GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

THALES

JOHN

TO

PLATO

BURNET

NV

PUBLIC

3333

LIBRARY

THE

BRANCH

05986

LIBRARIES

1662

"x

4* "6*

"J^d^

J$rS""*

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY
TO

THALES

PLATO

BY

BURNET

JOHN

LONDON

MACMILLAN
NEW

YORK

"
"

ST

CO

MARTIN'S

1964

LTD
PRESS

This

is copyright in all
signatories to the Berne

book

are

First

Reprinted

1920,

Edition

St
also

THE

Bombay

COMPANY

Calcutta

LIMITED

WCz

London

Street

Madras

Melbourne

OF

CANADA

PRESS

INC

COMPANY

MACMILLAN

Toronto

ST

MARTIN'S
New

PRINTED

IN

1949

1943,

1960,

1955,

AND

Martin's

1932,

1961
Reprinted 1964

1950,
1953,
and
Reset

MACMILLAN

which

Convention

1914

1928,

1924,

countries

York

GREAT

BRITAIN

LIMITED

PREFACE

but

preparation of this volume

interruptedby my work
was

has

proved

THE

have

in

It is unfortunate

of my

edition

this in

makes

large measure

wish

who

students

to

content

Platonism
I have
I

dress.

must

be

his name,

as

Heraclius.

On

the

beautiful

name

is

Theaetetus

reach

seems,

as

chosen

for him

much

English

agreement

on

are

assist

to

of what

Plato

they

as

the earlier

Greek

by
as

his

to

are

dialogues,

names

in

writing

called

being

his father

We

wish

dialogues
the

left with

Euphronios,

Thessalonians.

of

out

disguised as

when

is best

Latin

in

titles of Plato's

Athens

of

Theaitetos

words.

knowledge

usually is

hand, the Latin

the other

English

leads

Herakleios

Emperor

been

disadvantages,

many

It often

Heraclitus.

as

there

conclusions

my

has

present

present

advantage, and

no

Ph.z)

them.

to

to

I.,but

state

Republicand

of the

it well

to

second

E. Gr.

as

maturity. So long

his

sealed book

thought

see

Herakleitos

The

not

opportunity of discussing

firsthand

dialogues of

something

later

for the

aim

know

not

have

acquire

to

in the

actuallysays

are

chief

grounds. My

their

had

I have

does

which

form

in Book

unnecessary

I may

that

baldly in the hope

their

obliged to

still less of controversy.

III. where

parts of Book

certain

anticipated.I

been

Philosophy (referredto

Greek

Early

I have

subject in

and

of detailed argument

admit

first

publishers for

the

respects that

some

parts of the

certain

with

deal

ago,

in the circumstances.

indulgence

generous

years

Platonicum, which

at

was

and

the editor of this series

thank

to

some

the Lexicon

on

task than

formidable

more

undertaken

was

shall

'the'

but

it

never,

explain my

this

matter

; I

and

former

colleague,Sir Henry Jones,

only

to

practice.

own

I have
for

to

thank

valuable

many

good enough

to

University

remain

am

of

above

suggestions and,
Hetherington

verify most

carefullyread

been

friend

Mr.

encouragement.

the

my

by
St.

Mr.

of my
W.

Andrews.

L.

of

all, for his

Glasgow

references, and
Lorimer,
For

the

constant

University
the

Lecturer

was

proofs have
in Greek

imperfections

at

which

solelyresponsible.
J.B.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

BOOK

I.

THE

CHAPTER
THE

WORLD

IONIANS

13

Miletos
The

Breakdown

of Ionian

Civilisation

22

Religion

24

Enlightenment

25

CHAPTER

II

PYTHAGORAS

29

The

Problem

Life

and

29

Doctrine

30

Music

35

Medicine

39

Numbers

40

CHAPTER

HERAKLEITOS

AND

III

PARMENIDES

45

Herakleitos

45

Parmenides

50

CHAPTER
THE

PLURALISTS

IV

55

Empedokles

56

Anaxagoras

60

viii

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

V
PAGE

ELEATICS

PYTHAGOREANS

AND

66

Zeno

66

Melissos

69

The

Later

Pythagoreans
CHAPTER

70

VI

76

LEUKIPPOS

BOOK

KNOWLEDGE

II.

CHAPTER
THE

AND

CONDUCT

VII

85

SOPHISTS

85

Law

and

The

'Sophists'

Nature

87
89

Protagoras

Hippiasand

Prodikos

95

9^

Gorgias
Eclectics and

Reactionaries

CHAPTER
THE

LIFE

OF

99

VIII

SOKRATES

The

Problem

The

Platonic

102
102

Sokrates

Aristophanesand Xenophon
CHAPTER
THE

PHILOSOPHY

OF

SOKRATES

03

1 1

IX
123

The

Associates of Sokrates

The

Forms

125

Goodness

23

138

CONTENTS

IX

CHAPTER

PAGE

THE

TRIAL

DEATH

AND

SOKRATES

OF

146

The

Condemnation

146

The

AllegedOffence

The

Real Offence

150

The

Pretext

153

The

Death

of Sokrates

155

CHAPTER

XI

DEMOKRITOS

157

Theory

of

Theory

of Conduct

Knowledge

159
1

BOOK

III.

CHAPTER
PLATO

48

Plato's

PLATO

XII

ACADEMY

THE

AND

167

EarlyLife
of the

Foundation

Academy

Plato and Isokrates

Methods

The

Programme

Eukleides

67

74

175

of the

The

62

Academy

of Studies

79

182

and Plato

187

CHAPTER

XIII

CRITICISM

190

The

Theaetetus

193

The

Parmenides

206

CHAPTER
LOGIC

XIV
222

The

Sophist

222

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

XV
PAGE

POLITICS

236

The
Plato
The

Statesman
and

236

Dionysios

239

Laws

245

Education

248

CHAPTER

THE

PHILOSOPHY
I.
II.

OF

Forms,

NUMBERS

One

The

Philebus

and

the

PHILOSOPHY
The

Soul

God
The

Sensibles

Indeterminate

Dyad

256
260

264

CHAPTER

THE

254
and

Mathematical

The

XVI

OF

MOVEMENT

XVII

271
271
273

World

Conclusion

275

284

APPENDIX

286

INDEX

287

INTRODUCTION

No

will

one

works

philosophies,like
in

communicated
immediate

contact

confined

in

at

that

soul could

records, and

written

to

second-hand

often

moulded

so

far

of souls

that

in

Platonic

contact

measure

this is

hand

this aspect

about

On

life in

sympathy

find

direct

which

can

references

complete

footnote.

and

read

the
to

effect

on

any

This

living,not

the

two

every

is what

Plato

dead.

often

represented

it

Unless

can

the

never

so-called

minds.
other

calls

There

That

In

able

that

be

of

who

character.

same

tries

spend

to

which

"ni"rjv(Ep.

and

depends
not

passages
not

his

sometimes

act

c), but

of

number

is

passages

unless

each

its

being
consciously

on

produce the

in which

sense

vii. 341

"

of

enumeration

proofs will
is the

can

him, the grounds of

upon

other

of

pretation.
interphilological

the

complete

way,

municable,
incom-

thing he

imperfectlyby

the

its

reconstruction

philosophers1 will

very

break

to

nothing mysterious

has

man

some

apprehend

to

so

or

inquiry,requires an
TO

value.

seems

is

the

reproduce

It is not

alone.

ancient

exactlyin the same

light of innumerable

memory,

inquiry,like
1

written, too,

are

have

historian's

forcing itself

conviction

in

tells

present

the

be

"

will

religiousfaith
all knowledge

only means

with

the

others.

of

only

passage
in

it

wholly

are

something personal and

is

for himself

contrary,

case

we

can

time, and

and

way

to

either

the

In the present

same

ready-made

over

historian

the

his work

faith

such

primarilyvalid

in another.

usually fragmentary and

are

authority.They

as

of space

in the

and

past is

earlier age,

an

possible.Religiousfaith

through the barriers

object directly;but

flame

the

of

sort

some

we

for

influences

by

only, therefore, be

the

kindle

be

only half understand, and have been

ken. It will
the most
part beyond our

best

at

only by

was

these

of doubtful

or

language which

all; it

writing
one

could

philosophicaltruth

no

dealing with the philosophy of

in

Now

of

writing a history of philosophy ; for

intenselypersonal things. It
art, are

belief, indeed, that

Plato's

was

in

succeed

ever

same

philological

of faith. It is clear,

he

is

thinking

of

the

INTRODUCTION

however, that
called

be

no

repeat this

to

on

experiencehas

whose

one

professedhistories

of

act

been identical can

not

after another, and

often

philosophyare

for this
of

more

reason

hindrance

only to interposeanother obstacle

there are obstacles enough already.
is impossible,
there are
But though a historyof philosophy

than

help.They

tasks that

humbler

seem

in

can

be

measure

performed,and

prepare the way for a

vision. In the first place,there are certain external
the

may

performancemay
be determined

help to

with

where

some

of which

direct

more

that

matters

considerable accuracy and which

to understand
are
more
likely

not

are

a philoimportance.We
sopher
if
the
time
and
the
he lived at
rightly we know
surroundings
that may have helpedto shape his thought,even
though these can
useful to know
what
never
whollyexplainhim. It is particularly
he was
other philosophers
or
acquaintedwith, either directly
In the second place,
the developmentof
through their writings.
and
Greek
philosophydepends on the progress of scientific,
than on
mathematical, discoverymore
especially
anythingelse,
the stage Greek
and it is possible
to ascertain pretty accurately
science had reached
by a given time. The records are full,and,
It is for these reasons
when critically
that this
used, trustworthy.
work deals so largely
with matters
which may appear at firstto lie
outside the province of philosophy.
That is, in fact, its chief
It is an attempt to lead the reader to the right
justification.
pointof
view, from which he may then see for himself. Lastly,there is
what may be called the cathartic or purgative
function of history.

without

The
mass

greatest of all the obstacles

have

we

to

of scholastic
the

is just the

surmount

and dogma which so

explanation
teachingof any original
genius.To clear

soon

that away is
in this field.We

perhapsthe

greatest service that can be rendered

do not wish to see Plato with the eyes of Aristotle,or
face to face,and anyone who can
Plotinos,but if possible,
here deserves

thanks. It may
but that lies in the nature
of the
our

construction

must

students will

see

way,

and

warn

whelm
over-

be

left

to

seem

In

case.

help us

purelynegativeservice,
the longrun
the positive

the individual

student, and

quitealike.All the historian

others off tracks which

of

even

have

can

do is to

alreadybeen

two

no

pointthe
found

to

lead nowhere.
Even

this,however, impliesthat
unless we have
is,and clearly,

we
some

know

alreadywhat philosophy

notion

of

that,we

shall

INTRODUCTION

III
that science

It is true, of course,

originatedat

the time

when

Babylon was easiest,and just

and it is
to be felt,
where the influence of these countries was
likely
fair inference that this had somethingto do with its rise.
a perfectly
three generations
On the other hand, the very fact that for two
or
science remained in some
Greek
stage
respects at a very primitive
from
what
Hellas
that
to
affords the strongest presumption
came
rational science. If the Egyptians
Egypt and Babylon was not really
be called mathematics,
had possessed
anything that could rightly
with

communication

Egypt and

Pythagoras and his

followers to establish the most
elementary propositionsin plane
had really
any conceptionof the
geometry; and, if the Babylonians
cover
planetarysystem, it is not easy to see why the Greeks had to disof
bit by bit the true shape of the earth and the explanation
known
It is clear that these thingswere
at Babylon;
not
eclipses.

it is hard

to

understand

how

it was

left for

where we
can
Italy,
Oriental influences. Of course
depends
everything
hardly assume
that
what we mean
name
on
by science. If we are preparedto give
elaborate record of celestialphenomena made for purposes
to an
of divination,then the Babylonianshad science and the Greeks
it from them. Or, if we
borrowed
are
preparedto call rough rules
for measuring fields and pyramids science,then the
of thumb
from them to Ionia. But, if we
Egyptianshad science,and it came
mean
by science what Copernicusand Galileo and Kepler, and
of that
Leibniz and Newton
trace
meant, there is not the slightest
in Egypt or even
in Babylon,while the very earliest Greek ventures
science beginsjustwhere
itsforerunners. Modern
are
unmistakably
Greek
to be traced
science left off,and its development is clearly
from Thales to the present day. Copernicussays himself that he
in the
was
put on the track by what he read of the Pythagoreans

they were

graduallyworked

Placita ascribed

out

in South

Plutarch.1

to

show
that the
down
to us
only remains that have come
without
not
a certain ingenuityin the solution of
Egyptians were
arithmetical and geometrical
particular
problems,but there is not
the slightest
of anythinglike generalmethods.2 If incontrace
The

Pythagorean doctrine,taught also by Nicolas

in 1 6 1 6.
the Congregation of the Index
For the Rhind
E. Or. Ph.2 pp. 22 ff.,
see
and, for a later discussion,
papyrus,
v. Bissingin Neuejahrbiicher,
xxv.
(1912),pp. 81 ff.

E. Gr.Ph.2p. 349,
Copernicus', that was
2

see

n.

z.

It

was

condemned

'the

by

SCIENCE

EGYPTIAN

they are simply dropped.In the same

to rectangles
are
for reducing triangles
only
way, the rules given
if the triangles
though those given in the
correct
are
right-angled,
venient

remainders

occur,

In fact the whole

meant
to be equilateral.
diagrams are apparently
of the Roman
the rough and ready methods
system resembles
than anythingwe should call scientific.Nor
far more
agrimensores
sometimes made that
is there the slightest
ground for the statement
the Egyptians had a more
highlydeveloped geometry which they

guardedas a mystery. That is based mainlyon the story that Plato

the priests,
a story for which
went
to Memphis to study under
Plato's opinion of
there is no good evidence. In any case we know
element
of
an
Egyptian mathematics, and it is that there was
ends.1
with merely practical
in it due to its preoccupation
illiberality
the Egyptian
on
It is stated that,though hexagons are common
the pentagon is
Anyone can make
significant.
monuments,

found.2 If that is so, it is very

hexagons,but the construction of the
never

We
shall see that it was
regularpentagon is a different matter.
of interest
the pentagon was
to whom
known
to the Pythagoreans,
dodecahedron, the most importantfigure
as the side of the regular
be added

in their system. It should

included,are
'pyramid'
It is true, of course,

traditional lore of their

proves

it,and

does

so

terms,

of pure Greek origin.3

that in Hellenistic times, a certain number

country.

own

of Greek

methods

Egyptianpriestsappliedthe

of

that all mathematical

the elaborate

The

science

to

the

literature

Hermetic

the later

astrological
system

Egyptianserected on a Stoic foundation. All that,however, throws

no
lighton the originsof Greek science. On the contrary, if the
Egyptiansof these days adoptedthe contemporary Greek science
it is only another indication of their own
and philosophy,
poverty
in such

things.
IV

In the
the

case

times

of

Babylon it is even

before

and

periodBabylon had
intercourse

between

after Alexander

become

the

important to distinguish

more

the Great.

Hellenistic

astronomers

of

city,and

In

the

there

Mesopotamia and

was

latter
free

Alexan-

Plato,Laws, 747 b, 6 sqq.

Zeuthen, Histoire des mathematiques (Paris1902),p. 5.
8
made
of wheat
The
words
a cake
nvpa^is,irvpa.fj.ovs, which mean
'wheat',though their form has been
are
clearlyderived from Trvpoi,
See also E. Gr. Ph.2 p. 25, n. i.
by the analogy of (njcrcyu's,
ayaapovs.
2

and

honey,

influenced

INTRODUCTION

Hipparchos, for instance,made

dria. It is certain that

observations.
his

time, and

we

there

science

constituted
fully

was

hardly be any doubt

attained itshighest
developmentunder
there
have really
to consider is whether

astronomy
What

Greek

But

in Hellas

at

much

this,and

they

are

instructive.

know

we

Babylonian

Greek

influence.1

is any trace of it
facts about
a few

Herodotos

According to

lonian
Babybefore

that

can

earlier date. Now

of

use

(ii.109),

Greeks got the instrument

called the
from Babylon
was
which indicated the solstices and equinoxesby a shadow.
gnomon,
Whether
that is a scientificinstrument
or not
depends on what you
it

the

do with

it.The

Greeks

and

Babylonian duodecimal
but the

of these

use

in other

or,

to

earlydate with

at an

to

commercial

in science tillHellenistic

weights,
measures,
They
purposes.

times,when

the

of numeration,

sexagesimalsystems

limited

was

words,

also familiar

were

and currency,
not

were

the circle was

ployed
em-

divided

degrees.Arithmetic proper used only the decimal system. If

they had cared, the Greeks might have learned from the Babylonians
the
of
the greatest
to
distinguish planets.These were
into

astrologybefore
cosmologicalsystem

attention
was

no

not

called them,
irreverently

strike them

as

of

more

consequence
Pythagoreansappear to have

like.The

the

Greeks

could

find

said

was

identified the

for the
in their

to

be

evening and

place,they did
than shootingstars and the

worked

out

their

planetary
of the

nature

that first
Pythagorasor Parmenides
the morning star. The
Greek equivalents

Babyloniannames

Latin

form, appear

of the

planets,which

for the first time

we

in the

still use
Platonic

did not
then, the Greeks
Epinomis (987b sq.).Evidently,
from the Babyloniansthe single
pieceof real astronomical
theypossessed.
1

For

recent

vol. ii.pp.
2

See

statements

on

this

subject,see

Jastrow in

796 f. ; Boll in Neuejahrbiicher,xxi. (1908),p.

Cumont

no

after discovering
the real
theoryquiteindependently
earth. It

paid

the third century B.C.2 So longas there

in which the 'tramp-stars'
(TrAav^rat),

to

the Greeks

as

of divination,but

for purposes

importance

Enc.
1

Brit,

learn
ledge
know-

(nth edition),

16.

in Neue Jahrbucher, xxiv. (1911),pp. i ff. He says (p. 4): 'The

curiosityof the Hellenes
by no means
ignored astrology,but their
sober
doctrines.
Their
critical
acute
understanding rejected its adventurous
knew
well how
of the
the scientific observations
to distinguishbetween
sense
Chaldeans
and
their erroneous
inferences.
It remains
their everlastingglory
that they discovered
and
made
of the serious,scientific elements
in the
use
confused
and complex mass
of exact
observations
and superstitious
ideas,which
constitutes
the priestlywisdom
of the East, and threw
all the fantastic rubbish
universal

on

one

side.'

SCIENCE

GREEK

They did, however, make

various

cyclesestablished

and
eclipses,
basis of these records. They

the

on

of

these for the purposes

of the calendar,and, as we
of eclipses.
Whether
such observations
prediction

scientific or

are

they are made

eclipseof the
is

the

is

sun

which

to

uses

phenomenon

they

of

the
used

for the

see,

calculations

and

which

with

put. In itself an

are

purelylocal interest,and
it would

scientificto record it than

more

no

and

shall

the purpose

depends wholly on

not

of

importantachievement

one

field,namely, their records

in this

theirs

of

use

be

it

bows.
record rain-

to

If the record suggests that something has really

happened to
the sun, and that somethingmay therefore happen to the King, it
is

science,but

only not

not

That, however,
The

the view taken

was

people that

only eastern

by the

of

astronomers

bear

can

positivenescience.

of

instrument

an

Babylon.
with

comparison

the

philosophyare the Indians. How much of

much
and how
Indian science is original,
may be traced to Greek
influence,is a very difficultquestionin view of the uncertaintyof
It does seem
Indian chronology.
certain,however, that no Indian
scientificwork, and therefore nothing we count
can
as philosophy,
before the time of Alexander. In partibe dated with probability
cular,
book
that the mathematical
there is no ground for believing
entitled the Sulva-sutras,
or 'rulesof the cord',is of earlier date,and
in science and

Greeks

it is in any

suggests
Egypt and Babylon certainly
from the Hellenistic kingdom of the North
of

truth is that

The

of the Greeks

we

are

than

far
to

more

sixth century

which

mensuration
years later

they had

B.C.

was

find the

we

study of

See

A.

on

B. Keith

pity that

M.

Sulva-sutrasin

his

It is

and

we

do

not

and

them, and

arithmetical and
the elements

ready system of
a

hundred

geometrical
progressions
firmly

of harmonics

century

saw

the rise of

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,1909, pp.

has been persuaded to accept an early date
Nouvelles
Etudes (191 1),pp. 109 sqq.
in the

Milhaud

originality
always

lay down the lines

By the earlypart of the

rough

scientific basis. Another

the

underrate

to

all Egypt could teach

plane geometry
established

learnt the

India

West.

exaggerate it,and

very short time they took

since.
scientificinquiryhas followed ever

analogy

that this reached

to
likely

the

remember

science.1 The

the level of Greek

far below

case

589

ff.

for the

INTRODUCTION

solid and

added.

soon

that certain celestialphenomena

be
earth

cone

were

from
or
indirectly,
learnt,directly

Greeks

The

the sections of the

and

spherical
geometry,

in

recur

and
cycles,

free in space, and

followed. A century

knowledge

the

swings

fore
there-

may

that the

discovered

fifty
years they had

Within
predicted.

lon
Baby-

of its

spherical
eclipses

of

the true account

saw
shape soon
stated,and this led up to the discoverythat the earth was a
clearly
Greeks even
taughtthat the sun was not
planet.A littlelater some
the centre
we
of the planetary
a planet,but
system. Nor must
development of
forgetthat hand in hand with this remarkable

and

mathematical

there

science

astronomical

went

an

equally

strikingadvance in the study of the livingorganism.Most 'of the

of Hippokrates
the name
down
to us under
writingsthat have come
show
of them
a
belong to the fifth century B.C., and, while some
of vital phenomena
interpretation
tendency to the speculative
natural in an age of rapidscientificprogress, there are others which
taking
displayin an almost perfectform the method of minute and painsin dealingwith facts
observation
that is alone appropriate
discovered the
The physiciansof Alexandria
of such complexity.
for
nervous
system, but the native Egyptians,though accustomed
dead bodies,show astounding
thousands of years to embalm
some
ignoranceof
The

simplestanatomical facts.
achieved what they did, in

the

Greeks

born
they were
sculpturein its

The

observers.
best

the first place,because

anatomical

accuracy

that, though they

period proves

of their
never

say

anything about it in their literature,apparently taking it for

learnt to draw
remember, never
we
granted.The Egyptians,
may
the Greeks

But
eye in profile.
observation ; they went
an

character.

That

is the best known

sources

Empedokles

between

the heart and

have

; for we

It also established
should

which

by

reflux of the blood

the

less

Further, the Greeks

(\6yovSiSovcu)of

of many

always
the

tried

appearances

with

content
a

quitemodern

illustrated the

flux and

the surface of the

of

mere

itin his

own

body

words.1

atmosphericair.

We

experiments if our
compiled.
more
intelligently
to give a rational explanation
they had observed. Their

more

and

meagre,

rest

of
description

corporealnature

certainlyhear
were

not

experimentsof

make

to

on

did

such

matical
from the mathesee
can
as we
reasoningpowers were exceptional,
also
work they have left us. On the other hand, they were
1

See

E. Gr.

Ph.* p. 253.

PHILOSOPHY

GREEK

quiteconscious of the need for verification.This they expressedby

'save the appearances'
(croj^etv
saying that every hypothesismust
that it

in other words,
(f)ai,v6fjL"va)',

TO.

is the method

facts.1That

observed

do

must

all the

to
justice

of science,as

understand

we

it

developmentof mathematical and

the
determines
science at a giventime to a largeextent
biological
shall see how
the mathematical
We
character of its philosophy.
in Aristotle.
influence culminates in Plato,and the biological
still.It should be added

that the

VI

bound
But, while philosophyis thus intimately
science,it is not to be identified with it. It is

ia. covered
ao"f)

such

as

all we
the

by

mean

of

arts

the distinction

But

the

the distinction between

times

true

positive

that in

realised. The

not

early
word

sides,
begreat deal more
and guessingriddles.

science and

making pontoons

there all the

was

is

two

up with

If

same.

look

we

at

Greek

philosophyas a whole, we shall see that it is dominated from

(TO 6V).In the last
beginningto end by the problem of reality
is always,
'What is real?'Thales asked it no less
the question
resort
what the answer
than Plato or Aristotle ; and, no matter
givenmay
It is no
there
have
we
philosophy.
be, where that questionis asked,
part of the historian's task
be

can

to

decide whether

answered, but there is

to

grapplewith

he may
sciences
of the special
one

comment

It is that the rise and progress

its being asked. We
far as we
can
see, on

attempt

it is

the ultimate

questionthat
make.
fairly
depended,so

find that every

problem

of

serious

realitybrings

science, and that this has always

positive
weak. That
interest in that problem was
ceased to flourish when
when
of Greek philosophy,
happened more than once in the history
to
the subordinate
problems of knowledge and conduct came
time it was
the first place,though at the same
justthe
occupy
raisingof these problems that did most to transform the problem
with

of

it a great advance

in

itself.
reality

be simply
helps to explainwhy philosophycannot
in fact,involves
identified with science. The problem of reality,
takes us beyond
at once
the problem of man's relation to it,which
And

This

Raphael
contrive

this

requirement
knows
To

save

of Greek

all about

scientific method

it. See

appearances.'

Paradise

is often

Lost, viii.

81:

ignored, but Milton's

'how
build, unbuild,

INTRODUCTION

10

any

contact

will

make

with

life.

'intellectualists'

enter

into

what

we

needful

call

and

and

that

philosophy

could

only

do

should
Nor

this

was

its

it

beginning
of

best

days.

reality

circle

of

disciples,
spirit

could

learn

till

he

Sokrates

thing,

had
was

their

can

the

external,

shall

see

what

the

and

again

mysteries
of

most

the

spread
of
no

man

to

from

the

through

God,

the

and

knowledge
martyr,

martyrs.

do

the

same.

was

no

what

and

the

from

first.

of

and

world,

believing
to

this

to

that

fit themselves
he

others.

'intellectualism',

could
The
if there

The

race.

reality

so

the

seen

philosopher

The

the

pursuit

had

human

whole

it

regulate

it, sometimes

knowledge

of

he

at

one,

self-centred

believed

who

the

to

Almost

communicate

to

in

contemplative
undertaken

had

life. It

The

place

own

with

have

to

as

strong

only

was

that

had

sometimes

was

fellow-workers

be

it

in

except

includes

purely

or

mysteries

The

bound

felt

of

that

quietist

either.

vision

missionary

regarded

holiness

personal

men

it therefore

that

philosophy

was

for

do

to

what
some-

religion.

religion

lives, and

men's

and

We

was

to

satisfy

to

become

to

the

divine,

effort

this

to

that

the

to

an

apt

were

were

Greek

and

religion

appeal

corruption.

to

sought

part,

call

now

in

least

in

little

mysteries

liable

again

Ancient

sympathy
they

divine,

truth

this

contrary,

akin

is
in

was

instinct.
made

the

even

peculiarly

were

it. It

religious

the

which

soul,

the

is

in

that

the

reality

have

can

live

to

On

that

man

difference

suggestion

the

faith

with

thing,

'mysteries',

we

for

is

communion

external

and

the

on

tried

ludicrous.

seem

is based

thing

one

must

has

of

what

if it can,

who

anyone

mind

the

all, and,

at

philosophers,

Greek

philosophy

To

whether

ask

to

reality

his

to

the

with

have

We

science.

pure

lieved
bemen

to

not

death

rest

of

is such

The

lonians

MILETOS

"
of

neither

Though

i
.

personal

so

influence

thing

the

on

the

later

times

is

city

the

marked.

be

to

Cretan

of Miletos

town

is

of Thales

name

the

that

to

peoples

is

from

of Asia

"

2.

that

earlier

here

no

the

first human

such

cosmogonies
far

northern

of

as

Milesians

differed

from

barbarian,

than

look

to

doubt

speculations. No
1

Herod,

See

my

Scotland,

V.

28

paper,

1912,

of

91

ff.)-

is

observe

to

their
for
these

exist, and

as

infer
its

become
the

and

colonial

he

the

there

the

may

and

Milesian

in

Classical

the

which
Greek

belief
well

and

one,

whether

primitive

was

of science.

man

points

of

founder

fundamental

(Proceedings of

the

to

all appearance

the

of

their

the

was

predecessors,

survivals

Early

Euxine.

such

Pherekydes

fy
rrjs 'lovL-r/s
'Who
Javan?'
was

pp.

to

the

Egypt

and

Thales

and

cosmologies

important

more

of the

that

civilisation

due

with

of

period

recently

so

rightly be called

can

that

has

now

perhaps

may

Lydians,

coasts

last

measure

some

which

cosmologists,
who

We

ceived
re-

Ionia, and

in

as

has
We

call

we

in close touch

doubt

to

between

distinction

age

the

what

of

that

belief

least that

at

too.2

in

was

kept

reason

being

island

this

to

well

as

especiallythe

the

school

Milesian

it is

Miletos

to

is

There

the

The

of

Minor,

empire extended

terest
in-

themselves

excavations.

into

Crete

in the

Milesians

The

us.

in

home

at

greatness

inheritance
known

Milatos

and

recent

that

with

Milesians

belonged

civilisation,and

There

considerable

civilisation

colony,

passed by imperceptible gradations

Ionic.

have

rise

therefore, without

The

from

confirmation

old

explain the

can

may

It is not,

assumes.

strongly

Minoan

Late

milieu

Miletos, 'the pride of Ionia',1 is just the place

most

their

that

the

it

that

remarkable
know

the

nor

continuity of prehistoric Aegean

where

believed

time

philosophy, they

as

form

observe

to

the

in

have

or

their
been

Association

of

THE

14
of them

more

with Thales

than

Of Thales
to

know.

Wise

know

we

popular tradition

Men', and many

the type

of the

tales

foreseen

have

to

thingcame

new

great deal less than

he lived

mainly as

told of him.

were

and

of his

he makes

In

true

should

we

like

one

of the 'Seven

one

of these he is

falls into

of olives and

abundance

to

well

while

superiorto the ordinary

scientificknowledge.He

himself

he shows

an

say that
into the world.

for all that it is

unpracticaldreamer,

star-gazing
; in another
man
practical
by the use
is said

; but

successors

himself

In

know

we

and his

IONIANS

made

corner

oil,thus proving he could be rich if he liked. It is plainthat

peoplein generalhad no idea of his real work, and regardedhim

in

whose

anecdotes

originally
then, tell us nothing
might be attached. These stories,
anonymous
about Thales himself,but they do bear witness to the impression
when
they firstappeared
produced by science and scientificmen
simply

in

world

that

half inclined

was

is,however, another

There
which

to
typical'sage',

as

something

be

may

solar

at

Miletos

of such
does

Thales
that

not

of the

to

of

not

are

Thales

from

popular

definite scientific

certain

quiteeasy
have

understand.

to

written

be said

it cannot
anything,

stronglyin

makes

ascribed

other achievements

and

As, however,
its favour
him

to

part just such developmentsof Egyptianand

should expect to find. But even
'science' as we
most

is considered

that

Thales

case

would

of rational science. There

before and

the

to

and

that he

B.C.

We

was

are

eclipseof

the
1

if the

become

for

be

can

name

mere

no

partlyin

us,

but it would

laid the foundations

successors

harm, therefore,in mentioning

partlyin

them
interpreting
that of what

Herodotus1

learn,then, from

" 3. We
belonged

lonian
Baby-

little difference. In

of these traditions and

went

are

it makes
insufficient,

stillbe certain that his immediate

of what

him

is complete.What

evidence

some

They

scoff.

to

most

to

appear

is that the discoveries

for the

of traditions about

set

learnt.

traditions

evidence

our

and half inclined

important of these,the prediction

is reportedby Herodotus
eclipse,
(i.74).The existence
the preof a continuous school of cosmologistsmakes
servation
One

achievements.
of

marvel

to

character,since they attribute

name

light

after.

came

that

the

the life of Thales

reignsof Alyattesand Croesus, kings of Lydia,

stillliving
shortlybefore the fall of Sardeis in 546

also told that

sun

References

which
to

put

at
an

authorities

earlier date he had

an

end
are

to

given

battle between
in E. Gr.

Ph.2

predictedan
the

"" 2-7.

Lydians

THALES

That

and the Medes.

was

15
28th

May

on

(O.S.)585

is nothing at all incredible in the s,toryof this

it is quitecertain that the
tillafter the time of

true

of

cause

Thales, and his

B.C.

Now

there

prediction,
though

was
eclipses

discovered

not

quiteerroneous
of them. The Babylonians,however, were
and fantastic accounts
equallyignoranton the subject,and yet they predictedeclipses
with tolerable accuracy by means
of a cycleof 223 lunations. It is
not

even

learn
had

as

been

advanced
been

necessary

much

as

successors

gave

that Thales had to visit Babylon to

suppose
this. In Hittite times Mesopotamian influence
to

strong in Asia Minor, and

Sardeis has been

called

an

Babyloniancivilisation.There may well have

in Lydia who
had preservedthe old secret.
It is
also that the Lydiankingseems
to have employed

post of

'wise men'

to
interesting

note

the Milesian

as

his scientificexpert; for we

told that Thales
are
accompanied Croesus on the expeditionthat proved fatal to his

monarchy, and
him.

We

that he diverted

the

of the river

course

from Herodotos
know, lastly,

that he took

Halys

for

prominent
and that he tried to save
Ionia by urgingthe twelve
part in politics,
citiesto unite in a federal state with itscapital
at Teos.
of Aristotle's disciple
" 4. We are further told on the authority
the firsthistory
of mathematics, that Thales
Eudemos, who wrote
introduced geometry into Hellas. It is extremelyprobablethat he
referred
had learnt in Egypt the elementaryrules of mensuration
to in the Introduction

have

advanced

but, if we

beyond his

may

trust

teachers. He

he
the tradition,

is said

must

taughtthe
the heightof the pyramids by means
of
Egyptianshow to measure
of finding
their shadows, and also to have invented a method
the
distance of shipsat sea.
It was
the
common
knowledge among
whose sides were
as 3 : 4 : 5 had
peoplesof the East that a triangle
laid out by means
of
always a rightangle,and rightangleswere
What we are told of Thales suggests that he invented
this triangle.
of this primitive
further applications
some
pieceof knowledge,and
if so that was
the beginningof rational science. At any rate, there
the pioneerof those investigais no reason
that he was
to doubt
tions
which were
of Pythagoras,
to bear fruit later in the hands
though itis hardlysafe to say more.
" 5. Accordingto Aristotle,Thales said that the earth floats on
the water, and he doubtless thoughtof it as a flat disc. That, at
least,
was

the view of all his

remained

characteristic of Ionic

successors
as

to

have

except Anaximander, and it

distinct from Italic cosmology

l6

THE

down

realityit
cosmology at

marks

in

It sounds

of Demokritos.

the time

to

IONIANS

advance.

notable

primitiveenough, but
The

whole

historyof

this date is the story of how

the solid earth
loosed from its moorings.Originally
sky and earth
gradually
the lid and

picturedas

Greeks,

date the

earth

as

was

or,

doubt

no

material

cause

the

about

as

is

water

of

tenet
principal

water,

natural

was

for

by

of box ; but from

sort

them, began

connected

with

what

To

Aristotle

early
of the

regardit as
view.

truer

were

an

think

to

the river Okeanos.

further step towards

get the earth afloat.

the

somethingto
This

of

island surrounded

an

restingon

as

bottom

was

It

regardsas

is made
Thales, namely, that everything

was

the

of

out

he puts it in his own

terminology,that water- is the
of all things.
We
have no trustworthyinformation
which

grounds on

this doctrine

based; for,in the

was

of any

writingsby Thales himself,Aristotle can onlyguess,

and his guesses are apparently
suggestedby the arguments used
in support of a similar theoryat a later date. We
are
perhapsjustified
it rather in the lightof the doctrines afterwards
in interpreting
held by the Milesian school,and especially
by Anaximenes
; and, if
absence

do

to

try

we

these

days,and

water

in

and

vaporous

the sea,
take

stones

regardedas only a

mist, while

still purer

purer

form

was

of the Mediterranean

properlythe brightblue

fire on
is

it

also believed that this

was

freezes,and Anaximenes

water

were

frozen

Thales, then, that

to

in any

the
more

sense

one
or

his

hand

and

harder

water

was

earth

on

at

least held

that

still.It may well have

the original
thing from

the other

less conjectural
account;

arose.

That, of

but, if Anaximenes

follower,the views of Thales

somethinglike this. His

asked

identified with

was
after,|'air'
(aijp)

is fire rather than air. It

solid when

earth and

was

the fact that in

to

heavenly bodies was fed by vapour risingfrom

is the natural one
which, on these presuppositions,
a view
of evaporation.On
the other hand, we
that water
see

becomes

course,

of

called

at once

In fact it was

state.

is

is

that of the

fire and

which

time

some

which
(al0TJp),

sky,and

seemed

for

transparent form

more

'aether'

to

attention

this,our

greatness, however, would

must

have

lie in his

been

having

he gave it.
answer
questionrather than in the particular
Henceforth
the questionwhether
everythingcan be regardedas a
singlerealityappearing in different forms is the central one of
Greek

the

science,and the story

rise to the atomic

theory.

we

have

to

tellis how

that in time gave

ANAXIMANDER

" 6. The

of
generation

next

Anaximander.1

by

We

doctrines;for he

wrote

Theophrastosand
book

written

are

the Milesian

on

later. It is

in prose, and

which

was

probablethat

it may

school is

be noted

represented
regardto his

with

ground

surer

book

17

extant

in the time

it

the firstGreek

was

here

of

that Ionic prose

the

was

of philosophical
and scientific writing.
regularmedium
Greek
Parmenides
and Empedokles,wrote
in
philosophers,
and due to
at a later date, but that was
quite exceptional,

Two
verse
causes

stillto

can

we

extent

some

firstcartographer,
and this
citizen

Anaximander's

connects

work

Hekataios,whose

Anaximander

trace.

him

formed,

was

also the

with his younger

has been

as

said,the

fellowtext

of

map.

thought it unnecessary to fix upon

and primary form of body. He
'air',
water, or fire as the original
preferredto represent that simply as a boundless something
from which all thingsarise and to which they all return
(cLTreipov)
for lookingat it in this way is stillin part asceragain.His reason
tainable. It is certain that he had been struck by a fact which
all subsequent physicaltheory among
dominated
the Greeks,
of
namely, that the world presents us with a series of opposites,
which the most
primary are hot and cold,wet and dry.If we look
natural to speakof the
from this pointof view, it is more
at things
out' from a mass
which is as yet unas being 'separated
opposites
of the opposites
the primary
differentiated than to make any one
substance. Thales, Anaximander
to have
seems
argued,made the
too
wet
important at the expense of the dry.Some such thought,
Anaximander

have

to

seems

underlie the few words

to
rate, appears
He
fragmentof his writingthat has been preserved.

of the

solitary
said that things
'givesatisfaction and reparationto one another for their injustice,
as is appointed
accordingto the orderingof time'. This conception
than once
in Ionic natural
and injustice
of justice
recurs
more
at

any

connexion. It refers to the

philosophy,and always in the same
of one
encroachment
oppositeor 'element' upon another. It is in
in their
of this that theyare both absorbed once
more
consequence
boundless, it is natural to
common
ground. As that is spatially
that worlds2

assume

References

I do

called

not

an

the heavens

though

to
use

ovpavos

arise in it elsewhere

authorities

the term
at

this

are

'world'

and

not

the

From
sun

with

us.

Each

world

in E. Gr. Ph.z

""12 sqq.
the equivalentof what
was
later a KOO^OS.
It means
everything within
our
point of view, it is a 'planetarysystem',

for the

date, and

of the fixed stars.

the earth

given

than

earth,but

is its centre, and

as

the fixed stars

are

part of it.

l8
is

THE

of

sort

IONIANS

in the boundless

vortex

Anaximander, and

Our

mass.

authorities attribute

has been given for

good reason
them. It is obviously
idea of the greatest scientific
an
disbelieving
importance; for it is fatal,not only to the theoryof an absolute up
in the universe,but also to the view that all heavythings
and down
this view

tend

the

to

Plato

to

It was,

in many
substitute for this old

centre.

same

led

was

no

to

singleworld, and

ways,

misfortune

that

doctrine the belief in

thus

the way
for the reactionary
to
prepare
cosmology of Aristotle. The Epicureans,who took up the old
Ionic view at a later date,were
too unscientific to make
good use of
combined
actually

it,and

and

absolute up
innumerable

of the

of the

there is
another.

system

He

On

down.
between

is, of

make

and

space,
it fall in

the
one

inferred this because,

with
incompatible

was

world

clear that
perfectly

swings free in

nothingto

the other

of

meaning

the

as

and

due

view

the

to

of the earth

primitive
theory.
not

rest

on

anything,
that

he gave was
direction rather than
reason

has

been

assumption of
the

called his

course,

it does

hand, he givesthe earth

the disc of Thales

an

that will appear

Anaximander's
opposites.

he is
In the firstplace,

theoryof

told that Anaximander

of scientificintuition and

curious mixture

but

are

the inconsistent

'gods'.The

formation

out'
'separating
is

We

down.

worlds

shortly.
" 7. The

it with

in

observed, his

absolute up and
shape intermediate

sphereof

an

the

Pythagoreans.

and
regardedit as a short cylinder'likethe drum of a pillar',
supposed that we are livingon the upper surface while there is
another antipodal
His theory of the heavenlybodies shows
to us.
that he was
stillunable to separate meteorologyand astronomy.
So long as all 'the thingsaloft' (ra/xerecopa)
classed together,
are
He

that

is inevitable. Even

Galileo

atmosphericphenomena, and
than Anaximander

had

bodies.

his

Nor

was

for

maintained

he had

takingthe

that

far less
same

hypothesiswithout

excuse

comets

for

view of all the

a

certain

were

doing so
heavenly

audacious

grandeur.He supposed that the sun, moon, and stars were really
ringsof fire surroundingthe earth. We do not see them as rings,
however, because they are encased in 'air'or mist. What we do
is only the singleaperture through which
the fire escapes
see
'as through the nozzle of a pair of bellows'. We
here the
note
beginning of the theory that the heavenly bodies
round
on
rings,a theory which held its ground

are

carried

till Eudoxos

IONIANS

THE

20

the earth is flat and

According to Anaximenes,

oblique,but the earth

when
they get behind

not

are

hidden

did

that Anaximenes
for this line of

is tilted up, so that most

of them are
the higherside of it.It is unfortunate

know

not

thought might
it was,

of its axis. As

of the

the scientificview

the

led him

have

he

regarded it

earth,and

to

discover

as

was

tion
the inclina-

disc,and
able

said the

accept
continued to

never

Demokritos

even

earth;

of the

sphericalshape

it 'like a hat'. Ionia

surrounded

heavens

also float on

heavenlybodies

'like a leaf. The

floats upon the air

the air. Their paths

to

to
was
suggestivetheory of Anaximander
be developedin another region.
logy
" 10. It has recentlybeen maintained that the Milesian 'cosmobased on the primitiveand popular theory of 'the four
was
elements'. It is not meant, of course, that the scientificconception

flat.The

believe it was

of

'element'

an

due

to

existed

this date. We

at

Empedokles, and

it is only the

Fire,Air, Earth, and Water

of

in that of

avoid
in

it,and

two

we

undeniable

that,from

of this kind

was

to

an

later that this

the old

his system,

these

was

quaternion
and

wards
after-

being called 'the

four

confusion,but it is very difficultto

perforcecontinue
have

which

senses

occupiedin

unfortunate

must

see

placethat

that has led

Aristotle,

It is an

elements'.

shall

very

to

the word

use

littleto do with

earlydate,a

It can
recognised.

fourfold

or

'element'
It is

another.

one

threefold division
and

be traced in Homer

Hesiod,

plausiblysuggestedthat it is connected with the

(^iolpaC)
myth of the 'portions'
assignedto Zeus, Poseidon, and
Hades.
We
are
tempted, then, to say that the earlycosmologists
after the other and regarded it
simply took one of these 'portions'
look closer,we
shall be more
inclined
as primary. But, when
we
that the originality
of these men
in
consisted precisely
to conclude
their ignoring
the old popular view completely.In particular,
we
hear nothing whatever
of earth as a primary form of body, though
earth is never
passedover in any popularlistof so-called 'elements'.1
if we
This is still more
remember
the importance of
striking
Mother
Earth in earlycosmogonies,an importance which she still
and

it has been

retains in

Pherekydes.Here

once

more

Milesian
the

cosmology and everythingthat

striking
thingabout it.

Indeed, if we
1

This

is pointed
made

Theophrastos

take
out
an

broad

view

of

it,we

the
had

breach
gone

shall

see

between

before

is

the

really

that it depends

by Aristotle,Met. A, 8. 989 a, 5 sqq. Neither

exception of Xenophanes. Cf. Diels, Vors.3 p. 52,

he
28.

nor

MATTER

the extension

on

to

earth and
other

In

of the observed

stones

the

on

bears

called the three

of

states

for the

to

and

air and fire on

elements'

what

to

steam

the other.

primitive'four

closer resemblance

much

identityof ice,water,

hand, and

one

words, it substitutes

somethingwhich

21

now

are

the solid,the liquid,

and
aggregation,

the

gaseous. At any rate, the Milesians believed that what appears in

these three forms was
one
thing,and this,as I hold, they called
stuff
That term
the particular
meant
(f"vais.1
originally
thingshave
given thing is made. For instance,wooden

another,fleshAnd blood

rocks

of
"{"vais

guessingthat

liquidstate

he said

is intermediate

therefore

can

third. The

all things.
(Thalessaid it was

in

wrong

and

because, as

so

cannot

we

Averts,
for the
be far

should put it,the

we

the solid and

between

one

asked

Milesians

water,

of which

the gaseous,

and

easilyinto either. Anaximander

preferredto
form of
as something distinct from
any special
the oppositesmight proceed from it. Anaximenes
character
all,the primary substance must have some

pass
leave his Boundless
that

body, so

that,after

saw

that is,with the intermediate

identified it with 'air',

and

of its own,

stage between
had introduced
alone makes
had

he

able

was

do because

to

he

condensation, which

the idea of rarefaction and

In a word, the Milesians

theoryintelligible.
in the physicist's
outlines of the theory of matter

the whole
the

drawn

and fire.This

water

sense

of the word, and these outlines stillsurvive in

form

in

our

text-books.

That, and

not

the

recognisable

astronomical
particular

they taught,is the central thing in the system, and that is

It is the earliest
why it is reckoned as the beginningofjphilosophy.
doctrine

to

answer

The

the

in 494

Anaximenes',

more

is reality
?3

school doubtless

Milesian

Miletos

Ionian

'What
question,

B.C., but
as

it

was

we

shall

came
see

to

an

end

later that 'The

called,continued

to

be

with

the fall of

Philosophy of
taught in other

Ionia was
its influence when
and that it regained
once
cities,
freed from a foreign
yoke.For the present, however, what we

Plato,Laws. 891 c: KivSwevei -yap 6 AeycovTO.VTO. -nvp Kal uScopKO.I yfjv Kal depa
airrd. The
ndvrcav elvai,Kal TTJV "j"vatv
question
ovo/na"etvravra
rwv
TrpaJra rj-yeladai
of
is
the
whether
"l"vais 'growth'.Aristotle (Met. A,
originalmeaning
really is
it means
'growth',it is
b, 16) did not think so; for he says that,when
4. 1014
did
it
at once
with
In
other
it
not
if
words,
v.
a
to
were
long
as
one
pronounce
this
For
on
see
verb
him
the
subject,
to
controversy
(Aeol.^ut'o/xai).
"{"vopai
suggest
Academy of Arts and Sciences,
(Proceedingsof the American
Heidel, Flepl"/"voea"s
in the Greek
xlv. 4), and
sophical
Physiologers'(PhiloLovejoy, 'The Meaning of "j"vais
called the
the fact that the Atomists
Review, xviii. 4). To my mind
See Ar. Phys 265 b, 25 ; Simpl. Phys. p. 1 3 1 8, 34. Atoms
is conclusive.
atoms
(J"VOLS
do not 'grow'.
1

THE

22

have

is the effect

consider

to

IONIANS

philosophyof

on

the Persian

conquest

of the Hellenic citiesin Asia.

THE

"

BREAKDOWN

spiritof

The

ii.

secular,and this was,

rise of science. The
world
sang
which

OF

CIVILISATION

civilisation had

Ionian

no

IONIAN

of the

doubt, one

originof this

been

thoroughly

that favoured

causes

the

secular

is to be found in the
spirit
described by Homer.
The princesand chiefs for whom
he
have been completely
detached
from the religious
must
ideas

infer from the monuments

may
forces in the earlier Aegean civilisation.It

to

we

have

been

potent

be said'that the

cannot

in the Iliad,and someOlympian gods are regardedwith reverence

times
they are not treated seriously.
They are franklyhuman,
To
powerfulthan men.
except that they are immortal and more
the religious
consciousness the word 'god'(0eos)
always means
an
the gods from
objectof worship,and this is justwhat distinguishes
and powerfulbeings(Sat/zove?).
other immortal
In Homer, however,
the distinction is obscured. It is by no means
clear that all the gods
in the Iliad are thought of as objects
of worship,and it is only to a
certain

of them

number

offered. It is very
earnest, it is not

that
significant

spiritof

Homer

to

or

and

sacrifices are

actually

Achilles does pray in dead

Olympos he turns, but to the

of Dodona.

is very different no
doubt; for he is no
he feels himself to be in oppositionto Homer, but the

Ionian,and
influence

when

the ruler of Ida

to

far-off Pelasgic
Zeus
The

that prayers

was

too

Hesiod

strong for him.

dissociate the idea of

certain that many

of the

by anyone, and
natural phenomena, or
it is of most

He

god

'gods'in

some
even

the

of them
of human

reallydid
from

even

that of

mere

than

worship. It

Theogonywere
are

more

never

is

shipped
wor-

of
personifications

For
passions.

our

present

importanceto observe that it was justthis

of the word 'god'which made it possiblefor the
use
non-religious
Milesians to apply it to their primary substance and their 'innumerable
worlds'. That way of speakingdoes not bear witness to
originof Greek science,but rather to its complete
any theological
tradition. No one who has once
realised
independenceof religious
the utterly
secular character of Ionian civilisation will ever
be
of Greek
tempted to look for the origins
philosophyin primitive
purpose,

cosmogonies.

SECULARISM

23

had been
" 12. The feudal societypicturedfor us by Homer
but the
replacedin the Ionic cities by a commercial aristocracy,
the bards
in the market-place,
rhapsodes still recited Homer
as
had done at the feudal prince'sboard. It was
to get
impossible
Olympian gods,and in practiceit was of
away from the humanised
these that men
thought when
they worshipped at the shrines
founded
stillawful beings to
in earlier days,when
the gods were
be approachedwith dread. A peoplebrought up on Homer
could
hardly think of the gods as moral beings,though they were
posed
supthe only divine
to be the guardiansof morality.Almost
attribute

they possessedwas

as
chiefly

foil to human

deeply conscious.

are

leaves of the

and

power,

that

even

impotence,a thingof

The

of
generations

and there is no lifeto

forest,

men

which

is retained
the lonians
like the

pass away
or at best a

shadowy
of which the departed 'soul' is itselfunconscious. Only so
one,
and visions ; the
is left of it as will serve
much
to explaindreams
himself

man

for

is gone

when

ever

come,

he dies. So it is wise for

to

men

think

The
only mortal thoughts (avdpatTnva.
mysterious
"j"pov".lv).
and is as often
power that awards happinessand misery in this life,
called 'the godhead'(TO delov)as God, appears to be jealousof
and bringslow everyone that exalts himself. So we should eat,
man,
drink,and be merry, but take heed withal to do 'naughttoo much'
who
observes the precept 'Know
ayav).The man
(/zrjSei/
thyself
will not
be puffedup. For overmuch
brings
prosperity
(6'A/3o?)
and that in turn
the
satiety(Kopos),which begets pride(vfipis),
blindness
ruin. A

to

" 13.

like doctrine

appears

Such

view

of life comes

over-civilised nation

an

centuries B.C., but it can

always demands
We

God

which
(O.TTJ),

sends

on

those he is resolved

Wisdom

in the Hebrew

literature

later.
generations

some

in

of heart

stillsee

can

some

clear

to
naturally

like the Ionia of the seventh

bring no satisfactionto

stillretained

It is

for

not

conveyed

traces

of

Athens
of the

to

'twice

Crete,went

and

sixth

which
people,

very different attitude towards the

themselves. The Homeric
Hymn to

memories

some

nothingthat

the

the

classes

instincts.
definite satisfactionfor its religious

gods even among the lonians

secular
Apollo is,no doubt, sufficiently
of Delos

the wealthier

the

seven'
to

in tone, but the sanctuary

of the old

times had
prehistoric
from
youths and maidens

boat, which
Ionian

Delos

Hyperboreansconnected

Aegean religion.

in

instead in later days,and the

Delos

with

stillmore

legend
and

remote
B.C.

P.

THE

24

regions.It was
to fructify
; for

wonderful
were

germs
at

IONIANS

however, in Ionia itselfthat these

not,

days of

the

end, and the citizens of

an

new

homes

was

no

in the far west.

once

men

felt

more

age had

new

begun

real need

had

to

in which
Homer.

worship, that could

of

almost

were

after another

light-hearted
polytheismof

for the

room

state

one

freedom

Ionian

not

seek
there

When

satisfy

god who is
in
freed from the restraints that keep ordinary men
just a man
check. That is also why the worship of two
gods,who
agricultural
and Dionysos,come
to be
Demeter
almost unknown
to Homer,
are
of such importance at this date. They had not been completely
of the process in
humanised
yet, though we can see the beginnings
for men
still possible
to worship
the Homeric
Hymns, so it was
them sincerely.
them.

It is easier

to

worship a

tree

or

an

animal, than

RELIGION

had received a new

" 14. The cult of Dionysos, in particular,
and
Phrygian worships of
impulse from the similar Thracian
which was
Zagreus and Sabazios. The phenomenon of 'ecstasy',
prominent in all these,suggestedan entirelydifferent view of the
find in Homer, and
soul and its relation to the body from that we
find
which we
this was
now
propagatedby the Orphic religion,
from all earlier
spreadingin every direction. It was distinguished
Greek
religionin two important respects. In the first place,it
appealed to a revelation which had been written down in sacred
books, and in the second place,it was organisedin communities
not

based

on

real

or

initiated and

became

fictitioustie of blood, but open

promised

to

obey the

rule. Its

to

all who

teachingwas

pessimism,which had widened the

in
far that religion
so
gods and man
gulfbetween its humanised
the
had become
on
impossible.The Orphics taught,
any real sense
yet
certainlyfallen,they were
were
contrary, that, though men
akin to the gods and might rise againby a system of 'purifications
'redemption'(Xvaii)from sin and
(KadapfjLol.)
; they might win
the exact

oppositeof

the Ionian

death, and dwell with the gods for

Orpic

'saint'

and would

exist after his death.

used. What
of

the

immortal;
was
(ocrto?)

soul

animal, and

men

call life is

in

it had

are

improperly

body is the tomb

imprisonedsuccessivelyin

reallydeath, and
is

the soul of the

existed before his birth,

Indeed, these words

which
(crcD/tia
arjfjia),
even

For

evermore.

vegetablebodies, until

the

its final

purification

ENLIGHTENMENT

liberates it from

the

25

of birth'. Those

'wheel

souls,on

incurable

aviaroi)are
(d^/cecrrot,
The
for ever.
ideas
'Slough'(f36pf3opos)

hand, which
lie in the

are

the other

condemned

to

of heaven

and

thingin Greek religion.

The
mainly the faith of obscure people.
Orphic religionwas
of its preachersand missionaries,and
We
do not know
the names
we
only know it to have been a realityfrom certain gold plates
buried with believers in South Italyand Crete. It is true that rulers
like Peisistratos took up the religionof Orpheus for political
hell,salvation and damnation,

reasons

the

but, on

degenerateinto

to

great

shall

whole, it is for

new

That it was
anonymous.
is natural ; for there were
superstition

mere

Orphic teachers,so far as

its purity,and it fell an
We

we

know, who
to

could

charlatans

easy prey
however, that certain

see,

apt

us

have
and

no

preserved
postors.
im-

elements, which

taken up by the philosophers,

preservedto later ages. In this way Orphicism has profoundly
and philosophies,
and not
affected all subsequent religions

seemed
and

were

so

value,were

have permanent

to

least those which

seem,

firstsight,
to be furthest removed

at

from

it.

ENLIGHTENMENT

" 15.
the

to

It need

hardly be

men
enlightened

said that such

of the

ideas

wholly foreign
saying that 'all
belongs in any

were

cities. The

Ionian

gods' is attributed to Thales, and

to this period.The
case
tendency it indicates is what we should
call pantheistic,
in which pantheism has been called 'a
in the sense
politeatheism'. This is still plainerin another form of the same
saying,which is ascribed to Herakleitos. He asked his visitors to
into the kitchen, saying 'Here too are
come
gods'.But the true
of Ionian science is best seen
of the writingsascribed
in some
spirit
later than the fifth century
to Hippokrates,which
not
are
certainly
In the treatise on The Sacred Disease (epilepsy)
read
B.C.
we
full of

thingsare

"

'I do

sacred
that any disease is more
divine or more
I think that those who first called this disease sacred
think

not

others.
...

men

such

as

againin

were

stillat the present day,magiciansand purifiers

are
of the godcharlatans and impostors.They make
use
head

there

(Kadaprai)and
to cloak
(TOde'iov')
And

than

the treatise

'Nothing is more
thingsare alike and

and
on

divine

cover

their

own

Airs, Waters
or

more

all divine.'

human

incapacity.'
and Sites
than

"

anythingelse,but

all

26
is the

That
the

note

true

schools.

Ionian

satiricalpoet, who

is often

Xenophanes, who
school,a point we
this

pointin

with

any

been

arrived

lifeare

return

to

it

for those

accuracy;
at

by

later. In any

it is

from

know

his

the dates of

most

improbable.He
no

take him

up

authorities have

of

a citizen
certainly

was

statement

own

have

may

that he

was

visited Elea
biguously
unam-

Kolophon, and

lived in exile from

that he had

stillwritingpoetry when

was

in Sicily,
chiefly

that he lived

certain that he was

practically
who reignedfrom 478 to 467
Syracuse,

facts of his

authoritystates

ancient

the age of twenty- five,and that he

he was
ninety-two.There is no doubt
and

to

Xenophanes' life

ancient

given by

places,but

other

as

instructive

most

chronological

case,

process of combination.1 The

evidence
There is not the slightest

also obscure.

well

of the Eleatic

the founder

mere

that he did. He
we

regardedas

an

our

rhapsode,and

as

shall

of all

note

elegiacand
the standpoint
I refer to
scientificinvestigator.

story.
determine
1 6. It is difficultto

"

of the

considerations make

other

and

the

and it was
'enlightenment',
It is most
stronglymarked in
approachedthe questionfrom
of

rather than

of the reformer

at

IONIANS

THE

it is

at
B.C.

the

court

of Hiero

is also said

He

to

of

have

of Anaximander, and there are features in his poetry

disciple
phanes
which make this probable.On the whole, itis safe to say that Xenobelongs mainly to the sixth century B.C., though he lived
well into the fifth. Herakleitos
alreadyspeaks of him in the past
with that of Hekataios.
tense, and coupleshis name
" 17. If we look at the very considerable remains of his poetry
that have come
down
shall see that they are all in the
to us, we
satirist'sand social reformer's vein. There
is one
dealingwith the
been

of

management

feast,another

which

the

denounces

exaggerated

attack
and several which
importance attached to athletic victories,
the humanised
gods of Homer.2 The problem is,therefore,to find,
if we
a
singlepoint of view from which all these fragments
can,
be interpreted.
It may be that no such pointof view exists;but,
can
if one
be found, it is likelythat we
phanes
Xenoshall understand
can
know
better. Now
that a great change came
over
we

Hellenic life at the end

against

the
of

somewhat

Ionia,which

References

For

to

of the sixth century B.C.

effeminate
refinement
had

its source

authorities

translation

of the

are
given in
fragments, see

It

in the court
E. Gr.

Ph.2

E. Gr, Ph.2

was

and

reaction

daintiness

of Sardeis and
"" 55
" 57.

sqq.

28

XENOPHANES

there

only one

was

god

world.

That

called,but pantheism. It is

it has been

as

namely, the

"

not

theism,
mono-

simple reproduction

'god'we have seen to be

There
is no
characteristic of the early cosmologistsgenerally.
evidence
that Xenophanes regardedthis 'god'with any religious
and all we
told about him (orrather about it)
is purely
are
feeling,
and has no
negative.He is quiteunlike a man,
specialorgans of
thinks all over, hears all over' (fr.24).
but 'sees all over,
sense,
Further, he does not go about from placeto place(fr.
26),but does
everything'without toil' (fr.25).It is not safe to go beyond this;
of that

for

specialuse

himself

Xenophanes

he had

said

to

19. But

while

overthrow

the

himself
in

tellsus

anythingmore

its bearingit would

"

of the

is

have

term

no

It is pretty certain that if

more.

in
or
more
religious
definitely
positive
been quoted by later writers.

Xenophanes makes

of contemporary

use

it is plainthat
Olympian hierarchy,

scientific man.

spiteof Anaximander,

In

science

he

was

not

he stillbelieves

and boundless
in all directions,
extendingto infinity
that traverses
in depth also. Consequentlyit is a different sun
our
heaven
which he
must
same
apply to the moon,
every day. The
further held to be superfluous.Both
and moon
sun
are
ignited
clouds. The
stars, too, are clouds that go out in the day time, but
a

flat earth

glow

night like charcoal embers.

at

understood

was

made
was

at

That

is

Meletos, and it seems

that

of

cosmologicalideas for his own

good enough to beat the gods of Homer
that the accounts
he gives of
distinctly
use

says
like the truth'

knowledge in

(fr.34),and

this field

"

he

'Even

know
complete truth, he cannot
this Xenophanes is the precursor
from

Ionia

mainly

this

world

two

Neither

later

hundred

the

an

hand

and

of these contained

lay in the work of the

Pythagorasof Samos.

man

science

as

Xenophanes merely
Any stick
purposes.
and

Hesiod

with. He

the

gods are 'guesses

of certain
possibility

should

man

chance

to say

the

that it is the truth'

of another

anachronism

years later.
have seen
how

(fr.34).In all
philosophythat came
difference

in the fifth century

the

traditional view

is
B.C.

of the

cism
placewas taken by Orphic mystiscepticismon the other.
by enlightened

down, and how

one

the

science

date, that of Epicurus. The

less of

chapter we

broke
on

that it was

than it was
In

at

denies
if a

not

its

in itself the
who

promise of

firstunited

the future. That

science

with

religion,

II

Pythagoras
THE

"

Pythagoras

20.

but

men,

he

doctrine

we

about

it

know

knowledge
work

of

little

too

crowd

have

much
of

will be well

due

to

be

must

to

are

the

life of
his

round

of

and

science,

might

we

work

of his

his life and

In

that

due

belongs

an

and

to

of the

is

we

case

the

have

say

never

Pythagoreans'.

sight of

risk of

later

how

regard

to

of

to

mainly
regard

as

the

division

to

later.

to

or

we

mass

he

other

the

told

are

about

of

legend gathered

is

represented

of

of those

mathematician

to
Pythagoras
and, often, still more
are

characters

science
the

and

tales told

early centuries

as

mystic doctrines,

rationalise

miraculous

authorities

is

Pythagoreanism,

Pythagorean

doctrine

any

it

period

possible to

of the

Pythagoreans',
References

all

treat

It is also

to

or

some

whether

preacher

one

that

quite possible to picture Pythagoras

and

him

among

generation, and

of what

; for

him

quite uncertain

Sometimes
as

ascribinga

chapter. Such

much

made

in human

it is certain
a

the earlier

to

sometimes

attributes

so-called

lose

it is often

trustworthy

Neopythagoreans

of 'the

to

to

be

again

the collective

to

the

future

early date.

successors.

represent

Aristotle

speaks

to

tempted

be

medicine-man,

mere

for

than

the

it

meet

advances

the

met

may

take

hand,

of

have

We

to

belong

that

historical. It is

alone

as

at

name

other

least

remembered

Pythagoras

than

of the

founder

remark

rather

greatest

much

shall

we

account
give an intelligible

It is also hard

21.

man

at

these

reserve

particulardoctrine
"

it is better

founder

doctrines

the

all great

know,

individuals

the

how

development.1
general

world's

say

to

Thales, and

we

the

to

is due

One

to

so

the

to

inevitable if we
it

been

as

disciples.On

Pythagorean

but

far

school, and

of

Sokrates.

So

once.

it is hard

is later
case

of

one

Pythagorean

as

to

come

at

been

nothing, and

much
societyand how
in the
same
difficulty
when

have

must

wrote

we

PROBLEM

of

our

himself.

given in E.

as

as

the

story of

statesman.

of him
era.

as

There

He
generally
cautiously, of 'some
Gr. Ph.2 "" 37 sqq.

PYTHAGORAS

30
is

here, however; for

difficulty

serious

alreadyknown

were

Aristotle. It is

Pythagorasthe true
in
science was
certainly

science ; for that

B.C., and

the fifth century

If the credit is

reallydue

should

name

to

have

been

next

of mathematical

founder
existence

been

than

another

generationtells us
beyond all other men,
(laropiri)

the

have

it must

wonders

equallydifficultto rejectthe

that makes

tradition

that his

to

of these

many

the middle

by

of

the work

of

someone.

Pythagoras,it is strange

Further, Herakleitos in
forgotten.
that Pythagoras practisedinquiry
and

he thinks

the

of him

worse

for

evidence, and it can

only
practically
contemporary
of
The
science.
truth
that Pythagoras was
famous as a man
mean
either of the traditional views. The
is that there is no need to reject
union of mathematical
enough.
genius and mysticismis common
it. That

It

is

the laws of
the

of Greek

the thread

more

once

up

century, which

also characteristic of the seventeenth

was

spheres'and

science.

planetarymotion

in

by

Kepler

was

his belief in the

led

took
to

cover
dis-

'harmony of

souls.
planetary

LIFE

DOCTRINE

AND

" 22. Pythagoraswas a Samian, and, as we are told,he migrated

That is why his
he disliked the rule of Polykrates.
to Italybecause
became
is given as 532 B.C., the year Polykrates
floruit
tyrant. No
actual dates are known, but it is safe to say that his activity
belongs
he left
mainly to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C. When
Samos, he founded at Kroton in southern Italya societywhich was
at once
a religious
community and a scientificschool. Such a body
bound

was

to

jealousyand mistrust,and

excite

we

hear

of many

to Metastruggles.
Pythagoras himself had to flee from Kroton
pontion,where he died. The chief opponent of Pythagoreanism,
said to have been rich and noble, and there is
Kylon, is expressly

evidence

no

for the belief that

the aristocratic side. That

represented'the
the Dorian
and

his

Dorian

notion

was

based

ideal'.It is far from

ideal;but in any

societywas

Pythagorasand

case

on

his followers
the

established in Achaian,

fancy that they

clear what

Pythagorashimself
not

took

was

is meant
an

by

Ionian,

Dorian, colonies.

It is also certain that the earlier Pythagoreans

used the Ionic dialect.1
1

It has

been

Herakleitos
himself.
Attic.

The

said that the

and
form

Demokritos

name

and
in form. Herodotos
Pythagoras is Dorian
he called
'Pythagores',and so no doubt
than 'Anaxagoras'. It is simply
Doric
more
no

call him

'Pythagoras'is

THE

After the death

and

ever,

PYTHAGOREAN

of the

Master, the disturbances

after the middle

soon

regularrising,in the course

burnt down,
(awSpia) were
lives. Those
and

who

shall hear

we

ORDER

survived

went

on

of the fifth century

of which

and

took

of them

more

31

the

more

there

refuge at

was

Pythagorean lodges

of the brethren

many

than

Thebes

and

lost their

elsewhere,

later.

Being a Samian, Pythagoras would naturallybe influenced by

the cosmology of the neighbouringMiletos. It is stated that he was
of Anaximander, which is no doubt a guess, but probably
a disciple
right.At any rate his astronomy was the natural development of
Anaximander's
far beyond
theory of planetaryrings,though it went
that. The
in the
importance of the infinite (TO a-n-eipov)
tification
Pythagorean cosmologysuggests Milesian influence,and the idenof the infinite with

pointsto
which

the

its descent
the

connexion

'air' by

with the doctrines

Pythagorean geometry
from

that of Miletos.

of
duplication

at

least

some

of Anaximenes.

Pythagoreans
The

way
witness

in

to
developed also bears
The
great problem at this date
a problem which
gave rise to the

the square,
theorem
of the square on the hypotenuse,
commonly known still
I. 47).If we were
as the Pythagorean proposition
rightin
(Euclid,
was

assuming

that Thales

worked

with

the old 3:4:5

the
triangle,
connexion
is obvious, and
the very name
'hypotenuse'bears
witness to it;for that word means
the rope or cord 'stretching
over
the rightangle,or, as we say, 'subtending'
it.
against'
" 23. But this was not the only influence that affected Pythagoras
in his earlier days.He is said to have been a disciple
of Pherekydes
element in his teaching
as well as of Anaximander, and the mystical
is thus accounted
for. In any case, as has been indicated already,
of the Delian and Hyperborean Apollo had a mystical
the religion
side. The legendsof Abaris and Aristeas of Prokonnesos
are
enough
that. There are several pointsof contact
between
this form
to show
of mysticism (which seems
to be independent of the Dionysiac)
and Crete. We have seen
that the boat containingthe seven
youths
and
maidens
Delos
in historical times, though
went
to
seven
tradition remembered
its originaldestination
was
Crete, and
Cretan.
There
a
are
Epimenides, the great purifier,
was
many
things,in fact,which suggest that this form of mysticism had
survived from 'Minoan'
times,and itis therefore quiteunnecessary
to seek its originin Egypt or India. It is highly
probable,then, that
and mysticalbeliefs about
Pythagorasbrought his ascetic practices

PYTHAGORAS

32
the soul from

home, and there

his Ionian

was

of Aristeas

statue

Metapontion, where Pythagorasdied. This does

that the religionof the
exclude
the possibility
not, of course,
Orphicism ; it
Pythagoreans was also influenced by contemporary
that they derived it from a genuinely Ionic source,
is only meant
their special
and that Apollo,not Dionysos,was
god.
of the leadingideas of the Apollonian religion
one
" 24. Now
of Prokonnesos

had

which

at

its

centre

Delos

at

in historical times

purification

was

important
teachingof
Pythagoras.The longingfor purityis something very deeplyrooted
is always reappearing in new
in human
nature, and Catharism
forms. Of course
we
mean
may
very different thingsby purity.It
be secured by
may be merely external,and in that case it can easily
that held

and
(i"d9apais),1

observed

likelythat
medical

in the

at

taboos.

of it got

no

further. It is

of the order did. There

leadingmen

school

and

That

Pythagorean societyis certain,and

members

many

that the

an

of certain abstinences

the strict observance

were

place in the

Kroton

even

before

these

it is quite

ever,
certain,how-

was

an

important
there,and

Pythagoraswent

idea of purification
it appears that the old religious
was
garded
earlyrein the lightof the medical
practiceof purgation.At any
rate, Aristoxenos, who

goreans
personallyacquaintedwith the Pythaused
the
that they
medicine
to purge
the
the soul. That
already connects

was

of his time, tells us

body

and

music

scientific studies

to

purge

of the school

with

its

doctrine, since
religious

peutics
beginnings of scientific theraall. In
and harmonics
to the Pythagoreans.But that is not
Sokrates quotes a sayingthat 'philosophy
is the highest
the Phaedo
The
to be Pythagorean in origin.
music', which seems
purgative
of music
function
was
fullyrecognisedin the psychotherapyof
in the practiceof the Korybantic priests,
these days. It originated
and hysterical
treated nervous
who
patientsby wild pipe music,
followed
them
thus exciting
to the pitchof exhaustion,which
was
in turn
by a healthysleepfrom which the patientawoke cured. An
lightis thrown on this by what was known as 'Tarantism'
interesting
there is much
in later days.2Taking all these thingstogether,
to be
of Pythagorasconsisted in this,
said for the view that the originality
and especially
that he regarded scientific,
mathematical, study as
the best purge for the soul. That is the theoryof the earlypart of
there

is

doubt

no

that

we

owe

Farnell,Cults of the

See

Enc.

Brit, (nth

the

Greek
States,vol. iv. pp.
edition)s.v. 'Tarantula.'

295

sqq.

REBIRTH

AND

Phaedo, which

Plato's

is

mainly a
in
it frequently
recurs

doctrine,and
It

added

be

may

that

ascribe

to

him

to

the

of

historyof

tradition

Pythagorean
Greek philosophy.
the

represents

by Pythagoras.If

said for the

the

33

statement

first used

as having been
'philosophy'
(and there is much to be

hesitate

REMINISCENCE

that is
need

we
tradition),

sayingmentioned

word

in the Phaedo

so

not

that

music', and so, since music was certainly

philosophyis the 'highest
result in another
to the same
regardedas a soul-purge,we come
stillspeakof 'puremathematics',1 and that way of speaking
way. We
has givenrise in turn to the phrase'purescholarship'.
with

" 25. Closelyconnected

this is the doctrine of the Three

Lives, the Theoretic, the Practical,and

be referred

probablyto
three kinds
come

to

come

to

the founder

to

justas there are

The
Olympic Games.

and

buy

sell,and

Best of all are

next

Apolaustic,which
of the society.
There

is
are

three classes of strangers who

of men,

the

the

lowest

above

them

consists
are

of those who

those who

to

come

to look on (0eo"peu").
simply come
Men
as lovers of wisdom
("^iAdcro"^oi
may be classifiedaccordingly
of
and
lovers
That
lovers of honour
gain (^tAo/cepSei?).
(^lAcmjiioi),
to imply the doctrine of the tripartite
soul, which is also
seems
attributed to the earlyPythagoreans on good authority,2
though it

compete.

is

references

ascribe

to

now

common

those who

it before his

to

it

to

Plato. There

are,

time, and it agrees much

however, clear
better with

the

The
comparison of human
generaloutlook of the Pythagoreans.
like the Games
often repeatedin
life to a gathering
was
(rravriyvpis)
later days,3and is the ultimate source
of Bunyan's 'VanityFair'.
that the soul is a stranger and a sojournerin this life was
also destined to influence European thoughtprofoundly.

The

view

" 26.

There

of Rebirth

can

be

no

doubt that

Pythagorastaughtthe

doctrine

which he may have learned from the

transmigration,4
ing
Orphics.Xenophanes made fun of him for pretendcontemporary
of a
to recognisethe voice of a departed friend in the howls
beaten dog (fr.
when
to him
to be referring
7).Empedokles seems
he speaks(fr.
who
what happened
could remember
129) of a man
this that the doctrine
ten
or
on
twenty generationsbefore. It was
1

Cp.

The

or

of

/ca0apa"?
etc., in the Phaedo, 65 e, 66 d, e.
yvcorai, etSevat,
is
Poseidonios.
See
edition of the Phaedo, 68 c, 2, note.
authority
my
Cp. Menander, fr. 481 Kock (Pickard-Cambridge,p. 141. No. 68),Epictetus,
the

use

ii. 14, 23.

4
word
The

metempsychosisis

it would

that different

mean

being
i'a,

'born

not

souls

used

entered

again'.See

by good writers,and
into the same
body.

E. Gr. Ph.*

p. 101,

n.

2.

is inaccurate
The

older

; for

word

is

PYTHAGORAS

34
of

Reminiscence, which

playsso great a part in Plato's Meno and

based.1 The
Phaedo, was
thingswe perceivewith the senses, we
told,remind us of thingswe knew when the soul was out of the
are
We have never
body and could perceivereality
seen
equal
directly.
sticks or stones, but we
know
what
equalityis,and it is just by
with the realities of which
comparing the things of sense
they
remind
that we judge them to be imperfect.
I see no difficulty
in
us
this doctrine in its mathematical
to Pythagoras
referring
application
himself.
with

It

have

must

struck

him

the senses, and the

that of Rebirth.

perceivedby
follows easily
from

not

were

" 27. As
cosmology

has been

that the realities he

indicated,there is

Master

of

other hand, few schools have shown

and

for

adaptingthemselves

here is doubtless
for the

to

new

much

so

doctrine

watchword.

historian,and

the

progress
contradiction

conditions. The

feel

hardlyever

can

we

On

capacityfor

apparent than real,but it creates

more

of Reminiscenc

about the
difficulty
ever
professedsuch
Pythagorean. 'The

more

Hardly any school

Pythagoras.
for its founder's authority
the
as
said so' (avrosZ(f"a,
their
was
ipsedixit)

reverence

dealing

was

sure

difficulty

what

to

stage

about Pythagoreanism
refers.
development any given statement
One thing,however, we
There is a form of the
can
see
distinctly.

of

that

and there
precedesthe rise of the Eleatic philosophy,
is a form that is subsequentto it.We
shall do well,therefore,to
for the present all doctrines which
to
seem
reserve
imply the
criticism. That
is really the only criterion we
Eleatic
can
apply.
to begin with that Pytha" 28. We can make out pretty clearly
goras
doctrine

started from
tells

us

that the

'air'from
with

the cosmical

'the unlimited'.

