditure of rhetorical devices, and the whole system could only produce, upon the
purer taste of a subsequent period, the impression of
frigidity

and

affectation.^

Thrasymachus introduced
625 De Ft Die. hi Bern. 963, 1G33; Longin. v. v^. c. 3, 2; Hftrmog. t. iS. ii, 9 Bhet, Gr. iii. 362 (ii. 398 Speng.) Planud. in, Hirmeg, ibid, v. 444, 446, 499,
Is(So,
;

a better method,

Theophrastus praises him^ for having

* For this reason Aristotle says of Alcidaraas (/?Ac'i'. iii. 3, U06 a, 18), that epith'ets with him were not a seasoning of speech, '/jSuo-jUo, Lttt the principal fare (eSetrjua).

Abundant authont}' for what is said above is to be found, not only in the fragment from the funeral oration of Gorgias, but 3n the unequalled imitation of
2

514

sq.

Denietr.
;

Be

Interpret,

c,

Gorgias's rhetoric, Synqx 194 E cf. 198 B sqq,, and in the sqq. ordi^iary judgments of the ancients "based on examples see the qu(M;aalso in Plat^, tions on p. 498, 1 Ph(Bdr. 267 A, C; Gorg. 467 B, 448 C (cf. the Scholia in Spengel, Xenoph. Coni\ 2, 2'6; p. 87); Arist. lihet. iii. 3 (the whole chap;
;

ibid, ix. 8, 10, 18 (iii. 12, 15, 29 263, 264, 268 Sp.); Doxopater, in Aphth. ibid, ii, 32, 240 Joseph. Hhacendyt. Sytwps. (t 15; ibid. iii. Jo. Sicel. in Hennog. 562, 521 ibid. xi. 197; Suid. Topy, Synes. Ep. 82, 133 rl ipvxp^y Kal Fopyialov, <5,uiEtil, ix. 3, 74 cf. also the apophthegms in Plut. Aud. Po. c. i. pu 15 {Glor. AtL e. 5); Cimon,
;
;

ter)
8,

Id. Ehet.
a,

ii.

19, 24,

1392

b,

10; Eth. N. vi. 4, 1140 Agathon (the a, 19, concerning fragments of whose writings ap. Athen. v. 185 a, 211 c, xiii. 584 a) Dionys, Jud, de Lys. 458 Jud. de

1402

10; Mid. Virt. i. p. 242 E; Qu. Cenv. viii, 7, 2, 4, and what Alex. Top. 209 (Sckol. 287, 6, and 16) quotes from Lycophron Philostr. Ep, 73, a, from .Eschic.
;

nes.
Jtid. Lys. 464 Bic. Lys. 958. Dion even regards Lysias as the first who
^

Ap. Dionys.

Be Vi

SOPHISTIC HHETORIC.
been the
first

495
for

to adopt the middle kind of speech

having enlivened the barrenness of ordinary language by

more copious adornments, without

also
^

therefore falling into

the exaggerations of the school of Gorgias.

allows that his exposition

Dionysius
;

had this merit and we see from other accounts that he enriched the art of rhetoric with well-considered rules for working on the minds and emotions of the audience,^ and with discussions on the formation of sentences,^ rhythm,'*

and

external action

'"

and

delivery.
'^

Xevertheless we cannot
are in the

say that Plato

and Aristotle

wrong when

they accuse him even here of a want of solidity and

thoroughness.
is

With him,
is

as with the other Sophists, it

is

only the technical education of the orator that

;

re-

garded
deeper

there

no attempt to construct his

art

on a

basis,

by means of psychology and

logic, in the

manner
racter

that

these philosophers justly require.

The

Sophistic doctrine here also remains true to its cha;

having destroyed faith in an objective truth,

^

introduced the middle kind of oratory but Spengel, 94 sq. and

;

Suid. suh voc. irpwros irefioSou

Koi koiXov KareSei^e.

Tkrasi/m. 10, rightly follow Theophrastus. ^ Loc. cit.. and Jud. de Iscso, 627. Dionysius. however, observes that the exposition of Thrasym. only partially answered to his design, and Cicero, Ora^. 12, 39, censvires A his small verse-like sentences. considerable fragment of Thrasymachus is given by Dionysius, JDe Bemosth. loc. cit., and a smaller fragment by Clemens, Strom, vi.

Hermann, De

Arist. Bhet. iii. 1, U09 a, 1 ; Orator, o2, 175; Quintil, ix. 4, 87. ' Arist. Bkef. iii. 1, 1404 a, 13.
*

Cic.

Pkadr. 2G7 C,
Arist. Fhef.
iii.

269 A, D,

271 A.
1, 1354 a, 11 where Thrasymachus is not indeed named, but is certainly in'

sqq.,

eluded in Aristotle's general re-

624 C.
2

Plato, Phcedr. 267 C.

1.

Con-

marks on his predecessors the mor so, as he speaks expressly of those arts in which the peculiar strength of Thrasymachus la}- e.g.
;

cerning his "EAfot, vide sujpra, p.

485,

Zm^oKt], opyr], eAeos, &c,, as Spengel

justly observes.

496

THE SOPHISTS.
is

and I'enounced science which

formal versatility to which
it

concerned with this

is

truth, the only end that remains for its instruction

can give neither scientific

foundation, nor a higher moral significance.

G.

The value and

Doctrine.

historical importance of

the Sophistic
it.

The various tendencies included in

In attempting to form a general opinion as to the

character and historical position of the Sophistic doctrine, the
first

consideration that arrests us

is

this

tliat originally

not merely teachers of different arts, but

men

of various habits of thoughts, were called Sophists.

are

How

we

justified in selecting certain individuals

from the number, and describing them exclusively as Sophists, in contradistinction from all the rest, or in
speaking of their teaching as a definite doctrine or

tendency of mind, while in point of fact there were no

definite tenets or

methods which

Sophists recognised as their

been much insisted on in

all who were called own? This difficulty has modern times, as is well

known, by Grote.^
a school, but a

The
in

Sophists, he

class,

says, were not whose members the most

;

various opinions and characters were represented

if

and

an Athenian at the time of the Peloponnesian

War

had been asked concerning the most famous Sophists of his native city, he would unquestionably have mentioned
Socrates
in

the

foremost
is

rank.

From

this

the immediate inference

Sophist

merely that the name of

our

has

acquired in
'

language a

narrower

Hist, of Gr. viii. 505 sqq., 483.

THEIR PLACE IX HISTORY.

signification

497

than at

first

belonged to

it.

But that

signification can only be regarded as inadmissible, if

no common
however,
is

peculiarity can be pointed out

which correSuch,

.sponds to the

name

as at present understood.

not the case.

Although the men

whom we
by
all,

are accustomed to reckon as Sophists are not united

any common doctrines recognised by them

is
is

there

a certain similarity of character

among them which

itself not merely in their coming forward as teachers, but in their whole attitude towards the science of their epoch, in

unmistakable, and this peculiarity shows

their repudiation of physical,

and generally speaking,

of

all

merely theoretical enquiry, in the restriction of

their sphere to arts of practical utility, in the Scepticism

avowed by the majority, and the most imin the art of disputation, which most of them are said to have taught and practised, in
explicitly

portant, of the Sophists

the formal, technical treatment of rhetoric, in the free

criticism

and naturalistic explanation of the belief in

sown by the scepticism of Prota-

gods, in the opinions concerning right and custom, the

seeds of which were

goras and G-orgias, though these opinions themselves

only appear in a definite form at a subsequent period.

Though
case

all these traits

may
so

not be discoverable in

all

the Sophists, yet some of

;

them

are to be found in each

in one direction, that

and they

all

lie

much

we cannot overlook the individual differences among these men, we are nevertheless justified in regarding them collectively as the representatives of the same form of culture. \Miat judgment then are we to pronounce respectK K VOL. II.
while

498

THE

SOPHISTS.

ing the value, character, and historical importance of

this

If

phenomenon ? we take into account we might be

^

all

the strange and per-

verted notions attaching to Sophistic culture and teaching,

inclined to adopt the view which was

modern formerly quite universal, and which even times has had many advocates, viz., that it was absolutely nothing but confusion

and corruption, a perversion

of philosophy into an empty appearance of wisdom, and a mercenary art of disputation a systematised immorality

and frivolity and all sense of truth, and springing from the lowest and meanest motives. It shows an unmistakable advance in historical intelligence that in modern times historians have begun to abandon this view, and not merely to
exonerate the Sophists from unjust accusations, but also

devoid of all scientific earnestness

to recognise, even in

what

is

really one-sided

and wrong

in them, a basis originally justifiable, and a natural

product of historical development.^

1

The unbounded

e.g.

d. Phil.

70 sqq.

Sclileiermacher, Brandis,
;

Gesch.
i.

516;

for a deeper comprehension of their doctrine and its hi btorical position

;

but especially Eitter, i. 575 sqq., 628 (preface to the 2nd edition, xiv. sqq.); f^nd Baumhaiier, in the treatise mentioned p. 394, 1.
Similarly Waddington, Seances et Travaiuc de VAcad. des Sciences Morales, C V. (1876) 105. Brandis,
Gesch. d. Entw. severe in his
i.

these

by

discussions were completed Hermann (vide s?^pr, p. 394, 1)

217

sq.,

is less

with sound and learned arguments, in which the importance of the Sophists in regard to culture, and theircloserelation with their epoch, are especially emphasised cf. also Wendt, Zu T&nne^nann, i. 459 sq.;
;

judgment

of

the

Marbach, Gesch.
;

d.

Phil.

i.

152,

Sophists.
Meiners, Gesch. d. Wlssensch. 175 sqq., had already recognised the services of the Sophists in the spread of culture and knowledge but Hegel {Gesch d. Phil. ii. 3 sqq.) was the first to pave the way

ii.

Braniss, Gesch. d. Phil. s. 157 Kant, i. 144 sq. Schwegler, Gesch. d. Phil. 21 sq. (and for a somewhat more unfavourable view, Griech. Haym, AUg. Encycl. Phil. 84 sq.) Sect. iii. B, xxiv. 39 sq. Ueberweg, Grundr. i. 27. The side of the
;
;

THEIR PLACE IX HISTORY.

409

influence of these men, and the high reputation in which many of them are asserted, even by their enemies, to have been held, should of itself be sufficient to prevent us from stigmatising them as empty babblers

in the manner once For whatever may be said of the evil of a degenerate period which found its truest expression
usual.

and vain pseudo-philosophers

in the Sophists, just because of its

;

own shallowness

and want of fixed opinions whoever in any period of history, even the most corrupt, utters the watchword
of the time,

and takes the lead in

its

spiritual

move-

ment, we

may

perhaps consider as wicked, but in no

case as unimportant.

But the period which admired

the Sophists was not merely a period of degeneracy

and decline,
unique in
dides,
its

it

was also a period of a higher cultm-e, kind the period of Pericles and Thucy-

of Sophocles
:

Ai'istophanes
leaders

and Pheidias, of Euripides and and those who sought out the Sophistic
for their o^vn purposes
insio-nificant

and made use of them

were not the worst and most

eration, but the great

of that o*en-

and noble of the first rank. If these Sophists had had nothing to communicate but a deceptive show of wisdom, and an empty rhetoric, they
would never have exerted this influence upon their epoch, nor have brought about this great revolution in
the Grreek

mind and mode

of thought

the grave and

highly cultured intellect of a Pericles would hardly

Sophists
is

taken

still

more de-

Versiich einer sittlichen Wilrdigung

d. S&phisf.

cidedly, but -^vith somewhat of the partiality of apologists, by Grote

and Lewes

in the

works to which
Bethe,

Redekunst (Stade, 1873), agrees with Grote, but throws no new light on the matter,
2

we have

so often referred.

K K

500

THE

SOPHISTS.

have taken pleasure in their society, a Euripides would

not have valued
it,

a Thucydides would not have sought

instruction from them, a Socrates would not have sent

them

pupils

even over the degenerate but gifted con-

temporaries of these great

men

their

power of attraction

could scarcely have been permanent.

Whatever

it

may

have been on which the charm of the Sophistic instruction and lectures depended,

we may

justly infer from

these considerations

that

it

was something new and

important, at least for that period.

In what it more particularly consisted we shall see from our present discussions. The Sophists are the
'

Illuminators

'

of their time,

the

Encyclopaedists

of

Grreece,

and they share in the advantages

as well as

the defects of that position.

It is true that the lofty

speculation, the moral earnestness, the sober scientific

temperament

entirely absorbed in its object,

which we

have such frequent occasion to admire both in ancient

and modern philosophers,

Sophists.

all

this is

wanting in the
their moneyand applause,

Their whole bearing seems pretentious and

life,

assuming, their unsettled, wandering

making, their greediness

their petty jealousies

for

scholars

among

themselves, their vain-

gloriousness, often carried to the

most ridiculous lengths,

form a striking contrast to the scientific devotion of an

Anaxagoras or a Democritus, to the unassuming greatness of a Socrates, or the noble pride of a Plato
;

their

scepticism destroys

all

scientific

endeavour at the very

their rhetoric is

root, their Eristic disputation has as its final result only

the bewilderment of the interlocutor

calculated for display, and
is

employed in the cause of

THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY.

wrong
as well as truth
;

501
its

its

views of science are low,

moral principles dangerous.

quitted of these faults

Even the

best

and greatest

representatives of the Sophists cannot be altogether ac;

if

Protagoras and Grorgias did

not assume a position of hostility towards the prevailing

customs, they both prepared the ground for scientific
scepticism, for sophistic argumentation and
rhetoric,

and consequently,

in

an indirect manner,

for the denial

of universally valid moral laws; if Prodicus

praised
is

virtue in eloquent words, his whole appearance

too

closely allied with that of a Protagoras, a Gorgias

and

a Hippias, to allow of our separating of the Sophists, or calling

in

him from

the ranks

him a

precursor of Socrates,

any essentially different sense from that in which the

were
so.^

rest

In others, like Thrasymachus,- Euthyscepticism, Protagoras by his treat-' rhetoric, and Hippias by his distinction between positive and

' Such was the opinion I expressed concerning Prodicus in the first edition of this work, p. 263, and even after Welcker's counter observations, Klein. Schr. ii. 528 sqq., I cannot depart from it. I am far from crediting Prodicus with all that ordinary opinion has indiscriminately ascribed to the

ment of

or with what is really reprehensible in many of them, nor do I deny his affinity and relation to Socrates. But neither do we find in Protagoras, G-orgias, and Hippias all the faults and one-sidednessof Sophisticism they too conceived virtue, the teachers of which they proclaimed themselves to be, primarily according to the usual acceptation, and the Idter theory of self-interest was not attributed to either of them
Sophists,
; ;

natural law. These men may all in a certain sense be regarded as the precursors of Socrates, and the importance of Protagoras and Gorgias is, in this respect, far greater than that of Prodicus. For they anticipated him in the attempt to

found a class of teachers who should work, by instruction, upon the moral improvement of man
(Welcker, 535); the content of their

moral theory, as has been already remarked, was in essential agreement with that of Prodicus, and with the prevailing opinions, and was not further removed from the new and peculiar theory of the Socratic ethics than were the popular moral maxims of Prodicus.

though Protagoras and Gorgias prepared the way for it by their

But

in the treatment of this subjectmatter, Gorgias, by his discussions

502

THE

SOPHISTS.

demiis, Dionysodorus, in the whole crowd of attendant

concerning the duties of particular classes of men, comes much nearer to a scientific definition than Prodicus with his universal and popular and" the glorification of virtue mythus which Plato puts into the mouth of Protagoras, and the remarks connected with it, on the teachableness of virtue, stand, in resjpect to the thoughts contained in them, far above the apologue In regard to other of Prodicus. achievements, the verbal distinctions introduced, by the sage of Ceos, may certainly have had an influence on the Socratic method of determining the concept: they may also have contributed not a little to the enquiries concerning the various meanings of words, which subsequently became so important in the Aristotelian metabut in the first place, physics Protagoras preceded Prodicus in and secondly, these thio respect verbal distinctions, which Plato held cheaply enough, cannot be
;

dicus,

we must concede to Welcker that its Eudaemonistic basis is no proof of its Sophistic character f)ut on the other hand, we must remember that of tlie distinctive peculiarities of the Socratic ethics, of the great principle of selfknowledge, of the reduction of virtue to knowledge, of the de;

compared

for their influence

upon

the later and especially upon the Socratic science, with the dialectical discussions, and the discussions on the theory of knowledge, of Protagoras and Gorgias, which precisely

moral prescripts from universal conceptions, we find in Lastly, Prodicus not a trace. what v/e know of his views about the gods is quite in the spirit of Although the Sophistic culture. therefore Prodicus may be called the most innocent of the Sophists (Spengel, 59), inasmuch as we are acquainted with no principles of his dangerous to morality and science, it is not merely an external similarity, but also the internal affinity of his scientific character and procedure with those of the Sophists, which makes me hold to the precedent of the ancient writers, who unanimously counted him in the (Vide svpra, p. Sophistic ranks. The disputing of moral 419, 3.) principles does not necessarily belong to the conception of the Soriv;ition of
'

through their sceptical results led

up

to the discrimination of essence

and even theoretical scepticism is not inseparable from it, though both were included no doubt in the consequences of the
phist,

from the sensible phenomenon, and

to the introduction of a philosophy At the same time, of conceptions. however, the limitation of the discussions of Prodicus to verbal expression, and the exaggerated imp>ortance ascribed to this subject, show that we are here concerned with something that lay exclusively in the formal and one-sided rheFurther, in retorical direction. spect to the moral theory of Pro-

Sophistic point of view: a Sophist is one who comes forward with the claim to be a teacher of wisdom, whereas he is notconcerned with the scientific investigation of the object,

but only with the formal and

practical culture of the subject and these characteristics are apCf. plicable even to Prodicus.

with the foregoing remarks, Schanz,

loc. cit. p.

41 sqq.

THEIR PLACE IX HISTORY.

scholars

503

and imitatoi^, we
all

see the one-sided narrow-

nesses and exaggerations of the Sophistic stand-point

exhibited in

their nakedness.

We

must
a
;

not,

how-

ever, forget that

these

defects are only in the

the

reverse

side,

the

degradation

of

main movement
of the

that was both important and

justifiable

and that we

equally

fail

to

recognise the

true

character

Sophists, or to do justice to their real services, whether

we regard them merely

Greek theory of
life,

as

destroyers of the ancient

or with Grote, as its representatives.

itself in its practical
its

The previous period had confined

conduct to the moral and religious tradition, and in

science to the contemplation of nature
rate was its
;

such at any

predominant character, though isolated

as is always the case,

phenomena,

announced and pre-

pared the way for the later form of culture.

Xow

people

awoke
is

to the consciousness that this

is

not sufficient,

that nothing can be of real worth or value for a

man

that

not approved by his personal conviction, or that has

not attained a personal interest for him.

the validity of the principle of subjectivity

In a word,
is

asserted.

Man

loses his reverence for the actual as such,

he will

accept nothing as true which he has not proved, he will

occupy himself with nothing, the advantage of which

for

himself he does not see: he will act upon his own knowledge, use all that offers for himself, be everywhere at

home,

discuss

and decide
is

ever}i:hing.

universal cultm'e

aroused, and philosophy

The demand for makes itself

is

subservient to that demand.

But, because this road

opened

for the first time,

;

it is

not so easy to find the way

upon

it

man

has not yet discovered in himself the

504

THE

SOPHISTS.

point at which he must place himself, in order to see

the world in the right light, and not to lose his balance
in his actions.
his mental needs

The previous
;

science no longer satisfies

its

he finds

its

scope too limited,

funda-

mental conceptions uncertain and contradictory.

considerations by which the Sophists

The made men conscious

of this ought not to be undervalued, nor especially the

importance of the Protagorean scepticism in regard to

questions about the theory of knowledge
;

but instead

of completing physics by a system of ethics, physics are

now
is

entirely set aside

instead of seeking a
is

new

scientific

method, the possibility of wisdom

denied.
;

The same

the case with the sphere of morals

the Sophists are

right in acknowledging that the truth of a principle,

the binding nature of a law,

validity as a matter of fact
is
;

is

not demonstrated by

its

that ancient usage as such

;

no proof of the necessity of a thing

but instead of

proceeding to seek for the internal grounds of obligation in the nature of moral activities and relations, they

are satisfied with the negative result, with the invalidity

of existing laws, with the abandonment of traditional

customs and opinions

and, as the positive side of this

negation, there remains only the fortuitous action of

the individual regulated by no law and no general principle

only caprice

and personal advantage.

Nor

is it

otherwise with the attitude adopted by the Sophists

towards religion.

That they doubted the gods of their

nation and saw in them creations of the

will never be a reproach to

human mind

them, nor should the historbe lightly esteemed.

ical significance of this scepticism

They

erred in not supplementing their denial with any

THEIR PLACE IX HISTORY.

505

positive affirmation, iu losing, with the belief in gods,

religion altogether.

The Sophistic Illumination

'

'

is

cer-

tainly therefore superficial

and one-sided in

its

nature,

and unscientific and dangerous in its results. But all that is tri\ial in our eyes was not trivial to the contemporaries

of the

first

Sophists,

and everything
its

that

experience has since shown to be pernicious was not

therefore a thing to be avoided from

commencement.

The

Sophistic

movement

is

the fruit and the organ of

the most complete revolution that had hitherto taken

place in the thought and intellectual
life

of the Greeks.

This nation stood on the threshold of a new period

there opened before
it

a view into a previously un:

known world
if it
its

and cultm-e can we wonder became giddy on the height so quickly climbed, if
of freedom
;

self-confidence transcended the due limits

if

man
re-

thought himself no longer bound by laws when he had

once recog-nised their source in

human

will

and

garded
see all

all

things as subjective phenomena, because

the mirror of our own
of the old science

we
a

things in

consciouslost,

ness?

The way

had been
;

new

science had not yet been discovered

the moral

powers that existed could not prove their claim to

authority, the higher law within a

man
and

was not as
o-et

vet acknowledged

there was a strainiuo- to

religion,

bevond

natural philosophy, natm-al

morality

which was the natm'al growth of custom, but there was

nothing to
set in their place

but Empirical subjectivity,

dependent upon external impressions and sensuous impulses.

Thus, in the desire to render himself inde-

pendent of the actual,

man

again directly saAk back

506

THE

SOPHISTS.
upon
it
;

into a state of dependence

and an attempt,

which was justifiable in

of
its

its

general tendency, on account

one-sidedness bore dangerous fruits for science

and

for life J

But

this one-sidedness

was not to be
it is

avoided, and in the history of philosophy,

to be deplored.

not even
to

The fermentation of the time

which

the Sophists belong brought

substances to the surface, but

many
it

turbid and impure

was necessary that the

this

Greek mind should pass through

before
it
;

fermentation

attained the clarified stage of the Socratic

wisdom and as the Grermans would scarcely have had a Kant without the Aufklaruiigsperiode,^ so the Grreeks would scarcely have had a Socrates and a Socratic phi'

losophy without the Sophists.

The
sophy
tile,

relation of the Sophists to the previous philo-

v/as,

on the one

side, as

we have already seen, hosand denied the

;

inasmuch

as they

opposed themselves, not merely

to its results, but to its whole tendency,

possibility of

any

scientific

knowledge whatever

at the

same time,
^

liowever, they

made
differs

use of the points of

from
its

That the Sophists were not

the
only,

indeed

or

the

chief

moral disorganisation which prevailed during the Peloponnesian war; that the aberrations of their Ethics Avere rather an evidence than a reason of this disorganisation, is evident and has already been shown, p. 401 sq, Grote (vii. 51 sq. viii. 044 sq.)
cause, of the
;

appeals, with justice, to Plato's assertion {Kijp. vi. 492 we sq.) ought not to think that it is the Sophists who corrupt youth, the public itself is the greatest of all Sophists, tolerating nothing that
.

own opinions and the Sophists are merely persons who know how to manage the public adroitly, to flatter its prejudices and wishes, and to teach others the same art. But there is no occasion therefore to deny, as Grote does (viii. 508 sciq-)' ^^ opposition to the most express statements of Thucydides (iii. 82 sq. iii. 52), and the unequivocal testimony of history, that in this period generally a disorganisation of moral ideas, and a decline of political virtue and of the regard for law, took place.
inclinations
;
;

SOFHISTIC SCHOOLS.
contact afforded

507
^ ;

them by the

older philosophy

and

founded their scepticism partly upon the physics of

upon the dialectical arguments Bat we are scarcely justified in recognising on this account Eleatic, as distinct from Protagorean, Sophists ^ for Protagoras and Gorgias attain essentially the same result, the impossibility of knowHeracleitus, and partly
of the Eleatics.
;

ledge

and

as

regards the practical side of Sophistic

teaching
it

Eristic disputation,
little difference

makes

from Heracleitean or

and Ehetoric be deduced Most of Eleatic presuppositions.

Ethics,

whether

this result

the Sophists, moreover, take no further account of this

and trouble themselves little about the origin of the sceptical arguments which they employ according as the need of them arises.
diversity of scientific starting-points,
It

would be

difficult to say in
e.g.^

the case of several very

important Sophists,

Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasyma-

chus, to which of the two classes they belong. If to these

classes

be added the Atomistic doctrine, as a degenerate

it

form of the Empedoclean and Anaxagorean physics/ do not belong to the Sophistic Schools

has been already shown (p. 294 sqq.) that the Atomists
;

and we should be

unjust, moreover, to the Sophists, and ignore

what

is

new

and characteristic in the movement,

it
Cf. p. 398

if

we were

to treat

merely as the deterioration of the previous philo*

sq.,

404

sqq.

Gesck. d. Schleiermacher, P/iiL 71 sq., defines this difference in the following hair-splitting, and we might almost say, Sophistic formula In Magna Graecia, he says, Sophistic teaching was So^oaocpia, universal knowledge, Ionia, in knowledge about appearance, ao<pQ2
:

(both -words, however, mean exactly the same) Ritter, i. 589 sq., Brandis and Hermann, vide
Zol'ia
;

infra, Ast. Gcsch. d. Phil. 96 sq., had already drawn a distinction

between the
Sophists.
*

Ionian

and Italian and

Hitter,

Schleiermacher

loc. cit.

608

THE

SOPHISTS.

sophy, or even as the deterioration of particular branches

of that philosophy.

The same may be

Finally,

said of Eitter's

observation, that the later Pythagoreanism was likewise

a kind of Sophistic doctrine.

distinguishes

when Hermann^
and Abderite

an Eleatic,

Heracleitean
first is

Sophisticism, and says the

represented by Gorgias,

the second by Euthydemus, the third by Protagoras,

we

may

m-ge in reply that no clear result

is

obtained from

the division of the leading Sophists into these three

classes,

and that the division

fact.

itself is

not in agreement
his theory of

with historical

For Protagoras bases

knowledge, not on Atomistic, but exclusively on Heracleitean conceptions, and

Euthydemus

is

distinguished

from him, not by

his

adopting the theories of Heraclei-

tus in greater purity, but on the contrary, by his sup-

plementing them with certain propositions borrowed

from the Eleatics.^ Democritus and Protagoras certainly

Zeitsehr.f.Altertktt7nsw.l8^i, of. 295 sq. Plat. Phil, 190, 299, 151; J)e Philos. Jon. Mtatt. 17 of. Petersen, Philol.Hisfor. Stud. 36, who derives
'

369

sq.

Protagoras from Heracleitus and Democritus conjointly. 2 Hermann urges in support of his theory that j3emocritus, like Protagoras, declared the phenomenal to be the true we have already seen, however, p. 272 sq., that this is only an inference drawn by Aristotlefrom his sensualistic teaching, but which Democritus himself was
:

whereas, according to Heracleitus, unlike is known by unlike. Hermann, however, has here confounded two very different things, Theophrastus (vide supra, p. 89, 2) says of Heracleitus, that, like Anaxagoras subsequently, he supposed in regard to the sense-perception (for to this only the proposition relates, and to this only it is referred by Theophrastus the reason external to us, the primitive fire, we know, according to Heracleitus, by means of the rational and fiery element within us) that contraries
:

far

from entertaining. Hermann further says that as Democritus held that like was only known by like, so Protagoras maintained that the knowing subject must be moved, as much as the thing known

are

known by
&c.

contraries,

warm by
is

cold,

Protagoras

so

far

from contradicting this statement that he rather derives, with Heracleitus, the sense-perception from
the encounter of opposite motions,

SOPHISTIC SCHOOLS.
agree in the assertion, that the

509

sensible qualities of

things merely describe

;

the manner in which things

affect us but this agreement is rather to be explained by the influence of Protagoras on Democritus, than by that of Democritus or Protagoras.^ Neither of these
an active and a passive motion (vide sup. 445 sqq., cf. 88 sq.). On
the other hand, that the kno"wing subject and the thing known must equally be moved, was not only admitted by Heracleitus, but he was the first among the ancient physicists to assert it, and Protagoras borrowed the statement, as we have shown, I. c, according to

Plato and others, from him alone. Lastly it is said that Cratylus the
Heracleitean, maintains, in Plato, the direct contrary of Protagoras's theorem this I cannot find it rather seems to me that the sratemeuts that language is the work of the maker of names, that all names are equally true and that one cannot utter anything false (Crat. 429 B. D), are entirely in harmony with the standpoint of Protagoras, and
;
;

Bhein. Mus. viii. 273, &c. When Vitringa, De Prot. 188 sqq. urges in fovour of Protagoras's connection with Democritus, that Democritus (like Protagoras, vide supra, p. 445 sq.) maintained a motion without beginning, a doing and a suffering, he relies on points of comparison that are much too indefinire the question is, whether we are to derive a theory which starts from the presupposition that there is no unchangeable Being, from a svstem which is based upon this" very theorem or from another system which denies all change of original
:

Being

from Democritus

in

fact,

rather than Heracleitus. What Vitringa further adduces has little weight.
^ Lange, Ge^ch. d. Mater, i. 131 sq., is indeed of opinion that the subjective tendency of Protagoras in his theory of knowledge, the cancelling of sensible qualities in subjective impressions, cannot be explained from Heracleitus alone and that the vo^io} jXvkv, &e. of Democritus forms the natural transition from Physics to Sophisticism. In case, therefore, Protagoras was really twenty years older than Democritus, we must suppose that,
;

(in Crat. 41) opposes to Euthydemus's theorem that all is at the same time true to all,' the famous Protagorean proposition, I can see no great difference between them. Cf. the proofs given, p. 456 Moreover, as all our authorisq. ties, and Plato himself, derive the Protagorean theory of knowledge primarily from the physics of Heracleitus, and as no trace of an Atomistic doctrine is discernible in Protagoras, and even the possibility of such a doctrine is excluded by his theory, history must abide by
'

when Proclus

having been originally merely an orator and a teacher of politics, he subsequently formed his system under the influence of Democritus.

the usual opinion concerning the

relation of Protagoras to Heracleitus.

But

by

Frei,

This judgment is endorsed Quast. Prot. 1 05 sqq.

;

it is not easy to see why the assertion of the philosophers (so often repeated from Heracleitus

and Parmenides onwards) that the

10

THE

SOPHISTS.
appears either true or satis-

classifications, therefore,

factory.

Nor do the

internal differences between individual

Sophists seem important enough to constitute a basis

for the theory of separate schools.
are untrustworthy was not sufficient to lead Protagoras to the conclusion that since it is through the senses alone we have any knowledge of things, if thci/ are untrustworthy, we can know absolutely
nothing,

When,
who
sees

for instance,

binations

why Heracleitus's that everything perceptible to sense is only a passing phenomenon, and what the senses tell us is merely delusive appearance (vide p. 88), might not have caused him (Protagoras) to adopt the theory which Plato and Sextus
and
statement
ascribe to

in bodies comunchangeable substances, may complain of the senses because they do not show us these fundamental constituents of bodies, and consequently make the Becoming and Decay of the composite appear as an absolute Becoming and Decay but he cannot complain of them, as Protagoras did, because nothing permanent, speaking generally, corresponds with the phenomena which they show us, and because the objects

sopher

of

him (cf. p. 445 sq.). It was only necessary that, on the one

hand, Heracleitus's propositions of the flux of all things, and of the opposite course of motions, should have been expressly applied to the question concerning the origin of ppTceptions, in order to explain the untrustworthiness of perceptions already maintained by Heracleitus and that on the other hand, rational
;

perceived only exist in the moment of perception. The only thing in which Protagoras reminds us of Democritus is the proposition (p. 448, 1), that things are white, warm, hard, &c., only in so far and for so long as our senses are affected

by them.

This

has,

no

perception, in which Heracleitus found truth, should have been overlooked (cf. pp. 113, 114). But this

must have occurred (as Lange himself remarks) even with the doctrine of Democritus, if a scepticism like that of Protagoras was to reand in the former sult from it case, Heracleitus alone could have furnishe the presuppositions with which Protagoras is actually connected whereas, as has been already shown, it is impossible to deduce his theory, as represented to us in history, from the AtoThe philomistic philosophy.
latter
;
:

doubt, a similarity with the statement attributed by Theophrastus {sup. p. 231, 3) to Democritus (in the v6fji.(f) y\vKv, &c., p. 219, 3, it is not as yet to be found) rwv ^Wwv aladrirdSp (besides weight, hardness, &c.) ovdevhs ehai (pvaiv, aKXa
;

navra
/xdwfjs.

7ra07} ttjs al(r6r](reus

aWoiov-

But if Democritus really said this, and it was not merely a comment of Theophrastus on some utterance of his, and if bis coincidence with

Protagoras is not merely fortuitous, it is still a question which of these men first asserted the proposition. In favour
of Protagoras, there is the fact that he was not only much older than Democritus, but that Demo-

SOPHISTIC SCHOOLS.

511

Wendt^ divides the Sophists into those who came forward chiefly as orators, and those who were more especially known as teachers of wisdom and virtue, we can see by the use of the word more how uncertain such a division must be and if we try to apportion the known,
'
'

historical

names

to the

two

classes,

we immediately

fall

into confusion.-

Instruction in rhetoric was not usually,

with the Sophists, separated from their teaching of

virtue
;

eloquence was regarded by them as the most

important instrument of political power, and the theoretical side of their teaching, which, in reference to phi-

losophy,

is

precisely of

most consequence,

is

passed over

in this classification.

The

classification of Petersen^ is

no better

he makes a distinction between the subject-

ive scepticism of Protagoras, the objective scepticism of

Gorgias, the moral scepticism of Thrasymachus, and the

religious scepticism of Critias.
(according to p. 275) opposed his scepticism for in spite of Lange, the relation of age between the two is beyond a doubt, It is also very improbable that Protagoras only arrived at his
critus
;

What

is

here described

sceptical theory,

3Ian

is

and his doctrine, the measure of all things,'

;

he places only Eiithjdemus and Dionysodorus and these do not belong to it, strictly speaking for they likewise taught judicial oratory, which they never, even subsequently, quite abandoned Plato, Eathyd. 271 D sq., 273 C sq.
;

Wendt

reckons in the

several years after his first apfor this pearance as a teacher doctrine was of radical importance for him, and was essentially connected with his art of disputation, his repudiation of physics, and his restriction to the practical sphere.
1

class, besides Tisias

who was only

first

a rhetorician and not a sophist

Grorgias,

chus

Meno, Polus, Thrasymain the second, Protagoras,

Cratylus, Prodicus, Hippiasf Euthydemus. But Grorgias is also of importance as a teacher of virtue,
especially because of his sceptical enquiries, and Prora2:oras. Prodicus,

^enAt,ZuTennemann,\.\&l.

Similarly Tennemann himself, /. c, discriminates those Sophists who were also orators, and those who separated sophistic teachius: from rhetoric. But in the second class

Euthydemus occupied themselves

much
^

in their instructions their writings with rlietoric.

and
sqci.

Philos.Histor. Studied. 35

512
as peculiar to

THE

SOPHISTS.
Critias is

Thrasymachus and

common

to

them

and to the majority of the Sophists, at any rate, of

;

the later Sophists

Protagoras and

Gorgias also are

closely allied to each other in their conclusions

ral

and gene-

tendency

lastly,

Hippias and Prodicus find in these

Against the exposition of
be urged.
Brandis ob-

categories no special place.

Brandis,* likewise,

much may

serves that the Heracleitean Sophisticism of Protagoras

and the Eleatic Sophisticism of Gorgias very soon became united in an extensive school, which branched off
in different directions.

Among these branches two classes

:

are primarily distinguished

the dialectical sceptics and

religion.

those

who attacked morality and

;

Among

the

former, Brandis reckons Euthydemus, Dionysodorus and

Lycophron with the latter, Critias, Polus, Callicles, In addition to these, he Thrasymachus, Diagoras. Hippias and Prodicus of whom Hippias enmentions riched his rhetoric with multifarious knowledge, and
;

Prodicus, by his linguistic discussions and his didactic

discourses,

sowed the seeds of more serious thought.

this theory is right in asserting that the

But though

Sophisticism of Protagoras and that of Gorgias were

very soon united, yet the discrimination of dialectic and ethical scepticism affords no good dividing line for
;

this reason, that they are in their nature mutually dependent, and the one is merely the direct application of

the other

if,

therefore, in particular details they

is

do

not always coincide, this

ever, too little of
1

not the result of any essentendency.

tial difference of scientific

We
543.

know, how-

most of the Sophists to be able to

i.

Gr.-Ebm. Phil.

523,

5U,

SOPHISTIC SCHOOLS.

613

judge with certainty how they stood in respect to this matter ; even Brandis does not place Prodicus and Hippias in either of the two categories. Vitringa

names them with Protagoras and Gorgias

as the heads
;

of the four Sophistic schools which he assumes

he

designates the school of Protagoras as sensualistic, that

of Prodicus as ethical, that of Hippias as physical, that of Gorgias as politico-rhetorical
;

but in this way we

do not obtain a true representation of the individual

and mutual relation of these men - nor does historv o-ive us anv warrant for dividinof all the
character
;

Sophists

with

whom we
so,

are

acquainted,

even

if

it

were possible to do
tioned.^
'

into the fom- schools just

men-

De

Sophist aru'/n scholis qxkp

Socratis aiate Athcnis florucrunt,

ii. (1853) 223-237. Vitringa calls the doctrine of Protagoras absolute sensualism but his theoi-T of knowledge is rather a scepticism, starting no doubt from sensualistic presuppo-

Mnemosyne,
2

'

sitions

and his

ethico-political

on the other hand, are brought into connection by Vitringa {I. c. 226) with this sensualism in a very arbitrary manner moreover his rhetoric, which conviews,
stituted a chief part of his activity, is in harmony with his scepticism, but not at all with sensualism. Prodicus, liVewise, is not merely a moralist, but also a rhetorician
:

writings were of an historical and moral i^ature. Lastly, if Gorgias. at a later period, professed to teach rhetoric only, we cannot, in estimating his scientific character, pass over either his sceptical demonstrations or his doctrine of virtue. ^ In the school of Protagoras Vitringa includes Euthydemus and Dionysodoms, in that of Gorgias, Thrasymachus but the two former were not exclusively allied with Protagoras, as has been already
;

shown pp. 456, 457 and that Thrasymachus belonged to the Gorgian
;

school there is no evidence to prove. The character of his rhetoric (vide supra, p. 494) is against the supposition. On the "other

discussions on language are placed decidedly in the foreground. Still less can Hippias be described as a physicist merely he is a man of universal knowledge indeed, it would seem that the greater part of his speeches and
in Plato his
:
;

hand, Agathon, who was not. however, a Sophist, must have been designated as a disciple of Gorgias and not of Prodicus {d. p. 494, 2). He is represented in Plato. Prof. 315 D, as a hear^^r of Gorgias, but that proves nothing.

VOL.

II.

L L

614
If

THE

SOPHISTS.

we possessed more of the writings of the Sophists, and had tradition informed us more perfectly as to their
opinions,
it

might, however, have been possible to follow

are very scanty,

up the

characteristics of the different schools

further.

But our accounts

any fixed boundaries between the schools

somewhat and indeed seem to be

;

excluded by the very nature of Sophisticism

subjective
readiness

for its

purpose was not to guarantee objective knowledge, but

only
of

thought
is

versatility.

This form of culture

its

and practical tied to no scientific

system and principle,

far

distinctive character appears

more

in the ease with

which

it

takes from the most

various theories whatever

may be

useful for its tempo-

rary purpose

and

for this reason it

propagates itself

not in separate and exclusive schools, but in a freer

manner, by mental infection of different kinds.

Al-

though therefore

it

may

be true that one Sophist ar-

rived at his results through the Eleatic presuppositions,

and another through those of Heracleitus that one gave the preference to Eristic disputation, and another
;

to rhetoric, that one confined himself to the practical

arts of the Sophists,

and another adopted their theories

that one desired to

also

that one paid greater attention to ethical and

;

another to dialectical enquiries

be called a rhetorician, and another a teacher of virtue

or a Sophist
;

and that the

first

Sophists transmitted in
;

these respects their

own

characteristics to their scholars

yet

all

these distinctions are fluctuating; they cannot

be regarded as essentially different conceptions of the

Sophistic principle, but only as separate manifestations
^

As Braadis

well observes.

SOPHISTIC SCHOOLS.

515

of that principle according to individual tendency and

temperament.

There

is

more

to be said for
later.

the division of the

earlier Sophists

from the
far

Exhibitions like those

manner in the removed from the important personalities of a Protagoras and a Grorgias as the virtue and the later of a Diogenes from that of a Socrates Sophists, as a rule, bear unmistakable marks of degeneracy and decline. The moral principles especially, which in the sequel justly gave so much ofiFence, are alien to the Sophistic teachers of the first period. But we must not overlook the fact that even the later form
which Plato describes
in so masterly a

Euthi/demus, are as

of Sophisticism was not accidental, but an inevitable

consequence of the Sophistic standpoint, and that therefore its premonitory

symptoms begin even with

abandoned, and
all

its

most

celebrated representatives.
universal validity
is

AVhere belief in a truth of

science
is dissi-

pated in Eristic argumentation and rhetoric, as

case here, everything will in the

is

the

end be dependent on of the individual and even the caprice and advantage scientific activity will be degraded from a striving after
;

truth, concerned solely with its object, into

an instru-

ment for the satisfaction of self-interest and vanity. The first authors of such a mode of thought generallv
hesitate to

draw these inferences simply and

still

logically,

because their own culture

earlier

partly belongs

to

an

time

those on the other hand

culture,

who have grown

up

in the

new

and are bound by no antagonistic

reminiscences, cannot avoid such inferences, and ha vino-

once set out upon the new road, must declare themL L 2

516
selves

THE

SOPHISTS.
fresh
step.

more decidedly with each

But a

simple return to the old faith and morality, such as

Aristophanes demands, could not have taken place, nor

would
their

it

have

satisfied

men who more

true

deeply understood

way of transcending the Sophistic teaching was shown by Socrates alone, who

own

times.