On

outside it,and

mass

the other

Anaximander

at a

As soon
cylindrical.

the

flatdisc. He

of the

cause

of

to

still,

world, though
no

came
eclipses

See

my

edition

to

infer that the earth

have

longer
to

be

sphere,and
we
probablyattribute that discoveryto Pythagorashimself.
may
With
this exception,his generalview of the world seems
to have
Milesian in character.
been distinctly
understood, it was

natural

centre

later date,but he could

as

inhaling

as

this 'air'is identified

that the earth is not

his followers held otherwise

world

Aristotle

hand, Pythagorasseems

in all probability,
thoughtof it as the

regardit as

of Anaximenes.

the
Pythagoreansrepresented

the boundless

learnt from

system

of the

Phaedo,72

e, 4 note.

was

36

PYTHAGORAS

discoveries. All the

were
strings

tension

requiredpitch by

the

of

and
equallength,

and

relaxation

tuned

were

to

aWo-t?).
(enlraaiSj

entirely
by ear, and the firstthingwas to make the
and nete)1concordant, in the sense
outside strings(hypate
two
and
with one
another, with the middle string(mese),
explained,
notes
later paramese). The
it (trite,
with the stringjust above
called 'stationary'
of these four stringswere
(e'en-core?)
("j)d6yyoi)
This

done

was

related to one another in every kind of scale;the

similarly
of the other three (orfour in the eight-stringed
notes
lyre)were
monic,
enharand scales were
'movable' (/avou'/nevot),
as
distinguished
accordingas
chromatic, and diatonic (withtheir varieties),
less closely
to the same
tuned more
these strings
pitchas
or
were
fixed notes.
the nearest
They might differ from these in pitchby as
and

were

call

littleas what

we

double

It is obvious

tone.

quarter-tone, or
that

none

of

as

much

as

what

we

scales could be

our

call a

played

tuned to the
lyre,
seven-stringed
lyreat all; an eight-stringed
in that scale,however,
diatonic scale,is requiredfor them. Even
a

on

did

Greeks

the

not

recognisethe interval

we

call the third

as

concordant.2
the

" 30. It is quiteprobablethat Pythagorasknew

pitchof

depend on the rate of vibrations which communicate

'beats' or pulsations
to the air.At any rate, that was
quite
(nX^yaC)
familiar to his successors
they had any means
; but neither he nor
to

notes

of

measuring the
of

two

rate

As, however, the

rate

to
stringsis inversely
proportional

similar

possiblefor

it was

of vibrations.

him

to

transform

the

problem and

tion
of vibra-

their

length,

attack it on

lyredid not immediatelysuggest this ; for its strings

of equallength,
but a few experiments with stringsof unequal
were
lengthwould establish the truth. Pythagorasdoubtless used
of a string
which
could be stopped
a simple apparatus, consisting
at different intervals by a movable
bridge(themonochord),and in
this way reduced the experiment to a simple comparisonof lengths
that side. The

on

result

singlestring.The

was

to

show

that the

concordant

expressedby the simple numerical

or, takingthe lowest whole numbers

intervals of the scale could be

ratios

i, 3 : 2, and

3,

of
pitch.As a matter
for
The
terms
'high'
note
imdrrjgave
highest.
and 'low' are ogvs (acutus,'sharp'),
and fiapvs
(gravis).
2
ing
An
elementary knowledge of the Greek lyre is essential for the understandof Greek
the subject will be found
to
philosophy. A useful introduction
in the articles (by D. B. Monro)
in Smith's
Dictionary of
Lyra and Musica
Antiquities.
1

Observe

fact,the

that

the

terms

the lowest

vira-rri and

and

VTJTT) do

not

the VTJ-TT)the

refer to

MUSIC

lyrecould

of the

notes

ratios to

these

have

which

be

expressedthus
8

let

convenience

another, that the four stationary

one

6
For

37

12

represent these four

us

by

notes

of the

those

gamut in descendingorder:
Paramese

Nete

we

Hypate

La

Mi,

Si

Mi
and

Mese

explainthe discoveryof Pythagorasas

may

follows

he took a lengthof stringdouble

that which
gave the
it
low
the
is
interval
which
the
That
call the
Mi.
Mi,
we
gave
and the Greeks called diapason(SidTraaaiv, sc. ^opScDv).
It is

(1) When
high
octave

by the
expressed
gave the
fifth and

ratio

he took

(2) When

high Mi,

(SiTrAacrio?
Aoyo?).
of
length stringhalf as longagainas

it gave

That

La.

is the interval which

called dia pente

Greeks

the

: i

which
the

and

gave
fourth

high Mi,
the

it gave

Greeks

(| f
x

J^),and the

note

againas long as

is the interval which

Si. That

called diatessaron

It is expressedby the ratio 4

XopScDv).
The
of the
(/Lie'ye0o?)
(4)
compass
which

call the

we

(SidTreWe, sc. ^opStDv).It

by the ratio 3 : 2 (T^uoAio?

expressed
Ao'yo?).
he took a lengthof stringone-third
(3) When
the

that which

is

that
call

we

(Sid reaadpwv, sc.

Aoyo?).
(eirirpiTos

octave

is a fifth from

is

fifth and

fourth

from

the nete is a fourth

hypate,and vice versa.

(5) The interval between the fourth and the fifth is expressedby
This is called the 'tone' (rdvo?)or
the ratio 9 : 8 (eVoySoos
Ao'yo?).
from its importancein attuningthe two
pitchpar excellence (probably
tetrachords to one another).
between
i and 2,
proportional
(6) As there is no (numerical)mean
neither the octave
the tone can be divided into equalparts.
nor

the

There
further

is good

for

reason

this,and that

than

holdingthat Pythagorasdid

ratios between

the 'movable'

Archytas and

Plato. It is by

strict rule with

any

that the

us

tones

and

scale,which
double

no

tone;

internal

notes

made

to

these

at

this date.1 Aristoxenos

See

was

tells

older musical

theorists all referred

proceededby

what

but

Pythagoras could
the

tone

did

to

he called quarter-

not

of the tetrachord

des fragments philolaiquessur

Tannery, 'A propos
philologie,
1904, pp. 233 sqq.).
1

days of

clear,in fact,that there

means

of quarter-tones, since
possibility
division. The

was

go any
determine
the

of the tetrachord tillthe

notes

regardto

diagrams of the

the enharmonic

attempt

no

not

admit

must,
la

admit

not

of

the

equal

then, have

musique' (Rev. de

38

PYTHAGORAS

regardedas of the nature of the 'unlimited',and

concords.
was
onlyby the perfect
represented
which
look at the four terms
if we
(6'poi)
" 31. Now
been

shall find that 8 and

discovered,we

related

are

the

to

the 'limit'

have

we

extremes

what

of the
9, which represents the note
exceeds and is exceeded
number, namely 3. It is
by the same
On the
is called the arithmetical mean
jueo-orT??).
(apifyt/^TiKi?

other

hand, the

and

12

mese,

exceeds

term

by

f. This

later,for obvious

or
subcontrary(uTrevaim'a),
mean
neaorrjs).
(ap^oviK-r]

called the

was

the harmonic

reasons,

is

mean
geometrical

The

represents the note of the paramese,

the same
fraction of the extremes
; for

8, which

term

is exceeded

and

12-^

The

means.

as

not

of

within the compass

be found

to

singleoctave.
discoveryof the Mean at once suggests a new solution
of the old Milesian
problem of opposites.We know that Anaxiof one
mander
regarded the encroachment
oppositeon the other
therefore have held there was
and he must
a point
as an
'injustice',
Now

which

this

fair

was

both. That, however, he had

the Mean

determined, just as that of the high and low

had

of determining.

means

no

suggests that it is to be found

of the opposites,
'blend' (/cpaai?)
which might be numerically

discoveryof

The

in

to

been.

natural

convivial

The

them.

to

proportionsof
before it was

The
and

wine

served

of the

master

out

water
to

to

be

such

made

of the Greeks

customs

of the

notes

feast used

poured into

an

idea

prescribethe
the mixing-bowl
to

is why the

the guests. That

octave

Demiourgos

It may well have

mixing-bowl(Kpar^p).
seemed
that, if Pythagorascould discover the rule for blending
of
such apparently
elusive thingsas high and low notes, the secret
in Plato's Timaeus

the world

uses

had been found.

" 32. There

remains

the

point of which

one

full

significance

here. It is
be mentioned
but which must
appear tilllater,
plainthat the octachord scale could be increased by the addition of
will

not

one

or

be

more

tetrachords

possibleto

obtain

intervals1 occurred
idea of this

at

either

octave

in

scales in which

on

for

the white
our

can

notes

get

from
have
tone.

some

to

the enharmonic

(i) i tone,

larger
rough

piano alone.

of the

present purpose

The
is taken
example given by Aristoxenos
which, according to his terminology, we may
(2) i tone, ditone,i tone, or (3)ditone,i tone, i
in

therefore

the smaller and

different order. We

by playingscales
It is fortunately
unnecessary
1

end, and that it would

discuss the

tetrachord
tone,

ditone,

MEDICINE

relation of these

octave'

(eiSr)
rov

Sia

as they
7racra)v),

of which
called,to the 'modes' (apfj,oviai,
rpoTrot)

were

much

in Greek

been
these
the

of the
'figures

39

writers ; for it cannot

be said that this

we

hear

problem

so

has

solved yet.1All that is important for us is that

satisfactorily
scales were
called 'figures'
just because they varied in
(et'S^)

of their parts. We

arrangement
for

toxenos

that,2and

shall

we

see

have

that it is a

the

authorityof

matter

Aris-

of fundamental

importance.
MEDICINE

" 33.

In Medicine

the hot and

the

the

cold,the

body. In

told

and

wet

physicianto produce

human

also

have

we

proper

well-known

by Simmias

to

the

do with

such
'opposites',

as

dry,and

it is the business

of

'blend'

passage

of
(/cpaat?)

these in the

of Plato's Phaedo

Pythagoreans held the

and
to a certain pitch,hot and cold,wet
strung like an instrument
dry takingthe placeof high and low in music. According to this
view, health is just being in tune, and disease arises from undue
tension or relaxation of the strings.
We
still speak of 'tonics' in
are

medicine
which

as

well

as

that the

(86b) we
body to be

in music.

is representedfor

similar

doctrine.

and

same

us

Now

the medical

by Alkmaion,

based

school of Kroton,
its theory on

very
the

According to him, health depended on

of the opposites in the body, and disease
'isonomy'(MTOVO/UT?)
was
justthe undue predominanceof one or the other. We need not
be surprised,
associated
then, to find that Alkmaion
was
intimately
with the Pythagoreans,
and that he dedicated his medical treatise
of the leading
of the society.
members
to some
Health, in fact,was
'attunement'
an
depending on a due blend of opposites,
(ap^ovLa)
given of many other thingswith which
the physician
is concerned, notably of diet and climate. The word
itself was
'blend' (/cpacrt?)
used both of bodily temperament, as we
the

account

stillcall it,and

of the temperature which

from another. When

we

are

Now

we

more

than

was

one
distinguished

climate

ing,
speak of 'temperance'in eatingand drinkequallyon Pythagorean ground.
find the word we
have translated 'figure'
used
(efSo?)
once

we

in the literature of the fifth century

B.C.

in

con-

1
See Monro, Modes
of Ancient Greek Music (1 894) ; Macran, The Harmonics
Theories
of the Greek
Recent
of Aristoxenus
(1902); J. D. Dennistoun, 'Some
Modes'
(Classical
Quarterly,vii. (1913),pp. 83 sqq.).
2
iii. 74, is quite clear that e'Sr)
here
means
'figures',
Aristoxenos, El. Harm.
aurd.
S' 'fjfjuv
ov8ev efSos Aeyeip
e
m
TO
ra
"ia"f"epei
dyd/xara
"f"epo(j.ev
d/m^ore/aa
cr^^/iia'
rj
yap

PYTHAGORAS

40
with

nexion

disease

in many
has also

occurs

which
verb

(and

and

technical

of

pattern

in various

medicine.

The

same

patterns,

and

it were,

as

such

is also the

explanationof the differences

of individual patients.
(/carao-Tacrets1)

the constitutions

between

in ancient

sense

dividual
Kardaracns)is also applied to the ingiven body.It is surelynatural to interpret
in the lightof the 'figures
of the octave*
health and
disease
opposites on which

explainedabove. The
depend may combine
variation

with

pointedout,1 it
verb (KadiaraaOaC)

its substantive

of the word

uses

has been

as

close connexion

placesin

constitution of
these

death, and,

NUMBERS

" 34. Having discovered that tuning and

of Limit to
means
arisingfrom the application
that this resulted in the formation
natural

the

alike

were

Unlimited, and

of certain

it was
'figures'
(et'Sry),
kind in
somethingof the same

for

Pythagorasto look for

The Milesians had taught that all thingsissued
at large.
Boundless
Unlimited, though they had given different
or

the world
from

health

the

of this. Anaximenes

accounts

had

identified it with

and had
'air',

the forms this took by rarefaction and condensation. He

explained
of 'air' as a form of mist. Pythagoras would
was
thinkingchiefly
to have
seem
regardedit mainly from another pointof view ; for
the Pythagoreans,
identified 'air' with
of them, certainly
or
some
of
the void. This is the beginning,
than the beginning,
but no more
the

interested
abstract space or extension, and what chiefly
came
the problem of how itbecan
so far as we
Pythagoras,
see, was

conceptionof
limited

There
of

poem
a

is a

present the appearance

confirmation of this in
striking
we

shall see

No.

for

the

two

was

that
believing,

'forms'

erroneouslyassumed are Light and

stillregardedin these days as a thing,not
light,and 'air'was very closelyassociated

Timaeus

(58 d) we

have

what

is

doubt

no
were

know.

we

Part of the

the Second

reason

Pythagoreanview, that mist and darkness

Now
Light and Darkness are included in
1

of the world

have

privationof
Plato's

to

Pythagoreancosmology.There

men

Darkness

as

Parmenides, if,as

sketch of

which

so

(juo/"""cu)

Darkness.
a

as

with

mere

it. In

the traditional

alike forms

the famous

is

of 'air'.

Pythagorean

A. E. Taylor, Varia
Socratica (St. Andrews
University Publications,
Sid -naauiv
in confirmation
rov
ix),p. 189. Professor Taylor has not cited the ftS-rj
of his view, but it seems
to me
press
important, seeing that we have the ex-

See

authority of Aristoxenos

for e?Sos =

ox^fia.in that

case.

NUMBERS

41

table of

where they come

'opposites',
Unlimited
respectively.

the

under

the head

of Limit

and

that all
" 35. Brieflystated, the doctrine of Pythagoras was
things are numbers, and it is impossible for us to attach any
unless we have a clear idea of what he is
meaning to this statement
to have meant
by a 'number'. Now we know for certain that,
likely
in certain fundamental
represented
cases, the earlyPythagoreans
numbers
of dots arranged
and explainedtheir properties
by means
in certain
very

'figures'
(el'S^,
o^T^ara) or

is universal
for the practice
primitive;

from

the earliesttimes. The

was
figures

to

patterns. That

the
This

swear.

to

be

at

I0)"tnus

that this

such

things
Pythagorean

of the Order

the members

used

"

it is the
=

of these

doubt,

ceived
glancewhat the Pythagoreansconten
importantproperty of the number

showed

the most

namely, that
(1+2 + 3+4

It is obvious

tetraktys,1
by which

dice and

on

celebrated

most

is,no

of the

sum

first four

natural

integers

"

could
figure

be extended

and
indefinitely,

that

of the series of successive

placeof a formula for the sums
natural integers,
3, 6, 10, 15, 21, and so on. These, therefore,were
called 'triangular
numbers'.
and oblong
We
hear in the next
placeof square (reTpdyaivoi)
A square number
numbers.
meant
(eVepo/r^Keis')
(asit stilldoes)a
number
which
is the product of equalfactors,an oblong number,
ittakes the

which

one

is the

thus

We

see

odd
1

factors. These

may

be presented

"

at once

numbers
For

product of unequal

the form

from

these

in the form
of this word
Delian

that
figures
of

gnomon

the addition

of successive

producessquare

numbers

forms rpiKrvapxos
and
The
cp. -rpiKrvs (Att.-rpirrvs).
inscriptions(Dittenberger,Syiloge2,588,19 sqq.).

PYTHAGORAS

42

while the addition of successive

even
(4,9, 1 6, etc.),
We
might go
(6,12, 20, etc.).
producesoblong numbers
to

same

way
tell how

study the propertiesof

important thing to

notice is that all these

series of

of series of different kinds. The

the form
ratio
a

: i

different form

The

that of

and

that

further

notes

is always the same;

it is the
has

hand, each successive oblong number

the other

On

cannot

we

figures
express the sums
integersyieldstriangular

Aristotle

yieldsoblong numbers.
of the square numbers
(etSos)

numbers

in the

on

direction.

this

yieldssquare numbers,

numbers, that of odd numbers

even

in

advanced

Pythagorashad

far

numbers, but

cubic

numbers

These
(etSo?).

correspondexactlyto

the concordant

intervals of the octave.1

knowledge

Our

of these

gorean writers,who
the ordinarynotation
known

were

regardedthe
by

we

Neopytha-

'natural' than

as
more
'figures'

alphabet,but they certainly

letters of the

Aristotle,2and

to

chieflyfrom

things comes

have

need

no

hesitation

in

referringthem to the very beginnings of Pythagorean science. In

spiteof the introduction of the Arabic (or rather Hindu) system,
called,survived the Middle Ages,
numbers', as they were
'figurate
and

the

is stillused,

term

though in

restricted

more

It is

sense.

English language has retained the

appliedto the 'Arabic' notation.3
name
'figures',
though it is now
has been adopted.
In other languagesthe Arabic sifr
would
by 'figures'
" 36. This way of representingnumbers
The
dots
nature.
naturallylead up to problems of a geometrical
for the units were
which
stood
regularlycalled 'terms' (6'pot,
and the spaces marked
out
termini,'boundary stones'),
by them
called 'fields' (xcDpat).The
arise,
were
question would naturally
not

'How

littleremarkable

double
1

the

of

requiredto mark out

given square?'There is no reason
terms

many
a

that the

Thus

the ratio between

ratio

between

the

are

sides

is
which
square
for doubting that

the sides 0(2(2

: i) is the 8uT\dcnos \6-yos
(the octave);
the ratio
of 6 (3 : 2) is the r/fuohos
Adyoy (the fifth);

between

the sides of 12 (4 : 3) is the eirirpiros

Ao'yo?(the fourth).
Cp. especiallyMet. N, 5. 1092 b, 8 (Eurytos and ol TOVS dpidfj-ovs
dyovreselsTO.
In Phys. F, 4. 203 a, 13, in explaining square
/cai
Terpd-ycuvov).
axniJ.o.Ta rplyiovov
modern
of the more
and oblong numbers, he uses
the old word
efSoj instead
That
the
of
eiSo? originallymeant
sense
'pattern'appears
'figure'in
axTJua.
from the use of elSi)
for the figureson a piece of embroidery (Plut.Them.
29).
3
The
following quotations from the New English Dictionary are of interest in
this connexion:
RECORDE
Pathw.
Knowl.
'Formes
(sc.produced by
1551
of
that their
whiche
I
omitte
in
considering
points
rows)
arrangements
to Arithmetike
1614
knowledge appertaineth more
figurallthan to Geometric.
T. Bedwell, Nat. Geom.
is a number
Numbers, i. i, 'A rationall figurate number
that is made
themselves.'
between
by the multiplicationof numbers
2

'

PYTHAGORAS

44

continued

It

letters.

their

and

purposes,
Tradition

and

that

another
of

he

the

the

same

he
the

fate

for

of

memory

divulged

side

and

diagonal,

the

the

tion
construc-

where

cases

which

something

for

sea

the

of

one

gorean
Pytha-

at

publishing
is

magical

elsewhere.

drowned

was

This

the

preserved

who

man

of

dodecahedron.

and

Faust,

the

says

for

real

was

important.
It

" 38.

bodies,

intervals

between
the

to

natural

and

Second

of

Part

Plato's

of

question

and

'matter',
central

doctrine

not

much
or

the

to

the

form

of
say

tuning

seemed

is

all

always

Greek
it is

that
of

of

in

some

philosophy
henceforth

string.

to

the

dominated

Eudoxos,

in

the

of

Er

that

there

is

no

but

only

the

law

as

sense

no

myth

the

in

express
'form'

is

appear

word,

the
to

conception

the

yield

of

what
some-

Pythagoreans

They

remember

most

There

than

the

also

the
the

by

older

are

and

sense

our

be

spheres'.

Anaximander.

further

which

intervals,

They

too

in

would

that

Parmenides

must

'harmony'

concordant
world.

We

spheres

the

ing
correspond-

known

the

of

conclusion

of
of

poem

Republic.

the

to

That

octave.

the

to

regarded

as

generally

celestial

he

Anaximander

harmony

wheels

or

the

'the

the

points

rings

the

of

discovery

that

probable
of

the

his

apply

to

doctrine

the

that

everything

retained

wheels

name

believe

to

three

of

explanation

reason

extremely

fifth, and

the

fourth,

Pythagoras

it is

the

misleading

and

for

natural

was

heavenly

in

with

met

afterwards

long

Goethe's

as

story

one

regular
has

tradition

in

incommensurability

the

revealing

it

Hippasos

represented
secrets,

and

with

meet

we

used

be

to

of

correlative

end,

by

the

the
the
to

is the

That

Mean.

very

of

and
idea

it is

of

Ill

and

Herakleitos

Parmenides

HERAKLEITOS

"

It is above

39.

the

feel

to

all in

of

importance
The

philosophy.

in

personality

style of

very

Herakleitos

dealingwith
his

is

made

are

we

shaping

fragments1

for him

that

of

systems

something unique

in Greek

literature,and

'the dark'

himself that he writes

aKorewos). He is quite conscious
(of
it by the example of the Sibyl (fr.
style,and he justifies

oracular

an

of the

and

12)

his

hides

at

meaning,

but

though

B.C.,

the

prophetic
entitled

thought

central

his

it'. Here
signifies

is

possible to disentangle it
when

complete

is

the fact that Parmenides

by

This

he

that

means

date

this

family; for
We

get

he

where

they

have

Ph.*

cast

be
For

so

out
none

sqq.

The

to

that

he

the

would

them, and

leave

is best

and

among

authorities

fragments

are

and

the

among

others."
translation

'

his

hang themselves,

to

beardless

There
of

in

of his brother.

the

be
can

any
be

fragments,

numbers.

lads ; for

them, saying,

among

quoted by Bywater's

Basileus

quotation (fr.114)

if there

us;

an

was

hereditary

city to
man

He

dignity of

in the
well

in the

(fr.16), and
in turn
(fr.6).

B.C.

it in favour

do

formulas.

our

him

to

ancient

the

the best

quite

given

his reference

by

fifth century

resigned

Ephesians

have

Xenophanes

politicalattitude

that

is

truth

it is still

big for

too

allude

to

that

Hermodoros,

of

that

ado

The

we

religious office)was

of his

of

elsewhere

references

"" 63

told

'The

man

will have

"We
him

says:

grown

every

are

glimpse

it appears

doubt

no

we

early in

nor

century

more

that

suppose

fixed

roughly

appears

wrote

and

Ephesian noble,
(at

not

is much

He

sixth

respects.

and

utters

enigmatic surroundings. Only,

Hekataios, Pythagoras, and

to

tense

past

without

in other

must

man.

of Herakleitos

of the

epithet of

influence

the

see

movement
assume

its

from

the

'neither

we

quite simple,

this, we

of the

account

date

The

done

have

we

to

that

by

influenced

was

who

Delphoi (fr. n),

not

are

we

Herakleitos
that

called

been

has

what

God

won

in later times

such, let
no

see

doubt
E.

Gr.

46

HERAKLEITOS

that Herakleitos

was

contempt for the

mass

it

But

had

despised; he
He
he

not

even

In

equal condemnation.
him
along with
think

(withwhom

falls under

himself

fragment (fr.16) he

remarkable

Hesiod, Pythagoras,and

an

tions
men-

Hekataios

an

as

does not teach

learning(TroAu^aflo;)
of PythaThe researches (IOTO/HTJ)
goras,
SiSacjKei).

(voov

ov

by which
and

predecessors.

of the truth that much

instance
to

sovereign

that Herakleitos

men

for any of his

about Homer

good word

of

run

common

with Xenophanes
agrees, of course,
classes Archilochos),but Xenophanes

men

of mankind.

only the

not

was

had

aristocrat and

convinced

are

we

with special
emphasis
rejected

arithmetical discoveries,are
is

(fr.17).Wisdom

in the firstplacehis harmonic

understand

to

knowledge of many things;it is the clear

thing only, and this Herakleitos describes,in
not

knowledge of one
which is 'true evermore',
his Word
as
true
(Aoyo?),
propheticstyle,
when
it is told to them
understand
it even
cannot
(fr.
though men
kleitos
endeavour, then, to discover,if we can, what Hera2).We must
meant
by his Word, the thing he felt he had been born to
anyone would listen to him or not.
say, whether
" 40. In the first place,it is plainthat the Word

the

even

theory

had

further

on

of flux is

condensation; and,

even

had

merely
only have

that would

himself,who

It is

at

not

improvement
if it were,
tone

once

that

on

such

in which

in this direction

doctrine

thought.The

an

for the

improvement would hardly account

speaks of his Word. It is not
for his innermost

Herakleitos

of Thales.

water

thing
some-

primarysubstance, or

the lines of Anaximenes

'air' for the

and

the

Anaximenes,

either that the doctrine

of rarefaction

as

(navra.pet).If

Flux

advance

substituted

obvious

of

of Fire

fire for the 'air' of

substituted
been

the doctrine

than

more

be

must

kleitos
Hera-

must

we

of flux is,no

an

seek

doubt,

singlescientificdiscoveryis
attributed to Herakleitos. That is significant.
Further, everything
it to have been even
told about his cosmology shows
more
are
we
but
great scientificgeneralisation,

than
reactionary

that of

no

Xenophanes

or

the school of Anaximenes.

languageof the mysteries,

them
in the strongest terms.
The
he condemns
'Night-walkers,
he speaks (fr.
magicians,Bakchoi, Lenai, and Mystai'of whom
On

hand, though he

the other

124)

be

must

Clement
threatened

of

the contemporary

Alexandria, who

them

uses

with the wrath

the

Orphics, and

we

are

told

by

quotes the words, that Herakleitos

to come.

SOUL

has

Herakleitos

Yet

shade,

or

attribute

but

the

with

common

that is his insistence

them, the soul

to

as

thing in

one

teachers of his time, and

To him,
(i/jvxr)).

47

real

most

was

thing of

the

the idea of Soul

on

feeble

longera

no

all,and

religious

its

ghost
important

most

Now
(TO cro^oV).
thought (yvc^r?)or wisdom
Anaximenes
had alreadyillustrated the doctrine of 'air' by the
remark that it is breath which keeps us in life ("9),and we
have
how the same
idea affected the Pythagoreancosmology (" 28).
seen
The Delphic precept 'Know
thyselfwas a household word in those
days,and Herakleitos says 'I sought myself (eSt^rjadfJurjv
e/ieowrov,
'You
the
fr. 80).He also said (fr.
find
boundaries
of
cannot
out
71):
was

soul; so deep

it.' If

follow up
the righttrack.

hath

measure

perhapsfind ourselves on
" 41. A glanceat the fragments will

may

Herakleitos

dominated

was

waking, lifeand death, and

that this

Water, Earth, and the latter are

we

that

that the soul is

see

to

to

life are

lifeand

dry soul

to

is the wisest and

souls

to

the advance

with

and

water,

these exhalations

of the fire. If there

there

were

no

look

we

is the

same.

way
clear that

same

of the

wet

were

no

are

water,

there could be
fire,
next

at

in

no

turn

Sleep and death

by the phenomenon

to

water'

become

(fr.

and
and fire,

of warmth

further that

see

produced by

there could
exhalations

the macrocosm,

awake, and

processes ; sleepalternates
is fed by the exhalations of

regularalternation of the two

waking, and life with death. Fire

there is

it is

(fr.
74).We

the best'

the former.

death.

moisture, as is shown

due

from

onlyfullyalive when

73).'It is death
(fr.

and

68).Waking

If

of

the advance

of drunkenness

'the

thought of

opposition of sleeping and

seemed
the key to the
to him

be understood

a stage between
sleepis really

due

are

that the

we

hot and cold, wet

problem of the opposites,
Life, Sleep,Death correspondto Fire,
precisely,

dry. More

Now

show

hints

Milesian

traditional
and

the

by

these

we

we

shall

be

see

fire ;

no

from

the warmth

the

the

and, if

water.

explanation

and winter, alternate in the

Night and day, summer
as
sleep and waking, life and death, and here too it is
the explanationis to be found in the successive advance
and

the

dry,the

cold and

the hot. It follows

that it is

primary substance an intermediate state like

most
livingthing in the world, and therefore
the life of the soul ; and as the fierysoul is the

the
to make
wrong
'air'.It must
be the
it must

be fire like

wisest,so will the wisdom

fire is

to

be

seen

best

which

in the sun,

'steers' the world

which

is lit up

be fire. Pure

afresh every

48

HERAKLEITOS

morning, and

night.It and
in a
fire ignited

the heavens, and

traverse

the earth of another

from

dealingwith

not

Darkness

as

they
from

exhalations
due

to

is an

too

partial

exhalation

last remarks

kind. These

scientificman,

heavenlybodies

of basin in which

kept up by
and eclipses
are

phases of the moon

turning round of the basins.

total

sort

this fire is

the earth. The

or

the other

at

of pure

justmasses

are

out

put

science

are
prove we
understood
in Italy.

was

that we
it seems
" 42. But, if fire is the primary form of reality,
had described as
gain a clearer view of what Anaximander
may
had explainedby 'rarefaction
out' ("7),and Anaximenes
'separating
is the key both
and condensation' ("9).The process of combustion
life and

human

to

process that' never

fresh exhalations as fuel,

that of the world.

to

It is

always to be fed by
steadiness of
smoke.
The
and it is always turning into vapour
or
and the
the 'measures' of fuel kindled
the flame depends on
in smoke
'measures' of fire extinguished
remaining constant. Now
fire' (fr.
the world is 'an everliving
20),and therefore there will be
an
unceasingprocess of 'flux'.That will applyto the world at large
rests

and

; for

also

river'

to

the soul of

41),and
(fr.

the same'

way

69) are
(fr.

fire is the way up. And

directions
in opposite

part

parts, one

Anaximander

Now
the

true

up and
also the

step twice into the same

that 'we are and are not' at any

cannot

the way down', which

for the microcosm
same

Fire,water, earth is the way

macrocosm.

two

'You

man.

it is justas

'The

given moment.
and

has

flame

Boundless, and

and
injustice,

what

these

two

at once,

travelling
up

so

ways
that

same

'measures'

the

down, and earth,water,

being traversed
reallyconsists of
everything
are

forever

and the other

down.
travelling

held

attach itselfto this very pronouncement.

fire'which secures
that the world is 'an everliving
the

and

'one

("6) that all thingsmust return to

for their
another
so
pay the penaltyto one
Herakleitos
regardedas his great discovery
had

to

seems

are

of fire are

It is justthe fact
its stability
; for

alwaysbeing kindled

and

going out

its nourishment
impossible for fire to consume
time givingback what it has consumed
without at the same
already.
like that of gold for
It is a process of eternal 'exchange'(a/noi/S^)
for gold (fr.
and wares
22); and 'the sun will not exceed his
wares
if he does, the Erinyes,the auxiliaries of Justice,will
measures;
find him out' (fr.
22),not
justice(fr.
29).For all this strifeis really

(fr.20). It

is

had supposed,and 'War is the father of

as Anaximander
injustice,
all things'(fr.
44).It is justthis oppositetension that keeps things

FIRE

like that
together,

though it is a
(fr.47). For

AND

FLUX

stringin

of the

the bow

and

45),and
lyre(fr.

the

it is better than

hidden

attunement,

all his

condemnation

from

49

any open one

Pythagoras, Herakleitos

of

the tuned

string.
But, in spiteof all this,it is possiblefor the 'measures' to vary
that from the facts of sleepingand
see
up to a certain point.We
waking, death and life,with which we started,and also from the
and winter. These
correspondingfacts of night and day,summer
fluctuations are due to the processes of evaportionor exhalation
and liquefaction
(xvais)which formed the starting(avadvfjiiaais)
point of all early Ionian physics.Yet these fluctuations exactly
cannot

get away

balance

the 'measures'

another, so that, in the long run,

one

It appears
to be certain that Herakleitos
the survival of soul in some
form
this periodicity

inferred

exceeded.

not

from
We

see

know

day follows night and

that

that

follows

waking

sleep.In

argued,life follows death, and

journey. 'It is

the

the

the soul

thing in

same

once
us

he

way,

same

more

that is

far

so

Herakleitos,and
know

is the

and

" 43. Such,

as
we

now

is wisdom.

which

make

can

we

to

seems

have

it out, is the

game

ask for his secret, the one

may
It is that,as the apparent strife of

thingto
opposites

is

'beyondgood and
attain wisdom

and the

one

of his own'

is

bad'
to

(fr.
57, 61).Therefore

hold

fast

to

turn
world, but sleepers

same

95).If we
(fr.

keep our

Ionian.
soul is
are

He
as

had

all his

learnt indeed

individual
bear this

soul; but, when

world

was

doctrine

the conclusion
of

evaporation

Herakleitos
remains
an
originality,
the importance of soul,but his fire-

seem
we

Soul
interpretation.

waking have

aside,each into

Such

littlepersonalas the breath-soul

certainly
fragments that

is

dry,we shall understand

they are only passingforms

good and evil are one, that is,that

that transcends
them both.
of one reality
of geniusdrew from the Milesian
a man
and liquefaction.
with

'The

all

do to

must

we

the

souls

that

" 44. For,

what

'the common'.

of

generalview of

reallydue to the oppositetension which holds

is the eternal wisdom,
world together,so in pure fire,which
these oppositionsdisappear in their common
ground. God
in this world

we

begins its upward

quick and dead,

and old' (fr.

78). That
asleep,
young
draughtsthat Time playseverlastingly
(fr.
79).
awake

other.

or

winter, and

follows

summer

are

to

There

immortalityof the
them, we see they cannot

assert

examine

of Anaximenes.
the

is only immortal

in

so

far

as

it is part

HERAKLEITOS

5O

of the

fire which
everliving

soul of every

is in

man

immortalityhave

can

into the

? It is

instants. That

wish

same

man

too, in his

That

is

to

by

means

not

are

the

into the mouth

argument

an

could

to

he be

the debt?

His wisdom,
theology.

'wills and
things,

we

step twice

cannot

we

for

same

two

is justthe side of his doctrine that struck

pay. How
that contracted

not

that

onlytrue

not

Seeing that the

body, what meaning

and Epicharmos alreadymade

forcibly,

contemporariesmost
of it by puttingit as
did

flux like his

constant

river,but also that

same

successive

is the life of the world.

wills not

debtor

liable,seeinghe is

And

which

Herakleitos
is

and

one

is

who
the

not

Ionian,

an

apart from

all

be called

to

say, it is no
God
than the

of

fun

more

Air

of Zeus' (fr.
by the name
65).
the
what
religiousconsciousness

of Anaximenes

the World

or

of

Xenophanes. Herakleitos,in fact,despitehis prophetictone and

his use of religious
broke throughthe secularism
never
languages,
and pantheism of the lonians. Belief in a personal God
and an
immortal
soul was
alreadybeingelaborated in another quarter, but
did not secure
in philosophytillthe time of Plato.
a place

PARMENIDES

" 45.

have

We

the fundamental
side. That

consider

to

now

assumptions of

Parmenides

oppositionto him,

to

Ionian

directed

cosmology

from

after Herakleitos,and

wrote

seems

the criticisms

be

proved by

what

against
another

in conscious

surelybe

must

an

it is and is not
The words 'for whom
express illusion in his poem.
the same
and
the same,
and
all thing?travel in opposite
not

directions'

infer that these words

and

Salamis.

We

who

was

written

from

wrote

him

addresses

the

to

some

poem

anyone

else,and

we

may
Marathon

time between

that Parmenides

it,for the goddess who

was

reveals the truth

and Plato says that Parmenides

'youth',
in his sixty-fifth
year and conversed with Sokrates,
'veryyoung'.That must have been in the middle of

to Athens

came

were

know

he

when

man

young
to him

well refer

6, 8),cannot
(fr.

then

the fifth century

B.C.,

as

or

shortlyafter it.Parmenides

was

citizen

of Elea,for which
as

and he is generally
cityhe legislated,
represented
of
It
has
been
disciple Xenophanes.
pointedout, however,

that there is

(" 1 6),and
derived

no

evidence

for the settlement of

the story that he founded

from

playfulremark

of

Xenophanes

the Eleatic school

Plato's,which

would

seems

at

Elea
to

be

also prove

PARMENIDES

52
the gate and
the
and

are

journey is

the

palaceof

instructs him

of
way
without

interpreted
by

the

error

represent his
revealed to him. We
must

purely

conventional

of the

canons

former
have

and

error

seen

case,

to

reason

a
originally
Pythagorean, and
suggest that the Way of Belief

any
anything else than

goal of

it is

there
is

an

it

so

manner,

apocalypticstyle.It

had

truth

(night)to

was

cosmology.In

The

Parmenides

welcomes

goddess who

indicate that Parmenides

passedfrom

Day.

and the deceptive

ways, that of Truth
is no
truth at all. All this is described

in

to

of

two

inspirationand

meant
clearly

he had

in the

Belief,in which

be

must

in the realms

of course,

now,

converted, that

been

and
(day),

the Two

the

which

truth

believe
are

account

is

Ways
is

now

that Parmenides

many
of

surelyimpossible to

things which
Pythagorean
regard it as
goddess says

The
error.
descriptionof some
that cannot
be explainedaway. Further, this erroneous
so in words
belief is not the ordinaryman's view of the world, but an elaborate
to be a natural
development of the Ionian
seems
system, which
cosmology on certain lines,and there is no other system but the
Pythagorean that fulfilsthis requirement.
would
have
To this it has been objectedthat Parmenides
not
taken the trouble to expound in detail a system he had altogether
the character of the apocalyptic
but that is to mistake
rejected,
convention.
It is not Parmenides, but the goddess,that expounds
the system,
said

it is for this

and

that the beliefs described

reason

of the
of the ascent
description
soul would
be quite incomplete without
a
pictureof the region
from which
it had escaped.The goddess must
reveal the two
ways
Parmenides
at the partingof which
stands,and bid him choose the
better. That itself is a Pythagorean idea. It was
symbolisedby the
be traced right down
letter Y, and can
times. The
to Christian
consists,therefore,of two well-known
machinery of the Proem
apocalypticdevices,the Ascent into Heaven, and the Partingof the
himself,his conversion
Ways, and it follows that,for Parmenides
from Pythagoreanism to Truth
the central thing in his poem,
was
and it is from that point of view we
him.
must
try to understand
It is probable too that,if the Pythagoreans
had not been a religious
to
societyas well as a scientificschool,he would have been content
to

be those of 'mortals'. Now

are

say what he had

school was
also
in the

say in prose. As it was, his secession from the

heresy,and had, like all heresies,to be justified

to
a

languageof religion.

*IS
All the

" 47.

substance

fire,a view

suggestedby

transformations
of

NOT?'

IT

IS

taken

for

the

granted that

observed

the like.Anaximenes
due

as

53

different forms, such

assume

and
evaporation,

OR

had

lonians

could

IT

primary

earth,water, and

phenomena

of

freezing,
these
explained
condensation
("9).That,

had

rarefaction and

to

as

the

further

of the primary substance

reallyimpliesthat the structure
is corpuscular,
and that there are intersticesof some
kind between
its particles.
It is improbablethat Anaximenes
realised this consequence
course

of his doctrine. Even

the untrained

to

by

the

them,

use
as

we

mind.

The

outside

mass

of the bodies whose

Now

school had revealed

mathematician

limits

it,and this accounted

for the extension

When
by the 'figures'.
inevitable.
were
put in this way, further questions
the rise of mathematics
in this same
Pythagorean

thingwas

" 48.

immediatelyobvious

not

problem was raised at once, however,

the Pythagoreans
had made
of the theory.
According to
have seen
or void, from
("28),the world inhaled 'air',

the boundless

the

it is

now

were

marked

out

for the firsttime the power

of all men

thought.To

the

thingthat can be thought

and that can
and this is the principle
be (eartv
(ecrrt
voeiv)
elvai),1
from which Parmenides
is not,
to think what
starts. It is impossible
and it is impossible
be thoughtto be. The
for what cannot
great
Is
the
it
is
it
not?
therefore
is
t
o
or
question,
question,
equivalent
Can itbe thought
or not?
the
Parmenides
of this principle
goes on to consider in the light
of sayingthat anythingis.In the firstplace,
it cannot
consequences
have come
into being.If it had, it must
have arisen from nothing
from something.It cannot
have arisen from nothing;for there
or
is no nothing.It cannot
have arisen from something;for there is
nothing

else than

into

come

could do

what

being;for

so.

it is the

of

is. Nor

there

can

same

anything else besides itself

can

be

space in which
all at once.
it is now,

Is it or is it not? If it is,then

this way Parmenides

refutes all accounts
Ex nihilonihilfit.

it

empty

no

of the

originof the

In

world.

be more
Further, if it is,it simply is,and it cannot
or less. There
is,therefore,as much of it in one placeas in another. (That makes
1

foriv

This
re

is how
KO.I

separate
eon.

voelv

Zeller

elvai,and

(Phil.d. griech I.5 p. 558, n. i) took fr. 5 TO yap avro

the only possiblerendering. I
to me
seems

it still

elcrlvorjaaiin fr. 4, which

everyone
in fr. 5. Nor
do
I believe that

takes
the

to

'are thinkable'

mean

infinitive

is

ever

the

voelv
cannot

from

subject of

places.as //. x. 174 (see Leaf's note).The traditional view

(given e.g. by Goodwin, M.T.
" 745) implies that iroieiv is the subjectin Si'/caioi/
eVm TOVTO
is refuted by Suvatds flfuTOVTO
-nou-lv.
Troteiv, which
sentence

even

in such

PARMENIDES

54
and

rarefaction
indivisible

for

and

is finite

be

empty

the

it

directed

it

and

must

there

be

cannot

is the

sphere

therefore

full,

the

against

in

is

figure

empty

more

any

which

of

it

Also

nothing.

no

direction

one

only

into

move

this

can

said.
What

is

still

and

plenum,

and

being

is, therefore

(TO eoV)

continuous

ceasing
colour

more

thought

are

of

and

'names',

They

not

are

is

so

into

Coming

it.

is, and

and

motion,

thoughts

even

that

something

motionless,

spherical,

beyond

nothing

mere

thought

is

like.

the

and

be

must

there

be

to

finite,

none

for

of

these

real

as

be.

can

"

Such

49.

single

matter,

we

deprives

an

the

which

intelligible

motion
more,

explain

again
as

it
it if

we

is

somehow.

by
are

to

of

all

escape

even

can

early
from

we

be

cosmologists

If

impossible

and
we

conclusions

we

for
must

of

It
reduces

are

certainly
taken

than

Parmenides.

existence,

must

of

subsequent

was

of

that

illusion.

never

the

it

course

to

else

something
No

it. The

(TO edV)

real

reality.

like

an

world,

That

for

of

claim

the

the
from

escape

just

of

of

view

no

room

doctrine

the

the

is

account

hardly

of

account

was

in
know

we

is

this, but

ignore

to

world

his

the

there

find

can

to

permanently

something

to

we

up

afford

acquiesce

to

shut

are

could

system

unless

and,

and

text-books

physical

our

which

to

leads,

inevitably

of

Parmenides

conclusion

is the

body

'matter'

it

and

another,

in

moved,

nothing,

for

spherical;

and

is

its

prevent

reality.)

If it
is

space

is

and

continuous

could

It

(That

discontinuous

is

which

another.

one

it is immoveable.

Further,

itself

but

plenum.
of

theory

Pythagorean

than

with

contact

It

impossible.)

nothing

is

indivisible

continuous

space,

there

in

being

parts

condensation

to

give

introduce

granted
attempt

Parmenides.

any
to

IV

Pluralists

The

"

It

50.

only possible

was

Parmenides

all that is is one,

Thales,

be

must

should

given

denied

have

had

which

motion

that

unity. If any

could

only

part of it. As, however,

both

consider, while

world

know

we

of

number

translation

which

does

not

of

One

taken
be

at

pleno
the

days of
quite

tion
assump-

by

once

is

to

were

preciselythe

an

both

meant

they

both

the

the

move,

equal

an

same

that

as

given

of the
for

motion, which

that

be

must

spite of Parmenides,

granted
both

tion
separais

ception
con-

called

Empedokles
his

alphabet',

date, though the

called

'seeds', but

they

anything else,and

to

the

to

senses

as

something

Empedokles

they

satisfied,if the world

is that

of the motion

source

the former

(vovs).What

'letter of the

perceive with

we

and

elementum

word

irreducible

and

The

one.

be

porary
tem-

of these.

originor

Accordingly,

Anaxagoras

eternal

condition

in

The

till a later

end, agree

of real than

the mixture

to

o-rot^etov,

sense

Parmenidean

without

quite clearlyformed.

things

combinations

explained

Greek

was

something

second

kinds

more

of

'roots',and

held

are

of

in this

and

beginning

explained as due
primary 'elements'.

occur

the

insistingon

be

element

elements

The

and

that there

may

Latin

this part would

accepting

maintaining also

Mind

in

that

Parmenides

why

reason

Parmenidean

place was

the

since

explainanything on

not

that the real is without

doctrine

taken

no

belief

it

could

his

place, the

everyone

of

conclusions

would
be nil, and
it
displaced,the result of the motion
be distinguishedfrom
find accordingly that
We
not
rest.
have
to
we
now
Empedokles and Anaxagoras, whose
systems

which

in

the

this. Motion

except

that its

by

was

part of the

mean

first

the

held

There

up.

conceivable, though it would

of

In

been

from

escape

conditions.

two

on

to

calls Love
were

which

inherent

and

account

some

in

had

the

is

be

to

be

must

been

hitherto
of

nature

body.
of

Anaxagoras postulatecauses
and

Strife,and

feelingafter

was

the

latter calls

obviously

the
B.C.

later
P.

56

PLURALISM

equallyclear that theywere

stillunable to disentangle
this completelyfrom that of body.They
which
both use languagewith regard to the forces they assume
and
makes it plainthat theywere
picturedas something corporeal,
if we
the part playedby
remember
this will seem
quiteintelligible
conceptionof force,but
physical

'fluids'in the science

further that

of

it is

times.

recent
fairly

Empedokles

felt

obliged to

It is

to

be observed

two

assume

of

sources

the
or
motion, like the force of attraction and the force of repulsion,
later

forces of
and centrifugal
centripetal
only required a single force which

rotatory motion

rotation. The

was

days,while Anaxagoras
capable of producing

itself could

for

account

everything

else.

Taking

these

things together,we

two

can

the

understand

Empedokles and Anaxagoras, and

words. It is,
which they both express in almost exactlythe same
such thingas coming into being
that there is in reality
no
firstly,
has been settled by
That
and
ceasing to be ("f"6opd).
(yeVeat?)
Parmenides.
But, secondly,it is obvious that the thingsin this
is proved by the
into being and cease
world do come
to be. That
The onlyway in which these two thingscan
evidence of the senses.
what is commonly called coming into
be reconciled is by regarding
being as mixture, and ceasingto be as separation.From this it
be such as to admit of
in the firstplace,that the real must
follows,
is

doctrine which

to

common

mixture, or, in other words, that there

must

be different kinds

there

must

be

real ; and, in the second

and

place,that

a cause

of

of mixture

separation.
EMPEDOKLES

and he
a citizen of Akragas in Sicily,
" 51. Empedokles was
played a considerable part in his native cityas a democratic leader.1
His date is roughly fixed for us by the well-attested fact that he
to Thourioi
went
shortlyafter its foundation in 444/3 B.C. That was
his native city.He
from
was,
probably after his banishment
the meridian
with
splendour of the
therefore, contemporary
Periklean

age

Protagorasat
combined

at

Athens, and

Thourioi.

scientific

type, but he differed

1

References

of the

to

In his

must

case

we

have

met

know

Herodotus

and

for certain that he

study with a mysticalreligionof the Orphic

from Pythagorasin the direction his scientific

authorities

fragments,see

he

ib. " 105.

are

given

in E. Gr.

Ph.2

"" 97

sqq.

For

translation

EMPEDOKLES

took.
inquiries

We

know

that marks

It
speculations.

57

that

Pythagoraswas first and foremost a

mathematician, while Empedokles was the founder of the Sicilian
school of medicine. That
for the physiological
interest
accounts
his

Plato and Aristotle

We

of

Empedokles, though

which
bloody sacrifices,

that between

as

here with

we

religious
teaching
passing his horror of

in

note

may

the

he

from the doctrine

justified
of
'Purifications' (KadapfioC),

His
transmigration.

or

difference

same

later date.

at a

concerned
directly

not

are

is the

of Rebirth
which

siderable
con-

fragments remain, are, indeed, our oldest and best

for this type of religion.
authority
They are written in hexameters,
and

is his

In this matter
he
strictly
philosophical
poem.
imitated Parmenides, as is proved by his sometimes
reproducing
his actual words. The only difference is that he was
real
a
poet, and
so

Parmenides

the

not.

was

has been

As

" 52.

more

doctrine

indicated,Empedokles unreservedlyaccepts

of Parmenides
and

four

respects this

was

put earth

on

fire,air,earth,and water,

"

return

alreadyleftbehind

to

them

air with
co-ordinating
and

body,
and

was

vapour
discoveryby the

was

mist

or

wrong.

This

it

he

did

klepsydraor water-clock.
of

This
water

He

vessel,and that the

call

we

and in

"

an

be

some

noticed,

advance

by

by

means

showed
could

againstthe
imagine he has a
for
of

two.

atmospheric air was

Parmenides
can

the

between

space on the one

doubtless led
was

from

necessary

He

'roots'. Of

or

Empedokles

hand
to

existence

this

of

direct ception
perhe
to show

experiment with
air could keep water

an

that

the
out

escaped.
air and
importantdiscoveryoutweighs his error in regarding
elements. He had no means
of discovering
as
theywere not.
water

might, perhaps,have got

Herakleitos,but here
and

form

empty
the other. He

was

of

conclusions

must

made

time

same

that what

polemic of
plain man

space. The
of this,and

three. It

transitional

on

destruct
in-

it with
water, instead of identifying

quite distinct

from

empty

the

at

as

in fact discovered
and

the other

fire and

regardingit

and

primitiveviews which the Milesians

it was
reactionary
("10).In particular,

level with

however, that Empedokles

vapour
He had

is' is uncreated

he

these he assumed

to

'what

only escapes from the further

the theory of elements
by introducing

the Eleatic

had

that

stars

were

must

we

believed

to

only enter

as

hint of the

true

remember

that,so

consist of

fire,it was

the air

nature

not

of fire from

long as
easy

to

the

sun

discern

58

EMPEDOKLES

adoptedthe

Aristotle

the truth. Even

four elements

of

Empedokles,

friends had declared that so far

though Plato and his Pythagorean
from being 'letters'(aroLxela),
they were not even syllables.
something
" 53. Besides these four 'roots',
Empedokles postulated
called

attraction

to
explainthe
((/"iAia)

Love

of different

to account
something called Strife (VCLKOS)
bodies.
for their separation.
as
He speaks of these quitedistinctly
been suggestedby the
The way in which
to have
they act seems
experiment with the klepsydraalreadyreferred to. We start with
something like the sphere of Parmenides, in which the four

forms

of matter, and

elements

mingled in

are

surrounds

of

the

of solution

sort

Strife

the outside. When

sphere on

the

Sphere, Love is driven towards

elements are gradually
from
separated

begins to
and

another.

That

one

Strife

while

its centre,

enter

four

the

is clearly

breathing.Empedokles

the old idea of the world

adaptationof

an

by Love,

and
held, however, that respiration
depended on the systole
Strife
find that,as soon
diastole of the heart,and therefore we
as

also

has

penetratedto

and

Love

is confined

begins.Love
the

the lowest

enters

it. In

air

to

are

expands

the founder
a

The

conceptionof

their

own

does

not

is

proportionas

expelledfrom

and

Strife

occupiesmore
the klepsydrawhen

water

blood

what

the world

to

are

and

Love

and

influenced
analogynaturally
physiological

medical

theoryof the

says
he tells us

in

body.The
of

sphere,

of it,the reverse
the very middle
process
of
and Strife is driven outwards, passing
out

fact,Love

the

of the

to

Sphere once more

of it,justas air

more

central)part

(ormost

had

school,who

flux and

for the firsttime

reflux of blood from

the attractive force

as

and
is

Love

No
himself,of physiological
origin.

one

to

lated
formu-

the heart.

also,as Empedokles
had observed,

know
in
the very same
force men
bodies playsa part in the life of the great world too. He
to give any mechanical
to have thought it necessary
seem

(fr.17, 21-26) that

explanationof

the cosmic

and
systole

diastole. It

was

justthe

lifeof

the world.

" 54.

exist when

world
both

therefore,be

two

(fr.17, 3-5),one

of

perishablethingssuch

Love

and

births and
when

Love

Strife
two

is

are

as

we

know

in the world.

passingsaway

increasingand

only

can

There

of mortal

will,

things

all the elements

are

the
coming togetherinto one, the other when Strife is re-entering
The
more.
Sphere and the elements are being separatedonce
elements
the particular
alone are everlasting;
thingswe know are

60

EMPEDOKLES

of

sort

worked

focus.
out

have

We

this

no

of

means

singulartheory in

tellinghow Empedokles
detail. We
can
only say that he

and
primarilya physiologist,

was

strong

case

enough, makes a far more

the importance he attached
it with

astronomy

was

his

not

point.
the
it is certainly

And

that

that his

physiology,though primitive
favourable
impression.We have seen
and how
he connected
to respiration,

the heart's action. It

natural,therefore,for him

was

to

and to
(o"(frpovovfjiev),1
In this he departedfrom the
make the heart the central sensorium.
of Kroton, who had discovered the importance
theoryof Alkmaion
but he adopted from him the
of the brain for sense-perception,
of the various senses
by 'pores'or passages (nopai).
explanation
into these.
Sensation was produced by 'effluences' (aTroppoai)
fitting
ascribed to the increasing
action of Strife.
The originof species
was
undifferentiated living
At the beginning of this world there were
the
which
were
graduallydifferentiated,
masses
(ovXofivels
TVTTOL),
mortal
how
fittest surviving.Empedokles also described
beings
Love was
in the periodwhen
gainingthe mastery, and when
arose
everythinghappened in just the oppositeway to what we see in

regard the

blood

world.

our

In

and
separation,

as

that
were

'what

case,

then

think

we

the

with'

limbs

and

organs

first

arose

joined togetherat haphazard,so

and men
produced, 'oxen with heads of men
heads of oxen.' This strange pictureof a reversed evolution
have been suggestedby the Egyptian monuments.
possibly
monsters

were

in
that
with
may

ANAXAGORAS

" 56. Anaxagoras

been
rots
wrote

of Klazomenai

is said

by

Aristotle

to

have

'after him in his works'

Empedokles,but to come
that he
this means
It is not clear whether
S' epyois vcrrepos).2
inferior to him in his
later than Empedokles or that he was
older than

quiteuncertain,but we know he settled

and enjoyed the friendshipof Perikles. Plato makes
at Athens
Sokrates attribute the eloquence of Perikles to his association with
doubt
this very
no
intimacy that exposed
Anaxagoras. It was
achievement.

His

date is

which
was
(acre/Seta)
Anaxagoras to the accusation for irreligion
brought againsthim. That is usuallysaid to have happened just
1

Plato,Phaedo, 96

References

to

b.

authorities

are

given in

E. Gr. Ph.z

""

120

sqq.

'SEEDS'

61

reallyknow either
have been
of the charge.It must
the date of
about the sun.
We
definite than his speculations
something more
Diagoras,the typicalatheist of those
happen to know that even
days,was not tried for his opinions,but for offences in language
againstthe temples and festivals.1 Perikles got Anaxagoras off in
he founded
and he retired to Lampsakos, where
a
some
way,
PeloponnesianWar,
it or the precisenature

before the

It is

school.

but

we

do

not

fact that Plato

remarkable

Sokrates

makes

never

interested in his system, and that of itself

took place at an earlier
suggests that the accusation for irreligion
date than the one
usuallygiven.Like a true Ionian, Anaxagoras

him, though he

meet

was

in prose, and considerable

57. Anaxagoras lays down

wrote

"
speaking

fragmentsof
the

that

remain.

his book

Hellenes

in

wrong

are

and
ceasing to be
coming into being (yiveadai)
They oughtto call these 'commixture' (av^iayeoQaC)
(ct77oAAuo-#ai).
and 'decomposition'
(Sia/cpiVecr^at)
(fr.17).That is almost in so
words
the doctrine of Empedokles, with which
Anaxagoras
many
In any case, it is certain
been acquainted.
to have
seems
certainly
account
that he started,like Empedokles, from the Parmenidean
Ionian. We
are
of 'what is'.On the other hand, Anaxagoras was
an
of

had

told that he

been

is correct.

also derived from

Anaxi-

cosmology that

the

preparedto find,then, that he

though these were
presuppositions,

shall be

quite different

from

started

We

philosophyof

the details of his

menes', and it is evident from

statement

of 'the

adherent

an

medical

Medicine

sources.

was

the great interest

of the time.

dependen
of inEmpedokles, Anaxagoras postulateda plurality
he called 'seeds'. They were
which
elements
not,

Like

however, the 'four roots',fire,air,earth,and water;

on

the

trary,
con-

compounds. Empedokles had supposedthat bone,

in a
for instance,could be explained
as
a compound of the elements
but this did not satisfy
certain proportion,
Anaxagoras.He pointed
these

were

that from

out

bread

muscles, bones, and

made

of what

These

words

See

the

is

not

and

water

arose

all the rest, and

flesh,
hair,veins, 'arteries',2
he

asked

hair,and flesh of what

read
certainly

is

'How

speech against Andokides

preserved

among

hair be

flesh?' (fr.
10).

not

like a direct criticism of

can

Empedokles.
of

Lysias

the

works

not

The
yet known.
the wind-pipe or

(6. 17).
2

The

arteries
trachea

true

distinction

between

were
supposed to contain
sc. dpTrjpia.).
(i-pa^eia,

veins
air and

and
were

arteries

was

connected

with

62

ANAXAGORAS

speaking,however, led to a serious misunderstanding

works the various 'tissues',
of the theory.In Aristotle's biological
called 'homoeomerous'
of which Anaxagoras enumerates,
some
are
that all their parts are similar to
which means
a term
(o^oio^prf),
This

of

way

the whole.
blood.

The

bone, and the parts of blood are

is just the distinction between
such things as bone,

That

flesh,and

parts of bone

are

blood, and

'organs'like the heart or the lungs.There is

that Anaxagoras himself used this terminology,and
evidence
no
indeed it is incredible that no fragment containingit should have
been quoted if he had. The
Epicureans,however, attributed it to
it wrongly. They supposed it to
him, and they also understood
that there

mean

be minute

must

and wate"r which

in bread
particles

of blood, flesh,and bones, and the adoption

particles
of this interpretation
by Lucretius has givenit currency.
" 58. We have seen that Anaxagoras had been an adherent of
'the philosophy of Anaximenes', and he kept as close to it as he
like the

were

could

in the details of his

was

'air'more

or

been
at

cosmology.He

less rarefied

Parmenides.

destroyedby
must
all,an original
plurality

If the world

was

be admitted.

He

primary 'air' a state of the

were
(xpruJLara)
together,infinite both
ness' (fr.
i).This is explainedto mean
but that,however
divisible,
infinitely

say that everything

for that view had

not

condensed,

or

for the

part of it would

could

to

be

therefore

in which

world

explained
tuted
substi-

'allthings

quantityand in
that the original
mass
in

far division

was

smallwas

carried,every

'things'
(xp^ara), and would in
that respect be justlike the whole. That is the very oppositeof the
doctrine of 'elements',
which
to be expresslydenied
seems
by the
dictum
that 'the thingsthat are
world
in one
not
are
separated
from one
another or cut off with a hatchet' (fr.
8).Everything has
of everythingelse in it.
'portions'
(/notpat)
But if that
world

stillcontain

all

all,we should be
than before; for there would

'seed' from

were

another.

The

answer

to

of the
explanation
one
nothing to distinguish

no

nearer

be

an

that,though each has a

minutely it may be divided,

this is

of everythingin it,however
'portion'
have more
of another. This was
of one
some
thingand others more
where
'all
undifferentiated mass
to be seen
alreadyin the original
thingswere together'
; for there the portionsof air and 'aether' (by
than
which word Anaxagoras means
far more
numerous
were
fire)
the

others,and therefore the whole

'aether'.

Anaxagoras could

not

had

say it

the appearance

was
actually

of air and

air,as Anaxi-

63

MIND

had

menes

Empedokles the

from

have

air. We

as

We

know

we

the

which
it has

littleas

departas

is nevertheless

" 59.

most

used

this. He

for himself

inflated skins

possiblefrom

learned

or

for the

the doctrine

The
purpose.
of Anaximenes

apparent.

then, that the differences which

see,

it

exist in the world

explainedby the varying proportionsin

portionsare mingled.'Everythingis called that of which
of fact,it has everythingin it.
in it',
though, as a matter
to

are

be

Snow, for instance,is black

because

discovered

corporealexistence of atmospheric
the experiments by which
he
to

separate

references

some

demonstrated
effort to

he had

done, because

the white

well

as

far exceeds

so

as

white,1but

the black.

As

call it white

we

natural,the

was

'things'
Anaxagoras chieflythought of as contained in each 'seed'
the traditional opposites,
hot and cold, wet
and dry, and so
were
forth. It is of these he is expressly
speakingwhen he says that 'the
thingsin one world are not cut off from one another with a hatchet'
a 'root'
8).Empedokles had made each of these four opposites
(fr.
by itself;each of the 'seeds' of Anaxagoras contains them all. In
this way he thought he could explainnutrition and growth ; for it is
of 'seeds' might present quite
clear that the product of a number
than any one
of them if they
a different proportionof the opposites
taken severally.
were
of motion, still
" 60. The other problem, that of the source
remains.

How

pass from the

together to the manifold
are

things were

we

to

Empedokles,Anaxagoras looked
as

to

the

of

source

motion, but he found

forming the conceptionof

in

Empedokles had

we
reality

the microcosm

to

for his purpose. He called it Mind

motion
as well as of knowledgein

of the world

state

for
(vovs)',
us.

He

know?

for

such

one

suggestion

done. For him, too, the

'unmixed', that is to say, it has

and

this is what

knowing and
things and
between

of
not

however, succeed

cause

any more
of motion
is

separates and

than
a

sort

all,it

portionsof other thingsin it,

that is,the power
both of
givesit the 'mastery',
moving other things.Further, it enters into some
into others, and
that explains the distinction

animate

the

of

source

of 'fluid'.It is 'the thinnest of all things'

(fr.12),and, above
is

Like

incorporealforce

an

all

sufficient

source

that is the

did not,

when

orders

),which

and

the

no

inanimate.

The

way

in which

it

thingsis by producing a rotatory motion

beginsat the centre and spreadsfurther and
1

Sextus,Pyrrh. hypot. i.

33.

64

ANAXAGORAS

all Anaxagoras had

is really

further. That

Plato makes

Phaedo
deiis

Ionian

true

he

tried

started,he could leave that

got the rotatory motion

of the world.

rest

give

to

explanationof everythinghe could, and, when

mechanical
had

complain

(98 b). Like

machina

ex

Sokrates

say about it,and in the

that he made
Mind
a mere
to

he

once

order the

to

" 61. It is hard to believe,however, that Anaxagoras was wholly

ducing
ignorantof Pythagoreanscience. Oinopides of Chios was introa
more
highlydeveloped geometry into Ionia from the
west, and Anaxagoras himself is credited with certain mathematical
did not discover,
discoveries. He also knew, though he certainly
of the moon,
and that
that the sun
is eclipsed
by the interposition
have
shines by lightreflected from the sun, but he cannot
the moon
of lunar eclipses,
been able to give the true account
seeingthat he
the discoverythat
either ignorantof or deliberately
rejected
was
the earth

and

of Anaximenes
had

to

the

moon.

his

struck

have

in

directed

been

invisible

to

disc. That
to

us

probably connected

is

That

to

regarded it as

dark bodies

assume

seems

this respect, too, he adhered

sphere.In

was

contemporariesmost.

the doctrine

the

being so, he
for eclipses
of
theory which

His

attention

account

with

to

had

which
stone
way to the huge meteoric
to him
in 468/7 B.C., and this suggested

some

fell

that
Aigospotamos
portionsof the earth might be detached and flungto a distance as
been far more
from a slingby the rotatory motion. That had once
of red-hot
rapid than it is now, and so the sun, which was a mass
which
and the moon,
iron 'largerthan the Peloponnesos,'
was
their present places.All this seems
made
of earth, had reached
retrogradeenough when we compare it with Pythagorean science.
could never
That was
reallyassimilate. Even
a thing the lonians
as
Demokritos
Anaxagoras,
was
nearlyas backward in these matters
and Aristotle himself could not grasp the Pythagoreanconception
into the

completely.
" 62. Though
as

the

also

mixed

are

in the

of mixture

causes

which

sense

the

to

seems

motion
call him

Empedokles

with

which

to

'god'.In

in which

have
that

the founder

we

are

now

continued

taken

the step of

sense

and

of theism.

On

to

Strife

the four

elements

call them

all 'gods'

familiar,and he gave the

they were
to

and

Love
distinguished

separationfrom

he
separated,

and

Sphere

and

had

that

all mixed

goras
Anaxatogether.
source

of

incorrect

to

callingonly the
extent

the other

name

it is

not

hand, it seems

to

have

65

RELIGION

been
atheist.
of

lead
his

his

In

desire

though

we

charge

was

that

his

still

were

The

secular

spirit

in

of

may

of

the

have
solar

the

that

lonians,

their

Sun

the

or

say

and

mentioned

him,

whether

that

quite

the
Perikles

conceivable

religious

bilities
suscepti-

ceremonies

ridiculing

by

else,

which

eyes.1
and

Moon

ridiculed

eclipse

it is

the

against

to,

and

offended

Athenians

brought

only

an

followed

usually

are

can

him

everything

referred

We

have

may

old-fashioned
sacred

of

of

irreligion

not.

or

circle

worship

Anaxagoras
occasion

founded

well

immediate
of

what

now

moon

have

to

seems

divinity
the

of

charge

tell

cannot

the

shared

the

he

the
and

sun

called

contemporaries

Nous,

denying

the

with

his

exalt

in

about

connexion

that

to

Xenophanes

statements

in

this

for

precisely

of

the

463

B.C.

was

no

measures

That,

part

of

Athenian

prescribed
no

doubt,

by
would

but

religion,
the

efjjy^rai

on

the

Eleatics and

Pythagoreans
ZENO

" 63.
from

have

We

and

Pythagoreanism,

criticism of that doctrine.

the

support

teaching

he

twenty-five years

was

just after

Athens

admirably
Zeno

'heard'
which

well

also appears

He

Zeno.

by

to

out,

him

that

showing

least

at

that

Plato

from

and

of the fifth century

was

visit

to

All that agrees

B.C.

statement

that

also

the

and

as

Zeno

he

that

his celebrated

on

the

many' (eliroXXd eo-rt)

Parmenides,

than

to

intended

was

consequences

further

learn

According

man,

young

revolt

its detailed

with

engaged in controversy with

written
againstEmpedokles.2

Perikles
accounts

Protagoras.

as

have

to

was

things are

Anaxagoras,

as

Zeno

represent

well-authenticated

the

as

was

accompanied

the middle

with

'if

younger
he

old when

fortyyears

consider

Parmenides

of

hypothesis of his opponents,

if thoroughly worked
led up,
paradoxicalas his master's. We

to

now

great critic

when

Plato,1 his work, written

to

have

we

The

originatedin

Eleaticism

how

("46)

seen

A
of Zeno's
is cited by the title,
that a work
significant
^Xoao^ovs} ; for there is reason
Reply to the Philosophers(IlposTOVS
meant
that in these days 'philosopher'
Pythagorean. At
to believe
It is

" 64.

any

rate, it is

against the

understood.

can

be

was

simply

that

that

the

suppose
we

should

terminated

things

are

be

unit

in

Pythagoreans
able

to

Farm.

References

128

far

so

this it

say

straightline, and

that

many,

applicationof arithmetic, and

an

Beaiv exovaa). From

(jjiovas
not

of Zeno

arguments

as

directed

is

to

to

how

as

it is

ought

have
many

further

the
'unit

said

in

so

points
that

having position'

follow, though

to

all

authorities

are

given

in E.

Gr.

so

there

words,
in

are

""155

need

we

many

magnitudes

Ph.2

differs

point only

c.

to

say

77X7^0?),that their real significance

(ju-oraScov
According to the Pythagorean view, geometry

arithmetical

the

regard the

we

assumption
of units'

'multitude

from

if

only

sqq.

must

given
be

68

ZENO

of

infinite number

(2)Achilles
the point at
littleway

so

on

given moment
The

rest.

at

itself with

thing repeats

same

finite time.

he

comes

to

up

started,the tortoise will have

the tortoise

The

on.

and

way,

which

impossible in

the tortoise. Before

overtake

never

can

that is

points,and

got

this little

regard to

is at rest. At any
(3) The flyingarrow
infinitum.
it is in a space equal to its own
length,and therefore
ad

of

sum

of

infinite number

an

positionsof

is

rest

(4)If we suppose three lines,one (A) at rest, and

(B, C) moving in opposite directions,B will pass in

not

motion.

the other

two

the

the number

twice

time

point of
interpreter's
and

time

C that it passes
this last argument
is the

view

against the

of all. If it is directed

points

points in

of

of moments,

sum

of these

reductio ad absurdum

that

view

it is

the

same

the

in A. From

important

most

of

line is a' sum

perfectlylegitimate

views, otherwise

it has

meaning

no

at

all.
The

" 66.
that the

and

integers,but

other

no

fractions
such

of number

nature

series of

unknown

was

it for the

and

it was

only in

take

to

and

space

time

be

units

them.

the

What

consist

cannot

points or

with

the

of the

of

in the

shortest

series of natural

at

prove
which

continuum

or,

is that
selves
them-

out

what

than

there
to

comes

of
the

points on

more

lapse of time,

numbers,

later

cannot

constructed
be

must

as

number,

made

was

moments

continuum

shows, in fact,that there

moments

effort

actuallydoes

Zeno
of

instance, as

that the elements

or

homogeneous

line,more

for

treat

we

Still harder

another.1

integerto

regard a surd,
Academy that an

magnitude,

He

members

mathematics, and what

one

rational

suggested.Even

yet been

to

largerview.

have

had

ratios of

Greeks

valid

are

Greek

to

expressedas

are

date

on

of number

view

are

only on the assumption

is completely expressed by the natural
that assumption they are unanswerable,

of Zeno

arguments

are

the

is infinitely
divisible,
thing, that, though every continuum
infinite divisibility
is not an adequate criterion of continuity.2
That,

same

however, is all he undertook

work

an

was

to

ad

argumentum

prove.

We

know

homines, and

as

from

Plato that his

such

it is

entirely

successful.
1

Cf

e.g. the

take

this

ij/itoAio?
Ao'yo?3
way

of

and

stating the

the emrpiros
from

matter

Xo-yos4:3Prof.

'Continuity' in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and

A.

Ethics.

E.

Taylor's

article

69

MELISSOS

MELISSOS

of the
that the next
It is very significant
representative
the
As a result of the Persian wars,
Eleatic doctrine is a Samian.

" 67.

Italic and
their

Ionic

common

Anaxagoras
himself

had come
into
philosophies
meeting-groundwas Athens.

some

years, and Empedokles

Thourioi. None
of these

Melissos

men

Sokrates

alreadyin

was

foughtagainst

know
Perikles in 441 B.C. We
nothingelse about him. We
acquaintedwith Eleaticism at
guess that he had become
and

we

can

due

to

'the

that the modifications

see

had

his 'teens.

fleet that

of the Samian

in command

was

and

Empedokles

colonisation of
part in the Athenian
themselves Athenians, but they
were

took

and
disciples,

had Athenian

and

more,

along with Zeno, who apparentlycontinued

time. Anaxagoras lived at Athens for many

visited Athens

reside there for

to

Both

once

of Parmenides, who

influence

the

under

came

contact

he introduced

philosophyof Anaximenes',

only

can

Athens,

into it

were

still survived

which

in

Ionia.

" 68.

main

The

of Melissos

arguments
that

except

great innovation
instead of making it

they are

His

that

was

much

be limited

by empty
there

reason

same

of

can

such

an

argument. He

space, and there is

be no motion
and

it

space. For the

change. The real was,

empty

no
no

for Parmenides.

was

had, however,

real,he said,could only

than that. The

reason

held it to be

that Melissos

made

expressedin simple Ionic prose.

he regardedthe real as infinite

sphere.It is said that he inferred its

its eternity,
and he does appear to have used

as
corporeal,

course,

sometimes
a

cogent

more

of Parmenides,

finite

from
spatialinfinity
language that might suggest
a

just those

are

The

statement

is based
incorporeal

on

misunderstanding.1
There

own

can

day

as

be

no

the most

doubt

that Melissos

looked

upon

in his

of Eleaticism,and
representative
objectof specialaversion to the writer

advanced

'the thesis of Melissos' is an

of the

was

Hippokrateantreatise

on

The

Nature

of Man,

while

Plato

with that of the great Parmenides

couple his name
his most
180 e).From
himself (Theaet.
a historical point of view
remarkable
saying is that,if thingsare a many, each one of them
the One to be. That is just
would
have to be such as he has shown
makes

Sokrates

the formula

of

Atomism,

as
1

we

E. Gr.

shall see, and

Ph.2

" 169.

Melissos

it
rejected

THE

70

Leukippos to

THE

is certain that

PYTHAGOREANS

had a
already("27) that the Pythagoreans
of adaptingtheir theories to new
conditions,and it
to give
time or other they felt called upon
at some

of the

account

LATER

for

said

It has been

singular
power
an

that,too, he

In

space.

way for the atomic theory by making it necessary

affirm the existence of the Void.

preparedthe

" 69.

of empty

the existence

denied

he

because

PYTHAGOREANS

LATER

of elements

doctrine

new

in

of their

terms

own

who lived
system. It is probablethat this was the work of Philolaos,
towards the end of the fifth century B.C., but returned to
at Thebes
selves
themsafe for Pythagoreans
to show
South Italyas soon
as it was
in those

parts

(Tarentum) was
more

of it when

I
Archytas.For reasons
have
fragments which

Philolaos
some

as

to

come

of the

seat

have

consider

school, and

down

hints

as

to

the

shall hear

we

to

us

regard the

cannot

the

under

development

of

of

name

old and

authentic,but for all that they are

valuable

Taras

the relations of Plato with

given elsewhere,I

come

forward

that time

From

more.

chief

the
we

once

contain

Pythagorean

doctrine.1

" 70. The

most

remarkable

feature

of later

Pythagoreanismis

side of the doctrine was

the way the religious
dropped and the
of Pythagorashimself
made
effort that was
to clear the memory
have the echo of this in the
of mysticism.We
from the imputation
remains

of Aristoxenos

in their

day

and

Dikaiarchos,but it must

scientific Pythagoreanismhad

ceased

be
to

older; for
exist. The

a
Hippasos of Metapontion was guiltyof publishing
mystic discourse 'with the view of misrepresentingPythagoras'2
later date no
must
go back to this generationof the school ; for at a
would
have any interest in making it. A book by Hippasos
one
existed ; for Aristotle is able to state that he made
almost certainly
like Herakleitos. That agrees very well with
fire the first principle
what we
infer as to the earliest Pythagoreancosmology. There
can
all sorts of stories about this Hippasos,who is said to have been
are
then
drowned
at sea or to have been expelledfrom the order,which
the story was
dead. Finally,
made
for him as if he were
a sepulchre

statement

that

1E.

Gr.Ph.*"" itfsqq.
Diog. viii. 7 TOV Be MVOTIKOV
Uv6ay6pov.
2

Xoyov

'Imrdaov

elvai
.

eVi
yeypaju.jueVov

PHILOLAOS

71

put about that there had from the first been

and Akousmatics, or
order, Mathematicians
and Hippasos
Pythagorists,
lower

grade.It

is

impossible,of

from

falsehood in all this ; but

there

was

real

Pythagoreans
the leader

representedas

was

for

course,

we

are,

strugglebetwreen

us

gradesin

two

held

and

of the

truth
disentangle

to

think,entitled

those who

the

to

infer that

the

Pythagorist
attached
themselves
the
to
exclusively
scientific side of the doctrine. In the fourth century the Pythagorean
scientific school expired and its place was
taken by the
the other hand, maintained
on
Academy ; the Pythagoristreligion,
its existence even
from
the fragmentsof the
later,as we know
a

religionand

comic

those

who

poets.
The

" 71.

distinctive feature of the later

effort to assimilate the

and

there

is

discovered

belongedto

hot and
The

The

enough.

in

that school

that
believing

this time. If Philolaos

that is natural

London

the

was

fragmentof

its

'elements',

itself

(aroix^ov)
the author of the theory,
Menon's
latrika recently
name

has revealed the fact that

papyrus
the Sicilian medical school,and that the theories of

depended

cold,wet

medical

the identification of the old

on

and

dry,with

Pythagoreanshad
somehow,

Pythagoreanism is

doctrine of the four

Empedoklean

for

reason

at
originated

he

to

find

to

though they

the four elements

of

'opposites',

Empedokles.1

for the elements

room

continued

in their tem
sysresist the doctrine that

to

they were ultimate. Plato has preservedthis touch in his Timaeiis

(48b),where he makes the Pythagoreanprotest that,so far from
the four elements are not even
being'letters',
syllables.
The view theyactually
took of them was
that theywere
'figures',
made
which
had
or, in other words, that they were
up of particles
the
shapes of the regularsolids. We need not doubt that the
derivation of those figures
from the elementarytriangles
given in
Plato's Timaeus
is in substance Pythagorean,
trine
though, as the docof the five regularsolids was
only completed by Theaitetos,
of

some

the

constructions

must

belong

to

later date

than

Philolaos.
The

" 72.

Pythagoreans appear

like numbers

were

and

later

here

shall

we

rather

The

hot and

Philistion

that

have

said that

they actuallywere

cold,wet

quotes
and

dry

the
are

called the four elements

doctrine

in both

things

numbers,

probably be rightin tracingthe effect of

criticism. Aristotle

and

than

to

Zeno's

forms, and

he

in Uepl dpxairjs
spoken of as etSij
laTpiKrjs
15,
iSe'ai(E. Gr. Ph.2 p. 235, n. 2).

hardlyseems

to

Further, he
ideas'

PYTHAGOREANS

LATER

THE

72

them.
of any great difference between
is usuallycalled the Platonic 'theoryof

be conscious

treats

what

identical
practically

as

with

of

form

some

Pythagoreanism.

later;for the
questionswe shall have to
present, it will be enough to consider what the later Pythagoreans
instead of
'like numbers'
by saying things were
probablymeant
So far as we
numbers.
can
were
see, it
saying that they actually
of the
have been something like this. For the construction
must
elements we
require,not merely groups of 'units having position',
of forming
but plane surfaces limited by lines and capablein turn
raises

That

the

limits of solids. Now

built

of

out

up

with

deal

points or

of which

trianglesout

had

Zeno

the

that lines

shown

units, and

the

therefore

are
'figures'

constructed

be

cannot

elementary
be

cannot

In parsuch as the tetraktys.

triangularnumbers
ticular,
fundamental
the isosceles right-angledtriangleis of
importance in the construction of the regularsolids,and it cannot
be represented
(ifjfjfoi),1
seeing
by any arrangement of 'pebbles'
with its other two
sides.
that its hypotenuse is incommensurable
of which
the
for us to say, then, that the triangles
It only remains
elements
are
ultimatelycomposed are 'likenesses' or 'imitations'
identical with

numbers.
The fateful doctrine of two
worlds, the
triangular
in fact originatedfrom
world of thought and the world of sense,
of number
of reconcilingthe nature
the apparent impossibility
of the

with

continuity(TO owe^e?) as the Eleatics

as the Pythagoreanssaid.
(TOa-rreipov)

to

to

common

was

the

limited
un-

something

to

not

You
may
go
process of becoming (yeVecri?).
of a square as long as you
and the diagonal
come

There

it,or

of thought,and it was
resist the power
but was
have true reality
at best
(ouo-ia),

in the latter that seemed

inferred that it could

called

measure,

though

you

are

on

bisectingthe side

please,but you never

always gettingnearer

it.