The

sought to gain in thought

itself,

the power of which had

been proved by the destruction of the previous convictions, a deeper basis for science

and morality.

INDEX.
Hyperborean priest of Apollo, Pythngorean legends of, i. 327, 1 339, n. Amisilaus, cosmology of, i. 97 reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119, 1 Adrastea, in Orphic cosmogonies,
;

A BARIS,

tius in regard to the philosophy

i.

100

sq.

i. 115 M'her, a divinity, according to Hesiod, i. 86 and Epimenides, derivation of the word, i. 97 how regarded by ii. 3oo, 3 Heracleitus, 24, 25 Empedocles, 154, 1; Anaxagoras, 355,366; possibly the filth element of the Pythagoreans, 436, 4; 437, Aqathon, ii. 415, n. Air, how regarded by Anaximander, i. 232, 241, 251 sq., 256, 258 by Anaximenes, i. 267 sqq. by Hippo and Idseus, 284; by Diogenes, 288 sq. by the Pythagoreans, 436, 467; by Xenophanes, 565 sq., 578 by Parmenides, 599 by Heracleitus, ii. by Empedocles, 125, 130, 51, 3 155; by Democritus, 234. 247 by Metrodorus, sq., 287, 289 315, 2 by Anaxagoras, 355, 365 Alcmcs, a lyric poet in 7th century B.C., i. 114; 118, 1 Akidamas the Sophist, ii. 425, 477 Alci/nus cited by Diogenes Laer: ;

jEsop, his date and writings,

of Epicharmus, i, 529 probably the same Sicilian whose 2iKeAtca are mentioned in Athen. xii. 518 b, cf. vii. 322; x. 441 a. See General Index to the German text of the present work Alcmson, a physician influenced by Pythagorean philosophy, i. 323, 449, n., 521, 525 Anackarsis, sometimes reckoned among the seven wise men, i.
;

119,

1
a.

Anacrcon,

\jT\Q Tpoet,
life,
i.

i.

114; dn

the future

126

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, sometimes reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119,1 his supposed affinity with Judaism, i. 35, 37 with Oriental philosophy, ii. 385 his relation to predecessors and contemporaries, i. 200 sqq. ii.
;

330

sqq.,

373 sqq.
;

his life
;

and

writings, ii. 321 sqq. his philosophy, ii. 329 impossibility of

Generation

and

Decay,
;

331

primitive substances, 332; original mixture of matter, 338 vovs, 342 sqq. question of its person ;

346 sq. efficient activity of vovs, 350 sq. origin and system ofthe Universe. 354 sq. Meteorology, 362 living creatures. 363 sq. plants and animals, 365;
ality,
;

518
AKA

INDEX,
;

the senses, 368 367 reason, 370; ethics, 371; his atreligion, 372 general titude to character of his philosophy, 383 fsq. school of, 387 Annxarchus of Abdera, an Atomist his heroism under torture,
; ; ;

man,

the summaries of their doctrines

und

r their

names

Anfiyna'rus, a Sophist, disciple of

Protagoras, ii. 426 Antiphon, a Sophist,

ii.

361,

6;

ii.

317, 5

Anaximander of Miletus, his life and date, i. 227, 2; author of first Greek work on philosophy,
228
this
;

his &nipoy, 228 sqq., 241

"vvas

not a mechanical mixture, 233 sqq. nor a determinate

;

substance, 247 its eternity and animate nature, 248, 249 cosmology of Anaximander, 250 alternate construction and sqq. destruction of the world, 256 origin of animals, 255 descent infinite worlds, of man, 256
; ;
; ;

426 ApoUonius, a poet of Alexandria his allusions to Orphic cosmogony, i. 99 Archcenehis, i. 393 Archelaus, a di sciple of Anaxagoras ii. 387 his doctrines, 389 sqq. Archilochns, i. 122 Archyfas, his life and writings, i, 319-322, 366 sq., 390; his supposed doctrine of Ideas, 320 Aristodeyyms, sometimes included among the seven wise men, i.
;

118, 1; 119,

Arisfoflc, standpoint

the soul, 256; meteorohis connection with Thales, 266; historical position,

257;

logy, 256

265
Anaximeyies of Miletus, i. 266 his primitive matter. date, 266, 2
;
;

and character of his philosophy, i, 155, 162, 172, 175, 182; second period of Greek philosophy closes with, 164. 179: on the Socratic and pre-Socratic philosophy, 185, 189; on Thales, 217, 218;
;

air,

267

sq.

rarefaction
;

and

condensation, 271 formation of the universe, 271 sqq. meteorology, 271, 278; the soul, 278;
;

historical position,

278
according to
;

Animals, origin

of,
i.

Hippo, 282; .Diogenes of Apollonia, 296; nutrithe Pythagoreans, 480 tion of, by smell, 481, n. opinions respecting, of Pythago-

Anaximander,

255

Anaximander, 228 sqq. Anaximenes, 271, 1; 275; Diogenes, 288,289,299 the Pythagoreans, 306 sq. 351, 2; 418, 419 sq., 476, 481, 509; Eleatics, 533, 640; Xenophanes, 562, 565; Parmenides, 583, w., 593 606, 1 Zeno, 613, 622; 624, 1; 625; Melissus, 534, 535, 630 sq.
; ;
;

Heracleitus,

ii.

6, w., 12, 36,

59.

reans,

447,

72.

484,
;

of

w., 131, w., 139, 144, 149, 153; the Atomists, 208. ., 210 sq., 237-245,

65; Empedocles. 119,

of EpicharAlcmaeon, 522, 2 mus, 530 of Xenophanes, 577 of Parmenides, 601 of Empedocles, ii. 160 sqq., 174, 175; of Democritus,253,254 of Anaxagoras, 365, 366 of Archelaus,
;

300, 313; Anaxagoras, 333 sq., 340, 354, 357, 364 Aristoxemis of Tarentum, a disciple of Aristotle, on the Pythagoreans, i. 329 351, 2 358, n.
;

392
Anthropology, ancient Greek, i .123; of the various philosophers see
;

361, 364 sqq., 493 Arithmetic, supposed discovery of, by Phoenicians, i. 215, 1 ; included in Greek education, 78

INDEX.
prominence in Pythagorean philosophy, 407, 419 Art, not included in philosophy, i, 8; influence of, ou philosophy, 64 religion ministered to, 51 connection of, with political prosperity, 81 Greek, as distin;

519

277

ethics,
;

ness, 279
state,

278 sqq. happifriendship, 283; the

;

ligion,

284 marriage, 285 erSaAo, 289 287

;

resq.
;

guished from modern, i. 142144; some arts borrowed from animals, ii. 277 of happiness. 280 derivation of, according to
;

prognostics and magic, 290, 29 1 position and character of Atom.istic philosophy, 292 sq, not a form of Sophistic doctrine, 294 sq. relation to Eleatic philosophy, 305 sq. to Heracleitus,
; ;

Heracleitus. 308,
to a
first
i.

itpxh, first application of the

principle

word by Anaxi-

mander, Astronomy

248
see Stars

309; to Empedocles, 310; to Pythagoreans, 312; to ancient lonians, 312; to Anaxagoras, 313; later representatives, Metrodords, 313; Anaxarchxis, 317

urapa^ia of the Sceptics, i. 159 Athens in the oth century b.c.> ii. 395, 401 Atomistic School, ii, 207 Atom;

T>EANS. prohibition of, by Py-^ thagoras, i.331, 1 344; 351, byNuma, 519,72.; by EmpeI
;

istic

(Democntean) philosophy
;

docles,

ii,

175, 3

principle and a standpoint, 210

Being

Becoming and Decay, 215; and xs'on-Being, 217 Atoms and the Void, 219 qualifc-qq.
;

ties of the atoms.

among them, 223, 245

228
tion,
; ;

219; differences the Void,

;

changes, reciprocal rela-

and qualities of things, 239 pq. primary and secondary qualities, 232; the elements"^ 234 movement of the atoms, 235 denial of Chance, 239 vortex, 247 formation of the universe, 244 sq,; innumerable worlds, inorganic nature, 252 245 meteorology, 253, 1 plants and animals, 253 sq., 268; man: his body, 253 suul, 258; relation of soul and body, 261
;
; ; ; ;
;

Becoming, denial of, by the Eleatics, i. 203 how regarded by Heracleitus, Empedocles, the Atomists, and Anaxagoras, 208. See the account of the doctrines of the several philosophers under their names Bnng, how apprehended by the
;

earlier

and

later Physicists,

i.

universal diffusion of soul, 263 cognition and sensation, 266, 271 sight and hearing. 268 sq. thought. 271, 275 rational and sensible perception, 271, 272; supposed scepticism of Democritus, 275 opinion as to the beginnings of bumao culture,
;
; ;

187 sq., 198, 206-208; by Parmenides. 580 sqq. ; by Melissus, 629 sqq. by the Eleatir s generally, 640 by Heracleitus, ii, II sq., 36 sq,, 107 sq, by Empedocles, 195 sqq, by the Atomists, 217sq.,30osqq.; by Anaxagoras, 3S0, 382; Protagoras, 449 sq. Gorgias, 451 sq. Bias, one of the seven wise men. i, 119; said to have asserted the reality of motion. 120, 2; his name used proverbially for a wise judge, 120, 3
;

book of, i. 41, 1 Body, souls fettered in the,

Bitys,

i. 70 the corporeal not distinguished from the spiritual by pre-Socra;

520

INDEX.
cos

tics, 149,

200

sq..

208

origin of

the, see doctrines of philosophers

BocTKoi, sect of the,

referred to under their i. 4

names
i.

Clinias of Tarentum, a later Pythagorean, i. 366, 392 Cngnition, faculty of, not enquired into by early Greek philosophers,

Brontiniis, a Pythagorean,

323,

392
Busiris, panegyric on.
i.

by Isocrates,

332,

1
i.

Butherus,

392

ryALLICLES,

a Sophist in the

Sophists denied i. 162 man's capacity for, 152, 182, difference between mo202 dern enquiries into, and those of Plato and Aristotle, 153155; of conceptions declared by Socrates the only true knowwith the pre-Socraledge, 182
; ; ;

wider sense, ii. 427. 477 Causes of things, how first sought, question of natural, the i. 8o
;

starting

point

of

philosophy,

]27, 128; natural phenomena explained, by natural c, by preSocratics, 182 ; vovs in relation to natural, 220; ii. 354, 383 Central fire, of the Pythagoreans,
i.

the discrimination of scientific, from sensible presentation was the consequence, not the basis of their enquiries into nature, i. 198 Parmenides opposes cognition of reason to that of sense, but only in respect of their content, 591, 603; Eleatics devetics
;

442

sqq.,
i.

465 sqq.

Cercops,

311, 2; 340, 2

nor loped no theory of, 641 nor did Heracleitus, ii. 92 Empedocles. 170; opinions on,
;
;

Cham, prophecy of, i. 96, 3 Chaihce, denied by Democritus and Anaxagoras. ii. 239 345, 3
;

and perception, of Heracleitus,

88-9.5;
sq.
;

Acusii. 88 97 in Orphic cosmogonies, 99, 104 Charondos, i. 342, 1 Chilon, sometimes reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119, 1
Chaos, in Hesiod,
laus,
; ;

Empedocles, 169, 195 Democritus, 265 sq., 270274 sq. Metrodorus, 316 Anaxagoras, 367, 370; of the So;
;

phists,

445 sqq.

Colonies, Greek, their

number and

Christianizy, called
4, 1
;

(piXo(ro<pla,

i.

extent, i. 81 Comets, how regarded by Diogenes Pythaof Apullonia, i. 295, 2

;

breach between spirit and character of nature in, 139 Greek philosophy as compared with, 131, 134 sqq., 140 sq. Chronos in cosmogony of Phereof the Orphics, cydes. i 90 sq. 100, 101, 104 Chrysippus, the Stoic, his defini; ;

goreans,

252

Democritus, 454 Annxagoras, 362

;

ii.

Corax, a Sicilian

rhetorician,

ii.

tion of philosophy, i. 3 Chthon, the earth, i. 90

Cleohidus,

sometimes
the seven wise

among
119,
1

reckoned men, i.

Cfidfyinvs.

a naturalist, contemporary with Democritus, ii. 388, 1

397 Cosmology before Thales, i. 83 of Pherecydes, of Hesiod, 84 89 sq. of Epiraenides, 96 of of the Orphic Acusilaus, 97 poems, 98-108 of Thales, 222, 226 of Anaximander, 251 sqq. of of Anaximenes, 273 sqq. of Diogenes of Hippo, 283 Apollonia,293sq. of the Pythaof Heragoreans, 438 sqq. of Empecleitus, ii. 47 sqq.
;

iyi)i:x.

521

145 sqq. ; of the AtO' mists, 235 sqq., 314; of Adhxagoras, 354 sqq. ; of Archelaus,
docles,

Pythagoreans, 482, 484 sq. Alcmseon. Epicharmus, 524 531 Parmenides. 602 604, 1
;
;

389

sq.

Heracleitus,
docles. 164.

ii.

79-87
sq.
;

Empe-

Counter-Earth, Pythagorean theory of the, i. 444, 45U, 452 sq. Cratylus the Heracleiteaii, Plato instructed by him, ii. 113 play on words, 114
;

172
;

Democri;

tus, 259, 261. 263. 309 Anaxagoras, 366 367, 1 ; praise of death by the Thracians, i. 73, 1
;

Theognis,

118;

Prodicus,

ii.

Critias,

ii.

427

his

religious

473
Decad, the, in the Pythagorean philosophy, i. 426 sqq. Deity see God. Gods Demetir, supposed Egyptian origin of the story of, i. 40, 4 hymn to, 67 my thus and cult of, 63 69. 1 75; ii. 482, 3 Dem^critus, his journeys, i. 27. 33 position in pre-Socratic 1 philosophy, 207 comparison of, with Anaximander, 263 life of, ii. 208 doctrines of, vide Atomistic school Destruction, periodical, and construction of the world see
;
;

opinions, 481, 482

Critical

method, Greek science deficient in, i. 149 Croesus, remark of, about philosophy,
i.
i.

1,

Cronos, in

cosmogony of Hesiod,
;

87

Crotona, salubrity of, i, 337 settlement of Pythagoras in; 340; attack on Pythagoreans in, 357
sq.

Cyhde, rites of, i. 61 Cylon, author of the attack on the Pythagoreans at Crotoua, i. 358,
72.',

362, n.
j

Cyjtic philosophy, character of.

i.
|

World
Diaqoras of Melos, the Atheist, ii. 320, 428 Dialect ic, development of, by Eleatics, i. 184 Zeno, the discoverer of, 613 unknown to the Pythagoreans, 505 of the Sophistsrii- 484 AiaQr,Kai, date of the, i. 65 Diodes the Pythagorean, i. 364, 5 Diodorus of Aspendus, inventor of the Cynic dress among the Pythagoreans, i. 365 Diogmcs of Apollonia, i. 285 bis doctrines air as primitive matter, 286 sq. rarefaction and conden&ition. 290 sq. di^erent kinds of air, 292 formation
;

178
Culture of Homeric period, i. 49 peculiarity of Greek, 138 sq.
I

JjMMOXS,

belief in,

first

met
| I

with in Hesiod, i. 125; saying of Theognis about, 123; opinions respecting, of the Pythagoreans. character of 487 sq. 484, 6
;

daemon, 531 ii. the soul is the abode of 98 the daemon, ii. 278 opinions of Empedocles respecting, 172 sq. of Democritns, 290 1 76^ 2 1 79 were long-lived but not immoris

man
;

his

290, 2 Damon and Phintias, i. 345, 3 the musician, ii. 418, 2 435, Death, early theories about, i. 68, of Anaximander, 5; 123 sq.
tal,
;
;

256;Anaxiraenes, 270. 271; Diogenes of Apolluaia, 297 oi' the

;

and destruction of the -universe, 298 the soul. 288. 292. 296 earth and stars, 294 sq. animals and plants, 287, 296 metals, 298 ; character and his:

522

INDEX.
Earthqnal-es,
Tliales,

torical position of

phy, 300

liis philosocontradictions in relation to his doctrine, 300

sq.

Anaxagoras, 301
Diogenes the Deniocritean, ii. 317 Diontjsodorus the Sophist, ii. 424
457, 3; 464,
1
;

278 295

by 226; Anaximenes.. Diogenes of Apollonia, Pythagoras, 485, 3 Dei.

;

how explained

mocritus, ii. 253, ras, ii. 362, 6

Anaxago-

East, the, supposed derivation of

Dionysus, worship of, introduced into Greece, i. 27, 30, 42, 60

rites of (mysteries), 64, 72,
n.

333, w., 347, n., 365, 487, 497 Dionysus Helios, i. 107 li. 100 6 story of Dionysus Zaq:rens, i 105 opinion of Heracleitus on
;

Greek philosophy from, i. 28 points of contact between sqq. Greek philosophy and that of, supposed journeys in, 42 sq. of Empeof Pythagoras, 328 docles, ii. 189; of Democritus,
;

rites of,

ii.

103

Dorians and lonians, supposed to

represent Realists and Idealists in Greek philosophy, i. 191 sq. Doubt, modern philosophy begins with, i. 146 Drcayns, Heracleitus on, ii. 82, 83 connected with prophecy by Democritus, v. 291 Drunkenness, how explained by Diogenes, i. 297; Heracleitus,
;

212, w. Echecrates, disciple of Philolaus, i. 364, 5 Eclecticism, period of, i. 393 Eclipses, prediction of, ascribed to

Thales,
of,

i.

214, n.

explanation
;

by Anaximander, 252 Anaximenes, 275; Pythagoreans,

455. 3
;

456, 2

Alcmseon, 523,

1; Xenophanes, 572; Empcdocles, ii. 157; Atomists, 252

ii.

81

Anaxagoras, 360, phon, 459, 3

Ecliptic,

361

Anti-

Dualism of Greek philosophy, i. 162 Duality, Unity and, with Pytha386 sqq. Dynamists and Mechanists, fitdivision of the Ionian ter's
goreans,
i.

to

have

inclination of the, said been discovered by

i.

Anaximander,
thagoras,
455,

254
2
;

by Py-

theories of

philosophers into,

i.

240, 4

JpABTH,

concerning 88 in Pherecydes* cosmogony, i. 90 sq. of in Orphic poems, 99 sqq. Thales, 225, 226; AnaximanAnaximenes, 273 der, 255 Diogenes of Apollonia, 292-294; Pythagoreans, 439, 454 sqq. ParmeXenophanes, 567 sq. nides, 593, 2 599 Heracleitus, Empedoii. 48 sq., 55-68 sqq. cles, 154-156; Democritus, 247, 248; Anaxagoras, 354-360
opinions
the, in Hesiod,
;

Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, ii. 376 Ecphanttis, a later Pythagorean, explanation of Monads, i. 323 415 his doctrines, 527, 528 Education, Greek, i. 78, 79; ii. Homer, the 394-396, 434; Greek handbook of, i. Ill
; ;

the Universe, in ancient cosmogonies, i. 97, 100 Egypt, supposed debts of Greek philosophy to, i. 26, 27, 32;
travels in, of Thales, 215,
1
;

Egg of

of

Pytlagoras, 331-334; of Democritus, ii. 211, 212; of Anaxagoras, 327, n. 266. cf'SwAa of Democritus, ii.

268, a03, 304, 405

INDEX.
philosophy, i. 633-642; character and historical position, 188 sq., 202-204, 206, 638 sq. supposed connection with Imlian philosophy, 36 sq. doctrines of, authorities for, 533 sq. cf. Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus Eletnenis, five tivxoi of Pherecydes supposed to be the, i. 92. ] theories respecting the, of Philolaus, i. 436 sq. of Heracleitus, ii. 51 sqq. four, of Empedocles, i. 438, 569 ii. 125 sqq. gradual development of the doctrine of, 1 28 term first introduced into scientific language by Plato, qualities and place of 126, 1 the several elements first defined
Eleatic
; ; ;
I

52i

clean philosophy, 184 sq. ; relation to Pythagoreanism, 191 sq. ; to the Eleatics, 194 sqq. to Heracleitus, 202 sq. Empedocles not a mere Eclectic, 205 ;
; ;

Epicharrrais,

general summary, 205-207 the comic poet,

116,
1
;

i.
;

his doctrines, 195, 196

how far a Pythagorean, 529 sq. Epicureanism, general character of, i. 158, 178 Epicurus, his theory of the deflection of the atoms compared with the doctrine of Democritus, ii.
240
Epimenides,
Solon,
i.

96, 5

contemporary with his cosmogonv,

;

96

sq.,

353

by Plato and
Eloihales of Cos, Emotions, origin

Aristotle, 131
i.

Ericapceus, derivation of the name, i. 104, 2; see Phanes

195, 196

of,

Empedocles, ii. Empedocles, life and writings, ii. 117 teachers, 118, n., 187 sqq.; his philosophy generation and decay = combination and separation of substances, 122 sqq.; elements, 135; mixture of matter, 132; pores and emanations, 125 Love and Hate, 137 sq. alternation of cosmic periods, laws of nature and 145 sq. chance, the Sphairos, 144 149 formation of the universe, 150 sq. ; heavenly bodies, 154 meteorology, 158 plants sqq. and animals, 159 sq. respira; :

according to 171

Erinna, on the transitoriness of fame, i. 127 Eros, how represented by Hesiod, i. 88 Pherecydes, 92 Epimenides, 97; Parmenides, 596, 1 Plato's doctrine of, i. 155; as Plastic force, 193, 2 in the
;
;

system of Empedocles,

ii.