" 73.
with

the

The

are
'figures'
(et'S^)

numbers, but

as

now

regarded,then, not

likenesses of

them, and

we

as

identical

shall

not

be

tion
complete identificahad been given up, an
made
to explain other
attempt was
that is
thingsthan the elements in this way. According to Aristotle,
to
on
exactlywhat happened. The Pythagoreans went
say that
of
number, and to give similar accounts
a
justicewas
square
and the like. They only gave a few such
marriage,opportunity,

surprisedto

find

that,once

the demand

*Cf.p.55,".i.

for

FORMS

THE

73

definitions,
however, and Aristotle observes

piece of

valuable

most

numbers

between

likenesses
superficial

mere

on

he

information

based
they were
and things.The
is that Eurytos, a

that

givesus

of the last of the pure

discipleof Philolaos,and therefore one
and
of horse, man,
the nature
to express
on
Pythagoreans,went
of pebbles'or counters.
Theophrastos said the
plant'by means
doubt that the statement
rests
to be no
same
thing,and there seems
the authorityof Archytas.Alexander
gives,doubtless from the
on
'Let us
of this extraordinarymethod.
account
an
same
source,
which
for example,' he says, 'that 250 is the number
assume,
defines plant.Having laid this
defines man,
and 360 that which

black,and others
down, he took 250 counters, some
green and some
red, and all sorts of other colours,and then, smearing the wall with
it a

plasterand sketchingon
of the

some

and

hands

in number

in that of other

some

to

he had

man

in that of the

face,some

parts, and

imaged by

fix

plant,he proceededto

in the outline of the

counters

outline of the

and

man

so

he
of

number

completed the
counters
equal

he said defined the man.'

the units which

precioustestimony shows what the doctrine of 'figures'

it ventured
beyond its proper
was
capableof becoming when
that Eurytos was
remember
not
an
early
sphere, and we must
in the latest generation
of the
Pythagorean, but a leadingman
Sokrates that directed the
school. According to Aristotle,it was
theory into another channel by his study of moral (and aesthetic)
This

forms, and

Plato

saying that

at

and

of

ocean

nonsense

to

it is

such

also the tradition

of

an

on

between

form

Academy
Pythagorean origin.Proklos

commentaries

Plato,some

of which

he

Eurytos gave

as

went

back

are:

'The

Pythagoreans,
too, had

as

the

the

in all

it. It

was

question

in the

ancient

the

earlydays
originalform of

to

attributes the
Academy, and
distinctly
theory to the Pythagoreans and its elaboration

His words

means.

and

doctrine in

well read

an

seems

even

the Platonic

that the
was

that

did not, of course,

he

of the
the

extravagant

into
falling

what

theoryof ideas',and

theory,which

of the

see

given up

regardsall this

that Aristotle

the differences
of the

fear of

fire,

man,

well, but that he had

as

for

call 'the

minimise

assume

forms

quite clear

we

Pythagorean form
cases

have

(130 c-d) as

thoughtsuch thingsas

from
everything
^AuaptW).We now
(fivOos

originof what
anxious

he had

findingforms

Nevertheless

was

time

one

the like should

the idea of

in the Parmenides

represents him

to

Sokrates.

the doctrine of forms.

THE

74
Plato himself

and

in honour

we

of

men

Sokrates

it was

above

Italyfriends of
all that held the

explicitly
postulatedthem.'1

most

this when

to

return

wise

by callingthe

(Soph.248 a).But

the forms
forms

that

shows

PLANET

EARTH

Sokrates; for the present

to

come

shall

We

it is

hardly have spoken as he

of the phrase 'friends of the forms'
does if any other interpretation
in the Academy.
had been known
"/"i'Aot)
(eiSatv

sufficient

To

" 74.

the

could

that Proklos

point out

to

of
generation

same

the school

remarkable

belongsa

probable that Philolaos stillheld the

of which
is the only one
we
get a hint in
that the Pythagoreans in
be no doubt
the Phaedo; but there can
discoverythat the earth was one* of the
Italymade the all-important
planets.They did not, indeed, make it go round the sun, but they
cosmology. It
theory,for that
geocentric

is

in

advance

a Central
Fire,round
postulated

all revolved.

properlyobserved

is the

which

the moon,

by

the naked

It follows

little as

as

there

we

was

is invisible

can

also

to

us

see

body

we

on

body

eclipsesof

the

seems

eye. In other words, as the moon

supposed that the sun
us, it was

moon.

for them

can

side of the

The

all,and

it is between
have

to

Fire

the

just

In this system
which
(avrixBaiv),

the earth

of the

shadow

face

same

moon.

assumed

been

the

the Central

see

called the Counter-earth

to

the

because

us

naturally
explainedon the
only heavenly body that can be

the earth

the other

because

Fire. This

account

that

to

planets

was

face to
always presents the same
and the planets,
includingthe earth,all turned
centre.

and

moon,

invisible

was

heavenly bodies

revolution of all the

analogy of

Fire

Central

This

the sun,

which

the Central

and

in order

earth did

not

to

explain
seem

body castinga shadow

impliesthe view that the

another

to
was

that this
moon
required.It will be seen
shines by lightreflected from the Central Fire, and it is not surprising
that the same
explanationshould have been given of the
The
whole
sun's light.
cosmology of this perioddepends, in fact,
the extension

on

of the observed

facts

regardingthe

moon

to

other

bodies.
remarkable
thing in the Pythagorean
" 75. Perhaps the most
doctrine of this generationis that the soul has come
to be regarded
is the belief exof the body. That
'attunement'
pounded
as
an
(ap^ovLa.}
discipleof Philolaos,in the
by Simmias, the Theban
1

r"ov
ev

Proclus

rjvjj,evyap Ka.i Trapa rols TlvBayopeiois17 Trepi

p. 149, Cousin:
el"atv "f"i\ovs
rovs
TWV
Br/XolKai O.VTOS
"o"f"iaTrj
Trpoaayopevaiv
aAA" o ye. fidXiOTO.
TO.
"1877
imodefj-evos
/cat
^iapprjBrjv
irpeafievaas
ao(f"ovs,
in Parm.

et'Stovdeaipia,
/cat
'/raAi'a

ev

VI

Leukippos
first

The

" 76.
founder

of Atomism

of Thales.1

Demokritos.
been

his

disciple. Indeed

and

it is
such

in

of the

out

of

Miletos

of

or

particular,of
know

we

had

been

Zeno.

We

shall

origin

probability that
influence
at

was

well
does

he

was

; for

Athens

known
not

the

if he

had

" 77. Aristotle, who

subject

of the

account

to
so

give

little

him,St

of

of Plato

in default

it

arose.

gives

about

known

originatedin

impossibility

of

with

the

likelythat

not

to

appear

all

some

under

come

have

it

been

Plato, in particular,

it would

certainly

the Eleatic

multiplicity

than

in the

denial
and

chief

our

as

appears

statement

atomism

is

perfectly clear

It almost

strictlyhistorical

more

was

way

in

by

out

infer

It is

of Aristotle.

it, though

the

on

Eleatics, and,

had

not

of

native

have

it.

known

atomism,

does

points.

based

may

who

theory

to

we

decieved

was

fully borne

elsewhere.

or

time

allude

to

appear

Elea

atomic

till the

there

him

at

doctrine, and

the

is

this

that

see

phrastos
Theo-

theory,

certain

on

of

and

on

distinguished the

is doubtless

disciple

though

been

Leukippos

view

famous

atomic

have

of Demokritos

Milesian

of Parmenides

interested

the

of his

of the

of
have

to

more

Aristotle

should

whether

works

denied,

Theophrastos

latter

he

of the

they

as

that

The

Elea.

that

statement

that

uncertain

was

real author

the

hi^ book

seems

of his

that

that

as

from

from

It is certain

especially

Leukippos

Theophrastos

him

Theophrastos

the

question

collected

the

been

question

matter,

teaching

regarded

in

the

life,and

his

has

existence

very

wholly insufficient grounds.

both

about

to

teaching

his

Leukippos,

with

reallyanswered

nothing

to

subsequent

distinguish

to

he that

incorporated

writer

No

able

next

ends

story

our

it was

been

have

to

appears

; for

know

We

of

part

motion

and

if he

intelligible
were

usual

Academy.

of the

authority on

just because
According

void, from
had

anxious

been

which

to

the

deduced.

ATOMS

Leukippos supposed
would

AND

himself

THE

VOID

have

to

77

discovered

theory which

avoid

this consequence.
He admitted
that there could be
if there was
void, and he inferred that it was wrong
no

motion

identifythe

void with

the Parmenidean

is justas much

sense

words, Leukippos

What

is

what

as

he

doing,the

was

to

(TO ^r] 6v) in

(TO 6V).In other

not

is

the first philosopherto

was

of what

consciousness

the non-existent.

no

affirm,with
of empty

existence

full

space.

The

less identified with 'air',

or
Pythagorean void had been more
but the void of Leukippos was
a vacuum.1
really
Besides space there was
body, and to this Leukippos ascribed
all the characteristics of the Eleatic real. It
in other
The

words, there

was

of empty

assumption

affirm that there

was

empty

no

an

space

in

'full'(vaarov),
or,

was

it,but it was

space, however, made

infinite number
of such

it

not

one.

possibleto

reals,invisible

of their smallness,but each

because

possessingall the marks of the

Eleatic real,and in particular
each indivisible (dVo/xov)
like it.
one
These
moved
in the empty space, and their combinations
can
give
Pluralism
rise to the things we
at
was
perceivewith the senses.
and coherent way. As we
least stated in a logical
have seen
("68),
Melissos had alreadysuggestedthat,if thingswere
each
a many,
of them

one

that for

to

the

held

he held the One

as

reductio ad absurdum

it,and made

" 78.

be such

must

The

atoms

of

itthe foundation
of the

nature

that all the

atoms

one

later date the

another. There

attribute this unscientific

conceptionto

first placethey did not,

we

that Demokritos

shall see,

is

need

no

the

have

place,we

evidence

neither up or down, middle

in the indefinite void.2 Aristotle criticised all this from the
view

of his

own

in the 'natural
1

The

Aristotelian

to

or

end

derivation

vindicate

of Atomism

from

Eleaticism

has

been

contested,

It is true, of course,
that the Milesian
Leukippos
the old Ionic cosmology7,and, in particular,to save

was
as

he could. So was
as
Anaxagoras (" 61).
'philosophy of Anaximenes'
tinctly
That, however, has no bearing on the point at issue. Theophrastos stated disthat Leukippos had been a member
of the school of Parmenides
and Zeno.
2
Cic. de Finibus,i. 17 ; Diog. Laert. ix. 44.

much

of the

was

pointof
theory of absolute weight and lightnessresulting
of the elements
motions'
upwards or downwards,

especiallyby Gomperz.
concerned

to

earlyatomists. In the
regardweightas a primary

and, in the second

said there

ascribed

by Leukippos
a
Epicureans
downwards
fallingeternally
through
it very hard for them to explainhow

discussed. At

infinite space, and this made

in contact
with
they could come

property of the atoms;

intended

of his system.

are

as

be. He

but Leukippos accepted

pluralism,

motion
original

has been much

to

78

LEUKIPPOS

Epicurean doctrine is probably the

result of this criticism. Even
Epicurus,however, had the grace to
therefore
We
dispense with Aristotle's absolute lightness.
may
as
taking place in all
regard the originalmotion of the atoms
the

as

might be, and

case

directions,and

shall

we

of the worlds.

formation
atoms

of the soul

hither

and

to

that this alone

see

that of the

thither in all directions

the

same

which

there

is

dart

wind,1

no

of

motion
regardedthe original

that he

we

when

even

of the

motions

in the sunbeam

motes

for the

will account

compared the

Demokritos

assume
fairly
may
in much
the other atoms

and

the

way.

not
are
mathematicallyindivisible like the
" 79. The atoms
indivisible because
Pythagorean monads, but they are physically
there is no empty
then, there is no
space in them. Theoretically,

why

reason

should

atom

an

atom

would

be much

the

were

it

for the

empty

not

worlds. As
does
is

not

for

be

as

thingas

same

largeas
the

outside

space

it and

Such

world.

an

of

Parmenides,

the

of
plurality

are

invisible. That

size ; for there

they are all the same
the limit of the
infinite varietyof sizes below

an

that

msibile.

minimum

of

Leukippos explainedthe phenomenon

of the

Sphere

fact,however, all atoms

of course,

mean,

room

of

matter

not

and

atoms

their

combinations, but he

weight from the size

did not regardweight

primary property of bodies. Aristotle distinctly

says that
had said anything of absolute weightand
of his predecessors
none
and Epicurus
but only of relative weight and lightness,
lightness,
the first to ascribe weightto atoms.
Weight for the the earlier
was
in a manner
to
atomists is only a secondary phenomenon arising,
itselfas

from
explained,

be

in this respect the

Epicurus

and

of

excess

magnitude.2It

early atomists
Aristotle.

than

even

far

were

The

more

scientific than

conception of
of
is reallyone

weight has no placein science,and it

illustrations of the true scientific instinct of
striking
before Aristotle ever made
that no one
use
philosophers
it.
Plato expressly
rejected
" 80.

The

differences

"(i)arrangement
illustration from

1
2

and

and

between

(2)

groups
position.It is

the letters of the

Aristotle,
deAnima, 403 b, 31.
be no question of mass;
There
can
each

atom

is a continuum.

of
not

atoms

of
"f"vois

absolute
the

the

Greek

due

are

clear whether

all the

atoms

most

of it,while

alphabet quoted by

for the

that

will be observed

to

the

Aristotle

is

identical,

ATOMISM

AND

PYTHAGOREANISM

79

given by Leukippos or Demokritos, but

probablyPythagorean in origin,for it accounts

in any

was

the

of the word

use

found

in

in the

crrotxetov

Plato, who,

believe,knew

as

of

sense

for
satisfactorily

element, and that is

nothing of

that may
be, the pointsof resemblance
were
goreanism and Atomism
alreadynoted by
However

had

direct

unless

not

how

see

regardthe

called the

between

Pythahe

Aristotle,and

subject.'Leukippos and Demokritos',

all thingsnumbers
and produce them
too

we
meaning
or
numbers', and, in
'figurate

Demokritos

Atomism.

the

knowledgeon

make
he says, 'virtually
numbers.'
I do
from

it is

case

this

statement

have

can

Pythagoreannumbers

that case, it is stillmore

any

patterns

as

that
striking

'forms' (t'Se'ai).
The void
or
'figures'
is also a Pythagoreanconception,though,as we
have seen, it was
before Leukippos. It is hardly,
not formulated with precision
then,
much
to say that the atoms
too
are
Pythagoreanmonads endowed
with

propertiesof

the

which

arise from

atoms

are,

rate,

to

gladifhe
" Si.

Parmenidean

and that the elements

reality,
positionsand arrangements of the

the various

far, like the Pythagorean'numbers'. Such, at any

be the view of Aristotle,
though we should have been

so

seems

atoms

had

himself
explained

fully.

more

firsteffect of the motion

The

retarded,not

of the

atoms

is that the

larger
because they

because

but
they are 'heavy',
atoms
more
are
exposed to impact than the smaller. In particular,
of an irregular
shape become entangledwith one another and form
stillmore
are
exposed to impact and consequent
groups of atoms, which
atoms

are

retardation. The

smallest and roundest

motions
hand, preserve their original

for
acts

best,and these

fireis composed. It will be observed

of which

grantedthat
it so

upon

as

an

to

originalmotion
retard it or

appeared incredible,and
established

on

the

firm basis

will

had

truth

the other

on

the

are

atoms

that it is simplytaken

persistunless something

bringit to

by

atoms,

to

Galileo and

stop. To
be

Aristotle that

rediscovered

Newton.

It

was

and

really

the assumption of all the earlier Greek

of Parmenides
and

that

now

conclusion

it was

rest

Leukippos

and
had

not

philosophy.Before the time

motion that requiredexplanation,

discovered

of

Parmenides, it was

an

infinitevoid in which

way of escape from the

possiblefor him to revert to the
a

older view.

" 82.

In

countless
another

an

infinite number

of

shapes and sizes are constantlyimpinging

in all directions,
there will be an infinite number

atoms

of

one
upon
of places

8o

LEUKIPPOS

where

this

is

set

up
the beginning of

have

happens, we
ascribe

motion

vortex

chance,

by

their

impact. When

world.

later writers

It is

not

this

correct

to

do. It follows

necessarily
from the presuppositions
of the system. The
fragment of
solitary
Leukippos we possess is to the effect that 'Naught happens for
and of necessity'.
It
nothing,but all thingsfrom a ground (Ao'yo?)
will be observed
that the vortex
theory is derived from that of
Anaxagoras ("60),which in turn was a development of the older
Ionic doctrine. So far we
that Leukippos was
see
a Milesian, but
he has thought the matter
much
than his preout
more
carefully
decessor.
Anaxagoras had supposed that the analogy of a sling
would
apply, and that the larger or 'heavier' bodies 'would,
to

therefore,be

to

the

furthest

which

is not

been

formed.

weight out of account

but only arises
primitive,

of bodies

He
in

therefore

looked

eddy

of wind

an

from

distance

left

Leukippos

case

driven

as

the

as
altogether,

when

rather
or

the
to

water,

and

property

has

already
happens in the

vortex

what

centre.

he

that the

saw

largerbodies would tend towards the centre.

" 83. The firsteffect of the vortex motion thus set up is to bring
which
alike in shape and size,and this is
are
togetherthose atoms
the originof the four 'elements',fire,air,earth,and water.
This
illustrated by the image of a sieve which
brings the
process was
grainsof millet,wheat and barleytogether.As this image is found
also in Plato's Timaeus (52 e),it is probably of Pythagorean origin.
Another
that of the waves
image was
sortingthe pebbles on a
beach and heaping up long stones
with long and round with round.
In this process the finer atoms
while the larger
tend
remember

must

motion
therefore

the

centre

offer
than

centre.

resistance

more

the

vortex

where

out

towards

To

to

vortex

come

to
(avrepeims)

to

motion.

the motion

impacts in

this,we
in contact

that the motion

those within

smaller,simply because

the circumference,

understand

another, and it is in this way

exposed

more

neutralise the

the

parts is communicated

outermost

largerbodies

to

forced

that all the parts of the

with one
(eTTLifjavaLs)
of the

are

them.

The

cated
this communi-

they are

largerand

different directions

which

In this way
they make their way
is least,
while the smaller bodies

to
are

where
it is greatest. That
squeezed out towards the circumference
is the explanationof weight,which
but
is not an 'occult quality',
arises from purelymechanical
causes.
find that Leukippos showed
to details,
we
we
come
" 84. When

THE

8l

VORTEX

himself

off the

Pythagorean cosmology, but they could

better. It
his

Ionian.

true

Eleatic teachers

His

natural,then, that he should

was

fellow-citizen
distinguished

know

doubtless

of his system

turn

give him

not

the theories of

to

Anaximenes,

him

warned

and

the

little

we

that he did so,

justas Anaxagoras had

before him. He deliberately
covery
rejectedthe Pythagoreandisthat the earth was
of which he cannot
a discovery
spherical,
been ignorant,and taught that it was
in shape 'like a tambourine',
why it sloped toward the
resting on the air. The reason

done

have

south

shows

that the heat there made

was

less able

to

support

theoryof

it. In

the air thinner and

fact,the Atomists

therefore

the Pythagorean
rejected

the earth

that

exactlyas Anaxagoras had done, and it

only the fusion of Eastern and Western
cosmology at Athens
established the new
view. Though Aristotle's earth is in
finally

the

centre

was

of the

spherical
shape.
" 85. It is not
the

universe, it

worth

while

never

follow

to

him

to

occurs

to

in detail the

doubt

its

of
application

atomic

planation
theoryto particularphenomena, and the atomic exof sensation and knowledge will be better kept till we
it was
to Demokritos, to whom
due. All we need say
come
chiefly
further here is that Leukipposhas answered
the questionof Thales

in the

in which

sense

these

possibleon

was

Thales

had

asked

lines. Before

it,and

that could

necessary that attention should be directed

of knowledge and of conduct, and we
book

how

that

further

no

take

place it was
kindred
lems
prob-

the

to

advance

shall

see

in the

next

cal
completenessof the mechanibeen given broughtscience
theory of the world which
it also provoked a revolt against
to a standstill for a time, and
from specialists
in the particular
cosmology.On one side that came
sciences,especially
medicine, who disliked the sweeping generalisations
of the cosmologists,and maintained
the right of each
science to deal with its own
province.The Hippokratean treatise

about. The

came

very
had now

on

Ancient

on

experienceand observation,as

medical

Medicine

(by which

of the school

theories

best evidence

of this. On

science which

proceeded from

life.How

is

by

the

art

contrasted

of

the other

side,there

? Those

theory of knowledgeand

based

new-fangled
others)is the

and
was

revolt

chief interest

thingsare
us

of medicine

with the

Empedokles
whose

men

do you know these

if they are, what does it matter
to
be dealt with

meant

against

in tical
pracand
even
true, they said,
can
only
questions
theoryof conduct.

two
a

was

VII

The

Sophists

"

86.

have

We

reconstruction.

Science

and
intelligible,

the

the

to

evidence

science

say about

as

truer

is said

can

be?

to

fundamental

some

right

and

at

thing

In the

unlikelythat

as

that

of

any

the

nations, Hellenic
themselves

knowledge

and

should

antithesis,that of

latter

term

knowledge.
same.

The

do

This

the

legislativeactivityof
regularityof
than
law

the
and

human

even

custom,

that

but

It is

law

of

the

truth

have

as

have

Such

nature.

one

surely just

barbarian, should

or

and

them

in

only agree

possess

were

vated
culti-

to

B.C.

difficulties

of
the

two

Law

term

the

the

which

felt

were

summed

been

problems

as

to

in the

up

evidently

was

nature.

world

been

far

Man
around

him

due

In

to

be

to

the

the

great

early days

the

clearlyapprehended

more

lived

felt

were

preceding centuries.

life had

course

realityin

of

nature

shows
of

use

discover, but what

wrong.

should

is

there

and
law (vd/xo?),
though the
(fivais)
primarilywith conduct and the former with

same

to

sense

as

plain that men's views

from
people to people,

true

both

we

ing,
think-

that

kept suggesting themselves

the

are

of science

misleading

can

of the fifth century

conduct

has

the

have

must

then,

of human

assumption

are

schools

world

this

not

fundamental

no

world

the

the world

as

we

schools

all other

significantthat

It is very

is

not

and

flat contradiction

was

the scientific schools

way

in the middle

men

is

foul, vary

the

that

thoughts

on

of these

among

make

product

the

any

the

established

same

that

namely,

"

is

It is very

there

cityto city,so

rate.

any

that?

fair and

wrong,

from

even

for

we

it

regard

thought

proceeds

to

realityin

we

which
reality("/"u'cn?)

have

guarantee

should

all,that world

Science

breakdown

altogether.What,

one

tell that

we

of

Apparently

senses.

of

all it could

view

? Why

it? After

how

was

period

done

another

this world

than

and

the

but

explained

to

had

result

of

consider

to

now

NATURE

AND

LAW

in

charmed

still seemed

circle of
lawless.

86

LAW

much

So

observed,

be

to

this

was

better

a word
Justice(BLKITJ),

that

guided

the

encroachment

measures'
whose

could
of

not

be

things.It

have

been

of

could

be found

for it than

have

the

that

seen

element

one

Right,

that

of laws

accepted in

sun

drawn

Zaleukos,

the old way

or

clearlysomething 'made',

was

otherwise

made

made

not

or

spoke of
'injustice'
("6),

as

Erinyes, the avenging

from
'overstepping his
by

at

human

Charondas,

part of the

as

custom

Anaximander

up
a

began
Right or

nature

unchanging

another

on

the

keep

code

known,

was

regularcourse

Herakleitos, it is the

to

("42). But

name

the

properly meant

life.We
of

of

handmaids

name

which

human

and, according

NATURE

that, when

so

no

AND

and

lawgiver

everlastingorder

it might

all.A

Solon,

or

well

just as

had

generationthat

making could hardly help asking itself whether

of customary
the whole
moralityhad not after all been made in the
find the word
is why we
which
is properlyapplied
same
way. That
the legislator's
used
to
activity(decns)1
synonymously with law
in this connexion.
(vo/jios)
of this state
of feelingis the work
of HeroThe
best evidence
have known
dotos. He must
certainly
Protagoras at Thourioi, and
laws

seen

in the

have

some

in his work.
of

mouthpiece
which

to

it is

moralityand

be so, but

feelingwhich
to

detect

his

proof he

laughed at

were

to

can

is

as

it is just as

the rites and

representativeof

we

were

those

of their

madman

each

Whence

Herod,

meant

'text'

nation.'

own

would

saying that

pick out the best uses

people, after examining

'Law

laugh

at

So
such

'it is

of

set

In any

old-fashioned

of

nations

before

likelythat
things',and Pindar

if his

as

all

men

all the

all,would

not

for

Protagoras.

from
(vo^oi)
them

case,

King Cambyses

of other
to

time, and

his respect

that

the madness

choice, and bid them

are,

the

at

form.

another

customs

he is the

that
likely

scepticism,just like
give of

of Protagoras

influence

and
utterlysceptical,

bit less artificial. Tf

there

the

widely spread

was

regard him

religion.He

strongest

own

It may

is due

conventions

is that he

they could

Protagoras gave expression in

quite wrong

The

that

thought

any
was

uses

choose
but

one

right in

is king of all.'2

'positive'as opposed to 'natural' law.

is the more
quotation from Pindar
something quite different (see below, " 97). It
be made
that could
to mean
anything.

significantthat

iii. 38. The

was

therefore

Pindar
familiar

THE

8?

SOPHISTS

'SOPHISTS'

THE

have now
to deal with as
we
" 87. It is usual to speak of the men
'the Sophists',
and so they called themselves and were
called by
others. For us, however, the name
Sophistis apt to be misleading
in

ways than one.

between
these

more

contrast

earlier

It is
men

Herodotus
generation.

It is stillmore

if it is used
misleading
and

the thinkers

calls

and

indicate

to

teachers

of

a
an

Pythagorasa Sophist(iv.95).

if it makes
misleading

think of them

us

in any sense
school, or even
a sect
or
aims and methods.
There is the further

as

as

teachers with

forming
identical

that,by the fourth

difficulty
begun to acquirethe meaning
century B.C., the word had already
it stillbears in ordinarylanguage.
This seems
to have
originated
with Isokrates,
who was anxious to keepwhat he called 'philosophy'
distinct from
reasons

intellectual

shall have

we

Sophist from

the

defines the former

to

pursuitsof
consider,was

and
Philosopher,
as

another

in

order.

the
distinguish
of his later dialogues
rich and distinguished

anxious
one

paid huntsman

of

Plato,too, for

to

Aristotle formulated allthat,and defines the Sophistas

young men.
who makes money
out of apparent wisdom.1
one
Now
observe that the Sophistshere referred to are
must
we
selves,
contemporariesof Isokrates,Plato,and Aristotle themprimarily
the distinguished
teachers of the fifth century who
not
commonly go by the name, and we have no rightto transfer the
polemicsof a later generationto that of Protagorasand Gorgias.
Aristotle's definition of the Sophistmust, therefore,be left out of
and we shall see that the peopleIsokrates calls
account
altogether,
those the word most
not
Sophistsare certainly
naturally
suggests
Plato
to a modern
is
safe
he
is
reader.
a
guide when
dealingby
with the great Sophists of the fifth century; his general
name
discussion in the dialogueentitled The Sophist
has, we shall see,
another bearing.
We
there

do learn from

Plato,however, that,even

in the fifth century,

which made
it possiblefor
prejudiceagainstthe name
it to acquire the unfavourable
it had in the fourth. That
sense
prejudicetook two forms, an aristocratic and a democratic. From
the democratic pointof view, indeed, there was
blame attaching
no
that did not equallyattach to the word o-o"/"o?
to the title ao"/"icm??
itself.To be 'too clever' was
alwaysan offence,and in the Apology
was

Plato,Soph.

223

b; Arist. Soph.

El.

165 a,

22.

B.C.

P.

88

REACTION

it is

just the charge of being

rebut. From

to

eager

SCIENCE

AGAINST

'wise man'

that Sokrates

is

most

the aristocratic

was
point of view, the name
form suggestedprofessionalism,1

Its very
objection.
shrank
from
Above
a thingthe high-born Hellene
instinctively.
all,the fact that these distinguishedmen
were
foreignersmade
them
full of
unpopular at Athens. The Athenian
public was
and that against'the foreigner'
well
prejudices,
was
particularly
to

open

another

developed.It

in part the cause

and in part the effect of the
was
stringencywith which the privilegeof citizenship

growing
guarded. An

Athenian

than the

weapon
of such
was

was

orator

or

comic

charge of foreignextraction.

nationalism

in

our

own

day,and

very

potent force indeed. Such

why

Plato

Sophistwith
This

but it can
realised.

We

no

know

something

in democratic

considerations

Protagoras as wearing

represents

effective

more

Athens
as

the

these
name

it
plain
ex-

of

certain bravado.2

is

view

poet had

more

hardly be
German

or

less

common

ground

at

said that all its consequences

day;

fully

particularcontinue to be much
influenced by a superficial
analogybetween the 'ageof the Sophists'
and the eighteenthcentury Aufkldrung,
with the result that the
Sophists are represented either as subverters of religionand
or as champions of free thought,accordingto the personal
morality,
of the writer. The truth is rather that,so far as there
predilections
is any parallel
of Greek thought at
to the Aufkldrung in the history
much
and Xenophanes, not Protagoras,
is its
all,it occurs
earlier,
but to science that Protagorasand
apostle.It is not to religion
stand
underGorgias take up a negativeattitude,and we shall never
them

if

we

writers

the present
have been

lose

in

sightof

that fundamental

distinction. The

'ageof the Sophists'is,above all,an age of reaction againstscience.

" 88. It has been pointedout that the Sophistsdid not constitute
for all that that their teachinghad something
a school,but it is true
in common.
ends. Their profession
at practical
They all aim chiefly
is that theyteach 'goodness'
and that is explainedto mean
(aper^),
the power
and families aright.In practicethis
of directing
states
in a democratic
was
apt to work out in a curious way, especially
like Athens. The Sophistsquitenaturally
state
taughtpeople who
could pay them, and these were
generallythe well born and well1

The
makes
a
profession of 'being clever' or 'playingthe wit' (TO
ao"f"iaTrjs
makes
the lyre.
a professionof playing on
just as the Kidaptor^s
oo"f"i",ea9ai)
2

Prot.

317

b.

THE

to-do, who

SOPHISTS

the natural

of the

democracy.To

large
the art of succeeding in a
they taught was
extent, then, what
democratic
State when
belong to the ruling
you do not yourself
the art of gettingoff when
democracy, and, in particular,
you are
attacked in the courts
of law. That is the questionableside of the
work, but itis hardlyfair to make it a ground of accusation
Sophist's
the natural outcome
of the
themselves; it was
againstthe men
were

conditions
political
doubt

prey

of Athens

There

the time.

at

is

no

to

reason

that

that
sincere in his profession
Protagoraswas perfectly
he was
of 'goodness'
a teacher
: only the goodness demanded
by
his clients was
apt to be of a rather odd kind, and in practicehis
and more
confined to the arts of rhetoric
more
teachingbecame
and disputation.
He would
have been entrusted by Perikles
never
with the highlyresponsibletask of framing a code of laws for
unless he had
skill in
Thourioi
reallypossessed considerable
and jurisprudence
politics
; but
train

were

in

understand

from the

likelyto be
That was
legislation.
the Sophistsmuch

more

State than
to

the young
engaged in

of the case,

nature

for their livelihood

on

revolutions.

sense

what
we

may

In that

sincere

the

who

though moderate

gather from

what

bear

theythe
democrat

Anytos

on

to

in mind

that,

compelled to depend mainly

afterwards

onlywere

called

was

conspiracies
againstthe
fault,and it will help us

better if we

theywere

men

his

not

he

men

made

the

oligarchic
productsof democracy;
thought of them
really

is made

to

say in Plato's Meno

PROTAGORAS

" 89. The

of
Protagoras

earliest

Sophist

Abdera.

In the

described his second

when

to

him,

was

of

sense

just explained was

dialoguecalled by

Athenian

gatheringof Sophistsfrom
house of Kallias,son

the

visit to Athens.

the
Hippokrates,

introduction

in

still a

He

his name,

had been

youth who
boy. This

there

Plato has
before

once

asks Sokrates
time

there

all parts of the Hellenic

is

world

for
a

an

great
in the

Hipponikos,who was known to have spent

of his day. It is obvious
more
on
Sophiststhan any man
money
that such a gathering would
have been impossibleat any time
duringthe first stage of the PeloponnesianWar. Alkibiades is quite
a lad,though he has a beard
coming (309 a).Protagorasis represented
much
older than Sokrates, and indeed he says (317 c)
as
there is no
in the company
one
(which includes Hippias and

PROTAGORAS

90
father he

Prodikos)whose

engagedin

his

his hearers

as

might

for
profession

be, and also that he has been

not

throughhe addresses
In the
generation.
younger

years. All

many

who

belong to a
(282 e) Hippias is made
men

Hippias maior

'far older' than he

the Meno

From

was.

say that Protagoraswas

get further information.

to
we

dialogueis supposed to take placebefore the expeditionof

took part, and Protagoras is
Cyrus (401 B.C.)in which Meno
considerable time before,
spoken of (91 e) as having died some
That

when

he

in which
other

seventy years old and had been

was

ten

he had

time

made

more

fortyyears
than

money

Pheidias

together.Lastly,in the

sculptorsput

in

practice,
and

any

Theaetetus,

dialoguesupposed to take placejust before the trial of Sokrates,

is spoken of as one longdead.
Protagoras
consistent with one
Now
all these statements
are
perfectly
another, and the total impressionthey make on us would not be
minor
affected by one
two
anachronisms, if such there are.1
or
born not later than 500 B.C., that
that Protagoraswas
They mean
his second
have

may

visit to Athens
been

of the

years

some

later than 432 B.C., and

that he died in the early

been

have

cannot

and
earlier,

years

Peloponnesian War.

with the well-attested

These

sistent
conperfectly
for Thourioi in
legislated

dates

fact that he

are

444/3 B.C.,2and theyare quiteinconsistent with the statement

for impiety in the time
he was
prosecutedand condemned

that
of the

Indeed, Plato represents Sokrates as

(411 B.C.).
to believe Protagoraswas
sayingthingswhich make it impossible
point is
ever
prosecutedfor impiety at all.3In the Meno a special
made
(91 e) of the fact that throughouthis long life no one ever
and that his
suggestedthat he had done any harm to his associates,
Hundred

Four

Though Protagoras is represented as putting up -napa /faAAi'a TOV 'I-mrovixov

dead.
In the Republic (328 b)
(311 a),that does not imply that Hipponikos was
The
and the rest go els /7oAe/^apxou,though Kephalos is certainlyliving.
Sokrates
still
rather
that
was
living.
d)
Hipponikos
(3T5
implies
imperfect fXP^TO
2
traditional date of Protagoras is based solelyon this. Everyone connected
The
is supposed to have 'flourished' in the year of its foundation, and
with Thourioi
old. For that reason
Empedokles, Herodotos, and
to 'flourish' is to be forty years
probable,however,
Protagoras are all said to have been born in 484/3 B.C. It seems
1

be over
forty.
accused
that Protagoras was
by Pythodoros, son of Polyzelos
the next
but
sounds
words, 'but Aristotle
ix.
circumstantial,
54),
(Diog. Laert.
the celebrated 'Suit
refers
to
shows
that
this
notice
it
really
was
Euathlos',
says
Euathlos
that
to
was
ix.
The
55)
for his Fee' (AiKij
was
(ib.
story
^ladov).
that
3

lawgiver would

The

statement

virtp

pay

the

replied,'I have
him, and then
because

he

fee when

you

not

had
won

he would

have

won."

won
a

his first

yet.'The

case

have

to

pay.

case.

When

answer

'If I

win,

was

it,he
Protagoras demanded
that Protagoras would
sue

because

I have

won;

if you

win,

PROTAGORAS

92
if the Athenians

could find

be

not

at

been

world

Greek

have

that it would

been

Abdera

all the

copiesthey

others

many

these

and
Sicily,

to

scattered
would

authorities. It is clear,then,

and

widely read when Plato quoted it,and

the doctrine
impossiblefor him to interpret
not really
suggestedby it.

extant

was

from

burn

to

have

must

of the Athenian

the mercy

that the book

sillyas

so

Athens, there

at

throughthe

had

been

of

Protagorasin a sense
" 91. That doctrine is the famous one that 'Man is the measure
of all things,of thingsthat are that they are, and of thingsthat are
that they are not.' The meaning of this dictum has been much
not
canvassed, but the curious

of the word

use

'measure'

has

been

not

have
remarked.
We
become
the
accustomed
to
so
sufficiently
and yet it is surelynot
phrasethat it hardlystrikes us as peculiar,
obvious way of expressing
the most
any of the meanings that have
been attributed to Protagoras.
Why 'measure' ? To understand this,
should probably start from the arithmetical meaning of the
we

word.

It is recorded

the
particular

point.There
line and

square
measure,

in contact.1 It is

'measure'
which

tell us,

he may
have

no

that

and

in

the circle at a
doctrine that the tangent touches
the straight
must, he urged,be a stretch for which

the circle are

of the word

Protagorasattacked mathematics,

that

due

was

were

so

to

then, that
probable,

the controversies about

rife in the fifth century. The

said, that the side and

have
common

measure,

is,they are

but in

commensurable

the

cases

his

mensurability
incom-

geometers

diagonalof

like that

use

the

is the

man

for all practical

purposes.

of
to the commonsense
opposition
mankind
safelybe ignored.We shall find that this is justthe
may
positionProtagoras took up on other questions.In the great
Theories

that

controversy

set

themselves

about

Law

in

and Nature

he is

decidedlyon

the side of

the former.
that tradition repreto note
interesting
sents
which
he
Zeno
at
met
Athens,
Protagorasas having
may well
have done, and there was
a
were
dialoguein which the two men
bound up with the probintroduced discussinga questionclosely
lem
and its
from it has been preserved,
of continuity.
A quotation
is guaranteedby a reference to it in Aristotle.2 'Tell
authenticity
said Zeno, 'does a singlegrain of millet make
a
Protagoras,'
me,
In this connexion

1
2

it is

Arist. Met.

B, 2. 998 a, 2.
Simplicius,Phys. 1108, 18 (R.P. 131), Ar. Phys. 250
existed is the presupposition of Plato's Parmenides.

of them.

a,

It

20.

That

such

professesto

be

logues
diaone

MENSURA

HOMO

noise in

then?

and

Is there not

ratio of

part of

the ten-thousandth

bushel

bushel

when

of millet make

of millet

to

replied,
one

grain

he said there was,

grain?' When

And
grain?'

he said it did, Zeno

And, when

not?'

it falls or

him, 'Does

asked

he said it did not, Zeno

'What

part of

the ten-thousandth

or
falling

noise when

93

replied,'Well,then, will not the ratios of the sounds to one

another be the same? As the sounding objectsare to one
another,
Zeno

be

will the sounds

so

of millet makes

to

another

one

and, if that is so, if the bushel

the ten-thousandth

noise, the singlegrain and

grain will make a noise.' This quotationproves at least

that it was
thought appropriatefor Protagorasand Zeno to discuss
was
questionsof the kind, and so confirms the view that it really
part of

the

made

dialectic which

Eleatic

Moreover, Porphyry said he had

turn

men

across

come

from

away
a

of

work

science.

Protagoras

containingarguments againstthose who introduced the doctrine

one.1
that Being was
of all
" 92. But who is the 'Man' who is thus 'the measure
than once
? Plato more
explainsthe meaning of the doctrine
things'
and to you as they
to me,
to me
to be that thingsare
as they appear
that this may not be a verbal quotation,
appear to you. It is possible
but it is hard

to

believe that Plato could

if there
interpretation
that the

modern

individual
he would
had.

but

man,
not

The

view

have

good

makes

which
'Man

for it. It also

does

seems

to

him

an

to

me

to

the

distinction

is further

confirmed

accepted if he
by the hint he

in the

Theaetetus

to

on

go

such

on

Protagorasrefer,not

understood, and would

he

ventured

such',attributes

as

faith of Plato

wrhen

gives us,

to

ground

no

was

have

not

have

develop an

theory from the dictum of Protagoras,that

it was
not
so
developedby Protagorashimself. He says it was
herd and only revealed
something he kept back from the common
could hardly be told more
his disciples'in a mystery'.We
to
in the book
not
to be found
that the theory in questionwas
plainly
elaborate

of

sensationalist

Protagorasitself.
Nor

does

Plato stand alone

Demokritos, who
understood
that the
human
than

in his

was

younger
in the same
it precisely

Epicurean

Kolotes

had

of
interpretation
fellow-citizen
way.

accused

We

of

Protagoras,

learn from

Demokritos

of

Plutarch

throwing

by teachingthat 'nothingwas such rather

(ouSev/xaAAovrolov 7}rolov).Plutarch (or rather his

lifeinto confusion
such'

this dictum.

Eus.

P.E.

x.

3, 25

(Bernays, Ges.

Abh.

i. 121).

PROTAGORAS

94

that,so
authority)
replies

far from

holding this view, Demokritos

combated

Protagoraswho did hold it,and wrote

convincing
many
him.1
It
is
to
against
impossible ignore that, and the
arguments
is not only of the highestvalue in itself,
testimony of Demokritos
but is,of course,
quiteindependent of Plato's.
The practical
inference to be drawn
from all this is that on every
both
subjectit is possibleto make two oppositestatements
(Adyoi),
of which
be 'weaker' and
another
are
'true',though one
may
It is the business of the disputantto make
the weaker
'stronger'.
the stronger (rovTJTTO) \6yov Kpeima Troieiv),
and that is
statement
be taught.It is importantto notice that this is not
art which
an
can
in itself an immoral
doctrine. Plato distinctly
tells us that though,
accordingto Protagoras,all beliefs are equallytrue, one belief may
nevertheless be better than another,and he seems
to have regarded
as

'better' the beliefs which

the

man

in

not

be truer, but it would

in accordance

with

those of

body and mind. People who have

to
jaundicesee all thingsyellow,and justso it is possiblefor a man
have his moral
beliefs coloured
abnormal
condition
of
by some
soul. The thingsthat appear
yellow to the jaundiced eye reallyare
yellow to it,but that does not alter the fact that it would be better
for the sick man
if they appeared different to him. His belief would
a

normal

most

were

of the doctor

the business
condition

condition

of

be better. In the

same

way,

then, as it is

body into
bring his patient's
normally,so it is the business

to

that he

see
may
the better statement,

such

of the

which may
be the weaker
in
Sophistto make
not
a given case,
only better but stronger.
it is that Plato represents
" 93. This explains further how
Protagorasas a convinced champion of Law againstall attempts
for guidance. He
to
to
return
nature
a
was
strong believer in
organisedsociety,and he held that institutions and conventions
what

were

raised

men

above

the brutes.

That,

at

any

rate, is the

in the dialogue
meaning of the myth Plato puts into his mouth
he was
called by his name.
So far from being a revolutionary,
the
old-fashioned prejudice,
not from
champion of traditional morality,
but from

strong belief in the value of social conventions.

In this

himself, but he
only professedto teach 'goodness'
believed
it was
taught by the laws of the state and by public
opinion,though not perhaps so well. He had a profound belief in
the value of such teaching,
and he considered that it beginsin early
he

sense,

not

Plut. adv.

Col. 1108

f. sq. Cf. Sextus

Empiricus,

adv. Math.

vii.

389.

THE

The

childhood.

less he

LAW

could

95

admit

be

anythingto

he felt that
sure
anythingelse,the more
normal
and generally
recognised.

must

we

truer

cleave

to

than

what

is

attitude of

The

Protagorasto religionis generallylooked at in

the lightof the highly improbable story of his accusation
for
from his work On the Gods,
impiety.We stillhave a singlesentence
and it is as follows: 'With regardto the gods, I cannot
feel sure
either that they are or that they are not, nor
what they are like in
figure; for there are many thingsthat hinder sure knowledge,the
life.'There is
obscurityof the subjectand the shortness of human
surelynothingimpious in these words from any pointof view, and
there is none
from
the Greek. Speculativeopinions on
certainly
which
consisted
no
subjectslike these were
part of Greek religion,
affirmations or negations.1
in worship and not in theological
entirely
And, in any case, the sentence
quoted might just as well be the
of
to worship according to the use
preludeto a recommendation
such a
one's native city (vo/m"-n-oAecos-)
to anything else,and
as
would
be in complete harmony with the other
recommendation
If we
attain sure
views of Protagoras.
cannot
knowledge about the
gods by ourselves, we shall do well to accept the recognised
worship.That is what we should expect the champion of Law
againstNature to say.

HIPPIAS

The

" 94.
Kallias

other
of

are

no

PRODIKOS

AND

Sophistsmentioned
great importance for

though they are of considerable

for
memorable
of Elis is chiefly

as

present in the house

the

interest

as

historyof philosophy,
Hippias
typicalfigures.

sality.
his efforts in the direction of univer-

of all specialism,
the enemy
and
of his
entirely
gorgeouslyattired in a costume
He

the

was

ring on

his

finger.He

from astronomy
anything,
and
of a good memory,
There

mnemonics.
however.

This

the circle
krates

could

by

we

was

ancient
know

that he

be behindhand

to

it,and
here. He
1

making

own

lecture
a

invented
side

to

to

down

to

on
anyone
had need

man
a

his

system

of

character,

stillsanguineof

squaring
lunules of HippoThe
Hippias, the universal genius,

the age when men

were
geometricalconstruction.

belong

appearedat Olympia

Such
history.

serious

more

was

of Chios
not

preparedto

was

to

of

invented

Cf. " 140.

the

curve

stillknown

96

THE

SOPHISTS

would
which
solve the problem
(Ter/xxyoW^oucra),
quadratrix
is
of Keos
described. Prodikos
if it could be mechanically
jejune apologueof the
nowadays for the somewhat
chieflyknown
shall see
We
Choice
of Herakles which
Xenophon has preserved.
of Herakles
at the
was
presentlyhow important the personality
as

the

time. The

chief work

of

Prodikos,however,

to

seems

have

been

the

which
of synonyms,
a business
possiblyhave
may
buted
Protagorastoo contriimportant in the infancyof grammar.
He called attention to the arbitrary
something to grammar.

discrimination
been

character
of the

grammaticalgenders,no

of certain

reign of
into

Law

or

his classificationof

convention, and
wish,

command,

prepared the

etc.

in illustration

doubt

way

for the

tences
sen-

tinction
dis-

of the moods.

GORGIAS

" 95. Gorgias

from

in

of Leontinoi

his native

city in

Sicilycame
427

to

B.C., when

Athens

as

he

already

was

bassador
am-

in years. His influence,therefore,belongs to a later

generationthan that of Protagoras,though he need not have been
advanced

been
a
Hippias and Prodikos. He had, it seems,
Plato's
from
discipleof Empedokles, and we learn incidentally
doctrine
Meno
(76 c) that he continued to teach that philosopher's
younger

than

of 'effluences'
in

even

Thessaly.He

date

can

in his later
is said

to

he had

days,when
lived

have

to

retired to Larissa

great age, but

be given for his death. It is evident

from

no

Plato's

precise
account

like Protagoras,
politics,
is accounted for by the change in the
as a teacher of rhetoric. That
and
situation brought about by the Peloponnesian War
political
the democracy and the
the death of Perikles. The relations between
and more
well-to-do classes were
strained,and the
becoming more
importance of forensic rhetoric was accordinglyincreased. What
Gorgias did was to introduce to Athens the methods of persuasion
had been elaborated during the
of artistic prose which
by means
His influence on Athenian
literature,
struggleof classes in Sicily.
and through it on
the development of European prose stylein
It does
not
us
here, except
concern
enormous.
general,was
of him

that he

was

not

so

much

teacher of

while to note
that the terms
but it is worth
'figure'
incidentally,
which
he applied to the
and
'trope'(rpoTro?),
crx7)|u,a)
(etSos-,
rhetorical devices

he

taught,are

apparentlyderived

from

Pytha-

GORGIAS

gorean musical theory ("32),and

of words in certain patterns.1

97

primarilythe arrangement

mean

Protagoras,Gorgias had been driven by the Eleatic

dialectic to give up all belief in science. Protagoras,as we
have
fell back on
'common
sense',but Gorgias proceeded in a
seen,
radical fashion. If Protagorastaught that everything
much
more
there was
truth at all.In his work
no
was
true, Gorgias maintained
the non-existent (Uepi "j)va"a"s
Nature
entitled On
or
r)TOV
^
that
there
is
nothing,(2)that,even
ovros)2he sought to prove (i)
know
if there is anything,we
if we
cannot
it,and (3) that,even
Like

" 96.

could

know

else. We

anyone

they agree

that is a mark

Melissos,thus

The

reasoningof

both

ways,

Zeno

that

consider

would

itwhen
In

" 97.

the

up
to

come

ethical

'what

is'.The

tillPlato

introduced

shrinks

him

blood.

well have
Plato's way

from

the

the

The

the

no

natural

to
Varia

drawn

be

by

one

Sophist.We

in this

of

shall

this nihilism

to

not

represent
his ardent

even

of

opposing

Kallikles,who

as

real

Cf. also the

form,

as

uses

is shown

of

man

dialogue,and he may
revolutionaryperiod.It

i.

is

know

We

statesman.

fictitiouscharacters,nor

ancient

raised is

in the

the

Socratica,i. p. 206, n.

alternative.

cut

given

argument

consequences

democratic

is stillyoung

introduce

to

distinction between

otherwise, but he impresses us

He

accounts.

is not' is not, that is

counterpart

extreme

are

disappearedduring

for poems.
2
The
title cannot
an

the later

here
difficulty

wrote

Nothing

those of Zeno

that.

Athenian

an

as

nothing of

Taylor,

with

kind that is apt

Gorgias showed.

sphere

legalright.These

to

flesh and

of

to this effect. 'What

as

Melissos,and

his assertion that

Plato,however, is very careful

drawing this conclusion himself, and

Polos
disciple
natural

and

wrong.

Gorgias as

introduce

we

Zeno

however,

authentic. Isokrates,who

was

be the doctrine that there is

rightand

cleared

not

was

Melissos

and

peculiarto himself was

say, it is justas much

one

from

he

that is what

and

to

obviouslyparaphrases
stillsee,

can

coupleshis name
confirmingin a generalway

and
(10.3),

and

to

later time. We

of their

is in the Helen

as

another, they are

one

being in substance
of Gorgias,mentions
disciple

knowledge

our

of the
apparentlyindependent accounts
established these positions;but, though

in the main

borrowed

they were
been

two

communicate

not

language of

in the

had

have

by which he
with
generally

arguments

that

could

it, we

very
is not

does he introduce
of efSo? and

by

the

use

of

to

IS

MIGHT

9"

RIGHT

living
contemporaries,
except where,
abundant
that

that the doctrine

evidence

Might

is Right,was

it

might

be

at

current

fifth century. In the Melian

how

used

in the

considerations.

historical

by

necessary

as

to

In

Phaedo, that is made

case,

any

have

we

upheld by Kallikles,namely,

Athens

the close of the

towards

Thucydides has shown us

dialogue,
justifythe attitude of the imperial

and the
democracy to its subjectallies,
problem.1 Its theme
study of the same

of

Herakles

Euripidesis a

man' is
'strong
his
sufficient for himself,and is only safe so long as he uses
not
strengthin the service of mankind. This conceptionof the 'strong
the regular
man' (ofwhich Herakles was
type)was not in itself an
ignobleone. It had its ideal side,and Pindar singshow Herakles
took the oxen
of Geryones without
paying for them in virtue of
violent deed with a
the most
that higherlaw, which
even
'justifies
high hand', a passage dulyquoted in Plato's Gorgias(484b).Such
natural reaction againstthat rooted jealousyof
theories are
a
which
is apt to
characterise
everythingabove the common
democracy.In modern times Carlyleand Nietzsche represent the
same
can

point of view.
rise superiorto

'superman' seems
by much the same

The

the strong

or

man

'hero',who

in fact,of the
all petty moral conventions
to have been fostered in the fifth century B.C.
-

"

clear,then, that

worship of

is that the

influences

as

in the nineteenth

the doctrine

even

century

of Kallikles is

not

A.D.

It is

complete

Might reallyis Right.That is a very different

thingfrom sayingRight is Might.
In the Republicthat is the doctrine maintained
by Thrasymachos.
According to him there is no Right at all,and what we call by that
which he is able to force
is only 'the interest of the stronger'
name
in virtue
the weaker to accept as lawful and binding on themselves
that Thrasymachos
of his strength.It is importantto observe
considering;for readers of
belongsto the generationwe are now
shall have
the Republicare often led to suppose, by an illusion we
ethical nihilism.

to

note

than

more

of his

once,

day.

own

Thrasymachos was

that Plato is there

mentioned

It is well
as

to

dealingwith
remember,

celebrated

teacher

the

troversies
con-

then, that
of Rhetoric

Aristophanes,which was produced in

It
born and Gorgias came
to Athens.
427 B.C., the year Plato was
the Republicwas
is not to be supposed that he was
stillliving
when
in the

See

earliest comedy

my

paper

of the

'The

of

Ideas of Euripides',in
Religious and Moral
ofScotland,1907-8, pp. 96 sqq.

Classical Association

the

ceedings
Pro-

ARCHELAOS

100

explainedin
goras in
substance
it with

was

Mind

it

this

primary substance

the influence of Anaxa-

trace

and

is air,and

condensation.

and

of Herakleitos
wisdom

in the

the

close

dryness of

in

all things
deriving
the
to see
possible

It is

he

connexion
the

air

established

breathe.

'Damp
burlesqued in the
thought'was one
(232) accordingly.In one
respect only does Diogenes
and that was
in his medical
to have shown
some
originality,
of his

hinders
Clouds
appear

His

work.

also

may

matter.

rarefaction

by

influence
between

We

Diogenes not only said the primary

which
identified
was
a 'god',
nothing new, butjds_o
On the other hand, he follows Anaximenes
in
(vovs}.

another

holdingthat
from

this way.

of the veins

account

dicta,and

we

is

celebrated,and

was

bears

witness

the influence of

Empedokles.
Hippon of Samos is of less importance.He revived the doctrine
the primary substance, and defended
it
of Thales that water
was
know
from
Menon's
latrika
on
grounds. We now
physiological

to

that he
He

was,

writer

therefore,one

of the

Ionia,and that

to

and

medical

was

men

that he
who

native

of Kroton.

broughtWestern

medicine

was

for the character

accounts

with

of the arguments

probable that the reasoning

attributed to Thales
by Aristotle is reallyhis. We
conjecturally
defended
that Thales
his theory on
be sure
meteorological,
may
not
grounds. That is justthe difference between the
physiological,
two
periods.
of Athens
of Anaxagoras, and the first
Archelaos
was
a disciple
he

which

defended

Athenian

to

mention

for

his thesis. It is

interest himself in science

or

He
philosophy.

deserves

this,since,with the exceptionof Sokrates and Plato

"

exception certainly there are hardly any other

Athenian
to doubt
reason
philosphers.There is not the slightest
the statement
The contemporary
that he had Sokrates for a disciple.
to
tragicpoet, Ion of Chios, said in his Memoirs that Sokrates came
a

considerable

Samos

"

of Archelaos

in the company

as

young

man.

We

know

of the visit of Sophokles and Perikles

Ion gave an account
occasion of the blockade of Samos
in 441/0,and this statement
refer

no

to

occasion.1

same

Ion, fr. 73 (Kopke).

inconsistency

Sokrates
service
Ion

the

never

left Athens

like the others

should

suggested.

have

meant

we

title of Ion's

The

between

Sokrates

his

any

other

be about

the
will

twenty-eight

There
is
('Visits').
'Em8r)(j,iai
of Plato (Crito, 52 b) that
of military
militaryservice. This is a case
to consider
directly. It is most
unlikelythat
Sokrates
in this connexion, as has been

statement

on
except
shall have

would

on

that

work
and

was

that

ARCHELAOS

the

at

and

time.

Aristoxenos,

Sokrates.

have

been

have

We

refers

in

his

early

his

Athenian

discredit

the

practically
1

Aristoxenos,

Phaedo,
by

rise

gave

animals
doctrines
3

Phys.

aloud

fr.

b,

25

97

(F.H.G.
b,

with

considered.

Sokrates

Op.

fr.

(Diels).

my

is

that

of

and

that

quite

was

lasted

it

by

the

Anaxagoras

his

was

he

name,

Sokrates

occupied
that

to

who

man

other

no

was

unjustifiable

follower.

It

rests

accepted

Theophrastos

is

to

on

it.3

280).

ii.

The

notes.

(arjTreBwv)

'putrefaction'

having

is, therefore,

evidence,

contemporary

and

Archelaos

suppose

book

Sokrates

that

nourished,

were

It

as

to

the

disciple.2

statement

96

doctrines

known

that

says

began,

would

they

generally

been

mention

not

natural

it is

reading

as

had

Archelaos

but

them,

association

does
his

to

and

youth,

believe

to

about

scandals

Aristoxenos

this

Plato

IOI

repeats

Sokrates

when

unmistakably

mentioned
than

old

SOKRATES

Archelaos.

Though

years.1

he

unless

with

years

bound

not

pointless

seventeen

usual,

as

are

associated

many

AND

of

to

Archelaos,

that

theory

slime

milky
and

is

the

mentioned

and

warm

(t'AJs), by

the

which
first

the
among

cold
first
the

VIII

The

Lifeof Sokrates
THE

It is

" 99.

possibleto

construct

dialoguesof Plato, and,

with

and
intelligible

an

has

Xenophon

left

but

man,

whom

he

consulted

referred
not

ask

to

he

by

mind.
and

He
that

have

told

to

ensure

his

he

from

are

in, and

elsewhere

expresses

hero

Sokrates
about

Asia.

in

of his

his

own

paedagogic
to

such

of Plato
account

customary

which

bearing
too.
to

the

seem

same

Since

the

make

an

evidence

to

been
and

specially
of

thinks,

ever

'the

Apology

the

he

mouth

the

Complete

The

away

holder
House-

historical

and

the

suggested by the dialogues

these are generallyleft out of

eighteenth century,
exception

himself.

just those

one

regarding

writings,

have

names,

as

had

would

passed

are

No

in

conversations
was

through

and

If there

had

all;

evasion,

Xenophon

Sokratic

at

he had

for this

him

romance.

was

prayer

journey

in them
or

works

other

two

are

name

step, and

Xenophon

forward

himself

us

talking about

of the

young

joined the

offer

Sokrates

know

expedition

sure

to

record

to

as

intercourse.

averse

put

the

the

to

pretty

Several

for
(the OltcovofjiiKos)

Symposium,

be

us

careful, however,

was

rebuked
their

present

his ways.

he
tells

gods he should

means

the views

There

join

thirty,and

accordingly, of appealing
Sokrates'.

should

subjects we

on

interested

no

known

of that

He

may

under

was

return

the

by

had

just before

issue

the

and

man

(401 B.C.).He

prosperous

tell,we

to

it ; for he is

records

Cyrus,

he

oracle.

of the

us

more

this time

before

he

which

he

franklythat
reallyall we know

is

much

Delphic

from

purporting

the wisdom

on

oracle whether

tells

been

At

as

so

works

last time

volunteer

the

to

only inquired to

sacrifice

for the

Sokrates

him

the

as

four

or

to

seem

of the

account

Sokrates, whom

saw

expedition of Cyrus
how

three

of

he

face of it,they

the

on

of Sokrates

biography

consistent

us

actual conversations

PROBLEM

in favour

however,
of

Memorabilia, composed by the exiled Xenophon

it has

single work,

with

the

been
the

professed

THE

of

intention

showing that

MEMORABILIA

Sokrates

103

and that,so
irreligious,
a great deal of good by

not

was

far from

corruptingthe young, he did them

his conversations. It is quiteintelligible
that the eighteenth
century
should have preferredthe Sokrates of the Memorabilia
to that of
the Platonic

for
dialogues;

current

of what

hard

see

to

there is

is far from

Xenophon

much

comes

philosopherought

what

he

to

to

recommend

being

the idea then

nearer

be.1 In other respects it is

him. It is recognisedthat

trustworthy historian,and

the

It is
Cyropaediashows he had a turn for philosophical
romance.
unsound
from
to isolate the Memorabilia
certainly
methodically
Xenophon's other Sokratic writings,unless very strong reasons
indeed can be given for doing so. Above
all,it is quiteimpossible
to

like

complete picture of Sokrates from the

line
alone, and so in practiceevery writer fillsin the outmuch
of the Platonic Sokrates as happens to suit his

anything

get

Memorabilia
with

as

preconceivedideas of the man.2

and can
arbitrary,
only land us
would

be far better

about

Sokrates,and

Such

procedureis hopelessly

in unverifiable
that

to

say at once
that for us he

however, the Platonic Sokrates

is actual

Sokrates

well. If he is

we

hope

can

he is nevertheless
blood. The
and

know

to

only sound

how

when

have

we

the

slightersketch

in what

relation

of

that
learn

we

can

Even

x.

know

to

most

stands

the

to

only

of flesh and

men

his life

describe

to

caricature

in the

source.

consider

to

on

in this way will

shall also have

We

so,

fictitiouscharacter,

profitably
go

we

Xenophon.

he

mere

the firstinstance,using any other

done

far the Sokrates

method, therefore,is

opinionswithout, in

Only

anything

enough,and he is the

important than

more

know

cannot

we

remain

must

It
speculations.

for

account

consider

to

Clouds

of

Aristophanes.
THE

"

seventy years old, or

1

of

Sokrates,son

100.

The

SOKRATES

PLATONIC

of
Sophroniskos,

littlemore,

when

he

the deme
was

Alopeke, was
put to death (399

first writer

Sokrates
of the Memorabilia
to prefer the
(1741). The
apparently Brucker
only reason
had
from
whom
he inherited
Xenophon
only one
master,
but
of
w
hile
Plato
taken
integrity
was
philosophy,
life,
up with
Sokrates

various

was

doctrines.

read, and
But
2

He

quotes

observing, 'Good

Sokrates

dead

also

an

anecdote

heavens!

before

what

the Lysis
In particularthe 'irony'of Sokrates
was

of the Memorabilia

has

no

doubts

or

was
comes

about

lies the

Sokrates
young

man

to

he
not

the

Platonic

gives

is that

only

moral

'syncretism'of
hearing the Lysis
a

tells about

me!'

written.

entirelyfrom

difficulties of any

kind.

Plato. The

Sokrates

LIFE

104
He
B.C.).1

SOKRATES

OF

born, then, about

was

Salamis, and his earlymanhood

Periklean

have

must

Sokrates

servingas

by

rete

able

been

It is

husband.

Laches

as

him

the

to

of

man

was

was

the

son

him

to

father

children. The

shrew.

Her

that she

is

There

last

eldest of them,

Sophroniskosand

named, indeed,

of

woman

was

suggest

sons

family.2In the Phaedo

good

only

was

Xanthippe

that

in Plato

hint

no

two,

three

he had

and those of her eldest and youngest

name

was

other

the

lad; but

Sokrates, and

as

whom

death, the

to

put

was

Menexenos,
arms.

age

Xanthippe, by

in

same

tillthe end.

married

in life Sokrates

fellow-demesman

Another

justthe

Lamprokles, was
baby

midwife, Phaina-

Patrokles,by another

son,

his deme.

deeplyattached

were

shall find

we

had any difference with

says he never
It is evident, then, that Sophroniskos

in
position

his

Sophroniskos

for

was

the

note

was

When

sons.

glory of

of the
that the great Aristeides was
Lysimachos speaksof Sophroniskosin the

worthy of

some

property;

another

wealthy Kriton, who

remained
Late

had

familyfriend. He
day of his death.

some

mother

after

years

Daidalos, which

to

and
antiquity,

hoplite.His
she

deme, and his

same

leave

to

and

name,

its descent

some

of

it was

that
apparently

means

ten

some

spent in the full

was

family traced

His

age.

B.C.,

470

we

are

told

Xanthippe and her baby in the

opened.They must have passedthe
prisonwhen the doors were
nightthere, and she was in an overwrought condition. Sokrates
her home, but she returned later in the day with the other
sent
found

that the friends of Sokrates

inner

in an
time with Sokrates
spent some
she received his final instructions in presence

familyand

of the

women

where

room,

of the faithful Kriton.3

Sokrates

was

protrudingeyes.
strangely
likened

it

Apol.

Phalereus

of

strut

17 d; Crito, 52
and the Marmor

of Plato

passages

found.

the

to

I do

not

on

think

gaitwas

I have

from

said

of his

They

anything which

what

Plato

immediately
mine.
it is Plato's,
not
'construction',
2
It is noteworthy that it is the

says.

second

son

and

nose

from

death

are

is not

If this

stated

in Plato
of

account

to

and

well known

or

the

easily
to

be
is

Sokrates

after the

is called

who

Demetrios

references

given detailed

not

is based.

this account

snub

and Aristophanes
peculiar,
waterfowl. In other places,

date

the

know

Parium.

I have

of

sort

some

We

e.

which

inferred

His

had

He

handsome.

far from

very

father

of

Sokrates.
3

He

The

said he

was

of Aristeides.
as

Aristoxenos

scandal-monger

Sokrates

or

married
Aristeides
older.

the

same

died

in

at

tried to fix
time

to

charge

Xanthippe

468 B.C., so Myrto

and
must

of bigamy
to

Myrto,

have

been

on

the

Sokrates.

daughter

about

as

old

THE

VOICE

105

his appearance
is compared to that of
Satyr.He alwayswent barefoot,save

to

outside

went

never

the Isthmian
He

odd

was

the

town

except

or
a Silenos,
torpedo-fish,

specialoccasions,and he
militaryservice,and once

on

on

games.
well known
in other ways. It was
he called his 'divine
which
'voice',

that,even

too

as

sign',and which
boy, he had a
he regardedas something peculiar
to himself,and probablyunique.
It

him

to

came

often,and sometimes

the

on

trivial occasions.

most

prompted him to
thing about it was that it never
about to
do anything; it only opposed his doing something he was
do.1 Besides this,Sokrates was
subjectto ecstatic trances. He would
stand stillfor hours togetherburied in thought,and quiteforgetful
The

remarkable

of the

better than

he

sunrise
told

stood

the next, buried

on

the

in

motionless

Symposium.

astonished,and
to

open
When

the

would
next

rose

sun

simplyleft him

celebrated occasion

in the

His

not

was

in

comrades

arms

much

were

brought their camp-beds into the

reallyremain standing there all night.
morning, he said a prayer and went about

of them

some

if he

see

was

knew

this and

quitefortyyears old, on
from
earlymorning on one day till
in thought (^povri^wv
TL),as we are

Sokrates

Poteidaia,when

at

to

it happened. They

himself. There

to

came

accustomed

were

when

disturb him

to

alone tillhe
camp
which

His friends

world.

outer

his business.2
A

" 101.
the

by

of this temperament

man

that he

He

was.

was

and in the lifeto come,

doctrines which

reservations,in

day. He

Rebirth

and

be
naturally

influenced

time, and Plato indicates clearly

firm believer in the

of his

the Athenians

to

of his

movement
religious

would

even

were

the soul

immortalityof

strange and unfamiliar

believed,though

asked

When

Reminiscence.

without

not

his

only to inspired
who
have been at
and priestesses
poets like Pindar, but to 'priests
the acts
they perform'.3In particularhe
pains to understand
of Mantineia
professedto have been instructed by a wise woman
terested
named
Diotima.
To the very end of his life,he was
deeply inin what he called 'sayingsof yore'or the 'ancient word',
authorityfor

gave

makes

Xenophon
both

Sokrates

these

negative
whether

to

and
go

beliefs,he would

refer,not

point of contradictingPlato as to this.

positive warnings. Obviously, if a
on

military adventure

or

not,

and

He

young

Meno,

a.

the
man

'voice'

asked

'voice' gave

the

sign, that could be interpreted as positiveadvice to go. The

Theages throws much
lighton the subject.
2
be pointlessif it were
would
Symp. 220 c-d. The statement
*

says

no

pseudo-Platonic
not

true.

IO6

SOKRATES

OF

LIFE

Orpheus,1accordingto which the body

attain to
in which the soul is kept in custody.It cannot
is a tomb
perfectpurity till it is released from the body by God, whose
to be alone
chattel it is,and comes
by itself.Then, and not till
follows philosophy,
who
then, can it dwell with God. The man
even
which
is the highest music, will therefore practisedeath
in his lifetime by accustoming his soul to concentrate
upon
attributed
expressly

and

and
itself,

attain such

wisdom

this,Sokrates

was

to

so

to

as

possiblein

be

may

this

world.
all

But, with

no

that
sense
strong vein of shrewd common
himself to the often fantastic details of

and

to

not

easy
that the souls of the

departedfrom

the

would

the

be with

imprisoned in
understand',and though he

that the soul is

calls the doctrine

'highone

as he often did, he
Orphic style,
they were at best something like the

certain

was

be

used

God

with

to

that

his hearers

warn

truth. No

when

man

of

would

sense

literal accuracy.
Besides this,he had a healthy
for the common
of Orphic and other traffickers in
run

he accused of demoralisingthe
indulgences,whom
of heavenlyjoys.That, however,
by their gross descriptions
and

pardons
nation

form, a great truth

in however

dim

religionof

the

state.

fables

or

the belief that

with

consistent
perfectly

to

body,

their

on

contempt

was

the

they
body, he could not feel equallysure that they
he related eschatological
saints. When
myths in

righteouswould

the

insist

imagination.

his

these mightappealto
powerfully

however
religion,
He

He had a
visionary.
ting
kept him from commitOrphicand Pythagorean

mere

The

not

to

Orphicismcontained,

be found

in the

riddles,of which

not

can

everyone

compared

he

of its expression

manner

ordinary

guess

the

true

sense.

The

" 1 02.
character.

He

of that

sense

truth is that there

indeed

was

himself

to
not

his

pose ; it was
and
exaggerated

mere

in

further

depreciateboth
a

Scots

also

was

using
'sly',

applied to foxes. The

nearest
praise)comes
commit

in
visionaryor 'enthusiast',

word, but he

critics called him

sides

well-marked

two

were

word
to

the Greek.

he could

shrewd.

insincere. As
.

400

did

not

His

like

and he was
clearly,
That
other people's.

shrinkingfrom

has been
c.

He

see

and
powers
due to an instinctive

Crat

the Greek

is properly
which
(etpo"v),
'canny'(notalways a term of

own

his

word

meaning
than

uncommonly

to

to

apt
was

everything
indicated,it is only

108

SOKRATES

OF

LIFE

originof the world to Mind. But this

of Mind
no
use
too; for Anaxagoras made
proved disappointing
he was
at a loss for another
explanation.Otherwise
except when
he spoke of 'airs'and 'aethers' justlike the rest. Sokrates accordingly
and resolved to work out
turned his back on all such speculations,
first;for it attributed

for himself.

method

new

the

this

reached

have

" 104. According to Plato, Sokrates must

pointwhen he was quiteyoung ; for he makes

discuss his

him

new

they visited Athens

shortlyafter the middle of the century ("63).It is also made clear
of the day at a
with the great 'Sophists'
into contact
that he came
have
firstvisit of Protagorasto Athens
must
very earlyage. The
taken placebefore Perikles entrusted him with the importantduty
in 444 B.C., that is to say, it must
for Thourioi
have
of legislating
and Zeno, and
coincided very nearlywith the visit of Parmenides
and Protagorasas
that tradition represents Zeno
have seen
we
engaged in controversy. On his second visit,several years later,
the young
Sokrates quitewell. He is made
Protagorasremembers
he admires
Sokrates most,
to say that of all the people he meets
else of his age.1 A very similar
than anyone
certainlyfar more
of Parmenides.2
Plato clearly
compliment is put into the mouth
the

of the time

distinguishedmen
He
about twenty-five.3

most

than

he

Prodikos, and

cheaper courses
other

used

on

hand, did

not

when

Zeno

attracted the notice of

that Sokrates had

understand

to

us

means

and

Parmenides

theory with

to

also intimate

was

say

he

when

that he

had

not

was

with

more

Hippias

attended

and

of the

one

given by the latter. Gorgias,on the

synonyms
tillSokrates was
visit Athens
over
fortyyears

old.

clear,however, that Zeno, 'the Eleatic Palamedes',4 had

As Aristotle said,5he was
influence on Sokrates than anyone.

It is
more

the real inventor

questionand

that is to say, the

Dialectic,

answer.

If the Periklean

probably hear

should

we

of

of the middle

do, but the Athenians

1

Prot.

became
very

361 e. Protagoras adds

distinguishedfor wisdom.

Farm.

This

became

that of

man

Phaedrzbi

In his

he

Surely

of argument

left any literature

than we
at Athens

of the fifth century

would

sixty to

be

not

that is the
a man

by

not

surprised if Sokrates
of

remark
over

did

old

an

man

to

forty.Cp. " 89.

a.

discipleof Archelaos

that
under

Cf. ib. 135 d.

strikinglyconfirmed

130

is
a

not

one,

young

about

more

age had
his work

art

by
at

the

the age

statement

of seventeen

of Aristoxenos

(p. 124,

n.

d.

dialogue entitled

the

Sophist(ap.Diog.

Laert.

ix.

25).

that

z).

Sokrates

DELPHIC

THE

have

books. We

write

he left.We

told in the Parmenides

are

it is recorded

cultivated

Megara,

at

of the

sedulously

philosophywas

its dialectical side

where

impression

who had
Athenians
of young
that Perikles himself 'heard'

that the Eleatic

shall see

("63).We

IOQ

enough, however,

traces

and
been his associates,
him

ORACLE

stillfurther

was

the art of conversation or discussion,

Dialectic is literally
developed.
'answerer'
and
its procedure is governed by strict rules. The
is required
to replyto the questioner
(oepajraiv)
(o a.TTOKpivo^evo's]
the
and
to answer
in the fewest possible
words,
questionexactlyas

of those put

form
be
we

allowed

is not

it is put. He

to

ask other

to

the real difficultieswere

he learnt it from

doubt

the Phaedo
the

only by

and

Archelaos, but also,and

was

the

objectof
special

was

for

we

shall

strike

out

Athenian

an

be

not

was

course

there

did

not

set

wiser than
one

busy

of the

youth of

extreme

to

be

little

seriouslywith

find that he had

from

see

actuallyasked

wiser

was

no

than

one.

not

fail him

prove

the

himself,and

admirers
of the

then,

these,Chairephon,
the

Sokrates.

That

it

matters,

Delphic oracle
The

Pythia of

proved a turning-point
to

let

us

know

that he

response as its face value. His humour

he turned it on himself,and he
when
find someone
in the wrong. He would
him to refute the oracle. So he went

at

god
use

whose
politicians,

him,

to

indeed, in his

opinionand

he does

to

think it necessary to
with the result that he found him wise,
name

mention, and talked

own

such

enthusiastic

of

when

unusual

opening scene
him as a guide even

up to
their studies. One

about

Sokrates

the

looked

of them

unit,which

himself, and also how

himself

We

accept the oracular

out

the

is also attested

that of the

by

Sokrates,but Plato is careful

did
(elpoiveia)
once

the

anyone
there
that
was
replied

in the life of

can

was

attention.

line for

men.

him

more,

and
enthusiastic,
particulary

whether

there

influence of Zeno

even

Zeno's

to
surprised

the younger
Protagorashow some

consulted

to

among

and

common

rate, it

for. At any

Sokrates, and

The

in mind

bear

we

most

as
puzzled,
(96 e),where Sokrates is represented
problem of growth,which was that of Anaxagoras

not

" 105. If
he began to

of the

was

indicate the direction in which

to

to

Zeno.

that,however,

Even

nature

be looked

to

appealedmost

that

method

the

to

the

boggle at

procedurewhich can
and in the Euthydemus

employed in the most fallacious manner,

sketch of its abuse.
have a delightful

directingattention
and this helped in turn
fallacies,

to

is a

Obviously this

him.

of service in

by

questionsor

not

that of other

people, but really

LIFE

HO

SOKRATES

OF

experiencewith one set of

The
account
poets could give no intelligible
of divine
sort
of their own
works. Apparently it was
by some
they succeeded; for they did not know how it was
inspiration
themselves. The craftsmen, indeed, did as a rule know
something
the strengthof this
about their own
trades,but unfortunately,
on
other things
bit of knowledge,they fancied they knew
a great many
of which
quiteignorant,such, for instance,as how to
they were
Neither
an
empire. At last he saw what the god meant.
govern
And
quite ignorant.
people after another.

he had

Sokrates

else knew

than

anyone
in
men

nor

other

ignorantand

other

the

had

did

men

been

anything,but

respect,

one

he

From

mission

as

he

was

this time
his fellow-

to

them

convince

wiser

was

knew

they were.

having a
apart by God to

set

Sokrates

that

namely,

know

not

forward, he regardedhimself
citizens. He

same

of their

ignorance.

accordingto Plato all this happened before the beginning

War ; for Sokrates is representedas resuming
Peloponnesian

Now
of the

his mission

date the

Poteidaia.1 We

from

return

later than

oracle

about

his

therefore,

cannot,

thirty-fifth
year,

and

it is

alreadywell known by that time. The inquiry

on
Chairephon would be inexplicable
any other supposition.
that he

obvious

of

after his

Plato himself
be based

was

the

on

not

was

yet, and of

born

of Sokrates

statements

what

course

he tells us

himself, and

no

must

doubt

of

that
tact
to
see
Chairephon. It does not requiregreat literary
and that what he did
Sokrates only took the oracle half-seriously,
that he
of interpretation
methods
to
was
apply to it the same

usuallyappliedto Orphic and other mythology.On the other hand,

that a higherpower
believed it quite possible
he clearly
might
make

of

use

the like

to

dogmaticof

men

oracles,dreams, and

human

beings.He

and his

own

Voice'

the least

was

and

his visions seemed

with

communicate

a case

on

in

such

subjects,
point.What is
to be imposed

believed his mission

quitecertain is that he sincerely
for it,and that was
the
him by God. He gave up everything
on
of his poverty in later life.He spoke of his service (Aarpeia)
cause
of Apollo's
to God, and called himself the fellow-slave (o'/xoSouAo?)

That, accordingto Plato,was

swans.

in
intensely

"

06.

of the

earnest

The

about

mission

genuine faith,and

he

was

it.

of Sokrates

War,
Peloponnesian

in which
1

Charm.

interrupted
by

was

he
153

a.

was

called

on

the outbreak

to

do his

duty

BRAVERY

THE

IN

FIELD

III

(432 B.C.),at Delion

(424 B.C.),and at Amphipolis (422 B.C.),and Plato has been
careful to leave a record of his bravery in the field.1In the Symposium
with
makes
Alkibiades
describe
his
conduct
(220 d sq.)he
citizen-soldier. He

as

enthusiasm.
Sokrates

In

past. The
he himself

of the battles Alkibiades

one

his life

saved

by watching

had

along with Laches,

mind, so that they both came
the

incident

same

and

he adds

the

defeat

danger was

tells how

surpassed him

off unhurt.

Laches

dialoguecalled by

in the

have

far

and

that,if everyone
would

then about

else had
turned

been

done
into

Sokrates

in presence
of
is made
to refer

his

(181 b),

name

duty like Sokrates,

his

victory.Sokrates

was

forty-six.2

As

" 107.

tillthe

retreat, Alkibiades

to

retired

to

him

over

and

wounded,

was

generalsawarded the prizeof valour to Alkibiades,but

maintained
it ought to go to Sokrates. Again at Delion,

the Athenians

when

Poteidaia

fought at

shall see, he had

we

by
but
(ercupoi),

circle of associates
from

the young
It appears,

public mission.
singularfascination

these

gatheredround

in the first
who

him

tinguishe
carefullydis-

be

must

he influenced

men

those

over

this time

in the

course

of his

place,that he exercised
devoting themselves

were

to

soldier. That was

callingof a professional
only natural, and in the Republic Plato represents Sokrates as
strongly impressed by the necessityfor a professional
army.

what

then

was

Besides

these

the

new

there

good family,who

of young
of
men
they could be cross-

told,a number

professionon which
examined, and who took great pleasurein hearingthe ignoranceof
others exposed. Some
of them
even
thought they might get a
than any
better preparationfor publiclife by listening
to Sokrates
Sophist could give them. It is certain that Kritias
professional
associated with Sokrates in this way, though he did not do so for
of Sokrates,
long.We hear of others,such as the fellow-demesman
fell away. No doubt they
Aristeides,son of Lysimachos, who soon
wished

learn the

to

necessityof
craftsman.
1

We

no

seen

to

of success,

study

It is important
to
It accounts

Sokrates.
others

at a

whereas

probably
before

notice
for the

later date. See my

was

that

served

at

Samos

the

in 441 /o,but Plato has

of the speakers in his

the time

of most

Sokrates

fought against

of the Phaedo

force

manded
com-

the militaryreputation of
and
by Meno, Xenophon
(Introduction,p. xiv).

Plato insists on
the way
interest taken
in him

edition

insisted on

just as for any other

politician,
who
were
reallydevoted to him,

that he

think

Sokrates

that. It

dialogues. It is interestingto
by Melissos.
2

for

others

were

(" 98)

mention

no

art

serious

There

have

occasion

had

are

we

were,

112

LIFE

notablyAlkibiades
and

it was

and

doubtless

Sokrates.

Even

In the

SOKRATES

Charmides.

Charmides
that Plato

through him

these, however,

or
even
disciples,

phon.

OF

not

are

to

came

be

to

his associates in the strict

as

Apology he speaks of

them

Plato's uncle,

was

regarded

his

as

like Chaire-

sense

'those

as

associate with

they say

are

my

disciples'.1
" 1 08. In speaking of his relations with these young
men
Sokrates habitually
used the languageof love,tempered, of course,
his usual

by

that
kind

at

slyhumour.

Thebes

To

understand

this,we

and Elis and in the Dorian

remember

must

States attachments

of this

recognisedinstitution. They had their originin the

romantic
relation of knight,
squireand page in the Greek "Middle
believed to have great value for military
Ages, and they were
purposes.2In the Laws (636b sq.)the Athenian Stranger,that is to
say Plato,criticises the institutions of Sparta and Crete on the very
favourable to the abuse of such relationships.3
ground that they were
In the Ionian States generally,
the other hand, theywere
on
considered
had made
and, though the Dorian custom
disgraceful,4
were

its way

into Athens
both

before
law

by

the time

and

of

Solon, its abuse

by public opinion.5Plato

abundantlyclear,however,

that it

the fashion

was

circles to ape this feature of Spartan life among

the extremely vivid account
of the matter
trust
mouth
it

of Alkibiades
it was

"

and

"

Alkibiades

that first posed

Sokrates,though it is also made

The

personalchastityof Sokrates

the whole

story, and

languagein

gross

the matter-of-fact

spoken of.

It will

Megara, only a

at

it.In these
1

quiteclear

Apol.

we

What

sense.

way

therefore

miles

circumstances,we
In his Bousiris

that he invented

as

the epw/jievos

of

only a

pose.
the foundation of

of such

that,if we

from

Athens,

can

hardlylook

(n. 5)

may
into
the
puts

he

no

the abuse

understand

to

we

rightto interprethis
reader is
surprisesa modern
really

in which

help us
few

have

as

it

in aristocratic

that it was

is assumed

demned
con-

makes

others. If

it is surelyincredible

himself

was

Isokrates

no

is
relationships
remember

that

disgraceattached
for the

same

to

reticence

the matter
exactly as
Polykrates (Cf. " 116,
of Sokrates, whereas
infra)for making
disciple(pad^r-fis)
no
one
knew
of him being educated
Sokrates.
ever
(Traiofvopevov)
by
2
See Bethe
in Rhein. Mus,
Ixii. (1907),pp. 438 sqq.
3
Addressing a Spartan and a Cretan,he says : /cat TOVTOJV
ras
v^erepas
Trpcaras av TIS atViaiTO (636 b).
4
Plato,Symp.'iSzb.
6
Plato,Phaedr. 2316: el TOLVW
TOV
KaOear-^KoraoeooiKas,
voftov TOV
fJ.rj
TU"V
ooi
dvOpooTTtuv
oveioos
Against Timor chos,passim.
yevTjTat KT\. Aischines
Plato

33

makes

a.

Sokrates

represent
Alkibiades
a

it himself.

He

represents
criticises

EROS

the

on

Plato's condemnation
The
here

way of
derived

from

day,though

another

on

side,however, and

his accustomed

humour.

He

had

the birth of

incapableof

was

thoughts in the soul in language

of course,
He professed,
that he
calling.
givingbirth to wisdom, but he claimed to

man-midwife, well skilled in the

thoughts to

new

Sokrates
more

his mother's

excellent

an

once

speaking of

himself
be

note

may

the present

at

is unequivocal.

thing appealed to
we

observed

is commonly

subjectas

113

the birth. Besides

matchmakers, he claimed

of

art

bringing

that,justas midwives

peculiargiftfor discerning
would
be. That is all playful,
who the best teacher for a young
man
but we
must
to be sure,
never
forgetthat Sokrates was a mystic as
well as a humorist, and the mysticshave alwaysfound the language
of love more
adequate than any other to express their peculiar
best

The
experience.

something

far

of

love

higher.It

to

fair

have

the

are

leads

is

body
of

only the earthlytype

the love of

to

on

fair ways

love of fair studies and

and
life,

at

fair

of

soul, to the

last it bringsus

into

of the 'forms' of beauty,righteousness,

and
presence
holiness in that supercelestial
regionwhere theyhave their dwellingthe

very

thus

When
place.1
to

seen

the realities of which

be

shadows, and from

There

have.

objectsof love,these

the

regarded as
which

be

can

no

the

thingsin

they derive
doubt

such

Plato

'forms'

this world

are

are

but

imperfectbeingas they

means

us

to

believe that

actuallyattained to this beatific vision. It is not for

nothing that he is represented as having one of his trances
just
the
recorded
in
before the conversation
Symposium. That must be
of twenty-fourhours
intended to throw lighton that other trance
Sokrates

had

than a dozen years before. The man

in the camp
at Poteidaia
more
who saved the lifeof Alkibiades by his fearless devotion in the battle
fresh from

was

the

contemplationof

109. Plato has left us

of Sokrates
the discourses

"

he

quote the words

admirer, and

puts

than

more

had
into

Alkibiades,an

far
one

higherbeauty than his.

descriptionof the effect

on

young
the mouth

enthusiastic

It will be

men.

of
one.

Meno,
Meno

well

to

reluctant

says

(Meno,

e):

79

Before
and
1

make

Phaedr.

I met
other
247

told you did nothing but confuse

I reallythink you
people confused. And now

you

sqq.

was

cannot

believe

experience. It is strictlyin keeping with

Sokrates.

that this is
all

we

know

description of
about

the

yourself
are
just

Plato's

temperament

own

of

LIFE

114
and

bewitchingme
I

think,if I

It benumbs
torpedo-fish.
that is justwhat

may

anyone
have done

you

be allowed

figurebut

in

only

strong resemblance, not

and

SOKRATES

castingspellsand enchantments

full of confusion.

am

OF

who
to

over

the

in other

comes

Both

me.

jest,
you have
respects,

it and

near

to

the

touches

soul and

my

that

so

me,

it,

lips

my

I
to giveyou.
benumbed, and I don't know what answer
literally
about
and
and
have made
before
over
over
again
goodness,
speeches
I fancied,but now
I can't
as
largecompanies,with complete success
think
what
I
tell
it
is.
it
to
even
extremelyprudent on your part never
are

take

thingsas
for

leave

or

voyage

stranger in

If you were
do these
to
would
probablybe taken up

country.

own

your

foreignland,you

a sorcerer.

Alkibiades,who, with all his faults,or because

And

very dear

to

Sokrates,says this

I shall endeavour

them,

was

(Symp. 2153):

praiseSokrates

to

of

well

as

as

by

can

of

means

images.Very likelyhe will think it is to make fun of him, but my

I say he is justlike
image is chosen for its truth and not its absurdity.
in the statuaries' shops,those they make
of Silenos we
the figures
see
with pipesor flutes in their hands, and when
you open them you find
of
the
inside
And
them.
I say too that he is like
have
gods
images
they
the satyr Marsyas. That you are like these in appearance,
Sokrates,I
and now
let me
tell you how
fancy you won't deny yourself,
you are
You're
aren't
don't
like them
in other ways.
If
a wanton,
you?
you
admit it,I shall call witnesses. Ay, and aren't you a piper?A far more
than he was! He only charmed
wonderful
men
one
by his instruments;
because
the
effect by words
him
beat
you produce
very same
you
hear anyone
else speak,even
When
alone without any instrument.
we
of us care a bit;but when
hears you
none
a very good speaker,
anyone
the
if
else
different
or
repeatingyour words, even
speaker is an inanyone
.

him,

we

are

it is

whether

and

one,

all confounced

woman

and

or

or

man

lad that hears

friends,unless

inspired.My

afraid you would think me

quitedrunk, I would tell you
have had on me
and stillhave. When
the effect his words
him

heart

my

leaps even

wildly than

more

those

of

on

was

oath

my

I listen

to

in

people

Korybanticecstasy, and his words make the tears gush from my eyes.
others affected in the same
I used to hear
I see many
And
way. When
Perikles and
I had

of

none

idea that it was

such

good speakers,I thoughttheyspoke very well,but

these feelings.
My soul was not troubled or angry at the

other

in

condition

livingso long as
were

to

should

consent

feel

by

state

this

like

Marsyas

I remained
to

just the

lend

as

the

Sirens,

my

was.

And

ears

now,

thing,I

me

often been

am

quitesure

I couldn't
to

put into

thought life not

confess

worth

that if I

hold

out, but
that,though I

neglectmyselfand busy myself

So I stop my

prevent

I have

here, that I

forces

He

same.

to

as

him

myselffall far short in many

about the affairs of Athens.
if from

slave's. But

ears

and

from

run

myselfbecoming

away
rooted

to

him

the spot

Il6

"

LIFE

But

in.

Sokrates

Voice' would

duty as
allow

not

him

and

it

of the
representatives
to

act

tribe

the executive

as

seen

that

never

member

that

it

of the Council

the

was

Antiochis,to which

to
failing

fifty
belonged,

his deme

the time

at

the bodies

recover

of Five

of the

turn

of the Council

committee

tried for

generalswere

be

happened

so

have

We

held any office.The

take part in politics.
In 406 B.C.,

to

to

hand.

at

were

soldier,but he

however, it fell to his lot

Hundred,

SOKRATES

difficulttimes

more

did his

OF

the

of the dead

after the naval battle of the

Arginoussai.The conduct of the trial

showed
that the democracy was
gettinginto an uglytemper. It was
proposed to judge all the generalstogetherinstead of taking the
of each separately.
That
was
case
againstthe law, and Sokrates,
who presided,refused,in spiteof the popular clamour, to put the
condemned
questionto the meeting.The generalswere ultimately
procedure,but the action of Sokrates made a deep
by an illegal
impression,and he referred to it with justifiable
pride at his trial.
A littlelater,
duringthe
of

showing

side either. The

rule
illegal

that he

could

Plato

home.

makes

suffered for this if the

this

after. From

of consequence
Athens
with the

phon, did

we

"

Let

us

or

place, we

Sokrates

had the tunity

opporintimidated
the
other
by

along with

the

out

that he

four

others arid

might

be put

order, but Sokrates

simply
probably have

him

say that he would

Thirty had not been overthrown

may infer
that Sokrates
"

democrats,

to

and

we

did

not

shall

see

shortly

that the

point is

feel called upon

to leave
Chairethough his devoted disciple,

so.

confirmed
first

Thirty,he

of Salamis

ARISTOPHANES

" 112.

be

not

for him

Thirty sent

gave them orders to arrest Leon

death. The four others carried
went

of the

now

consider

otherwise

how

far this

of Sokrates

account

by Aristophanes and Xenophon.

observe

must

XENOPHON

AND

sharplydivided

that

into

Plato

represents

the

In

is
the

life of

periodsby the response of the

he was
oracle. In the earlier,
occupied with the religious
chiefly
and scientificmovements
of his time, and with his new
theory of
of sensible thingsin the 'forms' ; in the latter,
the participation
his
mission

as

to

his fellow-citizens is his

interest,
though in the month
and
busied

his death

his

two

youth.It

he

that

chief, and

elapsedbetween

naturallyrecurred

is further

to

to

be noticed

almost

his sole

his condemnation

the themes
that the

that had

testimony of

THE

SOKRATES

OF

ARISTOPHANES

Aristophanes refers to the first of these

Xenophon to the second. The Clouds was

periods,and that of
produced in 423 B.C.,
the year between the battles of Delion and of Amphipolis, in both
Sokrates fought.His mission, though begun, was
rupted,
interof which
and Aristophaneswould
be thinkingmainly of the earlier
Sokrates. Chronologyis vital in dealingwith this question,and we
that Sokrates was
allow ourselves to forget
must
never
only fortywhen
seven
Aristophanesproduced the Clouds, and that Plato and
the caricababies. We
ture
Xenophon were
must, therefore,compare
of Aristophanesonly with what Plato tells us of the youth of
Sokrates,and
That

" 113.

he tells us

with what

not

the Clouds

is a caricature

There
interpretedaccordingly.
of

comedy

of

very occurrence
that it is not

funny. On

which

funny

not

are

have

must

time

of natural
other

or

thingsbeneath
that

these

as

(TO.VTTO

to

his life to make

y^?).Plato
of
a

must

been

the heavens

of

real

not

are

have

must

fictions about

have

must

adherent

presumption

of fact

statement

the first place,he

chief studies
an

be

tion
interpreta-

ask,then, is what

periodof

thingsin

the

were

represents Sokrates

some

people

Sokrates
the caricature

have

interested

been
at one

and
(ra juerecopa)
makes

his

Sokrates

the

declare

youth. Aristophanes

system which

is recognisable

Apollonia,and that is justwhy the chorus

the thpQjy
know
that JQiogenes had revived
consists of clouds. We
of Anaximenes
that everythingis condensed
rarefied 'air',
and
or
as

that of

we

science,and he

the earth

affords

comedy

have

In
possible.

in the

for the

of fact. Statements

in the earlier

been

of the Clouds
student

hand, every such

in fact;for absolute

either. What

obvious, and it must

canons

the other

of foundation

sort

in

statement

mere

is

In the first place,the

neglected.

often

are

two

are

statement

of the later period.

Diogenes

the clouds

are

of

of the first results of the condensation

one

Justso Plato makes

questions,whether
Diogenes) or blood

Sokrates
'what

represents him

we

say that he had

think with' was

(the doctrine

of

of air.

studied,among

other

air

(thedoctrine of
phanes
Empedokles),and Aristo-

swinging in a basket in order to get pure

dry air for his thought.Aristophanes also knows of the spiritual
midwifery of Sokrates,for he has a jestabout the miscarriageof a
thought.On the other hand, he represents him as a spiritualistic
medium,
word
He

and

which

he
to

calls the inmates

the

also ridicules

as

of the Phrontisterion

ordinaryAthenian would
for going barefoot
them

a
'souls',

only suggest ghosts.

and

unwashed,

and

Il8

LIFE

speaksof

them

has

kind,

OF

SOKRATES

All that,and
'semi-corpses'.

as

sufficient foundation

Sokratic doctrine

of the soul and

thing that

us

strikes

gatherfrom
weaker

the Wicked

of
'practice

inconsistent with
teaches

the stronger. That

And

yet, if we
of

indications
Sokrates

Plato

is not

his

tells

same

of the

us

death'. The

only

we
everything

pupilsto

true

of

even

can

make

the

Protagoras

while the introduction of the Righteousand

suggested,
wider of
a later addition)
seems
even
Logos (possibly

sense

the mark.

the

Plato is that Sokrates

argument

in the

first as

at

in what

of the

more

to

look

features
for such

account

shall find there

closer,we
in

the

teachings of

distortion

the

Platonic

the part of

on

cient
suffi-

are

not

too

from Plato that the new

method
poet. We know
in the consideration
of thingsfrom
consisted precisely

scrupulouscomic
of Sokrates
the

point of

view

of

and Aristophaneswould
(e'pya),

facts
would

not

seemed

so

that

that
distinguish
dangerous to conservative
to

care,

it

used

was

described

for the

be

not

from

from

than

able, and

the 'art of

certainly

which
Aoyot',

As for the tion

suggesimmoral
of establishing

Athenians.

purpose

like that
that discussions
only suppose
the Hippias minor had got talked about, as they certainly
obvious to the plainman
that anyone
It would
seem

in

would.

maintained

the

engaged

in the

subversion

submit, then, that if the Sokrates of this date

represents him

to

be

voluntarywrongdoer to

be

involuntarymust

was

better
of
much

than

what

been, the caricature of the Clouds

have

as
'disciples'
(/m"p-ai),

in a
(eVatpot)

his
how

succeed

were

sent

him

to

in life.What

Aristeides1 is enough
and

were

to

But
Pheidippides.

by

his permanent

is

the

quite
most

certain

men

who

associates

frequented

their parents in order

Plato tells us

Plato

Sokrates, of whom

of

scientificschool,and the young

societyor
to

calls them,

chief,and who

the

was

he

the

morality.I

ifhe was
intelligible;
not, itis surelypointless.
" 114. But, above all,Aristophanesconfirms Plato in
explicitway by drawing a clear distinction between

Chairephon

that of

need

conclusions, we

who

rather
propositions
(Aoyot)

about

to

learn

Lysimachos and

the burlesquefigures
of Strepsiades
justify
the

machinery

of the Phrontisterion

implies
usuallysaid,

serious. It is
more
something much
indeed, that Aristophanes is taking Sokrates as a type of the
Sophistsof the day, but that view is untenable. In the first place,
and when
the Old Comedy does not deal in types but personalities,
that there

was

Laches, 178

sqq. ; Theaet.

1513.

XENOPHON'S

Aristophanesdoes introduce
fictitious name.

type,

But apart from

associates.

permanent

SOKRATES

They

in the

as

that,the
here

were

119

Birds,he giveshim

of the
Sophists

of lectures to
they only gave short courses
the
perpetuallychanging.Besides, they were
trouble

to

themselves

a
no

to-dayand

and

world

day had

with

gone to-morrow,
audiences that were
last

scientific

people in the
inquiriessuch as
in
Phrontisterion,

Aristophanesis obviouslymaking fun of. The

fact,is a burlesqueof an organisedscientific school of a type which
well known
in Ionia and Italy,
but had not hitherto existed at
was
Athens, unless,indeed, Archelaos had established
did not, in

fact,preside
over

Aristophaneshimself
that he knew
them

such

invented

are
society,

the idea of

of those in other

cities

If Sokrates

one.

we

to

that

suppose

scientificschool, or

by hearsayand

transferred

in

imaginationto Athens ? It is surelyvery hard to see what

the pointof that could be, and we must
conclude, I think,that he
expectedhis audience to know what an institution of the kind was
like. If he has

with

anyone,

their

confused
Sokrates
or
voluntarily
involuntarily
it is not with Sophists
like Protagorasand Gorgiasor

followers,but with Anaxagoras and Archelaos ; and, if the latter

did found a regularschool,Sokrates would naturally
succeed him
its head.

as

the matter.
for

That, in fact seems

We

have

when

come

was

of Archelaos
disciple

he knew

the

judged by

The
writings.
to statements

to

Xenophon,

Sokrates

remember, in the
return

to

never

put to death. In the second

that the Memorabilia is an apologia,
and
of criticism

canons

chief of these is that

connected
directly
all,when they seem

degree inconsistent

old

alreadyan

was

most

with

such

applicableto

weightis to

be attached

purpose of the
in any
involve admissions
what Xenophon wished
to

with the main

not

work; above

must

we

and Sokrates
very young,
him, and that he leftAthens

three years before

place,we must remember
be

that Sokrates

of

probableaccount

most

was

about

must

the

me

of years.1

number

" 115. When we

first place,
that he
man,

seen

to

to

that. Now

unjustlyaccused of being irreligious,

prove is that Sokrates was
and that his conversations,
far from corruptingthe young, did
so
them

great deal of

soundness
himself
it. What

of his

with

good. One of
religiousattitude

natural science and

Plato

tells

us

of the
1

Seep.

the chief arguments

is that he refused

dissuaded

others

from

for the
to

busy

studying

disappointmentof Sokrates
124,

n.

with

a.

B.C.

P.

LIFE

120

Anaxagoras,and

OF

SOKRATES

his renunciation

of

physicalspeculationsat an
early age, is enough to explainwhat Xenophon says, and yet he
that he has gone too far. In fact he gives his point
feels at once
'Yet he himself was
not
completelyby adding twice over:
away
unversed
in these subjects' subjectsof which he givesa list,
and
which
matics
correspond exactlyto the most
highlydeveloped mathe"

and

of the time.1

astronomy

Further, he knew

that what

Aristophanesburlesqued as the Phrontisterion was a reality

; for he
makes
Sokrates tell the SophistAntiphon, who
was
tryingto rob
him of his disciples a very significant
touch
that he does in
fact study the writingsof the older philosopherswith his friends.
'I spend my time with them,' he says, 'unrolling
the treasures
of
in books and left
the men
of old, which they have written down
behind them.'2 Admissions
like these are far more
important than
words put into the mouth
of Sokrates about scientific
the philistine
study. No one who talked like that could have attracted Pythagoreans
"

"

and

like Kebes

Simmias

Thebes

from

also says he did.3

It would
be possible
to find

to

listen

to

him,

as

Xenophon
this

in

sort

Memorabilia

fact,it

seems

good

admissions

more

many

of

how
far the
Xenophon, but it is not clear to me
be regarded as independent testimony at all. In
can
hardly possibleto doubt that Xenophon got the

about
greater part of his information
of Plato. Otherwise, it would
be very

Sokrates

the

from

that
significant

dialogues

he has heard

in the dialectic of Sokrates.4 1 do

importance of 'hypothesis'
feel able to relyon such thingsas first-hand evidence,however,

of the
not

and

therefore

Memorabilia
admit

make

as

good

no

historical work

he

In

was.

successful.

sort

Those

bound,

are

of

hard

on

have

never

been

who

the

treat

the other

hand,

explain on the
Xenophon wishes us
to

man

fact,Xenophon 's defence

would

He

the

was

them.

are

thingsthat

many

that Sokrates
think

of

use

put

to

of Sokrates
death

is

if he had

to

sumption
as-

to
too

been

like that.

" 116.
while

The

conclusion

we

it is

in my opinion,forced to is that,
regard the Sokrates of Aristophanes

are,

to
quiteimpossible
of Xenophon
the same
and the Sokrates
as
person,
both
distorted
in
as
images of the
difficultyregarding

know

from

Plato. The
1
*

Mem.
Mem.

there

Sokrates

firstis legitimately
distorted for comic

iv. 7. 3-5.
iii.n.
17.

Mem.

i. 6. 14.

Mem.

iv. 6. 13.

is

no
we

effect;

THE

PLATONIC

SOKRATES

121

avoid
for apologeticreasons.
To
legitimately,
misunderstanding,I should say that I do not regardthe dialogues

the

latter,not

of Plato

so

of actual conversations,though I think

records

as

probablethat

there

Sokrates

that the Platonic

his

image

his

martyrdom. The

to

may

such

are

embedded
is Sokrates
be

extent

some

extent

determine, but I do

of course,

Plato

as

that has

of

the memory

happened we

believe it has

not

fully

him, and that

saw

transfigured
by

which

to

I also admit

in them.

it

cannot,

falsified
seriously

giftof
picture.Like Shakespeare, Plato had a marvellous
when
position.
suppressinghis own
personality
engaged in dramatic comThat is why his personality
is so elusive,and why that of

the

Sokrates
when

we

has

Plato

to

come

of Plato and

all alike pure fiction,so

of the
One
about the man.

are

must

return

to

this

the reader

warn

evidence, accordingto which

of the

that of

shall

for it.We

himself,but first I

view

that there is another

Sokrates

substituted

often been

so

the

Aristophanesand that of Xenophon

that we
reallyknow nothing at all
most

writers

recent

the

on

subject1

in the story of the

campaigns of Sokrates,and denies that he had any relations of any
vention
inkind with Alkibiades. Accordingto him, that was
a malicious
whether

doubts

there

even

grain of

who
Sophist Polykrates,2

of the
Sokrates

is

before

390

Plato

B.C.

did

truth

wrote

not

pamphlet against

contradict this

to

stoop

commonplace pamphleteer,and besides,the idea of bringingthe

he
two
so
men
one,
togetherappealed to him as an interesting

simplywrote
theories may

and

have

to

round

romance

it. Now,

embroider

choose

nihilism

Xenophon's

between

the Platonic

of the view

bald tale. It
Sokrates

justindicated.

It is

if he were
Xenophon's Sokrates,even
disbelieve the testimony of Plato
we
points,it is impossibleto assignany reason

preserve
and, if

A. Gercke

incredible such

however

than anythingwe
far sounder
appear, they are really
pickingand choosingwhatever we pleaseout of Plato,

by
using it to

get

can

we

in

vol.
Gercke-Norden, Einleitung,

ii.p.

seems

to me

that

thoroughgoing
to
reallyimpossible
worth
preserving,
and the

the

on

for

366

most

vital

acceptingit

on

sq.

(n. 5),
slightestground for the
that Alkibiades
assertion
a
was
discipleof Sokrates. As I have pointed out (p.
Plato
makes
Sokrates
himself
n.
i)
138
thing. It is nowhere
say exactlythe same
'educated'
Plato
that
Alkibiades
that
in
a
or
was
suggested
fj.a6-r]-rrjs, Sokrates
him.
It may
be added
that the Protagoras is almost
certainly earlier than the
Sokrates
and Alkibiades
pamphlet of Polykrates,and that the relation between
is presupposed in it.
2

This

which

statement

is

supposed

is based
to

mean

on

that

in the

passage

there

was

not

Bousiris
the

of

Isokrates

LIFE

122

The

others.

greatest

Plato

mystification

such

to

in

characters
read

hard

Sokrates

Platonic

fiction,

with

as

SOKRATES

OF

would
but

patience,
this

hypothesis

people

some

if

indeed,

remain,

they

supposed

credits

him

would
him
with.

as

of

one

find

it

capable

the

very
of

PHILOSOPHY

THE

124

lived

Eleatics and
They were
way.
tradition preservedby Cicero

Zeno, and

and

Parmenides

Megara
we

(143 a) that

told

are

trines
told that he 'handled' the doc-

him

that

some

sharing a
lookingup to

common

who

him

both

at

allowed

and

Thebes

body. The
by

the

that the soul is

regard Sokrates

men

he

departureof

most

Philolaos

taken

of

notes

for

as

their

Master, and

of them

it is

attitude

misrepresent their

could

himself. The

with

have

only to

not

of the

attunement

an

of these notes
the accuracy
firmed
conIn fact Plato
when
he visited Athens.

himself

impossibleto suppose
at a time when
seriously
intercourse

had

of Sokrates

had

have

to

Sokrates

not

that the contemporary

refutes the theoryheld

who

drop, and
is said

Eleatic Eukleides

all these

makes

to

Phleious

his discourses, but

men,

exponent. It is Sokrates

in certain old doctrines

instructs them

these

but did
expected,

were

authoritative

its most

as

Pythagoreanshad

Sokratics,including

schools of Hellas.
philosophical
unquestionably
represents the Pythagoreans
as
philosophywith Sokrates, and even

Plato

as

of the

that the condemnation

arrive in time. It is evident

of

of the discourses

death. Besides

Kleombrotos

and

Aristipposof Kyrene
all the

of

notes

took

Plato,took refuge after their Master's

deeplymoved
" 1 1 8. Now

the Eleatics

close relation between

Eukleides

with

Sokrates,and it was

of

successor

is further illustrated in the Theaetetus,where

Sokrates

and

the

Eukleides

Academic

The

Megara.

at

makes
are

we

The

of Parmenides.

SOKRATES

OF

and in close
stillliving

were

suggestionseems

be

to

became

Italy,Sokrates

that, after
all intents

to

remained behind.
who
and purposes the head of the Pythagoreans
On one
point he is made to express surprisethat Simmias and
had not been instructed by Philolaos (61 d),and Echekrates
Kebes
of Phleious is shaken
soon

does

he is told that Sokrates

as

doctrine

accepts the main

Plato's account

know

We

of
generation

the

the doctrine

follower

he had

become

he and

his friend

of

he

as

soon

as

what

by

was

of Aristotle. We
made

he

attunement

an

told of

are

we

last

the

that he maintained

attunement

have

as

(88 d).He also

hears it (102a).

acquaintedwith

was

that the soul

Dikaiarchos

seen

even

after

("70) that
denying that

too

great pointof
of the ascetic abstinences

practised
any
attributed
generally

ever

rites
purificatory
source

that

share it

Pythagoreansat Phleious, and

of Philolaos

Pythagoras had

of Sokrates

not

is,I think, confirmed

Aristoxenos.

the

in his belief that the soul is an

to

great deal of scandalous

him.

Now

gossipabout

Aristoxenos
Sokrates

and
is

and

AND

SOKRATES

Plato. He

from

came

Aristoxenos

should
The

goreanism,which
(""7"" 75)-I*

ig at

doctrine

of

very

the

soul

In

119.

the

the

Plato

which

point of view,

Phaedo

he

Philolaos
doctrine
of

mysticalside
got rid of
laid

once

stress
special

be

of

the

Pythafor all
on

Sokrates

represents
would

were

the
as

just another

FORMS1

THE

"

Why
personally.

corruptedtheir

revived

Sokrates

about

of

friends

they believed they had

rate a ^act t^iat^ey
anv

their

refuting.From
Hippasos.

had

and

soul

of the

him

and

Messene,

the character of Sokrates ?

blacken

had

Sokrates

because

annoyed

to

known

had

suggests itself that the

answer

nature

be anxious

Tarentine

from

got his information

have

Spintharos,who

his father

from

125

Dikaiarchos

and

Taras

professedto

PYTHAGOREANS

THE

the

Sokrates

doctrine

and

the

Pythagoreans
'intelligible

is that of
as
holding in common
represented
for believingto
have seen
which
reason
we
forms' (vo7?ra
et'Sr]),
as
be Pythagorean in origin("32).Further, Sokrates is described
contribution to the theory which, in
making an important original
this
writers generally
treat
fact,completelytransforms it. Modern
are

fiction,and ascribe the doctrine

as

of forms

to

Plato

under

the

Theory' or 'the Theory of Ideas'. The chief

is that it is not to be found in the most
ground for this ascription
said that
and it is generally
Sokratic of the dialogues,
distinctively
of 'the Ideal

name

in the Phaedo.
its first appearance
That, however, is a
circular argument ; for the sole ground on which certain dialogues
it makes

singledout as speciallySokratic is justthat the theory

is surelyno
in them. There
questionis not supposed to occur

have
in

been

versations,
drag it into all his confor him to
and in fact it would have been inappropriate
would
be likelyto
refer to it except in talkingwith people who
understand. Nothing, then, can be inferred from his silence on the
that silence is not
of the dialogues,
as
especially
subjectin most
unbroken.
By a curious minor epicyclein the argument we are

for

reason

indeed

warned
in

to

makes

would

the doctrine

does

appear

to

be referred

dialogue proper, we are not to understand the

they afterwards acquired,but this is surely
sense

purposely avoided the word 'idea'. It inevitablysuggests to us

our
or
God's,
own
(vormara),whether
are
iSe'ai)
concepts
(eiSr?,
of the doctrine impossible.
rightinterpretation

I have

'forms'

that,when

Sokrates

Sokratic
in the

words

thinkingthat

that the
and

this

I26

OF

PHILOSOPHY

THE

SOKRATES

to the point to
highestdegree.1It is much more
tained
in which
it is mainobserve that the theory of forms in the sense
and Republicis wholly absent from what we
in the Phaedo
Platonic of the dialogues,
regardas the most distinctively
may fairly
those, namely, in which Sokrates is no longer the chief speaker.

the

arbitraryin

In that

it is

sense

(inwhich

the Parmenides

the Timaeus

exceptionof

well be

hand, nothing can

the other

On

dialoguelater than
with the single
it is apparentlyrefuted),
(51 c),where the speakeris a Pythagorean.
mentioned

even

never

Plato ascribes the doctrine

Sokrates.

to

in any

more

the way
it is spoken

than
explicit

In the Phaedo

(i oo b) as 'nothingnew', but justwhat Sokrates is alwaystalking

about. In the Parmenides
(130b) Sokrates is asked by the founder

of

thoughtof the theoryhimself, and

repliesin the affirmative. That is supposed to happen at least
born. Again in the Phaedo
(76 b),
twenty years before Plato was
he had

of Eleaticism whether

is made

Simmias

Sokrates

when
is able

to

say that he doubts

has

'this time

row',
to-mor-

there will be anyone leftwho

of the forms. If that is fiction,

passedaway,

give an adequate account

to

whether

it is at least deliberate,and

can

only ask,as

I have

asked

before,2

ever
propounded a new theoryof his own
philosopher
of distinguished
familiar to a number
it as perfectly
by representing
some
livingcontemporaries
years before he had thought of it

whether

any

himself.

"

1 20.

theorywhich is simply taken for grantedin

and Kebes, but
Phaedo, not only by Simmias

The

part of the
Echekrates

thought and
the latter

are

also

by
is
reported,

the objectsof
sharp distinction between
the objectsof sense.
Only the former can be said to be;
only becoming.It is made clear that the originof this

There

follows.

as

the conversation

Phleious, to whom

at

is

the first

is

study of mathematics, and

must
distinction between
being (ovata)and becoming (yeVecri?)
what we mean
We
know
by equal,but
accordingly.
interpreted

theoryis

have

never

to

be

seen

looked

for in the

equal sticks

or

stones.

The

sensible

thingswe

the
be
we

call

be
demands
that Piety should
Euthyphro, for instance, Sokrates
and
"5
Sma
asks
for
etSo?
i8eav
exelvo
oma
TO
to fiiav
(5 d),
mands
(72 c) he deetrriv (6 c). He also speaks of this as a TrapaSety/^a
(6 e).In the Meno
have
In
the
we
of
Goodness.
the form
b)
Cratylus
(389
to know
(el8os)
Professor
with
I entirely agree
the highly technical
o
eon
phrase avro
KepKis.
that
it
is
futile to
in
Plato's
holding
Chicago,
1903)
Thought,
of
Shorey (Unity
to the
of thought in Plato's dialoguesdown
look for any variation or development
with him, as will be seen.
part company
Republic,though at that point I must
*E.Gr.Ph.*p.35s.
1

In

referred

the

nva

-navra.

ra

THE

to
'tending'

all 'striving'
or

equal are

FORMS

127
be such

as

the

equal,but they

tendingtowards it,and that is why

they are said to be becoming. Sensible equalityis, as it were,
it may
to true
near
come
equality'in the making' ; but, however
it. The
connexion
of this with
reaches
the
equality,it never
is obvious.
The
difficulties raised by Zeno
definite
problem of an inreaches its goalwas
that of the
approximationwhich never
age.1
fallfar short of it. Still,
they are

As

have

we

seen,

this

essentially
Pythagorean. Where

reasonablyattribute
inclusion

of what

with
equality

the

to

it differs from

call moral

the mathematical.

We

and

have

side

anythingwe

is in

Pythagoreans

should

we

its mathematical

theory on

the

is
can

systematic

aesthetic forms

on

an

anythingthat
KaXov)or 'justgood'(avro tarw
seen
anything'justequal'(avro
never

seen

o
'justbeautiful' (avro o eari
than we have
TO
ayaQov) any more
This tends to emphasisethat aspect of the forms in which they
iaov).
the 'upper
are
regardedas patterns or exemplars (rrapaoeL-y^ara),
limits' to which the manifold and imperfectthingsof sense
tend to
It may sound
a littlestrange to say
approximate as far as possible.
isosceles right-angled
that an
be a triangular
trianglewould
of speaking becomes
if it could, but such a way
number
quite

is

natural when
Aristotle
Sokrates

and

introduce moral

we

aesthetic forms.

This

is what

when
he makes
the preoccupationof
to mean
appears
with ethical matters
velopmen
playso important a part in the deof the

he tells us, had only

theory.The Pythagoreans,
such as opportunity,
determined a few thingsnumerically,
justice,
and
marriage, and they had been influenced
by superficial
Sokrates
i
t
that
analogies;2 was
suggesteda systematicsearch for
the universal in other fields than mathematics.3
further that

of any attempt to connect

the forms with numbers, and this suggests that the persons whom
Aristotle refers to as those 'who firstsaid there were
forms', and
we

do

It will be observed

from
distinguishes
the persons

who

quote that
believe that

to

We

number
2

Met.

Met.

Met.

may

not

hear in the Phaedo

Plato

on

that very

call themselves
as

ground,4are

'we' in the Phaedo.

external evidence ; for I think

everythingAristotle

illustrate the relation

of

to
yeVecris

of decimal

places.
M. 3. 1078 b, 21 ; A.
A. 6. 987 b, r.
M.4- 1078 b, n.

5.

987

tells us

a,

22.

oiWa

we

about
by

no

other

than

I do not, however,
shall

see

Sokrates

the evaluation

of

reason
comes

IT

to

any

128

PHILOSOPHY

THE

from

"

OF

SOKRATES

and especially
from the Phaedo
dialogues,
account
given by Sokrates in the Phaedo

the Platonic
The

121.

process

which

by

we

appreciatedbecause
in the Meno

reallyis,how
the

is apt

expressed in

of

to

come

we

it is

forms

to

of

the

be

sufficie
in-

the

mythical
we
are
Reminiscence,
expressly
The question
(86 b, 6) not to take too literally.

language of the doctrine

warned

the

know

to

come

itself.1

thingsof

which

have

standard

which

enables

us

to

be

do not
imperfect.We certainly
in our
such a standard
perience
possession;it is only our exof sensible thingsthat givesrise to our
apprehensionof it.
On the other hand, our
apprehensionof the standard when it does
arise cannot
be produced by the sensible things,
since it is something
that goes beyond any or allof them. Now
when we apprehend
this apprehensiongivesrise at the same
time to the
a thing,and
thought of another thingwhich the firstthingiseither like or unlike,
call that being 'reminded'
or
we
put in mind of the one thingby the
other (73 c).The sticks and stones
call equal are like the equal,
we
and those we
call unequal are unlike it,but both alike give rise to
the thought of what is 'justequal'(avroTO
It follows that,
'iaov).
as we
are
put in mind of it both by thingsthat are like it and things
that are unlike it,our
knowledgeof the equal must be independent
of sense
And
the same
is true of 'the beautiful itself
altogether.
and 'the good itself.
Aristotle expresses this in his own
way by sayingthere are two
be attributed to Sokrates,universal definitions
thingsthat may fairly
and inductive
reasoning.In the Prior Analytics(67 a, 21) he
pronounce
with
start

associates
definitely
Reminiscence
in

with

the

what

to

sense

doctrine

of the

he calls the

Meno

that

of
'recognition'

learningis

the universal

Tn no case,'he says, 'do we

find that we have
case.
particular
but we get the knowledge
a previousknowledgeof the particulars,
of the particulars
them
in the process of induction by recognising
it were
There
is no doubt, then, what
as
(axrnepdva'yvaipi"vTas).'
Aristotle means
by sayingthat Sokrates may be credited with the
a

dead
for over
thirtyyears
and
eighteen. His summary
highly ambiguous statements
must, therefore,be interpreted,if possible,in the
of rebutting it appears
lightof the other evidence. To use them for the purpose
indefensible.
That
and
inference
is
to
to me
hearsay
to
methodically
employ
of
have
rules
evidence
in
discredit
first-hand
and
must
we
some
testimony,
allow for Aristotle's
historical as well as in judicialinquiries.I believe that, if we
be interpreted so as not to
can
personal way of looking at things,his statements
the
do violence
to the
concerns
record; but, if not, that is a question which
the interpreter
of Sokrates.
not
interpreter of Aristotle,
when

It must

be

Aristotle

remembered
first

came

that

to

Sokrates

Athens

at

the

had

age

been
of

SENSE

introduction
described

of inductive

in the Phaedo.

it?' (TO TL
of

THOUGHT

129

and
reasonings,

It is also

correct

it is

to

exactlythe

process

he does, that the

say,
in
this
is
recognise
way is 'the What
for in the Phaedo
eo-Tt);
(78 d) Sokrates describes the

universal which

sort

AND

we

to

come

forms

reality
possessedby the

as

'that of the

beingof

which

questionsand answers', that is,in the

that there is nothing here
dialectic process. It will be observed
about abstracting
the common
attributes of a class and setting
it up
That
is a modern
as
a class-concept.
glosson Aristotle's words,
givean

we

and

in

as

account

his reference

meaning

to

of the

our

the Meno

doctrine

shows

he

of Reminiscence.

suggest, then, that what he says on this

other source
He
than Plato's dialogues.
in his

way, no doubt, and

full justice
of
to the doctrine

be

it may

own

of the real

quiteaware

was

There

is

nothing to

pointis derived

from

any

has

expressed the thing

questionwhether it does

Sokrates,but that is another

matter.

language,he could hardlysay

theoryof induction is much
anythingelse,and, after all,his own
than the travesty of it given
like the doctrine of Reminiscence
more
If he

in

to

was

it in his

express

own

be added

text-books. It should

some

that,when

Aristotle says
Sokrates,he is

be attributed to
thingsmay 'fairly'
(Si/caicos)
as
thinking,as he often does, of earlier philosophers
contributing
and
that
he
is
his own
certain elements
to
contrasting
system,

certain

distinction

of any

the

in this respect with

Sokrates

between

there is no

and

He
Pythagoreans.

the 'historical' and

evidence

that he

the soul

ever

is

not

thinking

the 'Platonic' Sokrates,

made

such

distinction.

of

reasoning(Aoytcr/zo?)
that we
are
apprehended
apprehend the forms, while particulars
throughthe body by sensation. Indeed, the body and its senses are
of true wisdom, and the more
only a hindrance to the acquisition
"

it is with

Now

122.

by

means

shall
we
independentof them, the nearer
that the
have seen
and truth. We
to the knowledge of reality
come
be said to have being (ovaia)
at all,but
cannot
things of sense
and that they are
merely likenesses or
only becoming (yevecrt?),
ourselves

make

can

we

images

of

the

eternal

we
(TrapaSeiy/zara)

are

and

standards

immutable

forced

to

Of
postulate.

or

these

patterns
alone

apprehensionof the things of sense

at best belief (Sd|a,
or
marts). If
only 'imagination'
(etVacrta)1
there

be

Rep.

knowledge;

534

a.

There

properly 'guess work'

images

is

can

is

our

an

untranslatable

but
(from et'/ca"ea0at),

play

on

words

it also suggests

we

here; for eiVaci'a is

the

apprehension

of

THE

130

PHILOSOPHY

OF

SOKRATES

seek to rid ourselves of the

knowledge, we must
body, so far as that is possiblein this life;for it is only when the
have knowledge in its
soul has departedfrom the body that it can
by the practiceof dying daily,we may
purity.Yet even in this life,
far mortify the flesh that for a brief space we
behold
the
so
may
eternal realities in a vision,and so being 'out of the body' obtain a
of the first part of the
Such is the teaching
foretaste of immortality.
Phaedo, and there can be no doubt that it pointsto an almost complete

would

have

true

of the world

severance

"

then, by

But

123.

one

of

the world

from

sense

dramatic

of those

of

thought.

surprisesso

when
have been raised to
we
dialogues,
elevation,we are broughtto the ground once
spiritual
of Plato's

of

made

to

feel

be,

it does

that,however

and

edifyingthe

It is Plato's way
us.
satisfy
really
of the different sections of an argument
not

elaboration of the
case

beautiful

he

uses

coming

that precede them.

digressions
of his

resource

every

art

something fundamental. In
ominous
silence (84 c),broken

conversation

between

Simmias

and

make

to

the

to

long and

by

at

Kebes.

this

pitch
and

more,

doctrine

may
the portance
im-

mark

to

teristic
charac-

the

lengthand

In the present
feel that

us

we

are

first

place,there is a
lengthby a whispered
Sokrates sees
they are

convinced, and he urges them to state their difficulties;

for,as
he allows,the doctrine is
objectionsif we discuss it
open to many
not

Then
seriously.

follows

himself

compares

to

(84 e) the magnificent

passage

the

dying

swan

in which

who

sings in praiseof
Delphoi and of Delos, who

he

their

had
Apollo,the lord of
played so mysteriousa part in the life of Sokrates himself,and was
also the chief god of the Pythagoreans.
Simmias
replies(85 c) that
common

master

Sokrates

no

doubt
such

on

feels with

him

but
subjects,

that

and, in default of
of the human

some

divine

that certain
must

we

test

historical importance,that the soul is

different
seems

to

cannot

theory,of
be

therefore
which

Herakleitean

we

try all theories,

make the best

(delos
Ao'yo?),
itself most.
The
difficulty
particular

one

body, and

and

possible
im-

doctrine

that approves
he feels is just the theory,of which

the

knowledge is

be
do

an

have

we

attunement

immortal
not

hear

in

seen

the great
of
(ap^ovia.)

(85 e).Kebes

has

elsewhere, but which

origin,namely,
body which it weaves

that the soul

is the

of the
The
organisingprinciple
as
a garment.
and woven
out
body is alwaysbeing worn
afresh,and thus the soul
bodies. That does not prove,
may properlybe said to outlast many

however, that

one

of these bodies

may

not

be the

last,and that the

THE

132

PHILOSOPHY

OF

SOKRATES

of
by anyone, and he believes it to be capableof showing the cause
coming into being and ceasing to be in the world of sensible
experience,a thing the earlier form of the doctrine could give no
of.
account
intelligible
faction
" 125. Sokrates tells us, then, that when he could find no satisin the science of his time, and in particular
to the
no
answer
of becoming and ceasingto be (yeVecrt?
questionof the cause
/cat
he resolved to adopt a new
method
of inquiry.He would
(f)6opd),
no
longer consider the question from the point of view of the
but from that of the judgements we
make
things (eVrot? e'pyoi?)
about them
and the propositionsin which
these are
expressed
He
is representedboth in the Meno
and in the
(eVTOLS Aoyoi?).
Phaedo
of the mathematicians'
as much
impressed by the efficacy
which
Zeno had made
method
of 'hypothesis',
of common
matter
knowledge at Athens by this time. To understand its meaning, we
leave out

must

of

for the present the

account

of the

use
special

in Aristotelian
'hypothesis'
Logic, and also the popular
etymologyalluded to by Plato in the Republic(511 b) which regards

term

the

of the word

primary meaning

which

used. If

it is not

fact that

do

we

foundation

as

this,we

or

basis,a

shall be struck

in

sense

by the

at once

the

correspondingverb ({world
eadai)has two chief
that of settingbefore oneself or others a task
significations,
firstly
that of setting
to be done, and secondly
before oneself or others a
subjectto be treated,in a speech,for instance,or a drama. This
is

usage

as

used
freely

old

as

Homer,1 and by

in Ionic of

natural

extension

the verb

is

of action. That

a course
suggesting

way of
and also of
'given',

for Euclid's use of the word

speakingaccounts
The original
perfectimperativeslike 'letthere be given'(SeSoo-#aj).
idea is that of a pieceof work given out to be done, and the proposition
ends up with a statement
accordingly
or Q.E.D.
(Q.E.F.OTrep e'SetTroifjaai
OTrep

The

procedure is

stated in the

as

that it has been

e'SeiSet^at).

follows. It is assumed

is true
'hypothesis'

done

that the

proposition

(orthat the

requiredconstruction
has been performed),
and then the consequences
(retav^aivovTa)
of that assumption are deduced
till we
to a proposition
come
we
know
to be true
(or a construction we are able to perform). If,
which
is absurd
to a proposition
however, we come
(or to a con1

See

Liddell

of the term

and

Scott, s.v.

inroOems

requirerearrangement.

The

are

ii. 2.
inroTidrnj.i"

also to be found

article should

The

materials

in Liddell

be read

and

in the order

for

correct

count
ac-

Scott,s.v., but they

iii,
iv,i.2, ii.2, ii. i.

HYPOTHESIS

struction

which

is

the hypothesis
impossible),

The
(dvcupemu,tollitur).
is B, what

follow?'

must

133

the

is

'destroyed'

regularterminologyaccordinglyis,'ifA
(rixP^I
^v^aivav;),and that explainswhy
be regarded as the mark
of a
to
come

conjunction 'if has

hypothesis.Plato's Parmenides

is the locus dassicus for all this,but

the

Hippokratean

method

is older. In

the

Medicine, the fundamental

called

are

be

to

and
hypotheses,

found

doctrines
the

key

Ancient

on

of

Empedokles and others

this way of speakingis also

to

in Plato's Parmenides.

is referred

treatise

There

the

doctrine

of Parmenides

hypothesisIf it is one, and that of his

as the hypothesis
// there are many.1 In the same
opponents
way
the hypothesis
of Empedokles might be stated in the form // there
are
four.This is a result of the Eleatic dialectic.It is not impliedin
to

the

as

the least that Parmenides

Empedokles regardedtheir

or

That
'merelyhypothetical'.
that their method
only meant

is

as

of

far later

use

of the word.

expositionwas to
We
postulates.

of their fundamental
consequences
ourselves that this is what
Parmenides

systematised the procedure, and

theories

trace

out

the

can

see

for

does

it

in his poem.
doubtless
from

was

It is

Zeno
Zeno

Sokrates learnt it.

Like

all dialectical methods, this

rules. We
of

firsttake

and
probability,

that and
answerer

has been

we

set

false whatever

as

which

statement

procedure is subjectto

down

does

not.

appears
true

as

It is

raise any questions

about the
done, and until it is seen whether
to

not

have

tillthen. The

quite separate

agrees with
allowable
for the

not

itself tillthis
hypothesis

If that is not

admitted

consequence

of

it only holds

good

then, we

may

go

on

there

is

may

deduction

even

of the

questionit,
be kept
must

answerer

of consequences
the question of the truth of the

from

gree
high de-

whatever

the consequences
If they do not, and

hypothesisinvolve anythingabsurd.
stillany doubt about the hypothesis,
the
but

to

strict

to

hypothesis.

show

that it is a

in the
higherhypothesiswhich we assume
which is adequate
to some
same
hypothesis
way, tillat last we come
that the answerer
in the sense
accepts it (101d).It will be seen that
there is no
question of demonstrating this ultimate hypothesis;

discussion.

partiesto
1

Farm.

The

some

because

whole

it is

fabric

acceptedby the other party to

depends on the agreement of the

the debate.
128

el 7roAAa e'cmv.

d,

5. The

reading of

the best MSS.

and

Proclus

is avrwv

17 i

the
two

THE

134

"

of the sensible

is the distinction
to

hesitation

any

have

beautiful,we

It is

beautiful.

be

true

to

next

else of the kind ; that throws

makes

say it has
no

is beautiful.' On

'This

which
is of
intelligible,
Pythagoreaninterlocutor without

ask what
to

answer

no

from

starts

the

from

by his
(100 c).Assuming, then, that

allowed

course

hypothesisSokrates

In the present case, the

126.

SOKRATES

OF

PHILOSOPHY

call

brightcolour
the

hand, this is,of

one

of the

form

thing
particular
or
anything
ment,
meaning of the state-

us

lighton

the

there is

the

course,

the questionof what is involved in saying

problem of predication,
We
'A is B', but that is not quitethe form it takes in the Phaedo.
KO!
are
coming into being and ceasing to be (yeWo-i?
discussing
are
askinghow there can be 'a world
or, in other words, we
(f"6opa),

becoming alongsideof the world of being which alone is the

objectof knowledge.The question is better formulated, then, if
makes
a
we
thing beautiful?' The 'simple-minded
say 'What
besides
answer' Sokrates givesto this is : If there is anything
beautiful
and this is explained to
Beauty itself,
Beauty makes it beautiful,
in it that
of the form
that it is the 'presence'
mean
(napovaLa.*)
else we
makes
anything beautiful or whatever
say it is. The
predicateof a propositionis always a form, and a particular
sensible thing is nothingelse but the common
meeting-placeof a
is an intelligible
of predicates,
each of which
number
form, and in
that sense
there is no
longera separationbetween the world of
of the
On the other hand, none
thought and the world of sense.
and this
forms we predicateof a thingis present in it completely,
relation is expressed by sayingthat the thing 'partakesin' the
of

forms that

present in it.Apart from these,it has

independent
anythingparticipates,

are

know
allthe forms in which
reality
; and, if we
it. The
know
about
there is nothing more
to
stated in the Republic(476 a),where
distinctly
each

of the

forms

with
(KOIVCOVLO)

"

each

Sokrates

the

to

seems

separate the forms from

it is just because he denies
The

different

KOLvtavla
from

by

of

the

be

forms

doctrine
we

of their

reason
one

many.1

are

is

most

told that

communion

another,theyappear

It is in that

sense

with

one

and

another

the

that

Republic does
the world of sensible particulars,2
and
all reality
to the sensible
particulars

of the Phaedo

not

but

actions and bodies and with

everywhere, and
Sokrates

is one,

no

"

in the sensible world

is quite

world which
Plato
intelligible
taught. That is just where Plato differs from Sokrates,as we shall see.
2
Ar. Met.
M. 4. 1078 b, 30. dAA' d pfv ZaiKpdrrjs
KaOoXov
ra
^coptardeVot'etow"e
6pt.0fj.ovs.
TOVS
their /coivcuw'awith

one

another

in the

ov

PARTICIPATION

135

they derive from the partialpresence of the forms in

them. The Pythagorean doctrine of imitation left the sensible and
two
as
intelligible
separate worlds; the doctrine of participation
makes
the sensible identical with the intelligible,
except that in
sensible thingsthe forms appear to us as a manifold
instead of in
embodied
their unity,and that they are only imperfectly
in the
should not be entitled to predicatethe form of the
We
particulars.
in it.
thingunless the form were really
" 127. We may say, then, that the problem of Sokrates was to
for the thingsof sense
show how it was
to be real,and he
possible
it by sayingthat they are real in so far as they partakein
answers
is present in them. He is conscious that these
or
as reality
reality
and so is the formula he substitutes
are
expressions,
metaphorical
in the latter part of the dialogue,
namely, that the form 'occupies'
'takes possessionof (/care'^ei)
or
particularthings.That way of
of the final argument
is adopted in the course
puttingthe matter
of the soul,which, though not
for the immortality
an
object of
is nevertheless a particular
thing and not a form. The proof
sense,
is briefly
that,from its very nature, the soul partakesin the form
of life or is 'occupied'
by it,and it is shown that a thing which is
and of its own
nature
occupied by a givenform will not
necessarily
the form
admit
oppositeto that. If attacked by it it will either
withdraw
or
perish.The soul cannot
perish,however, so it will
which will be obvious, Sokrates
withdraw. For reasons
necessarily
except what

himself is

this argument, and Plato

the belief in immortalityin quite

satisfied with
altogether

not

it necessary
to defend
another way. The real result of the Phaedo

found

that

in,or being occupiedby, the form

of what

doctrine

attributed

Plato
from

128.

"

But

of

as

the

from

sense

it still remains
manifold

own

though

thingsof

the

his

sense

and

the form.1

nor

to

cease

Such

is the

tinguishe
clearlydisfrom that of the Pythagoreans.
of
Pythagorean separation(^cupto-jLto?)
to

the

that

true

this,but simply

it becomes,

anythingexcept by ceasingto partakein

be

not

anythingexcept by partaking

become

particular
thingcan

no

is

Sokrates, and

thingsof thought has

there

what

it is

is

as

been

overcome,

the

gulf between

is called in the Phaedrus

confused

(247 c) the

beheld by thought alone.

'colourless,
intangiblereality'
shapeless,
This
1

335

gulfthe

This

b,

10.

is how
He

soul is
Aristotle

does

not

ever

seekingto bridge over,

its

striving

in Gen. Corr.
the theory of the Phaedo
Phaedo'.
the
'Sokrates
in
it to Plato,but to

formulates

attribute

and

B. 6.

136

THE

PHILOSOPHY

described

OF

SOKRATES

volved
languageof passionatelove. That is inin the very name
of philosophyitself,
and is brought home
to
us
by calling
philosophers'lovers of wisdom'
(epacrral
(frpovrjcreuj
where
the verbal variation is meant
of the original
to remind
us
who
No one
is wholly dull and stupid feels
meaning of the name.
this craving,
does he who is alreadywise, as God
is.Love is the
nor
child of Poverty and Resource. Now
the soul itselfand its strivings
can
only be adquately described in mythicallanguage; for they
belong to the middle region which is not yet wholly intelligible.
The
objectsof its yearning are not mythical at all. The inspired
lover is seeking the intelligible
and more
than the
just as much
in
mathematician, and I can see no ground for holding that even
of
the Phaedrus, the forms are
'things'
regarded as supernatural
region'is clearlyidentified with that
any kind. The 'supercelestial
of pure thought,
and the forms the mind beholds in it
ness
Righteouslend
itself
do
Soberness
not
itself,
itself,Knowledge
themselves
in any way to crude pictorial
fancies. It is true that our
relation to this supreme
guage
can
reality
only be expressedin the lanof feeling,
but it is not by feeling
we
apprehend it when and
in so far as we
do so. It is expresslysaid to be visible to mind
can
alone (povcp
deary va").There is no suggestionof a different way
of knowing to which
telligen
have recourse
when
and inwe
reason
may
fail us. To put the matter
in another way, allegoryand
myth are not employed to express something above reason, but to

only be

can

in the

"

"

adumbrate
It has its

what

is below

reason,

so

far

as

the scale and

placehalf-wayup

that
not

be done

can

at

at

all.

the top ; for it is

only the poverty Love inherits from his mother that givesrise to
these passionateyearnings.When
there is no
they are satisfied,
for striving
and longing.I suspect that all true mystimore
room
cism
is of this nature,
of

means

knowing

forms

is due

about

him, such

have
which

to

as

and

not

his 'voice' and

to

See Professor

reason

as

hand,

we

would

have

seen

Stewart's

know

certain facts

his trances, which

and

prove him to
know
certain facts

we

the

conceives

that there

safeguard him
mysticism.I entirelyagree with the
1

which

above
feeling

Plato. We

possessedthe mystic temperament,

he
in which
explainthe manner

the other

nature

set

that may be,

perversionof it.However
that the mysticalside of the doctrine of

Sokrates

to

that

is only a

firmlyconvinced

am

On

and

the

demand1

Myths of Plato,which

another

was

from

mystic love.
side

to

his

spurious kind of
for a psychological

is far

the

best

treatment

of

FORM

THE

explanationof

the

THE

OF

GOOD

of forms, but the soul

sides of the doctrine

two

137

to be found
easily
appears to me to be the soul
in the Symposium
of Sokrates,son
of Sophroniskos.It is certainly
and there
that we
vivid pictureof his personality,
have the most

in which

that is most

the 'enthusiasm'

and the

in

are
'irony'

the
Sokrates
129. Nevertheless
succeed
in reaching the goal he has

unison.
perfect
of

"

turned
show

That

demand.

not

himself. He

had

therefore

is because

cannot

is

all. Sokrates

There
Republic.

; but
experience

of

say

we

lightof

the

there should

why

be

forms

have

not

which

of

world

that
say (505 d sqq.)
of the
of the Form
in the light
to

on

gone

and

higherone,

experience

of this in the

representedas quite conscious

he is made

forms

all the other

world

certain

assumed

have

we

of that

the fulfilment

nearer

itself in
hypothesis

this

we

be much

to

in
explained

be have been

beingand ceasingto

be said

explainthe

to

examine

at

into

cannot

we

sense,

to

before

set

does

Phaedo

because it could not

away from the science of his time just
is as it is because it is best for it to be so ; and,
how everything

though coming

serve

the

we

must

look

Good, which

at

is

of knowledge.He
starting-point
and it
confesses,however, that he can only describe it in a parable,
The
referred to againin Plato's dialogues.
is never
passage in the
Republicstands quiteby itself.We can see dimly what the Good
both of growth
liken it to the Sun, which is the cause
be if we
must
and of vision in the sensible world, though it is neither growth nor

no

hypothesis,but

mere

itself.In the

vision

knowledge

the

same

true

Sokrates

some

; it was

Eukleides
this part
in some

as

leftfor thinkers

doctrine.
positive

such

the

of

cause

regardthis purelynegative
marking a failure to apprehend its

is made

characterisation of the Good

in it as

be

must

world, though it is neither

being in the intelligible
far beyond both of them in gloryand power.1It is very

that
significant

nature

Good

and

of these, but

true

the

way

That

to

of

later age

Sokrates

this appears
to
as
way
of Megara identified the

subject. It will be obvious

important respects, but that does
of the

be

not

find satisfaction

reallydid speak of
proved by the fact
with

Good
that

to

the

Eleatic

it in
that
One.

obliged to differ from

impair my appreciation of
I

am

it
the

work.
1
with God, but
of the Good
This
to identifythe form
language has led some
God
(which,
is a soul and not a form, and in the Timaeus
that is certainly wrong.
of Pythagoreanism) the Good
shall see, represents
a highly developed form
we
as
led in later days to the
The
difficulties raised by this doctrine
God.
is above
and a secondary creative God
God
(the
conception of a highest and unknowable
of
times. The
Demiurge
of this tillHellenistic
but there is no
trace

Demiurge),
the Timaeus

is the

highest God

there

is.

138

THE

That
as

an

or

no

'associate' of Sokrates.

If Sokrates

hinted

at

understand

can

we

be

not

little

have

Phaedo, but

of the

doctrine

position
an

of forms.
expected to acquiescein a plurality
the ultimate unityof allthe forms in the Good,
what

Eukleides

very hard to follow him. Even

and
of the Sokratic society,
in the

with his

Pythagoreanswould

The

in acceptingthe
difficulty

Eleatic could

SOKRATES

OF

he reconciled his Eleaticism

be how

to

seems

PHILOSOPHY

so, there is a rift here

shall

we

how

see

it would

otherwise

meant;

be

in the doctrine

important that

came
be-

generation.

next

GOODNESS

" 130. The theory of goodness Plato attributes to Sokrates is

in the light
of the theory of knowledge and reality
onlyintelligible
have

we

he

been

led

was

It
considering.
formulate

to

he differed from

the

them.

of Sokrates

name

he

itbecause

and
'Sophists',

of the

must

we

No

possiblychoose

can

resort,

form

of

understand

to

where
exactly

associated
closely

is more

corollarythat

its

what

reallyknows

the

bad, and badness

than

is bad

is,therefore,in the last

held this doctrine is
fact whatsoever

other

any

tarily
is volun-

one

no

with

identityof

is good and what

Sokrates

ignorance.That

admitted
universally

more

try

better attested than that of the

or

who

one

ing
dissatisfiedwith the teach-

was

doctrine

goodnessand knowledge,with
bad. No

clear,in the first place,that

is made

about

him.
That

being so,

number

it is not

that,in

littleremarkable

dialogues,Plato represents

of his

considerable

Sokrates

as

arguing

againstthe doctrine,at least in its most obvious sense. He is made

be knowledge ; for,if it
to say, for instance,that goodness cannot
have taught
would
of Athens
the great statesmen
certainly
were,
of these were
their own
goodness to their sons, whereas most
really
complete failures. Nor can it be said that the 'Sophists'
teach

it; for then

these

taughtgoodness just as they had

In
or

fact,goodness appears to be
divine favour (deia/xotpa)
to

Those
what

who
it

have

is,and

it can
are

giveno

therefore

like the poets who

compose
and
cannot
some
kind,
even

would

statesmen

same

have

had

their

taught ridingand
by
something that comes
them

some

account

people and
of it;

quiteunable
under

to

to

music.
chance
others.

they cannot even

impart it. They

tell
are

of
inspiration
of
interpretation
intelligent

the influence

give an

not

sons

of

THE

140

between

distinction

SOKRATES

OF

PHILOSOPHY

and

knowledge (emorr^)

belief

(Sofa),

assertingthat it is better to have a reasonable belief about useful

knowledge of what is useless. Similarlyin his
thingsthan a precise
he speaks(13.1)of those who spend
pamphletAgainstthe Sophists,
their time in

how

duties and
belief

and

professto teach the young their

too
knowledge
to attain happiness (13.3). Here
contrasted, and finallyIsokrates denies that

and
disputations,

are

who

be learnt.

and moralitycan
righteousness

be
It is very difficultto believe that any of these references can
older than
intended for Plato,as is often supposed.Isokrates was
both

dated with

some
probability

opened

his

forward

as

school, and
a

very

the

tract

Againstthe Sophistsare

Isokrates
before 390 B.C., when
time before Plato came
therefore some
time

that Isokrates is concerned

teacher. It is plaintoo

the educational
not

and

the Helen

Plato, and

and
predecessors,

theories of his immediate

should

he
likely
whom

go
he had

contemporary
rival. On the other hand, the

out
no

of his way
to attack
at that date to
reason

with
it is

younger

regardas

questionof Sokrates was very actual

had justpublished
indeed at the time; for the Sophist Polykrates
his pamphlet againsthim, with the object of showing he was

rightly
put
know

We

with

to

too

this

attitude

to

to

death
from

of the education he gave.

the Bousiris that Isokrates had busied himself
for the bad

pamphlet. He
Sokrates

must,

influence

then, have

quiteclear,while

there

wished
was

no

Plato yet awhile. But, if that is so, we

belief (8o"a)and
distinction between

the

his

for him

reason

trouble about

attribute

make

to

safely
knowledge
may

to Sokrates
himself,and also the doctrine that goodness
(e'mo-TT^T?)
in turn
and that the knowledge of it is one, and that means
is one

that there

is

no

in attributing
to
difficulty

theory of goodnessexpounded
down
to and includingthe Meno, and
forth in the Republic.

whole

" 132.

We

are

left in

no

doubt

as

Sokrates

himself

in Plato's earlier
even,

to

in

the

dialogues

substance, that

set

what

'goodness'
(dpmy)
have seen,
we
Sophists,

language of the time. The

and the citizen,and
professedto teach the goodness of the man
that was
explained as the art of managing states and families
meant

in the

To
the
call efficiency.
It was, in fact,what we
rightly.
a habit
; it meant
goodnesswas alwayssomething positive

of soul

the possessor of it to do something, and not merely,

that leads him to abstain from
with us, one
it is apt to mean

that enabled
as

Greeks

BELIEF

AND

GOODNESS

14!

have called a man

harm.
No
Greek would
doing any particular
be good for
good on purely negativegrounds like that; he must
something. So far neither Sokrates nor Plato nor Aristotle would

days that
he tellsus

That
(aperTj).
Sophistshad

demanded

The
of

no

That

comes

in

of

could

who

those

pay

of party

arts

if you

way

will take you

to

want

there

go
well

as

little

to

naturally

knowledge was

the relative value

So"a) for practical

(dXrjOrjs
purposes.

(97 b) that

only sort

intrigue.

order, but he always admitted

says

the

for it. It amounted

identified with

goodnessSokrates

'true belief

'goodness'
goodness the

other Athenian

practice,the only sort

of teaching; for it was
opportunity

the

by

to

in

was,

different

colour.
acquirea peculiar

to

second

was

than skillin the

more

such in those

was

in the passage of Thucydideswhere

that Antiphon, the chief contriver of the Revolution of

Hundred,

the Four

of Athens

ever
how-

seen,

anywhere else

better than

out

tended

the word

have

We

view.

quarrelwith the current

condition
("88),that the political
the least

have

to

Larissa

as

knowledge.

true

of

In the Meno

he

belief about

the

There

is

nothing

have
we
astonishingin such an admission in view of the account
given of his theory of knowledge. As we have seen, he was very
far from
denying the relative value of ordinary experience.Its
those of knowledge, though they are
as
objects are the same

did

of Athens

statesmen

He

confused.

imperfectand

no

good

to

meant

never

at

all,or

to

that the great

say

deny

all value

to

the

of the past had no goodness of

of the poets. If the statesmen
be nothing surprisingin their failure to
there would
their own,

works

their

impart goodnessto

however, is that it is not

and

of its cause

chance.

happy

it has

(98 a),when

Statues

goodness
taught.
have

which

It will be observed
the

exact

Plato

counterpart

ascribes

correctness

been

on

on.

It is

mainly an
only, we are

chained

to

of Daidalos.
is also

of thingsin
(atria)

fast
can

by
be

told

in the

reasoned

sure

Then, and

knowledge

affair of temperament

and

knowledge

of its not
then
can

Meno

running

only,do
therefore

we

be

theory of goodnessand the good is

which
theoryof knowledgeand reality

that this
of the

Sokrates, and

of that

pointof such goodness,

and
rational ground (Ao'yo?)

weak

any
It is

that we
Aoyio-jLioi)
(alrias

like the

away

based

therefore be counted

cannot

The

sons.

this is another

Just as we
ascription.
the world of coming

cannot

into

indication

explainthe

of the
cause

being or ceasingto

be

PHILOSOPHY

THE

142

SOKRATES

OF

in
or
participating
ceasingto participate
have true goodness unless each
'form',so we cannot
intelligible
an
to its true
is referred by reasoning (Aoyicr/Mos-)
cause
(atria).
act
world
of
sensible
experiencein
Everyday goodnessis just like the

unless

regardthem

we

as

goodnessmust be constant
guished
and invariable. According to the Phaedo
(82 a) Sokrates distinand
the two
as 'philosophic
aperr?)
goodness'("/"iAoao"/"t/o7
the 'goodness of the
or
aperrj),
'populargoodness'(S^/xori/c^
The
former
citizen' (TroAiri/^
aperr/).
depends on intellect (vovs),
It is the former alone that is teachable;
habit (edos).
the latter on
ledge.
be taughtbut knowfor it alone is knowledge, and nothing can
latter is only good at all in so far as it participates
The
and uncertain
that, it is a shifting
in the former. Apart from
and

that it is inconstant

thing.
" 133.

variable

though goodness in

But

an
knowledge,TtlsTnot
art, that

or

not

; true

the full

of the

sense

is

word

ment
say, an external accomplishhe may
exercise
that may be acquiredby anyone, and which
Plato has given us at full lengthtwo
at his pleasure.
very
is

to

similar arguments on this point,and they bear every mark of being

reference to the
their constant
genuinelySokratic. In particular
of
practice

artificersis highlycharacteristic.The

best known

is the

is less likely
which
to
Republic,
of the other,which
in
if read in the light
occurs
be misunderstood
is
the Hippias minor. In the Republic(332 e sqq.)the argument
directed to showing that,if goodness is an art (a view for which
will
the honest man
and not Sokrates is responsible)
Polemarchos
with

argument

be

the

best

much

is better

do wrong

the

same

or

can

make

man
a

to

more

the

to

successful

is that wisdom

Hippias minor

telllies as

most

tell the

is

truth,and that it

The
than involuntarily.
point is
voluntarily
is always 'of
An art or capacity(Swa/nis)
cases.

in both

The
opposites'.
who

of the

argument

requiredas
to

will be

thief,just as the doctor

The

murderer.

in the

Polemarchos

bad

who

make

can

one,

good use

therefore

and

of it is also the

something

must

more

man

be

impliedin goodnessthan this. That too was forced on Sokrates by

the practiceof the Sophists.
Gorgias disclaims all responsibility
of the art of Rhetoric which
make
for the use his pupilsmay
they
he says (456 d) to blame
have no more
learn from him. We
right,
the teacher of rhetoric for the misdeeds
have

to

blame

the teacher

injure his neighbours. The

of his

pupilsthan

we

should

boxing if his pupilused his art to

question involved in the argument

of

IS

GOODNESS

Polemarchos

with

as

is

the
really

same.

ART

AN

NOT

143

Is it possible
to
of this

purely neutral accomplishment

regardgoodness
kind,

or

is it

something that belongsto the very nature of the soul that possesses
for the good man
to do evil or
to
it,so that it is reallyimpossible
injureany one?
discussed at this time
" 134. Another questionthat was much
that of the unity of goodness,and to Sokrates this question
was
was
teachingof
closelybound up with the other. The professional
branch of it
apt to suggest that you could learn one
and not another. You
might, for instance,learn courage without
honesty,or vice versa. If the different forms of goodness
learning

goodnesswas

'arts' or

many

so

are

necessary
goodnessis

external

from

cases

the

the Charmides

virtue
particular

under

cannot

we

from

say

that

made

is

entirelydirected
particularform of goodness

contrary, his argument

impossibleto maintain
From
form of goodness.

In both

soberness.

discussion

the identification is not

knowledge, but

in

another, and

in

approachesthis questionfrom the point

kinds of goodness.
The Laches, for example,

and

courage,

identifyany

one

stand

Sokrates

one.

of view of the different

starts

with

connexion

no

accomplishments,theywill

is identified
Sokrates.

by

On

with
the

showing that,if we
with knowledge,it is

to

it and any other

any distinction between
that pointof view they all become
merged

one.

these

Both

refuses

which

doctrines,that of the unity of goodness,and

to

identify
goodnesswith

line of argument

another

of this

of which

an

art,

Sokrates

is

that

supportedby
fond. A good example
are

is to be found

in the argument
with Polemarchos
in the Republic(332 c).It is that,if you identify
ness
any form of goodwith

an

too

art, it is

to
impossible

discover

any

use

for it. The

arts appropriate
to
alreadycovered by the particular
each department,and there is no room
for the Virtue'. One might
that honesty or justice
a virtue useful in partnerships,
was
suppose
but we
should all prefera good playerto an honest man
our
as
singing.If
partner in a game of skill or as an accompanistto our

whole

field is

goodnessis looked
to perform; there
may
case

be

function
in this way, it will have no special
is no room
for it alongsideof the other arts. It
at

and it is in any
harmful, since it is a capacityof opposites,

superfluous.

" 135. What, then, is

the

knowledge with

which

true

goodness

is to be identified ? In the first placeit is knowledge of what

is good

PHILOSOPHY

THE

144
for the human

SOKRATES

OF

soul. It is at this

how the
clearly
theoryof conduct taughtby Sokrates,like his theoryof knowledge,
influenced
was
by Pythagorean doctrine. The Pythagoreanshad
alreadyregarded the health of the soul as something analogousto
the health

of the

have

metaphor. We

of

notion
it was

body,

pointwe

for them

and

an

than

more

all medical
It

theoryso far as it fell under

partlythe necessityof explaining
the later PythagoSokrates reject
rean

was

this way that made

that the soul itself was

goodness in

work

much

was

mental
("75) how they arrived at their fundaand
attunement
(ap^ovia)or blend (/cpacri?),

Pythagoreaninfluence.

to
preferred
probablyan

this

most

seen

this that dominated

view

see

the idea from

out

("124),and

attunement

an

the

point of

view

of what

he
was

Pythagoreandoctrine,that of the parts of the

soul. In the Gorgias(504 a sqq.)Sokrates says that goodness is due
and order (KTOO-JMO?)
in the
of arrangement
to the presence
(rdgis)
soul, and that this can only be produced by knowledge,not by
earlier

experienceor
out

in the

routine.

In the

Republicthe

elaborate fashion. It is shown

most

theory is worked

same

that there

are

three

or
parts of the soul, the philosophical

(Ou^os),and

Aoy"7TiKoV),
temper

of these

virtues of each

reasoningpart ("/"iAoo-o""o
desire (emQvfila).
The
special

are

wisdom, courage,

and

soberness,while

that keeps them

is the principle
or righteousness
justice

all in their

how each of these virtues is

proper place.It is shown
in the different classes of a well-ordered
State,and we

represented

ordered.

We

that

see

of these

which
justice,
to

each

each

further how
of

supremacy

soul,and how
to

command,

commands,

and

while
how

be

temper

the desires

to

assignsto

it.It is shown

usurped

the soul should

their proper task of supplyingthe necessary

all this is to be secured
basis for the rest, and how
by

be confined

material

polityof

should

wisdom

assists in the execution

should

the inner

of that how

consideration

learn from

there

of these

and

other of the subaltern parts of the

inferior types of character corresponding

one

are

part and sees that it keeps

inferior types of State arise from the

its proper

or

arisingfrom

the

same

cause.

No

doubt

the

much
Republicowes
to me
to the artistic genius of Plato,but it appears
quite certain
that the leadingidea is Sokratic,and indeed Pythagorean.Plato's
different that he would
not
view of the soul was
naturally
so
own
fallinto this way of expressinghimself,though he might quitewell
elaboration

use

of this idea which

it for purposes

of

more

or

we

less

find in the

As
popularexposition.

we

shall

CONCLUSION

it is

see,

the

by

own

time

master's
and

doctrine

Aristotle

later

years,

about

this

we

in

he

of course,

like

to

worth

while

their

natural

that

are

that

the

to

the

regard
this
is

has

ever

material

for

people

in this
a

for

the

as

of

philosophy
Sokrates,

who

not

am

that

well, and

it

If Plato's

very

hard

to

imagine

he

wrote
use

forward

came

Sokrates

Plato

arranges

made

dialogues
he

that

aware

of course,

before

to

really cogent

Sokrates
the

this

forced

he

well, and

urge

adopt
be

some

in

work

I would

artist, and

himself.

I find

and

so,

surely

consequences

cannot

unless

is

should

this

dramatic

all written

probably

were

to

those

it. We

clearlya
knew

Plato's

dialogues

place,

maintained,

not

Sokrates

knew

doing

than

impossible,

which

come

lie with

fiction

else

is
what

not

he

of
as

meant
can

be

for.

meant

who

real

is

artistically.But

sketch

teacher

It is
He

reporter.

mere

his

done.

as

we

second

deny

for

produced

if

his

hint

place, it

Plato's

taking

the

not

who

Plato

first

the

of

what

seen

'hypothesis' on

In

does

those
of

been

ever

proof

In

if the

no

is

considerations

two

destroyed

untrue.

or

with

be

can

be

only

can

Sokrates

argument

is the

It is

have

to

something

is, there

doctrine.

of

experiment

That

of

but

hypothesis,

Platonic

are

heard

taught anything

ever

there

and

system,

it

As

opinion.

ascribes

ever

have

finallytill we

matter

the

impossible
burden

of

leaving the subject.

try

it

should

we

his

whole,

development

that

of

so

consistent

this

only

was

Plato

but

sense.

and

that

genuine

was,

before

urge

him

to

of his

brief

or

years

Aristotle

anything

originallytaught

that

the

fifteen

and
intelligible

an

is in

philosophy

within

sure

the

as

Sokratic

change

decide

to

proceeds,

be

Aristotle

philosophy

own

had

ascribed

may

regards

the

originalphilosophy

written.1

was

from

remarkable

anywhere
what

If Plato

definite

submit,

different

quite

had

currency

It is, I

himself.