196

Essence of things, how sought by lonians. Pythagoreans, Eleatics, i. 202, 207 Ethics, early Greek, i. 76, 77 of Homeric poems, 110 of Hesiod, 112; of the Gnomic poets, 115 sq. of the seven wise
;
; ;

men, 120; development of, 121123; ancient and modern, 150

sq. esthetic treatment of, by the Greeks, 151; Plato's, 155;
;

sense-perception, 165 sq.; thought, 167; perception and thought, 169 desires and emotions, 171 transmigration and pre-existence, 172 prohibition of animal food sq. and killing of animals, 174,
tion,
; ; ;

164;

156 Socrates founder of, 172; of Xeo-Platonists, ISO; of Pythagoreans, 184, 481 sqq. of Heracleitus, ii. 97 i>qq.; of Democritus, 277-287 of Anaxagoras, 371 of the SoAristotle's,
; ; ;

175: Golden Age, 177; gods and daemons, 179 character and
;

phists,

469 sqq.
Peripatetic, Orphic
i.

Eudemus the

historical position of

Empedo-

cosmogony used by him,

98

524

INDEX.
Greek sense of, its effect on Philosophy, i. 5; on Art, 142elementary nature of 144 bodies is dependent on their, asserted by Pythagoreans, 436 and matter how regarded sq. by Archytas, 390 Freeivill, necessity and, i. 14-20 FriendaJup, rites of; a number, 188 how regarded by the Py{jcoiva to thagoreans, 345, 353 TWf (p'lXwv, 345, 2 495, 2) by Democritus, ii.283 by Gorgias,
Form.,
; ; ;
;

Euihrim on Pythagorean doctrine of Unity and Duality, i. 388, 1

Eurytus, disciple of Philolaus, 364, 5
Kaxitlieus, on suicide,
i.

i. 483 Evtnus of Faros, rhetorician and Sophist, ii. 426 Even odd, category of numbers with the Pythagoreans, i. 377,

405

'p^AITH;

see Religion Fallacies, Sophistic, ii. 462 sq. ; Aristotle's treatise on, 463
i.

472, 3

Fate, in Greek religion,

in
;

52, 101
;

Orphic cosmology, 100 in Theognis, 1 17 sq. Arcjiilochus, Pythagoreans, 439, 2; 122; 465, 2; Parmenides, 595, 2; relation to nature and Divine Providence, Heracleitus, ii. 39 Empedocles, 144 Demosqq. Anaxagoras, critus, 239, 301 345, 350-354, 382
; ; ;

QENERATION

and

Decay,
;

opinions respecting, of Parof menides, i. 585, 587, 591 Heracleitus, ii. 17, 20, 37 Empedocles, 122-125; the Atomists, 214-217, 229; 296, 1; Anaxagoras, 331 Geometry discovered by the Egyp;

tians,
of,

i.

47,

n.,

215, w.

figures

Fiijnres, relation of,

to

numbers
;

how regarded by
by

Pythagorean philosophy, to corporeal things, 436 to the elements, 437, 438 Fire; see Elements, Cosmology; of the Periphery, i. 444 sq., 450, 465 central, 443, 527 primiof Hetive, of Hippasus, 526
in the
i.

390;

Archytas, Pythagoreans, 407

;

434

413, 416, 434; proficiency in, of Pythagoras, 331,7?. of Demoof Hipcritus, ii. 212, n., 296 pias, 423, n. GeUe, a people of Thrace their belief in immortality, i. 73, 1
;
:

racleitus,

ii.

21 sqq.

F/i/x

of all things, doctrine Heracleitus, ii. 11 sqq.

of

Gnonm

Food, animal, forbidden by Empedocles and the Orphics, i. 42 Pythagoras, 344, 3 447, n. by Empedocles, ii. 174, 175 as, by Anaxifish forbidden
;
; ;
;

337 330, 2 poets, i. 115-118, 516 God, Greek notion of, i. 54, 64 development of the conception of, 121 sq. ; Stoic conception of. opinions respecting, of 220, 4 of AnaxiThales, 220-223;
; ; ;

mander,

i.

256

Force, how related to matter by the pre-Socratic philosopher.-^, i. by P^mpedocles, 200, 220, 221 povs of Anaxngoras ii. 138, 179 conceived as a natural, ii. 345; ;

349, 376, 384

of Anaximenes, mander, 249 of of Diogenes, 287, 5 270 the Pythagoreans, 386 sqq., 397-407, 489 sqq., 515 of Hipin the treatise on pasus, 526 Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgins. 5.38, 539, 540, 547-560; of Xencphanes, 555, 559-566,
;

INDEX.
of 578 of Parmenides. 588 Melissus. 638 of Heracleitus, ii. 39. 42-47 of Empedocles, 179-184; of Anaxagoras. 349, 2 352 of the S' phists, 504 Gods, how far derived by Greece
; ; ; ; ;
I

525

from Egypt, i. 40 in Horn ric and Hesiodic poems, 50, 112; 489 561. 1 in Greek religion, 51, 52, 563; their worship required by the State, 57 mys; ;

Heracleitus, ii. 98, 2 see Happiness Goods, Plato's theory of, i. 155 ; community of, among the Pythagoreans, 343, 354; riches are not necessarily, asserted by Sappho, 114; Solon, 116; equality of, first advocated by Phaleas, ii. 428, 6 Democritus,
;
;

teries

connecifd with particular, 490 of the ancient cosmology, 84, 89 sq., 95 sqq. ideas about the, of Archilo'hus, Terpander, Simonides, Solon, Theognis, 122, 123 attitude of the Greek to his, 140; recog60, 61 sqq.,
; ; ;

ii. 278, 281 Prodicus. 473; Divine and human, according to Democritus, 278 happiness to be sought in goods of the soul, 308 all pleasures nor, 471 Gorgias of Leontini (Leontium), the Sophist, ii. 412 his writings
;

by Thales, 221innumerable created, of Anaximander and Anaximenes, recognition of the, 258, 270 by Pythagoreans, 490. 496; polemic of Epicharmus, 530
nition of the,

aud lectures. 415, 2; 451, 489, 492; end of his teaching, 431, 471; scepticism, 451 sq. phy;

223

sical theories.

virtue. 471

doctrine of rhetoric, 485, 1

; ;

460

491, 492 sq.

Xenophanes against
;

the,

558-

561, 578; of Parmenides. 589, 1 attitude towards 596, 601 the, of Heracleitus, ii. 100-103 of Empedocles, 179-184; of
;

Grammatical d.\sQMSS\or^s of Protagoras, ii. 489 Gravitation, ii. 239 cause of the movement of the atoms in Atomistic system. 239 sqq., 299 Greeks, in Homeric period, i. 49
;

Democritus, 286-290, 301-303, 405 of Anaxasoras, 324, 328, 372 of the Sophists, 480-483,
;

their religion, 53 sq. ; dispeculiarities of their genius, 138 sqq. art, 142 sq.
;

51

tinctive

504;
161
;

neo-Platonists,

i.

160,
ii.

reason given by Diagoras

320 Golden Age, myths of the, i. 29 how employed by Empedocles, ii. 177, 178 Golden Poem, authorship of the, i. 312, /z., 322; 438,1; on gods, dsemons, and heroes, 487, 3; moral precepts of, 494 Good, the beautiful is also the, i. 114; the, according to Epicharmus, 530; the highest, according to Solon, 116; and evil among the ten fundamental opposites, i. 381 to Epicurus, Democritus,
for ceasing to believe in,
;

moral and political life, 74, 75 sq.. 140-142; ethical reflection until the 6tl) century B.C., 109 sqq. circumstances of the Greek nation in the 7th and 6th cen turies B.C., 80 sq. in the 5th century, ii. 395. 401 philosophy of the see Philosophy Gymnastic, prominence of, in Greek education, i. 78 and with the Pythagoreans, 349, 353
;

TTADES,
on,

opinions of the poets 124-127; descent of Pythagoras into. 340 punishments in, 485 Heracleitus on, ii. 86, 87; Empedocles on, 174;
i.
; ;

526

INDEX.
HIP
of

identity 100, 6

Dionysus

with,

Happiness, greatest, according to Sappho, i. 114; the Gnomic poets, 115; Phocylides, 117 Theognis, 118 the Stoics, 158 Epicurenns, 158, 178; Cyrenaics 178; Pythagoreans, 494; 495, 2: Heracleitus, ii. 98 Democritns 277 f^qq- the highest end of human effort, Anarchus, 318 Harmony, invented by Pythagoras, by Pythagoreans, i. 348, 1 348, o84 sq. the soul a, 384, developed, of the spheres, 1 460 sqq. the harmony of the
; ; ;

apparently contradictory statements, wept SmiTTjs, etc., 69 Plato, 73 result, 76 cosmic year, 77 man: soul and body, 79 pre-existence and immorsqq. tality, 83 sq. reason and senseknowledge, 88 sq. theory not sen^ualistic, 93 ethics and politics, 97 sq. relation of, to popular religion, 100; and to Zoroaster, 115; hi storical position, 104sq.; school, 113
; ; ; ;
;

renewal of the world, 62 evidence for this, 64 sq.

sq.

Hiracles, an

the

East,

immigrant god from 30, 42; Chronosof the

body, 486 virtue is, 492 harmonical system of PhiloUiUS, how regarded by 431-433 EmHeracleitus, ii. 38-42, 56 pedocles, 143 Heavens see Universe Anaximander's innumerable gods called, i. 258 Hegesidemus, said to have been the instructor of Hippias the So;
;

Heracles

Orphic
story
of,

cos-

mogony,
Hades,

i.

100
n.

in
in

Olympus and
124,

his
;

shadow
;

phist, ii. 421, 2 Hellanicus of Lesbos,

i.

102

story of, at disthe cross-ways. ii. 419, 2 course of Prodicus on, 473, 483 Hermes Trisiaegistus, author of sacred Egyptian books, i. 40, 41 45, 1 Hcrmodorus of Ephesus, ii. 99, 3 Hermotimus, said to have instructed Auaxagoras, i. 220 ii.
; ;

Heracleitus,

permanent element, i. 190; gave new direction relation to to philosophy, 204

his
;

384-386 Heroes, worshipped by the Pytha488 future goreans, i. 487, 3

;

second division of pre-Socratic philosophy begins with, 208 life and treatise, ii. opinions on the ignor1 sqq. ance of man, 9; flux of all
Eleatics,2{)6
;
;

.'tate of, ii.

86
of,
'

Hesiod,

'Theogony' moral precepts in

poets, 113

84-89;

Works and

Days,' 112; precursor of gnomic

things, 11 sq. fire as primitive matter. 20 sq. transformations of primitive fire, 27 sq. (ef. i.
;

Hierarchy, absence
i.

of, in

Greece,

bb-bl

influence of this on

philosophy, 58
Hippasiis, a later Pythagorean, i. 195; supposed fragments of his
.

harunity of oppomony, 38 sq. law of the unisites, 38 sq. eleverse, the Deity, 42 sq. mentary forms of fire, 48 sqq. way upward and downward, 50 astronomy and meteorology, 57 the universe, 61 sq. its sqq.
223, 4)
;

strife,
;

32 sqq.

writings, 313, 323; doctrine of numbers, 373, n. combined the doctrines of Heracleitus with those of Pythagoras, 526, 527
;

ii.

188, 1

Hippias the Sophist, his character,

teaching,

eternity, 62

conflagration

and

and popularity,

ii,

421,

INDEX.
INT
his varied acquirements 422 and love of rhetorical display, his reference of 431, 458. 459 unwritten laws the to the g:ods, 483 explanation of the poets, 487 rules concerning rhythm and euphony, 491; not opposed to ordinary customs and opinions, 472 first enunciated the Sophistic distinction between natuf-al and positive law, 475 Hippo, a physicist of the time of Pericles, who resembled Thales in his doctrines, i. 281, 282; accused of atheism, 283 Bippodamus. the famous 3Iilesian included by architect, ii. 428
; ; '

527

difference
jective,
Idcaluits

between modern suband that of Plato, 158 and Realists. Division

'

of the pre-Socratics into, how far admissible, i. 187 sqq. Ideas, doctrine of, the Platonic,

154 sq., 397 not held by the Pythagoreans. 321, 322 Ignorance of mankind deplored by
i.
;

i. 575, 2 Heraclei9; Empedocles, 170, said by Democritus to be 197 the cause of all faults, 282, 283 regarded as a natural necessity by ancient scepticism, i. 159 Immortality, doctrine of, not ori;

Xenophanes,
tus,
ii.
;

ginally,

Hermann among
428, 5
;

first

the Sophists, to plan cities ar;

tistically,

428

first

theoretical
1

politician in Greece, 470,

Hlstori/,
;

sphere of, i. 11 laws and unity of, 14 sq. periods of, 164 of philosophy, how it shoxild be
;
;

but subsequently, conEleusinian mysteries, i. 67, 68; said to have been first taught by Pherecvdes, 69 belief of Thracians and Gauls in, 73, 1 first placed on
nected with
"
;

21-25 Homer, Gretk life and character in poems of, i. 49, 56 place in Greek education, 78, 111; ethics
written,
;

a philosophic ba-is by Plato, 74 Pindar the first poet who expresses belief in, 127; Herodotus says it first camefrcm Egypt,
;

110 sq. on future retribution, 125 seen by Pythagoras in Hades, 489 his statements about the gods disapproved by Xenophaues, 560, 561 and by
of,
; ;

333, 1 a'-serted to have been held by Thales, 225 opinions of the Pythagoreans on, 477,
;

481 i^qq. Heracleitus, ii. 76, 83-87; Empedocles, 172-177 Infinite, the, of Anaximander. i. 229 sqq. called divine. 249
;

Heracleicus, ii. 10, 3; 102, 2; allegorical interpretation of, by 3Ietrodorus, 372. 6 387 called an astrologer by Heracleitus,
;
;

Anaximenes

calls his primitive

:

102,2
ofioiojxipri

of Anaxagoras,

i.

233,

304

ii.

332 sqq.

represents Eros as springing from Chaos, i. 98, 1 says that Diomede became immortal. 125, 3 Idc^us of Himera, influenced in his doctrine by Anaximenes, i. 284 Idealism, definition of, i. 187;

JBYCUS,

air infinite, 268 of the Pythagoreans, 467, 468 Xenophanes said to have called both the Deity and the Universe infinite, 565, 566 see Unlimited Initiated, the, of the Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries, i. ^\, 67 final destiny of, 126 among the Pythagoreans, 342, 343, 356
;

Inspiration, poetic, explanation of, ii. 292; of the Sibyl, 100 Intellectual faculty, theory of Par-

menides
197
;

and

Empedocles,

ii.

see Cognition, NoC^

528

INDEX.
Laurel, use of the, prohibited by Empedocles, ii. 175, 3 Leucippus, founder of the Atosee mistic school, ii. 207 sqq. Atomistic school
;

Ionian and Dorian element in philosophy, i. 184 sqq. see Dorian philosophers, 211 sqq.; after
;
;

Anaximenes, 280

distincsqq. tion of a mechanical and dyna;

mical tendency. 232

Isocrates, said to

sq.

have copied the

ii.

style

of

Gorgias,

414,

4;

mentions Pythagoras in Egypt, 331,'^ 1 the Busiris of, i. 33

;

488, 1 Italian and Ionian, division of Greek philosophy by some ancient historians into, i. 191
ii.

Limited and Unlimited, identified by the Pythagoreans with the Odd and Eveu, i. 378, 379, how regarded by Philo383 nature of these laus, 371, 372 principles, 400 sqq.
;
;

vation of Greek philosophy, supposed 26, 28; 64, 2; teachers of Pythagoras, i. 330, 1; of Anaxagoras, 35, 37 sq. 385, 2, 3 ii. 327, n. Justice, exhortations to, of Homer and Hesiod, i. HI, 112; 8olon, 116; Pythagoras, 494; HeraDemoeritus, 282; cleitns, ii. 98 the ideal sum of all the virtues,
i.
; ;

TEWS,

Alexandrian, their deri-

Linquistic enquiries and discussions falsely ascribed to Pythaof Protagoras goras, i. 506 and Prodicus, ii. 489 practised by Heracleitus, 97 and his followers, 114; catches popular with the Greeks, ii. 466, 9 Linus, regarded as a philosopher,
; ;
;

i.

sometimes reckoned among

the seven wise men, 119. 1 Logic, Hegel's definition of, i. 12; law of development in, different from that in history. 13 Xoyos of Heracleitus, ii. 43, 1
;

44, 4; 46,

Love and Hate, moving

forces of

i.

117; identified with certain

;

numbers by the Pythagoreans,

411, 420, 491
;

described as a

law of nature by Protagoras, as an unattainable ii. 470, 471 good by Thrasymachus, 479, 1
;

Sophistic distinction of natural and positive, ii. 471, 475-479 divine retributive in poets, i.
112, 113; 122, 2; 125; Pythagoreans, 483, 485, 489, 496

Empedocles, ii. 138 sqq.; see Eros Lycophron, orator of the school of Gorgias, ii. 425, 477 Lysis, the Tarentine, a Pythagorean conjectured to be the author of the Golden Poem, i. escaped from Crotona 322 to Thebes, 357, 2; 359, n.; 361, n.; 363, 4; 364
;

JTl^OWLEDGE;
Kadapfioi of

see Cognition Empedocles, ii.

ii.

AfAGI, supposed

172; 174, 6
K6pos of Heracleitus,
78,
1

TASUS

Hermione, a lyric poet and writer ou music, i.

of

debts of Greek philosophy to the, i. 32, 35 connection with the, of Pythaof goras, 328, 2, 3; 513 sq. Heracleitus, ii. 115, 116; of of Empedocles, 189, 5, 191 Demoeritus, 210, n., 211, n.,
; ; ;

326

n.

119, 1; 526, 6

Magic and miracles ascribed

tc

IXDFX.
Pythagoras, i. 338, 339; 349, 2 to Empedocles, ii. 119 3o2 120; prophecy and, how re garded by Democritus, 289-292
;
;

620

-26 of Auaximander, 227 sqq. : of Anaximenes, 266 sqq. of Diogenes, 286 of Hippo, 282 ;
; ;

Idseus,

284

of the Pythago-

Democritus
210, n.

called

father

of,

how apprehended by
tics,

reans, 370, 374, 390, 393 sqq. the Elea-

Magna Moralm,
how

i. 492. 498 Magnet, a soul attributed to the, byThales, i. 222; attraction of

568, 639 sq.

ii.

by Heraclei-

the,

explained by Diogen^-s of Apollonia, 298 by P^mpe;

docles,

ii.

134,

by Demore-

critus, 230, 1

Man, how regarded by Greek

ligion,
i.

53
;

see Anthropology,
'

man is the meaBody sure of all things,' asserted by Protagoras, ii. 400, 405, 449 Marriage, supposed, of Pythagoras, i. 341, 4; 347; precepts concerning, of the Pythagoreans, identified 344, 347, 494, 495
Soul,
;

20 sqq., 64, 105 sq., 112 sq. by Empedocles, 126 sq., 129, 138 sq.. 193, 205; by the Atomists, 218, 220, 222, 310 sq. by Anaxagoras, 330, 332 sqq., 342, 383, 384; uovs the mover of, i. 220 ii. 364, 384; yovs a subtle kind of, 346 Mechan'cal explanation of naturt, founded by Empedocles and Leucippus, ii. 205 logicaliv carried out by the Atomisti, 311
tus,
;
;

Medicine, art

of,

practised
i.

by the
348,

Pythagoreans,

328, 2;

with number

five

by Pythago-

reans, i. 411, 430; opinions of Democritus on, ii. 284, 285 Materialism of the pre-Socratic philosophy, i. 152, 199 sq. ii. of the Atomists, 399, 400 sqq. 299, 309 of Anasagoras, 346, 381, 383, 384 Mathematics, not included in Greek education, i. 78 how regarded by Plato, 204; prominence of, with the Pythagoreans, 347, 376, 446, 500 ii. 104, 106 proficieBcy in, of Thales, i. 213, 3 Pythagoras, 328, n. Archytas, 366, 7; of Democritus. ii. 212, .. 214, . ; of Anaxagoras, 326 of Hippias, 327, 1 458 teachers of^ called Sophists, 430, 1 Matter, according to Aristotle, the possibility of Being, i. 175 according to Plato, is unreal, 175 primitive, ho-w regarded by the earlier and later Physicists, 202-209; primitive, of Thales,
;

353, 354 Mele.sag&ras, supposed adherent oi

Melissics, life
1
;

i. 627, doctrine of Being, 534, 535, 629 sqq. denial of motion and change, 634 sq. physicid and tlieological theories ascribed to him, 637 sq. connection with Leucippus, ii. 307
;
;

Anaximenes, i. 284, 3 and writings of,

Mcii.--s!is~,

treatise on, Xenophanes and Gorgias, i. 533 sq. firs:; section, 534 second section concerns Xenophanes and no:; Zeno, 536 sq. but does no~
;
;
;

truly represent the doctrines oi

Xenophanes, 541 this treatise not authentic, 551 its origin, 554 Metals^ a kind of respirtiiion al tributed to, i. 298
; ;

Metempsychosis,
of,

first introduction into Greece, i. 42, 67, 69, 7o taught in the mysteries, 74 by
;
;

Pherecydes, 69; 96, 4; 327, Z\ belief of the Gauls in, 73, 1

VOL.

II,

31

r:;()

INDEX.
origin of,
;

o.istern or Eg3-ptian

religion,

136

of the Pythago;

126 mention of, by Herodotus, 333, 1 personal transmigrations of Pythagoras, 340, 1 483, 6
72; developmeiit
of,
;

reans, 404, 489, 490; of Xenophanes, 559, 1 561, 562 sqq. supposed, of Empedocles, ii.

prominence

Pythagorean philosophy, 355, 481 sqq. held l)y Empedocles, ii. 177 i. 484,
of, in
; ;

3. 4 Meteorological theories of Anaxi-

mander, i. 256 Anaximenes, Diogenes of Apollonia, 278 295, 5; Xenophanes, 671, 572; Heracleitus, ii. 48, 57, 62 Empedocles, 158 Democritus, 252, 253 Anaxagoras, 362 Mitrodorus of Chios, an Atomi.'-t, ii. 313 sceptical view of knowledge, 319, 320 Mcirodorus of Lampsactis, disciple (if Anaxagoras, ii. 314, 1 372;
;

181-184; not connected with Anaxagoras's doctrine of vovs, Cf. Vol. I. 37 349, 352. Moon, theories respecting the, of Thales receives her light from the sun, i. 225 phases of the, 214, n., 252; of Anaximander: shines by her own light, 253
:
;

size
;

and place
;

of,

253, n.

254,
;

his allegorical interpretation of

the Homeric myths, 387

Milky Way, connected with the central fire, i. 466 Mhnnermus, ethical contents of
his poems, i. 114 Mixture of matter, primitive, wrongly ascribed to Anaximander, i. 232 sqq.. 241 ; with Empedocles, ii. 130 sqq.; with Anaxagoras, 338 sq. Mviesarchus, father of Pythagoras, i. 324 Mochus or Moschus, a Phoenician

2 how first formed, 274 ii. 361, 6 is an aperture in a fiery ring, 252, n. of Anaximenes, who is said to have first discovered that she gets her light from the sun, 274 of the JPythagoreans place of, in the universe, 444 said to be the counter-earth, 452, 1 conceived as a sphere, 454, 3 455 noticed in eclipse at 456, 1 her setting and after sunrise by Pliny, 456, n. light of, derived from sun and central fire, 456, 2 plants and living creatures in the, fairer and larger than on our earth, 457; length of a day in the moon, 457, 1 abode of departed souls and of dtemons, 457 place of the. in the spheral harmony, 462, ??.
; ; :

Atomist,

i.

Democritus
ii.

34, 41, 48 3^8, 1 said to have de;

aboro and beneath the, 471; of Alcmgeon plane surface shaped like a boat, ascribed
circles
:

rived doctrine of atoms from, 212, n. Monad, alleged Pythagorean distinction of the, from the One, called Tiavhs irvpyos, i. 391 446, 1 Moiwfhcism, not imported into philosophy from the mysteries, i. 63; indications of, in tlie poets, 121, 122; of the Ko;

called divine, 1 of Xenophanes: a 3; fiery cloud lighted and extinguished at rising and setting, and moving in a straight line, 572 inhabited, 573, 1 no influence on the earth, 573, 2 of Parraeniiles placed midwMy

to

the, 523,

523,

between Milky
stars,

Way

600,

1;

and fixed produced from

ran,

how opposed

to

Greek

the denser portion of the Milky

IXDEX.
Way,
600, 2
;

531

mixed nature of
;

against,
on,
ii.

i.

614,
;

face in the, 600, 2 of Heracleitus heat and light of the, why less than the sun, and greater than the stars, ii, of 57, 2 : ship of the, 58, n.
:
;

the. 600, 2

453-455

626; Gorgias according to

Erapedocles,
;

Heracleitus, 107;
;

of crystalline air, 156; a disc, 156; gets light from the sun, 156; d^'stance from the earth, 157; space beneath the, theatre of evil, consists 157; of Democritus of smooth and round atoms.
:

Kmpedocles

made

Democritus, 3(>0, 306 202 Anaxagoras, 375 sq. Music, place in Greek education, i. 78; theory and practice of, with the Pythagoreans, 348,
353, 384. 385, ^431 sq. of the spheres, 460 sq. taught by Hippias. ii. 422, 2 Myson, one of the seven sages, i. 119, 1 declared by Apollo to be the most blameless of men, 120, 3 Mysteries, Greek, j. 59. 60 sq. Orphic, 64 sqq. Pvthagorean,
;

terrestrial nature of, 249 mountains in, 249 origin of, 249, 250 placed bet-sveen eirth and stars, 250 motion and veplaced next locity of, 251; highest to the sun, 316; of origin of, 356 Anaxagoras referred to in an obscure passage as another universe, 359 invisible bodies bet-ween, and the earth, 360 shows her own
:

light in eclipses, 361 dinary light reflected

her orfrom the

;

sun, ha.s mountains, valleys, and called living inhabitants, 361 mother of plants, 565, 3 Nemean lion conjectured to have
;

351, 352, 355 sq., 376, 490 Myttis, of Hesiod. i. 84 of Pherecydes, 89 of Epimenides, 96 of the Orphic poems, 98 sqq. polemic of Xenophanes against, i. 561, 574; of Heracleitus, ii, 404 of Democritus. 287 sq. the Anaxagorean interpretations of, 372, 6; 387; Prodieus on, 482 cf the Golden
;
;
;

Age, 177
Sophistic

how regarded in the period, 402 m> ihs of

;

Protagoras quoted ly Plato, 471

come from, 361, 3 Antiphon's opinions on, 459, 3 Motion, explanation of, by Diogeby Empedones, i. 290, 292 cles, ii. 1 30 sq. by the Atoinists,
; ;
;

i.

208;

ii.
;

342-346
nides,
all
ii.

619 sqq.;

by Anaxagoras, of, by Parme117, 118; by Zeno, i. by Melissus, 634 sq.

241
;

denial

opinion of Democritus on, ii. 275 ; distinction taught by Prodi cus, 419, 1 4j0, 491 ; ambiguity of, subject 01 Sophistic quibbling, 466-468 Xutun^ urity of Spirit with, characteristic of the Greeks,
of,
:

^AMES,

things in constant, asserted

ii.
;

11; i. 207 how regarded by Erapedocles, 118 sqq., 130, 137, 145 sq., 200,

by Heracleitus,

201, 205, 206; by Leucippus and Democritus, 214, 215 sq., 239 sqq., 307, 308; Anaxagoras, 325, 330, 354, 364. 376 arguments Zeno's Midtiplicity,

sq., 149 in the systems Plato and Aristotle' 153 Greek religion a worship of, 157; all pre-Socratic philosophy a philosophy of, 152, 186, how regarded by post197 Aristotelian schools, 157 sqq.; natural truths, 157 physical explanation of, when abandoned,
;

138

of

JXDEX.
how explained by the by Atomists, ii. 238, 239 Anaxagoras,36(). 351 Sophistic laws of, 476 sqq. view of
209
;
;

yatisiq/dcs, a disciple
critus.
ii.

of

Demo-

319, 5 yaudpJianes, a disciple of

critiis, ii.

Dcmo-

319 yecessift/ and free-'svill in historical phenomena, i. 14-20 in Orphic cosmogony, 100 sq. in the Pythagorean system, 465; 466, 2; world-ruling goddess of Parmenides, called avayKrj, 595; meaning of, with Empedocles, with Deraocrii,us, ii. 183, 301 denial of, by 237, 239, 301 Anaxagoras, 345. 382 compared SeAf-Platovism, i. 35 with philosophy of Middle Ages and with ancient Greek philo;
;

the Void, 217, 4 ; the measure of,' asserted by Protagoras, 449 Gorg'as on Being and, 452, 454 NoOs, division of the soul into vovs, 4)pves, 6vfj.6s, ascribed to Pythagoreans, i. 479; of Anaxagoras, ii. 342 (see Anaxagoras) of Ax'chelaus, 389 sq. how regarded by Democritus, 299 by the Soii.

217 sqq.
'
;

306

man

phists, 400

Numa,

asserted
i.

by an

ancient

tradition to have been a Pytha-

gorean,

518, 2

sophy, 160, 161 constitutes the third period of post-Aristotelian its general philosophy, 179 and tendency, characteristics
; ;

Numbers, Pythagorean doctrine of, i. 187, 369 sq., 407 -sqq., 419 compared with Plato's sqq Ideas and Aristotle's Causes, 370 both form and substance of things, 375 sqq. symbolic and lucky, 376 certain figures and angles assigned to particular gods, 422; decuple system of, 427
;
;

132,

180-183

yeo-Pythagoreans, statements respecting origin of philosophy, 32 respecting Pythagoi. 28, rean philosophy, 392, 506 sqq. ycftsus, a disciple of Democritus,
;

ii.

313
;

Pythagorean respect 495 supposed prohibition of, 494, 6 Xenophanes disapproved of, 574 Sophistic quibble about, ii. 466, 7; Pythagorean oath. 420 Objectivity, characteristic of Greek art, i. 1 44 and Greek philosofor,
i.
; ;
;

QA THS,

Xight, in ancient Cosmology, see Cosmology cause of, according to the Pythagoreans, i.450 day and, the same, asserted by Heracleitus, ii. 15, 16 yim-Bchjg, denial of, by Parmehis account nides, i, 584 sq. of the ordinary view of, 592, 606 .sq. denial by Zeno, 626; by Melissus, 635 Heracleitus said to have asserted identity Being of Being and, ii. 36, 37
;

phy, 145 Oceanus, in the Cosmogonies of Hesiod, Pherecydes and the Orphics see Cosmology, myth of, influence on Thales.. i. 219 Ocellus, of Lucania, his work on the universe, i. 319
;

Octave, in Pythagorean system of Harmony, see Harmony, i. 385.

Odd and

and Non-Being, two moments how conof Becoming, 309 Being ceived by the Atomists is in no respect more real than,
;

431,460, 465 Even, in the Pythagorean system, i. 377, 381 sq., 416 sq., 429 Odours, some animals live upon, a Pythagorean opinion, i. 475,
4;

480, 2

IXDEX,
Old, subordination of the young to the, enjoined by the Pythagoreans, i. 493. 495
oXvfxros,
K6<Tfj.os,
'

ovpavos. division
in
i. 471. 472 Pythagorean
;
|

of the universe into.

One and Many

table of opposites, i. 381 the. and duality. 386 sqq. the. and
;

'

Deity, 391-394. 4C>1 sqq., 405 and matter. 410. 412 the, designated as the soul, and the point, 413 the first number, 429 central fire called the. 442 Xenophanes declares Deity to be the. 000. 559 sq.. 564 Eeing of Parmenides. 583 (cf. Vol. II. 195. 199;) of Melissus. 634; Eleatic doctrine of the. ii. 112 comes from all, and all from. Heracleitus, ii. 35 39 and
;

the,

'

of Democritus, 270-274 298: of Metrodorus, 316. 317 of Anaxagoras, 369, 370 knowledge is merely., asserted by Protagoras. 449-451. 458; Gorgias. 454 morality, justice, and religion, matters of. 475 sqq. Opposites, Pythagorean table of. i. 381. 509; all things consist of maintained by Pythagoreans. i. 383 and Heracleitus, ii. 30 sqq., 106. 309; present univer^tas compared with the Sphairos called bv Empedocles, world of 175, 201, 202

171;

sq..

<

Oracles,
sq.

i.

56
i.

Oriental philosophy,
; '

43

sq.,

13n
of

supposed Greek from. 26

;

derivation
sq,

613-615; Parmenides. 589 sqq.; with Xenophanes, 555, 579 -with Heracleitus as compared with Eleatics, ii. 107 with Empedocles, 201 with the Atomists. pre-Socratics generally, 216 398. Gorgias asserts 406 Being to be neither, nor Many. 452, 453, 455 di.sputations of Athenian youths about the, and Aristotle calls -Many, 456. ] the ."^phairos of Empedocles the
i.
;

Many, Zeno,

'

'.

Orpheus, considered by Xeo-Platonists the first of philosophers, i. 4 reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119. 1 Orphic poems, i. 62; theogonies. i. 98 sq.^. fragments of Jewish origin, 64, 2 Kara^aais, 340, 2
;

One, 149

Orphic and Homeric poems, i. 62, 1, 65. 353 Ophwneus. i. 91. 2; 93 sq.. 106 Oj)i?iio?i, numbt'r two assigned by Pythagoreans to, i. 411. 420;
Ojio/uacnttis, collector of

}
'

reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119, 1 Pail, supposed derivation of the name, i. 40. 3 appears as Zeus in the Orphic theogony, i. 101 Panthtisra of the Orphic poems, i. germ of, in Greek re64, 65 ligion, 101 of Xenophanes.
; ;

pAMPHILUS,

Parmenides,
\
!

'

the region of the earth. 421. 1 knowledge and. view of Xenophanes respecting, i. 575; of Parmenides. 591. 603; (his explanation of the world according to ordinary. 592 sqq.. 605 sq. ;) of Heracleitus, il 7-10. 88-96; of Empedocles, 167.
;

of Herac-leitus, ii. lOf. life and doctrines, i. 580 sq.; relation to Xenophanes. 582 sq. doctrine of Being. 584 corporeality of Being. 587 sq.
; ; ;
;
:

562-564

sq., 590 reason and sense, 591 sphere of opinion, physics, 592 Being and non-Being, the light and the dark, 594 cosraolog}-. anthropology, 601 597 sq, meaning of the Parmenideiin
;

Physics, 605 sq.

634

INDEX.
1 28 derivation of, from Oriental speculation, 26 ; ancient opi;

Perception ; see Sense. Senses Periandtr, reckoned among the seven wise men, i. 119, 1 Periods, division of, in history, i.

164

sq.

Persephone, i. 40, 3, 4 Personality, human, vah'dity and

importance

of,

first

adequately

conceived in

Christianity and

modern science, i. 1 50 Phaleasihe ChaIcedonian,ii. 428,6

Phanes
66,
Ericapceiis, story of,
i.

nions concerning this, 26 sq. statement of the question, 30 external testimonies, 31 sq. internal evidence theories of Gladisch and Roth. 35 positive reasons against Oriental origin, 43 sq. Native sources of (1) Htliyion, 49 sq. affinity of Greek religion with, 51 freedom of
;
:

Qo,

101, 104, 106; name for Helios, 106

another

Pkanton,

i.

364, 5
;

science in regard to religion in Greece, 58 supposed coimection of, with the mysteries, 59 in respect of monothesim, 63, and
; ;

Plienomena, see Senses atmospherical, see Mpteorological theories Pherecydes of Syros taught transmigration, i." 69, 71. 193, 194 his cosmogony, 89-96; connection of Pythagoras with, 327, 2, Philo of Byblus, i. 95 96, 4 Philolaus, author of first Pythagorean writings, i. 313, 314 sq his date and place of residence
; ;
;

(2) Moral Life, Civil atid Political Condi-

metempsychosis, 67
tiotis,

75

general character of
political life,
;

Greek moral and

75
;

forms of government, 80
;

colonies,

81 Cosmology, (3) 83 (see Cosmology) (4) Ethical Reflection ; Theology and Anthropology in relation to Ethics, 109 (see Ethics, Eeligion, Gods); character of, 129 sq. in relation to philosophy of the East and of the Middle Ages,

disciples, 364 Pythagorean doc trines: number, 371, 375. 376 Limited and Unlimited, 379 sq. harmony, 384, 385, 396; the One and Deity, 401 sq. meaning of numbers and figures, 423 sqq., 431 sqq.; the elements, 438 formation of the world, 439 sq. central fire, 450 sq. the moon, 456, 2 forms and qualities of things, 475 sq. the soul, 475 sqq. Philosophy, name and conception

363-366;
account

his

of

133

sq.;

and modern,
;

137;

distinctive peculiarity of
spirit,

Greek
of

138
;

manifestation

Greek philosophy as a whole, 144 and in its particuthis in

lar
sqq.

forms of development, 151

;

general result,
in,

161 sq.

principal periods
division,

164 sqq.;

meaning and value of periodic

164,
first period,

166

i. 1-9; extent and limits of Greek, 9 history of, not a philosophic construction, 10; but an exposition of its course and interconnection, 1 4 philosophy and the history of, 22 sophistic view of the problem of, 152;

of,

(against Ast, Rixner, Braniss, 166; againstHegel, 169); second period, 174 third period, 179 Philosophy, pre-Socratic, character
;

and
of,

210.
in,

development of, i. 184Various representations 184 distinction of tendencies

;

184,

(dialectical, ethical,

ii.

444, 445
of,
i.

Philosophy, Greek, origin

26-

184 ; realistic and idealistic, 185; Ionian and Dorian, 191 ;)

INDEX.
division of, of Braniss, 193 Petersen, iy-t;.Steinhart, 106, 1 a, philosophy uf nature, 197
of, to Philosopov, 130 Polus of Agrigentum, pupil )!" Gorgias. ii. 424 cf. 388, 1

Poetry, relation
i.

development of, 198-200 three most ancient schools, 202 physicists of the filth century, 204 sq. the Sophists, 209 Vhorylldcs, i. 115, 117
;

PoLyrrafcs, Polijthelrm

488, I see Gods, Religion Pre-exidcnce of the soul, lit Id by the Pythagoreans, i. 483 Heraii.
; ;

designation of philosophers, especially of the Ionian school, down to the time of Socrates, i 2, 4 Physics, how far theology the precursor of, i. lOS; when
CvcriKoi, (pv(Tio\6yoi,

cleitus,

ii.

87

Empedocles,

172
I

sq.
;

Priests

see Hierarchy
;

Prodiciis,

ii. 416 sq. aim of his instructions, 431, 460 ; his doctrine of Virtue, Heracles, 473

separated from metaphysicS: 172; development of. by lonians; treatment of, by the various phdospphers, see
first

on death, 473 483 rhetoric,

:

religit

us belief,

484,' 486,

485

distinctions

synonymous words, 489-491, 512; relation

of

their
Pi/ida?',

names
i.

68

his eschatolo:ry, 70,

4,127
I'u^Utratm,
Pitfaeics,
i.

62,

119,

Plamts

i. 119, 1 see Stars

;

Plants, souls of, i. 69, 1 opinions concerning, of Hippo, i, 284, n. of Diogenes, 298 of Philolaus, of Pythagoras, 495 of 48u, 1 Empedocles, i. 484, 4 ii. 159, 160, 164, 174, 175; of Demo263 ^f Anaxagorus, critus, 36.3 of CI idem us, 388, 1 Plato, his travels in Egypt, i. 34 relation to modern philosophy, 153-157; to Archytas, 319, 320
; ;

to the Pythagoreans, 354, 370, to 375,. 395,"^ 481-483, 486, 506 the Eleatics, 606 sq.. 627, 639 on Heracleitus, ii. 104, and sq. his school, 113-115; on Empe; :

to Socrates, 500, 501 Prophecy, practiced by Pythagoras and his school, i. 338, 339, 349, 2; 488; Empedocles, ii. 182 Democritus on, in dreams, 291 Propositions, different kinds of, according to Protagoras, ii. 490 Prorus, a Pythagorean contemporary of Philolaus, i. 366, 6 Protagoras, ii. 407 sqq. his writings, 416, 480, 481; 485, 1 aim of his instructions, 431, 470 .sq. sceptical theory of knowledge, 446 sq., 458 on the Eristic art, 461 doctrine of virtue, 4 70 sq. on the gods, 481 sq. rhetoric, 485, 1; 486491 grammatical enquiries, 489 Pythagoras, his date, i. 325 life and travels previous to his ar/.'

docles, 185,

345

sqq.,

203 on Anaxagonis, the Sophists, 429 351, 1 462, 490 sqq.

; ;

rival in Italy, 27, 1 33 327 fiqq. teachers, 326 sq., 334, 335,
; ; ;

Pleasure and
;

n version,

how

re-

517; residence in Sanios, 336; emgration to and residence in Italy, 336 sqq.. 352 sqq. death,
;

garded by Democritus, ii. 278, 303 origin of, with Empedocles, 171 Plenum see Void
;

357; 359; supposed writings, 3 lu sqq.; 313, 2 doctrine of transmigration, 355, 481 desires lu be called (pi\6(ro<pos instead of
; :

r,:}G

INDEX.
wise man, 491, 2
2,
;

:t

.^ophist,

called a said to have lulled himself a god. 483. 2 flow- far he may be regarded as the founder of the Pythagorean

481 sqq., 510 dfomons, the gods, prophecy. 488 theology, 490; ethics, 490; according to ancient authoritie.s, 490 sq. according to Arischosis,
;

487

philosophy, o08 sq. reckoned among the seven wise men, i.

;

119,

l*iJhagorean Philos&phy, distinction of Pythagoreanism and, i. I. Kimdamental con;)68, 369. ceptions of, 368 number the essence of things, 369 apparent liversity of views respecting
;

370 .sq. result, 375. The Odd and P>en Limited and Unlimited, 377 sqq. fundamental harmony, 383 opposites, 381 Examination of different sq. theories: 1. Unity and Duality, G-od and Matter, 386 sqq. (st-atements of the ancients, 387 sq. criticism of these, 392 sq. development of God in the world, 404 sq.) 2. Eeductioii of the Pythagorean principles to spacethis.
; :

toxenus and later writers, 493 General summary, 496 sq. Pythagorean Philo.sophy as such sprang neither from ethics, nor from dialectic, 502 497 but from physics, 507. Gradual foiTnation of the sy.stem, share of Pythagoras in 508 it, its 509 sq. origin not Oriental, 513; but Greek, 516.
;
; ;

Que.stion

of Italian

influence,

Pythagorean Philosophy in combination with other ele518.

521 Alcmaon, 521 Hippasus, 526 Ejphantus, 527 Epicharmus, 529. See their names. Pythagoreans, originally a political or religious party designation,
ment.s,
; ; ;

i.