Plato

gave

death.

it is

of

account

Plato

which

he

Republic

the

" 136. This

to

that

improbable

145

I have

there

not
are

so

thought
many

it necessary

excellent

accounts

to

give the
of

argument

it in existence

of

the

Republic

already.

in

detail

The

Trial

and

THE

In

" 137.
democratic
'with
even

an

leader, Meletos,

lanky hair, a
guilty of

brought

was

rhetorician.

trial

to

'youthfuland

beard, and

scanty

obscure

more

of Socrates

CONDEMNATION

Sokrates

B.C.

399

Death

unknown'

hooked

The

by Anytos,

the

tragicpoet,

nose',1 and

indictment

Lykon,

stated

he

that

the gods the State

worshipping (vo/jii^cov)2
divinities,and further that
worshipped but introducingother new
he was
guiltyof corruptingthe young by teaching them accordingly.
In the Apology, Plato gives us
what
profess to be the speeches

was

by Sokrates

delivered

here he is

for

adapted

Sokrates
or

writer.

the

general line of
Apology is not

case

not

that

other

hand

do.3 Far

even

actual

Meletos, who

Euthyphro,
The

to

be pure

to

for themselves

should

he

the

court

it all the

more

accusation

import things

conciliate the

the

or

doubt, that the

no

the

have

with
into

judges. That

fiction,as it has been

the

does

supposed

to

conduct

of the

got him

to

entrusted

prosecution was

admit

Plato.
that

he

By

skilful

believed

him

to

cross-

to

be

b.

is 'worship'.
vo/u'""v in its legal sense
but
the
observance
not
to
primarily to 'religious opinions',
of certain
'uses'
Plato
Sokrates
take
makes
current
advantage of
(VO^OL),though
the secondary sense
'think' in order
Meletos
confuse
26
c).
to
(Apol.
3
See the Introduction
German
edition
of the Apology with
to Schanz's
notes.

The

world

least

of his way

nature

that

makes

treats

did

to

meant

professionalspeech-

before

that

bungled it, according to

Sokrates

to

carefully

Plato

either

perfectlytrue,

Sokrates
out

doubt

be

to

even

it.

" 138. The

goes

speeches

by

that

supposed

incredible

all, but

at

be

no

Sokrates

It is

man.

Apology

from

examination

the

for

for them

of

to

persons

it seems

attitude

hardly of

the

done

defence

usual

was

accused

his defence.

of

were

prove

other
had

and

contempt,

It

not

publication,and

often

misrepresented the

characteristic

for

what

more

On

his trial. It is

at

reporter.

mere

and

revised
do

not

does

inadequate
refer

translation

of

148

THE

it was

no

better than

are

in his

fear in the

now

of

is goingto

time

" 140. We have

and why
irreligion

he

the idea that it was

for

to

that any
likely

not

OFFENCE

Sokrates

why

death. We

to

the
believing

not

had
good man
his judges farewell.
a

for you to live.Which

knows but God.'1

lot,none

ask

put

was

waking days
that,
plainly

die and

ALLEGED

now

few

pretty

he bade

so

to

me

the better

meet

also hinted

life.And

depart,for

to

sleep,and

immortal, and that

was

next

THE

It is

SOKRATES

night of that. He

'It is

OF

dreamless

the soul
belief,

own

nothing to
us

evil than

an

more

TRIAL

educated

charged

was

must

put aside

at once

stories told about

the

gods.

believed these, and

man

with

educated
un-

peopleprobably knew
church

no

and

very littleabout them.2 There was

priesthood,and therefore the conception of

no

religious
orthodoxydid not exist. So far as mythology was concerned,
No one
you might take any liberty.
appears to have found
fault with Aischylosfor his Prometheus, though,judgedby modern
standards,it is flat blasphemy.He
some
revealing

did get into trouble

Eleusinian

instructive. If it had

been

Sokrates is described

as

formula, and

the

for inadvertently
is

contrast

requiredof anyone that he should treat

the stories about the gods respectfully,
Aristophaneswould not
have survived Sokrates. He does not scrupleto make fun of Zeus
himself, and he represents Dionysos as a vulgarpoltroon in a
comedy which was actually
part of the service of that very god and
was
presided over
by his priest.In the Phaedrus (229 e sqq.)
of

indifferent to
totally

mythology,though he

their traditional form

falsehood

or

has the
the

to

the truth

good taste to preferthe stories in

versions produced by the 'homelywit'

of rationalist historians. One

namely,that it is

thinghe

does indeed

feel

strongly,

dangerous repeat stories that ascribe untruthfulness and wickedness and strife to the gods,and in the Euthyphro
to

(6 a) he
an

as

does suggest that it is

innovator in religion.
The

however, and
1

had
I

It has
no

actuallybeen inferred from

immortality,and

ask anyone

effect it makes
a

necessary

Arist. Poet.

who
him.

upon

public meeting,

is some

Euthyphro is not shocked, though he

even

fixed belief in

only

can

possiblyfor this that he is regarded

not
suggestionis certainly
serious,

and

holds
Of

1451

b, 25.

but

this view

course

he knew

reserve,

the

Apology

this has been

to

Sokrates

that few
that is all.

read
was

that

'the historical

used

to

the passage

discredit
aloud

addressing what

of his hearers

held

such

was

himself
Sokrates'

the Phaedo.
and

see

what

practically

so
beliefs,

there

THE

believes these stories and

CHARGE

others

149

stranger still.The

truth

is that

belief in narratives

might

anyone

looked

was

of any kind formed

no
part of ancient religion;
or accept such thingsas he pleased.
Mythology
reject

on

as

falsehoods'. No

opinions.1
" 141. Nor

anythingto

creation

could be

one

of the poets, and

prosecutedfor

is it credible that the divine

do with

the

prosecution.It

what

'poetstell many
call religious
we

'voice' should

is

that

true

have

had
is

Euthyphro

representedas jumping at once to the conclusion that it had ; for

that is the sort of thinghe himself is interested in. At the same
time,
he makes
it quiteclear that,in his opinion,Sokrates need have no
fear of a chargelike that,though he must
expect to be laughedat.2
In the
voice

Apology Plato makes Sokrates himself say

Meletos
has caricatured
is presumably what
of the

ground
makes
said

charge

in his

eccentric

Sokrates

the

made

he says it

nothing of the sort and had

Athenians
might and did think

meant

the Voice'.3 The

and

of his voice

because

and

indictment, but the way

it quiteclear that Meletos

nothing about

that the divine

his trances,

and,

as

and are
misrepresented'4
Euthyphro says, such thingsare 'easily
But the belief in 'possession'
(/caro/car^)
apt to make peoplejealous.
much
too
much
too
was
firmlyestablished,and cases of it were
to allow of a chargeof irreligion
being based on anything
familiar,

of the kind.5 The

of disease which

accepted view
be treated

could

was

that such

thingswere

sort

ness
mad-

but even
by 'purifications',

(iepos).
epilepsywere supposed to make the sufferer 'holy'
From
the point of view of the ordinaryAthenian, the irreligion
would be on the side of anyone who treated the 'voice' disrespectfully.
and

"

It

142.

must

also be

divinities

new

wras

no

ducing
charge of introit had been definitely

that the

remembered

novelty;for

by Aristophanes a generationearlier. In

formulated
Sokrates

announces

reignedin

that

his stead. He

Zeus

has

offers prayer

been
to

dethroned

the Clouds

the
and

and

Clouds
Vortex

by

swears

Euthyphro, 3 b sq.
ev
817KO.\
Taylor's interpretationof the words
sound
the
i.
to
only
me
seems
14)
eypai/raro(Varia Socratica, p.
rfjypafj
the divine voice when
Sokrates
meant
("17)that Meletos
one.
says he supposes
said nothing
It is clear,then, that Meletos
he spoke of Sai^owa in the indictment.
about it in his speech.
4
The
word
no
more.
means
euSid/Soya
6
doubt
strike the average
ordinary
The
'voice' would
as
an
no
SetatSat^wov
of eyyaarpi.fj.vdia.
case
1
3

Cf. p.

76, n.
Apology, 3 1
.

z.

d. Professor

THE

150

TRIAL

OF

SOKRATES

that Diogenes
Chaos, and Air It will be remembered
Respiration,
That being so, it is surely
of Apolloniaheld Air to be a 'god'.
very
t
hat
the
distant
does
make
most
not
significant
Aristophanes
allusion to the 'voice',
though he must have known all about it,and
lend itself admirably to comic treatment.
is
it would
The omission
the more
there is an allusion to the trances
of Sokrates
as
striking,
instructive. He
more
(150).Xenophon is even
says he got his
information
about the trialfrom Hermogenes, and we
may be sure
the religious
Xenophon would be anxious to discover all he could
about the meaning of this charge.He does not appear, however, to
have got any definite explanationof it; for he only givesit as his
personalopinion that it must have been the 'voice' on which the
most
accusers
chieflyrelied,and it seems
probablethat he is only
repeatingthis from Plato's Apologyand Euthyphro.At any rate, in
his own
Apology, he makes Sokrates speak about the 'voice' very
much

as

Plato

does, and he makes

that the Athenians

fact,everyone

In
the

are

of
jealous

him

it as

speculatesabout

fact that stands

an

the

say,

justlike Euthyphro,

exceptionaldivine favour.
meaning of the charge,and

the
is that no one
not
even
clearly
it. It surelyfollows that the charge
to know
seems
prosecutor
of introducing
divinities,
new
though stated in the indictment,
neither explainednor justified
at the trial.Such
was
thingswere
in
which
like a public
possible an Athenian
was
more
dikastery,
There
meeting than a court of justice.
was
no
judge to rule the
one

out

"

"

prosecutionirrelevant to

the indictment.

THE

" 143. But,

REAL

if that is the

further that this accustation

why

Meletos

falls

Sokrates, and substitutes

strange

judges more
votingfor
him,
be

turned

true

OFFENCE

was

pretext. That

mere

easilyinto
the charge of

so

the

atheism

of Sokrates
acquittal

round

and

voted

that
on

the

for the death

it follows
would

trap laid for him

divinities. It will also make

We
know
intelligible.
the

of the matter,

account

by

for that of introducing

the

number

plain
ex-

conduct

of the

of them, after

chargebroughtagainst
sentence.

That

is partly

explained,no doubt, by the attitude Sokrates took up in his

second
Death
is
speech, but this will not explainit altogether.
surelyan extreme
penaltyfor contempt of court, and those judges
have believed Sokrates to be guiltyof something.
must
Everything
to

REAL

HIS

becomes

clear if we

could

not

some

of the

for

he

believe

him

would

account

for their

we

of the

know

it. The

changeof

Thirty,but

we

condemn

also know

mind

in that
to

that he did

of incivisme,but

suspect

for

man

an

though they

defiant attitude of Sokrates

had refused

that Sokrates

therefore

was

guiltyof

indictment, and that

charged,even
formally

not

was

to

of the accusation

ground

stated in the

judges thought it unfair

might
Now

be

reason

offence with which

151

that the real

suppose

some

OFFENCE

case.

orders
obey the illegal
leave Athens.

not

the

He

made

amnesty

it

offence. Plato
political
impossibleto charge him with a strictly
that Sokrates really
owed
indicates in the clearest possible
manner

attitude. There are two passages in which

political
the democratic leaders of the fifth
representedas criticising

his death
he is

to

his

century,

Perikles,in
including

is in the

Gorgias,and

there

very

severe

who
Kallikles,

is

of these

One

manner.

democratic

man,
states-

(521 c) that, if he refuses to flatter the

democracy instead of tryingto make them see the error of their
by some
sorry
ways, he is in danger of beingdraggedinto court
bluntlytells him

wretch, and then anythingmay happen to him. The other passage

is in the Meno, where Anytos himself is brought on the stage to
to be significant.
give a similar warning.That is surely meant
introduced
and is apparently
Anytos is not the chief interlocutor,
to the criticisms
solelyfor this purpose. After listening
impatiently
of Sokrates on the heroes of the democracy, he says (94 e),'I think,
Sokrates,you are rather ready to abuse people. I should advise
ful.
you, if there was
any chance of your takingmy advice,to be careEven in other cities,
I fancy it is easier to do peoplea mischief
than a good turn, and most
decidedlyit is so in this one.' These
down
some
are
deliberately
very broad hints,and Plato set them
real
time after the event.
that the
offence of
They can only mean
Sokrates was
his criticism of the democracy and its leaders. No
in Plato ever
one
giveshim a hint that he had better be careful not

talk about

to

unauthorised

he frequently
does, and
divinities,
as

stillless does anyone suggest that the 'voice' is a

wise in keepingto himself.
From

" 144.
in the

to

not

be able

death.

There

them, and
F

pointof

Apologyis the

will
him

this

statement
to

view

one

of the

of Sokrates

rid themselves

most

thinghe

would

be

importantthings

(39 d) that

of criticism even

his men
countryif theyput

who will take up the task of exposing

many
will
be
merciless inasmuch
as
more
they
they are
are

B.C.

P.

THE

152

TRIAL

OF

SOKRATES

That
is,to all intents and purposes,
younger.
what the hints of Kallikles and Anytos suggest

of the

accusation,namely, that Sokrates

spiritwhich

that antidemocratic

men

half

revolutions. About

was

had

had

led

the real

fostered
to

later Aischines

century

plea of guiltyto

the

in young

oligarchical

put the

'putthe
says (i.173) that the Athenians
death because he was believed to have educated

He
quitebluntly.

Sokrates
and

to

less than

ten

years

after his trial the

ground

matter

Sophist
Kritias',

Sophist Polykrates

chargedhim, as we saw, with havingeducated Alkibiades. In fact,

itlooks as if Polykrates
simply wrote the speech Anytos would have
delivered

at

if the amnesty had not stood in the way. That

trial,
made
by Meletos, a less responsible
actually
person,

the

the

pointwas
is stronglv suggested
by the allusion Sokrates makes in the Apology
Xenophon also in the
(33 a) 'to tnose tneY saY are mY disciples'.
makes a pointof sayingthat Kritias and
Memorabilia (i.
2, 12 sqq.)
Alkibiades

of Sokrates.
reallydisciples

not

were

point of view,
" 145. It is only fair to say that, from his own
Anytos was not altogetherwrong. Xenophon, indeed, attributes
merelypersonalmotives to him. He says in his Apology (29)that
him he ought to givehis son
he was
angry with Sokrates for telling
a

liberal education

instead of

bringinghim

business
up to his own
truth there may be in that,

It is impossible
to say what
other reasons
but in any case there were
Sokrates from Athens. He
to remove
as

tanner.

uncompromising opponent of the

vice of which, according to him,

why Anytos should desire

had undoubtedlybeen an

Periklean

democracy, the radical

that it denied

was

the need

for

take the advice of experts on

It would
knowledgein politics.
fortification; but when
or
a vital point
questionsof shipbuilding
had to be decided, anyone who
in national policy
of rightor wrong
chose to get up and speak was
supposed to be as good a judge as

expert

anyone

of

else.

According to Plato,he
to

statesman

Perikles. In

the

democratic

Republicwe
is certainly
meant

the

went

leaders

have

an

far

so

as

of his

account

to

deny

the title

time, including

of the

democratic

of Athens
in the
description
fifth century, not of the humdrum
democracy of Plato's
bourgeois
is by no means
Of course
flattering.
time, and the description
own

State,which

the young

men

who

followed

to

be

Sokrates

about

would

be

far less

cism
impressed by his positive
teachingthan by this destructive critibe prejudiced
of existinginstitutions. They would
against
democracy to start with, and they would relish his attacks on it

ANDOKIDES

keenly.It

is a fact that many

That is the
statesmen.

not

THE

ON

MYSTERIES

of them

153

vulgaroligarchsand

became

tragedyof

the situation. Sokrates

was

Now
responsiblefor it,but it existed all the same.
Anytos and
his friends were
cracy,
busilyengaged in organisingthe restored demoand they could not afford to leave their work at the mercy of
reaction. They had every reason
to believe that the teachingof
Sokrates was
of a kind to imperilthe constitution,
and it is not
that they took steps accordingly.
It must
be remembered
surprising
that they had probably no desire to see Sokrates put to death, but
not

it was

natural

circumstances

of Sokrates

they should

wish

easilyunderstand
thoughtit prudent to leave

death. Even

we

into exile. In those

drive him

to

why

can

of the friends

some

Athens

for

after his

time

Plato went,

though,as we shall see, he had held aloof

from
the oligarchical
revolution
his kinsmen
in which
were
and though he had intended to enter
implicated,
publiclife under
the restored democracy.Fortunatelyhe found somethingbetter to
do.
THE

" 146. Even

was

accusers

ran

fifth of the

votes.

that

be made

might

which
of

that the

assuming,however,

pretext, it
the risk of

mere

PRETEXT

We

statesman

have

must

been

beingheavilyfined

of irreligion

appear

if they did

there

not

If

ask that

we

connexion

with

the mutilation

of service

the truth about

of the

question,we

time,

but

to

the democratic

come

images of

shall

party. We

and

Hermes

the

find also
revelations

never

scandal,but the speech of Andokides

for the state of publicfeeling
about it,not

under

at

tried
year as Sokrates was
the judges to explainhis

this old

preciousdocument
the

anything

was

profanationsof the mysteriessixteen years before. We

that Anytos spoke in his favour, no doubt because his
been

secure

Andokides

had

for the

one;

of the charge,
and on
justification
like Anytos might relyto produce the right
kind
to

the fact that in the very same

before
more
appeared once

upon

colourable

ask,then, whether

must

prejudiceagainstSokrates.

once

charge

know
is a

only

the restored

democracy. It is certain that,

for the ordinaryAthenian, the mutilation of the images was
closely
bound
and that both
up with the profanationof the mysteries,
directed towards
of
the overthrow
were
supposed to be somehow
at

the

democracy.No
probablynothing to

doubt

this

do with

was

the

mistake. The

profanationsof

the

mutilation

had

and
mysteries,

THE

154
the latter

does

TRIAL

OF

SOKRATES

obviouslydistorted

were

credible that

in the

of the

It
popularimagination.

giftedand enlightened
in Athens
should have found it amusing to parody Eleusinian
men
not
ritual,
once
only or in a singleplace,though even that would
be silly
and in a number
of private
enough, but systematically
not

seem

houses. On
took

the other

placewhich

some

most

hand, the evidence

that certain

proceedings
being representedin that lightis

capableof
far too strong to be rejected,
and conveys
reader the
to a modern
idea that there may
have been something resemblingmeetings of
masonic
into blasphemous
lodges,exaggeratedby public rumour

mummeries
Now

of the

business.

There

have

judgesmust

known

associates of Sokrates

intimate

most

sacred rites.

most

of the

many

of the

were

is

quitewell

Skambonidai, the uncle of Alkibiades and

All
Leukolophides.1

Alkmeonides,
Damon
the

three

high-born

before she married

Damon

same

whom

called

which

Further, if

we

Symposium

is

that is the

remember

supposed

that
take

to

that
occurred, it is suspicious

Akoumenos
We

name.

present
a

was

do

physician,is
name,

of

celebrated

We

one

of the

and

we

are,

however,

one

sure

bore

inculpated.4
an

unusual

it. He

was

not

Eryximachos, who

was

also

Phaidros

is

that Phaidros of

told that he

the

of Akoumenos,

persons
physician,and he has

be

in

the scandals

year

the

son

of the

Sokrates.3

to

described

names

else who

well be

master

Charmides

among

one

of the accused

of the

speakersthere.

cannot

that

find the

we

very

of

authorityon music.

an

banquet
placethe very

know

not

as

may

the

of anyone
the banquet, though his

at

is meant.

Phaidros

This

name

introduced

of

son

the wife of

been

her kinsman.2

Kritias

Eryximachos, and

had

to notice
interesting

Taureas, and

palaistrain

who

of

the wife
by Agariste,

Sokrates refers to

If that is correct, it is
was

dame

this

Axiochos

of Adeimantos

denounced

were

some

in
implicated

were

doubt, for instance, about

no

that

was

an

not

an

common
un-

Myrrhinous

'associate'(eralpos)

it is at the very least a remarkable

coincidence
that all three names
should occur.
In any case, we know
that public
interest in this old business had justbeen revived,and that of itself

Eryximachos,5and

The

record

where

of the

his

name

berger,Sylloge2,39,
2Andok.
3

Ib.

Andok.

i.

i.

47;
i.

public sale
is given in

41, 43,

still exists

on
tions,
inscripfull,'A^io\os'^4A/ct/3taSou
(DittenZWa/i/Jcow'Sij?

of his confiscated

goods

45).

6.

Plato,Charm.
15, 1 8, 35.

153

a.
8

Plato,Phaedr.

268

a.

156
to

THE

at

escape

ready

However

-the

and

good

the

to

laws

of

might

and

law,

be,

could

it

was

as

would

he
in

submit.

He
for

him

were

have

we

not

his

been

not

friends

But,

had

it

only

and

country,

his

exception

an

might

citizen

and
needful.

be

of

making

sentence

his

month,

supporter

of

unjust

this

that

firm

inconsistency

the

to

was

SOKRATES

OF

during

expense

any

Sokrates

seen,

time

any

bear

to

DEATH

stoop

own

case.

legally
owed

to

nounced,
pro-

thing
every-

call

them

question.

in

the

In
Sokrates

earth.

on

whole

the

also

last

associate

our

the

wisest

has

words

most

to

literature,

of

it

are:

man,

righteous

'Such,
as

of

of

account

an

difficult

be

European

(eVatpo?),
and

given

would

It
of

range
The

of

Plato

Phaedo

we

his

the

match

and

this
it

time.'

say,

hours

narrative
be

cannot

Echekrates,
should

last

was

the

of
in
phrased.
para-

the
best

end
and

XI

Demokritos

" 148. A quiteindependent attempt

Like

Demokritos.

by

his

and others, and

like him

conduct, which

had

raised

stillsee

from

was

fragments that

to
a

he

the front

one

was

antiquity.For us, however, it is almost as

nothing,and we reallyknow less of him than
he

is because

wrote

Abdera, and

at

faced

Protagoras
problem of

the

the

by

the

Sophists.

author, and

voluminous

of

That

to

made

was

he

his fellow-citizen

by

forced

also been

his

Sokrates

paid great attention

Sokrates, however, he

Unlike
can

he

reconstruction

contemporary

knowledge

difficultiesabout

at

we

of the great writers

if he had written
we

do

of Sokrates.

his works

were

never

at Athens, where
they would have had a chance
reallywell known
like those of Anaxagoras and others, in the
of being preserved,
libraryof the Academy. It is not clear that Plato knew anything

in which

by

the

on

the

Ionian
It is

he

to

seems

be

reproducinghim

Pythagoreaninfluences
other
from

hand, knows

are

that affected them

where
else-

both. Aristotle,
too

was

an

the North.

the

Demokritos)
Abdera

and

easily
explained

well; for he

Demokritos

certain,nevertheless,that the Demokritean

included

at

in the Timaeus

Demokritos; for the few passages

about

works

of

continued

and

Teos

Leukippos and
to

down

others

as

corpus (which
well as those of

exist;for the school maintained

to

Hellenistic times.

It

was

itself

therefore

reign of Tiberius to produce an

edition of the works of Demokritos
justlike
arranged in tetralogies
his edition of Plato's dialogues.
Even that did not suffice to preserve
them. The Epicureans,who ought to have studied the man
to whom
to study of any kind, and probably
averse
they owed so much, were
works would have
did not care to multiplycopiesof a writer whose
that marked
been a standing testimony to the lack of originality

possiblefor Thrasyllos in

their

own

" 149.

the

system.
We

know

extremely little about

the

life of Demokritos.

158

DEMOKRITOS

in Thrace, a citywhich
belonged like Protagorasto Abdera
reputationfor dullness,seeing it
hardly deserves its proverbial
have
could produce two such men.1 As to the date of his birth,we
only conjectureto guideus. In one of his chief works he stated that
do not know
it was
written 730 years after the fall of Troy, but we
several
when
he supposed that to have taken place.There were

He

in

eras

been

had

the time

at

use

in the old age of

born in 460
was

man
young
inferred that he

it was

he

years old when

man' suggests

Anaxagoras,and
B.C.

That

seems

from

this

rather

too

assumption that he was forty

Anaxagoras,and the expression'young

; for it is based

early,however

that he

also said somewhere

later. He

and

met

the

on

something less than that. Further, we have to find

him and Zeno. If Demokritos
for Leukippos between
died,
room
are
told,at the age of ninetyor a hundred, he was in any case
as we
Plato founded
the Academy. Even
on
still livingwhen
purely
with
grounds, then, it is wrong to class Demokritos
chronological
Sokrates, he

tried

to

Protagoras.2
" 150. Demokritos

his

answer

was

fact

that, like

distinguishedfellow-citizen

discipleof Leukippos,and

evidence, that of Glaukos

contemporary

the

it obscures

of Sokrates, and
predecessors

the

of

have

we

he also

Rhegion,that

of the school,
Pythagoreans for his teachers. A later member
Apollodoros of Kyzikos, says he learnt from Philolaos,and it
That
for his geometricalknowledge,
accounts
seems
quitelikely.

had

and

shall see, for other

also,we

spoke of

too, that Demokritos

in

Zeno

his

works.

Leukippos. He
to

appears

mentioned

the

he

These

would

though
Pythagorean.

have
the

It has

been

arisen

to

As

has
a

been

Egypt, but there

visited

fragmentin
satirical remark

be

he

and

seen,

out

Demokritos

of Plato.

that

above
are

(p. 112,
based

on

was

of Demokritos

be

to

for

298 b)
(fr.

the

himself.

it

reason

some

reputation of

the

of Demokritos

for the first time

know

course,

is

not

goras,
Ionia,to Anaxa-

this is mentioned

which

represented by the view

appears

pointed

discipleof

contemporary

have

some

thing may
philosopher',which
2

would, of

the

same

in

doubt

no

Demokritos

plausibly suggested

from

have

we

through

said that his

refer to
may
attributed at Athens, and
generally

that
believing

know

to

come

was
theory of the sun and moon
which
the explanationof eclipses,

have

is said

and

of Parmenides

doctrines

Anaxagoras,as

That
original.

He

know,

features in his system. We

Abderites

The
as

other
'the

may

side of

laughing

in Horace.
n.

2), the stories which

the

illusion

that

make

goras
Prota-

Protagoras

was

HIS

is a

forgery.There

Athens

and

that he had

no

of Phaleron

not

been
a

me.'

make

to

spent in

which

If he said

such

Protagorashad
be

159

(fr.1 16)in

he says:

that,he

impressionas

an

done.

said Demokritos

fragmentmay
have

knew

one

failed

fellow-citizen

is another

LIFE

never

On

meant

his

the other

the modern

to

doubt

no

brilliant

more

hand, Demetrios

visited Athens

forgerytoo. In any case, most

study,teachingand writingat

wandering Sophistof

'I went

at

this

all,so

of his time
Abdera.

must

He

the head

type, but

was

of

school.
regular
The

real greatness of Demokritos

and

atoms

the void, which

he

does

have

to

seems

lie in the

not

much

expounded

he

had

He

than
belongsto another generation
altogether
is not specially
concerned
in finding
answer
an

as

Leukippos. Still less does it lie in his

cosmological
system, which is mainly derived from Anaxagoras.
he

received

theory of

it from

and

these men,

Parmenides.

to

The

day. The
questionhe had to deal with was that of his own
of science had been denied and the whole
possibility
problem of
and that had to be met.
Further,
knowledge raised by Protagoras,
the problem of conduct had become
The originality
a pressing
one.
directions as that of
of Demokritos
in the same
lay,then, precisely
Sokrates.
THEORY

" 151.
mechanical
author

followed

Demokritos
of

account

composed of atoms
in the impact of atoms
the

of sense
organs
which
these atoms
are

not

like
from
must

are

KNOWLEDGE

Leukippos

in

giving

purely

sensation,and it is probablethat he is the

of the detailed atomist

is

vision

OF

doctrine

on

this

As
subject.

everythingelse,sensation
without
be

on

the

atoms

must

of the

the soul
consist

soul,and

through
(-nopoC)
simply 'passages'

introduced.

the thingswe
strictly

It follows

suppose
the 'images'(SeiVeAa,
that bodies are
ei'SajAa)

that the
ourselves

objectsof
to

see,

but

constantlyshedding.
The image in the pupil of the eye was
regarded as the essential
thingin vision. It is not, however, an exact likeness of the body
from which it comes;
vening
for it is subjectto distortion by the interair. That is why we
see
thingsin a blurred and indistinct
cannot
way at a distance,and why, if the distance is very great, we
them
at all. If there were
air,but only the void, between us
see
no
and the objectsof vision,this would
be so; 'we could see an ant
not
crawlingon the sky.'Differences of colour are due to the smooth-

l6o

DEMOKRITOS

ness

in

or

roughness of

similar way.

sounding body
They therefore
that resemble
in the

the

Sound
and

is

them.

the

with

which

flow from

in the air between

differences of

figures(ei'Sry,
ax^ara)

Hearingis explained

atoms

alongwith

ear

The

of

stream

motion

cause

reach

the touch.

images to

of

those

taste

the

it and

due

are

the

sense

which

atoms

Aristotle says

Demokritos

if we

understand

similarly

was

way, touch,
cold,wet and dry,

shapeand
all the

in

come

size of the

by

'that of

to

senses

touch

atoms

the

sense

perceivessuch

however,
touch
we

the

reduced

touch, and that is quitetrue

that

feel hot and

differences

to

the

by which we
and the like,
is affected accordingto
impinging upon it.

regardedas

ear.

portionsof the air

of that sense,
and smell
organs
detail. In the same
explained,
though not in the same
contact

the

the

qualitiesas shape, size and weight.This,

be carefully
from the special
of
distinguished
sense
has just been described. To understand
this point,

must

which

must

go

on

knowledge.
" 152. It is

to

consider

the doctrine

here

that Demokritos

the

Eleatic tradition

of 'trueborn'

and

'bastard'

sharply into conflict

with Protagoras,
who had declared all sensations to be equallytrue
for the sentient subject.Demokritos, on the contrary, regards all
the sensations of the special
as
as
false,inasmuch
senses
they have
real counterpart outside the sentient subject.In this he is of
no
true

course

to

Parmenides

rests.

had

said

comes

on

expresslythat

which

the

atomic

theory

taste, colours,sound, and

and itis quitelikely

only 'names' (ovd/mra),
Leukippos
said something of the same
to
reason
sort, though there is no
believe he had elaborated a theory on the subject.Coming after
bound
the
to be explicit
was
on
Protagorasas he did, Demokritos
been preservedto us in his own
point.His doctrine has fortunately
he said (fr.
words.
125),'there is sweet, by use
'By use (vo^o;),'
there is warm
and by use there is cold ; by
there is bitter ; by use
the like were

use

there

is colour.

But

in sooth

(eVe^)there

void.' In fact,our

sensations

they are caused by

somethingoutside

be

cannot

apprehended by

thing is sometimes

same

the senses.' Demokritos

sure,

the

felt as
said

the

nothing external,though

us,

the

specialsenses.

sweet

and

atoms

and

(fr.9), 'we

true

of which

nature

That

sometimes
in truth

is
as

know

why

bitter.

the

'By

nothing

only something that changes accordingto the disposition

body and of the thingsthat enter into it or resist it.'We

but

of the

represent

are

TRUEBORN

know

cannot

the

BASTARD

l6l

KNOWLEDGE

this way;
for 'truth is in the depths' (fr.
that this doctrine has much
in common
with

in
reality

will be

117).It

AND

seen

distinction

modern

between

the

primary

and

secondary

of matter.
qualities
sensation as a source
ledge
of know" 153. Demokritos, then, rejects
just as the Pythagoreansand Sokrates did ; but, like them,
the possibility
that there is a
he saves
of science by affirming
of knowledge other than the special
'There are',he
source
senses.
says (fr.n), 'two forms of knowledge (yva)^),the trueborn
and the bastard (aKorirj).
To the bastard belongall these;
(yvrjafy)
smell,taste, touch. The trueborn is quiteapart from
sight,
hearing,

these.' That

is the

of Demokritos

answer

to

Protagoras.He

had

said that

honey,for instance,was both bitter and sweet, sweet to

and bitter to you. In reality
'no more
it was
such than such'
me
Sextus Empiricus and Plutarch tell
T)rotov).
(ouSevfjidXXov
that Demokritos
and the
us
expressly
argued againstProtagoras,
fact is therefore beyond question.
TOLOV

the

At

he had

justas
outside

of the organs

intervention
to

having immediate
them

know

to

after

of

there

direction,and

every

of

atoms

as

all,of the

knowledge

soul

our

atoms

atoms

without
directly
of the soul

were

the
not

of the

body, but permeated it in

nothing to prevent them from

the external atoms, and so coming

reallyare. The 'true-born knowledge'is,

nature

same

this trueborn

with

contact

they

was

that Demokritos

held, in fact,that the

The

sense.

particular
parts

any

overlooked

be

of the bastard. He

could affect the

us

confined

done

not

of
explanation

purelymechanical

gave

time, it must

same

as

the

'bastard',and

Demokritos

absolute separationbetween
an
refused, like Sokrates, to make
and thought.'Poor Mind,' he makes the senses
sense
125),
say (fr.
'itis from
is

thou

us

proofsto throw us with. Thy throw

knowledge is,after all,not thought,but

'true-born'

fall.'1The

a sort

hast got the

of inner

sense,

and

its objectsare

like the 'common

sensibles'

of Aristotle.

" 154.

might be expected from

As

and

Zeno,

In
continuity.

form:
to

'If

think

unequal ?

cone

Demokritos

busied

remarkable

one

is

cut

by

the

they are unequal,they will

".

2.

make

reans
Pythago-

problem

states

the

cone

of

it in this

its base, what

sections? Are

two

p. 113,

with

(fr.155) he

to
plane parallel

1Cp.

of the

follower

himself

passage

of the surfaces of the

If

are

we

they equal or
uneven

; for

l62

DEMOKRITOS

it will have many

incisions and roughnesses.

If they are
step-like
equal,then the sections will be equal,and the cone will have the
of a cylinder,
which is composed of equal,not unequal,
properties
is

circles. Which

that Demokritos

appears
cone

absurd.'

most

was

went

remark

to

on

third of that of the

From

of Archimedes1

that the volume

say

the

cylinderon

height,a propositionfirstdemonstrated by
clear,then, that he was engaged on problemssuch

himself. Once
as

rise
more

important the

how

see

we

as

those which

work

of Zeno

was

intellectual ferment.

an

THEORY

CONDUCT

OF

conduct would
on
" 155. The views of Demokritos
than his theory of knowledgeif we could
more
interesting
It
completely.

them
the

It is

of Archimedes

infinitesimal method

the

to

of the

Eudoxos.

same

ultimatelygave

of the

base and

same

it

moral

precepts

attributed

that the treatise

doubt

however,
difficult,

is very

him

to

to

be

sure

be

recover

which

genuine. There

are

was
Cheerfulness
(TTepi
euflu/^?)

on

even

is

of
no

his. It

important
freelyused by Seneca and Plutarch, and some
fragmentsof ithave survived.
that pleasureand pain
It started (fr.4) from the principle
what determine
This means
and aTepifjir))
are
happiness.
(rcptftis

was

primarilythat happinessis not

'Happinessdwelleth
of the
dwelling-place
remember

must

man's

and

is based

the Greek
on

to

is,as has been

this usage.

we

On

in

nor

in external

gold; the
understand

soul

goods.
is the

this,we

which
Baffjuov,

come

word

sought for

(fr.171).To

word

had
guardianspirit,

be

herds

daimori1

that the

of 'fortune'. It
rvx^i,

in

not

to

be used

said,the individual aspect of

translate
one

a
properly meant
almost as the equivalent

by 'happiness'
(ev8a.ip.ovia

side of

it,then, the doctrine of

closelyrelated to that of
stress
on
pleasureand pain. 'The
Sokrates,though it lays more
is to pass his life so as to have as much
best thingfor a man
joy and
be' (fr.
189).
as littletrouble as may
The pleasuresof sense
This is not, however, vulgarhedonism.
are
just as littletrue pleasuresas sensations are true knowledge.
but the pleasant
for all men,
'The good and the true are the same
is different for different people'(fr.
69).Further, the pleasuresof
Demokritos

happinesstaught by

Cf.

Diels,Vors?

is

ii.p. 90

".

164

DEMOKRITOS

share

we

of

have
of

coiner

has

him

telling

that
the

now

we

the

regret

main
return.

Demokritos

help

current

loss

of

From

our

is that

he,

of

his

of

his

of

point
too,

saw

it is

it

He

need

the

at

and

only
an

it

all.

is

for

the

literary

stand

apart
that

to

to

the

doubtful

At

important
answer

into

way

very

their
to

seems

of

is

great

was

require

we

for

mainly

view,
the

their

and

philosophy,

Greek

found

thoughts

deepest

works.

he

material

system,

that

feeling

of

sort

What

Epicureans.

because

have

these

the

not

some

cannot

and

the

to

mainly

preserved

philosophic

know

we

we

is

itself

attached

phrases,

of

interpretation

time,

been

That

anthologies.

whether

that

discredit

the

in

we

fact

same

merit
from
must

about

Protagoras.

BOOK

III

PLATO

XII

Plato

and

the

PLATO'S

"

If the

57.

scholars

and

of Plato

than

the

of any

Epistles,
we

the

dialogues,

hold

have

later Lives

they

may

contain

neglect them
Plato's

least the
the

birth.
work

Attic

It would
could

have

successful
We

turn.

of the

of

the

Epistlesmust

skill, or

he

to

not

have

could

from.

start

is conceivable

that

that

it is safer

so

been

in

Academy

character

which

is the

find

Plato's

Even

far

as
man

to

of almost

reproduced

so

at

are

of

use

later who

oldest

that the

say

contemporary.

fiftyyears
the

as

with

him

writer, whose

anyone

does.2

hand,

forgeries,they

been

to

remarkable

more

well-informed
have

sources

other

credited

Epistlesare

to

the

Epistles,on

The

and

spurious dialogues betray themselves

have

the

on

is such

him

indeed, go

may,

resting

older

impossible to
language as he

the

infer from

from

and

proves

from

apart

may

points

life

stray facts derived

been

handle

fixed

greatest

of the

of the

Speusippos, already

sober

we

member

certain

If, then, the

of

dialect

was

mythology,

nephew,

miraculous

two

the

more

statements

two

first instance.

this

what

entirelymythical. It

general

in the

own

who

know

we

"

of

some

philosopher.1Even

or

give us

or

their

free from

are

one

and

"

deal. Besides

one

almost

are

lost, but

now

these

are

ancient

authority of Hermodoros,
The

they

good

we

Plato's time, and

genuine

other

know

LIFE

EARLY

Epistlesare

historians

Academy

at

most

every

supposed forger

unparalleledliterary
of

many

the

little

like Bentley
by scholars
genuineness of the Epistles has been maintained
In practice most
like Grote
and
E. Meyer.
accounts
Cobet, and by historians
of
of Plato
that
is disguised by the
custom
on
them, though
really depend
pendent
dePlutarch's
to
referring instead
Life of Dion. Plutarch, however, is obviously
this is an
if not
he tells us ; so
the
all,of what
on
Epistles for most,
In my
itself.
should
add
stands
I
that
the
First
by
illegitimate evasion.
Epistle
fourthIt
mistake.
is
it
has
into
its
a
genuine
judgement,
place by
present
got
for
he was,
meant
to pass
letter,but I do not think the writer, whoever
century
1

The

and

Plato
2

at

After

all. I do
the

Epistles existed

not

think

either

rise of Atticism
before

that.

it

that

he

might

was

have

Dion
been

or

meant

to

pass

just possible, but

for Dion.
we

know

the

l68

LIFE

styleat the very time of his life to

to belong,though with justthose shades
Epistles
profess

the

of difference

should expect to find in letters as contrasted with

work. I believe that all the letters of any
literary

we

elaborate

more

Plato's

marked

that
peculiarities
which

I shall therefore

importance are Plato's,and

however, there
shall

" 158. Plato

I have

Perikles died

addressed

to

use

of them.

are

not

convinced, I

occasion

428/7 B.C.,

do

to

As,

so.

than

more

year after
for the first

to Athens
justbefore Gorgias came
from a poem
quoted in the Republic(368 a) and

and

learn

time. We

in

born

was

make

scholars who

stilleminent

are

the reader when

warn

PLATO

OF

his

brothers, Adeimantos

and

Glaukon, that his

have died when

of distinction. He must
father,Ariston,was a man
Plato was
child; for his wife, Periktione,afterwards married
a

Pyrilampes,whose
associate of

of

Pythodoros son

Isolochos,who

Glaukon

and

Adeimantos

of Zeno.

in his

by her, Antiphon, was

son

must

had

have

been

youth an
a disciple

older

been

than

is based on a misunderstanding
they were
younger
that Plato could not talk as
of the Republic.
It is assumed
he does there except to younger
brothers, and it is forgotten,as
usual,that Sokrates,not Plato,is the speaker.In the Apology(34a)
should have been called to giveevidence
Sokrates says Adeimantos
with him, and
from associating
Plato had got any harm
whether
older as to stand in loco
this impliesthat Adeimantos
much
was
so
parentisto his brother. Further, we learn from the poem quoted
and Adeimantos
had won
tinction
disin the Republicthat both Glaukon
idea that

Plato. The

Megara. It is natural,in the

that the battle of
to
qualifications,
suppose
be quitecertain. In any case,
though we cannot

absence

in the battle of

further
meant,
brothers

distinction

won

differed

in the

same

battle,they

of

424 B.C. is
if both the

cannot

have

not have been

age. It may be added that it would
his brothers
with Plato's usual practice
to introduce

widelyin

in accordance
in the

when
that dialogue
was
Republicif they had been stillliving
Glaukon
written. Xenophon (Mem. iii.6, i) tells a story of how
restrained by Sokrates from speakingin the Assembly before
was

he had
him

reached
series of

some

legalage

of twenty. Sokrates did that

questionsabout

Athenian

finance and

by asking

the national

impossibleto read these questionswithout

Xenophon conceived the incident to have taken place

defences, and
that
feeling

the

it is

time before the

that he says Sokrates

occupationof Dekeleia
was

interested

in 413 B.C.
because
in Glaukon

It is

true

of Char-

PLATO'S

Plato,but that may be

twenty years older than Plato,who
and

mides

to

before 413
is explicable
enough in a writer

however, if it is one,

and

chronologyas Xenophon,
As

to

of his

mention

Plato's
traced

kinsman

She

of Solon.

sister of Charmides,

he

that

Charmides

that he

married
That

Ariston.

that

would

of the

latter

dialoguebefore

in the

how

the

so

As

son.

she

he

and

with

to

death

usage.

The

in the battle of

for it appears

from

366/5,though her

all this is that it enables

supposed date

us

with

of the Parmenides

fix the

of

of the

for Thourioi
departureof Polemarchos
That
explainshow Kephalos is still

the

Lysias,though present,
We

of

niece, and

by the

wounded

Adeimantos
also

his

was

sumption
prein the

uncle

maternal

still livingin

was

told

Athenian

great age;

the

further

are

widow

was

importance of

return.

conversation.

we

the

left

was

and

the fact that Glaukon

that Periktione
she

highly

of Kritias and

the cousin

Pyrilampeswas

Republic,and

of after his

also

affords
grandfather

reached

Glaukon

those

alive,and

born,

was

presumptions.
his

Dropides, the friend

to

be in accordance

Epistlexiii. (361 e) that

death was
expected.1The

instead

Plato

was

Pyrilampesis that

the
identify

made

Glaukon, and

assume

Delion, but Periktione

to

Sokrates

before

the second

her when

hear of

last we

of

son

must

we

other

that

its descent

herself

was

(158 a)

Charmides,

slip,

careless of

so

mother, Periktione, was

of his maternal

name

young

The

B.C.

least

is quiteappropriate.

and
distinguished,

the

at

outweigh the

know

we

five years

or

name

family of

The

much

cannot

Charmides,

acquaintance four

bore

slip.Charmides
was
be
too
would, perhaps,

the attention of Sokrates

attract

169

FAMILY

shall

see

that

does

take

not

good

deal

any

part

depends

on

this.

undoubtedly proud of his illustrious kinsmen, and he

introduces them over
and over
The opening
again in his writings.
of the Charmides
is a glorification
of the whole
connexion.
scene
It recalls the praisesbestowed
the house of Dropides by Solon
on
and Anakreon, the youthfulbeauty and modesty of Charmides,
and the fair stature
of Pyrilampes,who was
accounted the tallest
and handsomest
in Asia when
he went
man
on
an
embassy to the
King. The elder Kritias playsan important part in the Timaeus
Plato

but

This

was

has

been

it involves

Megara in
family.See

424

the

no

B.C.

used

as

an

argument

impossibility,even
Athenian

against the genuineness of Epistlexiii.,

Glaukon
and
fought at

if Adeimantos

girls married
very
in the Appendix.

genealogicaltable

young,

and

it

was

long-lived

LIFE

170
and

in the

PLATO

OF

dialoguecalled by

celebrates the older

himself stands in
members

of his

memorial

he

I have

wrote.

by

was

means

no

called attention elsewhere2

to

tions
keeps the shadow of the Revolunot
his picture.His dialogues
on
are
only a
falling
to
Sokrates, but also to the happier days of his own

the dramatic
from

contrast
to the way he
striking
as their memory
especially
family,

the time

popular at

about

Plato's reticence

his name.1

skillwith which

he

have felt the events

of the end of the fifth
family.Plato must
in these
but he is so careful to avoid anachronisms
century keenly,
that no one
could ever
that they were
dialogues
guess from them

after Kritias and

written

had

Charmides

with

met

dishonoured

end.
The

" 159.
Sokrates

when

have

he
and

Hermodoros,
must

that Plato

statement

known

and

it is

Sokrates

of
acquaintance

the

twenty does not rest on the authorityof

is quite incredible. The nephew of Charmides
was

Sokrates

It
very likely.
that converted him

not

was

of the inner circleof

one

rather

seems

to

It does

since he could remember.

ever

follow,however, that he

not

only made

to

have

That,
philosophy.

vii. There
impression left by Epistle

we

of

the death

been

any rate, is the

at

told

are

disciples,

quite distinctly

Kritias and
career.
political
Charmides
for they are no
doubt meant
suggestedthat he
should enter
by
publiclife under the Thirty,but he was disgusted
like gold
their excesses,
which
made
the former constitution seem
he was
shocked by the treatment
by comparison (324d).In particular,

(324b) that

he had

looked

forward

to

"

"

of Sokrates in the affair of Leon

democracy
career,

of Salamis

restored,Plato thought once

was

but the trial and

death

("1 1 1).When
of

more

of Sokrates convinced

him

the

political
that this

impossiblein the Athens of his time. He could do nothing,

neither of the existing
he says (325 d),without joining
a party, and
him. It was
at
justas well. Athenian politics
partiescould satisfy
this time were
of no serious importance,and, as he says in another
born late in the day for his country.'
letter (v.322 a),'Plato was
was

He

did, however, find

wider

"

60. It has

become
would

side,but nothing can

1

on

much

stage.

and connexions

were

later,and
openingin politics

an

rather what
See p. 275,

n.

i.

we

commonplace

incline him
be

more

should
*

See my

from

untrue.

call

say that Plato's birth

the firstto the oligarchic

The

to

traditions of the

as
'Whiggish',

edition

of the

is shown

family
by the

Phaedo, Introduction," IX.

PLATO

172

acquaintanceat Athens,

he

where

teachingjust before the

death of Sokrates. All this,however, is extremely
doubtful,and the
is that he visited Italy
and Sicily
earliest definite fact we know
for
he was
the first time when
fortyyears old (Ep. vii. 324 a).It is
that he wished to make the acquaintanceof the distinguished
likely
in these
more
becoming powerful once
Pythagoreanswho were
tance
parts,and it was probablythroughthem that he made the acquainDion, who

of

the

of

court

then about

was

Dionysios I.
life he had

the luxurious

Pollis,who

ambassador
in

even

danger,but

he

twenty. That

Syracuse,where

at

lead. The

to

speechoffended Dionysios,who

of

was

sold him

ransomed

was

him

to

disgustedby

was

story goes that his freedom

handed
as

he

brought

him

slave

by

at
man

over

the

to

Spartan

Aigina.His life was

of Kyrene named

Annikeris. If this story is true, it is strange that it is not

mentioned

Perhaps Plato may have thoughtit irrelevant

Epistle.
of his relations with Dion
in what
and the
is really
a narrative
Dionysios.A forgerwould hardlyhave omitted it,if the
younger
story had been current, but Plato himself might conceivablydo so.
back at Athens before long.
In any case, he was
and Sokrates had
" 162. At this time Plato was justover forty,
been dead twelve years. One good reason
for holdinghe did not
travel,as the later accounts
spend these years in continuous
in the Seventh

suggest, is that he

have

must

written

considerable number

very

Without deciding
already.
dialogues
anythingas to the order
in which
composed, we are able to say with some
they were
confidence that the Euthyphro,
Apology,Crito,Charmides, Laches,
and Meno
all
at least were
Lysis,
Euthydemus,Protagoras,Gorgias,
That is about one
composed before Plato was forty.1
dialoguea
of them
before the death of
none
year, assuming that he wrote
that the great tragediansoften brought
Sokrates. If we remember
of his

out

four

playsin

and
production,

littledoubt

I have

also written

were

year, that will

one

this

by

it

In

have been

completed before

I think
In

may

all these

every
1

by

we

seems

dialoguesthe

ventured

Campbell

to

in

in

assume
1

an

clear that all these works

dramatic

the

867. It would

is

portionsof
take too

of the
not

interest

results of the

rate

the

well

must

Academy, and

very

seems

of

Phaedo

Republic at least

the foundation

some

excessive

Symposium and

the

take it that the Phaedrus

other, except

I have
Lewis

case,

seem

that the

date, and

advanced.

any

not

much
to

later.

outweigh

Republic.Plato's

researches
stylistic
inaugurated
long to discuss them here.

PLATO'S

dramatic
done

had

He

which

is

with

the

who

could

Gorgias,
of

his

speak

inmost

believe

we

Second

Epistle.There

have

turned
be

had

of his

He

own.

intellectual

anything

development

first the artistic interest

does

gain the

not

anything

that

I attribute
the
a

far that

so

The

Academy.

of the studies

programme
shall see,

we

of

of them,

one

take

Plato is

astronomy

himself

and

namely,

'There

had

think

rightlybe

called

of those
continued

paramount;

the

the

that

were

his

rather

than

pursued

solid geometry.

at

solid

this has

that

not

yet been

already attributed
were

geometry?

to

age.

At

detect

can

Sokratic, and
open
to

seems

there ;

had

and,

but

he

invented.

to

all

reallyforeignto him, why

to

which
been

ness
awkwardmind

my

as

corrects

It had
The

be

speak

proposed

dimensions,

Sokrates

to

Sokrates

making

Sokrates

of three

purely

about

was

be

ease

that

Guardians

in

likelythat
philosophy

whose

of the
to

it

purely philosophical
giftdeclined. It is only

fact that Plato

education

and

away,

into old

by Plato's time, and by a friend of his own.

evidently feels in introducing it is to

scientific interests

effect in the

men

the Phaedrus

be Platonic

interpolatesgeometry

had

of

no

not

immediately after plane geometry,

If he

for

much

passed

invented

boggle

learn

is

objects that

instructive.

mask

that

Glaukon

he

or

dialogues,and

to

late and

quite at

not

of these

tillhis artistic

to

higher

any

one

Republic and

exception to

as

possibleto

be. I do

to

been

was

seems

Protagoras

revealing anything

it

statement

that could

hand

parts of the

in certain

main

was

upper

of

Sokrates

generation that

have

to

seems

that the

writing of
What
reallybelong to
go by the name
handsome.'
The
dialogues,in fact,

and

in the

them

posium,
Sym-

simultaneously, either

(314 c):

says

most

in the

imagine

cannot

character

used

think

be.

ever

young

yet

as

the

the

dialogues,but

Alkibiades, without

or

he

pictures of

I believe

Plato

will there

profess to

in

thoughts from
perfectlyserious

own

that

will

at

therefore

not

Plato's

Sokrates

Republic. I

involuntarily,have

I do

Plato, nor

the

earliest

personality,should

own

voluntarily or
himself.

and

words, is seldom

its best

at

seen

of the

one

in

gift of assuming

giftis

certainlynot

Phaedo

173

acknowledged

this

Aristophanes

or

DIALOGUES

marvellous

and
personalities,

diverse

man

often

though

power,

justiceto.

goes

EARLY

manner

should

very
of
he

ACADEMY

THE

174

OF

FOUNDATION

THE

ACADEMY

after his
Academy by Plato soon
not
to Athens
return
was
onlythe most important event in his life,
doubt
but also in the historyof European science. The idea was
no
suggestedto him in the first placeby the school of Eukleides at
Megara, and by what he had seen of the Pythagorean societies in
southern
Academy is derived from a gymnasium
Italy.The name
outside the walls of Athens, which had been laid out as a public
Plato had a house
and garden,and this
Here
park by Kimon.

" 163. The

for

longthe
after the siegeof

remained
town

exist there tillit was

of the

seat

religious
guild.It

by Sulla

Athens

disestablished

had

and

disendowed

kind, it

was

to

the

continued

to

by Justinianin
organised as a
Muses, and its

lived for the

members

into the

most

part

life.

common

the firstthe

From

Academy attracted a largenumber

became
afterwards.
distinguished

of whom
many
observed
that they came
men,

world. That

is one

from

almost

of young
It is to be

part of the Hellenic

the fourth century
of the thingsthat distinguish
every

the fifth.In the fifth century, the

youth of Athens got their

of distinguished
who
a number
foreigners
time to time ; in the fourth,the youth of all

highereducation from
visits from
paid flying
Hellas

Athens

to

came

Isokrates

and

to

youths came

from

colonies in Thrace

and

in

to

some

sit at the feet of

Plato. Athens

Hellas'. It is of interest
these

in 86 B.C., and

chapel,dedicated

its

sacrifices at stated times. The

from

school,though it moved

all societies of the

Like

A.D.

529

of the

foundation

measure

to

on

the

Kyzikos, of which

Eudoxos

transferred himself

and

had, in fact,become
note

the

Athenian

two

further that

'the school of

goodly number

from
North, and especially

the Black

of

the Greek

may have been due

mathematical
school at

Sea. That

existence of
was

citizens,

the head.

At

any

rate, Eudoxos

bodilyto the Academy, which is

all the more
remarkable as he did not by any means
see
eye to eye
with Plato on
and
mathematical
astronomical subjects.It can
hardlybe an accident that Ionia proper is so poorlyrepresentedin
the Academy, so far as we know
who composed it.The lonians had
rejectedPythagoreanscience,partlyno doubt because it was mixed
continued
School of Demokritos
to exist
up with mysticism.The
at

Teos down

sodoros

come

to

his school

Hellenistic times. In Plato,Euthydemos and

from

Chios,and

Euboulides,the

adversaryof

Diony-

Aristotle,

PHILOSOPHY

was

is all we

Milesian. That

Epicurus of

Samos

Athens, where

once

175

say of Ionia tillthe time when

brought the old Ionic tradition to

can

more

ithad been

unrepresentedsince the days of Archelaos.

It is of the utmost
that Plato's real
importance to remember
his later
teaching was
given in the Academy, and that even
dialoguesonly contain what he thought fitto giveto a wider public

in order

to

define his attitude

fact,which

is often overlooked,

feel
we
difficulty
in

in

passingfrom

different world

of

Plato

Aristotle,and

nor
we

of

for

accounts

This
philosophy.

great deal of the

Aristotle. We

to

be

to

seem

that is natural; for

and
altogether,

neither Plato's lectures

works

other schools

to

have

we

(except in fragments)the published

thus comparing two
are
quitedifferent

things. If we
only had Plato's lecture on The Good and the
of Aristotle,
should get a very different impression.
we
Protreptikos
As

it

is,we

resemblance

Aristotle's than

to

It will

" 164.
the Academy

if

which
curiosity
have

to

his

we

first consider
it had

led

been

appliedalso

to

more

the purpose
of
by the word

understand

what

Plato

used

of

meant
or

more

visit strange lands and

to

men

been

far

dialogues.

own

help us considerablyto

In Ionia
'philosophy'.

It may

that Plato's lectures had

assume
fairly

may

note

the researches

less scientific

their usages.

of the
(iaropirj)
in all probability

Milesians,but there is no

evidence of that. It

Pythagorasthat

deepermeaning of science 'touched

in the Pythagoreancommunity
certainly

with

firstgave itthe

emotion', and it was

that it

was

regarded as a 'way of life'.For Sokrates too,

according to Plato, philosophy had been above all things a life.
At Athens, however, the word
in a vaguer and shallower
current
was
derived probably from the Ionian usage. It had, in
sense,
fact,a range of meaning something like that of our word 'culture'.
The
Isokrates,the
was
great teacher of philosophy in this sense
at all comparable
only Athenian of the time whose influence was
to

to

be

Plato's. Much

two
are

came

men

clear

to

that has been

another

one

enough.

reallynecessary
Plato

is

It will be
to

written

about

the attitude of these

extremely fanciful,but the main facts

well to state them
here, for it is
briefly

understand

Isokrates

if

we

are

to

estimate

aright.
PLATO

" 165. One

thingwas

intense belief that

the

AND

common

ISOKRATES

to

only remedy

both

men,

for the

and

that

was

ills of Hellas

an
was

176

AND

PLATO

ISOKRATES

enlightenment,though they differed enormouslyas

enlightenmentrequired.There is a striking
passage
the

Sokrates

Phaedrus, where

to

at

the kind

of

the end

of

Isokrates with

contrast

like Lysias.He

advocates
professional

mere

is made

to

says

but I am
is stillyoung,
ready to tell you what I presage
think
far
natural
I
as
that,so
gifts
go, he is capableof higher

Isokrates
for him

thingsthan the speeches of Lysias,and that his character is more

nobly tempered. It would be no wonder, then, as he grows older,if,
which
in composing speeches,
is the task he is now
even
engaged on,
have ever
he should
make
all who
taken up speech-writing
seem
children compared to him. If,however, that should not satisfy
him,
be no wonder
if a divine impulse should lead him to higher
it would
for,my dear Phaidros, there reallyis philosophyin the
thingsstill;
man
(279a).
It is

important not

overlook

to

Sokrates,not Plato,who
and, of
of

anything but

afterwards
been

ashamed.

some

forensic
On

the

speeches of which

been

measure

of Sokrates

fulfilled. I take

sincere compliment,and
perfectly

Plato and
than

Isokrates

about
speculations

modern

differed,indeed,

opinions in

on

Isokrates

prophecythat

about
especially

sents
repre-

be

to
likely

between

fundamentals, but they had

common,

had

it,then, that this is a

more

feud

was

have

not

that the tradition which

friends is much

as

It is

compliment,
prophetically

hand, Plato would

other

into the mouth

to put
likely

in

not

the

settinghere.

pays Isokrates this handsome

cannot
speak otherwise than

Sokrates

course,

the dramatic

them.
a

Plato
politics.

good
must

right
They
many

have

sympathised with the ideals of Isokrates regarding

Greek
union againstPersia,while Isokrates would
appreciatethe
Sicilian projectsof Plato, which
shall have to consider later,
we
though he doubtless thought it very absurd of him to begin the
of a princewith mathematics. The main pointis,however,
training
understood

that both

and

Isokrates

and

Plato

Hellas
the

depended on the revival of monarchy,

of history
showed
to be well founded.
course

" 1 66.

Where

of education.

Plato and

Isokrates differed

Isokrates

between
him
rivalry
between
longstruggle

and

was

Plato

humanism

what
was

that the future of

convinced

were

we

was

call a

reallythe
and

conviction which

in their tion
concephumanist, and the

first chapter in the

science. It

be

bered,
remem-

necessitya far
shallower thing than what we
In the firstplace,
call by the name.
modern
humanism
has gainedimmeasurablyfrom having to deal
however, that Greek

humanism

was

of

must

SCIENCE

with the
with

language

of classical antiquity.
An

those

is

HUMANISM

why

instance, is

far

humanism,

any

the fifthcentury

The

real content,

shallowness.

it in

Cicero, for
Greek

contemporary
Roman

as

behind

it,and

of the Renaissance, again,

of Greek
spirit

centuries,while Greek

methods.

the

to

science,and

for the scientificdiscoveries of the sixteenth

preparedthe way
Sophistsof

know

we

well

as
antiquity
The
humanism
strength.

seventeenth

as

deeper thing than

the results and

with
preoccupation

always tends

rhetoric. It has Greek

that gave it
saturated with
was

peoples,and especially

exclusive

country

own

Roman

even

177

literature of other

and

the literature of one's

That

AND

of Isokrates

tended

to

the

tific
scien-

had, therefore,hardly

littlemore

become

and

inherited from

distrust of science and

rooted

humanism

and

humanism

so

than

the

art

of

expressingcommonplaces in a perfectform.
time, the form invented by Isokrates really
" 167. At the same
influenced
or
was
perfectin its way, and he has, directly
indirectly,
to the present day. Even
commonplace
every writer of prose down
thinkingmay have its value, and it is a very good test of that to
has to utter one's thoughts in
express it in an artistic way. If one
accordance with a prescribed
scheme, they will at least gain in
and coherence, so far as theyare reasonable at all.Thoughts
lucidity
do not admit of artisticexpression.
that are wholly unreasonable
In this way Isokrates was
quiteentitled to claim that his teaching
did a great deal to
of service to his pupils,and he certainly
was
Hellenism
in spiteof the fact that his own
make
a
possibility,
thinkingis unduly coloured by the rhetorical antithesis of
political
Hellenes

and

regardedas

barbarians, a

unscientific

division

of

mankind

which

Plato

we
any rate, whatever
doubt that Plato recognised

262 d). At
(Polit.

there
may think of Isokrates,
his merits, and it is curious

can

to

be

no

note

how, the

more

he

came

to

he
importance,the more
logues
It is just in these later diafellunder the fascination of his style.
dominant
that the influence
where the scientificspirit
is most

divergefrom

him

work

as

Isokrates
very
and
seems

to

matters

be traced

of Isokrates may
such

on

the
was

of greater

most

In every other respect

clearly.
from anyas the polesasunder
thing

Sophistis wide
capableof understanding,and yet

it is in that

dialoguethat Plato for the first time troubles to avoid hiatus,

Isokratean devices for doing so. It
even
adopts some
specially
if,when he felt his own
as
giftof artistic writingbeginning

he
fail,

was

gladto

reinforce it in this way.

178
"

68.

different

Plato

To
from

philosophy

what

ISOKRATES

AND

PLATO

it was

to

of

was,

Isokrates.

something quite
look at the dialogues
the Academy, and

course,

If

we

writing about the time he founded

the Symposium, the Republic,and the Phaedrus, we
shall
especially
I think, that he regarded it chieflyin two
In the first
lights.
see,
place,it is the conversion of a soul, and in the second placeit is the
We
shall take the latter point first,
service of mankind.
because
it
Plato's objectin founding the Academy
is impossibleto understand
he

was

tillit has been

clear. No

made

has insisted

one

than

more

he has

on

necessityof disinterested scientific study,freed from all merely

but at the same
tained
utilitarian preoccupations,
time no one
has mainin1 the last
more
firmly that such study is only justified
life. The
Sokratic
resort
by the service it can render to human
that the man
knows
who
shall rule had, he tells us (Ep.
demand
vii. 326 a),taken the more
preciseform that the only hope for
is that kingsshould
mankind
turn
philosophersor that philosophers
should become
left him, and, though he
kings. That ideal never
ceased
he was
to hope for its realisation,
always ready to welcome
might
any approach to it. In default of the philosopherking much
the
of
and
be effected by
a
a
co-operation
philosopher
tyrant,
if the latter was
and impressionable.He reaffirms
especially
young
in the Laws
this conviction
(709 e), though he had already been
disappointedin one attempt to work upon that plan.The Academy
the

first and

was

foremost, then,

and
legislators,

fact, made
true

It also

science. We
for

and

most

much

to

of his

trainingrulers

in its task.

produced

trainingwas
pupilsturned

in

tyrants, which

is

Plato

later that the

are

mated.
rightlyesti-

tyrannicides.
than
more
practical
out

trained

rhetorical
statesmen

Academy

was

and

It was,

its credit, if the facts

that his

see

it

its fair share of

tragedians,while
shall

for

extremely successful

was

produced

boasts

his rivals,but
rhetorical

institution

charge against it that

enough,

Isokrates

it

an

that of

historians
and

men

or

of

often

appliedto
the slightest

There
communities.
is not
legislators
by new
improbabilityin the story that Epameinondas, who had been an
associate of the Pythagorean Lysis,asked Plato himself to frame a
code
of laws for Megalopolis, though we
told that Plato
are

declined.

180

PLATO'S

TEACHING

We
each step elaborately.
justify

to

when

we

As

" 171.
Academy
there

is

at

be

can

the

plan of teachingand
and
trustworthy

once
no

Aristotle 'was

about

his hearers

subject

study adopted

in the

notes.

They

came

of the

and
recognisedgood things,
Arithmetic
and Astronomy and

some

of

nothingbut
One, they thought it all very strange. We
and Xenokrates
that Aristotle,
Speusippos,
of this very discourse. We
may
his lectures,and that is confirmed
notes

said that

Aristoxenos

of those who

most

affected.

were

regularlectures (owouo-uu,

took

how
alwaystelling'

the Good

on

this

instructive. In the first place,

that Plato gave

doubt

and that
dKpodcreis),
lecture

to

have, as is natural,but littledirect evidence, but what

we

have

we

to

return

the Philebus.

to

come

shall

know
had

heard

expectingto hear
when
they heard
the Limit

and

the

Simplicius
all published
their
from

infer that Plato did

not

write

by Aristotle's reference to
dogmas' (aypa"f"a
Soy^ara).As we know, Plato

'unwritten

the

his
did

believe in books for serious purposes. In the Seventh Epistle

he
in his lifetime,some
of his hearers had
complains that, even
not

published accounts
The
he repudiates.
There

of his doctrine of the

passage

is worth

Good, which, however,

He
quoting.

says

writingof mine on this subject,nor ever shall be. It is

not
capable of expressionlike other branches of study; but, as the
result of long intercourse and a common
life spent upon
the thing,a
kindled
is
from
and
when
it has
as
a
light suddenly
leapingspark,
is no

reached

the

soul,it thenceforward

finds nutriment

this, any rate, that if these thingswere

be better stated by
at all,they would
at

to

for itself.I know

be written

down

or

stated

myself than

by others,and I
be the person to suffer most
from their being
too that I should
down
in
If
I
could
be adequately
set
badly
writing.
thought they
written down
and stated to the world, what finer occupationcould I
know

have

had

in life than

and

few

very

can

be enabled

would

lightof
a

be of great service to mankind,

all
?
I
do
But
to
men
not
day

good thingfor

discover

to

brief indication. The

rest

except for the

these thingsthemselves by
men,

it would

either fillwith contempt

loftyand vain presumption

by no means
pleasingor with a
had
learnt
though they
somethinggrand (341 c-e).

statement

not

mystery-mongering,as has

of the true

philosophymust
if it is

also

in the

a manner

This is

use,

who

of

means

as

reveal Nature

think the effort to attain this

even

in

to

write what

to

theoryof
be

merely an
warning
salutory

been

said ; it is

all highereducation.

man's

To

simply a

be of any
be philosophy

it ceases
to
very own;
echo of another's thought.The passage is
of Plato. He may, in a
to the interpreter
a

l8l

PROBLEMS

of it is less easy
We

" 172.

are

they could.
the

means

But

held

to

deepestthought; the spirit

in the Academy
think,then, of Plato lecturing
of his

the

attentive hearers

more

no

is

to

the

see

soul, to

the

rouse

lightfor

It

turn

itself.The

it

to

the

to

Academy

libraryof
that the

the school

his

at

of the

movements

was

what

by

the real

no

thing.Its

but
light,

the soul
lecture-

mere

who
Simplicius,

tells us
disposal,
heavenlybodies

no

better than

was

was

institute for scientificresearch.

an

takingdown

discourse,though necessary,

set

most

hall ; it was
the

of his

important part of the work.

doubt, but it was only preparatory

function
must

to

notes, and

without

book,

dry bones
reproduce.

the

recover

measure,

had

that Plato,who
be

must

regular,

of the

Academy
problem'to the mathematicians
their apparent
find on
what hypothesis(TIVCDV
to
vTroredevrcov)
could be explainedso as to 'save the appearances'.1
irregularity
The
word
'problem'calls for specialattention in this connexion.
Both it and 'protasis',
the verb corresponding
to which
(Trporeiveiv)
rendered
has been
'propound'(proponere)in the passage just

'propoundedit as

referred to,

originatein the

Greek

of

custom

asking riddles

the convivial associations of the words

banquets,and
to the

idea of scientificresearch

as

at

bear witness

life (TOav^v). That

common

taking the form of a quest for

investigation
difficulties
solutions (Xvaeis)
of certain problems (rrpopXijfjiara)
or
We
have a collection of such in the Aristotelian corpus,
(oLTTopiai).
which
derived from the work of his school, and the
is obviously
justquotedshows that the method originated
passage of Simplicius
accounts

in

turn

for

Academy. It is,of course, the beginning of the system of

research.
education through original
confined the
further that Plato by no means
It is to be observed
interest to himself,
researches of his students to subjectsof special
and astronomy. No doubt they had all to go
such as mathematics
but there is
of mathematical training,
course
through a preliminary
also pursued with
studies were
abundant
evidence that biological

in the

directed to
largely
this side of the Academy's activity.
Epikrates(fr.
5)laughsat Plato,
of
for investigating
by the method
Speusippos and Menedemos
enthusiasm.

The

what

satire of the comic

the

division

to

nephew

and

successor,

animals

and

and
vegetables,
1

genus

Simpl.

wrote

de

poets

was

pumpkin belongs.Speusippos,Plato's
books on the classificationof
many
the few fragments that remain
deal,

Caelo,pp. 488. 21

; 492.

(Heiberg).

182

THE

ACADEMY

for

with shell-fishand fungi.In the Critias (no d sqq.)

instance,
Plato himself surprises
of the geological
us
by an account
history
of Attika

and

level with the

work

to

well

we

must

of

assumed

outlined

to

course

the Clouds

PROGRAMME

that

scientificschool
a

of

matter

be
certainly

OF

STUDIES

We

take the highereducation of the Guardians

may fairly
in the Republicas a guideto the course
of study followed

Academy.
course

We

told
expressly

are

is to occupy

the

it has all the appearance

of
be a mistake to suppose

Republicrepresents

was

with these facts. It remains

in the fourth.

" 173.

It

and it is
life,

represent the Academy to ourselves

scientificapparatus and collections. Aristophanes

THE

the

his

and
astronomical
models
as
possess maps
and, if that was so in the fifthcentury, it may

course,

of the

earlyperiod of

into connexion

provided with
takes it for granted in

would

in the

the

belongsto

bringthat

be said that

which
is almost on a
consequences
discussions of the kind. The biological

modern

most

of Aristotle

natural

as

its economic

the

ten

that the mathematical

years from twenty

that what

is said about

thoughtof

mature

written either before the foundation

shortly after, and

the

ever,
It would, how-

regularprogramme.

theories

most

Plato

of the

to

part
and
thirty,

the sciences in
on

the

Academy

characteristic of

subject.
or

very

Plato's

teachingare not yet elaborated. He is quiteconscious of that. What

of all the
he proposed was
a thoroughcriticism of the hypotheses
sciences,and that had

yet been

not

carried

out.

That

is what

he

by the 'longer
way',which has yet to be travelled (435 d,
be prepared to find,then, that in some
must
important
504 b).We
respects the philosophyof the exact sciences given in the Republic
means

is completely
transformed

at a

later date.

that the function of

principle
conversion
of the soul from the
(Trtpicrrpo^ri)
As we
to that of Being (oucu'a).
contemplationof Becoming (ye'vecri?)
have
it is therefore
that distinction is Pythagorean,and
seen,
natural that the course
should consist of the four Pythagorean
sciences which survived in the medieval
though with
quadrivium,
that plane and solid geometry are distinguished,
this distinction,
instead of four. If we take these
so as to givefive studies (jua^/Liara)
The

programme
education
is the

in

order,we

shall see

is based

the

on

pointof

the

view from

which

Plato started.

OF

PROGRAMME

183

STUDIES

Arithmetic. At this stage, Arithmetic is to be studied,not for

utilitarian or commercial
ing
purposes, but with a view to understand1.

the

nature

of numbers

by thought alone. It

of sense
ambiguityand relativity
the

senses
as

appear

also appears
and one
one

as

many

as

two,

arises from

the

What
perception.
from
so

another

to
appears one
point of view. Two

it is the function of

thoughtto

and separate these from the confusion

in which
they
distinguish
are
presentedby sense. It is the business of Arithmetic to consider
A
numbers
by themselves, not visible or corporealnumbers.
and so is many
unit admits of division,
as well
tangible
units are
but unityitselfis indivisible.Visible and tangible
as one,
metician
not
necessarily
equalto one another, but the units of the arithall absolutely
are
equal.Such units cannot be apprehended
by sense, but only by thought,and that is what givesthe studyof
arithmetic its educational value (524b
526 c).
is
be studied for other than
Plane
to
2.
Geometry.Geometry too
utilitarian ends, for which, indeed, a very slight
knowledgeof it is
required.Though geometers talk of performingcertain operations,
that is only a
and 'applying'
and 'producing',
such as 'squaring'
of speaking,
and Geometry too has to do with Being,not
manner
relations which
with Becoming. Its objectsare
certain spatial
into being in
simplyare, whatever we may do, and do not come
virtue of our
constructions. This study too, then, is of value as
of the soul (527a-e).
instrument
an
purifying

visible

or

"

Geometry. Sokrates is about to pass from Geometry to

Astronomy, but recollects himself and pointsout that there is a
3. Solid

them, that which deals with the

'third increase' (rpirr)
av^), that is,with the cube, and generally
what has three dimensions, depth as well as lengthand breadth.
'But',says Glaukon, 'that does not appear to have been invented

science

intermediate

yet.'Sokrates

between

that this is because

answers

in the first placeno

holds such studies in honour, and in the second, because

is requiredto guidethem.
(emoTaTTj?)
the efforts of such
as

it is,their

make

some

extreme

progress

If the

director,
theywould

soon

state

be

were

director

to

second

Even
perfected.

elegance(^a/at?, em^a/st)causes
(528d).
TO

state

them

to

alreadybeen indicated,this remarkable passage appears

refer to the fact that, though the Pythagoreans had made
to
a
solids was
completedfor
beginning,the theory of the five regular
the firsttime by Theaitetos,while the problem of the duplication
As

has

B.C.

P.

184

THE

of the cube

(990 d).
" 174.

remaining studies

The

be

that there may

than the

more

deal with

metry
Stereo-

term

for the firsttime in the

here ; it appears

used

is not

solved tilla stilllater date. The

not

was

ACADEMY

Epinomis

motion, and it is hinted

mentioned.

two

Astronomy.Astronomy is not to be studied merely for its use

because it turns
in agriculture,
even
or strategy, or
our
navigation,
world.
The
visible
motions
of
the
heavenly
eyes upwards to a higher
related to true
bodies with all their labyrinthineintricacyare
only as the diagrams analysed by the geometer are
astronomy
4.

related

his

to

science,that is to say, these apparent

motions

must

We
must
regarded merely as illustrations (TrapaSeiy/xaTa).'
solutions.
them
not
treat
as
as
xpto/nevoi),
'problems'
(Trpo/SA^acrtv
be

What

have

we

them'

and

numbers

true

is 'the

the real slowness

velocityand
the

study

to

the

true

motions

true

in relation

move

one

forms, and carry their

is

sentence

easilymisunderstood

In the first place,the visible motions

call their apparent

we

and
one

to

the real

which

another, in
with

contents

(529d).

This

what

with

at

time from

to west

of the

requireselucidation.
heavenly bodies are

motions, which

are

The
quiteirregular.

first sightseem
east

and

of great

planetsmove

at

from

to

the stars, at another

among

plexity
com-

west

That
is the
stationaryaltogether.
(TO 6V raxos) is
'problem'we have to solve. The 'real velocity'
We
should
spoken of simply as opposed to the apparent velocity.
think it necessary to add 'the real slowness',but that is only an
not
and has no
instance of the Greek
tendency to 'polarexpression',
ness'
serious importance.We
as a 'slowspeak of a lesser velocity
may
if we
is spoken of as carryingits
please.Then this velocity
east, and

sometimes

'contents'

eVoVra)with
(TO.

they

are

it. That

is because

the Greeks

were

in

the orbital revolution to the orbit itself,

attributing
and not to the celestial body, which
was
regarded as occupying a
fixed place in its orbit. That
again is due to their regarding all

the habit

of

orbital revolution
which

can

be

as

similar

that of the moon,

to

adequatelystudied

alwayspresents

the

same

face

to

without

the earth

the

only case

The
moon
telescope.
(ornearlyso),and, in the
a

unreasonable
of any indication to the contrary, it was
not
the other planets
did the same.
We
to suppose
say the rotation of
the moon
time as its revolution round
upon its axis takes the same
absence

the earth ; the Greeks

expressedthe

same

fact

by sayingthe

moon

OF

PROGRAMME

does

revolve

not

all relatively
to its orbit. That

at

urge the fact of the moon's

in support of the view that

can
us

To

proves the moon

is thinkingof the orbit

Aristotle

but

which

sphere)to

the

does revolve

(or rather,in

is attached. All this

moon

speak of the heavenly bodies

velocity'
(eVoWa,sc. rfjTaxur^Ti).1The
natural

to

What

trace.

its

his

case,

axis,
the

it was

things 'in

'true numbers'

the motions

not

of the

then, is simply that

is meant,

will exhibit the

which

science
and

on

the
the

are

days and years the revolutions take,and the 'true forms'

whatever they may prove to be, which
circles,
or
spirals,

the

they

to

rotate.

explainswhy
the

as

face

of

number
are

is why Aristotle

the same
alwayspresenting
of the heavenlybodies
none

that is justwhat

us

185

STUDIES

they appear

heavenlybodies no more
than the diagramsof

motion

of the

motions

true

have

must

we

heavenlybodies

have. The

to

express

apparent motions
the laws of solid bodies in

the geometer

the truths

embody

of

geometry.
It is

time' has

to

the visible sun,

which

that such

observe

amusing to

take

but

an

is shown
annual

course

was

set,

are

not

called the 'mean

sun
'intelligible'

only coincides with

only for an instant.

then

watches

of this. Our

account

by

utilitarianthingas 'Greenwich

the visible
That

four times

sun

this illustration is

by

sun',

year, and

not

too

fetched
far-

by the fact that the apparent anomaly of the sun's

justone of the problemswe know to have been

in the Academy.2 It may be added that this is fatal to

investigated
the interpretation
Plato's astronomy
refer to some
which makes
imaginary'ideal'heavens. If it had, why should he have troubled
himself about the sun's anomaly? It would have been so easy to say
that the intelligible
had a uniform velocity,
and to disregard
sun

shortcomingsof the

the

5. Harmonics.

regard as
with

here. Not

study is Harmonics,

the counterpart

of

which

Astronomy.

apprehendedby the eye,

apprehended by the ear. The
to speakof those who
attempt

so

the

one

deals

will apply
principles
determine

the harmonic

Adam's

by

ear,

even

the

interpretation of this

he has to give of rd evovra.

Simplicius in Phys. p. 292. 22

passage

is

refuted
sufficiently

by

the

account

goreans
Pytha-

does the other deal with

same

to

As

the

Pythagoreans themselves, who express

selves
emancipate themby numerical ratios,do not sufficiently
from the sound as heard.3 It is not enough to say that such

intervals

next

sun.

motions

motions

them

The

visible

Aristoxenos

represents

(Diels).

the first class for

us

and

Archytas

the second.

fantastic

86

THE

and

such

interval is

an

consider

ought to
and which

Here,

in the

as

case

science of

succession

of 'beats'

to

of

numbers

are

ask the

reason

and the business of the musical

of the

intervals in

So
lengthof strings.

would

that the

seem

In

be due

must

have

we

far

the

as

those which

some

intervals

questionand

answer,

the

art

of

such an account
receiving
\6yov).Even Xenophon knew

problem

while

of number

nature

but

are

and

the

not

itself.

prelude to the

that is Dialectic. We

know

It is the

sense.

rational

than

the

art

others

that

Sokrates

the

or
reasoning,
Euthydemus(290c) we

of

account

/cat

made

those

who

of

of the method

an

is

any rate something more

told that arithmeticians,
are

at

hand

must
geometers, and astronomers
the dialectician for examination.

of

things
(SiSoVcu Se^ea^ai

from

of

art

others

'dialectical',
though he attributes to him
etymology of the word.1 But here something more

erroneous

weakness

him

with

associated

In
special.

cases.

consonant,

are

givinga

of

meant

another

of the
anticipation
hear are produced by a
(we should say, of waves),

in the Sokratic

means

one

Pythagoreansystem goes, it
might be expressed by any
have been experimentally
covered.
dis-

reallyto learn,and

Dialectic

with

ratio;we

theorist is to express the differences

of these,and not merelyin terms

studies,however,

alreadywhat
and

air

somethingin the

to

All these

" J75strain

fact that

an

fact,the Pythagoreanintervals are

solution. The
not,

as

have

we

consonances

other ratios justas well

are

terms

such

of this in both

sounds

of the
(rrX^yai)

and

consonant

Astronomy,we

later age. The

of the musical

such

expressedby

which

not, and

are

ACADEMY

Here

over

their discoveries

learn

we

(533 b) that

described

as
hypothesis,

to

the

for instance

itselfis
by Sokrates in the Phaedo, is justthis,that the hypothesis
of its consequences
; it has not
onlyestablished by the consistency
in the light
We are
of any higherprinciple.
itselfbeen examined
told, accordingly,
that,though geometers and the rest do in part
attain reality,
they only see it 'in a dream'. So long as they use
hypothesesand refuse to let them be moved, because theycan give

of them,

account

no

take for

waking vision. If we

know, and

Mem.

"yevTj

TO.

end

our

iy.5.

Trpay/Ltara.

and

He

makes

That

is

12.

in Prot.
{= emar/iiuav)
implied in Rep.
foundation',

reallyhave

our

said it.

to

behold

all the intermediate

him

derive

312

511

b.

or

The

true

what
starting-point
steps

are

Being with
we

do

only a

not
con-

from StaAe'yetv
Kara
SiaAeyeaflai
from
of cro^tcm??
o
TWV
ao"f"a"v
that of imodeais from
'lay a
vTrorid-rjui,
rates
Cratylw is full of such things,so Sokthe verb

just like the derivation

iaTT)s

may

be said

they cannot

l88

ACADEMY

THE

for

necessary

to

us

learn all we

Eukleides. It is not

about

can

much,

but the few statements

have rest on the
we
unfortunately,
and are of fundamental
importance.
authority,
In the firstplace,as we have seen
already("117),Eukleides

Eleatic,and

an

the doctrines

of the

Megaric school

in

best

was

later

know
from Aristokles,1
them
stillbear traces
as we
generation,
their Eleatic origin.
though we are not entitled
Accordingly,
ascribe allthese doctrines

himself without

Eukleides

to

of
to

ado,

more

far wrong
in crediting
him
with those that are
Eleatic in character. To begin with, we are told that the
definitely
cannot

we

go

it their business

Megarics considered
sensations and

appearances

(KaraftaXXeiv)2
and to trust to reasoning
alone. That
Eleatic. We
also told that they held
are

goes without saying in an

and the Other
that Being was
one

thingas coming

such

into

is not, and

Eleatic doctrine,and

Eukleides.

It is

then, to
impossible,
in the

Sokrates

to

the other

interested in the
stillhave

We

certain

which

Phaedo, for there

hand, he appears

teachingof Sokrates

about

doctrines

have

have

becoming.

part in the
have been deeply

to

subjectof

the

on

of

to

doctrine

we

written in the Doric

curious document
Sokratic

could

the
originated,

of forms which
into the world
enter
plurality
Eukleides
accordingly,
though present, takes no
discussion. On

no

motion. That is

that he

suppose

stillless that he could have

Plato attributes

or

was

attributed
confidently

be

may

that there

be

to
being or ceasing

also sound

and
accepted,

'throw'

to

goodness

the Good.

dialect,in

clearly

are

that it belongsto the end of

referred to.3 It is generally
recognised
its 'eristic'character,taken in

the fifth century, and

dialect,
strongly
suggest Megara

with its Doric

At any

rate, we

know

identified the Good

that Eukleides

is also called

One, which

by

as

conjunction
origin.

its placeof

such

other names,

as

God

or

with

the

Wisdom.

guess his exact meaning, but the fact of the

with the teachingof
identification is certain,and its connexion
It is

to
onlypossible

Sokrates

plain.As

seems

inferred that there is no

that the

is shown

unreal, is
1

Aristokles

referred

pp.

to

to

Seep.

The

are

show
was

the

there

nothingelse

thingas evil.The
and the things that

such

senses

that there
teacher

preserved in

is

Euseb.

of

are

method
appear

statements'

'two

Alexander
Pr. Ev.

than the One, he

of

Aphrodisias.

by which it
to

them

are

(Sicrcroi
Adyot)
The

statements

xiv. 17.

113, n. 2.
It is
Siaooi Aoyoi (formerlyknown
as Dialexeis).
334 sqq. See Taylor, Varia Socratica,i. pp. 91 sqq.

printed in Diels, Vors.3

ii.

THE

which

be made
may
That
is what

them.

with

equal truth and cogency about

Megarics called Dialectic and

the

opponents called Eristic. If

the

matter,

quibblingabout
a

had

method

words.

serious doctrine

189

GOOD

we

degenerated by

It does

in the hands

this time

of Eukleides

of the

into

follow that it was

not

their

Aristotle's account

trust

may

all of

mere

anythingbut

; for Plato

had

not

yet

cleared up the meaning of 'is'and 'is not',and we shall see good

it was
just his interest in the teaching of
grounds for believing
Eukleides that led him

of Dialectic in the

account

and

do

to

in that

case

we

reducing all the forms

the Good.
Good

understand
easily

positionof

the

justiceto

Eukleides

which
Republic

said

the identification of the form

and Wisdom

According

the

to

but the

In

such

some

valuable
The

theory

which

Good

would
would

could

He
such

when

as

he

in any

is neither

the

Being

nor

shall

from

hand

one

ledge,
Know-

this way

of 'emanation',and

one

with

it when
extent

developmentof

the

this part of the

of

that is in

the doctrine

was

Neoplatonismmay
thought that was in

Republic.We

have

no

far Plato himself

have

case

theory; and, as has

We

of the

the doctrines of Eukleides.

are

considerable

wrote

historical verisimilitude
does.

be

knowing how
not

Being on

naturallyfollow

associated

was

described
fairly
of

doctrine

how
some-

might be preserved.

revived in later days.To

means

is also

in

way as this,it may have seemed to Plato at the

of Eukleides might be avoided, while all that

fact the view which

Plato's mind

followinghim

of both. It

in his system

regardingthe

be

with

Good

effort to do

an

transcends and is 'on the

altogether
ledge.
Knowas it transcends
Being (eW/ceiva
TTJSovaias),

time, the monism

was

of Good

the
Republic,

this influence,

things said about it in the

for they are directed against

some

other,and these

cause

side' of

other

the

on

are

be Plato's own,

to

seem

without

One, which
intelligible
("129) that I regardthe

Sokratic,but there

as

it as

the

to

I have

written under

Republicwas

most

can

It is highlyprobable,
then, that the

so.

never

been

to

know

had gone in this direction.

Sokrates the mouthpiece of

made

indicated,he has probablystrained

some

extent

more

on

speaks in

in

saying as much
the subject,for he
again,and Aristotle

as

he

never

this way of the form of Good

never
alludes to this passage. As we
shall see, the solution that
even
itself to Plato was
commended
reached on other lines,and
finally
we

have

now

himself from

to

the

consider

the steps

Megaric

by which

doctrine.

he

finally
emancipated

XIII

Criticism

"

have

to

seems

in

work

his

that

published any

he

that

appear

period.
when

however,

hands

His

circle than

wider

Phaedrus, but

it

Plato

began

write

from

those

to

of the very

Some

in

sketches

direct

Plato's purpose,

give a picture of

as

to

by
has

to

action

supply

Narrated

it makes
mise

the

en

great
and

scene

picture live,and

interest

therefore

are

begins

cumbrous.

very

We

see

it

the formula

of which

is

'Antiphon

Parmenides

said'. In

the

Theaetetus

question of

dialogue
up,
also

not

opens

to

with

narrated

dramatic

troublesome

assented', 'He

Like

form.

in form.

the

dialogue as
That,

repetitionof
agreed'.It

is

we

such
true

its

Phaedo

however,

case,

told

an

express

the

that the

as

said

that

reference

Parmenides, that

but

but
to

(143 c), is

phrases

the

Parmenides,

Pythodoros

introduction;

in their
are

and

himself.

artistic of

most

in the

worst

is

reader, who

artistic,this form

the

said that

preted
inter-

descriptionsand

When,

there

dramatic

short

at

mainly

was

the

of

soon

Unless

all the

narrated.

prevail over

to

that

as

directions

hand, allows

the

form

this

on

stage

make

dialogues

this

demand
the

character

ficant
by a signidialogueshad been

moved.

and

other

Plato's

to

different

the

When

years.

but

long

so

the

which

becomes

too

earliest

lived

he

interval

first of all

dialogue,on

comments

scientific

Sokrates

speech,

proved inadequate for

other

to

the

many

had

is marked

early life. This

came,

Republic and

the

good

time

estimate

from

of

one

of

the end

his attitude

cannot

dialoguesagain they

in form.

dramatic

We

Theaetetus

probably

was

of his

change

simple

school.

the

not

by writings addressed

done

be

on

.it does

full. A

too

define

to

only

separates the

which

of time

probably

could

carried

he

years

dialogues tilltowards

more

were

that

twenty

Eukleides

of

interruption,and

felt it necessary

he

philosophers,and
to

about

without

Academy

the

influence

the

from

emancipation
been
gradual.For

Plato's

177.

'And

Parmenides

one

to

this leads
which

avoid

is
the

said', 'He

is

probably

CRITICAL

THE

littlelater than the

DIALOGUES

Theaetetus,but they both belongto the

period,and Plato may well have

produced the other. If so, we can

been

engaged on
easilyunderstand

the

one

his

same

when

he

conceiving

made
of
a distaste for the narrative form. At any rate, he never
use
it again,and his latest dialoguesare simply dramatic, just as his

earliesthad been.
the
feature
of these
" 178. Philosophically,
distinguishing
dialoguesis Plato's preoccupation with the Megarics. The
is dedicated

Theaetetus
it is

not

livingcharacters
doctrine
that

he

that
likely

if he

Eukleides,or rather

to

Plato
stillliving.

was

help

can

it. He

but he stillcherished,we
criticism,

the

Nor

man.

is there

about

was

the Theaetetus

of Eukleides, and

regardfor

his memory
; for
does not introduce
to

is

criticise the

to

meant

lead up

to

to

of
suppose, a feeling
in the dialoguethat

may

anything

directlyimpugns his doctrine. It does not, we shall see, go far

of discussion within the Sokratic society
beyond the possibilities
has been pointedout ("129),was
itself.The rift,
as
probablyin
existence
difference

before

death

the

within

of Sokrates, but

the school.

in making
difficulty

Sokrates

For

the

was

the chief

same

regardedas
there

reason,

And
speaker.

yet the

is

a
no

point

much
as
longer strictlySokratic. Plato is now
impressedby the dangersof a one-sided intellectualism as by those
of

view

of

is

no

one-sided

in
altogether
where

we

sensationalism.

this

should

He

avoids

though there
dialogue,

are

expect it to be discussed.
by this time, and he could

the

doctrine of forms

pointsin the argument

It was
takinganother

make
Sokrates the
not
shape in his mind
mouthpiece of that.
" 179. This brings us face to face with the very important
questionof the place assigned to Sokrates in the dialoguesof
narrated
in the Theaetetus
is
Plato's maturity. The
discussion
supposed to have been taken down by Eukleides and revised and
corrected by Sokrates himself (143 a).Further, it is supposed to
be read aloud at Megara years after the death of Sokrates. The
informal
statement

discussion
of

of the earlier

intended

doctrine

however, it only states

to

be

problem which

read
had

become

and

deliberate

criticised. As,

been
really

raised

by
in
difficulty

give the solution,there is no

his being the chief speaker,though by a curious device, certain
doctrines are said to have been known
to him
only 'in a dream'.
The Parmenides
is also representedas a deliberate statement
; for it
Sokrates,and

does

has
dialogues

not

is

CRITICAL

THE

192
have

supposed to
a

learnt

been

would

fiction which

DIALOGUES

wards,
by heart and repeatedlong after-

seem

credible then

more

than

in this

dialogue contains a direct criticism of the

age of books. This
and the Republic,
doctrine of forms as that is stated in the Phaedo
of Parmenides

the introduction

and

as

the chief

speaker suggests

the Eleatic criticism that in fact forced

that it was

Plato

to

seek for

formulation
of it. He was
bound
his
to make
satisfactory
positionclear ; for,whether he himself had ever held the doctrine
done a great deal to propagate it
criticised or not, he had certainly
be the chief
by his Sokratic writings.ClearlySokrates cannot
a

more

it would

but

speaker here,

have

been

unseemly

to

introduce

him. So Plato takes advantage

Eukleides,for instance,as criticising
of the visit of Parmenides
before

to

school

to

and

Zeno

to

Athens

almost

century

of the founder
put the criticism into the mouth
which Eukleides belonged.It would have been too

of the

much,

of 'not
as
assertingthe reality
represent Parmenides
which is the theme of the Sophist,
so the leading
being',
part in that

however,

to

dialogueand

its

stranger, who
Plato seems

sequel,the Statesman,

his

we

Eleatic

views, that he himself,rather than the

own

of Eukleides, was
disciples
the Philebus

an

of the great Parmenides.

disciple
by introducingthis enigmatic figure,who

mean

certainly
expresses

by

unorthodox

is a very
to

is taken

to

seem

the

come

true

nearer

of Parmenides.

successor

Plato's

In

philosophythan

own

do

the chief
more
anywhere else,and yet Sokrates is once
speaker.That is a problem we shall have to face later. In the
Timaeus
and Critias Sokrates is only a listener,
and in the Laws he
we

does

told in the Phaedo

that Sokrates had
are
appear at all.We
rejectedall attempts at a mechanical explanationof the world, and
not

the Timaeus

contains

such

an

attempt. As

to

the works

which

deal

with human
we

He
the

like the Critias and the Laws,

historyand institutions,
learn from the Timaeus
(19a-d)why Sokrates can take no part.
could paintthe pictureof an ideal state, but he could not make
is made
He
to confess that he could not, for
figuresmove.

instance,represent his
with

other states;

traininghave

to

state

as

do that

for existence
engagedin the struggle
are
men
requiredwho by nature and

as well
giftfor practical
politics

as

for

philosophy.

This

is a very valuable passage as evidence that Plato was

conscious
that some
themes
were
appropriatefor Sokrates and others were
not.

The

impliedcriticism

also be noted.

Plato knew

of his master's
very

political
teachingshould

well that,on

its constructive

side,

THE

it was

uncompromising and

too

That

is

THEAETETUS

partlywhy

so

The

Sokrates

negative.

turned

out

THEAETETUS

of the Theaetetus

purpose

of

too

statesmen.

THE

" 1 80.

its criticalside

on

followers

many

reactionaries rather than

193

is

clear the

to

ground by

be identified either with

that

sensation
knowledge cannot
the dialogueis named,
with thought.Theaitetos, after whom
or
of the Academy and one
members
of the
of the original
was
one
and we
and
most
gather that he died of wounds
distinguished,
dysentery after a battle at Corinth, which was
probablythat of
before this dialogue
written; for the
was
369 B.C. It was certainly
of his character in the introduction
beautiful description
can
only

showing

be read
as

tribute

as

to

is

mathematician

when

death
and

lad,he discovered

mere

the

which

was

when

stillrecent

it is

reasons

later,when

Plato

the

for numbers

was
dialogue

sixtyyears

of

probable that

seems

composed,and
probably dated in 368 B.C. or

most

about

was

generalformula

is irrational. It

root

square

other

lost. His eminence

too soon
gifteddisciple
skilfully
suggested by the story of how,

old. The

other

his

for that
a

little

speakersare

'younger Sokrates',the friend of Theaitetos,and like him an

of the Academy, and the mathematician
Theooriginalmember
had been
doros of Kyrene. He
follower of Protagorasand a
a

the

friend

of Sokrates.
the

than

therefore

He

lads whose

two

belongsto

earlier

an

teacher he is,and

had

generation

certainlypassed

written. The
long before this dialoguewas
dialogueis
supposed to take placejust before the trial of Sokrates (210 d),
than thirty
that is to say, more
composed.
years before it was
the
to
given by Theaitetos
" 181. The first serious answer
away

question,'What

is

knowledge?'is

definition agrees with what

about knowledge,namely, that man

That

is that it is,and

what
as

thing appears

it is

to

of what
me,

so

is

is the

me,

and

not.

as

fofm

of all things,
of

measure

that it is

(CUO-^CTI?).

in another

Protagorassaid

not

it is to

that it is sensation

This

means

it appears

to

that
you,

so

may
you. Instead of saying 'as a thingappears to me', we
'A
wind
well
for
'as
sensible
I am
of it',
instance,
equally
say
cold' is the same
thing as 'I am sensible that a wind
appears to me
to

is cold'. In
the

same

word, appearance

thing in

the

case

(^avraaia)and

of hot and

cold and

sense

are
(aiaO-rjatsi)

the like.

Sensation,

THE

IQ4

CRITICAL

DIALOGUES

then, is alwayssensation of what is,and

that of which

is this. It is

not

; to the

true

initiated he told the truth,and the truth

say that what

to

is becoming,
is,everything

is the

Motion

is is

(152 a-c).
addressed
only a dark sayingof Protagoras

was

vulgarcrowd

the

; for what

err

sensible

am

That, however,
to

cannot

of

cause

nothing
appears is.In reality
Herakleitos and others have taught.

as

growth,while rest is the cause

is good,and rest is evil. You

of

decay and

cannot
ceasingto be. Motion
rightly
the
'
such
terms
if
'one','is';
a thing',
'something',
for, you say
use
it will appear small from another point of
'Something is great',

view, and
In the
we

with the

so

of
light

this

the words

use

let us consider
principle

'white

words

these

by

mean

(152d).

rest

colour',we

is either

the

of

case

When
sight.

that what we
not
suppose
outside
the
thing
something
eyes or someit
be
in
to
We
at
all.
place
suppose
any

in the eyes. We
must
not
from
rather
it
results
that
say

must

the

of the eye
impact (-rrpoafioXri)
side
outappropriate
(npos TTJI" -npoa^Kovaav"f)opdv)
it,being neither what impinges nor what is impinged upon, but a
for
something between the two having a proper character of its own
knows
whether
what appears to
each individual (154 a).Thus
no
one
must
on

the

him

movement

is the

what

same

to

appears

at
differently

which

what

as

himself

appears
in one

another. And

so

another,and

knows
everyone
time
at one
to
way
appears
with other objects;for instance
to

that
him
that

and

after measurement

comparison we call great, that which

small and cold by the
respectively
Six dice compared with four are
presence of greater or hotter objects.
'more' and 'half as many
again'; compared with twelve,they are 'less'
and 'half,yet they are not changed in themselves. They become
more
and less,and yet nothing has been added to them or subtracted from
them (153 d"
154 d).
On the other hand, if we
look into our own
thought,we shall agree
in the three followingpropositions:
(i)Nothing can become
greater
less either in size or number
or
so
long as it is equal to itself;
(2)
decrease
which
increase
added
is
from
to
or
or
Nothing can
nothing
which nothing is taken away;
(3) Nothing can be what it was not
before without becoming and having become. But all these propositions
after touchingwe

considered
taller

Theaitetos
from

me,

us

go

to

the instance of the dice which

above, or againto such a

than you, Theaitetos; in
is stilla

nor

before' (154 d
Let

hot, become

in direct contradiction

are

now

call

year,

growing lad),though
become, though
155 c).

deeperinto

spoke,takingcare

as

that

this

"

I shall be

the

none

I shall

of those
mysteries

wise

of the uninitiated hear

we

'I,Sokrates,am
smaller

nothingwill have

shall I have
"

case

be, what

men

been
I

was

of whom

us, the

(for
taken
not

we

'hammer-

196

THE

CRITICAL

DIALOGUES

natural agent will act upon him otherwise

in these different states, and the resultant of the agent and what it

Accordingly,
asleep.
any
acts

will be

on

itself,
nor

only,but
becomes

different. Now

the resultant

sensible

in

is,not

the person is or
to that thing,and so with the
relatively

becomes, he is or becomes

thing.The

and

to someone,

what

then, of
being or reality
(oucrta),

coexistent,correlative sensation and

the agents of which

"

it

to the agent only,nor

to Sokrates
relatively
relatively
becomes
to both. When
sensible,he
someone
relatively
sensible of something,
and, when
something becomes

sensible,it becomes

person,
of what

is what

the

bound

is
sensible)

it is the resultant ; and, from

sensation,the momentary

state, is true

the
(i.e.

moment

to

both

the side of the

for it is a* sensation

the person at the moment

is (157e
160 d).
182. This is obviously
and coherent
a well-thought-out
"

of sensation. We

are

not

plainthat

it was

not

to

There

are

certain

about

the

we

do

once.

even

pointsin

Herakleitean

sayingthat
so

theory
told whose it was, though it is made quite
be found in the book of Protagoras("92).
remind

Kratylos,who

yet, if the

we

should

On

the other hand, it can

surelyhear

of what

us

master

river. We

same

theoryjustexpounded

great deal

more

are

we

criticised his

step twice into the

cannot

And

it which

about

him

told
for

cannot
were

than

we

his,
do.

hardlybe an improvisedfiction; it is too

stronglycharacterised and too personalfor that. It is,of course,
quiteon the lines of the view of sensation everywhereattributed
in puttingit into his mouth;
to Sokrates,so there is no
difficulty
but it must
have been worked out by someone
who believed
clearly
in it as an adequateaccount
of knowledge.On the whole, it seems
best to regardit as in this form Plato's own.
Aristotle tellsus that
in his youth Plato had been familiar with the doctrine of Kratylos,
and had adoptedit,1and there is an earlier dialogue
called by the
name

of that thinker,in which

Aristotle further tellsus

the end, and

to

there

is

sensation,that he need
I assume,

doctrine is discussed.

that Plato continued

to

have

ever

then,

wished

to

and

zest

with

which

he

this doctrine
an

retract.

account

of

In fact,a

is the

of
foundation
necessary
that the doctrine is that of Kratylos,

while the elaboration of it is Plato's. That

obvious

hold

certainly
nothingin it,as

thorough-goingsensationalism
Platonism.

Herakleitean

expounds it,and

will
his

It is probable,indeed, that this is only Aristotle's inference

the Theaetetus,
but it is a fair inference.

for the

account

equallyobvious
from

the

Cratylus

THE

the

at

annoyance
it.

These

THEAETETUS

197

cheap objectionswhich

easilybe

so

may

made

to

objectionsare

certainlycaptiousenough, and Sokrates

himself protests that it is treating
Protagorasunfairlyto urge them.
He even
undertakes to replyto them
in the name
of Protagoras,
since he himself is dead. They have a certain historical interest;
for

of them

some

in the eristic of the later Megaric

reappear
that of itself suggests they
have originated
in the
may

school, and

circle of Eukleides. To
reader's

attention

discuss them

from

the

here would

merely divert

the

main

Sokrates
As
argument.
says
the attacks which might be made
the
on

(165 d),there is no end to

who
take you
senses
by one of these 'mercenarysharpshooters',
captiveby the spellof their wisdom, and will not let you go again
without a ransom.1
He proceeds,accordingly,
the theory
to restate
of Protagorasin a form which secures
it againstcheap criticism of
this kind.

" 183. As

restated

follows. However

to

it may

true

be used

and

able

at

unwise.

change

to

differs from

from

false

intended

and

consider

examine

as

they have

no

existence

and

The

Sokratic

this. We

shall

see

will be
even

who

one

to

appears

another, not

is
one

true

as

is,and is therefore
bad, healthy from

words
state

what

can

make

and

dual
the indivi-

bearing of it best if we
advantageous(TOox^e'Atjuoi/

the

the

admitted
those

by

is

that

one

man

maintain

who

is

better

that

such

only conventional,that is,that

by nature, but depend for their
independentreality
duration on the opinion of the community. No one,
are

wrong

maintain, except

as

advantageous for

reference
school

by his

therefore be,good for the

rightand

fact,would
thinks

from

good

as

is he who

man

another,

than

distinctions

state

to

appears

questionsit

adviser

in

of each individual

man

what

appears to
the individual

questionsof expediencyor

such

In

and

appear,
alike.
us

good. Belief,or

only truth),but

good
Let

as

the distinction between

belief,or what

(forwhat

the

deny

to

say that the wise

beliefs to

diseased,and the wise

is

Protagorasis

be that the sensations

would

He

bad

man,

true

of

and that what is (if

the word
only(i'Sicu
eVao-raj),
all)is what appears to the individual and to him

alone, Protagorasnever
wise

doctrine

his and his

are

is

by Sokrates,the

is

the Megarics is
to
evidentlywidening.

mere

form

it is therefore
unmistakable

of

words, that what

advantageous for

here.

The

rift within

it.
the

198

CRITICAL

THE

This

stillmore

will be

to which
(etSos-)

the

maintained

consider the whole

we

advantageousmust

which

we

that it is also the

be referred. The

of the

judge

can

individual
what

of what

test

weight than

it is not
be the

be the

to

man

regardto

that what
is

who

man

to

appears

It is no

better beliefs

by

the doctrine of

of

to
Protagoras

state

we

takes

us

accordingto him,

even

and what

appears to you is to you.

the argument
which is most
fatal

noted (179b) as
specially

to

will

others,who

this;for he holds

worse
replace

longertrue,

is to me,

me

be

not

the future is concerned,

is wiser than

can

only test

these very things.

We see, then, that when
of Protagoras sympathetically,
it at once

beyond sensationalism.
This

who

is the

regard to
specialist
always carries

layman.Where

man

may

we

is,but it will

'measure',and Protagorashimself admits

doctrine

the

but the

everyone,

the wise
with

that of the

general

is to be. With

the
that,the belief of the professional
or
more

'form'

do with the future. Now

to

sensation

present

by
(xpiTripiov)

if

obvious

characteristic of it is that it has

say that the

DIALOGUES

Protagoras,though there is another which also

it. Protagorasmust
admit that the beliefs of other people
disproves
valid for them, and most
other peopledo not believe the theory
are
" 184. This
on
digression
and

be

why

the

it stands.

as

the

kind. The

of every

will strive

world

to

this likeness is

wisdom, and
the

doctrine

hardlybe

an

the

he

time

to

be

and

attained

unto

by

God,

far

so

and

of

This

is the argument
also used
was

tables'. It

which

what

is

in

Theaetetus. He

came

to

be known

own

was

as

That

is

Sokrates, but it

to

attitude

shortlyto

of a decidedly
practical
politics
nature, as
Academy was as much a school for statesmen

the

discussion

as

involved in
and

judge of

astronomy.

attributes
consistently

the

passage like this ;

to ask ourselves

yet it describes

of his
adequate representation
wrote

Gorgias

that may be, and

the cultivation of holiness and

of geometry
especially
Plato

in the

glowing
the philosopher
from practical
concerns
is of necessity
evil,and the philosopher
all speed from itto a better. The onlyway

escape with
do this is to become
likened
to

middle

is the best

man

community,

colours the aloofness of

bound

are

in the

comes

that the wise

show

advantageousfor

Still,
we

magnificent

it was

as

summarise

impossibleto

it is inserted here. It
to

for them.1

true

conceived
life,
philosophic
It is

be read

intended

it is not

piece of reasoningis interrupted

by

the Phaedo.

it must

Therefore

true.

the TrepirpoTn?

against Protagoras by Demokritos

to

can

life at

become
shall see,

we

and
or

just

legis-

'turning the

(Sext.Emp.

vii

389).

THEAETETUS

THE

199

anythingelse. In the Timaeus Sokrates admits, as we have

that practical
is something foreignto his interests,
politics
seen,
and we
might therefore say that the present passage is inserted to
keep the pictureof him true to life,at a time when Plato was
have
from
would
shrunk
stinctiv
inhis master
entering on a course
lators as

I believe that

be true, but it is

to

the whole

not

truth.

Plato,though he had learnt the duty of philosophers

in turn
into the Cave,1 stillfelt that the life here

I believe that
descend

to

described
of action
and

highest.It is not
of
the superiority
feel intensely
in truth the

was

to

unnatural

it is not

for such

the

man

contemplativelife;

if he is also

man,

for

uncommon

to
great artist,

for him an impossible

ideal,
sing the praisesof what has become
it in his inmost heart as savingtruth. In
though he may recognise
Plato's
of the Theaetetus
I think we
the 'digression'
see
may
reluctant
himself

farewell

that it is

dialogue,and
" 185. We must
motion

forgetthat

theoretic

life.At

any rate, he tells us

with the main theme
of

digressionunconnected

he

the

the

to

give

Melissos

account

an

some

of

Parmenides

and

all is one

oppositetheory,namely,that

motive

for

it.
inserting

versal
theoryof uninot
knowledge.We must
have
asserted an
exactly

the claims of the

examine

now

to

have had

must

and

at rest

in

itself,
having

in. We stand, then, in a cross-fire between

two
space to move
first.We
hostile camps.
Let us attack 'the streamers' (pipeovres)
no

shall

see

that,on

When
There

we
are

their

theory,knowledge is impossible
(179 d

by 'moves'?
placeto place
In
(dAXota"ais). other words,

moves', what do we
say 'everything
of
forms (etSij) motion:
two
(i)motion
from

("/"opa);
(2) motion

state

motion

is either locomotion

it must

include

or

to

state

"

and,
alteration;

both. Since, then, everythingnot

mean

from

if motion

is

universal,

its place,
only moves
but also alters its state, we
ascribe any quality
to what
cannot
moves;
for what we
call qualities
are
nothing but perpetualpro(TrotdrTyre?)
cesses
and
and what
is acted upon,
what
acts
going on between
of being named, the qualityis gone.
in the very moment
accordingly,
not
not
so
as
we
we
Similarly,
speak of sensible qualities,
may
may
be
for
and
of
each
sensation
is
in
cannot
sensations;
speak
process,
called sight,
than not-sight,
not-hearing,
hearing,or the like,any more
and the like. And, if we cannot
speak of
speak of sensation,we cannot
of
knowledge, which we identified with sensation, and the answer
Theaitetos
and the attempt to prove it by the theory
was
no
answer,
of universal motion
has only resulted in proving that all answers
are
1

Rep.

520

c:

eV
Ka.Taj3a.Tfov

THE

200

CRITICAL

equallyright.In fact,we
(181 b

motion

as

'thus' and

one
answer
distinguish
not
imply fixity,

'not thus'

183 b).

"

declines

Sokrates

entitled to

not

are

another; for such words

from

DIALOGUES

examine

to

of
'partisans

the

the Whole'

(01 rov

Melissos
and Parmenides, for the present; we
o-Tao-icDTcu),1
of Theaitetos.
back to the original
must
come
answer
" 1 86. In ordinarylanguagewe speak of 'seeingwith the eyes',
we
ought to say, not
'hearingwith the ears',and so on, but strictly
that the eyes are that with which we see (a"6pa"p."v),
but that they
the instruments
or
are
(opyava)through which (Sia"v),
by means
oXov

of

which,

we

Wooden
many
inside ; we must
in
(eloos)

us

suppose that there is some

call it soul or what not
and

which

to

and the instruments

follows.

The

instruments

sweet
hard, light,

one

do

has

another

cannot;

sight,nor of colour by
thought of anything which

have

colour,this
and
hearing,
common

are

(184b
To

"

to

the

objectsof

we

have

such

sound

to

we

and

than

Let

senses.

us

thoughtsas 'colour

'each is other than the other and the

'each is one','theyare

then, is the power

which

by

by

see

what

these

185 a).

begin with, we

acts,

which

seeingor
thoughtsof thingswhich

do have

different

of

body. Each

both

common

as

hot,

hearing.If,then,

other instrument

some

it is certain that
to

are

be due

must

of

means

is

of

sensible of sound

be

cannot

we

clear

sensible

are

we

identical

one

and that
(ovvafjus),

specific
power

we

tions
sensa-

when

be made

parts of the

various

of

means

which

through

the

it may

employed by

sitting

all these

instruments

as

distinction between

things are

instruments
can

they serve

This
objects.

element

these

in which

so

element

constituent

one

"

"

like

ourselves to be
suppose
with a number
of sensations

cannot

we

Horses, each

converge,
sensible of

are

For

see.

we

like

or

unlike

same
one

as

another',and

what

are

enabled

to

find this

so

are',

sound

itself,'both

is the instrument

and

and

are
on.

two',
What,

through which

common

element

it
to

being and not-being(ovaiaKal TO ^

sameness
/cat
elvai),likeness and unlikeness (0^010x779
dvop,oioTr]s),
Kal TO
and otherness
re
unity and number
6a,Tepov),
(TO ravrov
Kal d'/moi"),
odd and even
(TO ev Kal TOV aAAov apifytoV),
(jrzpiTTov
fair and foul (/mAovKal alcr^pov\
good and bad (ayadovKal /caKoV)?

which

Not

one

givesuch

we

of these

by

which

names

common

it is
1

as

ment
instruhas any specific
properties
(KOIVO)
apprehended,as was the case with such
Cf. E. Gr. Ph.2 p. 140,

n.

i.

THEAETETUS

THE

as
properties

sweetness,

that in those

cases

2OI

hardness, and

the soul is its own

and acts by
"7Ticr/co77"t),

forth; it

so

instrument

rather

seems

81 avTfjs
(avrrj

itself(/co.0'
avrrfv).

The

of things
simplesensation,then, of the sensible qualities
takes placethrough the affections of the body (TO.
adt^aros
sensation begins with birth and is common
to
Tra^/xara)
; such
TOV

and

beasts. On

the other hand, the

apprehensionof the common

qualitiesof things implies comparison and reflexion (TO
whether
of the most
dvaXoyi^eadai,,
cruAAoyio-jiio?,
cru/u,/3aAAeit"),
and
common
property, that of being, or of those of sameness
difference and the rest, or of those of fair and foul,good and bad,
the investigation
of which
last implies comparison in a preeminent

man

degreein
with

future,which

the

bringingof

past and

present into relation

requirestime and effort and education (185a
"

i86c).
It is at this

learnt

have

we

pointthat

introduce

know

to

part of the
were

certain

from

the doctrine of

nothingwhatever
what

should

we

expect Sokrates

the Phaedo

the

Republic

to

and intelligible
forms;
incorporeal

but

is said about

them

either here

or

"

in any

other

of a theoryof
dialogue.Instead,we have the beginnings
and these are regarded as
afterwards called Categories,

which
predicates
of sense, and by
instrumentality

the soul

common

manifold

and

the Sokrates

"

of

It is also

sense.

to

apprehendswithout the
of which it organises
the

means

be

observed

that these

common

predicatesapprehended by the soul alone include not only

of reality
but categories
of value (a""/"eAia).
The
categories
(oucn'a),
is becoming more
practical
promiment than it was in the earlier
dialogues.
" 187. Now,
to

common

if there

the

are

predicatesof

this kind

which

are

and are
of sense,
organs
it follows that we
cannot
activity,

sensations of all the

apprehendedby a purelymental
identify
knowledge with sensation. The
essential to knowledge.Being and truth

apprehensionof being is
be apprehendedin
cannot

the affections of the

the soul's reflexion about

them.

We

which

describes

with

what

must,

only in

therefore,look for knowledge under

the

name

of the soul when it is concerned

activity
Is that to be
'^judgement(TOSo^a^etv).
knowledge? (186c
187 a).
"

definition of

convenient

but

the proper
is. That name

identified with
The

body,

to

state

judgement is not given tilllater,but it will be

it here. Thought (TOSiavoeto-0cu)
is the dis-

alone

the soul holds

that
(StaAoyo?)

course

DIALOGUES

CRITICAL

THE

202

itself.When

with

it

slowlyor by a swift dart at a

and no longerat variance with
conclusion, and is at last at one
able
Here we have a very remarkcallthis itsjudgement(Sd"a).
itself,
we
which
change in terminology.In the Republicthe word (8d|a),
the completed result of thought (Stavoia),
used to signify
is now
'imagination*
means
something lower than thought, and covers
and belief (mWi?).Plato is preparingto attack the problem
(ei/cacria)
for 'judgement',
in his own
of predication
a word
way, and he wants

has

to

come

and this

determination,whether

the

seems

here in the

term

it bears

the Sokratic

the

in that which

not

Platonic
characteristically

of the word.

use

understand

must

it is defined,and

in which

sense

take. We

to

It is the
in earlier dialogues.

distinct from

It

as

in the later

recurs

have
passages of Aristotle. We
knowledgeis to be found within this activity

in certain Academic

and
dialogues,
to

natural

most

ask,then, whether

simplejudgement contain

of the soul. Does

in itselfthe guarantee

of truth?

"

88. The

devoted

showing

to

that

no

is

Theaetetus

the

of
representation

accordingly

the

undoubted
It is shown

of the soul

alone, nor

sensation

be made

independent

explainthe
and false judgement.
fact of the distinction between
true
ledge
knowthat thought alone is as incapable
of yielding

/ca#' avrtjv)
action
(avrrj

as

of

section

second

can

is it clear how

to

of

combination

any

sensation and

thoughtcan yieldknowledge.
In the firstplace,
can
only say that true judgement (dXrjdris
we
So|a)is knowledge.True judgementor thoughtis to judgesomething
it is; falsejudgement or thought is to judgesomething to
to be what
be

other than

thought as

it is. But

such

be

this at

other

than

judgement at all? So long as we

of soul,it would
activity

impossibleas

of it

accounts

have

we

are

They
to

know

the

same

seen

true? How

How
difficulty.

can

there

confine ourselves
seem

are

imply that
thingat the same

be

to

can

false

the

pendent
inde-

that false judgement is

false sensation

examined, and
either

raises

once

to

all found

it is

be. Three
o

to
possible

time,

or

as

that

be

possible
satisfactory
equallyun-

know
we

and
can

not

judge

without
to

be

judginganything,or that itis possibleto judgeone thought

another. To identify
knowledgewith the work of the mind is,

therefore,open

the

objectionsas its identification with

sensation. All judgements will be equallytrue, and the distinction
between
and unwisdom, will
knowledge and ignorance,wisdom
to

same

THE

204

knowledge with
There

are

persons

who

heard

theory he has

elaborate

an

some

DIALOGUES

CRITICAL

'in

dream'.

that the real is unknowable.

maintain

which
produced by simpleelements (o-rot^eta)
unknowable
are
just because they are simple.They can only be
named
and cannot
be defined, nor
anything of
we
can
predicate
mon
them, not even
'being'or 'this'.Such propertiesas these are comof
of thingsand cannot
be regardedas properties
to all sorts
the simplereals.These can, however, be apprehendedby sense, and
with
we
can
give them names
They can also combine
(wo/Mara).
form a syllable
another justas letters (crrot^eta)
one
can
(cruAAa/?^).

Our

sensations

are

(Adyo?),
proposition
knowable
and that makes their combinations
(201a
203 b).
of
" 190. The 'dream' of Socrates reminds us of the 'mystery'
and we feel that they are both devices for going beyond
Protagoras,
If we

their names,

combine

we

get

statement

or

"

is also the

historical verisimilitude. There

same

about
difficulty

sationalist
authorship of this theory,as there is about that of the senIn the
theory described in the earlypart of the dialogue.
be observed
that it is a thoroughlyidealist
first place,it must
of that word. The
simple reals are
sense
theory in the modern

the

themselves

knowledge is the

unknowable, and all our

work

of the

this respect it is the exact

counterpart of the earlier
sensationalist theory.Thought is everythinghere as sensation was

mind.

In

there can be no doubt that the definition of

there. Now
everything
knowledge as true judgement accompanied by a rational account
of itself or ground (^era Adyou) belongs to the Sokratic school.
in the Symposium (202 a),
It is the definition adopted by Diotima
difficult to
and it is also taughtin the Meno
(97 e sq.).It is more
say where
to

appears

of which
such

find here

the elaboration of it we
allude
he

to

makes

uncultivated

from.

Aristotle

in the
passage of the Metaphysics,
remark
about the view of Antisthenes

it in
a

comes

people'that

it is

to
impossible

course

'and

define the 'What

'longenumeration'
(/jiaKpos
of
whole
has
been
the
theory
Adyo?),and on the strength this
But all Aristotle says is that the theory
attributed to Antisthenes.
of Antisthenes,
in question
to the view
appears to give plausibility
and, whatever we may think of it,it is not a theory likelyto have
Antisthenes denied the
been set up by 'uncultivated persons'.1
is

because
it?',

1
Met.
B,
passing manner

Aristotle

was

3.

1043

definition would

b,

in which

be

5 sqq. Antisthenes
he is alluded
to

thinking of him

at

all when

he

is not
seems

began

mentioned
to

me

the

to

till b, 24, and

the idea

exclude

chapter.

the
that

THE

THEAETETUS

205

of predication,
whereas, according
possibility
consists of

knowledge
Sokrates

should

long

by

ago

nothing else.

to

this

Nor

theory,
why

is there any reason

of Antisthenes. The
suggestionmade

'dream'

Campbell that the theory is that of 'some

of letters
The terminology
more
plausible.1

Lewis

is much
Pythagorean'
and
is
((jroi^eia)
syllables(cruAAa/Sat)

characteristic

of

the

Pythagoreans,and we can see quitewell how these Pythagoreans

who
refused to adopt the Sokratic doctrine of the participation
of
sensible thingsin the forms might find themselves driven to some
such theory as this. In any case, the importance of the discussion
if it is not clearly
understood
is missed altogether
that the doctrine
discussed is the
said

is
oppositeof the sensationalism Protagoras
revealed 'in a mystery',and that it is rejectedas

have

to

exact

equallyunsatisfactory.
to examine
we
come
191. For, when
leads to very great difficulties.
How
are
the prime elements
between
and the

it,we

"

we

to

find that this theory

conceive

the relation

complexes which are the

is only the sum
of the
objectsof knowledge? Either the syllable
in which case it is impossible
how it should be more
to see
letters,
knowable than they are, or it is an indivisible unity,
in which
case
it cannot
be known
either,since that would imply the separate
of its parts.
apprehension
ask precisely
what we
Further, we must
mean
by an 'account'
(Aoyo?)in this connexion. Obviouslywe do not mean
merely the
expressionof a judgement in articulate language.Nor can we
enumeration

simple

mean

thing.Rather,

must

we

mean

that which
(Sta^opoTT??),

however,
to

as

the

have

we

definition

of

resultant

been

we

able

Introduction

enough

with

what

no

the

of the
nor

make

up

differentia
thing's

all other

things.If,
merelya judgement (So|a)

further forward; while, if we

definition will
our
differentia,
knowledge of the differential

Theaetetus,then, is that knowledge

the work

of the mind.

Sensation

can

is merely

motion, and

alone

Thought

have

which

of the

it off from

judgement with
of knowledge.

neither be sensation
a

marks

knowledgeof

conclusion

The

elements

statement

mean

be circular. 'True
is not

by this that we
that bringsus
differentia,
we

that

mean

of the

to

to
we

gives us no realityoutside itself.

have
Nor
merely yieldscombinations of names.
show, except by clumsy images,how knowledge
the
are

Theaetetus,p.

xxxix.

told of the doctrine

The
of

theory
Ekphantos

would
of

harmonise

Syracuse.

well

206

THE

be due

can

of sensation and thought.On the

any combination
made
have incidentally
several discoveries as to the

to

other

hand,

nature

of

DIALOGUES

CRITICAL

we

knowledge.We
'common'

impliescertain

found, in the first place,that it

and, secondly,that
genericpredicates,

have
or

apprehension
of it at all.
would
be an apprehension
of its common
not
properties
deals with the same
The
next
dialoguewe have to consider really
difficulties,
though from another pointof view.

to

know

thingwe

A mere
itsdifferentia.

know

must

PARMENIDES

THE

Parmenides

The

" 192.

is

criticism of the doctrine of forms

as

Republic,and the selection of Parmenides

pointsto the conclusion that the objectionsto
as the chief speaker
contained in the firstpart of the dialogue
the theoryof participation

stated in the Phaedo

of Eleatic

are

busy

with

remarkable

and

We
origin.

about

Eukleides

pieceof

telling
argument
man', which

we

to

the

to

come

introduced

known
have

We
presently.

was

effect. The

same

in

as

was

have

that, we

this time. Besides

is that
againstparticipation

shall

that Plato

the Theaetetus

external evidence

that this argument

evidence

from

know

most

'the third

unimpeachable
work

some

Polyxenos.1He had been a pupilof

by the 'Sophist',
associate of Sokrates
had been
an
Bryson, who

the

or

other

'Sophist'

along with
Eukleides,and with him had founded the 'Eristic'of Megara. He
kind with the Academy.2 Now
also stood in close relations of some
detractors

the

of Plato

asserted that he

of Bryson, and
(SiaTpijSai)3

that

is

most

the lectures
plagiarised
easilyexplainedif we

author of this argument.

original
it follows that they
But, if these arguments are Eleatic in origin,
but against
of the intelligible,
the reality
directed against
not
are
assume

that

Bryson was

the

that of the sensible. It would

have

mouthpieceof an attack upon

Megaric doctrine goes to show

the

world of

sense.

The

arguments

been
the

absurd

to

make

One, and all we

it denied

all

of the Parmenides

are

that

Parmenides
know

of the

realityto
not

the

directed,

of
Polyxenos from Phanias
in
See
Baiimker
Theophrastos.
Eresos, a
Phanias
does
not
used
The
word
Mus.
Rhein.
xxxiv.
by
64 sqq.
eiodyeiv
pp.
'to bring
necessarilyimply that Polyxenos invented the argument. Cp. eladyeiv,
the
on
stage'.
2
clear
It is not
the comic
from
This
poet Ephippos, fr. 14 Kock.
appears
have been. It makes
of the Academy, but he may
whether
a member
Bryson was
associate of Sokrates.
difference. What
is important is that he was
an
no
8
Theopompos, ap. Athen. 509 c.
1

Met.
990 b, 17. He
discipleof Aristotle and friend

Alexander

on

Ar.

quotes

of

THE

PARMENIDES

of

then, againstthe doctrine

2OJ

forms

againstthe

such, but

as

into being and cease

to be
theorythat sensible thingscome
or
ceasingto partakein the forms. An argument like
by partaking
is clearly
the 'third man'
double-edged.It may be used to show
but it will serve
the impossibility
of an avrodv6oa"Tros,
equallyto

Sokratic

of particular
Plato was, of course,
men.
unreality
far too interested in the world of experience
to accept the acosmism
of Eukleides, but he was
clearly
impressedby the force of the
of the relation
account
as
an
arguments against 'participation'
of that
the sensible and the intelligible.
His own
between
account
is not, however, givenin the Parmenides.
" 193. The subject of the dialogueis introduced as follows.
One of Zeno's arguments
the opponents of Eleaticism was
against
that 'ifthingsare a many,
they must be both like and unlike'. The
here ; what we have to
us
meaning of this does not concern
precise
deal with is the solution of the difficulty
proposedby Sokrates,who
in the Theaetetus,but 'extremely
is not an old man,
as
young'
(127c).He asks Zeno whether he does not believe in 'forms' which
are
'apartfrom' the thingsof sense, but in which these things
If that is the truth, there is no reason
'participate'.
why sensible
in the form of likeness and in
at once
thingsshould not participate
demonstrate

the form

the

of unlikeness. A man,

for

he has many
parts, but he is
not
a sensible
thingbe at once
in both
thus partaking

forms?

both

one

like

are

is

Many
set

and

many
What

one.

would

separate forms

up

one

man

like
To
is

be

such

instance,is both many

thing and

one

show

not

others.

among

show

Likeness

as

another,

sticks,and the

that One

would
surprising

be if a

is many
or
should
man
and

Unlikeness, One

and

one

should

Why

unlike

that stones,

to

and

of the
the common
Many, Motion and Rest (i.e.
predicates
(KOLVO)
and should then show that these can
Theaetetus),
mingle with and
be separatedagain from each other. It would
be still more
prising
surif he could
been

shown

forms

to

that the

exist in the

theory

Phaedo, where

here

thingsof

we

Sokrates

and

Smallness

exclude

that,even

in the

term

stated
are

smaller
one

by

told
than
another

Phaedo,

contradictions which

same
sense

apprehendedby thought (129 a

The

of the

show

"

Sokrates

that

130
is

Simmias

Phaidon,

(102 b).It

doubt

for the
'participation',

is

also

were

to

have

be found

in

a).
that
precisely

of the

be

though

greater than
and
Greatness

is to be

noted, however,

may

expressedas

relation between

to

the
a

adequacy
subjectand

208

THE

CRITICAL

DIALOGUES

its predicates(100 d). If the Phaedo

it will follow

himself
should
those
as

that the Sokrates of the Parmenides

before
have

who

here he

he

meant

begun

his

callow Academic

some

that Plato used

to no

Sokrates

the view

who
one.
as

only

he made

while
personality,

own

historical,

is just Sokrates

feel these doubts.

earlier self will

own

should be credible

convinced

to

believe that in the Phaedo

for his

crude form

had

meant

can

mask

is in the substance

be
use

That

Plato

credible

to

of Sokrates

that

by Sokrates
held his own
theoryin a
We might be reluctantly

for himself; but

disguise

it would

immature
surelyhave been impious to represent his own
under
the revered name
of his master.
The
fact that it
disciples
has to make
assumptions of that kind ought to be fatal to this line
of interpretation.
heard of 'forms' before
" 194. Parmenides, who has evidently
(130 a), and who is delightedby the philosophicaptitudeof
Sokrates, as shown
begins by
by his theory of 'participation',
askinghim whether, in addition to the mathematical forms, which
have
the

mentioned

been

Beautiful and

from

the

Phaedo, Sokrates
he

whether

far,he also believes in forms of the Just,

the Good, and, as might have been expected
so

at

believes in forms

confesses that he is in

once

assents.

of Man,

The

next

questionis

Fire, and Water.

Sokrates

about these. We
have seen
what
difficulty
this means
("73).As to thingslike mud, hair,and dirt,though he
has sometimes
been troubled by the thoughtthat they must
have
forms too, he had finally
the idea. That, says Parmenides,
renounced
is because Sokrates is stillyoung, and philosophy
has not yet
laid hold

of him

completelyas it will do some

day. Then he will
despisenone of these things; at present he is too much influenced
by popularopinion(130e).
In the mouth

of Parmenides

mean

sense

real,they

are

certain

be

ironical. He

From

entitled

to

have

in any
'forms' as the

point of view, on the other

has probablyanother bearing.The
doctrine of
stated is only plausiblebecause
it is confined
Plato's

limits. It is

because
originated,

of

much

quiteas

mathematics.

hand, the passage

forms, as hitherto
within

must

that,if such thingsas hair,mud, and dirt,are

must

objectsof

this remark

in that

adequate in mathematics, where it

are
region even the particulars
objects

thoughtand not of sense. In morals and aesthetics it is almost as

for actions in their moral aspect are not reallyobjects
satisfactory;
of sense, and beautyis a direct revelation of the form. On the other

THE

hand, it is

PARMENIDES

serious weakness

2OQ

in the doctrine that it can

in physics and biology,

and
appliedwith difficulty
when
down
to thingscommon
we
come
altogether

If, now,
Theaetetus

the

on

the

the soul

which
(KOIVO)

several

senses,

the way

for

restriction of the doctrine

that it will enable

the doctrine

inconsistencyin

and
categories,
to the whole
categories
be attached

to

seen

to

us

of the

operation of these
sensible world. Nor is any weight to

to

on

discuss

for there the

most

whole

questionfor

the many

sensibles

'partakein'

the

form,

one

of the form

will

are

covered

by

forms

by

particular
thing,which

in each

placesthan

more

divided.

come,

will be

so

suggests that it may

Sokrates

each
sailcloth,

same

and

one,

placesand

accept this comparison. If

part of it. We
are

in

the

part of it.In the firstcase,

is present in many

not

the

onlya

present

itselfand

day, which

Parmenides

each of them

it will be

separate from
like the

or

will be

form

that

means

or

one

whole

the

the

of the forms.

use

form is 'present
to' or 'in' the many sensibles.
either all contain
In the first place,these sensibles must

that the

we

the present, Parmenides

goes
in the specially
difficultiesinvolved
Sokratic

this

the

conception that

have forms of Fire and

we

made
elements that the later Pythagoreans

" 195. Leaving

no

lectual
purelyintel-

to

speakeris a Pythagorean,and
believe that it was justin the construction of

to

reason

is

of the

extension

the

There

manifestations.

the fact that in the Timaeus

the other elements

have

preparing

former, while suggesting

restriction of the doctrine

the

is

restriction may so modify

understand the whole world of

in its humblest

experience,even

the

predicates
objectsof the

that this very

time

same

unclean.

insists in the

that he

the

to

and

'common'

think

to

that it breaks

Plato

and
apprehendsby itself,

shall be inclined

we

the

at

in which
way
distinction between
the

remember

we

only be

one

yet

number

of them

one,

of

be
but

people

is covered

only

that the
then, to the other alternative,

partakesin a form contains only

other words, that only a part of the form is

and that what

divisible,

part of it; or, in

present in each of the many
a

sensibles. In that

case,

however, the

explainanything.A part of the form of

magnitude,if there could be such a thing,would be less than the
in it,
whole, and a thingcould not become great by participating

forms

will

and many
1

not

to

other absurd

the

details

(N.S.),vol.

xii. No.

For

serve

of these
45.

would

consequences
I must

refer

to

Professor

follow.1
Taylor's

article in Mind

CRITICAL

THE

210

DIALOGUES

of the
would

reallycompel

him

forms. If

innumerable

innumerable

in which

form

one

to

sensible

things partake

also the existence

assume

requirea

we

Sokrates bases the doctrine

which

Further, the very grounds on

form

of

equally

explainthe

participation
also require

to

we
things in a common
predicate,
particular
of the form itselfand the parthe participation
to explain
a form
ticular
and
ad
infinitum
(132a).
predicate, so on
thingsin a common
Sokrates hereupon suggests that perhaps the forms are
really
and that theymay onlyexist in souls,to which
thoughts(voij[jLaTa),
be a thought of something
Parmenides
that a thoughtmust
replies
real,and further that, if the forms are thoughts,the thingsthat
partakein them must be thoughts too. It would also follow either
that all thingsthink or that there are unthought thoughts.1
made
The next suggestion
by Sokrates is that the forms may be
of the parand that the true account
'patterns'
(Tra/aaSety/Ltara),
ticipation
of sensible things
in them may be that they are 'likenesses'
of them.2 But, says Parmenides, if the thingsare like
(ofjiOLco/jLara)
shall require
and we
the forms, the forms will be like the things,
their likeness. We
another pattern which both resemble to explain

of

confronted

are

But there
very hard
such as we
are

once

serious difficultiesthan these. It would

far more

are

infinite regress.

an

refute anyone
describe them,

to

said that these forms, if they are

who

We

unknowable.

are

be

have

said that

they

fore,
by themselves' and not in our world (eVi^uv),and theretheyare relative by nature, they can only be relative to one
On the other hand, their 'likenesses'in our world can only

'alone
as

another.

be relative to
master

another

one

slave of

or

another

and

not

the forms.

to

itself
'mastership

while,

man;

on

the

other

or

of

is

man

the

not

of

itself,but
'slavery

hand, 'mastershipitself is

slave. In the same

itself,and not to a particular
'slavery
ledge
'knowledgeitself is relative to 'truth itself,but our know-

relative
way

to

is relative

forms

must

that God

be
has

to

the truth in

The

last

Observe

how

world.

But, if that is so, the

It will follow that God

obscure, but it does not

point is somewhat
clearlyConceptualism is formulated,

rejected.
2
According to Aristotle this was
therefore,draw no inference from
speaker is a Pythagorean, least of
this view

our

If we
unknown.
entirely
try to avoid this by saying
'knowledgeitself,and therefore knows the forms,

the result is stillworse.

1

by

more

in later life.

know

affect the main

and

how

us

or

argument.

deliberatelyit

is

Pythagorean view (Met. A. 6). We can,

the
prominence in the Timaeus, where
the inference
that Plato himself
adopted

the

its
all

cannot

THE

212

that from

CRITICAL

consideration

and
altogether,

that arise in the world

for

Megaric ground;
of forms and

At the

could
how

form

the

be both

It is easy

things can

arises when

is stillon

argument

rejectedthe

how

with

and

one

tude
multi-

all to the One.

had

dialogue(129 e sq.)Sokrates
forms

the

like and

many,

themselves

another, and

one

clared
de-

still more

unlike,at

and

rest

enough, he repeats here (135e),to see how

have different predicates;the real difficulty

apply this

we

consider the difficulties

itself.The

understand

to

to

that Eukleides

them

reduced

unable

can

in motion.
sensible

know

we

into combinations

enter
a

of forms

beginningof

himself

DIALOGUES

the forms. The

to

to

way
is the method

deal with

of hypothesis,
problem of this kind, says Parmenides,
and that both in its positiveand negativeapplication.
We
must
trace

out

it is and
the

all the consequences

that
(av^aivovTa)of the hypothesis
if we take
that it is not. For instance,
also of the hypothesis

hypothesisZeno

should go

on

not

many

are

next

examined, 'Ifthingsare

the consequences
.',and in both cases

the

themselves

and

be followed

subjectof

in relation

in the

case

case

the

to

.',we

hypothesis'//things
ask what

should

we

many

the

are

but
itself,
subjectof the hypothesis

consequences, not only to the

also to the rest, and in each
to

of the

to

should

we

hypothesisand

of all the

forms, such

the

to

another. The

one

the

consider

in

both

method

same
as

rest

sequences
con-

likeness and

must
un-

and motion, coming into being and ceasing to be,

rest
likeness,
being and not being,and so forth (or,in other words, the 'common'
of the Theaetetus).
predicates
doctrine of the One
takes his own
" 198. Parmenides naturally
as

the

hypothesisto

this,as

we

his argument
of

reduced
The

whole

he could

"

reasons

for

do that without

not

his
destroying

own

tion
expresslydeclares that the result of his examinafirst hypothesis is impossible (142 a). Sokrates is

and

the
to

own

ground for thinkingthat either

of them.
Sokrates is supposed to be conscious
or
of
is not representedas acceptingthe consequences

Parmenides

Plato has his

shall see, but there is no

Parmenides

system

be examined.

he

silence,but

thing is

we

treated

cannot

suppose
mental

him

to

be

convinced.

a
gymnastic (yv^vaaia),
itgivesin method.
for the training
'laborious game',valuable chiefly
Plato means
than that,however, and he givesus the hint in
more

the

dialogueitself.We

forms alone,and

we

must
are

as

remember

that the discussion is about

warned
expressly

againstthe

idea that 'the

PARMENIDES

THE

rest' of which

he

justthe

forms.

other

would

be

forms

were

speaksare

213

thingsof

the

Sokrates had

Now

(135 e).They
(129 d sqq.)that

sense

said

are

he

if anyone
could show
that the
with one
another. That form
capable of combination

astonished

much

very

of

had been clearly

separation(xcopta/L/o?)
taught in the Phaedo, for
instance. Sensible things could participate
in the forms, but the
forms

excluded

adds, if anyone
and

could show

does

show.

If you

another

They

are

and

to

bad

any

take

other

forms

One

to

one

their
hand

thingswhich

fact,Parmenides

proves

Par-

and

begin to

forms, including
even

of the sensible

be in continual flux. In

as

Being

pass into

opposites.
and

hot

have

we

fusion
con-

sensible

exactlywhat

partakeof and
is cold

of

sort

is in the

that is

such

astonished,he

same

there

as

and

water, which

as

the

was

forms

once

all the other

justas

the other, or

at

be stillmore

that there

in them,
participate

abstractly
(^cupi?),
they
one

would

He

uncertaintyin the

things which
menides

another.

one

seen

that,if we

it is quite as unsatisfactory
world by itself,
as
intelligible
refutes
sensible,and by takingthe One as his example, he really
the

Megaric doctrine, and

It adds

themselves.

to

with

that

the

humour

the

weapon
of the

of the
situation

to

take
the
the

Megarics
that

this

by the revered Parmenides, and

that we are to regardthe description
of his own
it is even
possible
work
given by Zeno in the introduction as a hint of the lightin
Plato wishes us to look at the second
which
dialogue.
part of our
refutation

Zeno

says

is

carried
ruthlessly

out

My work makes no sort of pretence to have been written with the

in
(i.e.to prove the doctrine of Parmenides
object you mention
another way).
It argues againstthose who
maintain
a multitude,
back as good or better than they gave, by tryingto
and givesthem
show
that their hypothesiswill have even
absurd consequences
more
than his,if it is thoroughlydiscussed (128c-d).
...

Just so

we

may

of his master,

hypothesisof

say that Plato has

Sokrates, but he
the

Megarics

has

does
even

than his ifit is adequately

followed

" 199.

It is from

modern

reader

this

point of

the arid and

idea of

no

proving the hypothesis

show
that the
to
propose
absurd
more
consequences

out.

view

we

must

judge

what

strikes

repellentform of the discussion

with its occasional suggestionof sophistry.
It is a displayof the
dialectical method
introduced
by Zeno and assiduouslycultivated
Plato's dramatic power
is by no
at Megara. Now
by his successors
a

as

THE

214

CRITICAL

impressionit makes upon

would keenlyappreciate
us, we
may be sure that his contemporaries
with which
he plays on
It
this alien instrument.
the virtuosity
should be added
that, so far as the arguments are sophistical
of them
have been known
must
and one
or two
certainly
by Plato
shall see that he
that is probablyquitedeliberate. We
to be so
of Eukleides
and more
more
as
was
coming to regardthe disciples
'eristics',
just because, as we saw in the Theaetetus,arguments
confined to the objectsof thought alone consist of judgements
of names.
There
which
is, in fact, no
are
only combinations
the dramatic
importantto remember
dialoguewhere it is more
it is'more
portant
imcharacter of Plato's writingthan this,and where
situation. It seems
to me
to realise the contemporary
quite
of
the
Parmenides
possiblethat to Plato's circle the second part
Men
who had laughed at the Euthyseemed
highlyentertaining.
extinguished
yet,

means

and

DIALOGUES

whatever

"

"

would

demus
that

find

friends

however,

not

were

years later to
Isokrates,and Bryson, he says,1'And

Helikon

I suspect,

pleased.In introducing
of Eudoxos,
DionysiosII. as a disciple

his

Bryson and

enjoyment here.

subtler

some

what

is

rare

on

the top of ail

strike me
to deal with, and he does not
as
this,he is not unpleasant
malicious,but rather as easy-goingand simple.I say this with fear
and
man,

trembling,seeing that
and

is

man

not

shall have occasion

We

of Plato

are

examined, but there

that there appear
I.
Hypothesis
"

bad

am

to note

the

from

hypotheses.2
" 200. There
so

expressinga judgement about a

animal, indeed, but a changeableone.'
I

other

traces

Megarics.

Let

of the
us

growing estrangement
consider

now

the

properly speaking eight hypotheses to be

is a sort of corollary
to the firstand second,
to

be nine.

Ifit is One, what

will be the consequences

foritself?

have parts,
Many, and therefore it cannot
Not having parts, it
and cannot
be a whole
(forthat impliesparts).
end ; it has therefore no limits and
have beginning,middle
cannot
or
will
have
for figureimpliesparts.
it
is infinite. Further,
no
figure;
either be
Further, it will be nowhere; for what is anywhere must
be contained in
contained in something else or in itself.It cannot
If it is

Ep.

I have

One,

xiii. 360

omit

them

cannot

be

c.

thought

of the Parmenides.

it

it

right to analyse these somewhat

what
has been said,it will

From

if he likes.

fullyas

guide

to

students

be clear that the reader

may

PARMENIDES

THE

anythingelse ; for
contained

it,and

for then
itself;

it would

what

not

then

it would
that

215

be in contact

impliesparts. Nor

be both

pointswith

it be contained

can

and

container

different

at

contained,and

in

two,

so

one.

It

be

cannot

in

Motion

which
is
(aAAoi'ojCTt?),

form

one

If it suffered

Rest.

at

or

of motion, it would

alteration

longerbe

no

one.

which
is the other form
of
("f"opd),
for
that
motion
of
rotation
motion, either
impliesa centre
(-n^pi^opa),
of translation,
axis of rotation,and so figureand parts, or motion
or
in the same
since it has no place.
Further, it would have to be at once
Nor
and
in
the
which
it be at
not
can
same
impliesparts.
place,
place
in space, neither in itself nor in anythingelse,
rest, since it is nowhere
therefore
where
it is (evravra)).
and cannot
be
Other than itself or anythingelse. It
Nor can
it be the Same
as or
It

have

cannot

be other than

cannot

the

same

other

for
itself,
for
anythingelse,

as

other than

were

spatialmotion

that

be

can

has

is to be

an

it be

can

If it were

same.

It

as

and

measures,

as

or

age, since
therefore,be in time
than

it is

than

at

not

not

therefore

and

becoming

itis alwaysthe

the

at

one

no

age

as

same

become

and

has

not

not

been, it will

time

same

lasts

in time, it does
participate

longeror
itself.

participate
not

become

not

this result

form.

seems

Let

us

let
impossible,
consider

One,

being(TOoV ei").
HypothesisII.
If One is,what
(142b, i --1556,3).

us

be

put the

merely as

not

named, spoken

hypothesisin
one
(TO eV),
ev

as

"

If One

and

the consequences

are

is,it partakesin Being (foris

same).Therefore
H

is

anythingelse,or the
inequalityor equality.It cannot,
what is in time is always becoming

be, itis not becoming and it is not.

be one, and cannot
And,
be,it cannot
of,judged of,known, or perceivedby the senses.

but

like is

itself or

if it cannot

another

for if same
itself,

one.

than

also,since this
becomes,

it does

Being; for it has

be

given moment,

it is,and

Further,since
and will

all;for

at

younger
shorter time than what

As

it is onlythe

itselfor

to

not

younger
all these imply

same

in

would

so

be older

cannot

older

same

is

anythingelse. If it were
but it does not participate
in
the same
measures,
it would
have as many
or
less),
unequal (greater

Equal or Unequal
have

equal,it would
parts

as

as

the

identical property, and

same

be

what

many?
anythingelse,for the
only property of what

same

itselfor

Unlike

or

; it cannot

one

be the

anythingelse,for

be the

anythingbe the

be

not

one.

Nor

the

it would

other; it cannot

one, how could

be Like
It cannot

what

it would

then

be other than

; it cannot

one

then

being are

One

as

being (evov)

parts. But, since each

and

must

one

be

of these

do

not

whole

parts

for itself?

signifythe
of which

partakesin
B.C.

one

turn
P.

2l6

THE

CRITICAL

DIALOGUES

being,each can be further subdivided into two parts,

but an infinite multitude.
is not one
and what alwaysbecomes
two
Again, if we take One by itself,it is other than being.But One is
not
Other, and Being is not Other, therefore Other is other than either.
Any pairof these three must be called two or both, and each of two is
If we add One to any of these pairs,
we
one.
necessarily
get three, and
and two
is even;
three is odd while two
givestwice and three gives
of

both

and

one

thrice,so that
thrice

in

And

two.

numbers,

we

and

have

thus
that

Being, so

we

so
an

twice

as

thrice three and

twice three and

of odd and even

get any combination
infinite multitude, every part of which partakes
may

is

Being

divided
infinitely

is divided

these parts is one, so One

therefore not only One as
One

and

two

beingbut

being is a whole, and

into
One

parts

are

each

into parts. But

of

parts as Being,and
many
is an infinite multitude.
one

as

as

only parts as parts,of

whole,

that which
in the whole. Now
contains is
the parts are contained
a limit. But, if it is limited,it will have
extremes, and, if it is a whole,
and end. But, as the middle
is equally
it will have beginning,middle
and

it will have
extremes,
mixed, and will be finite.

from

distant
circular

or

figure,either rectilinear,or

the

contained

all the parts which

make
up the whole are
be in itself;
in the whole, it must
and, since the whole is not

Further, since

in the parts,it must, regardedas a whole, be in

it will be both at Rest and in Motion.

Further, it will
than

be the Same

as

itselfand

contained

fore
something else. There-

everythingelse,and

Other

everythingelse. It is other than itselfbecause it is both

in something else,and other than everythingelse,since

itself and

in itself and
these

it is also the same;

for otherness
One
and what
is other
of anything.Therefore
not

are

property

one.

But

of otherness, nor

be other because

cannot

they be

can

be

cannot

than

One,

in themselves.

so

they stand in the relation of whole and parts; for what is not
Therefore
One does not partakein number.
they are the same.
be
Like
Unlike
itself and everything
it
and
must
Consequently,
else,for One is other than everythingelse in the same
thing
way as everyfar
and
therefore
alike
in
else than One,
as they are
so
they are
be unlike in so far as they are the
other. On the other hand, they must
have oppositeconsequences.
for oppositeantecedents
must
same;
Nor

can

Further, it will

be in

with

contact

itself and

with

what

is other than

always
something other. But, as contact
of pointsof contact
is always
impliesat least two, since the number
of
the
in
it
be
in
than
that
contact
less
cannot
one
things
contact,
either with itselfor anythingelse.
Further, it will be Equal and Unequal to itself and everythingelse.
since it is contained
itself,

smaller, Small

If it were

of it. If it were
in which

it. The

would

be in it,either
whole, it would either
be

the

equal to it,or
same

appliesmutatis

same

Small

it would

be greater.And

would

and

case

in it as

in

are

relative

to

one

mutandis

to

and

the
not

whole

or

in

part

pervade it completely,

exceed

contradiction

another

as

it,in

which

to

One.

it

part of
Besides, Great

arises if it is in
Great.

case
a

Therefore

One

THE

is

equal

and

itself and

to

therefore

place,what

is other

what

is other
will

contains

is other

and

than

itself. But

One

is in

itself,

by itself,and is therefore
smaller
than
itself. And, since there is nothing besides
what
is other than One, and, since everything that is is in a

and

than

what

to

2iy

is contained

and

greater
One

PARMENIDES

than

is other

than

One

than
and

One,

is in

One.

One,

and

But, for the

therefore

One

same

smaller

is therefore
One

reason,

than

it. The

the parts as to the whole.

it will participate
in time; for it is,and

greater

is in what

reasoning

same

apply to

Further,

be is justparticipation

to

in

the
being along with present time. But as time (of which
present is a part)is always advancing, One, as sharing in this advance,
is always becoming older, and
therefore
time
at the
same
younger,
than itself. But it cannot
advance
from
passing
past to future without
the
and
when
it comes
is
to the present, advance
through
present ;
so,
the
that
older
and
arrested, so
are
growing
alreadycomplete
younger
in the present. But the present lasts for the One
as
long as it is; for it
is always now
whenever
it is. Therefore
the present lasts as long as
time for the One, and its being older and younger
coincides
with its
Further, since it is not and does not
becoming older and younger.
for a longer time than it is and becomes, it is always the same
become
age as itself.
In the same
other

than

partake

One

in

numbers.

must

be

number,

and

existence

the

and

the other

end

So
what

One,

and

into

comes

than

On the
younger.
than what
is other
the addition
between

One

of

equal
them.

younger;

for, if

equal

unequal

the

to

On

One

unequal

difference

times

and

does

being older

all other

One

; for it has
first into

does

two

alter

has

come

after its parts.

into being
came

and

either

not

One.

of

older
two

alter the

it does

or

ages

younger
is given,

(arithmetical)

become

older

and

given, the addition of

(geometrical)ratio between

ages
the

than

than
younger
its becoming older and

difference

hand,

other

must

subsequent part,

every

is other

become

not

times

of

before

than

One

so

with

what

for,if the

the

and

still to consider

it does
;

existence

is

into existence

one,

age as
become
and
have

multitude

beginning comes
the end
only is when

same

One; we
hand,
one

being

is other

only comes

beginning

having

itself.What

than

the

part is itself

the

than

what

One

last,and

be the

for its

is other

to

than

One

hand, each

therefore

much

ratio

is other

more

Therefore

simultaneously with
must

what

it is also younger
than
middle, and end, and

into existence.

and

than

But

beginning,

On

it is older

way

is

them.

partakes of past, present, and future; it was,

it will be; it has become,
is becoming, and will become.
It can
object of knowledge, judgement, and sensation; it can be named
spoken of.
Therefore

One

it

is,

be the
and

2l8

CRITICAL

THE

DIALOGUES

COROLLARY

(i) one and many and neither one or

consider how the
in time. We must
now
many, and (2)that it partakes
second conclusion affects the first(155e, 4 sqq.).
If One is both one
and many,
and also partakesin time, it follows
that it partakesin being at one
time, viz. when it is one, and that it
does not partakein being at another time, viz. when it is not one.
To
is
into
in
to
to
to
to
come
begin
partake being
being, cease
partakein
therefore One must
into being and cease
it is to perish;
to be
come
and
Therefore
it
be
composed
demust
compounded
(yeWo-i?KOI "j"9opa).
be assimilated and dissimilated again;it
again;it must
increase and decrease againand be equalised.
must
to rest, and
Further, it must
againfrom rest to
pass from motion
motion. But how is that possible?
it is moving,
How
it stop when
can
start
or
moving when it is at rest ? The transition from rest to motion
We

have

from

or

time

that One

seen

motion
which

at

be either

cannot

rest

to

is

thingis neither

transition must

be

of time

out

at

rest

rest

or

motion, and there is no

in motion.

nor

Therefore

the

be in that strange
altogether
; it must
which
has
(TO egauftvirjs),

TOVTO),the instantaneous

thing (TO CLTOTTOV

which makes
but not duration in time. It is the instantaneous
position
a
nd
it is in the
all changes from one
oppositeto another possible,
the other
instant of change that what changes has neither the one
nor
of its oppositequalities
(155e
157 b).
"

HypothesisIII. --If One is,what

others? (157b, 6
159 b, i).
-

The
as

must

others

as

parts. For, since

this multitude

be

whole

and

have

must

whole

they will partakein it both

tude,
they are others, they are a multibe
it
would
one.
Again,it
parts or

the One, but

other than

and
a

for the

are

and

whole

the consequences

are

be

must

For, if a

one.

whole

were

not

one

but many, each part would

of which it itselfwas
be part of a many
one.
each would
be a part of itselfand of each of the others,which is

Then

absurd.
of them

Therefore

they are

all. Further, each

others. Therefore

both

as

whole, that is

part is also
a

whole

complete one

made

since it is distinct from

one

and

as

up
the

parts the others partakein

One.

they will be both finite and infinite.For, since they are

off in
be an infinite number; for,if we
than one, they must
cut
more
from
One,
thought the smallest imaginableportionof what is distinct
Therefore

it will be
other
both
same

So
As

more

than One, and therefore

an

infinite multitude.

On

the

in One, it has a limit

when
hand, at the moment
any part partakes
with the other parts and with the whole, and the whole has in the
it is finite.
way a limit with the parts. Therefore
too

they will

be both

being all finite and

like and

all infinite

unlike each

they are

other and themselves.

like;while, as being both

at

the other hand, One,

On

place,cannot
round

from

move

Nor

centre.

being and

to

ceases

VI.
Hypothesis

"

"

far

so

be ; in

so

being

into

it is unmoved

as

// there is no One,
164 b, 4).

it comes
altered,
and unaltered,

be.

to

ceases

nor

and

it is moved

as

what

is

partakenor
into being nor

for

the consequences

are

complete absence of being from One,

it can
to partakein Being.Therefore
cease

If there

unalterable.

and

it is immovable

far

which

be the One

ceasingto

it alter without

can

comes

itself?
(163 b, 7

as

placeto

Further,it follows that,in

that it neither

it is not, and therefore is in no

in the same
place
place,nor move

far

so

the others. Therefore

is distinct from

into

DIALOGUES

CRITICAL

THE

220

it

neither

can

neither

come

neither
be ; it can
at rest ; it
noj
stand in any relation to what is,for that would be to partakein
cannot
Being.Therefore it has neither greatness or smallness or likeness or
be in motion

to

cease

anything else. Neither is it in

there be knowledge,judgement or
time. Neither
can
it cannot
be spoken of or named.
unlikeness

itself

to

or

VII.
If One is not, what
Hypothesis
others? (164b, 5
165 e, i).
"

place or

of

sensation

it;

for the

the consequences

are

in

"

than.

they are others,they must have something that they are

be other than One; for One is not. Therefore
They cannot

must

be other than themselves.

Since

be so,
be broken

Further, they must

of which

each

parts,

that

what

so

can
we

seemed

appears
it is the sum.

to

we

something before

but

multitudes

as

great compared

masses,

least part, and that

of the titude
mulone

and

smallest

or

they

of similar

number

innumerable

an

reach

each

with

beginning,middle, or end, but always

beginningor after the end or in the middle
to

come

never

ones,

as

into

never

small

of which

Further,

can

not

other

the

of the middle.
The

is that, if One

conclusion

finite and

one
infinite,

HypothesisVIII.
for the

"

others?

They will be
have they even

and

"

one

nor

is

One, what

no

166 c,

appear

both

or

will be the

quences
conse-

i).
for many

many;

of one
an
appearance
with what is not, nor can
to anythingelse ; for what is not has no
communion

thingswill

many.