368, 2

autliorities fur their

;

relations, 407.
.starting-point
II.

3.

The

original

of the system, Systematic development of the number theory and

414.
Its

application to physics, 419

the number system, 425 sq. system of harmony, 431 figures, the elements, 436 sq. 433 genesis of the world, 439 sqq. the universe. 444 sqq. (ten heavenly bo<.lies, 444 central
;
;

306 sqq. Pythagorean society, 342 sqq.; its politii-al character, 349, 354 its persecution, 357 sq. dispersion. 361 sq., 365; later, 303; last of the, Pyihagorean and 367 365, pseudo-Pythagorean writings, 310 sqq.
hi.story,
;
;
'

QUALITIES ^ from the

critus,
ii.

and world-soul, 444, 448 earth and counter earth, 450 harmony of the stars, 456 sq. .^pheres, 460 sqq. fire of the periphery and the Unlimited, time, 468 46.5 sqq. upper and under regions of the universe, 471); cosmic periods, graduated scale of 473 sqq, terrestrial nature, 475 man the soul, 475 sqq. Metempsyfire
; ;
;

of things derived form, magnitude and relations of atoms, Demosecondar}',

229 sq. primary and 232 sq.

;

'OAIN;
ries

see Meteorological theo-

Piainhow, i. 278, 2; 481, . See Meteorological theories Pare/action and condensation of primitive matter, held by the

INDEX.
lonians.
i.

537

207;

Thales, 218

Dio genes. 291, 299; Idseus, 284 Archeliius. ii. 390 Realism and Idealism, i. 187 sqq. limson, placed by Philolaus in the how regarded by brain, i. 480 by Parmenides, i. 188, 591 jDiogt-nes and Anaxagoras, 301 r. and sense, ii. 342 sq., see vovs see .'^ense and Sense Percep271,

Anaximencs,

280

brought forth by the earth, i. by Pher^cydes as the 86, 88 creation of Zeus, 93 in Orphic cosmogonies. 98. 5; 99 Anaximander, gradual drying iip of. 251, 1; 260; origin of, 255:
;
;
;

Diogenes, origin
j

of,
;

its saltness,
\

ing up of, primitive fire

ii.
;

294 208

reason of gradual dryHeracleitus,

into,

fir>t

changed

tion
Bcliflion.

48 new formation of the earth in, 6b, 1 ; Emp?docles, exude<l

Greek, influenced by the relation of Greek, 27, 1 chato Greek philosophy, 51 racter of Greek, 52-55 freedom of Greek science in respect dependence of Eastern, to, 58 Mohammedan, and Christian philosophy on, 59 attitude of Neo-Platonism to, 180 relation the Pyto. of Thales, 220, 221 Xenophanes, thagoreans, 489
East.
i.
:

from the earth by solar heat.

158,

248

5; Democritus, origin of, will in time dry up from

:

558 sqq. Heracleitus, ii. 100103: Empedocles, 172, 179 sqq., sqq. 184; Democritus, 28/ Anaxagoras, 372 the Sophists, resemblance of Roman, to 481 Pythagoreanism, i. 518, 2 Betribution. future, with the ani. 125; Pythacient poets, Cf. goreans, 483 sq., 494 sq. Death, Metempsychosis Rhetoric of the Sophists, ii. 484
: ; ;

Anaxaevaporation, 248, 3 sjilt and bitter, goras, why formed by exudation 357, 1 from the earth, 357, 1 Hippias, the same opinion, 459, 3 called by Pythagoreans the tears of Cronos. 190, 2 Self e.ra mi nation, daily, enjoined on Pythagoreans, i. 349, 496 Senses, the, and sense-perception, opinions of philosophf-rs on Parmenides, i. 591 ii. HeracleiEmpedocles, 167tus, 88 sqq, Democritus, 265-267 : 171
; ;

Anaxagoras, 367
;

sq.

Clidemus,

Protagoras, 448, 449 388, 1 Separation of particular kinds of matter from the Infinite; see

sq.

Anaximander, Empedocles, Anaxagoras

Seven, the

Right, natural

and

positive,

ii.

number

of reason,

i.

476

sq.

475
Silence, period of. in Pytliagorean

(JASCHUyiA THOX,
^^
Sappho.
\.

48

Hi
between an-

'

Stepticisin. difference

noviciate, i. 342 as to secret doctrines, 351, 1 Sinionides of Amoi^os. religioi:s and ethical reflections in his
;

cient and modern, i, 159; supposed, of Xenophanes, 575 of the Sophist.'-, ii. 475 Scien-ccs. special, first recognition
of, i. 5. 6 Sea, the, represented

114, 122. of the soul, i. 475 Slnvtry contrary' to nature, asserted by Alcidamas, ii. 477
i.

poems,

Six, the

number

Sleep, explanation of,

by Diogenes.
1
;

by Hesiod as

i.

297

Parmenides, 602,

503
soc
Ileracleltus,
;

INDEX,
ii.
;

82 Empedocles, 164 Democritus, 260, 309 AnaxagoKis, 366, 5

; ;

Greek philosophy, i. 152, 171 sqq, ii. 406, 407, 510 Sc>crat ic achools, i. 177 Solon, called a Sophist, i. 2, 3 remark of Croosus to, 1,2; his poems ami ethics, 115 sq. one of the sevrn wise men, 119, 1; fnme as a law-giver, 120, 3
Socrates, his place in
;

distinction of deSophistic schools, 506 sq. oro<^(a, original meaning of, i. 1 Soul, the, ancient ideas about, i. 73,2; 123, 124;281,2; doctrines concerning, of Thales. 225, 7 ;
ter of, 497
finite
;

see prophecy meaning of the name, i. 2 ii. history of particular 429 Sophists, 407 sqq. Sophistic ojtinion and ((ochivg, origia. ii. 394 previous relation
Sootlisayin.g
;

Sophisf,

Anaxinjander,2o6; Anaximenes, Diogenes of Apollonia, 278 286,2P2 296; the Pythagoreans, 188, 448, 475 sq., 482 sq. Alcma3on.524, 525 Hippasus, 526 Ileracleitus, ii. 79, 80 Empedocles 167, 2 Democritus, 256 sq., 262 Anaxagoras, 364, 366 Space see the Void Sphairos of Empedocles, ii. 149
;

sqq.

of philosophy to practical lite, q. ; necessity of scientific culture, 395; cancelling of the ancient philosophy, 398; revolution inOroek thought, the Greek * Illumination,' 401, 403 points of contact in the previous systems, 404 f-sternal history -of, 407 sq.; Protagoras, 408; Gorgias, 412; Prodicus, 416; Thrasymachus, Hippias, 421 Euthjdemus, etc, 423 how regarded by the ancients, 429 the Sophists as profesj-ional

394

Spheres, the heavenly, of Anaximander, i. 254, 258 the Pythagoreans, 445, 1 ; Parmenides,
;

598.
Stars, the, theories concerning

teachers. 434

their
;

payment

for instruction, 436 scientific character of, 444 ; theory of knowledge, 445 of Protagoras, 44<5 Gorgias, 451 Xeniiides, Euthj'demus, 456, 457 Eristic disputation involves neglect of physics, 460 Sophistic art of disputation, 462 ethics,
;
; ;
;

of Thales, are fiery masses, i. 224, 6 Little Bear, Pleiades, Hyades, Anaximan214, n., 215, n. der formed of fire and air, 252, are innu258 spheres, 254 merable, 257 created gods, Anaximenes, are broad 258 and flat, and float upon the air, origin, 274 from con274 densed vapours, motion, 275 created gods, 276 Diogenes of Apollonia, origin, 292, 294, 295 are porous Ixxlies like pumice-stone, the hollows of which are filled with fire, 295 ; the Pythagoreans, names for particular constellations, 490, spheres and revolution of, 2 444 sq. are like the earth,
:
;

consequences of. opinions of the later Sophists

;

469 ; moral

earlier

Scjphists,

470 474

and surrounded by an atmorevolve around sphere. 456 central fire, and determine oosare divine, mical year, 458
; ;

on

relation of, to 475 481 Sophistic rhetoric, 485; various tendencies of, 496 historical importanceand characright,
;

religion,

458

morning and evening

;

star

the same, 458, 1 Alcma?on, are divine, because their motion re-

lyDEX.
turns into itself and is eternal, 523, 524; Xenophanes, originate from vapours of earth and are fiery clouds, water, 568 and move in an endless straight line above the earth, 572 circu; ;

r.lO

lar motion is an optical delusion,

572; Parmenides, are fiery masses of vnpour, 600, 2;

01

heaven
:

fixed,

599
of,
ii.

Heracleitus,
59,

his opinion

60

Empe;

docles, are fastened to the sky.

move freely, 157 Democritus, are masses of stone heated by the revolution of the their heavens,'^ 248, n., 249 Milky Way commotion, 251 posed of many, 252, 2; Metrodorus,315, 1 316, w.; Anaxagoras, are masses of stone torn away from the earth by the force of the original rotation of matter, 356; become incandescent in the courses and motion, aether. 3o6 etc., 360, 362 State, views concerning the. of the Pythagoreans, i. 349, 493 sq. DemoHeracleitus, ii. 98 sq.
"while planets
;
;

night behind the northtrn mountains, 275, 276 solstice^, Diogenes of Apollonia. 277, n. is a porous body, arising from, and sustained by Terrestrial vaPythagoreans, is pours, 295 a vitreous sphere, 455 sq.; revolves around the central fire, atd reflects its light, 444 sphere of, 450-452, 455, 466 eclipses of, 455 place 452, 2 of, in the spheral harmonv, 462, n. motes of the, are souls, 476 Alcmseon.shape of,523, 1 Xenophanes, is a fiery cloud kindled and extinguished at rising and setting. 572 moves in a straight Parmenides, is of a line, 572 fiery nature, and produced from
at
;
; ;

the Milky Way,600. 2; influence Heraof, on origin of man, 601 renewal of, ii. cleitus, daily Empedocles, agrees 57 sq. with Pythagoreans respecting nature and light of, 156 course
;

of,

critus,

283

sq.

the Sophists,

475
Stoic

pq.

philosophy,
of,
i.

character

and

results

158, 159

157; Democritus, origin of, 249; 250, 2; motion and velofixed stars reflect city, 251 light of, 252. 2; Metrodorus. is a precipitate from the air, daily renewal of. 316, 315, 2 Anaxagoras, is a red-hot n.
; ; ;

Suicide forbidden by the Pytha491 goreans, i. 483, 1 the Orphic cosin Suih, tlie,
;

stony mass, 356, 3

plants, 365. 3
;

fath-^r

of

motion and

size

mogonies,
theories
specting,
stices,
of,

i.

64,

99,

106

and
of
;

214
;

discoveries reThales. the solforetold eclipse

;

eclipses of; see of, 3G0-362 Eclipses. (Tuj/e'Spta, the Pythagorean, i. 357

214 Anaximander, is an aperture in a ring formed of air and filled with fire, 252, 253 size, 253 influence on earth and sky and origin of animals, 253, 255 Anaximenes, is flat and broad, and supported by the air, 273, 274; origin of, 274 disappears
214, n.
size of,
; ;

rpELAUGES,
ii.

son of Pvthagor:i.s,

188,
i.

Terpander,

122

Tetractys, the, Pythagoras called

the revealer
ITwles,

of, i. 428 supposed visit to Egypt, history of philosophy i. 33 begins with, 84, 1; 127, 166; among the seven wise men, 119,
;

540

INDEX.
;

1,213
121 posed sophy, mitive nising things
;

and the
life,

-wisest,

of them,

his

211-21G; sup;

writings, 216, 2; philo216 sqq. water as primatter, 217 sq- ; orgaforce, 220 origin of all from water, 223; other theories ascribed to him, 22-1
;

Parmenides, proved by Zeno, 611 sq. Meli.ssus, 632; of Beinc: and Thought, held by Paimenides, 583, 590; of the world, by Anaxagoras, ii. 338, 359
;

Universe, the. opinions concerning, of the Pythagoreans, i. 443 sq.

sq.

Ihcano, wife or daughter of Pythagoras, i. 341, 4; 372, 4 Thcognis, i. 115, 117, 122, 123 Theogony of Hesiod, i. 84 not a philosophy. 89 Thought, Democritus on. and
;

perception, ii. 270 sqq, see Cognition, Nous Thra>^ijmachus, the Sophist, ii. 423, 460; 464, 6; 481 Thunder, see Meteorological Thefrightens sinners ories in Tartarus, according to Pythagoras, i. 483, 3 Tij?i(?us the Locrian, treatise on the world-soul attributed to him, date according to Plato, i. 319
;
; ;

Parmenides, 598 Heracleitus, ii. 62 Democritus, 247 Anaxagoras, 360 Unlimited, the, of Anaximander, i. 227 sqq. of the Pythagoreans, 46G sq. Unlimitcdness, of the atoms as to number, and of the Void, maintained by the Atomists, ii. 223, 228, 245
; ;

l/EINS,
soul,

called the
i.

bonds of the
]

482,

1
i.

Virtue, a number,
;

88

a har-

mony, 491 Sophistic doctrine of. ii. 470 sqq. opinions of the
;

364
Thyie,

Void,

Chronos of Pherecydes. i. 91, 2; according to the Pythagoreans, 469

his school of rhetoric
in
.Sicily, ii.

l^isias,

489

see Ethics maintained by the Pythagoreans, i. 468; Ecphan tus. 528 the Atomists, ii. 228 denied by Parmenides, i. 586 Melissus, 634-636 Empedocles, ii. 135; Auaxagoras, 342
;

philosophers on
the,

Tones,

see

Harmony, Pythago;

rean system of, i. 431-433. Tronsmigraiion of souls see Metempsychosis Ti/rt(Pii!^, Spartan elegiac poet, i. ^114. 127

JJ/'ATER
''^

as primitive matter,

i.

217,226
the,
;

Wind, connection of souls with

i.

485. 2 theories respecting; see Meteorological Theories

Wise men, the seven, called So-

JJNITY of History,
of
spirit

Nature; of with motive force, i. 200, 220, 249; and duality, with the Pythagoreans, 387 sqq., 394 f'q. of all Being as.'-erted by Xenophanes, 561, 582; and
;

see History with nature, see primitive matter

phists,

i.

2,

their

names

variously given, 119, 2; their ethics, 119 relation to philosophy, 120, 121; judgment of Heracleitus on, ii. 10 Women, education of, neglected by the Greeks, i. 77 among the disciples of Pythagoras, i. 341,
;

ISDEX.
Theano ou the duty and 4 position of, 49o, 2 low opinion of Democritus of, ii. 285 have
;
;

641

Xenophanes, sources in regard to his doctrine, i. 533; life and

writings,
l)o6
sq,
;

theology,

warmer nature than men and

originally sprang from the south, according to Parmenides, i. 601, 3 this theory reversed
;
i

by Empedoeles, ii. 162 Works and Bays, ethics of Hesiod's, i. 112 World-soul, resemblance of .Adrastea in Orphic poems to Plato's, i. 101 not held by Thales, 222 supposed Pythagorean doctrine of the, 485, 1 486
;

polemic against polytheism, 558 unity of all Being, 561 ; more precise definition of this, 5'J4, 66o no denial of Becoming, 566 ; physical theories, 567 sq. ethics, 574; supposed scepticism, 574 sq. character of his philosophy, 577
;
; ;

Xe7ioph.ilus,

a musician, disciple of Eurytus, the Pythagorean, said to have lived to 105 in perfect
health,
i.

364,

5,

end

World, the,

is to Plato the visible God, i. 154; formation of, according to Thales, 223, 224; Anaximander, 248 sq. AnaxiHippo, 282 menes, 273 sq. the PythagoDiogenes, 292 reans, 4ii9 sq. Empedoeles, ii. 150 sq.; Democritus, 244 sq. ArcheAnaxagoras, 345 sq. laus, was without be390
; ; ; ; ;
;

VEAR,

cosmic, according to the Pythagoreans, i. 458 according to Heracleitus, ii 77

;

yAGREUS,
105

myth

of,

i.

64,

ginning,

according
i.

to

Xeno-

phanes,
ii.

565
77

sq.
;

21,

76,

sTuction and held by Anaximander, i. 256 Anaximenes, 278 Diogenes, Heracleitus, ii. 76, 77 298 Empedoeles, 145 sq., 151, 152; unity of, held by Heracleitus. 61, 74; animate nature of, according to Thales, i. 222 innumerable worlds, spoken of by Anaximander, i. 257 sqq. Anaximenes, 277 Democritus, ii. 245 ascribed to Xenophanes, i. 571 relation of, to God, ef. God world above and beneath the moon, i.
;

Heracleitus, periodical coddestruction of,

;

Zaleucas, said to have been instructed by Pythagoras, i. 342, 1 Zalmoxis, story of, and Pythagoras, i. 73, 1 330, 3; 337 Zaratas, i. 328, 3 Ztno of Elea, life and writings, i.
;

609 sq. relation to Parmenides, 611 sq. ; physical theories ascribed to him, 611, 612: refu;

tation of ordinary presentation,

471

\EyiABES,
426. 456

the

Sophist,

ii.

argu614 sq. against motion, 619 sq. historical importance of these demonstrations, 625 Zeus, meaning of, with Pherecydes, i. 91 sq. in Hesiodic and Orphic myths, 64, QQ, 100, 101, 104 sq., 107; sayings of the poets concerning, 112, 122 Zoroaster, supposed connection with Pythagoras, i. 328, 3 515 with Heracleitus, ii. 115
sq.
;

612;
;

dialectic,

530

ment against

multiplicity,

r.osroH
a\oT"aa^voo;-K

pniNTEr> bt

nkw-stukkt sq'jakf AX J PAttLIAMKM' STBKli'co.,

and

The Authoinsed English Translation of

DR. E. ZELLER'S

WORK ON THE PHILOSOPHY

OF THE GREEKS.
Translated

SOCRATES

and the

SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
.

by O. J. REicJTEr.. M.A. B.C.L. sometime Scholar of Queen's CoUeee, Oxford. Second Edition, enlarged from Materials supplied by the Author. Crown 8vo. 10.. 6d. ' This is a -wholly new translation from all the flo^^'inp: ease of a well-written orithe third German edition, and the transginal composition. . Taken as a whole, . the book is one of profound value and lator has done his work with such exceeding carefulness, and yet with snch success interest, and while spetially so to tfie philosophical student, mav be commended to in rendering the sometim s crabbed and often involvetl German into idiomatic a'.l though'^ful readers.' English, that his wcTkmanship r-'ads with British Quarterly r.E^iFsv.
I i

PLATO
Sarah
'

and the

OLDER ACADEilT.
The

Translated

by

F. Alletne, and Alfred College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 18*.

Goodwin, B.A. Fellow and Lecturer,

Balliol

The compliment

of translation is well

deserved by the patient erudition and masteily arraneement of the original, which is an indispensable aid to the readers
of Plato and Ari.stotle. Of this translation it can le said that in all essential respects it may be relied on as an equivalent Academy. of Zeller's book.' This is a tran.-lation of Dr. Eduard Zeller's Plato und die iiltere Akadcmie, a work of great value to students of Plato, but hitherto only in part accessible to English readers. The text has been admirably translated by Miss Ai.lfvnk. who has proved herself fully competent to deal with the philosophical terminology of the German original, and to execute a translation which does not, like some translations, proclaim itself as such by any un-English structure of its ]ihrases and sentences. Copious notes and references have been
'

work must become indispensable to the student of Plato. It con-ists of sixteen chapters, in which Plato's life, the order of his writings, the character of his Philo-ophy, his Phy.si^ ?. his Ethics, and hi-is Eeligion, are treated with great detail and n.inuteness. It is, of course, impossible in these pages to do more with so vast a worK not vast, however, in bulk, being a bo-ok of ^ 00 pages than to i^U attention to it, and, if possible, to give some idea of
its style.'
'

Educatioxal Times. In all its departments Dr. Zeller's book is both comprehensive and trustworthy. He seems to have said the la.st word on Greek philosophy; and his volumes
are

added by Mr. GooD-mx. Fellow o^ Balliol College, who shares with Miss Alleyn:e the responsibility of the work. The value of Dr. Zeller's work has been amply acknowledged by Professor JowiOT in the
Preface tT the second edition of Lis Plato
:

and this translation of it will be a great boon to many students of Plato who (as its Authors suggest in their Pi-eface) are
less familiar

\mh German than

the Greek.' Guardian-.

among these monuments of nineteenth century German res?ari-h which make one will remain for the scholars of the twentieth century t do. He brings to his task the two essential qualities vast learning, and tliejwwer of moving at pleasure in the rarified atmosphere of abstractions. ... It is evident that Mr. GooDwry, to whom this part of the undertaking fell, had no sinecure in his work of translation and verification. He has gone bravely through with it, however, and both his work and that of Miss Alletse, who translated the text, leave almost nothing to be desired.'
wonder what
>

Satxtrdat Review.

The STOICS,
by 0.
J.

EPICUREAXS,
Crown

and SCEPTICS.
Reiner

Translated
Second

Reichel M.A. B.C.L. sometime Scholar

Svo. \bs.

of Queen's College, Oxford.

Edition, thoroughly revised.

The PRE-SOC RATIO

SCHOOLS.

a History of

Greek Pliilosophy from the Earliest Period to the Time of SOCRATES. Translated from the German of Dr. E. Zeller bv Sarah F. Alleyxe. 2 vols, crown Svo. 'd<is.

ARISTOTLE

and the

ELDER PERIPATETICS.
Zelleb by
B. F. C.

Trans-

lated from the German of Dr. E. Oxford. Crown Svo.

Costelloe,

Balliol College, \_Iii the prtss.

** The volume announced above v.-ill complete the English Translation of Dr. Zeller's Work on the Philosophy of the Greeks.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

IsTO^TZBiyCSEie;

1883.

GENERAL LISTS OF NEW WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

Messrs.

LONGMANS, GEEEN, &

pater:n'oster row, london.

CO.

HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL MEMOIRS, &c.

Axnold's Lectures on

Modem

History.

8vo. 7. Bd.

Bagehot's Literary Studies, edited by Hutton. 2 vols, 8vo, 28*. Beaoonsfield's (Lord) Speeches, by Kebbel. 2 vols. Svo. 32*. Bramston & Leroy's Historic "Winchester. Crown Svo. 6s. Buckle's History of Civilisation. 3 vols, crown Svo. 2is. Chesney's Waterloo Lectures. Svo. 10s. 6<f. Cox's (Sir G. W.) General History of Greece. Crown Svo. Maps, Doyle's English in America. Svo. 18s.

7.5.

6d.

Dun's American Food and Farming.

Crown

Svo.

10,?

6d.

Bpochs

of Ancient History

Eaesly's Gracchi, Marius, and SuU.a, 2?. 6d. Capes'a Aga of the Antonines, 2s. Sd. Early Roman Empire, 2*. 8d. Cox's Athenian Empire, 2*. 64. Greeks and Persians, 2s. 6d. Curteis's Rise of the Macedonian Empire, 2j. 6d. lane's Rome to its Capture by the Gauls, 2*. 6<i. Merivaie's Roman Triumvirates, 23. 6d. Sankey's Spartan and Theban SupreEaacios. 2s. 6d. Smith's Rome and Carthage, the Pujiic Wars, 2s. 6d.

Epochs

of English History, complete in

One Volume.

Fcp, Svo.-54.

Brownins's .^lolem England, 1820-1874, dd. Creighton's Shilling Hiitory of England (Introductory Volume) Fcp. Svo. 1*. Creighton's (Mrs.) England a Continental Power, 1066-121 's 9d. Creighton's (Rev. M.) Tudors and the Reformation, 1485-1603, 9d. Gardiner's (Mrs.) Struggle against Absolute Monarchy, 16031688, 9d.

Rowley's Rise of the People, 1215-1485, 9d. Rowley's Settlement of the Constitution, 1669-1784, 9d. Tancock's England during tne American & European Wars,
1765-1820, 9d.

York-PoweU's Early England

to the Conquest,

1j.

Epochs of

Modem

History

:
2s. Sd.

Church's Beginning of the Middle Ages, Cox's Crusades, 2s. Gd.

Creighton's

Age

of Elizabeth, 2t. 6d.

[Conlinued onpage

2.

London, LO>'GirANS

&

CO.

(general Lists of
Bj)och8 of

New

Works.

Moderu Rlstorycoritinueu.
Gairduer's Houses of Lancaster aud York. 2s. )ci. Gardmer's Puritan Revolution. 2s. 6d. Thirty Years' War, 2s. 6d. (Mrs.) French Revolution, 1789-1795, 2s. 6rf. Hale's Fall of the Stuarts, 2a. 6d.

Johnson's Nonnans in Europe, 2s. Gd. Longman's Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War, Ludlow's War of American Independence, 2*. 6d. M'Carthy's Epoch of Reform, 1830-1850, 2s. 6d.
Morris's Age of Queen Anne, 2s. 6d. Seebohm's Protestant Revolution, 2s. 6d. Stubbs's Early Plantagenets, 2s. 6rf.

2j. fid.

Waiburton's Edward

III., 2*. 6d.

Pronde'8 English in Ireland in the 18th Century. 3 vols, crown 8vo. 18i. History of England. Popular Edition. 12 vols, crown 8vo. 3*. 6d. each. Julius Csesar, a Sketch. 8vo. 16*.

Gardiner's History of England from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak of the Civil War. lu vols, crown 8vo. 60*-. Outline of English History, B.C. 55-a.d. 1880. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Greville'g Journal of the Reigns of George IV. & WUliam IV. 3 vols. 8vo. Ses. Lecky'8 History of England. Vols. I. & II. 1700-1760. 8vo. 36j. Vols. III. & IV. 1760-1784. 8vo. 365. History of European Morals. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 16s.

Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols, crown 8vo. Lewes's History of Philosophy. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s. Longman's Lectures on the History of England. 8vo. 15s. -Life and Times of Edward III. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
aiacatilay's

16j.

Complete Works, Library E'iition. 8 vols. 8vo. 5. 6s. Cabinec Edition. 16 vols, crown 8vo. 4. 16s, History of England Student's Editiou. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 12j. Cabinet Edition. 8 vols, post 8vo. 48* People's Edition. 4 vols. cr. 8vo. 16s. Library Edition. 6 vols. 8vo. 4.

Maoaulay's Critical and Historical Sss^iys.

Student's Edition. 1 vol. cr. 8vo. ds. People's Edition. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 8s.
I |

Cheap Edition.

Crown

8vo- 2s.

6<i

Cabinet Edition. 4 vols, post 8vo. Library Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.

24*.

Masv^ell's (Sir

W.

S.)

Don John

Illustrations. 2 vols. Eoyal May's Coostitutiouai History of England, 1760-1870. 3 Democracy in Europe. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s. Meri vale's Fall of the Roman Republic. 12mo. 7s. 6d.

of Austria. 8vo. 42s.

Library Edition, with numerous

vols,

crown 8vo.

18s.

General History of Rome, B.C.

History of the

753A.D.

476.

Crown

8vo.

7s. 6d.

Romans under

the Empire.

8 vols, post 8vo. 48s.

Knights of Malta. 8vo. 21.?. Rawlinson's Ancient Egypt. 2 vols. 8vo. 63s. Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy Seebohm's 0.^ord Reformers Colet, Erasmus,
Porter'.?

The Sassanians.
&,

8vo. 28s,

More.

8vo. 14s.

Church of England, Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Smith's Carthage and the Carthaginians. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. Manual of the History of India. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Taylor's Trevelyan's Early History of Charles James Fox. Crown 8vo. 6s. Walpole's History of England, 1815-1841. 3 vols. 8vo. 2. 14s.
Short's History of the

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of

New

Works.

BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS.
Bagehot's Biographical Studies.
1 vol. 8vo. 12?. Bain's Biography of James Mill. Crown 8vo. Portrait, 5s. Criticism and Recollections of J. S. MilL Crown 8vo.

Carlyle's Reminiscence-^, edited

(ilrs.) Letters

2i. Sd.

by J. A. Jrcude. 2 vols, crown 8vo. ani Memorials. 3 vols. 8vo. 36.?.

13*.

Cates'3 Dictionary of (General Bit^raphy.

Fronde's Luther, a short Biography.

Medium 8vo. Cro^n 8vo. Is.

2,

28*.

Thomas

Carlyle. Plate?, d-2s.

Vols. 1

&

1795-1835.
8vo.
6j,

8vo. with Poi-traits

snd

Gleig'a Life of the

Dnke

of "Wellington.

Crown

HalliweU-Phillipps's Outlines of Shakespeare's Life.

Koestlin's Life of :Martin Luther, translated trations. Large crown 8vo. 16.?.

8vo.

7.

6d.
Illus-

from the German, with 40

Lecky'a Leaders of PnbUc Opinion in Ireland. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd, Life (The) and Letters of Lord Macanlay. By his Nephew, G-. Otto Trevelyaji, M.P. Popular Edition, 1 voL crown 8vo. 6j. Cabinet Edition, 2 vols, post 8vo. 12i. Library Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 36*. Marshman'a Memoirs of Havelock. Crown 8vo. 3i. 6d.
of Augustus De Morgan, By hLs Wife. 8vo. lis. Mendelssohn's Letters. Translated by Lady Wallace. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. (John Stuart) Autobiography. 8vo. 7s. 6d. Mozley's Reminiscences of Oriel College. 2 vols, crown 8vo. ISs. Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua. Crown 8vo. 6*. Orerton's Life &c. of William Law. 8vo. 15*. Skobeleff & the Slavonic Cau.=e. By 0. K. 8vo. Portrait, 14*. Southey's Correspondence with Caroline Bowles. 8vo. 14*. Spedding's Letters and Life of Francis Bacon. 7 vols. 8vo. 4. 4*.

Memoir

s*.

each.

Mill's

Stephen's Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography.

Crown

8vo. 7*. Gd.

MENTAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

Ames's View
Fifty Years of the English Constitution, 1830-1880. Crown 8vo. Primer of the English Constitution. Crown 8vo. 6*. Bacon's Essays, with Annotations by Whately. 8vo. 10*. 6d. Promus, edited by Mrs. H. Pott. 8vo. 16*. Works, edited by Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. 73*. Sd. Bagehot's Economic Studies, edited by Hutton. 8vo. 10*. &d. Bain's Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Crown 8vo. 10*. Qd.

of the Science of Jurisprudence.

8vo. 18*.
10*. Sd.

I. Deduction. 4*. Part II. Induction. 6*. 6d. Lang's Aristotle's Politics. Crown 8vo. 7*. Sd. Grant's Ethics of Aristotle ; Greek Text. English Notes. 2 vo].=. 8vo. 32j. Hodgson's Philosophy of Reflection. 2 vols. Svo. 21.?.
|

Part

Holland

Si

The .Story of My Heart. Crown Svo. o-s. Path and Goal. Svo. 12*. Sd, Essays in Political and iloral Philosophy. Svo. 10*. Sd. Leslie's Lewis on Authority in Matters of Opinion. Svo. 14*. Macaulay's Speeches corrected by Himself, Crown Svo. 3*. Sd. Macleod's Economical Phila?ophy. Vol. I. Svo. 15*. Vol. 11. Part I. Mill on Representative Government. Crown Svo. 2*.
Jefferies' Ai;tobiography,

Kalisch's

I2i.

on Liberty.

Oown Svo.

1*. id.

London, L0NG]M:A:^7,?

&

CO.

(General Lists of

New

Works.

Mill's Auaiisis ci tue i'ueijuiiieuu ot the Mind. 2 vols, 8vo. 28i. - ijiseriatii'jjs and Discussions. 4 vols. 8vo. 46. 6d. Essays on Unsettled Questioiis of Political Economy. 8vo. 6*. 6i. Examination ot Humilton's Philosophy. 8vo. I6t. Logic, Katioclnative aud Inductive. 2 vols. 8vo. 2Ss. Principles ot Political Economy. 2 vols. 8vo. 30i. 1 vol. crown 8vo, 5j. Subjection of Women. CrowTi 8vo. Gt.

Human

Utilitarianism.

8vo. 5*.
5s.

Fen wick) E endings in Social Economy. Cro-vm Svo. MUller's (Max) Chips from a German Workshop. 4 vols. 8vo. 36j.
Miller's (ilrs.

Sandars's Institutes of Justinian, with English Notes. Svo. 18. Seebohm's English Village Con^mrnity. Svo. I65. Beth & Haldane's Philosophical Essays. Svo. 9s. Swinburne's Picture Logic. Post Svo. 5s. Thomson's Outhne of Necessary La-w s ot Thought. Crown Svo. 6j. Tocqneville's Democracy in America, translated by Eeeve. 2 vols, crown Svo, Twiss's Law of Nations in Time of War. Second Edition, Svo. 21^. Whately's Elements of Logic. 8^0. 10*. 6d. Crown Svo. 4*. Qd.
Khetoric. Svo. IOj. 6d. Crown Svo. 4#. 6<f. English Synonymes. Fcp. Svo. 3. Williams's Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle translated. Crown Svo. 7j. M. Zeller's History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy. Crown Svo. IO5. 6(7. Plato auG ciie Older Ac;idemy. Crown Svo. 18. Pre-Socratic Schools. 2 vols, crown Svo. 30s. Socrates aua the Socratic Schools. Crown Svo. 10s. 6d.

I61.

Stoics, Epicureaois,

and

Sceptics.

Crown

Svo. 15*.

MISCELLANEOUS AND CRITICAL WORKS.

Arnold's (Dr. Thomas) Miscellaneous Works. (T.) Manual of English Literature. Bain's Emotions and the WUl. Svo. 15s.

Svo.

7s. 6tf.

Crown

Svo. It. 6d.

Mental and Moral Scieuce. Crown Svo. 10s. 6cf. and the Intellect. Svo. 15s. BeaconsSeld (Lord), The Wit and Wisdom of. Crown Svo. 3s. 6c?. Becker's Charlies and Gallus, by Metcalfe. Post Svo. 7s. 6d. each.
Senses

German and Euglish Dictionary. Post Svo. 7s. 6d. Contauseau's Practical French & EngUsh Dictionary. Post Svo. 7i. 6d. Pocket French aud EngUsh Dictionary. Square 18mo. 3j. 6d. Farrar's Language and Languages. Crown Svo. 6*. Fronde's Short Studies on Great Subjects. 4 vols, crown Svo. 24i. Grant's (Sir A.) Story of the University of Edinburgh. 2 vols. Svo. 36s. Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke. Svo. 16s.
Blackley's

edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. Svo. 28s. Treatise on Human Nature, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. Svo. 28*. Latham's Handbook of the English Language. Cro^ATi Svo. 6s. Liddell & Scott's Greek-Enghsn Lexicon. 4to. 36s. Abridged Greek-EngUsh Lexicon. Square 12mo. 7t. 6rf. Longman's Pocket German and English Dictionary. ISmo. 5s. Macanlay's Miscellaneous Writmgs. 2 vols. Svo. 21s. 1 vol. crown Svo 4j. 6d. Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches. Crown Svo. 6s. Miscellaneous Writings, Speeches, Lays of Ancient Rome, <fec. Cabinet Edition. 4 vols, crown Svo. 4s.

Home's Essays,

London.

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of

New

Works.
Vol.
I.

Mahafty'8 Classical Greek Literature. Crown 8vo. VoL n. the Prose Writers, 7*. 6d. Millard's Grammar of Elocution. Fcp. 8vo. Zs. Gd.
Milner'e
Mailer's

the Poets,

7j.

td,

Country Pleasures. Crown bvo. Gs. (Max) Lectures on the Science of Language. 3 vols, crown 8vo. Lectures on India. Svo. 125. Gd. Owen's Evenings with the Skeptics. 2 vols. Svo. 32*. Rich's Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.

16.

Bogers's Eclipse of Faith.

Rogefs Thesaurus

Fcp. Svo. 6s, Defence of the Eclipse of Faith Fcp. Svo. Zs. Gd. Crown Svo. IOj. Gd. of English "Words and Phrases. Saltoun's (Lord) Scraps, or Memories of my Earlier Days. 2 vols, cr. Svo. IS*. Selections from the Writings of Lord Macaulay. Crown Svo. 6<.

Simcox's Latin Literature. 2 vols. Svo. 32.j. White & Riddle's Large Latin-English Dictionary.

4to. 21i.

White's Concise Latin-English Dictionar>'. Royal Svo. 12i. Junior Student's Lat.-Eng. and Eng.-Lat. Dictionary.

Sq. 12mo. 12j.

c^o^o+ow cseparateiy
Wilson's Studies of

/
-j

The Enplish-Latin Dictionary,

r[^j^g

5s. Gd.

Latin-English Dictionary,

It. Gd.

&c. 8vo. 12s. Wit and Wisdom of the Rev. Sydney Smith, Crown Svo. 3*. Gd. Witt's Myths of HeUas, translated by F. M. Yoimghusband. Crown Svo. Yonge'a English-Greek Lexicon. Square 12mo. 8j. 6d. 4to. 21i. The Essays and Contributions of A. K. H. B. Crown Svo.

Modem Mind

3^. Gd.

Autumn HoUdays

of a

Country Parson.

Zs. Gd.

Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths. 3j. Gd. Common-place Philosopher in Town and Country, is. Gd. Counsel and Comfort spoken from a City Pulpit. Zs. Gd.
Zs. Gd. Critical Essays of a Country Parson. Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson. Three Series, Zs. Gd. each. Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities. Zs. Gd. Leiamre Hours in Town. 3*. Gd. Lessons of Middle Age. 3 J. Gd. Our Little Life. Essays Consolatory and Domestic. Si. Gd. Present-day Thoughts. Zs. Gd. Recreations of a Cotmtry Parson. Tnree Series, 3*. Gd. each. Seaside Musings on Sundays and Week-Days. Zs. Gd. Stmday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a "University City. Zs. Gd.

ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY, GEOGRAPHY,

ic.

Freeman's Historical Geography of Europe. 2 vols. Svo. 3l5. Gd. Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy. Square crown Svo. 12*. ^idth Johnston's Dictionary of Geography, or General Gazetteer. Svo. 42i. Merrifield's Treatise on Xavigation. Crown Svo. 5^. Mediimi Svo. 31*. Gd. Neiflon's Work on the Moon. Svo. 12*. Proctor's Moon. Crown Svo. lOi. Gd. E*roctor'8 Essays on Astronomy. Larger Star Atlas. Folio. 1.5*. or Maps only, 12*. Gd. New Star Atlas. Crown Svo. 5*. Orbs Around "Qa. Crown Svo. Is. 6rf. Other Worlds than Ours, Crown Svo. 10*. Gd. Pun. Crown Svo. 14*. Universe of Stars. 8vo. 10*. Gd. Transits of Venus, Svo. 8*. Gd. Studies of Venus- Transits, Svo. 5*.

Schellen's

Spectrum Analysis, translated by

Svo. 24*.
of

J. S: C. Lassell.

Svo. 2S*.

Smith's Air and Rain.

The Public Schools Atlas

Ancient Geography.

Imperial Svo.

7*. Gd.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of
The Public Schools
Webb's

New

Work.
5t.

Atlas of Modern Geography.

Imperial 8vo.

Cele&tial Objects for

Common

Telescopes.
&.

Crown

8vo. 9*.

NATURAL HISTORY

POPULAR SCIENCE.

AUen's Flowers and tlieir Pedigrees. Crown Svo. Woodcuts, 75. 6d. Amott's Elements of Physics or Natural Philosophy. (Jrown Svo. 12i. 6^. Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 3 vols, medium Svo. 68*. Decaisne and Le Maout's General System of Botany. Imperial Svo. 31*. 6d. Dixon's Rural Bird Life. Crown Svo. Illustrations, 5s. Edmonds's Elementary Botany. Fcp. Svo. 25. Evauri's Bronze Implements of Great Britain. Svo. 255. Ganot's Elementary Treatise ou Physics, by Atkinson. Large crown Svo. 16*. Natural Philosophy, by Atkinson. Crown Svo. 7*. 6d. Goodeve's Elements of Mechanism. Crown Svo. 6*.

Pi-inciples of Meclianics.

Crown

Svo.

Qs.

Grove's Correlation of Physical Forces.

Svo. 165.

Hartwig's Aerial World. Svo. IO5. Gd. Polar World. Svo. 10*. 6d. Sea and its Living Wonders. Svo. 1 O5. 6d. Subterranean World. Svo. IO5. (od. Tropical World. Svo. 10. 6d. Haughton's Six Lectures on Physical Geography. Svo. 155. Beer's Primaeval World of Switzerland. 2 vols. Svo. 125. Helmholtz's Lectmes on Scientific Subjects, 2 vols. cr. Svo. 7s. 6d. each. Hallah's Lectures on the History of Modern Music. Svo. 8s. 6d. Transition Period of Musical Historj Svo. IO5. &d. Keller's Lake Dwellings of Switzerland, by Lee. 2 vols, royal Svo. iZt. Lloyd's Treatise on Magnetism. Svo. IO5. 6d. Loudon's Encyclopaedia oi Plants. Svo. 42*. Lubbock on the Origin of Civihsation & Primitive Cordition of Man. S'^ o. IS*. Macalister's Zoology and Morphology of Vertebrate Animals. Svo. Ids. td. Nicole' Puzzle of Life. Crown Svo. 35. Gd. Owen's Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrate Animals. 8 vols.

Svo. 735. Gd.

Experimental Physiology.

Crow8vo.

55.

Proctor's Light Science for Leisure Hours.

Rivera's Orchard House.

8 Series,

crown Svo. 7s.

Gd. each,

Sixteenth Edition. Crown Svo. 5*. Rose Amateur's Guide. Fcp. Svo. 45. Gd. Stanley's Familiar History of British Buds. Crowu Svo. 65. Text-Books of Science, Mechanical and Physical. Abney's Photogi-aphy, 35. Gd. Anderss.u's (Sir John) Strength of Materials, 35. ed. Armstrong's Organic Chemistry, 35. Gd.

Ball's

Astronomy,

65.

Barry's Railway Appliances, 35. Gd. Bauerman's Systematic Mineralogy, 65. Bloxam & Huntington's Metals, 55. Glazebrook's Physical Optics, Gs. Gore's Electro-Metallurgy, 65. Griffin's Algebra and Trigonon>etry, 35. Gd. Jenkin's Electricity and Magnetism, 35. Gd. Maxwell's Theory of Heat, 35. Gd. Merrifield's Tecimical Arithmetic and Mensuration. 3*. Gd. Miller's Inorganic Chemistry, 3*. Gd. [Coniinued on page

7.

London,

LONaMANS &

CO.

General Lists of

New

Works.

Text-Books of Science, Mechanical and "Physicalcontinued.