If there
(165e, 2

neither

is not, other

many

Nor
impliesones.
have
for they can
no

anythingwhich

is not

be present

parts.

the
but even
deny of them not only the reality,
of all the predicates
which were
formerlyappliedto them
appearances
and otherness,
likeness and unlikeness,sameness
or
really
apparently,
and separation,
etc.
contact
Therefore

we

must

THE

The

conclusion

that

assume

than
all

of the

One

is

it, regarded
and

are

"

And

202.

of the

course

the
doctrine

No

do

Megarics

did),

Megarics

also

If

we

can

did)

of it all

(SiacrotAoyoi)

of

sorts

be

made

about

another,

first

the

'Two

well

as

the

(as

one

if

shall

we

the

Megaric

it. Or

Being,

One

the

only

about

in

in drawing

wrong

is

this

given

place,

predicates.

about

say

far

which

with

incompatible

is other

one

hints

be

whatever

One

identify

the

One

to

to

the

to

hardly

it. In

nothing

say

we

can

from

postulate

we

word

attend

shall

what

we

appear.

has

we

and

in relation

not

one

conclusions

it itself

and

and

dialogue itself,we

is refuted.

predicate

is not,

If, however,

following

is, then, that, whether

in themselves

it ends.

so

221

matter

One

all appear

result.

portentous

whole

that

or

both

not,

are

PARMENIDES

(as the

have

to

statements'

everything

as

else.
the

On

other
of

early part

the

things

may

exclude

one

other

in

impossibility
'The

of

them

abstractly,

while,

if

regard

sense

to

done.

had
understand

another;

assumption

for

we

them

It is

these

forms

must

we

they

as

to

as

hard
say

difficulties

to

we

grasp

as

hands

our

the

of

that
forms
the

forms
'the

just
must

we

can

Parmenides

some

a"

all

the

from

one

One'.

If

about

compelled

fact, the

sensible

for

whatever

are

In

them.

sense

the

from

find

to

once

of

in

themselves

try

shown

nothing

being,

under

cannot.

has

isolation

clearly shown

what

all the
that

taken

that, though

forms,

the

can

vanish

in

view

dialogue

just

predicates
forms

incorporeal

the

are

regard

contradictory

the

refuted

been

by arguments

untenable,

is

maintaining

others'

we

that

also

things participate (d'AAo Set ^relv

part
of

and

on

that

has

theory

opposite

As

which

second

another.

based

was

partake

in

Sokratic

dialogue,

another.

way

The

the

It

Megarics.

the

the

hand,

to

we

them;
ascribe

intelligibleand
the

as

now

endeavour

participate
arise

of

things

in

from

one

the

XIV

Logic
SOPHIST

THE

"

is all the

interval of time

distinct

was

and

the

and

Theaetetus

Isokrates

Parmenides

of hiatus.

In

on

for

the

Sophist on

the

other.

the

The

especiallyin

supposed

to

discussion

reported

read

the work

the

Sokratics

of the

Isokrates

Philosopher and
stranger

from

growing

also draws

the

Sophist.

too

good

answers

it is hard

that

asks

by

the

anonymous

mouth
; and

of

is

to

whether

the

the

have

it seems,

between

the

at

outset.

represented as
Sokrates

him,

and

sonal
per-

at

he

says

once

giftfor

superhuman

speaking

is far

philosopher.Sokrates

Sophists and
distinguishedthem. The

Philosophers from
Eleatics

did.

speak

this

line

clear

and

Zeno,

of

this way

is made

reassures

tell

to

seems

and

Plato

hard-and-fast

That

prove

to

Stranger repliesthat they

Plato

eristic ; he is,indeed,

an

title of

very

between

adopts

and

Theodoros
for

man

Statesmen, and

Now

coolness

introduced, who

is

discipleof Parmenides
professesalarm that he may
cross-examination.

The

quietlydropped.

he

Elea

the

continue

to

already given the title of 'Sophists'to the

to the 'eristics',
by whom
more
particularly

had

Isokrates, and

the

is

Megara

at

are

Theaetetus, but the fiction of the dialogue

in the

but
generally,
mainly the Megarics. Plato

means

from

aloud

younger

Academy,

the

following day

the

on

of

member

the

dialogue

the

with

Theaitetos,

later

again

meet

is evidence

Megarics.
he

and

friend

Sokrates, his

being

and

Theodoros,

of

shall be

we

between
in looking for some
real connexion
justified
and that of which
it professesto be the sequel.

Sokrates,

hand

one

influence

of time,

interval

there

style.shows

first time,

the

of this

view

of

evidence

the

between

strongly marked

is

avoidance

that

remarkable

more

Theaetetus, which

the

externallyto

linked

Sophist is

The

203.

to

us

more

Stranger, who,
too,

as

if

we

directly than
for
were

that
meant

very
to

ever

before

reason,

understand

is

THE

that he claims

more

once

to

SOPHIST

be the

223

true

of

successor

Parmenides,

though he is obligedto dissent from his central doctrine that

which
nevertheless is?
being is not'. What is this 'not-being'

even

'not
We

shall find that it is identified with

few

facts

and

is One

is

Other

the

Other', and

of the

one

Megaricsis that they said 'What is

of Sophistis thus by
not.'1 The
name

the

about

know

we

'the

Megarics,and it stuck to them. In fact,

often means
it more
Megaric than not in the fourth century. We
have heard of the 'Sophist'
Polyxenos
Bryson and the 'Sophist'
already("192).In Aristotle it is justthe arguments of the Megarics
and it is with these he mainly
that are technically
called 'sophisms',

appliedto
implication

the

deals in his

fallacies.2If this is correct, I do

fanciful

to

at

of the

suggest further that the reluctance

differ from

doctrine

on

course

his

(241 d) is a

with

Parmenides

master

hint of Plato's

Strangerto
his

regard to

attitude towards

own

think it

not

central

Sokrates

this time.
Like

of two

the Sophistappears to be made up

dialogues,
sections bound
togetherin an accidental
whollydisparate
several other

shell
a shell. The
as has been said,of a kernel and
way. It consists,
of
is the attempt to find a definition of the Sophistby the method

division;the kernel is

criticism of

that
especially
categories,

discussions is that the definition of the

of 'not

the existence
also that the

reason

link

ostensible

6v).The

being'(TO ^

'not

being',but
why those who

that is

between

Sophistis found
by

insist on

no

the

to

all.We

means
mere

the

abstract

of

two

imply
find

unity

beyond contradictory
argument
is
that
of
the
like
that
Parmenides,
by so doing they
just
(aVriAoyia)
have put it out of their power to divide any subjectunder discussion
is
yeVr?,
'accordingto its forms' or 'kinds' (/caret
253 c-d). That
of division aims at doing;but it requiresto be
what the method
againstthose who deny that forms are a many, and that
justified
defence can
only take the shape of a proofthat 'not being'(TO^
is left
ov) is. Here, as in other cases, the real unity of the dialogue
advance

of 'what is' (TO6v)cannot

for

us

to

" 204.
which
are

discover if we
It would

be tedious

to

in detail the divisions

by
reached. They

examine

the successive definitions of the

not, of

other

can.

hand,

course,
are

to

be taken

too

they whollywithout

Aristokles

The

(ap.Eus. P.E.
fX
Ilepiao"j"iarriKwv

Sophist are
the
seriously
; but neither, on
purpose. They are marked, in

xiv. 17,

; R.P.

" 289).

LOGIC

224

fact,by
will

certain

be hard

not

to

is firstselected for
be followed.

to

that the

after what

guess

has

definition,
merelyas

That

innocent

seems

is a

Sophisttoo

the definition of him

as

it

satire,the objectsof which

ill-humoured

not

said. The

justbeen
an

illustration of the method

; but

enough

fisher,a fisher of

Angler

it soon

appears
this leads up to

and

men,

of rich and

distinguished
point of view of

'a paid huntsman

That suggests another definition from the

youths'.
the art of exchange.He now
exporter of
appears as 'a wholesale
spiritual
goods manufactured by others',though it is slylyadded
that he does

and

on

answers;

as

or,

disposeof

his

in the home

goods

them

manufactures

even
occasionally

be looked
and

sometimes

himself.

market,

Again, he

whose
are
fighting
man,
weapons
again,he may fall under the art

short
of

may

Questions

siftingand

purging.He purges the soul from beliefs that are a hindrance to

from
the ignorance which
consists in
knowledge, and especially
thinkingone knows what one does not know. Perhaps, however,
we
are
doing the Sophist too high an honour here, and this is a
higherart than his. We may have been deceived by a resemblance.
Obviously these last definitions do not apply to the great
Sophistsof the fifth century. Protagorasand Gorgias are always
to discussion
as
by short questionsand answers,
averse
represented
them. Again, the
forces this method
and it is Sokrates who
upon
purgingof the ignorancethat consists in thinkingone knows what
does not know
is in the highestdegree Sokratic. We are forced,
one
that the persons aimed
at
expressedat the end of the discussion

then, to conclude
doubt

an
they practised
always in the true

doubtful

who

these

imitation
Sokratic

of the

are

is

an

insinuation

that

method, though

Sokratic

Once
spirit.

Sokratics,and the

more

it

can

not

hardly be

are.

" 205. The next section brings us to the real problem of the
that produces
art is one
dialogue.We shall find that the Sophist's
deceptiveimages and so gives rise to false judgements. On the
other hand, the distinction of an image from the objectimitated,
of false judgement to true, imply that 'what
and also the opposition
is not' in
The

argument

sense

is,and this Parmenides

proceedsas

follows

forbade

us

to

assume.

but that shows there

of the Sophist,
givenseveral accounts
His art is called by a single
something wrong with our method.

We
is

some

name,
accounts

have

which
all these
element
must, therefore, be some
lead
all
and
which
of it have in common,
to
they
up. Now

and

there

THE

the

seemed

which

account

of it

the

as

art

to

of

SOPHIST

225
to this is the description
clearly
The
Sophist
(dvTiAoyiKTj).

pointmost

Contradiction

to disputeon
invisible,in heaven and
professes
allthese
to understand
earth,but it is impossiblefor one man
on
really
of the Art of Appearance.
things.Therefore the Sophistis a master
of solidity
who producesthe appearance
He is like the painter
by lines

all thingsvisible and

and

colours

on

flat surface,and

we

may

therefore

call his

art

the

That art may be divided into two, that

Imagery (eiSaiAo-n-ou/oj).
produces an exact counterpart (e^catm/c^)and that which
the real proproduces an apparent likeness by deliberately
altering
portions
The
Strangeris about to assignthe Sophist's
("j)avTaaTiKrj).
art to the latter when
a pressing
questionof great difficulty
emerges
a
236 d).
(232
How, indeed, can there be a deceptiveimage at all? And further,
which
there
is false,
without
how
is it possible
to say or think what
that 'what is
be no deceit? In both cases
forced to postulate
can
we
are
not' is (vTTodeaOaL
and that is justwhat Parmenides
ov
TO
efrai),
fj.rj
the
would
allow. If we
not
must
apply (Trpoa^epeiv}
say 'is not',we
words
to something.We
cannot
as a predicate
apply them to what is,
and, if not, we cannot
apply them to anything.But, if we are not
of
speaking anything,we are speakingof nothing,and are not in fact
as
a
speaking at all. Nor can anything be applied (TrpouyiyvzaBai)
or
even
predicateto 'what is not'. We cannot
many;
say that it is one
for number
and
of
what
is
But if
what
is
cannot
not.
is,
we
predicate
and un'is not' can
neither be subjector predicate,
it is unutterable
thinkable.
unutterable
thinkable
unor
Nay, we have no rightto say that it is
call
it
'it'
to
or even
(239a).
without
Applying this to the Sophist,we find (i)that we cannot
contradiction
of
him
as
speak
producing an image; for,though an
unreal or
is
be
to
an
an
image really
image,
image is to be really
really
OVK
reallywhat is not (OVTO"S
ov).Nor (2)can we speak of his producing
unreal
an
(^avraa^a)without contradiction; for
appearance
that impliesa judgement either that 'what is' is not or that 'what is
There
not' is,and we
have seen
that such judgements are impossible.
is nothingfor it,then, but to consider the dictum
and
of Parmenides
should not say that,in a certain sense, 'what is
to inquirewhether
we
not' is,and 'what is'is not (241d).

Art of
which

"

modern

approaching this discussion for the first time

is apt to think either that Plato is about to propound a wanton
is obsessed
paradox or that his mind
by the spectre of some
fantastic 'metaphysical'
conceptionof Non-being. That is,firstly,
because he is usingthe languageof his time, a language which he
did not invent and for which he is not responsible.
If he had been

writingfor
another

reader

us,

he would

no

doubt

have

formulated

the Megarics had

way. As it was,
the doctrine that 'what is not' is not

the

inherited

problem in
from

menides
Par-

(a doctrine which,

in

226

LOGIC

of its

the mouth

author,had

purelycosmological
significance),

they had importedit into Dialectic,with the result that they

of significant
led to deny the possibility
were
negation.In the
second
simplicitywith which the problem is
place,the extreme
mind. That is characteristic
stated is disconcerting
to the modern
and

philosophyas a whole, and is one of the thingsthat makes

it worthy of study.There is nothinglike stating
difficultiesin their
of Greek

baldest form

to

they will

that

ensure

not

be evaded. The

modern

if Plato had announced

a discussion
difficulty
of the possibility
of significant
negative
judgements,and that,as a
of fact,is the subjectof this dialogue.1
It is a good thing,
matter
however, to study it in its simplestform and strippedof conventional
terminology.
the Strangerproceeds,
the reason
" 206. In reality,
why we find
such difficultiesin 'not being'is justthat we do not know what is
Earlier philosophershave not taken the painsto
meant
by 'being'.
think out clearly
the importof certain elementary
ing
terms, the meanof which appears to be obvious, but is really
very far from being
That is why they have only been able to tellfairy
tales. Some
so.
three or some
other
two
are
or
OVTO.)
say the thingsthat are (TO.
number.
Others maintain that what is is one; others,again,seek
feel

reader would

these views. But

combine

to

saying of

no

is shown

said

two,

If all thingsare

impliesrelated
or

way,

two

to

it must

other would
same

has asked what

one

anythingthat it is. This

who
Pythagoreans,
said theywere
one.

them,

no

not

and

hot and cold),

how
(e.g.

the two?

Either

it

be identified with

be. Or,

they will be

If all thingsare

thingswere

by

one

if

we

and

one

say that
not

two

of

mean

by

criticism of the

of the Eleatics,
who

is the
be

must

we

which this
'being'
thingbesides

third

them,

in which

case

the

'being'is true
(243 d
244 a).

of both in the

"

then

'being'and 'one' are the same, and only

two
names
same
thing.But, apart from the absurdityof
for the same
at all?
thing,how can there be a name
having two names
If the name
is other than the thing,they are two and not one, so that,
which
is a name
if all thingsare one, there can
of
only be a name
the name
of a
nothing,or the thingitselfwill be a name, and its name
name
(244b-d).
which is (TO 6V ev)is a whole. But a
But they also say that the one
one,

for the

such is
as
parts and is therefore other than one, which
it
other
'what
is'is
On
the
isa many.
indivisible.If,then,
hand,
a whole,

whole

It is

which

has

preciselythe problem discussed in Bosanquet's Logic, Bk. I. chap, vii.,

to throw
lighton the Sophist.

will be found

228

LOGIC

" 208. The

for the

imaginethem
we

get them

may

hard

are
corporealists

to

moment

that

admit

to

be

to

deal

but, if

with ;

reasonable than

more

we

they are,

or
theyin
being(ovaia.}
by reality

fact mean

They

therefore

that there is such

admit

must

an

as

body,

animate

and

thingas

therefore

as

animal, and

mortal
soul.

They

must

be good or bad, wise or foolish,and

soul may
therefore that goodness and wisdom, the presence or absence of which
the other,are. Very likely
make it one
they may say that the soul is
or
bodies
are
body, but they will hardly say that goodness or wisdom
that

admit

further

(thoughit is
admit that

the real earthborn

be feared

to

they

would). But, once

thingis,they must
singleincorporeal

accept

definition

apply equallyto it.Perhapsthey may accept as a

of
that it is anything that has the least power
of
is
what
definition
actingand being acted upon, that,in fact,being is force (246 e
247 e).

of

will

being which

"

Strangerdoes not put

to himself. Indeed, he
as
one
satisfactory
shall very likely
take a different view later.

It is to be observed
forward
that

we

If

turn

we

to

now

to

may

to

admit

of

fact,however, we

expressly

says

superiorpersons, the 'friends

those

expect them
that what is is what

forms',we

this definition

that the

can

be
act

shall find them

and
tractable,

more

more

As

and be acted upon.

even

lessamenable

to

of the

ready
a matter

argument

sky and do not

from his intimacy
at all,though the Strangerknows
answer
us
with them that theyregardus with contempt. They will not ascribe
and therefore they
or being(ovaia),
any kind of motion at allto reality
will not speak of acting
in connexion with it.
or beingacted upon
than

reformed

our

The

corporealists.
They

'friends of the forms'

and say that

(ye'veo-t?)
of thought,and
means

from becoming
distinguish
being(ovaia)
souls

our

remain

in the

in
participate

constant

bodies in variable

becoming by
surelyimpliesthat beinghas a
participation
our

being by
means

of

of
power
for
the
that
knows
acted
being
being must,
thought
upon;
in so doing,either act or be acted upon
both, and the being that
or
either act or be acted upon or both.
thoughtknows must accordingly
sense.

But

this

actingand

them to replythat being is constant

may
suppose
therefore either act or be acted upon. But
immovable, and cannot
To

must

soul

this

admit

that

we

know

being,and

implieslife and motion.

referred
true,

we

to

becoming,there

however,

variable

and

in

that

being

motion;

impliesrest (248 a

"

249

If these

can

be

would

for

d).

no

be

and

they

knowledge impliessoul, and

are

excluded

knowledgeat
unknowable

being and
all. It is equally
if it were
only
from

knowledge impliesconstancy,

and

that

SOPHIST

THE

have

We

forms'; but

the

able

been

not

to

get any

discussion

our

229

suggestedthat

has

them

with

of the 'friends of

out

answer

being is both in motion and at rest.

be united. On
they cannot
But, as motion and rest are opposites,
be a third
the other hand, they both are, and therefore being must
thing over and above them. From this it follows that being per se
unless
is impossible

knowledge

is neither

can

rest

What

in motion.

nor

are

of this? We

make

to

we

what is meant
by is as
any rate, that it is justas hard to say
by is not, and this givesus a ray of hope. If we
say what is meant
be got
the other difficulty
only discover what is means,
may
at

see,
to

at

rid of

the

at

We

" 209.
thing,we
When

the fact that,when

from

start

colours,forms, sizes,virtues and

thenes?)who

say

have

we

good

is good ; but, if we

One

and

the

'the

say

are

of A's
say that A is B in virtue
affected by'1 B (252b) have themselves to

forbid

to

us

must

another, or
another, or
another

and

we

others

not.

are

cannot

so

considered

have

to

left,namely, that

others

who

in being
'participation

such

use

terms

as

'is',
with

carry about

in one
(i)that all thingsare incapableof participating
in one
(2) that all things are capable of participating
in one
thingsare capableof participating
(3)that some

possiblefor motion
is

and

say

in being,and
participate
theories

(Antis-

is man,

are

'apartfrom', 'from others','by itself,and thus

them an inner voice that refutes their theory.
We

the

course

contradiction. Those

be stated without

they cannot

it.

confusingthe
refuted by the
sufficiently

is good',
we

man

theories

Many. Such

forth. Of

this. Man

do

rightto

no

him

applyto

so

to

names

elderlyamateurs

and
youthfullogic-choppers

are

fact that

other

for instance, we

man,

speakabout

we

it,but apply many

only name
speak about

of

there

must

not

we

names

time.

same

rest

some

In the first case,

be. That
cannot

and

rest

makes

motion
havoc

of all the

case,

it will be

hitherto. In the second

and

for

Only
in one
participate

rest

thingscan

to

cannot

move.

the third
another

case

and

(252e).

simple considerations suggest the solution

have been dealingwith.
of the difficulty
we
that is and is not have no meaning except
This solution is briefly
In one
in judgements or predications
(Aoyot).
sense, this doctrine
shall find that these

We

is

not

The

express

new.

phrase

In

the

KOIVWVIOL

the relation of

Phaedo

Plato

made

formulate

Sokrates

is derived
from
ira8ijfj.aTos
erepov
subjectto a predicate. Cf. Farm.

the
139

use
e.

the

of TreirovOevaito

230

LOGIC

method

of

seekingfor truth in judgements (ev rot? Aoyot?),and

there too we have the terminologywhich represents the subjectas
in the predicate,
and also the way of speakingaccording
'partaking'
which

the

subject 'is

affected

the predicate.1
by' (ntTrovBev)
What
is new
here is that,whereas in the Phaedo
it is the particular
thingsof sense that 'partakein' the forms, we are now
discussing
to

the

of the
participation

The

need

for such

(""194, 199). It
'kinds' of which

forms

'kinds'

or

discussion has been

is

to

be

observed

(yeV^)with

shown

another.

one

in the Parmenides

further that these forms

or

speakingare justthe common

cates
prediof
the
Theaetetus (" 186).We may say, if we like,
that
(KOLVO)
the Platonic forms as distinct from the Pythagoreanor
are

these

we

are

now

the Sokratic.

"210. We
in

another

one

another

one

have found
and

and

all combinations
any

combination
concordant

are

which
and

of
at

and

will show
what

justas

The

not.

all.In the

same

others

not.

us

are

Music
what

to

forms

will not,

kinds will

or

participate

letterswill go with

some

vowels, in particular,
pervade

letters,
so that without

and

forms

forms

some

others will not,

others will

of Grammar

arts

that

vowel

there

in the

notes
way, some
In these two
cases

direct

us,

and

so

will harmonise

we

cannot

be

octave

have

the

requirean

art

we

with

one

another

and

especiallywhether there are any

kinds which
and
(likethe vowels) pervade all combinations
is and is not}.
That is justthe art of Dialectic,
and
disjunctions
(e.g.
the

man

can

enter

who

what
possesses that will be able to distinguish
into combination
and what will not.

forms

In

he will be able to distinguish(i) a singleform

particular,
pervading many singleand separate things,(2) many forms distinct
from one
another but comprehended from without by one, (3)3single
form pervadingin turn
such wholes and bindingthem together
many
in one, while many
other forms are quiteseparate and apart from it
(253d).

This passage

givesus

the foundation

of Plato's

Logic. The

ing
follow-

pointsin it should be noted :

between
(a) He distinguishes
clearly
(i)genus and (2)species,
differen
though he uses the terms form and kind (eiSo?,t'Se'a,
yeVo?)inof both.

(b)The

kinds'
singleforms described under (3)are the 'highest
),such as Being, Rest, and Motion. These are all of
1

Phaed.

1043.

SOPHIST

THE

231

Aristotle called them,

as
participation',
or,
'forms of predication'
They have no
(ax^p-ararfjs KarrjyopLas).
meaning except in a judgement.
of

'manners

them

thingsadmit
(c)In the Phaedo the questionwas what particular
of the
here the questionis one
their predicate;
a given form
as
of the 'highestkinds' or forms
or
incompatibility
compatibility
with one
another. Is it possiblefor any of these to be predicated
of

another

one

and, if so, which

be

can

and
predicated

so

which

not

can

of the

categories,
though the most
meaning except as entering into a
nothing; it is only the
judgement.By itselfthe word 'is'means
bond
that unites a subjectto a predicate.We
put this by
may
sayingthat Plato for the firsttime discovered 'the ambiguityof the
which will appear, he would certainly
copula',though,for reasons
(d) As Being is only one
pervasive of all,it has no

put the thingin that way.

To avoid confusion,let us

have

not

" 21

1.

kinds'

and
(/ne'yiCTTa
yeVr?)

with which

combine
able

to

discover

reallyis
Motion

such

exclude

combine

with

us

fourth

and

these
identify

sense

three

and

two

the

fifth kind, Same

and

are,

therefore
of the

kinds, but each

same

and

we

itself.That

as

Other; for

gives
cannot

we

with any of the firstthree.1

For

(i) if we identifyeither
predicateof both, then it will
Motion

extent.

gives us

the other
a

In this way

'highest

(2)which

and

nature,

another, but both of them

Being. That

three is other than

few of the

be
may
in which we
may safely
say that there
'not being'.To
begin with, Rest and

to

thing as
one

what

onlya

(i)their

consider

and

some

select

will rest

predicatesof

or

Rest

Rest will
and

be identified with

Rest
be

Same

Motion, therefore
Same

with

predicableof
But

move.

Motion

or

and

the

any

other, so

Other

neither

common

Rest

are

that

common

nor

Motion

Other.

Again,(2)if we identify
Being
will
the
be
Same, then, as
same.
are, they
and
is
for
Other
Other;
Lastly,(3)we cannot
identify
Being
essentially
(TOUTO oTrep eortV)relative (-rrpos
erepov)and Being is absolute (/co.0
aurd).Therefore Other is a fifth kind (255 a-d).

can

and

Rest

Now
each

Other
of them

amounts

to

and

or

Motion

pervades all the

is the

same

sayingthat

as

each

both

rest, just like Same

itself and

other than

of them

is itselfand

others.
1

Cf. Theaet.

185

sq.

(above, p. 247).

and

Being;

the rest, and

is not

any

for

this

of the

LOGIC

232
Thus

Motion, being other

Motion, being other

itself.(We
shown

that

must

mind

not

and

Motion

Rest, is not Rest, but it is Motion.

Same, is not Same, but it is the same
as

than

than

If
the apparent contradiction.
Rest exclude
one
another, we

we

had

not

might even
rest.)
Again, Motion, being other than
and is not Other in a sense.
Lastly,Motion,
but
it
is
because
other
than
is
not
being
Being,
Being,
Being
they all
partakein Being. Motion, then, is reallyboth Not being and Being,
and the same
thingwill apply to all the other kinds,since each of them
is other than Being and each of them is (255 e
256 e).
say that Motion
is
Other, Other in a sense

have

to

at

was

"

We

may say, then, that each of the

has much
Being and infinite Not

kinds, in virtue of its otherness,

being. And, as Being itself is

other than all the rest, we
must
say that Being is not just as
times as there are other things,and they are innumerable.
many
but it is not the rest innumerable
Not being these, it is just itself,
times.

" 212. But this Not being which we have discovered is not the
the Not being Parmenides
oppositeof Being (like
spoke of).The
negativeterm
(diroffxicris)
produced by prefixing'not' to a word
only signifies
something other than the word which follows the
ness
othernegative,or rather than the thing that word denotes. Now
is subdivided
into as many
parts as knowledge,so, justas there
are

many
otherness

opposed
is

sciences

and

will have

arts

with

of their

names

of their

own

the parts of

part of otherness
which
to the beautiful is the not-beautiful,
(avTm0e/ievoj")

other than

names

beauty,and the not-beautiful is

and
just as much as beauty,and so of the not-great, the not-just,
forth. It is in this combination
with a particular
so
part of Being
that Not being really
is;it is 'not beingso-and-so',and it is justas
much
what
it is not. We
need not trouble ourselves further,
as
then, about the question whether Not being as the oppositeof
Being can be thought or spoken of or not. In the sense we have now
is and is all-pervasive.
It is merely childish
given it,it certainly
to separate Being from
Not being,and to argue that a thing must
not

either be
with

one

("ta-yap
259 e).
What

or

not

anythingelse

The

own.

be.

another, and
TTJV

has

two

forms

this is what

bound
inseparably

are

makes

etSaiv Kowatviav

been

so

proved

are

an

is also

far is

up

rational

dAA^Aa"vra"v

determined
positively

negativeterms

The

but

speech possible
Adyo? yeyovev TJ/JLLV

(i) that everything that

is

negativelydetermined, and (2) that

of reality
expression
(S^Acu/zaTa
TJJSovaias).

THE

It has

been

shown

is

negativeterm
term,

SOPHIST

233

further, (3) that the realityexpressed by

the

not

of the

contrary

but its contradictory.

On

the other

correspondingpositive
hand, it has been shown

(4)that,as the negativeterm must always be understood in relation

the reality
it expresses is alwaysa
to the correspondingpositive,
for instance,does not
particular
so that 'not-great',
part of reality,
but only'small'.
include 'beautiful' or 'just',
of the foregoing
discussion the remark
" 213. In the course
was
thrown

that

out

found

have

we

the Not

beingwhich

was

necessary

of the Sophist.
This is not explainedfurther,
account
our
justify
but the pointis quitesimple.We
called him an image-maker, and
he replied
that there was
such thingas an image, since an image
no
is really
that there is nothing in this objection;
not real.We
now
see
for the art of image-making, like all other arts, includes a part of
Being and a part of Not being. The image is not the reality,
indeed, and the realityis not the image, but that involves no
We
are
difficulty.
dealingwith a particularart, that of Imagemaking, and in it 'not real' has a perfectlydefinite and positive
The
'not real' is not the unreal, but just the image,
signification.
it is the image.
which is quiteas much
as that of which
Even admittingthis,however, the Sophistmay stillsay that it is
impossibleto say or think what is false. Though we have shown
with Being,
that Not being is,or in other words that it combines
that it combines with speech.But, unless it does
have not shown
we
to

and so therefore is deceit. We

must,
impossible,
therefore,scrutinise carefully(i) speech (Ao'yo?),
(2)judgement
the
view
of seeing
with
and
(fiavracria),
(8o|a),
(3) appearance
so,

falsehood

whether
or

is

being and consequentlyfalsehood

Not

can

into them

enter

not.

We

begin, as

must

whether
will and

all words

of

in the

There

another,

one

two

are

of letters,by

case

with

with

combine

will not.

some

did

we

kinds

(SrjXwfj,aTa
rfjsoucrt'a?)
reality

nouns

considering

whether

or

of words

that

some
are

and
(dvd/zara)

pressions
ex-

verbs

The latter express action or inaction or the reality

ofbeingor
(pij[j.ara).
the reality
or
not being(i.e.
negativeterm); the
expressedby a positive
former

express

cannot
(Adyos-)
simplestmust

have
be

must

statement
must

the agent, or what

consist of nouns

have

something

one

is

or

alone

is not
or

of each, e.g. 'man

so-and-so.

of verbs
learns'.

statement

alone; the very

Further,

every

and it
something'(TWOS eivat),
i.e. it must
TWO.
efvcu),
quality(rrotov
express
future
in
the
becomes
or
(ra"v
or
present, past

'of

certain

which

is

some

one

or

234

LOGIC

Now
let US make
7} yiyvo/zevojv 77 yeyovoTcov
?}/zeAAovroiv).1
If I say 'Theaitetos is sitting',
that is a statement
a simpleexperiment.
which
is 'of Theaitetos',and it has the qualityof expressingsomething
which really
is at the present moment.
if
I
But,
say 'Theaitetos,
I am
to whom
i
s
that is also
at the present moment
talking
(vvv], flying',
which
is 'of Theaitetos',but it has the qualityof saying
a statement
of
him
which, though expressinga real action,is something
something
other than what is real with regardto Theaitetos at the present moment.
It is,therefore,possible
is not as being,and that is
to speak of what
what we mean
falsehood
d
by
(261
263 d).
OVTOJV

"

In

fact,what

terms,

which

call truth

and

falsehood

not

to

positiveor negative,but only in

of terms.
copulation(cru/zTrAo/o?)

the

we

are

whether
is a

be found

in

proposition,

" 214. It will be observed that significant

negativejudgement is
explainedas the affirmation of a negativepredicate(aTro^acri?),
be altogether
but it would
to
identifythis with what
wrong
Aristotle calls an
'indefinite'predicate(dopivrov
that is,a
pfj/J-a),
be trulypredicatedof everythingalike,
predicatewhich
may
whether

existent

non-existent. In the present

or

for

case,

instance,

'is

excludes
of Rest, and therefore 'is
sitting'
every other form
'is not
implies the negativejudgements 'is not lying',
sitting'
and whatever
other forms of Rest there may be. In the
standing',
second

excludes
place,'is sitting'

cannot

have

any

communion

negativejudgements

should

the system
call

with

of

Motion, which

Rest, and therefore impliesthe

walking','is not running', 'is not

of the negativejudgement depends, in
significance

The
flying'.

fact,on

'is

all the forms

not

of kinds

'universe

and

forms

to

which

of discourse'. Plato

definite number
perfectly

of such

forms

it refers,what

held

that there

in each

is

why

was

kind, which

the business of the dialectician to discover. That

we

it is

he insists

that 'not

being'is subdivided into as many subdivisions as the arts,

and that each 'part'of 'not being'can
be understood
only in
relation to the corresponding'part'of 'being'.The
negative
include
'is
'is
does
'is
not
beautiful'
not
predicate
or
flying'
just'.
In the present case, the predicate'is flying'
expresses a real form
of

action,a real form

who

is

real agent. The

is not
flying'
1

of the kind

true

the

tense
on

follows.

to

seems

'to whom

am

'Theaitetos is

statement

is justthat,at the present

'quality'reallymeans
especiallyfrom the emphasis
which

why

reason

That

in the illustration

Motion, and it is 'of Theaitetos',

moment

follow

from

talkingat

Theai(vvv),
the

context,

the present

and

moment'

XV

Politics

THE

"

6. The

21

form

sequel to
leading part is
to

reason

still taken

by

connexion

of this with
case

the

King
There

Homer.

is

earth; for God

that

however,

only

point

of the

age.

There

on

if God

are

God

by

ship

to

itself. At

opposite direction
processes

reversed

are

Empedokles).
be

no

We

retires

livingin
of

us

need

may
to

not

take
1

See

E.

be

the

thought

for the

Campbell's
Gr.

Ph.2

p.

This

are

not

of

the

flock

the

men

or

to the

fed

who

Statesman,

leaves
in

the

suggested by
there

by

hint

found
xxv

can

that,

the hand

days, who

p.

that

all natural

curious

of those
and

morrow,

been

is the

and

periods, and
herd

and

man,

round

goes

is

out,

world-ship (a

have

as

upon

livingin

may

ruler. There

God

of the world

which

of these

in
the

ruler. That

given it,and

one

sents
repre-

was

and

course

world

it

is,in fact,the

had

Introduction
342.

this

conning-tower

the

the

trace

already called

God

divine

highest. If

we

his

to

is

our

captain

times

idea

after all,the ideal of mankind

God

the

of the

reach

we

God

between

Stranger.The

which

(an

are

question for

any

Stranger points

in person

the

those
that

to

world.1

Eleatic

were

to

'image'of

an

himself, but

Pythagorean conception)2
the

of the

The

when

seasons

he

as

was

confusion

myth related by

directed

once

no

dialogue than

believing that

them

to

kingship.

rests

it is easier
of the

Men,

for

shepherd

realised

be

could

was

of

it

is

find the definition

to

first definition

of

reason

King

the

ideal

theocratic

in

the

separated by

are

principal theme

Shepherd

The

was

and

same

Stranger. There

division, and

Sophist. The

good

view.

Pythagorean

the

the

as

Eleatic

attempt

an

of

method

of the

in the

the

are

dialogues

two

begins by

Statesman

was

is
(/7oAtrt/cd?)

of time.

interval

the

Statesman

characters

the

by

the

that

discussion

the

Sophist. The

the

suppose

considerable
The

entitled

dialogue

STATESMAN

had

of
no

everything
sg.

THE

bountifully
providedfor
spent their time
to

communicate

indeed

STATESMAN

them

without

any labour on their part,

in gatheringwisdom, and made
of their power
use
with the beasts in the interests of philosophy,
then

spent their time

happier than we
in telling
fables

to

handed

tradition

own

they were
down

237

by

to

our

But

are.

each

if they and

other

such

the beasts

have been

as

days,it is not

hard

form

to

judgement as to that either (272c).This passage is very important.

It is plainthat the theocratic ideal of the Pythagoreans had little
attraction for Plato. He did not think we could get rid of problems
them out of existence.
by simplifying
" 217. Let us turn, then, from the divine ruler to the human.
a

be the feeder of his

He

will

He

will have

and

not

complete knowledge

will

he

flock,but only its tender

it for them

secure

of what
with

justas the doctor who knows what

his patientswhether
they like it or
laws. No

law

; it can

cases

take

can

certain

laws. If he had

with

doubt

make

laws

doctor

might

leave behind

But, when
insist

the doctor

keeping to

on

alter the

him

will have

go away

we

frame

must

try

to

what

he

would

laws

do

for

time, he would

written

instructions for his

approve,
observed.
If
scrupulously

by

the

of
practitioners

the

well

as

and
men

of

no

would

we

found

must

to

feel

quitefree to
way, ifthe philosopher
have done in the past),

same

as

patient.

be ridiculous for him

we

no

appearance
without
him. We

can

nearlyas possiblein

as

need

particular
rough and ready

king were ever to appear on

(ashe may
be no need of laws. At present there is
there would
so

no

cure

subjectsin his absence, just as

fit.In the

must

will

every case in person, and if

be absurd for him to trammel

earth

of his return,

body

to

these instructions. He
saw

subjects,

their consent,

for the

He

back, it would

came

if he

treatment

to

his

guide

to

good

in
principles

able to attend
way. If the ruler were
he could always be present, it would
himself

without

or

not.

for his

good

of the infinite varietyof

account

only laydown

is

is

(275e).

accordance

insist upon

they were

of medicine

their

with

being

beingbadlytreated
and

navigation,
they
would insist upon a code of rules for these arts being drawn up, and
all transgressions
of these being punished, and that is the
upon
true
placeof law in the state. It is only a makeshift (Scvrepos
nXovs);
It is in this way that Plato
but, as thingsare, it is indispensable.
deals with the philosopher
king of the Republic.His rule is stillthe
ideal,but there is no immediate
prospect of it being realised. The
of such an ideal is nevertheless very great. In the first place,it
use
arts

238

POLITICS

gives us

standard

by

which

and in the second

institutions,

we

judge existingor possible

can

itwill
place,

save

us

from

the mistake

in consequence
attachingtoo high a value to these,and refusing
true
to contemplateany alteration of them. The
pointof view from
which to regardexistinglaws and institutions is to look on them
less tolerable expedients.
They are all alike open to
more
or
as
criticism when
compared with something higher,and ultimately

of

the rule of the

with

philosopherking.We

may
is

say,

then, if

we

determine
the
to
please,that the purpose of the Statesman
We
must
not
provincesof realism and idealism in politics.
put
ideal
but
make
the ideal too high, as the theocratic
did,
we
may
'of human
it as high as we
please,so long as we take account
The
to
nature.
analogyof the beasts of the field is inapplicable

mankind.

" 218. Plato goes on to givea classificationof constitutions from

it is quite different
this point of view, and, as might be expected,
from

six constitutions altogether,

There
are
Republic.
philosopher
king being excluded as hors concours.

that of the

the rule of the

basis of division is twofold. The

The

rulers may

be one,

few,

or

Of the legal
theymay rule accordingto law or lawlessly.
first,aristocracysecond, and
constitutions,kingship comes
of political
democracy third; for the possibility
knowledge is
of rulers. But, when
to the number
we
come
inversely
proportional
the order is reversed. There is onlyone
to the lawless constitutions,
many,

name

and

for

constitutional and

quitedifferent in
can

democracy, but they are

Of allpossible
constitutions democracy
principle.

do the least good and

lawless

the least harm,

so

that,while

tutional
consti-

to
democracy is inferior to aristocracyand still more
constitutional monarchy, even
a lawless democracy is far superior
and stillmore
is
to a lawless tyranny. Such
to a lawless oligarchy,
the view of Plato,but it would
be very hard to imagine Sokrates
accepting
any such doctrine. Even the Periklean democracy is not
harshlytreated. It is,of course, a lawless democracy,but it is not
in the Gorgiasand the Republic.
condemned
it was
so
as
bitterly
If it cannot
do much
littlemischief. The
good, it does relatively
less the Athenian
or
democracy of Plato's
legaldemocracy is more
All this is
time, and is placedjust below true aristocracy.
own
quitein keepingwith what we have learnt as to Plato's political
upbringingand experience("158),and it agrees very well with
vii. It was
what he says about his political
attitude in Epistle

THE

after the

which

events

of all democracy

the end of the fifth century.

marked

all. Plato does

that is not

But

239

the Sokratic condemnation

maintain

to
impossible

STATESMAN

insist in

not

doctrinaire fashion

of the chief
rigid classification of constitutions. One
functions of the true ruler is justto unite the various elements in
on

any

the state,
and

the

as

there is

for the

and the woof of his web,

unites the warp
of mixed
constitutions as well as
number

weaver

for

room

already described.

six types

conclusion is that,as

thingsare,

and

In

the

final

Plato's

Laws

of the

in the absence

philosopher
of legal

king, the best constitution will be a combination

kingshipwith legaldemocracy.1He is thus able to take an extremely
view of political
and he is able to do so without
questions,
practical

jot of his idealism. That

Sokrates,whose political
teachinghad

is where

abatingone
been

unmixed

an

blessingto

PLATO

not,

he
have

we

goes

beyond

seen

("145),

his country.

DIONYSIOS

AND

political
teaching in the Academy had
influence through his pupils;for the foundations
civilisation were
mainly laid by them. His
Plato's

" 219.

mous
enor-

an

of Hellenistic

personal

politicsof the Hellenic nation, which was

as the world
alreadycoming into being,was in some
ways a failure,
failure. He expectedit to be so, and he entered upon it with
counts
worth trying,nevertheless. It was
great misgiving;but it seemed
that he should succeed, and friends of his who
were
just possible
in a positionto form a judgement were
confident that he would,
intervention

in the

he felt unable

so

been

have

to

shirk the task offered

treason

succeeded, the
altered,and

decline would

To

philosophy (Ep. vii. 328 e). If he

of European history would
have

to

course

shall

we

him.

to

see

that his failure

due

was

to

had
been

beyond

causes

his control.
In

367

B.C.

three, after
great
1

man,

but he had
Laws

In the

Athenian

Dionysios I. of Syracuse died at

reign of thirty-eight
years. He was
the

best

democracy

the British

failed in the main

constitution

is

(756 e). Apparently

mean

Plato

purpose

It is also worthy of note

that of the speech of Perikles in Thucydides, and
of the stepson
of Pyrilampes. That
does
not,
Periklean

weaving

Constitution.

democracy
is

common

to

with

Perikles

the Statesman

left out.
The
and the Laws

monarchy

Persian

between

have

would

the age of sixtyin many

ways a
of his life,
which

been

an

that his ideal is not

is just what

might

of

imply

course,

illustration

(734

sqq.).

from

admirer
very

and
of

unlike

expected
approval of

be

the

art

of

POLITICS

240
drive the

to

was

had been

from Sicily.
He
Carthaginians

defeated

concluded
the year before his death,and a peace was
now
the basis of the status quo ante bellum. His successor,
Dionysios
on
quite unfit to take up
II.,was nearlythirty
years old,but he was
His father had always been jealousof
the reins of government.

by Hanno

sharing his

with

power

had

and

anyone,

minister, Philistos the historian,into exile

of the Po. For the

mouth
at a

son

in such

amusement

The

man

young
seemed
to

admirer

the

was

Dion

so

pursuitsas

was

amateur

told,without

natural

we

was

his father's brother-in-law

are

the

near

purposelykept his
encouraged him to find
carpentry and turning.

not,

Dion, who

of

late to

too

and
all publicaffairs,

distance from

Adria,

he had

reason

same

at

his ablest

sent

even

and
gifts,

and

it

a'devoted

Plato,that something might stillbe made of him. It was

send him to the Academy at Athens, which by this time

of rulers and princes,

recognisedinstitution for the training
of bringingPlato,now
conceived
the scheme
sixtyyears

nothingin the least chimerical in the

problems Syracusehad to face made it essential
have an enlightened
ruler. The great questionof

There
old, to Syracuse.
and
project,

the

that she should

was

maintain
could
how
itself
Hellenism
once
more
day was
the pressure of Persia on the one
side and Carthage on the
against
that the onlyhope lay
statesmen
other,and far-sighted
saw
clearly
in takingthe offensive. We hear most, as is natural,of Persia. The
conditions imposed by the King's Peace of 387 B.C., which leftthe
Persian
Greek
cities of Asia under
rule, were
humiliatingand
dealt with
intolerable. That side of the problem was
successfully
later by Alexander, and it was
from the Academy that he derived
his inspiration;1
but the situation in Sicilywas
quite as serious.
The Carthaginian
questionwas only another aspect of the Persian

the

question,and

it is

least

at

the battles of Salamis

" 220.

Plato refused,however,

great deal of

to go
1

through a

Plut.

adv.

Col.

was

sent

to Alexander

him

and

stir him

It is

also been

played
of

Himera

as

having been foughton

the

day.2

same

had

and

instructive tradition that represents

an

course.

up

ground

serious
1126

by
to

to

course

d. Delios
in

war

let thingsbe rushed.

Dionysios

necessary for him

of higherstudy before he could be

make

the Hellenes

engage

to

of

up, and

Ephesos,
who

with

an

lived in

it was

associate

Asia, and

(eVaipos)of Plato,
did most

to

enflame

the barbarians.

had
and Semites
Hellenes
interestingto note that the strugglebetween
going on in Cyprus, the other great 'meeting-placeof races'. Isokrates
in his own
similar part there to that which
Plato played in Sicily,
way,
"

DIONYSIOS

trusted

make

to

even

of twenty,

age

had

it

so

natural

was

passed,he

of reform

schemes

rather old for this.

was

he ought to
principles,

own

241

beginning with

he
liberation.1 Unfortunately

Plato's

II.

should

and

Accordingto

have

begun these studies at the

enough that, after the first enthusiasm

feel them

irksome.

That

was

the

opportunityof the oppositionwho still clung to the principlesof

the elder Dionysios.Philistos (or,as Plato calls him, Philistides)
recalled from

had been

exile,and he

the influence of Dion

himself

set

and Plato. The

at once

somewhat

to

mine
under-

masterful and

of Dion also playedinto his hands, and it

haughty temperament
hard to persuade Dionysiosthat his kinsman
not
was
was
taking
much
himself. Only four months
after Plato's arrival
too
upon
Dion was
it was
with the project
all over
banished, and Plato saw
of reform. On the other hand, Dionysios had no idea of losing
he had become
Plato,to whom
deeply attached. He had, in fact,
been jealousof Dion's intimacywith him, and hoped to have him
to

more

himself

Dion

now

expectedthat Plato
pressedhis claim in

would

give up

of the way. It was

not
to be
his friend,however, and he

season

and

of

out

was

out

season.

situation which

impossiblewas ended by the outbreak of

Dionysios had to interrupthis studies,and Plato was free to
war.
The understandingwas
that at the conclusion
of
return
to Athens.
Dion should be restored to his old position,
and that then
the war
threatened

Plato

to

would

become

On

return.

his way

home

visited

he

Archytas at

Taras.

"221. It is not
promise to become
get Plato back
studies in his

reconciled
all

he

was

sincere in his

that Dionysios was

likely
He

costs.

to

to

urgentlyentreated

Dion, but he

tried

absence, and made

At firstPlato declined

court.

but

at

very

to

the
return
to

do

carry

determined

was

on

his mathematical

subjectquitefashionable
unless Dion
so

by

Dion

to

was

at

reinstated,

himself

and

by

thinks Plato was

doubtful.
If he was
here, but that seems
wrong
very
the
give Dionysios a regulartraininglike that of the Academy, what was
of those days believed
of his coming to Syracuse at all ? Possibly the men
too
use
much
in science, but their belief in it was
perfectlysincere. Prof. Bury's view is
remarkable.
thinks (vol.ii. p. 247) that Plato should
have
He
tented
conmore
even
he has expounded
himself
'with inculcating the general principleswhich
in the Republic' in which
with such charm
case
'Dionysius would in all likelihood
dim
adumbration
of the ideal state' ! In
have
a
to
create
at
attempted
Syracuse
Plato
the
would
have
annexed
Syracuse.
that case, we
Carthaginians
add,
may
the
no
was
Utopian dreamer, and the notion that he pro ^as "}do-/ ntroduce
of the Republic at Syracuse (of all places)is-ie
by
arrangements
s^-nsupported
v

not

Grote
to

any

sort

of evidence.

POLITICS

242

Archytas,the
to
certainly

successful

most

have

been

of the

statesman

good judge of

the

day. He

ought

and he assured
situation,

Plato that

enthusiastic about philosophy,

and
Dionysioswas really
that everything
would
now
great reluctance
go smoothly.With
Plato accordinglymade
his mind
(361 B.C.) to 'recross
up
Charybdis'(Ep.vii.345 e); but he soon discovered that Dionysios
had not the slightest
intention of doing anything for Dion, and a
breach became
inevitable. Plato wished to go home, but Dionysios
would not let him. No ship captain
would
venture
to take him
as a
in the
passenger
At last a violent

circumstances,and he had

quarrelbroke

revolt. Dionysiosmade
for

out

Herakleides,one

of his

it,and Plato with great difficulty

got him

forgivethe way in which he had

clemency,and bitterly
reproached
him

in the work

under

of reform

rule.
Carthaginian

geometry ! Plato

and

been

until,on
prisoner,

year.

military

officers,
responsible

off.1Dionysioscould
shamed

Plato with

into

act

an

of

having hindered

the liberation of the Hellenic cities

Instead

excluded

was

whole

the occasion of

on

not

wait

to

of that he had

from

the

the intercession

made

and

court

him

learn

kept
practically

of

Archytas,he was at last

allowed to return
to Athens
(360 B.C.).Even then there was no
final breach. Dionysioskept writingto Athens
of
for explanations
a

and
difficultpoints,

much

to

Plato answered

Plato's annoyance,

He

him.

in which

he

wrote

even

professedto

book,

disclose the

Platonic

It is clear that Archytas and Dion

not
philosophy.
were
in believing
natural gifts,
but they had not
he had some
wrong
been cultivated earlyenough.He was
vain and petulant,
no
doubt,
Plato
but his attachment
and
to
cannot
was
we
obviouslysincere,
what
he
help feelinga littlesorry for him, when we remember
might have been if his father had given him a chance when he was
enough to profit
by it.2
young
for the affairs
" 222. At this pointPlato's personalresponsibility
of Syracuseceases, but Dion was
stillto be reckoned with. He was
the sort of man
wait for ever,
not
and he began to collect
to

adherents

by

all

force of

the young
1

We

Hellas. He

over

Plato would

arms.

hotbloods

gather

from

the

troops. These
their

way
2

This

day
may

v"n

of the

determined

take

Keltic

no

Plato

warriors

assert

to

part in the

Academy

Epistlesthat

wild

were

was

eager

well

very

rights

adventure, but
in the

unpopular

very

knew

his

that

cause

with

the

of
cenary
mer-

if Plato

had

his

for the

sons

of

lover.

partvhy

DionysiosI. by

had

Dion

istomache.

had

tried

They

were

to

secure

much

the

succession

younger.

POLITICS

244
wonder

marry
overthrow

" 223. The

last endeavour

asked

for advice

him

and

of

with

this gave

letters to which

open
The

him

knowledge of
defence of his
dignified

we

all

owe

confidence in his

Dion, if they

whom

men

are

of the

stitution,
con-

opportunity of writingthe

the

is a
vii.)
(Epistle
throughoutlife,and
in

settlement

the

regardto

first

attitude

man.

Kallipposwas the occasion of Plato's

The
something for Sicily.
partisansof Dion

do

to

confiscated,and his wife had

been

another

compelledto

been

had

it.His property

at

these

our

it bears

witness

at

affairs.

political

own

to

once

trusted,and

he had

two

appointme
his dis-

his unshaken

to

He is willing
of
to advise the partisans
principles.
reallysincere in their desire to realise Dion's

plans.He clearlydoes not feel sure of them. In the second letter

he suggests, however, a scheme
for the government
viii.)
(Epistle
of Syracuse,
in which
Dionysioshimself was to be asked to take a
his brother,
share, if he would accept it,alongwith Hipparinos,
and Hipparinos,the son
of Dion. It need hardlybe said that this
proposalwas too statesmanlike to be acceptedby embittered party
and so the SyracusanEmpire broke up for the time being.
men,
it was
As Plato saw,
in danger of falling
into the hands
of the
the Oscans.1

Carthaginiansor
have

We

how

seen

At the
to succeeding.
very nearlyPlato came
have done for Dionysioswhat the Pythagorean

very least he might

Lysis did for Epameinondas. It

of
prosperity
And

Thebes

he

this date

at

might

have

done

said

was

due

was
even

been

an

deal with

of

Dionysios,a Greek

instead

rulingat Carthage before

left for the

Romans

naturallyto

the

between

division

wrfAis(Ar. Rhet.
The

Eastern

II. from

restoration

of

that

Dionysios

lived

him,

and

him

one

want

and

that Plato had

king would have

passed.As it was,

to

been
it was
fall
the

Western

Europe which, to all appearance

problem of the immediate future.
great political

: "-nft-naw
0.0,0.
1398 b, 18).

brief

by

had

philosophers.2
promising

the task which

seemed
to
carry out
ruler of Syracuse,3and that brought about

said

First Punic

Dionysios

no

years

the

more

of Macedon

the

viii. 3536.

Alkidamas

many

with

that

to

will be the
1Ep.

Alexander

time

to
entirely

more

material. If it had

the

at

asked

tells

a tyrant
of frankness

War

broke

ol Trpoararai
out

just eighty years

Syracuse by
Dionysios (345 B.C.) or
Timoleon.

the
the

life of

AiXoao"oi

dilettante

Plato

eyevovro

after the

did

not

Corinth,

final

live to

his final overthrow

at

xal ev^aiu.6vr"aev

where

expulsion

see

either

17

of

the

(344 B.C.).After
Aristoxenos

saw

of his quarrel with Plato. Dionysios answered

that
the truth,and that he had been
robbed
of Plato's goodwill
in his so-called friends (Plutarch,Timoleon, 15).
cause

" 224.
to

the

make
time.

LAWS

THE

LAWS

245

supposed, however, that Plato's attempt

constitutional ruler of Dionysios bore no fruit,even
at

It
a

THE

It

be

not

must

was

the

immedate

occasion

of his

undertakinghis

comprehensive work. It is true that a credible

tradition represents the Laws as having been publishedafter Plato's
death by Philipof Opous, and it is likely
enough that he never
gave
the finishing
touch to the work. That is quiteconsistent,
however,
with its having been
begun a good many
years earlier. It is a
longestand

most

treatise which
for considerable

goes

into great

detail,and which

must

have

called

study of existingcodes of law. Now in Epistleiii.

(316 a),writtern shortlyafter 360 B.C., we are told expresslythat
Plato
had
been
working with Dionysios at the 'preambles'
laws during his second
visit to Syracuse. This is
to
(-Trpoot/iia)
where we
are
explainedby a passage in the Laws itself (722 d sqq.),
told that the legislator
ought always to preface his laws by a
in which
he explainstheir motive. That gives
'prelude'
(rrpooip.t,ov)
of teaching politicsand
us
some
insightinto Plato's method
with the doctrine of
jurisprudence,which is quite in accordance
the Statesman.
In order to frame a code of laws on any subject,
we
first of all lay down
which
must
are
clearlythe generalprinciples
to guide us, and then go on
to embody these in detailed enactments.
The generalprinciples
be
will as far as possiblebe such as would
approved by the ideal ruler who can dispensewith laws altogether
;
of
the
circumstances
the particular
will
take
enactments
account
of the state for which they are intended.
The
fiction of the dialogueis that a colony is to be established
who
is
in Crete on a deserted site,and the magistrateof Knossos
ing
for it is representedas consultcharged with the duty of legislating
Athenian
an
Strangerand a Spartan on the subject.The very
in detail is attempted are
first questionsasked before legislation
whether
the new
cityis on the coast or inland,whether the soil is
is no
There
fertile or not, and the like (704 a sqq.).
attempt to
for a cityin the abstract ; we are dealingwith a particular
legislate
of all the special
circumstances
colony,and we have to take account
it.
affecting
" 225. There is no work of Plato's which has been so little
appreciatedas the Laws, and yet it contains much of his maturest
nothing about, and
thought which we should otherwise know

246

POLITICS

the results of

of human
life.
longand varied experience
It is,of course,
impossibleto summarise it here; all that can be
done is to suggest certain pointswhich may
help the reader to a
justerview of what Plato himself probablyconsidered his most
embodies

importantwork.
He
that

stillbelieved,in

with Dionysios,
spiteof his disappointment
would
result
the co-operationof a tyrant with a philosopher

in the greatest blessings

for the Hellenic

and

be

from

hoped

unworthy
in Greek

the influence

of constitutions. He

framers

reasserts

of

did

law-givers

philosophy on
not,

therefore,think

an

of his last years to codifywhat seemed

best to him
and especially
in the Law
of
Law, publicand private,

understand

this
the

at

it

use

of his
Athens, supplementingit with legislative
proposals
world

much

(709 e).Failingthat,however,
emphatically

this conviction

might

nation, and he

must

we

time.

We

realise the condition

try

to

are

not

To

own.

of the Greek

in this country

accustomed

to

systematiclegislation
though
(what the Greeks called vo/jiodeaia},
such thingsas the Code Napoleon may give us a notion of what is
meant, but it was
very familiar to the Greeks. Every colony had a
written constitution and a code of laws, and the task of framing
these was
entrusted to a singleindividual or a small
regularly
commission.
The situation presupposed in the Laws was
of almost
and there is nothingextravagant in the idea
everyday occurrence,
that a man
like the Athenian Stranger
who is more
or less Plato
himself
should be able to give valuable assistance in such
"

"

circumstances.
gave

laws

to

It is

certain,indeed, that many

the Greek

States

at

this time

were

Academy, and that several States appliedto

when
amending
they were
expert legislator
The

purpose
and the work

" 226.

No

Plato should

of the Laws

is,therefore,an

is designedto
doubt

it may
devote so much

meet
seem

attention

as

men

who

members

of the

Academy

for

an

their constitutions.1

eminently practical
one,

real need

strange

the

of the

to

of the time.
a

modern

he does

to

reader that
minute

police
ripe fruits by

regulationsabout water-supplyand the pickingof

the passingwayfarer.
As to that,there are two remarks
to be made.
In the first place,one
of Plato's most
deeplyrooted convictions is
that all human
affairs are very insignificant
in comparison with the
1

Plut. Adv.

Col.

26

'

e'^aWaretAev
'ApKaaifj.ev
Se
Se Ilvppaiois.
'//Aet'oij
EvSo"os Se
TroXiTetav,
SiaKOOfir/aov-ra
0opp.lva,
MeveSijp.ov
TTJV
KviSlois Kal ApioTOTfXj)?
eypoujiav'
ErayeipLroisnXdraivos ovres avvrfOeis,
irapa.
vopovs
Se SevoKpdrovs'A\e"avtpos
imoOTJKas
-jjrrjae
irepl
fiaatXeias.
1 1

nXanav

Se

TU"V

eraipcav

'

THE

immensity

of the

LAWS

247

world, and that the

of the

events

day

only an

are

incident in the historyof mankind

feels that Man

he

God, and

that human

it is serious

whether

it is absurd

seriously(803 b), but

between

choose

not,

or

one

have

we

got

take

to

it

there is much
to
suppose
of it and another
in point of
to

department
dignity.Nothing is too

and

worth

times
through countless ages. Someis perhaps no
than a plaything
of
more
life is not
after all a serious thing. Unfortunate

humble,

is

nothing

as

too

attention.
exalted,for the philosopher's

Closelyconnected
often the best

are

to

with

this is his belief that

illustrate

He
important principles.

Sokrates,and he had discussed the

that from
This

is

the
particularly

in

case

their business, do

presumably know

homely examples
had

learnt

in the Statesman.

matter

Jurists,who
jurisprudence.

quarrelwith the Institutes

discussions of the ownership of stray animals and
for their minute
swarming bees. It is not to be supposedthat these questionswere
sake by the Roman
treated entirelyfor their own
lawyers;it is
the best for the purpose
because
such simple instances are
of
of law.
bringingout the fundamental
principles
This brings us to another very important point.We
have seen
and it is hardly
of Plato's associates became
that many
lawgivers,
say that his work
explainsthe fact,which

much

too

That

to

juristslike
present day, that many
the older

Law
has

hardlybeen

done

well
perfectly
Cujas,though it is often
features of Roman

to.
justice

follows. When

of Hellenistic Law.
known

was

of Greek

The

way

the Romans

are

of

some

at

derived

philosophyon

the

from

Roman

its indirect influence

in which

came

to

overlooked

Law

probablybeen overestimated,but

has

as

was

is the foundation

direct influence

this source.1 The

not

this

about

came

with

into closer contact

peoples,that is to say, especiallywith the Greek

of Italyand Sicily,
found that the principles
it was
communities
of their civil law could not be appliedeasilyto the relations between
and foreigners
with
Romans
or to the relations of foreigners
the jusgentium,which, in its origin,
another. Hence
a
one
was
arose
of common
law of Italy.
administered
This was
sort
by the praetor
in his edict, which
was
simply an
peregrinusand embodied
non-Roman

of the

announcement

Cuiacii

See

muha
.

vationum
I

Comm.

auctores

lib. xxiv.

in lib. xlix. Pauli

nostri
c.

on
principles

ex

Platone

mutuati

ad

which

he

intended

Edictum, ad "
Examples

sunt.

to

ad Namusam
are

given

decide

et seq.:

in Obser-

24.
B.C.

P.

248

POLITICS

certain
with

such

edict

The

cases.

modifications

that

inevitable

the

laws

of the
and

contact,

down

from

praetor

to

praetor

required from time to time, and

a
regularbody of law, the jus honorarium. It
of its provisionsshould be modelled
on
many

ultimatelybecame
was

handed

was
as

Hellenic
in

these

were

with

states
turn

which

the

Romans

profoundly influenced

were

in

came

by

the

that Hellenistic
law
is
jurisprudence of the Academy. Now
from
the papyri, we
becoming better known
confidently
may
valuable discoveries in this field.
some
anticipate

EDUCATION
A

In

" 227.

the

abstract aspect of
a

brief sketch

This

will

of the educational

keep

hand

went

chapter we shall
Plato's philosophy,so

next

us

in mind

in hand

with

detail. It will also be

system

that these
the

useful

educational theories of Plato

most

from
are

be

dealingwith

it will be well
recommended

to

the

most

givehere

in the Laws.

highly abstract speculations

intense
another

chieflyknown

interest

point
from

in

concrete

of view.
the

The

Republic,

fuller and more

forgottenthat there is a much
of the subjectin the Laws.
treatment
practical
first thing to secure
is that babies shall be straight
The
(788 d),
for everything
being may go on
depends on the start. A human
plished
growing tillhe is twenty, but quite half of this growth is accomin the firstfive years. Now
growth impliesnourishment,
of babies is very great in proportionto their
and the nourishment
have a great deal of bodily exercise
size. It follows that they must
up to the age of five. The simplestway of puttingthis is to say that
know
babies should live as if they were
always at sea. Even nurses
that from
experience,for when they wish to put babies to sleep
they employ action, not rest, for the purpose. They shake them up
and they do not use
and down
in their arms,
silence,but sing to
them. The
principle
Korybantic purifications
depend on the same
(790d).
and kick,
The
next
point to notice is that small babies scream
while largerones
shout and jump about in a disorderlyfashion.
For three years babies can only express their wants
by crying;and
life to spend
three years is a considerable
as
portion of a human
and

it is often

well

or

Pleasure

education
ill,
and

pain are

fact,and build upon it.

the only feelings
children know, and
young

must

start

from

this

THE

LAWS

249

all the pleasure

it the rightthing to give them
suppose
them
all the pain we
That, however, is wrong. What
can.
train them
is as far
is that state of calm which
to
to

might

we

and

save

wish

we

positivepleasureas from pain. In

removed

from

must

take

advantageof

take

pleasurein

we

children
therefore
years of
transform
and

be

the fact that from

and

tune

time.

chief educational

our

order

the very
These
two

instrument

do

to

first three

gradually

can

into song,

and

the kicks

three

There

nurses.

the

head

of

six children

visit

They will divide

all the temples and

once

nurses.

year,

to

see

grandparents to
to

visit them.

should

be

taken

the

religious
and this at once
raises the thorny problem
village,
of twelve ladies appointed
be a committee
must
the Education
Department to supervise all the

to

services of their

by

should

so.

From

of

Punishment

shouts

things must

begin at the age of three,

but we
be careful not to employ forms of punishment which
must
will produce anger and sullenness. As to games,
they are instinctive
when
small children are
at that age, and
a few
brought together,
accord. It is best to leave them
they will invent them of their own
jumps

into dance.

and

screams

do this

earliest age

for the

life;for, by developing this instinct,we

the natural

to

the country

into districts,and

celebrations

in her

that the
live

at

nurses

behave.

distance

some

In that way

to

and

at least
district,

own

It is

have

it is possible
to make

will

each

sure

good plan for

the children
that

the

sent

they really

do get the

outingthey are supposed to get.

The education
of boys and girls
should be separate from the age
of six,for at that age they begin actual lessons. The
boys are to be
taught ridingand archery and the use of the sling.The girlsare
also to be taught the use
of arms
far as possible.
We
also
must
as
of mothers
and nurses
that the righthand
get rid of the superstition
is to be preferredto the left.It makes
us
only half able-bodied.
The
and

chief instruments

gymnastics,for

we

have

at

this stage will be

music

prepared the children by the

of time and tune
and by shaking them
when
small.
use
they were
Gymnastics has two main divisions,dancing and wrestling.Music
has two
functions
the accompaniment of the noble words
one
of the poets, the other the accompaniment of dances
and other
exercises of the limbs. We
teach the children anything
not
must
elaborate or professional,
but only simple physicaldrillwith simple
model
what is requiredin war
and the service
songs, takingas our
--

which

of education

THE

250

LAWS

and
more
question of games
toys becomes
gods. The
importantat this age. The main thingis that each generationshould
and have the same
toys as the last,for only so
play the same
games
The
of the constitution be preserved.
the spirit
can
greatest of all

of

the

revolutionaries is the

who

man

invents

and finer toys,

games
in youth will grow up a
in themselves
bad
not

new

played different games

In things which
different sort of man.
are
change is dangerous, and therefore the preservationof
for the

boy who

has

interest of the
is a fundamental
games
take it as our
guiding principlethat

of

anything

instance

far

"

but

"

what

constitution.

competing

is

imitate

and

Tragedy

choruses

blaspheme

melodies

are

there is

sculpture,for

painting and
the outward

not

appearance
be preservedunaltered

must

destroy the spiritof

will be excluded, of

to

and

old

must

we

direct imitation

most

will

rhythms

music,

to

rhythms

than

soul. These, then,

melodies

New

too.

they

the

are

direct

more

of
disposition

but

They

of character.

imitations

As

state.

the

We

course.

in the immediate

the

allow

cannot

neighbourhood

of the altars.
difficult task of

The

jury consistingof
ones,

men

and

selecting
songs
who
over
fifty,

if necessary,
call in expert
and rhythm. If the children

will accept

or

assistance

to

or,

melody

ordered

and

sober

music, the
other

when

Muse,

will be left to

dances

are

they

the

hand, if they have been habituated

life,they will find

cold

music

true

to

and

the

oppositekind

sweet

harsh.

the

to

kind, they will think it only fit for slaves. On

sweet

Muse
There

old

their

correct

accustomed

once

hear

rejectthe

in
must

of
the

early
be

in pitch and time. The

differing
girls,
boys'music will imitate the proud and brave character,the girls'
be taught to girlsalso.
the modest
and pure. Gymnastics must
for supposing that riding and gymnastics are
is no reason
There
It is true that women
not
suitable for boys and not for girls.
so
are
for their not being made
to do
but that is no reason
strong as men,

separate songs

what

they can.
militaryservice
be made
be

relieved

might
At

at

any

be

for

A
is

the

same

to

some

boys

state

that
much

not

extent

rate, the human

the
race

in which

the lifeof their young.

makes
more

no

than

its
call upon
half as strong

for

women
as

it

might

they should
from
household
occupations,which
of co-operativemethods.
introduction
should be freed from the disgraceof
of defending
the females are incapable

expense.

simplifiedby

being the only one

and

It would

be better that

252
awkward

LAWS

handle.

That

just because he has what

other beasts have not, a native spring of thought in him which
is
not
study things written, and
yet settled or clear. Boys will now
all of them
in metre.
not
Along with that will go at first the tuning
of the lyre(not necessarily
the playing of it),
much
so
reckoning
is useful for war
and housekeeping, and a certain amount
of
as
These
things
astronomy, enough to make the calendar intelligible.
are

not

The

of beasts

THE

to

be confused

to

with the

is

sciences,which

come

later.

who
is to be a good citizen
question arises how far a man
A boy should begin readingand writing
must
go in these subjects.
and spend three years on them ; music need not be
at the age of ten
begun tillhe is thirteen,and should be continued for three years.
These
times should
be made
compulsory whether the boy or his
father has any taste for the subjectsor not. It will be enough if the
it is only in cases
of special
boys can read and write intelligibly;
talent that we
should encourage
The
a higher degree of excellence.
time and trouble ittakes are better spared for the higherstudies.
That
the boys will read poetry of the rightsort is a matter
of
but prose seems
a very
dangerous thing.Even as to poetry
course,
there is the questionwhether
it should be read in masses
and whole
should use
books of extracts
we
poets learnt by heart,or whether
and make
these to memory.
our
But, as has been
pupils commit
of prose. Books
is the educational
use
suggested,the real difficulty
about the principles
of legislation
certainlybe read, but the
may
of philosophersand scientific men
works
safe at this stage.
not
are
All these things will be regulatedby the head
of the Education
Department, but he will have expert advice on technical questions.
He will not allow the experts to dictate to him on generalprinciples,
but will consult them as to the methods
of carryingthem out.
the higher studies, beginning with
to
now
come
" 229. We
Mathematics, in its three chief divisions of Arithmetic, Geometry,
and Astronomy. Only a small number
will pursue these studies to
the end, those, namely, who
show
themselves
fit to become
members
of the Nocturnal
Council, but the prevailingignorance
of them
can
only be described as 'swinish' (819 d).And that is not
the worst.
Most
teachers treat mathematical
subjectsin the most
and the greatest evil is not total ignorance,but
manner,
perverse
much
learningand knowledge misdirected. Most people take it
for granted that all lengths,breadths
and depths are
surable,
commenwhereas
it is reallythe problem of incommensurability

EDUCATION

should

that

hold

of

study

The

We

of

remember

of

lessons

and

this

is

education.
far

better

The

than

game

reformed

be

must

astronomy

all

had

the

invented

be

the
In

on

of

afford

to

to

It

despise

if

turn

to

very

be
wish

different

seen

to

such

Romans

that

the

understand
side

of

Laws

by
of
is

Plato's
his

single

Academy
the

everywhere
it

and

idea

invented

schools

school

the

has

o-^oA^

term

no

under

adopted

grammar

will

we

find

Greek

he

music-

was

founding

now

young

for

there

building

By

and

the

the

and

must

for

teacher

one

single

we

medieval

it since.

to

We

schools

the

to

as

onwards.

regular

teachers.

and

translating

out

of

consequence

quaintly

the

in

proposals

ten

Homer,

university,

period,

of

taught

staff

of

no

taken

things

Plato's

age

were

were

Hellenistic

origin

it is time

these

of

the

there

to

regular

school.

things,
the

from

They

age.

with

secondary

can

mathematical

significance

day

another

to

coordinating

direction

come

of

girls

his

in

that

the

and

boys

that

people

is

of

out

teaching

miss

easily

may

education

in

in

place

lines.

similar

Plato

first

arising

questions

backgammon.

of

the

253

activity.

not

with

other

Indus.

That

all

that
work

influence,

has
we

but

XVI

Philosophyof Numbers

The

"

It is

230.

the

central

he

did

by

no

means

of Plato's

doctrine

choose

not

Aristotle

is that

teaching,

and

results

which

to

shall have

distinctions.

Pythagoreans

could

was

known

he

that

is

the

describes
mind

except
often

that

he

from

be

Met.

A.

certain
In

day.
had

one

replaced
him

to

as

it. We

responsible for

than

knows

himself.

origin of
of

years

a, 32:

could

things he

hearsay.

or

yeyovt

to

These

the

before

it

On

know

Above

know

obvious

to

what

Aristotle

another
he

bear

must

born

are

Plato

on
are

in

about

nothing
distinctions

was

vvv

ber
remem-

all, when

exercised

influence

ra.fj.adrni.ara.
rots

we

and

hand,

other

have

him.

true

was

the

doctrine,

any

believe

to

unless

always

and

for instance, that

by this,we

who

to

as

knowledge

bound

contemporaries.

must

statements

tells us,
are

may

We

Academy.

statement

people

speaking

9, 992

we

which

speaking

Aristotle's
he

doctrines

and

name

of

way

reallymeant
he

Kratylos

by

within

his

by
Plato

inference

unaddible,
such

historical

and

light of

(olvvv)

contemporary

well

of those

one

'some',

ignored. Speculations as

Sokrates

of Plato

facts. When

made

what

is

Plato's

own

carefully (2) between

these

true

better

means

man

be
us

of

repugnant

was

Plato

to

the

been

to

have

he tells

when

of his

time

matters

justified.

of

more

numbers

to

That

was

and

have

must

not

of his

men

almost

are

critic

in the

Academy

teaching

those

interpretationof

He

by

be

to

distinguish even

held

much

too

(" 162),

makes

What

us.

seen

we.

unsympathetic

it

attributed

include

Plato

and

interpret

make
two
evidence, it is necessary
to
in the first instance
at least,distinguish (i)

must,

stated

his

have

we

to

Aristotle's

with
We

facts which

the

the

vaguely
also

in the

far he

doctrines

between

led

made
how

see

dealing

In

at

that

As

tells

day

present

writing,

to

very

mathematics.1

he

to

looks

it had

by

biologist,and

it

Aristotle

is

he

that

place he complains
philosophy

what

on

the

at

us

philosophy.

commit

to

entirelydependent
worse

for

easy

quoted

17 "f"iXoao"f"ia,

ARISTOTLE

of fact,and

evidence

as

the

most

from

Aristotle says he heard

which

time

same

differs in the

Plato's,which

as

at

thing,at any rate, seems

Platonic philosophy,that which
in which

Platonism

philosophyby

the forms

of any

that he knew

Aristotle

had

been

or

taken

not

the

age.1That

is

of the

member

with

with

one

numbers.

placeof

identified

modification

of but

knows

that

an

earlier

numbers,

introduced

only a modern
Academy for

into his
lation.
specuthe last

nothing of the kind could have

taken placewithout
his knowledge. We
be sure
too
that, if he
may
of any such change, he would
have told us. It is not his
had known
he regardsas inconsistencies
in his master's
to cover
way
up what
had been
than a
no
more
teaching.If the 'theoryof Numbers'
senile aberration (which appears
to be the current
view),that is just
have delightedto point out. As it
the sort of thing Aristotle would
is,his evidence shows that Plato held this theory from his sixtieth
and probably earlier.
year at least,
bers;
" 231. It is certain,then, that Plato identified forms and numask what he meant
culties
but, when
we
by this,we get into diffiIn the last two books of the Metaphysics(M and N),
at once.
with the objectsof mathematics
which deal expressly
(ra/xa^yitari/ca
of Plato is only mentioned
and with forms and numbers, the name
once
(1083 a, 33),and the doctrine there attributed to him is that
'are not addible to one
another' (ov av^X-^rovs eiWu rou?
numbers
earlier passage
In an
(1080 a, 12 sqq.)
dpiOfjiovs
Trpos dAArjAou?).
three versions of the doctrine that numbers
are
'separate'
(XCO/HCTTCI)
of things are given as the only possibleones,
and the first causes
mentioned.
told (1081 a, 35) that
but no names
We
are
are
even
of these versions had never
been held by anybody, which
does
one
not
futing
prevent Aristotle (ifhe is the author of these books) from reit as vigorously
the other two.
make
as
Obviously we cannot
anything of this for the present, and it is unsafe, at least in the first
instance, to use these books as evidence
except for the single
doctrine attributed in them to Plato by name.
twenty

said

In M.

years

4.

there

said of them
both
p.

cases

280).

of Plato's

important points from

own
lips.

had

were

change

Plato in his old

philosophyis expounded

identified the forms

indicates that this system

never

or

his

255

clear. Aristotle

One

He

PLATO

ON

1078 b, 9

were

sqq.,

forms'

which
Aristotle

it

life,and

seems

to

me

impossible to identifythose

with

Plato, though it must

said of Plato in A. 6. The

are

is

thinking primarily

of

be

admitted

that

who

'first

things are
explanation is, I think, that in
the et'Soiv "f"iXoi
in the Phaedo
(cf.

256

ARISTOTLE

ON

PLATO

chapter in the First Book of the

more
hopeful.It is the only place
Metaphysics(A. 6) which seems
of Plato's
where
Aristotle professesto give a careful statement
and distinguishing
it
philosophy,attributingit to him by name
Platonism
he adopts is to compare
from other systems. The method
with Pythagoreanism,which, he says, it followed in most
respects
nXdrajvos)which
though it had two peculiarities
(t'Sta
TToAAa),
(TO,
distinguishedit from 'the Italic philosophy'.These two pointsof
follows : (i)The Pythagoreans said that numbers
difference were
as
were
things,while Plato held not only that sensible things were
distinct from
(-napa)numbers, but also regarded the objectsof
is,however,

There

" 232.

mathematics

(2)The

as

distinct from

Pythagoreansheld
their form

and
number

as

the One

the

and

the

both
the

and

matter

intermediate

between

of numbers

to

them.

be the Unlimited

Limit; Plato regardedthe elements

dyad

of the Great-and-

of

Small.

all that Aristotle

regardsas reallypeculiar
the substitution of the term
to Plato ; for he looks upon
tion'
'participafor 'imitation' as a merely verbal difference. Both the Pythagoreans
and Plato left it an open question(d^etcrav
ev
KOLVW
fyrelv)
could
forms
be.
That
of
in
what imitation or participation things
confused by a long
is the outline of the chapter,but it is somewhat
These

pointsare

two

parenthesisintended

to

show

that

the

first difference

between

Pythagoreans was due to the influence of Herakleitos

(throughKratylos)and Sokrates. That may or may not be correct,
this subjectdo not stand on the same
but Aristotle's statements
on
level as his account
of the peculiarities
themselves, which he must
Plato and

have

heard

the

Plato

I.

expound.