PreecG t Si\ewTight' s Telegraphy, 3*. td. Rutley's Study of Eocks, is. 6d. Shelley's Workshop Appliances, 4f. Gd. Thome's Structural and Physiological Botany, 6*. Thorpe's Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 4i. Gd. Thoi-pe & Muir's Qualitative Analysis, 3*. 6d. TUden's Chemical Philosophy, Bt. 6d. Un win's Machine Design, 6*. Watson's Plane and Solid Gtometry, Bs. 6<f. Tyndall'B Floating Matter of the Air. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Fragments of Science. 2 vols, post 8vo. 16i. Heat a Mode of Motion. Crown tvo. 12i. Lectures on Light dehvered in America. Crown 8vo. 7t, 6d. Lessons in Eleciricity. Crown Svo. 2* Qd, Notes on Electrical Phenomena. Crown Svo. It. sewed, It. 6d. cloth. Notes of Lectures on Light. Crown Svo. 1*. sev,-ed, 1*. &d. cloth. Sound, v.-ith Frontispiece & 2u3 "VToodcuts. Crown Svo. lO*. 6d.

Von Cotta on Eocks, by Lawrence.

Wood's Bible Animals.

Post Svo.

14*.

With 112 Vignettes. Svo. IOj. Gc?. British Insects. Crown Svo. 35. Gd. Homes Without Hands. 8vc. K>i. Gd. Insects Abroad. Svo. lOs. 6d. Insects at Home. With 700 IllustraUona. Svo. 10<. Gd. Ont of Doors. Crown Svo. 5i. Strange Dwellings. Crown 8vo. 5i. Sunbeam Edition, 4to. Gd.

Common

CHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY.

Buckton's Health in the House. Lectui-es on Elementary Physiology. Cr. Svo. 2t. Jago's Inorganic Chemistry, Theoreiical and Practical. Pep. Svo. 2s. Part I. Miller's Elements of Chemittry. Theoretical and Practical. 3 vols. bvo. Chemical Physics, 1 Gs. Part II. Inorganic Chemistry, 24i. Part HI. Organic
Chemistry, price
Reynolds's
31*. Gd.
2s. Gd-

Tilden's Practical Chemistry.

Fcp. Svo. : Parti. 1*. Gd. Part H. Fcp. Svo. 1*. Gd. Watts's Dictionary of Chemistry, y vols, medium Svo. 15. 2*. Gd.

E^rimental Chemistry.

THE

FINE

ARTS AND ILLUSTRATED EDITIONS.

ot Japan.

Dresser's Arts

and Art Manufactures

Square crown Svo.

Sl. Gd.

Eastlake's (Lady) Five Great Painters. 2 vols, crown Svo. IGs. Notes on the Brera Gallery, Milan. Crown Svo. os. Notes on the Louvre Gallery, Paris. Crown Svo. 75. Gd,

Hulme's Art-Instnicticn ui England. Fcp. Svo. Zs. Gd. Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art. 6 vols, square crown Svo. L^ends of the Madonna. 1 vol. 21*.

Compkted by Lady Eastlake, 2 vols. 42*. Longman's Three Cathedrals Dedicated to St. PauL Square crown Svo. 21*. Macanlay's Lays of Ancient Home, illustrated by Schart Fcp. 4to. 10*. Gd. The same, with /r/ v and the Armada, illustrated by Weguelin. Crown Svo. 6*. Macfarren's Lectures on Harmony. Svo. 12.'. Moore's Irish Melodies. With 161 Plates by D.Maclise, BA. Snper-royal8vo.81*. LaUa Rookh, illustrated by TennieL Square crown Svo. 10*. Gd. New Testament (The) illustrated with Woodcuts after Paintings by the Early
Saviour.

Monastic Orders. 1 Sainte and ?.Ian.}T8.

vol. 21*.

2 vols. 31*. Gd.

Masters. 4to. -Zls. cloth, or i2s. morocco. Perry on Greek and Roman Sculpture. With 280 Illustrations engraved on Wood. Square crown Svo. 31^. t^d

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of

New

Works.

THE USEFUL ARTS. MANUFACTURES,

&.C.

3oume'B Catechism of the Steam Engine. Fcp. 8vo. 6*. Examples of Steam, Air, and Gas Engines. 4to. 70*. Handbook of the Steam Engine. Fcp. 8vo. 9s. Recent Improvements in the Steam Engine. Fcp. 8vo. 6j. Treatise on the Steam Engine. 4to. 425. Brassey'8 British Navy, \nth many lUustrations. 5 vols, royal Svo.

245. 6'7.

Oresy's Encyclopaedia of Civil Engineering.

Onlley's

Svo. 2os.
8vo. IGs.

Handbook

of Practical Telegraphy.

Eastlake's Household Taste in Furniture, &c.

Square crown 8vo. 14*.

3 vols,

Faii-baim's Useful Information for Engineers.

crown 8vo.

31j. 6d.

Mills

and Millwork,

1 vol. Svo. '25s.

Gwilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture.

Kerl's Metallurgy, adapted

Svo. 52^. 6d.

3 vols. Svo. 4. 19*.

by Crookes and Rohi-ig. Loudon's EncyclopEedia of Agriculture. Svo. 21*. Gardening. Svo. 21*.

Mitchell's

Manual

of Practical Assaying.

Svo. 31*. 6d.

Northcott's Lathes and Turning.

Svo. 18*.

Piesse's

Edited by B. H. Paul, Ph.D. Svo. 42*. Art of Perfumery. Fourth Edition. Square crown Svo. 21*. Bennett's Treatise on the Marine Steam Engine. Svo. 21*.
4 vols,

Payen's Industrial Chemistry

Ure's Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, &^ Mines.

Ville

medium

Svo. 7

7.

on

Artificial

Manures.

By

Crookes.

Svo. 21*.

RELIGIOUS AND MORAL WORKS.

Overton's English Church in the Eighteenth Century. 2 vols. Svo. 36i. Arnold's (Rev. Dr. Thomas) Sermons. 6 vols, crown Svo. 6*. each. Bishop Jeremy Taylor's Entire Works. With Life by Bishop Heber. Edited by the Rev. C. P. Eden. 10 vols. Svo. 5, 5*. Boultbee's Commentary on the 39 Articles. Crown Svo. 6*.

Abbey

&

History of the Church of England, Pre-Reformation Period, Bray's Elements of Morality. Fcp. Svo. 2s. Gd. Browne's (Bishop) Exposition of the 39 Articles. Svo. 16*.
Calvert's Wife's

Svo. 16*.

Manual.

Crown

Svo.

6*.

Christ our Ideal.

Colenso's Lectures

8vo. 85. Gd.

12*.

on the Pentateuch and the Moabite Stone. Svo. Golenso on the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Crovm Svo. 6*.
Conder's

Handbook
in

of the Bible.

Post Svo.

7*. Gd.

Oonybeare
Steel,

Howson'sLife and Letters of

St.

Paul

Library Edition, with aU the Original Illustrations, Maps, Landscapes on Woodcuts, &c. 2 vols. 4to. 42*. Intermediate Edition, with a Selection of Maps, Plates, and WoodcutB. 2 vols, square crown 8vo. 21*. Student's Edition, revised and condensed, with 46 Illustrations and Maps.
1 vol.

crown Svo.

7*. Gd.

Crelghton's History of the Papacy during the Reformation.

2 vols. Svo. 32*.

2 vols. Svo. 30*.

Da vidson's'Intr eduction

to the

Study of the

New

Testament.

Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

2 vol?. Svo. 42s.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of
Bllicott's (Bishop)

New

Works.

Commentary on

Ephesians,

8*. 6d.

Philemon,

10. 6d.

St. Panl's Epistles. 8vo. Galatians, 8?. 6cU Pastoral Epistles. lOi. 6d. Philippians, ColosESlans and Thessalonians, 7*. 6d.

Bllicott's Lectures

Antiquities of translated by Solly. 8vo. 6d. Ewald's Christ and His Time, translated by F. Smith. 8vo. History of translated by Carpenter & Smith. 6
Israel,

on the Life

of our Lord.

8vo. 12*.

12i.

J.

16^.

Israel,

vols. 8vo. 79*.

Gospel (The) for the Nineteenth Century. 4th Edition, Hopkins's Christ the Consoler. Fcp. Svo. 2*. 6d.
Jukes's

8vo. 10*. 6d.

and the Eternal Life. Crovm Svo. 6i. Second Death and the Restitution of all Things. Crown Svo. 3*. Bd. Types of Grenesis. Crown Svo. 7*. Gd. Kalisch's Bible Studies. Part I. the Prophecies of Balaam. Svo. 10*. Bd, Pakt n. the Book of Jonah. Svo. 10*. 6d. Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament; with a New Translation. VoL I. Genesis, Svo. 18*. or adapted for the Qfineral

New Man

Exodm, 15*. or adapted for the General Reader, 12*. Part I. 15*. or adapted for the General Reader, 8*. Vol. IV. Leviticus, Part n. 15*. or adapted for the General Reader, 8*. Keary's Outlines of Primitive Belief. 8vo. 18*. Lyra Germanics Hymns translated by Miss Winkworth. Fcp. Svo. 5*. Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. Crown 8to. 8s. Gd. Martinean'e Endeavours after the Christian Life, Crown Svo. 7*. Gd. Hymns of Praise and Prayer. Crown Svo. 4*. Gd, 32mo. 1*. Gd. Sermons, Hours ot Thought on Sacred Things. 2 vols. 7*. Gd. each. Mill's Three Essays on Religion. Svo. 10*. Gd. MonseU's Spiritual Songs for Sundays and Hohdays. Fcp. Svo. 5*. 18rQ0. S*. Miiller's (Mas) Origin & Growth of Religion. Crown Svo. 7*. Gd,
Reader, 12*.
Vol. II.
Vol. ni. Leviticus,
:

Science of Religion.

Newman's Apologia pro Vita

Sua.

Crown Svo. 75. Crown Svo. 6*.

Gd.

SeweU'a (Miss) Passing Thoughts on ReUgion. Fcp. Svo. 3*. 6d. Preparation for tbe Holy Commtmion. 32mo. 3*. Seymour's Hebrew Psalter. Crown Svo. 2s. Gd. Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Crown Svo. 7*. Gd. Supernatural ReUgion. Complete Edition. 3 vols. Svo. 36*.

Wha tely's Lessons

on the Christian Evidences.

18mo.

Gd.

White's Four Gospels in Greek, with Greek-English Lexicoa.

32mo.

5*.
1

TRAVELS, VOYAGES,
Baker's Eight Tears in Ceylon.

&c.

Crown Svo. 7*. Gd. Rifle and Hound in Ceylon. Crown Svo. 7.. e^f. Ball's Alpine Guide. 3 vols.posx Svo. with Maps and Illustrations I. "Western Alps, 6*. Gd. n. Central Alps, 7*. Gd. III. Eastern Alps, 10*. d.

BaU ou

Alpine Travelling, and on the Geology of the Alps,

'

l.,

Brassey's Sunshine and Storm in the East. Voyage in the Yacht Sunbeam.' fcp. Svo. 2*. Popular Edition, 4to. Gd.

Crown Crown

Svo.
Svo.

7s. 6'^.

7*. 6(^,

School Edition,
Svo. 6*.
!

Freeman's Impressions of the ITnited States of America.

Hassall's
Miller's

Crown
o^.

San Remo Climatically considered.

in the Riviera.

Crown

Svo.

Wintenng

Post Svo. Illustrations.

7*. fif.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

10

General Lists of

New

Works.

The Alpine Club Map

of SwitzerLind. In Four Sheets. 42*. Three in Norway. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. Illustrations, Weld's Sacred Palmlands. Crown 8vo. 10*. Sd.

6s.

WORKS OF

FICTION.

Arden. By A. Jlary F. Robinson. 2 vols, crown Svo. 12.. Ant Cae?ar aut Nihil. By the Countess von Bothmer. 3 vols, crown Svo. 21.9. Because of the Angels. By :\r. Hope. 2 vols, crown Svo. 125. Brabourne's (Lord) Higgledy-Pig^ledy. Crown Svo. 3<.6d. Whispers from Fairy Land. Oown Svo. 3*. 6<f. Cabinet Edition of Novels and Tales by the Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G. 11 vols.

crown Svo. price

6*.

pach.

Cabinet Edition of Stories and Tales by Miss Sewell. Crown Svo. cloth extra, gilt edge?, price 3a. Gd. each : Amy Herbert. Cleve Hall. A Glimose of the World. The Earl's Daughter. Katharine Ashton. Experience of Life. Laneton Parsonage. Gertrude. Ivors. Margaret Percivsl. Ursula. Novels and Tales by tlie Earl of Beacon.'jfield, K.G. Hughenden Edition, with 2 Portraits on Steel ami 11 Vignettes on Wood. 11 vols, crown Svo. 2. 2j. The Modern Isoveiist's Library. Each Work in crown Svo. A Single Volume, complete in itself, price 2*. boards, or 2*. 6d. cloth : By the Earl of Beacon sfi eld, K.G. By Major Whyte-Melville. Lothair. Coningsby. Digby Grand. Sybil. Tancred. General Bounce. Venetia. Henrietta Temple. Kate Coventry. Contarini Fleming. The Gladiators. Ab-oy, Ision, &c. Good for Nothing. The Young Duke. i&c. Holmby House. Vivian Grey. Endymion. The Interpreter. The Queen's Maries. By Bret Harte. In the Carquinez Woods. By Various Writers. The Atelier du Lys. By Hrs. Oliphant. Atherstone Priory. In Trust, the Story of a Lady The Burgomaster's Family. and her Lover. Elsa and her Vulture. By Anthony Trollope. Mademoiselle Mori. Barchester Towers. The Six Sisters of the Valleys.

The Warden. Unawares. Novels and Tales of the Earl of Beaeonsfield, K.G. Modem Novelist's Library Edition, complete in 11 vols, crown Svo. price 1. 135. cloth extra. In the Olden Time. By the Author of Mademoiselle Mori.' Crown Svo. 6*. Messer Agnolo's Household. By Leader Scott. Crown Svo. 65. Thicker than Water. By James Payn. 3 vols. 21*. Under Sunny Skies. By the Author of ' Robert Forrester.' 2 vols. 12*. Whom Nature Leadeth. By G. Noel Hatton. 3 vols. 21*.
'

POETRY AND THE DRAMA.

Bailey's Festus, a

Poem.

Bowdler's Family Shakspeare.

Cayley's Iliad of

Crown Svo. 12*. Gd. Medium Svo.

lis.

6 vols. fcp. Svo. 21*.

Homer, Homometrically

translated.

Svo. 12*, Sd.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

General Lists of
Conington'a
.aiiieid of Virgil,

New

Works.
9i.

11

Crown 8vo. traaslated into English Verse. Prose Translation of Virgil's Poems. Crovni 8vo. 9j. Q-oethe'a Faust, translated by Birds. Large crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.

translated by

edited by Sel^.

Webb. 8vo. I2s. 6d. Crown 8vo. 5s.

Ingelow'8 Poems. New Edition. 2 vols. fcp. 8vo. 12*. Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome, with Ivry and the Armada. 16mo. 3i. 6<L The same, Cheap Edition, fcp. 8vo. 1*. sewed. Is. Gd. cloth, 2s. 6d. cloth extra. Southey's Poetical Works, Medium Svo. lis.

RURAL SPORTS, HORSE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT,

Dead Shot (The), by Marksman. Crown Svo. IOj. Fitzwygram's Horses and Stables. Svo. 105. 6<f.
in all its
6d.

8cc.

Francis's Treatise on Fishing Horses and Roads. By Free- Lance. Crown Svo. 6*. Howitt's Visits to Remarkable Places. Crown Svo. 7*. 6d.
Jefferies'

Branches.

Port Svo. 15*.

The Red Deer.

Croi\-n Svo.

4^-.

6^?.
S-^f,

and How to Keep it Sound. Imperial Svo. 12*. Plain Treatise ou Horse-Shoeing. Post Svo. 2s. 6d. Remarks on Horses' Teeth. Post Svo. 1*. 6d. Stables and Stable-Fittings. Lnperial Svo. 15*. Milner's Country Pleasures. Crown Svo. 6*. Nevile's Horses and Riding. Crown Svo. 6*. Ronalds's Fly-Fisher's Entomology. Svo. 14*. Svo. 15*. Steel's Diseases of the Ox, a Manual of Bovine Pathology. Stonehenge's Dog in Health and Disease. Square crown Svo. 7*. 6d. Greyhound. Square cro^^Ti Svo. 1-5*.
Miies's Horse's Foot,

Wilcocks's Sea-Fisherman. Post Svo. 12*. 6d. Youatt's Work on the Dog. Svo. 6*.

_ _ _

Horse.

Svo.

7*. Gd.

WORKS OF
A.cton'3

UTILITY AND GENERAL INFORMATION.

for Private Families.

Modem Cookery

Fcp. Svo.

4*. 6i.

Black's Practical Treatise on Brewing.

Svo. 10*. Gd.

Buckton's Food and Home Cookery. Crown Svo. 2*. Gd. BuU on the Maternal Management of Children. Fcp. Svo. 1*. Gd. Bull's Hints to Mothers on the Management of their Health during the Period of Pregnancy and in the Lying-in Room. Fcp. Svo. 1*. Gd. Burton's Mv Home Farm. Crown Svo. Zs. 6d.
Campbell- Walker's Correct Card, or How to Play at Whist. Fcp. Svo. 23. Gd. Johnson's (W. & J. H.) Patentee's Manual. Fourth Edition. Svo. 10*. W. The Patents Designs &c. Act, 1SS.3. Fcp. Svo. Is.

Longman's Ches Openings.

Fcp. Svo.

2*. Gd.

Macleod'3 Elements of Banking.

Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 5*. Elements of Economics. 2 vols, small crown Svo. Vol. I. Theory and Practice of Banking. 2 vols. Svo. Vol. I. 12i.

7*. Gd.

London,

LONGMANS &

CO.

v^

wO wU
General Lists of

12

New

Works.
8vo. 63#.

M'Culloch's Dictionary of Commerce aud Commercial Navigatioa, Maunder'a Biographical Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. ds.

Historical Treasury.
Scientific

Fcp. 8vo. 6i.

and Literary Treasury.

Fcp. Svo.

&t.

Treasury of Bible Knowledge, edited by Ayre. Fcp, Svo. 6i. Treasury of Botany, edited by Liudley & Moore. Two Parts, 12*. Treasury of Geography. Fcp. Svo. 6i. Treasury of Knowledge and I-ibi-ary of Reference. Fcp. Svo. 6<. Treasury of Natural History, Fcp. Svo, 61.
6*.

Pewtner's Comprehensive Specifier ; Building- Artificers' Work. Crown Svo. Pole's Taeory of the Modern Scientific Game of Whist, Fcp. Svo. It. 6ii.
QuaLn's Dictionary of Ziledicine. Medium Svo. 31a. &d. or in 2 vols. 345. Keeve's Cookery and Housekeeping. Crown Svo. 75. Qd. Scott's Farm Valuer. Crown Svo. 5j.

Smith's Handbook for Midwivea. Crown Svo. hs. The Cabmet Lawyer, a Populsir Digest of the Laws

of Ejigland.

Fcp. Svo.

&i,

Manures, by Crookes. Svo. 2l5. Willich's Popular Tables., by Marriott. Crown Svo.
Ville

on

Artificial

IOj.

MUSICAL WORKS 3Y JOHN HULLAH,

LL.D.

Hullah's Method of Teaching Singing. Crown Svo. 2*. M, Exercises and Figures in the same. Crown Svo. Is. sewed, or Is. 2d. limp cloth ; or 2 Parts, 6d. each sewed, or Sd. each limp cloth. Large Sheets, containing the Exercises and Pi-rures in Hullah's Method,* in Five Parcels of Eight Sheets each, price 65. each.
'

'

Ohromatic Scale, with the lufiected Syliajies, oa Large Sheet. Card of Chromatic Scale. Id. Grammar of Musical Harmouy. Royal Svo. price 35. sewed and in 2 Parts, each 1<. 6d.
Exerci;e3 to

Is.

6d.

45. 6d.

cloth

or

Grammar

of Musical

Harmouy.

I5.

Granamar of Couaterpoint. Part I. auper-royal Svo. 25. 6d. WUhem's Manual of Singing. Parte I. i II. 25. 6d. each or together, 5*. Exercii^es and Figures contained in Parte I. and 11. of Wilhem's Manual, Book(<
I. Si II. each Sd. Large Sheets, Nos. 1 to 8, containing the Figures in Part I. of Wilhem's Manual, ui a Parcel, 61. Large Sheets, Nos. 9 to 40, containing the Exercises in Part I. of Wilhem's Fom- Parcels of Eight 2ios. each, per Parcel, 6j, Manual, Large Sheets, Nos. 41 to 62, containing the Figures in Part II. in a Paroei. 9, Hymns for the Young, ^et to Music. Royal Svo. Sd. ee%ved, or l5. 6d. cloth.

'

Infant School Songs. G<{. Notation, the Musical Aiphalwt. Crown Svo. 6d. Old English Sougs for Schools, Harmonised. 6d. Rudiments of Musical Grammar. Royal Svo. 3*. School Songs for 2 aud 6 Voices. 2 Books, Svo. each

M.

A Short Treatise on the Stave.

'

25.

Lectures on the History of Modern Music. Svo. 85. 6d. Lectures on the Transition Period of Musical History. Svo. IO5. 6d.

Loudon,
Upottimoode

LON'G^JANS

&

CO.
Square, London.

&

Co., Printers, Ntw-street

31

.^1

tS

00 -r -n3

MW

Zeller, S. - Pre-Socratic Philosophy ( tr. by Alleyne)

Vol. II

PONTIFJCAL TORONTO

Ii\3

OF MBDiAfcVAL STUDIES
8 QUEEN'S PARK
5.

!TUTE

Canada

k(^lT