FORMS,

MATHEMATICALS

AND

SENSIBLES

is,then, that, while the

" 233. The first of these peculiarities
were
things,Plato regarded sensible
Pythagoreans said numbers
matics
things as distinct from numbers, and made the objectsof mathethe two.
It is important to observe
intermediate between
Plato with the Pythagoreans and
that Aristotle is here contrasting
with Sokrates,who is only introduced
to explainhis divergence
not
It is also to be noted that
from the Pythagoreantheoryof numbers.
does, the Sokrates of
as he usually
by 'Sokrates' Aristotle means,
told (987 b, 29) that the distinction
the Phaedo.
We
are
expressly
made

between

numbers

and

the sensibles and

the

'introduction'

ON

ARISTOTLE

PLATO

257

practiceof 'considering
and that
thingsin statements' (Starrjv eV TOI? Aoyoi?eyevero O7fe'j/ui")
is as clear a reference as can
be to the new
method
introduced
by
Sokrates in that dialogue(99 e sqq. ).We
also told that the preare
decessors
forms

of the

of

Sokrates

due

was

to

the

unversed

were

in

dialectic,and

that

is

explained by what has been said above (987 a, 20) about the
Pythagoreans.They began, we are told,to discuss the 'What is it?'
of things (TO rt eVnv;),and to define them, but in a naive
and
universal
definitions
Sokrates
introduced
and
superficial
way.
busied

himself

whole, and

it

with

numbers

him

with

to

follow' the

things.He

had

of writh

instead

matters

Plato's acceptance

was

impossible for

ethical

of his method

Pythagoreans

convinced

nature

as

that made
in

himself

it

identifying

of the

Hera-

in flux,and he saw
that
thingswere
the definitions of Sokrates could not apply to them, so he gave the
of forms to something other than sensible things,and said
name
distinct from
these (-naparavra) and
that sensible things were
of things sharing the
called after them; for the multitude
were
what
in virtue of their
the forms
name
were
same
as
they were
that in this
in these forms.
It will be observed
participation
passage Aristotle insists rather on the distinction of sensible things
from the forms than on that of the forms from sensible things,and
Plato from Sokrates. We
he impliesthat this is what distinguished
have seen
reason
alreadyfor believingthat Sokrates recognisedno
realityin sensible things apart from the forms, and Aristotle's
it is equallytrue to say,
languagehere confirms this view. Of course
Aristotle usually does, that the forms
distinct from
the
are
as
sensible things,
but itis significant
that,when he firsthas occasion to
mention
the point,he emphasisesthe other side of the distinction.
with
this separation(xuipicrfios)
of
" 234. Closely connected
sensible thingsis what Aristotle calls the 'introduction' (eiaayojy^)
does not imply that Plato invented
them.
of the forms. This term
The
metaphor is, I believe, derived from the use of the word for
bringing on the stage or 'producing',and the suggestionappears
of Sokrates had made
it necessary
to be that the ethical inquiries
kleitean doctrine

to

certain universals

assume

of course,
numbers

that sensible

would
were.

were

be separate from

the

The

Pythagoreanshad

number, but Sokrates

as

specialform

square

which

of

numbers,

not

things of

defined

had shown

Justice (avro 6' eWt

sense

and

these,

just as

the

Justice,for instance,

that

we

must

postulate

Sucaiov).That

is

not

258
mentioned

as

implied between

Sokrates

stated in

so

while

in the Tenth

words

many

and

the forms

thingsfrom

sensible

only difference which is

Plato is that the latter separated

of Plato's. The

innovation

an

PLATO

ON

ARISTOTLE

the former
Book

is also said

did

not.

That

is

(1078 b, 17),though it
the impulse to (e'/aV^ae)
going further,and it is

(1086 b, 3) that Sokrates gave

for not
this separation.
He is commended
Aristotle's own.
the same
as
implied that his doctrine was much
have thought it
That can
but Aristotle may
hardly be historical,
of the second
a legitimate
interpretation
part of the Phaedo, where
serious
the forms are certainly
in things.
It seems
to me
a far more
anachronism
Sokrates as seekingfor universals (TO,
to represent
KadoXov),a term not yet invented,than to represent him as seeking
for 'forms'. It is
Realism

is priorro

still to

worse

make

and
Conceptualism,

talk about

him

I doubt

'concepts'.1

very much

whether

'hypostatisedconcepts'.As we have seen

(" 195),
a
as
Conceptualism is tentatively
put forward in the Parmenides
solution of the problem of participation,
but it is rejected
at once.
then, is at best Aristotle's speculative
" 235. This parenthesis,
of historyfrom his own
reconstruction
point of view, and throws
ever

anyone

his definite statement

that Plato not only made
on
very littlelight
but also made
distinct from sensible things,
numbers
the objects
of mathematics

Aristotle,and

intermediate

his historical

not

tells

He
reallyto interpret.

differed from
immovable

and

between

from

the

us

them.

of

It is that statement

have
it,which
we
upon
further that the objectsof mathematics
notes

things of

the forms

in

sense

in

being many,

being

eternal

whereas

each

and

form

that,we shall
interpret
what Plato's 'separatism'
know
meant.
(xwpicTfjLos)
really
and the objectsof
The
the objectsof sense
difference between
is a simple matter, and is fullydealt with in the
mathematics
is not reallyspeaking about the senPhaedo.
The mathematician
sible
diagram he traces in the sand. The sensible circle is only a
In the Phaedo,
of what
he reallymeans.
rough 'image'(et'ScoAo^)
are
however, the objects of mathematics
regarded as
certainly
is meant
to ask what
by distinguishing
forms, and we have now

is

and

one

from

them

unique (avro

the forms.

forms

thingPlato
1

word

The
for

are

would

on

ev

If we
(JLOVOV).

It cannot,
a

think

lower

of course,

level than

be

matical
that mathe-

meant

others. That

is the

of,and the pointis rather that they are

possibly mean
Ao'yo?cannot
'concept'at this date,it is

term

can

'concept'.So

far

as

there

is any

last
on

Greek

26d

THE

the 'two and

ELEMENTS

two' which

OF

NUMBERS

four? The

say make

we

will appear

answer

of the mathematical
sciences
particulars
are
objectsof thoughtjustas much as the universals. We can think
'twos' without regardingthem as inhering
in any sensible
particular
if

that the

remember

we

substratum,

on
distinguished

which

the

four

make

the

that

so

seen

pebbles, and

on

brings us

to

'two

and

two

from

other

the

are

pebbles'
unique

is

are

understand

what

unique forms, and we have

they are forms in a preeminent

thinking that
certainlythe doctrine Aristotle attributes

cannot

we

the

Aristotle

it

completelytill we

of number

the relation of the forms

discussed
That

for

That

Plato, but

the

four'

'make

two.

reason
sense.

which

two'

from

clear,then, that numbers

some

to

and

hand

one

universal,the number
It is

'two

to

the

forms.

otner

the second

regardsas

have

peculiarity

of Plato's philosophy.
(t'Stov)

THE

II.

Unlimited

THE

AND

INDETERMINATE

or Continuous
(a-n-eipov)

the elements

therefore

as

One

the

and

DYAD

Pythagoreanshad regardedthe

The

" 237.

ONE

of

the elements

things.Plato

Great-and-

of the

dyad

as

Limit

and
(rrepas)
of

number, and

substituted for these the

Small.

The

only difference,

according to Aristotle,is that the Pythagorean Unlimited

whereas Plato regarded the 'matter' of numbers, and
single,
of

things,as

points out

dual

in character. It also

elsewhere,from

Plato's

the

was

fore
there-

follows, as Aristotle

separationof

and

numbers

as
thingsthat there will be what he calls 'matter' in the numbers
well as in things.
This is called the Indeterminate
dyad (aoptaro?
it from the Determinate
dyad, which is the
Sua?)1to distinguish

number
sort

of matrix

" 238.
1

The

this

dyad

it is

Now

at

least clear that the

of this term
is not
he
used
that
it.
imply

Aristotle's

the numbers

generatedas from

are

(eV^ayeto^).2

attributed

use

to

seems
2

From

two.

account

obscure.

Mr.

of the

way

George

A.

explanation of the matter, which

to

Plato

in which

the

Johnston

has

I have

Indeterminate

term

by

name,

but

Met.

1091

dyad
a, 4

are
tremely
generated is exsuggested a most
interesting
have
his permission to quote. We
seen

numbers

(i.e.
oblong numbers
always changing. It is a dyad, because
numbers)
the ratio is
it is always a ratio between
two
numbers; it is indefinite because
of the successive
root
always changing. The one, on the other hand, is the square
between
the sides of 2
are
means
oblong numbers, "Jz, ^6, "Ji2, etc., which
(2 : i),6 (3 : 2), 12 (4 : 3), etc.
(p- 53,
the

sums

n.

i) that

the

ratio between

of the series of

even

the

sides
is

of successive

ARITHMETIC

is

new

for

name

the old

'increase'
That

is

which

and
Continuity,

Unlimited

term

why

Plato

have

also of

intended

to

express
introduction

of number.

view

learnt from

than
clearly

more

finite
only admits of ininfinite 'diminution'
(KaOaipems).1

it is also called the

infimmentpetit.The
entirelynew

it expresses
It not
nature.

its twofold

but
(a#"77),

261

GEOMETRY

AND

Great-and-Small.
that of the

was

of this

That

need

The

new

idea

the
infinitesimal,

conception involves
not
surpriseus; for

an

we

Republicthat it is the business of Dialectic to

'destroythe hypotheses'of the specialsciences,and also that the
is the series of natural integers,
each
hypothesis of Arithmetic
consistingof so many
equaland indivisible units,and each either
odd or even.
From
our
present pointof view, these units and their
sums
belong to the 'intermediate' region.They are not sensible,
in the true
The
indeed, but neither are they numbers
sense.
of this hypothesisallows us to extend
destruction
the conception
of number
which
of units
to include
not
so
as
are
a sum
quantities
and which
neither odd nor
We
have
are
even.
(fAovdStov
7T\r)6os),
that it was
the study of incommensurables
that made
this
seen
extension necessary. That is indicated by the prominence given to
the study of quadraticsurds in the Theaetetus. If 'irrationals' are
is
once
regarded as numbers, the old hypothesis of Arithmetic
destroyed.
This
is not, as I understand
to
it, tantamount
making the
the

series itself continuous

numerical

; for in that

case

be identified with

the

the Indeterminate

dyad. It does, however, get

unit, which

the

numbers.
not

as

was

We
i

but

may
as

now

o, and

would

number

of plus and minus, which

potentiality

mere

source

of

all the

there

is

no

rid of the indivisible

trouble

regard the originof

irrational

about

the numerical

for

refusingto
best proof that

reason

is

series,

call such

this was
The
quantitiesas Jz and ^/5 numbers.
reallythe step which Plato took is that Aristotle always insists
but number
made
againsthim that there is no number
up of
It follows that Plato maintained
there
units (/xovaScKro?
d/Hfyids-).
was.

" 239.

The

hypotheses of Geometry

similar criticism. The

precisely
reallybroken down the barrier which

to

and

Not

necessarilyby

covers

given below,

subtraction
p. 330.

division

The
(Siaipeots).
It is used
(d""at'peais).

were,
new

Zeno

term

in the

of course,
view
had

of number
erected

Kadatpeoisis
extract

submitted

from

more

had

between

general,

Hermodoros

262

INDIVISIBLE

Arithmetic

LINES

and

Geometry, and the old view of the point as 'a unit

deaw e'^oucra)
having position'
was
(/zova?
superseded.Aristotle has
preserveda very important piece of information as to Plato's oral
teachingon this subject.He tells us that Plato objectedaltogether
to the conceptionof a point as being a mere
'geometrical
dogma',
and preferredto speak of 'the originof a line' (dpx'nYP^M?)-1
That impliesthe view that the line is generatedfrom the pointby
what
know
from
other sources
called 'fluxion' (pucri?).2
we
was
This
series has
corresponds to the doctrine that the numerical
the unit, for its origin.In the same
not
zero,
way, the plane is a
fluxion of the line and the solid of the plane.On the other hand,
Aristotle adds, Plato often postulatedindivisible lines.^ Aristotle
says it is easy to refute this doctrine,and
throw
no
lightupon it. No doubt the term

'infinitesimals'.What

than

so

more

Plato

the later
is
meant

commentators

but not
paradoxical,
that, if
was
clearly
the originof the
as

you postulateindivisible units and regard i

numerical
to indivisible
series,you are also committed
lines
and

Newton

the

as

spatialunit.

Leibniz, and

the

All this

brings us

close

very

historical connexion

tesimal
infini-

or

to

still be

can

traced.4

look at geometry
in this way, we
that its
we
see
" 240. When
character tends to become
of
irrelevant. It becomes
a form
spatial
whether spatial
Arithmetic, dealingwith continuityin general,
or
This view is fullydeveloped in the Epinomis,where we
not.
are
told (990 d) that Geometry (which is said in passingto be 'a very
absurd name') is really'an assimilation by reference to surfaces of
similar to one
numbers
another
not
by nature'. That is just the
development of what we read in the Theaetetus (148 a),to the
effect

certain

that

numbers

but commensurable
(fjLrjKei),

roots'

are

Met.

nXdrwv
2

A.
toy

992

ovri

Simpl.

'by means

(rot?em^e'Soi?

Stereometry is

said

a"

'"

Phys.

be

p.

incommensurable

'in

length'

of the surfaces of which

In precisely
the same
Suvairai).
the art by which
certain numbers

ye'vei
(sc.TO) ra"v "my[j.a"v)
/cat
fj.ev ovv
Soy/icm.
Proclus
722, 28 (Diels):17 ypajtt/n)
cm.yfj.rjs,
pvais

Tovrti)

yea^erpiKO)

in

to

are

they
way
not

TU"

in Eucl.

i. p. 97, 6 (Friedlein).
8
Met. ib. : TOVTO
8e 7roAAa"a? eridei.ras

OLTO/JLOVS "ypa.fj.fjLais.
Discourse
Method
has thrown
on
recently discovered
by Archimedes
of infinitesimals
the
unexpected lighton the development of the method
among
Greeks.
See
etudes, pp. 134 sqq., and especiallyp. 154.
Milhaud, Nouvelles
4

The

Cavalieri's
modern
former

'method

higher
from

of indivisibles'

Mathematics.

Wallis

and

Barrow.

is the

Newton
Wallis

and

connecting
Leibniz

translates

pvois

link

between

got their

Greek

knowledge
byfluxus.

and
of the

naturallysimilar
of

of each

to
illegitimate

science

is also

There
the

matter

mathematical

in

study

completes

In

241.

far clearer

is such

and

than

tends

to

of

It will

sense.

him

explained tillthe
One

the

combines

with

sensible

the elements

were

good

great

fortune

while

written

he

the

of form-numbers
of Plato's

indications

of his

one

Diels,
Kol

T"XVO"V

8f\ei

maturest

Vors.*
TToAu

/cat
.

a.

etSt'aiiTta

i. p.

to

the

the

is how

at

note

dyad

with
sense

nothing

the

it

things
Plato

time.

is that

present

to

the

generate

Great-and-Small

it,and

states
must

Academy,
subject, and

have
and

to

the

by

been

which,

avoids

nevertheless

I refer

to

of numbers

elements

Aristotle

another

the

the
some

Philebus,

works.

337"

/cat

drap
8ia"f"fpeiv,

em\eiTT"i

have

of the

at

of

possible for
be fully
cannot

This

contains
altogether,

thought

the

it became

dialogue which

member

is

preciselybecause

that

combine

though it deals primarily with

doctrine

it is

Indeterminate

and

assumption

is the

appearance.

possess

was

One

the

importance
less disparatefrom

sensibles
of

to

reduced

of this is that

that

things. In that
of things.That
we

regard

forms, though that element

numbers, just as the forms

generate

here

new

chapter ; all we

next

with

even

way,

generatedfrom

are

is

world

justifythe

to

turn

from

'separated'numbers

fails,Arithmetic

study of figures.1

the

observed

be

4) :
(fr.

says

Geometry

same

forms
intelligible

the

make

direction

reallythe
He

puts

all the other

surpasses
the objectsit wishes
treat

continuity.The

abstract

We

which

then, geometricalfiguresare

in the

even

in the

thing as

in

these

element

more

dyad. What

Indeterminate

material

proper

that it is

Arithmetic

Where

way.

last resort,

the

numbers,

to

the time.

taking at

was

its demonstrations

if there
figures,

fusion
con-

Arithmetic.

Archytas

was

especiallyGeometry, seeing it can

arts, and

"

this

proves

that in respect of wisdom

I think

to

thought

the

and

undisturbed,

friend

of Plato's

clearly,and

very

the

regards as

otherwise.

held

fragment

the third

to

insists that

He

be left

must

he

geometricalproposition by

prove

infer that Plato

may

Arithmetic.

with

Geometry

hypotheses

what

strongly objects to

Aristotle

power.

by being raised

assimilated

be

can

263

ARITHMETIC

ON

ARCHYTAS

al

/cat

So/ret d
raj

yeaj/xerpta,

/cat
Trpay/xaret'a,
irepi
rots

dAAdV
ao^i'av
TTOTL
rav
Aoyicrrt/ca
/nev
evapyeore'paj
T
rpayfiareveadai
a
yeco/ierptK-ay
aTroSet^taja Aoytcm/cd emreAet
6fj,ws,
/cat

/cat

fiBtoiv.

ratv

264

hint of how

he

Epicurus

did

at

far

wrote

the

Phaedo

dramatic

might
is

power
of the

touches

no

have

Sokratic

the

fewer

are

manner

evil.

an

done

not

quite

was

there is littlein

other

and

it was,

as

Eudoxos

was

subject.It

the Sokrates

said. On

Good,

discussion,

he had

discuss, and

to

longer what

the

had

Demokritos,

of

he did what

dialoguewhich
not

is the

that Pleasure

dialogueon

for Sokrates

the greater part of the

Pleasure

particularopposed

and

course,

Eudoxos

raised considerable
in

get

we

written.

the school

maintain

to

as

Sokratic

appropriatetheme

or

from

Speusippos

interested,of

was

for years; he
an

in Aristotle's Ethi"$

discussions

later date. This

vehemently, going so
Plato

PHILEBUS

probablyreceived

natural, and

was

THE

to be
probably came
Academy the heresy that

into the

doctrine

as

PHILEBUS

the Philebus

introduced
a

certain

From

" 242.

THE

the

than

of the

Gorgias

hand, Plato's
characteristic
in

the

earlier

supposed. Undeniably, too,

the voice is sometimes
that of the Stranger from Elea and sometimes
that of the Athenian
Strangerin the Laws, and in those cases
have a hint at least of Plato's
in thinkingthat we
we
are
justified
only
personalthought. I propose, for the present, to summarise
the subject
bears directlyon
that portion of the dialoguewhich
we
are
now
discussing;the generaltheory of Pleasure,though of
the highestimportance in itself,
can
only be adequatelytreated in
of Eudoxos
and
connexion
with
the views
Speusippos and of
dialogues,though

Aristotle's

than

more

is often

of these.

criticism

get the

We

impressionfrom

the

the younger
dealingwith a dispute between
of the Academy, in which Plato condescends
to take part,
members
the conversation to the fifth century and
though, by transferring
self
by making Sokrates the chief speaker,he avoids committing him-

Philebus that

much.

too

" 243.
Philebos
the

are

we

Before

the

(ayouth

of whom

Philebos

Good.

and
dialogue, Sokrates
nothing is known) have been discussing

of

opening
has

the

stated the

positionthat

the

Good

is

while
Sokrates
has identified it with Thought
(77801^),
and
Philebos declines to argue the question,
Wisdom.
or
((f"povr]aLs)
of whom
Protarchos
man
nothing is known)1
(anotheryoung

Pleasure

He
him

is addressed
with

one

Apology (20 b)

as

as

'son

of the

two

of Kallias'
sons

pupils of Euenos

ing
ground for identifyin the
mentioned
Hipponikos,

(iq b), but there is

of Kallias
in 399

B.C.

son

of

no

undertakes

replacehim

to

The

positionsare

Pleasure, understood

is that

Philebos

after

called

be

stated
distinctly

more

It is

of Pleasure.

dialogueshould
no
practically
part in it.

takes

two

the advocate

as

that the

little remarkable
who

265

THOUGHT

AND

PLEASURE

thus.

sonage
per-

of

That

its widest

in

not

sense

as

and so forth,is the highestgood for all living

includingjoy,delight,
exception.1That of Sokrates is that Thought,
beings without
in its widest sense
understood
as
rightbelief,
includingmemory,
true
reasoning,and so forth, is the highest good for all living

capableof it. The two positions

agree in this,that
habit (e"i?)or disposition
make
both
a
Happiness (eu8ai/u,"Wa)
of soul.2 It is further pointedout that there may
prove
(Staflecrt?)
beings that

be

to

are

Thought, in
of these

"

be

apply the

or

must

we

case

Sokrates

pleasuresmay

either Pleasure

is better than

to whichever
give the preference
12 a).
nearlyakin to it (ii a
begins by callingattention to the fact that
indeed
opposite,so that we
very unlike and

which
is most

two

" 244.
cannot

of soul which

third habit

all of

to
predicate

same

them, but it soon

appears
cannot, in fact,

that it will be necessary to go deeper than this. We

without
make
coming to an understanding
any advance

the

on

questionof the One and the Many. By this we do

the puzzle about the predicationof oppositeattributes
not
mean
of the same
That is
like great and small,heavy and light,
subjects.
child's play,and the solution has long been publicproperty. Nor

troublesome

old

do

the

mean

we

is therefore

and

thing has parts,

is with regardto
difficulty
the
good (i.e.
ox, beautiful,

such

units

hold
hold
into

This

refer to

to

seems

Good, since
9 *"?"?)"
The

we

have

the

argument

all things, rational

and

See
3

my

The

think
see

and

e"u

terms

to

the

Republic).

ask

edition
sense

that, if

of the
of the
we

that it refers

from

Pleasure

(Arist.Eth.
A

medicine.

doctrine

Aristotle

the

it

at

that

made
has

it

an

been

Nic.

'habit'

Happiness

be

must

is

is
a

the

1172
a

b,

more

habit

of

'activity*
(evepyf(.a).
much

disputed.

emphasis on the first ptav and on efrat,we shall

the difficultythat arises when
we
predicate 'being' of 'one',

read
to

that

of Eudoxos

aim
irrational,

Academy;
Ethics,p. 3.
second
question (15 b, 2-4)
of

is characteristic

soul

and

'forms' of the Phaedo

Std"rcrij are taken

(Arist.Cat. 9 a, 8). The
lasting 'disposition'
2

(monads,henads) as horse,

to
we
are
(i) in what sense
to
are
that each of these units really
we
is,(2)in what sense
that each of them
being one, and admitting neither coming
being nor ceasingto be, nevertheless is that one,3 (3)in what

these

regard to

With

the fact that every sensible

and many.
The
real
both one

questionarisingfrom

it with

an

266

PHILEBUS

THE

sense

we

wholes,

that

so

This

section

numerabl
present in the in-

(a)in part, or (b)

quite impossible)they should be
in their plurality
(12 c
15 c).

(what seems

in their

identical both

be

can

the sensible world, whether

thingsof
as

units

that these

hold

to

are

unityand

link the Philebus

to

serves

"

At the

the Parmenides.

to

dialogue,the questionof the One and the

of oppositeattributes,
it refers to the predication
as
and
and to the relation of whole
parts, is disposed of by the
of sensible thingsin the forms, and it is then shown
participation
and Many in the
of One
lies in the union
that the real difficulty
beginning of
Many, so far

If

themselves.

forms
two

the latter

hands

our

on

we

while, if we

it,it is either broken

in

One.
a

form

hint

an

thrown

was

that the Philebus

see

The

" 245.
whenever

we

say that sensible thingsparticipate

into parts and so becomes
infinitely

is given in the Parmenides,

difficulty
that a solution was
possible.We shall

of this
out

puts

the way

on

us

it.

to

and

into a one
that a thing turns
difficulty
speak of it,reallypervadesall statements

affection of
nor

to

about

make

can

propositionsin our
It is this that givesrise
ages'.
get rid of that tillwe

cannot

The
of

and

higher nature

it down

as

innate

of

in it.What

in
(iSe'a)

the

After

that

many

forms

unit, not

we

and

we

have

thing we
or

are

in

at once

we

to

not

and

merely

become

two.

of

are

we

many,
TO

That

ev

ev,

is

look

to

number

of these

each

one

then

whatever

or

them, until

speak,
seems

is, and

three,

it is

been

able

but

of

singleform
for

in that
there
and

may

two

be.
how

see

say of the original

it is.
also how
many

to

but

chief

handed

Unlimitedness

units

new

were

given moment

do, then, is first to find

to

at

have

are, have

has Limit and

and

many,

say

look

must

only that

is,when

the One

one

forms,

subordinate

gods than we
everythingwe say at
the

to

nearer

arts

mankind, and the ancients,who

to

tradition,that

is consists
(det)

that

revealed

gods once

stranded, and it is the

discoveries in the

and

dies

never

and we
disputation,
a sound
theory of it.The
Sokrates has always been a

only way to reach one is a way of which

lover (e'pacrTT}?),
though it has often left him
all inventions
way in which
made. It is this.

It is 'an

all eristic

formed

have

many

or
(Ao'yoi)

anythingwhatsoever.
minds
(eV yp-lv)that

we
propositions

become

must

direct solution

No

but

have

to

seems

be present in each of the participants,

of ones
infinite number
alongsideof the one

the whole

or
many,
that we
so

up

is,it

One

that the

say

TO

crux

ev

6V. When

we

do that

of the Parmenides.

268

THE

number

to

where

another.

division

" 246.

far

So

must

as

have

we

there

yet gone,

is

point

cease.

illustrate what

To

PHILEBUS

he

by

means

Unlimited, Sokrates

the

example of 'the hotter and colder',and this enables us to

elucidate his meaning with the help of the distinction between
with
connected
distinction historically
heat and
a
temperature,
have seen, 'temperature'
is a
the Pythagorean doctrine, since,as we
takes the

translation of Kpdcns.
If

consider

we

the sensation

or

qualityof heat, we

see

at

once

be much
hotter than our
Water
intensity.
may
hand
or
only a littlehotter,or nearlyas hot, or not nearlyso hot.
In other words, heat 'admits of plus and minus' (TO naXXov KOL
On
the other hand, these degrees of intensity
are
quite
rjrrov).
attach any clear meaning to the statement
indefinite. We
cannot
sensation
sensation of heat is equal to another, or that one
that one
considerations
These
of another.
of heat is the double
explain
what Plato meant
by 'the dyad of the Great-and-Smah", which was
that it varies

in

his

own

for what

the

of indefinite
possibility

from

name

fixed

point.The

the double'

(\and f),and

ratio of

number

one

to

variation in both

continuous

Limit,

and

this indefinite 'more

in the Philebus. It is

he calls the Unlimited

on

less'. Its
in

the other

directions

hand, does

simplestform

away

is 'the

equal and

which
generalit is everything

another

or

to

measure

one

another'.

'has the
This

is

quality,and its
to
chief characteristic is that it enables us
speak with perfect
and of addition,the simplestform of the latter
clearness of equality
being 'the double'. What enables us to do this is the introduction of
of which
measure
we
unit, in terms
degrees of intensity.
a
may
that it is
attach any clear meaning to the statement
We
cannot
what
is
do understand
but we
twice as hot to-day as yesterday,
meant
by saying that 60" is twice 30".That impliesfurther that a
the

zero

conception of quantityas

has been

of temperature

distinct from

with

that of

fixed,all temperatures

above

which

plusand all below it minus. The conceptionof negativequantity

for the firsttime in the historyof science.
formulated
is thus clearly
was
" 247. Aristotle tells us further that the Great-and-Small
attributed
is not
to
doctrine
'not being'.1This
identified with
but we
Plato by name,
fortunatelypossess a fragment of Hermothe subjectand also suggests
doubt
leaves no
doros2 which
upon
are

the

He
explanation.
1

Phys.

192

says:

a, 6 sqq.

See

Simpl.

in

Phys. p.

247,

30

sqq.

(Diels).

269

OYZIA

thingswhich

Those
small

the direction
way,

the 'more

all have

or

less',so

having the
that they can

and

narrower,

relation of great

as

and
of the 'stillgreater'

the broader
which

spoken of

are

go on
the 'stillless'. And

the heavier

in
infinity

to

in the

and
lighter,
But
infinity.

and

is spoken of in that way can

go on
attuned
has
and
and
rest
at
equal

to

to

same

thing
everywhat is

the 'more and less'

not
spoken of as
have. There
is alwayssomething more
unequal than
as their opposites
than what moves,
in motion
what is unequal,something more
thing
someof tune
than what is out of tune.
out
more
[The text of the next
is inconstant
So that what is of this nature
is corrupt].
sequence
and may
be called 'not being'by negation
and formless and infinite,
of 'being'
rov
6Wo?).
(Kara aTrocfracnv
...

If
It is

we

not

have read the

Sophistaright,the meaning

that the indefinite continuum

meant

of this is

of the

plain.

and

more

less

nothing,but rather that it is not anything.We predicateof it the

blank
'not being', not
a
significant
negative term
(d-n-6(f)aais)"
negationwhich has no meaning.
shall have to assume
all this it appears that we
a
" 248. From
third 'kind' in addition to the Limit and the Unlimited, namely,

is

the Mixture
where
the

two.

health
We

of both. We

this both

in Medicine

and
see

'harmony' are produced by

the same
thing in climate;for

is producedby such

mixture.

of all goodness whether

of soul, and

see

indeed

(25esqq.).
The thoughthere

of
all

The

same

the due
a

mixture

due

to

such

and
a

of

climate
be

explanation
may
body

Music,

in

temperate

soul,beauty of

body or
good things are

and

given
order

mixture

obviouslyPythagorean;it is justthe tuned

But there is a fundamental
more.
stringonce
change in the point
of view. The Pythagoreans
had identified the Limit with good and
the Unlimited
with evil,but here we
told that,so far
are
distinctly
life is concerned, good thingsare all to be found in the
as human
Mixture.
It is just for that reason
which
that the 'mixed life',
includes both Thought and Pleasure,is found to be superior,not
only to the life of Pleasure alone, but also to the life of Thought
is

alone.
with this is the new
in which
" 249. Closely connected
sense
Plato uses the term
in this passage. The Pythagorean
'being'(ovcria)
doctrine simply identified the Form
with being and the Unlimited
with becoming, but Plato distinctly
alone
that the Mixture
states
is truly'being'.The
a
'becoming'
process of mixing is indeed
),but it is a becoming which has being for its result

THE

270

els ovaiav)and

the

PHILEBUS

itself is

mixture

being, though

Just in
ouCTt'a).
(-ye-yevrj^vrj

has become

the

Timaeus

what

supplement
As

form-numbers

the

sensible

even

Aristotle

mixtures.

be

place,but they
interestingway.

most

mixture, it follows

and

mature

sensible, in the
or
intelligible
form, and not in either separately.
has

There

" 250.

considerable

been

same

of

out

reality,whether
matter

of the

that

spiteof the fact that they are

philosophy of Plato found

real in

words, the

other

others

no

be

in the

us

themselves

are

things may

In

tells

are

being which

told in
are
way we
of the Same
and the

same

blend

(35 a) that being (ovaia)is a

Other. These
are
only hints, and there
kind in the dialogues,
where
they would
the

discussion

combination

as

to

the

of

'kind'

belong in this scheme. The traditional

that they were
view was
representedby the Limit, and that is,of
with the earlier Pythagorean version of the
in accordance
course,
of the Phaedo
to refer the forms
theory.It would be quite correct
and the Republic to this kind. Professor Jackson, on the contrary,
to

that the forms

maintains

that the forms

seen

On

forms

the 'ideas' or

which

the

Philebus

were

other

hand, it

is the

world

the

belong to

kind, and

Mixed

we

have

certainlyregarded by Plato as a mixture.

of the
is surely plain that the Mixture

of sense,

and

the

forms

must,

therefore,be

arises,I think, from the fact

difficulty
that Plato refrains from
giving his full doctrine on the subjectin
the point of view here taken, the forms belong
this dialogue.From
alter the fact that they themselves
not
to the Limit, but that does
referred

in

are

to

turn

limit, but

Limit.

The

mixture.

In

the

they themselves

world
intelligible

in the

limited continuum,

blendingof
Dyad.

as

the Indeterminate

and

sensible world, their function

the

matter

and

appear
form, of the

is

to

as

One

impliesnot only the

realityclearly
categoriesof Being and Not-being, Same and Other, but also that
of Motion, which
was
alreadyassociated with these in the Sophist
(" 21 1),and this not only in the sensible but also in the intelligible
world. We
could only explain the generationof lines,planes,and
solids by the help of this category ("239),and if the sensible world

" 251.

is also
be

Now

new

mixture, there

fourth

'kind'

view

of

must

be

(27b),and

implies.Unless

Movement

this,we

this

have

failed

to

must

we
we

can

explainthe

of the Mixture.

cause
now

give an

world

we

go

on

to

That

consider

account
intelligible

know.

will
what
of

XVII

of Movement
Philosophy

The

THE

" 252.

It

was

theory of

his

SOUL

Soul

that enabled

account

to

for

nothing but a stringof

best represent to ourselves
formulae.
what
we
as
algebraical
may
The
early Pythagoreans had grasped the conception of Soul as
than the mere
ghost of popular belief,but their
something more
of the body made
that the soul is an 'attunement'
them
later tenet
and eternity
lose hold of it again.Sokrates had insisted on the reality
the first to attempt a scientific justification
of the soul ; but Plato was
that the argument
which
of this belief. It is significant
seemed
in the Phaedo, though Sokrates
does not occur
decisive to him
is
it in the Phaedrus.
told
In that dialogue we
made
state
to
are
another
thing,and is in turn moved
by
(245 c) that what moves
Motion.

Apart

from

should

Plato

that, we

have

and therefore cease

to be moved
to move
something else,may cease
itself will never
It
to move.
cease
anything else; but what moves
Now
is the source
and beginning of motion
such a
(apx^lKivr/crews).
have
into being; for everything that
come
beginning can never
have
into being must
a
comes
beginning, while this is itself a
beginning.Nor can it have any end ; for,if it perished,everything
would
to a standstill. Such
a beginning is the
soul; for it is
come
the self-moved
eavro
(TO avro
KIVOVV),and is therefore without
beginning and without end.
" 253. If this doctrine occurred only in the Phaedrus, it might
be set down
of the
as
mythical,though, despitethe enthusiasm
passage, the language is curiouslytechnical and scientific. It might
also be said that it only proves the eternityof soul in generalor of
the

world-soul, not

the

phraseology of

of the

'firstmover'

the

point is set

on

that of the
the Phaedrus
continued
at

rest

by

individual
remained

to

the

be

soul. In fact,however,
in use,

fundamental

and

the

one.

perfectlymatter-of-fact

question
All doubt

treatment

THE

272

SELF-MOVER

of the

subjectin

mature

thought on the subject.

ten
begins (893 b) by distinguishing

He
which

the

is the

motion

and

ninth

that

Plato
really,

It is

can

is

But, if soul
of

attributes

can

prior

soul, such

forethought,and
as

ask for

we

that does

souls, one

two

of

lives,that is,in

of itself

itself

move

can

other

can

(TTJV
belong

all

motions

at

that

once

all the

priorto the attributes of body, such

strength;and, if this is so, soul alone

are

bad

and

things.

characters, wishes, reasonings,beliefs,

bad, fair and

all other

habits

bad

things as

other

find motion

not

in what

body, it follows

to
as

and

itself,

move

priorto body (896 b).

memories

wickedness,

ninth

definition of the soul, we

The
Kivrjcriv).

length,breadth, depth, and

of good and
be the cause

and

do

we

only

which

soul is therefore

and

body,

but

water,

Swa/xeV^v /avetv

avrr^v

avrrjv

Now

nine.

other

if

cannot

itself and

both

The

present.

things but

move

say that it is 'the motion

only
to

soul ; and

at

of

since it is the beginning of motion

first,

says, the

earth, fire,or

in

has

what

can

of motion,

kinds

us

of Plato's

indication

an

concern

other

move

have

we

alone

tenth

to the
(apX'nKt-vrjaecos)

this kind

where

is that which

the tenth

and

the Laws,

such

opposites. There
there

reasonings,so
and

good

foul, righteousness
be

must

that does the

the other

such

are

at

least

opposite

(896 e).
This

is

passage

evil world-soul

generallysupposed
well

as

that this does

observe

one

another, but that there

infer that there

there is
a

only

is

two

only

no

is

one

good

That

many.

body

be

must

is the

shall

evil. We

some

be

evil

caused

; the

it to soul

justas

soul, and

be

by

main

of
plurality

can

philosophy of movement
much
as
good.

no

does
to

infer that

that
see

that

presently

but

there

view

point
souls

is

there

is

is

pressly
ex-

is rather

; for evil as

by one soul
longer refer evil

soul, whether

thing.We

to

illegitimate
to

implied

(270 a).The

must

important

matter

or

it is rather

pre-eminently

that, since evil exists,there

good

soul, as it would

and

rejectedin the Statesman

as

It is as

two.

an

opposed

one,

pre-eminently good soul, namely God,

suggestion of

well

bad

of

important

of Plato. He

the words

less than

evil

one

it is

but

one,

from

not

are

good soul, and

one

of souls,some
plurality

that there

good

souls, a good and

say that there

are

follow

not

not

to

of

as

the existence

assert

to

requires us

to

or

to

bute
attri-

GOD

THE

AND

GOOD

273

GOD

if

" 254. Now,

we

indeed

by

That

the motions

at

of the

that

be caused by
they must
best,since they are the most

at once

see

look

we

the

is due

circular

their

to

heavenly bodies,

good soul or souls, and

regularof all motions.

character, which

have

must

been

good soul, since,if left to themselves, things do

in a circle but in a straightline.1 These
souls are what
move
call gods, if there are many,
or
God, if there is one only,or one

given them
not
we

by

which

is the best of all. It is in this way that Plato reaches what he

believes to be a scientific proof of the existence of God, and it is
he has

only when
be

can

thing in

his
as

this that he

of doubt

sort

no

done

that

philosophy,and

we

that, though he believes

once

demonstrate
than

Plato

shall understand

realise this fact. At the

we

that

time, we

same

it tells

us

central

justin

must

portion
proat

note

sufficient
about

more

no

There

the

as

this line of argument

of God,

the existence

world.

explainthe
regarded this

can

to

him

that he is the

of good motions.
Even
so
self-movingsource
this is something quitedifferent from anything the earlier philosophers
had meant
when
of
God.
had
called
The
lonians
they spoke
and the like gods, but that only meant
there were
fire,air,water
no
other gods but these. Anaximander
and Xenophanes had called the
worlds or the World
of
a sort
gods or God, but that was at most
also with Parmenides.
Belief in God
was
pantheism, as it was
doubtless part of the Pythagorean religion,
but it was
hardly a part
of Pythagorean science. Plato brought the idea of God
into philosophy
for the first time, and
that God

was

that, but

as

was
no

the form

livingsoul
he

more,

and

believed

took in his mind

the doctrine
that God

himself

to

So

good.

was

have

much

established

by

scientific reasoning.
strictly
We

must

not

therefore, that

assume,

Plato

God

by

meant

theist would
mean
exactlywhat a modern
by the word. Plato's God
is certainly
a
'personal'
god, as we should put it;for he is Mind
(vou?)existingin a livingsoul, but it does not follow that he is the
to
'supreme being'.We have seen
(" 171) that Plato continued
1

This

was

rightlyinsisted

fundamental
made

the

that

it must

than

Plato

its nature.
any.

distinction
circular
have
did
Plato

motion
a

cause.

upon

between

by the Platonist
the

theories

of

(znd

Atticus
Plato

and

natural
to the heavens, while
(x-u/cAo^opia)
We
call this cause
Gravity, and we know

of the way
in which
knew
there was
a

it acts, but

problem

we

here;

know

Aristotle

no

A.D.) as the

cent.

Aristotle.

Aristotle
held

Plato
much

more

than

denied

that

he

more

did

there

was

of

AND

GOD

274

THE

GOOD

last,and it is clear that his deepest

thought was expressedin this lecture,so far as it was expressed at
of his followers after another, including
all.The way in which
one
Aristotle himself,endeavoured
authentic report of it
to publishan
lecture

the Good

on

that

proves

it

to

the

regarded

was

we
arises,then, is whether
if
not ; and,
we
are
not, what

have

This

Good.

the

to

God
identify

to

are

relation

question is

to

are

we

not

question that

The

fundamental.

as

the

with

conceptionof God
included
it is certainly

the

the

is that

answer

it by

the

Good

is

the

identified with

be

to

held

in that

the other

exhausts it. If,on

means

no

as

to

it appears;
is to
the Good
as

indeed, it is highlyambiguous.If it is asked whether

be identified with

or

God

understand

simple

so

Good

theists,
by modern
conception,though

hand, it is asked Vhether

God

existence

whose

Plato

proved by the argument justexplained,

is not a soul,
be that it is not. The Good
the answer
must
certainly
he
Plato avoids pantheism, which
but a 'form'. That is just how
regardsas equivalentto atheism.
Plato
as
" 255. This conception is not without its difficulties,
he says (28 c) 'To find the maker
well aware.
In the Timaeus
was
himself

believed

to

have

father of this universe

and

is

hard

task; and, when

him, it is impossibleto speak of him

found

have

you

all people.'That

before

and fullyexplainsthe
unquestioned authenticity,
Plato speaks of the same
in which
to
enigmatic manner
difficulty
Dionysios(who imagined he had solved it)in the Second Epistle
wrote
or
published the
(312 e).It also explainswhy he never
written for
the Good, and why in the Laws, which
Lecture
was
on
of the Good,
and
never
publication,he always speaks of God
is

of

sentence

the

though
The

Laws

problem

Greek

be

must

continued

to

thought. Some

supreme
him, and

God, and
there

is,in fact,the

were

with that very lecture.

contemporary
there was
be discussed wherever
living

later writers

of the controversies

source

at
by authority
it from
continuing
prevent

does

is that Plato's God

moved

mover

not

is

of the

it is independent of

by which

of

the Council

concern

not

best

form

but

motions.

God, and

even

he fashions the world.

the

here. All

us

The

we

difficulty

this did
of

minds
have

to

ultimately

were

Nicaea, though

trouble

to

which

the

as

subordinate

attempted solutions.

other

many

settled

thinkers. That

of the world

the Creator

made

Good

the

regarded

to

not

original

make

clear

soul,and that he is the selfis not

Good
The
soul, but
a
a

above

him, since it is the pattern

276

THE

for Timaios

him. If

is representedas his

I should

and

understudyand

agrees to replace
has to be given,I would
suggest that of Philolaos,
explain his absence by the consideration that the

name

TIMAEUS

Timaeus, though certainlybased

beyond

goes

Plato

we

can

understand

can

we

so,

what

the
plagiarised
had

which

However

that

it is worth

what

Timaeus

to

the

'three books'

of Philolaos

took

Republic,he

have

must

en

scene

much

so

suggestion for
must
surely have

offer the

only

elaborate mise

If Plato
significance.

some

points

possession.1

the

"

the

from

be --and

may

in several

reasonablyattribute to him. If that is

that
the origin of the famous
scandal

Timaeus

into his

come

his system,

on

trouble

the later

meant

attach

to

the

dialogueto

be connected
supplement the earlier in some
way, and this must
with the startling
fact that Sokrates beginsby givinga recapitulation
of the Republicwhich includes Book V., but ignores
Books VI. and

VII.

We
altogether.

allowed

not

are

for Sokrates asks Timaios

and

receives the

that

answer

that the
only mean
to replacein some

reason,

now

wishes

Sokrates

is

an

sight;
over-

is complete,

nothingis lacking(19 b). This

its projectedsequelswere
of the

can

intended

Republic.The

fact is

Republicdo not, except in the matter

beyond what Sokrates might have
materially

no

however, are introduced

expressed,so

to

of the

of solid geometry, go
learnt and probably did

Plato

attribute this
the summary

whether

the later books

way

that the central books

and

and

Timaeus

to

learn, from
make

to

Pythagoreanassociates,
For

further advance.

longerthe

chief

with great

that there has been

his

reserve

speaker.The

new

and somewhat

disputeas

much

the

to

same

views,

obscurely
the

meaning
forgetthat

important passages. Plato does not

the dialogue
is supposed to take placein the fifthcentury.
of the creation
" 257. The Timaeus professesto give an account
of the world, and the questionat once
this represents
arises whether
and
doctrine or not. It is quitecertain that Xenokrates
Plato's own
other earlyPlatonists held it did not. The
world, they said,was
representedas having a beginningin time only for purposes of
of a
exposition (StSao-KaAiasx^pw), just as the construction
diagram may be the best way to exhibit the propertiesof a figure.
of
Aristotle thought it necessary
to
argue againstthis principle
Platonists
and we
interpretation,
say that, on the whole, the
may
take it
as
mythical,while the Peripatetics
regard the Timaeus
of

some

of the

most

E. Gr. Ph.3

"

140.

NECESSITY

That, however,
literally.
of God

scientific

We

the fact of

from

of the

account

impossiblefor

of Platonism.

the central doctrine

soul and

is

277

can

anyone

who

has

motion, but

we

cannot

in which

they act. The

image, and it belongs to

way

grasped

infer the existence

of the

give any
world

of

the region
experienceis only,after all,an
of becoming, and we
therefore do no
than tell 'likely
more
can
be
tales' (etVores1
Aoyot)about it. Cosmology is not, and cannot
than Theology or Psychology.It is only a form
science,any more
matical.
of 'play'(-n-cuSta).
be matheScience, in the strict sense, must
And yet Cosmology is not mere
play either,for our account
of the world

will be

related

to

the truth

in the

same

way

as

the

It will be truth in the making, justas the

reality.
world in the making. The
sensible world is the intelligible
priate
approvehicle for half-truths of this kind is myth, and here we
that myth expresses
note
must
more
once
something lower than
for the
science, and not something higher. That is fundamental
of Plato. The
is put quite clearlyin the
matter
interpretation
itself.We
Timaeus
are
dealingwith what is always becoming and
becomes
never
is,not with what always is and never
(27 d).The
of
of the latter (29 b), and the work
former
is an
image (elKnuv)
is
ordering the sensible world after the pattern of the intelligible
of this process can
have a scientific
assignedto God. No description
be an
character, for we
are
dealing with what cannot
object of
knowledge, but only of belief (29 b-c), and knowledge is higher,
world

not

is related

to

lower, than belief.

moving
" 258. We are first told that God found a visible mass
in a disorderly
fashion,and resolved to bring it out of disorder into
ask why he did so, the answer
order. If we
is 'He was
good, and
of jealousytowards
the good has never
at any time
a feeling
thing,
anyhe wished everythingto become
like himself as possible'
so
as
(29 e).This he brought about by creatinga soul of the world, into
which
he introduced
relations (35 a
mathematical
and harmonic

sqq.).
We

note

here, in the first place,the phrase 'as like himself

as

This
reservation
Mind
is called for because
possible'.
(vovs)is
confronted
and cannot, therefore completely
by Necessity(avdyK-rj),
effect its purpose
(47 e).We must, then, consider the 'errant cause'
In particular,
must
(TrAai'cu/iieVi]
we
curia).
explainhow the elements
into being. For these cannot
be ultimate. So far from being
came
'letters'(crrot^eia,
elementa),
they are not even syllables.

278

THE

conceptionof Necessityto which

The

an
by any means
for
physicalnecessity,

not

We

Mind.

are

of the
as

old

causa

cause'

the

as

could

(99 b). We

'that without
learn

here introduced

are

what

not
certainly

cause,

be

can

and

be realised without
concausa

which

as

the

the

distinct from

people make

most

idea
the
be

never

further that this 'concomitant'

that

ness
good-

it.This

would

cause

call

we

'subservient

cause

is

'persuaded'by

(awainov) of

cause'

the

is corporeal,
and

cause

not

Phaedo, where
as

we

told that it

are

'concomitant

world, which

defined

as

we

It is

one.

easy

told that it is

even

to' the divine. It is

is

TIMAEUS

servient'
'sub-

or

the mistake

as
confusingit with the true cause, explaining
they
everything,
do, by warming and cooling,rarefaction and condensation,and so
is Mind
and Mind
forth. The true cause
alone, and the corporeal
well as a help. Mind
could do nothing without
is a hindrance
as
something to work on, but that of itself stands in the way of it
completely.We learn also that these
carrying out its purposes
'are moved
by something else, and then of
secondary causes
necessitymove
something else',as contrasted with the primary

of

That

is self-moved.

cause,

which

of the

doctrine of soul discussed

reader
Mind

appreciatethe

to

Necessityif

is

be understood

to

above

("256). It

Plato

account

in the

help the
Timaios
give of

makes

may

it with the
will compare
that this is the best of all possibleworlds. The

and

Leibniz

light

he

theory of
difference

regards his explanationas a myth, while Leibniz

considered his to be an adequate solution of the difficulty.
becomes
" 259. This purelymythicalcharacter of the cosmogony
evident if we
consider its details. In particular,
still more
motion
is that

Plato

is ascribed

to

the disordered

before the world

mass

has received

soul, and that is in flat contradiction to Plato's doctrine that soul

of the few Platonists who
took
alone is self-moved. Plutarch, one
the Timaeus

can
only get
literally,

of the evil world-soul

supposed

to

of this

out

by the help
difficulty

be assumed

in the Laws

That, according to him, is eternal,and

is

Necessity;only the good

created.

world-soul

was

be

to

("256).

identified with

But,

even

supposing
in the

rightin findingan evil world-soul

Laws, there is certainly
nothingsaid about it in the Timaeus, and it
have been mentioned
it would
if so
is impossibleto suppose
not
Plutarch

much

to

be

depended upon

is 'subservient'
consider

what

to

it.Besides that,we
Mind.

is said about

similar

Time.

have

seen

that

arises
difficulty

In the Timaeus

Necessity
when

it is spoken of

we
as

TIME

SPACE

AND

(37 d),and
'movingimage of eternity'

into

the heavens'

being 'alongwith

creation

of the

in time. That

world-soul, which

grasp

we

shall see,

its true

motion

hand,

not

of the

nature.

but

that

cannot

be

known

in abstraction

itself.

" 260. But,

This

the other

This does not

moving image of eternity'.
that time is subjective,
but only that we
fail
It is reallythe continuum
implied in the

conception of motion,
from

On

itselfis only 'a

since time

to

of motion.

temporal.It follows that,

have to speak of motion, our
scientific
language is perforceunand pictorial.
It can
only convey an 'image'of the truth,

we

as

say, after the

not, therefore,take place

(38 b),that is to
does

measure

is of the eternal and

knowledge

mean,

told that it comes

are

explanationof the necessarily

mythical
of
We
think
motion
can
as in
only
story.

time, for time is just the

when

we

the

givesus

of the whole

character

279

besides

is also hard

to

being temporal,the
express

in

'errant cause' is spatial.

words; for space is apprehended

by thought nor by sense, but by 'a sort of bastard reasoning'

It is a sort of 'receptacle'
rtvi
voOco).
(AoytCT/M,oi
(uTroSo^)or 'nurse'
of all things (49 a).To understand
this,we must
(riOrivri)
go back
have alreadydenied to be primary.We
to the elements, which
we
that they pass into one another by rarefaction and condensation,
see
and it is safest not to call any of them
but only 'such* (49 d).
'this',
The
only thingwhich can be called 'this*is that 'in which' (evo")
they all appear to arise and pass away (49 e).
This may
be illustrated by an example. If we
all
to make
were
of forms out of gold and keep constantly
sorts
changingthem, the
to the question 'what is that?' would
be 'Gold'. We
only answer
should not speak of the transient forms it assumed
as 'things'
(co?
with 'the recipientof all things'(TO
ovra) at all. It is the same
which the forms are 'impressed'
on
),the matrix (eVjuayetov)
). It has itselfno form, but remains always the same,
takingon with complete indifference the forms that 'passin and
of it' (TO.
elaiovTo. /cat e^iovra),
and these in turn
out
'imitations
are
of what is ever' (TOJVovrwv
aei /j.ifj,TJ[j.aTa
).They are, in fact,the
and their products the regularsolids,and we
elementarytriangles
know
from Aristotle,
though we are not told so in the Timaeus, that
they are imitations of numbers. We must, therefore,distinguish
three things,
the Form, which is the father,the Recipient,
which is
neither

the

mother, and

which
Philebus),
K

the

of
offspring

is the

the

Corporeal. The

two

(the Mixture

of the

Recipient is altogether
B.C.

P.

280

THE

TIMAEUS

all-receptive
say of it is that it is an invisible,
It is,
something,partakingin a mysteriousway in the intelligible.
formless;all we
in fact,space

can

(xtopa).

That

"261.

the

space

of three

both

from

dimensions

Plato's

own

other kind

of 'matter'. The

be

to

means

reduced

to

great deal
of his real
we

senses;

the

from

constructed

occasion

in the system

'elements' of the

by the regularsolids,and

for

completely accounted
can

is there any

of Aristotle. Nor

statements

any

'primarymatter' of the Timaeus is

and nothingelse is really
quite certain
language on the subject and from the

so-called

that

say

for

corporealare
they in turn

Plato undoubtedly
elementarytriangles.
be
the corporeal can
completely

geometricallylimited. Indeed, he goes a

further than that,though he only gives us a few hints
meaning here. We do not perceivespace at all by the
only infer itby a speciesof reasoning,and that reasoning
extension

be
must
everything
the elementary
in a place and occupy
a
space (52 b), and when
which
are
discussed,it is said that the principles
(dpxaC)
triangles
is a 'bastard'

one.

It is 'in

dream'

that

we

say

is dear to
he who
higher than these God knows, and of men
and not an
God
(53 d). Space is only one aspect of Continuity,
These considerations,however, take us beyond the
essential one.
are

mythology of
The

" 262.
that

Timaeus, for which space is ultimate.

Corporealworld, then, is in space and time, and for

the

it can

reason

only be described

does not, however, exhaust

we
or

be more
say of the world is not, indeed, the truth, but it may
business to make it as like the
less like the truth, and it is our
and
The boundary-line
between the intelligible
possible.
merely sensible is not a fixed one, and the sensible may be
It will,I think, be admitted
that
intelligible.
progressively

truth
the
made

as

this is the doctrine

Plato held
rise

with

an

to

which

naturallylead

onwards

to

Plato's

That
language.
mythological
teachingon the subject.What

in

and

from
dialogues

I believe

we

the

Theaetetus

shall find

proof that

it.Unfortunately,
however, his followers
this

to

up,

all the

point of view, and

absolute

dualism.

Plato has been

Xenokrates

confined

were

not

able

credited
generally

the

province of

things 'outside the heavens', and made the heavens

themselves the objectsof belief (So'"a).
by
They were
intelligible
the help of astronomy, but they belonged to the sensible world as
beingvisible. If this report does justiceto him, he made absolute a
for Plato was
distinction which
time,
merely relative. At the same
science

to

the

THE

THE

AND

SENSIBLE

be

it is justpossiblethat this report may

shall find

we

to

be the

first time

only a

doctrine.

It is certain that he

Aristotle,however.

about

Platonic

true

that the

the fatal notion

281

INTELLIGIBLE

nature

distortion
There

is

of what

doubt

no

introduced

of the heavens

for the
was

quite

sublunary world. It is this doctrine,

of the heavens',
that of 'the incorruptibility
as
generallyknown
that the Platonist Galileo was
to
disprove by
chieflyconcerned
callingattention to such phenomena as the new star in Sagittarius,
different

and

from

that

of the

it is strange that

Aristotle,who

legitimate
separationof forms

from

condemned

Plato's

perfectly

sensible

things,should himself
be responsible
for a much
more
questionable'separation'
(xcopia/Mo?)
like this. There
is no trace of anything like it in Plato. He certainly
assigned an exceptionalpositionto Astronomy and its sisterscience Music
in his philosophy,
but that was
simply because, in
the sciences in which
the intelligible
his own
was
day, these were
most
obviouslyadvancing at the expense of the merely sensible.
in the Republic (530 d) it is hinted
that there are
Even
more
sciences
the

of motion

Parmenides

account

for

motions.

It

in space than these two, and

(130 e) that a complete science

'hair,mud
is,however,

and
from

dirt'

well

as

his astronomy

clear idea of the relation Plato held

to

as

we

can

see

would

for the

alone that

exist between

we

from

have

to

planetary
can
gain

the sensible

It would
be out of placeto discuss it fullyhere;
intelligible.
it will be enough to look at a singlebranch of it,and I shall select
which is commonly misunderstood.1
one
" 263. The great problem of the day was that of the planetary
these are hopelesslyirregular,
For the senses
motions.
and that is
of the 'errant cause'
probably why we hear in the Timaeus
In the firstplace,since the paths of the planets
atrta).
(TT-Aavcu/xevrj
are
are
oblique to the equator, their apparent courses
spirals
circles. In the next place,Mercury and Venus
not
at one
(e'Auce?),
time travel faster than the Sun, so that they get in front of it and
as
morning stars; at another time they lag behind it and
appear
as
evening stars. In fact,these three bodies are always
appear
and being overtaken
'overtaking
by one another' (38 d).The other
to
more
strangely.Sometimes
planetsbehave even
they seem
accelerate their velocity
the fixed
so
as to appear
stationary
among
stars
to get some
or
even
way ahead of them ; at other times, they
and

the

This

tarchus

applies even
of Samos, which

to

the

recent

in other

discussion

respects

is

an

of it in Sir T.
excellent

guide

L.

Heath's

in such

matters.

Aris-

282

THE

retarded

are

further

and

PLANETARY

have

to

seem

MOTIONS

in the Sun's
irregularity

equinoxes do
expect them
Now

of the

course.

solstices and

equalsegments

be ultimate. If

cannot
irregularity

is that the Artificer created

only answer

The

is

as

should

we

do.

to

this

annual

divide it into four

not

There

retrogrademotion.

Good, and

disorder of any

kind

ask

we

the world

not, the

why

the pattern

on

is

opposed to the Good.

That is the ultimate ground of the rule that hypotheses are not to
be needlessly
The postulate
of simplicity
and regularity
multiplied.
which
stillguides scientificresearch is at bottom teleological,1
and
the Good
if we
nearest
to Plato's thoughtabout
we
probably come
be a system. 'There
is
say that, according to him, realitymust
something to be said,however, for his simpler way of expressing
this. At any rate, it does not
the function of Astronomy

hypotheseswhich

would

anomaly
" 264. Now

as

we

hypothesis,that
on
irregularities

and

know

we

know

problem
know

of doubt

be

to

the
for

account

celestial phenomena. We
solar

admit

as

fact that he

further

propounded the

(" 174).

that Eudoxos

invented

beautiful

of concentric

for all these

spheres, to account
assumption of the earth's central position,2

the

also that Plato

did

not

accept his solution

The

assumption of twenty-seven
simple enough, and fuller study showed

required.Kallipposadded
add

conceived

discoveryof the simplest

the apparent complexityof

his scholars

to

that Plato

to

their

spheres did
that

number,

and

still

factory.
satis-

as

not

seem

more

Aristotle

were

had

to

stillmore.

Finally,the concentric spheres were

replacedby
and
and
what
the
eccentric spheres
call
Ptolemaic
we
epicycles,
system

the

was

result. Besides

this, Aristotle transformed

the

into a mechanical
geometricalhypothesis of Eudoxos
system of
with one
material spheresin contact
another, and all that arrested
for nearlytwo thousand
the growth of a true astronomy
years.

" 265. Plato,on the other hand, saw clearlythat the geocentric
later Pythagoreans
of the trouble. The
hypothesiswas the source
the earth revolves round

had

taughtthat

was

in this direction
have

againwe
Athens

to

It is worth

For

solution

was

to

be

Fire, and

looked

it

for. Here

direct first-hand evidence.

before the death

immediately

not

that

the Central

while
from

clear account

to

note

that

reAos. It has
of

this,see

of

Theophrastos(who came
almost certainly
Plato, and was
a

this term
no

is derived

implication of

Heath,

Aristarchus

an

from

re'Aetov,
'complete',

external

end.

of Santos,pp.

190

sqq.

284

EARTH'S

THE

of
referringthe irregularity
of the sensible

the

world,

soul, as popular Platonism

MOTION

planetarymotions
to

or

'matter'

did later. Nor

to

or

the

to

evil world-

an

is there

comings
short-

attempt to
the contrary, the whole

the

any

on
phenomena as illusory;
remain
objectof the inquiry is to 'save' them. The appearances
know
what they mean.
The
exactlywhat they were, only we now
and
the intelligible
the sensible has so far been
gulf between
bridged;the visible motions of the heavenly bodies have been
referred to an intelligible
system, or, in other words, they have

represent

been

in the

seen

appear to
is because

be

present

state

If

Good.

ask

we

be
must
they do, the answer
are
placed on a sphericalearth

we

should

the

as

us

axis of the

the

lightof

universe, and

that

placed,though

so

of

our

which

knowledge.That,

I take

had

He

be

to

shown

alreadyin

the

it,is how

is

appearance
take it for what it is not.

an

had

round

be

to

an

and

appearance,

Greek

haunted

of the

laid

Plato

that is what

image

Sophistthat

nothing.An

if we

'the

was

revolves

good that we
clearlysee why in the

theory which
ghost of the two-world
philosophysince the time of Parmenides, and
the sensible world

lines. It

same

it is

the

by sayingthat

the

on

is because
cannot

we

why they should

he meant

intelligible'

image was not

is only unreal

CONCLUSION

" 268. The account

justgiven of Plato's mature
philosophyis of
As to that,I can
necessitymeagre and in a measure
hypothetical.
only say that in this case the phenomena to be 'saved' are the
of Aristotle and others
writingsof Plato himself and the statements
who
knew
him, and the only proof or disproofthe hypothesis
admits
of is its efficacy
in accounting for them.
be
It cannot
otherwise tested. PersonallyI have found this hypothesisefficacious
of Platonic study extending over
during a course
twenty years at
least. I claim

no

more

for it than

that,and

also

no

less.1 I do

pretend to impose my conclusions on the reader,who must

the experiment for himself. He will certainly
find it worth
There
is another
that
be admitted
point still.It must
1

It is nearly a quarter of a
and
Plato leading me

Sokrates
what

could

Since

then

his

text

be

done

I have

with

edited

through minutely

the

century
into

ago

that

I found

scores

text

the

hopeless scepticism

hypothesis that Pluto

the whole
many

of

Plato,and

of times.

and

really meant
an

editor

current

make

while.
Plato's
views

resolved
what

not

to

he

of
see

said.

necessarilyreads

285

CONCLUSION

immediate

follower's

to

their

master.

of

the

doctrine

result

that

work

Plato

Aristotle's

of

monument

of
soul

as

with

of

Soul,

detailed

the

could

these

only
in

in

for
in

appear
the

this

so

true

his

light

when

of

we

and

successors,

tales'

the

in

to

it

explain
After
which

Plato's
have

especially

the

grasp

of

ways.

phenomena

sides

many

to

as

way

and

that

sides

different
the

among

Good

the

failures

different

such

Good
The

warning

very

the

the

'probable

these

many

reason

their
of

hands

also

are

be

to

in

reconstruct

lights'
and

Yet
witness

misunderstood

'saved',

fared

knowledge.

to

his

sophy
philo-

evolution.
of

doctrine

only

are

defined

that

of

course

Euclid

and

held

the

which

Plato's

motion,

remember

could

bear

the

Plato's

to

to

these

thought

'broken

be

failed

of

of

in

of

two

out

form

Elements

Speusippos

arose

they

attempt
be

only

in

results

The

nearly

really carrying

confused

philosophy

justice

our

central

justify

will

of

state

Plato's

to

but

The

side
it.

for

rights

Xenokrates

more

application

actual

it

did

touch.

number'.

but

primary,

the

his

'self-moving

Neoplatonists

not

mathematical
understand

to

were

their

attributed

I have

the

its

put

to

position.1

numbers

not

was

that

who

men

would

criticism

with

to

come

bound

felt

began

not

ideal

the

trouble

even

those

Even

years.

not

did

this

of

short

impatient

was

did

and

far

very

Aristotle

was

thousand

fell

and

how

all,
have

philosophy
seen

in

how
those

it
of

Aristotle.

Perhaps

'innate
true

the

ideas'.
nature

of

significant

most

That

is

hypothesis.

stoic

touch

formula

is
which

that

he
enables

calls

the
him

axioms
to

avoid

Koial

ewotat

discussing

or

the

I
2

g.

"

INDEX
Abaris, 3 1
Abdera, 158*
Academy, 174

Aristokles,
Aristophanes,

the

53,57,77

(atmospheric), 57, 62
Aischines
against Timarchos
II25, (I.I75) 152
Akoumenos,
154
Alexander
the Great, 240
112
Alkibiades, in,
sq., 114,
Air

152,

154

Alkidamas, 244"
Alkmaion, 39, 60
Analysis, 179 sqq
Anaxagoras, 60-65
Anaximander, 17-19
Anaximenes, 19-20
Andokides, 153 sqq
Anthropomorphism,
Antichthon, 74
Antisthenes, 139, 204
Anytos, 89, 146, 151,
Apocalypses, 51
Apolaustic life,33

27

22,

sq., 229
152,

153

Apollo, 31
Appearances, saving, 9
Arabic
figures,42
of Athens, 100
Archelaos
sq.,
Archimedes, 162, 262*
Archytas, 242, 263
Aristarchos
of Samos, 283
Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 31
Aristeides
the elder, 104
Aristeides

115

sq., 117

sq.,

sqq., 247

tortoise,68
Adeimantos, son of Ariston, 168 sq.
Aether
("u'0ij/")
16, ( Fire in Anaxagoras) 62
Aggregation, states of,21
Aigospotamos meteor, 64
'Air' (i.e.mist), 1 6, 19, 31, 34, 4",
Achilles and

100,

the younger,

1 1 1

119

(i)

121,

ism,
Aristotle,9, 58, 281, 285 ; on Atom76; on
Sokrates, I281; on
Plato,145, 254.sqq.;Categories(ga,
8),265*; Prior Analytics (670,21),
128; Sophistid Elenchi (1650, 22),
871, (1786, 36), 21 1 ; Physics
(1920, 6 sqq.),268, (2030, 13) 42*,
(2500, 20) 92 sq.t (2656, 25) 2I1;
De
Caelo
(2960, 5) 283*; De
physics
generatione(3356, 10), 135 ; Meta(9870, 20) 257, (987^, 22)
(9876,
i) 127, (9876, 29)
127,
256, (9890, 5 sqq.)201, (9920, i)
2621' 8,(9920, 32) 2541, (gg8a, 2)
92, (10146, 16) 2I1,(10436, 5 sqq.)
(10786, 9 sqq.) 255*,
204
sqq.,
u)
(10786,
127, (10786, 17) 258,
(10786, 21) 127, (10786, 30) 134,
(10800, 12 sqq.)255, (10810, 35)
255, (10830, 33) 255, (10866, 3)
258, (10910, 4) 2601, (10926, 8)
422; Poetics (14516, 25) 148
Aristoxenos, 32, 37, 39, 70, 101,
104", io83, 124, 125, 180, 244"
Arithmetic, 67, 183, 263

Arteries,6ia
Astrology, 5, 6*
(Babylonian), 5 sqq.;
Astronomy
(Academic), 184 sqq.
the
Athens
as
meeting-place of
Ionic philosophy, 69,
Italic and
96,99, I071, 174-5
Atomism
(v.Leukippos and Demokritos),70; (origin of), 76; and
Pythagoreanism, 79
of,77
Atoms, motion
Atticus the Platonist,273 l
Axiochos,

154

288

INDEX

Division, 179
Babylonian astronomy,
5 sqq., 14
and becoming (yeveais), Dodecahedron,
Being (owu'a)
Dramatic
and
126
182, 231,
132,
sqq., izg,
72,
269
Biology, 19
Blend
38
(xpaais),

17

Bryson, 206, 214

Campbell, Lewis, 721, 205
Carthaginians, 240, 244
Categories, 201, 209, 230 sq.
Catharism, 32
Charmides, 112, 169, 171
Conceptualism, I251, 2IO1, 258
Condensation,

v.

Rarefaction

Constitutions, 238

Continuity, 67,
260

sq.

72,

92,

161

sq.,

sq.

Copernicus, 4
Cosmogony, 3,
Crete, 13,23,31
Croesus, 14
Cujas, 247
Cyprus, 240*

13

Damon, 154
Darkness, 40 sq., 48
Delios of Ephesos, 24O1
Delos, 23
Demeter,

Demiourgos, 38
Democracy, 238 sq.
tagoras,
Pro157-164; and
Demokritos,
93 sq., is8a, i6osq., igS1
Diagoras, 61
Dialectic,108 sq., 133, 186 sq., 213,
230

Dialexeis,i883
Diapason, 37
70,

124

Diogenes of Apollonia, 99,

Dion, 172, 240 sq.
Dionysios I.,172, 239 sq.
Dionysios II.,240 sq.
Dionysos, 24

260

sq.

Earth, Mother, 20
Earth (shape), 15, 16, 18, 20, 28, 34,
nation),
57, 64, 8 1 ; (place),
74, 282 ; (incli8 1 ; (as an 'element'),21
Echekrates, 124
Eclipses,7, 14, 15, 19, 34, 48, 64, 74
Ecstasy, 24
Education, 248-253
Effluences,60, 96
Egyptian mathematics, 4 sqq., 171
Elea, 26, 50
Eleatic Stranger, 192, 222
Elements
(v.aroixela),
20, 48, 55, 57,
61,62,70,71,80
Empedokles, 33, 56-60, 96
Enlightenment, 25 sqq.
Epameinondas, 178, 244
Epicharmos, 50
Epicurus and Epicureans, 18, 28,
77,78, 157
Eristics, 139, 189, 197, 206, 214,
222

24

Dikaiarchos,

67
dialogue,190

Dropides, 169
Dualism, 71
Dyad, indeterminate, 256,

Blood, 60
Body, 24
Boundless,

5, 43,

narrated

117

Eros, 1 12 sq.
Eryximachos, 154
Euclid
(axioms) 285, (I.47) 31, 43,
(II. 1 1) 43, (XIII.) 179
of Cyprus, 243
Eudemos
of Rhodes, 1 5
Eudemos
Eudoxos,
18, 162, 174, 214, 264,
282
26s1,
of Megara,
Eukleides
171,
123,
187 sqq., 191
Eurytos, 42", 73 sq.
Evil,272
Evolution, 19, 60
Experiment, 8, 57, 63
Explanation, 8
Figurate numbers, 42-3
Figures (v.eiSij,
iSe'ai),
39,
71 sqq.

40,

41,

42,

289

INDEX

Hippasos, 44, 70 sq.

Hippias, 95
Hippokrates of Chios, 95
Hippokrates of Kos, 8,

Fire,47, 48; central,74

Flux, 48
Fluxions, 262
Force, 56
Form

and

207

matter,

133

35, 44

(v. etSij,iSe'eu),
125

Forms

sqq.,

sqq.

Fractions,68

Hippon of Samos,
Hipponikos, go1
Homer,

22,

Homeric

Galileo,18, 179, 281

Geocentric
hypothesis, 74
Geometry, plane, 15, 183
Geometry, solid, 173, 183
Glaukon, son of Ariston, 168 sq.
Gnomon,
6, 41
God
(gods), 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27,
5", 64, 95, 100, I371,235, 273 sqq.
Golden
section,43
Good, the, 138 sq., 180, 188 sq.,
273

88 sq.,

138

sq., 140

Gorgias, 96 sqq.
Great-and-small, the, 256,

sqq.

260

sqq.,

268

Gymnastics,
Harmonic

249

sq.

38
185 sq.
(ap^ovia

'Harmony'
spheres, 44
Health, 39
Heart, 58, 60
Hellenes

35;

of

the

100

sq.

26 sq.

Hymns,
mensura,

23
92

sq.

sq.

Hyperboreans, 23
Hypotenuse, 3 1
Hypothesis, 120,
186, 212

132,

Images, 72, 225

sqq.,
256
Incommensurability, 43,

181, 182,

233

sqq.,

72,

92,

252

science, 7

Indivisible

lines,262

162, 261, 262

Infinitesimals,
Infinity,69
Injustice,17, 38, 86
and sensible,257, 277
Intelligible
Intervals, musical, 35 sqq., 267
Ionia, 174

mean,

Harmonics,

Hekataios,

Homo

Indian

sqq.

Goodness,

69, 81,

25,

sq.

Irony, 107
Isokrates, 87, 140, 175 sqq., 222,
2402, (10.1) 139, (10.2) 91, (10.3)
97, (10.5) 139, (11.5) II21, I2Ia,
(13.1,3) 140

17

and

barbarians, 27,

177

Herakleides, 242
Herakleitos,45-50
Herakles, 96, 98

Justice(cosmological),17, 48, 86
Kallias, 89

Kallikles,97 sq., 151

Kallippos, 243
171,268
Kebes, 123
of Ephesos, 45
Hermodoros
Kepler, 30
Hermokopidai, 153
Klepsydra, 57, 58
Herodotos, 86 sq., (i. 74) 14, (ii. Korybantes, 32
109) 6, (iii.38) 86, (iv.95) 87,
Kratylos, 196, 256
(v. 28) 13
Kritias,son of Dropides, 169, 2751
of Kallaischros, in,
Hesiod, 22, 27 sq.
Kritias, son
Hiero, 26
152, 170 sq.
6
Hipparchos,
Kroton, 30, 32
Hipparinos, 244
Kylon, 30
Hermodoros

the

Platonist, 167,

INDEX

290
Law

and

85

nature,

sqq., 94,

Lawgivers, 86
Leukippos, 74, 76-81
Likeness, v. Images
Limit
and unlimited, 35,
Lives, the Three, 33
Love
and strife,
58 sq.
Lydia, 13, 15
Lyre, 35
Lysimachos, 104
Lysis, 178, 244

99

40, 266

sq.

Necessity, 277 sqq.

Negative quantity, 268
Not being, 223 sqq., 269
Numbers,
66, 68,
40-43,
263

71,

254-

Oinopides, 64
One

214 sqq., 265 sqq.

many,
Opposites, 17, 38, 39 sq., 63, 71
Orbits, planetary, 18
Orphicism, 24, 25, 46, 56, 105

and

sq.,

155

Maieutic,

113

sq.

is the measure,

Man

Materialism,

227

92

sq.

sq.

Mathematicians

and

Akousmatics,

71

Mathematics, 30;
Geometry
Matter and form,

Arithmetic

v.

and

21,

Perikles

35, 44. 54

275

Music, 32, 35 sqq.,

Myrto, io48
Mysteries, 10, 153
Mysticism, 136
Myth, mythology,
148
and

190

Nature

249

sqq.,

dramatic

sq.

and

Pentagram,

Pentalpha,

Mean, 38, 44
Measure, 92 sq.
Medicine, 32, 39 sqq., 71, 100 sqq.
Megarics, 109, 124, 187 sq., 191,
sqq., 225 sqq.
197, 206, 221, 222
Meletos, 146
Melissos, 69 sq., 77
Menon's
latrika,71, 100
Metapontion, 30, 32
Metempsychosis, 33
Might is right,98
Miletos, 13, 21
Mind, 63, 100
Mixture
(v.Blend), 59, 61
Moon, 1 8, 28, 48, 64, 74, 184
and less,the, 268 sqq.
More
Motion, 54, 55, 63, 67, 79, 199, 271,

Narrated

Parmenides, 40, 50-54, 198, 192

Participation,134, 207 sqq., 229 sqq.,
256
Pentagon, regular,5, 43

law, 85

sq.

136

sqq.,

dialogue,

and

43
43

and

Zeno,

Persia,

Anaxagoras, 60, 65;

Melissos, 69

66 ; and

240

Phaidros, 154

Pherekydes, 3, 13, 20,

Philip of Opous, 245
Philistos, 240,

31

241

Philolaos,70, 74, 124 sq., 276

Philosopher-king, 178, 237 sq.
Philosophy, 2 sqq., 33, 175
Phleious, 123
Pindar, 86, 98
Planets,6, 184, 281, sq.
Plato, 147,
167-285; Euthyphro
(26) 146, (36 sq.) 149, (sd) I261,
(6a) 148, (6c, e) I261; Apology
146 sqq., (ijd) 103, (26c) 146",
(31^) 149" (330) 112, 152, (340)
168, (386) 171, (39^) 151; Crito
(456) 151, (526) ioi2, ($ze) 104;
Phaedo
(596) 123,
33, (58^) 123,
171, (6id) 124, (65*, 66d, e) 331,
(73^) 128, (74"r)2591, (766) 126,
(78^) 129, (820) 142, (84c) 130,
(846) 130, (85^) 130, (85?) 130,
(866) 39, 75, (886) 13 1, (88c) 13 1,
(S8d) 75, 124,
(8gd sq.) 131,
(g6a sq.)107, (966) 60, ioi, (962)
(976) ioi,
(986) 64,
131,
109,

INDEX

Rhind,

Temperature,

4*

papyrus,

Rings, planetary, 18,

Roman

Law,

Roots,

247

Terms,

44

Tetraktys,

sq.

Thales,

57

Rotation, diurnal,

Theaitetos,

59

Saving

24

(546 B.C.),
9

appearances,

Scales, 36
Science

and

Seeds,

philosophy,

159

193

sq.,

intelligible,72

and

sq.,

129,

Thourioi,

56, 69, 86,

98

Wise

Men,

Simmias,

278

123

Sokrates,

162

sq.

the

Solids, regular,

19,

130,

23,

135,

24,

Sphere,

Unit,

71,

and

263

Up

49,

74,

125,

sqq.

28059.
167, 181,

67,

43,

sqq.

35,

down,

67

40,

18,

sq., 77

59

Voice

of

Void,

77

149

sq.

80

Vortex,
243,

Sokrates,

264, 285

of, 44

78,

80

Weight,

77,

Worlds,

innumerable,

17,

19,

80

8, 28

Stereometry,
Sulva-sutra,
18, 28,

Solid

J. A., I361
7

64, 185

59,

Surds, 67, 68,

Survival

Geometry,

v.

Prof.

Stewart,

of the

193,

261

fittest,19

Xanthippe,

276,

Xenophanes,

26-8

119

154

A.

152,

280

Sokrates,

102

Memorabilia

(i. 2, 48)

39

17)

123,

120,

(iv. 6, 13)
Apology

39

Zagreus,
Zeno,

sq.,

(i. 2,
123,

(i- 6,

(iii.6, i) 168, (iii.7) 171,

120,

20;

sq.

120,

(29)

(iv.

151

24

66-8,

71,

92,

108,

5,

12)

(iv. 7, 3-5)

E., 4O1, 682, 149", 155!

Temperament,
Temperance,

150;

sqq.,

sqq.)

12

186,

70

Taureas,

and

Xenophon

(iii.ii,

32

104

Xenokrates,

14)

Tarantism,

Taylor,

43J

3',

222

47,

32,

Spheres, 'harmony'

Taras,

261

66,

Unlimited,

43

IS,

127

282

271

144,
53,

40,

Speusippos,

Stars,

71,

100,

193

Sophists, 85-99, J38,

Space,

73,

50,

younger,

anomaly,

Soul,

5),

(3:4:

191

Sokrates
Solar

33

(isosceles right-angled),

102-156,

15059.,

sq.

sq.

Tranquillity,
Triangles

14

90

(i.6), 27

Transmigration,

134

Seven

Sun,

193

life,33

Time,

sq.

sq.

282

Theoretic

Thucydides

Sensation, 60,
Sensible

171,

Thrasymachos,

9"10

193

244

Theophrastos,

15

183,

71,

Theodoros,

fall of

Sardeis,

41

13-16

Thebes,
Sabazios,

39

38

127

PRIKTHD

BY

ROBERT

THE

IN

GREAT

MACLEHOSE

UNIVERSITY

BRITAIN

AND

PRESS,

CO.

GLASGOW

LTD